ÿWPC3+ W#ÁÒUN“ %á 0GçU@.^ nwz4~’¡ m£ 0îº 0ë¨ 0è“ 0å{ 0â` 0ßB 0Ü! 0Ùý 0ÖÖ 0ܬ 0Ùˆ 0Öa 0Ó7 0Ð  0ÍÚ 0ʧ 0Çq 0Ä8 0Ûü 0Ø× 0Õ¯ 0Ò„ 0ÏV 0Ì% 0Éñ 0ƺ 0ÀCEK 0JM 0‹— 0D" 0Tf 0^º 0h 0r€ 0|ò 0†n! 0ô! 1u„" 0dù"U >]#U*›#v~Å#vÓC% B+˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(¿R$¡¡Ô€XäXXXÔ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman È“+â yG*ê:i¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2G+J ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+J ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+J ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+J ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+J ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+J ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+J ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+J ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/+J ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(;(3¸:$¤¤Ý ƒ¿R!ÝÔ€Xà XXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,/012345 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(ArialPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ_ÔÔ€>îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€>¼ÔÌApril€11,€2001€SessionÌÔ€>XÔÌò òÔ€>¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€THOMAS€DEE€HUSKEYÔ€>XÔó óÌÌò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÌNo.€51903€€€€€€Richard€Baumgartner,€JudgeÌÌÌßA€V)) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÌÌNo.€E1999„00524„CCA„R3„CD€ÌAugust€13,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÓÓßA€V)) °°` dE<|` Aßó óÌÒ e ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓÓThe€defendant,€Thomas€Dee€Huskey,€brings€this€interlocutory€appeal,€contending€that€the€doubleÏjeopardy€protections€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€bar€a€retrial€following€theÏjuryððs€deadlock€on€four€counts€of€first€degree€murder.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€declareÏa€mistrial€and€manifest€necessity€did€not€compel€one,€that€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€judicialÏoverreaching€precipitated€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict,€and€that€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÏfailed€to€accept€the€juryððs€special€verdicts.€€We€conclude€that€double€jeopardy€does€not€bar€a€retrial.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòDavid€G.ÏHayes,€JJ.óó,€joined.ÌÌHerbert€S.€Moncier€and€Gregory€P.€Isaacs,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Thomas€DeeÏHuskey.ÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Erik€W.ÏDaab,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Randall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€JenniferÏWelch,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÓ  Óò òÌOPINIONó óÔ€>¼ÔÌÌÓ  Óà àÔ€>XÔThe€defendant€was€charged€with€four€counts€of€first€degree€murder,€following€the€discoveryÏof€the€victimsðð€bodies€in€a€wooded€area€near€Cahaba€Lane€in€Knox€County.€€The€defendant€pleadedÏnot€guilty€and€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€to€all€four€counts.€€On€the€fifth€day€of€deliberations,Ïthe€jury€sent€the€trial€court€a€note€stating€that€it€was€unable€to€arrive€at€a€unanimous€decision.€€TheÏtrial€court€recalled€the€jury,€asked€if€further€deliberations€would€be€beneficial,€and€then€dischargedÏthe€jury€upon€receiving€a€negative€response.€€This€courtððs€order€granting€the€defendant€permission€toÏappeal€limited€the€issues€for€review€to€whether€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€bars€a€retrial€of€the€caseÏbecause:ÌÌâ +âÑ8€à XXdìdÈ8Ñâ +âà8 à(1)€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€jury€after€the€appellant€had€been€placed€in€jeopardyÏwithout€declaring€a€mistrial;ÌÌà8 à(2)€there€was€no€ð ðmanifest€necessityðð€to€discharge€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€theÍappellantððs€factual€guilt€of€each€offense;€andÌÌà8 à(3)€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict€was€precipitated€by€prosecutorial€misconductÏor€judicial€misconduct€during€the€course€of€the€trial€itself.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€federal€and€state€constitutional€prohibitions€against€doubleÏjeopardy€prevent€retrial,€arguing€that:ÌÌà8 à(1)€the€juryððs€notes€on€February€12€and€13,€1999,€place€the€defendant€in€jeopardyÏwith€regard€to€the€act€of€killing;ÌÌà8 à(2)€manifest€necessity€did€not€require€the€trial€court€to€release€the€jury€beforeÏaccepting€its€partial€verdict€on€the€issue€of€the€act€of€killing;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€courtððs€improper€comments€to€the€jury€made€it€impossible€for€the€courtÏto€determine€that€manifest€necessity€existed;ÌÌà8 à(4)€the€trial€court€denied€him€due€process,€including€the€right€to€be€heard,€before€itÏdischarged€the€jury;ÌÌà8 à(5)€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€judicial€overreaching€resulted€in€the€juryððs€inabilityÏto€reach€a€verdict€and€caused€jeopardy€to€attach;€ÌÌà8 à(6)€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€to€take€the€juryððs€special€verdicts€on€factual€guiltÏor€the€degree€of€homicide;€andÌÌà8 à(7)€double€jeopardy,€res€judicata,€and€collateral€estoppel€prohibit€retrial€of€the€issue€ofÏwhether€he€suffered€from€a€mental€disease€or€defect€because€the€jury€rendered€aÏspecial€verdict€as€to€that€issue.ÌÌBecause€double€jeopardy€does€not€bar€retrial€of€the€defendant€on€the€four€counts€of€first€degreeÏmurder,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€bar€retrial.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€DISCHARGE€OF€JURYó óÌÌà àWe€first€address€the€defendantððs€contentions€relating€to€whether€the€trial€court€properlyÏdeclared€a€mistrial€following€the€juryððs€announcement€that€it€could€not€reach€a€unanimous€decision.€ÏThe€defendant€argues€that€although€jeopardy€had€attached,€the€trial€court€released€the€jury€withoutÏdeclaring€a€mistrial;€that€no€manifest€necessity€existed€to€discharge€the€jury€without€taking€its€partialÏverdicts;€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€improper€comments€to€the€jury€made€it€impossible€for€aÏmeaningful€manifest€necessity€determination€to€be€had.€€Finally,€he€claims€that€the€trial€court€deniedÏhim€due€process€when€it€discharged€the€jury€without€conferring€with€counsel€or€allowing€him€anÏopportunity€to€be€heard.€€The€state€contends€that€manifest€necessity€existed€due€to€the€juryððsÏinability€to€reach€a€verdict€and€that€all€of€the€parties€knew€that€the€trial€court€was€going€to€and€didÏdeclare€a€mistrial€when€it€called€the€jury€into€the€courtroom,€following€the€juryððs€February€13€note.ÌÌà àBecause€of€the€nature€of€the€defendantððs€contentions,€we€review€the€events€surrounding€theÏdischarge€of€the€jury€in€some€detail.€€The€jury€began€deliberating€on€the€morning€of€February€9,Ï1999.€€On€February€12,€the€jury€sent€the€court€a€note,€which€read:ÌÌà8 àYour€Honor:Ìà8 àà àWe€are€unable€to€come€to€a€unanimous€decision€on€mental€responsibility.€ÏPeopleððs€decisions€are€unlikely€to€change.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLeslie€BooneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àForemanÌÌà8 àWe€can€agree€that€he€has€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€but€we€cannot€decide€on€theÏsecond€part€on€p.€18€#€€2€&€3.€€Can€you€give€us€some€guidance?ÌÌWith€the€jury€out,€the€trial€court€noted€that€the€jury€was€referring€to€the€second€portion€of€theÏinsanity€instruction€relating€to€the€defendantððs€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÏconduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€The€defendant€requested€aÏmistrial,€arguing€that€the€jury€was€irrevocably€hung.€€The€court€reread€the€note€to€defense€counsel,Ïwho€conferred€and€then€repeated€the€request€for€a€mistrial,€arguing€that€the€jury€had€deliberated€forÏfour€days€and€that€the€note€was€not€asking€for€clarification.€€The€court€stated€that€it€viewed€the€jury€toÏbe€asking€for€clarification€and€commented€that€it€was€amazed€that€the€defendant€did€not€want€the€juryÏto€deliberate€further€on€the€issue.€€The€court€stated€its€intention€to€give€the€jury€further€instructionsÏon€insanity€and€to€allow€the€jury€to€deliberate€longer.ÌÌà àThe€following€morning,€February€13,€the€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àTennessee€Code€Annotated€39„11„501€provides€as€follows:€Insanity.€€Insanity€is€aÏdefense€to€prosecution€if€at€the€time€of€such€conduct€as€a€result€of€a€mental€disease€orÏdefect,€the€person€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€ofÏthe€personððs€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€AsÏused€in€this€section,€mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€include€any€abnormalityÏmanifested€only€by€repeated€criminal€or€otherwise€antisocial€conduct.€€ÌÌà8 àà àTherefore,€Mr.€Huskey€would€not€be€legally€responsible€for€his€criminalÏconduct€if€at€the€time€of€such€conduct,€as€the€result€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€Mr.ÏHuskey€lacked€the€substantial€capacity€to€either€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÌÌà8 àconduct€or€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€he€is€charged€withÏviolating.ÌÌThe€court€returned€the€jury€to€its€deliberations.€€The€defendant€renewed€his€objection€to€the€newÏinstruction€and€moved€for€a€mistrial.ÌÌà àJust€over€two€hours€later,€the€jury€sent€the€court€another€note,€stating€ð ðWe€have€deliberated€atÏlength€and€we€cannot€reach€a€unanimous€decision.ðð€€The€court€observed€that€the€note€was€not€aÏquestion,€and€the€following€discussion€occurred:ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€€I€am€going€to€ask€them€about€that.€€I€think€clearly,€they€have€deliberatedÏfor€four€and€a€half€days.€€I€just€donððt€see€how€you€can€ask€a€jury€to€do€any€more€thanÏthey€have€done.€€I€am€going€to€ask€them€the€perfunctory€question€of€whether€or€notÏthey€feel€any€deliberations€would€be€of€any€benefit,€but€I€am€certainly€not€going€toÏpush€them€at€this€point.ÌÌà8 àà àI€know€that€they€have€worked€hard,€and€I€know€that€they€have€tried€to€resolveÏtheir€differences,€and€it€is€clear€that€they€are€unable€to€do€that.€€Do€you€want€me€toÏinquire€as€to€the€split?ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€€No,€sir.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€Yes,€sir.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€We€would€move€for€a€mistrial.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€Well,€of€course,€that€would€be€after€a€mistrial€had€been€declared.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€After€you€declare€a€mistrial€ð!ð€ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€Oh,€yes.€€It€would€be€improper€to€ask€ð!ðÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€Yes.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€ð!ð€before€a€judge€made€a€ruling€on€the€mistrial€motion.€€And€we€wouldÏask€for€ð!ð€ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€But€you€would€not€ask€which€way€it€goes.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€Yes.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€You€just€ask€the€numerical€split?ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€€I€was€going€to€ask€both.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€Well,€donððt€ask€the€second€question,€Judge.€€I€think,€under€theÏlaw,€you€donððt.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Co„Counsel]:€I€think€you€can€ask€what€the€split€is,€but€not€ð!ð€ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€You€can€ask€the€split,€but€not€which€way.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€Well,€after€you€mistrial€it,€you€can€do€anything€you€want€to€do.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€Yes,€well,€that€is€the€point.€€I€mean,€once€it€is€over,€I€think€you€can€inquireÏas€to€either€one.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€No,€the€reason€you€donððt€do€that,€Judge,€is€because€it€influencesÏfuture€jurors.€€It€is€information€in€the€public€ð!ð€ÌÌÓÓThe€court€agreed€to€ask€the€jury€only€about€its€numerical€split.ÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà àUpon€the€juryððs€return€to€the€courtroom,€the€following€transpired:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€Court:€Ladies€and€gentlemen,€I€received€your€latest€communication€ð!ð€and€I€canÏtell€you€that€I€was€not€shocked€to€receive€it€ð!ð€which€reads€that,€ð ðWe€have€deliberatedÏat€length€and€cannot€reach€a€unanimous€decision.ðð€€I€know€that€you€have€beenÏworking€for€four€and€a€half€days.€€I€know€that€you€have€been€working€very€hard,€andÏI€am€going€to€ask€this€question,€because€I€feel€compelled€to€do€it:€€Do€you€think,€ifÏgiven€further€opportunity€to€discuss€the€merits€of€this€case,€that€you€could€resolveÏyour€differences,€ladies€and€gentlemen?Ìà8 àÌà8 àThe€Foreperson:€(Shaking€head€in€the€negative)ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€Does€anybody€feel€that€you€can?ÌÌà8 àJuror€No.€12:€No.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€€Ms.€Bunch,€it€is€not€going€to€happen?ÌÌà8 àJuror€No.€12:€€We€did€take€a€poll.€€We€did,€very€nicely,€go€around€the€table,€andÏhonestly€expressed€ourselves.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€€All€right.€€Well,€that€happens€sometimes.€Obviously,€we€would€haveÏpreferred€to€have€a€verdict.€€I€know€that€you€have€worked€long€and€hard€on€it.€€YouÏcan€imagine,€we€have€worked€long€and€hard€on€it.€€But€you€are€to€be€commended€forÏthe€time€and€effort€that€you€have€put€into€this€case.€€We€all€observed€you€during€theÏcourse€of€the€trial€and€are€aware€of€the€fact€that€you€listened€very€intently,€andÏobviously€took€your€job€very€seriously.ÌÌà8 àà àI€am€going€to€release€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen.ÌÌThe€court€proceeded€to€instruct€the€jurors€not€to€talk€about€the€case€until€they€had€been€contacted€byÏthe€court€and€thanked€the€jurors€for€their€service.€€Just€before€the€jurors€left€the€courtroom,€the€courtÏasked:ÌÌà8 àOh,€let€me€make€one€inquiry.€€I€donððt€want€to€know€which€way.€€In€other€words,€IÏdonððt€want€to€know€ð!ð€but€I€want€to€know€the€numerical€split.€€Okay?€€In€other€words,Ïwas€it€six€to€six?€€Was€it€eight€to€four?€€Was€it€nine€to€three?€€Can€you€give€me€aÏnumerical€split?ÌÌà8 àJuror€No.€11:€Six€to€six,€but€it€was€on€the€mental€responsibility€part,€not€the€guilt.ÌÌAfter€the€jury€left,€defense€counsel€discussed€the€schedule€for€filing€a€motion€for€a€judgment€ofÏacquittal,€stating€that€he€had€thirty€days€in€which€to€file€a€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€on€aÏmistrial.ÌÌà àIn€its€order€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€bar€retrial,€the€trial€court€found€that€afterÏsubstantial€time€and€effort,€the€jury€was€unable€to€reach€a€verdict€on€the€defendantððs€sanity.€€It€foundÏthat€the€defendant€requested€a€mistrial€during€jury€deliberations€and,€thus,€was€barred€fromÏbenefitting€from€an€action€that€he€requested.€€It€found€that€manifest€necessity€justified€a€mistrial€inÏthe€defendantððs€case.€€ÌÌà@ àA.€€JeopardyÌÌà àThe€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€of€each€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€ConstitutionsÏstates€that€no€person€shall€be€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb€for€the€same€offense.€Ô€?Ô€Ô€>ÔU.S.€Const.Ïamend.€V;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€10.€€The€clause€ð ðprotects€against€a€second€prosecution€for€the€sameÏoffense€after€acquittal.€€It€protects€against€a€second€prosecution€for€the€same€offense€after€conviction.€ÏAnd€it€protects€against€multiple€punishments€for€the€same€offense.ðð€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395ÏU.S.€711,€717,€89€S.€Ct.€2072,€2076€(1969);€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662,€664€(Tenn.€1996).€ÏIn€a€jury€trial,€jeopardy€attaches€when€the€jury€is€sworn.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Knightóó,€616€S.W.2d€593,€595Í(Tenn.1981).€€The€defendant€contends,€and€we€agree,€that€at€the€time€the€jury€was€discharged,Ïjeopardy€had€attached€in€his€case.€€ÌÌà àOnce€jeopardy€attaches,€a€defendant€has€a€valued€interest€in€having€the€particular€juryÏselected€for€trial€render€a€verdict.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Jornóó,€400€U.S.€486,€485,€91€S.€Ct.€547,€557Ï(1971).€€The€policy€behind€limiting€the€state€to€a€single€proceeding€is€the€recognition€that:ÌÌà8 àthe€State€with€all€its€resources€and€power€should€not€be€allowed€to€make€repeatedÏattempts€to€convict€an€individual€for€an€alleged€offense,€thereby€subjecting€him€toÏembarrassment,€expense€and€ordeal€and€compelling€him€to€live€in€a€continuing€stateÏof€anxiety€and€insecurity,€as€well€as€enhancing€the€possibility€that€even€thoughÏinnocent€he€may€be€found€guilty.ÌÌòòGreen€v.€United€Statesóó,€355€U.S.€184,€187„88,€78€S.€Ct.€221,€223€(1957).€€Although€the€DoubleÏJeopardy€Clause€protects€the€defendant,€ð ða€defendantððs€valued€right€to€have€his€trial€completed€by€aÏparticular€tribunal€must€in€some€instances€be€subordinated€to€the€publicððs€interest€in€fair€trialsÏdesigned€to€end€in€just€judgments.ðð€€òòWade€v.€Hunteróó,€336€U.S.€684,€688„89,€69€S.€Ct.€834,€836„37Ï(1949).ò òÌÌó óà àGenerally,€once€jeopardy€has€attached,€double€jeopardy€will€not€bar€a€retrial€if€the€defendantÏassents€to€the€trial€court€ending€the€proceedings.€€òòState€v.€Mounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€319,€321€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€In€such€case,€the€defendant€has€elected€to€waive€a€verdict€by€that€particular€jury.€€òòId.óó;€òòKnightóó,Ï616€S.W.2d€at€596.€€Double€jeopardy€also€does€not€preclude€retrial€if€manifest€necessity€exists€forÏthe€trial€court€to€declare€a€mistrial.€€òòMounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€at€321.€€This€is€true€even€if€the€defendantÏdoes€not€consent€to€the€mistrial€or,€in€fact,€objects€to€the€mistrial.€€òòId.óó€€€The€decision€to€grant€aÏmistrial€lies€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion,€and€we€defer€to€the€trial€courtððs€decision€absent€anÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòId.óó€at€322.Ì€€Ì€à@ àB.€€MistrialÌÌà àInitially,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€released€the€jury€without€declaring€a€mistrial.€ÏThe€state€contends€that€although€the€trial€court€did€not€expressly€state€that€it€was€declaring€a€mistrial,Ïthe€defendant€requested€a€mistrial,€all€parties€understood€that€the€trial€court€was€declaring€a€mistrial,Ïand€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€discharge€of€the€jury.€€In€arguing€that€the€defendant€requestedÏa€mistrial,€the€state€points€to€the€defendantððs€request€for€a€mistrial€following€the€juryððs€February€12Ïnote€and€again€following€the€courtððs€supplemental€insanity€instruction€the€next€morning.€€TheÏdefendant€argues€that€the€general€rule€that€a€mistrial€upon€defense€motion€does€not€bar€retrial€doesÏnot€apply€when€the€defendant€moves€for€a€mistrial€but€that€motion€does€not€relate€to€the€actions€ofÏthe€court€that€resulted€in€the€termination€of€the€proceedings.€€ÌÌà àFirst,€we€note€that€the€defendant€requested€a€mistrial€following€the€juryððs€February€12€note,Ïbelieving€it€revealed€that€the€jury€was€hopelessly€deadlocked.€€After€the€courtððs€supplementalÏinstruction€and€two€additional€hours€of€deliberation,€the€jury€reported€that€it€could€not€reach€aÏunanimous€decision.€€Thus,€we€question€whether€the€defendantððs€earlier€requests€for€a€mistrial€wereÏfor€a€different€reason€from€that€which€caused€the€trial€court€to€release€the€jury.€€In€any€event,€theÏrecord€reflects€that€following€the€courtððs€receipt€of€the€February€13€note,€defense€counsel€againÏrequested€a€mistrial:ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€€.€.€.€.€€Do€you€want€me€to€inquire€as€to€the€split?ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€€No,€sir.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€€Yes,€sir.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€€òòWe€would€move€for€a€mistrial.óóÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€€Well,€of€course,€that€would€be€after€a€mistrial€had€been€declared.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€€After€you€declare€a€mistrial€ð!ð€ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€€Oh,€yes.€€It€would€be€improper€to€ask€ð!ðÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€€Yes.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€€ð!ð€before€a€judge€made€a€ruling€on€the€mistrial€motion.ÓÓÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€discussions€preceding€and€following€the€juryððs€release€reveal€that€all€partiesÏunderstood€that€the€trial€court€was€going€to€and€did€declare€a€mistrial.€€Generally,€when€the€defendantÏrequests€or€consents€to€a€mistrial,€double€jeopardy€protections€do€not€bar€retrial.€€òòKnightóó,€616ÏS.W.2d€at€596.€€ð ðIn€such€a€case,€the€defendant€has€deliberately€elected€to€forego€his€right€to€haveÏguilt€or€innocence€determined€by€the€first€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòId.óóÌÌà àFurthermore,€even€when€the€trial€court€lacks€manifest€necessity€to€declare€a€mistrial,€theÏdefendantððs€consent€to€the€mistrial€permits€retrial.€€òòMounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€at€322.€€In€òòMounceóó,€ourÏsupreme€court€held€that€consent€may€be€inferred€from€the€defendantððs€failure€to€object€to€the€mistrialÏif€the€defendant€has€an€opportunity€to€object:ÌÌà8 à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€rationale€for€requiring€an€objection€to€a€mistake€is€that€it€gives€the€trial€judge€anÏopportunity€to€cure€a€situation€that€one€or€both€parties€perceive€to€be€in€error.€€AÏparty€ought€not€be€permitted€to€stand€silently€by€while€the€trial€court€commits€anÏerror€in€procedure,€and€then€later€rely€on€that€error€when€it€is€to€his€advantage€to€doÏso.€€This€is€why€there€is€precedent€dating€back€to€the€last€century€holding€that€if€anÏaccused€fails€to€object€to€the€jury's€discharge€upon€a€defective€verdict,€he€is€viewed€asÏhaving€waived€the€right€not€to€be€put€on€trial€again.€€òòState€v.€Ragsdaleóó,€78€Tenn.€671,Ï672€(1882);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòWaddle€v.€Stateóó,€112€Tenn.€556,€82€S.W.€827€(1904)€(absenceÏof€an€objection€to€the€discharge€of€the€jury€equates€to€a€waiver).€€We€thus€hold€thatÏwhen€a€defendant€chooses€not€to€object€to€the€mistrial€and€give€the€trial€court€anÏopportunity€to€correct€the€error,€consent€may€be€inferred€and,€therefore,€doubleÏjeopardy€will€not€bar€a€subsequent€prosecution.ÌÌ€òòId.óó€at€323.€€In€the€present€case,€despite€the€discussion€regarding€polling€the€jury€following€a€mistrial,Ïthe€defendant€lodged€no€objection€to€the€juryððs€release.€€Because€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€ÌÌconsented€to€the€mistrial,€double€jeopardy€does€not€bar€a€retrial€regardless€of€the€presence€or€absenceÏof€manifest€necessity.ÌÌà@ àC.€€Due€ProcessÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€denied€him€due€process€when€it€discharged€the€juryÏwithout€conferring€with€counsel€or€allowing€him€an€opportunity€to€be€heard.€€We€believe€the€recordÏbelies€this€contention.€€Following€its€receipt€of€the€February€13€note,€the€trial€court€read€the€note€toÏthe€parties€and€then€expressed€its€view€that€the€jury€had€deliberated€for€four€and€one„half€days€andÍwas€unable€to€agree.€€The€ensuing€discussion€reveals€that€the€parties€knew€that€the€trial€courtÏintended€to€declare€a€mistrial.€€The€defendant€failed€to€take€this€opportunity€to€object€to€the€juryððsÏrelease€and,€in€fact,€requested€a€mistrial€during€the€discussion.€€After€the€trial€court€discharged€theÏjury,€the€defendant€participated€in€a€discussion€regarding€the€schedule€for€filing€his€motion€for€aÏjudgment€of€acquittal€following€a€mistrial.€€The€defendant€had€an€opportunity€to€be€heard€on€theÏjuryððs€discharge€but€chose€to€make€no€objection.€€His€due€process€rights€were€not€violated.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCT€AND€JUDICIAL€OVERREACHINGó óÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€numerous€instances€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€judicialÏoverreaching€caused€the€jury€to€be€unable€to€reach€a€verdict€in€this€case€and,€thus,€double€jeopardyÏbars€a€retrial.€€He€argues€that€bad€faith€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€prosecutor€or€the€trial€court,€whichÏresults€in€a€mistrial,€prevents€retrial.€€He€asserts€that€in€addition€to€the€specific€examples€ofÏoverreaching€in€this€case,€the€totality€of€the€overreaching€ð!ð€including€conduct,€tactics€and€proceedingsÏthat€predate€the€1999€homicide€trial€ð!ð€precipitated€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict€on€his€sanityÏor€to€announce€its€verdict€on€guilt.€€The€state€contends€that€overreaching€alone€does€not€bar€retrialÏbut,€instead,€that€the€prosecutor€must€intend€to€goad€the€defendant€into€seeking€a€mistrial.€€It€arguesÏthat€the€defendant€does€not€even€allege€that€the€prosecutor€or€the€court€intended€to€goad€the€jury€intoÏthe€inability€to€reach€a€verdict.€€Finally,€it€maintains€that€none€of€the€instances€mentioned€by€theÏdefendant€can€be€considered€misconduct€or€overreaching€on€the€part€of€the€state€or€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àAs€noted€above,€double€jeopardy€does€not€bar€a€retrial€when€the€defendant€asks€for€a€mistrial.€ÏòòOregon€v.€Kennedyóó,€456€U.S.€667,€672,€102€S.€Ct.€2083,€2088€(1982);€òòMounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€at€321.€ÏA€narrow€exception€to€this€rule€exists:€€ð ðOnly€where€the€governmental€conduct€in€question€isÏintended€to€ððgoadðð€the€defendant€into€moving€for€a€mistrial€may€a€defendant€raise€the€bar€of€doubleÏjeopardy€to€a€second€trial€after€having€succeeded€in€aborting€the€first€on€his€own€motion.ðð€ÏòòKennedyóó,€456€U.S.€at€676,€102€S.€Ct.€at€2089.€€In€òòKennedyóó,€the€Supreme€Court€noted€the€possibleÏconfusion€stemming€from€language€in€other€cases€which€indicated€that€bad€faith€or€harassment€byÏthe€prosecutor€or€the€trial€court€would€be€sufficient€to€invoke€this€exception.€€òòId.óó€at€674,€678€n.8,€102ÏS.€Ct.€at€2088„89,€2090€n.8.€€The€Court€rejected€these€standards€in€favor€of€intent,€finding€themÏunmanageable€because€the€rational€prosecutor€is€always€seeking€to€ð ðððprejudiceðð€the€defendant€byÏplacing€before€the€judge€or€jury€evidence€leading€to€a€finding€of€his€guilt.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€674,€102€S.€Ct.Ï2089.€€ð ðProsecutorial€conduct€that€might€be€viewed€as€harassment€or€overreaching,€even€if€sufficientÏto€justify€a€mistrial€on€ÌÌdefendantððs€motion,€therefore,€does€not€bar€retrial€absent€intent€on€the€part€of€the€prosecutor€toÏsubvert€the€protections€afforded€by€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€675„76,€102€S.€Ct.€2089.Ì€€Ìà àTennessee€has€expressly€adopted€the€òòKennedyóó€standard€under€article€I,€section€10€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€for€determining€whether€prosecutorial€misconduct€will€bar€a€retrial.€€òòState€v.ÏTuckeróó,€728€S.W.2d€27,€31€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€ð ðOnly€when€it€is€shown€that€the€prosecutorÏis€ððgoadingðð€the€defense€into€moving€for€a€mistrial€will€double€jeopardy€bar€a€retrial.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€orderÏto€determine€the€prosecutorððs€intent,€the€trial€court€should€look€to€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÏprosecutor€at€the€time:ÌÌà8 àWhen€things€are€going€well,€the€prosecutor€will€seldom€want€to€provoke€a€mistrial.ÏHowever,€when€the€case€is€collapsing€around€the€prosecutor€because€the€witnessesÏare€weaker€than€expected,€adverse€rulings€have€kept€out€important€evidence,€or€keyÏwitnesses€cannot€be€found€or€did€not€appear,€the€trial€judge€can€infer€the€prosecutorððsÏintent€and€reach€the€conclusion€that€a€mistrial€was€actually€desired.€€The€prosecutorððsÏexplanation€of€his€intent€may€be€given€some€credence€ð ðin€light€of€the€minimumÍrequirements€expected€of€all€lawyers.ððÌÌòòId.óó€(quoting€òòPool€v.€Superior€Courtóó,€677€P.2d€261,€272€(Ariz.€1984)).€€The€trial€courtððs€factualÏfindings€in€this€regard€are€decisive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.ÏNixonóó,€669€S.W.2d€679,€681€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showingÏthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Loveóó,€597€F.2d€81€(6th€Cir.€1979),€and€òòState€v.€Enochóó,Ï650€F.2d€115€(6th€Cir.€1981),€to€argue€that€bad€faith€conduct€or€overreaching€by€the€prosecutor€orÏthe€trial€court€is€sufficient€to€bar€a€retrial€based€upon€double€jeopardy€principles.€€Initially,€we€noteÏthat€both€of€these€cases€were€decided€before€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòKennedyóó.€€InÏòòKennedyóó,€the€Court€noted€that€language€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Dintzóó,€424€U.S.€600,€96€S.€Ct.€1075Ï(1976),€and€òòUnited€States€v.€Jornóó,€400€U.S.€470,€91€S.€Ct.€547€(1971),€could€be€construed€to€meanÏthat€overreaching€itself€would€activate€the€double€jeopardy€bar€to€retrial.€€456€U.S.€at€674,€678€n.8,Ï102€S.€Ct.€at€2088„89,€2090€n.8.€€The€Sixth€Circuit€in€òòEnochóó€relied€upon€òòDintzóó€and€òòJornóó€to€hold€thatÏð ðwhen€a€criminal€defendantððs€successful€request€for€a€mistrial€is€precipitated€by€ððprosecutorial€orÏjudicial€overreaching,ðð€a€subsequent€trial€on€the€same€charges€is€barred€by€the€double€jeopardyÏclause.ðð€€òòEnochóó,€650€F.2d€at€117.€€It€is€this€standard€that€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòKennedyóó€found€tooÏbroad€to€apply.€€456€U.S.€at€674,€102€S.€Ct.€2089.€€In€adopting€the€òòKennedyóó€standard€in€òòTuckeróó,€thisÏcourt€noted€that€it€protected€both€the€ð ðdefendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€societyððs€right€to€haveÏguilty€criminals€convictedðð€by€reserving€the€double€jeopardy€bar€for€only€those€instances€in€whichÏthe€prosecutor€sought€to€cause€the€defendant€to€foreclose€submitting€the€case€to€a€particular€jury:ÌÌà8 àIn€the€overwhelming€majority€of€the€cases,€corrective€instructions€to€the€jury€can€beÏutilized€to€remove€the€taint€of€less€serious€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€In€cases€ofÏmore€serious€error,€the€court€can€admonish€the€prosecutor€in€the€presence€of€the€jury,Ïexpressing€the€courtððs€disdain€for€the€prosecutorððs€improper€actions.€€Finally,€in€theÏmost€egregious€cases,€the€trial€judge€can,€upon€a€defense€motion,€grant€a€mistrial€andÏpreserve€the€defendantððs€right€to€a€retrial€before€another€Ô_ÔuntaintedÔ_Ô€jury.€€Only€when€itÏis€shown€that€the€prosecutor€is€ð ðgoadingðð€the€defense€into€moving€for€a€mistrial€willÏdouble€jeopardy€bar€a€retrial.ÌÌòòTuckeróó,€728€S.W.2d€at€31.€€Thus,€overreaching€or€misconduct€alone€is€insufficient€to€bar€a€retrial.€€€Ìà àIn€its€order€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€bar€retrial,€the€trial€court€found€that€noÏprosecutorial€misconduct€or€trial€court€error€forced€a€mistrial€in€this€case.€€The€record€does€notÏpreponderate€against€this€finding.€€The€defendant€moved€for€a€mistrial€following€the€juryððs€FebruaryÏ12€note,€arguing€that€the€jury€was€hopelessly€deadlocked.€€The€prosecutor€agreed€with€the€trial€courtÏthat€the€jury€was€merely€asking€for€further€instruction.€€The€trial€court€even€stated€that€it€was€amazedÏthat€the€defendant€did€not€want€the€jury€to€deliberate€further€on€the€issue.€€After€the€trial€courtÏprovided€additional€instructions€on€insanity€and€the€jury€deliberated€further,€the€jury€announced€itsÏinability€to€reach€a€verdict.€€At€this€point,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€jury€was€deadlocked,€theÏdefendant€requested€a€mistrial,€and€the€discussion€focused€on€whether€the€trial€court€could€ask€theÏjury€about€its€numerical€split.