ÿWPC²9 åÔB#°-’}(Å|(8çv%n…‹­Ð¤÷@RtKÛªœ•¢"×'7/;†%W@9´‰a4‘¿þtÿ º‹o^ónÖvªw¸‘lÈ(rR#šõ½Scî@Ù ¯‚@âÔüÙµž¦?%¸‹Àñ“¼åx®FM¼¸´Šþâ‚)~-¥›%écõ1Ü¡1>ú>À … Q1Ù:ðÃù>$çÆ±µ§Ý³X#A‰ÒËœ‘ŒBÁá# !ŒÔÿИJéN ‹Ôàw¤¾S•çjú+C¾rŽÃC9ÐgÛ‘ÛÑñìl·P£oÒ`Ú²ÞUÑS,¤] $Û9"§R<ÎE†áüêÓ$§æq“Ã’Zj1ô·¾ª+A¨·´-Oì3»@Ì4vWÛ`qô͹5šþûYÕ~,x+#äµ­ÖȲ9ù\®,ªs©G5,ÃRÈvû<ÚdMa¨˜Ö Íß2³„*¤*žcïqÐÕ+¬â\”—cœÔ.ÅÉÁöCG¤sËRu2ø+eåªñvñ×\ŽŽu3T„NöÎ)-ø+¡ ~l ZïÊŽÒ@í~LŸx« `虀3cš¸åwgo‡h4™/êu©’•^‡A±¿ ýóW$ 0v•$ 0` % 0`k% 0`Ë% 0`+& 0`‹& 08ë& 0Ò#' 02õ' 0ü'( 0:#) 0Y]) 0_¶) 0 * 0j+ 0„‰, B* . D/7. 0„f. D/ê/ 0Î0 06ç0 01 0:%2 0^_2 0<½2 1eù2U6^3U>”3U*Ò3 1uü3 0ëq4 72\5\5Ž5 B–5b³5 0¤·5 D3[6 D-Ž6 0K»6»6 AS7ÆY7 0¤8 0DÃ8 A«9»¶e-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€D(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡P%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dC)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€F(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡P%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓC)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô !"# ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(|G2ùZ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô •ò»»ÔQi)  d ù(|3e$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3e$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€DAXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îî #ԈРÖ& Ðà@Î Î ìàAssigned€on€Briefs€July€17,€2002ˆÐ üL ÐÌà@™ ™ ìàò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€WAYNE€L.€HOLTó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà@Á Á ìàò òÔ€XDAX»¼ÔDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ F – Ðà@u u ìàNo.€99„B„803€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<õ` A߈Ð öF  ÐÌà@  ìàNo.€M2001„00945„CCA„MR3„CD€„€Filed€November€5,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈРñA  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<È` AßÐ É  Ðó óÌAppellant,€Wayne€L.€Holt,€was€indicted€by€the€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€on€one€count€of€firstÐ Ä Ðdegree€felony€murder,€one€count€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€and€one€count€of€especiallyÐ ° Ðaggravated€robbery.€€At€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief,€the€trial€court€granted€AppellantððsÐ œì Ðmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€the€count€of€first€degree€felony€murder€and€to€the€count€ofÐ ˆØ Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery,€but€not€as€to€the€remaining€count€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€Ð tÄ ÐAppellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€his€peers€of€the€lesser„included€offense€of€second€degreeÐ `° Ðmurder€and€was€sentenced,€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender,€to€thirty€(30)€years€imprisonment.€€In€thisÐ Lœ Ðappeal€of€right,€Appellant€raises€five€(5)€issues€for€our€review.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€courtÐ 8ˆ Ðcommitted€reversible€error€in:€1)€denying€Appellantððs€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€his€statement;€2)Ð $t Ðdenying€Appellantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€the€count€of€premeditated€first€degreeÐ ` Ðmurder€at€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief;€3)€overruling€Appellantððs€objection€to€the€StateððsÐ üL Ðclosing€argument;€and€4)€granting€the€Stateððs€request€for€a€flight€instruction.€€He€further€contendsÐ è8 Ðthat€the€verdict€was€against€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€weÐ Ô$ Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð À ÐÌò òà@zzìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Affirmedó ó.ˆÐ ˜ è ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,Ð t"Ä! Ðóóand€òòAlan€E.€Glenn,óó€JJ.,€joined.Ð `#°" ÐÌBruce€Ô_ÔPoagÔ_Ô,€Thompsonððs€Station,€Tennessee€(on€appeal);€Ross€E.€Alderman,€District€PublicÐ 8%ˆ $ ÐDefender;€Wendy€Tucker,€Assistant€Public€Defender;€and€Jodie€Bell,€Assistant€Public€Defender,Ð $&t!% ÐNashville,€Tennessee€(at€trial)€for€the€appellant,€Wayne€L.€Holt.Ð '`"& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Renee€W.€Turner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð è(8$( ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€Dan€Hamm,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð Ô)$%) Ðand€Sharon€Ô_ÔBroxÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð À*&* ÐÌÌÐ „-Ô(-ýG ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àAppellant€was€convicted€for€stabbing€to€death€the€victim€inside€the€victimððs€home.€€At€trial,Ð ˆØ ÐAppellant€did€not€deny€having€stabbed€the€victim.€€Instead,€he€raised€the€affirmative€defense€of€self„Ð tÄ Ðdefense,€claiming€that€the€victim€attacked€him€first€with€a€knife€and€Appellant€protected€himself€withÐ `° Ðhis€own€knife.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOn€the€afternoon€of€January€29,€1999,€Appellant€went€to€the€rooming€house€in€NorthÐ $ t ÐNashville€where€the€victim,€Calvin€Johnson,€lived.€€He€came€to€the€house€looking€for€the€victim,Ð  ` Ðaccording€to€the€testimony€of€Simone€Tibbs,€who€also€lived€there€with€her€husband€Joseph€and€wasÐ ü L  Ðpresent€at€the€house€that€day.€€Appellant€and€the€victim€talked€for€a€while.€€Then€Appellant€walkedÐ è 8  Ðnext€door€to€the€construction€office,€where€the€victim€worked€and€asked€the€victimððs€brother,€James,Ð Ô$  Ða€supervisor,€whether€the€victim€was€paid€that€day.€€The€victimððs€brother€replied€that€he€had€beenÐ À  Ðpaid,€and€Appellant€left€without€saying€anything€else.€€Mrs.€Tibbs€saw€Appellant€come€out€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðconstruction€office€and€walk€back€into€the€rooming€house,€and€then€leave€several€minutes€later.€Ð ˜è  ÐJames€Johnson€testified€that€shortly€afterwards,€someone€ran€inside€and€said€that€Appellant€hadÐ „Ô  Ðstabbed€the€victim€and€to€call€the€paramedics.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àRobert€Turner,€a€paramedic,€testified€that€he€found€the€victim€lying€face€up€on€the€bed€withÐ H˜ Ðhis€knees€bent€over€the€side€of€the€bed.€€The€victim€had€a€stab€wound€to€the€chest.€€Turner€testifiedÐ 4„ Ðthat€it€is€common€procedure€to€do€a€ð ðsoft€patdownðð€of€a€victim€when€a€paramedic€moves€anÐ  p Ðunconscious€victim€to€be€transported.€€In€doing€so,€a€small€knife€was€found€in€the€victimððs€backÐ  \ Ðpocket.€€The€victim€was€transported€to€Metro€General€Hospital,€where€he€was€later€pronounced€dead.Ð øH ÐÌà  àDetective€David€Imhoff€testified€that€he€went€to€the€hospital€where€the€victim€had€been€taken.€Ð Ð  ÐHe€found€a€small€paring€knife€on€the€table€next€to€the€gurney€on€which€the€deceased€was€lying.€€HeÐ ¼  Ðtalked€to€the€paramedics€and€learned€that€the€knife€had€been€removed€from€the€victimððs€back€pocket.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àLaShonda€Stewart€knows€Appellant€and€lived€a€couple€of€blocks€from€the€victim€at€the€timeÐ €Ð Ðof€the€incident.€€She€testified€that€Appellant€came€to€her€house€on€the€afternoon€of€January€29,€1999.€Ð l¼ ÐShe€was€standing€on€her€porch.€€She€testified€that€Appellant€said€he€needed€to€talk€to€her€and€thatÐ X ¨ Ðhe€had€ð ðf„„„ed€somebody€up.ðð€€Stewart€testified€that€Appellant€told€her€that€he€had€stabbed€theÐ D!” Ðvictim,€pointing€to€his€chest.€€She€testified€that€Appellant€seemed€to€be€confused€and€panicked,€andÐ 0"€  Ðshe€refused€to€let€him€come€inside.€€Stewart€watched€Appellant€leave€and€saw€him€get€into€Joe€BattsððÐ #l! Ðcar,€which€was€parked€on€the€corner.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àJoseph€Batts€testified€that€he€was€driving€in€the€neighborhood€that€afternoon,€and€he€saw€anÐ à%0!$ Ðambulance€sitting€outside€the€apartment€where€the€victim€was€stabbed.€€He€drove€a€couple€of€blocksÐ Ì&"% Ðpast€and€saw€Appellant€and€stopped.€€Appellant€asked€him€to€give€him€a€ride€somewhere.€€TheyÐ ¸'#& Ðdrove€to€the€store,€where€Appellant€bought€a€beer,€and€then€they€drove€to€some€nearby€townhousesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€sat€in€the€parking€lot€and€ð ðsmoked€dope.ðð€€Then,€Appellant€asked€Batts€to€drive€him€back€toÐ )à$( Ðâ âLaShonda€Stewartððs€house.€€When€they€got€close€to€her€house,€they€saw€that€it€was€surrounded€byÐ |*Ì%) Ðpolice€cars,€and€Appellant€told€him€to€drive€somewhere€else.€€Appellant€asked€Batts€to€drive€him€toÐ ° ÐEast€Nashville,€where€Batts€dropped€him€off.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àRosaura€DeRios€testified€that€Appellant€arrived€at€her€house€in€East€Nashville€on€the€eveningÐ tÄ Ðof€January€29,€1999.€€She€testified€that€he€stayed€at€her€house€for€three€days€because€she€was€ill€andÐ `° Ðtaking€medication€at€the€time,€and€therefore€was€unable€to€drive€him€home€that€same€night.Ð L œ ÐÌò òMotion€to€Suppress€Statementsó óÐ $ t ÐÌà  àAppellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€two€separateÐ ü L  Ðstatements€given€to€police.€€Prior€to€trial,€Appellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€statements€he€gaveÐ è 8  Ðto€investigating€detectives,€Gray€and€West.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€first€statement,€given€toÐ Ô$  ÐDetective€Gray,€was€inadmissable€because€1)€he€had€not€been€properly€advised€of€his€rights€underÐ À  ÐòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436€(1966);€and€2)€the€statement€was€a€product€of€coercion.€€AppellantÐ ¬ü  Ðargues€that€the€second€statement,€given€to€Detective€West,€was€inadmissible€because€Appellant€didÐ ˜è  Ðnot€voluntarily€and€knowingly€relinquish€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€before€giving€it.€€The€State€contends€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motion.€€The€State€argues€that€Appellantððs€statement€to€DetectiveÐ pÀ ÐGray€was€not€the€result€of€an€interrogation,€and€therefore,€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€not€required.€€TheÐ \¬ ÐState€further€asserts€that€the€second€statement,€given€to€Detective€West,€was€properly€preceded€byÐ H˜ ÐòòMirandaóó€warnings€and€waivers.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Detective€Gray€testified€that€he€became€involved€in€theÐ  \ Ðinvestigation€when€he€was€asked€by€homicide€detectives€to€help€in€locating€Appellant€becauseÐ øH ÐDetective€Gray€had€known€Appellantððs€family€for€many€years.€€He€testified€that€he€contactedÐ ä4 ÐAppellantððs€family€and€advised€them€of€a€warrant€for€Appellantððs€arrest.€€The€following€day,€heÐ Ð  Ðreceived€a€call€from€Appellantððs€family,€advising€him€that€Appellant€was€in€a€particular€location.€Ð ¼  ÐDetective€Gray€went€to€the€location,€where€he€found€Appellant€and€told€him€that€he€had€a€warrantÐ ¨ø Ðfor€his€arrest.€€Detective€Gray€testified€that€Appellant€did€not€appear€to€be€intoxicated€or€under€theÐ ”ä Ðinfluence€of€any€controlled€substances.€€However,€on€cross„examination,€he€testified€that€the€houseÐ €Ð Ðin€which€he€found€Appellant€looked€like€a€ð ðcrack€house.ððÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Detective€Grayððs€testimony,€he€waited€outside€while€Appellant€stayed€insideÐ D!” Ðthe€house€for€several€minutes.€€He€then€went€back€inside€to€get€Appellant,€and€they€got€in€his€policeÐ 0"€  Ðcar€to€drive€to€the€criminal€justice€center.€€Detective€Gray€testified€that€Appellant€began€crying€andÐ #l! Ðtalking€about€the€incident€for€which€he€was€being€arrested.€€Detective€Gray€cautioned€him€that€heÐ $X" Ðdid€not€have€to€say€anything.€€Appellant€responded€that€he€knew€he€did€not€have€to€talk,€but€heÐ ô$D # Ðthought€his€life€was€over.€€Appellant€explained€to€Detective€Gray€that€the€victim€had€owed€him€fiftyÐ à%0!$ Ðdollars,€and€when€Appellant€approached€the€victim€about€the€fifty€dollars,€the€victim€becameÐ Ì&"% Ðbelligerent€and€attacked€him.€€Appellant€told€Detective€Gray€that€he€was€protecting€himself.€€He€alsoÐ ¸'#& Ðtold€him€that€after€the€incident,€he€put€the€knife€with€which€the€victim€was€killed€in€the€back€of€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpickup€truck.€€Detective€Gray€testified€that€he€did€not€read€Appellant€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€and€didÐ )à$( Ðnot€ask€him€any€questions€concerning€the€incident.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àDetective€West,€the€lead€detective€in€the€investigation,€also€testified€at€the€suppressionÐ ° Ðhearing.€€He€testified€that€on€the€same€day€Detective€Gray€located€Appellant,€he€was€contacted€andÐ œì Ðtold€of€Appellantððs€arrest.€€He€further€testified€that€when€he€arrived€at€the€police€station€to€interviewÐ ˆØ ÐAppellant,€he€advised€Appellant€of€his€rights€and€Appellant€signed€a€rights€waiver€form.€€DetectiveÐ tÄ ÐWest€testified€that€he€assessed€Appellantððs€physical€capabilities€and€determined€that€he€was€not€tooÐ `° Ðintoxicated,€or€otherwise€under€the€influence,€to€give€a€statement.€€Detective€West€tape„recorded€theÐ L œ Ðstatement,€which€he€summarized€for€the€trial€court€at€the€hearing.€€As€Detective€West€rememberedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€statement,€Appellant€went€to€the€house€where€the€victim€lived€to€collect€fifty€dollars,€which€theÐ $ t Ðvictim€owed€Appellant.€€The€victim€told€Appellant€that€he€did€not€have€the€money,€so€AppellantÐ  ` Ðwent€next€door€to€the€construction€company€where€the€victimððs€brother€worked€and€asked€if€theÐ ü L  Ðvictim€had€been€paid€that€day,€to€which€the€victimððs€brother€replied€that€he€had.€€Appellant€went€backÐ è 8  Ðover€to€the€victimððs€house€to€confront€him€again,€and€the€victim€pulled€out€a€knife.€€Appellant€pulledÐ Ô$  Ðhis€knife€and€swung€a€couple€of€times€and€left,€but€Appellant€did€not€know€if€he€had€stabbed€theÐ À  Ðvictim€or€not.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAppellant€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€ð ðgot€highðð€from€around€1:30€a.m.€untilÐ „Ô  Ð10:30€a.m.€the€morning€that€Detective€Gray€arrested€him.€€He€testified€that€he€smoked€about€a€gramÐ pÀ Ðof€cocaine€and€drank€a€half€pint€of€vodka€and€a€quart€of€beer.€€He€also€testified€that€Detective€GrayÐ \¬ Ðwaited€while€he€went€inside€to€do€more€drugs.€€After€he€got€into€the€car,€Appellant€testified€thatÐ H˜ ÐDetective€Gray€asked,€ð ðwhat€happened,€man?ðð€€With€regard€to€the€taped€interview€at€the€policeÐ 4„ Ðstation,€Appellant€did€not€remember€Detective€West€going€over€his€rights€with€him€beforeÐ  p Ðinterviewing€him.€€He€admitted€at€the€hearing,€however,€that€the€signature€on€the€rights€waiver€formÐ  \ Ðwas€his,€but€he€did€not€remember€signing€it.Ð øH ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€Appellantððs€motion€to€suppressÐ Ð  Ðthe€statements.€€The€record€shows€that,€with€regard€to€Appellantððs€first€statement€to€Detective€Gray,Ð ¼  Ðthe€issue€of€whether€to€suppress€the€statement€turned€on€witness€credibility.€€Appellant€testified€atÐ ¨ø Ðthe€suppression€hearing€that€Detective€Gray€asked€him€questions€concerning€the€killing,€andÐ ”ä ÐDetective€Gray€testified€that€he€did€not.€€The€trial€court€gave€more€weight€to€the€credibility€ofÐ €Ð ÐDetective€Grayððs€testimony,€and€ruled€that€ð ðthere€was€not€an€interrogation€as€required€by€òòMirandaóó.ðð€Ð l¼ ÐWith€regard€to€Appellantððs€statement€to€Detective€West,€the€trial€court€found€that€Detective€WestÐ X ¨ Ðadvised€Appellant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€that€Appellant€executed€a€waiver€form,€and€Appellant€gaveÐ D!” Ða€voluntary€statement.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€understood€the€effect€of€waiving€hisÐ 0"€  Ðrights€and€was€not€in€such€a€condition€from€drugs€and€alcohol€to€render€his€waiver€ineffective.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€issues€of€whether€Appellant€was€interrogated€or€coerced€by€Detective€Gray,€or€whetherÐ ô$D # Ðhe€gave€a€voluntary€confession€to€Detective€West€are€questions€of€fact.€€òòSee€State€v.€Morrisóó,€24Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.3d€788,€805€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851,€855€(Tenn.€1996);€òòChilds€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐStateóó,€584€S.W.2d€783,€786„87€(Tenn.€1979).€€On€appeal,€the€ð ðtrial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€aÐ ¸'#& Ðsuppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ðð€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidenceÐ )à$( Ðâ âpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòIdóó.€€The€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðfacts,€however,€is€subject€to€a€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review.€€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€1997).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àBecause€the€trial€court€is€in€a€superior€position€to€that€of€the€appellate€courts€to€judge€witnessÐ tÄ Ðcredibility,€it€should€be€afforded€wide€latitude€of€discretion€in€determining€whether€òòMirandaóóÐ `° Ðwarnings€were€required,€ð ðand€unless€it€clearly€appears€that€such€discretion€has€been€abused€and€theÐ L œ Ðdefendantððs€rights€infringed€upon,€appellate€courts€will€not€intervene.ðð€€òòState€v.€Nakdimenóó,€735Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€799,€802€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Nevertheless,€we€may€consider€the€ð ðtestimony€presentedÐ $ t Ðat€trial€.€.€.€in€deciding€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð  ` ÐPerryóó,€13€S.W.3d€724,€737€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€must€determine€whether€Appellantððs€statement€to€Detective€Gray€should€have€beenÐ Ô$  Ðpreceded€by€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€in€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384Ð À  ÐU.S.€at€444,€that€in€order€to€safeguard€the€constitutional€protections€afforded€in€criminal€proceedings,Ð ¬ü  Ðð ðthe€prosecution€may€not€use€statements...stemming€from€custodial€interrogation€of€the€defendantÐ ˜è  Ðunless€it€demonstrates€the€use€of€procedural€safeguards€effective€to€secure€the€privilege€against€self„Ð „Ô  Ðincrimination.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àBecause€òòMirandaóó€is€only€implicated€when€the€defendant€is€questioned€while€in€policeÐ H˜ Ðcustody,€our€initial€inquiry€is€whether€Appellant€was€subjected€to€a€ð ðcustodial€interrogation.ðð€€TheÐ 4„ ÐòòMirandaóó€Court€defined€ð ðcustodial€€interrogationðð€as€ð ðquestioning€initiated€by€law€enforcementÐ  p Ðofficers€after€a€person€has€been€taken€into€custody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€of€actionÐ  \ Ðin€any€significant€way.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Clearly,€the€Appellant€in€this€case€was€in€police€custody€at€the€time€heÐ øH Ðmade€the€statement€to€Detective€Gray.€€He€knew€that€Detective€Gray€had€a€warrant€for€his€arrest,€andÐ ä4 Ðhe€was€being€transported€to€the€police€station€in€Detective€Grayððs€car€when€he€made€the€statement.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€next€issue€is€whether€the€Appellant€was€subjected€to€an€interrogation€by€Detective€Gray.€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€òòMirandaóó€Court€defined€interrogation€as€ð ðquestioning€initiated€by€law€enforcement€officers.ðð€Ð ”ä Ð384€U.S.€at€444.€€In€òòRhode€Island€v.€Innisóó,€446€U.S.€291,€301€(1980),€however,€the€Court€made€clearÐ €Ð Ðthat€interrogation€is€not€limited€to€express€questioning€by€police,€ð ðbut€also€to€any€words€or€actionsÐ l¼ Ðon€the€part€of€the€police€(other€than€those€normally€attendant€to€arrest€and€custody)€that€the€policeÐ X ¨ Ðshould€know€are€likely€to€invoke€an€incriminating€response€from€a€suspect.ððÐ D!” ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€Appellantððs€statement€to€Detective€Gray€was€unsolicited€and€was€givenÐ #l! Ðknowingly€and€voluntarily.€€Appellant€contends€that€the€police€used€coercive€tactics€to€obtain€theÐ $X" Ðconfession€by€having€Detective€Gray,€a€close€family€friend,€take€Appellant€into€custody,€and€it€wasÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€Appellant€trusted€Detective€Gray€that€he€made€the€incriminating€statement.€€After€admittingÐ à%0!$ Ðon€cross„examination€that€he€had€been€arrested€and€read€his€rights€on€several€prior€occasions,Ð Ì&"% ÐAppellant€and€the€prosecutor€had€the€following€exchange:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  à[PROSECUTOR]:à0Ð Ð àBut€you€know€what€your€rights€are.€€And€you€knew€you€didnððtÐ )à$( Ðhave€to€talk€to€Detective€Gray,€didnððt€you?Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  à[APPELLANT]:à0Ð Ð àWell,€I€ainððt€never€really€been€that€high€to,€you€know.€Ð ° ÐDetective€Gray€is€a€friend€of€mine.€€Would€you€talk€to€him€ifÐ œì Ðyou€had€a€friend€who€you€think€was€going€to€help€you?ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à[PROSECUTOR]:à0Ð Ð àAnd€thatððs€why€you€talked€to€him,€wasnððt€it?Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[APPELLANT]:à0Ð Ð àAfter€he€asked€me,€yes,€maððam.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à[PROSECUTOR]:à0Ð Ð àYou€thought€he€was€going€to€help€you,€right?Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[APPELLANT]:à0Ð Ð à(No€response).Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAppellant€relies€on€our€supreme€courtððs€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563€(Tenn.Ð À  Ð1993),€and€argues€that€he€was€ð ðpsychologicallyðð€coerced€into€confessing€to€Detective€Gray.€€InÐ ¬ü  ÐòòBranamóó,€the€ð ðinterrogationðð€was€made€by€the€defendantððs€aunt,€who€was€acting€as€an€undercoverÐ ˜è  Ðagent€for€the€state.€€òòIdóó.€at€568.€€The€supreme€court,€nevertheless,€found€that€the€defendantððs€trust€inÐ „Ô  Ðhis€family€member€was€ð ðmisplaced,ðð€and€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€admission€of€the€statement.€€òòIdóó.€Ð pÀ ÐHere,€while€Detective€Gray€may€have€been€a€close€friend€of€Appellant,€Appellant€knew€that€he€wasÐ \¬ Ða€suspect€in€a€murder€investigation€and€that€Detective€Gray€was€the€arresting€police€officer.€InÐ H˜ ÐòòBranamóó,€the€supreme€court€recognized€that€ð ðunder€some€circumstances,€deceptive€interrogationÐ 4„ Ðpractices€by€law€enforcement€officers€may€be€so€unfair€that€they€offend€notions€of€due€process.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð  p Ðat€269.€€We€conclude€that€this€is€not€such€a€case,€and€Appellantððs€statement€to€Detective€Gray€wasÐ  \ Ðproperly€admitted.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€thatÐ øH ÐDetective€Gray€did€not€question€Appellant€on€the€way€to€the€police€station,€but€rather€AppellantÐ ä4 Ðvolunteered€his€statement.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àNext,€we€consider€whether€Appellant€effectively€waived€his€rights€prior€to€giving€hisÐ ¨ø Ðstatement€to€Detective€West€at€the€police€station.€€Again,€we€apply€the€standard€articulated€by€theÐ ”ä Ðsupreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996).€€Appellant€must€demonstrate€that€theÐ €Ð Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòIdóó.€at€23.€€Intoxication€is€not€aloneÐ l¼ Ðsufficient€to€bar€the€introduction€of€statements€made€by€an€accused€if€evidence€also€shows€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðaccused€was€capable€of€understanding€his€rights.€€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€690€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð D!” ÐApp.€1985).€€The€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing€reveals€that€Appellant€signed€a€rights€waiverÐ 0"€  Ðform.€€Appellantððs€criminal€history€and€apparent€understanding€of€the€seriousness€of€the€chargesÐ #l! Ðagainst€him€make€clear€that€he€was€capable€of€understanding€his€rights€as€an€accused.€€AppellantÐ $X" Ðtestified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€knew€that€the€police€were€investigating€a€homicide€andÐ ô$D # Ðindicated€that€he€understood€the€seriousness€of€the€charges€against€him.€€Furthermore,€his€testimonyÐ à%0!$ Ðreveals€that€he€had€no€trouble€remembering€events€up€to€and€after€the€time€when€Detective€WestÐ Ì&"% Ðadvised€him€of€his€rights.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€Appellantððs€constitutional€rights€were€not€violated.€€The€evidence€in€theÐ )à$( Ðâ ârecord€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€Appellant€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€that€heÐ |*Ì%) Ðwaived€those€rights,€and€that€he€gave€a€voluntary€statement.€€Thus,€the€statements€were€properlyÐ ° Ðadmitted.€€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð œì Ðâ âÌò òMotion€for€Judgment€of€Acquittaló óÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€Motion€for€Judgment€of€AcquittalÐ L œ Ðas€to€the€count€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€at€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof.€€A€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðmust€grant€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€if€the€evidence€is€legally€insufficient€to€sustain€aÐ $ t Ðconviction€of€the€charged€offense.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29.€€In€making€its€determination,€the€trial€courtÐ  ` Ðmay€not€address€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€but€must€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ ü L  Ðof€the€evidence,€including€all€reasonable€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€and€disregardÐ è 8  Ðany€evidence€introduced€by€the€accused€that€conflicts€with€the€evidence€introduced€by€the€State.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòState€v.€Blantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€957„58€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€904€S.W.2dÐ À  Ð608,€611€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€apply€the€same€standard€in€reviewing€a€denial€of€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€asÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€court€applies€in€granting€or€denying€such€a€motion.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€916€S.W.2d€471,€473Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€We€must€determine€whether€any€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€foundÐ \¬ Ðthe€essential€elements€of€the€charged€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);Ð H˜ ÐòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€so€doing,€we€review€the€evidence€in€a€lightÐ 4„ Ðmost€favorable€to€the€State.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion,€Appellant€argues€that€the€State€failed€toÐ øH Ðestablish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€element€of€premeditation.€€We€need€not€decide€this€issue,Ð ä4 Ðhowever,€because€the€jury€convicted€Appellant€of€second€degree€murder,€defined€as€ð ð[a]€knowingÐ Ð  Ðkilling€of€another,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1),€and€the€record€is€replete€with€evidence€thatÐ ¼  Ðis€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ¨ø ÐÌò òVerdict€Against€the€Weight€of€the€EvidenceÐ €Ð Ðó óÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€the€weight€of€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€Ð X ¨ ÐPursuant€to€Rule€33(f)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€the€trial€court€has€the€authorityÐ D!” Ðto€reverse€a€juryððs€verdict€when€it€determines€that€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðevidence.€€This€court,€however,€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð #l! ÐCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€accuracy€of€the€trial€courtððs€determination€as€aÐ $X" Ðð ðthirteenth€jurorðð€is€not€subject€to€appellate€review.€€òòState€v.€Moatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€431,€435€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # Ð1995)€(citing€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€713,€719€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)).€€Once€the€trial€courtÐ à%0!$ Ðapproves€the€verdict€of€the€jury€and€denies€a€defendantððs€request€for€a€new€trial,€our€review€isÐ Ì&"% Ðlimited.€€òòBurlisonóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€719.€€An€appellate€court€may€grant€a€new€trial€only€where€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðcourt€has€ð ðòòfailedóó€to€act€as€the€thirteenth€juror,ðð€as€it€is€the€ð ðonly€practically€effective€remedy.ðð€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòMoatsóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€435€(emphasis€added).€€We€conclude,€however,€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ )à$( Ðexercised€its€authority€to€act€as€thirteenth€juror,€and€therefore,€we€will€not€disturb€its€determinationÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€weight€of€the€evidence€supported€the€jury€verdict.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àWhile€a€defendant€may€not€challenge€on€appeal€the€weight€of€the€convicting€evidence,€he€orÐ ° Ðshe€may€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€To€the€extent€that€AppellantððsÐ œì Ðargument€may€be€construed€as€a€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€was€sufficient.€€Viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€AppellantÐ tÄ Ðconfronted€the€victim€inside€the€victimððs€house,€armed€with€a€knife,€and€stabbed€the€victim€in€hisÐ `° Ðchest€and€neck.€€He€then€left€the€scene€of€the€crime€and€disposed€of€the€weapon.€€He€also€avoidedÐ L œ Ðan€opportunity€to€confront€police€and€stayed€away€from€the€area€of€the€crime€for€three€days.€€The€juryÐ 8 ˆ Ðrejected€Appellantððs€defense€of€self„defense.€€Any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€conclude€beyond€aÐ $ t Ðreasonable€doubt€that€Appellant€unlawfully€and€knowingly€killed€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.Ð  ` ÐVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ü L  Ðò òÌAppellantððs€Objection€to€Stateððs€Closing€Argumentó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€prejudicial€error€in€overruling€AppellantððsÐ ¬ü  Ðobjection€to€the€Stateððs€closing€argument.€€During€closing€arguments,€the€State€rhetorically€asked€theÐ ˜è  Ðjury,€whether€ð ðit€was€self„defense€when€you€walk€into€somebody€elseððs€house€[and]€demand€moneyÐ „Ô  Ðfrom€him.ðð€€Appellant€made€a€timely€objection,€and€the€trial€court€overruled€the€objection.€€AppellantÐ pÀ Ðargues€that€the€Stateððs€remark€suggesting€a€robbery€was€improper€because€there€was€no€proof€in€theÐ \¬ Ðrecord€that€Appellant€demanded€money€from€the€victim.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àClosing€argument€is€a€valuable€tool€for€the€parties€during€the€trial€process.€€òòState€v.Ð  p ÐHumphreysóó,€70€S.W.3d€752,€767€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€Attorneys€are€generally€given€wideÐ  \ Ðlatitude€in€the€scope€of€their€arguments.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð øH ÐConsequently,€a€trial€court€is€accorded€wide€discretion€in€its€control€of€the€closing€arguments.€€òòStateÐ ä4 Ðv.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€will€not€interfere€with€that€discretionÐ Ð  Ðin€the€absence€of€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€1978).€€To€show€error,€aÐ ¼  Ðdefendant€must€show€that€the€argument€was€so€inflammatory€or€the€conduct€so€improper€that€itÐ ¨ø Ðaffected€the€verdict€to€the€defendantððs€detriment.€€òòZirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€888.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€Stateððs€comment€during€closing€argument,€suggesting€that€AppellantÐ l¼ Ðdemanded€money€from€the€victim,€was€not€improper,€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€overrulingÐ X ¨ ÐAppellantððs€objection.€€Evidence€was€introduced€at€trial€from€which€the€jury€could€have€inferred€thatÐ D!” Ðthe€victim€owed€Appellant€money€for€drugs.€€The€victimððs€brother€testified€that€he€was€aware€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictimððs€drug€habit€and€that€the€victim€owed€people€money€for€drugs,€stating€that€he€knew€the€victimÐ #l! Ðowed€ð ðone€person,€in€particular.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€any€statementsÐ $X" Ðmade€that€are€not€supported€by€the€evidence€should€be€disregarded.€€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€reliefÐ ô$D # Ðon€this€issue.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌò òFlight€Instructionó óÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€prejudicial€error€in€granting€the€StateððsÐ )à$( Ðâ ârequest€for€a€flight€instruction.€€He€argues€that€his€actions€did€not€indicate€an€attempt€to€flee€or€avoidÐ |*Ì%) Ðapprehension€and€prosecution,€and€the€instruction€improperly€created€an€inference€of€guilt€for€theÐ ° Ðjury.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€record€shows€that€upon€leaving€the€victimððs€house,€Appellant€went€to€LaShondaÐ tÄ ÐStewartððs€house,€who€testified€at€trial€that€when€he€arrived€at€her€house,€he€appeared€to€be€confusedÐ `° Ðand€panicked,€and€she€refused€to€let€him€in€her€house.€€She€testified€that€he€drove€away€with€JoeÐ L œ ÐBatts,€who€was€parked€on€the€corner.€€Stewart€testified€that€a€minute€later,€the€police€arrived,€lookingÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€Appellant.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àJoe€Batts€testified€that€after€he€drove€Appellant€to€the€store€to€get€a€beer€and€they€sat€in€aÐ ü L  Ðparking€lot,€ð ðsmoking€dope,ðð€Appellant€asked€him€to€drive€him€back€to€LaShonda€Stewartððs€house.€Ð è 8  ÐBatts€testified€that€when€they€got€to€the€corner,€they€saw€eight€or€nine€police€cars€surroundingÐ Ô$  ÐStewartððs€house.€€Batts€asked€Appellant€if€he€wanted€to€go€see€what€was€going€on,€but€Appellant€saidÐ À  Ðno€and€told€Batts€to€drive€him€to€East€Nashville,€where€Batts€dropped€him€off.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àOn€that€same€night,€after€the€killing,€Appellant€arrived€at€Rosauro€DeRiosðð€house,€where€heÐ „Ô  Ðstayed€for€three€days.€€Appellant€contends€that€he€only€stayed€at€Ms.€DeRiosðð€house€for€so€longÐ pÀ Ðbecause€she€was€too€ill€and€drowsy€from€medication€to€drive€him€back€to€his€home€in€NorthÐ \¬ ÐNashville.€€Ms.€DeRios€testified€that€during€those€three€days,€Appellant€watched€movies€with€herÐ H˜ Ðchildren€and€ate€popcorn€and€candy.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€proof,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àThe€flight€of€a€person€accused€of€a€crime€is€a€circumstance€which,€when€consideredÐ ä4 Ðtogether€with€all€the€facts€of€the€case,€may€justify€an€inference€of€guilt....Whether€theÐ Ð  Ðevidence€presented€proves€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€fled€òòis€aÐ ¼  Ðquestion€for€your€determinationóó....it€takes€both€a€leaving€the€scene€of€the€difficultyÐ ¨ø Ðand€a€subsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€or€concealment€in€the€community...to€constituteÐ ”ä Ðflight....[Y]ou€may€consider€the€fact€of€flight,€if€flight€is€so€proven,€together€with€allÐ €Ð Ðthe€other€evidence€when€you€decide€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€he€did€not€hide€out€or€evade€police€by€staying€at€Ms.€DeRiosðð€houseÐ #l! Ðfor€three€days.€€He€also€asserts€that€when€he€returned€to€North€Nashville,€he€learned€that€an€arrestÐ $X" Ðwarrant€had€been€issued€for€him€and€asked€someone€to€call€Detective€Gray€on€his€behalf€and€makeÐ ô$D # Ðarrangements€for€his€arrest.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€proof€does€not€satisfy€the€second€elementÐ à%0!$ Ðnecessary€for€flight,€ð ða€subsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€or€concealment€in€the€community.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€498€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€995€S.W.2d€119,€128„129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998),€this€Court€heldÐ )à$( Ðthat€a€flight€instruction€was€warranted€where€the€defendant€left€the€scene€of€a€shooting€and€remainedÐ |*Ì%) Ðhidden€in€the€community€for€five€days.€€The€defendant€in€that€case€argued€that€it€was€against€publicÐ h+¸&* Ðpolicy€to€penalize€€him€because€he€eventually€turned€himself€in€to€the€police,€but€our€Court€rejectedÐ ° Ðthat€argument€and€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€flight.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€918€(Tenn.€1994),€the€supreme€court€addressed€theÐ tÄ Ðpropriety€of€a€flight€instruction€where€the€defendant€abandoned€a€stolen€car€filled€with€stolen€goodsÐ `° Ðand€remained€free€for€one€year.€€The€court€found€circumstantial€evidence€of€an€immediate€flightÐ L œ Ðbecause€the€facts€led€to€a€reasonable€inference€that€the€defendant€had€seen€the€flashing€lights€of€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðpassing€police€car,€which€was€responding€to€another€call€nearby,€and€concealed€himself€and€left€theÐ $ t Ðscene.€€òòIdóó.€€Here,€the€record€shows€that€Appellant€saw€police€at€LaShonda€Stewartððs€house,€and€heÐ  ` Ðthen€went€to€Ms.€DeRiosðð€house,€where€he€stayed€for€three€days.€€That€evidence€is€sufficient€toÐ ü L  Ðjustify€a€flight€instruction€in€this€case.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€òòSmithóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€even€if€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€an€instruction€onÐ À  Ðflight,€the€error€was€not€reversible€because€the€jury€was€instructed€that€the€question€of€ð ðwhether€theÐ ¬ü  ÐDefendant€fled€was€a€question€solely€for€their€decision€.€.€.€and€that€flight€alone€was€insufficient€toÐ ˜è  Ðprove€guilt.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€held€that€the€instructions,€which€left€in€the€juryððs€discretion€any€findingÐ „Ô  Ðof€flight€or€inference€of€guilt,€ð ðcoupled€with€the€overwhelming€proof€of€Defendantððs€guilt,€rendersÐ pÀ Ðany€error€as€to€the€flight€instruction€harmless.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€We€hold€that€the€same€would€be€true€in€this€case,Ð \¬ Ðand€therefore,€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð H˜ ÐÌò òà@FF%ìàCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð øH ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE