ÿWPC© …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 0l9 0D¥ é ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU*B)©DCÒ AM Bb¦š D3@v~svÓñ 0@Ä AOÆS 0D D/] BŒ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÁÂEÃÄeÅEÆÇDÈÉÊÓ€Úƒç"((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó"|xÕ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òNovember€26,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€30€became€effective€January€1,€1996,€and€was€a€one€year€pilotÏà0 àproject€which€was€to€expire€on€December€31,€1996.€€However,€on€December€30,€1996,€the€rule,Ïas€amended,€was€made€permanent.Ì'''''ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€LúXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€&(%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9611„CR„00408Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€MARY€BETH€LEIBOWITZó óÌò òCHRISTA€GAIL€PIKE,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(First€Degree€Murder„Death€Penalty)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€KNOX€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌWILLIAM€C.€TALMANà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌP.O.€Box€506à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„0506Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àKATHY€MORANTEÌJULIE€A.€MARTINà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€426à àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„0426à àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€CRABTREEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àS.€JO€HELMÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÑ  ÑÑ7€LúXXdðXXdð7Ñòòò òÔ€#XÔÌÓÓÓ  Óà àóóó óÔ€#ŠÔIn€this€capital€case,€the€Defendant,€Christa€Gail€Pike,€was€convicted€ofÏfirst€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€After€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€That€theÏmurder€was€extremely€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death;€and€(2)€thatÏthe€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€orÏpreventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€Defendant€or€another.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€and€(6).€€The€jury€found€that€the€State€had€provenÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighedÏany€mitigating€circumstances€and€sentenced€the€Defendant€to€death€byÏelectrocution.€€The€Defendant€was€also€sentenced€to€a€consecutive€sentence€ofÏtwenty„five€(25)€years€for€the€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder€conviction.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÏverdict€of€first€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commitÏfirst€degree€murder€and€the€sentence€of€death;òòò òÌÌà8 àà8 àó óóó(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€prohibitÏthe€news€media€from€covering€pretrial€proceedings;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€theÏDefendantððs€motion€for€a€change€of€venue;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€allow€theÏDefendant€to€select€a€jury€composed€of€a€cross„section€of€the€citizens€of€Tennessee;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€skull€ofÏthe€victim€into€evidence;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€whether€death€by€electrocution€is€cruel€andÏunusual€punishment€under€the€federal€and€stateÏconstitutions;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€stateÏand€the€Defendant€the€same€number€of€peremptoryÏchallenges;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€sentencing€on€theÏconspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder€conviction.ÌÌÓÓà àà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€both€the€convictions€and€theÏsentence€of€death.€Ô€#¼ÔÌ€Ìò òÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÓ  Óà àOn€January€13,€1995,€N.€Duncan€Whitaker€Sutherland,€an€employee€ofÏthe€University€of€Tennessee€Grounds€Department,€discovered€the€semi„nude,Ïslashed€and€badly€beaten€body€of€a€young€female€near€the€greenhouses€onÏthe€agricultural€campus.€€He€immediately€notified€officials.€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àOfficers€from€the€Knoxville€Police€Department€and€the€U.T.€PoliceÏDepartment€were€summoned€to€the€scene.€€Officer€John€Terry€Johnson€testifiedÏat€trial€that€the€body€he€found€was€lying€face€down€on€debris€and€was€nudeÍfrom€the€waist€up.€€Blood€and€dirt€covered€the€body€and€remaining€clothing,€andÏit€was€apparent€that€the€victimððs€head€had€been€bludgeoned.€€Multiple€cuts€andÏslashes€appeared€on€the€torso.€€Officer€Johnson€stated€that€he€thought€he€wasÏlooking€at€the€victimððs€face€but€he€could€not€be€sure€because€it€was€extremelyÏmutilated.ÌÌà àAs€other€officers€arrived,€they€began€securing€the€crime€area.€€The€area€ofÏthe€crime€scene€tripled€as€officers€discovered€other€spots€of€blood,€articles€ofÏclothing,€footprints,€and€broken€foliage.€€When€officers€turned€the€body€over,€itÏappeared€that€the€victimððs€throat€had€been€slashed.€€A€rag€was€around€theÏvictimððs€neck.€€Detective€Donald€R.€Cook,€of€the€U.T.€Police€Department,Ïaccompanied€the€body€to€the€morgue,€and€he€testified€at€trial€that€after€the€bodyÏwas€cleaned,€it€was€apparent€that€a€design€resembling€a€pentagram€had€beenÏcarved€in€the€victimððs€chest.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Sandra€Elkins,€the€Knox€County€Medical€Examiner,€testified€at€trialÏthat€she€had€performed€the€autopsy€on€the€victim,€who€was€later€identified€byÏdental€records€as€Colleen€Slemmer.€€She€testified€that€after€removing€the€victimððsÏclothing€and€cleaning€the€body,€she€had€started€with€the€torso€to€documentÏmajor€sharp€force€or€slash€and€stab€wounds.€€If€it€was€a€fairly€major€wound,Ïshe€would€measure€it€and€assign€it€a€letter.€€Utilizing€a€chart€to€demonstrate€herÏfindings,€Dr.€Elkins€described€each€major€wound,€later€explaining€that€at€someÍpoint€it€became€obvious€that€if€she€labeled€each€wound,€she€would€have€to€goÏthrough€the€alphabet€again,€and€unless€she€ð ðwanted€to€stay€there€for€threeÏdays,ðð€she€ð ðbasically€threw€up€[her]€hands€and€just€said,€enumerable€[sic]€moreÏsuperficial€slash€wounds€on€the€back,€arms€and€chest.ððÌÌà àDr.€Elkins€noted€numerous€slash€and€stab€wounds€on€the€back,€arms,Ïabdomen,€and€chest.€€She€described€a€six€inch€gaping€wound€across€theÏmiddle€of€the€victimððs€neck€which€had€penetrated€the€fat€and€muscles€of€theÏneck€and€stated€that€she€had€found€ten€additional€slash€wounds€on€the€victimððsÏneck€and€in€the€throat€area.€€Other€slash€wounds€were€on€the€victimððs€face€andÏit€appeared€that€a€pentagram€had€been€carved€on€her€chest.€€Dr.€ElkinsÏrepeatedly€stated€that€throughout€the€infliction€of€each€of€these€injuries,€she€wasÏmedically€certain€that€the€victim€had€been€alive€because€of€the€vital€reactionÏappearing€around€each€wound.€€She€stated€that€the€area€around€each€woundÏwas€red€in€appearance,€indicating€that€the€heart€had€still€been€beating€whenÏthe€wound€was€inflicted.€€She€also€testified€that€none€of€the€aforementionedÏwounds€would€have€rendered€the€victim€unconscious.ÌÌà àDr.€Elkins€testified€that€the€cause€of€death€was€blunt€force€injuries€to€theÏhead.€€She€stated€that€the€skull€showed€a€minimum€of€four€blows€to€the€head;Ïtwo€to€the€left€side€of€the€head,€one€over€the€right€eye,€and€one€in€the€noseÏarea.€€The€right€frontal€area€of€the€skull€had€been€fractured€as€had€the€bridge€ofÍthe€nose.€€However,€the€major€wound,€labeled€as€injury€ð ðWðð,€involved€most€ofÏthe€left€side€of€the€head.€€Dr.€Elkins€determined€that€this€injury,€caused€by€a€bluntÏblow€to€the€left€side€of€the€head,€had€fractured€the€right€side€of€the€skull€andÏimbedded€part€of€the€skull€in€the€victimððs€brain.€€€€She€also€found€small€divots€inÏthe€skull€containing€black€particles€from€an€asphalt€chunk€which€was€laterÏdetermined€to€have€been€used€to€administer€the€blows.ÌÌà àDuring€this€portion€of€her€testimony,€Dr.€Elkins€was€allowed€to€use€theÏvictimððs€skull€to€describe€the€injuries.€€She€testified€that€in€order€to€determine€theÏcause€of€death,€it€was€necessary€to€remove€the€head€of€the€victim€and€haveÏthe€skull€prepared€by€Dr.€Murray€Marks,€a€forensic€anthropologist€at€theÏUniversity€of€Tennessee.€€She€explained€that€she€had€cut€the€top€portion€of€theÏskull€in€order€to€remove€the€brain€and€when€she€had€removed€the€brain,€sheÏdiscovered€that€loose€pieces€of€skull€were€driven€into€it.€€She€testified€that€at€thatÏtime€it€seemed€there€was€a€larger€hole€in€the€skull€than€the€pieces€she€hadÏremoved€from€the€brain€would€fill.€€Dr.€Marks€had€pieced€together€those€looseÏportions€of€the€skull€and€had€fitted€them€into€the€left€side€area€of€the€head.€€Dr.ÏElkins€then€showed€the€jury€a€piece€of€skull€that€had€been€given€to€her€theÏFriday€before€the€trial€and€demonstrated€that€it€fit€perfectly€into€the€rest€of€theÏskull.€€The€skull,€numerous€photographs,€and€items€of€the€victimððs€clothing€wereÏintroduced€into€evidence.€ÌÌà àRobert€A.€Pollock,€the€orientation€specialist€at€Knoxville€Job€Corps,Ïtestified€that€he€had€spoken€with€the€Defendant€on€January€13,€1995,Ïconcerning€a€misplaced€I.D.€card.€€He€stated€that€after€the€Defendant€had€left,Ïhe€noticed€a€black€leather€jacket€hanging€on€the€chair€where€she€had€sat.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€had€locked€the€room€at€approximately€4:00€p.m.€that€day€andÏdid€not€return€until€7:30€a.m.,€January€17.€€He€stated€that€on€the€17th,€he€foundÏthe€jacket€still€hanging€on€the€chair€and€took€it€to€the€Job€Corpsðð€Safety€andÏSecurity€Captain,€William€Hudson.€€Hudson€testified€that€he€had€called€theÏKnoxville€Police€Department€and€that€Officer€Arthur€Bohanan€had€picked€up€theÏjacket.ÌÌà àOfficer€Bohanan€identified€the€coat,€and€it€was€introduced€into€evidence.€ÏHe€testified€that€he€had€discovered€a€small€piece€of€bone€in€the€inside€pocket€ofÏthe€coat€and€had€immediately€taken€it€to€Dr.€Marks€at€the€University€ofÏTennessee.€€Dr.€Marks€testified€concerning€the€process€by€which€the€skull€hadÏbeen€prepared€and€again€demonstrated€that€the€bone€fragment€given€to€him€byÏOfficer€Bohanan€fit€perfectly€into€the€bone€reconstruction€of€the€skull€of€the€victim.ÌÌà àKim€Iloilo,€a€Job€Corps€resident/student€and€friend€of€the€Defendant,Ïtestified€that€the€Defendant€told€her€on€January€11,€1995,€the€day€before€theÏmurder,€that€she€was€going€to€kill€Colleen€Slemmer€because€ð ðshe€just€felt€meanÏthat€day.ðð€€The€following€day,€the€Defendant€met€Iloilo€in€the€parking€lot€atÍapproximately€4:00€p.m.€and€told€her€that€she€needed€to€find€Shadolla€Peterson.€ÏLater€that€evening,€at€approximately€8:00€p.m.,€Iloilo€saw€the€Defendant€leaveÏthe€Job€Corps€Center€with€the€victim,€Tadaryl€Shipp,€and€Shadolla€Peterson.€ÏShe€saw€Shipp€return€to€the€Center€at€approximately€10:15€p.m.€€TheÏDefendant€and€Peterson€returned€five€minutes€later.€€ÌÌà àIloilo€testified€that€the€Defendant€then€came€to€her€room€to€tell€her€that€sheÏhad€just€killed€Colleen€Slemmer.€€The€Defendant€showed€Iloilo€a€piece€ofÏSlemmerððs€skull€she€had€kept€as€a€souvenir.€€The€Defendant€told€Iloilo€that€sheÏhad€cut€Slemmerððs€throat,€had€beaten€her,€and€had€thrown€pieces€of€asphalt€atÏher€head.€€The€Defendant€stated€that€as€she€was€cutting€Slemmerððs€throat,ÏSlemmer€was€asking€her€to€stop,€but€that€she€continued€to€cut€her€throatÏbecause€ð ðshe€kept€talking.ðð€€Iloilo€stated€that€as€the€Defendant€described€hittingÏSlemmer€in€the€head€with€a€piece€of€asphalt€and€carving€a€pentagram€in€herÏchest,€she€danced€around€in€a€circle,€smiling€and€singing.€€Iloilo€testified€that€atÏbreakfast€the€next€morning,€Iloilo€asked€the€Defendant€about€the€piece€of€skullÏand€the€Defendant€told€her€it€was€in€her€pocket,€stating€ð ðAnd,€yes,€Iððm€eatingÏbreakfast€with€it.ðð€€Iloilo€identified€the€black€jacket€that€had€previously€beenÏintroduced€into€evidence€as€one€similar€to€a€jacket€the€victim€often€wore.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Iloilo€admitted€that€she€did€nothing€when€theÏDefendant€told€her€of€her€intention€to€kill€Slemmer€because€she€had€just€ð ðblownÍ[it]€off€as€soon€as€it€was€said.ðð€€She€testified€that€she€had€never€seen€theÏDefendant€fight€with€anyone€else.ÌÌà àStephanie€Leigh€Wilson,€another€resident/student€at€the€Job€CorpsÏCenter,€testified€that€on€January€13,€1995,€she€had€been€in€class€with€theÏDefendant€when€the€Defendant€told€her€to€look€at€the€Defendantððs€shoes,Ïstating,€ð ðThat€ainððt€mud€on€my€shoes.€€Thatððs€blood.ðð€€Wilson€stated€that€theÏDefendant€then€showed€her€a€piece€of€human€skull€and€told€her€that€she€hadÏslashed€Slemmerððs€throat€and€had€beaten€her€in€the€head€with€a€rock.€€OnÏcross„examination,€Wilson€admitted€that€in€a€prior€statement€to€police€officers,Ïshe€had€stated€that€the€Defendant€told€her€that€the€killing€ð ðhad€been€a€spur€ofÏthe€moment€thing.ððÌÌà àRandy€York,€a€criminal€investigator€with€the€Knoxville€Police€Department,Ïtestified€that€he€had€been€assigned€this€case€on€January€13,€1995.€€He€testifiedÏthat€on€the€following€day,€he€interviewed€the€Defendant€and€Tadaryl€Shipp€atÏthe€Police€Department€and€that€he€had€informed€them€of€their€rights€and€hadÏtaken€a€statement€from€the€Defendant.€€He€stated€that€the€Defendant€explainedÏin€detail€how€the€killing€had€occurred€and€told€him€that€the€blood„stained€jeansÏshe€had€worn€during€the€incident€were€still€in€her€room.€€She€also€told€OfficerÏYork€that€she€had€discarded€two€pieces€of€I.D.€of€the€victim€and€the€victimððsÏblack€gloves€in€a€trash€can€at€a€Texaco€station€on€Cumberland€Avenue.€€TheÍDefendant€gave€consent€to€search€her€room€and€then€went€with€York€back€toÏthe€Job€Corps€Center.€€From€there€the€Defendant€retraced€her€steps,€describingÏwhat€had€occurred€on€the€night€of€the€killing.€€She€eventually€took€Officer€York€toÏthe€exact€location€where€the€body€was€found.€€The€Defendant€later€gave€aÏtape„recorded€statement,€which€was€transcribed€in€some€forty„six€(46)€pages.€ÏCopies€of€the€transcription€were€given€to€the€jury,€and€the€jurors€were€allowed€toÏlisten€to€the€tape€through€individual€headphones.€ÌÌà àIn€her€statement€made€to€Officer€York,€the€Defendant€stated€that€she€andÏSlemmer€had€been€having€problems€for€some€time.€€She€recounted€an€incidentÏwhereby€she€had€awakened€one€night€to€find€Slemmer€standing€over€her€with€aÏbox€cutter.€€She€stated€that€Slemmer€had€been€ð ðtrying€to€get€[her]€boyfriendðð€andÏhad€been€ð ðrunning€her€mouthðð€everywhere.€€She€stated€that€on€the€night€of€theÏkilling,€she€had€planned€only€to€fight€Slemmer€and€let€her€know€ð ðto€leave€me€theÏhell€alone.ðð€€ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€Defendant,€she€asked€Slemmer€to€accompany€her€toÏBlockbuster€Music€Store,€and€as€they€were€walking,€the€Defendant€toldÏSlemmer€that€she€had€a€bag€of€ð ðweedðð€hidden€in€Tyson€Park.€€The€group€(theÏDefendant€refused€to€name€other€parties€who€were€involved€in€the€incident)Ïsmoked€marijuana€and€began€walking€toward€the€U.T.€campus.€€Upon€arrivingÏat€the€steam€plant€on€U.T.ððs€agricultural€campus,€the€Defendant€and€SlemmerÍexchanged€words.€€The€Defendant€then€began€hitting€Slemmer€and€banging€herÏhead€on€the€Defendantððs€knee.€€She€threw€Slemmer€on€the€ground€and€kickedÏher€repeatedly.€€According€to€the€Defendant,€as€she€slammed€Slemmerððs€headÏinto€concrete,€Slemmer€kept€asking,€ð ðWhy€are€you€doing€this€to€me?ðð€€TheÏDefendant€continued€to€kick€Slemmer€in€the€face€and€in€her€side€as€SlemmerÏcried.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€and€another€person€held€the€victim€down€and€dragged€herÏto€another€area€where€the€Defendant€cut€her€with€a€box€cutter.€€The€DefendantÏstated€that€as€Slemmer€screamed,€she€began€to€hear€voices€telling€her€thatÏSlemmer€would€tell€on€her€and€that€she€would€go€to€prison€for€attempted€murder.€ÏSlemmer€attempted€to€get€up€and€the€Defendant€cut€her€on€the€back.€€TheÏDefendant€stated€that€Slemmer€kept€trying€to€get€up€and€run,€telling€theÏDefendant€that€if€she€would€just€let€her€go€she€would€walk€back€to€her€home€inÏFlorida.€€The€Defendant€told€her€to€ð ðshut€upðð€because€it€€ð ðwas€harder€to€hurtÏsomebody€when€theyððre€talking€to€you.ðð€€The€Defendant€stated€that€the€moreÏSlemmer€talked,€the€more€the€Defendant€kicked€her.ÌÌà àSlemmer€asked€the€Defendant€what€she€was€going€to€do€to€her,€and€theÏDefendant€thought€she€heard€something.€€The€Defendant€left€the€scene€to€checkÏout€the€surrounding€area€to€make€sure€no€one€€was€around.€€When€sheÏreturned,€the€Defendant€began€cutting€Slemmer€across€the€throat.€€WhenÍSlemmer€continued€to€talk,€the€Defendant€cut€her€throat€more.€€The€DefendantÏstated€that€the€episode€lasted€ð ðfor€about€thirty€minutes€to€an€hour.ðð€€ÌÌà àSlemmer€attempted€to€run€again,€and€the€Defendant€threw€a€rock€whichÏhit€Slemmer€in€the€back€of€the€head.€€She€stated€that€ð ðthe€other€personðð€also€hitÏSlemmer€in€the€head€with€a€rock.€€The€Defendant€continued€to€hit€her€and€thenÏasked€her,€ð ðColleen,€do€you€know€whoððs€doing€this€to€you?,ðð€but€according€toÏthe€Defendant,€Slemmer€only€made€groaning€noises.€€The€Defendant€and€theÏother€person€washed€their€hands€and€shoes€in€a€mud€puddle.€€They€discardedÏthe€box€cutter€and€the€miniature€meat€cleaver€that€had€been€used€in€the€incident.€ÏThe€Defendant€described€dragging€Slemmer€to€some€nearby€trees€and€leavingÏher€clothes€in€the€bushes.€€After€the€Defendantððs€statement€was€played€for€theÏjury,€pictures€of€the€Defendant€and€Tadaryl€Shipp,€each€of€them€wearing€aÏnecklace€in€the€shape€of€a€pentagram,€were€introduced€into€evidence.€€ÌÌà àMark€A.€Waggoner,€an€officer€with€the€Knoxville€Police€Department,Ïtestified€that€he€had€been€dispatched€to€a€Texaco€Station€on€CumberlandÏAvenue€where€he€retrieved€a€pair€of€black€gloves€and€two€of€Slemmerððs€I.D.Ïcards.€€These€items€were€also€made€exhibits.€€Another€officer,€Lanny€Janeway,Ïused€a€chart€to€illustrate€each€of€the€locations€where€blood€or€evidence€wasÏfound.€€Photographs€of€bloody€chunks€of€asphalt,€blood€drippings€on€leaves,Íand€pools€of€blood€were€introduced€into€evidence.€€The€bloody€piece€of€asphaltÏand€the€victimððs€bloody€clothing€were€also€introduced€into€evidence.ÌÌà àSpecial€Agent€Raymond€A.€DePriest,€a€forensic€scientist€employed€byÏthe€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€testified€that€he€had€received€bloodÏsamples€taken€from€the€shoes€and€clothing€of€the€Defendant€and€Shipp.€€ThoseÏitems€that€he€determined€had€human€blood€on€them€were€sent€to€the€DNA€unit.€ÏMargaret€Bush,€an€employee€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÏassigned€to€the€DNA€unit,€testified€that€the€shoes€of€the€Defendant€and€ShippÏcontained€an€insufficient€amount€of€DNA€for€analysis€but€that€the€blood€on€theÏclothing€of€both€had€matched€the€DNA€profile€of€the€victim.€€She€stated€that€thereÏwas€a€1€in€200,147€chance€in€the€Caucasian€community€that€there€would€beÏsuch€a€match€and€a€1€in€600,018€chance€in€the€African„American€community.€ÏThe€state€rested€its€case.ÌÌà àDr.€Eric€Engum,€a€psychologist€retained€by€the€Defendant,€testified€for€theÏdefense€that€he€had€conducted€a€clinical€interview€and€had€administered€aÏbattery€of€tests€to€the€Defendant.€€He€concluded€that€the€Defendant€suffers€fromÏa€very€severe€borderline€personality€disorder€and€exhibits€signs€of€cannabisÏdependence€and€inhalant€abuse.€€He€testified€that€the€Defendant€is€not€soÏdysfunctional€that€she€needs€to€be€institutionalized€but€that€she€has€a€multiplicityÏof€problems€in€interpersonal€relationships,€in€controlling€her€behavior,€and€inÍachieving€vocational€and€academic€goals.€€He€stated€that€the€battery€of€testsÏadministered€to€the€Defendant€indicated€that€she€is€an€extremely€intelligentÏyoung€woman.ÌÌà àDr.€Engum€stated€that€it€was€his€opinion€that€the€Defendant€did€not€act€Ïwith€deliberation€or€premeditation€in€killing€Slemmer,€but€had€acted€in€a€mannerÏconsistent€with€his€diagnosis€of€borderline€personality€disorder;€she€lost€control.€ÏHe€explained€that€she€had€danced€around€when€relating€the€event€to€anotherÏperson€because€of€the€emotional€release€she€experienced€from€having€assuredÏthrough€the€killing€of€Slemmer€that€she€could€maintain€her€relationship€with€Shipp.ÏWhen€questioned€about€the€piece€of€skull€found€in€the€Defendantððs€coat,€Dr.ÏEngum€explained€that€the€Defendant€actually€has€no€identity€and€the€action€ofÏtaking€and€showing€a€piece€of€Slemmerððs€skull€to€friends€was€her€way€of€gettingÏrecognition,€ð ðno€matter€how€distortedðð€that€recognition€was.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Engum€stated€that€there€was€no€question€thatÏthe€Defendant€had€killed€Slemmer.€€He€reiterated€that€it€was€his€opinion€thatÏonce€the€attack€began,€the€Defendant€literally€lost€control.€€However,€Dr.€EngumÏadmitted€that€it€had€been€a€deliberate€act€to€entice€Slemmer€to€the€park€to€beatÏher.€€He€admitted€that€carving€a€pentagram€on€Slemmerððs€chest€and€bashingÏher€head€had€been€a€deliberate€act.€€He€recognized€that€the€Defendant€hadÏtime€to€calm€down€when€she€left€Slemmer€to€see€if€anyone€was€around.€€HeÍalso€conceded€that€the€weapons€the€Defendant€carried€with€her€and€used€inÏthe€attack€might€indicate€that€she€had€intended€to€kill€the€victim.€ÌÌà àWilliam€Bernet,€medical€director€of€the€psychiatric€hospital€at€VanderbiltÏUniversity,€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€the€statement€of€the€Defendant€andÏKimberly€Iloilo€and€the€reports€of€Dr€Engum,€Dr.€Elkins€and€Dr.€Marks.€€€HeÏconcluded€that€although€there€were€satanic€elements€in€this€crime,€the€patternÏwas€that€of€an€adolescent€dabbling€in€Satanism.€€He€then€described€a€patternÏknown€as€the€phenomenon€of€collective€aggression,€whereby€a€group€ofÏpeople€gather€and€become€emotionally€aroused€and€the€end€result€is€that€theyÏengage€in€some€kind€of€violent€behavior.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€BernetÏadmitted€that€he€had€spoken€neither€with€the€Defendant€nor€any€of€theÏwitnesses.€ÌÌà àBased€on€this€evidence€in€the€guilt€phase,€the€jury€found€the€Defendant,ÏChrista€Gail€Pike,€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commit€firstÏdegree€murder.ÌÌà àIn€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€the€State€relied€on€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€the€guilt€phase€and€presented€no€further€proof.€€In€mitigation,€ÏCarrie€Ross,€the€Defendantððs€aunt,€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€experiencedÏno€maternal€bonding€because€she€was€premature€and€was€raised€by€herÍpaternal€grandmother€until€she€died€in€1988.€€Ross€stated€that€the€DefendantÏwas€shuffled€between€her€mother€and€father€and€that€the€Defendantððs€motherÏset€no€rules€for€her.€€She€testified€that€on€the€occasions€that€the€Defendant€hadÏvisited€her€house,€she€behaved€as€a€ð ðlittle€girl,ðð€playing€Barbie€and€dress„upÏwith€her€eleven„year„old€cousin.€€On€cross„examination,€however,€Ms.€RossÏadmitted€that€she€had€previously€described€the€Defendant€as€a€pathological€liarÏand€had€been€afraid€to€have€the€Defendant€around€her€own€children.€€SheÏadmitted€saying€that€the€Defendant€had€been€out€of€control€since€she€wasÏtwelve„years€old.ÌÌà àGlenn€Pike,€the€Defendantððs€father,€testified€that€he€had€kicked€theÏDefendant€out€of€his€house€in€1989€and€that€he€had€signed€adoption€papers€forÏher€prior€to€her€eighteenth€birthday.€€On€cross„examination,€he€admitted€that€inÏ1989,€there€had€been€an€allegation€that€the€Defendant€had€abused€his€two„year„€old€daughter€by€a€second€wife.€€He€stated€that€he€was€unable€to€makeÏthe€Defendant€do€her€schoolwork€and€that€she€had€always€lied€and€beenÏmanipulative.ÌÌà àThe€Defendantððs€mother,€Carissa€Hansen,€a€licensed€practical€nurse,Ïtestified€that€the€Defendant€had€lived€with€her€95%€of€the€time€since€herÏgrandmotherððs€death.€€She€admitted€smoking€marijuana€with€the€Defendant€inÏorder€to€ð ðestablish€a€friendship.ðð€€She€related€that€the€Defendant€had€taken€anÍoverdose€shortly€after€the€death€of€her€paternal€grandmother.€€Hansen€alsoÏtestified€that€one€of€her€boyfriends€had€whipped€the€Defendant€with€a€belt€andÏthat€she€had€the€boyfriend€arrested.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€Hansen€admitted€that€the€Defendant€hadÏbeen€a€problem€for€ten€years.€€She€admitted€that€the€Defendant€had€pulled€aÏð ðbutcher„knifeðð€on€the€previously€mentioned€boyfriend.€€She€testified€that€theÏDefendant€had€lied€to€her€and€stolen€from€her€on€numerous€occasions€and€hadÏquit€high€school.€€She€stated€that€she€had€no€control€over€the€Defendant€sinceÏshe€was€eight€years€old.€€Following€Ms.€Hansenððs€testimony,€the€defenseÏrested.ÌÌà àAs€rebuttal€proof,€Harold€James€Underwood,€Jr.,€a€University€ofÏTennessee€police€officer,€testified€that€on€January€13,€1995,€he€was€assigned€toÏsecure€the€murder€scene€in€this€case.€€He€testified€that€the€Defendant€came€toÏthe€scene€at€approximately€4:00€p.m.€and€asked€him€why€the€area€had€beenÏmarked€off.€€She€then€questioned€him€concerning€the€identity€of€the€victim€andÏwhether€or€not€the€police€had€any€suspects.€€Underwood€testified€that€theÏDefendant€seemed€amused€as€she€was€giggling€and€moving€around.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€proof,€the€jury€found€the€existence€of€the€following€twoÏaggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€(1)€That€the€murderÍwas€extremely€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death;€and€(2)€that€theÏmurder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€or€preventingÏa€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€Defendant€or€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„204(i)(5)€and€(6).€€In€addition,€the€jury€found€that€the€State€had€provenÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighedÏany€mitigating€circumstances€and€as€a€result,€sentenced€the€Defendant€toÏdeath.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔTRIAL€ERRORSÔ€#XÔÌÔ€#ŠÔA.€Sufficiency€of€the€Proofó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€State€did€not€prove€every€element€of€theÏoffenses€of€first€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murderÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Specifically,€in€regard€to€the€first€degree€murderÏconviction,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€State€did€not€introduce€any€evidenceÏrelating€to€deliberation€or€of€the€Defendant€having€the€opportunity€to€reflect€uponÏher€actions€after€ð ðthe€mind€was€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement€or€passion.ðð€ÏShe€argues€that€there€was€no€proof€outside€of€the€uncorroborated€statement€ofÏthe€Defendant€that€Shadolla€Peterson€or€Tadaryl€Shipp€participated€in€theÏmurder€so€as€to€warrant€the€conviction€of€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degreeÏmurder.€€The€Defendant€also€maintains€that€the€proof€was€insufficient€to€justifyÍthe€juryððs€sentence€of€death€and€that€the€jury€failed€to€properly€consider€andÏweigh€the€mitigating€factors€against€the€aggravating€factors.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,Ïwe€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€"any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443ÏU.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€state€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonableÏand€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€AÏguilty€verdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).òòÌÌà àóóAn€appellant€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€to€this€court€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdictÍreturned€by€the€trier€of€fact€in€his€or€her€case.€€This€court€will€not€disturb€a€verdictÏof€guilt€for€lack€of€sufficient€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€andÏany€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€facts€are€insufficient,€as€a€matterÏof€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€39„13„201(a)€and€„201(b)€provideÏthat€a€deliberate€act€is€"one€performed€with€a€cool€purpose"€and€a€premeditatedÏact€is€"one€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment."€€The€existence€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€is€a€question€of€fact€that€may€be€inferred€from€theÏmanner€and€circumstances€of€the€homicide.€€òòState€v.€Tuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€922,Ï925€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€òòTuneóó,€this€Court€held€that€€"[w]hile€willful€killingÏwith€a€deadly€weapon€is€not€sufficient€by€itself€to€support€an€inference€ofÏpremeditation,€there€were€other€circumstances€before€the€jurors€from€which€theyÏcould€infer€the€existence€of€both€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€thisÏDefendant's€mind."€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidence€reflects€that€theÏDefendant€told€a€friend€the€day€before€the€killing€that€she€was€going€to€kill€theÏvictim.€€Also,€during€the€killing,€the€Defendant€made€repeated€attacks€on€theÏvictim€over€a€period€of€time€in€which€she€could€have€reflected€upon€her€actions,Ïespecially€when€she€left€the€victim€to€see€if€anyone€else€was€around.€€By€theÍDefendantððs€own€statement,€the€reason€for€killing€the€victim€was€to€assure€thatÏthe€victim€could€not€testify€against€her€for€ð ðattempted€murder.ðð€€And€finally,€theÏDefendantððs€own€expert€admitted€that€the€act€of€carrying€a€box€cutter€and€meatÏcleaver€was€a€deliberate€act.€€We€are€satisfied€that€the€evidence€in€this€caseÏwas€sufficient€to€establish€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€so€asÏto€warrant€the€juryððs€verdict€in€the€first€degree€murder€conviction.ÌÌà àIn€regard€to€the€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder€conviction,€theÏDefendant€maintains€that€there€was€no€proof€beyond€her€ð ðuncorroboratedÏstatementðð€that€a€box€cutter€had€been€used€on€the€victim€or€that€others€hadÏattacked€the€victim€with€cutting€instruments.€€In€her€statement€to€the€police,€theÏDefendant€related€that€others€were€with€her€when€the€killing€took€place.€€SheÏalso€stated€that€a€person€referred€to€as€ð ðheðð€had€participated€in€the€torture€of€theÏvictim€and€that€this€person€had€brought€a€miniature€meat€cleaver€with€him€thatÏevening.ÌÌà àThe€essence€of€conspiracy€has€always€been€an€agreement€to€commit€aÏcrime.€€òòState€v.€Hodgkinsonóó,€778€S.W.2d€54,€58€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€AÏconspiracy€requires€a€knowing€involvement.€€However,€no€formal€or€expressedÏagreement€is€necessary€and€the€agreement€may€be€proved€by€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Shropshireóó,€874€S.W.2d€634,€641€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ïð ðThe€unlawful€confederation€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence€andÍthe€conduct€of€the€parties€in€the€execution€of€the€criminal€enterprise.€€ConspiracyÏimplies€concert€of€design€and€not€participation€in€every€detail€of€execution.ðð€ÏòòRandolph€v.€Stateóó,€570€S.W.2d€869,€871€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€AÏconfession€may€sustain€a€conviction€where€there€is€other€evidence€sufficient€toÏshow€the€commission€of€a€crime€by€someone.€€òòFranklin€v.€Stateóó,€513€S.W.2dÏ146,€151€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case€there€was€a€confession€by€the€Defendant€that€she€andÏanother€person€referred€to€as€ð ðheðð€accompanied€the€victim€to€Tyson€Park.€€BothÏthe€Defendant€and€another€person€participated€in€dragging€the€victim€to€a€moreÏisolated€location€and€mutilating€the€victim€with€a€box€cutter€and€a€meat€cleaver.€ÏA€witness€testified€that€the€Defendant€stated€she€was€going€to€kill€the€victim€theÏday€before€the€murder.€€A€witness€testified€that€the€Defendant,€Tadaryl€ShippÏand€Shadolla€Peterson€left€with€the€victim€and€returned€together€later€thatÏevening€without€the€victim.€€DNA€testing€of€the€Defendantððs€and€Shippððs€clothingÏrevealed€blood€stains€matching€that€of€the€victimððs.€€Both€the€Defendant€andÏShipp€wore€pentagram€necklaces€and€a€ð ðSatanic€Bibleðð€was€recovered€from€aÏsearch€of€Shippððs€room.€€The€Defendant€admitted€that€she€and€the€other€personÏcarved€the€pentagram€in€the€victinððs€chest.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€theÏproof€was€insufficient€to€demonstrate€that€she€possessed€the€requisite€reflectionÏto€support€the€conviction€for€conspiracy€to€commit€first„degree€murder.€€Yet,€thereÍis€ample€circumstantial€evidence€that€the€Defendant€and€Shipp€deliberatelyÏplanned€and€executed€the€killing.Ìà àÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€contends€that€the€proof€was€insufficient€to€justifyÏthe€juryððs€sentence€of€death€and€that€the€jury€failed€to€properly€consider€andÏweigh€the€mitigating€factors€against€the€aggravating€factors.€€However,€theÏrecord€reveals€that€the€application€of€both€of€the€aggravating€factors€wasÏsupported€by€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€jury€found€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€murder€wasÏespecially€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€was€applicable€in€this€case.€€TheÏmedical€examiner€testified€that€there€were€so€many€wounds€on€the€victimððs€bodyÏthey€could€not€be€cataloged.€The€victimððs€throat€had€been€slashed€repeatedly,Ïdefensive€wounds€were€on€her€right€arm,€and€at€least€four€heavy€blows€hadÏbeen€administered€to€her€head.€€€€A€pentagram€had€been€carved€in€her€chest.€ÏThe€medical€examiner€repeatedly€testified€that€all€of€the€wounds€prior€to€the€finalÏblow€to€the€head€had€been€made€while€the€victim€was€alive€and€conscious.€ÏWe€conclude€that€the€record€amply€supports€application€of€this€aggravator.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€also€found€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€murderÏwas€committed€for€the€purpose€of€ð ðavoiding,€interfering€with€or€preventing€aÏlawful€arrestðð€was€applicable.€The€Defendant,€herself,€told€officers€that€as€theÍvictim€continued€to€beg€for€her€life,€she€told€the€victim€that€she€was€not€going€toÏbe€ð ðrotting€in€jail€because€of€[her]€stupid€ass.ðð€€She€also€stated€that€a€voice€keptÏtelling€her€that€she€would€go€to€prison€for€attempted€murder€if€she€let€the€victimÏgo.€€We€conclude€that€there€was€ample€evidence€to€support€the€application€ofÏthis€aggravator.ÌÌà àThe€mitigating€circumstances€offered€to€the€jury€were€that€the€DefendantÏhad€no€significant€history€of€prior€criminal€activity,€that€the€murder€was€committedÏwhile€the€Defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotionalÏdisturbance,€that€the€Defendant€was€young,€that€the€capacity€of€the€DefendantÏto€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€her€conduct€or€to€conform€her€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mentalÏdisease€or€intoxication,€and€any€other€mitigating€factor€that€was€raised€by€theÏevidence.€€The€Defendant€argued€that€her€difficult€childhood€should€also€beÏconsidered€as€mitigation.ÌÌà àAgain,€in€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€aÏrational€juror€could€have€concluded€that€the€applicable€aggravatingÏcircumstances€outweighed€the€mitigating€factors.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€Ïthe€sentence€of€death€was€supported€by€the€evidence.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.€Media€Coverageó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€grant€herÏmotion€to€deny€television€coverage€of€the€pretrial€proceedings.€€The€DefendantÏasserts€that€media€coverage€in€the€case€made€jury€selection€difficult,€but€theÏDefendant€presents€no€proof€that€a€juror€was€biased€because€of€the€coverage.€ÏThe€Defendant€also€asserts€that€the€cameras€in€the€courtroom€ð ðarguablyÏaffected€witness€testimony€and€was€generally€disruptive€of€the€proceedings,ððÏbut€again,€the€Defendant€cites€no€specific€instances€to€justify€this€conclusion.ÌÌà àSupreme€Court€Rule€30€provides€for€in„court€media€coverage€at€trialÏproceedings.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Coverage€is€subject,€at€all€times,€to€the€authority€of€the€judge€toÏð ð(i)€control€the€conduct€of€the€proceedings€before€the€court;€(ii)€maintain€decorumÏand€prevent€distraction;€(iii)€guarantee€the€safety€of€any€party,€witness,€or€juror;Ïand€(iv)€ensure€the€fair€and€impartial€administration€of€justice.ðð€€Rule€30(A)(1),Ï(D)(2).€€Further,€Rule€30€(D)(2)€allows€the€trial€court,€upon€a€proper€showing,€toÏlimit€in„court€media€coverage€in€order€to€accommodate€any€of€these€importantÏinterests.€€Ìà àThis€Court€has€held€that€Rule€30€presumptively€entitles€the€media€to€in„court€camera€coverage.€€òòState€v.€Freddie€Morrowóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00022,€Robertson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€€Apr.€12,€1996).€€GivenÍthis€presumption,€any€finding€that€such€coverage€should€be€denied,€limited,Ïsuspended,€or€terminated€must€be€supported€by€substantial€evidence€that€atÏleast€one€of€the€four€interests€in€Rule€30(A)(1)€and€(D)(2)€is€of€concern€in€theÏcase€before€the€court.€€The€burden€of€proof€in€producing€this€evidence€is€on€theÏparty€seeking€limits€on€media€coverage.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€record€before€the€court€reflects€only€the€generalÏstatement€of€counsel€that€pretrial€media€coverage€would€make€jury€selectionÏdifficult€and€would€deprive€the€Defendant€of€a€fair€trial€because€it€ð ðarguablyÏaffected€witness€testimony€and€was€generally€disruptive€of€the€proceedings.ðð€ÏThere€is€no€evidence€to€substantiate€the€Defendantððs€claims.€€Although€juryÏselection€was€lengthy,€there€is€no€assertion€that€any€particular€juror€was€biasedÏbecause€of€the€media€coverage.€The€Defendant€provides€no€proof€thatÏtestimony€was€affected€or€that€the€proceedings€were€disrupted.€€We€cannot,Ïtherefore,€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€failing€to€excludeÏpretrial€media€coverage.€ò òÌÌÓ  ÓC.€Change€of€Venueó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€herÏmotion€for€a€change€of€venue.€€She€maintains€that€a€majority€of€prospectiveÏjurors€admitted€that€they€had€heard€detailed€information€about€the€case.€€TheÍDefendant€cites€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€decision€in€òòIrvin€v.€Dowdóó,€366ÏU.S.€717,€81€S.Ct.€1639,€6€L.Ed.2d€751€(1961),€in€support€of€the€proposition€thatÏa€change€of€venue€should€be€granted€if€extensive€pretrial€publicity€was€suchÏthat€the€court€should€presume€the€jury€is€tainted€even€if€prospective€jurors€statedÏthat€they€would€be€able€to€set€aside€what€they€had€seen€or€heard.ÌÌà àHowever,€in€òòDowdóó,€jury€selection€lasted€more€than€four€weeks.€€Also€theÏSupreme€Court€specifically€stated€that€due€to€ð ðswift,€widespread€and€diverseÏmethods€of€communication,ðð€it€is€not€required€that€jurors€be€totally€ignorant€of€theÏfacts€and€issues€involved.€€366€U.S.€at€722,€81€S.Ct.€at€1642.€€The€court€alsoÏstated€that€ð ð[i]t€is€sufficient€if€the€juror€can€lay€aside€his€impression€or€opinion€andÏrender€a€verdict€based€on€the€evidence€presented€in€court.ðð€€366€U.S.€at€723,€81ÏS.Ct.€at€1643.€€In€òòDowdóó,€the€panel€consisted€of€430€persons.€€The€court€itselfÏexcused€268€of€those€persons€due€to€their€fixed€opinions€of€guilt,€and€103€wereÏexcused€because€of€their€conscientious€objection€to€the€death€penalty.€€366ÏU.S.€at€727,€81€S.Ct.€at€1645.€€The€òòvoir€direóó€record€indicated€that€370€of€theÏprospective€jurors€entertained€some€opinion€as€to€guilt,€ranging€from€mereÏsuspicion€to€absolute€certainty.€€Of€the€twelve€jurors€selected,€eight€thought€theÏDefendant€was€guilty.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€although€many€potential€jurors€had€indicated€thatÏthey€had€heard€something€about€the€case€in€the€media,€every€juror€who€said€heÍor€she€was€familiar€with€the€case€said€that€he€or€she€could€disregard€the€reportsÏand€render€an€impartial€decision.€€All€potential€jurors€who€said€they€could€notÏdisregard€the€reports€were€excused€for€cause.€€The€Defendant€has€cited€noÏspecific€response€from€any€seated€juror€that€was€troublesome.ÌÌò òÓÓÓ  ÓD.€€Excusal€of€JurorsÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àó óThe€Defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€impanelled€a€jury€that€was€pro„death€penalty€and€improperly€excused€for€cause€those€prospective€jurors€thatÏindicated€that€they€were€opposed€to€the€death€penalty.€€The€DefendantÏsuggests€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€proposal€that€a€ð ðdonððt€ask,€donððtÏtell,ðð€procedure€be€used€whereby€jurors€would€not€be€required€to€tell€the€courtÏabout€their€personal€feelings€about€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà àIn€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€412,€424,€105€S.Ct.€844,€852,€83€L.Ed.2dÏ841€(1985),€the€United€State€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€as€the€proper€standardÏfor€determining€when€a€prospective€juror€may€be€excluded€for€cause€because€ofÏhis€or€her€views€on€capital€punishment€the€test€of€ð ðwhether€the€jurorððs€viewsÏwould€ððprevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€of€his€duties€as€a€juror€inÏaccordance€with€his€instructions€and€his€oath.ðððð€€In€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2dÏ506,€518€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€denied,€493€U.S.€1037,€110€S.Ct.€758€(1990),€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðthe€trial€courtððs€finding€of€the€bias€of€a€jurorÏbecause€of€his€views€of€capital€punishment€shall€be€accorded€a€presumption€ofÍcorrectness€and€the€burden€shall€rest€upon€the€Defendant€to€establish€byÏconvincing€evidence€that€that€determination€was€erroneous.ððÌÌà àThe€Defendant€notes€that€in€the€present€case€the€trial€court€examinedÏprospective€jurors€extensively€regarding€their€thoughts€about€the€death€penaltyÏand€allowed€counsel€to€examine€those€who€indicated€that€they€had€a€problemÏwith€the€death€penalty€in€an€effort€to€rehabilitate€them.€€The€Defendant€cites€noÏprospective€juror€who€was€excluded€that€should€not€have€been.€€Applying€theÏstandard€as€set€forth€in€òòAlleyóó,€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€establish€byÏconvincing€evidence€that€the€courtððs€actions€were€erroneous.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓÓ  ÓE.€€Use€of€the€Skull€as€EvidenceÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àó óThe€Defendant€next€complains€that€pursuant€to€Rule€403€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€the€skull€of€the€victim€should€have€beenÏexcluded€because€its€probative€value€was€substantially€outweighed€by€itsÏprejudicial€effect.€€The€Defendant€asserts€that€the€skull€was€also€cumulativeÏevidence€because€prior€to€its€admission,€numerous€photographs€of€the€skullÏwere€admitted€to€show€the€damage€to€the€victimððs€head.ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that€the€introduction€of€the€skull€was€an€importantÏportion€of€the€medical€testimony.€€The€medical€examiner€testified€that€she€hadÍsent€the€skull€to€a€forensic€anthropologist€to€be€reconstructed€because€she€couldÏnot€tell€exactly€what€had€happened€without€the€reconstruction.€€The€skull€wasÏused€by€the€medical€examiner€to€show€the€amount€of€force€that€was€applied€toÏit,€as€well€as€the€weapon€that€was€used.€€Pieces€of€asphalt€were€embeddedÏin€the€skull.€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€skull€had€been€thoroughly€cleansed€and€was€no€moreÏprejudicial€or€gruesome€than€a€model€diagram€would€have€been.€€Dr.€Elkins,€theÏmedical€examiner,€testified€that€the€reconstructed€skull€would€illustrate€to€the€juryÏwhat€had€occurred€to€the€victim€and€demonstrate€the€amount€of€force€that€wasÏapplied€as€well€as€the€type€of€weapon€used€to€inflict€the€head€injuries.€€There€isÏno€question€that€the€nature€and€type€of€injuries€sustained€by€the€deceased€andÏthe€manner€in€which€death€occurred€were€relevant€considerations€by€the€jury.€ÏMoreover,€the€skull€was€used€to€illustrate€that€the€piece€of€skull€found€in€theÏDefendantððs€jacket€fit€perfectly€into€the€reconstructed€skull.€€The€skull€was,Ïtherefore,€highly€relevant€in€establishing€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€263€(Tenn.€1994);€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï115€S.Ct.€743,€130€L.Ed2d€644€(1995);€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€641€S.W.2d€883,€888Ï(Tenn.€1982).€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓÓÌò òÓ  ÓF.€€Cruel€and€Unusual€Punishmentó óÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€punishment€imposed€upon€her,€deathÏby€electrocution,€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€under€the€state€and€federalÏconstitutions.€€However,€this€issue€has€been€previously€decided€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€and€determined€to€be€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991).Ìò òÓ  ÓÌG.€€Peremptory€Challengesó óÔ€#XÔÌà àà àà àÌÓ  ÓÔ€#ŠÔà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€rules€in€effectÏgave€€the€Defendant€fifteen€(15)€peremptory€challenges€compared€to€the€StateððsÏeight.€òòSeeóó€Rule€24(d),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€(1995).€€However,€at€the€time€of€trial,€theÏrules€had€been€changed€to€give€an€equal€number€of€peremptory€challenges€toÏboth€the€Defendant€and€the€State.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€24(d),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€(1996).€€ÏThe€Defendant€argues€that€application€of€the€new€rule€violated€the€òòex€post€factoóóÏprovision€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€which€requires€that€rules€not€be€appliedÏto€events€which€occurred€prior€to€their€enactment.ÌÌà àThe€term€"ex€post€facto"€as€used€in€Article€I,€ðð€10,€cl.€1,€of€the€U.S.ÏConstitution,€provides€that€"[n]o€state€shall€...€pass€any€...€ex€post€facto€law."€ÏThe€Tennessee€Constitution's€ex€post€facto€prohibition€found€in€Article€I,€ðð€11,Ïprovides:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓThat€laws€made€for€the€punishment€of€acts€committed€previous€to€theÏexistence€of€such€laws,€and€by€them€only€declared€criminal€are€contraryÏto€the€principles€of€a€free€Government;€€wherefore€no€Ex€post€facto€lawÏshall€be€made.€€ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àTwo€critical€elements€must€be€present€for€a€law€to€fall€within€theÏprohibition.€€€First,€it€"must€be€retrospective,€that€is,€it€must€apply€to€eventsÏoccurring€before€its€enactment";€€and€second,€"it€must€disadvantage€the€offenderÏaffected€by€it."€€òòMiller€v.€Floridaóó,€482€U.S.€423,€430,€107€S.Ct.€2446,€2451,€96ÏL.Ed.2d€351€(1987)€(quoting€€òòWeaver€v.€Grahamóó,€450€U.S.€24,€29,€101€S.Ct.Ï960,€964,€67€L.Ed.2d€17€(1981));€òòState€v.€Riccióó,€914€S.W.2d€475,€480€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€Furthermore,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„112€providesÏthat:€ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓwhenever€any€penal€statute€or€penal€legislative€act€of€the€state€isÏrepealed€or€amended€by€a€subsequent€legislative€act,€any€offense,€asÏdefined€by€the€statute€or€act€being€repealed€or€amended,€committed€whileÏsuch€statute€or€act€was€in€full€force€an€effect€shall€be€prosecuted€underÏthe€act€or€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àYet,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€laws€which€changeÏa€rule€of€evidence,€but€which€do€not€increase€the€punishment€nor€change€theÏelements€of€the€offense€or€the€ultimate€facts€necessary€to€establish€guilt,€butÏonly€remove€existing€restrictions€on€the€competency€of€certain€classes€ofÏevidence€or€of€persons€as€witnesses€do€not€constitute€ex€post€facto€laws.€ÏòòState€v.€Braganóó,€920€S.W.2d€227,€241€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citationsÏomitted).€€In€òòDobbert€v.€Floridaóó,€432€U.S.€282,€293,€97€S.Ct.€2290,€53€L.Ed.2dÍ344€(1977),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prohibition€of€ex€post€facto€lawsÏdoes€not€extend€to€every€change€of€law€that€"may€work€to€the€disadvantage€ofÏa€defendant."€€€Instead,€it€is€intended€to€secure€"substantive€personal€rights"Ïfrom€retroactive€deprivation€and€does€not€"limit€the€legislative€control€of€remediesÏand€modes€of€procedure€which€do€not€affect€matters€of€substance."€€€òòId.óó€€Thus,Ïlaws€which€change€rules€of€procedure€but€which€do€not€affect€any€substantialÏright€of€a€defendant€are€not€ex€post€facto€laws.€€ÌÌà àHere,€it€is€apparent€that€the€trial€court€applied€a€procedural€rule€that€hadÏbeen€amended€after€the€commission€of€the€crimes€in€question.€€The€DefendantÏalso€claims€that€the€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€was€impaired€by€theÏincrease€in€peremptory€challenges€for€the€State.€€However,€the€Defendant€hasÏnot€proffered€any€evidence€that€the€jury,€as€it€was€composed€by€the€StateððsÏusing€the€additional€peremptory€challenges,€prevented€her€from€receiving€a€fairÏtrial.€€Absent€proof€that€the€Defendant€was€disadvantaged€or€that€aÏsubstantive€right€was€impaired€by€the€amended€procedural€rule,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€an€ex€post€facto€violation€occurred.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓH.€€Sentencing€on€the€Conspiracy€ConvictionÔ€#XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#ŠÔà àó óThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏDefendant€to€a€consecutive€sentence€of€twenty„five€(25)€years€for€the€convictionÍof€conspiracy€to€commit€first„degree€murder.€€The€Defendant€complains€that€theÏtrial€court€inappropriately€used€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€crime€wasÏespecially€cruel€to€sentence€her€to€the€maximum€sentence.€€She€furtherÏcomplains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€she€was€a€dangerousÏoffender€and€ordering€her€to€serve€the€sentence€consecutively€to€the€deathÏsentence.ÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€de€novo€review€of€theÏsentence€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏcorrect.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditionedÏupon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏsentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,Ï823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€conducting€a€de€novo€review€of€a€sentence,€this€court€must€consider:Ï(a)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing;€(b)€theÏpresentence€report;€(c)€the€principles€of€sentencing€and€arguments€as€toÏsentencing€alternatives;€(d)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conductÏinvolved;€(e)€any€statutory€mitigating€or€enhancement€factors;€(f)€any€statementÏthat€the€Defendant€made€on€his€own€behalf;€and€(g)€the€potential€or€lack€ofÍpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€ðð€40„35„102,€1„103,Ïand€„210;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€thenÏwe€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€differentÏresult.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€called€as€its€only€witness€OfficerÏDebbie€Wade,€a€Corrections€Officer€with€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€ÏShe€testified€that€on€the€day€the€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€die,€she€gaveÏOfficer€Wade€a€letter€and€requested€that€it€be€passed€to€her€co„Defendant,ÏTadaryl€Shipp.€€Officer€Wade€gave€the€letter€to€her€lieutenant€and€was€told€notÏto€pass€it€to€Mr.€Shipp.€€The€letter€was€introduced€into€evidence€and€read€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àTadaryl,€hey,€love,€I€just€wanted€you€to€knowÏhow€much€I€love€you.€€I€have€ten€months€to€live.€ÏImagine€that.€€I€would€spend€every€moment€with€you€ifÏI€could,€baby.€€I€want€to€tell€you€to€tell€them€you€lied€inÏyour€statement€and€go€along€with€mine.€€Do€you€haveÏa€copy€of€mine?€€If€not,€Iððll€give€you€one.€€Okay?€€IÏlove€you€big€bunches,€baby,€and€no€matter€what€theyÏdo€to€me€they€canððt€change€whatððs€in€my€heart.€ÏPlease€write€me.€€I€miss€you€so€much.€€You€see€whatÏI€got€for€trying€to€be€nice€to€that€whore.€€I€went€aheadÍand€bashed€her€brains€out€so€she€would€die€quicklyÏinstead€of€letting€her€bleed€to€death€and€suffer€moreÏand€they€fuckin€fry€me.€€Ainððt€that€some€shit.€€PleaseÏwrite€and€tell€me€what€youððre€feeling.€€Baker€said€heÏwould€give€you€some€paper€and€shit€while€you€areÏout€there.€€Also€tell€your€lawyer€if€he€wants€me€to€IððllÏtestify,€testify€for€you,€I€will.€€Love€you€for€the€rest€of€myÏlife.€€Little€devil.ÌÌà àÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€classified€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offenderÏon€the€conviction€for€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏconsidered€several€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€setting€the€sentenceÏabove€the€minimum€presumptive€sentence€of€fifteen€(15)€years.€€First,€the€trialÏcourt€applied€enhancement€factor€number€(2),€that€ð ð[t]he€Defendant€was€aÏleader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involving€two€(2)€or€more€criminal€actors.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2).€€The€trial€judge€then€stated€that€factor€numberÏ(5),€that€ð ð[t]he€Defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€withÏexceptional€cruelty€during€the€commission€of€the€offense,ðð€would€not€be€reliedÏupon€heavily€because€it€had€already€been€used€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€toÏdeath€on€the€other€count.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(5).€€Factor€number€(7),Ïthat€ð ð[t]he€offense€involved€a€victim€and€was€committed€to€gratify€theÏDefendantððs€desire€for€pleasure€and€excitement,ðð€factor€number€(9),€that€ð ð[t]heÏDefendant€possessed€or€employed€a€firearm,€explosive€device€or€other€deadlyÏweapon€during€the€commission€of€the€offense,ðð€and€factor€number€(10),€thatÏð ð[t]he€Defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€toÏhuman€life€was€high,ðð€were€also€found€to€be€applicable.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€Í40„35„114€(7),(9),€and€(10).€€The€trial€court€found€that€no€mitigating€factors€wereÏapplicable.ÌÌà àWe€find€error€with€only€one€of€the€trial€courtððs€applications€of€enhancementÏfactors.€€The€trial€judge€held€that€the€Defendant€had€no€hesitation€aboutÏcommitting€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„114(10).€€We€believe€that€the€court€improperly€applied€this€enhancementÏfactor.€€Enhancement€factor€(10)€refers€to€the€defendant€having€"no€hesitationÏabout€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high."€€€This€Court€hasÏpreviously€recognized€that€factors€which€are€inherent€in€a€particular€offense,Ïeven€if€not€designated€as€an€element,€should€not€be€given€substantive€weightÏin€increasing€a€sentence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€830€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€€We€conclude€that€the€risk€to€human€life€is€inherent€in€theÏgrading€of€the€offense€of€conspiracy€to€commit€first„degree€murder.€€According€toÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„12„107,€ð ðconspiracy€is€an€offense€oneÏ(1)€classification€lower€than€the€most€serious€offense€that€is€the€object€of€theÏconspiracy.ðð€€First„degree€murder€is€classified€as€a€capital€offense,€thereforeÏconspiracy€to€commit€first„degree€murder€is€a€Class€A€felony,€a€class€reservedÏfor€only€the€most€serious€offenses.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€indictment€contains€allegations€in€support€of€the€element€ofÏconspiracy€that€an€overt€act€be€taken,€that€the€Defendant€and€two€others€leftÍthe€Job€Corps€center,€took€the€victim€to€an€isolated€location€and€attacked€herÏwith€a€box€cutter.€€Not€only€is€the€risk€to€human€life€inherent€in€the€offense,€in€theÏcase€òòsub€judiceóó,€high€risk€acts€were€included€in€the€indictment€as€charged€inÏsupport€of€an€element€of€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„103(a),€(d).€ÏEnhancement€factors€may€be€applied€ð ðif€not€themselves€essential€elements€ofÏthe€offense€as€charged€in€the€indictment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114.€€ForÏboth€of€these€reasons,€we€conclude€that€enhancement€factor€should€not€haveÏbeen€applied.€Ô€#XÔÌÔ€#ŠÔÌà àThe€evidence€produced€at€trial,€including€the€Defendantððs€own€statement,Ïand€the€letter€introduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing€would€certainly€support€theÏfactor€that€she€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€The€statement€ofÏthe€Defendant,€the€testimony€concerning€her€recounting€of€the€incident€to€others,Ïthe€fact€that€she€carried€a€piece€of€the€victimððs€skull€as€a€souvenir,€and€her€returnÏto€the€scene€were€evidence€of€her€desire€for€excitement€and€pleasure.€€Again,Ïby€her€own€statement,€the€Defendant€admitted€carrying€a€deadly€weapon.ÌÌà àAlthough€we€disagree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€DefendantððsÏage€and€lack€of€a€significant€history€of€prior€criminal€activities€were€not€applicableÏmitigating€factors,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÏDefendant€to€the€maximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€(25)€years.€€Clearly,€whenÍthe€applicable€enhancing€factors€are€weighed€against€the€mitigating€factors,€theÏrecord€supports€the€trial€courtððs€sentence.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€consecutive€sentences€were€warranted€because€Ïthe€Defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€noÏregard€for€human€life€and€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€whichÏthe€risk€to€human€life€was€high.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€937„39€(Tenn.€1995).€€Again,€given€the€circumstances€surrounding€this€offense,Ïespecially€the€heinous€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€fact€that€the€DefendantÏshowed€no€remorse,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€met€the€criteria€forÏconsecutive€sentencing€and€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€her€discretion€in€orderingÏsuch.€€The€sentencing€issues€raised€by€the€Defendant€are€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔCONCLUSIONó óÔ€#XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#ŠÔ›à àUpon€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€hasÏoffered€no€grounds€that€warrant€relief€from€her€convictions€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€Moreover,€weÏconclude€that€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€establish€any€ground€warranting€reliefÏfrom€the€sentence€of€death€and€the€consecutive€sentence€of€twenty„five€(25)Ïyears.ÌÌà àTherefore,€after€a€thorough€review€of€the€issues€and€the€record€before€usÏas€mandated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(b)€and€(c),Ïand€for€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€sentence€of€death.€ÏWe€conclude€that€the€sentence€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion,€theÏevidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€aggravating€circumstances,€and€theÏevidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstancesÏoutweigh€any€mitigating€circumstances.€€Moreover,€a€comparative€proportionalityÏreview,€considering€both€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€the€nature€of€theÏappellant,€convinces€us€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€neither€excessive€norÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.à àà àœÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE