ÿWPC. åìöWUÒ®N!£¬ˆœù€§@Ýph×4W€8¢µÀ³ÿlÉ&3nÁºÝxšÕǨ¼¨1ç~=xSçkù‘›Ía>J ö3‚¿¢= 6â¹:ôÿ®¶ä{€~_ôÚ³´GM ÞH²ëwÁÍÜùeÓjBE¤>ŸÒTáæÀE×Çaòqgû©-1òûQè›O¹jËkYÔJg¤Î’tìÏÛ0úÇÀ–¬ÐŽã—Œð¾ Óx¨}X#üÒ^¢³Ðv„0ÄYÒ”…³¥ø3î!óÍä¬ü±ùϲ-ƒfB%v–Ýh ‰ ¯€³NSáƒåãgb—\ªîtK!'iʳï‚›³TäŸ4ý™ÊÏG/§Ä¿ÒÌkú¡‡ 0@gÖ€¸ßãÆ®1~cŸví ^Hw½*ÛÑ™fõUØŠ—\¦º¥Â ¬ák¢¢‘°úǸ\Î;è øþEÊ{3æÍ¢‰_ªd /(µÐñcADvUÝ©:ÝeŸÝEB òÞ AŒ h°IÉJÓdQä«åÛΖ®ý=7LtTDV¢h· fSø)åT•…£#“=Û`h\—òOÆòq¾±Ör<'¿±~'4z`Bê9.I=`û«$´°'¸QçZðPÑÕpü…# F U>Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U :” fÎ 4 "< w@^ U:ž èØ 01À 0DñU:5 oU:xU:²U:ìU:&ç`U:GU:U:»»»» Bõõõõõõõõõõõ D3 0DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AO‰ÆØØ 0Dž D/â B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|xê«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ÕÖEרDÙÚÛeÜÝÓ€ç,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÞÔ€XÌÌXXXÔÔ€.zXXÌÌÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÌÌX.zÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó(á(3Œ=$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€«ŒXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÿÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ô$;ôXXÔÔ‡ô¤ôôô$;ÔÝ ƒÌ?ÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À{þXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€His€full€name€is€Tommy€Howard€Forrester,€and€he€is€referred€to€as€Tommy€Forrester€byÐ  Ðother€witnesses.Ô#†ô$;ôôô¤;#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÝÔ€XÌÌXXXÔÔ€.zXXÌÌÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÌÌX.zÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€«ŒXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝñÛñ›ñÛññÛñ›ñÛñѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XÌÌXXXÔÑ7€ ÌÌ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑñÝñœñÝññçññÝñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñÝññçññçñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñçññÝñ›ñÝñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9704„CC„00151Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àñÛñœñÛñHumphreysñÛñ›ñÛñ€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Robert€E.€Burch,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSHARON€LEMING,à  àà h àà À à)à  à(First€degree€murder)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌLionel€R.€Barrett,€Jr.à h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ²ª ÐWashington€Square€Twoà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ Ð222€2nd€Avenue,€Northà h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v ÐNashville,€TN€37201à h àà À àà  àEllen€H.€PollackÐ d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDan€Mitchum€AlsobrooksÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCourt€Square,€P.O.€Box€869Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCharlotte,€TN€37036Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGeorge€C.€SextonÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHumphreys€County€CourthouseÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWaverly,€TN€37185ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÐ >:639ß Їà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÐ  ÐÌÌÓÓà ¸ àó óóóThe€defendant,€Sharon€Leming,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€HumphreysÐ Ì Ä ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€defendant€received€a€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,Ïthe€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏconviction;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€concluding€that€theÏdefendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€intoÏevidence€statements€made€by€the€victim,€Chris€Leming.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÔ€XÌÌXX XÌÌÔWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð   ÐÌÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€tried€for€the€murder€of€her€husband,€Chris€Leming,Ïthat€occurred€either€late€September€11€or€early€September€12,€1995.€€HumphreysÏCounty€Sheriff€Ronnie€Toungette€testified€that€on€the€morning€of€September€12,€1995,ÏChief€John€Ethridge€requested€that€he€come€to€McEwen,€Tennessee,€to€meet€withÏChester€Duffield,€the€defendantððs€father.€€He€stated€that€he€went€with€a€former€deputy,ÏJ.C.€Damesworth.€€He€said€that€Mr.€Duffield€wanted€them€to€follow€him€to€the€home€ofÏthe€defendant€and€victim€in€McEwen€because€he€was€worried€about€the€defendant.€€HeÏstated€that€when€they€arrived€at€the€house,€they€called€out€but€received€no€answer,€andÏall€the€doors€were€locked.€€He€testified€that€he€looked€in€the€bedroom€window€and€sawÏtwo€bodies€lying€in€bed.€€He€testified€that€he€entered€the€house€through€the€kitchenÏwindow,€and€once€inside,€he€made€his€way€to€the€bedroom€where€he€discovered€bothÏthe€defendant€and€the€victim€lying€in€bed€with€serious€head€wounds.€€He€stated€thatÏthere€was€blood€everywhere,€and€the€victim€showed€no€signs€of€life,€but€the€defendantÏmoaned€and€was€breathing.€€He€said€that€he€told€Damesworth€to€call€an€ambulance.Ìâ âÐ Ò5Ê.4 Ðà ¸ àOfficer€Toungette€testified€that€he€checked€the€house€for€forced€entry,€butÏâ âeverything€looked€normal€and€secure.€€He€stated€that€he€found€a€bloody€handprint€onÏthe€corner€of€the€wall€beside€the€bed.€€He€stated€that€he€also€found€a€handgun€and€aÏpurse€lying€on€the€floor€next€to€the€bed€on€the€defendantððs€side.€€He€said€that€he€foundÏa€clump€of€hair€stuck€to€the€ceiling.€€He€testified€that€when€he€went€outside,€Mr.€DuffieldÏasked€him€what€kind€of€gun€he€found.€€He€stated€that€when€he€told€Mr.€Duffield€that€heÏfound€a€snub„nosed€.38,€Mr.€Duffield€was€very€upset€and€responded,€ð ðMy€God,€itððs€myÏgun.ððÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Toungette€stated€that€he€did€not€notice€anyÏblood€on€the€handle€of€the€gun.€€He€admitted€that€the€doors€could€have€been€lockedÏwithout€a€key€by€someone€exiting.€€He€also€stated€that€the€clump€of€hair€on€the€ceilingÏwas€located€above€the€defendantððs€head,€and€it€appeared€to€be€the€defendantððs€hair.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€father,€Chester€Duffield,€testified€that€he€did€not€knowÏthat€the€defendant€and€the€victim€were€having€marital€problems€until€the€defendantÏasked€him€to€help€her€move.