ÿWPC% qÏ?°ý@¢°ù –æPwz*S,(Ïzƒõ~݈ZO…Ã{Ðð‰hGd‹,PV]ö•Î÷ÉNÊ™ÿŽ|^5æB>W"ÙÐI,H{è1œñ{žOIÓ·íÆ-˜ÿ™Ü~~‹€ŒsÉÞ#O£DÕ_JÖøÕ;3ö v)ïó8MºÀQ¢ÌNÒ¡Ò*®Ô)ŸÈàá9‘Rƒ_,׃C["2«~FHú ú~iÆþ©•‹¤³ ’ÏŒ¹J„á2_[¼Žë*ñUìc¸~^5ÁºûÒí 7sƼé&cÝŸßâ`Ï€ñ“Â;€Þ½‚í 3ÇT~æÙúÿ5GÙ ?}Ƚ²+cVS&Šã"®q}\ÛÐå ©~øaf«Ji”\•==Ч˜:ÎÞkeÖÕ™p‘Åâ$ xú†_•ð½‘j!Z×/±Eªí€¯‹B4’t»ÎA7ZR‰B¨b#§à ”!:”n.®s+¦’í1®1Žˆ ùl ©Q›Gù0äÍýì³ß–ní«B»UžN¶€édc)ÜÖð¿¡šÈ(ñ0ð×ß“CÓµÃ41JÑÇÃî[‹ÿQ¡‰¯ÔFÓ¯ q™óGš…·Ý’ŠËó>ƒ'#‹ƒÈ…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U :Í b w@ 4O c r åz U:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B™ ™ ™ ™ ™ D3¶ ¶ ¶ 0Dé é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é é Æ- 0ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó ó AO€ÆÏÏ 0D• D/Ù B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ¨U©UªU¬U­U®D¯D°”e±²Ó€uM%3|x» ÛÔ€ X_XXXÔÔ€ Äh X X_ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X_X  ÄhÔÐ  ÐÌApril€1,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝI, II,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5N?Àh.I, II,Uppercase RomanÚƒcÚIÚ  Ú.Û€cÛà0  à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ñ›ñ°ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ŠÁµŠXXÔÔ€Š¦¤ŠŠŠÁµÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€5RXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ²ñœßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rß›ñ²ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€ñ°ñœñ°ñ01C01ñ°ñ›ñ°ñ„9801„CC„00007Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ò òà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÐ `  ÐV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€JAMES€K.€CLAYTON,€JR.,€ó óÐ ` Ðò òRUDOLPH€ñ°ñœñ°ñMUNNñ°ñ›ñ°ñ,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€ó óà p àò òJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  à)à p àó óà È àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àò òà  à)à p à(FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER)€Ð ` Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð Hè ÐÌò òJ.€STANLEY€ROGERSà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ð 8 Ø Ðó óAttorney€at€Law€à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 8!Ø ÐÌò òCHRISTINA€HENLEY€DUNCAN€à  àà p àJOHN€P.€ñ°ñœñ°ñCAULEYñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€Ð (#È Ðó óAttorney€at€Law€à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ($È ÐRogers€Richardson€&€Duncan€à À àà  àà p àñ°ñœñ°ñ2ndñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€Floor,€ñ°ñœñ°ñCordellñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€Hull€BuildingÐ  %À Ð100€North€Spring€Streetà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ð &¸ ÐManchester,€TN€37355à h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð '° ÐÌò òJOHN€G.€MITCHELL,€JR.ó óà À àà  àà p àò òWILLIAM€C.€ñ°ñœñ°ñWHITESELLñ°ñ›ñ°ñ,€JR.Ð )   Ðó óAttorney€at€Lawò òà  àà h àà À àà  àó óà p àDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð *  ! ÐP.O.€Box€1336Ìñ°ñœñ°ñMurfreesboroñ°ñ›ñ°ñ,€TN€37130à À àà  àà p àò òJ.€PAUL€NEWMAN€ó óÐ ð+"# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJudicial€Building€Suite€303Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à20€N.€Public€SquareÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àœñ°ñœñ°ñMuñ±ñrñ±ñfreesboroñ°ñ›ñ°ñ,›€TN€37130€ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  ˆ9(01 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°OØ°ŠŠ¦¤Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š¦¤Š°°OØÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant,€Rudolph€(Rudy)€ñ°ñœñ°ñMunnñ°ñ›ñ°ñ,€appeals€as€of€right€his€conviction€ofÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Rutherford€County.€€The€juryÏsentenced€Defendant€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€In€this€appeal,ÏDefendant€raises€the€following€twelve€(12)€issues:ÌÓÓÓ'X„XÜh–X°œX'Óà8 ` àà ¸ à€€€Ô‡RPRŠŠ¦¤Ô€Ô#†Š¦¤ŠRRPÑ#ÔI.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€toÐ Þ~  Ðsuppress€the€video€taped€statements€obtained€inÏviolation€of€his€Fourth€Amendment€rights€and€in€violationÏof€federal€and€state€wiretap€laws;Ð Ü(#Ü(# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à€Ô‡RPRŠŠ¦¤Ô€Ô#†Š¦¤ŠRRP7#ÔÔ‡îßþ¦¤Ô€Ô#†Š¦¤Šîîßþz#ÔII.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€toÐ ¢ Ðsuppress€because€Defendant€was€not€properly€advisedÏof€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€did€not€knowingly€waive€hisÐ >Þ ÐòòMirandaóó€rights€prior€to€making€the€statementsÐ 6Ö Ð(Defendantððs€Issue€III);Ð Ü(#Ü(# Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à€Ô‡RPRŠŠ¦¤Ô€Ô#†Š¦¤ŠRRPr#ÔIII.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€toÐ !¾ Ðsuppress€because€the€statements€were€not€voluntaryÏ(Defendantððs€Issue€II);Ð Ü(#Ü(# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à€€IV.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€toÐ J%ê Ðsuppress€because€the€statements€were€taken€inÏviolation€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel;€€Ð Ü(#Ü(# Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à€€€V.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€not€suppressing€DefendantððsÐ *)Ê Ðsubsequent€statements€under€the€derivative€evidenceÏrule;Ð Ü(#Ü(# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à€€VI.à0Ü` (#` (#àWas€there€sufficient€evidence€to€convict€Defendant€ofÐ  -ª## Ðfirst€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;Ð Ü(#Ü(# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à€VII.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€to€declare€a€mistrialÐ ò/’&& Ðduring€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial;€€Ð Ü(#Ü(# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àVIII.à0Ü` (#` (#àIs€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstanceÐ Ú2z)) Ðsupported€by€the€evidence;Ð Ü(#Ü(# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à€€IX.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€its€charges€to€the€jury€during€theÐ Â5b,, Ðsentencing€phase€of€the€trial:Ð Ü(#Ü(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ ààH¸ ¸ ¸ àˆà8 Ü àA.à0hÜ\"Ü\"àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€charging€the€jury€withÐ ª8J// Ðaggravating€circumstances€ñ°ñœñ°ñ(i)(6)ñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€and€ñ°ñœñ°ñ(i)(7);ñ°ñ›ñ°ñТ9B00h\"h\" Їà ` àà ¸ àà8 Ü àB.à0hÜ\"Ü\"àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€to€instruct€the€juryÐ `  Ðon€the€statutory€definitions€of€theft€and€robbery;Ð h\"h\" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà8 Ü àC.à0hÜ\"Ü\"àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€not€instructing€the€jury€thatÐ H è ÐDefendant€had€ð ðno€criminal€record€or€convictionððÏas€requested€by€Defendant;Ð h\"h\" Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà8 Ü àD.à0hÜ\"Ü\"àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€not€charging€TennesseeÐ (È ÐPattern€Jury€Instruction€43.03€during€theÏsentencing€phase€of€trial;Ð h\"h\" ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à€€€X.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€admitting€certain€testimony€ofÐ ¨  ÐValerie€ñ°ñœñ°ñRoscoeñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€and€Officer€Peel;Ð Ü(#Ü(# Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à€€XI.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€its€responses/instructions€toÐ ð  Ðquestions€asked€by€the€jury€during€deliberations;€andÐ Ü(#Ü(# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à€XII.à0Ü` (#` (#àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€allowing€the€jury€to€view€theÐ Øx Ðvideo€tape€of€Defendantððs€confession€duringÏdeliberations€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€Ð Ü(#Ü(# ÐÓÿÓÓ+ °œXX„XÜh–X+ÓÌAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@<<-DàòòFactsóóˆÐ "0 ÐÌà ` àThe€facts€presented€at€trial€reveal€that€on€November€28,€1995,€atÏapproximately€6:13€p.m.,€the€Murfreesboro€Police€Department€received€a€call€thatÏthe€body€of€a€white€male€had€been€found€in€the€Days€Inn€parking€lot€on€SouthÏChurch€Street€in€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee.€€The€police€arrived€a€few€minutes€laterÏand€conducted€a€crime€scene€investigation€during€which€they€discovered€€€the€bodyÏwas€that€of€a€white€male€with€a€wound€to€the€head.€€A€pocket€knife€with€the€bladeÏopen€was€located€next€to€the€body,€and€the€front€pockets€of€the€victimððs€pants€wereÏturned€inside„out.€€The€body€was€lying€close€to€the€back€of€a€car€that€was€beingÏtowed€by€a€motor€home.€€No€wallet,€keys,€or€other€items€of€identification€were€foundÏâ âon€the€body,€and€no€one€at€the€scene€knew€the€identity€of€the€person.€€AnÐ à7€.0 Ðinvestigation€of€the€motel€registry,€motel€rooms,€and€surrounding€crime€sceneÏrevealed€no€evidence€regarding€the€victimððs€identity.€Ìâ âÌà ` àOn€November€29,€1995,€a€medical€examination€and€autopsy€were€performedÏon€the€victim,€but€again€no€evidence€was€discovered€which€revealed€his€identity.€ÏThe€autopsy€report€did€reveal€that€the€victim€had€died€as€a€result€of€a€contactÏgunshot€wound€to€the€head€with€the€bullet€traversing€the€brain.ÌÌà ` àFor€the€two€days€following€the€discovery€of€the€body,€the€police€continued€theirÏsearch€for€the€identity€of€the€victim.€€The€police€placed€a€picture€of€the€victim€in€theÏmedia€urging€citizens€to€assist€in€identifying€the€victim.€€In€response,€the€policeÏreceived€a€call€on€November€30,€1995,€from€a€person€who€thought€the€victim€couldÏpossibly€be€Andrew€Poklemba,€a€student€at€Middle€Tennessee€State€UniversityÏ(MTSU).€€ÌÌà ` àIn€an€attempt€to€verify€this€information,€Officers€Eddie€Peel€and€Chris€Guthrie,Ïboth€of€the€Murfreesboro€Police€Department,€along€with€several€other€officers,€wentÏto€Andrew€Poklembaððs€dormitory€room€on€November€30,€1995.€€Shortly€thereafter,ÏPoklembaððs€roommate,€the€Defendant,€arrived€at€the€room.€€Defendant€told€theÏofficers€that€he€had€not€seen€his€roommate€since€about€3:45€p.m.€Monday,ÏNovember€27,€1995.€€Officer€Peel€asked€Defendant€if€he€had€any€pictures€ofÏPoklemba,€and€Defendant€found€two€photographs€which€he€gave€to€Officer€Peel.€ÏAfter€looking€at€the€photos,€the€officers€knew€that€the€victim€was€in€fact€AndrewÏPoklemba.€€Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àIn€order€to€gather€further€information€about€Poklemba€and€his€death,€theÏâ âofficers€briefly€interviewed€Defendant€in€his€dorm€room.€€Defendant€denied€anyÏpersonal€knowledge€of€Poklembaððs€death€or€of€any€motive€on€anyoneððs€part€toÏmurder€Poklemba.€Defendant€did€tell€investigators€that€an€unknown€person€came€toÏsee€Poklemba€on€the€Sunday€proceeding€his€death.€€According€to€Defendant,€theÏman€who€came€to€visit€Poklemba€had€short€hair€and€wore€combat€boots.€€DefendantÏgave€the€police€an€alibi€for€where€he€was€on€the€evening€Poklemba€was€killed.€€HeÏclaimed€to€have€been€with€a€friend€named€Dennis€Bova€on€the€evening€of€theÏmurder.€€However,€the€police€obtained€phone€records€from€Defendantððs€dorm€roomÏwhich€indicated€that€Defendant€was€in€his€room€that€evening.€€Detectives€GuthrieÏand€Peel€later€located€Poklembaððs€vehicle€in€the€vicinity€of€Abernathy€Hall,€an€MTSUÏcampus€dormitory.€€ÌÌà ` àOn€December€1,€1995,€after€conducting€other€interviews€with€people€who€alsoÏknew€Poklemba,€Officers€Peel€and€Guthrie€noticed€several€discrepancies€in€theÏdetails€given€to€them€by€Defendant.€€These€included€knowledge€that€Defendant€wasÏnot€with€his€friend€Dennis€Bova€on€the€evening€of€the€murder€as€Defendant€hadÏpreviously€told€the€officers.€€In€fact,€at€this€point€the€officers€had€obtained€the€phoneÏrecords€of€Defendantððs€dorm€room€in€determining€his€whereabouts€on€the€night€ofÏthe€murder.€€The€officers€believed€that€Defendant€had€more€information€aboutÏPoklemba€than€he€had€told€them€the€previous€day.€€That€afternoon,€Officer€PeelÏcontacted€Defendant€at€his€parentsðð€home€in€Manchester,€Tennessee,€and€askedÏhim€if€he€would€assist€them€in€the€clarification€of€these€details.€€Defendant€voluntarilyÏagreed€to€come€to€the€police€station€to€answer€additional€questions.€€Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àAt€approximately€5:00€p.m.€on€December€1,€1995,€Defendant,€his€parents,€andÏâ âhis€two„year„old€sister€arrived€at€the€police€station.€€Officers€Peel€and€Guthrie,ÏDefendant,€and€his€father,€Ron€Munn,€then€went€to€the€third€floor€where€they€wereÏescorted€into€the€police€station€interview/interrogation€room,€with€a€sign,€ð ðFelonyÏBooking€Room,ðð€over€the€door.€€It€was€equipped€with€blinds€on€the€windows,€a€smallÏtable,€chairs,€and€an€audio€tape€recorder€on€the€table.€Unbeknownst€to€Defendant,Ïthe€room€was€permanently€equipped€with€a€video€camera€which€was€hidden€in€theÏclock€on€the€wall.€€Microphones€were€in€the€ceiling€above€the€table€and€chairs.€€TheÏofficers€did€not€inform€Defendant€that€the€conversations€were€being€recorded€by€aÏhidden€video€camera€and€microphones.€€In€another€room€within€the€policeÏdepartment€were€several€video€cassette€recorders€and€a€monitor.€€TheÏconversations€in€the€Felony€Booking€Room€could€be€monitored€by€other€officers€inÏthe€separate€room€while€they€were€being€recorded.€€ÌÌà ` àAfter€the€four€men€were€seated,€Officer€Guthrie€explained€that€he€was€turningÏon€the€tape€recorder€on€the€table.€€He€also€stated€that€no€one€was€under€arrest€andÏsaid€that€Defendant€could€leave€at€anytime.€€Defendantððs€response€indicated€that€heÏunderstood€this.€€Both€Officers€Peel€and€Guthrie€inquired€about€the€discrepanciesÏin€Defendantððs€story,€but€Defendant€generally€stayed€with€his€original€story.€€AboutÏtwenty€minutes€into€the€questioning,€Officer€Peel€asked€Defendant€if€he€wanted€aÏCoke,€to€which€Defendant€responded€ð ðyes.ðð€€Officer€Peel€then€left€the€room€andÏreturned€with€a€Coke€for€him.€€At€no€time€did€Defendant€state€that€he€wanted€to€leaveÐ  :À00 Ðor€that€he€wanted€an€attorney.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€54„minute€interview,€OfficerÏPeel€indicated€that€Defendant€and€his€father€were€free€to€go€and€escorted€them€toÏthe€lobby€where€Defendantððs€mother,€Rita€Munn,€and€Defendantððs€little€sister€wereÏwaiting.€€ÌÌà ` àOfficer€Peel€asked€Mr.€Munn€to€explain€to€his€wife€that€Defendant€might€beÏasked€to€return€to€the€station€if€more€information€was€needed.€€Mrs.€Munn€was€veryÏupset€and€she€asked€Lieutenant€Peel€if€he€thought€that€Defendant€had€killedÏPoklemba.€€Lieutenant€Peel€responded,€ð ðAsk€your€son.ðð€€Mrs.€Munn€did€so€andÏDefendant€did€not€respond.€€Further€conversation€ensued€among€them.€€Officer€PeelÏstated€that€he€would€like€to€talk€to€Defendant€outside€the€presence€of€his€parentsÏbecause€he€felt€that€Defendant€would€come€closer€to€telling€the€truth€if€they€were€notÏin€the€room.€€Rita€Munn€testified€that€Lieutenant€Peel€kept€staring€at€her€as€if€heÏwanted€her€to€ð ðget€involved€in€the€process,ðð€and€that€she€felt€that€they€were€no€longerÏfree€to€leave€at€that€time.€€Mrs.€Munn€then€asked€Defendant€if€he€wanted€to€talk€withÏthe€police€further€and€he€replied€that€he€did.€€They€all€proceeded€to€the€third€floor€andÏOfficers€Peel€and€Guthrie€and€Defendant€went€in€the€Felony€Booking€Room€whileÏMr.€and€Mrs.€Munn€and€the€little€sister€waited€outside€in€the€hallway.€€ÌÌà ` àAgain,€Officer€Peel€started€the€cassette€recorder€on€the€table€and€toldÏDefendant€that€he€was€not€under€arrest,€that€he€had€voluntarily€come€to€the€policeÏstation,€and€that€he€could€leave€at€any€time€he€wished.€€Defendant€indicated€that€heÏunderstood.€€The€officers€told€Defendant€that€they€thought€he€knew€more€than€heÏwas€telling€them.€€Specifically,€Officer€Guthrie€stated,€ð ðItððs€time€to€tell€it€[the€truth].ðð€ÏOfficer€Peel€then€stated,€ð ðYou€know€who€killed€him,€donððt€you?ðð€€A€few€minutes€intoÐ  :À00 Ðthe€interview,€Officer€Peel€requested€that€Defendant€provide€him€with€a€copy€of€hisÏfingerprints.€€Defendant€told€them€that€he€did€not€want€to€give€his€fingerprints€thatÏnight.€€Specifically,€he€said,€ð ðCould€I€come€.€.€.€do€it€next€week€when€my€parentsÏarenððt€here?€€Iððll€call€you€and€I€can€come€down€here.ðð€€The€officers€then€toldÏDefendant€that€they€had€a€witness€who€would€say€he€saw€Defendant€and€the€victimÏarguing€the€day€before€the€victim€was€killed.€€At€one€point€during€the€interview,ÏDefendantððs€contact€popped€out.€€Defendant€asked€the€officers€if€a€mirror€wasÏavailable.€€Although€a€bathroom€was€located€just€outside€the€Felony€Booking€Room,Ïthe€officer€told€Defendant€to€pull€the€blind€up€on€the€window€and€use€its€reflection€forÏa€mirror.€€There€is€no€indication€that€Defendant€knew€a€bathroom€was€located€justÏoutside€the€interview€room.€€At€least€three€more€times€during€this€interview,€theÏofficers€told€Defendant€that€they€knew€he€was€not€telling€the€truth€and€they€urged€himÏto€tell€all€that€he€knew.€€Defendant€again€said€he€would€rather€come€back€on€MondayÏand€be€fingerprinted.€€The€officers€told€him,€ð ðNowððs€the€time€to€do€it€[tell€the€truth],Ïwith€momma€and€daddy€here€to€support€you€and€be€with€you.ðð€€Officer€Peel€then€toldÏDefendant€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àIððm€gonna€tell€you€your€mommaððs€gonna€ask€me€if€I€thinkÏyou€did€it.€€And€Iððm€gonna€say€momma€yes€I€do.€€And€youÏknow€what€sheððs€gonna€do.€€Sheððs€gonna€have€a€fit.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓrFÓÌAgain,€Defendant€stated€that€he€would€rather€come€back€and€talk€to€the€officers€later.Ìà ` àÌà ` àAt€this€point,€Rita€Munn€opened€the€door€and€came€into€the€interview€room.€ÏMrs.€Munn€indicated€that€she€had€been€listening€outside€the€door€and€had€heardÏwhat€they€were€saying.€€She€told€the€officers,€ð ðThis€sounds€like€the€kind€of€thing€___Ïneed€___€lawyer€___.ðð€(The€blanks€represent€portions€of€the€transcripts€and€tapesÐ 9¼// Ðthat€are€inaudible.)€€€Officer€Peel€told€her€that€ð ð[a]ll€you€have€to€do€is€say€you€wantÏone.ðð€€Mrs.€Munn€asked€the€officers,€ð ðYouððre€not€intimidating€him€to€tell€youÏsomething?ðð€€€Defendant€then€responded,€ð ðTheyððre€not.€€Theyððre€being€nice.ððÌÌà ` àMrs.€Munn€began€to€plead€with€her€son,€in€the€presence€of€the€officers,€thatÏhe€should€explain€what€happened.€€The€following€is€an€excerpt€of€her€emotional€plea:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àYou€know€that€if€we€donððt€get€it€out€in€the€open,€the€nextÏstop€is€weððll€go€to€a€lawyerððs€office€and€weððll€have€to€goÏthrough€all€this€or€heððll€have€to€make€you€get€it€out€in€theÏopen€because€sooner€or€later€weððll€have€to€all€get€it€out€inÏthe€open.€€Even€if€you€went€to€confession.€€The€first€thingÏFather€Kurt€would€say€is€tell€me€what€happened.€€If€youÏwere€to€walk€out€of€this€b[uilding]€and€die€tonight,€thatÏwould€be€enough€for€certain€if€you€lied€to€these€men€orÏavoid€telling€them€something,€then€that€would€be€enoughÏto€keep€you€out€of€heaven.€€Is€this€worth€eternalÏdamnation?€€Do€you€understand?€€Is€this€worth€that?€€IÏdonððt€think€so.€€You€canððt€go€to€communion€and€take€theÏbody€of€Christ€and€believe€all€that€and€not€believe€that€heÏdoesnððt€love€you€too,€and€wonððt€forgive€you.€€Thatððs€theÏfirst€step.€€We€canððt€take€the€first€step€until€we€know€whatÏyouððve€done.€€We€will€not€abandon€you€Rudy.€€We€loveÏyou€too€much€for€that.€€Yeah.€€But€please,€this€is€likeÏbleeding€an€open€wound.€€Can€we€just€get€to€the€end€of€it?€ÏPlease?€€Okay?€€Please?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à.€.€.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThey€[the€officers]€think€thereððs€more,€they€think€thereððsÏmore.€€And€you€have€___€okay,€letððs€just€get€to€the€end.€€IððllÏpray€for€you,€okay?€€Okay?€€Iððll€help€you.€€What€happened?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌDefendant€responded€by€saying,€ð ðI€told€them€what€happened€momma.ððÌÓ KÓÌà ` àOfficer€Guthrie€then€admitted€to€Mrs.€Munn€that€they€thought€Defendant€killedÏthe€victim.€€Specifically,€Officer€Peel€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àI€think€that€for€whatever€reason€it€was,€he€and€Andrew.€ÏWent€to€this€motel.€€Andrew€was€shot.€€Andrewððs€car€wasÏbrought€back€and€parked€next€to€where€your€daughterððsÏdorm€is€and€left€there.€€And€whoever€did€it,€walked€on€off.€Ð  :À00 ÐAnd€the€discrepancies€in€his€story,€that€heððs€told,€makes€usÏbelieve€that€he€was€the€one€that€done€it.€€All€Iððm€gonna€doÏis€what€Iððm€gonna€do.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÀQÓÌOfficer€Peel€then€informed€Mrs.€Munn€that€her€son€had€asked€to€come€back€onÏMonday€to€speak€further€with€them.ÌÌà ` àLater€in€that€interview,€Officer€Peel€asked€Rita€Munn,€ð ðDo€you€want€to€talk€toÏus€or€do€you€want€to€talk€to€him€by€himself?ðð€Officer€Peel€then€asked€Defendant,€ð ðDoÏyou€want€to€talk€to€your€momma?€€Or€do€you€want€to€talk€to€us?ðð€€Moments€later,ÏOfficer€Guthrie€asked€Defendant€again,€ð ðDo€you€want€to€talk€to€your€momma€byÏyourself?ðð€€Defendant€responded,€ð ðYeah.ðð€€Defendant€did€not€òòspecificallyóó€ask€toÐ ¬L Ðleave€or€to€consult€with€an€attorney€at€any€time.€€Both€officers€left€the€room.€€TheÏdoor€to€the€Felony€Booking€Room€was€then€closed€but€not€locked.€€Throughout€theÏinterview€there€had€been€the€distant€sounds€of€people€outside€the€door,€asÏevidenced€in€the€video€tapes.€€Officer€Peel€went€into€the€hall€area€and€Officer€GuthrieÏwent€in€and€out€of€the€separate€video€monitoring€room.ÌÌà ` àMrs.€Munn€sat€close€to€Defendant,€touched€him€on€his€knee,€and€pleaded€withÏhim€to€tell€the€officers€what€they€wanted€to€know.€€Defendant€then€told€his€mother,Ïð ðI€shot€him.ðð€€Defendant€proceeded€to€tell€his€mother€that€he€shot€the€victim€ð ð[F]or€theÏmoney.€€I€told€him€I€was€gonna€pay€him€late.€€I€borrowed€his€gun€and€sold€it,€and€IÏshot€him.€€Didnððt€have€any€intention€of€paying€the€money.ðð€€€At€one€point,€DefendantÏprovides€the€following€detailed€statement€to€his€mother:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àWell,€we€had€to€go€somewhere€else.€€I€told€him€we€wereÏgoing€to€go€___€and€meet€somebody€but€he€___€theÏlicense€plates€on€the€car,€so€if€we€did€get€caught€it€wouldÏbe€hard€to€find€when€we€did€that,€when€he€knelt€down€toÐ  :À00 Ðunscrew€the€license€plate.€€Then€I€shot€him€in€the€back€ofÏhis€head.€€He€fell€down€and€I€rolled€him€over€and€took€hisÏlicense€and€wallet.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓjYÓÌMrs.€Munn€asked€Defendant€why€he€changed€the€license€plates€on€the€car€andÏDefendant€responded,€ð ðhard€to€find€me.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àDefendant€goes€on€to€tell€his€mother€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àI€didnððt€like€the€kid€from€the€very€beginning.€€I€hated€himÏwith€a€passion€and€___€was€the€first€time.€€I€couldnððt€standÏthe€kid.€€He€used€to€pick€on€me€because€I€wasnððt€as€smartÏas€he€was.€€I€hated€him.€€I€couldnððt€stand€him.€€HeÏdisgusted€me.€€He€had€pornographic€magazines€in€theÏroom,€it€was€disgusting.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÿ[ÓÌà ` àMrs.€Munn€testified€that€she€thought€she€and€Defendant€were€alone€and€thatÏno€one€was€listening€or€recording€their€conversations.€€Defendant€asked€his€motherÏto€ð ðGo€find€the€police€so€I€can€tell€them.ðð€€Mrs.€Munn€told€Defendant€to€ð ð[s]tay€rightÏhere€[in€the€interrogation€room].ððÌÌà ` àMrs.€Munn€then€went€and€found€Officer€Peel€and€asked€him€to€accompany€herÏinside€the€Felony€Booking€Room€where€she€expressed€her€confusion€about€what€sheÏshould€do.€€Defendant€then€stated€to€his€mother,€ð ðWhy€donððt€you€go€ahead€and€tellÏthem?ðð€€Mrs.€Munn€then€stated,€ð ðHe€says€he€shot€[the€victim].ðð€€DefendantÏinterjected,€ð ð.22€caliber,€is€that€what€you€found?ðð€€Officer€Peel€asked€if€DefendantÏwanted€to€tell€them€about€it€and€Defendant€said,€ð ðDonððt€turn€on€the€tape,€I€wouldÏrather€not€tape€it.ðð€€Following€this€exchange,€Mrs.€Munn€asked,€ð ðDonððt€we€have€toÏhave€a€lawyer?ðð€€Officer€Peel€stated€ð ðIf€you€want€one,€itððs€up€to€you,€just€whateverÏyou€want€to€do.ðð€€Defendant€did€not€ask€for€an€attorney€nor€did€he€ask€to€leave€theÐ 9¼// Ðroom.€€Mrs.€Munn€expressed€a€desire€to€talk€with€her€husband€and€later€asked€toÏspeak€with€Officer€Peel€alone.€€Mrs.€Munn€and€Officer€Peel€exited€the€room€leavingÏOfficer€Guthrie€and€Defendant€alone.€ÌÌà ` àLater,€Defendantððs€father€and€his€two„year„old€sister€entered€the€interviewÏroom.€€In€the€presence€of€Officer€Guthrie,€the€following€conversation€occurredÏbetween€Defendant€and€his€father:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€You€shot€him?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Yes.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€Whyððd€you€do€it?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€For€money.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€For€what?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€For€money.€€I€hate€it€that€I€had€to€ask€you€forÏmoney,€never€enough.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€Rudy.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Plus,€I€hated€the€kid€„„€he€was€a€jack„ass.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€Rudy.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓcÓAfter€that€exchange,€Officer€Guthrie€exited€the€interview€room,€leaving€Defendant,Ïhis€father,€and€his€sister€in€the€room.€€Defendant€and€his€father€continued€to€discussÏthe€facts€which€motivated€his€actions.€€€Specifically,€Defendant€told€his€father€that€heÏkilled€the€victim€for€a€total€amount€of€$800„900€dollars.€€€€à x àà Ð àà (# àÐ ü0œ'' Ðà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àLater,€Rita€Munn€reentered€the€room€and€Ron€Munn€asked€his€wife,€ð ðHe€didÏit?ðð€€Rita€Munn€said,€ð ðThatððs€what€he€said.ðð€€A€few€minutes€later,€Rita€Munn€askedÏher€husband,€ð ðWas€it€an€accident?ðð€€Defendant€responded€with€the€following:Ð 9¼// ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àIt€was€intentional.€€I€did€it€on€purpose.€€I€knew€exactly€whatÏI€was€gonna€to€do.€I€knew€what€to€take€to€take€hisÏidentification.€€I€wish€I€could€have€put€his€car€somewhereÏelse€but€Abernathy€was€the€farthest€away€from€Sharp€thatÏthere€was,€that€I€could€think€of,€without€having€to€walk€tooÏfar.€€Thatððs€why€I€put€it€over€there.€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ jÓRita€Munn€then€asked,€ð ðNow€what€do€we€do?€€How€come€you€are€not€crying?€€HowÏcome€you€donððt€feel€awful€about€what€you€did?ðð€€Defendant€replied,€ð ðBecause€I€amÏa€psychopath,€in€my€opinion.ðð€€Defendant€went€on€to€say,€ð ðI€know€what€I€did.€€I€knowÏit€was€wrong.€€There€is€nothing€I€can€do€to€change€that.€___€€€€cry€is€not€going€toÏchange€it.€€I€have€to€accept€responsibility,€€Iððm€not€gonna€sit€and€cry.ðð€€The€officersÏwere€not€present€during€any€of€the€above€conversation.ÌÌà ` àFollowing€that€exchange,€Officer€Peel€reentered€the€room.€€The€officer€spokeÏbriefly€with€Mrs.€Munn€and€Defendant.€€Mrs.€Munn€then€told€Officer€Peel€that€ð ð[h]eÏ[Defendant]€should€have€a€lawyer.ðð€€Officer€Peel€stated,€ð ðIf€he€wanted€one,ðð€and€thenÏquickly€changed€the€subject€and€left€the€room.ÌÌà ` àIn€the€final€interview,€Officers€Peel€and€Guthrie€were€with€Defendant.€€At€oneÏpoint,€Officer€Peel€asked€Defendant,€ð ðFeel€better?ðð€€Defendant€responded,€ð ðYeah.ðð€ÏThe€officers€spoke€to€Defendant€about€being€an€adult€and€having€to€make€up€hisÏown€mind.€€Defendant€then€asked€Officer€Peel€to€run€down€what€would€happen€toÏhim.€€Officer€Peel€told€Defendant€that€the€District€Attorney€was€on€the€way€and€thatÏhe€said€ð ðyea€or€nay.ðð€€Defendant€then€asked,€ð ðWhat€do€you€mean€yea€or€nay?ðð€ÏOfficer€Peel€responded,€ð ðOn€what€to€do.€€We€are€not€trying€to€rush€you.€€He€saysÏwhether€to€charge€you€tonight€or€what€to€do€or€let€you€go€home€tonight€and€chargeÏyou€later€or€what.ðð€€Defendant€told€the€officers,€ð ð[I]t€was€all€about€the€gun€and€money,Ð 9¼// Ðitððs€always€been€about€money.ðð€€At€this€point,€Officer€Peel€pushed€a€copy€of€theÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€in€front€of€Defendant€and€asked,€ð ðHave€you€read€that?ðð€€DefendantÐ h  Ðthen€looked€at€the€written€òòMirandaóó€warning€and€told€them€ð ðNo.ðð€€Officer€Peel€thenÐ p  Ðstated,€ð ðWhy€donððt€you€go€ahead€and€read€that€just€to€be€safe?ðð€€Defendant€read€theÏwarning€for€approximately€15„25€seconds,€and€Officer€Peel€stated,€ð ðKnow€what€youÏwant€to€do€yet?ðð€€Defendant€stated,€ð ðIððm€going€to€wait€and€see€what€happens€___€IÏdonððt€want€to€sign€anything.ðð€€Officer€Guthrie€then€said,€ð ðYou€understand€it?ðð€ÏDefendant€responded,€ð ðYeah.ðð€€ÌÌà ` à€€At€one€point,€Officer€Peel€said,€ð ðReckon€we€can€find€the€billfold,ðð€to€whichÏDefendant€replied,€ð ðI€can€help€you€find€it,€the€keys€too.ðð€€Defendant€then€initiatedÏseveral€topics€of€discussion€relating€to€the€crime.€€These€discussions€were€not€inÏresponse€to€police€questioning,€but€appeared€simply€to€be€an€attempt€by€DefendantÏto€determine€how€much€the€police€actually€knew.€€Later,€Defendantððs€father€enteredÏthe€interview€room€and€the€following€exchange€occurred.ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€Whereððs€he€going€from€here?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àOfficer€Peel:€Well€we€ainððt€started.€€Weððll€have€to€wait€andÏsee,€what€yððall€said,€momma€told€us€to€wait€until€sheÏcomes€back.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€[G]et€a€lawyer,€that€would€probably€be€the€bestÏthing,€___€get€lawyer.€€Yððall€said€I€wasnððt€under€arrest€so€IÏcould€leave€tonight€and€I€could€just€.€.€.€.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àOfficer€Peel:€Youððre€going€to€be€arrested€tonight.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ½vÓÌà ` àThere€was€then€a€discussion€about€waiting€for€a€lawyer€and€the€Munns€wereÏtold€that€the€District€Attorney€was€on€the€way.€€The€whole€Munn€family€and€bothÏofficers€were€present€in€the€room€at€this€time.€€Rita€Munn€asked€her€son,€ð ðRudy,€areÐ 9¼// Ðyou€sorry?ðð€€Defendant€responded,€ð ðNot€really.€€He€was€a€dirty€little€son„of„a„bitch,Ïlooked€at€porno€magazines.ðð€€Moments€later,€the€Munns€were€told€that€the€DistrictÏAttorney€was€there€and€they€were€asked€if€they€wished€to€talk€with€him.€€DefendantÏwas€subsequently€arrested€and€booked€that€evening.€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àDefendant€was€interviewed€in€the€Felony€Booking€Room€for€a€total€of€ñ°ñœñ°ñ3ððñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€„€4Ïhours.€€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€secretly„taped€statements€made€to€hisÏmother€and€father€while€in€the€Felony€Booking€ñ°ñœñ°ñRoom€wasñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€denied€by€the€trial€court,Ïand€the€video€tapes€were€admitted€into€evidence€at€trial.€€Written€transcripts€of€theÏtapes€were€prepared€by€both€parties,€but€they€were€never€given€to€the€jury.€€TheÏvideo€tapes€contained€blank€portions€or€ð ðskipsðð€where€the€parties€could€not€agree€asÏto€what€was€being€said.€€The€judge€told€the€jury€the€following€in€regards€to€the€tapes:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à[Y]ouððve€heard€and€viewed€a€videotape€and€have€beenÏadvised€that€certain€portions€of€the€videotape€have€beenÏdeleted.€€Now,€you€are€specifically€instructed€that€you€areÏnot€to€speculate€on€these€deletions€and€that€theseÏdeletions€contain€material€that€is€irrelevant€and€immaterialÏto€your€decision€in€this€case.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àIn€addition,€youððve€been€advised€that€the€State€and€theÏDefendant€disagree€as€to€what€some€of€the€statements€onÏthe€videotape€might€have€been.€€You€are€the€exclusiveÏjudges€of€the€statements€on€the€videotape€or€of€whatÏstatement€the€videotape€contains,€just€as€you€are€theÏexclusive€judges€of€all€of€the€facts€and€evidence€in€thisÏcase.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓŸ~ÓÌà ` àValerie€Roscoe,€the€victimððs€fiancee,€testified€at€trial€that€she€met€PoklembaÏapproximately€a€year€before€his€death.€€She€and€the€victim€became€romanticallyÏinvolved€in€the€summer€of€1995€and€Poklemba€spent€most€of€his€time€with€Ms.ÏRoscoe€at€her€home€in€Nashville.€€In€fact,€she€was€introduced€to€Defendant€onlyÏweeks€before€Poklemba€was€murdered.€Ð  :À00 Ðà ` àÌà ` àShe€testified€that€Poklemba€was€an€ROTC€student€at€MTSU€and€had€servedÏin€Panama€and€in€Saudi€Arabia.€€According€to€Ms.€Roscoe,€Poklemba€owned€severalÏmilitary€type€weapons,€including€a€9mm,€a€CAR„15,€an€AK„47,€a€M„16€and€otherÏguns.€€He€kept€these€guns€at€his€dorm€room.€€She€testified€that€Poklemba€had€givenÏher€the€CAR„15,€and€had€loaned€Defendant€the€AK„47.€€She€said€Poklemba€hadÏbeen€trying€to€get€the€gun€back€from€Defendant.Ìà ` àÌà ` àMs.€Roscoe€also€testified€that€on€the€weekend€before€his€death,€she€andÏPoklemba€had€traveled€to€Washington€D.C.€to€meet€members€of€Poklembaððs€family.€ÏMs.€Roscoe€said€that€upon€their€return€to€Tennessee,€on€Monday,€November€27,Ï1995,€she€and€Poklemba€went€to€the€Embassy€Suites€Motel€to€make€plans€for€theirÏwedding.€€The€last€thing€Ms.€Roscoe€recalled€was€that€Poklemba€said€he€was€goingÏto€return€to€Murfreesboro€to€see€Defendant.€€ÌÌà ` àPaul€Reavis,€a€student€at€MTSU€and€a€friend€of€Defendantððs,€testified€that€€ÏDefendant€offered€to€sell€him€an€AR„15,€and€Reavis€gave€Defendant€$200„$250Ïdollars€toward€the€total€purchase€price€of€$500.€€Reavis€eventually€returned€the€AR„¼15€to€Defendant€because€threads€in€the€gun€were€stripped.€€Defendant€then€loanedÏhim€an€AK„47.€€€Reavis€testified€that€sometime€on€the€afternoon€of€November€27,Ï1995,€Defendant€had€asked€to€borrow€a€small€caliber€handgun€from€Reavis.€€TheÏtwo€of€them€did€not€discuss€why€Defendant€wanted€the€gun.€Reavis€drove€fromÏMTSU€to€his€home€in€Hillsborough,€Tennessee,€in€order€to€retrieve€the€weapon€forÏDefendant.€€He€recalled€that€he€gave€the€weapon€to€Defendant€at€approximatelyÏ2:00€p.m.€that€afternoon.€€Reavis€also€let€Defendant€borrow€a€box€of€.22€long€rifleÐ  :À00 Ðbullets.€€Reavis€testified€that€he€told€Defendant€that€the€weapon€was€a€single„actionÏpistol.€€That€meant€that€in€order€to€fire€the€weapon,€the€hammer€had€to€be€cocked.€ÏIn€other€words,€the€pistol€could€not€be€fired€simply€by€pulling€the€trigger.€€DefendantÏreturned€the€pistol€to€Reavis€that€same€evening€at€approximately€7:30€p.m.€€ReavisÏtestified€that€some€of€the€bullets€were€missing€and€there€were€indications€that€theÏgun€had€been€fired.€€Again,€they€did€not€discuss€the€reason€Defendant€had€neededÏthe€gun.€€Two€days€after€the€murder,€Defendant€gave€Reavis€a€duffle€bag€withÏð ð[v]arious€military€surplus€type€of€things€and€web€gearðð€in€it,€such€as€rifle€magazines,Ïa€bayonet,€a€knife,€two€magazine€pouches,€and€a€pistol€belt.Ìà ` àÌà ` àTommy€Heflin,€a€forensic€scientist€at€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÏcrime€lab,€testified€that€ð ðin€order€for€the€hammer€to€engage€the€firing€pin€[of€the€gunÏin€question],€a€transfer€bar€safety€must€come€up€and€engage€the€hammer.€€And€theÏonly€way€you€can€do€this€is€actually€by€applying€pressure€to€this€trigger€area.ðð€€HeÏfurther€testified€that€the€transfer€bar€safety€is€ð ðdesigned€to€keep€a€person€fromÏaccidentally€discharging€the€weapon.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àJason€Dowdy,€a€student€at€MTSU,€testified€that€he€lived€on€the€same€dormÏfloor€as€Defendant.€€He€said€that€he€loaned€Defendant€a€ð ðsilver€knife,€kind€of€like€aÏSwiss€Army€knifeðð€two„three€weeks€before€Poklembaððs€murder€for€the€purpose€ofÏtaking€down€bulletin€boards€in€their€dorm€hallway.€€Defendant€stated€at€the€policeÏstation€that€the€victim€had€subsequently€asked€to€borrow€that€knife€from€him€and€thatÏDefendant€no€longer€had€it.Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àRobert€S.€Morrison€testified€that€he€saw€Andrew€Poklemba€at€approximatelyÏâ â6:00€p.m.€on€November€27,€1995,€at€the€ð ðGame€Master€Hobby€Shopðð€inÏMurfreesboro.€€Keith€Kail,€the€owner€of€the€shop,€also€recalled€seeing€Poklemba€atÏthe€hobby€shop€that€evening.€€Morrison€recalled€hearing€Poklemba€say€that€hisÏroommate€was€coming€to€pick€him€up.€€When€a€medium„size€or€small„size€two„doorÏcar€pulled€up€in€front€of€the€shop,€Morrison€asked€Poklemba,€ð ð[i]s€that€yourÏroommateðð€to€which€Poklemba€replied,€ð ð[y]es,€thatððs€him.ðð€€As€Poklemba€was€walkingÏout€the€door€to€get€in€the€car,€he€told€Morrison€that€he€was€going€to€the€Dayððs€Inn.€ÏThis€was€at€approximately€6:00€p.m.ÌÌà ` àAt€6:13€p.m.,€police€were€notified€of€a€body€in€the€parking€lot€at€the€Dayððs€Inn.€ÏAccording€to€witnesses,€Poklemba€was€lying€face€down€on€the€pavement€with€aÏhooded€parka€or€jacket€hood€over€his€head.€€One€of€those€witnesses,€William€Nix,Ïpulled€back€the€hood€of€the€jacket€in€order€to€check€Poklemba€for€a€pulse.€€When€heÏdidnððt€find€a€pulse,€he€asked€another€witness€to€get€the€police.€€Mr.€Nix€waited€withÏthe€body€until€the€police€arrived.€€Mr.€Nix€also€recalled€that€there€was€a€silver€militaryÏstyle€pocket€knife€laying€next€to€the€body.ÌÌà ` àThe€medical€examiner,€Dr.€Charles€Harlan,€found€that€Poklemba€died€from€aÏcontact€gunshot€wound€to€the€back€of€his€head.€€The€jacket€hood€did€not€have€aÏbullet€hole€in€it.€€ÌÌà ` àDuring€the€sentencing€phase,€Defendant€offered€the€testimony€of€his€father,Ïan€older€sister€named€Margaret,€an€older€brother€named€Matthew,€a€family€friendÏand€former€teacher€of€Defendantððs€named€Ray€Bouldin,€a€family€friend€and€formerÐ  :À00 Ðneighbor€of€the€Munns€named€Abby€Stokes,€the€family€pediatrician€named€Dr.€JerryÏCampbell,€and€a€friend€and€fellow€church€member,€Tony€Graff.€€According€to€theseÏwitnesses,€Defendant€was€born€on€April€24,€1977,€and€was€the€third€of€the€tenÏchildren€of€Ron€and€Rita€Munn.€€His€father,€Ron€Munn,€is€a€senior€engineer€withÏCorporate€Technology€as€an€operating€contractor€at€the€Arnold€EngineeringÏDevelopment€Center.€€Defendant€was€raised€in€Manchester€and€was€a€member€ofÏthe€Catholic€church€which€he€attended€regularly.€€Defendant€had€done€volunteerÏwork€in€a€nursing€home,€was€active€in€the€Boy€Scouts,€and€played€soccer.€€He€madeÏgood€grades€in€high€school,€was€well„known,€well„liked€and€came€from€a€goodÏfamily.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€Poklembaððs€murder,€Defendant€was€in€his€third€month€of€college.€ÏOn€November€6,€1995,€Defendant€had€completed€a€written€application€requestingÏto€change€rooms€because€he€was€not€comfortable€with€Poklemba€as€his€roommate.€ÏDefendant€was€never€known€to€have€been€in€trouble€prior€to€this€incident.€€During€hisÏrelease€on€bond,€Defendant€lived€with€his€family€and€helped€his€mother€with€herÏcatering€ñ°ñœñ°ñbusiness.Ìñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÌñ°ñœñ°ñà@  DàòòI.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Fourth€Amendment,€18€U.S.C.€ðð€2510€et€seq.,€ˆÐ ð-$$ Ðñ°ñœñ°ñà@¸¸Dàandñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„301€et€seq.óóˆÐ ø/˜&& ÐÌà ` àIn€his€first€issue,€Defendant€claims€that€certain€of€his€videotaped€statementsÏshould€have€been€suppressed€because€they€were€taped€in€violation€of€his€FourthÏâ âAmendment€rights€and€in€violation€of€federal€and€state€statutes€regardingÐ 8¸.. Ðwiretapping€and€electronic€surveillance.€€òòSeeóó€18€U.S.C.€ðð€2510€òòetóó€òòseqóó.;€Tenn.€CodeÐ `  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„6„301€òòetóó€òòseqóó.Ð h  Ðâ âÌà ` à€When€an€issue€involving€the€suppression€of€evidence€is€presented€for€review,Ïthe€appellate€court€must€afford€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€the€weightÏof€a€jury€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,Ð ˆ(  Ð885€S.W.2d€366,€371„72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð 0  ÐIn€addition,€ð ðthe€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€all€reasonableÏand€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.ðð€€òòOdomóó,€928Ð ¨H ÐS.W.2d€at€23.€€Consequently,€an€appellate€court€must€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€unless€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€ofÏfact€made€by€the€court€or€a€rule€of€law€has€been€erroneously€applied.€òòIdóó.;€òòMakokaóó,Ð À!` Ð885€S.W.2d€at€371„72.€€In€evaluating€the€correctness€of€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€aÏpretrial€motion€to€suppress,€this€Court€may€consider€the€proof€adduced€both€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€and€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.Ð Ø'x Ð1998).ÌÌñ°ñœñ°ñòòA.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Fourth€AmendmentóóÐ ð-$$ Ðà ` àAs€to€his€Fourth€Amendment€claim,€Defendant€asserts€that€he€had€aÏreasonable€expectation€of€privacy€while€seated€in€the€police€interrogation€room.€ÏSpecifically,€Defendant€claims€that€the€statements€made€to€his€mother€and€fatherÏwhile€they€were€ð ðaloneðð€in€the€booking€room€should€be€suppressed€because€theyÏwere€led€to€believe€that€they€were€carrying€on€private€conversations.€€€€€ÌÐ  :À00 Ðà ` àThe€Fourth€Amendment€provides:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àUnreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€„„€The€right€of€theÏpeople€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€andÏeffects,€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,€shallÏnot€be€violated,€and€no€warrants€shall€issue,€but€uponÏprobable€cause,€supported€by€oath€or€affirmation,€andÏparticularly€describing€the€place€to€be€searched,€and€theÏpersons€or€things€to€be€seized.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ¦ÓÌà ` àUnder€the€Fourth€Amendment,€it€is€generally€recognized€that€the€applicationÏof€the€constitutional€limitations€upon€governmental€intrusion€into€an€individual'sÏmatters€or€activities,€i.e.,€whether€or€not€a€search€occurs,€depends€upon€whether€orÏnot€the€individual€has€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€relative€to€those€mattersÏor€activities.€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Ciraoloóó,€476€U.S.€207,€211,€106€S.€Ct.€1809,€1811,€90Ð ¬L ÐL.€Ed.€2d€210€(1986);€òòUnited€States€v.€Jacobsenóó,€466€U.S.€109,€113,€104€S.€Ct.Ð ´T Ð1652,€1656,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€85€(1984);€òòKatz€v.€Unitedóó€òòStatesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€360,€88€S.Ð ¼ \ ÐCt.€507,€516,€19€L.€Ed.€2d€576€(1967)€(Harlan,€J.€concurring);€òòState€v.€Roodeóó,€643Ð Ä"d ÐS.W.2d€651,€652-53€(Tenn.€1982).€These€cases€reflect€that€in€determining€what€isÏa€constitutionally€protected€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy,€a€two-part€inquiry€isÏmade:€(1)€has€the€person€manifested€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€objectÏof€the€challenged€intrusion€and€(2)€is€society€willing€to€recognize€that€expectation€asÏreasonable€or€justified.€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€338,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ì,Œ## ÐApp.€1993).€€Pointing€out€that€the€Fourth€Amendment€was€meant€to€protect€peopleÏand€not€places,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€expressed€in€òòKatzóó€that€what€aÐ ü0œ'' Ðperson€seeks€to€preserve€as€private,€even€in€an€area€accessible€to€the€public,€mayÏbe€constitutionally€protected.€€389€U.S.€347,€351,€88€S.€Ct.€507,€19€L.€Ed.€2d€576.Ïâ âWhere€the€government€violates€an€expectation€of€privacy€which€is€both€subjectivelyÐ 7´-- Ðand€reasonably€entertained,€evidence€obtained€thereby€is€not€admissible€in€aÏcriminal€prosecution.€€òòIdóó.€at€361,€88€S.€Ct.€507,€19€L.€Ed.€2d€576.Ð h  Ðâ âÌà ` àIn€this€case,€Defendant€was€required€to€establish€both€that€he€expected€hisÏconversations€with€his€mother€and€father€to€be€private€and€that€such€expectation€wasÏobjectively€reasonable€or€justified.€€As€to€the€first€requirement,€the€trial€court€madeÏno€specific€finding€of€facts€about€Defendantððs€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€as€toÏhis€conversation€with€his€parents.€€Therefore,€due€to€the€lack€of€factual€findingsÏconcerning€this€issue,€we€must€employ€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€standard€of€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð  @ ÐDoughertyóó,€930€S.W.2d€85,€86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€After€a€careful€review€of€theÐ ¨H Ðvideo€tape€and€the€testimony€presented,€we€conclude€that€Defendant€did€in€fact€haveÏa€subjective€expectation€of€privacy.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€State€argues€that€by€Defendant€and€his€mother€leaning€in€close€to€eachÏother€and€speaking€in€more€hushed€tones€than€when€others€were€present€indicatesÏthat€they€did€not€expect€their€conversation€to€be€private.€€However,€we€believe€thatÏDefendant€and€his€mother€expected€just€the€opposite.€€First,€Defendant€hadÏpreviously€asked€for€the€officer€to€turn€off€the€audio€cassette€recorder€that€was€visiblyÏlocated€on€the€table€in€the€interrogation€room,€thereby€leading€him€to€believe€that€hisÏstatements€were€no€longer€being€taped.€€Second,€the€officer€invited€Mrs.€Munn€toÏspeak€with€her€son€ð ðby€himself.ðð€€That€specific€phrase€was€repeated€two€additionalÏtimes.€€Officer€Guthrie€then€asked€Defendant€if€he€wanted€to€ð ðtalk€to€your€mommaÏby€yourself?ðð€€When€Defendant€said€that€he€would,€Officer€Guthrie€moved€a€chairÏnext€to€Defendant€for€Mrs.€Munn,€and€then€both€officers€left€the€room€and€shut€theÏdoor€behind€them.€€This€likely€could€have€led€Defendant€to€believe€that€he€and€hisÐ  :À00 Ðmother€would€be€talking€privately€with€one€another.€€Third,€the€very€nature€of€theÏconversation,€a€son€confessing€to€his€mother€that€he€killed€another€human€being,€isÏcertainly€an€emotional€moment€between€a€mother€and€her€son.€€After€watching€thisÏvideotaped€conversation,€we€believe€the€closeness€in€proximity€between€DefendantÏand€his€mother€was€a€natural€response€under€the€circumstances.€€Detective€GuthrieÏeven€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€found€the€motherððs€actions€to€beÏð ðsupportive.ðð€€Furthermore,€it€was€the€officer€who€placed€the€chair€so€close€to€theÏDefendant,€not€Mrs.€Munn.€€Also,€although€they€may€not€have€been€speaking€quiteÏas€loudly€as€when€the€officers€were€in€the€room,€Defendant€and€his€mother€wereÏcertainly€not€whispering€so€low€as€to€lead€us€to€believe€that€they€thought€they€wereÏbeing€secretly€monitored.€€Based€on€all€the€above€reasons,€we€find€that€DefendantÏdid€in€fact€have€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€in€his€conversation€with€hisÏmother.€€Likewise,€although€the€officers€did€not€specifically€say€again€that€DefendantÏand€his€father€could€talk€ð ðalone,ðð€Defendantððs€expectation€that€the€conversations€inÏthat€room€were€private€certainly€carries€over€to€his€later€conversations€with€his€fatherÏin€that€same€room.€ÌÌà ` àWe€must€next€analyze€the€second€prong€as€to€whether€the€expectation€wasÏobjectively€reasonable.€€Thus,€the€question€becomes,€whether€this€expectation,Ïviewed€objectively,€was€reasonable€and€justifiable?€€This€Courtððs€inquiry€intoÏreasonableness€asks€ð ðwhether,€if€the€particular€form€of€surveillance€practiced€by€theÏpolice€is€permitted€to€go€unregulated€by€constitutional€restraints,€the€amount€ofÏprivacy€and€freedom€remaining€to€citizens€would€be€diminished€to€a€compassÏinconsistent€with€the€aims€of€a€free€and€open€society.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Hendricksonóó,Ð 8¸.. Ð940€F.2d€320,€322€(8th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€502€U.S.€992,€112€S.€Ct.€610,€116€L.€Ed.Ð  :À00 Ð2d€633€(1991)€(citations€omitted).€€Based€upon€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€find€thatÏDefendant€did€not€have€a€justified€and€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.€ÌÌà ` àIt€is€well„settled€law€in€this€State€that€a€person€does€not€have€an€expectationÏof€privacy€in€a€jail€cell,€òòState€v.€Dulswothóó,€781€S.W.2d€277,€284€(Tenn.€1989),€on€aÐ €  Ðjail€house€telephone,€òòState€v.€Leonard€D.€Hutchisonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€1028,€Knox€CountyÐ ˆ(  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€July€23,€1987),€or€in€the€back€of€a€police€cruiser,€òòState€v.€Tilsonóó,Ð 0  Ð929€S.W.2d€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€hasÏheld€that€ð ðsociety€is€not€prepared€to€recognize€as€legitimate€any€subjectiveÏexpectation€of€privacy€that€a€prisoner€might€have€in€his€prison€cell€.€.€.€[t]heÏrecognition€of€privacy€rights€for€prisoners€in€their€individual€cells€simply€cannot€beÏreconciled€with€the€concept€of€incarceration€and€the€needs€and€objectives€of€penalÏinstitutions.ðð€òòHudson€v.€Palmeróó,€468€U.S.€517,€526,€104€S.€Ct.€3194,€3200,€82€L.€Ed.Ð À!` Ð2d€393€(1984).€€Likewise€it€follows€that€there€is€no€expectation€of€privacy€on€a€jailÏhouse€telephone€since€ð ðit€is€obvious€that€a€jail€shares€none€of€the€attributes€ofÏprivacy€of€a€home,€an€automobile,€an€office,€or€a€hotel€room,ðð€and€it€is€not€theÏequivalent€of€a€manððs€house,€within€constitutional€protection,€nor€is€it€a€place€whereÏhe€can€claim€constitutional€immunity€from€search€or€seizure€of€his€person,€papers,Ïor€effects.€€òòLanza€v.€New€Yorkóó,€370€U.S.€139,€143„44,€82€S.€Ct.€1218,€1220„21,€8€L.Ð ð-$$ ÐEd.€384€(1962).€€Again,€courts€have€held€that€no€reasonable€expectation€of€privacyÏexists€in€the€back€seat€area€of€a€police€car€as€it€has€been€argued€that€the€back€seatÏof€a€police€car€is€equivalent€to€a€jail€cell.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€McKinnonóó,€985€F.2dÐ 4¨** Ð525,€527„28€(11th€Cir.€1993).€€Because€the€facts€of€the€case€before€us€involveÏâ âcircumstances€which€differ€somewhat€from€the€above„mentioned€cases,€we€analyzeÐ 8¸.. Ðthe€issue€with€these€cases€in€mind,€while€looking€to€other€jurisdictions€for€guidanceÏas€well.€Ìâ âÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Wilkinsóó,€868€P.2d€1231€(Idaho€1994),€the€arrestee„defendant€toldÐ x Ðthe€police€officer€interrogating€him€that€he€would€like€to€be€alone€with€his€parents.€ÏHe€then€asked€the€officer€to€turn€off€the€tape€recorder€that€had€been€used€during€theÏinterrogation.€€The€officer€turned€off€the€tape€recorder€and€left€the€booking€room€soÏdefendant€could€speak€with€his€parents.€€However,€the€emergency€dispatcher€for€theÏcity€heard€and€recorded€the€conversation€over€an€intercom€system.€€TheÏconversation€between€the€defendant€and€his€parents€was€admitted€into€evidence.€ÏIn€denying€his€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€noted€that€ð ðthe€dispatcher,€whoÏrecorded€the€conversation€between€the€defendant€and€his€parents,€testified€that€sheÏlistened€to€conversations€in€the€police€booking€room€regularly€for€the€purpose€ofÏpolice€safety.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€1237.€€The€dispatcher€had€testified€that€whenever€someoneÐ È#h Ðwas€booked,€that€the€monitoring€was€used€as€a€safety€feature€in€case€somethingÏhappened€and€someone€needed€help.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€ð ðthe€need€.€.€.€toÏhave€a€safe€and€secure€police€station€outweighs€any€expectation€of€privacy€theÏdefendant€could€possibly€maintain€in€this€particular€setting.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€1238.€€The€IdahoÐ è+ˆ"" ÐSupreme€Court€agreed€with€the€trial€court€and€ruled€that€although€the€defendant€hadÏa€subjective€expectation€of€privacy,€it€was€not€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.€ÏThe€supreme€court€held€that€ð ð[i]t€would€be€contrary€to€the€governmental€interest€inÏmaintaining€security€and€order€in€facilities€where€those€accused€or€convicted€of€crimeÏare€detained€or€incarcerated€to€allow€an€individual€defendant€to€curtail€electronicÏsurveillance€of€visiting€areas€by€requesting€privacy.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€It€went€on€to€say€thatÐ 8¸.. Ðð ð[g]iven€the€necessity€of€this€surveillance,€the€fact€that€the€police€officer€in€this€caseÐ  :À00 Ðturned€off€the€tape€recorder€and€left€the€booking€room€at€[defendantððs]€request€is€notÏsufficient€to€establish€an€objectively€reasonable€and€justifiable€expectation€of€privacyÏin€[defendantððs]€conversation€with€his€parents.ðð€€òòIdóó.à  àÐ p  Ðà ` àÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Calhounóó,€479€So.€2d€241€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1985),€the€trial€courtÐ €  Ðheld€that€the€incarcerated€defendant€did€have€a€reasonable€expectation€that€hisÏconversation€with€his€brother€in€a€police€interrogation€room€was€secure€and€privateÏbecause€such€an€expectation€was€deliberately€fostered€by€the€police€officers€andÏbecause€Defendant€had€previously€expressly€invoked€his€Fifth€and€Sixth€amendmentÏrights.€€One€of€the€officers€testified€that€the€conversation€was€monitored€ð ðforÏinvestigative€purposes,€not€just€for€security.ðð€€The€appellate€court€affirmed€theÏdecision,€but€in€a€concurring€opinion,€the€judge€stated€ð ð[h]ad€the€suspect€in€this€caseÏnot€exercised€his€rights€to€remain€silent€and€to€request€counsel,€the€videotape€wouldÏhave€been€lawfully€obtained€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€245„46.€€à  àÐ È#h ÐÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Haussóó,€688€P.2d€1051€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.€1984),€the€arrestee„defendantÐ Ø'x Ðtold€the€police€that€he€would€discuss€the€crimes€with€them€if€they€would€first€let€himÏspeak€with€his€girlfriend.€€The€officer€told€the€girlfriend€that€the€room€was€beingÏmonitored€and€she€replied€either€ð ðOKðð€or€ð ðAll€right.ðð€€Both€of€the€officers€involvedÏtestified€they€were€concerned€with€the€passing€of€a€weapon,€the€discussion€ofÏpossible€escape€plans,€plans€to€destroy€evidence,€and€even€the€girlfriendððsÏinvolvement€in€the€crimes.€€The€police€had€hoped€the€defendant€would€discuss€theÏcase€after€talking€with€his€girlfriend€as€he€said€he€would.€€However,€the€defendantÏconfessed€these€crimes€to€his€girlfriend€and€these€tapes€were€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€The€police€did€not€expect€that€he€would€confess€his€involvement€in€theseÐ  :À00 Ðcrimes€to€his€girlfriend.€€The€court€held€that€any€expectation€of€privacy€defendant€hadÏwas€outweighed€by€the€need€to€maintain€security.€€òòIdóó.€at€1055.€€Also,€the€courtÐ h  Ðmentioned€the€fact€that€the€girlfriend€had€at€least€impliedly€consented€to€the€taping.ÌÌà ` àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Hearstóó,€563€F.2d€1331€(9th€Cir.€1977),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€435Ð €  ÐU.S.€1000,€98€S.€Ct.€1656,€56€L.€Ed.€2d€90€(1978),€the€court€held€that€the€tapedÏconversation€between€defendant€and€a€childhood€friend€which€was€monitored€andÏrecorded€by€jail€officials€was€properly€admitted,€as€the€intrusion€by€jail€officials,Ïpursuant€to€established€jail€policy,€did€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€Also,€thereÏwas€no€violation€of€defendantððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€assistance€of€counsel€asÏthere€was€no€interrogation€of€defendant,€either€formally€or€surreptitiously,€by€theÏgovernment€during€the€conversation€with€his€friend.€Ìà ` àÌà ` àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€do€not€believe€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÐ È#h ÐDefendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€statements€made€to€his€mother€and€his€father.€ÏAlthough€we€do€not€necessarily€condone€the€surreptitious€manner€in€which€the€policeÏvideo€taped€Defendant€in€this€case,€we€cannot,€as€a€matter€of€law,€say€that€thoseÏactions€violated€Defendantððs€Fourth€Amendment€rights.€€Officer€Peel€testified€that€theÏhidden€video€camera€is€used€in€ð ð[m]ajor€felony€interviews,€major€investigations.€€AndÏnow€mostly€just€about€all€the€time€with€any€investigation€since€weððve€got€it€operative.ðð€ÏAlthough€we€can€find€no€testimony€that€the€hidden€camera€is€used€for€safetyÏpurposes€as€was€established€in€the€cases€cited€above,€we€can€say€that€this€hasÏobviously€become€ordinary,€police€station€procedure€at€this€particular€police€station.€ÏAlthough€Defendant€was€not€under€arrest€at€the€time€he€made€the€statements,€asÏagain€distinguished€from€the€cases€cited€above,€case€law€does€not€distinguishÐ  :À00 Ðbetween€pre„arrest€and€post„arrest€statements€for€purposes€of€analyzing€theÏreasonableness€of€a€defendantððs€expectation€of€privacy.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcKinnonóó,€985€F.2dÐ h  Ðat€528.ÌÌà ` àWe€do€not€hold€that€a€defendantððs€statements€obtained€through€theÏsurreptitious€taping€in€a€police€station€interview€room€will€always€be€admissible.€ÏHowever,€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€hold€that€although€Defendant€had€aÏsubjective€expectation€of€privacy,€he€did€not€have€a€legitimate€or€reasonableÏexpectation€of€privacy.€€We€note€that€had€the€conversations€been€of€a€legallyÏrecognized€confidential€nature€by€virtue€of€the€relationship€between€Defendant€andÏthe€person€with€whom€he€was€communicating€at€the€time€of€the€surveillance€(e.g.Ïconversations€between€defendants€and€their€attorneys,€licensed€physicians,€andÏreligious€advisers),€our€holding€might€be€different.€ÌÌÓÓñ°ñœñ°ñòòB.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Federal€and€State€Wiretapping€StatutesóóÐ Ð%p ÐÌÓÓà ` àDefendant€also€argues€the€recording€of€his€conversation€with€his€motherÏviolated€Title€III€of€the€Omnibus€Crime€and€Control€and€Safe€Streets€Act€of€1968Ï(Title€III),€as€well€as€the€Tennessee€Wiretapping€and€Electronic€Surveillance€Act,Ïboth€of€which€prohibit€the€unauthorized€interception€and€disclosure€of€oralÏcommunications.€€òòSeeóó€18€U.S.C.€ðð€2511(1)(a);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„301€òòetóó€òòseqóó.€Ð ø/˜&& Ðð ðOral€communicationsðð€is€defined€in€the€federal€statute€as€ð ðany€oral€communicationÏuttered€by€a€person€exhibiting€an€expectation€that€such€communication€is€not€subjectÏto€interception€under€circumstances€justifying€such€expectation,€but€such€term€doesÏnot€include€any€electronic€communication;ðð€€18€U.S.C.€ðð€2510(2).€€Our€state€statuteÏis€essentially€identical.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„303(14).€€The€definition€of€ð ðoralÐ  :À00 Ðcommunicationðð€has€been€interpreted€to€include€the€reasonable€expectation€ofÏprivacy€standard€used€for€Fourth€Amendment€purposes.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Hallóó,Ð h  Ð488€F.2d€193,€196€(9th€Cir.€1973);€S.€Rep.€No.€1097,€90th€Cong.€2d€Sess.,€òòreprintedÐ p  Ðinóó€1968€U.S.€Code€Cong.€&€Admin.€News€2178€(the€definition€was€intended€to€beÐ x Ðinterpreted€in€accordance€with€the€principles€enunciated€in€òòKatzóó).€€€In€other€words,Ð €  Ðwe€should€use€the€same€standard€for€determining€the€protection€of€the€wiretap€lawsÏas€is€employed€in€Fourth€Amendment€cases.€Therefore,€as€we€did€in€the€case€of€theÏFourth€Amendment€claim€above,€we€also€conclude€that€Defendant€was€not€entitledÏto€the€protection€of€the€federal€and€state€wiretap€laws.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓ£âÓÌÌñ°ñœñ°ñÓÓà@(()DàòòII.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€MirandaóóˆÐ °P Ðñ°ñœñ°ñà@#Dà(Defendantððsñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€Issue€ñ°ñœñ°ñIII.)ˆÌÌñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€statements€should€have€been€suppressed€becauseÏhe€was€not€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€even€though€he€was€allegedly€inÐ Ð%p Ðcustody€when€he€made€incriminating€statements.€€In€reviewing€this€issue,€we€areÏagain€mindful€that€an€appellate€court€must€uphold€a€trial€courtððs€finding€of€fact€in€aÏsuppression€hearing€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€thoseÏfindings.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.Ð ð-$$ Ðà ` àÌà ` àIn€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€479,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€1630,€16€L.€Ed.€2dÐ 2 (( Ð694€(1966),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€Fifth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments'€prohibition€against€compelled€self-incrimination€requires€policeÏofficers,€before€initiating€questioning,€to€advise€the€putative€defendant€of€his€right€toÏremain€silent€and€his€right€to€counsel.€Specifically,€òòMirandaóó€requires€police€to€informÐ  :À00 Ðthe€person€being€questioned€that€(a)€he€has€the€right€to€remain€silent;€(b)€anyÏstatement€made€may€be€used€as€evidence€against€him;€(c)€he€has€the€right€to€theÏpresence€of€an€attorney;€and€(d)€if€he€cannot€afford€an€attorney,€one€will€beÏappointed€for€him€prior€to€questioning,€if€he€so€desires.€€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.Ïat€1612,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694.€€If€these€warnings€are€not€given,€statements€elicited€fromÏthe€individual€may€not€be€admitted€for€certain€purposes€in€a€criminal€trial.€òòStansburyÐ ˆ(  Ðv.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€322,€114€S.€Ct.€1526,€1528,€128€L.€Ed.€2d€293€(1994).€Ð 0  ÐÌà ` àHowever,€an€officer's€obligation€to€administer€òòMirandaóó€warnings€only€attachesÐ  @ Ð"where€there€has€been€such€a€restriction€on€a€person's€freedom€as€to€render€him€ððinÏcustody.ðððð€òòIdóó.€(òòquotingóó€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€492,€495,€97€S.€Ct.€711,€714,Ð °P Ð50€L.€Ed.€2d€714€(1977)).€€In€òòMirandaóó,€the€Court€explained€that€a€"custodialÐ ¸X Ðinterrogation"€refers€to€"questioning€initiated€by€law€enforcement€officers€after€aÏperson€has€been€taken€into€custody€or€otherwise€deprived€of€his€freedom€of€actionÏin€any€significant€way."€384€U.S.€at€444,€86€S.€Ct.€at€1612.€€ÌThus,€when€determining€whether€or€not€there€was€custodial€interrogation,€the€initialÏinquiry€is€whether€the€suspect€was€"in€custody."€€The€trial€court€will€be€given€a€wideÏlatitude€of€discretion€in€its€decision,€and€that€decision€will€not€be€overturned€by€thisÏCourt€unless€it€appears€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€the€trial€court's€discretion€andÏa€violation€of€the€appellant's€rights.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€570€(Tenn.Ð ø/˜&& Ð1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€960,€115€S.€Ct.€417,€130€L.€Ed.€2d€333€(1994);€òòStateÐ 2 (( Ðv.€Nakdimenóó,€735€S.W.2d€799,€802€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Ð 4¨** ÐÌà ` à"The€initial€determination€of€custody€depends€on€the€objective€circumstancesÏof€the€interrogation,€not€on€the€subjective€views€harbored€by€either€the€interrogatingÐ  :À00 Ðofficers€or€the€person€being€questioned."€òòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€323,€114€S.€Ct.€atÐ `  Ð1529,€128€L.€Ed.€2d€293.€€Specifically,€the€inquiry€is€"how€a€reasonable€[person]€inÏthe€suspect's€position€would€have€understood€his€situation,"€i.e.,€would€he€have€feltÏthat€he€was€not€free€to€leave€and,€thus,€in€custody.€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.Ð x Ð420,€442,€104€S.€Ct.€3138,€3151,€82€L.€Ed.€2d€317€(1984).€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMichigan€v.Ð €  ÐChesternutóó,€486€U.S.€567,€573,€108€S.€Ct.€1975,€1979,€100€L.€Ed.€2d€565€(1988);Ð ˆ(  ÐòòState€v.€Mosieróó,€888€S.W.2d€781,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,Ð 0  Ð797€S.W.2d€631,€639€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€ÌÌà ` àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€expressly€adopted€the€objective€analysisÏemployed€by€the€United€State€Supreme€Court€and€rejected€as€irrelevant€to€theÏdetermination€of€custody€any€inquiry€into€the€subjective€beliefs€of€law€enforcementÏofficials€about€the€culpability€or€guilt€of€the€person€being€questioned.€€òòState€v.Ð À!` ÐAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€851€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€court€adopted€several€nonexclusiveÐ È#h Ðfactors€to€aid€in€the€objective€assessment€of€whether€a€reasonable€person€wouldÏconsider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degree€associatedÏwith€a€formal€arrest.€€Relevant€factors€include€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à(1)€the€time€and€location€of€the€interrogation;€(2)€theÏduration€and€character€of€the€questioning;€(3)€the€officerððsÏtone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€(4)€the€method€ofÏtransportation€to€the€place€of€questioning;€(5)€the€numberÏof€police€officers€present;€(6)€limitations€on€movement€orÏother€forms€of€restraint€imposed€during€the€interrogation;Ï(7)€interactions€between€the€officer€and€the€person€beingÏquestioned,€including€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€and€Ïthe€verbal€or€nonverbal€responses€of€the€person€beingÏquestioned;€(8)€the€extent€to€which€the€person€beingÏquestioned€is€confronted€with€the€officerððs€suspicions€ofÏguilt€or€evidence€of€guilt;€and€finally€(9)€the€extent€to€whichÏthe€person€being€questioned€is€aware€that€he€or€she€isÏfree€to€refrain€from€answering€questions€or€to€end€theÏinterview€at€will.€Ð :À00¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓrüÓÌòòAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€855.€€Although€òòMirandaóó€says€the€type€of€interrogationÐ h  Ðprohibited€must€be€initiated€by€a€law€enforcement€official,€òòAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€€atÐ p  Ð853,€the€term€ð ðinterrogationðð€for€òòMirandaóó€purposes€refers€to€ð ð[N]ot€only€expressÐ x Ðquestioning,€but€also€to€any€words€or€actions€on€the€part€of€the€police€(other€thanÏthose€normally€attendant€to€arrest€and€custody)€that€the€police€should€know€areÏreasonably€likely€to€elicit€an€incriminating€response€from€the€suspect.€.€.€.€A€practiceÏthat€the€police€should€know€is€reasonably€likely€to€evoke€an€incriminating€responseÏfrom€a€suspect€thus€amounts€to€interrogation.ðð€€€òòRhode€Island€v.€Innisóó,€446€U.S.€291,Ð  @ Ð301,€100€S.€Ct.€1682,€1689,€64€L.€Ed.€2d€297€(1980).ÌÌà ` àIt€should€be€noted€that€the€fact€that€an€interview€takes€place€at€a€police€stationÏor€that€the€environment€is€perceived€to€be€ð ðcoerciveðð€is€not€determinative€of€theÏcustody€issue.€€For€example,€in€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€the€Court€noted€the€following:Ð È#h ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àAny€interview€of€one€suspected€of€a€crime€by€a€policeÏofficer€will€have€coercive€aspects€to€it,€simply€by€virtue€ofÏthe€fact€that€the€police€officer€is€part€of€a€law€enforcementÏsystem€which€may€ultimately€cause€the€suspect€to€beÏcharged€with€a€crime.€But€police€officers€are€not€requiredÏto€administer€Miranda€warnings€to€everyone€whom€theyÏquestion.€€Nor€is€the€requirement€of€warnings€to€beÏimposed€simply€because€the€questioning€takes€place€inÏthe€station€house,€or€because€the€questioned€person€isÏone€whom€the€police€suspect.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ‡ÓÌ429€U.S.€at€495,€97€S.€Ct.€at€714.ÌÌà ` àWe€should€mention€that€our€review€of€this€issue€is€aided€by€the€fact€thatÏDefendantððs€statements€are€in€the€record€as€audio€visual€tape€recordings.€ÏConsidering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€including€the€factors€delineated€inÐ  :À00 ÐòòAndersonóó,€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€lowerÐ `  Ðcourtððs€finding€that€Defendant€was€not€in€custody€when€he€was€interviewed€by€lawÏenforcement€officials.€€In€this€case€there€were€actually€a€series€of€interviews.€€TheÏfirst€one€began€at€approximately€5€p.m.€and€it€took€place€in€a€12€x€12€foot€roomÏmarked€ð ðFelony€Booking€Roomðð€at€the€Murfreesboro€Police€Department.€€TheÏofficers€had€initiated€contact€with€Defendant,€but€Defendant€voluntarily€agreed€toÏcome€to€the€station€with€his€family€to€clear€up€discrepancies€the€officers€had€foundÏin€Defendantððs€story€about€what€happened.€€The€officers€talked€with€Defendant€forÏ3€ðð€„€4€hours€after€which€time€Defendant€was€formally€arrested.€€At€times,€theÏofficers€questioned€Defendant€alone€in€the€room,€at€times€certain€family€membersÏand€the€officers€were€present,€and€at€times,€it€was€just€Defendant€and€one€or€bothÏof€his€parents€present.€€The€police€did€vigorously€question€Defendant€and€at€certainÏtimes€even€accused€Defendant€of€not€telling€the€truth€or€at€least€not€telling€the€wholeÏstory.€€Specifically,€the€officers€told€Defendant€ð ðitððs€time€to€tell€the€truth,ðð€ð ðyou€knowÏwho€killed€him,ðð€and€ð ðyour€story€doesnððt€hold€water.ðð€The€officers€even€toldÏDefendantððs€mother,€in€the€presence€of€Defendant,€that€they€knew€Defendant€hadÏkilled€the€victim.€€However,€even€though€the€officers€were€extremely€inquisitive€andÏoften€times€accusatory,€their€demeanor€was€always€polite€and€courteous€towardsÏDefendant.€€In€fact,€during€the€interview€Defendant€told€his€mother€that€the€officersÏwere€being€nice€to€him€and€that€they€were€not€intimidating€him.€€Defendant€isÏreminded€throughout€the€interview€that€he€is€not€under€arrest€and€is€free€to€leave€atÏany€time.€€However,€on€at€least€three€occasions,€Defendant€mentioned€that€he€wouldÏlike€to€come€back€the€following€Monday€and€talk€to€the€officers€when€his€parents€areÏnot€with€him.€€On€each€occasion,€it€appears€that€the€officers€either€changed€theÏsubject€or€kept€pressing€him€to€tell€the€truth.€€Nonetheless,€until€near€the€end€of€theÐ  :À00 Ðinterview€when€Defendant€indicated€that€he€thought€he€could€go€home€and€theÏofficers€advised€him€that€he€would€be€arrested€that€night,€there€is€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€Defendant€tried€to€leave€the€room€and€that€the€officers€refused.€€€€ÌÌà ` à€In€consideration€of€all€the€foregoing,€we€cannot€say€that€Defendant€wasÏsubject€to€custodial€interrogation.€€Although€there€are€certainly€some€factors€whichÏpoint€towards€custodial€interrogation,€the€evidence€as€a€whole€in€the€record€simplyÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Defendant€was€notÏin€custody€during€the€interview.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.¹Ó  ÓÌòòIII.€VoluntarinessóóÐ °P ÐÓÓ(Defendantððs€Issue€II.)ÌÌÓ$ÓÓ^ÓÌà ` àIn€addition€to€his€argument€in€the€preceding€issue€that€he€was€subject€toÏcustodial€interrogation,€Defendant€also€contends€that€his€statements€were€notÏvoluntarily€given.€€Specifically,€Defendant€argues€that€all€of€his€statements€shouldÏhave€been€suppressed,€or€at€least€the€statements€made€to€his€mother€and€father,Ïbecause€they€were€not€voluntarily€given.€€In€denying€Defendantððs€motion€toÏsuppress,€the€trial€court€simply€stated€that€Defendantððs€statements€were€ð ðcertainlyÏvoluntaryðð€but€did€not€further€address€this€issue€or€make€any€detailed€findings€of€factÏas€to€why€the€statements€were€in€fact€voluntary.Ìà ` àÌà ` àAlong€with€the€principles€discussed€in€Issue€II,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€has€also€interpreted€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€require€that€an€incriminatingÏstatement€or€confession€be€freely€and€voluntarily€given€in€order€to€be€admissible.€Ð  :À00 ÐThis€even€applies€to€statements€obtained€after€the€proper€òòMirandaóó€warnings€haveÐ `  Ðbeen€issued.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726€(Tenn.€1980).€€Statements€andÐ h  Ðconfessions€not€made€as€a€result€of€custodial€interrogations€must€also€be€voluntaryÏto€be€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòArizona€v.€Fulimanteóó,€499€U.S.€279,€286„88,€111€S.€Ct.€1246,Ð x Ð1252„53,€113€L.€Ed.€2d€302€(1991).€€It€must€not€be€extracted€by€ð ðany€sort€of€threatsÏor€violence,€nor€obtained€by€any€direct€or€implied€promises,€however€slight,€nor€byÏthe€exertion€of€any€improper€influence.ðð€€òòBram€v.€Unitedóó€òòStatesóó,€168€U.S.€532,€542„Ð 0  Ð43,€18€S.€Ct.€183,€187,€42€L.€Ed.€568€(1897)€(citation€omitted).€€Moreover,€dueÏprocess€requires€that€confessions€tendered€in€response€to€either€physical€orÏpsychological€coercion€be€suppressed.€€òòRogers.€v.€Richmondóó,€365€U.S.€534,€540„41,Ð ¨H Ð81€S.€Ct.€735,€739,€5€L.€Ed.€2d€760€(1961);€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€728„29.€€This€hasÐ °P Ðevolved€into€the€ð ðtotality€of€circumstancesðð€test€to€determine€whether€a€confessionÏis€voluntary.€€òòFulimanteóó,€499€U.S.€at€285„87,€111€S.€Ct€at€1251„52;€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,Ð À!` Ð834€S.W.2d€265,€271€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€506€U.S.€905,€113€S.€Ct.€298,€121€L.€Ed.Ð È#h Ð2d€221€(1992).ÌÌà ` àThe€voluntariness€test€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€has€been€said€to€beÏmore€protective€of€individual€rights€than€the€test€under€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€For€theÐ ð-$$ Ðrelinquishment€of€rights€to€be€effective,€Defendant€must€have€personal€awarenessÏof€both€the€nature€of€the€right€and€the€consequences€of€abandoning€his€rights.€€òòSeeóóÐ 2 (( Ðòòidóó.€at€544„45.€€Additionally,€his€statements€cannot€be€the€result€of€intimidation,Ð 4¨** Ðcoercion€or€deception.€€òòIdóó.€at€544.€€In€determining€whether€the€statements€wereÐ 6°,, Ðvoluntary,€the€reviewing€court€looks€at€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€relinquishment€of€the€right.€€òòIdóó.€at€545.Ð  :À00 Ðà ` àÌ€€€€€€€€€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€statements€were€made€voluntarily.€€We€haveÏstudied€the€evidence,€considering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€and€we€cannotÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€on€thisÏissue.€€The€courtððs€determination€that€the€statements€were€given€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€is€binding€upon€the€appellate€courts€unless€the€defendant€establishes€thatÏthe€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòOdomóó,€928Ð 0  ÐS.W.2d€at€23.€€There€is€no€sufficient€basis€for€holding€that€the€alleged€admissionsÏwere€not€free€and€voluntary€simply€because€the€Defendant€was€unaware,€at€the€timeÏof€the€conversations,€that€he€was€being€recorded.€€Deception€itself€does€not€renderÏstatements€inadmissible€where€the€deception€is€not€of€the€type€reasonably€likely€toÏprocure€an€untrue€statement.€€òòSeeóó€òòR.K.€Procunier€v.€Atchelyóó,€400€U.S.€446,€448„49,Ð ¸X Ð91€S.€Ct.€485,€487,€27€L.€Ed.€2d€524€(1971).€€Therefore,€Defendant€has€failed€toÏmeet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€holding.€€Although€the€atmosphere€surrounding€the€interrogation€may€haveÏproved€distressing€to€this€18„year„old€man,€there€is€little€evidence€to€support€that€theÏstatement€was€coerced€or€in€any€way€involuntarily€given.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€¹Ó  Óñ°ñœñ°ñòòIV.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Fifth€Amendment€Right€to€CounselóóÐ ð-$$ ÐÓ×%ÓÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€his€videotaped€statements€should€have€beenÏsuppressed€because€they€were€obtained€in€violation€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€toÏcounsel.€€Defendant€asserts€that€he€expressed€a€desire€to€have€counsel€present,Ïand€that€the€officers€should€have€ceased€all€questioning€or€should€have€limited€theirÏquestioning€to€a€clarification€of€whether€he€desired€to€have€an€attorney.Ð  :À00 Їà ` àFirst€of€all€we€will€mention€that€the€Fifth€Amendment€provides€the€right€toÏcounsel€at€any€police„initiated€custodial€interrogation.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòEdwards€v.óó€òòArizonaóó,Ð h  Ð451€U.S.€477,€101€S.€Ct.€1880,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€378€(1981);€òòState€v.óó€òòHuddlestonóó,€924Ð p  ÐS.W.2d€666€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868€(Tenn.€1991).€€Only€theÐ x Ðsuspect€can€assert€his€right€to€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€669„70Ð €  Ð(òòcitingóó€òòDavis€v.€United€Statesóó,€512€U.S.€452,€114€S.€Ct.€2350,€129€L.€Ed.€2d€362Ð ˆ(  Ð(1994).€€However,€as€discussed€at€length€in€Issue€II,€Defendant€was€not€subject€toÏcustodial€interrogation€and€therefore€the€officers€were€under€no€obligation€to€issueÐ ˜8 ÐòòMirandaóó€warnings.Ð  @ ÐÌà ` àAt€some€point€after€Defendant€confessed€to€the€murder,€the€officers€did€tellÏDefendant€to€read€a€sheet€of€paper€containing€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€When€heÐ ¸X Ðfinished€reading€them,€Defendant€refused€to€sign€the€waiver,€but€he€told€the€officersÏthat€he€did€understand€the€warnings.€€Soon€after€he€read€the€warnings,€the€officersÏasked€Defendant,€ð ðReckon€we€can€find€the€billfold,ðð€to€which€Defendant€responded,Ïð ðI€can€help€you€find€it,€the€keys€too.ðð€€€Defendant€had€not€requested€a€lawyer€at€thisÏpoint,€so€these€statements€are€admissible.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€did€eventually€tell€the€officers€that€he€wanted€a€lawyer.€€Specifically,Ïhe€said,€ð ðget€a€lawyer,€that€would€probably€be€the€best€thing€.€.€.€get€lawyer.ðð€€HeÏwent€on€to€say€that€he€was€ð ðwaiting€on€a€lawyer.ðð€€€Once€Defendant€hadÏunequivocally€requested€an€attorney,€the€officers€were€required€to€cease€furtherÏquestioning€of€Defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€101€S.€Ct.€1880,Ð 6°,, Ð68€L.€Ed.€2d€378€(1981);€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð 8¸.. ÐHowever,€after€carefully€reviewing€the€transcript€of€the€tapes€and€the€tapesÐ  :À00 Ðthemselves,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€any€incriminating€statement€Defendant€madeÏafter€asserting€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€was€in€response€to€questions€by€hisÏmother,€not€the€officers.€€The€following€conversation€ensued€between€Defendant€andÏMrs.€Munn€after€he€expressed€a€desire€for€an€attorney:ÌÓÓñ°ñœñ°ñÌñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àMrs.€Munn:€Rudy€are€you€sorry?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Not€really.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àMrs.€Munn:€Why?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€He€was€a€dirty€little€son€of€a€bitch,€looked€atÏporno€magazines,€.€.€which€is€why€.€.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àMrs.€Munn:€Why€would€you€want€to€kill€him,€did€he€doÏsomething€to€you?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€€.€.€.€other€than€he€was€a€jerk.Ó€1ӀР¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÓñ°ñœñ°ñÌñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÌÓ.4ÓThe€type€of€interrogation€prohibited€by€òòMirandaóó€must€be€initiated€by€a€lawÐ Ä"d Ðenforcement€official.€€òòAndersonóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€853.€€Since€the€incriminatingÐ Ì$l Ðstatements€were€made€in€response€to€his€motherððs€questions,€those€statements€areÏadmissible.€€The€trial€court€made€no€finding€of€fact€that€Mrs.€Munn€was€acting€as€anÏð ðagentðð€or€an€ð ðextensionðð€of€the€officers.€€Likewise,€we€do€no€find€any€objectiveÏevidence€in€the€record€that€the€officers€were€using€the€mother€to€elicit€furtherÏinformation€from€Defendant.€€€Defendant€has€made€no€showing€that€his€mother€actedÏat€the€behest€of€the€officers€or€any€other€State€agent.€€€€ñ°ñœñ°ñÌñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÌà ` àFurthermore,€any€error€in€the€admission€of€Defendantððs€statements€afterÏstating€he€wanted€a€lawyer€€was,€at€most,€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Proof€of€guilt€was€overwhelming,€and€the€foregoingÐ 9¼// Ðstatements€were€merely€cumulative€to€other€admissible€evidence€which€ñ°ñœñ°ñclearlyÏestablishedñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94€(Tenn.€1995).à (# àÐ h  Ðà ` àÌñ°ñœñ°ñà@ìì!DàòòV.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Derivative€Evidence€RuleóóˆÐ x ÐÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€admissibility€of€his€taped€confession€to€his€motherÏviolated€his€constitutional€rights,€and€that€any€subsequent€confession€is€also€tainted.€ÏSince€we€have€ruled€that€Defendantððs€confession€of€the€murder€to€his€mother€did€notÏviolate€any€of€his€constitutional€rights,€the€derivative€evidence€rule,€or€ð ðfruit€of€theÏpoisonous€treeðð€rule,€is€wholly€inapplicable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.óó€òòUnderwoodóó,€669€S.W.2dÐ ¨H Ð700€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1984).€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ °P Ðmerit.€ÌÓ  ÓÌòòVI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceóóÐ È#h ÐÓõ;ÓÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€guiltyÏverdict€of€first€degree€murder.€€When€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence,€the€standard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€prosection,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,Ð ø/˜&& Ð443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€This€standard€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicatedÏupon€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€direct€andÏcircumstantial€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 6°,, Ð1990).€€On€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€and€all€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€ñ°ñœñ°ñv.€Cabbageóó,ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€571€S.W.2d€€832,€835Ð  :À00 Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÏreplaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€ofÏillustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trierÏof€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493Ð x ÐS.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà ` àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ð  @ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÐ ¨H Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€jury€verdictÐ °P Ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflictsÏin€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.€€Ð À!` Ðà ` àÌà ` àAll€homicides€are€presumed€to€be€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€òòState€v.óóÐ Ð%p ÐòòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€543Ð Ø'x Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€That€State€bears€the€burden€to€prove€premeditation€in€order€to€elevateÏthe€offense€to€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.Ð è+ˆ"" ÐÌà ` àAt€the€time€the€offense€was€committed,€first€degree€murder€not€committed€inÏthe€perpetration€of€one€of€several€specifically€enumerated€crimes€required€theÏð ðpremeditated€and€intentional€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼202(a)(1).€€A€premeditated€act€is€one€ð ðdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÏjudgmentðð€and€requires€a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„13„202(d);€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.€€The€element€of€premeditation€is€aÐ  :À00 Ðquestion€for€the€jury€and€may€be€inferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€theÏkilling.€€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2dòò€óó214,€221€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€),€òòperm.€toóó€òòappealÐ h  Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),Ð p  Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).Ð x ÐÌà ` àIn€the€present€case,€Defendant€clearly€planned€the€murder,€procured€aÏweapon,€lured€the€victim€to€the€Dayððs€Inn,€and€caused€the€victim€to€position€himselfÏso€that€Defendant€could€deliver€a€single€shot€to€the€back€of€his€head.€€Following€theÏmurder,€Defendant€hid€the€victimððs€vehicle€and€then€attempted€to€mislead€the€policeÏduring€their€investigation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997)Ð ¨H Ð(citation€omitted)€(evidence€of€use€of€deadly€weapon€on€unarmed€victim,Ïpreparations€prior€to€killing€for€purposes€of€concealment,€and€cruelty€of€killing€areÏrelevant€circumstances€in€establishing€premeditation).€€As€mentioned€earlier€in€thisÏopinion,€Defendant€offered€the€following€detailed€statements€showing€aÏð ðpremeditated€and€intentional€killingðð€of€the€victim:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àWell,€we€had€to€go€somewhere€else.€€I€told€him€we€wereÏgoing€to€go€___€and€meet€somebody€but€he€___€theÏlicense€plates€on€the€car,€so€if€we€did€get€caught€it€wouldÏbe€hard€to€find€when€we€did€that,€when€he€knelt€down€toÏunscrew€the€license€plate.€€Then€I€shot€him€in€the€back€ofÏhis€head.€€He€fell€down€and€I€rolled€him€over€and€took€hisÏlicense€and€wallet.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ”LÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ à.€.€.€Ìà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ àRon€Munn:€You€shot€him?Ìà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Yes.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€Whyððd€you€do€it?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€For€money.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€For€what?Ð :À00¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€For€money.€€I€hate€it€that€I€had€to€ask€you€forÏmoney,€never€enough.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€Rudy.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Plus,€I€hated€the€kid€„„€he€was€a€jack„ass.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àRon€Munn:€Rudy.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à.€.€.€ÌÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àIt€was€intentional.€€I€did€it€on€purpose.€€I€knew€exactly€whatÏI€was€gonna€to€do.€I€knew€what€to€take€to€take€hisÏidentification.€€I€wish€I€could€have€put€his€car€somewhereÏelse€but€Abernathy€was€the€farthest€away€from€Sharp€thatÏthere€was,€that€I€could€think€of,€without€having€to€walk€tooÏfar.€€Thatððs€why€I€put€it€over€there.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àFurthermore,€Defendant€confessed€to€the€murder,€and€we€have€previouslyÏfound€that€confession€to€be€admissible.€€Even€absent€the€confession,€there€is€stillÏcertainly€sufficient€circumstantial€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€find€thatÏDefendant€had€a€ð ðpreviously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill.ðð€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€atÐ È#h Ð147.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.¹Ó  ÓÌòòVII.€€MistrialóóÐ à)€  ÐÓ‘UÓÌà ` àIn€this€issue,€Defendant€argues€that€certain€comments€made€by€DetectiveÏGuthrie€should€have€resulted€in€a€mistrial.€€Specifically,€Detective€Guthrie€testifiedÏduring€direct€examination€to€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àQ:€(General€Newman)€Now,€I€believe€that€there€has€beenÏprepared€and€you€have€helped€in€preparing€a€transcript€ofÏthis€particular€interview;€is€that€correct?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àA:€(Detective€Guthrie)€Yes,€sir.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðâ âÐ 9¼// Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àQ:€(General€Newman)€And€what€is€the€significance€of€theÏâ âblank€portions€of€that€interview€or€the€blank€spaces:€WhatÏdoes€that€indicate?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àA:€(Detective€Guthrie)€Certain€things€were€left€out€thatÏwould€be€damaging€to€the€defense.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ¯VÓÌFollowing€this€exchange,€defense€counsel€objected€and€moved€for€a€ñ°ñœñ°ñmistrial.€€Theñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÏblank€spaces€in€the€transcript€and€on€the€tape€were€there€because€the€parties€couldÏnot€agree€as€to€what€was€being€said€during€that€particular€portion€of€the€videotape.€ÏThe€judge€ruled€that€the€transcript€would€not€be€submitted€to€the€jury€and€then€gaveÏthe€following€curative€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àLadies€and€Gentlemen,€the€videotapes€or€tapes€you€areÏabout€to€view€this€morning€have€been€edited€to€deleteÏportions€thereof€which€were€deemed€by€the€court€to€beÏeither€irrelevant€or€immaterial€to€this€particular€case.€€SoÏdonððt€concern€yourselves€with€„„€youððll€see€some€jumpsÏand€there€may€be€some€blank€spots.€€Donððt€concernÏyourself€with€those.€€There€is€nothing€in€there€that€youÏshould€hear.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ[ÓÌà ` àWhether€an€occurrence€during€the€course€of€a€trial€warrants€the€entry€of€aÏmistrial€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,Ïand€this€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€that€discretion€absent€clearÏabuse.€€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperm.Ð è+ˆ"" Ðto€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€burden€of€establishing€the€necessity€for€mistrialÐ ð-$$ Ðlies€with€the€party€seeking€it.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ø/˜&& ÐApp.€1996).€€In€making€this€determination,€no€abstract€formula€should€beÏmechanically€applied,€and€all€circumstances€should€be€taken€into€account.€€òòState€v.Ð 4¨** ÐMounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€319,€322€(Tenn.€1993).Ð 6°,, Ðâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àIt€is€well„established€that€jurors€are€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€givenÏâ âby€the€trial€judge.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Laneyóó,€654€S.W.2d€383,€389€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.Ð h  ÐBlackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Based€on€the€adequacyÐ p  Ðof€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€and€Defendantððs€failure€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€weÏcannot€say€that€the€statement€by€Detective€Guthrie€ð ðmore€probably€than€not€affectedÏthe€judgmentðð€in€this€case.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Thus,Ïthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€mistrialÏas€the€statement€did€not€create€a€manifest€necessity€for€a€mistrial.€€Any€error€wasÏharmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÓ  ÓòòÌVIII.€€Aggravating€Circumstance€ñ°ñœñ°ñ(i)(7)óóñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€à @` àà @¸ àà @ àÐ °P ÐÓ cÓÌà ` àDefendant€argues€in€this€issue€that€there€is€an€insufficient€nexus€between€theÏmurder€and€the€underlying€felony,€thus€making€aggravating€circumstance€ñ°ñœñ°ñ(i)(7)ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÏinapplicable.ÌÌà ` àThe€jury€found€that€the€ð ðmurder€was€knowingly€committed,€solicited,€directed,Ïor€aided€by€the€defendant€while€the€defendant€had€a€substantial€role€in€committingÏor€attempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€after€having€a€substantial€role€in€committingÏor€attempting€to€commit,€any€.€.€.€robbery€.€.€.€[or]€theft.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ñ°ñœñ°ñ39„13„¼204(i)(7).ñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€€ÌÌà ` àIn€support€of€his€argument€that€the€nexus€between€the€murder€and€theÏunderlying€felony€is€insufficient,€Defendant€relies€on€òòState€v.€Terryóó,€813€S.W.2d€420Ð 8¸.. Ð(Tenn.€1991).€€In€òòTerryóó,€the€defendant€was€a€preacher€whom€had€embezzledÐ  :À00 Ðsubstantial€sums€of€money€from€his€congregation€over€a€period€of€time.€€He€beganÏstealing€the€money€in€March€of€1987,€and€in€June€of€1987€the€defendant€killed€theÏchurch€handyman,€placed€him€in€the€church€building,€and€then€torched€the€buildingÏin€hopes€that€authorities€would€think€that€it€was€defendantððs€body€that€would€beÏfound€in€the€ruins.€€òòIdóó.€at€421.€€In€sentencing€the€defendant€to€death€for€this€offense,Ð €  Ðthe€jury€applied€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€on€the€basis€of€theÏunderlying€larceny.€€òòIdóó.€€At€the€motion€for€new€trial€hearing,€the€trial€judge€granted€theÐ 0  Ðdefendant€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€The€judge€found€that€the€jury€was€warrantedÏin€finding€that€a€larceny€had€occurred,€but€he€also€found€that€the€State€did€not€proveÏthat€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€the€commissionÏof€the€larceny.€€òòIdóó.€at€422.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€agreed€with€the€trialÐ °P Ðjudge€that€there€was€an€insufficient€nexus€between€the€murder€and€the€larceny.€€òòIdóó.Ð ¸X Ðat€424.€€In€so€holding,€our€supreme€court€stated€that€application€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance€depends€upon€the€ð ðtemporal,€spatial€and€motivationalÏrelationships€between€the€capital€murder€and€the€collateral€felony.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€423Ð Ð%p Ð(òòquotingóó€67€A.L.R.4th€887,€892€(1989)).€Ð Ø'x ÐÌà ` àApplying€those€factors€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€it€is€clear€thatÏDefendantððs€argument€is€without€merit.€€Here,€the€murder€and€the€collateral€felonyÏoccurred€at€the€same€time€and€in€the€same€place.€The€victim€was€discovered€withÏhis€pants€pockets€turned€inside€out.€€Defendant€confessed€numerous€times€that€heÏkilled€the€victim€because€of€money.€€Furthermore,€he€told€the€officers€that€he€couldÏhelp€them€in€finding€the€victimððs€wallet.€€ñ°ñœñ°ñBasedñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€on€the€physical€evidence€as€well€as€ÏDefendantððs€own€admission,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€juryððs€findings€as€to€aggravating€circumstance€ñ°ñœñ°ñ(i)(7).ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÐ  :À00 ЇÓ  ÓòòIX.€€Jury€ChargeóóÐ `  ÐÓWpÓÌà ` àDefendant€argues€in€this€issue€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€errorÏas€a€result€of€several€jury€instructions€prior€to€the€juryððs€deliberation€concerningÏsentencing.ÌÌñ°ñœñ°ñòòA.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Aggravating€Circumstancesóóà  àÐ 0  Ðà ` àThe€jury€was€instructed€on€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€in€order€to€avoid€lawful€arrest€and€(2)€the€murder€was€committed€duringÏthe€course€of€a€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ñ°ñœñ°ñ39„13„204(i)(6)ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€and€(7).€€However,Ð ¨H Ðthe€jury€only€found€Defendant€had€committed€the€murder€during€the€course€of€aÏfelony.€€It€did€not€find€that€he€had€committed€the€murder€in€order€to€avoid€lawfulÏarrest.€€Defendant€nevertheless€argues€that€neither€aggravating€circumstance€isÏapplicable€to€this€case€and€that€instructing€the€jury€on€two€aggravators€resulted€inÏgreat€prejudice.ÌÌà ` àFirst,€as€discussed€in€the€previous€issue,€the€jury€was€presented€with€ampleÏevidence€in€support€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€murder€was€committedÏduring€the€course€of€a€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ñ°ñœñ°ñ39„13„204(i)(7).ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Second,Ð ð-$$ ÐDefendant€has€not€shown€how€instructing€on€the€murder€to€avoid€lawful€arrestÏprejudiced€him€in€any€way.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ñ°ñœñ°ñ39„13„204(i)(6).ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Although€weÐ 2 (( Ðmay€agree€that€aggravating€circumstance€ñ°ñœñ°ñ(i)(6)ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€was€inapplicable€to€the€facts€of€thisÏcase,€we€find€no€prejudice€and€any€error€in€charging€this€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€ÌÐ  :À00 Ðñ°ñœñ°ñòòB.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Statutory€Definition€of€Theft€and€RobberyÐ `  Ðà ` àóóDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€theÐ h  Ðstatutory€definitions€of€theft€and€robbery.€€Specifically,€Defendant€argues€that€ñ°ñœñ°ñthe€trialñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÏcourtððs€use€of€T.P.I.€Criminal€9.01€and€11.01€in€charging€the€definitions€of€theseÏoffenses€was€confusing€to€the€jury.ÌÌà ` àñ°ñœñ°ñThe€supremeñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€ñ°ñœñ°ñcourtñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€has€held€that€a€trial€court€is€required€to€provide€the€juryÏwith€the€statutory€definition€of€any€felony€relied€upon€by€the€State€as€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ñ°ñœñ°ñ39„13„204(i)(7).ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877Ð  @ ÐS.W.2d€722,€735€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€758€S.W.2d€515,€521„24€(Tenn.Ð ¨H Ð1988).€€Furthermore,€pattern€jury€instructions€are€not€officially€approved€by€this€CourtÏor€by€the€General€Assembly€and€should€be€used€only€after€careful€analysis.€€TheyÏare€merely€patterns€or€suggestions.€€While€previously€printed€forms€may€beÏconvenient,€they€must€be€revised€or€supplemented€if€necessary€in€order€to€fully€andÏaccurately€conform€to€applicable€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€345,€354Ð Ð%p Ð(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà ` àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€pattern€instructions€charged€by€the€trial€court€andÏthe€statutory€definitions€of€theft€and€robbery,€we€find€that€the€definitions€are€veryÏsimilar,€albeit€the€pattern€instructions€are€lengthier€and€more€specific.€€However,€weÏfind€no€significant€difference€between€the€statutory€definitions€and€the€patternÏinstructions€and€therefore,€any€error€in€not€charging€the€statutory€definitions€of€theftÏand€robbery€is€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ìñ°ñœñ°ññ¬ñÌñ¬ññ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Ð  :À00 ÐòòC.€€Nonstatutory€Mitigating€FactoróóÐ `  Ðà ` àNext,€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€juryÏthat€he€had€ð ðno€criminal€record€or€conviction.ðð€€We€emphasize€at€the€outset€that€thisÏalleged€error€is€not€of€constitutional€magnitude,€as€jury€instructions€on€specific€non„¼statutory€mitigating€circumstances€are€not€constitutionally€mandated.€€òòSeeóó€òòHodgesóó,Ð €  Ð944€S.W.2d€at€351„52;€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€30;€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2dÐ ˆ(  Ð161,€173„74€(Tenn.€1994).€€Therefore,€the€right€to€such€instructions,€as€well€as€theÏform€and€content€of€the€instructions,€derives€solely€from€the€statute.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€court€charged€the€jury€with€the€statutory€mitigating€factor€which€states€thatÏð ðdefendant€has€no€significant€history€of€prior€criminal€activity.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„204(j)(1).€€However,€Defendant€urged€the€trial€court€to€charge€the€jury€thatÏDefendant€had€ð ðno€criminal€record€or€conviction.ðð€€In€òòOdomóó,€which€was€decidedÐ À!` Ðsome€six€months€before€the€instant€case€went€to€trial,€the€supreme€court€interpretedÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€to€require€jury€instructions€on€non„statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances€raised€by€the€evidence€and€proffered€by€a€defendant€asÏhaving€mitigating€value.€€In€addition,€the€court€stated€that€instructing€on€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€circumstances€must€not€be€fact€specific€and€imply€to€the€jury€that€the€judgeÏhad€made€a€finding€of€fact.€Instead,€the€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€must€be€ð ðdrafted€so€that€when€they€are€considered€by€the€jury,€theÏstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€are€indistinguishable€from€the€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€circumstances.ðð€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€32.€€The€supreme€court€furtherÐ 4¨** Ðinterpreted€the€ð ðno€distinctionðð€portion€of€the€statute€as€precluding€the€trial€judge€fromÏrevealing€to€the€jury€that€a€request€was€made€and€from€identifying€the€party€makingÏthe€request.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð  :À00 Їà ` àDefendant€does€not€specifically€state€why€the€mitigating€factor€proposed€byÏhim€should€have€been€included.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€instruction€offered€by€theÏcourt€that€the€ð ðdefendant€has€no€significant€history€of€prior€criminal€activityðð€ñ°ñœñ°ñfailed€toÏconvey€Defendantððs€theory€of€mitigation€to€the€jury.€€We€find€very€little€differenceÏbetween€the€two€instructions.€€Furthermore,€had€the€trial€judge€offered€DefendantððsÏfact„specific€instruction,€it€could€have€implied€to€the€jury€that€the€judge€had€made€aÏfinding€of€fact€in€contravention€of€Article€VI,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€32.€€Though€not€explicitly€stated€in€òòOdomóó,€the€clear€implicationÐ ˜8 Ðis€that€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€must€be€phrased€inÏgeneral€categories€similar€to€the€statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€In€this€case,€theÏtrial€court€offered€the€more€generalized€instruction€to€the€jury€to€conform€to€theÏevidence€and€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€The€statutory€mitigating€factor€charged€was€not€asÐ ¸X Ðspecific€as€Defendantððs€special€request.€€However,€the€instruction€given€by€the€trialÏcourt€generally€encompassed€the€subject€contained€within€the€special€request.€ÏTherefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€charge€the€jury€on€theÏnonstatutory€mitigating€circumstance€did€not€constitute€errorñ¦ñ.€€ñ¦ññ¨ñÌñ¨ññ§ñ€requiring€a€reversal.€ÏEven€if€the€factor€was€proper,€any€error€in€not€offering€Defendantððs€proposedÏnonstatutory€mitigating€factor€was€harmless€and€did€not€affect€the€verdict€in€thisÏcase.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€ÌÌà ` àBecause€of€our€conclusion€that€any€error€was€harmless€in€this€issue,€weÏdecline€to€address€the€Stateððs€assertion€that€Public€Chapter€139€divests€reviewingÏcourts€of€authority€to€grant€relief€in€a€case€regardless€of€a€conclusion€that€prejudicialÏerror€has€resulted€from€the€failure€to€give€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn.€1997).€€€€Ð  :À00 Ðñ§ñò ò€ó óòòÐ à)€  ÐD.€€Request€for€Modified€T.P.I.€InstructionÌà ` àóóDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€when€it€refused€toÐ ð-$$ Ðcharge€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€43.03€during€the€sentencing€phase€ofÏtrial.€€That€instruction€addresses€the€situation€where€the€defendant€refuses€to€testifyÏduring€the€guilt€phase€of€trial.€€It€states:ÌÓÓñ­ñÌÌÌâ âÐ 9¼// Ðñ­ñà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€defendant€has€not€taken€the€stand€to€testify€as€aÏâ âwitness€but€you€shall€place€no€significance€on€this€fact.€ÏThe€defendant€is€presumed€innocent€and€the€burden€is€onÏthe€state€to€prove€his€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€HeÏis€not€required€to€take€the€stand€in€his€own€behalf€and€hisÏelection€not€to€do€so€cannot€be€considered€for€anyÏpurpose€against€him,€nor€can€any€inference€be€drawn€fromÏsuch€fact.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ<‘ÓÌT.P.I.€43.03.Ìà ` àÌà ` àThe€jury€in€this€case€was€given€this€instruction€during€the€guilt€phase€of€trial.€ÏDefendantððs€concern€at€the€sentencing€hearing€was€that€the€jury€should€be€instructedÏthat€the€burden€is€upon€the€State€to€prove€aggravating€circumstances.€€In€responseÏto€his€concern,€the€trial€court€correctly€advised€Defendant€that€the€pattern€instructionÏfor€sentencing€for€life€imprisonment€or€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€forÏparole€addressed€this€concern.€€That€instruction€included€the€following€language:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€state€to€prove€anyÏstatutory€aggravating€circumstance€or€circumstancesÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€A€reasonable€doubt€is€aÏdoubt€based€upon€reason€and€common€sense€after€carefulÏand€impartial€consideration€of€all€the€evidence€in€this€case.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ•ÓÌòòSeeóó€T.P.I.€7.04(a).Ð ä*„!! Ðñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÌà ` àIn€light€of€the€foregoing€instruction,€we€find€Defendantððs€request€to€beÏunwarranted.€€Defendant€wanted€the€jury€to€know€that€the€State€had€the€burden€ofÏproof€as€to€the€aggravating€circumstances,€and€we€find€that€the€instruction€givenÏaccomplished€that€purpose.€€Any€error€in€not€charging€T.P.I.€43.03€was€harmless€andÏdoes€not€constitute€reversible€error.Ìñ°ñœñ°ññ©ñÐ 9¼// Ðñ©ññ¬ñ›ñ¬ññ©ñ‡ñ©ññ¬ñ›ñ¬ññ¯ññ©ñÌñ©ññ¯ññ®ñ›Ìñ®ññ¯ñ›ñ¯ñà@NNDàòòX.ñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€€Admissibility€of€Certain€TestimonyóóˆÐ `  Ðñ§ñœñ§ñà ` àÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€permitting€certainÏtestimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€First,€he€argues€that€the€testimony€of€ValerieÏRoscoe,€the€victimððs€fiancee,€was€irrelevant€and€inadmissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï403.€€Ms.€Roscoe€testified€concerning€her€wedding€plans€with€the€victim€and€the€factÏthat€she€intended€to€convert€to€Catholicism.€€Defendant€objected€to€Ms.€RoscoeððsÏtestimony€and€the€trial€court€overruled€it€on€the€ground€that€her€relationship€with€theÏvictim€was€in€fact€material.€€Secondly,€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion€by€allowing€the€State€to€call€Officer€Peel€as€a€rebuttal€witnessÏconcerning€Defendantððs€statements€regarding€his€prior€criminal€activity.€€The€StateÏoffered€the€testimony€of€Peel€in€order€to€demonstrate€to€the€jury€that€DefendantÏstated€that€he€had€prior€criminal€activity€and€to€clarify€or€correct€what€the€defenseÏhad€characterized€as€a€statement€merely€being€attributed€to€him.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€the€officerððs€testimony€to€be€in€rebuttal€and€not€beyond€the€scope€ofÏDefendantððs€proof.€€ÌÌà ` àDefendant€has€not€shown€how€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Roscoe€or€Officer€PeelÏprejudiced€him.€€Although€we€find€the€relevancy€of€parts€of€Ms.€Roscoeððs€testimonyÏto€be€questionable,€any€error€in€admitting€the€testimony€would€be€harmless.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Therefore,€we€find€no€merit€to€this€issue.€Ìñ°ñœñ°ññªñÌñªññ­ñ›ñ­ññªñÌñªññ®ñ›ñ®ññªñÌñªññ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÐ  :À00 ÐÓ  ÓòòXI.€€Jury€Instruction€to€ð ðContinue€DeliberationsððóóÐ `  ÐÓÒŸÓÌà ` àDuring€deliberations€following€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€jury€twice€soughtÏguidance€from€the€judge.€€In€the€first€instance,€the€jury€sent€two€questions€to€theÏjudge.€€First,€the€jury€wanted€to€know€ð ðCan€the€51€years€sentence€[for€lifeÏimprisonment]€ever€be€changed€by€statute,ðð€and€secondly€€ð ðWhat€happens€if€the€JuryÏcannot€come€to€a€unanimous€decision?ðð€€In€response€to€those€questions,€the€judgeÏsimply€replied€that€he€could€not€answer€those€questions.€€A€few€minutes€later,€theÏjury€sent€a€statement€to€the€judge€informing€him€that€they€could€all€agree€on€theÏaggravating€circumstances,€but€that€they€could€not€reach€a€decision€as€to€theÏsentence€to€impose.€€The€judge€sent€a€written€response€instructing€them€to€ð ðcontinueÏdeliberations€per€earlier€instructions.ððÌÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€the€guidelines€set€forth€inÐ È#h ÐòòKersey€v.€Stateóó,€525€S.W.2d€139€(Tenn.€1975)€and€in€Section€5.4€of€the€ABAÐ Ð%p ÐStandards€Relating€to€Trial€by€Jury€by€directing€the€jury€to€ð ðcontinue€deliberations.ðð€Ï€Defendant€argues€that€the€statement€essentially€coerced€the€jury€into€returning€theÏverdict.€€Specifically,€the€òòKerseyóó€court€formulated€the€following€instructions€a€judgeÐ è+ˆ"" Ðshould€issue€when€faced€with€a€deadlocked€jury:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€verdict€must€represent€the€considered€judgment€ofÏeach€juror.€€In€order€to€return€a€verdict,€it€is€necessary€thatÏeach€juror€agree€thereto.€€Your€verdict€must€beÏñ°ñœñ°ñunanimous.ñ°ñ›ñ°ñ€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðñ°ñœñ°ñÓŽ¥ÓÓÓÌñ°ñ›ñ°ñÓÀ¦ÓÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àIt€is€your€duty,€as€jurors,€to€consult€with€one€another€andÏto€deliberate€with€a€view€to€reaching€an€agreement,€if€youÏcan€do€so€without€violence€to€individual€judgment.€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àEach€of€you€must€decide€the€case€for€yourself,€but€do€soÏonly€after€an€impartial€consideration€of€the€evidence€withÏyour€fellow€jurors.€€In€the€course€of€your€deliberations,€doÐ  :À00 Ðnot€hesitate€to€reexamine€your€own€view€and€change€yourÏopinion€if€convinced€it€is€erroneous.€€But€do€not€surrenderÏyour€honest€conviction€as€to€the€weight€or€effect€ofÏevidence€solely€because€of€the€opinion€of€your€fellowÏjurors,€or€for€the€mere€purpose€of€returning€a€verdict.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓô¦ÓÌòòKerseyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€145.€€The€court€also€noted€that€the€charge€may€be€given€onlyÐ | Ðin€the€form€specified€in€that€opinion,€and€then,€only€when€it€was€given€as€part€of€theÏmain€charge.€€ð ðStrict€adherence€is€expected€and€variations€will€not€be€permissible.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€145.à ¸ àà  àÐ ”4  ÐÌà ` àAs€to€the€first€set€of€questions€sent€to€the€judge€by€the€jury,€we€find€that€theÏquestions€alone€are€insufficient€to€show€that€the€jury€was€deadlocked.€€The€juryÏsimply€asked€if€the€verdict€had€to€be€unanimous;€it€did€not€actually€say€that€they€wereÏdeadlocked.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€dictates€of€òòKerseyóó€do€not€apply.€Ð ¼ \ ÐÌà ` àAs€to€the€judgeððs€response€to€the€second€question€sent€to€him,€ð ðcontinueÏdeliberations€per€earlier€instructions,ðð€we€find€that€the€comment€was€not€directed€toÏjurors€in€the€minority,€nor€did€it€urge€such€jurors€to€reevaluate€or€to€cede€their€viewsÏto€those€of€the€majority.€€Similarly,€the€court€did€not€impose€a€deadline€on€the€jury€forÏits€deliberation.€€We€find€that€the€case€is€similar€to€òòState€v.€Baxteróó,€938€S.W.2d€697,Ð ì,Œ## Ð703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997),€in€which€theÐ ô.”%% Ðjudge€told€the€jury,€ð ðIððm€going€to€have€you€continue€to€deliberate.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ü0œ'' ÐDickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€946€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€As€in€òòBaxteróó,€we€do€not€viewÐ 3¤)) Ðthe€trial€courtððs€comments€as€requiring€a€reversal€of€the€conviction.€€An€error€in€theÏcharge€to€the€jury€is€not€grounds€for€reversal€unless€it€affirmatively€appears€that€theÏerror€has€affected€the€results€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€òòVanderbiltÐ 9¼// ÐUniversity€v.€Steelyóó,€566€S.W.2d€853,€854€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€remarks€by€the€courtÐ `  Ðwere€not€an€ð ðundue€intrusion€.€.€.€into€this€exclusive€province€of€the€jury€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòKerseyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€144;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€707€S.W.2d€846,€851€(Tenn.Ð p  Ð1986);€òòBass€v.€Barksdaleóó,€671€S.W.2d€476€(Tenn.€App.€1984)€(adopting€òòKerseyóó€andÐ x Ðnoting€that€ð ð[n]othing€should€be€done€or€said€to€a€juror€which€can€in€any€manner€beÏtaken€by€that€juror€to€indicate€that€he€or€she€should€abandon€an€honestly€heldÏconviction€in€order€to€reach€a€verdict€.€.€.€.ðð).€€Therefore,€Defendant€is€not€entitled€toÏrelief€on€this€ground.ÌÌÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àà @ àòòXII.€€Viewing€of€Video€Taped€Confession€in€Jury€Roomóó€Ð ¨H ÐÓõ³ÓÌà ` àIn€this€issue,€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€byÏpermitting€the€jury€to€view€the€video€tape€of€his€confession€during€the€deliberationsÏfollowing€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€Rule€30.1€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àò òJury€Examination€of€Exhibitsó 󀄄€Upon€retiring€to€considerÐ Ð%p Ðits€verdict,€the€jury€òòshall€óótake€to€the€jury€room€all€exhibitsÐ Ô&t Ðand€writings€which€have€been€received€in€evidence,Ïexcept€depositions,€for€their€examination€duringÏdeliberations,€òòunlessóó€the€court,€for€òògood€causeóó,€determinesÐ à)€  Ðthat€an€exhibit€should€not€be€taken€to€the€jury€room.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ©µÓÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.1€(emphasis€added).€€First,€it€is€well€established€that€a€jury€inÏa€bifurcated€trial€may€rely€upon€the€evidence€presented€during€the€guilt€phase€of€trial.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e);€òòState€v.€Teagueóó,€897€S.W.2d€248,€250„51Ð 2 (( Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€Therefore,€contrary€to€Defendantððs€assertion,€it€is€irrelevant€that€theÏState€did€not€introduce€the€videotape€as€evidence€during€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÏDefendant€also€argues€that€the€tape€should€have€been€excluded€because€it€wasÏmade€in€violation€of€his€federal€and€state€constitutional€rights€as€discussedÐ  :À00 Ðpreviously€in€this€opinion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€states€that€ð ðintroductionÏof€any€evidence€secured€in€violation€of€the€constitution€of€the€United€States€or€theÏconstitution€of€Tennesseeðð€is€not€authorized.€€However,€as€we€determined€in€IssuesÏI„IV,€introduction€of€the€tape€was€not€a€violation€of€any€of€Defendantððs€constitutionalÏrights.€€We€can€find€no€ð ðgood€causeðð€reason€as€to€why€the€videotape€should€not€haveÏbeen€taken€to€the€jury€room.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌñªñœñªñÓ  ÓòòÌñ°ñœñ°ñConclusionóóÐ ˜8 Ðñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÌÓ  Óà ` àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€entire€record,€including€the€transcripts,€exhibits,Ïvideo€cassettes,€and€briefs,€we€respectfully€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌñ°ñœñ°ñÌñªñ›ñªñÌñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìñ°ñœñ°ñJOEñ°ñ›ñ°ññ°ññ°ñ€G.€RILEY,€Judge