ÿWPC/  ZƒêÝbvÙXH ƨ}ï缈Gu+!ŽÅÔ[‘D?Å)UÃ$ÍÎÅ“Â\‹ø~.ôdá5ç±ÂÖûÐ æXЋÞc¶š8~¦ß÷`ìÚ¿‹ÒE(×Üß–lÀÐqìšô^`ÀíÚzWa5Lj#ÊzùOp…‡'z\°‡´áÓðl\`!% ÐAdditionally,€the€defendant€offered€the€€testimony€of€a€psychologist€who€testified€that€the€defendantÐ Ô&$"& Ðsuffered€from€post€traumatic€stress€disorder€as€a€result€of€trauma€experienced€during€the€defendantððsÐ º' #' Ðchildhood.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€theory€at€trial€was€that€he€was€provoked;€therefore,€the€homicide€was,€atÐ |Ì Ðmost,€voluntary€manslaughter.€€The€trial€court€charged€the€jury€with€the€offenses€of€premeditatedÐ b² Ðfirst€degree€murder,€second€degree€murder,€voluntary€manslaughter€and€reckless€homicide.€€The€juryÐ H˜ Ðfound€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.Ð . ~ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òÌI.€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÐ à 0 ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€his€conviction€forÐ ¬ ü  Ðpremeditated€first€degree€murder.€€He€claims€the€evidence€showed€he€was€adequately€provoked;Ð ’â  Ðtherefore,€the€evidence€only€supports€a€conviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àò òA.€€Standard€of€ReviewÐ D”  ÐÌà  àó óÔ#†XBbXXX-T=#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ ` Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trialÐ öF Ðjudge€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ð Ü, Ð885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ Â Ðof€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòId.óó€ThisÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€defendantÐ ŽÞ Ðdemonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefromÐ tÄ Ðare€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€aÐ Zª Ðreasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€isÐ @ Ðthe€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€wasÐ &v Ðsufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€aÐ  \ Ðreasonable€doubt.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,Ð òB Ð2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).Ð Ø( ÐÔ#†XBbXXX-T†!#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔÌà  àò òB.€€PremeditationÐ ¤ô Ðó óÌà  àÔ#†XBbXXX-Tù'#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔThe€applicable€definition€of€first€degree€murder€is€ð ð[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÐ p!À  Ðof€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€Premeditation€necessitates€ð ða€previously€formedÐ V"¦! Ðdesign€or€intent€to€kill,ðð€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992)(citations€omitted),€andÐ <#Œ" Ðð ðan€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment€.€.€.€[meaning]€that€the€intent€to€kill€mustÐ "$r# Ðhave€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€It€also€requires€that€theÐ %X $ Ðaccused€be€ð ðsufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.ðð€òòId.óó€Ð î%>!% ÐA€homicide,€once€proven,€is€presumed€to€be€second€degree€murder,€and€the€state€has€the€burden€of€Ð Ô&$"& Ðproving€premeditation€to€raise€the€offense€to€first€degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,Ð º' #' Ð898€(Tenn.€1998).Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation,€it€may€infer€premeditation€from€the€mannerÐ l*¼%* Ðand€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,Ð R+¢&+ Ð905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Our€Supreme€Court€delineated€severalÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcircumstances€that€may€be€indicative€of€premeditation,€including€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€uponÐ ° Ðan€unarmed€victim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,€declarations€of€the€intent€to€killÐ –æ Ðthe€victim€by€the€defendant,€the€making€of€preparations€before€the€killing€for€the€purpose€ofÐ |Ì Ðconcealing€the€crime,€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660.€Ð b² ÐÌò òà  àC.€Analysisó óÐ . ~ ÐÌà  àViewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€must€conclude€that€theÐ ú J Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€Ð à 0 ÐWhile€the€jury€was€charged€with€the€law€on€voluntary€manslaughter,€it€obviously€rejected€thisÐ Æ   Ðtheory.€€This€court€has€previously€concluded€that€it€is€the€juryððs€prerogative€to€reject€the€defendantððsÐ ¬ ü  Ðclaim€of€provocation.€€òòState€v.€Meadeóó,€942€S.W.2d€561,€564€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àVoluntary€manslaughter€is€the€ð ðintentional€or€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passionÐ ^®  Ðproduced€by€adequate€provocation€sufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrationalÐ D”  Ðmanner.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„211(a).€€Whether€the€defendantððs€acts€constitute€a€killing€dueÐ *z  Ðto€ð ðadequate€provocationðð€is€a€question€for€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€909€S.W.2d€461,€464€(Tenn.Ð ` ÐCrim.€App.€1995).€€The€crucial€issue€for€our€consideration€is€whether€the€evidence€established€allÐ öF Ðof€the€elements€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€Ô#†XBbXXX-T(#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€of€provocation€came€from€the€testimony€of€the€defendant€and€the€defendantððsÐ ¨ø Ðgirlfriend.€€The€girlfriend€stated€that€on€the€morning€before€the€murder,€she€told€the€defendant€theÐ ŽÞ Ðvictim€ð ðtried€somethingðð€with€her.Ô#†XBbXXX-TX5#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔ€€However,€the€jury€also€heard€testimony€that€the€defendant€earlierÐ tÄ Ðannounced€his€intent€to€kill€the€victim.Ô#†XBbXXX-TÍ6#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔ€€Additionally,€defendantððs€girlfriend€testified€that€theÐ Zª Ðdefendant€sat€on€the€edge€of€the€bed€and€smoked€a€cigarette€before€retrieving€the€gun€and€shootingÐ @ Ðhis€father.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€murder,€the€victim€was€lying€on€the€couch€and€did€not€have€a€weapon.€€TheÐ òB Ðdefendant€testified€that€when€he€picked€up€the€gun€by€his€bed,€he€intended€to€shoot€the€victim.€€WhenÐ Ø( Ðthe€first€shot€missed€the€victim,€he€continued€to€fire€until€his€mother€tried€to€take€the€gun€out€of€hisÐ ¾ Ðhands.€€Two€bullets€struck€the€victim.€€The€jury€heard€agents€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ ¤ô ÐInvestigation€testify€that€defendantððs€weapon€was€a€bolt€action€rifle,€and€the€defendantððs€girlfriendÐ Š Ú Ðtestified€that€there€were€five€to€six€seconds€between€shots.€€The€medical€testimony€revealed€that€theÐ p!À  Ðvictim€could€have€survived€for€fifteen€to€thirty€minutes€before€bleeding€to€death,€yet€no€medicalÐ V"¦! Ðtreatment€was€sought.€€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€concealment€of€evidence€after€the€crime€is,€alone,€insufficient€to€establishÐ %X $ Ðpremeditation.€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.€€However,€calmness€immediately€after€a€crime€is€relevantÐ î%>!% Ðin€determining€the€element€of€premeditation.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660.€€Here,€testimony€from€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðdefendantððs€girlfriend€and€the€defendant€himself€revealed€that€he€had€the€presence€of€mind€shortlyÐ º' #' Ðafter€the€murder€to€attempt€to€distract€the€neighbors€by€yelling€at€an€imaginary€dog€and€firing€shotsÐ  (ð#( Ðinto€the€air€so€that€the€neighbors€would€not€be€curious€about€the€previous€shots.€€He€then€disposedÐ †)Ö$) Ðof€the€victimððs€body€in€an€extremely€remote€area,€dumped€the€weapon€in€a€nearby€lake,€burned€theÐ l*¼%* Ðcouch€on€which€his€father€was€lying,€and€threw€away€the€victimððs€clothing.€€He€then€fled€toÐ R+¢&+ ÐOklahoma.€€Furthermore,€while€he€was€being€transported€from€Oklahoma€to€Tennessee,€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdefendant€stated,€ð ðI€shot€the€son€of€a€bitch,€I€should€have€shot€him€twenty€years€ago€for€what€heððsÐ ° Ðdone€in€the€past€and€what€he€would€do€in€the€future.ðð€Ð –æ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€there€was€adequate€evidence€for€the€jury€to€conclude€the€defendant€sufficientlyÐ b² Ðreflected€upon€his€actions€before€shooting€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€Thus,€Ð H˜ Ðthe€jury€could€reject€the€defendantððs€theory€of€adequate€provocation.€€Therefore,€in€the€light€mostÐ . ~ Ðfavorable€to€the€state,€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder€is€supportedÐ  d Ðby€the€evidence.€Ð ú J ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òII.€€PHOTOGRAPHSÐ ¬ ü  Ðó óÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌóóà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€defendant€sought€to€prevent€the€state€from€introducing€photographs€of€theÐ xÈ  Ðvictimððs€body€into€evidence.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€close„up€photographs€of€the€corpse€would€notÐ ^®  Ðbe€allowed,€but€one€long€range€photograph€depicting€the€scene€where€the€body€was€found€would€beÐ D”  Ðadmissible.€€Ô#†XBbXXX-T7#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔThe€defendant€contends€that€the€photograph€should€have€been€excluded.à Ð àÐ *z  ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€is€governed€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403€and€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564Ð öF ÐS.W.2d€947€(Tenn.1978).€€"Although€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€isÐ Ü, Ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleadingÐ Â Ðthe€jury...."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Whether€to€admit€a€photograph€is€within€the€discretionary€authorityÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€trial€court,€and€the€admission€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€885€S.W.2d€90,€92€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€photograph€was€not€gruesome,€horrifying,€or€inflammatory.€€The€image€of€the€victimððsÐ @ Ðbody€is€extremely€small€and€no€discoloration€or€decomposition€is€distinctly€apparent.€TheÐ &v Ðphotograph€shows€the€remote€area€where€the€body€was€found.€€Thus,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€didÐ  \ Ðnot€err€in€admitting€the€photograph.€€Ð òB ÐÓ|CÓÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIII.€€EVIDENCE€OF€PROVOCATIONÐ ¤ô Ðó óÌóóÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€alleges€the€trial€court€erroneously€excluded€evidence€that€he€was€acting€underÐ p!À  Ðadequate€provocation.€€In€particular,€the€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€should€have€allowedÐ V"¦! Ðevidence€of€an€incident€which€occurred€between€the€victim€and€the€defendantððs€girlfriend,€CybilÐ <#Œ" ÐCampbell,€one€week€prior€to€the€murder.€€The€defendant€claims€the€victim€told€his€girlfriend€theyÐ "$r# Ðwere€going€to€have€themselves€an€ð ðorgy€party,ðð€and€the€victim€then€proceeded€to€masturbate€in€frontÐ %X $ Ðof€his€girlfriend.€€When€Campbell€attempted€to€testify€that€the€defendantððs€mother€told€her€that€theÐ î%>!% Ðdefendantððs€mother€informed€defendant€at€the€jail€about€this€incident,€the€trial€court€sustained€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðstateððs€hearsay€objection.€€The€defendant€argues€that€Campbell€should€have€been€allowed€to€testifyÐ º' #' Ðto€what€she€was€told€by€the€defendantððs€mother.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€statement€was€notÐ  (ð#( Ðoffered€for€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted,€but€rather€was€offered€as€evidence€of€provocation.€€TheÐ †)Ö$) Ðdefendantððs€mother€did€not€testify€at€the€defendantððs€trial.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà  àHearsay€is€ð ða€statement,€other€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€orÐ 8,ˆ', Ðhearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€TheÐ ° Ðtrial€court€did€not€err€in€excluding€Campbellððs€testimony€that€the€defendantððs€mother€told€her€thatÐ –æ Ðshe€had€informed€the€defendant€of€this€incident.€€The€evidence€would€be€admissible€if€offeredÐ |Ì Ðthrough€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€mother€or€by€the€defendant.€€In€that€event,€the€evidenceÐ b² Ðwould€not€be€offered€for€its€truth,€but€rather€to€establish€a€basis€for€provocation€of€the€defendant.€Ð H˜ ÐHowever,€defendant€sought€to€introduce€this€evidence€through€the€testimony€of€Campbell€as€to€whatÐ . ~ Ðhis€mother€told€her.€€It€was€then€sought€to€be€introduced€for€its€truth;€namely,€that€the€mother€in€factÐ  d Ðtold€the€defendant€about€the€incident.€€The€evidence€was€properly€excluded€as€hearsay.Ð ú J ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òIV.€€VICTIMððS€PROPENSITY€FOR€VIOLENCEÐ ¬ ü  ÐÓ  ÓÌóóó óà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€evidence€of€the€victimððs€propensityÐ xÈ  Ðfor€violence.€€The€defense€sought€to€introduce€the€following:€(1)€testimony€from€the€victimððs€formerÐ ^®  Ðlawyer€regarding€the€victimððs€reputation€for€violence;€(2)€defendantððs€own€testimony€regarding€anÐ D”  Ðincident€of€violence€by€the€victim€against€the€defendantððs€sister;€and€(3)€testimony€regarding€the€rapeÐ *z  Ðof€the€defendantððs€girlfriend€by€the€victim.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€defendant€that,€beforeÐ ` Ðintroducing€evidence€of€the€victimððs€propensity€for€violence,€he€must€first€put€forth€evidenceÐ öF Ðestablishing€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€self„defense€or€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor.€€TheÐ Ü, Ðdefendant€did€not€allege€self„defense;€defendant€failed€to€present€evidence€that€he€acted€in€self„Ð Â Ðdefense,€or€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor;€and€the€jury€was€not€instructed€on€self€defense.€Ð ¨ø ÐRegardless,€defendant€contends€the€victimððs€propensity€for€violence€was€relevant€to€the€issue€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðprovocation.Ð tÄ Ѐ€Ð Zª Ðò òà  àA.€€Testimony€of€the€Victimððs€Former€AttorneyÐ @ ÐÌà  àó óThe€defendant€contends€the€victimððs€former€attorney€should€have€been€allowed€to€testify€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€victim€had€a€reputation€in€the€community€for€violence.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a).€€The€trialÐ òB Ðcourt€concluded€the€testimony€was€not€relevant€to€the€issue€of€provocation.€€We€find€no€error€inÐ Ø( Ðdisallowing€the€testimony.€€Self„defense€was€not€an€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerally€óóòòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€Ð ¾ Ð766,€780€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(holding€specific€acts€of€violence€by€the€victim€are€admissibleÐ ¤ô Ðto€Ð Š Ú Ðcorroborate€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor).€€In€this€case,€theÐ p!À  Ðvictimððs€reputation€in€the€community€for€violence€had€no€bearing€upon€whether€or€not€the€defendantÐ V"¦! Ðacted€under€adequate€provocation€based€upon€his€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌò òÌà  àB.€€Defendantððs€TestimonyÐ î%>!% ÐÌà  àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€testify€about€a€specific€instanceÐ º' #' Ðof€violence€involving€his€sister€and€the€victim.€€However,€the€only€statements€regarding€thisÐ  (ð#( Ðproposed€testimony€were€made€by€defense€counsel€during€the€hearing€on€this€issue.€€It€is€unclearÐ †)Ö$) Ðwhen€the€alleged€incident€occurred,€whether€the€defendant€witnessed€the€alleged€incident,€and€what,Ð l*¼%* Ðif€any,€effect€it€had€on€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€made€no€offer€of€proof.€€Since€we€may€notÐ R+¢&+ Ðspeculate€about€this€possible€testimony,€this€issue€is€waived.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€795€S.W.2dÐ 8,ˆ', Ð150,€156€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2).€€Ð ° ÐÌò òà  àC.€€Impeachment€of€CampbellÐ |Ì ÐÌà  àó óThe€defendant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€testimony€regarding€the€alleged€rapeÐ H˜ Ðof€his€girlfriend,€Campbell,€by€the€victim€was€admissible€only€for€the€purpose€of€assessingÐ . ~ ÐCampbellððs€credibility€as€a€witness.Ð  d ÐÌà  àCampbell€testified€that€on€the€day€of€the€murder€she€told€the€defendant€the€victim€ð ðtriedÐ à 0 Ðsomethingðð€with€her,€but€denied€telling€him€that€the€victim€ð ðtried€to€rapeðð€her.€€€On€the€other€hand,Ð Æ   Ðthe€defendant€testified€that€Campbell€told€him€the€victim€ð ðtired€to€rapeðð€her.€€On€cross„examination,Ð ¬ ü  ÐCampbell€denied€telling€the€defense€investigator€that€she€told€the€defendant€the€victim€ð ðtried€to€rapeððÐ ’â  Ðher.€€During€the€defendantððs€case„in„chief,€the€investigator€testified€that€Campbell€said€she€told€theÐ xÈ  Ðdefendant€that€the€victim€ð ðtried€to€rapeðð€her.€€Following€the€investigatorððs€testimony,€Campbell€wasÐ ^®  Ðre„called€by€the€defense€and€testified€that€she€was€in€fact€raped€by€the€victim,€but€again€stated€sheÐ D”  Ðnever€told€the€defendant€she€had€been€raped.Ô#†XBbXXX-T+E#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔÐ *z  ÐÌÓ  Ó€à @ àò ò(1)€Ð öF ÐInvestigatorððs€TestimonyÐ Ü, Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€testimony€given€by€the€investigator€that€Campbell€said€she€told€the€defendant€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðvictim€ð ðtried€to€rapeðð€her€was€admissible€under€the€prior€inconsistent€statement€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð ŽÞ ÐEvid.€613(b).€€As€such,€the€testimony€was€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes,€but€not€asÐ tÄ Ðsubstantive€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€964€S.W.2d€564,€567€(Tenn.€1998).Ð Zª ÐÌÓ  Óò ò(2)Ð &v ÐCampbellððs€TestimonyÐ  \ ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àCampbellððs€testimony€presents€a€different€problem.€€The€trial€court,€over€the€stateððs€objection,Ð Ø( Ðallowed€defense€counsel€to€ask€Campbell€if€the€victim€had€in€fact€raped€her.€€The€trial€courtÐ ¾ Ðconcluded€ð ðthe€fact€that€she€was€raped€[goes€toward]€the€fact€that€she€may€have€told€others€that.ðð€Ð ¤ô ÐWhen€Campbell€testified€she€was€raped,€no€limiting€instructions€were€given€to€the€jury€by€the€trial€Ð Š Ú ÐÌÌÌcourt.€€Neither€counsel€in€final€argument€suggested€that€this€evidence€was€limited€in€its€purpose.Ð "$r# ÐHowever,€in€the€jury€chargeò ò€ó óthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€testimony€ð ðwas€not€admittedÐ %X $ Ðas€substantive€evidence,€but€was€admitted€for€the€limited€purpose€of€allowing€the€jury€to€determineÐ î%>!% Ðthe€credibility€of€Cybil€Campbell.ðð€€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€this€charge.€€Defendant€arguesÐ  (ð#( ÐCampbellððs€testimony€that€she€was€raped€should€be€considered€as€substantive€evidence€since€thisÐ †)Ö$) Ðmakes€it€more€likely€that€Campbell€told€the€defendant€the€victim€ð ðtried€to€rapeðð€her.€€Regardless,€theÐ l*¼%* Ðcrucial€issue€in€this€case€was€whether€there€was€adequate€provocation€for€defendantððs€action.€€Thus,Ð R+¢&+ Ðthe€critical€inquiry€was€defendantððs€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€Whether€Campbell€Ô_ÔwasÐ 8,ˆ', Ðactually€raped€does€not€go€toward€defendantððs€state€of€mind,€but€rather€his€state€of€mind€was€causedÐ ° Ðby€what€Campbell€told€him€occurred.€€If€the€trial€court€did€err€in€telling€the€jury€this€evidence€wasÐ –æ Ðnon„substantive,€we€note€the€charge€also€stated€that€it€went€to€Campbellððs€credibility.€€In€the€contextÐ |Ì Ðof€this€case,€this€meant€whether€Campbell€told€defendant€the€victim€ð ðtried€somethingðð€with€her€(asÐ b² Ðshe€testified),€or€whether€she€told€the€defendant€the€victim€ð ðtried€to€rapeðð€her€(as€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðtestified).€€Thus,€the€jury€was€free€to€consider€Campbellððs€testimony€that€she€was€raped€in€judgingÐ . ~ Ðher€credibility€as€to€what€she€testified€she€told€the€defendant.€€If€there€was€any€error€in€the€juryÐ  d Ðcharge,€it€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€ò òÐ ú J Ðó óÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ ¬ ü  ÐÓìrÓÌó óóóà  àWe€conclude€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððs€conviction€forÐ xÈ  Ðpremeditated€first€degree€murder€and€find€the€trial€court€committed€no€reversible€error€with€regardÐ ^®  Ðto€its€evidentiary€rulings.€€€Thus,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð D”  ÐÌÔ#†XBbXXX-TAf#ÔÔ‡X-TXXXBbÔò òòòó óóóÌòòóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÔ#†XBbXXX-T¤t#Ô