€€Nothing€about€these€events€suggests€that€the€prosecutor€or€the€courtÏwas€attempting€to€goad€the€defendant€into€requesting€a€mistrial.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€makes€numerous€allegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€judicialÏoverreaching,€which€he€claims€precipitated€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict.€€With€regard€toÏprosecutorial€misconduct,€he€argues€that€the€prosecutor€made€improper€and€prejudicial€arguments€toÏthe€jury€which€caused€it€to€be€unable€to€reach€a€verdict.€€He€contends€that€the€stateððs€proof€of€hisÏsanity€was€weak€and€hinged€upon€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Herbert€Speigel.€€He€argues€that€Dr.€SpeigelÏmisapplied€the€MððNaughten€test€for€insanity€and€that€the€jury€obviously€rejected€Dr.€SpeigelððsÍtestimony€that€the€defendant€did€not€suffer€from€a€mental€disease.€€Thus,€the€defendant€claims€that€inÏlight€of€all€the€experts€who€found€the€defendant€insane€under€the€Graham€test€or€who€could€notÏdisprove€insanity,€the€jury€necessarily€based€its€inability€to€reach€a€verdict€upon€the€prosecutorððsÏimproper€arguments.€€He€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€engaged€in€misconduct€during€trial,Ïwhich€included€his€failure€to€approach€the€bench€during€bench€conferences,€personal€comments€toÏthe€jury,€and€conduct€revealing€his€obvious€hatred€of€the€defendant.€€Although€the€defendantÏacknowledges€the€difficulty€in€linking€this€alleged€conduct€to€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict,Ïhe€argues€that€once€he€has€shown€that€the€misconduct€occurred,€the€state€must€show€that€the€conductÏdid€not€precipitate€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict.€€To€the€contrary,€as€noted€above,€theÏdefendant€must€prove€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€noÏprosecutorial€misconduct€forced€a€mistrial€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòNixonóó,€669€S.W.2d€at€681.ÌÌà àRegarding€his€claims€of€judicial€overreaching,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€followingÏactions€on€the€part€of€the€trial€court€resulted€in€the€state€securing€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Speigel:Ïengaging€in€a€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€and€òòexóó€òòparteóó€investigation€of€his€mental€condition;€failing€to€hold€a€hearingÏpursuant€to€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€1997),€on€the€admissibility€ofÏDr.€Speigelððs€testimony;€failing€to€exclude€Dr.€Speigelððs€testimony€on€the€basis€of€Rules€104,€403,Ï702,€and€703,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.;€permitting€Dr.€Speigel€to€testify€pursuant€to€the€stateððs€leadingÏquestions€to€opinions€not€contained€in€his€one€and€one„half€page€report;€and€failing€to€require€Dr.ÏSpeigel€to€give€his€opinions€to€a€reasonable€degree€of€psychiatric€certainty.€€€He€contends€that€theÏtrial€court€erroneously€permitted€the€state€to€present€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Speigel€and€Dr.€NeilÏHaskell,€an€entomologist,€in€rebuttal€rather€than€granting€his€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€forÏinsufficient€evidence€at€the€end€of€the€stateððs€proof€with€regard€to€his€sanity€or€to€the€murder€ofÏPatricia€Johnson.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€refused€to€suppress€his€1992Ïstatements,€which€resulted€in€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict€because€the€statements€constitutedÏthe€sole€evidence€linking€him€to€the€murders.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€deniedÏhim€funds€and€international€assistance€to€locate€Astrid€Poppy,€a€German€citizen€whom€ð ðKyle,ðð€oneÏof€the€defendantððs€alternate€personalities,€falsely€confessed€to€raping.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€trialÏcourt€overreached€by€erroneously€redacting€the€portions€of€his€statements€that€related€to€AstridÏPoppy.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€erroneous€and€arbitrary€admission€of€evidence€under€RuleÏ404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€precipitated€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict€on€insanity€or€to€announce€aÏverdict€on€factual€guilt.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€overreached€by€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€instructing€theÏjury€to€disregard€defense€counselððs€arguments€outlining€the€involuntary€hospitalization€processÏcontained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„7„303.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€toÏinstruct€the€jury€on€the€time€of€the€offense€contained€in€the€bill€of€particulars€for€Patricia€JohnsonððsÏmurder.€€He€claims€the€trial€court€overreached€by€instructing€the€jury€to€continue€its€deliberations€at€aÏtime€when€neither€the€defendant€nor€the€court€reporter€were€in€the€courtroom.€€€He€claims€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€disqualification€constitutes€overreaching€and€infected€every€ruling€and€proceeding,Ïcausing€the€jury€to€be€unable€to€reach€a€verdict.€€ÌÌà àEven€taking€all€of€the€defendantððs€allegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€or€judicialÏoverreaching€as€true,€we€conclude€that€none€of€this€conduct€reveals€that€the€prosecutor€or€the€trialÏcourt€intended€to€provoke€a€mistrial.€€Furthermore,€nothing€alleged€by€the€defendant€gives€anyÏreason€to€expand€upon€the€requirement€in€òòTuckeróó€that€the€prosecutor€or€court€must€intend€to€provokeÏthe€defendantððs€request€for€a€mistrial.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€allegations€regarding€the€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€prosecutor€and€trialÏcourt€during€the€murder€trial,€the€defendant€contends€that€conduct€preceding€his€murder€trial€causedÏthe€jury€to€be€unable€to€reach€a€verdict.€€He€lists€the€following€conduct€as€resulting€in€the€stateÏsecuring€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Speigel:€prosecutorial€delay€in€bringing€the€rape€cases€before€theÏmurder€cases;€prosecutorial€manipulation€of€the€Rule€12.2(c),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€mental€evaluationÍprocess;€the€trial€court€continuing€the€murder€trial€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€three€times€over€defendantððs€objectionÏand€request€for€a€speedy€trial;€the€trial€judgeððs€refusal€to€hear€any€motions€from€May€to€AugustÏ1998€due€to€his€campaign€for€reelection;€and€the€trial€courtððs€permitting€the€state€to€abuse€the€RuleÏ16(a)(1)(D),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€disclosure€process€by€not€revealing€Dr.€Speigelððs€report€untilÏshortly€before€trial.€€He€argues€that€the€prosecutor€directed€law€enforcement€officers€to€violate€theÏdefendantððs€constitutional€rights€in€November€1992€regarding€the€taking€of€the€ð ðKyleðð€and€ð ðPhilipÏDaxðð€statements,€which€precipitated€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€a€verdict€in€the€murder€case.€€HeÏargues€that€Judges€Jenkins€and€Baumgartner€were€biased€against€the€defense€as€reflected€in€theirÏtreatment€of€the€Rule€12.2(c)€issue€in€the€rape€cases.€€He€also€contends€that€his€invalid€convictions€inÏthe€Hanshaw€and€consolidated€rape€cases€affected€his€defense€and€prevented€him€from€testifying€inÏthe€murder€cases.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€rule€on€the€motions€for€new€trial€in€theseÏcases€before€his€murder€trial€foreclosed€his€opportunity€to€have€those€convictions€overturned€onÏappeal€before€his€murder€trial.€€€Ô_Ôà àà àà àà àÔ_ÔÌà àRegarding€the€pretrial€events€relating€to€his€murder€trial,€he€contends€that€the€trial€courtððsÏallowing€the€state€to€join€the€four€murder€cases€for€trial€precipitated€the€juryððs€inability€to€reach€aÏverdict.€€He€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€permitted€the€state€to€disclose€only€testifyingÏexperts€and€to€withhold€consulting€experts,€forcing€the€defendant€to€prepare€his€defense€withoutÏdisclosure€of€Dr.€Speigelððs€report€until€shortly€before€trial.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€delayed€in€ruling€on€the€motion€to€suppress€his€statements€until€shortly€before€trial€andÏthat€this€overreaching€lead€to€the€erroneous€admission€of€those€statements,€which€were€the€onlyÏevidence€linking€him€to€the€murders.€€Finally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€totality€of€theÏoverreaching,€including€the€conduct,€tactics,€and€proceedings€that€occurred€before€the€1999€trial,Ïresulted€in€the€jury€having€enough€inadmissible€evidence€to€be€unable€to€announce€a€verdict.€€We€failÏto€see€the€connection€of€these€pretrial€events€to€the€mistrial€in€the€present€case.€€Because€we€canÏascertain€no€evidence€that€the€prosecutor€or€the€trial€court€intended€through€any€of€the€conductÏalleged€by€the€defendant€to€goad€him€into€requesting€a€mistrial,€double€jeopardy€does€not€bar€a€retrialÏdue€to€prosecutorial€misconduct€or€judicial€overreaching.€€And€again,€we€see€no€reason€to€expandÏupon€òòTuckeróó.Ì€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àThe€defendant€contends€that€when€the€termination€of€the€proceedings€results€from€aÏdeadlocked€jury€rather€than€a€defendantððs€request€for€a€mistrial,€the€question€becomes€whether€theÏevidence,€excluding€that€resulting€from€prosecutorial€misconduct€or€judicial€overreaching,€isÏsufficient€to€support€a€verdict€of€guilt€or€whether€the€defendant€was€denied€a€fundamentally€fair€trial,Ïprecipitating€the€juryððs€inability€to€agree.€€The€termination€of€the€proceedings€in€the€present€caseÏresulted€from€the€defendantððs€request€for€and€consent€to€the€mistrial.€€The€proper€standard€isÏwhether€the€prosecutor€or€the€trial€court€intended€to€goad€the€defendant€into€requesting€the€mistrialÏby€prosecutorial€misconduct€or€judicial€overreaching.€€We€hold€that€the€standard€was€not€met€in€thisÏcase€and,€therefore,€that€double€jeopardy€does€not€bar€a€retrial€of€the€four€first€degree€murderÏcharges.€Ìà à€Ìò òà@ àIII.€€SPECIAL€VERDICTSó óÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€jury€reached€a€verdict€on€factual€guilt€but€that€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€failed€to€take€that€verdict€or€any€verdicts€on€the€degree€of€homicide€before€releasing€theÏjury.€€In€his€reply€brief,€he€explains€that€the€term€ð ðfactual€guilt,ðð€as€used€by€himself€and€the€trialÏcourt,€refers€to€the€commission€of€the€act€constituting€the€offense,€excluding€the€issue€of€his€sanity€atÏthe€time€the€act€was€committed.€€Although€not€entirely€clear,€we€take€this€to€mean€the€commission€ofÏthe€killing.€€In€support€of€his€contention,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€courtððs€instructions€and€theÏverdict€form€directed€the€jury€to€make€multiple€verdicts€and€that€he€had€factual€defenses€to€eachÏhomicide€in€addition€to€his€insanity€defense.€€He€also€argues€that€double€jeopardy,€res€judicata,€andÏcollateral€estoppel€prohibit€retrial€of€the€issue€of€whether€he€suffered€from€a€mental€disease€or€defectÍbecause€the€jury€rendered€a€special€verdict€as€to€that€issue.€€The€state€argues€that€the€jury€had€toÏdetermine€both€the€defendantððs€guilt€of€a€particular€offense€and€his€sanity€in€order€to€render€aÏverdict.€€It€thus€contends€that€there€were€no€separate€verdicts€for€the€trial€court€to€accept.ÌÌà àFor€each€of€the€four€victims,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€elements€of€first€degreeÏmurder,€second€degree€murder,€and€voluntary€manslaughter.€€For€victim€Patricia€Ann€Johnson,€theÏcourt€also€instructed€on€the€elements€of€reckless€homicide€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€ÏBecause€the€murders€occurred€before€July€1,€1995,€the€defendantððs€insanity€defense€was€a€generalÏdefense€rather€than€an€affirmative€defense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€(1991,€amended€1995)€(inÏpost„1995€cases,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€insanity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence).€ÏThus,€once€the€defendant€raised€the€issue€of€insanity,€the€state€had€the€burden€of€proving€his€sanityÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€Regarding€the€insanity€defense,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury:ÌÌà8 àà àIncluded€in€the€defendantððs€plea€of€not€guilty€is€his€plea€that€he€was€insane€atÏthe€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€You€are€not€to€consider€this€defenseÏunless€you€have€found€that€the€State€has€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÏexistence€of€each€and€every€essential€element€of€the€crimes€charged.ÌÌà8 àà àA€person€is€not€responsible€for€criminal€conduct€if€at€the€time€of€suchÏconduct€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect€he€lacked€substantial€capacity€toÏappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law.ÌÌà8 àà àA€mental€disease€or€defect€is€defined€as€any€abnormal€condition€of€the€mindÏwhich€substantially€affects€mental€or€emotional€processes€and€impairs€behaviorÏcontrol.€€Behavior€controls€refer€to€the€processes€and€capacity€of€a€person€to€regulateÏand€control€his€conduct.€€The€terms€ð ðmental€disease€or€defectðð€do€not€include€anyÏabnormality€manifested€only€by€repeated€criminal€or€otherwise€antisocial€conduct.ÌÌThe€court€instructed€the€jury€that€once€the€evidence€raised€a€reasonable€doubt€about€the€defendantððsÏsanity,€the€state€had€the€burden€of€proving€the€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àBefore€deliberations€and€with€the€jury€out,€the€court€noted€with€regard€to€the€verdict€form:€ð ðIÏdecided€to€just€put€the€mental€responsibility€as€a€separate€section.€€Obviously,€if€they€find€himÏinsane,€it€is€going€to€apply€to€all€of€it.€€So€I€just€put€that€at€the€end.€€I€think€that€makes€it€as€clear€as€itÏcan€make€it.ðð€€Neither€party€objected€to€this.€€The€court€explained€the€verdict€form€to€the€jury€asÏfollows:ÌÌà8 àWhat€this€does,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€is€it€starts€with€the€four€alleged€victims€in€thisÏcase.€€It€starts€with€Patricia€Rose€Anderson.€€The€first€paragraph€is,€ð ðWe,€the€jury,Ïfind€the€defendant€Thomas€Dee€Huskey€guilty,€not€guiltyðð€ð!ð€you€circle€one€of€thoseÏtwo,€obviously€ð!ð€of€the€first€degree€murder€of€Patricia€Rose€Anderson.ððÌÌà8 àà àIf€you€find€him€not€guilty€of€that€offense,€then€you€go€on€to€the€lesserÏincluded€offense.€€If€you€find€him€not€guilty€of€second€degree,€you€go€on€andÏconsider€voluntary€manslaughter.€€If€you€find€him€guilty€of€a€greater€offense,€youÏstop€there.€€Obviously,€you€donððt€have€to€go€beyond€that.€€Okay?ÌÌÌà8 àà àIt€is€listed€for€each€of€the€four€victims.€€.€.€.€.€€And€then€the€last€question€is€theÏmental€responsibility€issue;€and,€if€you€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€any€offenses,€itÍsays,€ð ðHaving€found€the€defendant€guilty,€as€indicated€above,€we€the€jury€find,ðð€andÏthen€you€will€choose€either€the€defendant€sane€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€or€notÏguilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€Those€will€be€your€two€choices€there.ÌÌÓÓThe€jury€began€deliberations.ÌÓÓà àOn€February€11,€the€jury€sent€the€court€a€note,€which€read:€ð ðDo€we€have€to€unanimouslyÏagree€on€all€four€charges?€€If€we€agree€on€all€but€one,€are€we€a€hung€jury?€€What€is€the€procedure?ðð€ÏDuring€the€course€of€the€discussion€about€how€the€court€would€instruct€the€jury,€the€followingÏexchange€took€place:ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€Judge,€let€me€bring€something€ð!ð€I€still€do€not€understand€how€weÏare€considering€first€degree€murder€separate€from€the€issue€of€insanity.€€What€I€amÏsaying€to€the€Court€is€that,€if€Mr.€Huskey€were€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity,€heÏcould€not€possibly€be€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€He€can€be€guilty€of€first€degree€murder,€but€not€mentally€responsible€byÏreason€ð!ð€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€Well,€we€have€always€disagreed€as€to€that,€and€I€continue€toÏdisagree€to€that;€because,€if€he€was€insane€at€the€time,€he€did€not€have€the€mens€rea€toÏcommit€first€degree€murder.ÌÌà8 à[Prosecutor]:€The€murders€happened€at€different€times.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€If€they€find€him€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity,€I€agree€that€he€is€notÏcriminally€responsible€then€for€that€conduct.ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€But€we€have€an€inconsistency€in€this€verdict€process€that€we€areÏgoing€through€is€what€I€am€suggesting€to€the€Court.ÌÌà8 àThe€Court:€You€have€no€objection€to€that€charge€[relating€to€the€juryððs€note]?ÌÌà8 à[Defense€Counsel]:€No,€but€we€continue€to€object€to€the€manner€in€which€they€areÏbeing€asked€to€state€their€verdict,€because€what€if€they€come€back€and€say,€ð ðWe€findÏhim€guilty€of€first€degree€murder,€but€we€find€him€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanityðð?€ÏThose€are€inconsistent€verdicts.ÌÌà àOn€February€12,€the€jury€sent€the€court€a€note,€discussed€in€the€above€section,€which€stated:ÌÌÌà8 àYour€Honor:Ìà8 àà àWe€are€unable€to€come€to€a€unanimous€decision€on€mental€responsibility.€ÏPeopleððs€decisions€are€unlikely€to€change.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLeslie€BooneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àForemanÌÌà8 àWe€can€agree€that€he€has€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€but€we€cannot€decide€on€theÏsecond€part€on€p.€18€#€€2€&€3.€€Can€you€give€us€some€guidance?ÌÌOn€February€13,€the€trial€court€announced€its€intention€to€release€the€jury€because€it€could€not€reachÍa€unanimous€verdict.€€It€inquired€about€the€juryððs€numerical€split,€to€which€one€juror€replied€that€theÏjury€was€split€ð ð[s]ix€to€six,€but€it€was€on€the€mental€responsibility€part,€not€the€guilt.ðð€€ÌÌà àIn€its€order€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€bar€retrial,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€made€no€request€that€the€jury€be€polled€for€any€partial€verdicts€and€that€it€had€no€duty€toÏpoll€the€jury€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€for€a€partial€verdict.€€It€also€noted€that€the€defendant€specifically€objected€toÏany€poll€other€than€one€for€the€juryððs€numerical€split€on€sanity.€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà@ àA.€€Special€Verdicts€on€the€Act€of€Killing€and€the€Degrees€of€HomicideÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€his€constitutional€right€to€a€verdict€by€a€particular€tribunal€includesÏhis€right€to€verdicts€on€the€issues€of€whether€he€committed€the€act€of€killing€and€which€degree€ofÏhomicide€the€jury€found.€€The€four€counts€of€first€degree€murder€were€tried€jointly€over€theÏdefendantððs€objection,€and€each€count€had€lesser€included€offenses.€€The€defendant€argues€that€theÏjury€had€to€find€that€he€committed€the€killings€as€a€condition€precedent€to€finding€him€criminallyÏinsane.€€He€asserts€that€the€jury€instructions€and€the€verdict€form€asked€the€jury€to€give€specialÏverdicts€on€whether€he€committed€the€act€of€killing,€what€degree€of€homicide€he€committed,€andÏwhether€he€was€insane.€€He€contends€that€the€juryððs€February€12€note€stating€that€the€jury€agreedÏthat€he€had€a€mental€disease€or€defect€and€the€jurorððs€comment€that€the€jury€was€split€six€to€six€onÏthe€mental€responsibility€issue€necessarily€means€that€the€jury€had€found€the€defendant€guilty€ofÏsome€degree€of€one€of€the€homicides.€€He€argues€that€the€jury€was€not€deadlocked€on€the€issue€ofÏwhether€he€committed€the€act€of€killing.€€Thus,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€takeÏthese€special€verdicts€and€that€double€jeopardy€bars€a€retrial€because€these€special€verdicts€were€notÏtaken.€€Furthermore,€he€claims€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€collect€theseÏspecial€verdicts€because€a€jury€finding€on€the€act€of€killing€would€have€entitled€him€to€a€Rule€3,ÏT.R.A.P.,€appeal€on€many€critical€issues,€thereby€ensuring€a€fair€opportunity€for€an€acquittal€in€a€newÏtrial.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€asserts€that€the€jury€could€not€render€a€verdict€on€the€defendantððs€guilt€for€aÏparticular€offense€without€also€determining€his€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€and€that€there€wereÏno€separate€verdicts€for€the€trial€court€to€accept.€€It€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€request€that€the€juryÏfirst€determine€whether€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€any€degree€of€homicide€and€then€decide€whetherÏhe€was€insane€was€error.€€It€argues€that€the€defendantððs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€each€homicide€wasÏan€essential€element€of€that€offense€and€that€a€finding€on€both€the€act€of€killing€and€sanity€wereÏnecessary€before€the€jury€could€render€any€verdict.ò ò€€ó óIt€argues€that€because€the€jury€was€deadlockedÏon€sanity,€it€could€not€have€made€a€determination€of€the€òòmensóó€òòreaóó€element€of€each€offense.€€The€stateÏconcludes€that€the€trial€court€could€not€have€taken€findings€on€a€degree€of€homicide€for€each€victim.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€jury€instructions€and€verdict€form€lead€us€to€conclude€that€it€wasÏimpossible€for€the€jury€to€follow€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€and€that€they€could€not€arrive€at€anyÏspecial€findings€regarding€the€degree€of€homicide.€€The€instructions€and€the€verdict€form€asked€theÏjury€to€determine€if€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€any€degree€of€homicide€before€deciding€if€he€wasÏinsane€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€Each€degree€of€homicide€requires€the€jury€to€consider€theÏdefendantððs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„202,€„210,€„211,€„212,€„215.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€raised€the€issue€of€his€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€TheÏissue€of€whether€the€defendant€was€insane€at€the€time€of€the€offense€is€inextricably€intertwined€withÏthe€determination€of€the€defendantððs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòStone€v.€Stateóó,€521ÏS.W.2d€597,€600„01€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)€(holding€that€the€defendant€was€not€entitled€to€aÏbifurcated€trial€on€the€insanity€issue€because€ð ðthe€defense€of€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€crime€is€atÏissue€under€a€plea€of€not€guiltyðð).€€The€request€that€the€jury€separate€these€considerations€and€firstÏfind€the€defendant€guilty€of€some€offense€before€considering€whether€he€was€insane€ð!ð€and€therefore,Ínot€guilty€ð!ð€at€the€time€of€the€offense€was€erroneous.€€Because€the€jury€deadlocked€on€insanity,€itÏcould€not€have€made€any€proper€findings€on€the€degree€of€homicide.€€Regarding€the€act€of€killing,€weÏdecline€to€infer€a€special€verdict€on€the€act€of€killing€when€the€defendant€did€not€request€the€trialÏcourt€to€take€a€special€verdict€and€the€jury€did€not€affirmatively€indicate€that€it€made€a€finding€on€theÏact€of€killing.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€defendant€to€plead€both€notÏguilty€and€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€Citing€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€it€argues€thatÏTennessee€law€does€not€permit€a€plea€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€It€asserts€that,€instead,€theÏdefendant€should€have€pled€not€guilty€and€then€advanced€insanity€as€one€of€his€theories€of€defense.€ÏThe€defendant€contends€that€case€law€reveals€that€a€plea€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€is€proper.€€ÌÌà àRule€11(a),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€that€a€ð ðdefendant€may€plead€not€guilty,€guilty,€orÏnolo€contendere.ðð€€In€òòJimmy€Don€Spangler€v.€Stateóó,€No.€968,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÏApr.€2,€1987),€òòapp.€dismissedóó€(Tenn.€June€29,€1987),€the€trial€court€sustained€the€stateððs€objectionÏpursuant€to€Rule€11€to€the€defendantððs€alternative€pleas€of€not€guilty€and€not€guilty€by€reason€ofÏinsanity.€€This€court€noted€that€the€state€was€technically€correct€that€Rule€11€did€not€provide€for€aÏplea€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€and€that€ð ða€plea€of€not€guilty€encompasses€a€plea€of€notÏguilty€by€reason€of€insanity.ðð€€òòJimmy€Don€Spangleróó,€slip€op.€at€7„8.€€The€court€concluded€that€noÏreversible€error€resulted€from€the€sustaining€of€the€stateððs€objection€because€the€defendant€developedÏhis€insanity€defense€at€trial€and€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€consider€his€insanity€defense.€ÏWe€do€not€take€this€analysis€to€foreclose€a€plea€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€Furthermore,Ïour€supreme€court€has€explicitly€referred€to€a€defendant€pleading€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€ÏòòForbes€v.€Stateóó,€559€S.W.2d€318,€328„29€(Tenn.€1977)€(ð ðIt€is€our€view€that€when€any€defendant,Ïsuffering€from€a€mental€illness€that€is€cyclic,€periodic€or€episodic€in€nature,€characterized€by€periodsÏof€remission,€interposes€a€plea€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity,€it€is€incumbent€upon€him€to€makeÏout€a€prima€facie€case€of€insanity€by€offering€evidence€of€non„remission€at€the€time€of€commissionÏof€the€crimes.ðð);€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòSampson€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€345,€346€(Tenn.€1977)€(noting€that€theÏdefendant€pled€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity);€òòWalden€v.€Stateóó,€178€Tenn.€71,€72,€156€S.W.2dÏ385,€385€(Tenn.€1941)€(noting€that€the€ð ðdefendant€entered€pleas€of€ððnot€guiltyðð€and€ððinsanityðððð);ÏòòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€968€S.W.2d€874,€875€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(noting€that€the€defendant€pled€notÏguilty€by€reason€of€insanity);€òòMatlock€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€892,€894€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)Ï(noting€that€the€defendant€pled€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity).€€Even€the€uniform€judgmentÏdocument€required€by€the€supreme€court€provides€for€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€17.€€In€fact,€a€jury€must€declare€a€not€guilty€verdict€is€by€reason€of€insanity€inÏorder€to€trigger€the€sixty€to€ninety€days€detention€of€a€defendant€for€evaluation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€33„7„303(a).€€A€plea€to€match€the€verdict€can€only€be€appropriate.€€In€any€event,€the€fact€thatÏthe€defendant€in€the€present€case€pled€both€not€guilty€and€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€does€notÏmean€that€the€jury€rendered€special€verdicts€regarding€the€act€of€killing€or€the€degree€of€homicide€forÏeach€offense.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àFinally,€as€a€part€of€his€argument€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€take€the€juryððs€specialÏverdicts,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€not€qualified€to€rule€on€his€double€jeopardyÏmotion€because€it€received€an€òòex€parteóó€letter€from€the€foreperson€on€February€15,€1999.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€letter€revealed€the€juryððs€numerical€split€on€whether€the€defendant€committed€the€killing€andÏhis€sanity€and€the€details€of€the€juryððs€deliberations.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€tell€himÏthat€it€had€received€the€letter€or€to€file€the€letter€with€the€record.€€Upon€learning€of€the€letter,€theÏdefendant€filed€a€motion€to€disqualify€the€trial€judge.€€The€trial€judge€overruled€this€motion,€statingÏthat€his€secretary€received€and€opened€the€letter€and€that€he€did€not€read€it.€€The€defendant€contendsÏthat€the€trial€judgeððs€receipt€of€this€letter€provides€a€reasonable€basis€to€question€whether€the€judgeÏhad€personal€knowledge€of€the€juryððs€verdict€on€the€act€of€killing€at€the€time€the€judge€ruled€on€theÍdefendantððs€motion€to€bar€retrial.€€He€argues€that€at€the€very€least,€receipt€of€the€letter€creates€theÏappearance€that€the€trial€court€had€personal€knowledge€of€facts€before€the€court€in€the€motion€to€barÏretrial,€and€therefore,€the€trial€judge€was€not€qualified€to€rule€on€the€defendantððs€motion.ÌÌà àA€trial€judge€should€grant€a€motion€to€recuse€whenever€his€or€her€impartiality€can€reasonablyÏbe€questioned.€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1994).€€Recusal€isÏð ðwarranted€when€a€person€of€ordinary€prudence€in€the€judge's€position,€knowing€all€of€the€factsÏknown€to€the€judge€would€find€a€reasonable€basis€for€questioning€the€judge's€impartiality.ðð€€òòId.óó€TheÏstandard€of€review€on€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€denying€the€motion.€ÏòòState€v.€Cashóó,€867€S.W.2d€741,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1993).€€The€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct€statesÏin€pertinent€part:ÌÌà8 à(1)€A€judge€shall€disqualify€himself€or€herself€in€a€proceeding€in€which€the€judgeððsÏimpartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned,€including€but€not€limited€to€instancesÏwhere:Ìà8 àà8 à(a)€the€judge€has€a€personal€bias€or€prejudice€concerning€a€party€or€aÏpartyððs€lawyer,€or€personal€knowledge€of€disputed€evidentiary€factsÏconcerning€the€proceeding;€Ìà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌTenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€10,€Cannon€3€E.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€defendantððs€argument€regarding€the€trial€courtððs€receipt€of€a€letterÏfrom€the€jury€foreperson€has€no€bearing€upon€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€attempted€to€collectÏspecial€verdicts€before€discharging€the€jury.€€In€any€event,€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€read€the€letter€and,€therefore,€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€any€facts€at€issue€in€the€defendantððsÏmotion€to€bar€retrial.€€€€ÌÌà@ àB.€€Factual€Determination€on€Mental€Disease€or€DefectÌò òÌà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€jury€found€that€he€had€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€andÏtherefore,€double€jeopardy,€res€judicata,€and€collateral€estoppel€prevent€the€state€from€relitigating€thatÏissue€in€any€future€trial.€€He€asserts€that€his€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offenses€and€at€the€time€heÏmade€statements€to€the€police€will€be€an€issue€in€the€event€of€a€retrial.€€He€maintains€that€in€itsÏFebruary€12€note,€the€jury€announced€that€it€unanimously€agreed€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€aÏmental€disease€or€defect.€€He€argues€that€jeopardy€attaches€to€this€finding.€€He€also€summarilyÏcontends€that€res€judicata€and€collateral€estoppel€prevent€the€state€from€relitigating€the€issue€ofÏwhether€he€suffered€from€a€mental€disease€or€defect.€He€argues€that€this€finding€by€the€juryÏimplicates€the€voluntariness€of€his€statements€to€the€police,€the€manner€in€which€his€Rule€12.2(c)Ïmental€evaluations€were€conducted,€the€striking€of€the€insanity€defense€in€the€Hanshaw€rape€case,€theÏstriking€of€the€right€to€use€expert€testimony€in€the€consolidated€rape€cases,€and€the€sentencing€in€theÏHanshaw€and€consolidated€rape€cases.€€The€state€does€not€respond€to€this€argument€other€thanÏadvancing€the€general€argument€that€the€jury€cannot€return€any€verdict€without€a€finding€on€bothÏinsanity€and€the€elements€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àAs€set€out€above,€on€February€12,€1999,€the€jury€sent€the€trial€court€a€note€which€stated:ÌÌà8 àYour€Honor:Ìà8 àà àWe€are€unable€to€come€to€a€unanimous€decision€on€mental€responsibility.€ÏPeopleððs€decisions€are€unlikely€to€change.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLeslie€BooneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àForemanÌÌà8 àWe€can€agree€that€he€has€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€but€we€cannot€decide€on€theÏsecond€part€on€p.€18€#€€2€&€3.€€Can€you€give€us€some€guidance?ÌÌIn€its€order€on€the€defendantððs€motion€to€bar€retrial,€the€trial€court€made€no€determination€regardingÏwhether€this€note€constituted€a€finding€of€fact€by€the€jury.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€res€judicata€bars€relitigation€of€the€issue€of€mental€disease€orÏdefect.€€Our€supreme€court€has€noted€the€following€distinction€between€the€doctrines€of€res€judicataÏand€collateral€estoppel:ÌÌà8 àð ðThe€doctrine€of€res€judicata€bars€a€second€suit€between€the€same€parties€or€theirÏprivies€on€the€same€cause€of€action€with€respect€to€all€issues€which€were€or€couldÏhave€been€litigated€in€the€former€suit.€€Collateral€estoppel€operates€to€bar€a€secondÏsuit€between€the€same€parties€and€their€privies€on€a€different€cause€of€action€only€asÏto€issues€which€were€actually€litigated€and€determined€in€the€former€suit.ððÌÌòòRichardson€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Dentistryóó,€913€S.W.2d€446,€459€(Tenn.€1995)€(quoting€òòGoeke€v.ÏWoodsóó,€777€S.W.2d€347,€349€(Tenn.€1989)).€€ð ðððRes€judicataðð€bars€relitigation€of€the€same€cause€ofÏaction€between€the€same€parties€where€there€is€a€prior€judgment,€whereas€ððcollateral€estoppelðð€barsÏrelitigation€of€a€particular€issue€or€determinative€fact.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€905€(6th€ed.€1991).€ÏIn€the€present€case,€the€defendantððs€mental€disease€or€defect€is€not€a€cause€of€action€but€rather€aÏsingle€issue€or€determinative€fact€within€an€action.€€Therefore,€we€will€consider€whether€€collateralÏestoppel€applies.ÌÌà àThe€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€in€the€criminal€law€stems€from€the€constitutionalÏprotection€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòAshe€v.€Swensonóó,€397€U.S.€436,€445„46,€90€S.€Ct.€1189,€1195Ï(1970);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€752€S.W.2d€515,€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(analyzing€the€applicationÏof€collateral€estoppel€as€defined€in€òòAsheóó€in€a€double€jeopardy€challenge€under€both€the€state€andÏfederal€constitutions).€€This€doctrine€prevents€relitigation€of€issues€necessarily€decided€in€an€earlierÏtrial:€€Collateral€estoppel€ð ðmeans€simply€that€when€an€issue€of€ultimate€fact€has€once€beenÏdetermined€by€a€valid€and€final€judgment,€that€issue€cannot€again€be€litigated€between€the€sameÏparties€in€any€future€lawsuit.ðð€€òòAsheóó,€397€U.S.€at€443,€90€S.€Ct.€at€1194.€€The€policy€behind€theÏdoctrine€lies€in€the€inherent€reliability€of€final€judgments.€€òòStandefer€v.€United€Statesóó,€447€U.S.€10,Ï23€n.18,€100€S.€Ct.€1999,€2007€n.18€(1980)€(noting€that€collateral€estoppel€ð ðis€premised€upon€anÏunderlying€confidence€that€the€result€achieved€in€the€initial€litigation€was€substantially€correctðð).€ÏCriminal€collateral€estoppel€shares€this€policy€with€civil€collateral€estoppel,€but€the€policy€ofÏpreventing€further€harassment€to€the€party€prevailing€in€the€initial€trial€weighs€more€heavily€in€theÏcriminal€context.€€Daniel€K.€Mayers€&€Fletcher€L.€Yarbrough,€òòBis€Vexari:€New€Trials€andÏSuccessive€Prosecutionsóó,€74€Harv.€L.€Rev.€1,€32€(1960).€€Procedurally,€when€a€defendantððs€first€trialÏends€in€a€general€verdict€of€acquittal,€the€trial€court€must€examine€the€record€of€the€first€trial;€considerÏthe€pleadings,€proof,€jury€instructions,€and€other€relevant€matters;€and€determine€if€a€rational€juryÏcould€have€returned€the€verdict€based€upon€an€issue€different€from€the€one€the€defendant€wants€toÏbar.€€òòAsheóó,€397€U.S.€at€444,€90€S.€Ct.€at€1194.€€The€determination€should€be€practically€oriented€andÏmust€look€to€all€the€circumstances€of€the€first€trial.€€òòId.óó€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€that€the€issue€that€he€or€she€seeks€to€preclude€was€actually€determined€in€the€first€trial.€ÏòòSchiro€v.€Farleyóó,€510€U.S.€222,€232,€114€S.€Ct.€783,€790€(1994);€òòState€v.€McKennonóó,€6€S.W.3d€508,Ï511€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)€(noting€that€the€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€issueÏthat€cannot€be€relitigated€was€actually€decided€and€necessary€to€the€judgment€in€the€first€trial).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€seeks€to€bar€retrial€of€the€issue€of€whether€he€suffered€fromÏa€mental€disease€or€defect€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€The€juryððs€statement€that€it€could€agree€thatÏthe€defendant€had€a€mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€arise€out€of€a€previous€judgment€of€acquittalÏbut,€instead,€was€reported€to€the€trial€court€before€it€determined€that€the€jury€was€deadlocked€in€theÏpresent€case.€€In€this€way,€the€circumstances€of€the€present€case€are€distinct€from€those€in€òòAsheóó,€inÏwhich€the€state€sought€to€try€the€defendant€for€the€robbery€of€the€six€victims€successively€despite€hisÏacquittal€of€the€robbery€of€one€of€the€victims€in€the€first€trial.€òòSeeóó€€397€U.S.€at€439„40,€90€S.€Ct.€atÏ1192.€€We€examine€whether€this€distinction€is€fatal€to€the€defendantððs€argument.€€ÌÌà àUnlike€the€first€trial€in€òòAsheóó,€which€resulted€in€a€final€verdict€of€acquittal,€the€present€murderÏtrial€resulted€in€a€deadlocked€jury.€€Thus,€the€jeopardy€which€attached€at€the€time€the€jury€was€swornÏdid€not€end€but€is€deemed€to€be€continuing.€€òòSeeóó€òòRichardson€v.€United€Statesóó,€468€U.S.€317,€325,Ï104€S.€Ct.€3081,€3086€(1984)€(concluding€that€when€the€trial€court€declares€a€mistrial€after€the€juryÏdeadlocks,€the€original€jeopardy€does€not€end).€€Furthermore,€the€juryððs€purported€resolution€of€theÏissue€of€the€defendantððs€mental€disease€or€defect€is€not€an€issue€ð ðdetermined€by€a€valid€and€finalÏjudgmentðð€as€required€by€òòAsheóó.€€òòSeeóó€397€U.S.€at€443,€90€S.€Ct.€at€1194.€€Although€not€conclusiveÏto€the€present€issue,€we€note€that€in€the€context€of€civil€law,€our€supreme€court€has€required€a€finalÏjudgment€in€the€previous€case€before€preclusion€can€occur€under€both€the€doctrines€of€res€judicataÏand€collateral€estoppel.€€òòRichardson€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Dentistryóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€459.€€ThisÏrequirement€is€in€keeping€with€the€policy€behind€collateral€estoppel€of€affirming€the€inherentÏreliability€of€judgments.€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€in€analyzing€whether€a€defendant€timely€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial€over€thirtyÏdays€after€the€juryððs€verdict€but€before€the€trial€court€entered€the€judgment€in€a€criminal€case,€ourÏsupreme€court€observed€in€dicta€that€neither€res€judicata€or€collateral€estoppel€apply€in€the€absence€ofÏa€judgment:€ð ðA€verdict,€before€a€judgment€has€been€entered€thereon,€has€no€finality,€cannot€beÏexecuted,€and€cannot€be€pleaded€in€bar€as€res€judicata€or€offered€in€evidence€as€collateral€estoppel.ðð€ÏòòNeeley€v.€Stateóó,€210€Tenn.€52,€56„57,€356€S.W.2d€401,€403€(Tenn.€1962)€(citations€omitted).€ÏAlthough€òòNeeleyóó€preceded€the€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòAsheóó,€which€held€that€collateral€estoppelÏin€criminal€cases€derived€from€constitutional€protections€against€double€jeopardy,€both€òòNeeleyóó€andÏòòAsheóó€require€finality.€€òòSeeóó€òòAsheóó,€397€U.S.€at€443,€90€S.€Ct.€at€1194;€òòNeeleyóó,€210€Tenn.€at€56„57,€356ÏS.W.2d€at€403.€€We€note€that€the€Arizona€high€court€has€relied€upon€this€language€from€òòNeeleyóó€toÏhold€that€collateral€estoppel€in€a€criminal€case€requires€a€judgment€in€the€previous€action€and,€in€fact,Ïthat€ð ðthe€force€of€the€estoppel€is€the€judgment€itself.ðð€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€639€P.2d€1036,€1038Ï(Ariz.€1982)€(concluding€that€a€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€state€did€not€establish€that€the€defendantÏhad€violated€his€probation€did€not€preclude€a€subsequent€prosecution€for€the€sexual€assault€thatÏformed€the€basis€of€the€stateððs€evidence€at€the€revocation€hearing).€€Ì€Ìà àThe€Seventh€Circuit€has€applied€the€principles€of€collateral€estoppel€when€the€first€juryÏacquitted€the€defendant€of€some€counts€but€deadlocked€on€other€counts.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bailinóó,€977ÏF.2d€270,€276€(7th€Cir.€1992).€€Noting€that€the€original€jeopardy€is€deemed€to€continue€in€the€eventÏof€a€hung€jury,€the€court€concluded€that€issue€preclusion€arising€out€of€separate€counts€of€the€firstÏtrial€is€not€collateral:€€ð ðIssue€preclusion€ððwithin€the€confines€of€a€single€claim€or€cause€of€actionðð€isÏknown€as€ððdirect€estoppel.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€276€(quoting€18€Charles€A.€Wright,€et€al.,€òòFederal€Practice€&ÏProcedureóó€ðð€4418,€at€169€(1981)).€€The€court€held€that€direct€estoppel€applies€in€a€criminal€case€toÏbar€the€government€from€relitigating€issues€in€the€retrial€of€the€mistried€counts€that€wereÏð ðnecessarily€and€finally€decided€in€the€defendantððs€favor€by€reason€of€the€juryððs€partial€acquittal€onÏother€counts.ðð€€òòBailinóó,€977€F.2d€at€276.€€ÌÌÑ X Ñâ ,ââ ,âà8 àDirect€estoppel€prevents€a€party€from€relitigating€a€fact€which€was€already€determinedÏagainst€it€in€ð ða€decision€that€finally€disposes€of€a€part€of€a€claim€on€the€merits€butÏdoes€not€preclude€all€further€action€on€the€remainder€of€the€claim;€issues€common€toÏboth€parts€of€the€claim€are€precluded,€even€though€new€issues€remain€to€be€decided.ððÌÌòòId.óó€(quoting€Wright,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€4418,€at€169„70).ÌÌà àThe€Third€Circuit€explored€the€meaning€of€the€necessary€and€final€determination€of€an€issueÏfor€purposes€of€collateral€estoppel€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Consoleóó,€13€F.3d€641€(3d€Cir.€1993).€€TheÏdefendant€was€acquitted€of€some€counts€of€mail€fraud,€but€the€jury€was€not€able€to€reach€a€verdict€onÏhis€Racketeering€Influenced€Corrupt€Organizations€Act€(RICO)€counts€and€other€mail€fraud€counts.€ÏThe€defendant€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€request€for€special€verdicts€on€theÏpredicate€offenses€in€the€RICO€counts€and€that€this€error€foreclosed€his€use€of€collateral€estoppel€toÏpreclude€retrial€on€those€predicate€counts.€€The€court€held€that€a€defendant€has€no€right€to€specialÏverdicts€on€the€elements€of€the€offense€and€that€the€decision€to€submit€special€interrogatories€to€theÏjury€regarding€the€elements€of€the€offense€is€within€the€court's€discretion.€€òòId.óó€at€663.€€The€court€alsoÏexplained€that€even€if€the€trial€court€had€submitted€interrogatories€to€the€jury€and€the€jury€had€foundÏthat€the€predicate€acts€had€not€been€established,€collateral€estoppel€or€direct€estoppel€under€òòBailinóóÏwould€not€preclude€retrial€on€the€predicate€offenses€because€responses€to€special€interrogatories€areÏnot€ð ðfinalðð€judgments€or€ð ðnecessaryðð€to€a€final€judgment.€€òòId.óó€at€664„65.€€The€court€reasoned€thatÏthe€predicate€offense€was€not€a€RICO€violation€but€merely€one€element€of€the€offense.€€òòId.óó€at€664Ïn.27.€€Thus,€the€Third€Circuit€concluded€that€a€factual€finding€on€a€count€that€eventually€results€in€aÏmistrial€due€to€a€hung€jury€does€not€preclude€relitigation€of€that€issue€on€retrial.€€òòId.óó€at€664„65.€ÌÌà àIn€contrast,€a€North€Carolina€appellate€court€has€determined€that€a€juryððs€special€verdict€onÏthe€courtððs€jurisdiction€precluded€relitigation€of€that€issue€upon€retrial€even€though€the€jury€wasÏdeadlocked€on€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Dialóó,€470€S.E.2d€84,€89€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€In€òòDialóó,Ïthe€defendant,€a€Virginia€resident,€was€charged€with€the€first€degree€murder€of€a€Virginia€resident,Ïwhose€body€washed€onto€a€North€Carolina€beach.€€At€the€first€trial,€the€jury€returned€a€special€verdictÏon€jurisdiction€but€deadlocked€on€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€On€retrial,€the€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏsecond€degree€murder,€and€he€argued€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€refused€to€set€asideÏthe€special€verdict.€€Analyzing€the€case€in€terms€of€collateral€estoppel€as€derived€from€res€judicata,€theÏappellate€court€observed€that€when€ð ððða€fact€has€been€agreed€on,€or€decided€in€a€court€of€record,Ïneither€of€the€parties€shall€be€allowed€to€call€it€in€question,€and€have€it€tried€over€again€at€any€timeÏthereafter,€so€long€as€the€judgment€or€decree€stands€unreversed.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€89€(quoting€òòHumphrey€v.ÏFaisonóó,€100€S.E.2d€799,€804€(N.C.€1957)€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted)).€€The€court€held€thatÏthe€special€verdict€met€all€of€the€prerequisites€for€issue€preclusion:ÌÌà8 à(1)€the€parties€are€the€same;€(2)€the€issue€as€to€jurisdiction€is€the€same;€(3)€the€issueÏwas€raised€and€actually€litigated€in€the€prior€action;€(4)€jurisdiction€was€material€andÏrelevant€to€the€disposition€of€the€prior€action;€and€(5)€the€determination€as€toÏjurisdiction€was€necessary€and€essential€to€the€resulting€judgment.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€89.€€ÌÌÑ ° ÑÓÓâ /ââ /âà àThe€North€Carolina€appellate€court€did€not€require€a€final€judgment€in€the€first€trial€in€orderÏfor€an€issue€resolved€in€the€first€trial€to€preclude€the€same€issue€in€a€subsequent€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€89.€ÏWe€believe,€though,€that€the€courtððs€failure€to€require€a€final€judgment€is€inconsistent€with€theÏrequirement€of€a€final€judgment€for€the€application€of€res€judicata€based€collateral€estoppel€underÏTennessee€case€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòRichardson€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Dentistryóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€459.€ÏFurthermore,€as€previously€noted,€our€supreme€court€has€stated€that€a€final€judgment€is€requiredÏbefore€collateral€estoppel€can€bar€retrial€of€an€issue€in€a€criminal€case.€€òòÔ_ÔNeeleyÔ_Ôóó,€210€Tenn.€at€56„57,Ï356€S.W.2d€at€403.€€This€is€consistent€with€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€requirement€that€theÏissue€to€be€precluded€must€have€been€ð ðdetermined€by€a€valid€and€final€judgment.ðð€€òòAsheóó,€397€U.S.Íat€443,€90€S.€Ct.€at€1194.Ì€€ò òÌà àó óIn€the€context€of€an€acquittal,€we€note€that€as€a€practical€matter,€there€is€no€need€for€a€Ïjudgment€for€jeopardy€to€bar€a€retrial€of€the€issue.€€It€is€a€ð ðdeeply€entrenched€principle€of€ourÏcriminal€law€that€once€a€person€has€been€acquitted€of€an€offense€he€cannot€be€prosecuted€again€onÏthe€same€charge.ðð€€òòGreen€v.€United€Statesóó,€355€U.S.€184,€192,78€S.€Ct.€221,€226€(1957).€€ForÏinstance,€a€conviction€on€a€lesser€included€offense€constitutes€an€implied€acquittal€of€the€greaterÏoffense€if€the€jury€had€an€opportunity€to€consider€the€greater€offense€before€considering€the€lesser.€ÏòòId.óó€at€190„91,€78€S.€Ct.€at€225;€òòState€v.€Madkinsóó,€989€S.W.2d€697,€699€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€thatÏsituation,€double€jeopardy€protections€prohibit€a€retrial€on€the€greater€offense.€€òòGreenóó,€355€U.S.€atÏ190,€78€S.€Ct.€at€225,€òòMadkinsóó,€989€S.W.2d€at€699.€€In€fact,€in€òòAsheóó,€which€required€a€finalÏjudgment€for€collateral€estoppel€to€preclude€the€relitigation€of€an€issue,€the€defendant€was€acquittedÏin€the€first€trial.€€397€U.S.€at€446,€90€S.€Ct.€at€1195„96.€€In€other€words,€an€acquittal€enjoys€the€sameÏfinality€as€a€judgment€of€conviction€and,€in€this€respect,€bars€retrial€of€issues€necessarily€decided€byÏthe€acquittal.ÌÌÔ€>ôÔà àÔ€>XÔAlthough€not€germane€to€the€present€case,€we€note€in€passing€that€bifurcated€proceedings€inÏwhich€the€determination€of€guilt€is€separate€from€that€of€punishment€proceed€differently.€€We€do€notÏallow€the€retrial€of€guilt€when€a€retrial€is€ordered€on€punishment€although€no€final€judgment€yetÏexists.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hunteróó,€496€S.W.2d€900,€903€(Tenn.€1972)€(remanding€for€retrial€on€onlyÏthe€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€case);€òòState€v.€Wardóó,€810€S.W.2d€158,€159€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)Ï(affirming€a€retrial€on€the€enhancement€count€of€the€indictment€charging€second€offense€DUIÏfollowing€a€hung€jury);€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€669€S.W.2d€688,€692€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(affirmingÏretrial€of€the€habitual€criminal€count€following€a€hung€jury);€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€667€S.W.2d€507,€510Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(affirming€retrial€of€the€habitual€criminal€count€following€a€hung€jury).ò ò€€€€ó óÌ€€Ìà àIn€light€of€the€continuing€jeopardy€in€the€case€of€a€mistrial€resulting€from€a€deadlocked€jury,Ïwe€believe€that€the€better€reasoned€approach€is€that€a€factual€finding€by€a€jury€on€a€deadlocked€countÏcannot€preclude€a€jury€from€reconsidering€that€issue€in€a€second€trial.€€€€In€the€present€case,€theÏjuryððs€purported€factual€determination€regarding€the€defendantððs€mental€disease€lacks€even€theÏfinality€of€a€special€verdict€much€less€the€weight€of€a€judgment€and€does€not€equate€to€a€finalÏdisposition€of€that€part€of€the€case€on€the€merits.€€Clearly,€the€juryððs€gratuitous€statement€that€it€couldÏagree€that€the€defendant€had€a€mental€disease€or€defect€is€not€an€acquittal€of€the€defendant€on€anyÏcount€in€the€presentment.€€Even€if€we€assume€that€the€juryððs€statement€amounts€to€a€partial€resolutionÏof€the€insanity€issue,€it€has€no€preclusive€effect€because€it€lacks€the€requisite€finality€in€terms€ofÏending€the€ÌÌÑ X Ñâ 0ââ 0âproceedings€of€a€judgment€or€an€acquittal.ò ò€€ó óFor€these€reasons,€the€juryððs€statement€in€its€February€12Ïnote€does€not€have€a€preclusive€effect€on€a€retrial€of€the€defendantððs€first€degree€murder€charges.€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àFinally,€in€his€reply€brief,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€juryððs€finding€that€he€had€a€mentalÏdisease€or€defect€mandates€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€He€argues€that€the€juryððsÏfinding€on€mental€disease€or€defect€indicates€that€they€rejected€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Speigel,€theÏstateððs€expert€who€deemed€that€the€defendant€was€not€insane.€€He€contends€that€even€considering€Dr.ÏSpeigelððs€testimony,€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€the€defendant€had€theÏsubstantial€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÏlaw.€€Thus,€he€argues€that€double€jeopardy€bars€a€retrial€and€requires€that€a€finding€of€not€guilty€byÏreason€of€insanity€be€entered.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€in€support€of€this€expansive€assertion,€the€defendant€cites€only€theÏjuryððs€February€12€note€and€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€on€the€insanity€defense.€€The€TennesseeÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€require€that€appellants€support€the€issues€they€seek€to€raise€withÏargument,€citation€to€authorities,€and€appropriate€references€to€the€record.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€10(b).€ÏIn€any€event,€this€court€denied€the€defendantððs€Rule€10,€T.R.A.P.,€application€to€appeal€on€the€issueÏof€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€because,€as€discussed€above,€the€jeopardy€that€attached€with€theÍswearing€of€the€jury€in€this€case€has€not€ended.€€òòState€v.€Thomas€Dee€Huskeyóó,€No.€03C01„9903„CR„00125,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€26,€1999)€(order),€òòÔ_ÔapplicÔ_Ô.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€13,Ï1999);ò ò€ó óòòseeóó€òòRichardsonóó,€468€U.S.€at€325,€104€S.€Ct.€at€3086;€òòState€v.€Bruceóó,€604€S.W.2d€889,€890Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(holding€that€an€interlocutory€appeal€to€review€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€aÏjudgment€of€acquittal€is€not€appropriate€following€a€mistrial€due€to€a€deadlocked€jury).€€The€juryððsÏinability€to€reach€a€verdict€does€not€terminate€jeopardy.€€òòRichardsonóó,€468€U.S.€at€325,€104€S.€Ct.€atÏ3086.€€For€this€reason,€the€defendant€may€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€at€the€firstÏtrial€in€order€to€bar€a€second€trial:ÌÌà8 àThe€Government,€like€the€defendant,€is€entitled€to€resolution€of€the€case€by€verdictÏfrom€the€jury,€and€jeopardy€does€not€terminate€when€the€jury€is€discharged€because€itÏis€unable€to€agree.€€Regardless€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€at€[the€defendantððs]Ïfirst€trial,€he€has€no€valid€double€jeopardy€claim€to€prevent€his€retrial.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌòòId.óó€at€326,€104€S.€Ct.€3086.€€Thus,€any€insufficiency€in€the€evidence€at€the€first€trial€would€not€bar€aÏretrial€in€this€case.ÌÌ€à@ àò òIV.€CONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àIn€light€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€hold€that€double€jeopardy€does€notÏbar€the€retrial€of€the€defendant€on€the€four€counts€of€first€degree€murder.€€We€remand€the€case€to€theÏtrial€court€for€further€proceedings.Ì€ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE€€