€€He€said€that€his€wife€told€him€that€the€defendant€wasÏmoving€out€because€the€victimððs€friends€threatened€to€harm€her€if€she€was€not€out€of€theÏhouse€by€Sunday€afternoon.€€He€stated€that€he€drove€his€truck€to€the€home€of€theÏdefendant€and€victim,€they€loaded€it€up,€and€then€he€drove€it€back€to€his€house€inÏNashville.€€He€stated€that€while€they€were€at€his€house,€the€defendant€took€a€.38€caliberÏpistol€from€his€car€without€his€permission€and€that€it€was€loaded€with€a€mixture€ofÏbullets.€€He€said€that€when€he€questioned€her€about€it€in€front€of€the€victim,€she€said€thatÏshe€took€the€gun€because€the€victimððs€drunk€friends€were€going€to€be€at€their€houseÏwhen€they€went€back,€and€she€did€not€want€them€to€beat€her.€€He€said€that€theÏdefendant€knew€a€little€about€firearms€and€that€she€had€shot€before.€€He€said€that€heÏtried€to€persuade€the€defendant€not€to€go€back€to€the€house,€but€she€said€that€sheÏneeded€to€go€back€to€get€her€work€clothes€for€the€next€morning.€€Mr.€Duffield€said€thatÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñÛñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñÛñwhen€the€defendant€did€not€come€home€that€night,€he€told€his€wife€to€call€her.€€He€saidÏthat€when€his€wife€talked€to€the€defendant,€the€defendant€said€that€everything€was€fine.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Duffield€testified€that€he€went€to€the€defendantððs€house€the€nextÏmorning€when€she€did€not€show€up€for€work.€€He€said€that€he€blew€the€horn€and€yelled,Ïbut€there€was€no€response.€€He€stated€that€he€noticed€somebody€washing€a€car€nextÏdoor,€and€then€he€saw€that€person€go€into€the€defendantððs€house.€€Because€this€scaredÏhim,€he€went€to€a€market€and€someone€called€the€police€for€him.€€Mr.€Duffield€statedÏthat€he€met€with€Sheriff€Toungette,€and€they€traveled€back€to€the€home€of€the€defendantÏand€victim.€€He€said€that€after€Sheriff€Toungette€found€the€bodies€and€told€him€that€theÏdefendant€was€still€breathing,€he€went€back€to€Nashville€to€tell€his€wife,€and€they€went€toÏVanderbilt€Hospital€where€the€defendant€was€being€treated.€€He€said€that€the€defendantÏremained€at€Vanderbilt€for€several€weeks,€and€she€was€later€transferred€to€StallworthÏRehabilitation€Clinic.€€He€stated€that€because€of€the€defendantððs€head€wound,€she€hadÏto€relearn€everything,€and€it€was€probably€one€and€one„half€months€before€she€couldÏtalk.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€could€not€remember€anything€about€the€shooting,€andÏshe€did€not€remember€him€or€the€victim€until€she€was€told€who€they€were.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Duffield€stated€that€the€victim€was€not€his€usualÏself€on€the€day€of€the€move.€€He€said€that€the€victim€was€short€with€him.€€He€alsoÏtestified€about€an€incident€that€the€defendant€related€to€him€regarding€a€struggleÏbetween€herself€and€Tommy€Howard,Ô‡ X âXXX âÔ׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€friend€of€the€victim,Ô#†X âXX X â´&#Ô€over€a€picture€of€Mr.Ð Ä,¼%* ÐDuffield€that€Howard€was€trying€to€tear.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€told€him€that€ifÏanything€ever€happened€to€her,€he€should€look€for€John€Wallace€and€Tommy€Howard.€ÏHe€stated€that€when€the€defendant€returned€from€Stallworth€to€live€with€him€and€his€wifeÏâ âin€Nashville,€often€she€had€difficulty€sleeping€at€night€because€she€feared€that€someoneÐ ô3ì,2 Ðwas€trying€to€break€into€the€house.€€He€stated€that€the€doctors€at€Vanderbilt€told€himÏthat€the€defendant€may€never€regain€her€memory€of€the€shooting.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àSteve€Watkins,€an€agent€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,Ïtestified€that€when€he€arrived€at€the€scene€at€about€1:45€p.m.€on€September€12,€theÏdefendant€had€already€been€transported€to€the€hospital.€€He€stated€that€his€job€was€toÏsecure€the€scene€until€the€agents€from€the€crime€lab€arrived.€€He€stated€that€a€gunshotÏresidue€test€was€performed€on€both€the€defendant€and€the€victim€but€that€the€resultsÏwere€inconclusive.€€He€said€that€for€a€bullet€wound€to€enter€behind€the€left€ear€andÏdeposit€gunpowder€inside€the€left€ear,€as€it€did€to€the€victim,€the€barrel€of€theÏdischarging€weapon€would€have€to€have€been€an€undetermined€distance€from€the€headÏrather€than€a€contact€wound.€€He€stated€that€he€took€Mr.€Duffieldððs€statement€and€thatÏMr.€Duffield€did€not€mention€that€he€saw€someone€run€into€the€house€that€morning.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Watkins€stated€that€the€gun€was€tested€for€theÏpresence€of€blood,€but€the€handle€may€not€have€been€tested.€€He€said€that€he€spokeÏwith€the€doctors€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital€and€that€no€determination€could€be€made€as€toÏthe€distance€from€the€barrel€of€the€gun€to€the€defendantððs€head€when€the€shot€was€fired.€ÏHe€said€that€the€defendantððs€gunshot€wound€was€at€the€top€left€of€her€head.ÌÌà ¸ àAgent€Steve€Scott€with€the€firearms€identification€section€of€the€TBI€crimeÏlab€stated€that€he€collected€evidence€from€the€Leming€house.€€He€stated€that€when€heÏarrived,€the€defendant€had€already€been€transported€to€the€hospital.€€He€said€that€heÏpicked€up€lead€fragments€in€the€bedroom€and€recovered€a€bullet€inside€the€victimððsÏpillow€on€the€bed.€€He€said€that€he€cut€the€bloody€palm€print€out€of€the€wall,€as€well€asÏbloody€fingerprints€that€were€on€an€adjacent€wall.€€He€said€that€he€removed€the€clumpÏof€hair€from€the€ceiling€and€retrieved€the€gun.€€He€testified€that€the€gun€had€two€firedÏcartridge€cases€in€it€and€three€unfired€cartridges€in€the€cylinder.€€He€said€that€the€bulletsÐ Œ7„06 Ðwere€made€by€three€different€manufacturers.€€He€stated€that€the€fired€cartridges€cameÏfrom€the€gun€found€at€the€scene€and€that€the€bullet€retrieved€from€the€pillow€was€firedÏfrom€the€gun.€€He€said€that€he€could€not€conclusively€match€the€bullet€from€the€œñÜñvictimñÜññÜñ›defendantñÜñððs›Ïhead€to€the€gun.€€He€also€said€that€he€found€unfired€shot€pellets€from€a€shotgun€that€heÏdeemed€unrelated€to€this€case.€€He€said€that€neither€the€bloody€palm€print€nor€theÏfingerprints€could€be€matched.€€Finally,€he€stated€that€although€the€trajectory€of€theÏdefendantððs€bullet€could€not€be€determined,€he€was€able€to€determine€that€the€first€shotÏfired€was€the€shot€to€the€victim.ÌÌà ¸ àJohn€Wallace€testified€that€he€was€one€of€the€victimððs€best€friends€and€hadÏknown€him€since€1989.€€He€said€that€before€the€victim€started€working€as€a€guard€atÏTurney€Center,€they€worked€together€at€Riverbend€Maximum€Security€Institution.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€had€known€the€defendant€for€about€two€years.€€He€said€that€when€he€andÏthe€victim€worked€together€at€Riverbend,€the€defendant€called€the€victim€several€timesÏevery€day.€€He€stated€that€the€victim€called€him€Thursday€night€before€the€shooting€andÏasked€if€he€could€bring€his€guns€over€to€Wallaceððs€house.€€He€said€that€when€he€askedÏthe€victim€why€he€wanted€to€bring€his€guns€over,€the€victim€said,€ð ðIððm€afraid€of€her€andÏdonððt€know€what€sheððll€do,ðð€and€he€then€said,€ð ðThat€bitch€took€my€f„„„ing€.357.ððÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Wallace€stated€that€he€had€liked€the€defendant€atÏone€time.€€He€said€that€he€and€Tommy€Forrester€were€cousins.€€He€said€that€he€was€notÏaware€that€the€defendant€thought€that€he€and€Forrester€were€bad€influences€on€herÏhusband,€although€he€admitted€that€previously€he€had€told€a€TBI€investigator€that€he€€€€Ïknew€what€the€defendant€thought.€€He€said€that€the€victim€stopped€by€his€house€threeÏor€four€times€each€week€and€that€they€would€drink€beer.€€He€said€that€sometimes€theyÏwould€drink€at€the€victimððs€house€but€not€as€often.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€cared€aÏgreat€deal€about€the€victim,€but€he€could€not€tell€if€the€victim€loved€the€defendant.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€had€never€brandished€a€gun€on€the€defendant€and€was€not€aware€of€any€illÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÜñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÜññÛñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÛñfeelings€between€the€defendant€and€Forrester.€€He€admitted€that€he€and€the€victim€hadÐ  Ða€falling€out€in€1994€because€he€thought€the€victim€may€have€helped€his€ex„wife€leaveÏhim,€but€he€said€that€he€had€apologized€to€the€victim.€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àTommy€Forrester€testified€that€he€met€the€victim€through€Wallace€and€thatÏhe€had€known€him€about€six€months€before€he€died.€€He€said€that€he€had€been€to€theÏvictimððs€house€about€four€times€and€that€he€and€the€defendant€had€met€a€couple€ofÏtimes.€€He€said€that€he€rode€to€Wallaceððs€wedding€with€the€defendant,€and€he€had€noÏproblems€with€her€or€the€victim.€€He€said€that€he€had€never€threatened€either€of€them.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€he€stated€that€he€did€not€know€that€the€defendantÏwas€concerned€about€the€amount€of€time€the€victim€was€spending€drinking€with€him€andÏWallace.€€He€said€that€he€was€with€Wallace€on€Sunday€before€the€shootings,€but€heÏcould€not€remember€where€they€went.€€He€said€that€it€was€possible€that€they€went€byÏthe€victimððs€house,€but€he€did€not€remember€stopping€there.€€He€admitted€that€he€toldÏAgent€Watkins€that€he€had€not€been€by€the€victimððs€house€that€day.€€On€redirect,ÏForrester€stated€that€he€was€at€home€Sunday€night.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àSandra€Buck,€a€neighbor€of€the€defendant€and€victim,€testified€that€sheÏsaw€the€defendant€and€the€victim€moving€on€Sunday€afternoon.€€She€said€that€theÏdefendant€seemed€to€be€in€good€spirits.€€She€said€that€she€did€not€hear€any€shotsÏSunday€evening.€€She€said€that€she€and€her€husband€were€not€at€home€MondayÏmorning,€but€her€son€had€stopped€by€to€borrow€their€lawnmower.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Charles€Harlan,€the€medical€examiner,€performed€the€autopsy€on€theÏvictim.€€He€said€that€the€victim€died€instantly€from€the€gunshot€wound€that€enteredÏbehind€his€left€ear€and€passed€through€the€brain.€€He€said€that€he€retrieved€a€.38€caliberÏbullet€from€the€victimððs€skull.€€He€said€that€it€was€a€near€gunshot€wound,€meaning€thatÐ Œ7„06 Ðthe€muzzle€was€twelve€to€twenty„four€inches€from€the€victimððs€skin€when€the€shot€wasÏfired.€€He€said€that€the€victim€could€not€have€made€the€bloody€handprint€on€the€wallÏbecause€the€gunshot€wound€would€have€rendered€him€unconscious€immediately,€andÏhe€would€not€have€had€any€control€over€his€motions.€€He€also€said€that€for€that€reason,Ïthe€defendant€could€not€have€thrown€anything€across€the€room€after€he€was€shot.ÌÌà ¸ àPatricia€Duffield,€the€defendantððs€mother,€testified€that€the€defendantÏworked€with€her€at€Al€Phillipsðð€Insurance€Agency€before€the€shooting.€€She€said€thatÏwhen€she€saw€the€defendant€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital,€she€noticed€bruises€on€the€inside€ofÏthe€defendantððs€arms.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€did€not€know€her€the€first€day€butÏthat€she€recognized€her€after€that€day.€€She€said€that€the€defendantððs€thinking€was€veryÏslow€at€first€but€that€she€had€been€able€to€communicate€better€as€the€months€passed.€ÏShe€said€that€the€defendant€was€working€as€a€receptionist€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€€SheÏsaid€that€she€had€urged€the€defendant€to€tell€her€about€the€shooting,€but€the€defendantÏcould€not€remember€anything.ÌÌà ¸ àMrs.€Duffield€testified€that€she€and€her€husband€helped€the€defendantÏmove€out€of€the€house€she€shared€with€the€victim€on€Sunday€before€the€shootings.€€SheÏsaid€that€the€victim€was€very€angry,€which€was€not€like€him,€but€she€did€not€interfere.€ÏShe€said€that€after€they€finished€putting€up€boxes€in€Nashville,€the€defendant€and€theÏvictim€left€to€go€back€to€their€house€in€McEwen.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€called€herÏtwice€that€night.€€She€said€that€during€the€first€conversation,€the€defendant€told€her€thatÏthe€victim€had€taken€up€for€her€in€front€of€his€friends.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€said,Ïð ðHe€told€them€that€just€because€Iððm€not€going€to€be€here,€that€there€wasnððt€going€to€be€aÏswinging€door€for€them€to€run€in€and€out€of.ðð€€Mrs.€Duffield€stated€that€based€upon€herÏconversation€with€the€defendant,€she€believed€that€the€defendant€was€speaking€aboutÏthe€victimððs€friends,€John€Wallace€and€Tommy€Forrester.€€She€testified€that€theÏdefendant€called€her€again€before€9:00€p.m.€and€said,€ð ðSo€far€so€good.€€Theyððre€fixing€toÐ Œ7„06 Ðleave.ðð€€She€said€that€in€the€background€she€could€hear€the€victim€talking€to€anotherÏperson€and€that€she€believed€somebody€else€was€there.€€She€said€that€the€defendantÏtold€her,€ð ðEverything€is€going€to€be€okay.€€Itððs€all€right,€right€now.ððÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Mrs.€Duffield€said€that€she€assumed€that€the€purseÏunderneath€the€bed€was€the€defendantððs.€€She€also€said€that€the€pistol€lying€next€to€theÏpurse€looked€like€her€husbandððs.ÌÌà ¸ àAgent€Steve€Watkins€was€called€back€to€the€stand€to€identify€the€report€ofÏthe€gunshot€residue€tests€performed€on€both€the€defendant€and€the€victim.€€On€cross„¼examination,€Watkins€testified€that€any€type€of€liquid€substance€in€which€a€hand€wasÏimmersed€would€have€a€detrimental€effect€on€the€reliability€of€gunshot€residue€testing.€ÏHe€stated€that€in€the€picture€of€the€crime€scene€of€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€theÏdefendantððs€hands€appeared€to€be€covered€with€blood.€€After€looking€at€a€photograph€ofÏthe€victimððs€hands,€he€said€that€they€did€not€appear€to€have€blood€on€them.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÐ È#À  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€aÐ  %˜" Ðconviction€for€either€first€or€second€degree€murder€because€no€evidence€was€submittedÏthat€would€indicate€that€the€defendant€exercised€the€reflection€and€judgment€necessaryÏto€support€such€a€conviction.€€The€state€argues€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trialÏshowed€that€the€defendant€brought€the€gun€home€and€intentionally,€knowingly,€and€withÏpremeditation€shot€her€husband€in€the€head€and€killed€him.ÌÌà ¸ àÔ‡ X âXXX âÔOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questionedÐ 42,+0 Ðon€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.Ð ˜706 Ð2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€presume€thatÏthe€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferencesÏfrom€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ð   ˜ Ð(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ð l d ÐÌà ¸ àViewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€we€concludeÏthat€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€The€defendant€correctly€arguesÏthat€the€stateððs€case€is€purely€circumstantial.€€However,€it€is€well€established€thatÏcircumstantial€evidence€may€be€used€exclusively€to€establish€guilt€for€a€criminal€act.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€569€(Tenn.€1993).€€Furthermore,€the€weight€ofÐ 4, Ðsuch€circumstantial€evidence€is€for€the€jury€to€determine.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€520Ð ø ÐS.W.2d€371,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€The€evidence€presented€at€trial€establishedÏthat€the€defendant€and€the€victim€were€separating€and€that€on€Sunday,€September€11,Ï1995,€the€defendant€took€a€loaded€pistol€from€her€fatherððs€car€without€permission.€€TheÏdefendantððs€father€tried€to€persuade€the€defendant€to€stay€with€him€that€night,€but€sheÏrefused.€€The€following€morning,€the€victim€was€found€dead€lying€in€bed€with€a€gunshotÏwound€to€his€head.€€The€bullet€found€in€the€victimððs€head€came€from€the€defendantððsÏfatherððs€gun,€the€same€gun€that€was€found€lying€on€the€floor€on€the€defendantððs€side€ofÏthe€bed.€€The€victim€received€the€first€shot€fired,€which€would€have€rendered€himÏcompletely€immobile.€€We€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€presented€is€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€further€argues€that€because€the€case€is€circumstantial,€theÏjury€could€not€have€found€that€the€facts€presented€excluded€every€other€reasonableÏtheory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt.€€Essentially,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÏfacts€did€not€exclude€the€possibility€that€a€third€party€shot€both€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant.€€However,€whether€other€reasonable€inferences€are€excluded€by€theÏcircumstantial€evidence€is€also€a€question€for€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470Ð Œ7„06 ÐS.W.2d€610€(Tenn.€1971).€€At€trial,€the€defendant€presented€evidence€to€suggest€that€aÏthird€party€may€have€committed€the€shootings,€but€the€jury€rejected€that€evidence€inÏfavor€of€the€stateððs€theory.€€In€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidenceÏexcludes€every€reasonable€hypothesis€but€that€of€guilt.Ô#†X âXX X âRa#ÔÐ l d ÐÌÓ  Óò òII.€€COMPETENCE€TO€STAND€TRIALÐ ü  ÐÓ  Óó óà ¸ àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€trial€to€goÐ ÜÔ  Ðforward€even€though€the€defendant€was€incompetent€due€to€her€amnesia€surroundingÏthe€shootings.€€The€state€argues€that€amnesia,€in€and€of€itself,€does€not€constituteÏincompetency.€€The€state€further€argues€that€the€defendant€was€competent€becauseÏshe€was€functioning€and€communicating€well,€could€consult€with€her€attorney,€andÏunderstood€the€proceedings€at€trial.ò òÐ ØÐ ÐÌà ¸ àó óThe€standard€for€determining€whether€a€defendant€is€competent€to€standÐ |t Ðtrial€is€set€forth€in€òòDusky€v.€United€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€402,€80€S.€Ct.€788,€789€(1960):Ð H @ ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à[T]he€ð ðtest€must€be€whether€[the€defendant]€hasÏsufficient€present€ability€to€consult€with€his€lawyer€withÏa€reasonable€degree€of€rational€understanding€„„€andÏwhether€he€has€a€rational€as€well€as€a€factualÏunderstanding€of€the€proceedings€against€him.ððÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÔ€X âXXX âÔÓÓÓ  ÓIdóó.€€The€òòDuskyóó€standard€has€been€adopted€in€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815Ð x'p $ ÐS.W.2d€166,€174€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€429€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð D)<"& ÐApp.€1988);€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€Ô€X âXXX âÔTheÐ +$( Ðburden€is€on€the€defendant€to€establish€his€incompetency€to€stand€trial€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¨. ', ÐApp.€1991).€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€òòIdóó.Ð @28+0 ÐÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€April€23,€1996,€to€determineÏwhether€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.€€The€defendant€submitted€medicalÐ ¤7œ06 Ðrecords€from€Vanderbilt€Hospital€that€reflected€that€she€had€no€recollection€of€theÏevents€surrounding€the€shootings.€€Counsel€for€the€defendant€stated€that€when€he€wasÏfirst€retained,€he€had€great€difficulty€communicating€with€the€defendant,€but€she€hadÏmade€great€progress.€€The€defendant€testified€that€she€had€no€memory€of€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€shooting€of€herself€and€the€victim€and€that€her€parentsÏtold€her€of€the€victimððs€death€and€her€injury.€€The€defendant€testified€that€she€had€noÏmemory€of€the€last€six€months€of€her€marriage€but€that€she€might€remember€somethingÏif€asked€about€it€specifically.€€She€said€that€she€had€improved€in€other€areas€such€asÏspeaking,€reading,€writing,€and€walking.€€She€said€that€she€continued€to€receive€medicalÏtreatment€from€a€neurologist.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€testified€that€she€was€no€longerÏemployed€and€that€she€lived€with€her€parents.€€She€said€that€she€had€been€driving€sinceÏNovember€1995€and€was€able€to€run€errands.€€She€said€that€she€was€able€to€read,Ïcook,€and€clean.€€The€defendant€testified€that€she€remembered€going€to€high€schoolÏand€graduating€in€1987.€€She€said€that€she€also€remembered€marrying€the€victim,Ïattending€college,€working€for€three€different€employers,€and€having€a€son€in€1989.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€she€had€discussed€with€her€lawyer€theÏcriminal€charge€of€first€degree€murder€and€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€secondÏdegree€murder€and€voluntary€Ô‡Xî}XXX âÔmanslaughter.€€She€said€that€she€knew€the€consequencesÐ ø*ð#( Ðshe€faced€if€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€but€was€not€sure€about€the€consequencesÏif€she€was€convicted€of€a€lesser€offense.€€The€defendant€testified€that€she€had€talkedÏwith€her€attorney€about€possible€defenses,€such€as€her€husband€may€have€shot€her€orÏshe€may€have€been€acting€in€self„defense.€€She€said€that€she€remembered€that€theÏvictim€owned€guns€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€but€that€she€did€not€know€what€kind.€€TheÏâ âdefendant€testified€that€she€remembered€borrowing€a€gun€from€her€father€but€she€didÐ <64/4 Ðnot€remember€when.€€She€said€that€she€understood€that€she€might€go€to€jail€if€convictedÏbut€did€not€know€the€punishment€for€first€or€second€degree€murder.€€Ìâ âÌà ¸ àPatricia€Duffield,€the€defendantððs€mother,€testified€that€while€at€theÏhospital,€she€explained€to€the€defendant€who€the€victim€was€and€what€had€happened.€ÏShe€said€that€the€defendant€was€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital€for€about€three€weeks€and€wasÏthen€transported€to€Stallworth€Rehabilitation€Clinic,€where€she€stayed€until€NovemberÏ17,€1995.€€Mrs.€Duffield€testified€that€the€defendantððs€communication€had€improvedÏsince€she€was€first€in€the€hospital€but€that€the€defendant€still€had€trouble€thinking€of€aÏword€and€saying€it.€€Mrs.€Duffield€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€remember€theÏevents€in€question.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Mrs.€Duffield€said€that€the€defendant€was€able€toÏdrive€and€do€errands€but€that€she€did€not€drive€much€in€heavy€traffic.€€She€said€that€theÏdefendant€did€not€remember€how€to€get€to€the€place€she€worked€before€the€shooting.€ÏMrs.€Duffield€testified€that€much€of€what€the€defendant€knew€she€was€told€by€Mr.ÏDuffield€and€herself.€€She€stated€that€she€had€explained€to€the€defendant€that€she€hadÏobtained€her€fatherððs€gun.€€She€said€that€there€was€still€much€that€the€defendant€did€notÏremember.€€Mrs.€Duffield€said€that€she€did€not€know€if€the€defendant€remembered€theÏbirth€of€her€child€and€the€events€of€his€growing€up€because€they€had€not€talked€aboutÏthem.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€was€beginning€to€act€normally,€but€not€to€the€pointÏthat€she€was€able€to€work.€€Mrs.€Duffield€stated€that€although€the€defendant€graduatedÏwith€a€4.0€grade€point€average€from€Branell€College€and€was€good€at€math,€theÏdefendant€had€trouble€multiplying€and€adding.€ÌÌà ¸ àMrs.€Duffield€stated€that€she€had€told€the€defendant€that€the€trial€was€theÏnext€day,€but€she€did€not€believe€that€the€defendant€fully€understood€the€ramifications€ofÐ È7À04 Ða€trial.€€Upon€questioning€by€the€trial€court,€Mrs.€Duffield€stated€that€she€did€not€thinkÏthat€the€defendantððs€ability€to€express€herself€would€improve€within€four€months,€theÏtime€period€for€which€the€case€would€be€delayed€if€a€continuance€was€granted€for€aÏpsychological€evaluation.€€She€said€that€she€did€not€know€whether€the€defendantððsÏmemory€would€improve,€but€she€believed€that€the€defendantððs€communication€skillsÏwould€get€better.€€Mrs.€Duffield€testified€that€the€defendantððs€ability€to€reason€andÏunderstand,€to€calculate,€and€to€understand€the€legal€process€had€not€improved.€€SheÏsaid€that€the€defendant€was€more€outgoing€before€the€shooting.ÌÌà ¸ àChester€Duffield,€the€defendantððs€father,€testified€that€he€was€a€retiredÏpolice€officer€who€stayed€at€home€with€the€defendant.€€He€said€that€the€defendantððsÏability€to€communicate€had€advanced€quickly€since€she€had€been€home.€€Mr.€DuffieldÏsaid€that€he€believed€it€likely€that€her€ability€to€communicate€with€her€attorney€wouldÏimprove.€€He€stated€that€her€ability€to€think€and€to€reason€had€improved€in€certain€areas,Ïbut€he€was€unsure€that€the€defendant€understood€the€penalty€for€the€crime€charged.€€HeÏbelieved€that€the€defendant€was€capable€of€understanding€the€penalty€if€it€wasÏexplained€to€her.€€He€said€that€the€defendant€was€continuing€to€improve€and€wasÏphysically€stronger€but€that€she€was€not€yet€normal.€€Mr.€Duffield€stated€that€her€bestÏimprovement€was€that€she€was€relearning€things.€€He€said€that€her€ability€to€think€ofÏwords€and€to€verbalize€her€thoughts€had€improved€greatly.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€end€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion.€ÏBased€on€the€testimony€and€the€defendantððs€medical€records,€it€found€that€there€was€noÏdoubt€that€the€defendant€was€suffering€from€amnesia€but€that€there€was€no€medicalÏproof€that€her€condition€would€ever€improve.€€It€found€that€there€were€someÏcommunication€deficits€but€that€they€were€not€significant.€€The€court€found€that€amnesiaÏdoes€not€constitute€incompetency€to€stand€trial.€€In€support€of€its€holding,€the€trial€courtÐ È7À04 Ðrelied€upon€òòState€v.€Dempsey€Rayóó,€No.€86„290„III,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  ÐMar.€2,€1988)€(holding€that€ð ð[a]mnesia€in€and€of€itself€does€not€constitute€incompetencyÏto€stand€trial.ðð).ÌÌà ¸ àRegarding€the€proof€introduced€at€trial,€the€defendantððs€parents€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€continued€to€have€problems€communicating€in€that€she€was€unableÏto€think€of€a€word€and€say€it.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Duffield€both€said€that€she€had€neverÏremembered€or€related€to€them€anything€that€happened€during€the€time€period€when€theÏvictim€was€killed.€€He€stated€that€the€defendant€had€to€relearn€everything€and€wasÏundergoing€both€physical€and€mental€therapy.€€The€defendantððs€medical€records€wereÏintroduced€at€trial€and€documented€the€defendantððs€ð ðsevere€aphasia,€making€it€difficultÏto€assess€orientation€and€cognitive€skillsðð€and€the€language€deficits.€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€her€competentÏto€stand€trial.€€She€argues€that€her€amnesia€precluded€her€from€assisting€counsel,Ïrendering€her€incompetent€to€stand€trial€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Specifically,€theÏdefendant€argues€that€because€she€was€unable€to€remember€anything€surrounding€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense€and€because€the€evidence€was€not€so€compelling€as€toÏrender€her€memory€unnecessary€to€assist€counsel,€a€fair€trial€could€not€be€held.Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àIn€analyzing€the€defendantððs€claim€of€incompetence,€we€first€begin€with€theÏprinciple€that€amnesia,€in€and€of€itself,€does€not€constitute€incompetency€to€stand€trial.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòRayóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€€However,€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€of€the€amnesiaÐ H0@), Ðmay€be€such€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòIdóó.€€We€also€note€that€Ô#†X âXXXî}~{#ÔÔ‡Xî}XXX âÔthis€courtÐ (2 +. Ðhas€previously€rejected€a€defendantððs€claim€that€he€was€deprived€of€a€fair€trial€due€to€hisÏinability€to€remember€the€events€of€the€crimes.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Neil€M.€Friedmanóó,€No.Ð è5à.2 Ð03C01„9704„CR„00140,€Carter€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€14,€1998),€òòapplicóó.€òòfiledóóÐ È7À04 Ð(Tenn.€June€15,€1998).Ô#†X âXXXî}J•#ÔÔ‡Xî}XXX âÔ€€An€analysis€of€relevant€cases€leads€us€to€the€conclusion€that€inÐ  Ðorder€to€ensure€that€an€amnesiac€defendant€receives€the€guarantees€of€due€process,Ïtwo€inquiries€must€be€made.€€First,€there€must€be€an€analysis€under€òòDuskyóó€as€toÐ È À Ðwhether€the€defendant€has€sufficient€ability€to€consult€with€her€attorney€with€aÏreasonable€degree€of€rational€understanding€and€whether€the€defendant€understandsÏthe€proceedings€against€her.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuskyóó,€362€U.S.€at€402,€80€S.€Ct.€at€789.€€Second,Ð h`  Ðthere€must€be€an€analysis€of€whether€the€defendant€can€receive€a€fair€trial€despite€theÏamnesia,€considering€such€factors€as€whether€the€crime€and€the€defendantððsÏwhereabouts€can€be€reconstructed€without€the€defendantððs€testimony€and€whetherÏaccess€to€government€files€would€assist€the€defendant€in€preparing€a€defense.€€òòSeeóóÐ èà ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Swansonóó,€572€F.2d€523,€527€(5th€Cir.€1978)€(cited€in€òòRayóó,€slip€op.€atÐ ÈÀ Ð7).ÌÌà ¸ àThe€first€inquiry€is€whether€the€defendant€has€sufficient€ability€to€consultÏwith€her€attorney€and€whether€the€defendant€understands€the€proceedings€against€her.€ÏWe€conclude€that€this€inquiry€is€satisfied€in€the€instant€case.€€The€facts€produced€at€theÏcompetency€hearing€and€at€trial€show€that€the€defendant€became€able€to€talk€with€herÏattorney€and€discuss€the€charges€against€her.€€She€discussed€possible€defenses€withÏher€attorney,€including€the€possibility€that€her€husband€or€an€intruder€shot€her.€€Both€herÏparents€and€her€attorney€stated€that€she€had€made€great€improvements€in€the€area€ofÏcommunication.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€understood€the€nature€of€the€chargesÏagainst€her.€€She€stated€that€although€she€was€unsure€about€the€consequences€ofÏbeing€convicted€of€a€lesser€offense,€she€understood€that€she€would€go€to€jail€if€she€wereÏto€be€convicted€of€first€degree€murder.€€Her€father€stated€that€she€was€capable€ofÏunderstanding€the€penalty€of€the€crime€charged€if€it€were€explained€to€her.€€Based€onÏthese€facts,€we€conclude€that€the€standard€for€competency€set€forth€in€òòDuskyóó€is€satisfiedÐ è5à.2 Ðin€the€instant€case.€€Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àOur€second€inquiry€is€whether€the€defendant€is€able€to€receive€a€fair€trialÏdespite€the€amnesia.€€In€òòRayóó,€this€court€looked€to€òòSwansonóó€for€the€relevant€inquiry€inÐ èà Ðdetermining€an€amnesiac€defendantððs€ability€to€receive€a€fair€trial.€€A€main€considerationÏis€whether€the€crime€and€the€defendantððs€whereabouts€can€be€reconstructed€without€herÏtestimony.€€The€evidence€presented€at€trial€in€the€instant€case€shows€that€the€state€wasÏable€to€reconstruct€the€shootings€without€the€testimony€of€the€defendant€by€analyzingÏthe€physical€evidence€and€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses.€€The€stateððs€theory,€based€onÏthe€physical€evidence€and€the€testimony€of€witnesses,€was€that€the€defendant€took€aÏloaded€pistol€from€her€father€without€his€permission,€went€back€to€the€house€she€wasÏformerly€sharing€with€the€victim,€and€some€time€on€September€11€or€12,€1995,€shot€theÏvictim€then€herself.€€Thus,€both€the€events€and€the€defendantððs€whereabouts€could€beÏreasonably€reconstructed.€€Ô#†X âXXXî}—#ÔÔ€X âXXX âÔÐ ¨  ÐÌà ¸ àAlso,€although€the€state€did€not€provide€the€defendant€with€completelyÏopen€files,€as€suggested€in€both€òòSwansonóó€and€òòUnited€States€v.€Stubblefieldóó,€325€F.Ð  ! ÐSupp.€485,€486€(E.D.€Tenn.€1971),€the€defense€made€extensive€pretrial€discoveryÏmotions€to€which€the€state€responded€by€supplying€the€defense€with€the€names€andÏaddresses€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€access€to€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,Ïincluding€the€photographs,€the€pistol,€the€section€of€the€wall€containing€the€bloody€palmÏprint,€hair€and€tissue,€bed€clothing,€the€bullet,€bullet€fragments,€the€fingerprint€analyses,Ïtoxicology€reports,€and€the€autopsy€report.€€The€state€notified€the€defendant€of€its€intentÏto€call€Wallace€and€Forrester€as€witnesses,€and€the€defendant€was€able€to€construct€aÏtheory€alternative€to€the€stateððs€theory€using€these€witnesses€and€the€physical€evidence.€ÏThe€defense€was€able€to€cross„examine€both€Wallace€and€Forrester,€as€well€as€theÏagents€from€the€crime€lab€who€assisted€the€state€in€preparing€its€theory€of€the€case.€€InÏlight€of€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€the€state€gave€the€defendant€sufficient€access€toÏinformation€such€that€the€defendant€was€not€deprived€of€a€fair€trial.ÌÐ |8t16 Ðà ¸ àIn€conclusion,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€defendantÏis€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Certainly,€the€presentation€of€a€defense€was€made€moreÏdifficult€by€the€defendantððs€complete€lack€of€memory€surrounding€the€shootings.€ÏHowever,€the€defendant€was€able€to€consult€with€her€attorney,€and€she€understood€theÏnature€of€the€charges€against€her.€€Furthermore,€the€crime€itself€and€the€defendantððsÏwhereabouts€were€constructed€without€the€defendantððs€testimony.€€In€light€of€theseÏcircumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€due€process€rights€were€not€violatedÏby€bringing€her€to€trial.ÌÔ€X âXXX âÔò òÌÓ  ÓIII.€€HEARSAY€STATEMENTó óÐ @8 ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€intoÏevidence€the€victimððs€statement€to€John€Wallace€when€Wallace€asked€the€victim€why€heÏwanted€to€bring€his€guns€over€to€Wallaceððs€house.€€The€trial€court€allowed€Wallace€toÏtestify€that€the€victim€told€him,€ð ðWell€Iððm€afraid€of€her€and€donððt€know€what€she€will€do.ðð€ÏThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€statement€was€admissible€under€Rule€803(3),€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.,€as€a€statement€of€the€victimððs€then€existing€state€of€mind.€€The€trial€courtÏprovided€a€limiting€instruction,€stating€that€the€jury€could€not€consider€the€testimony€asÏproof€that€the€defendant€actually€killed€the€victim.€€However,€the€trial€court€told€the€juryÏthat€they€could€ð ðaccept€[the€testimony],€if€you€believe€it,€as€proof€of€the€fact€that€sheÏmay€have€been€planning€or€deliberating€murder€prior€to€actually€committing€it.ððÌñÛñœ›ñÛñÌñÛñœñÛñÔ‡ X âXXX âÔà ¸ àIn€admitting€the€statements,€the€trial€court€relied€on€òòState€v.€Charles€N.Ð Ü,Ô%* ÐHowellóó,€Ô#†X âXX X ⛯#ÔÔ‡ X âXXX âÔNo.€03C01„9406„CR„00203,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€12,€1996),Ð ¨. ', Ðòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€July€9,€1996)€(concurring€in€results€only),€in€which€this€court€upheldÐ t0l). Ðthe€admission€of€a€murder€victimððs€statements€expressing€fear€of€the€defendant.€€ThisÏcourt€held€that€the€statements€were€admissible€under€Rule€803(3),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€asÏstatements€of€the€victimððs€state€of€mind€and€also€determined€that€the€statements€wereÏrelevant€because€they€related€to€premeditation.€€Slip€op.€at€8„9.€€However,€we€believeÐ ¤7œ06 Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€on€òòHowellóó€was€misplaced.€€Ô#†X âXX X âV°#ÔÔ‡ X âXXX âÔNot€only€is€the€fact€that€theÐ  Ðsupreme€court€concurred€only€in€the€results€of€this€courtððs€òòHowellóó€opinionÔ#†X âXX X â"³#ÔÔ‡ X âXXX âÔ€significant,€butÐ ÔÌ Ðour€review€of€the€relevant€case€law€and€the€Advisory€Commission€Comment€to€RuleÏ803(3)€leads€us€to€conclude€that€the€statement€made€by€the€victim€in€the€instant€case€isÏinadmissible€hearsay€relative€to€proving€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€mental€state.€€ÌÔ#†X âXX X âé³#ÔñÛñ›ñÛñà ¸ àñÛñœ›ñÛñÌà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€927€S.W.2d€582,€595€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€thisÐ ÐÈ  Ðcourt€held€that€a€statement€made€by€a€murder€victim,€reflecting€that€he€and€FarmerÏplanned€to€meet€to€steal€marijuana,€was€inadmissible€under€Rule€803(3).€€Although€theÏstate€argued€that€the€statement€was€admissible€as€evidence€of€the€victimððs€state€ofÏmind€relative€to€his€relationship€with€Farmer,€this€court€determined€that€the€stateððs€realÏpurpose€in€seeking€to€admit€the€statement€was€to€show€that€the€defendant€planned€toÏand€did€meet€with€the€victim.€€òòIdóó.€€Noting€that€the€Advisory€Commission€Comment€toÐ ˜ ÐRule€803(3)€states€that€the€state€of€mind€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€ð ðcontemplatesÏthat€only€the€declarantððs€conduct,€not€some€third€partyððs€conduct,€is€provable€by€thisÏhearsay€exception,ðð€this€court€concluded€that€it€was€not€admissible€to€show€theÏdefendantððs€conduct.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Lucien€Samuel€Sherrodóó,€No.€01C01„9505„Ð È#À  ÐCR„00157,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€30,€1997)€(statements€of€a€firstÏdegree€murder€victim,€expressing€fear€of€the€defendant,€were€not€admissible€underÏ803(3)€because€the€statements€were€offered€to€prove€the€defendantððs€conduct,€ð ðand,Ïtherefore,€his€mental€state€of€premeditation.ðð);€€òòÔ‡ X âXXX âÔState€v.€John€Parker€Roeóó,€No.€02C01„Ð ø*ð#( Ð9702„CR„00054,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€12,€1998),€òòapplicóó.€òòfiledóó€(Tenn.Ð Ä,¼%* ÐMar.€5,€1998)€(murder€victimððs€statements€were€inadmissible€hearsay€because€theÏstatements€were€offered€for€the€purpose€of€proving€the€defendantððs€premeditation€andÏdeliberation).Ô#†X âXX X âº#ÔÐ (2 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àThe€same€result€is€warranted€in€the€instant€case.€€Although€the€stateÏargues€that€the€statement€was€offered€to€show€the€victimððs€state€of€mind€and€to€explainÐ Œ7„06 Ðwhy€the€victim€took€his€guns€over€to€Wallaceððs€house,€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€theÏjury€suggests€otherwise.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€victimððs€statementÏcould€be€used€to€show€the€defendantððs€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€Rule€803(3)Ïdoes€not€encompass€such€statements.€€òòSeeóó€Advisory€Commission€ñÛñœñÛñComment,ñÛñ›ñÛñ€Tenn.€R.Ð l d ÐEvid.€803(3)€(ð ðThe€commission€contemplates€that€only€the€declarantððs€conduct,€notÏsome€third€partyððs€conduct,€is€provable€by€this€hearsay€exception.ðð).ÌÌà ¸ àWe€note,€as€well,€that€the€victimððs€statement€expressing€his€fears€aboutÏthe€defendant€would€not€be€relevant€for€the€stateððs€case€to€prove€the€defendantððs€guilt,Ïeven€if€viewed€as€evidence€of€the€victimððs€state€of€mind.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ 4, Ð561,€573€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€court€held€that€statements€made€by€a€murderÏvictim€that€expressed€fear€of€the€defendant€were€ñÛñœñÛñnot€directly€probative€of€whether€theÏdefendant€committed€murder.€€SimilarñÛñ›ñÛñ€reasoning€applies€ñÛñœñÛñinñÛñ›ñÛñ€the€present€ñÛñœñÛñcase.€€ThereÏwas€no€evidence€presented€or€claim€made€abñÓñout€the€ñÓññÔññÓñvicsñÓññÔññÔñvictimððsñÔññÓñ€ñÓññÕñconduct€thñÕññÖññÕñt€ñÕññÖññ×ñat€would€makeÏhis€state€of€mind€as€reflected€by€his€statements€relevant€to€an€issue€on€trial.€€ñ×ññÛñ›ñÛñà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àÌñÛñœñÛññØñÌñØññÛñ›ñÛñà ¸ àHaving€determined€that€the€statement€should€have€been€excluded,€weÏmust€now€determine€whether€the€erroneous€admission€of€the€statement€is€harmless.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€We€conclude€that€it€is€not.€€In€òòSmithóó,€thisÐ `'X $ Ðcourt€determined€that€although€the€hearsay€statements€were€admitted€in€error,€theÏadmission€of€the€statements€was€harmless€in€light€of€the€proof€presented€at€trial.€€òòSmithóó,Ð ø*ð#( Ð868€S.W.2d€at€573.€€This€court€determined€that€ð ð[w]hen€one€considers€the€proof€ofÏDefendantððs€previous€threats€and€violent€assaults€upon€the€victims,€that€[the€victim]Ïwould€have€been€afraid€of€the€Defendant€is€obvious.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€This€court€has€made€similarÐ \0T). Ðdeterminations€in€other€cases€that€are€factually€analogous€to€òòSmithóó.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð (2 +0 ÐBraganóó,€920€S.W.2d€227,€242€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(ð ðthere€was€ample€evidence€inÐ ô3ì,2 Ðâ âthe€record€to€conclude€that€the€appellant€had€planned€to€kill€the€victim€.€.€.€.ðð);€òòÔ‡ X âXXX âÔFarmeróó,Ð À5¸.4 Ð927€S.W.2d€at€596€(even€without€the€hearsay€statements,€ð ðthe€evidence€of€theÏappellantððs€guilt€would€simply€be€overwhelming.ðð).Ô#†X âXX X â‘Ç#ÔÐ ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà ¸ àThe€facts€of€the€instant€case€are€distinguishable€from€òòSmithóó€and€itsÐ l d Ðprogeny€because€in€the€instant€case,€the€evidence€falls€far€short€of€overwhelming€withÏrespect€to€proof€of€the€defendantððs€premeditation.€€Arguably,€the€fact€that€the€defendantÏtook€a€loaded€gun€from€her€fatherððs€truck€the€day€before€the€shootings€could€indicateÏpremeditation,€even€though€the€defendantððs€stated€purpose€for€taking€the€gun€was€forÏprotection€from€the€victimððs€friends,€not€to€do€harm€to€the€defendant.€€Within€thisÏñÛñœñÛñframework,€though,ñÛñ›ñÛñ€the€victimððs€hearsay€statement,€which€was€admitted€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€that€it€could€be€considered€on€the€issue€of€premeditation,Ïwould€be€important€to€the€state€relative€to€the€defendantððs€mental€state.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€statementððs€erroneous€admission€more€probablyÏthan€not€affected€the€verdict.€€Therefore,€we€are€compelled€to€reverse€and€remand€theÏcase€for€a€new€trial.¹Ó  Óò òÌó óÓ  Óà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€reverseÐ Ô#Ì  Ðand€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial€based€on€the€trial€courtððs€erroneous€admission€ofÏthe€hearsay€statement€made€by€the€victim.€€ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à________________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÌÌà ¸ à€€€ÓÓñÛñœñÛñÌñÙñÌThis€replaces€last€paragraph€on€P.€18:ñÙñÌà ¸ àñÛñ›œñÛññÚñIn€admitting€the€statements,€the€trial€court€relied€on€òòState€v.€Charles€N.Ð  ÐHowellóó,€Ô‡ Xü‘XXXü‘ÔNo.€03C01„9406„CR„00203,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€12,€1996),Ð ÔÌ Ðòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€July€9,€1996)€(concurring€in€results€only),€in€which€this€court€upheldÐ   ˜ Ðthe€admission€of€a€murder€victimððs€statements€expressing€fear€of€the€defendant.€€ThisÏcourt€held€that€the€statements€were€admissible€under€Rule€803(3),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€asÏstatements€of€the€victimððs€state€of€mind€and€also€determined€that€the€statements€wereÏrelevant€because€they€related€to€premeditation.€€Slip€op.€at€œ8„9.€›€However,€we€believeÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€on€òòHowellóó€was€misplaced.€€œÔ#†Xü‘XX Xü‘3Å#ÔÔ‡ Xü‘XXXü‘ÔNot€only€is€the€fact€that€theÐ œ”  Ðsupreme€court€concurred€only€in€the€results€of€this€courtððs€òòHowellóó€opinionÔ#†Xü‘XX Xü‘îÇ#Ô€significant,€butÐ h` Ðour€review€of€the€relevant€case€law€and€the€Advisory€Commission€Comment€to€RuleÏ803(3)€leads€us€to€conclude€that€the€statement€made€by€the€victim€in€the€instant€case€isÏinadmissible€hearsay€relative€to€proving€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€mental€state.€€›ÌñÚññÛñ›ñÛñ