ÿWPCZ 8ü¯ú(ÿÁÛ÷F¢}&]ïâ4XñF¦4¨ÀÇ{%ˆÓó±©Vd^ÒÁƒvBÔ àß܈¿K©ïë\ Ÿë1ü§2û2/ùÉm×€2¬ð/yâ­œJ½b]»šUg¢7}¯/—市>{„Üï*1}è?©e¢êêmPl=§ùZ þÖ°£´è¥½†õò¿•CÑ­y™ìj«Á9¾MØîËilG뫱ý lâ ˺K¥.¹ÁürÆⱤË"ÜÌpò²ÙJti²7¯ýèK­|П£¤a$JDQ弓$> tÆzH¢†C¢h“£tÒÅqœñŠME‰Ñ…ÍD>æ¸l޽w/Ò&[Ì¢º-Âd¤“gYsêåðWüéý½l–)ßëa·8M"Õp3z÷ð-¤Xï»!h±7òtA—~ÇB§åjÓµ‰ÈÏwß8š‚±Qøý®[Mÿ]2~™bÅð1ƒAS ‘òºþ~VÛ*¾¤ SÓ ô¾ïë[¼=ÖЛ·up¸alrä\œ1íIÈ Ôd2ž®G-ÂòØ;5Í‘Øê9Œ³w2}؃¥; s mÇ®Xýºüø,|ŠÈ’hNÒÁLØJUê°²çúh´e-[l‚Ó{48ýÈb#Á\ % U@# 0Ÿc U+N ^ P w\ z` ÒÚ 4¬ À Ï mÑ Æè Æ® Æt Æ::N Eb                                     0 B 0»1 D3ì D- 0KLL AS—Æê 0»° 0Dk A«¯˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (wÅ÷$¡¡Ô  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€..ÑÑ8€G»»d»»d8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular]¨)  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÖJ~'|³ 3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5H- ù-(“G2ñØ$¤¤Ý ƒÅ÷!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€QP»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô8dò»»Ô d(“3ßd$££Ý ƒÅ÷!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€QP»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(“3ßd$¢¢Ý ƒÅ÷!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€QP»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒÅ÷!ÝÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€QP»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼QP»»»ÔÑ8€. XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îosQPÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼QP»îîos#ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÌò òÔ#†¼QP»XX. #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€BILLY€GENE€Ô_ÔDEBOWÔ_Ô,€SR.Ô‡X. X»¼QPÔó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€358„1998€€€€€€Jane€Ô_ÔWheatcraftÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02678„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€2,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Billy€Gene€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô,€Sr.,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€after€a€jury€trial€inÐ &v  ÐSumner€County,€Tennessee.€€He€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€In€this€appeal€as€right,€heÐ  \ Ðraises€the€following€nine€issues:€€(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€a€convictionÐ òB Ðpursuant€to€Rule€13(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€€Appellate€Procedure;€(2)€whether€the€trial€courtÐ Ø( Ðerred€in€failing€to€give€the€jury€a€complete€instruction€regarding€the€definition€of€"premeditation";Ð ¾ Ð(3)€whether€the€Tennessee€statute€proscribing€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€Tennessee€CodeÐ ¤ô ÐAnnotated€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1),€is€unconstitutional€because€it€violates€the€Defendant's€due€processÐ ŠÚ Ðrights;€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€self„defense;€(5)€whether€theÐ pÀ Ðtrial€court€erred€in€advising€jurors€that€the€State€was€not€seeking€the€death€penalty;€(6)€whether€theÐ V¦ Ðtrial€court€erred€in€excusing€for€cause€two€prospective€jurors€from€service€because€they€did€not€"feelÐ <Œ Ðcomfortable"€sitting€on€a€murder€trial;€(7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€permitting€a€misleadingÐ "r Ðcourtroom€demonstration€and€in€admitting€into€evidence€an€inaccurate€and€misleading€diagramÐ X Ðwhich€unfairly€prejudiced€the€Defendant;€(8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€into€evidenceÐ î> Ðcertain€gruesome€and€graphic€photographs€of€the€victim's€wounds€when€the€probative€value€of€suchÐ Ô$ Ðevidence€was€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice;€and€(9)€whether€theÐ º  Ðcumulative€effect€of€the€foregoing€errors€deprived€the€Defendant€of€a€fair€trial.€€We€hold€that€the€trialÐ  ð Ðcourt€erred€by€excusing€two€prospective€jurors€for€cause€because€they€were€"uncomfortable"€sittingÐ † Ö  Ðon€a€murder€case,€but€that€such€error€was€harmless.€€The€remainder€of€the€Defendant's€issues€lackÐ l!¼! Ðmerit.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ô#†¼QP»XX. «#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÐ R"¢" ÐÔ#†¼QP»XX. Þ #ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÌÓêÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ $n$ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼QP»àX. 5#ÔÔ‡X. X.¼QPÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò,€Jerry€L.€Smith,€J.,óó€and€òòRobertÐ ê%:!& ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_ÔóóÔ#†¼QP»XX. ï#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔ€J.,€joined.Ð Ð& "' ÐÌWalter€H.€Ô_ÔStubbsÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Billy€Gene€Ô_ÔDebowÔ_Ô,€Sr.Ð œ(ì#) ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð h*¸%+ ÐLawrence€Ray€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Sallie€Wade€Brown,€Assistant€DistrictÐ N+ž&, ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 4,„'- ÐÓÀÓÐ -j(.ý Ðà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼QP»XX. â#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼QP»XX.  #ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÓ  Óà  àThe€proof€at€trial€established€that€the€Defendant€and€the€victim,€Jimmy€Lee€Wiggins,€wereÐ |Ì Ðfriends,€and€they€spent€time€together€washing€their€cars€during€the€afternoon€on€February€20,€1998.€Ð b² ÐThere€were€no€problems€between€them€at€that€time.€€Later€that€evening,€Ô_ÔTondaÔ_Ô€Wiggins,€the€victim'sÐ H˜ Ðwife,€and€Aileen€Marten€encountered€the€victim€at€Julio's€Market€in€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô,€Tennessee.€€The€victimÐ . ~ Ðwas€with€two€other€men,€Joe€Ô_ÔTalleyÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔDarnellÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔFittsÔ_Ô.€€Ms.€Wiggins€and€the€victim€began€arguingÐ  d Ðin€the€parking€lot€about€Sandy€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô,€the€Defendant's€sister,€with€whom€the€victim€had€fatheredÐ ú J Ða€child.€€Sandy€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô€was€a€source€of€conflict€between€the€victim€and€his€wife,€who€was€nineÐ à 0 Ðmonths€pregnant.Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àAround€10:00€p.m.€that€evening,€the€Defendant€arrived€at€the€market€while€the€victim€andÐ ’â  ÐMs.€Wiggins€were€arguing.€€The€Defendant€and€Ms.€Wiggins€then€began€to€argue,€and€soon€theÐ xÈ  Ðvictim€interceded€and€began€arguing€with€the€Defendant.€€The€argument€escalated€into€a€fight,€duringÐ ^®  Ðwhich€the€Defendant€ran€across€the€street€with€the€victim€chasing€him,€picked€up€a€broomstick,€andÐ D”  Ðstruck€the€victim€with€the€stick.€€The€victim€then€chased€the€Defendant€down€the€street€to€a€lawnÐ *z  Ðmower€shop,€telling€the€Defendant€to€"apologize€to€[his]€wife."€€Subsequently,€the€Defendant€andÐ ` Ðthe€victim€returned,€coming€back€from€opposite€sides€of€the€market,€and€the€Defendant€got€into€hisÐ öF Ðcar€and€left.Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àThe€victim€entered€Ô_ÔAileneÔ_Ô€Martin's€vehicle,€and€Ms.€Wiggins€entered€the€other€vehicle€withÐ ¨ø ÐJoe€Ô_ÔTalleyÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔDarnellÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔFittsÔ_Ô.€€They€all€went€to€the€Sheriff's€Department€to€attempt€to€intercept€theÐ ŽÞ ÐDefendant,€whom€they€presumed€was€going€to€file€a€complaint€against€the€victim€for€assault.€Ð tÄ ÐInstead,€the€Defendant€drove€slightly€over€seven€miles€down€Highway€31„E€to€his€grandparents'Ð Zª Ðhouse,€where€he€retrieved€his€uncle's€16„gauge€shotgun€and€six€shotgun€shells.€€The€gun€and€theÐ @ Ðshells€were€kept€in€different€locations,€but€the€Defendant€knew€where€to€find€them.€€Ô#†¼QP»XX. þ#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔWhen€theÐ &v ÐDefendant€did€not€arrive€at€the€Sheriff's€Department,€Ms.€Martin€went€home,€and€the€victim,€Ms.Ð  \ ÐWiggins,€Mr.€Ô_ÔTalleyÔ_Ô,€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔFittsÔ_Ô€all€went€to€the€Ô_ÔNorthsideÔ_Ô€Lounge,€a€bar€also€known€asÐ òB Ð"Oldham's,"€in€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô.Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àShortly€after€the€victim€and€the€others€arrived€at€the€Ô_ÔNorthsideÔ_Ô€Lounge,€the€Defendant€pulled€Ð ¤ô Ðup.€€Henry€Adams,€a€friend€of€both€the€victim€and€the€Defendant,€testified€that€when€the€DefendantÐ Š Ú Ðfirst€drove€up€to€the€Ô_ÔNorthsideÔ_Ô€Lounge,€the€victim€stated,€"We€just€whipped€the€shit€out€of€thatÐ p!À  Ðnigger,€and€we're€fixing€to€do€it€again."Ô#†¼QP»XX. #ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔ€Ô#†¼QP»XX. Í!#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔ€The€Defendant€got€out€of€his€car€and€sent€Joe€Ô_ÔTalleyÔ_Ô€intoÐ V"¦! Ðthe€bar€to€tell€his€uncle,€Willie€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô,€to€come€outside.€€The€Defendant€and€the€victim€beganÐ <#Œ" Ðarguing€again,€and€the€Defendant€pointed€the€shotgun€at€the€victim.€€The€Defendant's€uncle€came€outÐ "$r# Ðof€the€bar,€took€the€shotgun€from€the€Defendant,€placed€the€shotgun€in€the€Defendant's€car,€and€toldÐ %X $ Ðthe€Defendant€to€leave.€€The€Defendant's€uncle,€Willie€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô,€did€not€realize€that€the€shotgunÐ î%>!% Ðbelonged€to€him.€€The€Defendant€got€into€his€car€and€left.€€As€he€was€leaving,€the€victim€threw€a€beerÐ Ô&$"& Ðbottle€at€the€Defendant's€car,€but€struck€Willie€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô's€truck€instead.€€Willie€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô€testified€thatÐ º' #' Ðthe€victim€said€he€would€pay€for€the€damage€because€Mr.€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô€would€need€the€money€to€bury€theÐ  (ð#( ÐDefendant€since€the€victim€was€going€to€kill€the€Defendant.€€€€€Ô#†¼QP»XX. "#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÐ †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àAfter€the€Defendant€left€the€Ô_ÔNorthsideÔ_Ô€Lounge,€he€drove€to€his€father's€house€a€few€blocksÐ R+¢&+ Ðaway€and€got€his€father€out€of€bed.€€While€his€father€was€getting€dressed,€the€Defendant€removed€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðshotgun€from€his€car€and€placed€it€in€his€father's€car.€€The€two€then€returned€to€the€Ô_ÔNorthsideÔ_Ô€LoungeÐ ° Ðin€the€Defendant's€father's€car.€€When€they€got€out€of€the€car,€the€victim€yelled,€"I'm€not€scared€ofÐ –æ Ðyou€or€your€daddy."€€The€victim€was€across€the€street€from€the€Defendant€at€this€point.€€Ô#†¼QP»XX. Þ&#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔTheÐ |Ì ÐDefendant's€father,€Gene€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô,€testified€that€he€replied,€"Man,€I€ain't€got€nothing€to€do€with€this."€Ð b² ÐThe€Defendant€and€the€victim€started€exchanging€words,€and€Gene€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô€walked€to€the€rear€of€hisÐ H˜ Ðcar€and€opened€the€trunk€to€retrieve€a€piece€of€copper€pipe€to€defend€himself€if€the€victim€shouldÐ . ~ Ð"jump€on"€him.€€The€Defendant€retrieved€the€shotgun€from€his€father's€car,€fired€one€shot€into€theÐ  d Ðair,€and€then€said€something€to€the€effect€of,€"the€second€one's€for€you."€€The€victim€said€somethingÐ ú J Ðlike€"kill€me,€kill€me"€or€"go€on,€shoot€me€nigger,€see€what€you€can€do€with€that€shotgun."€€TheÐ à 0 Ðvictim€was€backing€up€with€his€hands€in€the€air€when€the€Defendant€stepped€further€out€into€theÐ Æ   Ðstreet€and€shot€the€victim€twice.€€The€victim€turned€after€he€was€shot€once,€he€was€shot€again,€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðthen€he€ran€until€he€collapsed.€€He€had€been€shot€once€in€the€chest€and€once€in€the€arm.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€picked€up€the€three€remaining€shells€that€were€in€the€street,€reloaded€the€gun,Ð ^®  Ðand€left€the€scene.€€He€went€to€his€sister€Sandy€Ô_ÔDeBowÔ_Ô's€house,€where€he€placed€the€gun€behind€aÐ D”  Ðmattress€and€placed€the€shells€in€a€dresser.€€He€turned€himself€in€to€the€police€later€that€night€andÐ *z  Ðmade€a€full€statement,€which€was€tape„recorded€and€played€for€the€jury.€€In€that€statement,€theÐ ` ÐDefendant€indicated€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim,€but€that€he€had€been€assaulted€andÐ öF Ðprovoked€by€the€victim€until€he€"snapped"€and€shot€the€victim.Ð Ü, ÐÌà@ç ç ìàSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Ô‡X. XXX. ÔTennessee€Rule€of€AppellateÐ tÄ ÐProcedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôf]indingsÔ_Ô€of€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€orÐ Zª Ðjury€shall€be€set€aside€if€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guiltÐ @ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Evidence€is€sufficient€if,€after€reviewing€theÐ &v Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ  \ Ðthe€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,Ð òB Ð319€(1979).€€In€addition,€because€conviction€by€a€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocenceÐ Ø( Ðand€imposes€a€presumption€of€guilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€thatÐ ¾ Ðthe€evidence€was€insufficient.€€òòÔ_ÔMcBeeÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÐ ¤ô Ðv.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.Ð Š Ú Ð1976),€and€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977));€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTuggleÔ_Ôóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð p!À  Ð914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHolt€v.€Stateóó,€357€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.€1962).Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðthe€strongestÐ "$r# Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ %X $ Ðtherefrom.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔTuggleÔ_Ôóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914€(citing€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ð î%>!% Ð1978)).€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838Ð Ô&$"& ÐS.W.2d€at€191€(citing€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836).€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€court€findÐ º' #' Ðparticular€conflicts€in€the€trial€testimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict€orÐ  (ð#( Ðtrial€court€judgment.€€òòÔ_ÔTuggleÔ_Ôóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ô#†X. XXX. ²1#ԀР†)Ö$) Ðâ âÐ l*¼%* Ðà  àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,€which€is€a€premeditated€and€intentionalÐ ° Ðkilling€of€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€"Premeditation"€is€"an€act€done€after€theÐ –æ Ðexercise€of€reflection€and€judgment."€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€The€code€also€provides€as€follows:Ð |Ì Ðâ âÌà8  à"Premeditation"€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€actÐ H˜ Ðitself.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accusedÐ . ~ Ðfor€any€definite€period€of€time.€€The€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€theÐ  d Ðaccused€allegedly€decided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determineÐ ú J Ðwhether€the€accused€was€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€beÐ à 0 Ðcapable€of€premeditation.ÐÆ  Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€because€the€State€did€not€proveÐ xÈ  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€this€was€a€premeditated€killing.€€He€urges€us€to€conclude€that€he€wasÐ ^®  Ðacting€under€a€state€of€passion€and€that€he€did€not€reflect€upon€what€he€was€doing.€€He€points€out€thatÐ D”  Ðthis€began€as€a€heated€confrontation€between€the€victim€and€the€Defendant€and€that€it€remained€aÐ *z  Ðheated€confrontation.€€However,€whether€premeditation€is€present€is€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury,Ð ` Ðand€it€may€be€inferred€from€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€murder.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ öF Ð651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€835€S.W.2d€600,€605€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€SomeÐ Ü, Ðrelevant€factors€which€tend€to€support€the€existence€of€premeditation€include:€à8 @ àthe€use€of€a€deadlyÐ Â Ðweapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim;€evidence€that€the€victim€was€retreating€or€attempting€to€escapeÐ ¨ø Ðwhen€killed;€the€particular€cruelty€of€the€killing;€declarations€by€the€defendant€of€an€intent€to€kill;Ð ŽÞ Ðevidence€of€procurement€of€a€weapon;€preparations€before€the€killing€for€concealment€of€the€crime;Ð tÄ Ðand€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660;€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844Ð Zª ÐS.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.€1992).€€"[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€fact€that€repeated€blows€(or€shots)€were€inflicted€on€theÐ @ Ðvictim€is€not€sufficient,€by€itself,€to€establish€first„degree€murder."€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,Ð &v Ð542€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àLooking€at€the€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€which€we€are€required€to€do,€weÐ Ø( Ðconclude€that€a€rational€jury€could€have€found€the€element€of€premeditation€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ¾ Ðdoubt.€€After€the€original€confrontation€with€the€victim,€the€Defendant€drove€seven€miles€to€retrieveÐ ¤ô Ðhis€uncle's€shotgun€and€then€drove€seven€miles€back€to€where€the€victim€was€located.€€He€pointedÐ Š Ú Ðthe€gun€at€the€victim€and€left€only€at€the€insistence€of€his€uncle.€€Instead€of€going€home€at€that€point,Ð p!À  Ðhe€drove€to€his€father's€house,€where€he€moved€the€shotgun€from€his€car€to€his€father's€car€and€thenÐ V"¦! Ðreturned€to€the€place€where€the€victim€was€located.€€After€exchanging€more€words€with€the€victim,Ð <#Œ" Ðthe€Defendant€removed€the€shotgun€from€his€father's€car,€fired€one€shot€up€in€the€air,€and€then€stated,Ð "$r# Ð"the€next€one's€for€you."€€He€moved€closer€to€the€victim€and€shot€the€victim€twice€as€the€victim€wasÐ %X $ Ðretreating€with€his€hands€in€the€air.€€The€victim€was€unarmed.€€The€Defendant€picked€up€theÐ î%>!% Ðremaining€shotgun€shells€and€reloaded€the€gun€before€leaving.€€The€Defendant's€argument€that€thisÐ Ô&$"& Ðhomicide€was€committed€during€the€heat€of€passion€goes€to€the€weight€of€evidence,€not€theÐ º' #' Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Here,€there€was€ample€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€haveÐ  (ð#( Ðdetermined€that€the€Defendant€formed€the€intent€to€kill€the€victim€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÐ †)Ö$) Ðjudgment€and€that€the€Defendant's€mental€state€was€sufficiently€free€from€passion€or€excitement€soÐ l*¼%* Ðas€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà@ ìàJURY€INSTRUCTIONS€REGARDING€"PREMEDITATION"ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€give€a€complete€instruction€on€theÐ |Ì Ðdefinition€of€"premeditation."€€A€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€a€complete€and€correctÐ b² Ðcharge€of€the€law.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTeelÔ_Ôóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€trial€judge,€withoutÐ H˜ Ðrequest,€should€properly€instruct€the€jury€on€the€law€governing€the€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€atÐ . ~ Ðtrial.€€òòState€v.€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2d€304,€308€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€When€the€instructions€givenÐ  d Ðby€the€trial€judge€correctly,€fully,€and€fairly€set€forth€the€applicable€law,€it€is€not€error€to€refuse€toÐ ú J Ðgive€a€special€instruction€requested€by€a€party.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBohananÔ_Ôóó,€745€S.W.2d€892,€897€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à 0 ÐApp.€1987).€€This€Court€must€read€the€entire€charge€and€only€invalidate€it€if,€when€read€as€a€whole,Ð Æ   Ðit€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legal€issues€or€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPhippsÔ_Ôóó,Ð ¬ ü  Ð883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€Defendant€moved€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€as€follows:Ð ^®  Ðà8  àThe€term€"premeditation"€involves€the€process€of€carefully€weighing€such€matters€asÐ D”  Ðthe€wisdom€of€going€ahead€with€the€proposed€killing,€the€manner€in€which€the€killingÐ *z  Ðwill€be€accomplished,€and€the€consequences€which€may€be€visited€upon€the€killer€ifÐ ` Ðand€when€he€is€apprehended.ÐöFÐ Ð  ÐÌThe€trial€court€deferred€ruling€on€this€request€until€after€the€proof,€at€which€point€the€request€wasÐ Â Ðdenied€upon€the€trial€court's€finding€that€the€pattern€jury€instruction€sufficiently€defined€the€termÐ ¨ø Ð"premeditation."€€The€Defendant€then€requested€that€the€court€instruct€the€jury€that€"[Ô_Ôf]orÔ_Ô€aÐ ŽÞ Ðpremeditated€killing,€the€defendant€must€have€thought€about,€reflected€upon,€and€contemplated€theÐ tÄ Ðeventual€death€of€the€victim."€€This€request€was€denied€as€well.€€Instead,€the€trial€court€gave€theÐ Zª Ðfollowing€pattern€jury€instruction€on€first€degree€murder:Ð @ ÐÌà8  àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€state€must€have€provenÐ  \ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€the€following€essential€elements:ÐòBÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€that€the€defendant€unlawfully€killed€the€alleged€victim;ÐØ(Ð Ð  Ðà  àandÐ ¾ Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€that€the€defendant€acted€intentionally.€€A€person€acts€intentionally€withÐ ¤ô Ðrespect€to€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€to€a€result€of€the€conduct€when€it€is€theÐ Š Ú Ðperson's€conscious€objective€or€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result;€Ðp!À Ð Ð  Ðà  àandÐ V"¦! Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€that€the€killing€was€premeditated.Ð<#Œ"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àA€premeditated€act€is€one€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.€Ð "$r# ÐPremeditation€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€actÐ %X $ Ðitself.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€preexist€in€the€mind€of€the€accusedÐ î%>!% Ðfor€any€definite€period€of€time.€€The€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€heÐ Ô&$"& Ðallegedly€decided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determine€whetherÐ º' #' Ðthe€accused€was€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðpremeditation.€€If€the€design€to€kill€was€formed€with€premeditation,€it€is€immaterialÐ †)Ö$) Ðthat€the€accused€may€have€been€in€a€state€of€passion€or€excitement€when€the€designÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âwas€carried€into€effect.€€Furthermore,€premeditation€can€be€found€if€the€decision€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðkill€is€first€formed€during€the€heat€of€passion,€but€the€accused€commits€the€act€afterÐ ° Ðthe€passion€has€subsided.ЖæÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà  àThe€Defendant€asserts€on€appeal€that€the€pattern€instruction€does€not€adequately€define€whatÐ b² Ðconstitutes€ð ðreflection€and€judgmentðð;€thus,€the€instruction€does€not€adequately€distinguish€firstÐ H˜ Ðdegree€murder€from€second€degree€murder,€which€is€a€knowing€killing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„Ð . ~ Ð13„210(a)(1).€€He€argues€that€the€instruction€does€not€sufficiently€inform€the€jury€that€a€killing€mustÐ  d Ðbe€"deliberate"€in€order€to€constitute€first€degree€murder.€€The€conception€of€"deliberation"€has€beenÐ ú J Ðone€of€the€distinctions€of€first€degree€murder€in€Tennessee€since€1829,€òòseeóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€atÐ à 0 Ð538,€and€it€was€delineated€as€a€separate€element€of€first€degree€murder€in€the€Tennessee€Code€untilÐ Æ   Ð1995.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991)€(repealed€1995).€€The€òòBrownóó€courtÐ ¬ ü  Ðdistinguished€the€concept€of€"premeditation,"€the€previously€formed€design€to€kill,€from€the€conceptÐ ’â  Ðof€"deliberation,"€which€requires€coolness€and€reflection.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€538„41.€€€InÐ xÈ  Ð1995,€the€Tennessee€Legislature€amended€the€first€degree€murder€statute€by€eliminating€the€separateÐ ^®  Ðrequirement€that€a€killing€be€"deliberate,"€but€it€incorporated€the€concept€of€"deliberation"€within€theÐ D”  Ðdefinition€of€"premeditation"€by€defining€"premeditation"€as€"an€act€done€after€the€exercise€ofÐ *z  Ðreflection€and€judgment"€and€stating,€"The€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€the€accusedÐ ` Ðallegedly€decided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€accused€wasÐ öF Ðsufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ð Ü, Ððð€39„13„202€(d).€€€€€Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€pattern€jury€instruction€given€by€the€trial€court€accurately,€fully,€andÐ ŽÞ Ðfairly€reflects€the€law€in€Tennessee€on€the€elements€of€first€degree€murder€and€adequately€informsÐ tÄ Ðthe€jury€of€the€meaning€of€premeditation.€€The€instruction€informs€the€jury€that€the€defendant€mustÐ Zª Ðintend€to€kill,€that€the€defendant€must€form€the€intent€to€kill€prior€to€the€act,€and€that€the€defendantÐ @ Ðmust€€reflect€on€the€act€while€free€from€passion.€€This€adequately€distinguishes€first€degree€murderÐ &v Ðfrom€second€degree€murder,€which€requires€only€that€the€defendant€act€knowingly€in€committing€theÐ  \ Ðact.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€give€a€specialÐ òB Ðinstruction.€€Ð Ø( ÐÌà@ååìàCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER€STATUTEˆÐ ¤ô ÐÌà  àNext,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€statute€proscribing€premeditated€first€degree€murderÐ p!À  Ðviolates€his€due€process€rights€because€it€is€unconstitutionally€vague.€€He€asserts€that€the€statute€isÐ V"¦! Ðunconstitutionally€vague€because€the€definition€of€premeditation€does€not€adequately€explain€whatÐ <#Œ" Ðis€meant€by€"an€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment,"€such€that€in€many€cases€theÐ "$r# Ðconduct€which€constitutes€first€degree€murder€and€the€conduct€which€constitutes€second€degreeÐ %X $ Ðmurder€will€be€indistinguishable.€€We€rejected€this€contention€in€the€preceding€issue€when€dealingÐ î%>!% Ðwith€the€pattern€jury€instruction,€and€we€reject€it€here€as€well.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àSecond€degree€murder€is€a€"knowing€killing€of€another."€€òòId.óó€€"'Knowing'€refers€to€a€personÐ  (ð#( Ðwho€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€to€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€whenÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€€A€person€actsÐ l*¼%* Ðknowingly€with€respect€to€a€result€of€the€person's€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conductÐ R+¢&+ Ðis€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result."€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„11„302(b).€€As€previously€stated,€first€degreeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmurder€is€a€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another,€and€premeditation€requires€reflection€andÐ ° Ðjudgment.€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„13„202.€€The€definition€of€"premeditation"€indicates€that€the€intent€to€kill€mustÐ –æ Ðhave€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself,€and€the€state€of€mind€of€the€defendant€must€have€beenÐ |Ì Ðsufficiently€free€from€excitement€or€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.€€òòId.óó€ðð€39„13„202(d).€Ð b² ÐWhile€first€degree€murder€requires€some€forethought,€second€degree€murder€requires€only€that€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€be€simultaneously€aware€of€the€conduct€or€the€result.€€We€have€previously€held€that€theseÐ . ~ Ðstatutes€sufficiently€differentiate€between€the€degrees€of€homicide,€and€we€reach€the€same€conclusionÐ  d Ðhere€as€well.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dennis€Wade€Ô_ÔSuttlesÔ_Ôóó,€No.€03C01„9801„CR„00036,€1999€WL€817205,€atÐ ú J Ð*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€29,€1999)€òòÔ_Ôaff'dÔ_Ôóó,€No.€E0998„00088„SC„DDT„C,€2000€WLÐ à 0 Ð875910€(Tenn.,€Knoxville,€June€26,€2000)€(not€for€publication).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Æ   ÐÌà@" " ìàFAILURE€TO€INSTRUCT€ON€SELF„DEFENSEˆÐ ’â  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€self„defense.€Ð ^®  ÐA€defendant€is€entitled€to€an€instruction€on€a€defense€if€the€existence€of€the€defense€is€fairly€raisedÐ D”  Ðby€the€proof.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„203(c).€€In€determining€whether€evidence€fairly€raises€aÐ *z  Ðdefense,€the€trial€court€must€assess€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€defendant.€€òòStateÐ ` Ðv.€Ô_ÔBultÔ_Ôóó,€989€S.W.2d€730,€733€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ivyóó,€868€S.W.2d€724,€728€(Tenn.Ð öF ÐCrim.€App.€1993).€The€Defendant€requested€an€instruction€on€self„defense€at€trial,€but€the€trial€courtÐ Ü, Ðdenied€his€request,€finding€no€credible€evidence€that€the€Defendant€was€in€fear€of€imminent€bodilyÐ Â Ðinjury.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€an€instruction€on€self„defense€was€not€warranted.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€Tennessee€Code,€Ð tÄ Ðà8  à[a]€person€is€justified€in€threatening€or€using€force€against€another€person€when€andÐ Zª Ðto€the€degree€that€person€òòreasonably€believesóó€the€force€is€immediately€necessary€toÐ @ Ðprotect€against€the€other's€use€or€attempted€use€of€unlawful€force.€€The€person€mustÐ &v Ðhave€a€reasonable€belief€that€there€is€an€òòimminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodilyÐ  \ Ðinjuryóó.€€The€danger€creating€the€belief€of€imminent€death€or€serious€bodily€injuryÐ òB Ðmust€be€real,€or€honestly€believed€to€be€real€at€the€time,€and€must€be€founded€uponÐ Ø( Ðreasonable€grounds.€€There€is€no€duty€to€retreat€before€a€person€threatens€or€usesÐ ¾ Ðforce.ФôÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611(a)€(emphasis€added).€€Looking€at€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÐ p!À  Ðfavorable€to€the€Defendant,€the€initial€encounter€between€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€may€haveÐ V"¦! Ðqualified€as€assault€in€light€of€the€evidence€that€the€victim€went€to€the€Sheriff's€Department€becauseÐ <#Œ" Ðhe€thought€the€Defendant€would€go€there€to€file€a€complaint€for€assault.€€The€next€two€encounters,Ð "$r# Ðhowever,€involved€only€an€exchange€of€words€until€the€Defendant€shot€the€victim.€€Both€occurredÐ %X $ Ðafter€the€Defendant€left€an€altercation€and€then€returned.€€Although€there€was€some€testimony€thatÐ î%>!% Ðthe€victim€threatened€to€kill€the€Defendant,€there€was€no€testimony€that€the€victim€took€immediateÐ Ô&$"& Ðactions€to€do€so.€€Instead,€the€victim€was€unarmed€and€was€standing€fifteen€to€twenty€feet€away€fromÐ º' #' Ðthe€Defendant€when€he€was€shot.€€There€is€simply€no€objective€basis€for€us€to€find€that€the€DefendantÐ  (ð#( Ðòòreasonablyóó€believed€that€he€was€in€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury.€€Accordingly,Ð †)Ö$) Ðthe€refusal€to€instruct€the€jury€on€self„defense€was€not€error.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà@ççìàINFORMING€JURY€THAT€THIS€WAS€NOT€A€DEATH€PENALTY€CASEˆÐ 8,ˆ', Їà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€informing€the€prospective€jurors€thatÐ ° Ðthe€State€was€not€seeking€the€death€penalty.€€During€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó,€two€potential€jurors€expressed€theirÐ –æ Ðreluctance€to€sit€on€a€first€degree€murder€case€and€indicated€that€they€thought€a€possible€penaltyÐ |Ì Ðwould€be€death.€€The€judge€informed€the€jurors,€over€the€Defendant's€objection,€that€this€was€not€aÐ b² Ðdeath€penalty€case.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€argued€at€trial€and€he€argues€on€appeal€that€the€most€the€judge€could€tell€theÐ  d Ðjurors€was€that€they€were€not€to€be€concerned€with€the€possible€penalties.€€He€asserts€that€byÐ ú J Ðinforming€the€jury€that€the€death€penalty€was€not€an€option€and€by€not€informing€the€jury€of€the€otherÐ à 0 Ðpossible€penalties,€the€likelihood€of€conviction€of€the€greater€charge€was€increased€because€theÐ Æ   Ðconsequences€of€a€first€degree€murder€conviction€were€less€substantial€than€the€jury€might€haveÐ ¬ ü  Ðotherwise€believed.€€The€Defendant€relies€on€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„201(b),€whichÐ ’â  Ðprovides€as€follows:Ð xÈ  ÐÌà8  àIn€all€contested€criminal€cases,€except€for€capital€crimes€which€are€governed€by€theÐ D”  Ðprocedures€contained€in€ðððð€39„13„204€and€39„13„205,€and€as€necessary€to€complyÐ *z  Ðwith€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee,€article€VI,€section€14,€and€ðð€40„35„301,€the€judgeÐ ` Ðshall€not€instruct€the€jury,€nor€shall€the€attorneys€be€permitted€to€comment€at€anyÐ öF Ðtime€to€the€jury,€on€possible€penalties€for€the€offense€charged€nor€all€lesser€includedÐ Ü, Ðoffenses.ÐÂÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àFirst€and€perhaps€foremost,€we€note€that€the€Defendant€has€misconstrued€the€language€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðstatute.€€The€statute€provides€that€the€judge€and€attorneys€may€not€comment€on€òòpossibleóó€penalties.€Ð tÄ ÐBecause€this€was€not€a€capital€case,€the€death€penalty€was€not€a€possible€penalty.€€Thus,€byÐ Zª Ðinstructing€the€jury€that€the€death€penalty€was€not€an€option,€the€trial€judge€was€not€violating€theÐ @ Ðlanguage€of€the€statute.Ð &v ÐÌà  àMoreover,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€legislature€intended€the€statute€to€permit€jurors€on€aÐ òB Ðnon„capital€first€degree€murder€case€to€sit€on€a€jury€while€thinking€that€the€death€penalty€might€beÐ Ø( Ðimposed€as€a€result€of€their€verdict.€€The€provision€relied€upon€by€the€Defendant€was€enacted€by€theÐ ¾ Ðlegislature€in€1998,€and€the€prior€provision€was€repealed.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„201(b)€(Supp.€1999).€€TheÐ ¤ô Ðprior€provision€provided€that€upon€motion€of€either€party,€the€court€òòshouldóó€òòinstructóó€the€jury€on€theÐ Š Ú Ðpossible€penalties€for€the€offense€charged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„201(b)(1)Ð p!À  Ð(1997)€(repealed€1998).€€The€prior€provision€was€a€reflection€of€the€people's€"desire€for€truth€in€theÐ V"¦! Ðsentencing€process."€€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€973€S.W.2d€586,€591€(Tenn.€1998).€€It€was€challengedÐ <#Œ" Ðfrequently,€however,€on€the€ground€that€it€impermissibly€encouraged€juries€to€find€defendants€guiltyÐ "$r# Ðof€more€serious€charges€in€order€to€ensure€more€jail€time€when€the€possible€sentences€were€irrelevantÐ %X $ Ðto€guilt€or€to€innocence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôóó,€__€S.W.3d€__,€__€(Tenn.€2000);€òòKingóó,€973€S.W.2dÐ î%>!% Ðat€589„90;€òòState€v.€Jason€M.€Ô_ÔWeiskopfÔ_Ôóó,€No.€02C01„9611„CR„00381,€1998€WL€840000,€at€*2„4Ð Ô&$"& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€4,€1998).€€While€the€constitutionality€of€the€prior€statute€wasÐ º' #' Ðultimately€upheld€on€the€grounds€that€sentencing€information€does€have€a€degree€of€relevance€to€theÐ  (ð#( Ðjury's€determination€of€guilt€or€innocence€and€that€the€legislature€had€determined€that€suchÐ †)Ö$) Ðinformation€was€relevant,€òòseeóó€òòÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôóó,€___€S.W.3d€at€___;€òòKingóó,€973€S.W.2d€at€592,€the€legislatureÐ l*¼%* Ðopted€to€amend€the€statute€such€that€jurors€could€no€longer€be€informed€of€the€possible€penalties€inÐ R+¢&+ Ðnon„capital€cases.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)€(Supp.€1999).€€In€capital€cases,€however,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðthe€jury€must€be€informed€that€death€is€a€possible€penalty€and€must€be€informed€of€the€other€possibleÐ ° Ðpenalties€for€first€degree€murder€because€the€jury€is€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€is€to€beÐ –æ Ðsentenced€to€death,€to€imprisonment€for€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€or€to€imprisonment€forÐ |Ì Ðlife.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€39„13„204(a).€€Ð b² ÐÌà  àAlthough€most€potential€jurors€do€not€understand€the€intricacies€of€the€death€penalty€statutes,Ð . ~ Ðthey€are€aware€that€the€death€penalty€is€a€possible€penalty€in€Tennessee€for€first€degree€murder.€Ð  d ÐWithout€being€informed€otherwise,€jurors€on€a€first€degree€murder€case€might€very€well€believe€thatÐ ú J Ðdeath€could€be€imposed€as€a€result€of€their€verdict,€even€when€the€state€is€not€seeking€the€deathÐ à 0 Ðpenalty.€€Thus,€jurors€on€such€a€first€degree€murder€case€might€be€more€inclined€to€find€the€defendantÐ Æ   Ðguilty€of€a€lesser€included€offense€if€they€do€not€believe€that€the€defendant's€conduct€warranted€death.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐBy€prohibiting€the€courts€from€informing€Juries€that€death€is€not€an€option,€the€legislature€would€inÐ ’â  Ðessence€be€creating€the€same€problem€that€it€had€before:€Juries€might€decide€the€cases€based€on€theÐ xÈ  Ðpotential€punishment€rather€than€the€defendant's€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€crime€charged.€€We€do€notÐ ^®  Ðbelieve€that€this€was€the€intent€of€the€legislature.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€statute€reliedÐ D”  Ðupon€by€the€Defendant€does€not€prohibit€a€trial€judge€from€informing€the€jury€in€a€non„capital€caseÐ *z  Ðthat€the€death€penalty€is€not€a€punishment€option.€Ð ` ÐÌà@((ìàEXCUSING€JURORS€FOR€CAUSEˆÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excusing€two€prospective€jurors€for€causeÐ ¨ø Ðduring€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó.€€"The€ultimate€goal€of€voir€dire€is€to€see€that€jurors€are€competent,€unbiased,€andÐ ŽÞ Ðimpartial,€and€the€decision€of€how€to€conduct€voir€dire€of€prospective€jurors€rests€within€the€soundÐ tÄ Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court."€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€247€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€courtÐ Zª Ðmay€excuse€prospective€jurors€during€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó€"for€good€cause€appearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„Ð @ Ð2„308(d);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(b).€€In€examining€a€potential€juror's€impartiality,€the€standardÐ &v Ðfor€dismissal€for€cause€is€"whether€the€juror's€views€would€'prevent€or€substantially€impair€theÐ  \ Ðperformance€of€his€[or€her]€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€his€[or€her]€instructions€and€his€[orÐ òB Ðher]€oath.'"€€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€412,€424€(1985)€(quoting€òòAdams€v.€Texasóó,€448€U.S.€38,Ð Ø( Ð45€(1980));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€533€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2dÐ ¾ Ð506,€518€(Tenn.€1989).€€That€standard€does€not,€however,€require€that€a€juror's€bias€be€proved€withÐ ¤ô Ð"unmistakable€clarity."€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court's€findings€regarding€impartiality€are€entitled€to€aÐ Š Ú Ðpresumption€of€correctness€because€they€involve€a€determination€of€demeanor€and€credibility,€andÐ p!À  Ðthe€burden€rests€on€the€defendant€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€trial€court'sÐ V"¦! Ðdeterminations€were€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€993€S.W.2d€6,€29€(Tenn.€1999);€òòAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2dÐ <#Œ" Ðat€518.€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€Defendant€in€this€case€that€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€the€two€prospectiveÐ î%>!% Ðjurors€was€clearly€erroneous.€òòóó€The€trial€court€made€no€findings€of€fact€regarding€the€prospectiveÐ Ô&$"& Ðjurors€impartiality,€but€dismissed€them€after€they€indicated€that€they€were€"uncomfortable"€sittingÐ º' #' Ðon€a€murder€case.€€One€juror€stated€at€the€beginning€of€jury€selection,€"I€don't€feel€comfortableÐ  (ð#( Ðserving€on€a€murder€trial.€€I've€done€jury€duty€before.€€I€don't€want€to€pick€on€either€side.€€I€want€youÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€know€that€right€up€front."€€Without€further€inquiry,€the€trial€court€excused€the€juror.€€In€continuingÐ l*¼%* Ðòòvoiróó€òòdireóó,€the€prosecutor€asked€the€panel,€"Do€any€of€you€have€any€personal€convictions,€religiousÐ R+¢&+ Ðconvictions,€simply€emotional€type€convictions,€any€reason€why,€if€the€State€of€Tennessee€provesÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€this€defendant€committed€first„degree€murder,€that€you€could€notÐ ° Ðconvict?,"€to€which€another€prospective€juror€replied,€"I€can't€do€it€either."€€When€asked€by€the€courtÐ –æ Ðwhether€he€could€convict€someone€of€first€degree€murder,€the€prospective€juror€responded,€"I€thinkÐ |Ì Ðit€is€wrong€to€kill€someone,€no€matter€what."€€The€prospective€juror€then€expressed€confusion€aboutÐ b² Ðwhether€the€death€penalty€was€an€option€for€the€judge€to€impose€if€the€jury€found€the€DefendantÐ H˜ Ðguilty,€to€which€the€court€responded,€"No."€€After€a€bench€conference€in€which€the€defense€objectedÐ . ~ Ðto€the€trial€court€informing€the€jury€that€the€death€penalty€was€not€an€option,€the€prosecutor€askedÐ  d Ðthe€juror,€"Because€this€is€a€first„degree€murder€case,€do€you€feel€comfortable€in€sitting€on€this€jury?"€Ð ú J ÐThe€prospective€juror€responded,€"No,"€and€the€trial€court€excused€him€without€further€inquiry.€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€believe€that€the€jurors'€statements€that€they€did€not€feel€"comfortable"€sitting€onÐ ¬ ü  Ða€murder€trial€met€the€requirements€of€òòWainwrightóó€for€dismissal€for€cause€due€to€the€jurors'€views.€Ð ’â  ÐòòSeeóó€òòWainwrightóó,€469€U.S.€at€424.€€Other€than€the€comment€by€the€second€prospective€jurorÐ xÈ  Ðsuggesting€that€he€could€not€impose€the€death€penalty,€the€statements€did€not€reveal€the€jurors'€viewsÐ ^®  Ðat€all.€€Certainly,€the€statements€did€not€show€that€the€jurors'€views€prevented€them€from€followingÐ D”  Ðthe€law€and€applying€the€law€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€The€statements€in€no€way€indicated€that€theÐ *z  Ðjurors€could€not€be€impartial.€€At€the€very€least,€further€inquiry€was€needed€to€discover€whether€theÐ ` Ðjurors'€views€would€prevent€them€from€being€impartial€before€they€were€dismissed€for€cause.€Ð öF ÐÌà  àNevertheless,€the€Defendant€has€shown€no€prejudice€by€the€dismissal€of€the€two€prospectiveÐ Â Ðjurors.€"It€is€the€burden€of€the€defendant€to€prove€prejudice€or€purposeful€discrimination€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðselection€of€a€jury.€€Prejudice€will€not€be€presumed."€€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.Ð ŽÞ Ð1993).€€The€Defendant€argues€that€he€was€prejudiced€because€the€dismissal€permitted€the€prosecutionÐ tÄ Ðto€preserve€peremptory€challenges€it€might€otherwise€have€had€to€use,€thereby€implying€that€theÐ Zª Ðprosecution€essentially€received€more€challenges€than€the€defense.€€However,€our€supreme€court€hasÐ @ Ðstated,€"As€long€as€the€jury€that€sits€is€impartial,€the€denial€or€impairment€of€the€right€to€exerciseÐ &v Ðperemptory€challenges€does€not€violate€the€Sixth€Amendment"€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€òòHowellóó,€868Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€at€248.€€While€a€defendant€has€the€"right€to€have€a€fair€trial€at€the€hands€of€an€unprejudiced,Ð òB Ðunbiased€and€impartial€jury,"€he€or€she€does€not€have€the€right€to€select€certain€jurors.€€òòState€v.Ð Ø( ÐSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€20€(Tenn.€1993).€€So€long€as€the€jury€which€heard€the€case€was€fair€andÐ ¾ Ðimpartial,€any€error€in€a€trial€court's€ruling€on€dismissal€for€cause€is€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòHowellóó,€868Ð ¤ô ÐS.W.2d€at€248;€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€649€S.W.2d€12,€14„15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€The€Defendant€hereÐ Š Ú Ðhas€made€no€showing€that€the€jury€which€heard€his€case€was€unfair€or€partial;€thus,€the€trial€court'sÐ p!À  Ðerror€in€dismissing€the€two€prospective€jurors€was€harmless.€€We€also€conclude€that€the€error€is€notÐ V"¦! Ðflagrant€such€as€to€establish€prejudice€to€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lynnóó,€924Ð <#Œ" ÐS.W.2d€892,€894€(Tenn.€1996).Ð "$r# ÐÌà@¢ ¢ ìàCOURTROOM€DEMONSTRATION€AND€USE€OF€DIAGRAMˆÐ î%>!% ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€the€Defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€a€courtroomÐ º' #' Ðdemonstration€of€a€shell€ejection€pattern€of€the€shotgun€used€in€the€homicide€and€by€admitting€anÐ  (ð#( Ðinaccurate€and€misleading€diagram€purporting€to€indicate€where€the€spent€shells€were€locatedÐ †)Ö$) Ðfollowing€the€shooting.€€The€admission€of€demonstrative€exhibits€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trialÐ l*¼%* Ðjudge,€and€that€discretion€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDelkÔ_Ôóó,€692Ð R+¢&+ ÐS.W.2d€431,€438€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Likewise,€the€decision€of€whether€to€allow€a€courtroomÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdemonstration€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€that€decision€will€not€be€disturbedÐ ° Ðabsent€a€showing€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Underwoodóó,€669€S.W.2d€700,€704€(Tenn.Ð –æ ÐCrim.€App.€1984).€€The€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€allowing€theÐ |Ì Ðdiagram€and€demonstration€because€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€substantiallyÐ b² Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€misleading€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403.€€He€asserts€that€theÐ H˜ Ðevidence€was€misleading€because€it€unfairly€suggested€that€the€Defendant€shot€the€victim€whileÐ . ~ Ðadvancing€towards€him.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admittingÐ  d Ðthe€evidence.Ð ú J ÐÌà  àThe€diagram€of€which€the€Defendant€complains€marks€the€locations€of€three€spent€shellÐ Æ   Ðcasings.€€The€Defendant€takes€issue€with€the€way€the€shell€casings€were€located€on€the€diagram.€€TheÐ ¬ ü  Ðnumber€"1"€donates€the€location€of€a€shell€found€on€the€side€of€Ô_ÔBlakemoreÔ_Ô€Street€opposite€theÐ ’â  ÐÔ_ÔNorthsideÔ_Ô€Lounge,€the€number€"2"€denotes€the€location€of€a€shell€found€by€the€light€pole€at€theÐ xÈ  Ðcorner€of€Ô_ÔBlakemoreÔ_Ô€Street€and€Randolph€Street,€and€the€number€"7"€denotes€the€location€of€a€shellÐ ^®  Ðfound€under€a€parked€truck€in€a€parking€area€off€Randolph€Street.€€However,€on€the€diagram,€theÐ D”  Ðnumber€"7"€is€located€on€Randolph€Street€instead€of€off€Randolph€Street.€€The€Defendant€argues€thatÐ *z  Ðthis€inaccuracy€was€misleading€because€it€portrayed€a€trail€of€spent€shells€crossing€Ô_ÔBlakemoreÔ_Ô€StreetÐ ` Ðcompletely€and€advancing€up€Randolph€Street€leading€towards€the€victim,€while€the€testimony€ofÐ öF Ðthe€witnesses€only€indicated€that€the€Defendant€walked€out€into€the€middle€of€Ô_ÔBlakemoreÔ_Ô€StreetÐ Ü, Ðwhen€he€fired€the€second€and€third€shots€at€the€victim,€who€had€moved€onto€Randolph€Street.€€TheÐ Â ÐState's€theory€was€that€the€Defendant€was€advancing€towards€the€victim€while€firing.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€complains€of€a€courtroom€demonstration€which€he€asserts€was€similarlyÐ tÄ Ðmisleading.€€During€his€testimony,€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Agent€Don€Carmen€wasÐ Zª Ðpermitted€over€the€Defendant's€objection€to€eject€"dummy"€shotgun€shells€from€the€shotgun€used€inÐ @ Ðthe€shooting.€€The€"dummy"€shells€fell€onto€the€carpeted€courtroom€floor€by€the€feet€of€the€shooter.€Ð &v ÐOn€cross„examination,€Agent€Carmen€testified€that€there€was€no€reliable€way€to€determine€theÐ  \ Ðlocation€of€the€shooter€from€the€pattern€of€shells€found€at€the€scene€because€of€variables€like€the€hardÐ òB Ðsurface€of€a€roadway€and€the€opportunity€for€the€shells€to€roll,€bounce,€or€otherwise€move.€€The€StateÐ Ø( Ðargued€at€trial€that€it€was€not€"necessarily"€trying€to€show€where€a€spent€shell€casing€would€haveÐ ¾ Ðeventually€ended€up,€but€it€was€instead€trying€to€show€how€a€spent€shell€is€initially€ejected€from€theÐ ¤ô Ðweapon.€€On€appeal,€the€State€asserts€that€the€demonstration€was€probative€"to€show€that€the€shellsÐ Š Ú Ðare€not€ejected€any€significant€distance€from€the€firing€location.€€Thus€it€would€be€probative€to€dispelÐ p!À  Ðthe€notion€that€the€spent€shell€casings,€marked€by€markers€2€and€7,€were€so€far€apart€from€each€otherÐ V"¦! Ðbecause€the€weapon€ejected€the€spent€shell€with€great€force."€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àWhile€the€State€did€argue€that€the€location€of€the€shells€indicated€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ %X $ Ðadvancing€towards€the€victim€while€shooting,€and€while€we€question€the€probative€value€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðcourtroom€demonstration€in€light€of€Agent€Carmen's€testimony,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€diagramÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€demonstration€were€so€misleading€as€to€substantially€outweigh€their€probative€value€such€thatÐ º' #' Ðthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admitting€them.€€The€State€had€the€burden€of€proving€that€thisÐ  (ð#( Ðwas€a€premeditated€murder,€and€part€of€the€State's€theory€of€premeditation€was€that€the€DefendantÐ †)Ö$) Ðwas€advancing€towards€the€victim.€€In€presenting€the€proof,€however,€the€jury€was€informed€that€theÐ l*¼%* Ðdiagram€was€not€to€scale,€and€the€jury€was€informed€that€the€shell€marked€"7"€was€actually€locatedÐ R+¢&+ Ðunder€a€pickup€truck€in€the€parking€area€off€Randolph€Street€instead€of€in€Randolph€Street.€€The€juryÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwas€also€shown€numerous€photographs€of€the€crime€scene€which€showed€the€location€of€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðmarkers,€including€the€marker€"7."€€It€was€instructed€that€it€should€base€its€decision€on€the€proofÐ –æ Ðoffered€at€trial,€not€the€arguments€of€counsel.€€By€comparing€the€photographs€to€the€diagram,€the€juryÐ |Ì Ðcould€determine€for€itself€the€location€of€the€shells€in€comparison€to€one€another€and€draw€its€ownÐ b² Ðconclusions€from€that€evidence.€€Agent€Carmen€informed€the€jury,€and€defense€counsel€remindedÐ H˜ Ðthe€jury€during€closing€arguments,€that€there€was€no€reliable€way€to€determine€the€location€of€theÐ . ~ Ðshooter€from€the€location€of€the€shells€found€at€the€scene.€€We€conclude€that€the€jury€had€accurateÐ  d Ðinformation€from€which€to€draw€its€conclusions,€and€it€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion€to€allow€theÐ ú J Ðdemonstrative€evidence.€€€€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà@77ìàADMISSION€OF€PHOTOGRAPHSˆÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€into€evidence€certainÐ xÈ  Ðphotographs€of€the€victim's€wounds€because€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€substantiallyÐ ^®  Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Ô‡X. XXX. ÔÔ#†¼QP»XX. ¸)#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔThe€admissibility€of€photographs€is€within€the€soundÐ D”  Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€thatÐ *z  Ðdiscretion.€€òòÔ#†¼QP»XX. VÔ#ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÔ#†X. XXX. Ô#ÔÔ‡X. XXX. ÔState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878Ð ` ÐS.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔZirkleÔ_Ôóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€Ð öF ÐGenerally,€ð ðphotographs€of€the€corpse€are€admissible€in€murder€prosecutions€if€they€are€relevant€toÐ Ü, Ðthe€issues€on€trial,€notwithstanding€their€gruesome€and€horrifying€character.ðð€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2dÐ Â Ðat€950„51òòóó.€€However,€ð ðif€they€are€not€relevant€to€prove€some€part€of€the€prosecutionððs€case,€they€mayÐ ¨ø Ðnot€be€admitted€solely€to€inflame€the€jury€and€prejudice€them€against€the€defendant.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€951òòóó.€Ð ŽÞ ÐEven€relevant€photographs€may€be€excluded€if€their€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€byÐ tÄ Ðthe€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403;€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€Ð Zª Ðð ðThe€more€gruesome€the€photographs,€the€more€difficult€it€is€to€establish€that€their€probative€valueÐ @ Ðand€relevance€outweigh€their€prejudicial€effect.ðð€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àIn€considering€the€admissibility€of€the€photographs,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€photographsÐ òB Ðwere€not€gruesome€and€that€the€probative€value€of€the€pictures€outweighed€any€prejudicial€effect.€Ð Ø( ÐWe€cannot€find€that€the€admission€of€the€photographs€constituted€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€The€twoÐ ¾ Ðphotographs€at€issue€included€a€close„up€view€of€the€wound€to€the€victim's€chest€and€a€view€of€bothÐ ¤ô Ðthe€victim's€chest€wound€and€the€wound€to€the€victim's€right€arm.€€Neither€photograph€showed€theÐ Š Ú Ðentire€body€or€the€face€of€the€victim.€€Although€the€photographs€depicted€blood€on€the€victim'sÐ p!À  Ðwounds,€we€do€not€feel€that€the€pictures€were€particularly€gruesome.€€Photographs€may€be€used€toÐ V"¦! Ðshow€the€location€of€wounds.€€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€707€S.W.2d€846,€850€(Tenn.€1986).€€They€may€also€beÐ <#Œ" Ðadmissible€as€evidence€of€the€brutality€of€the€attack€and€the€extent€of€the€force€used€against€theÐ "$r# Ðvictim.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€551.€€While,€"[Ô_Ôi]nÔ_Ô€many€cases,€the€facts€concerning€the€injuries€andÐ %X $ Ðthe€cause€of€death€may€be€adequately€established€and€better€explained€by€a€pathologist,"€òòBanksóó,€564Ð î%>!% ÐS.W.2d€at€951„52,€photographs€may€be€introduced€to€illustrate€testimony.€€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÐ Ô&$"& Ðat€542.€€Photographs€are€not€rendered€inadmissible€because€the€subject€portrayed€could€be€describedÐ º' #' Ðin€words€or€because€the€photograph€is€cumulative€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Terrence€L.€Davisóó,€No.Ð  (ð#( Ð02C01„9511„CR00343,€1997€WL€287646,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€June€2,€1997);€òòCollinsÐ †)Ö$) Ðv.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€179,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€Here,€the€location€and€extent€of€the€woundsÐ l*¼%* Ðwere€relevant€to€the€testimony€regarding€the€distance€between€the€victim€and€the€Defendant€and€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐState's€theory€that€the€victim€was€shot€the€second€time€while€trying€to€flee€the€scene€as€the€DefendantÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwas€advancing€towards€him.€€Because€the€photographs€were€not€overly€gruesome,€their€probativeÐ ° Ðvalue€was€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€€€€€€€Ð –æ ÐÌà@hh%ìàCONCLUSIONˆÐ b² ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€two€prospective€jurors€for€cause,€but€thatÐ . ~ Ðsuch€error€was€harmless.€€All€other€issues€presented€by€the€Defendant€lack€merit.€€Accordingly,€theÐ  d Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€convicting€the€Defendant€of€first€degree€murder€is€affirmed.Ô#†X. XXX. °Õ#ÔÔ#†¼QP»XX. nÕ#ÔÔ% € ÔÔ‡X. X»¼QPÔÐ ú J ÐÔ#†¼QP»XX. $æ#ÔÔ€X. X»¼QPÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ^®  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE