ÿWPCl" x…3]!½eò|¾Y¶Òêdòðj趬ÿà"zkˆošÂ%Ú»étQ)2l–F5.Þ]('‚¸èÁg@…ìT*Á¦ÌN‘e –ö |D[ Àü­»¼ÛJ@ÝA‡iŽÌ0+@—Úêö_&åÆÒŽÌ‚ºA3ÔØz®¸G7lÈk©ÛDoû<ë6=Î6ÅG9œèÝž^F¸õ21|F¸g¸rü#×ÑÍ·8çÑ#gÈϤf¨Çš/ý·Å&¨‚ú+³¾]ĶTàcö×NRüo<"íé åÇÎI/ Žœ¬N¼o!;íÈŠåÂàÄ–À±OP›BtΪ£E˧“Ô#ºåìœÅ–á;Gåé\÷(mš-_ëMž„#Úp¥öÅc>Ì»A›çøûØ$íÍzºi’¿€ÿì"Ú¬W½ÇBïi ’ÑâÇ]…±B$P>ø08ý·)C†ÿ=¥P~@À ®\‹bДÚm ÆV a]M\–#I¿U©Y!õ6 ÙI¡WɉØÃ—\VnsMà ]Ø6½W×uçÇË¿?E¶—rmœKOi7ÁI8¬³2F ;vù!×>)møX÷è銉CäÉU9™ÂFêVD70©ø3˜ bU N\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;H=Ô…EY [ƒ{þL YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0ëiiii BTT 0¤q D3 D-H 0Kuu ASÀÆ 0¤Ù 0D}! A«Á!(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÂB-s üPH,ˆP¦3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó >Ý ƒRU$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô†lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€order€also€set€aside€a€quitclaim€deed€the€victim€had€executed€conveying€her€interest€in€the€marital€property,Ð ° Ðthe€court€finding€the€deed€had€been€executed€under€duress. ÊÝ ƒRU$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô†lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€date€was€a€Sunday€and€was€also€the€victimððs€twenty„seventh€birthday. Ý ƒRU$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô†lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€post„mortem€examination€revealed€that€the€twenty„seven„year„old€victim€was€sixty„four€inches€tall€andÐ ° Ðweighed€ninety„two€pounds. yÝ ƒRU$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô†lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJoe€Medina,€the€Appellantððs€twelve„year„old€son,€did€testify€at€trial€that€he€went€to€the€door€while€the€victimÐ ° Ðwas€inside€and€saw€her€holding€a€gun€at€that€point.€€However,€on€cross„examination,€the€son€admitted€that€in€his€initialÐ tÄ Ðstatement€to€the€investigator,€he€did€not€indicate€that€he€had€seen€the€victim€with€a€gun.€€The€son€also€admitted€that€theÐ 8ˆ ÐAppellant€had€told€him€what€happened€and€left€notes€to€him€describing€what€had€happened. Ý ƒRU$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô†lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€State€argues€that€the€Appellant€has€waived€the€issue€by€not€contemporaneously€objecting€at€trial.€Ð ° ÐGenerally,€the€failure€would€result€in€a€waiver.€€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,€448€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð tÄ ÐHowever,€in€the€present€case€we€find€that€the€issue€was€preserved€for€appeal.€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€theÐ 8ˆ ÐAppellant€raised€the€issue€during€trial€and€at€the€appropriate€time.€€In€view€of€the€following€pronouncement€of€the€trialÐ üL Ðjudge,€we€find€that€any€further€objections€by€the€Appellant€would€have€been€futile:Ð À ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:€Weððre€sitting€here€at€3:30€and€you€have€a€client€there€thatððs€going€to€be€making€aÐ H ˜ Ðdecision€whether€heððs€going€to€testify€or€not.€€Weððre€going€to€be€here€until€5:30,€thatððs€the€scheduleÐ  \ Ðof€the€Court€today.€€Thatððs€the€reason€I€said€the€other€day€to€make€sure€you€had€all€of€your€witnessesÐ Ð  Ðhere.€€This€having€to€wait€for€somebody€to€show€up,€we€all€knew€what€we€were€here€for.€€If€heððs€goingÐ ” ä  Ðto€testify€he€can€testify€now,€it€will€just€be€his€turn.€.€.€.€I€made€that€statement€from€the€start€of€this€trialÐ X ¨  Ðthat€we€werenððt€going€to€do€this.€.€.€.€Well,€weððre€going€to€go€forward€with€the€trial.€€Iððm€not€going€toÐ  l  Ðstop€until€in€the€morning€we€all€knew€to€be€here,€weððre€going€on€with€what€we€have€got€and€you€canÐ à 0  Ðeither€close€or€do€whatever€you€want€to€do.€€Iððm€just€not€going€to€do€it.