ÿWPC¹  ¢¾}zk½(‡|•@”ø‘Ïç~¼·îšƒª{^‹£“4”¶cúÃ}w±57ô!H²ý.þK³•’–vÓXI›ÚÍ"\ïÑ€¹ò^ÑëG õŸñsŒîÞ¦»“£7®dÛü2ÈxÃ(¶G öß"º8#ôhdÈ×|Ÿ92>'TßË•–O¦?ròOsQÎdæúVVíÏìw ðptçÝ“ ÀÑ`Íat×eïä$Á¼.ƒbÑ_JO¶Þo’âmhè!ç5üùœ /cᆾpú÷ÙÕr­¦!:°OÀOU,ã¹»„0"åTÇô*Èöß7Ê㯠I©±±²iðÓ’+¡¸€“y ”‹Óyëø\<ЛÌv»Œÿ$°ç€•ê±üqÁ ãe1ïp0·‘_½¿a.Ë%M$|2rA8»™µ˜ÓøI<¸c·Zh¶ú;– Î['ÓTÒ¸8Ù ‡‰V!¾×X¨#”:6–ã9˜“ªK5/ÇUiGgÎa€¢/ÆS4ÅNvcƒi ¸nB€Ô¿­Ì¢O—!Õª€Gâܲð9¾ª«òÐ!,nðË5eµ—øJàL¹ýý¯‰‰M½açDP˜cè f<8¥®¨mþöt¦¸ „»)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åbÿw@4G[j*rU:œ*ÖU: AQ: Æ‹ 0DQ 0D• 0DÙ Ù D/ BL Bi D3† ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- t u v ew r‚x Uy z D{ Ó€‡ Š n~<$3|xŠ  Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X‹3XXXÔÔ€ ¤^X X‹3ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X‹3X ¤^ÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€25,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôk‘ ôX X‹3ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X‹3XXXÔÔ€¤^XX‹3ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X‹3X¤^ÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€22,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôk‘ ôXX‹3ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñv ñ›ñv ññv ñ›ñv ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ŠaÈŠXXÔÔ€Š¶ÌŠŠŠaÈÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€WXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óñv ñœñv ñò òñ{ ñœñ{ ññ‡ ññ{ ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx$X` ð Úrßñ{ ññ‡ ññŠ ññ‡ ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx$X` ð Úrßñ‡ ññŠ ññŠ ññŠ ññŠ ññ{ ñ›ñ{ ññŠ ññŠ ññŠ ññŠ ñ›ñŠ ññŠ ñßt€ (>.*jx6Åÿ` `€€@EV` ` ttx$Ž` ð Ôtß›ñŠ ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9707„CC„00265Ð ` 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 `  Ѐ€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àñv ñœñv ñFAYETTEñv ñ›ñv ñ€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.€JON€KERRY€ñv ñœñv ñBLACKWOODñv ñ›ñv ñ,€ó óÐ ` Ðò òÓ  Óñv ñœñv ñCOREYñv ñ›ñv ñ€ñv ñœñv ñLEMONTñv ñ›ñv ñ€POWELL,à À àà  à)€€€€€€€ó óà p àò òJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  à)ó óà p 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 òMICHAEL€E.€ñv ñœñv ñSCHOLLñv ñ›ñv ñà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ð 8 Ø Ðó ó200€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€202à  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 8!Ø ÐMemphis,€TN€38103Ìò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDOUGLAS€D.€ñv ñœñv ñHIMESñv ñ›ñv ñ€Ð (#È Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àó óà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ($È Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òELIZABETH€T.€RICEÐ )   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð *  ! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òCHRISTOPHER€ñv ñœñv ñMARSHBURNñv ñ›ñv ñó 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 à302€Market€Street€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSomerville,€TN€38068ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  80/0? ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°_Î°ŠŠ¶ÌÔò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š¶ÌŠ°°_ÎÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant,€ñv ñœñv ñCoreyñv ñ›ñv ñ€ñv ñœñv ñLemontñv ñ›ñv ñ€Powell,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€convictionÏin€the€ñv ñœñv ñFayetteñv ñ›ñv ñ€County€Circuit€Court.€€€Defendant€was€indicted€on€three€counts,Ïincluding€especially€aggravated€robbery,€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery,Ïand€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€Following€a€jury€trial,€Defendant€wasÏconvicted€of€second€degree€murder,€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€The€trial€court€merged€the€second€degree€murder€conviction€with€the€felonyÏmurder€conviction€and€sentenced€Defendant€to€serve€a€life€sentence€for€felonyÏmurder€concurrent€with€a€sentence€of€fifteen€(15)€years€for€the€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery€conviction.€€Defendant€submits€the€following€issues€for€appellate€review:ÌÓÓà8 ` à1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€toÏsuppress€his€statement;Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€Defendant€access€to€theÏresults€of€a€polygraph€test€for€use€as€evidence;Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€suppress€evidence€of€theÏmurder€weapon€and€the€ballistics€test;Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€regardingÏthe€striking€of€specific€jurors€and€motion€for€a€change€of€venue;Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€for€aÏmistrial€due€to€admission€of€evidence€of€Defendantððs€arrest;Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€admit€testimony€regardingÏDefendantððs€restricted€access€to€the€telephone€during€policeÏquestioning;Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€Defendantððs€motion€for€aÏjudgment€of€acquittal;Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€charge€lesser€includedÏoffenses€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder;€andÐ ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à9)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€prosecutorial€misconductÏœñy ñduringñy ññz ñthroughoutñz ñ›€the€trial.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÐ ¶9V01 ÐÓÓà ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€the€briefs€in€this€matter,€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects.ÌÌà ` àBessie€Russell,€wife€of€Don€Russell,€testified€that€he€was€the€owner€andÏoperator€of€Russellððs€Grocery€located€in€Hickory€ñv ñœñv ñWytheñv ñ›ñv ñ,€a€rural€area€of€ñv ñœñv ñFayetteñv ñ›ñv ñÏCounty.€€The€store€had€been€open€since€April€1947.€€In€May€1994,€Don€Russell€wasÏseventy„four€(74)€years€old.€Russell€and€his€wife€lived€next€door€to€the€store,€andÏeach€morning€he€rose€at€5:00€a.m.€to€open€the€store.€€He€went€to€the€store€to€eat€hisÏbreakfast€and€read€the€paper,€then€returned€to€the€house€with€the€newspaper€for€herÏto€read.€€The€store€was€open€from€5:00€a.m.€until€5:30€p.m.ÌÌà ` àOn€May€27,€1994,€Mrs.€Russell€awoke€and€discovered€that€her€husband€hadÏnot€yet€returned€with€the€newspaper.€€She€walked€to€the€store€and€found€him€lyingÏon€his€back€in€a€pool€of€blood.€€Mrs.€Russell€called€911,€and€the€victim€wasÏtransported€by€helicopter€to€a€hospital€in€Memphis€where€he€was€pronounced€dead.€ÏShe€noticed€that€the€cigar€box€was€missing€from€the€store€and€estimated€the€amountÏof€money€in€the€box€to€be€between€$800.00€and€$1200.00.€ÌÌà ` àDr.€OððBrien€Smith€testified€that€he€performed€the€autopsy€of€the€victim.€€Dr.ÏSmith€reported€that€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€a€near€gun€shot€wound€to€the€head,Ïand€he€removed€a€.22€caliber€bullet€fragment€from€the€back€of€the€victimððs€brain.€ÏFrom€his€examination,€Dr.€Smith€determined€that€the€gun€fired€at€the€victim€was€Ïbetween€six€(6)€to€twelve€(12)€inches€from€the€victimððs€head€at€the€time€it€was€fired.ÌÐ 9¼// Ðà ` àBill€ñv ñœñv ñKelleyñv ñ›ñv ñ,€Sheriff€of€ñv ñœñv ñFayetteñv ñ›ñv ñ€County,€testified€that€he€led€the€investigation€ofÏthe€victimððs€murder.€€After€arriving€at€Russellððs€Grocery€on€May€27,€1994,€at€6:30Ïa.m.,€Sheriff€Kelley€determined€that€a€cigar€box€containing€approximately€$1200.00Ïhad€been€stolen€from€the€store€and€that€there€were€no€witnesses€to€the€shooting€of€Ïthe€victim.€€On€June€24,€1994,€Kelley€interrogated€a€potential€suspect,€JerryÏColeman,€but€after€a€brief€investigation,€Coleman€was€eliminated€as€a€suspect.€€TheÏinvestigation,€in€Sheriff€Kelleyððs€words,€came€to€a€ð ðdead€end.ðð€€Two€years€later,€inÏApril€1996,€Kelley€discovered€that€the€Defendant€had€told€some€people€within€theÏcommunity€that€he€was€responsible€for€the€victimððs€murder.€€Also,€the€DefendantððsÏnine„shot€.22€caliber€revolver€was€seized€from€him€by€police€during€the€Mid„SouthÏFair.€€After€the€revolver€was€recovered€from€the€Memphis€Police€DepartmentÏproperty€room,€both€the€revolver€and€bullet€fragments€from€the€victimððs€brain€wereÏsent€for€ballistics€testing.€€ÌÌà ` àKelley€interviewed€the€Defendant€for€the€first€time€on€May€1,€1996,€advising€Ïhim€that€he€was€investigating€the€victimððs€death€and€that€they€had€recovered€theÏDefendantððs€pistol.€€After€reading€Defendant€his€constitutional€rights,€the€DefendantÏsigned€a€waiver€of€these€rights€and€did€not€request€an€attorney€or€his€parents€to€beÏpresent€during€the€interview.€€Defendant€denied€any€involvement€in€either€theÏrobbery€or€murder€of€the€victim,€but€did€advise€Kelley€that€Bryant€Powell€and€ErinÏLuckett€were€involved.€€The€Defendant€was€released€following€that€interview.€€AfterÏfurther€investigation,€the€Defendant€was€again€picked€up€by€the€police€forÏquestioning€on€May€3€or€4,€1996.€€After€advising€Defendant€of€his€rights€for€a€secondÏtime,€Kelley€interviewed€the€Defendant€on€May€6,€1996.€€Defendant€again€denied€hisÏinvolvement€in€the€crime.Ð  :À00 Їà ` àOn€May€7,€1996,€Sheriff€Kelley€was€notified€that€the€Defendant€wanted€toÏspeak€with€him.€€After€Defendant€was€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€signedÏa€waiver€form,€he€again€denied€involvement€in€the€murder€and€implicated€his€cousin,Ïð ðBig€John,ðð€from€Memphis.€€On€May€8,€1996,€Agent€Scott€Walley€from€theÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€came€to€interview€the€Defendant€upon€SheriffÏKelleyððs€request.€€Sheriff€Kelley€verified€that€the€Defendant€was€never€mistreated€orÏpromised€anything€in€exchange€for€his€statement.€€Kelley€also€stated€that€he€wasÏnever€informed€by€either€the€Defendant€or€his€parents€that€they€wanted€or€hadÏretained€an€attorney,€although€Kelley€spoke€with€Defendantððs€parents€several€timesÏthroughout€the€investigation.ÌÌà ` àAgent€Walley€testified€that€he€advised€Defendant€of€his€constitutional€rights.€ÏDuring€the€first€portion€of€the€interview,€Defendant€denied€involvement€in€the€crime.€ÏFollowing€a€lunch€break,€Defendant€returned€to€the€interview€and€gave€a€statementÏto€Agent€Walley€in€which€he€admitted€robbing€and€shooting€the€victim.€€Defendant€Ïstated€that€he€entered€Russellððs€Grocery€at€approximately€5:30€a.m.€on€May€27,Ï1994,€with€his€nine„shot€.22€caliber€revolver€in€his€right€front€pocket.€€He€told€theÏvictim€to€ð ðgive€[him]€the€money€and€there€wonððt€be€no€[sic]€problem.ðð€€The€victimÏpulled€out€the€gold€cigar€box€from€underneath€the€counter,€and€then€went€to€the€beerÏcooler€to€get€a€six„pack€of€Miller€beer€as€Defendant€requested.€€While€turning€aroundÏwith€his€elbows€halfway€up,€the€Defendant€became€frightened€and€pulled€out€hisÏrevolver€which€ð ðaccidentally€fired.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àWhile€the€Defendantððs€statement€was€not€tape€recorded,€Agent€Walley€tookÏnotes€and€then€wrote€out€a€statement€in€narrative€form€which€Defendant€read€andÐ  :À00 Ðsigned€after€initialing€all€corrections.€€Sheriff€Kelley€returned€to€the€room€and€read€theÏstatement.€€€When€Defendant€affirmed€that€this€was€indeed€his€statement,€KelleyÏsigned€the€statement€as€a€witness.€ÌÌà ` àSteve€Scott,€an€agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€administeredÏthe€ballistics€testing€on€the€pistol€and€the€bullet€fragment.€€While€Scott€was€unableÏto€determine€that€the€bullet€fragments€were€fired€from€the€Defendantððs€pistol€due€toÏdamage,€Scott€testified€that€all€four€class€characteristics€€of€the€bullet€and€the€pistolÏwere€a€match.€€These€four€class€characteristics€included€the€caliber€of€the€gun€andÏbullet,€the€direction€of€the€barrel€twist,€the€number€of€lands€and€grooves,€and€theÏwidth€of€the€lands€and€grooves.€€€While€the€Defendantððs€weapon€could€not€beÏisolated€as€the€murder€weapon,€it€could€ð ðcertainlyðð€have€been€the€weapon€used.€ÏAgent€Scott€also€noted€that€the€pistol€required€trigger€pressure€ð ðbetween€normal€andÏheavyðð€to€fire€the€weapon,€dependent€upon€whether€the€weapon€was€cocked€orÏuncocked€when€it€was€fired.ÌÌà ` àThe€State€rested€its€case„in„chief.ÌÌà ` àTim€Adams,€a€friend€of€the€Defendantððs,€testified€that€after€the€victimððs€murder,Ïthe€Defendant€left€town€for€one€or€two€weeks.€€When€the€Defendant€returned,€he€hadÏboth€new€tires€and€a€new€vinyl€top€on€his€car.€€Jokingly,€Adams€inquired€whether€theÏDefendant€had€ð ðbumped€old€Donn€off,ðð€but€the€Defendant€only€laughed€in€response.Ìâ âÐ 6°,, Ðà ` àJesse€James€Jones€testified€that€he€was€incarcerated€in€a€cell€facing€that€ofÏDefendantððs.€€Jones€made€several€telephone€calls€for€the€Defendant€because€theÏtelephone€in€Defendantððs€cell€was€not€working.Ìâ âÌà ` àRodney€Johnson€testified€that€the€Defendant€never€told€him€that€he€robbed€orÏmurdered€the€victim.€€Johnson€did€verify€that€Defendant€owned€a€.22€pistol.ÌÌà ` àStevison€Veasey,€the€Defendantððs€stepfather,€testified€that€Defendant€visitedÏhis€mother€around€May€27,€1994.€€During€that€visit,€Veasey€bought€new€tires€forÏDefendantððs€car.€€During€that€same€visit,€Veasey€stated€that€Defendantððs€naturalÏfather€put€a€new€vinyl€roof€on€the€Defendantððs€car.ÌÌà ` àà@KK!DàòòMotion€to€suppress€statementˆÐ À!` ÐÌóóà ` àDefendant€argues€that€his€statement€given€to€the€police€on€his€fifth€day€ofÐ Ð%p Ðincarceration€should€have€been€suppressed€as€a€violation€of€his€Fourth,€Fifth€andÏSixth€Amendment€rights€under€the€United€States€Constitution.€€When€an€accused€isÏafforded€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€merits€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€the€findingsÏof€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€binding€upon€the€appellate€court€unless€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€these€findings.€€òòState€v.Ð ø/˜&& ÐOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€ð ðQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ð 2 (( Ðthe€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€areÏmatters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Provided€that€the€greaterÐ 6°,, Ðweight€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€then€those€findings€shall€beÏupheld€by€the€appellate€court€and€the€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€toÐ  :À00 Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€€In€evaluating€the€correctness€of€the€trialÐ h  Ðcourtððs€ruling€on€Defendantððs€pretrial€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€may€consider€theÏproof€adduced€both€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€JohnnyÐ x ÐHenningóó,€_____€S.W.2d€_____,€No.€02S01„9707„CC„0065,€1998€WL€324318,€slipÐ €  Ðop.€at€6,€Madison€County€(Tenn.,€at€Jackson,€June€22,€1998).ÌÌà ` àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€Sheriff€Bill€Kelley€testified€that€heÏhad€the€Defendant€picked€up€for€questioning€for€the€first€time€on€May€1,€1996.€€AfterÏthe€Defendant€denied€any€involvement€in€the€crime€and€implicated€others,€he€wasÏreleased€and€further€investigation€occurred.€€Kelley€recalled€that€Defendant€wasÏpicked€up€again€for€questioning€on€May€6,€1996,€and€was€held€until€he€confessed€onÏMay€8,€1996.€€There€is€some€discrepancy€in€Kelleyððs€testimony€as€to€the€date€theÏDefendant€was€picked€up€by€the€police€for€questioning€on€the€second€occasion.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏevidence€require€us€to€conclude€that€Defendant€was€not€picked€up€for€questioningÏagain€by€the€police€until€May€6,€1996€and€was€held€without€a€warrant€or€arrest€untilÏMay€8,€1996,€when€he€confessed€to€the€robbery€and€murder€of€the€victim.€€ÌÌà ` àFirst,€we€will€address€the€Defendantððs€contention€that€his€confession€wasÏobtained€in€violation€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€constitutional€right€to€counsel.€€TheÏSixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€does€not€attach€until€the€adversarial€judicialÏprocess€has€begun.€€òòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,€475€U.S.€625,€629,€106€S.Ct.€1404,€1407,Ð 6°,, Ð89€L.Ed.2d€631€(1986)€(citations€omitted);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,Ð 8¸.. Ð547€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€long„established€law€in€Tennessee€for€the€initiation€of€theÐ  :À00 Ðadversarial€judicial€process€is€at€the€time€of€the€filing€of€the€formal€charge,€such€asÏan€arrest€warrant,€indictment,€presentment,€or€preliminary€hearing€in€cases€whereÏa€warrant€was€not€obtained€prior€to€the€arrest.€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€280,Ð p  Ð286€(Tenn.€1980),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€449€U.S.€845€(1980);€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2dÐ x Ð680,€685€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€It€is€clear€from€the€record€that€Defendant€had€notÏas€yet€been€formally€charged€as€of€the€time€he€gave€his€statement,€therefore€no€rightÏto€counsel€had€yet€attached€and€no€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€occurred.€ÌÌà ` àDefendant€urges€this€court€to€suppress€his€statement€as€involuntary€basedÏupon€denial€of€the€right€to€counsel€during€police€interrogation€pursuant€to€the€FifthÏAmendment.€€If€a€suspect€requests€that€counsel€be€present€during€police„initiatedÏcustodial€interrogation,€then€police€must€cease€questioning€until€counsel€for€thatÏsuspect€is€present.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444„45,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€1612,Ð À!` Ð16€L.Ed.2d€694€(1966);€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€482,€101€S.Ct.€1880,Ð È#h Ð1883,€68€L.Ed.2d€378€(1981);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€547„48.€€TheÐ Ð%p ÐDefendant€waived€his€right€to€counsel€verbally€and/or€in€writing€on€each€occasionÏwhen€he€was€interrogated€by€the€police.€€Therefore,€his€waiver€is€sufficient€for€theÏpolice€to€have€assumed€he€did€not€invoke€his€right€to€counsel€under€the€FifthÏAmendment.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€at€the€time€he€gave€his€statement€to€the€police€he€Ìhad€been€incarcerated€for€five€(5)€days€and€that€this€amount€of€time€violated€theÏFourth€Amendment€right€to€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€after€aÏwarrantless€arrest.€€The€State€concedes€that€Defendant€may€have€been€detainedÏover€a€period€of€forty„eight€(48)€hours,€therefore,€there€was€a€violation€of€the€FourthÐ  :À00 ÐAmendment.€€òòSeeóó€òòCounty€of€Riverside€v.€McLaughlinóó,€500€U.S.€44,€56,€111€S.Ct.Ð `  Ð1661,€1670,€114€L.Ed.2d€49,€63€(1991);€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€671„Ð h  Ð73€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€òòHuddlestonóó,€our€state€supreme€court€determined€that€the€ð ðfruitÐ p  Ðof€the€poisonous€treeðð€analysis€is€to€be€applied€to€determine€whether€a€statement€Ïobtained€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€must€be€suppressed.€€òòHuddlestonóó,Ð €  Ð924€S.W.2d€at€674.€€The€question€is€ð ðwhether€[the€statement]€ððwas€sufficiently€an€actÏof€free€will€to€purge€the€primary€taint€of€the€unlawful€invasion.ðððð€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422Ð 0  ÐU.S.€590,€598,€95€S.Ct.€2254,€2259,€45€L.Ed.2d€416€(1975)€(quoting€òòWong€Sun€v.Ð ˜8 ÐUnited€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€486,€83€S.Ct.€407,€416,€9€L.Ed.2d€441€(1963)).€€Ð  @ ÐÌà ` àFour€factors€are€useful€in€determining€whether€the€statement€was€voluntaryÏunder€the€above€standard:€(1)€the€presence€or€absence€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;€(2)€theÐ ¸X Ðtemporal€proximity€of€the€arrest€and€the€confession;€(3)€the€presence€of€interveningÏcircumstances;€and€(4)€the€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€official€misconduct.€€òòBrownóó,Ð È#h Ð422€U.S.€603„04,€95€S.Ct.€at€2261„62;€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€674„75.€€First,€allÐ Ð%p Ðtestimony€indicates€that€Defendant€was€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings€both€orally€and€inÐ Ø'x Ðwriting€prior€to€giving€his€statement€to€the€police.€€The€fact€that€Defendant€was€awareÏof€his€Fifth€Amendment€rights€against€self„incrimination€is€a€factor€weighing€in€favorÏof€attenuation.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€675.€€Second,€the€temporal€proximity€ofÐ ð-$$ Ðthe€arrest€and€confession,€a€period€of€just€a€few€hours€past€a€òòMcLaughlinóó€violation,Ð ø/˜&& Ðweighs€only€slightly€in€favor€of€suppression.ÌÌà ` àThe€third€factor,€the€presence€of€intervening€circumstances,€points€towardÏpurging€the€initial€illegality€of€the€statement€as€Defendant€consulted€with€his€familyÏon€May€7,€1996,€prior€to€giving€his€statement.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€675.€€AlsoÐ  :À00 Ðon€May€7,€Defendant€requested€to€voluntarily€submit€to€a€polygraph€examination€onÏthe€following€day.€€Defendantððs€consent€to€submit€and€remain€present€for€theÏpolygraph€examination€exemplifies€his€ð ðact€of€free€will,ðð€also€pointing€towardsÏattenuation.€€Finally,€the€State€concedes€that€Defendantððs€detention€under€the€fourthÏdetermining€factor€was€neither€inadvertent€nor€unintentional€based€upon€SheriffÏKelleyððs€testimony.€€ÌÌà ` àWhile€the€fourth€factor€is€weighed€heavily€by€this€court€when€determiningÏwhether€to€suppress€a€statement,€a€review€of€the€remaining€three€(3)€factors€leadsÏthis€court€to€conclude€that€Defendant€acted€sufficiently€of€free€will€to€purge€the€initialÏillegality€of€his€statement.€€Both€the€intervening€factors€and€the€use€of€òòMirandaóóÐ °P Ðwarnings€clearly€demonstrate€that€Defendant€acted€of€his€own€free€will,€and€the€thirdÏfactor,€that€of€temporal€proximity,€€does€not€exhibit€such€a€length€of€time€as€to€requireÏsuppression.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€also€argues€that€this€delay€violated€Rule€5€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure.€€Rule€5(a)€states€that€any€person€arrested€without€a€warrantÏshall€be€taken€without€unnecessary€delay€before€the€nearest€appropriate€magistrate.€ÏAs€Defendant€did€not€agree€to€a€lengthy€detention,€it€is€argued€that€the€delay€was€notÏin€good€faith€and€was€unnecessary.€€The€State€again€concedes€that€DefendantððsÏdetention€violates€this€rule.€€Violation€of€this€rule€results€in€suppression€of€aÏstatement€if€the€statement€was€not€voluntarily€given€under€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€670.€€The€following€factors€may€be€usedÐ 6°,, Ðâ âin€determining€the€voluntariness€of€the€confession:Ð 8¸.. ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€age€of€the€accused;€his€lack€of€education€or€his€intelligence€level;Ïâ âthe€extent€of€his€previous€experience€with€the€police;€the€repeated€andÏprolonged€nature€of€the€questioning;€the€length€of€the€detention€of€theÏaccused€before€he€gave€the€statement€in€question;€the€lack€of€anyÏadvice€to€the€accused€of€his€constitutional€rights;€whether€there€was€anÏunnecessary€delay€in€bringing€him€before€a€magistrate€before€he€gaveÏthe€confession;€whether€the€accused€was€injured,€intoxicated€orÏdrugged,€or€in€ill€health€when€he€gave€the€statement;€whether€theÏaccused€was€deprived€of€food,€sleep,€or€medical€attention;€whether€theÏaccused€was€physically€abused;€and€whether€the€suspect€wasÏthreatened€with€abuse.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌòòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€671€(quoting€òòPeople€v.€ñw ñœñw ñCiprianoóó,€431€Mich.€315,€429Ð 0  ÐN.W.2d€781€(1988)).ñx ñÌñx ñÌÌÓÓà ` àThere€is€no€evidence€within€the€record€to€support€that€the€Defendantððs€age,Ïintelligence€or€education€levels€prevented€him€from€voluntarily€confessing.€€Nor€wereÏany€physical€or€mental€limitations€introduced€into€evidence.€€There€is€some€evidenceÏindicating€Defendant€has€had€prior€contact€with€law€enforcement.€€While€DefendantÏwas€repeatedly€questioned€by€the€police,€he€was€òòMirandizedóó€prior€to€all€questioningÐ À!` Ðand€he€initiated€many€portions€of€that€questioning€voluntarily.€€Another€factor€favoringÏvoluntariness€of€his€confession€is€the€contact€he€was€allowed€to€have€with€his€family.€ÏAt€no€time€during€the€questioning€was€there€any€evidence€that€Defendant€wasÏdeprived€of€any€necessities,€nor€is€there€evidence€of€physical€or€mental€abuse.€ÏWhile€we€agree€there€was€an€unnecessary€delay€and€a€violation€of€Rule€5(a)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€weÏcannot€conclude€that€Defendantððs€statement€was€involuntary.€€ÌÌà@ÁÁ%DàòòPolygraph€examinationˆÐ 4¨** ÐÌà ` àóóDefendant€contends€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€access€to€the€resultsÐ 8¸.. Ðof€his€polygraph€examination€and€should€have€been€allowed€to€present€the€resultsÐ  :À00 Ðas€evidence.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Agent€Walley€testified€that€the€resultsÏindicated€that€Defendant€was€ð ðdeceptiveðð€as€to€his€involvement€in€the€crimesÏcommitted€against€the€victim.€€Therefore,€Defendant€was€allowed€access€to€theÏresults€of€the€examination.€€ÌÌà ` àWell„established€law€in€Tennessee€holds€that€the€results€of€a€polygraphÏexamination€are€not€admissible€as€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Hartóó,€911€S.W.2d€371,€377Ð 0  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€127€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcertóó.Ð ˜8 Ðòòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072,€109€S.Ct.€1357,€103€L.Ed.2d€825€(1989);€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,Ð  @ Ð710€S.W.2d€525,€529€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòGrant€v.€Stateóó,€213€Tenn.€440,€443,Ð ¨H Ð374€S.W.2d€391,€392€(1964).€€As€the€State€correctly€notes€within€its€brief,€neither€theÏoffer€to€take€a€polygraph€nor€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€exam€are€admissible€Ïas€evidence.€€òòAdkinsóó,€710€S.W.2d€at€528„29;€òòGrantóó,€374€S.W.2d€at€392.€€This€issueÐ À!` Ðis€without€merit.ÌÌà@ýýDàòòRevolver€and€Ballistics€test€resultsóóˆÐ Ø'x ÐÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€a€revolver€and€ballisticÏtest€results€into€evidence.€€Defendant€asserts€that€the€revolver€was€inadmissibleÏsince€his€prior€criminal€record€had€been€expunged.€€Furthermore,€the€DefendantÏurges€this€court€that€the€ballistics€test€results€were€so€inconclusive€as€to€be€renderedÏneither€relevant€nor€probative,€but€highly€prejudicial.ÌÌà ` àDuring€September€1994€at€the€Mid„South€Fair€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,ÏDefendant€was€arrested€for€carrying€a€loaded€.22€caliber€revolver.€€After€pleadingÐ  :À00 Ðguilty€to€charges€of€carrying€a€weapon€on€recreational€property,€Defendant€wasÏplaced€on€judicial€diversion.€€Evidently,€Defendant€completed€his€sentence€ofÏdiversion€without€further€incident€and€his€record€was€expunged.€€ÌÌà ` àExpungement€pursuant€to€judicial€diversion€includes€ð ðall€recordation€relatingÏto€the€personððs€arrest,€indictment€or€information,€trial,€finding€of€guilty€and€dismissalÏand€discharge€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(b).€€This€statuteððs€purpose€is€toÏrestore€the€defendant€to€the€status€the€person€occupied€prior€to€such€arrest,Ïindictment€or€information.€€Defendant€maintains€that€physical€evidence€isÏinadmissible€under€the€judicial€diversion€statute.€€There€is€no€authority€to€support€hisÏargument.€€The€purpose€of€expunging€records€of€a€criminal€charge€is€to€place€theÏperson€back€in€the€position€he€or€she€occupied€prior€to€being€arrested€or€charged.€ÏòòState€v.€Simsóó,€746€S.W.2d€191,€199€(Tenn.€1988).€€While€the€trial€court€did€allow€useÐ À!` Ðof€the€revolver€as€admissible€physical€evidence,€he€refused€to€allow€admission€ofÏany€facts€surrounding€Defendantððs€prior€arrest.€€The€expungement€language€in€ourÏjudicial€diversion€statute€precludes€use€of€proof€of€any€arrest,€indictment,€Ïinformation,€or€trial.€€òòState€v.€Dishmanóó,€915€S.W.2d€458,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à)€  Ð1995).€€Physical€evidence€is€not€excluded€under€this€statutory€section,€and€this€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€complains€the€ballistic€test€results€should€have€been€suppressedÏas€they€were€ð ðinconclusiveðð€and,€although€relevant,€their€probative€value€wasÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€The€decision€to€admit€orÏexclude€evidence€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€court€will€notÏoverturn€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòStateÐ  :À00 Ðv.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€806€(Tenn.€1994).€€While€the€officer€who€conducted€theÐ `  Ðballistics€tests€admitted€the€test€results€were€not€conclusive,€he€testified€that€theÏweapon€could€not€be€excluded€as€the€potential€murder€weapon.€€The€officer€alsoÏstated€that€the€four€class€characteristics€of€the€Defendantððs€weapon€matched€theÏbullet€which€killed€the€victim.€€€The€revolver€and€the€murder€weapon€had€matchingÏcalibers,€same€number€of€land€and€grooves,€matching€land€and€groove€widths,€andÏthe€same€direction€of€barrel€twists.€Coupled€with€the€statement€of€DefendantÏconfessing€to€the€crime,€these€test€results€are€relevant,€and€the€probative€valueÏclearly€outweighs€the€potential€prejudicial€effect€of€the€inconclusive€nature€of€theÏresults.ÌÌà@¤¤DàòòòòBatson€óóà@@DD/Dàóóòòchallenge€and€change€of€venueˆÐ ¸X ÐÌóóà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€Stateððs€exclusion€of€certain€black€jurors€was€inÐ È#h Ðviolation€of€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€S.Ct.€1712,€90€L.Ed.2d€69€(1986).€Ð Ð%p ÐFollowing€the€conclusion€of€voir€dire,€the€State€exercised€its€peremptory€challengesÏagainst€four€(4)€jurors,€specifically€jurors€Rivers,€Howell,€Woods€and€Bryant.€ÏDefendant€objected€under€òòBatsonóó€that€such€challenges€were€based€upon€willful€andÐ è+ˆ"" Ðpurposeful€discrimination€by€the€State.€€While€the€Defendant€argued€that€theseÏchallenges€resulted€in€all€blacks€being€excluded€from€the€jury,€the€State€responded,Ïð ð[I]tððs€been€an€unfortunate€coincidence€that€most€everybody€that€knows€theÏdefendant€or€his€family€is€African„American,€but€thatððs€a€sociological€fact€that€theÏState€canððt€be€prejudiced€by€.€.€.ðð€€Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àAfter€Defendant€objected,€the€State€responded€to€each€challenge€with€anÏâ âindividual€explanation€for€the€peremptory€challenge.€€First,€with€regard€to€jurorÏRivers,€the€State€cited€the€fact€that€he€had€been€through€the€criminal€courts€beforeÏand€worked€with€individuals€similarly€situated€to€the€Defendant€on€a€daily€basis.€€TheÏState€referenced€the€challenge€to€juror€Howell€due€to€her€relationship€with€theÏDefendant€and€his€family,€and€that,€in€response€to€questioning,€some€of€her€answersÏð ðgave€her€some€pause€about€her€judgment€in€this€case.ðð€€Juror€Woods€was€excludedÏby€the€State€as€he€has€a€son€the€same€age€as€the€Defendant€and€is€friends€with€theÏDefendant.€€Juror€Bryant€had€two€family€members€convicted€of€felony€offenses€inÏFayette€County.€€ÌÌà ` àThere€is€a€three„step€analysis€defined€in€òòBatsonóó€which€is€used€to€determineÐ ¸X Ðwhether€purposeful€discrimination€has€occurred€in€jury€selection.€€òòBatsonóó,€476€U.S.Ð À!` Ðat€96„98.€€First,€the€opponent€of€the€peremptory€challenge€must€establish€a€primaÏfacie€case€of€racial€discrimination.€€Second,€the€one€exercising€the€challenge€mustÏpresent€a€race„neutral€explanation€for€exercising€the€challenge.€€Third,€the€trial€courtÏis€to€determine€whether€the€reasons€given€are€sufficient€or€are€pretexts€forÏdiscrimination.€€ÌÌà ` àIn€òòWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Company,€Inc.óó,€916€S.W.2d€896,€904Ð ø/˜&& Ð(Tenn.€1996),€our€supreme€court€held€that€in€accomplishing€the€mandate€of€òòBatsonóó,Ð 2 (( Ðthe€trial€court€should€state€clearly€on€the€record,€outside€the€juryððs€presence,€theÏfacts€relied€upon€for€finding€the€presence€or€absence€of€a€prima€facie€showing.€€If€theÏtrial€court€finds€that€a€prima€facie€showing€has€been€made,€then€the€party€seekingÏto€exclude€the€juror€must€have€an€opportunity€to€offer€neutral€and€nondiscriminatoryÐ  :À00 Ðexplanations€for€the€exercise€of€the€challenge.€€ð ðThereafter,€the€judge€mustÏdetermine,€based€on€all€the€evidence,€whether€purposeful€discrimination€has€beenÏestablished.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€904.€€While€the€procedure€used€by€the€trial€court€did€not€explicitlyÐ p  Ðfollow€these€guidelines,€we€must€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€determined€first€thatÏa€prima€facie€case€of€discrimination€was€established€and,€second,€that€the€trial€judgeÏrejected€Defendantððs€objection€by€concluding€that€there€was€no€purposefulÏdiscrimination€by€the€State.€€òòIdóó.€at€905.€€While€the€trial€court€did€not€specifically€stateÐ 0  Ðwithin€the€record€the€reasons€for€each€finding,€the€record€of€voir€dire€supports€theÏtrial€courtððs€ruling€as€to€Defendantððs€òòBatsonóó€objection.€€Upon€review€of€the€record,€weÐ  @ Ðwill€not€set€aside€the€rulings€of€the€trial€court€as€they€are€not€clearly€erroneous.€€€òòSeeóóÐ ¨H ÐòòWoodsonóó,€916€S.W.2d€at€906€(citations€omitted).Ð °P ÐÌà ` àAfter€Defendant€made€a€contemporaneous€motion€for€a€change€of€venueÏduring€his€voir€dire€challenges,€the€trial€court€overruled€his€motion.€€DefendantÏobjected€on€the€basis€of€the€prosecutorððs€statement€that€most€every€African„¼American€in€the€potential€jury€pool€knew€the€Defendant.€€Rule€21(a)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€for€a€change€of€venue€ð ðif€it€appearsÏto€the€court€that,€due€to€undue€excitement€against€the€defendant€in€the€county€whereÏthe€offense€was€committed€or€any€other€cause,€a€fair€trial€probably€could€not€be€had.ðð€ÏThe€decision€to€change€venue€rests€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€willÏnot€be€overturned€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòRippy€v€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2dÐ 2 (( Ð636,€638€(Tenn.€1977);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€360€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ð 4¨** ÐÌà ` àIn€order€to€reverse€a€defendantððs€conviction€due€to€the€denial€of€his€motion€toÏchange€venue,€the€defendant€must€establish€that€the€jurors€empaneled€to€hear€hisÐ  :À00 Ðcase€were€prejudiced€or€biased€against€him.€€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,€451Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.Ð h  Ðòòdeniedóó,€114€S.Ct.€740€(1993).€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€undueÐ p  Ðexcitement€or€any€other€cause€threatened€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€in€that€county.€€TheÏmere€fact€that€there€was€extensive€knowledge€of€the€crimes€and€the€defendant€is€notÏsufficient€to€render€the€trial€constitutionally€unfair.€€òòState€v.€Kygeróó,€787€S.W.2d€13,Ð ˆ(  Ð19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(citation€omitted).€€Absent€any€proof€by€this€DefendantÏthat€the€jurors€were€prejudiced€against€him,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà@qq&DàòòMotion€for€mistrialóóˆÐ ¨H ÐÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€for€aÏmistrial€based€upon€the€prosecutorððs€reference€to€Defendantððs€expunged€convictionÏduring€the€trial.€€During€pretrial€motions,€the€trial€court€determined€that€DefendantððsÏprior€arrest€had€been€properly€expunged€and,€therefore,€the€prosecution€could€notÏð ðgo€into€the€underlying€circumstances€of€any€crimes€[the€Defendant]€would€haveÏcommitted€while€he€had€the€gun€or€any€charges€against€him.ðð€€Defendant€claims€thatÏthe€prosecution€did€present€testimony€of€and€reference€these€inadmissible€matters.€Ïño ñÌño ñÌà ` àA€mistrial€is€an€appropriate€remedy€when€a€trial€cannot€continue,€or€aÏmiscarriage€of€justice€would€result€if€it€did.€€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,Ð 2 (( Ð370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€decision€to€grant€a€mistrial€rests€in€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€thatÏâ âdiscretion€absent€clear€abuse€appearing€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,Ð 8¸.. Ð733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,Ð `  Ð644€(Tenn.€1990);€òòMcPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€370.Ð h  Ðâ âÌà ` àClearly,€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€prosecutor€elicited€testimonyÏregarding€the€pistol€taken€from€the€Defendant,€but€the€prosecutor€at€no€instance€everÏinquired€into€the€underlying€circumstances€surrounding€the€Defendantððs€arrest.€€As€Ïpreviously€determined,€the€testimony€concerning€Defendantððs€possession€of€aÏrevolver€was€admissible,€and€there€is€no€evidence€of€a€ð ðmanifest€necessityðð€by€whichÏthe€trial€court€should€have€declared€a€mistrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,Ð  @ Ð794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).Ìà ` àÌà@'' DàòòTestimony€of€jesse€james€jonesòòˆÐ ¸X ÐÌà ` àóóóóDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€some€portions€of€theÐ È#h Ðtestimony€of€Jesse€James€Jones,€a€cellmate€of€the€Defendant.€€Specifically,ÏDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€excluded€testimony€regarding€the€DefendantððsÏlack€of€ability€to€use€a€telephone€while€incarcerated.€€As€this€issue€was€notÏspecifically€included€within€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€this€issue€is€notÏproperly€before€this€court€and€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.Ð ð-$$ ÐClintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ð ø/˜&& ÐÌà@ÞÞ%DàòòJudgment€of€acquittalóóˆÐ 4¨** ÐÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict€and€judgment€of€acquittal€following€the€conclusion€of€the€StateððsÐ  :À00 Ðproof€and€at€the€end€of€the€trial.€€The€duty€of€the€trial€judge€and€the€reviewing€courtÏon€the€determination€of€a€motion€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€is€the€same€as€for€aÏmotion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Torreyóó,€880€S.W.2d€710,€712€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð p  ÐApp.€1993).€€This€duty€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€rule€for€determining€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€requires€the€trialÏjudge€and€the€reviewing€court€on€appeal€to€look€at€all€of€the€evidence,Ïto€take€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€it€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€theÏmotion,€and€to€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€from€it€in€its€favor;€toÏdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence,€and€if€then,€there€is€any€dispute€asÏto€any€material€determinative€evidence,€or€any€doubt€as€to€theÏconclusion€to€be€drawn€from€the€whole€evidence,€the€motion€must€beÏdenied.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€549€S.W.2d€943,€946€(Tenn.€1977)€(òòcitingóó€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€533Ð ¤D ÐS.W.2d€326,€329€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975)).ÌÌÌÓÓà ` àDefendant€was€convicted€of€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€€robbery€and€secondÏdegree€murder,€which€the€trial€court€merged€as€one€conviction€for€felony€murder.€€AtÏthe€time€of€this€offense,€a€reckless€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetrationÏof€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€robbery€or€burglary€constituted€first€degree€murder.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2).€€He€was€also€convicted€of€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€Especially€aggravated€robbery€is€the€intentional€or€knowing€theft€ofÏproperty€from€another€person€accomplished€by€a€deadly€weapon€and€the€victimÏsuffers€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„401,€„403.€ÌÌà ` àFrom€the€record,€it€is€clear€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€trialÏcourtððs€refusal€to€grant€these€motions.€€While€Defendant€focuses€upon€the€elementÏof€ð ðpremeditationðð€in€his€brief,€this€mental€state€was€not€required€by€these€offensesÏand€his€argument€is€moot.€€In€his€own€statement,€Defendant€admitted€to€intentionallyÏusing€a€revolver€to€rob€the€victim€of€his€store€earnings.€€While€the€Defendant€claimsÐ 9¼// Ðto€have€accidentally€fired€the€handgun,€evidence€demonstrated€that€it€would€take€aÏsignificant€amount€of€pressure€to€discharge€the€weapon.€€In€any€event,€the€recklessÏuse€of€the€weapon€resulting€in€the€death€of€the€victim€while€Defendant€committed€aÏrobbery€is€sufficient€to€constitute€convictions€of€felony€murder€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.ÌÌà@;;#DàòòLesser€included€offensesˆÐ 0  ÐÌóóà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€charge€the€jury€withÐ  @ Ðthe€lesser€offenses€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€including€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€Reasoning€that€there€was€notÏadequate€evidence€of€passion€or€provocation,€the€trial€court€refused€to€charge€theÏjury€on€these€lesser€offenses.€€The€trial€court€charged€second€degree€murder€as€aÏlesser€offense€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€charged€reckless€homicideÏas€a€lesser€offense€of€felony€murder.ÌÌà ` àWe€note€that€the€Defendant€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€a€newÏtrial.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(e)€requires€that€issues€in€a€motionÏfor€new€trial€be€ð ðspecifically€stated€.€.€.€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€asÏwaived.ðð€€We€do€have€the€authority€to€address€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€theÏjury€on€appropriate€lesser€offenses€as€plain€error.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€ÏHowever,€for€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€find€no€plain€error.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€by€the€jury€of€second€degree€murder,€felonyÏmurder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€court€merged€the€offense€ofÐ  :À00 Ðsecond€degree€murder€into€the€conviction€for€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€a€felony.€ÏLikewise,€even€if€the€jury€had€been€charged€with€voluntary€manslaughter€andÏcriminally€negligent€homicide€and€had€delivered€a€guilty€verdict€on€each€of€thoseÏcounts,€both€voluntary€manslaughter€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€convictionsÏwould€have€been€merged€by€the€trial€court€into€the€conviction€for€felony€murder.€€ÏThe€result€would€have€been€the€same€as€Defendantððs€current€conviction€for€felonyÏmurder.€€Therefore,€any€error€in€failing€to€charge€these€offenses€is€harmless.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ìñp ñÌñp ñÌà@#DàòòProsecutorial€misconductóóˆÐ ¨H ÐÌà ` àDefendant€asserts€in€his€brief€that€the€Stateððs€prosecutor€conducted€himselfÏinappropriately€throughout€the€trial€by€failing€to€comply€with€discovery,€impermissiblyÏcommunicating€with€a€witness€during€trial€recess,€and€noting€Defendantððs€expungedÏconviction€during€the€trial.€€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€specifically€asserts€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€ð ðin€allowing€the€State€to€argue€during€the€sentencing€phase,Ïmatter€which€was€outside€the€scope€of€the€aggravating€factors€presented€by€theÏState.ðð€€There€is€no€mention€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€of€any€communication€by€theÏprosecutor€with€a€witness€during€the€trial€or€of€any€failure€by€the€State€to€comply€withÏdiscovery.€During€the€Defendantððs€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€his€counselÏorally€requested€that€the€portion€of€his€motion€referencing€the€ð ðsentencing€phaseðð€ofÏthe€trial€be€struck€as€the€Defendant€received€the€minimum€sentence€with€regards€toÏall€counts.€€As€the€Defendantððs€remaining€assertions€of€prosecutorial€misconductÏâ âwere€not€specifically€included€within€his€motion€for€new€trial,€this€issue€is€not€properlyÐ 8¸.. Ðbefore€this€court€and€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,Ð `  Ð754€S.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ìâ âÌà ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€law€and€the€records€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€weÐ x Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìñq ñÌñq ññr ñÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìñr ññu ñÓÓñu ññs ñÌñs ññt ñÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌñt ñ