ÿWPC? ¶°g.›€É–äêÄo¢lEægšò¹gU3;B¿A¥·çТÓÀK?úsá#þܯŠ6dIš="å%éR^ž£éŸ¿7Dï&Ù$dCM{YxÚC®É« FiÀ®©·-hDºR¿Ø6rüÉ‚ÛL AÜ–xéQ.ï0ŸŠƒ³#ø“')´Rv¡t¤/W©9†,ët³ôi­%éùmöœmb©ëºýª¹„ŒG²+¢KXO€A•µS 'à© ˜´³8Yv™þØ!êKj¶¾ ÈÑ,˜Jƒ‘cS2‹­C¥¿ JŠkËj 9B>d7§0YLÚÚ=&ÏÌ:”9# UN) %w 0â}U :_B™U.Ûw@ 4I ] 0Dl 0&° 0DÖ " ¤< "à""$ D/F)uaž D3ÿ.2U:`(šU:Â"üüüüü AQÆo 0D5 0Dy B½½ ÚÚ BàýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýU:˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLòÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(º£–$¡¡Ô€ôÌpôXXÔÑ  ÑÔ€ôDâôôôÌpÔÑ` ÑÑÜÜÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter[  AØ'ÿ Legal 3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT%ä2¼A`ArialTT vDwUxDyDzD{|e}Ó€‰”Wc%3|x”($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(Ö(3Ç]$¤¤Ý ƒ£–!ÝÔ€ôiÉôXXÔÑ  ÑÔ€ô’åôôôiÉÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ šÒ°ÒÝ ƒ Ç]ÿÝÔ€ôiÉôXXÔÑ @ ÑÔ€ô’åôôôiÉÔÑ@` °ÑÑ@ܰÑÑT@RY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Judge€Gerald€Ewell€signed€the€order€for€a€new€trial.€€Judge€John€A.€Turnbull€presided€atÐ  Ðthe€defendantððs€second€trial. Ñ  ÑÑ ` Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ   Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ(('÷ÿ dxd Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X-ø XXXÔÔ€°  XX-øÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X-ø X °ÔÐ  ÐÌò òNovember€13,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô’åô XX-øÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó WÒ°ÒÝ ƒ Ç]ÿÝÔ€ôiÉôXXÔÑ @ ÑÔ€ô’åôôôiÉÔÑ@` °ÑÑ@ܰÑÑT@RY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThe€defendant€had€been€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€in€1965.$$$$'ÿÿdxd $Ò°ÒÔ€8X-ø XXXÔÔ€8ô’åô X8X-øÔÝ ƒ Ç]ÿÝÔ€8ô’åôô8ô’åÔÑ @ ÑÔ€ô’åôô8ô’åÔÑ@` °ÑÑ@ܰÑÑT@RY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€his€testimony,€the€defendant€told€the€trial€court€that€Mr.€Potter€was€working€for€theÐ  Ðprosecution€and€that€the€jail€was€full€of€people€that€the€public€defender€had€failed€to€defendÏadequately.€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X-ø XXXÔÔ€°  XX-øÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X-ø X °ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€3,€1997Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô’åô XX-øÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ!"# Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý dHÙüÿP Pd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularÝ ƒ£–!ÝÔ€ôiÉôXXÔÑ  ÑÔ€ô’åôôôiÉÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýñ|ñ›ñ|ñÑ` ÑÒ°ÒÒX°Òò òÔ‡ôògôôô’åÔÑ7€XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ LegalY3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' LetterTÑÓ'X‚,¸ ˜X°œX'ÓÔ€XݱXôôògÔÑ€í: ÑÑ€í= ÑÑ€í: ÑÑ€gD ÑÑ€G9Ññ|ñ›ñ|ññ”ñœßr€ <,(j 8p `€€@E p ttˆ$H Õrß›ñ”ññ”ñßr€ <,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrßñ‰ñœñ‰ññ”ññ‰ñßr€ <,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrßñ}ñœñ}ññ‰ññ}ññ}ñà@Ô Ô Dàó óIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌÌ€à@zz)DàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ èà ÐÌà@••'DàMAY€1995€SESSIONˆÌÌÔ#†X-ø XXXݱ #ÔÔ‡XݱX XX-øÔÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à À àà  à)Ð h`  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ XP  Ðà ¸ àà  àAppellee,à À àà  à)à p àNo.€03C01„9403„CR„00110Ð H@  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìvs.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àCumberland€County€upon€change€ofÐ (  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àvenue€from€Warren€CountyÐ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌJ.€B.€McCORDò ò,€à  àà h àà À àà  àó ó)à p àHonorable€John€A.€Turnbull,€Judge€Ð øð Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ èà Ðà ¸ àà  àAppellant.à À àà  à)à p à(Second€degree€murder)Ð ØÐ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à€Ð ÈÀ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð ˆ€ ÐÌDale€Clement€Potterà h àà À àà  àà p àCharles€W.€BursonÐ h` ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ X P Ð31st€Judicial€Districtà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àandÐ H!@ ÐP.O.€Box€510à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àChristina€S.€ShevalierÐ 8"0 ÐMcMinnville,€TN€37110à h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ (#  Ѐ€€€€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÐ $ ÐIsaiah€S.€Gantà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÐ %  Ðc/o€Dale€Clement€Potterà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à Ð àÐ ø%ð! ÐP.O.€Box€510€€€€€€€€€€€ÌMcMinnville,€TN€37110à h àà À àà  àà p àWilliam€LockeÐ Ø'Ð # Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àandà  àà x àà Ð àà (# àÐ ¸)°"% Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àRobert€BoydÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à31st€Judicial€DistrictÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.O.€Box€410Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMcMinnville,€TN€37110ÌÔ#†X-ø XXXݱÃ#ÔÔ‡XݱX XX-øÔÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€‚‚‚‚‚__________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€ÌJudgeÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌñ}ñÑG9ÑÑÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑG9ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ}ñÐ ˜:37o ÐÑG9ÑÑÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ}ñÑG9ÑÑÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ}ñà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆàH““4“àó óóóˆÐ  ÐÓÓÓuX°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AX‚,¸ ˜XuÓÔ#†X-ø XXXݱG#ÔÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€J.€B.€McCord,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€judgment€ofÏconviction€for€second€degree€murder,€a€Class€A€felony.€€The€Cumberland€County€CircuitÏCourt€imposed€a€sentence€of€thirty„eight€years€to€be€served€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€presents€theÏfollowing€issues:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à1.€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€sufficient€toÏsustain€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€defendantððs€conviction€forÏsecond€degree€murder;€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à2.€whether€the€defendant€was€legally€competent€to€stand€trial;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à3.€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€suppressed€defendantððsÏstatement€because€the€police€officers€failed€to€honor€theÏdefendantððs€right€to€remain€silent;€andÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à4.€whether€the€trial€testimony€of€an€attorney€violated€theÏdefendantððs€attorney„client€privilege;€€€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€on€appeal€and€upon€careful€consideration€of€theÏapplicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@úú-Dàò òFACTSó óˆÐ Ò#Ê  Ðà ¸ àEarly€on€the€morning€of€November€6,€1987,€in€McMinnville,€Tennessee,€ÏBetty€Coleman€arrived€a€few€minutes€late€for€her€job€at€Robert€Bonnerððs€law€office.€€AÏlegal€secretary,€Ms.€Coleman€had€worked€for€Mr.€Bonner€for€more€than€twenty€years.€ÏWhen€she€entered€the€small€front€office,€she€noticed€that€the€door€to€Mr.€BonnerððsÏprivate€office€was€closed.€€A€few€moments€later,€as€she€moved€around€the€officeÏpreparing€to€begin€work,€she€observed€a€bullet€hole€in€his€door.€€When€Mr.€Bonner€didÏnot€respond€to€her€call,€she€tried€to€open€the€door.€€When€she€could€move€it€only€farÏenough€to€see€Mr.€Bonnerððs€bloodstained€hand€and€a€dark€spot€on€the€carpet,€she€ranÏacross€the€street€to€the€courthouse€for€help.€€When€the€police€arrived€a€few€momentsÏlater,€they€found€Robert€Bonnerððs€body€lying€face€down€on€the€carpet.€€He€had€beenÏshot€multiple€times.€€€Ð ¢7š06 Їà ¸ àA€certified€public€accountant€whose€office€was€nearby€told€theÏinvestigating€agents€that€he€had€observed€a€man€leaving€Bonnerððs€office€around€8:00Ïa.m.€€The€man€was€about€6'1"€and€wearing€a€baseball„type€cap€and€a€jacket.€€As€theÏman€came€out€the€door,€he€stuck€something€in€his€waistband,€and€then€drove€away€in€aÏtwo„tone€green€truck.€€As€a€result€of€this€description€and€other€information,€the€officersÏidentified€the€defendant€as€a€possible€suspect.€€McMinnville€police€officers€and€theÏWarren€County€sheriff,€as€well€as€other€deputies€and€investigators,€drove€to€theÏdefendantððs€rural€home.€€The€defendantððs€wife€and€brother€were€in€the€yard€when€theÏpolice€arrived,€but€they€were€taken€across€the€road€to€a€neighborððs€house.€€A€two„toneÏgreen€truck€was€parked€in€the€yard.€€The€defendant€was€inside€the€house€and€refused,Ïat€first,€to€come€out.€€He€was€armed€with€a€rifle€and€fired€shots€at€officers€whoÏattempted€to€approach€the€house€from€the€rear.€€Finally,€he€agreed€to€surrender€to€hisÏfriend,€Sheriff€Kenneth€Taylor.€€Unarmed,€he€left€the€house€and€was€immediatelyÏarrested.€€Investigator€Larry€Ross€read€the€defendant€his€rights,€and€then€other€officersÏtransported€him€to€the€station€in€McMinnville.€€With€Mrs.€McCordððs€consent,€the€policeÏsearched€the€McCord€residence€and€recovered€bloodstained€clothing,€including€a€Ïjacket€and€a€baseball„type€cap,€and€a€nine„millimeter€pistol.ÌÌà ¸ àShortly€after€arriving€at€the€police€station,€the€defendant,€in€a€tape„¼recorded€statement,€told€police€that€Robert€Bonner€had€represented€him€in€anÏunsuccessful€action€against€a€neighbor€over€a€boundary€dispute.€€He€said€that€he€hadÏbeen€very€dissatisfied€with€Bonnerððs€representation€and€had€consulted€several€otherÏattorneys€who€confirmed€that€Bonner€had€"messed€up€the€case."€€The€defendant€Ïexplained€that€on€the€morning€of€the€murder,€he€went€to€town€to€see€Bonner.€€AccordingÏto€the€statement,€Bonner€became€furious€when€the€defendant€told€him€what€the€otherÏattorneys€had€said.€€He€came€out€from€behind€the€desk€shouting.€€The€defendant,€whoÏwas€seventy€years€old€at€the€time€and€completely€disabled€by€a€spinal€injury,€stated€thatÏhe€believed€Bonner€was€attacking€him.€€The€defendant€pulled€a€nine„millimeter€pistolÐ Œ7„06 Ðfrom€his€jacket€pocket€and€shot€Bonner€five€times€at€close€range.€€He€then€reloaded€theÏweapon€and,€as€he€left€the€office,€he€stuck€the€pistol€in€his€waistband,€climbed€into€hisÏtruck,€and€drove€home€to€tell€his€wife€what€had€happened.€€He€described€how€he€hadÏhidden€the€pistol€under€a€mattress€and€asked€Sheriff€Taylor€to€retrieve€the€weapon.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€November€10,€1987,€a€Warren€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€theÏdefendant€for€first€degree€murder,€and€the€state€sought€the€death€penalty.€€In€1989,€aÏWarren€County€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentencedÏhim€to€death.€€However,€when€portions€of€the€trial€were€found€not€to€have€beenÏrecorded€due€to€faulty€equipment,€the€trial€court€set€aside€the€verdict€and€granted€theÏdefendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ø ÐÌà ¸ àBefore€the€second€trial€date€was€set,€defense€counsel€sought€andÏreceived€permission€to€withdraw€from€the€case€because€the€defendant€refused€toÏcommunicate€with€them€and€displayed€great€animosity€toward€them.€€New€counsel€wasÏappointed,€and€the€prosecution€filed€a€new€notice€of€its€intent€to€seek€the€death€penalty.€ÏIn€April€1992,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€change€of€venue€andÏordered€that€the€case€be€heard€in€Cumberland€County.€€The€prosecution€withdrew€itsÏdeath€penalty€notification€a€month€before€the€second€trial€began.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court,€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó,€held€a€competency€hearing€on€the€firstÐ ø*ð#( Ðmorning€of€the€second€trial.€€After€listening€to€testimony€from€both€defense€and€stateÏexpert€witnesses€and€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€found€the€defendant€competent€toÏstand€trial.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€the€capacity€toÏunderstand€the€nature€and€object€of€the€proceedings,€the€ability€to€consult€with€counselÏand€to€assist€his€attorneys,€and€an€appreciation€of€the€charges€and€the€possibleÐ ô3ì,2 Ðpunishment.€€However,€because€the€defendant€expressed€great€mistrust€for€the€publicÏdefender,€the€trial€court€relieved€the€public€defenderððs€office€of€its€responsibilities€at€trialÏand€directed€Isaiah€Gant,€a€Nashville€attorney€who€had€been€appointed€as€co„counsel,Ïto€act€as€single€counsel.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€case€then€proceeded€to€trial.€€The€state€presented€several€witnesses€Ïwho€testified€to€the€defendantððs€anger€at€the€victim€over€the€outcome€of€the€boundaryÏdispute€case.€€These€witnesses€included€an€attorney€the€defendant€had€consulted€afterÏlosing€the€lawsuit.€€The€accountant€described€the€man€he€saw€leaving€the€victimððs€officeÏmoments€before€Ms.€Coleman€discovered€the€body.€€The€jury€heard€testimony€aboutÏthe€brief€standoff€at€the€defendantððs€residence€and€viewed€the€bloodstained€clothingÏand€the€nine„millimeter€pistol€found€in€the€house.€€A€firearms€expert€testified€about€theÏbullets€recovered€from€the€body€and€the€empty€casings€and€bullets€found€at€the€crimeÏscene.€€The€medical€examiner€described€the€wounds€Bonner€suffered.€€The€jury€heardÏthe€defendantððs€taped€statements€in€which€he€admitted€killing€Bonner€and€claimed€self„¼defense.€€Defense€witnesses€testified€to€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€the€day€beforeÏthe€killing,€his€physical€disabilities€resulting€from€World€War€II€wounds,€and€his€longÏhistory€of€mental€impairment.€€A€crime€lab€investigator€described€traces€of€gunshotÏresidue€on€the€defendantððs€hands.€€The€defendant€did€not€testify.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€July€2,€1992,€after€receiving€the€charge€of€the€trial€court,€the€juryÏreceived€the€case€and€thereafter€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.ÏAfter€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€thirty„¼eight€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„106(a)(2).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€raises€no€challenge€to€his€sentence€in€thisÐ (2 +0 Ðappeal.Ð ô3ì,2 Ðñ|ñœñ|ñ‡ñ|ñ›œñ|ññwñÌñwññ|ñ›ñ|ñà@““ Dàò òI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ ÔÌ Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€insufficientÏto€sustain€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€Our€standard€of€review€when€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal€is€"whether,€after€viewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJacksonóóÐ ÜÔ  Ðòòv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€mayÐ ¨   Ðnot€reweigh€the€evidence,€but€must€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€inÏthe€testimony€and€drawn€all€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€theÏstate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð   Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€November€6,€1987,€second€degree€murder€was€defined€in€conjunctionÏwith€first€degree€murder.€€Specifically,€any€murder€that€was€not€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree€was€deemed€to€be€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„211(a)€(1982)Ï(repealed€and€replaced€by€T.C.A.€ðð€ñ|ñœñ|ñ39„13„210).ñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€€To€establish€second€degree€murder,Ïthe€state€was€required€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€"upon€aÏsudden€impulse€of€passion€without€adequate€provocation€and€disconnected€with€anyÏpreviously€formed€design€to€kill,€killed€another€willfully€and€maliciously."€€òòState€v.€Estesóó,Ð 8)0"& Ð655€S.W.2d€179,€183€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòGordon€v.€Stateóó,€478€S.W.2d€911,€916Ð +ü#( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€Malice€is€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,Ð Ð,È%* Ð702€S.W.2d€560,€563€(Tenn.€1985).€€Malice€has€been€defined€as€an€intent€to€do€injuryÏto€another,€òòState€v.€Keelsóó,€753€S.W.2d€140,€143€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€and€may€beÐ h0`). Ðinferred€from€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€òòMartinóó,€703€S.W.2d€at€563.€€Ð 42,+0 Ðâ âÐ 4ø,2 Ðà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€prove€the€elements€of€secondÏdegree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€There€is€no€question€that€the€defendantÏshot€and€killed€Robert€Bonner.€€The€defendant€admitted€the€killing.€€A€man€fitting€his€ñ|ñœñ|ññsñÌâ âñsññxññsñÌÌñsññxñdescriptionñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€and€driving€a€truck€similar€to€his€was€seen€leaving€the€office€near€the€time€ofÏthe€murder.€€The€police€found€bloodstained€clothing€and€the€weapon€the€defendantÏidentified€as€the€murder€weapon€in€his€home.€€The€evidence€shows€that€Bonner€wasÏunarmed.€€Several€witnesses€testified€to€the€defendantððs€anger€at€Bonner.€€The€juryÏdeclined€to€believe€that€the€defendant€committed€a€premeditated€and€deliberateÏmurder;€likewise€though,€they€had€no€doubt€that€he€did€not€kill€in€self„defense.€€TheÏevidence€in€the€record€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€that€the€defendantÏwillfully€and€maliciously€killed€Robert€Bonner.€€€ÌÌñ|ñœñ|ññtñò òñtññvññuñ6ñuññvññyññuñÌñuññyññtñó óñtññ|ñ›ñ|ñà@ëëDàò òII.€€COMPETENCY€OF€THE€DEFENDANTó óˆÐ ˜ Ðà ¸ àA€criminal€prosecution€of€a€person€is€prohibited€if€the€person€lacks€theÏcapacity€to€understand€the€nature€and€object€of€the€proceedings€against€him€and€theÏability€to€consult€with€counsel€and€to€assist€in€preparing€his€defense.€€òòDrope€v.€Missourióó,Ð " Ð420€U.S.€162,€171,€95€S.€Ct.€896,€903€(1975);€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704,€707Ð Ô#Ì  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€The€prohibition€is€fundamental€to€our€adversary€system€ofÏjustice€in€that€a€mentally€incompetent€defendant,€though€physically€present€in€theÏcourtroom,€has€no€real€opportunity€to€defend€himself.€€òòDropeóó,€420€U.S.€at€171,€95€S.€Ct.Ð 8)0"& Ðat€903.€€The€conviction€of€an€accused€person€while€he€is€legally€incompetent€violatesÏdue€process.€€òòPate€v.€Robinsonóó,€383€U.S.€375,€378,€86€S.€Ct.€836,€838€(1966).€€Ð Ð,È%* ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòDusky€v.€United€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€402,€80€S.€Ct.€788€(1960),€the€UnitedÐ h0`). ÐStates€Supreme€Court€described€the€standard€under€which€a€trial€court€determines€theÏcompetency€of€a€defendant€to€stand€trial.€€The€Court€stated€that€finding€that€a€defendantÏis€oriented€to€time€and€place€and€has€some€recollection€of€events€is€insufficient€toÏdeclare€a€defendant€competent€to€stand€trial.€€A€trial€court€must€decide€Ð ˜706 ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à.€.€.€whether€[the€defendant]€has€sufficient€present€ability€toÏconsult€with€his€lawyer€with€a€reasonable€degree€of€rationalÏunderstanding€„„€and€whether€he€has€a€rational€as€well€asÏfactual€understanding€of€the€proceedings€against€him.€€€òòк ²¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓId.óó€at€402,€80€S.€Ct.€at€789.€€Tennessee€courts€have€implicitly€adopted€the€òòDuskyóóÐ † ~ Ðstandard.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€174„175€(Tenn.€1991);€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537Ð R J ÐS.W.2d€at€707.€€The€defendant€must€establish€his€incompetency€to€stand€trial€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð êâ  ÐApp.€1991).Ìà ¸ àThe€trial€court,€in€this€case,€ordered€on€its€own€motion€that€a€competencyÏhearing€be€held€after€receiving€the€report€of€Dr.€Pamela€Auble.€€Before€the€hearing,€the€Ìcourt€ordered€that€the€defendant€be€examined€by€Plateau€Mental€Health€Center.€€BothÏDr.€Auble€and€Dr.€B.€L.€Freeman,€director€of€Plateau€Mental€Health€Center,€testified€atÏthe€competency€hearing.€€The€defendant€also€testified€and€was€questioned€extensivelyÏby€the€trial€court.€€Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àEvidence€presented€at€the€hearing€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€is€ofÏlow€average€intelligence€and€has€had€a€limited€education.€€Although€he€can€read,€hisÏability€to€express€himself€in€writing€is€poor.€€He€has€a€long€history€of€anxiety€and€abuseÏof€alcohol.€€Medical€records€from€the€Veteranððs€Administration€indicate€that€he€mayÏhave€suffered€a€stroke.€€As€a€result€of€his€alcohol€addiction€and€possible€stroke,€Dr.ÏAuble€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€suffered€organic€damage€to€the€right€side€ofÏhis€brain€which€affected€his€ability€to€relate€to€people.ÌÌà ¸ àBoth€experts€agreed€that€the€defendant€was€extremely€suspicious€ofÏlawyers€and€was€particularly€mistrustful€of€the€public€defender.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€They€also€agreed€thatÐ B1:*/ Ðthe€defendant€had€sufficient€understanding€of€the€nature€of€the€charges€and€theÐ 3,1 Ðproceedings€and€that€on€factual€matters€he€would€be€able€to€consult€with€his€attorneys.€ÏDr.€Auble€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€view€of€his€attorneys€was€so€warped€by€hisÏdelusions€and€mistrust€that€he€would€be€unable€to€participate€with€an€attorney€inÏplanning€a€rational€legal€strategy,€and€that€his€rambling,€tangential€response€toÏquestions€prevented€him€from€communicating€effectively€with€counsel.€€Dr.€FreemanÏagreed€that€the€defendantððs€willingness€to€cooperate€with€the€public€defender€wasÏdoubtful,€but€he€believed€that€the€defendant€had€the€ability€to€assist€in€the€preparationÏof€his€defense€if€he€chose€to€do€so.€€However,€Dr.€Freeman€considered€the€defendantððsÏwillingness€to€assist€in€his€own€defense€"iffy,"€given€his€mistrust€of€the€legal€system.€ÏThe€defendant€testified€that€he€acted€as€legal€help€in€prison,€that€he€was€aware€of€theÏpossible€sentence€if€he€were€convicted,€and€that,€although€he€did€not€trust€either€Dr.ÏAuble€or€Mr.€Potter,€he€did€trust€Mr.€Gant.€€The€defendant€also€expressed€the€opinionÏthat€the€trial€judge€was€a€fair„minded€man€who€would€give€him€a€fair€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àBased€on€his€personal€observation€of€the€defendant€and€the€testimony€ofÏthe€expert€witnesses,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€the€ability€to€think,Ïreason,€and€communicate.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€the€defendant€had€the€factualÏand€rational€ability€to€assist€in€his€own€defense,€to€manage€his€behavior,€and€to€relate€toÏand€cooperate€with€Mr.€Gant.€€Although€the€defendant€had€a€tendency€to€ramble,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€he€was€able€to€focus€on€the€question€and€make€an€appropriateÏresponse€when€required€to€do€so.€€Based€on€these€factual€findings,€the€trial€court€ruledÏthat€the€defendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial,€noting€that€neither€general€irascibilityÏnor€mistrust€of€attorneys€rendered€a€person€legally€incompetent€to€stand€trial.€€However,Ïconcerned€that€the€defendantððs€deep€mistrust€of€the€public€defender€would€hinder€theÏdefense,€the€trial€court€relieved€Mr.€Potter€of€trial€duties.€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€have€considered€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€and€the€entire€record.€ÏWe€have€applied€the€standard€set€forth€in€òòDuskyóó€and€òòMackeyóó,€and€we€conclude€that€theÐ Œ7„06 Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€competence.€€TheÏtestimony€of€both€experts€as€well€as€the€defendantððs€testimony€demonstrate€that€theÏdefendant€had€the€capacity€to€understand€the€nature€and€object€of€the€proceedingsÏagainst€him€and€that€he€was€able€to€consult€with€counsel€and€to€assist€in€theÏpreparation€of€his€defense.€€Although€his€animosity€toward€the€public€defender€and€Dr.ÏAuble€was€unreasonable€and€his€mistrust€of€them€unfounded,€the€defendant€met€theÏlegal€standard€for€competence.€Ìò òÌà@‚ ‚ DàIII.€€SUPPRESSION€OF€DEFENDANTððS€STATEMENTSˆÌó óà ¸ àWithin€four€hours€of€the€murder,€the€defendant€gave€two€statements€to€theÐ LD Ðpolice.€€In€those€statements,€he€described€how€he€killed€Robert€Bonner€and€explainedÏthat€he€had€shot€the€victim€in€self„defense.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€have€suppressed€these€statements€because€he€was€not€given€the€òòMirandaóóÐ °¨ Ðwarnings€contemporaneously€with€the€interrogation€and€because€the€record€contains€noÏindication€that€he€voluntarily,€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€rights.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€record€of€the€suppression€hearing€shows€that€Officer€Ross,€theÏinvestigator€for€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office,€advised€the€defendant€in€detail€ofÏhis€rights€at€the€moment€of€his€arrest,€although€the€officers€made€no€attempt€toÏinterrogate€him€at€that€time.€€However,€they€immediately€took€him€to€the€police€station€inÏMcMinnville.€€Sheriff€Taylor,€the€man€who€the€defendant€trusted€and€considered€aÏfriend,€was€present€at€all€times€during€the€interrogation.€€After€a€general€conversation,ÏOfficer€Frank€Floied€reminded€the€defendant€that€he€had€been€advised€of€his€rights,€andÏñyñÑgD ÑÑÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññyñthe€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€remembered€and€understood€those€rights,€butÏOfficer€Floied€did€not€repeat€the€standard€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€The€defendantððs€responseÐ @28+0 Ðto€Officer€Floied€indicated€that€he€"knew€he€was€being€treated€fairly."€€At€no€time€didÏanyone€explicitly€ask€the€defendant€if€he€waived€his€rights.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¤7œ06 ÐÑgD ÑÑÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ñà ¸ àDuring€this€preliminary€discussion,€the€officers€had€no€tape€recorder€in€theÏroom.€€One€officer€went€to€find€a€recorder.€€When€he€returned,€the€defendant€was€tellingÏthe€officers€about€his€lawsuit€against€Martha€Hill.€€The€officer€inadvertently€turned€on€the€ÌñwñÑgD ÑÑÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññwññ|ñœñ|ñrecorderñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€and€part€of€the€interrogation€was€recorded.€€At€the€time,€no€one€in€the€roomÏwas€aware€that€a€record€was€being€made.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€defendant€gave€aÏformal€statement€that€was€recorded€in€its€entirety.€€In€this€statement,€he€retold€hisÏversion€of€the€murder.€€On€the€first€tape,€Officer€Floied€once€again€referred€to€the€factÏthat€the€defendant€had€been€advised€of€his€rights€"out€there."€€The€statements€containÏno€other€mention€of€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€nor€do€they€contain€any€explicit€waiver€of€theÐ À` Ðright€to€remain€silent€or€the€right€to€an€attorney.ÌÌà ¸ àAfter€hearing€the€testimony€and€arguments€of€counsel,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€defendant€received€the€required€òòMirandaóó€warnings€at€the€time€of€hisÐ ð Ðarrest€and€that€he€understood€those€warnings,€that€the€officers€had€not€readvised€theÏdefendant€at€the€time€of€the€actual€interrogation,€and€that€the€officers€had€conductedÏthe€actual€interrogation€in€a€friendly,€completely€nonthreatening€manner.€€The€trial€courtÏacknowledged€that€it€is€better€practice€to€readvise€a€suspect€immediately€beforeÏinterrogation€even€if€he€was€warned€at€the€time€of€arrest€and€that€it€is€desirable€for€theÏrecord€to€contain€an€explicit€waiver€of€rights.€€However,€based€on€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€knowingly€andÏintelligently€waived€his€right€to€remain€silent€and€his€right€to€an€attorney.€€In€fact,€the€trialÏñyñÑí: ÑÑÜÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññyñcourt€noted€that€it€was€apparent€from€the€testimony€and€the€statements€that€theÏdefendant€wanted€to€talk€to€the€officers€and€that€it€would€have€been€difficult€to€preventÏhim€from€doing€so.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€defendantððs€statements€wereÏadmissible€and€denied€the€motion€to€suppress.ÌÐ L6ì,2 ÐÑí: ÑÑÜÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññ|ñœñ|ñÌñwññqñÑí: ÑÑÜÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññqññwññ|ñ›ñ|ñà ¸ àWhen€a€trial€court€makes€findings€of€fact€at€the€conclusion€of€aÏsuppression€hearing,€those€facts€may€be€overcome€on€appeal€only€if€the€evidence€inÏthe€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€ñ|ñœñ|ñÐ l d Ð18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€evidence€in€this€record€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏfindingsñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€of€the€trial€court.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€agree€that€theÏdefendantððs€statements€were€properly€admitted€into€evidence.ÌÌà ¸ àòòMirandaóó€mandates€that€"a€warning€at€the€time€of€the€interrogation€isÐ h` Ðindispensable€to€overcome€its€pressures€and€to€insure€that€the€individual€knows€he€isÏfree€to€exercise€the€privilege€at€that€point€in€time."€€òòMiranda€v.€ñ|ñœñ|ñArizonaóó,ñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€384€U.S.€436,Ð ø Ð469,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€1625€(1966).€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€was€advised€of€his€rightsÏat€the€time€of€his€arrest€and€then€immediately€transported€to€the€station€where€theÏinterrogation€began.€€The€police€did€not€repeat€the€òòMirandaóó€warningsÐ d\ Ðcontemporaneously€with€the€interrogation.ÌÌà ¸ àInvestigator€Ross€thoroughly€advised€the€defendant€of€his€rights€shortlyÏbefore€the€interrogation€began.€€There€was€no€significant€lapse€of€time€between€theÏwarning€and€the€commencement€of€questioning€and€no€improper€or€even€questionableÏpolice€conduct.€€During€the€interrogation,€Officer€Floied€reminded€the€defendant€twice€ofÏthe€earlier€warnings€and€ascertained€that€the€defendant€understood€his€rights.€€ÌÌñyñÑí= ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  Ññyñà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Prideóó,€667€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€the€defendantÐ .ˆ', Ðwas€given€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€which€he€waived€and€after€which€he€gave€a€statement.€Ð \0T). ÐHe€was€then€arrested€and€taken€to€the€station€where€he€gave€a€second€statement€afterÏan€oral€reminder€of€his€right€to€counsel.€€This€court€held€that€he€had€been€adequatelyÏwarned€before€the€first€statement€and€that€his€previous€waiver€carried€over€to€theÏsecond.€€òòIdóó.€at€104„05.€€Under€the€circumstances€in€the€present€case,€the€failure€toÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑí= ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  Ññ|ñÑí= ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  ÑÑí= ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  Ññ|ññwñÑí= ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  Ññwñreadvise€the€defendant€was€inconsequential€for€constitutional€ñ|ñœñ|ñpurposes€as€it€was€inÏòòPrideóó.ñ|ñ›ñ|ñÐ ìÌ ÐÌà ¸ àA€suspect€or€accused€cannot€give€a€voluntary€and€knowing€confession€orÏother€statement€without€a€sufficient€understanding€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€aÏvoluntary€waiver€of€those€rights.€€A€waiver€of€constitutional€rights€is€valid€once€it€isÏñ|ñœñ|ñdeterminedñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€that€a€suspect€was€aware€of€his€rights€and€the€stateððs€intention€to€use€hisÏstatements€against€him€and€that€the€decision€not€to€invoke€those€rights€was€uncoerced.€ÏòòMoran€v.€Burbineóó,€475€U.S.€412,€422„23,€106€S.€Ct.€1135,€1141€(1986).€€The€recordÐ €` Ðsupports€a€conclusion€that€the€defendant€was€aware€of€the€nature€of€his€constitutionalÏrights€and€had€an€adequate€understanding€of€their€importance.€€There€is€no€indication€ofÏany€police€misconduct.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àAs€previously€noted,€the€record€does€not€contain€an€ñ|ñœñ|ñexpressñzñedñzññ|ñ›ñ|ñ€waiver,€eitherÏwritten€or€oral,€by€the€defendant.€€However,€an€explicit€statement€of€waiver€is€not€alwaysÏnecessary€to€support€a€finding€that€a€defendant€waived€the€right€to€remain€silent.€€òòNorthÐ "ô ÐCarolina€v.€Butleróó,€441€U.S.€369,€374„75,€99€S.€Ct.€1755,€1758€(1970).€€The€fact€thatÐ à#À  Ðmere€silence€is€not€enough€to€support€waiver,€òòseeóó€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€475,€86€S.€Ct.Ð ¬%Œ" Ðat€1628,€does€not€mean€that€"a€defendantððs€silence,€coupled€with€an€understanding€ofÏhis€rights€and€a€course€of€conduct€indicating€waiver,€may€never€support€a€conclusionÏthat€a€defendant€has€waived€his€rights."€€òòButleróó,€441€U.S.€at€373,€99€S.€Ct.€at€1757.€Ð +ð#( ÐñyñÑí:ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  ÑñyñAlthough€courts€must€presume€constitutional€rights€have€not€been€waived,€waiver€canÏñwñÑí:ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  Ññwñbe€inferred€from€the€actions€and€words€of€the€person€interrogated.€€òòId.óó€Ð ¨.ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àTennessee€law€recognizes€that€the€lack€of€an€explicit€waiver€of€the€right€toÏremain€silent€or€the€right€to€counsel€does€not€òòperóó€òòseóó€require€the€exclusion€of€aÐ  4ì,2 Ðconfession€if€òòMirandaóó€warnings€were€given€and€if€a€waiver€can€be€found€from€the€factsÐ Ø5¸.4 Ðand€the€surrounding€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€Crim.€ñ|ñœñ|ñÐ ¤7„06 ÐÑí:ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  ÑñwñÑí:ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  ÑñwñApp.ñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€1986).€€After€giving€the€required€warnings€and€ascertaining€that€the€defendant€Ïunderstood€his€rights,€the€interrogating€officers€never€asked€him€whether€he€was€willingÏto€waive€those€rights.€€However,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€defendant€was€the€leastÏñwñÑí:ÑÑÜÜÑÑ ÑÑ  Ññwñbit€reluctant€to€give€a€statement.€€In€fact,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendantÏwas€anxious€to€tell€his€story€to€the€police.€€The€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€caseÏsupport€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€defendant€waived€his€right€to€remain€silent.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Samuel€T.€Cravensóó,€No.€86„33„III,€Fentress€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.Ð ÐÈ  Ð7,€1986).Ìò ò€Ð h` Ðà@²² DàIV.€€ATTORNEY„CLIENT€PRIVILEGEó óˆÐ @8 Ðà ¸ àLarry€Stanley,€a€Warren€County€attorney,€testified€at€trial€about€the€detailsÏof€a€conversation€he€had€with€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€had€consulted€withÏStanley€about€a€possible€appeal€in€his€boundary€dispute€action€and€expressed€suchÏanimosity€toward€the€victim€that€Stanley€warned€the€victim€and€his€secretary.€€TheÏdefense€objected€to€the€admission€of€this€testimony€asserting€that€it€was€protected€byÏthe€attorney„client€privilege.€€In€a€pretrial€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€although€anÏattorney„client€relationship€had€existed€with€the€defendant€and€the€communicationsÏbetween€them€were€confidential,€the€defendant€waived€the€privilege€when€he€disclosedÏthe€substance€of€those€communications€to€the€police.€€In€our€view,€this€ruling€is€correct.ÌÌà ¸ àBy€statute€and€common€law,€Tennessee€recognizes€an€evidentiaryÏprivilege€which€protects€the€confidentiality€of€attorney„client€communications.€€T.C.A.€ððÏ23„3„105€provides:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àPrivileged€communications.€„€„€No€attorney€.€.€.€shall€beÏpermitted,€in€giving€testimony€against€a€client,€or€person€whoÏconsulted€the€attorney€.€.€.€professionally,€to€disclose€anyÏcommunication€made€to€the€attorney€.€.€.€as€such€by€suchÏperson,€during€the€pendency€of€the€suit,€before€or€afterwards,Ïto€the€personððs€injury.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€23„3„105.€€The€relationship€between€attorney€and€client€is€a€mainstay€of€ourÏsystem€of€justice,€and€the€purpose€of€the€privilege€is€to€protect€that€relationship€byÐ Š8‚17 Ðfostering€the€free€flow€of€communication€in€an€atmosphere€of€mutual€trust€andÏconfidentiality.€€òòSeeóó€òòBryan€v.€Stateóó,€848€S.W.2d€72,€79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€TheÐ ÔÌ Ðobject€of€the€rule€is€to€protect€the€professional€communications€between€attorney€andÏclient€"by€profound€secrecy."€€òòId.óó€(quoting€from€òòMcMannus€v.€Stateóó,€39€Tenn.€213,€215„Ð l d Ð16€(1858)).€€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€the€privilege€is€not€absolute.€€Not€only€must€the€communicationÏoccur€within€the€bounds€of€the€attorney„client€relationship,€it€must€be€made€with€theÏintent€that€the€communication€be€kept€confidential.€€òòBryanóó,€848€S.W.2d€at€80.€€TheÐ h` Ðprivilege€is€designed€to€protect€the€client,€and€because€it€belongs€to€the€client,€the€clientÏmay€waive€the€privilege.€€òòSmith€County€Educ.€Assoc.€v.€Andersonóó,€676€S.W.2d€328,Ð ø Ð333€(Tenn.€1984).€€The€client€waives€the€right€to€keep€attorney„client€communicationsÏsecret€when€he€divulges€the€communications€he€seeks€to€protect.€€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€814Ð ˜ ÐS.W.2d€374,€377€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€waived€his€right€to€the€privilÔ% €& ÔegeÏwhen€he€disclosed€relevant€portions€of€the€privileged€communications€to€the€police.€ÏThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€waiver.€€The€admission€or€exclusion€ofÏtestimony€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€79Ð `'X $ Ð(Tenn.€1994);€òòEchols€v.€Stateóó,€517€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€A€trialÐ ,)$"& Ðcourt's€decision€to€admit€testimony€cannot€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€there€is€aÏclear€showing€that€the€trial€court€has€abused€its€discretion.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€79;Ð Ä,¼%* ÐòòTayloróó,€814€S.W.2d€at€378;€òòEcholsóó,€517€S.W.2d€at€23.€€We€conclude€that€the€defendantÐ .ˆ', Ðwaived€his€right€to€invoke€the€attorney„client€privilege€in€this€instance,€and€hold€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€attorneyððs€statement.ÌÌà ¸ àÐ  À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€ñ|ñœñ|ñforñ{ñeñ{ñgoingñ|ñ›ñ|ñ€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€conviction€entered€by€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà (# à¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà (# à¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à____________________________¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌ__________________________ÌCornelia€A.€Clark,€Special€JudgeÌÌà ¸ àÌÌà ¸ àÌÌÌà ¸ àÌÌÌÌ€Ìà ¸ à