Фô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à BÝ ƒRU$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô†lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€three€witnesses€were€the€Appellantððs€sons,€who€were€living€with€him€on€the€date€of€the€murder,€but€hadÐ ° Ðbeen€relocated€to€Kentucky€after€the€Appellantððs€incarceration. - ù-(|G2U$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€!L»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô†lò»»Ô d(|3Ç_$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€!L»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç_$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€!L»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€!L»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼!L»»»ÔÑ8€lXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î.E!LÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼!L»îî.E #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€August€13,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XlX»¼!LÔÌò òÔ#†¼!L»XXl#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MICHAEL€GEORGE€MEDINAòòóóÔ‡XlX»¼!LÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Smith€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„270€€€€€€J.€O.€Bond,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02412„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€2,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XlXXXlÔThe€Appellant,€Michael€George€Medina,€appeals€his€conviction€by€a€Smith€County€jury€finding€himÐ xÈ  Ðguilty€of€first„degree€murder.€€On€appeal,€Medina€challenges€(1)€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÐ d´ Ðevidence,€as€it€relates€to€the€element€of€premeditation,€and€(2)€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€which€he€assertsÐ P  Ðinterfered€with€the€defenseððs€order€of€proof,€thus,€ð ðforcing€a€premature€election€on€defendantððs€rightÐ <Œ Ðto€testify.ðð€€After€review,€we€find€no€error.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€ò òó óÔ#†XlXX Xl·#ÔÔ#†¼!L»XXl“#ÔÔ‡XlX»¼!LÔÐ (x ÐÓ«ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼!L»àXlm#ÔÔ‡XlX.¼!LÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Welles€óóand€òòNormaÐ Ø( ÐMcGee€Ogleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌGregory€D.€Smith,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Michael€George€Medina.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Renee€W.Ð tÄ ÐTurner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Tom€P.€Thompson,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€DavidÐ `° ÐE.€Durham,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÔ#†¼!L»XXl<#ÔÔ‡XlX»¼!LÔÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼!L»XXlß #ÔÔ‡XlX»¼!LÔÐ #`" ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ è$8 $ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼!L»XXlR #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XlX»¼!LÔÌÌò òÔ‡ XlXXXlÔà  àó óOn€September€26,€1999,€Jennifer€Medina€was€found€in€the€home€she€had€shared€with€theÐ ¬'ü"' ÐAppellant,€lying€in€a€pool€of€blood€with€a€fatal€gunshot€wound€to€the€head.€€The€autopsy€report€and€Ð ˜(è#( Ðphysical€evidence€established€that€death€was€produced€by€a€9€mm€gunshot€wound,€with€the€gunððsÐ „)Ô$) Ðbarrel€touching€her€head€when€the€gun€was€fired.€€The€Appellant,€the€estranged€husband€of€the€victimÐ p*À%* Ðand€present€at€the€scene,€was€charged€with€the€homicide.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý Ðà  àThe€parties€were€married€in€1991€and€had€one€child,€who€was€two€years€old.€€The€child,Ð ° Ðâ âAustin,€had€been€diagnosed€with€cancer€and,€during€this€time,€was€undergoing€chemotherapyÐ œì Ðtreatments€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital€in€Nashville,€in€addition€to€receiving€intravenous€medication€atÐ ˆØ Ðhome.€€By€1999,€the€marriage€had€seriously€deteriorated,€and€the€Appellant€had€filed€for€divorce.€Ð tÄ ÐAfter€the€divorce€was€filed,€the€victim€resided€with€her€best€friend€and€next„door€neighbor,€EllenÐ `° ÐNewman.€The€Appellant€continued€to€reside€in€the€marital€residence€with€his€minor€children€fromÐ L œ Ða€prior€marriage.€€The€parties€agreed€to€a€temporary€order,€which€provided€for€shared€custody€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐAustin.€€The€divorce€action€was€characterized€as€hostile€and€bitter,€as€were€the€ensuing€temporaryÐ $ t Ðcustody€battles.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àOn€August€20,€1999,€an€order€of€protection€was€issued€against€the€Appellant,€based€upon€aÐ è 8  Ðfinding€of€domestic€abuse€after€the€Appellant€refused€to€comply€with€the€terms€of€the€temporaryÐ Ô$  Ðcustody€agreement.€€On€this€occasion,€the€victim€was€thrown€against€a€wall€by€the€Appellant€andÐ À  Ðsustained€bruises€and€a€knot€on€her€head.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAlso€in€August€1999,€the€victim€contacted€Crime€Stoppers€in€Franklin,€Tennessee,€andÐ „Ô  Ðreported€that€the€Appellant€had€stolen€a€ð ðbobcatðð€loader€in€June€1997.€€She€provided€details€of€howÐ pÀ Ðthe€theft€occurred,€how€the€Appellant€had€repainted€it€and€removed€the€serial€numbers,€and€to€whomÐ \¬ Ðit€was€sold.€€The€Appellant€was€contacted€by€a€detective,€and€he€claimed€that€the€victim€wasÐ H˜ Ðmanufacturing€the€charges€because€he€had€been€given€custody€of€their€child.€€The€details€providedÐ 4„ Ðby€the€victim€were€subsequently€verified€by€the€police,€and€the€Appellant€was€arrested€on€AugustÐ  p Ð26thòòóó€for€the€theft.€€The€victim€would€have€been€a€material€witness€in€the€case.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAfter€the€arrangements€under€two€joint€custody€orders€had€failed,€temporary€custody€of€theÐ ä4 Ðminor€child€and€child€support€were€awarded€to€the€victim€on€September10,1999.€€The€order€providedÐ Ð  Ðthe€Appellant€visitation€on€Monday€through€Thursday€from€5:00€p.m.€to€6:30€p.m.€and€every€otherÐ ¼  Ðweekend€from€Friday€at€5:00€p.m.€to€Sunday€at€5:00€p.m.€€The€Appellant€was€permitted€to€retainÐ ¨ø Ðpossession€of€the€marital€residence,€and€the€victim€was€responsible€for€delivering€the€child€to€andÐ ”ä Ðfrom€the€residence€during€the€Appellantððs€visitation€periods.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAt€approximately€5:00€p.m.€on€the€day€of€her€death,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€victim€left€the€Newman€residenceÐ X ¨ Ðon€foot€to€go€and€retrieve€Austin€from€his€father€following€visitation.€€It€was€the€victimððs€normalÐ D!” Ðpractice€to€remain€outside€the€residence€when€picking€up€her€son.€€Before€leaving,€the€victim€toldÐ 0"€  ÐEllen€Newman€that€she€would€be€back€in€five€minutes.€€She€carried€no€purse€or€bags€with€her.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àApproximately€two€and€one„half€hours€later,€a€911€call€was€made€from€the€marital€residence.€Ð ô$D # ÐWhen€officers€responded€to€the€call,€they€found€the€Appellant€outside€with€Austin€in€his€arms.€€UponÐ à%0!$ Ðentering€the€residence,€deputies€found€the€victim€lying€on€the€floor€with€a€gunshot€wound€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðhead.€€A€.38€caliber€revolver€was€found€near€her€head€and€a€9mm€semi„automatic€handgun€wasÐ ° Ðfound€near€her€knee.€€The€serial€number€on€the€.38€revolver€was€removed€and€no€identifiableÐ œì Ðfingerprints€were€found€on€either€weapon.€€The€.38€caliber€revolver€was€fully€loaded€and€had€notÐ ˆØ Ðbeen€fired.€€A€9€mm€shell€casing€was€found€on€the€floor€in€the€kitchen€area€and€a€9€mm€projectileÐ tÄ Ðwas€removed€from€the€floor,€where€it€was€embedded.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€was€taken€into€custody€and€subsequently€gave€a€statement€to€TennesseeÐ 8 ˆ ÐBureau€of€Investigation€Agent€Jason€Locke.€€The€Appellant€stated€that€the€victim€had€brought€theÐ $ t Ð.38€revolver€with€her€into€the€house€and€then€refused€to€leave.€€He€claimed€that€she€wanted€to€talkÐ  ` Ðabout€reconciling.€€The€Appellant€also€stated€that€he€was€afraid€of€her€as€she€was€hysterical€at€times.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ü L  ÐHe€stated€that,€after€he€saw€her€with€the€gun,€he€retrieved€his€9€mm€pistol€from€the€safe€in€theÐ è 8  Ðbedroom.€€He€explained€that€he€put€the€gun€in€his€back€pocket€so€that€the€victim€would€not€see€it.€Ð Ô$  ÐDuring€this€period,€the€victim€remained€in€the€living€room€of€the€house.€€The€Appellant€stated€thatÐ À  Ðan€argument€ensued€and€"she€kept€pointing€the€gun€at€me.€.€.€.€I€turned€around€and€she€was€right€inÐ ¬ü  Ðfront€of€me.€€And€I€couldn't€see€the€gun€any€more,€she€was€just€too€close€to€me,€I€didn't€know€whereÐ ˜è  Ðit€was,€and€I€grabbed€her€and€I€pushed€her.€€We€hit€the€ground,€and€all€three€of€us€hit€together."€Ð „Ô  ÐWhen€the€victim€fell,€he€heard€a€gunshot.€€The€Appellant€denied€shooting€the€victim.€€€During€theÐ pÀ Ðscuffle,€the€Appellant€maintained€that€his€pistol€remained€in€his€back€pocket€and€he€offered€noÐ \¬ Ðexplanation€as€to€how€his€pistol€shot€the€victim.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àSeveral€witnesses€testified€that€the€victim€did€not€own€a€gun.€€No€one€saw€her€entering€theÐ  p Ðresidence€with€a€gun€that€day,€including€the€Appellantððs€three€sons€from€a€prior€marriage€who€wereÐ  \ Ðpresent€outside€the€house€when€she€arrived.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Several€witnesses€also€testified€that€the€victim€had€noÐ øH Ðplans€to€reconcile€with€the€Appellant.€€The€victimððs€father€testified€that€she€and€Austin€had€in€factÐ ä4 Ðplanned€to€move€to€Illinois€and€live€with€him€after€the€divorce.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€the€State€argued€that€the€Appellant€had€lured€the€victim€into€the€residence€on€thisÐ ¨ø Ðdate,€had€shot€her€in€the€head,€and€then€planted€the€.38€pistol€by€her€body.€€On€April€12,€2001,€theÐ ”ä ÐAppellant€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€first„degree€premeditated€murder.€This€appeal€follows.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@‚‚&ìàò òAnalysisˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÐ 0"€  ÐÌâ âó óà0  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ$X"(#(# Ðconviction€for€the€first„degree€murder€of€his€wife,€Jennifer€Medina.€€Specifically,€he€contends€thatÐ ° Ðâ âthe€State€failed€to€prove€the€element€of€premeditation.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àA€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€with€which€a€defendant€is€initiallyÐ tÄ Ðcloaked€and€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt,€so€that€on€appeal,€a€convicted€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ `° Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð L œ ÐIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Likewise,€it€is€not€the€duty€of€thisÐ $ t Ðcourt€to€revisit€questions€of€witness€credibility€on€appeal,€that€function€being€within€the€province€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€trier€of€fact.€€òòSee€generally€State€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€646€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Burlisonóó,Ð ü L  Ð868€S.W.2d€713,€718„19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€fact,€ð ða€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approvedÐ è 8  Ðby€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€inÐ Ô$  Ðfavor€of€the€theory€of€the€State.ðð€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€To€overcomeÐ À  Ðthis,€the€defendant€must€establish€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€so€deficient€that€noÐ ¬ü  Ðreasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ˜è  Ðdoubt.€€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);Ð „Ô  ÐòòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.€Ct.€743,€130Ð pÀ Ð(1995).€€The€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonableÐ \¬ Ðinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.Ð H˜ Ðdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.€Ct.€1368€(1993).€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€State€may€prove€a€criminal€offense€by€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÐ  \ Ðcombination€of€the€two.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987);€òòsee€also€State€v.Ð øH ÐBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1992)€(ð ðthe€cases€have€long€recognized€that€the€necessaryÐ ä4 Ðelements€of€first„degree€murder€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidenceðð).€€Before€a€jury€mayÐ Ð  Ðconvict€a€defendant€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€andÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances€ð ðmust€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€saveÐ ¨ø Ðthe€guilt€of€the€defendant,€and€that€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,Ð ”ä Ð470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€577€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€1993).€€As€in€the€case€of€direct€evidence,€the€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€andÐ l¼ Ðð ðthe€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€areÐ X ¨ Ðconsistent€with€guilt€and€inconsistent€with€innocence,€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòMarableÐ D!” Ðv.€Stateóó,€203€Tenn.€440,€313€S.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.€1958)€(citation€omitted).€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àFirst€degree€murder€is€defined€as€ð ða€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€The€statute€defines€premeditation€as€follows:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àAs€used€in€subdivision€(a)(1)€ð ðpremeditationðð€is€an€act€done€after€the€exercise€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðreflection€and€judgment.€€ð ðPremeditationðð€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€haveÐ ¸'#& Ðbeen€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„existÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definite€period€of€time.€€The€mental€state€of€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âaccused€at€the€time€the€accused€allegedly€decided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€consideredÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€order€to€determine€whether€the€accused€was€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€andÐ ° Ðpassion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d);€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€45€S.W.3d€1,€7„8€(Tenn.€2001).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€all€the€evidence€in€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,Ð L œ Ðwe€cannot€say€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€Appellant€guilty€of€first„degreeÐ 8 ˆ Ðmurder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€jury€was€in€the€best€position€to€view€the€witnesses€and€theÐ $ t Ðevidence€and€determine,€based€upon€that€proof,€whether€the€shooting€was€accidental€or€whether€theÐ  ` ÐAppellant€intentionally€and€with€premeditation€murdered€his€wife.€€Mental€states,€such€as€the€intentÐ ü L  Ðto€kill,€are€not€generally€established€by€direct€evidence,€as€most€often€the€only€remaining€witness€toÐ è 8  Ðthe€homicide€is€the€defendant.€€Thus,€the€intent€to€kill€may€be€inferred€from€the€character€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendantððs€conduct€and€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeÐ À  Ðgenerallyóó€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.651,€660€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFacts€from€which€a€jury€may€infer€premeditation€include€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€anÐ „Ô  Ðunarmed€victim,€òòóóplanning€activities€by€the€Appellant€prior€to€the€killing,€the€Appellantððs€priorÐ pÀ Ðrelationship€with€the€victim,€and€the€nature€of€the€killing.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€660;€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,Ð \¬ Ð881€S.W.2d€1,€4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993€(citation€omitted).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€proof€produced€at€trial€established€that€it€was€not€the€normal€routine€of€the€victim€toÐ  p Ðenter€the€residence€when€picking€up€her€child€and€she€had€clearly€told€Ellen€Newman€that€she€wouldÐ  \ Ðreturn€in€five€minutes.€€Testimony€further€established€that€the€Appellant€had€instructed€his€childrenÐ øH Ðto€leave€the€residence€during€the€time€the€victim€would€be€picking€Austin€up€following€visitation.€Ð ä4 ÐNo€one€saw€the€victim€enter€the€residence€with€a€handgun.€€No€fingerprints€were€found€on€eitherÐ Ð  Ðweapon€located€by€the€victimððs€body,€nor€could€ownership€of€the€.38€revolver€be€determined€becauseÐ ¼  Ðthe€serial€number€had€been€removed.€€The€Appellant€denied€he€shot€his€wife;€rather,€he€impliedlyÐ ¨ø Ðtestified€that€she€must€have€shot€herself€when€ð ðhe,€Jennifer€and€Austin€all€fell€in€a€pile.ðð€€The€autopsyÐ ”ä Ðreport€showed€that€death€resulted€from€a€gunshot€wound€inflicted€when€the€barrel€was€pressed€to€theÐ €Ð Ðvictimððs€head.€€The€physical€evidence€circumstantially€established€that€the€9€mm€pistol,€which€theÐ l¼ ÐAppellant€admittedly€possessed,€was€the€weapon€which€produced€the€fatal€wound.€€Finally,€theÐ X ¨ Ðrecord€established€several€motives€for€the€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòIvey€v.€Stateóó,€360€S.W.2d€1,3€(Tenn.€1962)Ð D!” Ð(holding€that€evidence€tending€to€show€motive€is€always€relevant,€particularly€in€cases€built€whollyÐ 0"€  Ðor€partially€on€circumstantial€evidence).€€The€victim€and€the€Appellant€were€involved€in€a€bitterÐ #l! Ðdivorce€proceeding,€the€victim€had€reported€the€Appellant€to€the€police€for€theft€and€was€a€materialÐ $X" Ðwitness€in€that€case,€the€victim€had€only€days€earlier€obtained€custody€of€the€minor€child€in€additionÐ ô$D # Ðto€being€awarded€child€support,€and€the€victim€had€indicated€her€intent€to€leave€the€State€with€theirÐ à%0!$ Ðson.Ð Ì&"% Ѐ€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àThese€facts,€which€include€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€planningÐ ¤(ô#' Ðactivities€prior€to€the€killing,€the€Appellantððs€prior€relationship€with€the€victim,€including€his€motivesÐ )à$( Ðâ âfor€murder,€and€the€nature€of€the€killing,€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€premeditation.€€After€viewingÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€conclude€that€a€€reasonable€trier€of€fact€couldÐ ° Ðhave€found€the€Appellant€guilty€of€the€first„degree€murder€of€his€wife.Ð œì Ðâ âÌò òII.€Election€to€TestifyÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àó óThe€Appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€judge€committed€error€by€ð ðforcing€a€prematureÐ L œ Ðelectionðð€by€the€Appellant€as€to€whether€he€was€going€to€testify€in€the€case.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€ruling€occurredÐ 8 ˆ Ðon€the€third€day€of€trial€and€after€the€Appellant€had€already€presented€three€witnesses€in€his€defense.€Ð $ t ÐThe€testimony€of€the€third€witness€was€concluded€at€approximately€3:30€p.m.,€but€the€AppellantððsÐ  ` Ðremaining€three€witnesses€were€not€present€in€the€courtroom€to€testify.׃Р×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€judge€advised€theÐ ü L  ÐAppellant€that€the€court€was€ð ðgoing€on€with€what€we€have€got€and€you€can€either€close€or€doÐ è 8  Ðwhatever€you€want€to€do.ðð€€The€Appellant€asserts€that€this€ruling€forced€him€to€decide€prematurely,Ð Ô$  Ðòòi.e.óó,€before€hearing€his€other€witnesses,€if€he€would€testify€and€that€this,€in€turn,€hampered€his€defenseÐ À  Ðbecause€he€was€unable€to€evaluate€the€actual€worth€of€all€witnesses€before€deciding€whether€heÐ ¬ü  Ðshould€testify.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€and€the€State€apparently€had€previously€discussed€the€defense€order€of€proofÐ pÀ Ðand€when€the€respective€witnesses€would€be€needed€at€trial;€however,€neither€realized€that€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðwould€progress€as€quickly€as€it€did.€€Nonetheless,€it€should€be€noted€that€the€Appellant€had€beenÐ H˜ Ðinstructed€by€the€trial€judge€on€the€previous€day€of€the€trial€to€have€his€witnesses€present.€€We€furtherÐ 4„ Ðnote€that€a€trial€judge€is€not€bound€by€an€agreement€of€the€parties,€as€it€is€within€the€province€of€theÐ  p Ðtrial€court€to€control€the€orderly€disposition€of€the€trial.€€Our€review€of€this€issue€is€conducted€underÐ  \ Ðan€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€Reversal€is€not€warranted€unless€the€trial€court€ð ðððapplies€an€incorrectÐ øH Ðlegal€standard,€or€reaches€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€causes€an€injustice€toÐ ä4 Ðthe€party€complaining.ðððð€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.1999).€€Under€this€standard,€thisÐ Ð  Ðcourt€is€not€permitted€to€substitute€its€own€judgment€in€place€of€the€trial€courtððs.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð ¼  Їà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€€forcing€him€to€testify€or€close€his€proof€before€all€his€witnessesÐ ° Ðhad€taken€the€stand€is€analogous€to€a€òòBrooks€óóviolation.€€In€òòBrooksóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ œì Ðheld€unconstitutional€a€Tennessee€statute,€which€required€that€if€a€defendant€wanted€to€testify€as€partÐ ˆØ Ðof€his€€proof,€he€had€to€do€so€before€any€other€witnesses€took€the€stand.€€òòBrooks€v.€Tennesseeóó,€406Ð tÄ ÐU.S.€605,€612„13€(1972).€Ð `° ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àÔ_ÔÌà  àWe€find€the€Appellantððs€reliance€upon€òòBrooksóó€misplaced.€€Unlike€òòBrooksóó,€the€Appellant€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðnot€required€to€testify€first€or€not€at€all.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€impingement€of€any€constitutionalÐ $ t Ðright.€€Rather,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€involved€an€order€of€proof€issue,€which€is€withinÐ  ` Ðthe€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€as€the€judge€is€responsible€for€the€orderly€and€expeditiousÐ ü L  Ðpresentation€of€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2d€617,€624€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€€WhileÐ è 8  Ðperhaps€not€the€most€prudent€method€of€dealing€with€the€remaining€two€hours€left€in€the€court€day,Ð Ô$  Ðwe€cannot€say€that€it€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€to€keep€the€trial€moving€forward,€so€as€not€to€preventÐ À  Ðadditional€inconvenience€to€the€jurors€or€to€incur€added€time€and€expense€to€the€trial.€€The€AppellantÐ ¬ü  Ðhad€been€warned€the€previous€day€to€have€all€his€witnesses€present€and€ready€to€testify.€€He€choseÐ ˜è  Ðinstead€to€chance€that€they€would€not€progress€that€far€into€the€trial.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àEven€had€we€found€this€to€be€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge,€the€error€would€have€been€Ð \¬ Ðharmless.€€The€Appellant€asserts€no€prejudice€to€his€case€as€a€result€of€his€decision€to€take€the€standÐ H˜ Ðbefore€his€last€three€witnesses.€€Clearly€the€act€did€not€ð ðaffirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€theÐ 4„ Ðresult€of€the€trial€on€the€merits.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  p ÐÌò òà  àó óFor€the€above€stated€reasons,€the€judgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.Ð øH ÐÌÌÔ#†XlXX Xl #ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ”ä Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE