ÿWPC¥ %# UN! %o 0(uw@4Ýñ 0l 0Dt 0J¸ 0T 0^V 0h´ 0r 0|Ž 0†  0 1u  0d•U>ùv~7 vÓµ Bˆ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardHPPCL5G,,,,0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÁEÂÃEÄÅÆBeÇÕÉEÊgËd!ƒ#3|xË((3þÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New RomanPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€¼Ô›œÑ7€ž©XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMontgomery€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€38887à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€97„C„1834ÌPAUL€DENNIS€œREID›,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à àà àò òòòÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓORDERÌó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant€has€filed€application€for€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€9€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€orders€of€the€Davison€County€Criminal€Court€andÏthe€Montgomery€County€Circuit€Court.€€In€Davidson€County€case€#€97„C„1834,€Defendant€isÏcharged€with€two€counts€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€two€alternate€counts€of€felonyÏmurder.€€In€Montgomery€County€case€#€38887,€Defendant€is€charged€with€two€counts€of€firstÏdegree€murder€and€two€alternate€counts€of€felony€murder.€€The€cases€involve€different€victims.€ÏAdditional€criminal€acts,€not€relevant€to€the€issues€presented€in€this€appeal,€were€charged€in€bothÏindictments.€€The€State€has€given€proper€notice€that€it€intends€to€seek€the€death€penalty€in€bothÏcounties€in€the€event€Defendant€is€convicted€of€first€degree€murder.Ìà àÌà àIn€each€case,€the€trial€courts€have€ordered€Defendant€to€give€written€notice€if€he€intends€toÏintroduce€evidence€of€his€mental€condition€during€a€penalty€phase.€€The€trial€courts,€however,Ïspecified€different€procedures€to€be€followed€if€the€Defendant€does€in€fact€give€that€notice.€ÏDefendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€review€in€both€cases:Ìà8 àÓÓI.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€requiring€the€Defendant€to€give€specific€notice€of€hisÏintent€to€introduce€evidence€relating€to€his€mental€condition€in€the€penalty€phase€of€aÍcapital€case?ÌÓÓÌÓÓà8 àII.€€If€not,€did€the€trial€court€err€in€ruling€that€any€such€notice€by€the€DefendantÏwould€require€the€Defendant€to€be€examined€by€a€mental€health€professionalÏselected€by€the€prosecution?ÌÌÌÓÓWe€grant€Defendantððs€Rule€9€application,€and€we€consolidate€the€two€cases€for€purposes€of€thisÏappeal€only.€€Because€we€feel€the€issues€have€been€adequately€briefed,€we€affirm€the€order€of€theÏMontgomery€County€Circuit€Court€and€affirm€as€modified€the€order€of€the€Davidson€CountyÏCriminal€Court.Ìà àÌà àInitially€we€note€that€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€is€relevant€at€a€penaltyÏphase€of€a€capital€case.€€Tennesseeððs€capital€sentencing€scheme€provides€for€a€separate€penaltyÏphase€should€a€defendant€be€found€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204.€ÏDuring€this€proceeding,€the€State€may€present€additional€evidence€in€an€attempt€to€prove€certainÏaggravating€circumstances,€while€a€defendant€may,€but€is€not€required€to,€present€any€type€ofÏmitigation€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòœLockett›€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586€(1978)€(a€defendantððs€mitigation€evidenceÏmay€be€limited€in€few€instances).€€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statutory€scheme€enumerates€at€leastÏthree€mitigating€circumstances€which€touch€upon€the€defendantððs€mental€or€emotional€condition.€ÏSpecifically,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à(j)€In€arriving€at€the€punishment€the€jury€shall€consider,€as€heretofore€indicated,€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€which€shall€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€the€following:ÌÓ  Óò ò.€€€€€€€€€€€€.€€€€€€€€€€€.Ìó óÌÓ  Óà8 à(2)€The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€ofÏextreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance;ÌÌÓ  Óò ò.€€€€€€€€€€€€€.€€€€€€€€€€€€.ÌÌÓ  Óó óà8 à(8)€The€capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€defendantððsÏconduct€or€to€conform€the€defendantððs€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€wasÏsubstantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€whichÏwas€insufficient€to€establish€a€defense€to€the€crime€but€which€substantially€affectedÏthe€defendantððs€judgment;€and€ÌÌà8 àÌà8 à(9)€Any€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidence€produced€by€eitherÏthe€prosecution€or€defense€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€39„13„204(j)(2),€(8)€and€(9).€€Further,€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€isÏprohibited€where€the€defendant€is€mentally€retarded.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203.€ÌÌà àThis€statutory€sentencing€scheme€also€provides€that€evidence€may€be€offered€which€tends€toÏð ðestablish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€Clearly,€theÏdefendant€has€a€right€to€offer€mitigation€evidence€during€the€penalty€phase,€and€just€as€clearly,€theÏState€has€a€right€to€rebut€any€mitigating€evidence,€including€evidence€of€mental€or€emotionalÏconditions€presented€by€the€defendant.€€Based€on€the€foregoing,€the€issue€of€the€defendantððs€mentalÏcondition€is€obviously€highly€relevant€in€the€sentencing€or€penalty€phase.€€ÌHowever,€no€statute,€rule€or€other€authority€explicitly€authorizes€a€court€to€require€a€defendant€toÏgive€notice€of€his€intent€to€use€such€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€case.€€This€CourtÏfinds€that€it€is€clear€that€without€such€a€notice€and€a€court„ordered€mental€examination,€the€StateððsÏability€to€rebut€any€mitigation€evidence€relating€to€defendantððs€mental€condition€becomes€essentiallyÏmeaningless.€€We€must€therefore€examine€the€issues€presented€and€then€fashion€a€procedure€thatÏcomplies€with€constitutional€standards.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€.Ìà àÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àDefendant€argues€in€his€first€issue€that€Rule€12.2€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure€does€not€specifically€require€the€defendant€in€a€criminal€case€to€give€notice€of€his€or€herÏintent€to€introduce€expert€testimony€at€the€penalty€phase€regarding€the€defendantððs€mentalÏcondition.€€The€State€basically€concedes€this€point.€€However,€the€State€notes€that€the€death€penaltyÏstatutory€scheme€requires€the€same€jury€that€determined€guilt€to€determine€punishment€as€soon€asÏpossible€after€the€conclusion€of€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€State€argues€that€if€it€is€not€put€onÍpre„trial€notice€of€Defendantððs€intention€to€offer€expert€proof€of€mental€condition€at€the€sentencingÏphase,€then€inevitable€delay€of€the€penalty€phase€would€occur€to€allow€the€State€to€have€defendantÏexamined.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àAs€noted€earlier,€our€statutes€provide€that€evidence€may€be€offered€during€the€penalty€phaseÏwhich€tends€to€ð ðestablish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€It€isÏreasonable€to€conclude€that€the€desired€balance€struck€by€Rules€12.2€and€16€relating€to€the€guiltÏphase,€is€no€less€crucial€in€the€penalty€phase.€€The€obvious€intent€of€these€rules,€as€they€relate€toÏexpert€mental€condition€evidence€offered€by€a€defendant€in€a€trial,€is€to€alert€the€State€that€suchÏevidence€may€be€offered.€€The€State€is€thereby€assured€the€opportunity€to€evaluate€the€evidence€andÏmount€a€meaningful€challenge€to€it.€€Rules€12.2€and€16€strike€a€balance€between€the€competingÏinterests€of€the€defendant€and€the€State.€€However,€this€balance€is€lost€in€the€penalty€phase€whereÏno€notice€is€specifically€required.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(a)€mandates€that€the€sentencing€hearingÏð ðshall€be€conducted€as€soon€as€practicable€before€the€same€jury€that€determined€guilt.ðð€€Rule€2€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àRule€2.€€Purpose€and€Construction€„€These€rules€are€intended€to€provide€for€the€justÏdetermination€of€every€criminal€proceeding.€€They€shall€be€construed€to€secureÏòòsimplicityóó€in€procedure,€òòfairnessóó€in€administration€and€the€òòelimination€ofóóÏòòunjustifiable€expense€and€delayóó.€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÓÓÌIf€notice€is€given€for€the€first€time€following€the€guilt€phase,€the€resulting€delay€would€beÏsignificant.€€The€State€would€likely€seek€a€court„ordered€mental€evaluation€of€the€defendant€whileÏthe€jury€would€have€to€idly€wait€during€this€time.€€The€Court€might€be€forced€to€choose€betweenÏprecluding€a€portion€of€the€defendantððs€mitigation€evidence€or€forcing€the€State€to€effectively€foregoÏpreparation€for€rebuttal.€€In€the€absence€of€precluding€authority,€logic€dictates€that€the€penalty€phaseÏmust€be€guided€by€the€same€fairness€concerns€and€procedural€safeguards€that€govern€the€guiltÍphase.€€Such€notice€ensures€an€expedient€penalty€phase€with€does€not€compromise€fundamentalÏfairness€and€does€not€impede€judicial€efficiency€in€a€capital€case.Ìà àÌà àFurthermore,€we€find€that€the€requirement€of€a€pre„trial€notice€is€consistent€with€state€andÏfederal€constitutional€considerations,€statutory€laws,€and€applicable€rules€of€procedure.€This€pre„trial€notice€protects€the€Stateððs€right€of€rebuttal€without€unduly€infringing€upon€the€defendantððsÏright€to€present€mitigation€evidence.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€a€pre„trial€notice€of€the€defendantððsÏintent€to€use€evidence€of€a€mental€condition€at€the€penalty€phase€is€appropriate.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àHaving€determined€that€pre„trial€notice€of€the€defendantððs€intent€to€introduce€evidence€of€aÏmental€condition€in€a€penalty€phase€is€appropriate,€we€must€now€consider€whether€it€is€appropriateÏto€order€a€mental€examination€if€requested€by€the€State.ÌÌà àOnce€a€Rule€12.2€notice€has€been€given,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€12.2(c)Ïprovides€that€the€State€may€request€that€the€defendant€undergo€a€ð ðmental€examination€by€aÏpsychiatrist€or€the€other€expert€designated€for€this€purpose€in€the€order€of€the€court.ðð€€The€ruleÏplaces€the€following€limits€on€the€use€of€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€the€course€of€theÏexamination:ÌÓÓà8 àNo€statement€made€by€the€defendant€in€the€course€of€any€examination€provided€forÏby€this€rule,€whether€the€examination€be€with€or€without€the€consent€of€theÏdefendant,€no€testimony€by€the€expert€based€upon€such€statement,€and€no€otherÏfruits€of€the€statement€shall€be€admitted€in€evidence€against€the€defendant€in€anyÏcriminal€proceeding€except€for€impeachment€purposes€or€on€an€issue€respectingÏmental€condition€on€which€the€defendant€has€introduced€testimony.ÌÓÓÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.2(c).€ÌÌà àThe€issue€of€whether€a€defendant,€who€has€given€a€Rule€12.2€notice,€may€be€subjected€to€aÏcourt„ordered€examination€is€now€well€settled€in€Tennessee.€€The€concerns€of€privilege€againstÏself„incrimination€and€the€right€to€counsel€have€been€addressed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€inÏòòState€v.€Thomas€Dee€œHuskey›óó,€__S.W.2d__,€No.€œ03S01›„9610„CR„00096,€Knox€County€(Tenn.ÏMarch€9,€1998)€and€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€950€S.W.2d€20€(1997).ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€recently€held€in€òòœHuskey›óó€that€ð ðthe€court„ordered€examination€and€theÏdisclosure€of€the€examination€material€does€not€violate€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„incrimination,€provided€the€admissibility€of€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€during€theÏexamination,€and€any€ððfruitsðð€derived€therefrom,€is€only€for€impeachment€or€rebuttal€of€evidence€ofÏmental€condition€introduced€at€trial€by€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€disclosure€of€€the€informationÏfrom€the€examination€is€not€limited€by€Rule€16€and€does€not€depend€on€whether€the€defendantÏintends€to€use€the€information€or€witness€involved€in€the€Rule€12.2(c)€examination.ðð€€No.€œ03S01›„9610„CR„00096,€€slip€op.€at€17„18.ÌÌà àIn€òòMartinóó,€the€defendant€argued€that€a€court„ordered€mental€examination€violated€hisÏconstitutional€rights€as€well.€€The€òòMartinóó€court€thoroughly€reviewed€the€privilege€against€self„Ïincrimination€as€provided€in€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€article€I,€ððÏ9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€supreme€court€also€analyzed€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€theÏexamination€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€The€court€held€thatÏð ðRule€12.2(c)€safeguards€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„incrimination€under€the€United€StatesÏand€Tennessee€Constitutions.ðð€€950€S.W.2d€at€24.€€ÌÌà àThis€Court€can€find€by€analogy€that€a€court„ordered€mental€examination€of€the€defendant€inÏa€penalty€phase€does€not€violate€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rights.€€Accordingly,€upon€notice€byÏthe€defendant€of€his€intent€to€use€evidence€of€a€mental€condition,€the€trial€court€can€order€a€mentalÍexamination€if€requested€by€the€State.ÌÌà àWe€must€now€determine€the€most€appropriate€procedure€for€handling€the€results€of€such€anÏexamination€in€a€penalty€phase.€€The€order€of€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court,€issued€byÏJudge€Cheryl€Blackburn,€provided€the€following€guidelines€for€giving€notice€of€intent€to€introduceÏevidence€of€a€mental€condition€at€a€penalty€phase:Ìà8 àÓÓÌà8 à1.€€If€the€defendant€intends€to€introduce€evidence€of€a€mental€condition€at€a€penaltyÏphase,€he€must€file€written€notice€thereof€no€later€than€May€1,€1998.€€The€noticeÏshall€include€the€name€and€professional€qualifications€of€any€mental€conditionÏprofessional€the€defense€intends€to€call€as€a€witness€at€a€penalty€phase€and€a€brief,Ïgeneral€summary€of€the€topics€to€be€addressed€by€the€expert(s)€sufficient€to€permitÏthe€State€to€determine€if€an€evaluation€is€necessary€and,€if€so,€in€what€area€itsÏexpert(s)€must€be€knowledgeable.ÌÓÓà8 àÌÓÓà8 à2.€€If€the€defendant€files€such€a€notice,€the€defendant€shall,€if€requested€by€the€State,Ïbe€examined€by€a€psychiatrist€or€other€mental€health€professional€selected€by€theÏState.€€The€State€and€defense€will€cooperate€to€provide€the€court„orderedÏprofessional€with,€subject€to€privilege,€all€necessary€and€relevant€information.€€SaidÏexamination€may€be€videotaped€in€accordance€with€the€òòMartinóó€guidelines.€€TheÏStateððs€examination€shall€take€place€no€later€than€June€1,€1998.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà8 à3.€€The€report€of€that€examination€shall€be€provided€ò òonlyó ó€to€the€Court.€€The€Court,Ïin€turn,€will€deliver€the€report€to€the€defendant€so€that€he,€through€counsel,€canÏmake€a€final€determination€as€to€whether€he€will€introduce€such€evidence€at€aÏpenalty€phase.€€If€the€defendant€elects€to€go€forward€with€his€evidence€of€mentalÏcondition€at€a€penalty€phase,€the€State€will€be€supplied€with€the€evaluation€and€testÏresults€for€the€preparation€for€rebuttal€prior€to€the€trial.€€However,€if,€based€uponÏthe€results€of€the€court„ordered€examination,€the€defendant€elects€not€to€proceedÏwith€such€evidence,€the€State€will€not€be€permitted€to€view€the€report.ÌÓÓÌà àÌThe€order€of€the€Montgomery€County€Circuit€Court,€authored€by€Judge€John€H.€œGassaway›,€III,Ïprovided€guidelines€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à1.€€If€the€defendant€intends€to€introduce€mental€condition€testimony€at€a€penaltyÏphase,€he€must€file€written€notice€thereof€no€later€than€May€1,€1998.€€The€noticeÏshall€include€the€name€and€professional€qualifications€of€any€mental€conditionÍprofessional€who€will€testify€and€a€brief,€general€summary€of€the€topics€to€beÏaddressed€that€is€sufficient€to€permit€the€State€to€determine€the€area€in€which€itsÏexpert€must€be€versed.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà8 à2.€€If€the€defendant€files€a€notice€that€he€intends€to€introduce€mental€conditionÏtestimony€at€the€penalty€phase,€the€defendant€shall€be€examined€by€a€psychiatrist€orÏother€mental€health€professional€selected€by€the€State,€if€requested.€€The€StateððsÏexamination€shall€take€place€no€later€than€June€1,€1998.€€The€report€of€thatÏexamination€and€the€expert€report€of€any€examination€initiated€by€the€defendant€(ifÏsame€exist)€shall€be€filed€under€seal€with€the€Court€before€the€commencement€ofÏjury€selection.€€The€court„appointed€mental€condition€professional€conducting€theÏexamination€for€the€State€shall€not€discuss€his/her€examination€with€anyone€unlessÏand€until€the€results€of€the€examination€are€released€by€the€Court€to€counsel€for€theÏState€and€counsel€for€the€defendant€following€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà8 à3.€€The€results€of€any€examination€by€the€[œS]tate›€expert€and€the€defense€expert€(ifÏsame€exist)€shall€be€released€to€the€State€only€in€the€event€that€the€jury€reaches€aÏverdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€only€after€the€defendant€confirms€hisÏintent€to€offer€mental€condition€evidence€in€mitigation.€€After€the€return€of€such€aÏverdict,€the€defendant€shall€file€a€pleading€confirming€or€disavowing€his€intent€toÏintroduce€mental€condition€testimony€at€a€penalty€phase.€€If€the€defendantÏwithdraws€his€previously„tendered€notice,€the€results€of€any€mental€conditionÏexaminations€concerning€the€defendant€will€not€be€released€to€the€State.€€The€reportsÏof€any€examinations€(whether€by€the€State€or€defense€experts)€concerning€theÏdefendant€shall€be€released€to€the€State€immediately€after€the€filing€of€the€pleadingÏconfirming€the€earlier€notice.€€At€the€same€time,€the€report€of€the€Stateððs€expert€shallÏbe€released€to€counsel€for€the€defendant.€€Even€if€the€defendant€confirms€his€intentÏto€offer€mental€condition€evidence,€the€defendant€may€withdraw€his€notice€of€intentÏto€raise€a€mental€condition€at€any€time€before€actually€introducing€such€evidence,Ïand,€in€that€event,€neither€the€fact€of€notice,€nor€the€results€or€reports€of€any€mentalÏexamination,€nor€any€facts€disclosed€only€therein,€will€be€admissible€against€theÏdefendant.ÌÓÓÌà àThis€Court€finds€the€procedure€set€forth€by€Judge€œGassaway›€to€be€the€more€appropriate€oneÏto€follow€in€consideration€of€the€provisions€found€in€Rules€2,€12.2€and€16€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure.€€Therefore,€in€both€Davidson€County€case€#97„C„1834,€and€inÏMontgomery€County€case€#38887,€the€trial€courts€are€to€implement€the€following€procedure€forÏgiving€notice€of€intent€to€introduce€evidence€of€a€mental€condition€by€Defendant€at€a€penalty€phase:ÌÓÓ€Ìà8 à1.€€If€the€defendant€intends€to€introduce€mental€condition€testimony€at€a€penaltyÏphase,€he€must€file€written€notice€thereof€no€later€than€an€appropriate€date€set€forthÏby€the€trial€court.€€The€notice€shall€include€the€name€and€professional€qualificationsÏof€any€mental€condition€professional€who€will€testify€and€a€brief,€general€summaryÍof€the€topics€to€be€addressed€that€is€sufficient€to€permit€the€State€to€determine€theÏarea€in€which€its€expert€must€be€versed.ÌÌà8 à2.€€If€the€defendant€files€a€notice€that€he€intends€to€introduce€mental€conditionÏtestimony€at€the€penalty€phase,€the€defendant€shall€be€examined€by€a€psychiatrist€orÏother€mental€health€professional€selected€by€the€State,€if€requested.€€The€StateððsÏexamination€shall€take€place€within€a€reasonable€time€frame€set€forth€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€The€report€of€that€examination€and€the€expert€report€of€any€examinationÏinitiated€by€the€defendant€(if€same€exist)€shall€be€filed€under€seal€with€the€CourtÏbefore€the€commencement€of€jury€selection.€€The€court„appointed€mental€conditionÏprofessional€conducting€the€examination€for€the€State€shall€not€discuss€his/herÏexamination€with€anyone€unless€and€until€the€results€of€the€examination€are€releasedÏby€the€Court€to€counsel€for€the€State€and€counsel€for€the€defendant€following€theÏguilt€phase€of€the€trial.ÌÌà8 à3.€€The€results€of€any€examination€by€the€State€expert€and€the€defense€expert€(ifÏsame€exist)€shall€be€released€to€the€State€only€in€the€event€that€the€jury€reaches€aÏverdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€only€after€the€defendant€confirms€hisÏintent€to€offer€mental€condition€evidence€in€mitigation.€€After€the€return€of€such€aÏverdict,€the€defendant€shall€file€a€pleading€confirming€or€disavowing€his€intent€toÏintroduce€mental€condition€testimony€at€a€penalty€phase.€€If€the€defendantÏwithdraws€his€previously„tendered€notice,€the€results€of€any€mental€conditionÏexaminations€concerning€the€defendant€will€not€be€released€to€the€State.€€The€reportsÏof€any€examinations€(whether€by€the€State€or€defense€experts)€concerning€theÏdefendant€shall€be€released€to€the€State€immediately€after€the€filing€of€the€pleadingÏconfirming€the€earlier€notice.€€At€the€same€time,€the€report€of€the€Stateððs€expert€shallÏbe€released€to€counsel€for€the€defendant.€€Even€if€the€defendant€confirms€his€intentÏto€offer€mental€condition€evidence,€the€defendant€may€withdraw€his€notice€of€intentÏto€raise€a€mental€condition€at€any€time€before€actually€introducing€such€evidence,Ïand,€in€that€event,€neither€the€fact€of€notice,€nor€the€results€or€reports€of€any€mentalÏexamination,€nor€any€facts€disclosed€only€therein,€will€be€admissible€against€theÏdefendant.ÌÌà àÌà àÌÓÓà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€order€of€the€Montgomery€County€Circuit€Court€and€affirm€asÏmodified€the€order€of€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court.Ìà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àPer€Curiamó ó€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœPeay›,€J.,€œWelles›,€J.,€œWoodall›,€J.à àÌà à