ÿWPC, ôÅŽYA„qÃï¡Ms:Ô÷TwNR×ìÐúÓ¿EíR’}³«“š•4¸Æ–ýS-REø$=FÿQùÅ>yÌ ëêhÿ|·1*âÇ¿H˜6ØgnÓੜŽ$¨èç=ê]@ 2io#Ð`—cåð…ÒÉ-5}šéTžRrÈ%r—Scž§9«iG¬V§ èË0¨g@&±Oå'>‘S:I nj €®q•É^€5'Ö~4q½¶šI+ è›1õ9eÕðõôLf^¶`^cð1fêÐï#ªÊ.}LjøËœmU«Zë¶%Ç 3$çó "–1OúÐÎ0€§Þ5aUÍýÅØ+ÔjƧdMo(ÚQ!°¥çÞÌ(|V²îÕ´}$Vð‘%}C„„>$™ÿÅØâ~¥¬þ½]€,®ùáoM…ýDõ'9£Û#–UVZÂ0SÚ]XÞiy¿ô#çvµÄÞ¯ E¨ªÉ{€š¼UÏ ž(W¥ùôî•ùèœé~ü0·§þGñy0ÔŒe«»±‘€¤æj9ÊŧßO€÷äP‡ê-þ"ÂïôÖBKó¯;ÑYã2‹p^¼Z‡ù9p lìÿÁ#Ë®.Ìa÷® ¬Fü9…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0D¥ U:é b# w@+ 4k  Ž  – 0 Ô6 0‚ U:ŒnÆU:4ênU:Xø’~ŠU:U:Bè|~d ™â# D3{%U:®%U:è%è%è%U:"&"&\&U:Û)Û)Û)Û)Û)Û)Û)Û) B*** 0D2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2* AOv*ÆÅ*Å* 0D‹+ D/Ï+ Bþ+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- àBEáBâBVãBDäBDåBDæBìBDíBîBÓ€uM%3|x÷B –Ý ƒ yR$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€&Nõ&XXFÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ€&Nõ&&&NõÔ€Criminal€responsibility€for€the€offense€of€facilitation€of€a€felony€lies€where€a€person,Ð `  Ðknowing€that€another€individual€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony€but€lacking€the€intentÏrequired€for€criminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€that€individual€under€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€39„11„402(2),€knowingly€furnishes€òòsubstantial€assistanceóó€in€the€commission€of€theÐ î Ž Ðfelony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„403(a).(‚*2‹º$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  ÝÔ€X6wXXXÔÔ€&þ°&XX6wÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€(A¥_$Ô€XŒ~XXXÔÔ€ŠßéŠXXŒ~ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular dÝ ƒ ‹º$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X6wXXXÔÔ€&þ°&XX6wÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ€&¬; &&&þ°ÔÔ€ôGî ô &&¬;ÔÔ‡&¬; & ôôGîÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„403,€39„13„210,€39„12„101.Ô#†ôGî ô &&¬;é#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular àÝ ƒ yR$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€&Nõ&XXFÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ€&Nõ&&&NõÔOn€May€1,€1998,€Tennesseeððs€General€Assembly€passed€Public€Chapter€No.€1041,Ð `  Ðan€amendment€to€ðð€40„35„201,€which€deletes€subsection€(b)€in€its€entirety€and€substitutes€theÏfollowing:Ìà8 ` àIn€all€contested€criminal€cases,€except€for€capital€crimes€which€are€governed€byÏthe€procedures€contained€in€TCA€ðððð€39„13„204€and€39„13„205,€and€asÏnecessary€to€comply€with€Article€VI,€Section€14€of€the€Constitution€of€the€StateÏof€Tennessee€and€TCA€ðð€40„35„301,€the€judge€shall€not€instruct€the€jury,€norÏshall€the€attorneys€be€permitted€to€comment€at€any€time€to€the€jury,€on€possibleÏpenalties€for€the€offense€charged€nor€all€lesser€included€offenses.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐThis€amendment€will€apply€to€all€trials€occurring€after€the€actððs€effective€date., øð AZ"Arial Regular îÝ ƒ yR$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€&Nõ&XXFÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ€&Nõ&&&NõÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robert€Anthony€Payne€a/k/a€Anthony€Jordanóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9701„Ð `  ÐCR„00031,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€17,€1998;€òòState€v.€Robert€H.Ð : Ú ÐMcCurdyóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9706„CR„00232,€Union€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.Ð  ´ Ð23,€1998);€òòState€v.€Michael€Dinkinsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9702„CR„00075,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.Ð î Ž ÐCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.€12,€1998);€òòState€v.€Jason€M.€Weiskopfóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9611„CR„Ð È h Ð00381,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€4,€1998);€òòState€v.€Jerry€Ray€Cooperóó,Ð ¢ B ÐC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9504„CC„00150,€Lincoln€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Nov.€17,Ï1997)€(principal€opinion€with€two€concurring€opinions);€òòState€v.€Dwjuan€L.€Bradfordóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ð Vö Ð01C01„9607„CR„00294,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€30,€1997);€€òòStateÐ 0Ð Ðv.€Curtis€Lee€Majorsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9602„CR„00076,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð  ª  ÐNashville,€July€30,€1997);€òòState€v.€Howard€E.€Kingóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00032,€ShelbyÐ ä„  ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€22,€1996),€òòaffððdóó€(Tenn.€1998). tÝ ƒ yR$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€&Nõ&XXFÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝA€panel€of€this€court€recently€divided€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€inclusion€of€theÐ `  Ðð ðweigh€and€considerðð€language€violated€the€Defendantððs€due€process€rights.€€òòState€v.€JamesÐ : Ú  ÐC.€Nicholsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9704„CR„00158,€€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð `  ÐAug.€12,€1998);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Adrian€Wilkerson€and€Steven€Murphyóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„Ð : Ú Ð9610„CR„00419,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€26,€1988);€òòState€v.Ð  ´ ÐMarcus€L.€Nelsonóó,€C.C.A.€o.€01C01„9707„CR„00237,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð î Ž ÐNashville,€Aug.€27,€1988)., øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÞÔ€X\hXXXÔÔ€0XX\hÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X\hX0ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó tÝ ƒ yR$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€&Nõ&XXFÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝA€panel€of€this€court€recently€divided€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€inclusion€of€theÐ `  Ðð ðweigh€and€considerðð€language€violated€the€Defendantððs€due€process€rights.€€òòState€v.€JamesÐ : Ú r ÐC.€Nicholsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9704„CR„00158,€€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð `  ÐAug.€12,€1998);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Adrian€Wilkerson€and€Steven€Murphyóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„Ð : Ú Ð9610„CR„00419,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€26,€1998);€òòState€v.Ð  ´ ÐMarcus€L.€Nelsonóó,€C.C.A.€o.€01C01„9707„CR„00237,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð î Ž ÐNashville,€Aug.€27,€1998). Ý ƒ yR$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€&Nõ&XXFÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝThe€utilization€of€written€jury€verdict€forms,€which€apparently€is€common€practice€byÐ `  Ðmost€criminal€court€judges€in€this€state,€would€likely€have€prevented€any€problem€concerningÏthe€reporting€of€the€verdict.****'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular uÝ ƒ ¯²$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€"X†ZXXXÔÔ€"&ÎŒ&XX†ZÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝA€panel€of€this€court€recently€divided€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€inclusion€of€theÐ `  Ðð ðweigh€and€considerðð€language€violated€the€Defendantððs€due€process€rights.€€òòState€v.€JamesÐ : Ú  ÐC.€Nicholsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9704„CR„00158,€€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð `  ÐAug.€12,€1998).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Adrian€Wilkerson€and€Steven€Murphyóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„Ð : Ú Ð9610„CR„00419,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€26,€1988);€òòState€v.Ð  ´ ÐMarcus€L.€Nelsonóó,€C.C.A.€o.€01C01„9707„CR„00237,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð î Ž ÐNashville,€Aug.€27,€1988)., øð AZ"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  ÝñîBñ›ñîBñÑ` °ÑÔ€ŠBœŠXXÔÔ€Š#}ŠŠŠBœÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ7€äňˆddÈ7ÑñîBñßr€<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñîBñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9706„CR„00223Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€SETH€NORMANó óÐ `  Ðò òRACHEL€MARIE€GREEN,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Facilitation€of€Second€Degree€Murderò ò;Ð ` Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óà  àFacilitation€of€Attempted€Second€DegreeÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óà  àMurder)Ð ` ÐÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÐ Xø ÐCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÐ Xø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àà p àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð H!è ÐÌJEFFREY€A.€DeVASHER€(on€appeal)à p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ 8#Ø ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 0$Ð ÐÌWENDY€S.€TUCKER€(at€trial)à À àà  àà p àKATHY€MORANTEÐ  &À ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ '¸ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌKARL€F.€DEAN€(at€trial)à h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243Ð )¨  ÐMetro€Public€DefenderÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌ1202€Stahlman€Buildingà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ ð+"# ÐNashville,€TN€37201à h àà À àà  àà p àÐ è,ˆ#$ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSTEVE€DOZIERÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à222„2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌREVERSED;€CONVICTIONS€VACATEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  €9 01 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°ê}°ŠŠ#}Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š#}а°ê}ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant,€Rachel€Marie€Green,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€RuleÏ3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€She€was€convicted€by€aÏDavidson€County€jury€of€facilitation€of€second€degree€murder€and€facilitation€ofÏattempted€second€degree€murder.׃×Ý ƒ ¥_ÝÔ€Šÿ ŠŠŠ#}ÔÔ€Šÿ Š ŠŠÿÂÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€her€as€a€Range€IÐ îŽ  Ðstandard€offender€to€concurrent€terms€of€ten€years€imprisonment€for€facilitationÏof€second€degree€murder€and€five€years€imprisonment€for€facilitation€of€attemptedÏsecond€degree€murder.€€In€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€raises€the€following€sevenÏissues€for€our€consideration:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓ(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€motion€to€suppress€herÏstatement€to€police;Ì(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€effectively€denying€her€motion€for€a€billÏof€particulars;Ì(3)€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€support€the€verdicts;Ì(4)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€request€for€a€juryÏinstruction€on€the€defense€of€necessity;Ì(5)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€reassembling€the€jury€to€report€guiltyÏverdicts€after€the€jury€had€initially€reported€verdicts€of€not€guilty;Ì(6)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€motion€for€a€mistrial€dueÏto€the€manner€in€which€the€verdicts€were€received;€andÌ(7)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€with€respect€toÏrelease€eligibility€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„¼201(b)(2).ÌÌÓÖÓÓ XÈÓÓ XºÓAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€the€thorough€briefs€submitted€by€both€theÏDefendant€and€the€State,€we€conclude€the€ð ðnot€guiltyðð€verdict€as€announced€byÏthe€jury€could€not€later€be€altered€after€discharge€of€the€jury€and€œafterñàBññßBñITSñßBññàBññáBñ€itsñáBñ›Ïseparation€from€the€trial€court€to€such€a€degree€that€outside€contacts€may€haveÏbeen€had.€€Although€it€is€unfortunate€that€this€result€may€have€been€contrary€toÏthe€apparent€intentions€of€the€jury,€our€law€unquestionably€disallows€an€alterationÐ ‚7".- Ðof€the€verdict€under€the€unique€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Although€no€otherÏissues€raised€by€the€Defendant€have€merit,€we€must€reverse€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€and€vacate€the€convictions.ÌÌà ` àWe€begin€with€a€brief€summary€of€the€pertinent€facts.€€On€the€morning€ofÏMay€17,€1996,€Detective€Tim€Mason€received€a€telephone€call€from€an€individualÏwith€information€concerning€the€whereabouts€of€two€people€allegedly€wanted€byÏthe€police.€€Those€two€people,€Jeffrey€Swafford€and€the€Defendant,€were€said€toÏbe€located€at€the€River€Retreat€Apartments€in€Nashville.€€According€to€theÏindividual€placing€the€telephone€call,€Swafford€and€the€Defendant€were€packingÏand€preparing€to€leave€town.€€After€the€telephone€call,€Detective€Mason€verifiedÏthat€Swafford€and€the€Defendant€had€outstanding€warrants€by€running€aÏcomputer€check.€€He€then€asked€Detective€David€Miller€to€accompany€him€to€theÏRiver€Retreat€Apartments€to€serve€the€warrants.€€They€arrived€at€the€apartmentÏcomplex€at€approximately€9:00€that€morning.ÌÌà ` àUpon€arrival,€they€noticed€that€Officer€Paul€Scurry€was€already€at€theÏscene.€€They€spoke€briefly€with€members€of€the€management€of€the€apartmentÏcomplex,€who€assured€the€officers€that€the€unit€leased€by€the€Defendant€wasÏoccupied€at€that€time.€€The€officers€then€knocked€on€the€door€to€the€DefendantððsÏapartment.€€After€receiving€no€answer€to€their€knocks,€they€obtained€keys€to€theÏapartment€from€the€complex€management.€€Officer€Scurry€attempted€to€unlockÏthe€door,€but€the€officers€were€unable€to€open€it.€€At€this€point,€Scotty€Brandon,Ïthe€maintenance€supervisor€for€the€complex,€began€kicking€the€door€in€an€attemptÏto€enter€the€apartment.€€Shortly€after€Brandon€began€kicking€the€door,€they€heardÐ  :À00 Ða€female€voice€ð"ð€the€Defendantððs€ð"ð€call€out€from€inside€the€apartment,€ð ðWho€isÏit?ðð€€By€this€time,€approximately€two€to€three€minutes€had€passed€since€OfficerÏScurry€first€knocked€on€the€door.ÌÌà ` àIn€response€to€the€Defendantððs€question,€Officer€Scurry€informed€her€thatÏhe€was€a€police€officer.€€The€Defendant€called€out€asking€to€know€what€heÏwanted.€€Officer€Scurry€then€informed€her€that€he€had€arrest€warrants€for€both€herÏand€Jeffrey€Swafford.€€The€Defendant€responded€that€she€was€in€bed€and€neededÏto€get€dressed.€€Officer€Scurry€told€her€to€do€so€quickly.€€Approximately€two€toÏthree€more€minutes€passed,€at€which€point€the€officers€again€began€to€kick€theÏdoor€to€the€apartment.€€During€the€two€to€three€minute€wait,€Kim€Garner,€theÏoccupant€of€the€apartment€adjacent€to€the€Defendantððs,€heard€shuffling€noisesÏcoming€from€the€Defendantððs€bedroom,€as€if€things€were€being€moved.€€ShortlyÏthereafter,€the€Defendant€removed€a€chair€which€was€propped€underneath€theÏdoor€handle€and€opened€the€door€to€the€apartment.€€She€was€taken€into€custody,Ïhandcuffed,€and€seated€in€a€chair€in€the€living€room€of€the€apartment€while€theÏofficers€checked€the€remaining€rooms€for€Swafford.ÌÌà ` àDuring€this€time,€Detective€Mason€asked€the€Defendant€if€Swafford€wasÏthere,€accidentally€referring€to€him€as€ð ðJimmyðð€rather€than€ð ðJeffrey.ðð€€TheÏDefendant€responded€that€she€did€not€know€ð ðJimmy€Swafford.ðð€€Detective€MasonÏcorrected€himself,€but€the€Defendant€maintained€that€there€was€no€one€else€in€theÏapartment.€€The€officers€soon€discovered€an€attic€access€in€the€ceiling€of€aÏbedroom€closet.€€A€shelf€in€the€closet€was€broken€and€there€was€insulation€on€theÏclothing,€leading€the€officers€to€suspect€that€someone€had€climbed€into€the€atticÐ  :À00 Ðrecently.€€The€ceiling€was€eight€feet€tall€and€there€was€nothing€in€the€immediateÏarea€to€use€to€gain€access€to€the€attic.€€As€a€result,€the€officers€asked€theÏmaintenance€workers€from€the€apartment€complex€to€bring€them€a€ladder.€ÏDetective€Mason€continued€his€conversation€with€the€Defendant,€telling€her,€ð ðthatÏwe€felt€like€[Swafford]€was€up€there;€that€we€didnððt€want€anybody€hurt;€if€he€hadÏany€weapons,€she€needed€to€tell€us;€that€we€didnððt€want€him€hurt;€we€didnððt€wantÏher€hurt;€we€didnððt€want€us€hurt.ðð€€The€Defendant€appeared€calm€and€simplyÏcontinued€to€deny€that€anyone€else€was€present€in€the€apartment.ÌÌà ` àAt€this€point,€Detective€Miller€exited€the€apartment€and€circled€around€to€theÏother€side€of€the€building€in€case€Swafford€attempted€to€escape€through€anotherÏapartment.€€Officer€Joe€Brogdon€replaced€Detective€Miller€at€the€closet,€waitingÏwith€Officer€Scurry€for€the€ladder.€€Once€they€had€the€ladder,€Officer€Scurry€calledÏup€into€the€attic€for€anyone€up€there€to€come€down.€€He€received€no€response.€ÏOfficer€Scurry€climbed€into€the€attic€and€soon€called€down€to€Officer€Brogdon€thatÏhe€had€located€Swafford.€€Officer€Brogdon€then€climbed€into€the€attic.€€HeÏobserved€Swafford,€ten€to€twelve€feet€away€from€the€officers.€€Swafford€spoke€toÏthe€officers€in€what€Brogdon€described€as€a€ð ðjerk€voice,ðð€repeatedly€telling€themÏto€ð ðshoot€me€in€the€head,€shoot€me€in€the€chest.ðð€€Officer€Brogdon€did€not€haveÏhis€weapon€drawn€but€could€not€tell€if€Officer€Scurry€had€his€weapon€drawn.€ÏScurry€was€talking€to€Swafford,€ordering€him€to€show€his€hands€and€to€comeÏforward.€€Brogdon€looked€down€to€adjust€his€footing€on€the€beams€in€the€attic,€atÏwhich€time€gunfire€erupted.€€Brogdon€was€hit€by€a€gunshot€and€fell€back€throughÏthe€attic€access.ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àOnce€the€gunfire€erupted,€Detective€Mason€led€the€Defendant€outside€theÏapartment,€where€they€took€refuge€behind€a€car.€€Detective€Miller€soon€circledÏaround€from€the€other€side€of€the€building€and€joined€them€behind€the€car.€€OfficerÏBrogdon€emerged€from€the€apartment,€helped€by€Scotty€Brandon,€the€complexÏmaintenance€supervisor.€€Detective€Miller€asked€the€Defendant€how€many€gunsÏSwafford€had.€€She€replied€that€he€had€two€handguns,€a€.380€and€a€9€millimeter.€ÏShe€was€then€secured€in€a€patrol€car€and€transported€to€police€headquarters.€ÏDuring€her€transport,€the€Defendant€quietly€sat€in€the€back€of€the€patrol€car€andÏdid€not€appear€to€be€upset.ÌÌà ` àAfter€the€departure€of€the€Defendant,€numerous€officers€arrived€on€theÏscene.€€Officers€entered€the€apartment€on€several€occasions€in€an€attempt€toÏrescue€Officer€Scurry,€but€were€turned€back€by€gunfire.€€They€were€eventuallyÏable€to€confront€Swafford€in€a€bedroom€of€the€apartment.€€Swafford€was€shot€andÏkilled€during€the€confrontation.€€Officers€then€located€Scurry€in€the€attic.€€ScurryÏhad€no€pulse€and€was€not€breathing.€€They€attempted€to€revive€Scurry€but€wereÏunsuccessful.€€Scurry€was€later€pronounced€dead,€having€suffered€seven€gunshotÏwounds.ÌÌà ` àAt€trial,€the€State€also€offered€the€testimony€of€Casey€Lawson,€anÏacquaintance€of€the€Defendant.€€Lawson€was€the€individual€who€called€DetectiveÏMason€on€the€morning€of€the€shooting€to€inform€him€of€the€whereabouts€ofÏSwafford€and€the€Defendant.€€Prior€to€his€conversation€with€police,€Lawson€spokeÏâ âwith€the€Defendant€on€numerous€occasions.€€According€to€Lawson,€theÐ 8¸.. ÐDefendant€had€stated€that€ð ðshe€just€wasnððt€going€easyðð€if€the€police€attempted€toÏserve€the€outstanding€warrants€on€her.Ìâ âÌà ` àThe€State€also€offered€proof€concerning€an€incident€which€occurred€on€MayÏ16,€1996,€the€day€before€the€shooting€at€the€Defendantððs€apartment.€€On€May€16,ÏOfficer€John€Nicholson€attempted€to€serve€outstanding€warrants€on€theÏDefendant€and€Swafford€at€a€Sonic€restaurant.€€Officer€Nicholson€approached€aÏcar€at€the€restaurant.€€Swafford€was€in€the€driverððs€seat€and€the€Defendant€wasÏin€the€passengerððs€seat.€€Upon€questioning,€Swafford€gave€Nicholson€a€falseÏname.€€Nicholson€eventually€frisked€Swafford€and€found€marijuana.€€As€a€result,ÏNicholson€ordered€Swafford€back€to€the€patrol€car.€€Swafford,€however,€fled€theÏscene€with€Nicholson€in€pursuit.€€Swafford€escaped€after€a€short€chase,€andÏNicholson€returned€to€the€scene€of€the€attempted€arrest.€€As€he€returned,€heÏobserved€the€Defendant€fleeing€by€car,€driving€over€a€concrete€island€in€theÏprocess.ÌÌà ` àFinally,€the€State€offered€a€statement€made€by€the€Defendant€to€police€afterÏthe€shooting.€€As€the€shooting€began,€the€Defendant€was€transported€to€policeÏheadquarters.€€Once€there,€she€was€interviewed€by€Detective€Kent€McAlister.€ÏDuring€the€interview,€the€Defendant€spoke€briefly€about€the€May€16€SonicÏincident.€€She€recounted€essentially€the€same€events€as€Officer€Nicholson.€€InÏexplaining€why€she€fled€the€scene,€she€stated€that€she€was€not€supposed€to€beÏwith€Swafford€because€of€an€order€of€protection€she€had€previously€securedÏâ âagainst€him.€€She€did€admit,€however,€that€approximately€one€hour€after€she€fledÐ 8¸.. Ðthe€Sonic,€she€beeped€Swafford€and€thereafter€picked€him€up€not€far€from€theÏscene.Ìâ âÌà ` àIn€her€statement,€the€Defendant€also€recounted€essentially€the€sameÏcourse€of€events€leading€up€to€the€eruption€of€gunfire€at€her€apartment€as€testifiedÏto€by€the€police€officers€on€the€scene.€€She€awoke€on€the€morning€of€May€17€toÏthe€sound€of€someone€attempting€to€kick€in€her€door.€€She€asked€who€was€thereÏand€was€informed€that€it€was€the€police.€€She€asked€them€to€wait€while€sheÏdressed€herself.€€During€this€time,€she€told€Swafford€to€hide€in€the€attic€and€statedÏthat€she€would€tell€the€police€that€he€was€not€there.€€The€Defendant€made€thisÏdecision€because€Swafford€had€previously€told€her€ð ðthat€if€they€[the€police]€comeÏin€on€him€like€that€again€that€he€would€shoot.ðð€€She€then€opened€the€door€andÏwas€taken€into€custody€by€the€police.€€They€asked€her€if€ð ðJimmyðð€was€there,€andÏshe€replied€that€she€did€not€know€ð ðJimmy.ðð€€Upon€further€questioning,€she€told€theÏofficers€that€no€one€else€was€in€the€apartment.€€She€admitted€that€she€did€notÏinform€the€officers€of€the€possibility€that€Swafford€was€armed€or€of€his€priorÏstatements€of€what€he€would€do€if€confronted€by€police€officers€attempting€toÏarrest€him.€€She€maintained,€however,€that€she€was€never€asked€those€questionsÏdirectly.€€Once€the€gunfire€erupted,€she€was€escorted€out€of€the€apartment€andÏtransported€to€police€headquarters.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief,€the€Defendant€offered€proof€in€herÏdefense.€€The€principal€proof€offered€was€her€own€testimony.€€The€Defendant,Ïtwenty„one€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial,€began€a€relationship€with€Swafford€inÏ1994.€€She€had€known€him€for€some€time€prior€to€beginning€the€relationship.€€InÐ  :À00 Ð1995,€the€relationship€became€violent,€beginning€with€verbal€abuse€andÏescalating€to€physical€abuse.€€According€to€the€Defendant,€Swafford€at€timesÏgrabbed€her€hair,€grabbed€her€throat,€threw€her€to€the€floor,€struck€her€face,€andÏhit€her€with€a€handgun;€and€he€even€raped€her€in€October€of€1995.€€TheÏDefendantððs€mother€learned€of€the€abuse€and€called€the€police.€€The€DefendantÏinitially€refused€to€press€charges€because€she€was€scared€of€Swafford.€€InÏJanuary€of€1996,€however,€she€obtained€an€order€of€protection€and€a€warrant€forÏSwaffordððs€arrest€based€on€telephone€harassment.€€She€informed€the€police€ofÏSwaffordððs€whereabouts€so€that€they€could€serve€the€warrant.€€At€that€time,€sheÏtold€the€police€that€Swafford€might€have€weapons,€that€he€was€violent,€and€thatÏhe€would€not€be€easy€to€arrest.ÌÌà ` àA€short€time€after€Swaffordððs€arrest,€the€Defendant€discovered€he€was€outÏof€prison.€€She€called€the€prison€authorities,€but€they€maintained€that€SwaffordÏwas€still€incarcerated.€€Swafford€eventually€drove€by€the€Defendantððs€motherððsÏhome€and€threatened€to€kill€them€all.€€The€Defendant€called€authorities€in€anÏattempt€to€have€the€order€of€protection€enforced,€but€they€maintained€thatÏSwafford€was€still€in€prison.€The€threats€prompted€the€Defendant,€in€March€ofÏ1996,€to€move€into€River€Retreat€Apartments€with€a€longtime€friend,€Amy€Tayse.€ÏThe€Defendant€hoped€to€evade€Swafford€by€moving.ÌÌà ` àIn€spite€of€the€move,€Swafford€located€the€Defendant€and€began€attemptsÏto€contact€her,€eventually€showing€up€at€her€front€door.€€At€that€point,€theÏDefendant€ð ðtoleratedðð€Swafford.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€Swafford€ð ðwas€theÏtype€of€person€that€you€just€couldnððt€get€rid€of.€€He€wouldnððt€ð"ð€if€he€had€his€mindÐ  :À00 Ðmade€up,€there€wasnððt€much€you€could€do.ðð€€She€admitted€that€she€still€hadÏfeelings€for€Swafford€but€that€their€relationship€was€far€from€normal.€€SheÏdescribed€their€relationship€at€this€point€as€ð ð[a]€lot€of€drugs,€a€lot€of€guns.ðð€ÏSwafford€was€frequently€under€the€influence€of€narcotics€and€often€spoke€of€howÏhe€would€kill€the€Defendant€and€then€kill€himself.ÌÌà ` àShe€described€the€May€16€Sonic€incident€in€much€the€same€way€as€OfficerÏNicholson.€€After€Swafford€fled€from€Officer€Nicholson,€the€Defendant€moved€intoÏthe€driverððs€seat€and€drove€away€from€the€scene.€€According€to€the€Defendant,Ïshe€fled€the€scene€because€she€ð ðdidnððt€want€to€have€any€part€of€having€[Swafford]Ïgo€back€to€jail.ðð€€After€his€release€from€jail€in€early€1996,€Swafford€had€threatenedÏthat€if€the€Defendant€ever€had€him€sent€back€to€jail,€he€would€kill€her.ÌÌà ` àWith€regard€to€her€actions€on€the€day€of€the€shooting€at€her€apartment,€theÏDefendant€admitted€that€she€told€the€police€that€no€one€else€was€present€in€herÏapartment.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€she€did€so€out€of€fear€of€Swafford.€ÏAccording€to€the€Defendant,€when€the€police€knocked€on€her€door,€Swafford€heldÏa€gun€to€her€head€and€threatened€to€kill€her€if€she€revealed€that€he€was€there.€ÏShe€told€Swafford€to€hide€in€the€attic.€€She€assured€him€she€would€not€tell€theÏpolice€that€he€was€there.€€She€then€went€to€the€living€room€and€told€the€police€thatÏshe€needed€to€put€on€clothes.€€When€she€returned€to€the€bedroom,€Swafford€wasÏalready€most€of€the€way€into€the€attic.€€She€did€not€know€how€he€had€been€ableÏto€get€into€the€attic,€nor€did€she€see€him€carrying€a€gun€into€the€attic.€€SheÏreturned€to€the€living€room€and€opened€the€front€door,€at€which€time€she€wasÏtaken€into€custody.€€In€response€to€questioning,€she€told€the€police€officers€thatÐ  :À00 Ðthere€was€no€one€else€in€the€apartment€because,€even€though€she€wasÏsurrounded€by€police€officers,€she€still€feared€Swafford€and€the€threats€he€hadÏmade€against€her.€€Once€gunfire€erupted,€she€was€escorted€out€of€the€apartmentÏand€transported€to€police€headquarters€where€she€made€a€statement.€€During€theÏstatement,€she€did€not€mention€the€recent€threats€made€against€her€by€SwaffordÏbecause€she€was€afraid€of€him€and€what€he€might€do€to€her€if€he€thought€she€wasÏresponsible€for€his€capture.ÌÌà ` àOn€cross€examination,€the€Defendant€admitted€Swafford€had€told€her€thatÏhe€would€shoot€if€police€officers€attempted€to€arrest€him.€€She€also€admitted€thatÏshe€believed€Swafford€was€ð ðcrazyðð€enough€to€do€so.€€Although€she€maintainedÏthat€she€did€not€actually€see€Swafford€take€a€gun€into€the€attic,€she€testified€thatÏshe€knew€it€was€probable€that€he€had.ÌÌà ` àTo€corroborate€her€testimony€about€the€abusive€nature€of€her€relationshipÏwith€Swafford,€the€Defendant€offered€the€testimony€of€Officer€Steve€Ray,ÏDetective€Mike€McCarty,€and€Amy€Tayse.€€Officer€Ray€testified€that€he€learnedÏof€an€allegation€of€abuse€from€the€Defendantððs€mother€in€October€of€1995.€€HeÏmet€with€the€Defendant€and€her€mother€at€the€Defendantððs€motherððs€home.€€RayÏstated€that€most€of€the€information€concerning€the€abuse€came€from€theÏDefendantððs€mother,€while€the€Defendant€said€only€that€Swafford€had€not€hit€herÏhard.€€Officer€Ray€testified€that€the€Defendant€did€not€want€to€prosecute€Swafford.€ÏDetective€Mike€McCarty€testified€that€he€spoke€with€the€Defendant€on€January€23,Ï1996,€about€abuse€perpetrated€by€Swafford.€€As€a€result€of€this€conversation,€theÏDefendant€obtained€an€order€of€protection€and€a€warrant€against€Swafford€forÐ  :À00 Ðtelephone€harassment.€€The€Defendant€assisted€in€the€arrest€of€Swafford€byÏrevealing€his€location,€and€she€warned€the€officers€that€Swafford€might€be€armed.€ÏBoth€Officer€Ray€and€Detective€McCarty€testified€that€the€Defendant€made€noÏallegation€that€Swafford€had€ever€raped€her.ÌÌà ` àAmy€Tayse,€a€longtime€friend€of€the€Defendant,€corroborated€theÏDefendantððs€testimony€concerning€how€Swafford€contacted€the€DefendantÏfollowing€his€release€from€the€January€1996€arrest.€€Tayse€and€the€DefendantÏmoved€into€the€River€Retreat€Apartments€together€in€March€of€1996.€€TheyÏattempted€to€avoid€Swafford€but€to€no€avail.€€Swafford€began€to€come€to€theirÏapartment€more€often,€prompting€Tayse€to€move€out€two€weeks€before€theÏshooting.€€Tayse€testified€that€she€did€not€like€Swaffordððs€attitude€and€did€not€likeÏthe€Defendantððs€attitude€when€she€was€around€Swafford.ÌÌà ` àTayse€also€testified€concerning€an€incident€that€occurred€in€the€autumn€ofÏ1995.€€She€recounted€being€called€by€the€Defendant€to€a€party€at€SwaffordððsÏsisterððs€home.€€Once€there,€they€told€Swafford€that€they€were€going€to€leave,€butÏSwafford€refused€to€allow€the€Defendant€to€do€so.€€Swafford€threw€the€DefendantÏdown€on€a€bed€in€the€home€and€Tayse€left€the€room.€€She€could€hear€theÏDefendant€screaming€after€she€left.€€Swafford€emerged€from€the€room€thirty€toÏforty„five€minutes€later€with€a€smirk€on€his€face.€€When€Tayse€entered€the€room,Ïthe€Defendant€was€flushed€and€had€on€no€shirt.€€The€buttons€of€the€shirt€she€hadÏpreviously€been€wearing€had€been€torn€off.Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€facilitation€of€the€first€degree€murder€ofÏâ âOfficer€Scurry€and€for€facilitation€of€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€of€OfficerÏBrogdon.€€She€was€tried€from€March€10€to€March€14,€1997.€€After€considering€theÏproof€presented€at€trial,€the€jury€initially€reported€not€guilty€verdicts€on€bothÏcounts,€but€was€later€reassembled€and€found€the€Defendant€guilty€of€the€lesserÏoffenses€of€facilitation€of€second€degree€murder€and€facilitation€of€attemptedÏsecond€degree€murder.€€She€now€appeals€to€this€Court.ÌÌà ` àIn€her€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€denying€the€motion€to€suppress€her€statement€to€police.€€The€DefendantððsÏargument€focuses€on€the€failure€of€Detective€McAlister€to€inform€her€of€the€crimesÏshe€was€suspected€of€having€committed.€€She€contends€that€her€lack€ofÏknowledge€of€the€suspected€crimes€rendered€her€òòMirandaóó€waiver€involuntary.€Ð À!` ÐThus,€she€argues€that€her€statement€was€admitted€at€trial€in€violation€of€her€rightÏagainst€self„incrimination€and€her€right€to€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V;Ð Ð%p ÐU.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9.ÌÌà ` àPrior€to€trial,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€her€statement.€€TheÏtrial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€on€December€18,€1996.€ÏThe€only€witness€to€testify€at€that€hearing€was€Detective€McAlister.€€McAlisterÏtestified€that€he€responded€to€the€scene€of€the€shooting€between€10:00€and€10:30Ïa.m.€€He€received€the€assignment€of€taking€an€apartment€maintenance€worker€toÏpolice€headquarters€for€an€interview.€€After€that€interview,€he€interviewed€theÏDefendant.€€Prior€to€interviewing€the€Defendant,€McAlisterððs€knowledge€of€theÏshooting€incident€consisted€only€of€knowing€that€officers€had€attempted€to€serveÐ  :À00 Ðwarrants€at€the€scene,€gunshots€had€been€exchanged,€and€one€officer€had€beenÏtaken€to€the€hospital.€€McAlister€was€told€to€interview€the€Defendant,€that€she€wasÏin€the€apartment€when€the€gunfire€erupted,€and€that€she€had€outstandingÏwarrants.€€McAlister€requested€the€Defendant€to€execute€a€òòMirandaóó€waiver€formÐ x Ðbecause€she€was€under€arrest€on€the€outstanding€warrants.€€The€DefendantÏsigned€the€òòMirandaóó€waiver€form€and€proceeded€to€give€the€statement€which€wasÐ ˆ(  Ðsubsequently€introduced€at€her€trial.€€At€no€time€did€Detective€McAlister€inform€theÏDefendant€that€she€was€suspected€of€facilitating€Swaffordððs€shooting€of€OfficersÏScurry€and€Brogdon.€€In€fact,€it€appears€that€Detective€McAlister,€given€his€limitedÏknowledge€of€what€had€transpired€at€the€Defendantððs€apartment,€was€actuallyÏunaware€of€the€Defendantððs€precise€relationship€to€the€shooting.€€McAlister€didÏtestify€that€an€investigator€with€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office€was€presentÏduring€the€interview€and€had€more€information€about€the€shooting€than€he€did.€ÏThe€extent€of€this€investigatorððs€knowledge€of€the€shooting,€however,€is€unknown.ÌÌà ` àAfter€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€denied€theÏmotion.€€In€so€doing,€the€trial€court€found€that€Detective€McAlister€clearly€informedÏthe€Defendant€that€he€intended€to€ask€her€about€the€shooting€incident€which€hadÏoccurred€at€her€apartment€that€morning.€€Only€after€informing€her€of€this€purposeÏdid€he€have€the€Defendant€execute€the€òòMirandaóó€waiver.€€The€trial€court€furtherÐ ø/˜&& Ðfound€that€the€videotape€of€the€interview€did€not€reveal€any€indication€of€coercionÏon€the€part€of€Detective€McAlister.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€theÏDefendantððs€òòMirandaóó€waiver€was€voluntary€and€denied€the€motion€to€suppressÐ 6°,, Ðher€statement.ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àIn€order€to€be€valid,€a€waiver€of€òòMirandaóó€rights€must€be€voluntarily,Ð `  Ðknowingly,€and€intelligently€made.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€479,€86€S.Ð h  ÐCt.€1602,€1630,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€472Ð p  Ð(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€511€U.S.€1046,€114€S.€Ct.€1577,€128€L.€Ed.€2d€220Ð x Ð(1994).€€The€issue€of€voluntariness€of€the€waiver€must€be€decided€based€on€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€each€particular€case.€€òòVan€Tranóó,€864Ð ˆ(  ÐS.W.2d€at€472„73;€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€431„32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0  Ð1988).€€The€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€on€issues€concerning€the€making€ofÏa€custodial€statement€are€binding€upon€appellate€review€if€there€is€any€evidenceÏin€the€record€to€support€them.€€òòVan€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€473€(citing€òòState€v.Ð ¨H ÐOððGuinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561,€566€(Tenn.€1986),€and€òòState€v.€Chandleróó,€547€S.W.2dÐ °P Ð918,€923€(Tenn.€1977)).ÌÌà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€failure€of€DetectiveÏMcAlister€to€tell€the€Defendant€what€offenses€she€was€suspected€of€havingÏcommitted€rendered€her€òòMirandaóó€waiver€involuntary.€€In€so€arguing,€theÐ Ø'x ÐDefendant€relies€principally€on€a€federal€district€court€case€from€Montana,€òòSchenkÐ à)€  Ðv.€Ellsworthóó,€293€F.€Supp.€26€(D.€Mont.€1968).€€In€òòSchenkóó,€the€court€held€thatÐ è+ˆ"" Ðbecause€the€defendant€was€not€advised€the€reason€for€his€detention€andÏquestioning,€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel€was€not€knowing€and€intelligent.€ÏòòSchenkóó,€293€F.€Supp.€at€29.€€The€court€continued€stating€that€ð ðwhen€a€person€isÐ 2 (( Ðin€custody€and,€for€all€practical€purposes,€charged€with€a€crime,€.€.€.€then€he€mustÏbe€told€of€the€crime€he€is€suspected€of€having€committed€before€a€statement€canÏbe€taken.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).€€The€court€noted€that€ð ðit€stands€to€reason€that€aÐ 8¸.. Ðsuspect€cannot€intelligently€make€the€decision€as€to€whether€he€wants€counselÐ  :À00 Ðif€knowledge€of€the€crime€suspected€is€withheld€from€him.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€support€of€herÐ `  Ðreliance€on€òòSchenkóó,€the€Defendant€also€points€out€that€this€Court€has€recognizedÐ h  Ðthat€ð ða€prisonerððs€ignorance€of€the€charge€against€him€might€conceivably€be€aÏcircumstance€worthy€of€consideration€with€respect€to€the€ððtotality€ofÏcircumstances.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Stearnsóó,€620€S.W.2d€92,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).Ð €  ÐÌà ` àIn€considering€the€Defendantððs€argument,€we€first€note€that€this€Court€is€notÏbound€by€the€Montana€federal€district€courtððs€holding€with€regard€to€theÏvoluntariness€of€òòMirandaóó€waivers.€€Instead,€we€are€required€to€follow€only€theÐ  @ Ðapplicable€constitutional€rulings€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ¨H Ðv.€McKayóó,€680€S.W.2d€447,€450€(Tenn.€1984),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€470€U.S.€1034,€105Ð °P ÐS.€Ct.€1412,€84€L.€Ed.€2d€795€(1985);€òòState€v.€Bowersóó,€673€S.W.2d€887,€889Ð ¸X Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).ÌÌà ` àWe€believe€the€decision€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòColoradoÐ Ð%p Ðv.€Springóó,€479€U.S.€564,€107€S.€Ct.€851€(1987),€is€controlling€on€this€issue.€€InÐ Ø'x ÐòòSpringóó,€the€Court€held€that€the€failure€of€law€enforcement€officials€to€inform€aÐ à)€  Ðsuspect€of€all€the€possible€subjects€of€interrogation€is€not€relevant€to€determiningÏwhether€the€suspect€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€waived€his€or€herÏFifth€Amendment€privilege.ÌÌà ` àFurthermore,€we€believe€that€Tennessee€case€law€is€in€accord€with€òòSpringóó.€Ð 4¨** ÐIn€òòState€v.€Stearnsóó,€620€S.W.2d€92€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€a€case€cited€by€theÐ 6°,, ÐDefendant€in€support€of€her€argument,€this€Court€stated€that€ð ð[t]hough€a€prisonerððsÏignorance€of€the€charge€against€him€might€conceivably€be€a€circumstance€worthyÐ  :À00 Ðof€consideration€with€respect€to€the€ððtotality€of€circumstances,ðð€òòMiranda€v.€ArizonaóóÐ `  Ðdoes€not€require€the€interrogating€officers€to€advise€a€defendant€of€the€nature€ofÏthe€crime€under€investigation.ðð€€620€S.W.2d€92,€95€(citations€omitted).€ÌÌà ` àApplying€these€principles€to€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÐ €  Ðcourt€did€not€err€in€admitting€the€Defendantððs€statement.€€It€is€clear€from€theÏrecord€that€Detective€McAlister€did€not€tell€the€Defendant€that€she€was€or€wouldÏbe€charged€with€the€criminal€offenses€of€facilitating€the€murder€of€Officer€ScurryÏand€facilitating€the€attempted€murder€of€Officer€Brogdon.€€From€our€review€of€theÏvideotape€of€the€interview,€however,€it€is€equally€clear€that€McAlister€did€informÏthe€Defendant€that€he€wanted€to€speak€with€her€about€the€incident€which€hadÏoccurred€at€her€apartment€earlier€that€morning.€€Thus,€when€the€DefendantÏexecuted€the€òòMirandaóó€waiver,€she€was€aware€of€the€subject€of€the€questioning.€Ð À!` ÐAfter€telling€the€Defendant€the€subject€of€the€questioning,€McAlister€verballyÏadvised€her€of€her€constitutional€rights,€the€Defendant€herself€read€the€formÏadvising€her€of€those€rights,€and€she€signed€the€form€waiving€those€rights.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€that€the€Defendant€was€literate,€had€graduated€from€high€school,Ïand€appeared€coherent€during€questioning.€€Finally,€there€is€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€of€any€threat€or€coercion€on€the€part€of€Detective€McAlister.€€In€that€regard,Ïthe€Defendant€contends€that€McAlister€implied€she€would€be€held€indefinitely€ifÏshe€did€not€submit€to€questioning.€€In€particular,€the€Defendant€points€toÏMcAlisterððs€response€to€her€question€about€what€would€happen€if€she€did€not€wishÏto€make€a€statement.€€McAlister€responded€by€making€reference€to€herÏoutstanding€warrants.ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€however,€we€do€not€believe€that€DetectiveÏMcAlisterððs€response€was€threatening€or€coercive.€€The€response€must€beÏconsidered€in€the€context€of€the€conversation€at€that€point.€€As€McAlister€wasÏinforming€the€Defendant€of€her€constitutional€rights,€the€following€colloquyÏoccurred:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓQ.à ¸ àWith€that€right€[against€self„incrimination]€in€mind,€do€you€wishÐ ˆ(  Ðto€waive€that€right€and€answer€questions€now?ÌA.à ¸ àI€guess.Ð 0  ÐQ.à ¸ àWell,€it€has€either€got€to€be€a€yes€or€a€no,€it€canððt€be€an€IÐ ”4  Ðguess.ÌA.à ¸ àAnd€if€I€donððt,€what?Ð œ< ÐQ.à ¸ àIf€you€donððt,€then€we€canððt€interview€you€and€talk€to€you.Ð  @ ÐA.à ¸ àAnd€what€are€they€going€to€do,€just€hold€me?Ð ¤D ÐQ.à ¸ àI€understand€you€have€some€outstanding€warrants€forÐ ¨H Ðsomething,€donððt€you?ÌÌÓ‘„ÓÓ Xƒ„ÓÓ Xu„ÓConsidering€the€entire€colloquy,€we€do€not€believe€that€McAlisterððs€commentsÏwere€threatening€or€coercive€so€as€to€suggest€that€the€Defendantððs€òòMirandaóóÐ ¼ \ Ðwaiver€was€involuntary.€€Rather,€we€believe€McAlisterððs€reference€to€theÏDefendantððs€outstanding€warrants€was€merely€a€simple€response€to€theÏDefendantððs€question€of€whether€she€would€be€held€in€custody€if€she€did€not€wishÏto€make€a€statement.€€It€is€clear€that€immediately€prior€to€the€reference€toÏoutstanding€warrants,€McAlister€told€the€Defendant€that€if€she€did€not€wish€toÏmake€a€statement,€he€could€not€question€her.€€The€videotape€of€the€interviewÏreveals€no€indication€of€a€threatening€or€coercive€mannerism€on€the€part€ofÏDetective€McAlister,€nor€does€it€show€a€reaction€on€the€part€of€the€DefendantÏindicating€that€she€felt€threatened€or€coerced.€€We€simply€cannot€conclude€thatÏMcAlisterððs€reference€to€the€Defendantððs€outstanding€warrants€constituted€a€threatÏor€an€attempt€to€coerce€the€Defendant€into€submitting€to€questioning.ÌÐ 9¼// Ðà ` àAccordingly,€after€considering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€we€believeÏthe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€the€Defendant€was€aware€of€theÏsubject€of€the€questioning€prior€to€executing€the€òòMirandaóó€waiver,€that€she€wasÐ p  Ðadvised€of€her€constitutional€rights,€and€that€she€waived€those€rights€without€anyÏthreat€or€coercion.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€State€demonstrated€theÏDefendantððs€òòMirandaóó€waiver€and€subsequent€statement€were€voluntary€and,€thus,Ð ˆ(  Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€motion€to€suppress.€€The€Defendantððs€firstÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àIn€her€second€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€effectively€denying€her€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars.€€In€order€toÏaddress€this€issue,€we€first€examine€the€procedural€history€relating€to€theÏDefendantððs€request€for€a€bill€of€particulars.€€On€September€30,€1996,€theÏDefendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars€pursuant€to€Rule€7(c)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€motion€requested€the€State€toÏfurnish€information€regarding€the€time€of€the€offenses€and€the€manner€in€whichÏthe€Defendant€was€alleged€to€have€facilitated€the€murder€and€attempted€murder.€ÏIn€other€words,€the€Defendant€sought€to€require€the€State€to€reveal€which€of€herÏactions€constituted€the€ð ðsubstantial€assistanceðð€necessary€to€prove€the€offenseÏof€facilitation.׃ ×Ý ƒ ¥_ÝÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€January€6,€1997,€the€State€filed€a€response€to€the€motion€forÐ ø/˜&& Ða€bill€of€particulars.€€With€regard€to€the€request€for€information€concerning€theÏtime€of€the€offenses,€the€State€referred€the€Defendant€to€its€prior€response€to€aÐ 4¨** Ðdiscovery€request.€€With€regard€to€the€request€for€information€concerning€theÏmanner€in€which€the€Defendant€was€alleged€to€have€facilitated,€the€StateÏresponded€that€the€Defendantððs€request€was€not€proper€because€the€function€ofÏa€bill€of€particulars€is€to€apprise€the€Defendant€of€the€offense€charged,€not€provideÏa€means€for€broad€discovery€of€the€Stateððs€theory€of€the€case.€€On€January€18,Ï1997,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€compel€a€response€to€this€latter€requestÏcontending€that€the€Stateððs€response€was€inadequate.€€After€conducting€aÏhearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€compel.€€The€Defendant€now€arguesÏthat€the€trial€court€effectively€denied€her€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars,€therebyÏdepriving€her€of€a€fair€trial€in€violation€of€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€AmendmentsÏto€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€One,€Sections€Eight€and€Nine€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà ` àRule€7€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€that€ð ð[u]ponÏmotion€of€the€defendant€the€court€may€direct€the€filing€of€a€bill€of€particulars€so€asÏto€adequately€identify€the€offense€charged.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(c).€€TheÏpurposes€of€a€bill€of€particulars€are€to€provide€the€defendant€with€informationÏabout€the€details€of€the€charge€if€this€is€necessary€to€the€preparation€of€theÏdefense,€to€avoid€prejudicial€surprise€at€trial,€and€to€enable€the€defendant€toÏpreserve€a€claim€of€double€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.Ð ø/˜&& Ð1991).€€The€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€7(c)€make€it€clear€that€theÏbill€of€particulars€provision€should€be€construed€to€provide€the€defendant€withÏknowledge€of€what€he€or€she€is€charged€with,€not€to€provide€broad€discovery.€ÏòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€539€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€test€inÐ 8¸.. Ðpassing€on€a€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars€is€whether€it€is€necessary€that€theÐ  :À00 Ðdefendant€have€the€information€sought€in€order€to€prepare€his€defense€and€toÏavoid€prejudicial€surprise.€€òòId.óó€at€539.€€A€defendant€should€be€provided€enoughÐ h  Ðinformation€about€the€events€charged€so€that€he€or€she€may,€with€diligence,Ïadequately€prepare€for€trial.€€òòId.óóÐ x ÐÌà ` àIn€support€of€her€argument,€the€Defendant€emphasizes€that€although€theÏbill€of€particulars€is€not€intended€as€a€means€of€broad€discovery€of€the€StateððsÏevidence€and€theories€of€the€case,€ð ðto€the€extent€that€information€is€needed€forÏthe€proper€purposes€of€the€bill,€it€will€be€required€even€if€the€effect€is€disclosureÏof€evidence€or€of€theories.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€666€S.W.2d€54,€56€(Tenn.€1984).€Ð ¨H ÐWhile€we€agree€with€this€principle,€we€believe€that€it€still€begs€the€question€ofÏwhether€the€information€in€a€particular€case€is€needed€for€the€proper€purposes€ofÏthe€bill.€€In€other€words,€the€central€question€remains€whether€it€is€necessary€thatÏthe€defendant€have€the€information€sought€in€order€to€prepare€the€defense€andÏto€avoid€prejudicial€surprise.€€òòSeeóó€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€539.Ð Ð%p ÐÌà ` àApplying€these€principles€to€the€case€at€bar,€we€can€only€conclude€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€compel.€€From€ourÏreview,€the€record€contains€nothing€to€indicate€that€the€Defendant€was€unable€toÏprepare€her€defense€or€was€unfairly€surprised€by€the€Stateððs€evidence€at€trial.€ÏThe€Stateððs€theory€with€regard€to€the€actions€constituting€ð ðsubstantial€assistanceððÏfocused€on€the€Defendantððs€delaying€of€police€entry€into€the€apartment,€directingÏSwafford€to€hide€in€the€attic,€lying€to€police€about€the€presence€of€Swafford€in€theÏapartment,€concealing€the€distinct€possibility€that€he€possessed€weapons,€andÏcircumstantial€evidence€that€she€helped€Swafford€gain€access€to€the€attic€andÐ  :À00 Ðattempted€to€conceal€that€he€had€done€so.€€We€believe€that€even€with€the€denialÏof€the€motion€to€compel,€the€Defendant€was€fully€able€to€mount€a€defense€againstÏthis€theory€and€did,€in€fact,€do€so.€€She€readily€admitted€that€she€delayed€theÏentry€of€the€police€into€the€apartment,€told€Swafford€to€hide€in€the€attic,€and€thenÏlied€to€police€about€Swaffordððs€presence€in€the€apartment.€€The€Defendant,Ïhowever,€offered€as€explanation€of€why€she€had€done€so€the€abusive,€threateningÏnature€of€her€relationship€with€Swafford.€€Similarly,€she€offered€an€explanation€ofÏwhy€she€had€not€informed€police€that€Swafford€might€possess€weapons.€€WithÏregard€to€how€Swafford€gained€access€to€the€attic,€the€Defendant€contradictedÏthe€Stateððs€circumstantial€evidence€by€directly€denying€that€she€had€any€part€inÏhelping€Swafford€into€the€attic€and€offering€an€explanation€of€how€he€might€haveÏgained€access€by€himself.ÌÌà ` àFrom€this€record,€it€does€not€appear€that€the€Defendant€was€unpreparedÏto€refute€the€Stateððs€evidence€by€virtue€of€the€denial€of€her€motion€to€compel.€ÏGiven€the€manner€in€which€events€transpired€on€the€morning€of€the€shooting,€anyÏdefense€proof€would€necessarily€derive€primarily€from€the€Defendantððs€ownÏtestimony.€€At€trial,€the€Defendant€was€indeed€able€to€attack€the€Stateððs€theoryÏthrough€her€own€testimony,€with€additional€third„person€corroboration€of€herÏtestimony€about€the€nature€of€her€relationship€with€Swafford.€€Although€the€juryÏchose€not€to€accredit€her€testimony,€we€do€not€believe€that€she€was€unpreparedÏto€present€a€defense€or€unfairly€surprised€by€the€Stateððs€evidence.€€In€fact,€theÏthoroughness€of€her€rebuttal€of€many€aspects€of€the€Stateððs€theory€indicates€thatÏthe€Defendant€was€fully€prepared€for€trial.ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àWe€therefore€conclude€that€it€was€not€necessary€that€the€Defendant€haveÏinformation€concerning€which€actions€the€State€alleged€to€have€constitutedÏð ðsubstantial€assistanceðð€in€order€to€prepare€her€defense€and€to€avoid€prejudicialÏsurprise.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€Defendantððs€motion€toÏcompel€additional€information€in€the€Stateððs€bill€of€particulars€response.€€TheÏDefendantððs€second€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àIn€her€third€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€wasÏlegally€insufficient€to€support€her€convictions.€€She€contends€that€the€evidenceÏfailed€to€establish€that€she€knowingly€furnished€substantial€assistance€to€SwaffordÏin€his€commission€of€second€degree€murder€and€attempted€second€degreeÏmurder.€€The€thrust€of€the€Defendantððs€argument€is€that€her€conduct€did€not€assistÏSwafford€because€the€police€officers,€in€spite€of€what€the€Defendant€said,Ïsuspected€that€Swafford€was€in€the€apartment.€€She€claims€that€there€is€noÏindication€that€the€police€officers€would€have€acted€differently€or€that€eventsÏwould€have€transpired€differently€had€her€conduct€been€different.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïthe€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ð 2 (( Ð307,€319€(1979).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€byÏthe€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€œñâBñÐ  8¸.. ÐñâBñ754›€S.W.2d€620,€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€court€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð h  ÐÌœñãBñÌñãBñ›à ` àA€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,Ð €  Ð476€(Tenn.€1973).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€Ð 0  ÐBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replacesÏit€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€ofÏillustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€theÏtrier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòGraceóó,€493Ð °P ÐS.W.2d€at€476.ÌÌà ` àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€of€facilitation€ofÐ È#h Ðsecond€degree€murder€and€facilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€TheÏrelevant€statutory€provision€states€that€ð ð[a]€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€theÏfacilitation€of€a€felony€if,€knowing€that€another€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,Ïbut€without€the€intent€required€for€criminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„11„402(2),€theÏperson€knowingly€furnishes€substantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€theÏfelony.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„403(a).ÌÌà ` àReviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€canÏonly€conclude€that€the€proof€was€legally€sufficient€to€support€the€DefendantððsÏconvictions.€€The€Defendant€readily€admitted€that€Swafford€had€previously€toldÏher€that€he€would€shoot€if€police€officers€attempted€to€arrest€him.€€She€alsoÐ  :À00 Ðadmitted€that€she€believed€Swafford€was€ð ðcrazyðð€enough€to€do€so.€€With€regardÏto€the€Defendantððs€conduct€on€the€morning€of€the€shooting,€the€Stateððs€proof,Ïtaken€in€its€most€favorable€light,€established€that€upon€hearing€the€police€at€theÏapartment€door,€the€Defendant€suggested€to€Swafford€that€he€hide€in€the€attic,Ïdelayed€the€entry€of€the€police€officers€to€give€Swafford€time€to€hide,€and€falselyÏtold€the€police€that€no€one€else€was€in€the€apartment.€€In€addition,€the€DefendantÏdid€not€respond€to€Detective€Masonððs€requests€that€ð ðif€[Swafford]€had€anyÏweapons,€she€needed€to€tell€us,ðð€even€though€she€believed€Swafford€probablyÏhad€a€weapon€with€him€in€the€attic.€€Finally,€the€State€presented€circumstantialÏevidence€that€the€Defendant€helped€Swafford€gain€access€to€the€attic€orÏattempted€to€conceal€that€he€had€done€so,€or€both.€€In€that€vein,€the€StateÏpresented€testimony€that€the€eight„foot€ceiling€in€the€closet€was€too€high€to€allowÏaccess€to€the€attic€without€assistance€and€that€the€only€implements€of€assistanceÏwere€chairs€from€another€room€in€the€apartment€or€a€folded€ironing€board€leaningÏin€the€closet.€€The€State€also€presented€testimony€that€a€neighbor€heard€shufflingÏsounds€as€if€things€were€being€moved€in€the€bedroom€during€the€time€police€wereÏwaiting€for€the€Defendant€to€put€on€clothing.€€The€implication€of€this€testimonyÏwas€that€the€Defendant€had€assisted€Swafford€in€gaining€access€to€the€attic€orÏhad€concealed€whatever€implement€he€had€used€to€do€so.ÌÌà ` àOf€course,€the€Defendant€contradicted€some€aspects€of€the€Stateððs€proofÏand€offered€explanations€for€those€actions€to€which€she€admitted.€€The€resolutionÏof€the€conflicting€testimony,€however,€was€a€matter€for€the€jury€to€resolve.€€TheÏjury€resolved€the€issue€against€the€Defendant,€finding€her€guilty.€€The€DefendantððsÏcontention€that€the€record€does€not€indicate€any€officer€would€have€actedÐ  :À00 Ðdifferently€had€her€conduct€been€different€ignores€the€testimony€of€DetectiveÏMason,€who€stated€that€had€they€known€for€sure€that€Swafford€was€in€the€atticÏand€armed,€they€would€have€waited€for€a€SWAT€team€before€entering€the€attic.€ÏFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€believe€that€the€evidence€was€legally€sufficientÏto€support€the€juryððs€verdicts.€€The€Defendantððs€third€issue€is€therefore€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà ` àIn€her€fourth€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€her€request€for€a€jury€instruction€on€the€defense€of€necessity.€ÏThe€Defendant€requested€jury€instructions€on€the€defenses€of€duress€andÏnecessity.€€In€support€of€her€request,€the€Defendant€pointed€out€that€the€recordÏcontained€proof€the€Defendant€was€responsible€for€Swaffordððs€arrest€in€JanuaryÏof€1996.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€after€his€release,€Swafford€threatened€toÏkill€her€if€she€was€ever€again€responsible€for€his€arrest.€€She€testified€further€thatÏon€the€morning€of€the€shooting,€Swafford€pointed€a€gun€at€her€and€threatened€toÏkill€her€if€she€revealed€his€location.€€As€a€result,€she€told€Swafford€to€hide€in€theÏattic€and€then€falsely€told€the€police€officers€that€no€one€else€was€in€theÏapartment.€€She€stated€that€she€did€not€feel€safe€from€Swafford€in€spite€of€theÏpresence€of€police€officers€because€the€police€had€failed€to€assure€her€protectionÏafter€she€had€Swafford€arrested€only€months€earlier.€€Based€on€the€proof€in€theÏrecord,€the€trial€court€granted€the€request€for€an€instruction€on€duress€but€deniedÏthe€request€for€an€instruction€on€necessity.€€The€Defendant€now€contends€that€theÏdenial€of€a€necessity€instruction€violated€her€right€to€a€correct€and€complete€juryÏcharge.ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àIt€is€well„established€in€Tennessee€that€the€trial€court€has€the€duty€of€givingÏa€correct€and€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case€andÏthat€the€defendant€has€the€right€to€have€every€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidenceÏand€material€to€the€defense€submitted€to€the€jury€upon€proper€instructions€by€theÏtrial€court.€€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498Ð €  ÐU.S.€1007,€111€S.€Ct.€571,€112€L.€Ed.€2d€577€(1990);€òòState€v.€Bryantóó,€654€S.W.2dÐ ˆ(  Ð389,€390€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€519€S.W.2d€789,€792€(Tenn.€1975)Ð 0  Ð(citing€òòPoe€v.€Stateóó,€370€S.W.2d€488€(1963)).€€It€is€also€clear€that€neither€duressÐ ˜8 Ðnor€necessity€is€an€affirmative€defense.€€Rather,€both€are€merely€€defenses€and,Ïas€a€result,€if€evidence€fairly€raises€either€defense,€the€trial€court€must€submit€theÏdefense€to€the€jury€and€must€instruct€the€jury€that€any€reasonable€doubt€on€theÏexistence€of€the€defense€requires€acquittal.€€òòState€v.€Culpóó,€900€S.W.2d€707,€710Ð ¸X Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„203,€„504,€„601,€„609.ÌÌà ` àAs€we€stated€above,€the€trial€court€did€instruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€ofÏduress.€€The€instruction€read€as€follows:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓà ¸ àIncluded€in€the€defendantððs€plea€of€not€guilty€is€her€plea€thatÏher€acts€constituting€the€offense€charged€were€the€result€of€duress.Ìà ¸ àDuress€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€where:ÌÓ X?ËÓÓ X1ËÓÓ °ÓÓ °Ó(1)€the€defendant€is€threatened€with€harm€which€isÏpresent,€imminent,€impending€and€of€such€a€nature€asÏto€induce€a€well„grounded€apprehension€of€death€orÏserious€bodily€injury€if€the€act€is€not€done;Ì(2)€the€threatened€harm€is€continuous€throughout€theÏtime€the€act€is€being€committed;Ì(3)€the€harm€is€one€from€which€the€defendant€cannotÏwithdraw€in€safety;€andÌ(4)€the€desirability€and€urgency€of€avoiding€the€harmÏclearly€outweigh,€according€to€ordinary€standards€ofÏreasonableness,€the€harm€sought€to€be€prevented€byÏthe€law€proscribing€the€conduct.ÌÓ °MÌÓÓ °[ÌÓÓ XÑÓÓ XDÐÓà ¸ àð ðPresentðð€means€now€existing;€relating€to€the€present€time.Ìà ¸ àð ðImminentðð€means€near€at€hand;€on€the€point€of€happening.Ð  :À00 Ðà ¸ àð ðImpendingðð€means€to€be€imminent€and€threatening.Ìà ¸ àð ðSerious€bodily€injuryðð€means€bodily€injury€which€involves€aÏsubstantial€risk€of€death;€protracted€unconsciousness;€extremeÏphysical€pain;€protracted€or€obvious€disfigurement;€or€protracted€lossÏor€substantial€impairment€of€a€function€of€a€bodily€member,€organ€orÏmental€faculty.Ìà ¸ àIf€evidence€is€introduced€supporting€the€defense€of€duress,Ïthe€burden€is€on€the€state€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏthe€defendant€did€not€act€from€duress.Ìà ¸ àAny€reasonable€doubt€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendantÏacted€from€duress€requires€the€defendant€to€be€acquitted.Ìà ¸ àIf€you€find€from€the€proof€that€the€defendant€acted€as€a€resultÏof€duress€or€if€you€have€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€or€not€theÏdefendant€acted€as€a€result€of€duress,€then€you€must€acquit€her.Ìà ¸ àThis€defense€is€unavailable€to€a€person€who€intentionally,Ïknowingly,€or€recklessly€becomes€involved€in€a€situation€in€which€itÏwas€probable€that€the€person€would€be€subjected€to€compulsion.Ìà ¸ àThe€standard€sufficient€to€excuse€criminal€conduct€is€that€theÏcompulsion€must€be€immediate€and€imminently€present€and€of€suchÏnature€to€produce€a€well„grounded€fear€of€death€or€serious€bodilyÏharm.€€In€addition,€there€must€be€no€reasonable€opportunity€toÏescape€the€compulsion€without€committing€an€offense.ÌÌÓMËÓÓ X·ÎÓÓ XÉÎÓThis€instruction€is€substantially€similar€to€the€applicable€pattern€jury€instruction.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.P.I.€ð"ð€Crim.€40.03;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„504;€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€622Ð Ä"d ÐS.W.2d€62€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€1096,€102€S.€Ct.€667,Ð Ì$l Ð70€L.€Ed.€2d€636€(1981).ÌÌà ` àThe€defense€of€necessity€is€set€forth€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„¼11„609.€€That€section€provides€as€follows:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓà ¸ àExcept€as€provided€in€ðððð€39„11„611€„„€39„11„621,€conduct€isÏjustified€if:Ìà ¸ à(1)€The€person€reasonably€believes€the€conduct€isÏimmediately€necessary€to€avoid€imminent€harm;€andÌà ¸ à(2)€The€desirability€and€urgency€of€avoiding€the€harm€clearlyÏoutweigh,€according€to€ordinary€standards€of€reasonableness,€theÏharm€sought€to€be€prevented€by€the€law€proscribing€the€conduct.ÌÌÓ0×ÓÓ X"×ÓÓ X×ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„609.€€The€sentencing€commission€comments€note€thatÏthe€statutory€provision€codifies€the€common€law€defense€of€necessity€andÐ 9¼// Ðexcuses€criminal€conduct€in€those€exceedingly€rare€situations€where€criminalÏactivity€is€an€objectively€reasonable€response€to€an€extreme€situation.ÌÌà ` àAs€is€apparent€from€the€above„quoted€jury€instruction€and€statutory€section,Ïthe€defenses€of€duress€and€necessity€are€similar€both€in€form€and€in€the€policyÏsupporting€the€availability€of€both€defenses.€€Given€that€the€sentencingÏcommission€comments€to€the€statutory€section€defining€the€defense€of€necessityÏpoint€out€that€the€section€codifies€common€law,€we€believe€we€can€look€to€aÏcommon€law€distinction€between€the€two€defenses€to€aid€our€resolution€of€thisÏissue.ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓà ¸ àCommon€law€historically€distinguished€between€the€defensesÏof€duress€and€necessity.€€Duress€was€said€to€excuse€criminalÏconduct€where€the€actor€was€under€an€unlawful€threat€of€imminentÏdeath€or€serious€bodily€injury,€which€threat€caused€the€actor€toÏengage€in€conduct€violating€the€literal€terms€of€the€criminal€law.€ÏWhile€the€defense€of€duress€covered€the€situation€where€theÏcoercion€had€its€source€in€the€actions€of€other€human€beings,€theÏdefense€of€necessity,€or€choice€of€evils,€traditionally€covered€theÏsituation€where€physical€forces€beyond€the€actorððs€control€renderedÏillegal€conduct€the€lesser€of€two€evils.€€Thus,€where€A€destroyed€aÏdike€because€B€threatened€to€kill€him€if€he€did€not,€A€would€argueÏthat€he€acted€under€duress,€whereas€if€A€destroyed€the€dike€in€orderÏto€protect€more€valuable€property€from€flooding,€A€could€claim€aÏdefense€of€necessity.ÌÌÓSÜÓÓ XEÜÓÓ X7ÜÓòòUnited€States€v.€Baileyóó,€444€U.S.€394,€409„10,€100€S.€Ct.€624,€634,€62€L.€Ed.€2dÐ ì,Œ## Ð575€(1980).€€Applying€this€reasoning€to€the€case€at€bar,€we€can€only€conclude€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€err€by€instructing€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€duress€butÏdenying€the€Defendantððs€request€for€a€jury€instruction€on€necessity.ÌÌà ` àMoreover,€we€note€that€the€general€policy€supporting€the€existence€of€bothÏdefenses€was€served€by€the€duress€instruction€in€the€present€case.€€The€generalÐ 9¼// Ðpolicy€behind€both€defenses€reflects€a€judgment€that€an€individual€acting€underÏthreats€or€conditions€which€a€person€of€ordinary€firmness€would€have€beenÏunable€to€resist€or€reasonably€believing€that€criminal€action€was€necessary€toÏavoid€a€harm€more€serious€than€that€sought€to€be€prevented€by€the€statuteÏdefining€the€offense€does€not€deserve€criminal€punishment.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaileyóó,€444€U.S.Ð €  Ðat€410;€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„504,Ï„609.€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Defendant€offered€testimony€that€her€actions€onÐ 0  Ðthe€morning€of€the€shooting€were€motivated€by€her€fear€of€Swaffordððs€threats.€ÏThe€jury€instructions€on€duress€provided€the€Defendant€with€a€defense,€shouldÏthe€jury€accredit€her€testimony,€stemming€from€the€policy€described€above.€€WeÏbelieve€the€jury€instruction€on€duress€adequately€conveyed€the€policy€and€theÏapplicable€defense.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏdenying€the€Defendantððs€request€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€necessity.€ÏThe€Defendantððs€fourth€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àIn€her€fifth€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€reassembling€the€jury€to€report€guilty€verdicts€after€the€jury€had€initially€reportedÏverdicts€of€not€guilty.€€To€address€this€issue,€we€must€first€recount€the€course€ofÏevents€leading€up€to€the€rendering€of€verdicts€of€guilt€for€facilitation€of€secondÏdegree€murder€and€facilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€As€statedÏabove,€the€Defendant€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€facilitation€of€first€degreeÏmurder€and€one€count€of€facilitation€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€Her€trialÏtook€place€from€March€10€to€March€14,€1997.€€The€jury€was€sequestered€duringÏtrial.€€Presentation€of€proof€was€concluded€on€March€13,€1997,€and€the€trial€courtÏcharged€the€jury€with€facilitation€of€first€degree€murder€and€facilitation€of€secondÐ  :À00 Ðdegree€murder€on€count€one,€and€facilitation€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,Ïfacilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€and€facilitation€of€attemptedÏaggravated€assault€on€count€two.€€The€jury€began€deliberations€but€were€unableÏto€reach€a€verdict€on€March€13€and€retired€for€the€night.€€On€March€14€theyÏresumed€deliberations€and€eventually€notified€the€trial€court€that€they€had€reachedÏa€verdict.ÌÌà ` àThe€scenario€which€developed€as€the€trial€judge€attempted€to€receive€theÏjuryððs€verdict€was€quite€astonishing€and€probably€unprecedented.€€Upon€the€juryððsÏreturn€to€the€courtroom,€the€trial€judge€told€the€foreperson€that€he€would€ask€forÏthe€juryððs€verdict€as€to€each€count€individually.€€The€trial€judge€then€asked€theÏforeperson€what€the€verdict€of€the€jury€was€as€to€count€one.€€The€forepersonÏresponded,€ð ðNot€guilty.ðð€€The€trial€judge€asked€what€the€verdict€was€as€to€countÏtwo,€and€the€foreperson€again€responded,€ð ðNot€guilty.ðð€€The€trial€court€confirmedÏthat€the€verdict€was€not€guilty€as€to€both€counts,€and€the€foreperson€answered,Ïð ðThat€is€correct.ðð€€All€of€the€exchanges€with€regard€to€the€verdicts€were€verbal.€ÏIt€appears€that€the€trial€court€did€not€employ€written€verdict€forms.׃×Ý ƒ ¥_ÝÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€judgeÐ à)€  Ðthanked€the€jurors€for€their€service€and,€as€an€expression€of€appreciation€for€theirÏinvolvement€in€a€difficult€trial,€assured€them€that€they€would€have€three€years€ofÏexemption€from€jury€service.€€He€then€dismissed€the€jury,€telling€them€that€theÏcourt€officers€would€accompany€them€to€get€their€belongings.€€The€jury€then€leftÏthe€jury€box.Ð 4¨** Їà ` àThe€courtroom€was€full€of€spectators,€including€a€large€number€of€policeÏofficers€in€uniform€and€representatives€from€the€media.€€The€reaction€to€the€notÏguilty€verdicts€was€audible€and€included€crying.€€After€being€dismissed€by€the€trialÏcourt,€the€jury€exited€the€courtroom€by€walking€in€front€of€the€gallery€and€out€of€aÏdoor€leading€to€a€congested€public€area€of€the€courthouse.€€From€testimony€at€aÏlater€hearing€on€a€motion€to€dismiss,€it€appears€that€most€of€the€jurors,€if€not€all,Ïhad€left€the€courtroom€before€subsequently€being€called€back€in€by€the€trial€court.€ÏIt€is€unclear€whether€all€of€the€jurors€had€left€the€courtroom€before€being€recalled.ÌÌà ` àUpon€leaving€the€courtroom,€the€jurors€walked€into€an€area€of€theÏcourthouse€which€was€open€to€the€public.€€This€area€was€quite€congested€as€theÏjurors€exited€the€courtroom,€with€numerous€attorneys€and€members€of€the€mediaÏpresent.€€The€exiting€jurors€stretched€out€in€a€long€line€leading€from€the€door€toÏthe€courtroom.€€It€appears€that€the€jury€could€have€exited€the€courtroom€by€wayÏof€another€door€which€did€not€lead€to€an€area€of€the€courthouse€open€to€theÏpublic.€€According€to€affidavits€submitted€at€the€later€hearing€on€the€motion€toÏdismiss,€two€court€officers€accompanied€the€jurors€as€they€exited€the€courtroom.€ÏThe€court€officers€stated€that€the€jurors€remained€in€their€custody€at€all€timesÏbefore€being€called€back€into€the€courtroom.€€The€court€officers€stated€further€thatÏthe€jurors€were€not€subject€to€outside€contact€before€being€called€back€into€theÏcourtroom.ÌÌà ` àAs€the€jurors€filed€out€of€the€courtroom,€they€walked€past€the€prosecutionÏtable.€€As€one€of€the€jurors€walked€by,€one€of€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏgenerals€prosecuting€the€case€noticed€the€juror€shaking€his€head€and€saying€ð ðNoÐ  :À00 Ðway.ðð€€After€seeing€this€reaction,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€asked€theÏtrial€court€if€the€State€could€be€heard.€€He€then€asked€the€trial€judge€if€he€wasÏgoing€to€poll€the€jury,€to€which€the€trial€judge€responded€negatively€since€theÏverdict€had€been€not€guilty.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€then€informedÏthe€trial€court€of€the€juror€reaction€he€had€witnessed.€€At€that€point,€the€trial€judgeÏsaid,€ð ðBring€the€jury€back.€€Right€quick,€catch€the€jury.ððÌÌà ` àThe€jurors€were€then€reassembled€in€the€courtroom,€standing€in€a€curvingÏline€in€front€of€the€jury€box€and€the€gallery.€€At€this€point,€the€trial€court€merelyÏbegan€to€poll€the€jury.€€The€trial€judge€explained€that€he€was€going€to€ask€eachÏindividual€juror€if€the€verdict€announced€by€the€foreperson,€as€to€each€separateÏcount,€was€the€verdict€of€the€individual€juror.€€The€trial€judge€questioned€sevenÏjurors,€all€of€whom€indicated€that€the€not€guilty€verdicts€announced€by€theÏforeperson€were€their€verdicts€as€individuals.€€The€eighth€juror€polled€by€the€trialÏcourt€was€the€foreperson.€€When€she€was€questioned€by€the€trial€judge,€sheÏindicated€that€there€might€be€some€confusion€as€to€the€verdict.€€She€stated,€ð ðIÏthink€the€confusion€may€be,€on€that€we€also€considered€Second€Degree€Murder,ÏAttempt€for€Second€Degree,€Facilitation€on€Second€Degree€Murder€andÏFacilitation€of€Attempted€Second€Degree€Murder.€.€.€.€We€did€vote€on€that€countÏas€well,€and€reached€a€verdict€on€that.ðð€€At€this€point,€the€trial€judge€instructed€theÏjurors€to€Ô‡Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬Ôagain€Ô#†Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬+þ#Ôtake€their€seats€in€the€jury€box.Ð 2 (( ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€judge€attempted€to€clarify€that€when€he€asked€the€jury€their€verdictÏas€to€each€count,€they€should€report€not€only€on€the€indicted€offense,€but€also€onÏany€lesser€offenses€they€had€considered.€€The€confusion€persisted,€however,Ð  :À00 Ðbecause€the€foreperson€was€unsure€whether€facilitation€of€second€degree€murderÏand€facilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€were€lesser€offenses.€€In€fact,Ïwhen€the€trial€court€again€asked€the€foreperson,€after€the€attempt€to€clarify€theÏconfusion,€what€the€verdict€of€the€jury€was,€the€foreperson€replied€that€she€didÏfeel€there€was€a€clear€verdict,€given€the€clarification€provided€by€the€trial€court.€ÏThe€trial€judge€then€informed€the€jury€that€he€could€not€accept€the€verdict€andÏwould€have€to€send€them€back€to€deliberate€further.€€The€trial€judge€re„read€aÏportion€of€the€charge€instructing€the€jury€that€they€must€first€consider€the€indictedÏoffenses,€and€if€they€found€the€Defendant€not€guilty€of€those€offenses,€theyÏshould€then€consider€lesser€offenses.€€The€confusion€apparently€lingered€after€theÏinstructions,€and€the€foreperson€made€one€last€attempt€to€clarify€the€matter.ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓFOREPERSON:€My€question€is,€[the€Defendant]€was€acquitted€ofÏFirst€„„€facilitation€of€First€Degree.ÌTHE€COURT:€Of€First€Degree.ÌFOREPERSON:€We,€then,€went€to€a€lesser€charge.ÌTHE€COURT:€All€right.ÌFOREPERSON:€Facilitation€of€Second€Degree€Murder€andÏFacilitation€of€Attempted€Second€Degree.ÌTHE€COURT:€Yes.€€Did€the€jury€make€a€decision€as€to€thoseÏcharges?ÌFOREPERSON:€Yes,€sir,€we€did.ÌTHE€COURT:€What€is€the€decision€as€to€that€charge?€€First€in€CountÏOne€what€is€the€decision€of€the€„„ÌFOREPERSON:€Guilty.ÌTHE€COURT:€Guilty€as€to€Second€Degree,€is€that€what€youððre€tellingÏme?ÌFOREPERSON:€Thatððs€correct.ÌÌÓRÓÓ XDÓÓ X6ÓThe€trial€court€proceeded€to€poll€the€jury€on€whether€their€verdict€was€guilty€ofÏfacilitation€of€second€degree€murder€in€count€one€and€guilty€of€facilitation€ofÏattempted€second€degree€murder€in€count€two.€€Each€juror€respondedÏaffirmatively.ÌÐ 9¼// Ðà ` àWe€have€reviewed€an€audiotape€recording€of€the€jury€reporting€its€verdict.€ÏFrom€our€review,€it€appears€that€approximately€thirty„five€seconds€passedÏbetween€the€time€when€the€trial€court€first€dismissed€the€jury€and€the€time€theÏassistant€district€attorney€asked€the€trial€court€if€the€State€could€be€heard.€€AnÏadditional€fifteen€seconds€passed€before€the€trial€court€ordered€the€court€officersÏto€catch€the€jury€and€bring€them€back€to€the€courtroom.€€After€the€trial€courtððsÏorder,€approximately€fifty„eight€seconds€passed€before€the€jury€was€reassembledÏin€front€of€the€jury€box.€€Thus,€the€time€period€between€the€juryððs€initial€dismissalÏand€the€trial€courtððs€order€to€reassemble€them€was€fifty€seconds.€€Fifty„eight€moreÏseconds€passed€before€the€jury€was€actually€reassembled€in€front€of€the€jury€box.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€now€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€reassembling€theÏjury€after€they€had€reported€the€not€guilty€verdicts.€€She€asserts€that€after€the€juryÏreported€the€not€guilty€verdicts,€the€trial€court€discharged€them.€€She€contendsÏthat€Tennessee€law€does€not€permit€reassembly€of€the€jury€to€amend€or€correctÏa€verdict€in€a€substantive€manner€after€the€jury€has€been€discharged.€€She€arguesÏthat€reassembling€the€jury,€after€their€report€of€not€guilty€verdicts€and€discharge,Ïin€order€to€enter€a€finding€of€guilt€violated€double€jeopardy€and€due€processÏprotections.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V;€U.S.€Const.€amend.€XIV,€ðð€1;€Tenn.Ð ð-$$ ÐConst.€art.€I,€ðððð€6,€8,€9,€10.ÌÌà ` àIn€its€brief€on€appeal,€the€State€agrees€that€when€a€jury€is€discharged,€theyÏmay€not€be€reassembled€to€amend€or€correct€their€verdict€in€a€substantive€way.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€1,€22€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€StateÐ 8¸.. Ðcontends,€however,€that€the€jury€in€the€present€case€was€not€actually€dischargedÐ  :À00 Ðafter€reporting€the€initial€not€guilty€verdicts.€€As€a€result,€it€was€not€error€for€theÏtrial€court€to€reassemble€the€jury€to€correct€the€verdicts.€€In€support€of€itsÏcontention€that€the€jury€was€not€actually€discharged,€the€State€argues€that€theÏjurors€remained€in€the€custody€of€court€officers,€remained€an€undispersed€unit,Ïand€had€no€opportunity€for€outside€contacts€before€being€reassembled.ÌÌà ` àFrom€these€arguments,€it€is€clear€that€the€key€point€of€contention,€and€theÏcentral€question€for€our€review,€is€whether€the€jury€in€the€present€case€wasÏdischarged€after€initially€reporting€not€guilty€verdicts.€€If€the€jury€was€indeedÏdischarged,€both€the€Defendant€and€the€State€agree€that€it€was€improper€toÏreassemble€them€to€correct€or€amend€the€initial€verdicts.€€Obviously,€we€areÏpresented€with€an€unusual€chain€of€events€in€the€reporting€of€the€verdicts.€€NotÏsurprisingly,€there€are€very€few€cases€dealing€with€such€situations.€€There€are,Ïhowever,€a€small€number€of€reasonably€similar€cases€both€from€Tennessee€andÏfrom€other€jurisdictions€which€contain€concepts€and€principles€useful€for€ourÏdisposition€of€this€issue.ÌÌà ` àThere€are€several€cases€from€other€jurisdictions€which€confront€the€issueÏraised€here,€namely€the€point€at€which€a€jury€is€considered€discharged.€€AlthoughÏnone€of€these€cases€exhibit€the€precise€factual€pattern€of€the€case€at€bar,€they€doÏhighlight€some€of€the€chief€concerns€which€enter€into€an€analysis€of€the€issue€ofÏwhen€a€jury€is€discharged.€€We€will€therefore€summarize€some€of€these€cases€toÏaid€in€our€future€discussion€of€Tennessee€case€law.Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àThe€first€principle€which€we€can€glean€from€an€examination€of€cases€fromÏâ âother€jurisdictions€is€that€the€verbal€discharge€or€dismissal€of€the€jury€by€the€trialÏcourt€does€not€render€the€jury€discharged€for€purposes€of€subsequent€reassemblyÏto€correct€or€amend€a€verdict.€€For€instance,€a€New€Jersey€case€containsÏlanguage€directly€stating€that€ð ðthe€words€ððthe€jury€is€dischargedðð€do€not€inÏthemselves€terminate€the€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brandenburgóó,€120€A.2d€59,€61€(HudsonÐ ˆ(  ÐCounty€Ct.€1956).€€As€will€become€apparent€from€our€later€discussion€ofÏadditional€cases,€other€jurisdictions€are€in€accord€with€this€principle.ÌÌà ` àThis€principle€leads€us€to€the€next€logical€question,€namely€what€factorsÏother€than€the€verbal€dismissal€of€the€jury€come€into€play€in€determining€whetherÏa€jury€has€actually€been€discharged.€€Cases€from€other€jurisdictions€demonstrateÏtwo€primary€factors€at€issue€in€determining€discharge.€€The€first€involves€the€issueÏof€separation€from€the€presence€and€control€of€the€trial€court.€€The€secondÏinvolves€the€issue€of€outside€contacts€or€influence€on€the€jury.ÌÌà ` àòòBrandenburgóó€is€a€prime€example€of€a€case€highlighting€these€two€factors.€Ð à)€  ÐIn€òòBrandenburgóó,€the€jury€foreperson€reported€that€the€jury€had€found€theÐ è+ˆ"" Ðdefendants€not€guilty.€€The€trial€court€verbally€dismissed€the€jury.€€In€theÏpassageway€outside€the€courtroom,€some€of€the€jurors€indicated€that€theÏforeperson€had€not€reported€the€correct€verdict.€€A€court€officer€informed€the€trialÏjudge,€who€reassembled€the€jury.€€The€jury€was€reassembled€approximately€tenÏminutes€after€their€verbal€dismissal.€€òòId.óó€at€60.€€The€òòBrandenburgóó€court€concludedÐ 6°,, Ðthat€the€jury€had€been€discharged€and,€thus,€the€reassembly€was€improper.€€TheÏprincipal€reason€behind€this€conclusion€was€that€the€jury€had€left€the€presence€ofÐ  :À00 Ðthe€trial€court.€€òòId.óó€at€61„62.€€The€court€stated€that€ð ð[o]nce€a€jury€has€beenÐ `  Ðdischarged€and€they€have€gone€out€of€the€presence€of€the€court,€it€would€be€aÏdangerous€procedure€to€have€them€again€deliberate€upon€the€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€61.€Ð p  ÐThe€court€went€on€to€state€that€ð ðit€is€enough€if€[the€jurors]€are€out€of€the€presenceÏof€the€court,€regardless€of€the€distance€therefrom.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€62.€€The€court€alsoÐ €  Ðnoted€that€there€was€ð ðno€indication€from€any€source€that€the€jury€in€the€instantÏcase€was€coerced€or€that€they€were€intimidated.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€61.€€Yet€the€court€pointedÐ 0  Ðout€that€ð ðwhether€they€had€contact€with€others€during€the€interval€betweenÏdischarge€and€reassembling€is€immaterial,€for€they€did€have€an€opportunity€to€doÏso.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€62.Ð ¨H ÐÌà ` àEmphasizing€the€factor€concerning€separation€from€the€presence€andÏcontrol€of€the€trial€court€is€the€Virginia€case€of€òòMelton€v.€Commonwealthóó,€111€S.E.Ð À!` Ð291€(Va.€1922).€€In€òòMeltonóó,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilt€of€rape,€but€set€theÐ È#h Ðpunishment€in€the€punishment€range€for€attempted€rape.€€The€trial€court€did€notÏnotice€this€inconsistency€immediately€and€verbally€dismissed€the€jury.€€The€jurorsÏdid€not€separate€from€each€other,€but€did€retire€to€the€jury€room€accompanied€byÏa€sheriff€for€the€purpose€of€claiming€their€attendance€fees.€€The€trial€court€soonÏreassembled€the€jury€to€correct€the€inconsistency.€€The€òòMeltonóó€court€concludedÐ ð-$$ Ðthat€the€reassembly€was€improper€because€the€jury€had€been€discharged.€€TheÏcourt€stated,€ð ðWhen€the€court€announces€their€discharge,€and€they€leave€theÏpresence€of€the€court,€their€functions€as€jurors€have€ended.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€291.Ð 4¨** ÐÌà ` àIn€a€similar€vein€is€the€Texas€case€of€òòWebber€v.€Stateóó,€652€S.W.2d€781Ð 8¸.. Ð(Tex.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€In€òòWebberóó,€the€court€read€the€verdict€of€the€jury€findingÐ  :À00 Ðthe€defendant€guilty€of€kidnaping€and€assessing€punishment€at€four€yearsÏimprisonment.€€The€court€then€verbally€dismissed€the€jury.€€Almost€immediatelyÏthe€trial€court€discovered€that€the€jury€had€signed€an€additional€verdict€formÏrecommending€that€punishment€be€probated.€€The€court€inquired€as€to€the€validityÏof€this€form,€and€the€jurors€indicated€that€it€was€mistakenly€signed.€€The€trial€courtÏthen€allowed€the€jury€to€return€a€verdict€showing€no€recommendation€forÏprobation.€€The€òòWebberóó€court€concluded€that€it€was€not€error€to€reconvene€theÐ 0  Ðjury.€€The€court€noted€that€the€jury€had€not€been€out€of€the€presence€of€the€trialÏcourt€when€the€error€was€noticed€and€they€were€reconvened.€€òòId.óó€at€782.Ð  @ ÐÌà ` àMuch€the€same€is€true€of€the€California€case€of€òòPeople€v.€Powellóó,€221€P.2dÐ °P Ð117€(Cal.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1950).€€In€òòPowellóó,€the€jury€informed€the€trial€court€thatÐ ¸X Ðthey€had€reached€a€verdict€on€both€counts€of€an€indictment€as€to€one€defendantÏbut€could€not€agree€as€to€the€other.€€òòId.óó€at€118.€€The€trial€court€verbally€dismissedÐ È#h Ðthe€jury,€instructing€them€to€hand€the€unused€written€verdict€forms€pertaining€toÏthe€defendant€on€whom€the€jury€could€not€agree€to€the€clerk.€€òòId.óó€at€118„19.€€TheÐ Ø'x Ðtrial€court€then€discovered€that€the€jury€had€in€fact€reached€a€verdict€as€to€thatÏdefendant€on€one€of€the€two€counts.€€The€trial€court€reassembled€the€jury€andÏallowed€them€to€render€the€verdict€of€guilt€as€to€the€one€count.€€The€òòPowellóó€courtÐ ð-$$ Ðfound€no€error,€noting€that€ð ðthe€jury€were€in€the€box€and€under€the€control€of€theÏcourtðð€during€the€entire€time.€€òòId.óó€at€119.Ð 2 (( ÐÌà ` àEmphasizing€the€factor€concerning€outside€contacts€or€influence€on€the€juryÏis€the€Massachusetts€case€of€òòCommonwealth€v.€Brownóó,€323€N.E.2d€902€(Mass.Ð 8¸.. Ð1975).€€In€òòBrownóó,€the€jury€returned€verdicts€of€not€guilty€of€murder€but€guilty€ofÐ  :À00 Ðarmed€entry.€€The€trial€judge€verbally€dismissed€the€jury,€and€a€court€officerÏaccompanied€them€back€to€the€jury€room.€€As€they€neared€the€jury€room,€theÏforeperson€of€the€jury€informed€the€court€officer€that€there€was€something€wrongÏwith€the€verdicts.€€The€trial€court€was€informed€and€reassembled€the€jury.€€TheÏjury€indicated€that€because€the€clerk€had€read€the€charges€to€them€in€a€differentÏmanner€than€listed€on€the€forms€they€had€used,€they€had€mistakenly€reported€notÏguilty€of€murder€although€they€had€actually€found€guilty€as€to€murder.€€òòId.óó€at€904.€Ð 0  ÐOn€appeal,€the€òòBrownóó€court€found€no€error.€€The€court€noted€that€ð ð[t]here€hadÐ ˜8 Ðbeen€no€commingling€of€the€jurors€with€any€members€of€the€general€public.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð  @ ÐThe€court€specifically€distinguished€other€cases€finding€error€in€reassembly€whereÏthere€had€been€ð ðan€òòopportunityóó€for€outside€influence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€905€(emphasisÐ °P Ðadded).ÌÌà ` àOne€such€case€distinguished€by€the€òòBrownóó€court€was€òòPeople€v.€Rushinóó,Ð È#h Ð194€N.W.2d€718€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1971).€€In€òòRushinóó,€the€jury€returned€verdicts€ofÐ Ð%p Ðnot€guilty€and€were€verbally€dismissed€by€the€trial€court.€€The€court€clerk€laterÏinformed€the€trial€court€that€one€of€the€jurors€expressed€dissatisfaction€with€theÏreported€verdict.€€In€response,€two€minutes€after€the€jury€had€left€the€courtroom,Ïthe€trial€court€reassembled€the€jury€to€clarify€the€verdict.€€òòId.óó€at€719.€€The€òòRushinóóÐ ð-$$ Ðcourt€found€the€reassembly€to€be€error.€€The€court€stated€that€ð ð[o]nce€the€jury€hasÏbeen€officially€discharged€and€left€the€courtroom,€we€hold€that€it€is€error€to€recallÏit€in€order€to€alter,€amend€or€impeach€a€verdict€in€a€criminal€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€721.€€InÐ 4¨** Ðexplaining€the€rationale€behind€its€holding,€the€court€stated€that€it€ð ðcannotÏascertain€the€influence€to€which€the€jury€has€been€subjected€after€it€has€left€theÏcourtroom,€be€it€for€two€minutes€or€two€days.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€721„22.Ð  :À00 Їà ` àSimilarly,€in€òòState€v.€Forneaóó,€140€So.€2d€381€(La.€1962),€the€LouisianaÐ `  ÐSupreme€Court€emphasized€the€issue€of€outside€contacts€as€well€as€the€controlÏof€the€trial€court.€€In€òòForneaóó,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilt€of€theft.€€AfterÐ p  Ðpolling,€the€trial€court€verbally€dismissed€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€at€382.€€The€trial€court€laterÐ x Ðreassembled€the€jury€and€permitted€them€to€return€a€verdict€specifying€the€valueÏof€the€property€taken€in€the€theft.€€òòId.óó€at€382„83.€€The€Fornea€court€found€no€error,Ð ˆ(  Ðnoting€that€the€jury€remained€in€the€box,€and€therefore€under€the€control€of€theÏtrial€court,€after€dismissal€but€prior€to€reassembly.€€òòId.óó€at€383.€€The€court€alsoÐ ˜8 Ðpointed€out€that€there€was€ð ðno€showing€whatever€.€.€.€that€any€outsider€had€anÏopportunity€to€talk€with€them€[the€jury]€or€they€with€him€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ¨H ÐÌà ` àFinally,€the€Washington€case€of€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€552€P.2d€1095€(Wash.Ð ¸X ÐCt.€App.€1976),€emphasizes€the€importance€of€outside€contacts€or€influence€in€theÏdetermination€of€whether€a€jury€has€been€discharged.€€In€òòEdwardsóó,€the€juryÐ È#h Ðreported€that€they€were€deadlocked.€€The€trial€court€declared€a€mistrial€andÏverbally€dismissed€the€jury.€€The€jury€then€left€the€courtroom€and€entered€theÏadjacent€jury€room,€with€the€bailiff€following€them.€€òòId.óó€at€1096.€€After€entering€theÐ à)€  Ðjury€room,€one€of€the€jurors€informed€the€bailiff€that€they€had€reached€a€verdict€asÏto€one€count,€but€not€the€other,€and€asked€if€that€circumstance€made€anyÏdifference.€€The€bailiff€informed€the€trial€judge,€who€reassembled€the€jury€andÏaccepted€their€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€one€count.€€òòId.óó€at€1097.€€The€òòEdwardsóó€courtÐ 2 (( Ðfound€no€error.€€The€court€stated€that€a€ð ðdischarge€will€occur€in€fact€when€a€juryÏis€permitted€to€pass€from€the€sterility€of€the€courtððs€control€òòandóó€allowed€toÐ 6°,, Ðseparate€or€disperse€and€mingle€with€outsiders.€€In€such€cases,€contamination€isÏpresumed€even€though€the€jurors€may€not€have€taken€advantage€of€theÐ  :À00 Ðopportunity€to€discuss€the€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€In€the€case€before€them,Ð `  Ðhowever,€the€court€noted€that€the€jury€could€not€possibly€have€been€subjected€toÏeven€the€opportunity€for€outside€influence€because€the€door€leading€outside€fromÏthe€jury€room€was€locked,€with€only€the€jurors€inside.€€òòId.óó€€The€court€concludedÐ x ÐthatÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓa€trial€judgeððs€verbal€discharge€of€the€jury€after€receiving€their€verdictÏin€a€criminal€case,€does€not€preclude€a€later€correction€of€the€verdictÏto€conform€to€the€actual€finding€where€the€jury€has€not€separated€orÏdispersed,€but€has€remained€sequestered€and€insulated€from€anyÏoutside€influence€and€the€correction€is€not€one€of€substanceÏresulting€from€further€deliberations€on€the€merits€of€the€cause.ÌÌÓá?ÓÓ XÓ?ÓÓ XÅ?ÓòòId.óóÐ ¤D ÐÌà ` àFrom€our€examination€of€the€above€cases,€it€is€clear€that€both€separationÏfrom€the€presence€and€control€of€the€trial€court€and€the€possibility€of€outsideÏcontacts€or€influence€are€important€elements€in€the€determination€of€whether€aÏjury€has€been€discharged.€€This€circumstance€is€not€surprising,€given€the€obviousÏrelationship€between€the€two€factors.€€Our€research€reveals€that€the€majority€ofÏcases€permitting€reassembly€of€the€jury€have€done€so€where€the€jury€remainedÏin€the€courtroom€or€even€in€the€jury€box€itself,€and€hence€in€the€presence€andÏcontrol€of€the€trial€court,€following€verbal€dismissal.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòWebberóó,€652Ð ì,Œ## ÐS.W.2d€at€782;€òòPowellóó,€221€P.2d€at€119;€òòForneaóó,€140€So.€2d€at€383;€òòSummers€v.Ð ô.”%% ÐUnited€Statesóó,€11€F.2d€583,€586€(4th€Cir.€1926),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€271€U.S.€681,€46Ð ü0œ'' ÐS.€Ct.€632,€70€L.€Ed.€1149€(1926).€€When€the€jury€has€left€the€presence€of€the€trialÏcourt€after€verbal€dismissal,€most€cases€permitting€reassembly€of€the€jury€do€soÏonly€if€the€jury€had€no€opportunity€for€outside€contact€or€influence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð 7´-- ÐòòEdwardsóó,€552€P.2d€at€1098;€òòBrownóó,€323€N.E.2d€at€904„05;€òòPeople€v.€McNeeleyóó,Ð 9¼// Ð575€N.E.2d€926,€929€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1991).€€€With€this€background€from€otherÏjurisdictions,€we€turn€now€to€Tennessee€law€on€the€issue.ÌÌà ` àThe€principal€Tennessee€case€dealing€with€this€issue€is€òòClark€v.€Stateóó,€97Ð x ÐS.W.2d€644,€(1936).€€In€òòClarkóó,€the€defendant€was€tried€with€three€codefendantsÐ €  Ðon€multiple€charges.€€After€deliberating,€the€jury€reported€to€the€trial€court€thatÏthey€were€deadlocked.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€declared€a€mistrial€and€verballyÏdismissed€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€at€644.€€Two€days€later,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€toÐ ˜8 Ðreassemble€the€jury€for€purposes€of€entering€a€not€guilty€verdict€with€respect€toÏthe€charges€against€him.€€òòId.óó€at€644„45.€€The€defendantððs€motion€was€based€onÐ ¨H Ðhis€discovery€after€the€dismissal€of€the€jury€that€the€jury€had,€in€fact,€found€him€notÏguilty€as€to€all€charges.€€They€did€not€so€report,€however,€because€they€wereÏunder€the€impression€that€they€had€to€reach€a€verdict€as€to€all€four€codefendants.€ÏòòId.óó€at€645.Ð È#h ÐÌà ` àThe€supreme€court,€while€recognizing€ð ðthe€plausibility€of€the€appeal€madeÏto€the€courtððs€sense€of€practical€justice,ðð€nevertheless€found€it€improper€toÏreassemble€the€jury€for€the€purpose€of€entering€a€correct€verdict.€€òòId.óó€at€644.€€InÐ è+ˆ"" Ðsupport€of€its€decision,€the€court€stated€the€following:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓAn€invariably€followed€rule,€supported€not€only€by€precedent,€but€theÏsoundest€reason,€grounded€on€universal€knowledge€of€humanÏnature,€is€the€rule€that€òòafter€the€dischargeóó€of€a€jury€in€a€felony€caseÐ 2 (( Ðòòand€the€separation€of€the€jurors€to€such€a€degree€that€outsideÐ 3¤)) Ðcontacts€may€have€been€even€momentarily€hadóó,€the€members€ofÐ 4¨** Ðthat€jury€may€not€be€reconvened€for€the€taking€of€any€actionÏwhatever€involving€the€fate€of€the€accused.ÌÌâ âÓ¯LÓÓ X¡LÓÓ X“LÓòòId.óó€at€646€(emphasis€added).€€The€court€went€on€to€note€the€following:Ð 8¸.. ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓà ¸ àIt€is€urged€on€the€petition€to€this€court€that€ð ðit€was€a€very€shortÏâ âtimeðð€only,€after€the€discharge€of€the€jury,€and€that€ð ðall€of€the€jurorsÏhad€not€left€the€Court€buildingðð€when€ð ðcounsel€informed€the€Court€asÏto€this€error€of€the€foreman€in€reporting€an€erroneous€finding€of€theÏjury.ðð€€Neither€exactly€how€long€a€time,€nor€how€many€had€left€theÏbuilding,€appears,€but€òòflexibility€in€time€of€separation€is€incompatibleÐ t Ðwith€the€enforcement€of€this€ruleóó.Ð x ÐÌÓwOÓÓ XiOÓÓ X[OÓòòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€Finally,€the€court€also€specifically€mentioned€theÐ €  Ðimportance€of€the€juryððs€being€out€of€the€presence€of€the€trial€court€after€theirÏverbal€discharge.€€òòId.óóÐ 0  ÐÌà ` àFrom€our€reading,€the€plain€language€of€òòClarkóó€emphasizes€both€separationÐ  @ Ðfrom€the€presence€of€the€trial€court€and€the€opportunity€for€outside€contacts€orÏinfluence€as€factors€in€the€determination€of€whether€a€jury€has€been€discharged.€ÏThis€approach€comports€with€the€approach€taken€by€many€other€jurisdictions€withÏregard€to€determining€jury€discharge.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBrandenburgóó,€120€A.2d€at€61„62;Ð À!` ÐòòWebberóó,€652€S.W.2d€at€782;€òòForneaóó,€140€So.€2d€at€383.Ð È#h ÐÌà ` àAfter€careful€consideration,€we€conclude€that€the€jury€in€the€case€at€bar€hadÏindeed€been€discharged€after€reporting€the€initial€not€guilty€verdicts€and€beforeÏreassembling€in€the€courtroom€to€correct€the€initial€verdicts€by€reporting€verdictsÏof€guilt€of€lesser€offenses.€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€most,€if€not€all€of€theÏjurors€exited€the€courtroom,€and€the€presence€of€the€trial€court,€after€the€trial€courtÏverbally€dismissed€them.€€It€is€also€clear€that€the€area€to€which€the€jurors€exitedÏwas€open€to€and€occupied€by€members€of€the€general€public,€interested€in€andÏreacting€to€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€We€believe€these€circumstancesÏdemonstrate€separation€of€those€jurors€from€the€trial€court€to€such€a€degree€thatÏmomentary€outside€contacts€may€have€been€had.€€òòSeeóó€òòClarkóó,€97€S.W.2d€at€646.€Ð  :À00 ÐAlthough€very€little€time€elapsed€before€the€jury€was€reassembled,€òòClarkóóÐ `  Ðspecifically€stated€that€ð ðflexibility€in€time€of€separation€is€incompatibleðð€with€theÏapplication€of€the€standard€announced€in€that€case.€€òòId.óó€€As€such,€we€can€onlyÐ p  Ðconclude€that€the€jury€was€discharged€upon€exiting€the€courtroom,€and€theÏpresence€of€the€trial€court,€into€an€area€occupied€by€the€general€public.ÌÌà ` àThe€State€urges€both€that€the€jurors€were€not€out€of€the€control€of€the€trialÏcourt€because€they€were€accompanied€by€court€officers€and€that,€according€toÏaffidavits€submitted€by€those€court€officers,€the€jurors€were€not€subjected€to€anyÏoutside€contacts€or€influence.€€With€regard€to€the€second€contention,€we€believeÏthe€plain€language€of€òòClarkóó€renders€the€argument€immaterial.€€òòClarkóó€does€notÐ °P Ðspeak€of€the€existence€or€lack€of€actual€contact,€but€rather€focuses€on€whetherÏoutside€contacts€òòmayóó€have€been€had.€€òòClarkóó,€97€S.W.2d€at€646.€€This€languageÐ À!` Ðis€in€accord€with€several€cases€from€other€jurisdictions,€finding€the€relevant€inquiryÏto€be€the€òòpossibilityóó€of€outside€contact€or€influence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBrandenburgóó,€120Ð Ð%p ÐA.2d€at€62€(stating€whether€jurors€had€contact€with€others€between€dismissal€andÏreassembly€was€immaterial,€for€the€jurors€did€have€the€opportunity€to€do€so);ÏòòForneaóó,€140€So.€2d€at€383€(holding€reassembly€not€erroneous€where€recordÐ è+ˆ"" Ðdemonstrated€no€outsider€had€the€opportunity€to€talk€with€the€jurors€or€viceÏversa);€òòEdwardsóó,€552€P.2d€at€1097€(stating€that€discharge€occurs€where€jurorsÐ ø/˜&& Ðpass€from€courtððs€control€and€are€allowed€to€mingle€with€outsiders,€regardless€ofÏwhether€actual€contacts€took€place).€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€when€the€dismissedÐ 4¨** Ðjurors€exited€the€courtroom€into€an€area€of€the€courthouse€occupied€by€membersÏof€the€general€public,€clearly€the€possibility€of€outside€contact€or€influence€existed.ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àThe€State€also€contends€that€the€jurors€were€not€out€of€the€control€of€theÏtrial€court€because€court€officers€accompanied€them€outside€the€courtroom.€€TheÏDefendant,€on€the€other€hand,€argues€that€the€presence€of€court€officers€wasÏirrelevant€because,€upon€discharge,€the€relationship€between€the€jurors€and€theÏcourt€officers€was€that€of€third€persons.€€òòSeeóó€òòMelton€v.€Commonwealthóó,€111€S.E.Ð €  Ð291€(Va.€1922).€€We€are€not€prepared€to€state€that€the€presence€of€court€officersÏwith€the€jury€is€irrelevant€to€a€determination€of€whether€a€sequestered€jury€hasÏbeen€discharged.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€however,€we€do€not€believe€the€presenceÏof€court€officers€with€the€jurors€who€exited€the€courtroom€alters€our€conclusionÏthat€the€jury€was€discharged.ÌÌà ` àFirst,€even€though€the€jurors€were€accompanied€by€court€officers,€the€jurorsÏwere€not€given€the€customary€admonishments€by€the€trial€court€to€guard€themÏagainst€improper€influence.€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.€Thorntonóó,€202€Cal.€Rptr.€448,€454,Ð È#h Ð(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1984)€(noting€the€importance€of€the€admonitions€which€guard€theÏjuryððs€judgment€from€outside€influence€when€the€jury€leaves€the€presence€of€theÏtrial€court).€€Second,€even€if€we€were€to€conclude€that€the€presence€of€the€courtÏofficers€amounts€to€some€type€of€continued€control€by€the€trial€court,€the€jurorsÏwere€nevertheless€exposed€to€the€possibility€of€outside€contact€or€influence€whenÏthey€exited€the€courtroom€into€an€area€of€the€courthouse€occupied€by€the€generalÏpublic.€€Had€the€jurors€in€the€case€at€bar€exited€the€courtroom€through€the€doorÏleading€into€the€area€unoccupied€by€the€general€public,€the€effect€ofÏaccompaniment€by€the€court€officers€might€be€significantly€different.€€òòSeeóóÐ 6°,, ÐòòCommonwealth€v.€Brownóó,€323€N.E.2d€902,€904„05€(Mass.€1975)€(holdingÐ 8¸.. Ðreassembly€permissible€where€jurors€remained€in€control€of€trial€court€by€virtueÐ  :À00 Ðof€being€in€custody€of€court€officers€òòandóó€having€no€opportunity€for€outsideÐ `  Ðinfluence).ÌÌà ` àThus,€having€considered€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòClarkóó,€along€withÐ x Ðcontextual€background€from€cases€in€other€jurisdictions,€we€conclude€that€the€juryÏin€the€present€case€was€discharged€after€reporting€not€guilty€verdicts€and€beforeÏbeing€reassembled€to€amend€or€correct€their€verdicts.€€The€State€agrees€with€theÏDefendant€that€ð ðonce€a€jury€in€a€felony€case€has€been€discharged€and€outsideÏcontacts€may€have€occurred,€the€jury€may€not€be€reconvened€for€the€purpose€ofÏtaking€further€action€involving€the€accused.ðð€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÐ ¨H Ð530,€554€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€toÏreassemble€the€jury€and€permit€entry€of€guilty€verdicts€after€the€jury€had€reportedÏnot€guilty€verdicts€and€been€discharged.€€The€not€guilty€verdicts€reported€by€theÏjury,€coupled€with€the€discharge€of€the€jury,€concluded€the€Defendantððs€jeopardy.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòGreen€v.€United€Statesóó,€355€U.S.€184,€188,€78€S.€Ct.€221,€223„24,€2€L.€Ed.Ð Ð%p Ð2d€199€(1957).€€Accordingly,€we€believe€her€subsequent€convictions€violateÏdouble€jeopardy€and€due€process€protections,€requiring€us€to€reverse€and€vacateÏthose€convictions.ÌÌà ` àIn€her€sixth€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€makes€an€alternative€argumentÏregarding€her€fifth€issue.€€She€argues€that€if€the€reassembly€of€the€jury€to€amendÏor€correct€the€not€guilty€verdicts€did€not€violate€double€jeopardy€and€due€processÏprotections€so€as€to€require€vacating€her€convictions,€the€manner€in€which€theÏguilty€verdicts€were€rendered€at€least€merited€granting€a€mistrial.€€HavingÏconcluded€that€the€reassembly€of€the€jury€was€improper€and€did€violate€doubleÐ  :À00 Ðjeopardy€and€due€process€protections,€requiring€reversal€of€the€convictions,€weÏdeem€it€unnecessary€to€address€whether€the€manner€in€which€the€verdicts€wereÏrendered€merited€a€mistrial.ÌÌà ` àIn€her€seventh€issue€on€appeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€charging€the€jury€with€respect€to€release€eligibility€pursuant€to€formerÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„30„201(b)(2).׃×Ý ƒ ¥_ÝÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€contends€that€theÐ 0  Ðinstruction€formerly€required€by€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)€is€unconstitutional€for€a€numberÏof€reasons.€€First,€citing€to€òòFarris€v.€Stateóó,€535€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€1976),€sheÐ  @ Ðclaims€that€the€instruction€is€unconstitutionally€vague.€€Second,€she€argues€thatÏthe€instruction€violates€due€process.€€Third,€she€contends€that€the€instructionÏviolates€separation€of€powers€principles,€citing€to€the€concurring€opinion€of€JusticeÏBrock€in€òòFarrisóó,€535€S.W.2d€at€615.€€This€issue€has€been€a€divisive€one€for€thisÐ À!` Ðcourt.׃ ×Ý ƒ ¥_ÝÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð È#h Їà ` àFormer€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„201(b)(1)€provided€that€uponÏthe€motion€of€either€party,€the€trial€court€in€all€criminal€cases,€excepting€those€forÏcapital€offenses,€shall€charge€the€jury€on€the€possible€penalties€for€the€indictedÏoffense€and€all€lesser€offenses.€€The€section€under€attack€in€the€case€at€bar€is€ððÏ40„35„201(b)(2),€which€mandated€the€inclusion€of€release€eligibility€informationÏas€part€of€the€ðð€40„35„201(b)(1)€charge€on€possible€penalties:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓà ¸ àWhen€a€charge€as€to€possible€penalties€has€been€requestedÏpursuant€to€subdivision€(b)(1),€the€judge€shall€also€include€in€theÏinstructions€for€the€jury€òòto€weigh€and€consideróó€the€meaning€of€aÐ ˜8 Ðsentence€of€imprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€any€lesserÏincluded€offenses.€€Such€instruction€shall€include€an€approximateÏcalculation€of€the€minimum€number€of€years€a€person€sentenced€toÏimprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€lesser€included€offensesÏmust€serve€before€reaching€such€personððs€earliest€release€eligibilityÏdate.€€Such€calculation€shall€include€such€factors€as€the€releaseÏeligibility€percentage€established€by€ðð€40„35„501,€maximum€andÏminimum€sentence€reduction€credits€authorized€by€ðð€41„21„236€andÏthe€governorððs€power€to€reduce€prison€overcrowding€pursuant€to€titleÏ41,€chapter€1,€part€5,€if€applicable.Ìà ¸ à(ii)€Such€instructions€to€the€jury€shall€also€include€a€statementÏthat€whether€a€defendant€is€actually€released€from€incarceration€onÏthe€date€when€such€defendant€is€first€eligible€for€release€is€aÏdiscretionary€decision€made€by€the€board€of€paroles€based€uponÏmany€factors,€and€that€such€board€has€the€authority€to€require€theÏdefendant€to€serve€the€entire€sentence€imposed€by€the€court.ÌÌÓÀvÓÓ X²vÓÓ X¤vÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)(A)€(emphasis€added).€€The€statute€alsoÏrequired€the€Department€of€Correction€to€furnish€trial€judges€with€the€approximateÏcalculation€of€release€eligibility€referred€to€in€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)(A)(i).€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„Ð ð-$$ Ð201(b)(2)(B).ÌÌà ` àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€State€requested€that€the€trial€court€charge€theÐ 4¨** Ðjury€on€possible€penalties.€€The€Defendant€objected€to€that€part€of€the€chargeÏpertaining€to€release€eligibility,€namely€the€part€required€pursuant€to€ðð€40„35„¼201(b)(2).€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€Defendantððs€objection€and€charged€theÐ  :À00 Ðjury€according€to€the€mandates€of€the€statute.€€The€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€theÏjury€on€possible€penalties€comported€with€the€requirements€of€the€statutoryÏprovision€and€tracked€the€language€of€the€pattern€jury€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€T.P.I.€ð"ðÐ p  ÐCrim.€43.11.€€In€particular,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€they€could€ð ðweighÏand€considerðð€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€and€then€defined€theÏvarious€possible€sentences€of€imprisonment€applicable€to€the€Defendantððs€case.€ÏIn€that€vein,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€with€regard€to€count€one€thatÏfacilitation€of€first€degree€murder€carried€a€range€of€fifteen€to€twenty„five€yearsÏimprisonment,€with€the€earliest€release€eligibility€date,€based€on€the€minimumÏsentence,€being€2.96€years.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€facilitation€ofÏsecond€degree€murder€carried€a€range€of€eight€to€twelve€years€imprisonment,Ïwith€the€earliest€release€eligibility€date,€based€on€the€minimum€sentence,€beingÏ1.58€years.€€With€regard€to€count€two,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÏfacilitation€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€carried€a€range€of€eight€to€twelveÏyears,€with€release€eligibility€at€1.58€years.€€With€regard€to€facilitation€ofÏattempted€second€degree€murder,€the€range€was€three€to€six€years,€with€releaseÏeligibility€at€0.60€years.€€Finally,€with€regard€to€facilitation€of€attempted€aggravatedÏassault,€the€range€was€one€to€two€years,€with€release€eligibility€at€0.21€years.ÌÌà ` àOur€supreme€court€recently€provided€us€with€instructions€and€guidance€onÏthis€issue€in€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Howard€E.€Kingóó,€No.€02„S„01„9703„CR„00021,Ð 2 (( ÐShelby€County€(Tenn.,€Jackson,€July€6,€1998)€(to€be€published).€€In€òòKingóó,€ourÐ 4¨** Ðsupreme€court€held€that€former€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2)Ïdid€not€violate€the€separation€of€powers€clauses€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏòòId.óó€at€8.€€The€court€also€found€that€the€statute€was€not€impermissibly€vague,€didÐ  :À00 Ðnot€mandate€a€misleading€jury€instruction,€and€did€not€require€a€jury€instructionÏon€matters€irrelevant€to€a€Defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€òòId.óó€at€17.€€The€courtÐ h  Ðconcluded€that€the€jury€instruction€given€in€òòKingóó€violated€the€due€process€clauseÐ p  Ðof€neither€the€United€States€nor€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòId.óóÐ x ÐÌà ` àAs€we€have€noted,€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÏit€could€ð ðweigh€and€considerðð€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€for€theÏoffense€charged€and€any€lessor€included€offenses.€€In€contrast,€the€òòKingóóÐ ˜8 Ðinstruction€charged€the€jury€that€the€ranges€of€punishment€and€release€eligibilityÏdates€were€for€its€information€only.€€òòId.óó€at€4.€€In€òòKingóó,€although€the€supreme€courtÐ ¨H Ðstated€that€it€was€significant€that€the€jury€had€been€instructed€that€the€sentencingÏinformation€was€ð ðfor€your€information€only,ðð€the€court€specifically€stated€thatÏsentencing€and€parole€information€had€a€ð ðmeasure€of€relevanceðð€to€the€juryððsÏfunction€in€determining€guilt€or€innocence.€€òòId.óó€at€14.€€The€court€further€noted€thatÐ È#h Ðð ðthe€legislature€has€determined€for€us€the€relevancy€of€sentencing€and€paroleÏinformation.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ Ø'x ÐÌà ` àThe€challenged€jury€instruction€was€mandated€by€the€legislature.€€TheÏconstitutionality€of€the€statute€has€been€upheld€by€our€supreme€court.€€TheÏsupreme€court€rejected€the€argument€that€sentencing€and€parole€information€areÏentirely€irrelevant€to€the€juryððs€function€of€determining€guilt€or€innocence.€€WeÏœñäBñÐ  2 (( ÐñäBñtherefore›€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€by€giving€the€jury€instructionÏmandated€by€former€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2).ñæBñœñíBñ׃×ñíBññíBñ׃×ñíBññæBññæBñ׃!×ñæBñÝ ƒ ¥_ÝÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔÔ€Š¬ Š ŠŠ¬ÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР6°,, М‡ñåBñÌñåBñ›Ó  ÓCONCLUSIONÌÓ  Óà ` àConfusion€and€uncertainty€concerning€the€jury€verdict€is€obvious.€€OneÏthing€is€certain€ð"ð€the€jury€announced€a€verdict€of€ð ðnot€guiltyðð€in€open€court€andÏthe€trial€judge€accepted€the€verdict€and€dismissed€the€jury.€€We€conclude€thatÏreassembling€the€jury€for€further€proceedings€offended€due€process€and€violatedÏthe€Defendantððs€constitutional€protection€from€being€twice€put€in€jeopardy€for€theÏsame€offense.€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àAlthough€hindsight€is€a€perfect€tool,€it€would€appear€a€number€of€uniqueÏhappenings€led€to€this€result.€€Written€verdict€forms€were€not€utilized€althoughÏthey€are€not€specifically€required€by€Tennessee€law.€€After€the€forepersonÏunmistakably€announced€a€not€guilty€verdict€as€to€both€counts,€the€trial€judgeÏunderstandably€took€that€verdict€at€face€value.€€The€jury€was€not€polled€nor€askedÏif€that€was€the€verdict€of€all€jurors.€€Yet,€amazingly,€even€after€the€trial€judge€tookÏthe€verdict€and€dismissed€the€jury,€no€juror€immediately€indicated€that€was€not€theÏverdict.€€Although€the€state€could€have€immediately€requested€that€the€jury€beÏpolled€as€to€the€not€guilty€verdict,€as€allowed€by€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€31(d),€this€wasÏnot€done.€€It€would€appear€that€only€one€juror,€after€leaving€the€jury€box,€indicatedÏsome€kind€of€problem.€€Upon€noticing€the€juror,€the€prosecutor€then€asked€if€theÏjury€was€to€be€polled.€€The€trial€judge€declined€to€do€so€since€it€was€ð ða€not€guiltyÏâ âverdict.ðð€€Had€any€of€the€above€things€been€done€differently,€it€would€appear€theÐ 2 (( Ðpresent€problem€would€have€been€avoided.€€Yet,€we€reemphasize€theÏobservation€is€based€upon€hindsight.Ìâ âÌà ` àThus,€this€unusual€scenario€unquestionably€requires€the€application€of€theÏlaw€prohibiting€reassembly€of€the€jury€to€announce€a€different€verdict.€€AssumingÏthe€jury€had€agreed€to€the€guilty€verdict€as€was€finally€announced,€it€is€indeedÏunfortunate€that€this€verdict€can€not€be€recognized€due€to€this€unusual€factual€andÏprocedural€scenario.€€We€would€hope€such€a€scenario€does€not€again€find€its€wayÏinto€a€Tennessee€courtroom.ÌÌà ` àWe€are€therefore€compelled€to€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÏvacate€the€Defendantððs€convictions.ÌÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœñìBñÐ  ä*„!! ÐñìBñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE