WPC4 i}c( uize <7]ii}Lfe:^w򀥝9*$A0j?{ *?癏A,5H]4LC2hm upHDS5evXEŀ#E{km/UWкnGz/ŧ"ӿ <{x%#(XAJ cfik{0c!C>"8fHt`ODTSjnQ)xv0CIW*v:- YK޷lw`#-jpRFM~`Ü{ЋxuN_o\$Sc#SSg Cʻ=E•t\>\Qқ[3F(& twg2=_XnBe .*k MF'> 1DƜFTΟ1O U=O pu˗%W#UN % 0:UN ^ _ wk 4o   m 0 0 0 0~ 0i 0Q 06 0 0 0E 0 0 0r 0K 0! 0 0 0 0[ 0< 0 0 0 0 0t 0C 0 00 0<! 0D! 0>" 0v@" 0`"" 0`# 0`v# 0`# 0D6$ 0`z$ 08$ 0% 02% 0& 0:' 0YL' 0_' 0 ( 0j) 0x* B*+ D/&, D+U, 0, D/. 03. 06/ 07/?0 0:2 0^;2 0<2 0N2U6#3U>Y3U*33333 03333 Bf4HP LaserJet 40500(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman RegularK-s 3j1,k253|xU2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (#$  0  (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSL\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSL\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSL\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7?(X7  ?M%2A`Arial?  XXXSL\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X7&  d d>)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7B(X7  ?M%2A`Arial?  XXXSL\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X7>)2dxd0KS.SampleKK<6X9`(Courier NewKSL\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSL\  `&Times New RomanS  R$USUS.,    1  XX  _Trialcourtcasenumber49828wasoriginallydocketedforappealasE199900481CCAR3CD.This  courtorderedthatE199900481CCAR3CDbeconsolidatedwithE199900438CCAR3CDforappealandthat t theconsolidatedappealproceedundernumberE199900438CCAR3CD.42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial (.G2$ !USUS.,      0  XX d !USUS.,  _XXXXNXX8XXdd8    @tt#XXN\#WXXINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#XXW#NXXԈ &    @  @` April11,2001Session L #XXN# NXXSTATEOFTENNESSEEv.THOMASDEEHUSKEY#XXNO#  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.49828RichardBaumgartner,Judge  6  AND     NXXSTATEOFTENNESSEEv.THOMASDEEHUSKEY#XXN#    @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforKnoxCounty   @@Nos.49829,49830,50090RichardBaumgartner,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<1` A 2 @@TTNo.E199900438CCAR3CDF 2#  1      ׀ -} October11,_2002_ i AV) ` dE<` A U  #XXXX=# ORDER  P     OnAugust23,2002,thedefendantfiledapetitiontorehearclaimingthattheopinionofthis ( courtfailstoconsidermaterialfacts,containsmisstatementsoffact,andoverlooksormisapprehends  caselaw.Wedisagree.  @  LIMITATIONOFINSANITYDEFENSE     First,thedefendanttakesissuewithourrulingsinIssueIXonthelimitationofhisinsanity `!  defenseinhisrapecases.Hecontendsthatwithregardtothefirstrapecase,wefailedtoconsider L"! certaindocumentsrelevanttothefirstrapecasebutcontainedonlyintherecordinthemurdercase. 8#" Wehavereviewedtheportionsoftherecordthatthedefendantspecifiesandnotethatwedid $$t# consideralloftheseitemswiththeexceptionofRickSawyersMay12,1996lettertothetrialcourt %` $ andhisnotesontelephoneconversationswiththepartiesandthetrialcourtfromMay18,1994 %L!% throughMay8,1995.Wehaveconsideredtheseadditionalitemsandconcludethattheydonot &8"& changeourdeterminationthatonMay15,1996,thedefendantrefusedtoparticipateinthecourt '$#'  orderedmentalexamination.Wenotethatthisconclusionisinharmonywithoursupremecourts ($( statementoffactsinStatev.Huskey,XXXX964S.W.2d892,893(Tenn.1998)#XXXX #,whichrelatesthatthe  defendantrefusedtoparticipateinamentalexaminationinthefirstrapetrial.     WithregardtoMr.SawyersMay12,1996exparteletter,wereemphasizethat,evenifthe t trialcourthadengagedinexpartecommunicationswithMr.Sawyer,itwouldnothavejustifiedthe ` defendantsrefusaltoparticipateinacourtorderedmentalexamination.Additionally,webelieve L  noprejudiceaccruedtothedefendantfromtheMay12letter ,whichinformedthecourtthatthe 8  defendanthad respectfullydeclinedtotalkto[Mr.Sawyer]upondirectionfromhisattorney. $ t DefensecounselsMay15,1996profferrevealsthatcounselknewMr.Sawyervisitedthedefendant  ` atthejailandstatesthatcounselhadspokenwithMr.Sawyerafterthatvisit.Thedefendant  L  suggeststhatthereceiptofthisexparteinformationmayhaveswayedthetrialcourttobelievethe  8  statesargumentsforthecourttoimposesanctions.WeobservethatattheMay15,1995hearing, $  thedefendantthroughhiscounselexpressedhisenduringintentiontorefusetoparticipateinany   mentalexaminationthatappliedinallofhiscases.Whetherandforwhatreasonthedefendant   refusedtobeexaminedonMay12iseclipsedbyhisclearrefusalattheMay15hearingtoengage   inacourtorderedmentalexaminationthatappliedinallofhiscases.     ThedefendantcontendsthatourconclusionthatXXXXhewasgivenameaningfulopportunityto \ submittoamentalexaminationbeforethe#XXXX##trialcourtimposedsanctionsattheMay15,1995hearing H iscontrarytothefacts.Hisargumentscenteraroundthefactthathehadoutstandingmotions 4 objectingtothetermsofthecourtorderedmentalevaluationatthetimethatMr.Sawyerwenttothe  p jailtointerviewhimonMay12,1995.Healsoarguesthatdueprocessentitledhimtonoticethat  \ thestatewasseekingsanctionsandahearingbaseduponcompetentevidencebeforethetrialcourt H imposedsanctions.Afterexaminingthedefendantscontentions,wecontinuetoconcludethatthe 4 trialcourthadalreadyruledupontheissuespresentedinhiswrittenobjectionsandthatthetrialcourt   allowedthedefendanttomakemostofthesesameargumentsagainattheMay15hearing.With   regardtothedefendantsargumentthathehadnotreceivedthetrialcourtsMay11,1995orderfor  amentalexaminationbythetimeofMr.SawyersMay12attemptedinterview,theMay15hearing  revealsthathisultimatedecisionnottocomplywiththecourtorderedmentalexaminationwas  unrelatedtotiming. l   Thedefendantcontendsthatwefailedtoaddresshisconstitutionalrighttopresentadefense D! ortoexaminecloselythestatesinterestinamentalexamination,whichlimitshisdefenseinthese 0"  circumstances.Heisincorrect.Weaddressedhisconstitutionalrightandcloselyexaminedthe #l! statesinterest,relyingonexistingauthority.SeeXXXXTaylorv.Illinois,484U.S.400,416,108S.Ct. $X" 646,656(1988)(holdingthattheexclusionofadefensewitnessasasanctionforadiscovery $D # violationdoesnotviolatethedefendantsSixthAmendmentrighttocompulsoryprocess,which %0!$ embodiestherighttopresentadefense);#XXXX#XXXXStatev.Garland,617S.W.2d176,185(Tenn.Crim.App. &"% 1981)#XXXXH#Ԁ(holdingthatXXXXtheexclusionofdefenseevidenceforafailuretocomplywithdiscoveryrules '#& mustbebaseduponprejudicetothestatethatcannotbemitigatedbyothermeans);seealso (#' Chambersv.Mississippi,410U.S.284,295,93S.Ct.1038,1046(1973)(observingthatcompeting )$( interestsproposingtowarrantalimitationonadefendantsrighttopresentrelevantevidencemust |*%)  becloselyexamined). h+&* Ї  Thedefendantalsoarguesthatweshouldhavereviewedthetrialcourtsimpositionof  sanctionsusingadenovostandardratherthananabuseofdiscretionstandard#XXXX#XXXXԀbecausehis  constitutionalrighttopresentadefensewasatissue.Hecontendsthatthetrialcourtsrulingwas  notentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectnessbecauseitfailedtomakeanyfactualfindings.Initially, t asnotedintheprecedingparagraph,wedeterminedinaccordwithUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcase ` lawthatatrialcourtssanctioningadefendantbystrikingdefenseexpertsinappropriate L  circumstancesdoesnotviolatethedefendantsrighttopresentadefense.Wethendetermined 8  whetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninsosanctioningthedefendantunderthepresent $ t circumstances.Theadmissibilityofevidenceisamatterwithinthetrialcourtsdiscretionandwill  ` notbereversedonappealabsentanabuseofdiscretion.Statev.Harris,839S.W.2d54,66(Tenn.  L  1992).#XXXX !#XXXXOursupremecourthasappliedanabuseofdiscretionstandardtoRule12.2(c),Tenn.R.  8  Crim.P.,proceedings.SeeHuskey,964S.W.2dat899(holdingthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseits $  discretioninpermittingmultipleexaminerstoconductamentalexaminationofthedefendant).   Furthermore,thiscourthasappliedanabuseofdiscretionstandardtoreviewthetrialcourts   dismissaloftheindictment#XXXX@%#asaRule16(d)(2)sanctionforthestatesfailuretocomplywith   discoveryXXXX.Statev.Collins,35S.W.3d582,585(Tenn.Crim.App.2000)#XXXX'#.      Thedefendantalsocontendsthatweerroneouslyconcludedthathewouldnothave \ participatedinamentalexaminationevenifthetrialcourthadgrantedhisSeptember1,1995motion H foramentalexam.Afterconsideringthedefendantsargumentsonthisissue,weremainfirmly 4 convincedthatthediscussionsaboutthedefendantsSeptember1,1995motionandtheevents  p leadinguptotheconsolidatedrapetrialrevealthatthedefendantwouldnothaveparticipatedina  \ completementalexaminationhadthetrialcourtgrantedhismotion.Finally,thedefendantcontends H thatweerroneouslyappliedaharmlesserrorstandardindeterminingthathewouldnothave 4 compliedwithanexaminationifthetrialcourthadpermittedoneinSeptember1995.Tothe   contrary,weconcludedthatdueprocesswasnotviolatedbythetrialcourtsfailuretograntthe   defendantsrequestforamentalexaminationinSeptember1995,becausetherecordofthe  September20,1995hearingonthedefendantsmotionandthecourseofeventsprecedingthe  consolidatedrapetrialrevealthathewouldnothaveparticipatedinacompletementalexamination  beforethefirstrapetrial. l   Withregardtotheconsolidatedrapetrial,thedefendantcontendsthatwefailedto closely D! examinetheeventsleadinguptotheMay9,1996orderthathebeexaminedbyDr.PhillipCoons 0"  asthoseeventsrelatedtohisconstitutionalrighttopresentadefense.Inparticular,hearguesthat #l! wemisapprehendedtheunconstitutionalandunlawfulnatureoftheorder,whichstemsfromits $X" requirementthatheproducewitnessesandturnoverprivilegedmaterials.Thedefendantappears $D # tobearguingthatbecausetheseprovisionsoftheorderwereunlawful,hewasfreetorefuseto %0!$ complywiththeentireorder.Althoughweheldthatthetrialcourtcouldnotrequirethedefendant &"% toturnoverworkproductorproducehiswitnessesotherthanexpertwitnessesbeforetrial,we '#& observedthatthisprovisionoftheorderwasnotXXXXhisreasonforrefusingtobeexaminedbyDr. (#' Coons.Thedefendantsargumentthathadhecompliedwiththeorderineveryrespectsavethe )$( productionofrecordsandwitnesses,thetrialcourtstillwouldhavestrickendefenseexpertsis |*%) speculativeandbeliedbythefactthatthetrialcourtdeletedthisprovisioninthesupercedingorder h+&* ofAugust12,1996.Ouropinioncloselyscrutinizesthisissuealongwiththedefendantsother  contentionsandconcludesthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninstrikingdefenseexperts.  #XXXX%2#@ff! DISQUALIFIEDJURORS    t   Second,thedefendantcontendsthatthiscourterroneouslyinterpretedcaselawinholding P  thathehadwaivedtheopportunitytochallengejurorswithknowledgeofhisotherchargesbyfailing <  tousehisperemptorychallengestoremovethesejurorsinthefirstrapetrial.Tothecontrary,itis ( x alongstandingprincipleofTennesseelawthatadefendantdisagreeingwiththetrialcourtsruling  d onachallengeforcausemustuseaperemptorychallengetoexcusethejuror,exhaustallofhisor  P  herperemptorychallenges,andbeforcedtoacceptanincompetentjurorinordertopreservehis  <  challengeonappeal.Statev.Jones,789S.W.2d545,549(Tenn.1990);Statev.Crawford,620 (  S.W.2d543,545(Tenn.Crim.App.1981);seeHalev.State,198Tenn.461,281S.W.2d51,56   (1955)(holdingthatthedefendantfailedtoexerciseavailableperemptorychallengesonjurorshe   hadchallengedforcausetherebylosingtheabilitytochallengethejurorsonappealdespitehisuse   ofallhisperemptorychallenges).     Alsowithrespecttotheissueofjuryselectioninthefirstrapetrial,thedefendantfaultsthis ` courtforfailingtoconcludethatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindecliningtogranthim L additionalperemptorychallengesinlightofthepresenceofjurorswithknowledgeofhisother 8 charges.Thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantthenumberofperemptorychallengesprovidedin $t Rule24(d),Tenn.R.Crim.P.Hecitesnoauthorityforhisargumentthathewasentitledtomore. ` Wecannotsaythatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninthisregard. L @$ CONSOLIDATION  $   Third,thedefendantassertsthatwefailedtoconsiderthewholerecordinholdingthatthe  improperconsolidationofD.C.scasewiththoseofG.T.andA.D.didnotprejudicethetrialwith  respecttotheoffensesrelatingtoG.T.andA.D.Healsoarguesthatthetrialcourtfailedtogive  thejuryalimitinginstructionontheproperwaytoconsider404(b)evidence.Wenotethatthetrial p courtdidgivealimitinginstructiontothejuryXXXXthateachcountagainstthedefendantwasaseparate \  anddistinctoffensethatitmustconsiderbasedsolelyupontheevidenceandlawthatappliedtothat H! offense.#XXXXy?#ԀAdditionally,weassurethedefendantthatwedidconsidertheentireconsolidatedrapetrial 4"  inouranalysisoftheprejudiceresultingfromconsolidationaswellasourdeterminationthatthe  #p! errorofconsolidatingD.C.scasewasharmlesswithrespecttoitseffectonG.T.andA.D.scases.  $\"   Thedefendantalsocontendsthatwedidnotconsiderhisargumentthatconsolidationwas %4!$ improperpursuanttoRule14(b)(2)(i),Tenn.R.Crim.P.Rule14(b)(2)appliestoseveroffenses & "% joinedpursuanttoRule8(a),whichrequiresmandatoryjoinderofoffenses baseduponthesame ' #& conductoraris[ing]fromthesamecriminalepisode.Thepresentcaseswereconsolidatedpursuant (#' toRule8(b),allowingforpermissivejoinder.Insuchcase,Rule14(b)(1),not(b)(2),applies.See )$(  Statev.Spicer,12S.W.3d438,443(Tenn.2000)(holdingthatwhenadefendantobjectsto *%) consolidation,thetrialcourtmustconsidertheissueunderRule14(b)(1)).Thisissueiswithout  merit.   @WW SUBSEQUENTRULINGSOFTHETRIALCOURTINTHEMURDERCASES  t   Finally,thedefendantcontendsthatweshouldconsiderthetrialcourtsAugust2002 L  suppressionofhisconfessionsandthephysicalevidencetakenfromthesearchofhisroominthe 8  retrialofhishomicidecase.Hearguesthatthetrialcourtsorderssuppressingthisevidenceaffect $ t ourrulingsonthelegalityofhisarrest,thesearchofhisresidenceandseizureofevidencetherefrom,  ` thesuppressionofhisstatements,theorderofhistrials,andthestatesfailuretoprovidediscovery  L  andexculpatoryevidence.Wehavedeniedthedefendantsmotiontosupplementtherecordwith  8  theseorders.Hewouldhaveusaccreditthetrialcourtsfindingsandconclusionsinthehomicide $  case,whichisnotbeforeus.Wemaynotdoso.Thus,wewillnotreconsiderourholdingsinthe   presentcaseinlightofthetrialcourtsAugust2002ordersintheretrialofthehomicidecase.Inany   event,wereemphasizethatthestatedidnotusethedefendantsconfessionsoranyofthephysical   evidencetakenfromhisresidenceintherapecasesonappeal.Thus,questionsrelatingtothe   suppressionofthestatementsorthephysicalevidencecollectedinthesearchofthedefendants p residenceareessentiallymootintherapecasesthatwehaveaffirmed. \   Accordingly,thedefendantspetitiontorehearisdenied. 4    `     h     XXXXPERCURIAM  \    `     h     (Tipton,Welles,Hayes,JJ.)#XXXXL#