ÿWPC3 Ž·‹ªÃöEÐØ7œó¨âm»ÞÞš¦Ž{åú7ÉpüEÒغ}åh 0Vî…ÞmÜpÞh9Hí›&íÓòÈ™ÅD¡Ïĵ‹ð‡(`ûX|¯_!=‚snµ¥€ÀMfO·Cù; »ÉŠcÚ”XkÀÓøãq ("?Ô«>:¶ß’Õø¹Þ)ú}Œ¹_ßè¢tgºQµ(ã«9);l „a{õŠ ß‚ œ(EÙ£¾BìÙÍâÛN|sHùÆÕ±f_„H2±î¢ÌEü½Ï7د™»k˪Æ­|õ¼€Y &§`é¬HSQo›uáÀ‚ÞðÓ ç†¹{YLÙü˜÷”ìCX¯bèZ×f®ÝZYÝx§ƒ•#È·Ã3óâfFÒ²‰Ê)ÞìrÑù>¿„@nÒÝ(™¸¶ÿ˜†RvÕ¶R}Ö80åIï‚bbÄe«Øû¿~°i2Q·¬1U×0oºˆ…PÜÚ¾Ö ¸"¡[ßm;'å Ë“¾^á¦0±l³¾ßb6ø¸{E^Ç¥±¼Îi±õG,š÷‘O1+ìükÜïØc+Ø®q΂ôñëX8¥ó¨VWÉ°Yuº²Aú®ö^£6\òb!f |ÔY "0òp©%•y"§ã~q¥#É_ %ÏaU!NÕa 0ˆ#bUYN«b 0 Dùb^ =c zIcÒÃcU>•d}ÓdäPgÜ4iÆkÆÖkÆœlÆbmn(nN–o (˜oU@ÀoEpwp4pp)p„+p m¯r$ÆrêrsvvpySs{UFÆŒ ‚ ‚˜…´†ЇЇЇЇЇЇbìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆìˆ 0 ëôˆôˆôˆôˆ B߉߉ 0¤ü‰ D5 Š D-ÕŠ 0K‹‹ ASM‹Æ ‹ 0¤fŒ 0D A«NNNNNNNNNNNN 2ùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùÊ+Ž .õŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽõŽ 2##### ,UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 2 2³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ 0 Nå˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó)/Ï  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptô\  `‹&Times New Roman sÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLarry€Bryant,€Director€of€Montgomery€County€911€Emergency€Operations,€testified€at€trial€and€confirmed€thatÐ ° ÐCraig€Mace€made€3€calls€to€911€on€April€23,€1997,€beginning€at€10:25€p.m.€€According€to€Mr.€Bryant,€the€first€policeÐ qÁ Ðunit€was€dispatched€at€10:49€p.m.€€Mr.€Bryant€explained€there€was€a€delay€in€dispatching€a€unit€due€to€heavy€volumeÐ 2‚ Ðthat€night€and€the€operatorððs€difficulty€understanding€Craig€Maceððs€call€from€a€cell€phone.€€€ ÚÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€evidence€seized€from€appellantððs€car€and€home€and€the€samples€taken€from€appellantððs€person,€which€wereÐ ° Ðultimately€used€in€the€trial€at€issue,€were€seized€as€a€result€of€the€investigation€of€the€Captain€Dððs€murders€in€NashvilleÐ qÁ Ðand€were€introduced€as€evidence€in€the€Captain€Dððs€murder€trial. ÒÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Auble€testified€and€her€report€actually€states€that€the€appellant€advised€her€that€he€had€been€underÐ ° Ðsurveillance€by€a€ð ðmimeticðð€field.€€However,€Dr.€Auble€explained€that€Dr.€Amador€had€advised€her€that€appellant€wasÐ qÁ Ðreferring€to€a€magnetic€field€and€she€had€simply€misunderstood€appellant.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 dÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€appeal€of€his€convictions€in€the€Captain€Dððs€murders,€appellant€did€not€challenge€warrant€145,€authorizingÐ ° Ðthe€search€of€his€car,€but€the€Supreme€Courtððs€analysis€is€equally€applicable€to€warrant€145.€Document1zzHN_F10(@øÐ Z‹(Times New Roman lk.3|x? zÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAppellant€bases€his€argument€in€part€on€the€fact€that€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòDellingeróó€was€called€intoÐ ° Ðquestion€because€òòDellingeróó€relied€in€part€on€òòWalton€v.€Arizonaóó,€110€U.S.€3047€(1990),€which€was€overruled€by€òòRingóó.€Ð qÁ ÐHowever,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€denied€certiorari€in€òòDellingeróó€in€December€of€2002,€and€our€supreme€courtÐ 2‚ Ðhas€not€yet€overruled€òòÔ_ÔDellingerÔ_Ôóó.€€ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀDocument1zzHN_B10 Ñ | Ñ ƒÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€issue€of€which€party€bears€the€burden€of€proof€at€a€competency€hearing€is€in€dispute€in€this€case.€Ð ° ÐAppellant€contends€that€the€State€bears€the€burden€of€proving€that€a€defendant€is€competent€to€stand€trial.€€To€supportÐ qÁ Ðthis€argument,€appellant€cites€to€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€174.€€However,€a€review€of€òòBlackóó€reveals€that€the€supreme€courtÐ 2‚ Ðmerely€quotes€a€jury€instruction€by€a€trial€court,€which€stated€that€the€State€bore€the€burden€of€proof€to€prove€competencyÐ óC Ðto€stand€trial€once€the€issue€of€competency€was€asserted,€rather€than€affirmatively€adopting€this€standard€as€bindingÐ ´ Ðprecedent€in€Tennessee.€€This€issue€is€analyzed€in€more€detail€òòinfraóó.€ lÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€òòJordanóó€was€decided,€the€term€present€insanity€was€used€rather€than€competency.€€The€test€forÐ ° Ðpresent€insanity€was€whether€the€defendant€was€of€sufficient€mental€capacity€to€give€sane€advice€to€his€counsel€involvingÐ qÁ Ðthe€charge€in€the€indictment.€òòóó€òòJordanóó,€135€S.W.€at€328.€€The€jury€charge€in€òòJordanóó€related€to€the€issue€of€competency€toÐ 2‚ Ðstand€trial€as€opposed€to€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense. fÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€having€no€bearing€on€the€case€herein,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€submitted€a€proposedÐ ° Ðamendment€to€Rule€613(b)€on€January€31,€2003,€to€add€the€words€ð ðand€untilðð€after€the€word€ð ðunlessðð€in€order€toÐ qÁ Ðincorporate€the€holding€in€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€964€S.W.2d€564€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€amendment€was€ratified€and€approvedÐ 2‚ Ðby€2003€House€Resolution€22€and€Senate€Resolution€10€and€became€effective€July€1,€2003.€€ IÝ ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAmong€other€things,€appellant€challenges:€(1)€the€Stateððs€reference€to€the€DNA€database€as€ð ðbig,€hugeðð€asÐ ° Ðmisleading€to€the€jury;€(2)€the€implication€by€the€State€that€appellant€had€committed€other€murders€by€referring€to€theÐ qÁ Ðmurders€in€ð ðthis€countyðð€and€ð ðour€county;ðð€(3)€the€implication€by€the€State€that€appellant€failed€to€testify;€(4)€the€StateððsÐ 2‚ Ðreference€to€the€donor€of€blood€on€the€shoes€of€appellant€as€belonging€to€the€victims;€(5)€the€Stateððs€reference€to€latexÐ óC Ðgloves€that€were€found€at€the€crime€scene€and€their€connection€with€appellant;€and€(6)€the€Stateððs€ð ðbank€of€justiceÐ ´ Ðanalogyðð€in€closing€argument€that€indicated€it€was€the€juryððs€civic€duty€to€find€appellant€guilty.€€Appellant€failed€to€makeÐ uÅ Ðobjections€to€these€alleged€instances€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€at€trial.€€Appellantððs€failure€to€object€constitutes€waiverÐ 6 † Ðof€these€issues€on€appeal.€òòóó€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229,€234€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð ÷ G Ð36(a));€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€974€S.W.2d€186,€188€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòLittleóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€651€(holding€that€failureÐ ¸  Ðto€object€to€prosecutorððs€alleged€misconduct€during€closing€argument€waives€later€complaint).€€Accordingly,€these€issuesÐ y É  Ðare€without€merit.€€´¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular ‚Ý ƒR9µ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAmong€other€things,€appellant€challenges:€(1)€the€Stateððs€reference€to€Angela€Holmesððs€thoughts€as€she€layÐ ° Ðdying;€(2)€the€Stateððs€action€of€throwing€dollar€bills€on€the€overhead€projector€which€displayed€the€pictures€of€the€victimÐ qÁ Ðduring€closing€argument€as€appealing€to€the€passion€of€the€jury;€and€(3)€the€Stateððs€placement€of€the€victimððs€photographsÐ 2‚ Ðon€the€overhead€projector.€€Again,€appellant€failed€to€object€to€these€actions€and€statements€during€the€prosecutorððsÐ óC Ðclosing.€€Therefore,€they€are€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòThorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€234€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a));€òòGreenóó,€974Ð ´ ÐS.W.2d€at€188;€òòLittleóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€651.€€http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=713&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993114512&ReferencePosition=651http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=713&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993114512&ReferencePosition=651http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=713&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1993114512&ReferencePosition=651- ù-(|G29µ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›ù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®Lò»»Ô d(|3ÿ%$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›ù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ%$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›ù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKDocument1zzSDUNumber19http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000039&DocName=TNSTS24-7-117&FindType=LDocument1zzFN_B01313Document1zzSDUNumber84Document1zzFN_F0044Document1zzSDUNumber87Document1zzSDUNumber94(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€›ù»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼›ù»»»ÔÑ8€Æ·XXdé»»d8ÑрߚÑà@hhìàÔ‡î`¦î»¼›ùÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼›ù»îî`¦#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓOctober€14,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÆ·X»¼›ùÔÌò òÔ#†¼›ù»XXÆ·#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€PAUL€DENNIS€REID,€JR.òòóóÔ‡XÆ·X»¼›ùÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€38887€€€€€John€H.€Ô_ÔGasawayÔ_Ô,€III,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02753„CCA„R3„DD€„€Filed€December€29,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔThe€appellant,€Paul€Dennis€Reid,€Jr.,€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€two€counts€of€premeditatedÐ V¦  Ðmurder,€two€counts€of€felony€murder,€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€and€one€countÐ ? Ðof€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€felony€murder€convictions€were€merged€into€the€premeditatedÐ (x Ðmurder€convictions.€€Thereafter,€the€jury€sentenced€the€appellant€to€death€based€upon€the€existenceÐ a Ðof€three€aggravating€circumstances:€the€appellant€had€previously€been€convicted€of€one€or€moreÐ úJ Ðfelonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€the€statutory€elements€of€which€involve€the€use€of€violenceÐ ã3 Ðto€the€person;€the€murders€were€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€orÐ Ì Ðpreventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€defendant€or€another;€and€the€murder€was€especiallyÐ µ Ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÐ žî Ðnecessary€to€produce€death.ò ò€€ó óThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€violent€offender€to€twenty„Ð ‡× Ðfive€years€imprisonment€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,Ð sà Ðto€run€consecutively€to€his€sentences€for€first€degree€murder€and€to€a€prior€out„of„state€sentence.ò ò€€ó óOnÐ \¬ Ðappeal,€appellant€presents€forty„five€issues.€€After€an€extensive€review€of€the€record€and€theÐ H˜ Ðapplicable€law,€we€find€that€none€of€these€issues€warrants€a€reversal€of€this€case.€€Therefore,€theÐ 1 Ðjudgments€of€the€trial€court€are€AFFIRMED.€€ò òó óÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Öä#ÔÔ#†¼›ù»XXÆ·Œ#ÔÔ‡XÆ·X»¼›ùÔÐ j ÐÓØÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ì <  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼›ù»àXÆ·8 #ÔÔ‡XÆ·X.¼›ùÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes€óóand€òòThomas€T.Ð ¿"" ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ¨#ø# ÐÌJames€A.€Simmons€and€Thomas€F.€Bloom,€Nashville,€Tennessee€for€the€appellant,€Paul€Dennis€Reid,Ð z%Ê % ÐJr.Ð c&³!& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Mark€E.Ð 5(…#( ÐDavidson,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Arthur€F.Ð )n$) ÐÔ_ÔBieberÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð *W%* ÐÌÌÌÓë ÓÐ «-û(.ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼›ù»XXÆ· #ÔÔ‡XÆ·X»¼›ùÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼›ù»XXÆ·|#ÔÔ‡XÆ·X»¼›ùÔÓ  ÓòòÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôà@ìì*ìàˆÌóóà@ìì*ìàˆÌÓÓà@!ìàò òòòFactual€BackgroundóóˆÐ U¥ ÐÌó óÓÓà  àOn€April€23,€1997,€twenty„one€year„old€Angela€Holmes€and€sixteen„year„old€Michelle€MaceÐ ý M Ðwere€abducted€and€murdered€while€working€at€the€Baskin„Robbins€ice€cream€store€on€WilmaÐ æ 6  ÐRudolph€Boulevard€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee.€€Both€Ms.€Holmesððs€and€Ms.€Maceððs€bodies€wereÐ Ï   Ðfound€the€following€morning€at€the€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park€in€Clarksville.€€Appellant€was€indictedÐ ¸  Ðfor€the€kidnapping€and€murders€of€Ms.€Holmes€and€Ms.€Mace€on€June€25,€1997.€€Prior€to€the€returnÐ ¡ñ  Ðof€the€indictments€in€this€case,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€committing€robbery€and€murder€atÐ ŠÚ  Ða€Captain€Dððs€restaurant€and€a€McDonaldððs€restaurant€in€Nashville.€€€Appellant€was€convicted€of€theÐ sà  Ðmurders€at€the€Captain€Dððs€restaurant€and€sentenced€to€death€prior€to€the€trial€in€this€case.€Ð \¬  ÐAppellantððs€convictions€and€death€sentences€for€these€murders€have€been€affirmed€by€the€SupremeÐ E• ÐCourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€91€S.W.3d€247€(Tenn.€2002).€ò òÐ .~ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌòòÓ  ÓCompetency€PhaseóóÐ Q ÐÓSÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌó óà  àOn€September€3,€1999,€eight€days€prior€to€trial,€appellant€filed€a€motion€for€the€judicialÐ Õ% Ðdetermination€of€his€competency€to€stand€trial.€€In€support€of€his€motion,€appellant€filed€the€affidavitÐ ¾ Ðof€his€minister,€Rev.€Joe€Ingle,€and€the€opinions€of€psychologists€Dr.€Pamela€Auble€and€Dr.€XavierÐ §÷ ÐAmador.€€The€trial€court€held€the€competency€hearing€on€September€8,€9€and€10,€1999.€€Dr.€PamelaÐ à ÐAuble€and€Dr.€Xavier€Amador€testified€on€behalf€of€appellant.€€€Appellant€also€sought€to€have€Rev.Ð yÉ ÐJoe€Ingle€and€social€worker€Mary€Ann€Hea€testify.€€However,€the€trial€court€informed€defenseÐ b² Ðcounsel€that€the€testimony€of€those€witnesses€may€violate€the€pastor„parishoner€and€attorney„clientÐ K› Ðprivileges.€€Thereafter,€counsel€for€appellant€withdrew€these€individuals€as€witnesses.€€Dr.€WilliamÐ 4„ ÐBernet€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State,€and€Dr.€Cynthia€Turner„Graham€testified€as€an€independentÐ m Ðpsychiatrist.Ð  V ÐÌà  àDr.€Pamela€Auble,€a€psychologist€specializing€in€neuropsychology,€first€examined€appellantÐ Ø!(  Ðin€January€1998€as€a€result€of€the€charges€pending€against€him€in€the€Captain€Dððs€murders.€€SinceÐ Á"! ÐJanuary€1998,€Dr.€Auble€has€examined€the€appellant€on€six€occasions.€€€€In€addition€to€her€interviewsÐ ª#ú" Ðof€appellant,€Dr.€Auble€has€also€interviewed€appellantððs€mother€and€sister,€reviewed€appellantððsÐ “$ã# Ðmedical€records,€school€records,€and€prison€records,€and€reviewed€reports€of€interviews€withÐ |%Ì $ Ðappellantððs€family€and€friends.Ð e&µ!% ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Dr.€Auble,€appellant€advised€her€in€an€interview€in€January€1999€that€theÐ 7(‡#' Ðfederal€government€had€been€conducting€surveillance€on€him€for€many€years€and€attempted€toÐ  )p$( Ðâ âcontrol€him.€€Appellant€advised€her€that€the€government€had€ð ðradiatedðð€his€body€with€some€type€ofÐ  *Y%) Ðmagnetic׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€field€and€was€able€to€then€monitor€him€on€a€distant€screen.€€In€addition€to€monitoring€him,Ð ° Ðâ âappellant€advised€Dr.€Auble€the€government€had€also€attempted€to€control€him.€€Appellant€advisedÐ ™é Ðher€that€he€had€been€under€surveillance€for€thirteen€years€as€a€part€of€an€experiment€conducted€byÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€CIA.€€Appellant€further€advised€Dr.€Auble€that€the€surveillance€program€was€actually€developedÐ k» Ðby€the€Soviet€Union.€€He€concluded€that€no€one€from€the€government€would€come€forward€with€theÐ T¤ Ðsurveillance€tapes€of€him€because€it€may€compromise€national€security.€€At€the€competency€hearing,Ð =  ÐDr.€Auble€testified€that€she€saw€letters€appellant€wrote€to€Texas€officials€in€1993€in€which€heÐ & v Ðespoused€the€same€beliefs.€€€When€she€questioned€appellant€about€the€letters,€he€responded€that€whenÐ  _ Ðhe€talks€about€the€government€surveillance,€people€think€he€is€insane.Ð ø H ÐÌà  àDr.€Auble€testified€that€she€actually€became€concerned€about€appellantððs€competency€to€standÐ Ê   Ðtrial€during€his€trial€for€the€Captain€Dððs€murders.€€On€April€15,€1999,€the€day€following€hisÐ ³  Ðconviction€of€the€Captain€Dððs€murders€and€the€day€prior€to€the€commencement€of€the€sentencingÐ œì  Ðhearing,€Dr.€Auble€interviewed€appellant€at€the€request€of€his€counsel€following€appellantððs€decisionÐ …Õ  Ðnot€to€present€any€mitigating€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Appellant€advised€her€in€thatÐ n¾  Ðinterview€that€there€was€no€reason€to€present€any€mitigating€proof€because€the€outcome€of€theÐ W§  Ðsentencing€hearing€had€been€predetermined.€€In€the€end,€however,€appellant€allowed€mitigatingÐ @ Ðevidence€to€be€presented,€but€stated€it€would€not€make€a€difference.Ð )y ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€appellantððs€conviction€and€sentence€in€the€Captain€Dððs€murders,€the€juryÐ ûK Ðconsultant€forwarded€an€unsolicited€report€to€Dr.€Auble€expressing€her€concerns€about€appellantððsÐ ä4 Ðmental€capacities.€€The€jury€consultant€advised€Dr.€Auble€that€appellant€seemed€consumed€withÐ Í Ðirrelevant€topics€such€as€snacks€and€her€accommodations€at€a€bed€and€breakfast.€€The€jury€consultantÐ ¶ Ðalso€advised€that€the€appellant€would€pass€jokes€to€his€attorneys€and€did€not€seem€to€conceptualizeÐ Ÿï Ðthat€he€was€on€trial€for€his€life.€€Dr.€Auble€related€that€she€also€received€a€memorandum€from€RonÐ ˆØ ÐLax,€a€private€investigator€for€the€appellant,€in€July€1999.€€Mr.€Lax€summarized€an€interview€he€hadÐ qÁ Ðconducted€with€appellant€wherein€appellant€advised€that€the€government€had€been€trying€to€kill€himÐ Zª Ðfor€years.€€As€examples,€appellant€advised:€the€government€caused€him€to€be€in€a€car€accident€inÐ C“ ÐNovember€1990;€the€government€bombed€the€Murrah€building€on€April€19,€1995,€in€Oklahoma€CityÐ ,| Ðwhere€he€was€scheduled€to€have€an€appointment;€and€the€government€framed€him€for€the€CaptainÐ e ÐDððs€murders.€€Dr.€Auble€confirmed€that€appellant€was€involved€in€a€car€accident€in€1990€and€thatÐ þN Ðhe€lived€in€Oklahoma€City€at€the€time€of€the€1995€bombing.€€As€for€the€1995€bombing,€appellantÐ ç 7 Ðadvised€that€he€had€overslept€that€morning€and€did€not€make€his€appointment.€€He€further€claimedÐ Ð!   Ðthat€his€apartment€blew€up€the€same€day€as€the€Murrah€building€bombing.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€thatÐ ¹" ! Ðshe€had€documentation€of€a€fire€in€his€Oklahoma€City€apartment€on€that€day.€€€Additionally,€Dr.Ð ¢#ò" ÐAuble€received€information€from€Dr.€Amador€that€appellant€believed€that€all€of€the€participants€inÐ ‹$Û# Ðthe€Captain€Dððs€trial,€including€the€judge,€jury€and€attorneys,€were€playing€roles€that€had€beenÐ t%Ä $ Ðscripted.Ð ]&­!% Ðâ âÐ F'–"& Ðà  àDr.€Auble€also€reviewed€correspondence€from€appellantððs€lead€counsel€in€the€Captain€DððsÐ ° Ðâ âcase.€€According€to€counsel,€following€the€Captain€Dððs€trial,€appellant€refused€to€discuss€the€caseÐ ™é Ðwith€him.€€Later€when€appellant€agreed€to€discuss€the€case,€he€advised€his€attorney€that€the€jurorsÐ ‚Ò Ðhad€been€trying€to€ð ðmouthðð€comments€to€him€during€the€trial.€€It€was€also€his€belief€that€one€of€hisÐ k» Ðattorneys€had€advised€him€that€she€would€work€hard€to€ensure€that€he€was€convicted.€€Additionally,Ð T¤ Ðappellant€determined€that€he€would€not€present€any€mitigation€proof€in€the€trial€for€the€Baskin„Ð =  ÐRobbins€murders.€€As€a€result,€Dr.€Auble€contacted€appellantððs€counsel€in€the€current€matter€andÐ & v Ðexpressed€concerns€about€appellantððs€competency.€Ð  _ ÐÌà  àSubsequently,€Dr.€Auble€interviewed€appellant.€€At€the€August€18,€1999,€interview,€appellantÐ á 1  Ðrefused€to€discuss€whether€he€believed€his€first€trial€had€been€scripted,€but€advised€that€he€had€beenÐ Ê   Ðset€up€to€be€killed.€€He€advised€her€in€the€interview€that€his€fingerprint€that€was€found€on€a€movieÐ ³  Ðcard€that€had€been€used€in€the€Captain€Dððs€murders€had€been€planted€as€well€as€the€blood€on€hisÐ œì  Ðshoes.€€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àDr.€Auble€concluded€that€appellant€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial.€€She€opined€that€Ð W§  Ðappellant€had€four€problems€in€terms€of€his€competency.€€First,€he€suffers€from€delusions€ð!ð€delusionsÐ @ Ðof€surveillance,€monitoring,€and€control€by€the€government.€€She€explained€that€following€his€firstÐ )y Ðtrial,€appellantððs€attorneys€had€become€a€part€of€the€delusions.€€He€now€believed€that€his€attorneysÐ b Ðhad€no€free€will;€they€were€merely€acting€out€a€part€of€the€plot€to€kill€him.€€Second,€appellant€hasÐ ûK Ðdifficulty€conceptualizing.€€He€focuses€on€irrelevant€details.€€She€opined€that€this€problem€stemmed€Ð ä4 Ðfrom€a€brain€injury€he€sustained.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€appellant€had€suffered€multiple€headÐ Í Ðinjuries€during€his€life.€€She€related€that€he€was€unfocused€and€rambling,€concentrating€on€irrelevantÐ ¶ Ðtopics,€which€made€it€difficult€for€him€to€assist€in€his€own€defense.€€Third,€appellant€suffers€fromÐ Ÿï Ðanosognosia,€a€condition€in€which€mentally€ill€persons€go€to€pathological€lengths€to€conceal€theirÐ ˆØ Ðmental€illness€in€an€attempt€to€appear€normal.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€appellant€had€a€very€strongÐ qÁ Ðdesire€to€appear€normal.€€As€a€result,€appellant€did€not€want€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€Dr.Ð Zª ÐAuble€explained€that€anosognosia€is€caused€by€neurological€damage,€often€in€the€right€hemisphereÐ C“ Ðof€the€brain.€€This€damage,€she€stated,€could€have€been€caused€by€a€head€injury€appellant€receivedÐ ,| Ðas€a€child.€€€Fourth,€appellant€has€an€increasing€distrust€of€his€attorneys.€€Appellant,€therefore,Ð e Ðavoided€discussing€his€case€with€his€attorneys.Ð þN ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Auble€agreed€that€appellant€had€been€interviewed€by€more€thanÐ Ð!   Ða€dozen€mental€health€professionals€during€his€lifetime.€€She€could€not€recall€seeing€documents€inÐ ¹" ! Ðthe€possession€of€defense€counsel€where€appellant€admitted€that€he€suffered€from€symptoms€ofÐ ¢#ò" Ðschizophrenia€and€bipolar€disorder.€€She€admitted€that€appellant€requested€medication€for€anxietyÐ ‹$Û# Ðand€depression€in€1998.€€Dr.€Auble€further€admitted€that€appellant€was€diagnosed€as€malingering€byÐ t%Ä $ Ðmental€health€professionals€in€Texas.€€She€further€testified€that€appellant€admitted€to€her€that€heÐ ]&­!% Ðmalingered€in€a€Texas€case€in€the€late€1970s€or€early€1980s.€€During€cross„examination,€Dr.€AubleÐ F'–"& Ðadmitted€that€appellant€commented€that€he€ð ðfooled€the€shrinks€for€so€long€down€there€[Texas].ðð€€Dr.Ð /(#' ÐAuble€also€admitted€that€appellant€was€declared€incompetent€twice€in€connection€with€proceedingsÐ )h$( Ðin€Texas.€€Further,€appellant€also€commented€that€he€was€not€going€to€make€the€same€mistake€heÐ *Q%) Ðmade€in€the€Houston€case,€but€she€interpreted€that€statement€to€mean€that€he€did€not€want€to€beÐ ê*:&* Ðdeclared€incompetent€again.€€While€Dr.€Auble€admitted€that€appellantððs€history€in€Texas€supportedÐ Ó+#'+ Ða€conclusion€of€malingering,€she€testified€that€she€did€not€believe€that€he€was€malingering€in€theÐ ° Ðpresent€case.€€Dr.€Auble€explained€that€appellantððs€answers€to€testing€in€this€case€supported€herÐ ™é Ðconclusion€that€he€was€not€malingering.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àDr.€Auble€acknowledged€that€her€interview€of€the€appellant€on€April€15€in€which€he€told€herÐ T¤ Ðthat€the€outcome€of€the€trial€was€predetermined,€occurred€just€two€hours€after€he€had€been€convictedÐ =  Ðof€two€murders€and€one€day€before€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€was€to€begin.€€Dr.€Auble€alsoÐ & v Ðadmitted€that€appellant€discussed€various€aspects€of€his€defense€with€his€attorneys€including:€the€sizeÐ  _ Ðof€the€jury€pool;€his€desire€to€focus€on€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€rather€than€the€sentencing€phase;Ð ø H Ðand€whether€plea€bargains€should€be€considered.€€Appellant€changed€his€mind€several€times€on€theÐ á 1  Ðissue€of€presenting€mitigating€evidence.€€€Dr.€Auble€further€acknowledged€during€cross„examinationÐ Ê   Ðthat€appellant€wrote€a€college€paper€on€the€duties€of€an€attorney€and€that€appellant€understood€theÐ ³  Ðduties€of€an€attorney€and€the€structure€of€the€courtroom.€€Dr.€Auble€also€admitted€that€appellantÐ œì  Ðexpressed€dissatisfaction€with€the€appearance€of€one€of€his€attorneys€who€had€a€beard€and€long€hairÐ …Õ  Ðbecause€appellant€thought€it€looked€unprofessional.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àDr.€Xavier€Amador,€an€associate€professor€of€psychology€at€Columbia€University,€alsoÐ @ Ðtestified€on€behalf€of€appellant€as€an€expert€in€the€field€of€clinical€psychology.€€Dr.€Amador€testifiedÐ )y Ðthat€he€has€conducted€extensive€research€of€anosognosia,€which€he€explained€as€a€disorder€thatÐ b Ðresults€after€various€types€of€brain€injury,€cancer,€stroke,€and€closed€head€injury€where€the€patientÐ ûK Ðis€left€completely€unaware€of€either€the€injury€or€aspects€of€the€injury.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€appellant,€Dr.€Amador€testified€that€he€reviewed€appellantððs€medical€historyÐ ¶ Ðand€examined€him€for€over€twenty€hours€during€November€1998.€€In€a€report€to€appellantððs€counselÐ Ÿï Ðin€January€1999,€Dr.€Amador€expressed€concerns€about€appellantððs€competency€to€stand€trial,€butÐ ˆØ Ðconcluded€that€he€did€not€meet€the€standard€for€incompetency€at€that€time.€€He€asked€counsel€to€keepÐ qÁ Ðhim€informed€of€appellantððs€behavior.€€At€that€time,€although€the€appellant€suffered€from€delusionalÐ Zª Ðbeliefs€and€anosognosia,€he€was€able€to€assist€in€his€defense€and€therefore€competent€to€stand€trial.€Ð C“ ÐWhen€appellant€began€to€incorporate€his€attorneys€and€others€assisting€in€his€defense€into€hisÐ ,| Ðdelusions,€Dr.€Amador€grew€concerned€about€appellantððs€ability€to€assist€in€his€defense.€€The€factÐ e Ðthat€appellant€did€not€want€to€present€mitigation€proof€of€his€mental€illness€also€concerned€himÐ þN Ðbecause€appellantððs€reasoning€was€completely€irrational.€€Dr.€Amador€testified€that€appellant€toldÐ ç 7 Ðhim€that€he€had€faked€mental€illness€in€the€past€and€had€even€joked€about€it,€but€he€was€neverÐ Ð!   Ðactually€ill.€€Notwithstanding€this€admission€by€appellant,€Dr.€Amador€believed€that€appellantÐ ¹" ! Ðsuffered€from€anosognosia,€which€was€impairing€his€competency.€€Based€on€appellantððs€delusionsÐ ¢#ò" Ðand€anosognosia,€Dr.€Amador€concluded€that€appellant€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€testified€that€appellantððs€delusional€beliefs€that€his€attorneys,€the€prosecutors€andÐ ]&­!% Ðthe€judge€were€controlled€by€a€surveillance€team€using€subliminal€magnetic€technology€and€therebyÐ F'–"& Ðhad€no€free€will,€impaired€his€ability€to€consult€with€counsel.€€The€fact€that€appellant€referred€to€hisÐ /(#' Ðlegal€counsel€as€ð ðSatanðð€also€impaired€his€ability€to€consult€with€counsel.€€Moreover,€the€fact€thatÐ )h$( Ðappellant€believed€that€the€jurors€were€ð ðcoachedðð€impaired€his€rational€understanding€of€the€role€ofÐ *Q%) Ðjuror€in€the€trial.€€Dr.€Amador€opined€that€although€appellant€had€a€factual€understanding€of€the€legalÐ ê*:&* Ðprocess,€he€did€not€believe€in€that€understanding€in€his€trial.€€Dr.€Amador€further€testified€thatÐ Ó+#'+ Ðappellantððs€delusions€and€anosognosia€impaired€his€ability€to€disclose€relevant€and€pertinentÐ ° Ðinformation€to€his€attorneys.€€According€to€Dr.€Amador,€appellant€was€unable€to€relate€his€medicalÐ ™é Ðhistory,€which€impaired€his€ability€to€assist€in€a€mental€illness€defense.€€In€fact,€appellant€went€ð ðoutÐ ‚Ò Ðof€his€way€to€thwart€suggestions€of€pursuing€any€such€defense.ððÐ k» ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€disputed€the€Stateððs€theory€that€appellant€might€be€malingering.€€Dr.€AmadorÐ =  Ðtestified€that€appellantððs€IQ€is€in€the€low€average€range,€and€he€does€not€think€appellant€is€capableÐ & v Ðof€effectively€faking€a€mental€illness.€€Moreover,€Dr.€Amador€explained€that€the€examples€he€gaveÐ  _ Ðto€Dr.€Bernet€of€faking€mental€illness€in€the€Texas€proceedings€were€not€even€symptoms€of€any€typeÐ ø H Ðof€psychotic€disorder.€€Dr.€Amador€further€testified€that€once€appellant€was€advised€that€aÐ á 1  Ðcompetency€hearing€would€be€held,€it€was€not€surprising€that€appellant€would€recant€his€delusionsÐ Ê   Ðof€a€governmental€plot€to€mental€health€professionals€because€he€was€trying€to€achieve€the€veryÐ ³  Ðspecific€goal€of€appearing€normal.€€Dr.€Amador€further€testified€that€he€did€not€understand€what€theÐ œì  Ðappellant€could€have€gained€by€acting€psychotic€for€decades€and€now€suddenly€telling€the€truth€thatÐ …Õ  Ðhe€was€malingering,€as€appellant€advised€the€defense€expert.€€Dr.€Amador€testified€that€other€mentalÐ n¾  Ðhealth€experts€may€not€have€diagnosed€appellant€as€suffering€from€anosognosia,€becauseÐ W§  Ðanosognosia€is€a€ð ðrelatively€new€body€of€knowledge.ððÐ @ ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€admitted€this€was€his€first€evaluation€in€a€criminal€case.€€He€also€admitted€thatÐ b Ðappellant€ultimately€complied€with€counselððs€recommendation€that€mitigation€evidence€be€presentedÐ ûK Ðin€the€Captain€Dððs€murder€trial.€€Dr.€Amador€further€acknowledged€that€the€fact€that€appellantÐ ä4 Ðreceived€two€death€sentences€in€that€case€despite€the€presentation€of€mitigation€evidence€might€causeÐ Í Ðthe€appellant€to€view€the€presentation€of€mitigation€evidence€as€futile.€€Dr.€Amador€was€also€awareÐ ¶ Ðthat€appellant€believed€that€if€he€did€not€allow€mitigation€evidence€to€be€presented€during€the€penaltyÐ Ÿï Ðphase,€his€attorneys€would€work€harder€on€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€and€he€was€aware€thatÐ ˆØ Ðappellant€complained€that€his€attorneys€had€not€placed€enough€emphasis€on€the€guilt€phase€duringÐ qÁ Ðhis€first€trial.€€Dr.€Amador€testified€that€he€was€aware€that€appellant€recently€told€psychiatrists€thatÐ Zª Ðhe€did€not€have€delusions,€that€he€faked€having€delusions€in€the€past,€and€that€he€wanted€to€ð ðcomeÐ C“ Ðcleanðð€and€explain€why€he€lied.€€Dr.€Amador€also€acknowledged€that€several€mental€healthÐ ,| Ðprofessionals€concluded€that€appellant€had€faked€mental€illness€in€the€past.Ð e ÐÌà  àDr.€William€Bernet€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State€as€a€psychiatrist.€€He€is€in€charge€of€theÐ ç 7 Ðforensic€psychiatry€program€at€Vanderbilt€University.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€he€performedÐ Ð!   Ðapproximately€three€hundred€competency€evaluations€of€criminal€defendants€in€Shelby€County€inÐ ¹" ! Ðconnection€with€a€previous€job€in€Memphis€and€that€he€also€performed€several€hundred€competencyÐ ¢#ò" Ðevaluations€at€Vanderbilt€when€they€contracted€to€do€the€mental€evaluations€for€criminal€defendantsÐ ‹$Û# Ðin€Davidson€County.Ð t%Ä $ Ðà  àò òÌà  àó óDr.€Bernet€met€with€appellantò ò€ó óon€threeò ò€ó óoccasions€between€December€1998€and€theÐ G'—"& Ðcompetency€hearing,€most€recently€the€day€prior€to€his€testimony.€€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€appellantÐ 3(ƒ#' Ðunderstood€the€legal€process€and€was€able€to€cooperate€and€communicate€with€his€attorneys.€Ð )l$( ÐAppellant€explained€who€his€attorneys€were€and€the€need€to€trust€them,€even€though€he€believed€itÐ *U%) Ðmight€have€been€better€to€have€a€private€attorney€representing€him€rather€than€the€public€defender.ò ò€Ð î*>&* Ðó óAppellant€discussed€his€case€with€Dr.€Bernet€and€advised€that€he€and€his€attorneys€disagreed€overÐ Ú+*'+ Ðcertain€aspects€of€his€case.€€One€such€disagreement€occurred€when€he€and€his€attorneys€discussedÐ ° Ðthe€possibility€of€a€plea€bargain.€€He€advised€that€although€his€attorneys€encouraged€him€to€acceptÐ ™é Ða€plea€bargain,€he€could€not€do€so€because€he€was€innocent€and€an€innocent€person€would€not€pleadÐ ‚Ò Ðguilty€and€agree€to€serve€a€life€sentence.€€Appellant€also€discussed€various€aspects€of€his€trialÐ k» Ðstrategy€with€Dr.€Bernet,€including€how€he€thoughtò ò€ó óhis€attorneys€should€handle€certain€witnesses,Ð T¤ ÐDNA€evidence,€and€an€alibi€defense.Ð @  ÐÌà  àDr.€Bernet€further€testified€that€appellant€discussed€potential€mitigation€proof€that€could€beÐ  b Ðpresented€in€the€penalty€phase.€€Appellant€advised€he€could€present€evidence€of€atrophy€of€his€brain,Ð û K Ðdyslexia,€his€low€intelligence€level,€a€troubled€childhood,€an€alcoholic€father,€and€his€placement€inÐ ä 4  Ða€boyððs€home.€€He€also€explained€that€he€did€not€want€his€sister€to€testify€because€she€was€a€schoolÐ Í   Ðteacher,€it€would€cost€her€too€much€to€attend€the€trial,€and€it€was€difficult€for€his€sister€when€sheÐ ¶  Ðtestified€at€the€first€trial.€€Appellant€advised€Dr.€Bernet€that€he€did€not€want€his€attorneys€to€presentÐ Ÿï  Ðevidence€that€he€suffered€from€a€serious€mental€disorder,€because€he€did€not.€Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà  àDr.€Bernet€opined€that€appellant€suffered€from€antisocial€personality€disorder,€a€tendency€toÐ Zª  Ðmalinger,€or€feign€mental€illness,€and€delusional€paranoia.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€appellantÐ C“ Ðmalingered€both€by€exaggerating€his€suspicious€nature€and€by€denying€that€he€had€suspiciousÐ ,| Ðthoughts.€€Appellant€denied€that€he€was€under€governmental€surveillance€and€advised€that€he€madeÐ e Ðthose€claims€up€in€order€to€get€attention.€€Appellant€further€told€Dr.€Bernet€that€he€did€not€believeÐ þN Ðthat€his€previous€trial€was€scripted€and€did€not€believe€that€the€people€involved€in€the€trial€wereÐ ç7 Ðmerely€playing€roles.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDr.€Bernet€described€appellant€as€a€ð ðvery€affable,€friendly€person,€who€likes€to€be€friendlyÐ ¢ò Ðand€chat€about€things.€€In€a€sense,€his€being€that€friendly€might€be€perceived€as€being€mildlyÐ ‹Û Ðinappropriate€in€that€it€goes€a€little€beyond€sort€of€the€business€purpose€of€the€meeting,€but€I€justÐ tÄ Ðthink€thatððs€the€way€he€likes€to€be.ðð€€Dr.€Bernet€felt€that€appellant€liked€to€ð ðpresent€himself€in€a€veryÐ ]­ Ðpositive€light,€in€a€very€upbeat€light€and€[that€he]€like[d]€to€be€perceived€as€being€a€healthy,€intactÐ F– Ðperson.ðð€€Dr.€Bernet€also€explained€the€appellant€ð ðcons€people€and€he€doesnððt€show€his€full€deck€orÐ / Ðhis€full€hand.€€That€he€tries€to€manipulate€people€in€one€way€or€the€other,€and€I€think€that€happensÐ h Ðfrequently€and€I€suppose€that€anybody€that€has€to€deal€with€.€.€.€[appellant],€has€to€keep€that€in€mind.ðð€Ð  Q ÐDr.€Bernet€felt€that€ð ðwhen€he€[appellant]€makes€a€point€with€you,€maybe€there€is€some€reason,Ð ê : Ðmanipulative€reason€why€he€is€trying€to€make€that€point€with€you€and€you€would€have€to€considerÐ Ó!#  Ðthat.ððÐ ¼" ! ÐÌà  àDr.€Bernet€concluded€that€although€appellant€suffered€from€mental€problems,€those€problemsÐ Ž$Þ# Ðdid€not€render€him€incompetent€to€stand€trial.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€appellant€understood€the€chargesÐ w%Ç $ Ðagainst€him,€how€the€legal€process€worked,€understood€the€possible€outcomes€of€the€trial,€and€wasÐ `&°!% Ðable€to€cooperate€and€communicate€with€his€attorneys.€€As€a€result,€appellant€was€legally€competentÐ I'™"& Ðto€stand€trial.Ð 2(‚#' ÐÌà  àDr.€Cynthia€Turner„Graham,€a€board„certified€psychiatrist€who€serves€as€the€vice€presidentÐ *T%) Ðâ âof€medical€services€for€Centerstone€Community€Mental€Health€Centers,€testified€as€an€independentÐ í*=&* ÐÑßšÑâ âÑ |XÑâ âÑ  Ñexpert.€€Dr.€Turner„Graham€interviewed€the€appellant€at€the€request€of€the€trial€court€prior€to€theÐ ° Ðcompetency€hearing.€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àDr.€Turner„Graham€opined€that€appellant€understood€the€nature€of€the€legal€process,€Ð k» Ðunderstood€the€charges€pending€against€him€and€the€consequences€that€could€follow,€and€couldÐ T¤ Ðadvise€counsel€and€participate€in€his€own€defense.€€€According€to€Dr.€Turner„Graham,€appellantÐ =  Ðunderstood€that€he€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€murder€that€he€claimed€he€did€not€commit.€€HeÐ & v Ðbelieved€that€he€could€present€a€successful€defense€by€establishing€an€alibi€of€his€whereabouts€at€theÐ  _ Ðtime€of€the€crime€and€by€disputing€DNA€and€fiber€evidence.€€Appellant€acknowledged€that€hisÐ ø H Ðattorneys€have€his€best€interest€at€heart,€but€he€and€his€attorneys€sometimes€disagree€about€the€bestÐ á 1  Ðapproach€to€take€with€his€defense.€€Appellant€also€believed€that€overall€he€had€a€good€workingÐ Ê   Ðrelationship€with€his€attorneys.€€Appellant€also€understood€that€the€presentation€of€mitigationÐ ³  Ðevidence€during€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€would€be€an€effective€defense€strategy€and€listedÐ œì  Ðseveral€potential€mitigation€possibilities.€€€Appellant€was€also€able€to€describe€court€proceedings€inÐ …Õ  Ðdetail€to€Dr.€Turner„Graham.€€Appellant€understood€the€possible€sentences€he€faced€included€lifeÐ n¾  Ðimprisonment,€life€without€parole€or€death.€€€€Appellant€estimated€that€the€likely€outcome€of€his€trialÐ W§  Ðwas€a€ð ð50/50€chance€of€being€found€not€guilty.ðð€€Dr.€Turner„Graham€found€that€appellant€had€aÐ @ Ðhistory€of€malingering€and€deception,€and€appellant€ð ðadmitted€that€he€often€chooses€to€do€that€whichÐ )y Ðis€most€expedient€given€the€realities€of€the€current€situation.ðð€€Dr.€Turner„Graham€further€found€thatÐ b Ðalthough€the€appellantððs€motivations€were€ð ðcolored€by€his€psychopathy,ðð€which€caused€difficultiesÐ ûK Ðin€working€with€him,€it€did€not€render€him€incompetent€to€stand€trial.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àDr.€Turner„Graham€noted€appellantððs€organic€brain€injury€was€likely€the€etiology€of€hisÐ ¶ Ðpsychotic€symptoms€as€described€by€other€mental€health€professionals€in€their€reports.€€During€herÐ Ÿï Ðinterview€of€appellant,€he€denied€that€he€ever€believed€that€he€was€under€government€surveillance.€Ð ˆØ ÐInstead,€appellant€advised€her€that€he€had€ð ðfabricated€storiesðð€to€ð ðachieve€certain€things€at€certainÐ qÁ Ðtimes.ðð€€Appellant€also€advised€Dr.€Turner„Graham€that€he€never€actually€believed€that€his€prior€trialÐ Zª Ðhad€been€scripted€or€predetermined.€€He€explained€that€he€may€have€been€ð ðover€wroughtðð€by€hisÐ C“ Ðconviction€and€may€have€made€statements€that€indicated€he€believed€the€court€proceedings€wereÐ ,| Ðpredetermined.€€He€did€not€hold€that€belief€either€at€the€time€of€his€first€trial€or€at€the€time€of€hisÐ e Ðevaluation.Ð þN ÐÌà  àDr.€Turner„Graham€determined€that€appellantððs€antisocial€personality€disorder€influencedÐ Ð!   Ðhis€behavior€as€much€or€more€than€his€psychotic€symptoms€over€time.€€Dr.€Turner„Graham€explainedÐ ¹" ! Ðthat€although€the€presentation€of€an€antisocial€personality€can€appear€psychotic,€it€is€not€psychoticÐ ¢#ò" Ðin€the€classical€sense.€€Dr.€Turner„Graham€concluded€that€ð ðbecause€symptoms€of€classic€psychosisÐ ‹$Û# Ðare€not€presently€active€and/or€he€is€not€able€to€circumscribe€them€to€the€extent€that€he€can€controlÐ t%Ä $ Ðtheir€expression,€.€.€.€[appellant]€is€clearly€competent€to€stand€trial.ððÐ ]&­!% ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€foregoing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€appellant€was€competent€to€standÐ /(#' Ðtrial.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÐ )h$( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓGuilt€phaseÐ ë*;&* ÐóóÓò‡ÓÐ Õ+%'+ Ðà  àó óAngela€Holmes€and€Michelle€Mace€worked€the€night€shift€at€Baskin„Robbins€ice€cream€storeÐ ° Ðon€Wilma€Rudolph€Boulevard€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee€the€evening€of€April€23,€1997.€€AngelaÐ ™é ÐHolmes€was€the€manager€of€the€ice€cream€store.€€At€some€point€during€their€clean„up€procedure,€theÐ ‚Ò Ðtwo€women€were€kidnapped.€€The€last€person€known€to€see€them€working€in€the€store€was€LavandaÐ k» ÐZimmerman.€€Ms.€Zimmerman€arrived€at€Baskin„Robbins€between€9:20€and€9:25€p.m.€€SheÐ T¤ Ðpurchased€a€scoop€of€ice€cream€and€sat€in€the€store€eating€her€ice€cream€and€talking€to€Ms.€HolmesÐ =  Ðand€Ms.€Mace€until€approximately€10:00.€€According€to€Ms.€Zimmerman,€the€ladies€laughed€andÐ & v Ðmade€small€talk€with€her€as€she€ate€her€ice€cream;€they€also€began€to€clean€the€store.€€Ð  _ ÐÌà  àWhile€she€was€in€Baskin„Robbins,€Ms.€Zimmerman€saw€one€college„aged€couple€come€in,Ð á 1  Ðorder€ice€cream,€and€leave.€€Subsequently,€a€man€in€his€late€twenties€or€early€thirties€entered€theÐ Ê   Ðstore,€inquired€about€the€price€of€one€of€their€products,€became€very€loud€and€obnoxious€concerningÐ ³  Ðthe€price,€which€he€believed€to€be€too€high,€and€exited€the€store.€€Ms.€Zimmerman€described€the€manÐ œì  Ðas€wearing€blue€jeans,€a€dirty€t„shirt€and€a€baseball€cap.€€She€related€that€the€man€appeared€uncleanÐ …Õ  Ðand€unshaven.€€Ms.€Mace€took€a€couple€of€orders€through€the€drive€thru€while€Ms.€Zimmerman€wasÐ n¾  Ðin€the€store.Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€Baskin„Robbins€employees€began€to€clean€the€customer€area€of€the€store€atÐ )y Ðapproximately€9:45€p.m..€€One€of€the€employees€locked€the€side€door€that€faced€a€PrudentialÐ b ÐInsurance€agency€prior€to€Ms.€Zimmermanððs€departure.€€Ms.€Zimmerman€looked€at€her€watch€at€9:58Ð ûK Ðwhile€she€was€still€in€the€store.€€She€then€exited€the€store€through€the€front€door,€which€faced€WilmaÐ ä4 ÐRudolph€Boulevard.€€It€was€Ms.€Zimmermanððs€belief€that€Angela€Holmes€locked€the€front€door€ofÐ Í Ðthe€store€with€the€key€as€she€left.€€At€10:01,€Ms.€Zimmerman€pulled€out€of€the€Baskin„RobbinsÐ ¶ Ðparking€lot.€€ò ò€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àó óAs€she€exited€the€Baskin„Robbins€parking€lot€onto€Wilma€Rudolph€Boulevard,€Ms.Ð uÅ ÐZimmerman€noticedò ò€ó óa€red€car€slow€down€and€turn€into€the€parking€lot.€€At€trial€she€testified€that€theÐ ^® Ðred€car€appeared€new€and€shiny€and€looked€like€her€husbandððs€Ford€Excel.€€Ms.€Zimmerman,Ð Jš Ðhowever,€gave€differing€descriptions€of€the€car€prior€to€trial.€€Ms.€Zimmerman€admitted€that€she€hadÐ 3ƒ Ðtold€a€private€investigator€during€a€May€15,€1998,€interview€that€the€car€she€saw€was€ð ðdark€reddishÐ l Ðor€maroonðð€in€color€and€looked€like€an€old€style.€€She€also€admitted€that€she€did€not€advise€the€TBIÐ  U Ðof€the€red€car€during€her€first€interview€on€May€15,€1997.Ð î > ÐÌà  àSteve€Jones,€Director€of€Emergency€Management€in€Montgomery€County,€also€went€toÐ À"! ÐBaskin„Robbins€the€night€of€April€23,€1997.€€At€trial,€he€recalled€that€he€showed€Michelle€Mace€howÐ ©#ù" Ðto€use€her€mop€properly,€made€his€purchase,€and€left€the€store€at€approximately€9:45€p.m.€€While€heÐ ’$â# Ðwas€in€the€store,€a€young€couple€came€in€and€a€few€vehicles€came€through€the€drive€thru.€€He€did€notÐ {%Ë $ Ðrecall€seeing€Ms.€Zimmerman€in€the€store.€€Ð d&´!% ÐÌà  àTammy€Thompson€and€her€boyfriend,€Dustin€Keller,€both€students€at€Austin€Peay€StateÐ 6(†#' ÐUniversity,€arrived€at€Baskin„Robbins€around€9:50€p.m.€in€a€red€1993€Nissan€Sentra.€€Ms.€ThompsonÐ )o$( Ðrecalled€seeing€other€vehicles€in€the€parking€lot€when€they€arrived,€but€Mr.€Keller€did€not€recallÐ *X%) Ðâ âseeing€any€other€vehicles€in€the€parking€lot.€€They€both€saw€a€man€in€the€store€with€salt€and€pepperÐ ñ*A&* Ðhair.€€Ms.€Thompson€described€the€man€as€scraggly,€with€shoulder€length€hair.€€Both€witnessesÐ ° Ðtestified€that€the€man€they€saw€in€the€store€was€not€the€appellant.€€€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àCatherine€Naylor€drove€by€Baskin„Robbins€at€approximately€9:48€p.m.€on€April€23,€1997.€Ð k» ÐShe€testified€that€as€she€drove€by€the€Baskin„Robbins,€she€looked€into€the€parking€lot€and€saw€a€darkÐ T¤ Ðred,€ð ðmaroonishðð€car€in€the€lot.€€Her€description€of€the€make€of€the€car€varied€from€a€1987€SundanceÐ =  Ðto€a€Grand€Am€to€a€Dodge€Shadow.€€She€testified€that€the€car€she€saw€was€not€a€1997€Ford€Escort.€Ð & v ÐShe€viewed€photographs€of€appellantððs€car€and€testified€that€the€car€she€saw€could€not€have€beenÐ  _ Ðappellantððs€car.€€Ms.€Naylor€also€saw€a€green€Corvette€pull€into€the€Baskin„Robbins€parking€lot.€Ð ø H ÐÌà  àCraig€Mace,€Michelle€Maceððs€brother,€arrived€at€Baskin„Robbins€shortly€after€10:00€p.m.€Ð Ê   ÐMr.€Mace€watched€two€to€three€minutes€of€the€10:00€news€and€then€left€his€home€to€pick€up€hisÐ ³  Ðsister€from€work.€€He€estimated€that€he€left€his€house€around€10:07€p.m.€and€€it€took€approximatelyÐ œì  Ðtwo€minutes€to€drive€to€Baskin„Robbins.€€The€store€closed€at€10:00€p.m,€and€Craig€expected€hisÐ …Õ  Ðsister€to€be€ready€to€leave€between€10:10€and€11:00€p.m,€depending€upon€how€busy€the€store€wasÐ n¾  Ðthat€night.€€He€saw€Angela€Holmesððs€green€Geo€Metro€parked€in€the€parking€lot€upon€his€arrival.€Ð W§  ÐThe€outside€lights€of€the€restaurant€were€turned€off,€and€the€lighting€outside€was,€therefore,€veryÐ @ Ðdark.€€When€his€sister€did€not€come€out€to€the€car€within€ten€to€fifteen€minutes,€he€became€worried.€Ð )y ÐHe€had€not€seen€any€movement€in€the€store.€€He€called€his€sister€Kelly,€who€was€also€employed€atÐ b Ðthat€Baskin„Robbins,€and€asked€her€to€call€the€store€to€determine€what€was€taking€so€long.€€WhenÐ ûK ÐKelly€advised€him€that€there€was€no€answer€at€the€store,€he€asked€her€if€it€would€be€okay€for€him€toÐ ä4 Ðgo€in€the€store.€€Ð Í ÐÌà  àMr.€Mace€entered€the€ice€cream€store€through€the€front€door€facing€Wilma€RudolphÐ Ÿï ÐBoulevard,€which€was€unlocked.€€He€saw€no€signs€of€a€disturbance.€€The€lights€in€the€work€area€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€store€were€on,€but€the€lights€in€the€dining€area€were€off.€€The€freezer€door€was€open,€and€the€lightÐ qÁ Ðin€the€freezer€area€was€on.€€Mr.€Mace€went€outside,€called€911,€and€reported€his€sister€and€AngelaÐ Zª ÐHolmes€as€missing.€€He€estimated€that€he€was€at€Baskin„Robbins€for€approximately€twenty€minutesÐ C“ Ðprior€to€his€phone€call.€€He€waited€approximately€ten€minutes,€and€when€there€was€no€response€fromÐ ,| Ð911,€he€called€his€parents.€€Kelly€Mace€called€Tobaris€Holmes,€Angelaððs€husband,€to€determine€ifÐ e Ðhe€had€heard€from€Angela.€€Mr.€Holmes€also€tried€to€contact€the€store,€but€was€unsuccessful.€€KellyÐ þN ÐMace€and€her€boyfriend,€Michael€Wilson,€drove€to€the€Holmes€residence.€€Mr.€Holmes€left€withÐ ç 7 ÐMichael€Wilson€for€Baskin„Robbins,€while€Kelly€Mace€stayed€behind€with€the€Holmesððs€four„Ð Ð!   Ðmonth„old€daughter.€Tobaris€Holmes,€Michael€Wilson,€and€Michelle€Maceððs€mother€and€stepfatherÐ ¹" ! Ðarrived€shortly€thereafter.€€In€the€meantime,€Craig€Mace€made€a€second€call€to€911,€but€still€noÐ ¢#ò" Ðemergency€personnel€arrived.€€€Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àCraig€Mace,€his€stepfather€James€Black,€Tobaris€Holmes,€and€Michael€Wilson€enteredÐ ]&­!% ÐBaskin„Robbins.€€Mr.€Holmes€had€worked€at€Baskin„Robbins€for€a€brief€period€and€was,€therefore,Ð F'–"& Ðvery€familiar€with€the€store.€€Mr.€Holmes€testified€at€trial€that€upon€entry€to€the€store,€he€looked€allÐ /(#' Ðaround.€€He€noticed€that€the€cash€registers€were€empty,€the€freezer€door€was€open,€and€the€top€to€theÐ )h$( Ðsafe€was€gone.€€He€also€saw€his€wifeððs€purse€and€picked€it€up,€but€later€sat€it€back€down.€€Craig€MaceÐ *Q%) Ðalso€noticed€both€of€the€employeesðð€purses€in€the€office€area€during€his€second€entry€into€the€store.€Ð ê*:&* ÐAfter€being€in€the€store€one€to€two€minutes,€Craig€Mace€went€back€outside€and€made€a€third€call€toÐ Ó+#'+ Ð911.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tobaris€Holmes€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€in€the€store€for€three€to€four€minutes.€€Mr.€HolmesÐ ° Ðalso€testified€that€his€wifeððs€car€was€in€the€parking€lot.€€According€to€Mr.€Holmes,€the€parking€lotÐ ™é Ðwas€dark€because€the€outside€lighting€was€turned€off€and€had€been€off€when€they€arrived.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àThe€Clarksville€police€arrived€at€Baskin„Robbins€at€10:51€p.m.€€Thereafter,€the€investigationÐ T¤ Ðinto€the€disappearance€of€Angela€Holmes€and€Michelle€Mace€began.€€The€authoritiesðð€search€for€theÐ =  Ðtwo€young€women€ended€the€following€morning€at€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park,€where€the€bodies€ofÐ & v Ðboth€victims€were€found.€€€Jack€Hackett€found€a€dead€body€lying€face€down€in€the€lake€located€atÐ  _ ÐDunbar€Cave€State€Park€on€the€morning€of€April€24€while€exercising€with€his€dog.€€He€contacted€theÐ ø H Ðpark€ranger,€who€called€the€police.€€Officer€Cheryl€Anderson€discovered€another€dead€body€lyingÐ á 1  Ðin€a€wooded€area€near€the€lake.€€The€investigation€determined€that€Angela€Holmesððs€body€was€foundÐ Ê   Ðin€the€lake,€and€Michelle€Maceððs€body€was€found€in€the€wooded€area.€€The€fathers€of€both€of€theÐ ³  Ðvictims€identified€their€bodies€at€the€morgue.€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àA€videotape€of€the€crime€scene€at€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park€was€recorded€by€the€TBI€andÐ n¾  Ðintroduced€as€an€exhibit€at€trial.€€Two€latex€gloves€were€found€at€the€scene.€€A€member€of€theÐ W§  ÐClarksville€Police€Department€found€one€of€the€gloves€floating€in€the€water€off€the€bank€of€the€lake.€Ð @ ÐThe€videotape€shows€the€body€of€Angela€Holmes.€€A€Baskin„Robbins€apron€was€used€as€a€ligatureÐ )y Ðto€tie€her€hands.€€€€€€Ð b ÐÌà  àMany€witnesses€came€forward€during€the€investigation€relating€suspicious€activity€in€andÐ ä4 Ðaround€the€Baskin„Robbins€and€the€Dunbar€Cave€areas€on€the€night€in€question€and€before.€€A€fewÐ Í Ðwitnesses€believed€they€saw€appellant€in€the€Dunbar€Cave€park€prior€to€the€murders.€€Loretto€DiorioÐ ¶ Ðand€her€four€children€went€to€the€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park€on€February€17,€1997,€for€a€nature€walk.€Ð Ÿï ÐMs.€Diorio,€who€homeschooled€her€children,€testified€at€trial€that€she€arrived€at€the€park€onÐ ˆØ ÐWednesday,€February€17,€1997,€shortly€after€lunch.€€Ms.€Diorio€believed€they€may€have€arrived€atÐ qÁ ÐDunbar€Cave€as€early€as€12:30€or€1:00€p.m.€€While€they€were€on€their€walk,€they€saw€a€man€singingÐ Zª Ðcountry€music€and€playing€the€guitar.€€She€testified€at€trial€that€they€paused€when€they€saw€him€andÐ C“ Ðthen€continued€on€their€walk.€€She€remembered€seeing€the€man€because€he€seemed€to€follow€them.€Ð ,| ÐShe€testified€that€when€they€arrived€to€feed€the€ducks,€he€was€right€behind€them.€€She€explained€thatÐ e Ðhe€came€within€a€few€feet€of€them.€€At€that€point,€they€hurried€along€and€left.€€Ð þN ÐÌà  àAfter€the€investigation€into€the€murders€of€Ms.€Holmes€and€Ms.€Mace€began,€Ms.€Diorio€sawÐ Ð!   Ðappellantððs€picture€on€television.€€She€thought€he€was€the€man€she€saw€at€Dunbar€Cave€andÐ ¹" ! Ðidentified€appellant€as€the€man€she€saw€at€Dunbar€Cave€on€February€17,€1997.€€She€testified€at€trialÐ ¢#ò" Ðthat€she€remembered€the€ears€and€face€of€the€man€she€saw€on€the€day€of€the€nature€walk.€€On€cross„Ð ‹$Û# Ðexamination,€she€admitted€that€she€could€not€testify€that€she€was€one€hundred€percent€sure€appellantÐ t%Ä $ Ðwas€the€man€she€saw.Ð ]&­!% ÐÐ F'–"& Ðà  àStephen€Diorio,€Loretta€Diorioððs€twelve„year„old€son,€also€testified€at€trial.€€He€too€thoughtÐ ° Ðappellant€was€the€man€they€saw€at€Dunbar€Cave€on€February€17,€1997.€€Stephen€Diorio€alsoÐ ™é Ðadmitted,€however,€that€he€could€not€state€that€he€was€one€hundred€percent€sure€that€appellant€wasÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€same€man.€€Stephen€Diorio€testified€that€the€man€he€saw€was€wearing€a€cowboy€hat,€tippedÐ k» Ðdown,€and€sunglasses.€€He€also€admitted€that€the€area€where€he€saw€him€playing€the€guitar€andÐ T¤ Ðsinging€was€dim.€Ð =  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€the€defense€attempted€to€contradict€the€testimony€of€the€Diorios€by€showing€that€onÐ  _ ÐFebruary€17,€1997,€appellant€was€in€class€at€Volunteer€State€Community€College€in€Gallatin.€€TheÐ ø H Ðdefense€introduced€attendance€records€that€showed€that€appellant€was€in€class€from€10:00€a.m.€untilÐ á 1  Ð12:10€p.m.€€Further,€Janice€Roark,€the€director€of€admissions€and€records€at€Volunteer€StateÐ Ê   ÐCommunity€College€testified€that€it€takes€approximately€one€hour€to€drive€from€Gallatin€toÐ ³  ÐClarksville.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€Roark€testified€that€she€did€not€know€what€time€appellantÐ œì  Ðleft€his€class.€€She€further€admitted€that€even€if€appellant€left€class€at€12:10€p.m.,€he€could€have€beenÐ …Õ  Ðin€Clarksville€by€1:10€p.m.€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àBarbara€Jayroe€also€believed€she€saw€the€appellant€at€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park€prior€to€theÐ @ Ðmurders.€€Ms.€Jayroe€took€her€grandchildren,€accompanied€by€a€friend,€to€the€state€park€on€April€8Ð )y Ðor€9,€1997,€to€play.€€They€arrived€around€11:00€a.m.€€While€there,€she€noticed€a€ð ðwell„groomedðð€manÐ b Ðwith€brown€hair,€wearing€jeans,€a€blue€short„sleeved€shirt,€and€black€and€white€tennis€shoes.€€Ms.Ð ûK ÐJayroe€testified€that€she€first€noticed€the€man€because€of€his€ð ðround€butt.ðð€€She€also€saw€several€carsÐ ä4 Ðin€the€parking€lot,€including€a€four„door,€shiny€red€car.€€After€seeing€appellantððs€picture€onÐ Í Ðtelevision,€she€notified€police€that€she€saw€appellant€at€Dunbar€Cave€prior€to€the€murders.€€€On€cross„Ð ¶ Ðexamination,€Ms.€Jayroe€admitted€that€she€told€the€police€she€would€have€to€see€appellant€from€theÐ Ÿï Ðrear€to€determine€if€he€was€the€man€she€saw€at€the€park.€€She€also€admitted€that€she€told€the€policeÐ ˆØ Ðshe€believed€the€man€she€saw€was€five€feet,€eight€or€nine€inches,€and€appellant€is€six€feet,€threeÐ qÁ Ðinches.€€She€further€told€the€police€in€June€1997€that€she€was€not€sure€appellant€was€the€man€she€sawÐ Zª Ðat€the€park,€although€she€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€the€man€she€saw.Ð C“ ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€possible€sightings€of€appellant€in€Clarksville€at€Dunbar€Cave€prior€to€the€dateÐ e Ðof€the€murders,€the€testimony€of€Elfreida€Lane,€a€friend€of€appellantððs,€and€appellantððs€purchase€ofÐ þN Ðgasoline€at€a€Texaco€station€both€placed€him€in€Clarksville€on€the€night€of€the€murders.€€ElfreidaÐ ç 7 ÐLane€testified€at€trial€that€appellant€called€her€April€24,€1997,€the€day€following€the€murders,€andÐ Ð!   Ðtold€her€he€was€in€Clarksville€the€night€before.€€She€specifically€remembered€that€he€called€April€24Ð ¹" ! Ðbecause€it€was€her€daughterððs€birthday.€€When€he€called€on€April€24,€appellant€told€Ms.€Lane€thatÐ ¢#ò" Ðhe€was€in€Guthrie,€Kentucky€purchasing€lottery€tickets€the€day€before.€€He€told€Ms.€Lane€that€he€wasÐ ‹$Û# Ðgoing€to€stop€by€her€house€that€night,€but€it€was€too€late.€€Ms.€Lane€explained€that€she€developed€aÐ t%Ä $ Ðfriendship€with€appellant€while€he€worked€at€Shoneyððs€as€a€cook€in€Nashville€at€the€Murphy€RoadÐ ]&­!% Ðrestaurant.€€She€explained€that€appellant€left€his€employment€at€Shoneyððs€in€1996€and€returned€toÐ F'–"& Ðhis€home€state€of€Texas.€€Prior€to€his€departure,€she€attended€a€going€away€party€for€appellant€at€theÐ /(#' ÐLoganððs€restaurant€in€Clarksville.€€€Ð )h$( ÐÌà  àIn€January€1997,€Ms.€Lane€received€a€telephone€call€from€appellant€advising€her€that€he€hadÐ ê*:&* Ðreturned€to€Tennessee.€€From€February€1997€to€April€24,€1997,€appellant€called€Ms.€Lane€once€orÐ Ó+#'+ Ðtwice€a€week.€€Ms.€Lane€testified€that€most€of€these€calls€were€made€in€an€attempt€by€appellant€toÐ ° Ðbe€re„hired€at€Shoneyððs.€€Approximately€one€week€prior€to€the€murders,€on€or€about€April€18,€1997,Ð ™é ÐMs.€Laneððs€daughter€called€her€at€work€and€told€her€appellant€called€their€home.€€Appellant€advisedÐ ‚Ò ÐMs.€Laneððs€daughter€that€he€was€in€town€and€was€going€to€stop€by€their€house.€€Ms.€Lane€testifiedÐ k» Ðthat€appellant€had€never€stopped€by€their€house€before,€and€she€got€a€bad€feeling€about€it.€€By€theÐ T¤ Ðtime€she€drove€from€Shoneyððs€in€Nashville€to€Clarksville,€appellant€was€at€her€house.€€He€told€Ms.Ð =  ÐLane€that€he€was€passing€through€Clarksville.€€Because€Ms.€Lane€had€to€get€a€tire€repaired,€appellantÐ & v Ðfollowed€her€to€drop€off€her€car€and€took€her€home.€€€Appellant€spent€the€night€at€Ms.€Laneððs€houseÐ  _ Ðthat€night€so€that€he€could€drive€her€to€work€in€Nashville€at€4:00€a.m.€€She€testified€that€she€did€notÐ ø H Ðhear€from€him€again€until€the€April€24€phone€call.€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAlthough€Ms.€Lane€testified€that€she€had€developed€only€a€friendship€with€appellant,€onÐ ³  Ðcross„examination,€she€admitted€that€she€kept€in€touch€with€appellant€while€he€lived€in€Texas.€Ð œì  ÐSeveral€cards€were€introduced€into€evidence€in€which€she€expressed€her€love€for€him€and€referredÐ …Õ  Ðto€him€affectionately.€€Despite€this€evidence,€she€denied€that€she€was€ever€in€love€with€appellant.€Ð n¾  ÐWhen€she€was€questioned€as€to€whether€appellant€had€said€in€the€April€24€phone€call€that€he€hadÐ W§  Ðbeen€in€town€the€day€before€or€night€before,€she€replied€he€said€it€was€late€and€too€late€to€stop€by.€Ð @ ЀShe€could€not€remember€if€appellant€attempted€to€call€her€the€afternoon€of€April€23.€€Ms.€Lane€alsoÐ )y Ðtestified€that€when€appellant€visited€her€home€the€week€prior€to€the€Baskin„Robbins€murders,Ð b Ðappellant€was€driving€a€new€red€car,€but€she€did€not€know€the€make€of€the€car.€€€€€€Ð ûK ÐÌà  àTwo€representatives€associated€with€Texaco€testified€that€appellant€purchased€gasoline€usingÐ Í Ða€Texaco€credit€card€at€a€Texaco€convenience€store€located€on€Rossview€Road€in€Clarksville€onÐ ¶ ÐApril€23,€1997.€€Paul€Barrs,€who€worked€with€the€company€that€operated€the€Texaco,€testified€thatÐ Ÿï Ðhis€company€keeps€the€original€receipt€of€all€credit€card€purchases€made€at€the€convenience€store.€Ð ˆØ ÐHe€identified€a€signed€credit€card€receipt€from€April€23,€1997,€which€showed€that€the€appellantÐ qÁ Ðpurchased€$11.95€worth€of€gasoline€at€9:45€p.m.€€Handwriting€experts€confirmed€that€the€signatureÐ Zª Ðon€the€receipt€was€in€fact€appellantððs€signature.€€Ð C“ ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€Jimmie€Jones,€manager€of€merchant€sales€for€the€Shell/Texaco€Saudi€ArabiaÐ e ÐLines,€testified€that€he€was€responsible€for€the€settlement€of€all€the€credit€card€transactions€back€toÐ þN ÐTexaco€and€Shell€dealers.€€His€companyððs€records€reflected€that€a€purchase€of€$11.95€was€made€atÐ ç 7 Ðthe€Rossview€Road€Texaco€station€at€9:52€p.m.€on€April€23,€1997,€on€credit€card€numberÐ Ð!   Ð1163025487„09001.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€there€could€be€some€time€differential€between€the€timeÐ ¹" ! Ðrecorded€on€the€register€at€the€sale€location€and€the€time€recorded€by€the€host€computer€in€Houston,Ð ¢#ò" ÐTexas.€€Additionally,€officer€Patrick€Postiglione€testified€that€during€a€search€of€appellantððs€homeÐ ‹$Û# Ðin€Nashville,€a€Texaco€credit€card€was€found€in€appellantððs€wallet€in€the€name€of€Paul€D.€Reid,Ð t%Ä $ Ðmatching€the€account€number€shown€on€the€Texaco€receipt€that€was€admitted€into€evidence.€Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àSeveral€witnesses€reported€seeing€a€red€car€either€in€the€vicinity€of€Baskin„Robbins€orÐ /(#' ÐDunbar€Cave€State€Park€on€April€23,€1997,€but€the€descriptions€of€the€car€varied.€€Appellant€leasedÐ )h$( Ða€1997€red,€four„door€Ford€Escort€with€gray€interior€from€Crown€Ford€in€Nashville€in€FebruaryÐ *Q%) Ð1997;€he€pre„paid€the€lease€amount€of€$5,700€at€that€time€and€accepted€delivery€of€the€vehicle€inÐ ê*:&* ÐMarch.€€Linda€Patton,€a€woman€appellant€dated€while€he€resided€in€Texas€during€1996,€co„signedÐ Ó+#'+ Ðon€the€lease€for€appellant.€€The€car€did€not€include€floor€mats;€therefore,€appellant€purchased€grayÐ ° Ðfloor€mats€from€a€Wal„Mart€store€in€Gallatin€on€March€25,€1997.€€The€sales€person€that€leased€theÐ ™é Ðcar€to€appellant€testified€that€he€specifically€explained€to€appellant€that€the€car€had€childproof€locksÐ ‚Ò Ðon€the€back€doors,€which€if€activated€would€restrict€anyone€from€opening€the€rear€doors€from€theÐ k» Ðinside€of€the€car.€à ¸ àÐ T¤ Ѐ€Ð =  Ðà  àGeorge€Hertenstein€was€one€of€the€witnesses€that€notified€the€police€that€he€saw€a€red€car€onÐ & v Ðthe€night€of€April€23,€1997,€near€Baskin„Robbins.€€In€June€1997,€Mr.€Hertenstein€called€the€policeÐ  _ Ðand€advised€them€that€on€the€night€of€April€23,€1997,€he€traveled€from€his€home€to€the€TraneÐ ø H ÐCompany€to€report€to€work.€€During€his€commute€to€work€that€evening,€he€followed€a€red€car€fromÐ á 1  Ðthe€Texaco€on€Rossview€Road€to€Union€Hall€Road,€which€is€the€first€road€after€the€Baskin„RobbinsÐ Ê   Ðentrance.€€€Mr.€Hertenstein€testified€at€trial€that€he€remembered€that€the€taillights€of€the€car€heÐ ³  Ðfollowed€were€a€tear„drop€shape€that€wrapped€around€the€side.€€Mr.€Hertenstein€recalled€that€the€carÐ œì  Ðslowed€down€right€in€front€of€Baskin„Robbins.€€When€he€attempted€to€pass€the€car,€the€car€abruptlyÐ …Õ  Ðturned€off€onto€Union€Hall€Road.€€€He€traveled€on€to€work,€which€he€estimated€was€a€quarter€mileÐ n¾  Ðbeyond€where€the€red€car€turned.€€He€testified€at€trial€that€his€watch€showed€that€it€was€9:59€p.m.Ð W§  Ðwhen€he€pulled€into€work.€€He€stated€that€his€watch€may€have€been€fast€by€three€to€four€minutes.€Ð @ ÐHe€identified€two€pictures€of€appellantððs€car€as€being€identical€to€the€car€he€saw€on€April€23,€1997.€Ð )y ÐMr.€Hertenstein€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€saw€pictures€of€appellantððs€car€on€a€televisionÐ b Ðnews€report€prior€to€talking€to€the€police.€€He€also€admitted€that€in€April€1998€he€told€privateÐ ûK Ðinvestigators€that€the€car€he€saw€had€two€doors,€and€appellantððs€car€had€four€doors.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àJerry€Pardue€knew€Michelle€Mace€and€had€even€gone€on€a€couple€of€dates€with€her.€€HeÐ ¶ Ðtestified€that€he€often€stopped€by€Baskin„Robbins€after€he€left€work;€therefore,€he€knew€several€ofÐ Ÿï Ðthe€employees.€€On€the€night€of€April€23,€1997,€Mr.€Pardue€completed€his€shift€at€Precision€Printing,Ð ˆØ Ðleft€Precision€at€10:02€p.m.,€and€was€in€the€vicinity€of€Baskin„Robbins€around€10:07€or€10:08.€€AsÐ qÁ Ðhe€approached€Baskin„Robbins,€he€slowed€down.€€He€saw€Angela€Holmesððs€car€in€the€parking€lotÐ Zª Ðand€a€red€car€in€the€back€of€the€parking€lot€that€was€shared€with€Anytime€Storage.€€At€trial,€heÐ C“ Ðrecalled€that€the€red€car€was€parked€in€front€of€the€storage€facilityððs€office,€with€the€headlights€of€theÐ ,| Ðcar€facing€the€drive„thru€window€at€Baskin„Robbins.€€He€testified€at€trial€that€he€could€tell€the€carÐ e Ðwas€a€small,€red€car.€€He€testified€that€the€car€pictured€in€exhibit€39,€appellantððs€car,€could€very€wellÐ þN Ðbe€the€car€he€saw€the€night€of€April€23,€1997.€€Mr.€Pardue€further€testified€at€trial€that€he€slowedÐ ç 7 Ðdown€in€front€of€Baskin„Robbins€and€looked€in€the€store€for€seven€to€eight€seconds.€€He€noticed€thatÐ Ð!   Ðsome€of€the€interior€lights€were€on€inside€the€store,€but€the€exterior€lights€had€been€turned€off.€€HeÐ ¹" ! Ðrecalled€that€it€appeared€dim€inside€the€store,€as€it€did€when€the€employees€were€closing.€€He€alsoÐ ¢#ò" Ðsaw€a€mop€bucket€in€front€of€the€customer€area,€but€did€not€see€anyone€inside€the€store.€€He€did€notÐ ‹$Û# Ðstop.€€€On€cross„examination,€Mr.€Pardue€admitted€that€he€had€told€TBI€investigators€that€the€red€carÐ t%Ä $ Ðhe€saw€appeared€to€be€a€two€door€hatchback€that€looked€like€a€GEO€Metro,€but€he€testified€at€trialÐ ]&­!% Ðthat€he€was€not€sure€about€that€at€all.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€told€the€investigators€that€the€car€hadÐ F'–"& Ðblack€bumpers,€but€he€explained€that€he€knew€the€car€did€not€have€chrome€bumpers.€€The€bumpersÐ /(#' Ðof€the€car€could€have€been€either€black€or€painted€the€same€color€of€the€car.€Ð )h$( ÐÌà  àJay€Smith€also€saw€a€red€car€on€the€evening€of€April€23,€1997.€€Jay€Smith,€his€girlfriendÐ ê*:&* ÐHolly€Schmidt,€and€Shannon€Reeves€went€through€a€McDonaldððs€drive€thru€on€Riverside€Drive€inÐ Ó+#'+ ÐClarksville€at€10:28€p.m.€€They€drove€to€Ms.€Schmidtððs€house€at€338€Old€Dunbar€Cave€Road,€whichÐ ° Ðtook€them€five€to€ten€minutes.€€Ms.€Schmidtððs€house€is€located€across€the€street€from€an€entrance€toÐ ™é Ðand€parking€lot€for€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park.€€Mr.€Smith€recalled€at€trial€that€immediately€beforeÐ ‚Ò Ðturning€into€Hollyððs€driveway,€he€saw€a€car€parked€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€state€park.€€The€car€wasÐ k» Ðnot€in€a€parking€space.€€The€front€of€the€car€was€facing€Hollyððs€driveway,€and€the€taillights€wereÐ T¤ Ðfacing€the€lake.€€The€headlights€of€the€car€were€off.€€The€car€was€a€red€four„door,€and€it€appeared€thatÐ =  Ðthe€windows€were€tinted.€€Mr.€Smith€was€unsure€about€the€make€of€the€car.€€Smith€testified€thatÐ & v Ðwhen€they€arrived€at€Hollyððs€house,€they€went€inside,€and€he€did€not€see€the€car€again.€€Ð  _ ÐÌà  àMr.€Smith€testified€that€he€was€a€friend€of€Michelle€Mace,€and€that€he€had€received€a€callÐ á 1  Ðearly€the€morning€of€April€24,€1997,€concerning€her€disappearance.€€Mr.€Smith€admitted€on€cross„Ð Ê   Ðexamination€that€he€told€investigators€early€in€May€1997€that€the€car€looked€like€several€differentÐ ³  Ðmakes€of€cars,€none€of€which€matched€appellantððs€car.€€Furthermore,€Mr.€Smith€admitted€that€heÐ œì  Ðcontacted€police€on€May€27,€1997,€and€gave€them€a€license€tag€of€a€red€Nissan€Pulsar€that€he€thoughtÐ …Õ  Ðcould€have€been€the€car€he€saw€in€the€parking€lot.€€Finally,€Mr.€Smith€testified€at€trial€that€the€carÐ n¾  Ðthat€he€saw€on€the€night€of€April€23,€1997,€was€consistent€with€the€pictures€of€appellantððs€automobileÐ W§  Ðthat€were€introduced€into€evidence.Ð @ ÐÌà  àShannon€Reeves€testified€that€he€was€in€the€back€passenger€seat€of€Smithððs€car€on€the€driveÐ b Ðfrom€McDonaldððs€to€Holly€Schmidtððs€house€across€from€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park.€€According€to€Mr.Ð ûK ÐReeves,€when€they€arrived€at€Hollyððs€house,€they€stood€outside€and€talked€for€a€while.€€He€noticedÐ ä4 Ðthe€car€across€the€street€in€the€parking€lot€of€Dunbar€Cave.€€He€could€not€make€out€any€of€the€detailsÐ Í Ðof€the€car.€€In€fact,€he€testified€that€while€they€stood€outside,€the€car€had€its€headlights€on€andÐ ¶ Ðactually€changed€the€headlights€from€a€regular€beam€to€high€beam.€€He€recalled€that€he€wonderedÐ Ÿï Ðwhat€was€going€on.€€He€testified€that€he€may€have€seen€the€silhouette€of€a€person€outside€the€car,€butÐ ˆØ Ðthere€definitely€had€to€be€someone€inside€the€car€because€the€lights€changed€from€regular€to€highÐ qÁ Ðbeam.€€He€admitted€that€he€told€investigators€that€he€thought€the€car€might€have€been€a€hatchback.€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àBarbara€McWilliams€and€Martin€McIntyre€testified€during€the€defenseððs€proof.€€They€bothÐ ,| Ðworked€at€Riverbend€Maximum€Security€prison€in€Nashville.€€After€work€on€April€23,€1997,€theyÐ e Ðdrove€separately€to€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park.€€They€parked€in€the€parking€lot€across€the€street€fromÐ þN ÐHolly€Schmidtððs€house.€€They€estimated€that€they€arrived€between€10:50€and€11:00€p.m.€€Ms.Ð ç 7 ÐMcWilliams€was€driving€a€black€Ford€Contour,€and€Mr.€McIntyre€was€driving€a€blue€1995€ChevroletÐ Ð!   ÐCavalier.€€They€parked€their€cars€in€the€opposite€direction€of€each€other€in€the€parking€lot€so€that€theÐ ¹" ! Ðdriverððs€side€doors€faced€each€other.€€They€got€out€of€their€respective€vehicles€to€get€informationÐ ¢#ò" Ðrelated€to€reserving€a€cabin€at€the€park.€€Neither€saw€any€other€vehicles€in€the€parking€lot€while€theyÐ ‹$Û# Ðwere€there.€€Mr.€McIntyre€estimated€that€they€left€ten€to€fifteen€minutes€after€their€arrival.€€Ms.Ð t%Ä $ ÐMcWilliams€testified€that€they€left€the€parking€area€between€11:20€and€11:30€p.m.Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àShaun€Furmanek€was€at€his€girlfriendððs€house€on€the€night€of€April€23,1997.€€Mr.Ð /(#' ÐFurmanekððs€girlfriend,€Jennifer€Schmidt,€also€lived€at€338€Old€Dunbar€Cave€Road,€which€is€acrossÐ )h$( Ðthe€street€from€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park.€€He€testified€that€he€went€outside€to€smoke€a€cigarette€andÐ *Q%) Ðsaw€two€cars€parked€in€the€parking€lot.€€One€of€the€cars€was€facing€his€girlfriendððs€house€and€theÐ ê*:&* Ðother€car€was€facing€away€from€her€house.€€He€could€see€the€silhouette€of€heads€in€the€cars€but€heÐ Ó+#'+ Ðcould€not€see€the€color€of€either€of€the€cars.€€He€estimated€that€he€saw€the€cars€between€7:00€p.m.Ð ° Ðand€midnight.€€He€recalled€that€Jay€Smith€and€Shannon€Reeves€arrived€at€the€Schmidtððs€house€afterÐ ™é Ðhe€saw€the€cars€in€the€parking€lot.€€€€€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àDue€to€the€reports€of€the€various€witnesses€who€saw€a€red€car€either€in€the€vicinity€of€Baskin„Ð T¤ ÐRobbins€or€the€Dunbar€Cave€area€on€the€night€in€question,€Detective€Robert€Miller€was€required€toÐ =  Ðtravel€the€various€routes€potentially€taken€by€the€appellant€and€the€witnesses,€measure€the€distancesÐ & v Ðinvolved,€and€determine€the€time€it€took€to€drive€those€routes,€as€part€of€his€investigation.€€At€trial,Ð  _ ÐDetective€Miller€testified€that€he€drove€from€Elfreida€Laneððs€residence,€2015€Sweetbriar,€to€a€TexacoÐ ø H Ðconvenience€store€at€the€intersection€of€Warfield€Boulevard€and€Rossview€Road.€€According€toÐ á 1  ÐDetective€Miller,€this€distance€was€.7€miles,€which€took€him€approximately€one€minute€to€drive.€Ð Ê   ÐDetective€Miller€then€drove€from€the€Texaco€to€the€Baskin„Robbins€at€issue,€which€is€a€distance€ofÐ ³  Ð.9€miles€and€takes€approximately€three€minutes€to€drive.€€Next,€Detective€Miller€testified€that€heÐ œì  Ðmeasured€the€distance€from€Baskin„Robbins€to€the€Dunbar€Cave€area€via€three€different€routes.€€TheÐ …Õ  Ðroutes€ranged€in€distance€from€3.6€miles€to€2.1€miles,€and€the€time€for€driving€those€routes€rangedÐ n¾  Ðfrom€five€minutes€to€four€minutes.€€Detective€Miller€also€drove€two€routes€from€a€McDonaldððsÐ W§  Ðrestaurant€in€Clarksville€to€the€Dunbar€Cave€area,€a€distance€of€4€to€4.5€miles,€which€tookÐ @ Ðapproximately€eight€minutes€to€drive.€€€Detective€Miller€testified€that€Guthrie,€Kentucky€wasÐ )y Ðapproximately€a€five€minute€drive€from€the€exit€four€interchange€near€the€Baskin„Robbins€on€WilmaÐ b ÐRudolph€Boulevard.Ð ûK ÐÌà  àDetective€Miller€was€also€involved€in€the€investigation€of€the€robbery€at€Baskin„Robbins.€Ð Í ÐWhen€the€detectives€arrived€at€Baskin„Robbins€following€the€disappearance€of€Ms.€Holmes€and€Ms.Ð ¶ ÐMace,€they€found€the€top€to€a€floor€safe€on€the€office€desk.€€The€only€money€found€in€the€store€wasÐ Ÿï Ðin€the€purses€of€the€two€employees€and€in€a€small€bankerððs€box€in€the€office,€which€contained€mostlyÐ ˆØ Ðcoins.€€None€of€the€money€bags€kept€in€the€regular€course€of€business€were€located.€€ThreeÐ qÁ Ðfingerprints€were€lifted€from€the€ice€cream€cooler€area€and€other€areas€of€the€store.€€The€detectivesÐ Zª Ðalso€found€shoe€prints€in€the€store.€€During€the€course€of€the€investigation,€shoes€from€severalÐ C“ Ðindividuals€were€sent€to€the€TBI€crime€lab€for€testing.€€Additionally,€the€store€recorded€the€interiorÐ ,| Ðarea€via€a€television€in€the€office.€€The€videotape€from€the€store€video€recorder€was€never€found.Ð e ÐÌà  àTodd€Halliday,€part„owner€of€the€Baskin„Robbins€at€issue,€testified€that€each€day€four€start„Ð ç 7 Ðup€money€bags€were€provided€to€the€employees€containing€$100€each€for€the€purpose€of€makingÐ Ð!   Ðchange.€€At€the€end€of€each€day,€the€employees€closed€out€each€register,€put€the€money€from€theÐ ¹" ! Ðsales€of€the€day€into€the€money€bags,€and€placed€the€bags€in€the€safe.€€According€to€Mr.€Halliday,Ð ¢#ò" Ðthe€sales€for€April€23,€1997€totaled€$1,165.58.€€Therefore,€including€the€$400€in€start„up€money,€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðstore€would€have€had€$1,565.58€in€cash.€€None€of€this€money€was€ever€recovered€following€the€AprilÐ t%Ä $ Ð23€disappearance€and€murders€of€the€store€employees.€€Mr.€Halliday€further€testified€that€the€twoÐ ]&­!% Ðexterior€doors€to€the€parking€lot€were€equipped€with€panic€doors.€€In€order€to€lock€the€doors,€anÐ F'–"& Ðemployee€would€turn€a€screw€on€the€panic€bar€with€a€screwdriver,€which€would€cause€the€door€toÐ /(#' Ðlock€each€time€it€was€shut.€€No€key€was€needed€to€unlock€the€panic€bar€from€inside.€€Instead,Ð )h$( Ðsomeone€merely€had€to€push€the€panic€bar€in€order€to€open€it.€€A€key€was€required€to€unlock€the€doorÐ *Q%) Ðfrom€the€outside.€€€€Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà  àTwo€of€appellantððs€former€Shoneyððs€co„workers€testified€that€appellant€engaged€inÐ ° Ðconversation€concerning€robbery€of€fast„food€restaurants€as€a€means€of€making€money.€€DannyÐ ™é ÐTackett€testified€that€appellant€was€in€dire€straits€financially.€€During€a€January€1997€conversation,Ð ‚Ò Ðappellant€told€Mr.€Tackett€that€given€his€size€and€Tackettððs€speed,€they€could€ð ðgo€anywhere€and€getÐ k» Ðanything.ðð€€Appellant€then€asked€him€how€he€thought€they€could€make€money,€and€Tackett€repliedÐ T¤ Ðthat€they€could€rob€a€fast„food€restaurant€in€the€middle€of€the€night€when€there€would€be€noÐ =  Ðwitnesses.€€Mr.€Tackett€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€appellant€often€made€jokes,€and€heÐ & v Ðthought€appellant€was€joking€when€the€comments€were€made.Ð  _ ÐÌà  àJeffrey€Potter€testified€that€in€January€1997,€just€prior€to€appellantððs€termination€fromÐ á 1  ÐShoneyððs,€appellant€told€him€that€robbery€was€an€easy€way€to€make€money€without€having€to€workÐ Ê   Ðfor€it.€€Mr.€Potter€admitted€that€he€had€previously€stated€that€this€conversation€with€appellantÐ ³  Ðoccurred€in€the€summer€of€1996.€€Further,€Mr.€Potter€admitted€that€he€did€not€tell€the€police€aboutÐ œì  Ðthis€conversation€when€they€first€interviewed€him€on€June€7,€1997.€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àLinda€Patton,€appellantððs€girlfriend€from€Texas,€visited€appellant€on€May€3,€1997.€€AppellantÐ W§  Ðhad€sent€her€a€letter€dated€April€24,€1997,€in€which€he€stated€that€he€was€enclosing€a€$125€moneyÐ @ Ðorder€to€pay€for€half€of€her€airfare.€€The€money€order€was€not€actually€enclosed,€but€she€receivedÐ )y Ðanother€letter€dated€April€26,€1997,€that€did€include€the€money€order.€€€During€her€visit€to€Nashville,Ð b Ðthey€stayed€at€a€motel€and€visited€various€Nashville€tourist€attractions,€all€of€which€appellant€paidÐ ûK Ðfor.€€She€believed€that€he€paid€for€everything€with€cash,€but€the€defense€presented€proof€to€show€thatÐ ä4 Ðhe€paid€for€some€of€the€attractions€with€a€credit€card.€€At€the€time,€appellant€had€a€balance€of€onlyÐ Í Ð$66.72€in€his€checking€account.€€€€€€à h àÐ ¶ ÐÌà  àDNA€and€fiber€testing€were€conducted€as€a€part€of€the€investigation€of€the€murders.€€BloodÐ ˆØ Ðsamples€were€drawn€from€appellant€and€the€body€of€Angela€Holmes.€€Blood€from€the€t„shirtÐ qÁ ÐMichelle€Mace€was€wearing€was€used€as€her€blood€sample.€€Shelly€Betts,€an€employee€of€the€TBIÐ Zª Ðserology€and€DNA€unit,€established€DNA€profiles€from€the€blood€sample€taken€from€Angela€HolmesÐ C“ Ðand€the€blood€on€the€shirt€of€Michelle€Mace.€€She€used€the€polymerase€chain€reaction€(PCR)€processÐ ,| Ðto€determine€the€DNA€profiles.€€Ð e ÐÌà  àSamero€Zavaro,€also€a€serology€and€DNA€specialist€with€the€TBI,€established€a€DNA€profileÐ ç 7 Ðof€appellant€using€the€PCR€method.€€She€also€tested€two€brown€Nike€tennis€shoes€removed€fromÐ Ð!   Ðappellantððs€home€during€a€search.€€Her€testing€revealed€that€human€blood€was€present€on€both€shoes.€Ð ¹" ! ÐTesting€of€the€blood€on€the€left€shoe€excluded€Michelle€Mace€and€appellant€as€€donors,€but€includedÐ ¢#ò" ÐAngela€Holmes.€€She€testified€that€the€probability€of€selecting€an€unrelated€individual€that€wouldÐ ‹$Û# Ðhave€the€same€profile€in€the€Caucasian€population€was€1€in€6,800€individuals€and€was€1€in€4,400Ð t%Ä $ Ðindividuals€in€the€African„American€population.€€€The€blood€stains€on€the€right€shoe€were€veryÐ ]&­!% Ðsmall;€therefore,€Zavero€testified€she€combined€the€blood€stains€in€order€to€have€enough€to€test.€€InÐ F'–"& Ðestablishing€the€profile,€she€determined€that€it€was€consistent€with€multiple€donors.€€When€sheÐ /(#' Ðcompared€the€profile€to€the€samples€from€appellant,€Holmes,€and€Mace,€appellant€was€excluded€asÐ )h$( Ða€donor,€but€neither€Ms.€Holmes€nor€Ms.€Mace€could€be€excluded.€€Zavaro€could€not€give€anyÐ *Q%) Ðstatistics€or€percentages€as€to€the€probability€of€an€unrelated€individual€to€Mace€or€Holmes€as€beingÐ ê*:&* Ðthe€donor€of€the€sample,€because€the€blood€was€a€mixture.€€Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àMeghan€Clement,€an€associate€director€in€the€forensic€identity€testing€department€atÐ ° ÐLaboratory€Corporation€of€America€Holdings€Incorporated€(ð ðLabCorpðð)€conducted€additional€DNAÐ ™é Ðtesting.€€Ms.€Clement€performed€a€PCR€DNA€analysis€and€looked€at€six€markers€other€than€thoseÐ ‚Ò Ðutilized€by€the€TBI.€€As€to€the€left€shoe,€LabCorpððs€testing€revealed€reportable€results€at€three€of€theÐ k» Ðsix€markers€tested.€€The€profile€obtained€was€consistent€with€Angela€Holmesððs€profile.€€ClementÐ T¤ Ðtestified€that€the€odds€of€selecting€an€unrelated€individual€that€had€the€same€profile€at€those€threeÐ =  Ðlocations€was€1€in€465€in€the€Caucasian€population,€1€in€2,911€in€the€African„American€population,Ð & v Ðand€1€in€639€for€the€Hispanic€population.€€From€the€appellantððs€right€shoe,€she€was€able€to€developÐ  _ Ða€profile€from€four€of€the€locations€that€they€tested€and€determined€that€there€was€a€mixture€of€DNAÐ ø H Ðfrom€more€than€one€individual.€€She€further€determined€that€neither€of€the€victims€nor€the€appellantÐ á 1  Ðcould€be€excluded€as€possible€donors.€€She€also€did€not€calculate€statistics€on€blood€mixtures.€€€Ms.Ð Ê   ÐClement€explained€that€her€results€were€different€from€the€TBI€testing€because€the€markers€used€byÐ ³  Ðthe€two€laboratories€were€different.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àMs.€Clement€also€performed€a€combined€statistical€analysis€of€the€DNA€on€appellantððs€leftÐ n¾  Ðshoe.€€She€testified€that€when€the€six€locations€that€the€TBI€tested€were€combined€with€the€threeÐ W§  Ðreportable€results€that€she€tested,€the€probability€that€a€person€unrelated€to€Angela€Holmes€was€theÐ @ Ðdonor€of€the€blood€was€1€in€3,250,000€for€the€Caucasian€population,€1€in€1,810,000€in€the€African„Ð )y ÐAmerican€population,€1€in€4,950,000€in€the€southeastern€Hispanic€population,€and€1€in€4,520,000Ð b Ðin€the€southwestern€Hispanic€population.€€Furthermore,€she€explained€that€based€upon€her€combinedÐ ûK Ðstatistical€analysis,€she€determined€that€appellant€could€be€absolutely€excluded€from€the€DNAÐ ä4 Ðpresent€on€the€right€shoe.Ð Í ÐÌà  àDr.€William€Shields,€professor€of€biology€at€the€State€University€of€New€York€College€ofÐ Ÿï ÐEnvironmental€Science€and€Forestry€at€Syracuse€University,€testified€for€the€defense€as€a€zoologyÐ ˆØ Ðand€DNA€analysis€expert.€€Dr.€Shields€questioned€the€combined€statistical€analysis€of€appellantððsÐ qÁ Ðleft€shoe€used€by€Ms.€Clement.€€After€Dr.€Shields€adjusted€for€errors€he€claims€Clement€made€inÐ Zª Ðconducting€the€combined€statistical€analysis,€he€opined€that€the€probability€that€an€individualÐ C“ Ðunrelated€to€Ms.€Holmes€contributed€to€the€sample€on€the€left€shoe€was€between€1€in€122,000€andÐ ,| Ð1€in€12,000,000€in€the€Caucasian€population,€with€the€best€estimate€being€1€in€1,200,000.€€€Dr.Ð e ÐShields€further€challenged€the€methodology€of€combining€the€stains€from€the€right€shoe€to€establishÐ þN Ða€DNA€profile.€€Dr.€Shields€testified€that€the€PCR€process€used€by€Zavaro€could€obtain€DNA€fromÐ ç 7 Ða€single€cell;€therefore,€there€was€no€reason€to€mix€the€stains.Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àLinda€Littlejohn,€who€works€in€the€trace€evidence€unit€of€the€TBI€crime€laboratory€andÐ ¢#ò" Ðspecializes€in€fiber€comparisons,€testified€that€she€took€hair€samples€from€the€victims€for€testingÐ ‹$Û# Ðpurposes€and€removed€an€apron€from€Angela€Holmesððs€body€that€was€used€as€a€ligature€to€tie€herÐ t%Ä $ Ðhands.€€She€also€received€articles€of€the€victimsðð€clothing,€photographs€of€shoe€prints€from€Baskin„Ð ]&­!% ÐRobbins,€nine€pairs€of€appellantððs€shoes,€and€eight€pairs€of€shoes€belonging€to€other€people.€€NoneÐ F'–"& Ðof€the€shoe€prints€from€Baskin„Robbins€or€Dunbar€Cave€matched€appellantððs€shoes.€€Ð /(#' ÐÌà  àAppellantððs€car€was€vacuumed€for€trace€evidence.€€In€addition,€the€TBI€agents€tookÐ *Q%) Ðupholstery,€carpet,€and€floor€mat€samples€from€the€car€for€testing€the€presence€of€blood.€€AgentÐ ê*:&* ÐLittlejohn€also€took€fiber€samples€from€the€backseat€of€the€car,€the€back€floor€mat,€and€the€carpetÐ Ó+#'+ Ðof€the€car.€€She€also€collected€debris€from€the€victimsððs€clothing.€€Agent€Littlejohn€testified€thatÐ ° Ðwhen€she€tested€Angela€Holmesððs€clothing,€she€found€two€gray€polyester€fibers€consistent€with€theÐ ™é Ðseat€sample€taken€from€appellantððs€car€and€one€gray€trilobel€olefin€fiber€consistent€with€the€floor€matÐ ‚Ò Ðsample.€€With€respect€to€Michelle€Maceððs€clothing,€she€found€two€gray€polyester€fibers€consistentÐ k» Ðwith€the€seat€sample,€one€green€polyester€fiber€consistent€with€the€polyester€seat€sample,€one€grayÐ T¤ Ðnylon€fiber€consistent€with€the€carpet€sample,€and€three€gray€olefin€fibers€consistent€with€the€olefinÐ =  Ðseat€sample.€€Additionally,€fiber€on€Michelle€Maceððs€shoes€was€consistent€with€fibers€from€the€floorÐ & v Ðmat€sample€from€appellantððs€car.€€Agent€Littlejohn€also€found€a€fiber€on€one€of€appellantððs€shoes€thatÐ  _ Ðwas€consistent€with€the€floor€mat€sample€from€his€car.€€Agent€Littlejohn€testified€that€in€herÐ ø H Ðexperience€it€was€ð ða€very€rare€case€that€you€find€eleven€fibers€that€match€one€source.ðð€€The€defenseÐ á 1  Ðattempted€to€rebut€this€evidence€with€testimony€as€to€the€popularity,€and€thus€volume,€of€the€FordÐ Ê   ÐEscort€and€car€mats€sold€throughout€the€United€States.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àRobert€McFadden,€a€forensic€scientist€employed€by€the€TBI,€testified€that€fingerprint€testingÐ …Õ  Ðwas€conducted€in€the€course€of€the€investigation.€€One€of€the€fingerprints€found€at€Baskin„RobbinsÐ n¾  Ðmatched€a€print€from€Michelle€Mace.€€Appellantððs€car€was€also€tested.€€Agent€McFadden€explainedÐ W§  Ðthat€when€the€appellantððs€car€was€recovered€and€processed,€it€was€ð ðvery€clean.ðð€€Therefore,€printsÐ @ Ðwould€be€undetectable,€unless€they€were€left€very€recently€after€the€cleaning.€€Prints€were€recoveredÐ )y Ðfrom€the€car,€but€none€matched€either€of€the€victimsðð€prints€or€the€appellantððs.€€Moreover,€sevenÐ b Ðprints€found€on€pieces€of€paper€in€appellantððs€car€all€matched€prints€from€the€appellant.Ð ûK ÐÌà  àDr.€Charles€Harlan€performed€the€autopsies€on€the€victims.€€He€testified€that€Angela€HolmesÐ Í Ðdied€as€the€result€of€an€incision€to€the€neck.€€She€had€multiple€stab€wounds,€including€non„Ð ¶ Ðpenetrating€stab€wounds€to€the€head.€€The€stab€wound€to€Ms.€Holmesððs€neck€was€a€deep€wound€thatÐ Ÿï Ðwent€ð ðall€the€way€to€the€backbone.ðð€€€The€wound€transected€the€left€common€carotid€artery€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðjugular€vein,€injured€the€spinal€column,€and€cut€into€the€backbone€in€two€areas.€€Angela€Holmes€diedÐ qÁ Ðas€a€result€of€blood€loss€from€the€neck€wound.€€According€to€Dr.€Harlan,€she€survived€for€a€periodÐ Zª Ðof€five€to€ten€minutes€and€was€conscious€for€approximately€eighty€percent€of€the€time€from€theÐ C“ Ðinfliction€of€the€injury€to€the€time€of€death.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€the€stab€wounds€could€haveÐ ,| Ðbeen€inflicted€by€a€knife€or€other€sharp€instrument€and€were€consistent€with€a€knife€blade€of€eightÐ e Ðto€nine€inches.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€because€the€neck€wound€did€not€affect€Angela€HolmesððsÐ þN Ðnervous€system,€she€ð ðwould€have€had€conscious€control€of€her€bodily€functions,€consciousÐ ç 7 Ðmovement,€etc.€for€at€least€that€period€of€time€up€to€eighty€percent€of€the€amount€of€time€it€took€herÐ Ð!   Ðto€die.ðð€€Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àDr.€Harlan€testified€that€Michelle€Mace€also€received€multiple€stab€wounds.€€In€fact,€Ms.Ð ‹$Û# ÐMace€received€fourteen€stab€wounds,€but,€like€Ms.€Holmes,€the€fatal€incision€was€a€stab€wound€toÐ t%Ä $ Ðthe€neck.€€Dr.€Harlan€used€a€styrofoam€ball€to€assist€in€illustrating€to€the€jury€the€injuries€Ms.€MaceÐ ]&­!% Ðreceived€to€her€head€and€neck.€€Dr.€Harlan€explained€that€the€incision€to€Ms.€Maceððs€neck€was€aÐ F'–"& Ðcompound€incision€that€reached€the€backbone.€€The€incision€consisted€of€at€least€three€differentÐ /(#' Ðchanges€of€direction,€which€resulted€in€five€cuts€to€the€vertebral€column,€three€of€which€penetratedÐ )h$( Ðbone,€with€the€deepest€of€those€penetrating€one€quarter€of€an€inch€into€the€backbone.€€Dr.€HarlanÐ *Q%) Ðtestified€that€the€stab€wound€was€consistent€with€a€sawing€motion.€€Michelle€Mace€also€remainedÐ ê*:&* Ðalive€for€five€to€fifteen€minutes€and€remained€conscious€eighty€percent€of€the€time€from€inflictionÐ Ó+#'+ Ðof€the€wound€to€death.€€In€addition€to€the€multiple€stab€wounds€to€her€head€and€face,€Michelle€MaceÐ ° Ðalso€received€a€stab€wound€to€her€right€shoulder€that€struck€the€shoulder€blade.€€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àMitchell€Roberts€testified€that€he€knew€the€defendant€as€a€cook€at€Shoneyððs.€€He€testified€thatÐ k» Ðappellantððs€employment€with€Shoneyððs€ended€in€January€or€February€1997.€€He€did€not€see€appellantÐ T¤ Ðagain€until€he€showed€up€at€his€home€unexpectedly€in€late€May€or€June€1997€at€approximately€9:00Ð =  Ðor€10:00€p.m.€€€Mr.€Roberts€accompanied€appellant€outside€where€he€asked€Roberts€about€gettingÐ & v Ðhis€job€back€at€Shoneyððs.€€Mr.€Roberts€told€appellant€that€the€decision€was€out€of€his€hands.€Ð  _ ÐSubsequently,€appellant€told€him€that€he€wanted€to€show€him€something€in€his€car.€€Mr.€RobertsÐ ø H Ðtestified€that€he€saw€appellant€in€the€possession€of€a€knife€with€a€blade€approximately€eight€or€nineÐ á 1  Ðinches€long.€€Appellant€was€driving€a€small€red€car€that€may€have€been€a€Ford.€€€€à x à€€€€€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Tobaris€Holmes€identified€the€pants,€shoes,€socks,€bra,€and€hair€tie€that€AngelaÐ œì  ÐHolmes€wore€to€work€on€April€23,€1997.€€Connie€Black,€Michelle€Maceððs€mother€identified€theÐ …Õ  Ðjeans,€belt,€shoes,€hair€bow,€and€socks€Michelle€wore€to€work€the€night€of€her€disappearance.€€SheÐ n¾  Ðalso€identified€a€t„shirt€in€a€photograph€as€the€shirt€Michelle€wore€to€work€that€night.€€Ms.€Black€toldÐ W§  Ðthe€jury€that€the€last€time€she€talked€to€her€daughter€was€at€9:45€p.m.€on€April€23,€1997,€when€sheÐ @ Ðdiscussed€the€arrangements€for€her€to€be€picked€up€from€work€that€evening.Ð )y Ðà  àÌò òòòÓ  ÓSentencing€phaseó óóóÐ ûK ÐÓdSÓÌà  àTobaris€Holmes€testified€that€he€was€Angela€Holmesððs€husband€and€that€they€were€theÐ Î Ðparents€of€a€daughter,€Ryane.€€Ryane€was€an€infant€at€the€time€Angela€was€killed.€€He€testified€thatÐ · Ðhis€wifeððs€death€made€him€feel€that€he€did€not€perform€in€his€duties€as€a€husband€and€in€protectingÐ  ð Ðhis€family.€€His€wifeððs€death€made€him€feel€incomplete€as€if€he€was€less€than€a€man.€€Moreover,€hisÐ ‰Ù Ðdaughter€did€not€get€the€opportunity€to€know€her€mother€and€did€not€remember€her.Ð r ÐÌà  àKim€Campbell,€Angela€Holmesððs€mother,€testified€that€their€family€of€four€children€was€veryÐ D” Ðclose.€€Ms.€Campbell€testified€that€the€murder€traumatized€her€youngest€son,€Chase,€who€wasÐ -} Ðterrified€that€his€sister€Amy€would€be€murdered.€€Following€Angelaððs€murder,€they€had€to€keep€theÐ f Ðlights€on€at€night€for€Chase.Ð ÿO ÐÌà  àCraig€Mace€testified€that€he€was€not€the€same€person€since€Michelleððs€death.€€He€testifiedÐ Ñ!!  Ðthat€he€was€angry,€sad,€and€fearful.€€He€stated€that€the€murder€ð ðdestroyedðð€his€father.€€Ð º" ! ÐÌà  àConnie€Black,€Michelle€Maceððs€mother,€testified€that€she€did€not€have€her€little€girl€anymoreÐ Œ$Ü# Ðand€felt€like€there€was€a€void€inside€her.€€She€testified€that€Kelly€lost€her€best€friend€when€MichelleÐ u%Å $ Ðwas€murdered,€and€Craig€felt€like€he€was€not€there€to€protect€Michelle€when€he€should€have€been.Ð ^&®!% ÐÌà  àDr.€Harlan€testified€again€during€the€sentencing€phase€regarding€the€extent€of€the€victimððsÐ 0(€#' Ðinjuries€and€the€cause€of€death.€€Ð )i$( ÐÌà  àTom€Thurman,€an€assistant€district€attorney€general€in€Davidson€County,€Tennessee,€testifiedÐ ë*;&* Ðthat€he€was€the€prosecuting€attorney€in€the€Captain€Dððs€murders.€€He€testified€that€appellant€wasÐ Ô+$'+ Ðconvicted€of€two€counts€of€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€inÐ ° ÐDavidson€County.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àBrian€Johnson,€an€assistant€attorney€general€in€Harris€County,€Texas,€testified€that€appellantÐ k» Ðwas€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery€in€1984.€€The€parties€stipulated€that€this€crime€involved€the€useÐ T¤ Ðof€violence€to€the€person.Ð =  ÐÌà  àDr.€Xavier€Amador€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defense.€€Dr.€Amador€testified€that€appellantÐ  _ Ðsuffered€from€paranoid€schizophrenia,€a€cognitive€disorder,€and€a€personality€change.€€He€furtherÐ ø H Ðexplained,€that€in€lay€terms,€appellant€suffered€from€a€ð ðbroken€brain,ðð€which€left€him€unable€toÐ á 1  Ðcontrol€his€impulses.€€He€testified€that€appellant€had€documented€head€trauma.€€Dr.€Amador€told€theÐ Ê   Ðjury€of€several€childhood€head€injuries€appellant€received.€€He€also€described€appellantððs€unstableÐ ³  Ðfamily€history€and€his€behavioral€problems€as€a€child.€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€interviewed€appellantððs€family€members,€including€his€mother€and€sister.€€HeÐ n¾  Ðexplained€that€appellant€believes€he€has€been€under€continuous€government€surveillance€since€1978Ð W§  Ðand€that€he€is€a€test€subject.€€He€testified€that€appellant€is€reluctant€to€discuss€his€beliefs€because€heÐ @ Ðfeels€loyal€to€the€government€agency€that€selected€him€for€the€secret€mission.€€Dr.€Amador€testifiedÐ )y Ðthat€appellant€was€diagnosed€as€having€brain€dysfunction€as€early€as€1964€and€1966.€€€€Three€TexasÐ b Ðdoctors€found€him€to€have€a€psychotic€disorder€in€1978,€and€another€doctor€gave€a€similar€diagnosisÐ ûK Ðin€1984.€€Appellant€was€prescribed€an€anti„psychotic€medication€and€improved€as€a€result.€€He€didÐ ä4 Ðnot€become€extremely€sedated,€which€occurs€to€persons€who€take€the€medication€and€are€notÐ Í Ðpsychotic.€€Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€admitted€that,€although€appellant€was€evaluated€as€malingering€mental€illnessÐ ˆØ Ðon€three€different€occasions,€he€believed€that€appellant€claimed€to€be€faking€his€mental€illnessÐ qÁ Ðbecause€of€his€tremendous€desire€to€be€normal.€€Dr.€Amador€concluded€that€appellant€was€notÐ Zª Ðmalingering€at€the€present€time.Ð C“ ÐÌà  àPatricia€Allen,€a€speech€and€language€therapist€at€Vanderbilt€Medical€Center€who€treatsÐ e Ðpersons€with€traumatic€brain€injuries,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defense.€She€evaluated€appellant€forÐ þN Ðfifteen€hours€in€1998.€€She€administered€tests€to€determine€appellantððs€ability€to€pay€attention,Ð ç 7 Ðremember,€problem€solve,€and€reason.€€She€also€relied€upon€appellantððs€medical€and€school€records.€Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àShe€testified€that€appellant€was€born€with€a€deformed€ear€and€hearing€loss.€€She€alsoÐ ¢#ò" Ðexplained€that€appellantððs€parents€divorced€when€he€was€very€young.€€His€father€was€an€alcoholic,Ð ‹$Û# Ðso€he€sent€appellant€to€live€with€his€grandmother,€but€appellant€was€unable€to€follow€her€rules.€Ð t%Ä $ ÐThereafter,€he€was€surrendered€to€state€custody.€€Subsequently,€his€mother€claimed€custody€of€himÐ ]&­!% Ðand€changed€his€name.€€According€to€Ms.€Allen,€appellantððs€motherððs€household€was€marked€byÐ F'–"& Ðdrug€use€and€sexual€abuse.€€Allen€testified€that€appellant€had€received€four€head€injuries.€€His€familyÐ /(#' Ðmembers€noted€that€his€behavior€changed€for€the€worse€following€each€of€the€head€injuries.€€€SheÐ )h$( Ðconcluded€that€appellantððs€injuries€occurred€at€ages€when€appellant€should€have€had€the€greatestÐ *Q%) Ðâ âcourse€of€development.€€She€further€testified€that€appellant€performed€poorly€on€tests€that€measureÐ ê*:&* Ðlanguage€mastery€and€reasoning€ability.€€She€opined€that€these€results€are€consistent€with€anÐ ° Ðindividual€who€suffered€a€brain€injury.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€Allen€admitted€that€she€did€not€conduct€an€independentÐ k» Ðinvestigation€into€appellantððs€background€but€relied€upon€information€provided€by€the€defenseÐ T¤ Ðattorneys.€€She€testified€that€appellant€could€understand€normal€everyday€conversation€and€averageÐ =  Ðdirections,€except€if€you€asked€him€to€do€it€again€quickly.€€She€believed€that€appellant€knew€it€wasÐ & v Ðwrong€to€kill€people.ò òÐ  _ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àDr.€Pamela€Auble,€a€neuropsychologist,€testified€that€appellant€suffered€from€abnormalitiesÐ á 1  Ðin€his€brain€that€affected€his€functioning,€that€appellant€had€evidence€of€psychotic€symptoms,€andÐ Ê   Ðthat€appellant€suffered€a€very€damaging€childhood.€€These€conclusions€were€based€on€her€interview,Ð ³  Ðevaluations,€testing,€and€review€of€medical€and€social€history.€€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€medicalÐ œì  Ðimaging€of€appellantððs€brain€shows€that€his€left€temporal€lobe€is€shrunken€and€distorted.€€Dr.€AubleÐ …Õ  Ðtestified€that€studies€show€that€persons€with€damage€in€the€left€temporal€lobe€may€exhibit€aggressiveÐ n¾  Ðbehavior€and€psychotic€symptoms€such€as€delusions.€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€appellant€has€long„Ð W§  Ðstanding€delusions€of€a€government€plot€to€control€and€kill€him.€€She€testified€that€his€denials€of€thisÐ @ Ðplot€are€the€result€of€anosognosia,€which€she€explained€was€a€condition€in€which€mentally€ill€personsÐ )y Ðgo€to€pathological€lengths€to€appear€normal.€€Ð b ÐÌà  àò òó óDr.€Auble€testified€that€she€saw€no€evidence€of€appellant€malingering€a€mental€illness.€Ð ä4 ÐInstead,€appellant€attempted€to€portray€himself€as€normal.€€Dr.€Auble€conducted€tests€to€determineÐ Í Ðif€appellant€was€malingering,€and€the€tests€did€not€show€that€he€was€faking€his€illness.€€Dr.€AubleÐ ¶ Ðtestified€that€appellant€had€a€family€history€of€mental€illness€and€delusions,€which€is€importantÐ Ÿï Ðbecause€the€risk€of€developing€mental€illness€can€run€in€families.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Auble€admitted€that€appellant€admitted€that€he€faked€his€beliefÐ Zª Ðthat€he€was€under€government€surveillance.€€She€further€admitted€that€she€normally€testifies€onÐ C“ Ðbehalf€of€the€defense€in€criminal€cases.Ð ,| ÐÌà  àDr.€Robert€Kessler,€a€neuroradiologist,€testified€as€the€last€defense€witness€at€the€sentencingÐ þN Ðhearing.€€Dr.€Kessler€performed€magnetic€resonance€imaging€(MRI)€and€positron€emissionÐ ç 7 Ðtomography€(PET)€scans€on€appellant.€€Dr.€Kessler€opined€that€appellant€suffered€shrinkage€andÐ Ð!   Ðdamage€to€the€left€temporal€lobe€of€the€brain,€which€was€likely€caused€by€a€head€trauma.€€Dr.€KesslerÐ ¹" ! Ðtestified€that€appellant€appeared€to€have€decreased€brain€function.Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àThe€State€called€Dr.€William€Bernet€for€rebuttal€proof.€€€Dr.€Bernet€is€a€forensic€psychologistÐ t%Ä $ Ðwho€evaluated€appellant€on€three€occasions.€€Dr.€Bernet€concluded€that€appellant€suffered€fromÐ ]&­!% Ðantisocial€personality€disorder,€which€affects€his€thinking€and€behavior€pattern,€malingering,€andÐ F'–"& Ðparanoia€that€at€times€takes€the€form€of€delusions.€€He€testified€that€appellant€admitted€to€fabricatingÐ /(#' Ðstories€of€being€under€government€surveillance.€€He€testified€that€appellant€faked€psychiatricÐ )h$( Ðillnesses,€depending€on€the€situation,€for€personal€gain.€€Ð *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* Ðà  àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Bernet€admitted€that€there€was€no€indication€that€appellant€wasÐ ° Ðâ âmalingering€with€regard€to€a€current€mental€illness.€€Instead,€he€testified€that€appellant€now€had€aÐ ™é Ðproblem€with€reverse€malingering,€where€he€pretends€not€to€have€a€mental€illness€he€in€fact€has.€€Dr.Ð ‚Ò ÐBernet€agreed€that€appellant€was€pretending€to€be€mentally€healthier€than€he€actually€was.€€Dr.Ð k» ÐBernet€also€admitted€that€appellant€told€detectives€Postiglione€and€Roland€in€an€interview€in€JuneÐ T¤ Ð1997€that€they€needed€to€know€about€the€surveillance€project€because€the€surveillance€tapes€wouldÐ =  Ðreveal€his€true€whereabouts€on€the€day€of€the€murders€and€provide€an€alibi€for€him.€€Dr.€BernetÐ & v Ðfurther€admitted€that€appellant€had€written€a€letter€to€him€in€January€1999€in€which€he€describedÐ  _ Ðthree€attempts€by€the€government€to€take€his€life.€€Dr.€Bernet€admitted€that€appellant€suffered€fromÐ ø H Ðdelusions€but€denied€that€appellantððs€brain€damage€had€any€connection€with€his€criminal€activity€onÐ á 1  ÐApril€23,€1997.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àOn€re„direct€examination,€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€appellant€could€have€told€the€detectivesÐ œì  Ðthat€he€was€under€government€surveillance€in€an€attempt€to€make€them€change€their€line€ofÐ …Õ  Ðquestioning.€ò ò€ó óHe€explained€that€appellant€may€have€perceived€that€distraction€as€a€benefit€to€him.ò òÐ n¾  Ðà  àà ` àÌÓ  Óà @ àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àòòAnalysisóóÐ D” ÐÓ‚Óà  àÌÓ  ÓI.€€Validity€of€Search€WarrantsÐ h ÐÓ‚ÓÌà  àó óAppellant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€evidence€seizedÐ ì< Ðpursuant€to€search€warrants€145,€146,€and€189.€€Specifically,€appellant€argues€that€warrant€145,Ð Õ% Ðauthorizing€the€search€of€his€ð ðred€1997€Ford€Escort€LX€four€door€.€.€.[,]ðð€and€warrant€146,Ð ¾ Ðauthorizing€the€search€of€his€home€located€at€1424€Ordway€Place,€are€invalid€because€they€did€notÐ §÷ Ðdescribe€with€particularity€the€items€ultimately€seized.€€Appellant€further€claims€that€the€warrantsÐ à Ðare€invalid€for€lack€of€probable€cause€due€to€the€passage€of€time€and€that€the€warrants€do€notÐ yÉ Ðestablish€a€nexus€between€the€criminal€activity€and€his€home€and€the€criminal€activity€and€his€car.€Ð b² ÐAppellant€challenges€warrant€189€on€the€grounds€that€he€did€not€receive€an€exact€copy€of€the€warrantÐ K› Ðauthorizing€the€police€to€obtain€hair€and€blood€samples€from€him€and€that€the€warrant€lackedÐ 4„ Ðprobable€cause€because€it€failed€to€state€that€the€police€obtained€blood€and€hair€samples€from€theÐ m Ðvictims€to€compare€to€his.€€€Appellant€raised€these€same€allegations€with€regard€to€warrants€146€andÐ  V Ð149€on€his€direct€appeal€of€the€Captain€Dððs€murders׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€found€theseÐ ï ? Ðallegations€to€be€without€merit.׃Ó×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€273„76.€€Ð Ø!(  ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€set€forth€a€detailed€analysis€examining€the€requirement€of€particularityÐ ª#ú" Ðâ âfor€search€warrants,€the€requirement€of€a€nexus€between€the€criminal€activity€and€the€area€to€beÐ “$ã# Ðsearched,€and€the€requirement€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€41€that€the€serving€officerÐ ° Ðleave€a€copy€of€the€search€warrant€with€the€person€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€being€served.€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àIn€discussing€the€particularity€required€for€search€warrants,€the€court€stated:Ð k» ÐÌà8  àà ` àUnder€both€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÐ =  ÐArticle€I,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€a€search€warrant€must€contain€aÐ & v Ðparticular€description€of€the€items€to€be€seized.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2dÐ  _ Ð290,€296€(Tenn.1998)€(citing€cases).€€This€requirement€serves€as€a€limitation,€bothÐ ø H Ðupon€governmental€intrusion€into€a€citizenððs€privacy€and€property€rights€and€uponÐ á 1  Ðthe€discretion€of€law€enforcement€officers€conducting€the€search.€€òòId.óó€To€satisfy€theÐ Ê   Ðparticularity€requirement,€a€warrant€ð ðmust€enable€the€searcher€to€reasonably€ascertainÐ ³  Ðand€identify€the€things€which€are€authorized€to€be€seized.ðð€€òòHenningóó,€975€S.W.2d€atÐ œì  Ð296€(internal€quotations€and€citations€omitted).€€Ð…Õ Ð Ð  ÐòòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€273.Ð n¾  ÐÌThe€court€quoted€with€approval€the€following€language€from€òòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€S.W.2d€351,€352-53Ð @ Ð(1944),€which€sets€forth€the€particularity€requirement€for€search€warrants.Ð )y ЀÌà8  à[W]here€the€purpose€of€the€search€is€to€find€specific€property,€it€should€be€soÐ ûK Ðparticularly€described€as€to€preclude€the€possibility€of€seizing€any€other.€On€the€ò òó óotherÐ ä4 Ðhand,€if€the€purpose€be€to€seize€not€specified€property,€but€any€property€of€a€specifiedÐ Í Ðcharacter€which,€by€reason€of€its€character,€and€of€the€place€where€and€theÐ ¶ Ðcircumstances€under€which€it€may€be€found,€if€found€at€all,€would€be€illicit,€aÐ Ÿï Ðdescription,€save€as€to€such€character,€place€and€circumstances,€would€beÐ ˆØ Ðunnecessary,€and€ordinarily€impossible.ÐqÁÐ Ð  ÐÌòòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€273„74.€€Ð C“ ÐÌà  àApplying€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòLeaóó€to€the€warrants€at€issue€in€òòReidóó,€the€court€noted€that€Ð e Ðòòóóà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ ¸  Ðà8  à[w]arrants€146€and€149€authorized€searches€of€the€defendantððs€residence€for€itemsÐ ç 7 Ðð ðwhich€may€be€identifiedðð€as€property€belonging€to€the€victims€or€the€restaurants,€Ð Ð!   Ðand€any€items€that€ð ðmay€be€used€to€cause€the€death€of€the€victims.ðð€€Warrant€149Ð ¹" ! Ðadditionally€authorized€a€search€for€ð ðany€and€all€Ô% €Ô Ôfinancial€records€to€include€thoseÐ ¢#ò" Ðindicatingðð€money€paid€by€the€defendant€on€an€automobile€lease€around€the€time€ofÐ ‹$Û# Ðthe€murders.€€An€affidavit€was€attached€to€each€warrant,€setting€forth€the€nature€andÐ t%Ä $ Ðcircumstances€of€the€crimes€and€noting€several€items€that€had€been€taken€from€theÐ ]&­!% Ðrestaurants,€including€bank€bags.ÐF'–"&Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€€at€274.€UÔ% €Ù Ôltimately,€the€court€affirmed€the€decisions€of€the€trial€court€and€this€Court,€whichÐ )h$( Ðdetermined€that€the€warrants€met€the€particularity€requirement€because€ð ðthe€warrants€described€theÐ *Q%) Ðcharacter€of€the€property€with€sufficient€particularity€ððto€enable€the€searcher€to€reasonably€ascertainÐ ê*:&* Ðand€identifyðð€the€items€subject€to€seizure.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àIn€response€to€appellantððs€arguments€that€the€information€in€the€affidavits€accompanying€theÐ ° Ðwarrants€was€stale€and€there€was€no€probable€cause€to€believe€that€evidence€of€the€crimes€would€beÐ ™é Ðlocated€at€appellantððs€residence,€the€court€examined€the€requirement€that€there€be€a€nexus€betweenÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€criminal€activity€and€the€area€to€be€searched€and€found€that€Ð k» ÐÌà8  àà ` àTo€establish€probable€cause€an€affidavit€must€set€forth€facts€from€which€aÐ =  Ðreasonable€conclusion€may€be€drawn€that€the€evidence€will€be€found€in€the€place€forÐ & v Ðwhich€the€warrant€authorizes€a€search.€€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€105€(Tenn.Ð  _ Ð1998);€€òòState€v.€Longstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97,€99€(Tenn.€1981).€€In€addition,€theÐ ø H Ðaffidavit€must€contain€information€which€will€allow€a€magistrate€to€determineÐ á 1  Ðwhether€the€facts€are€too€stale€to€establish€probable€cause€at€the€time€issuance€of€theÐ Ê   Ðwarrant€is€sought.€€òòVannóó,€976€S.W.2d€at€105.€€While€the€lapse€of€time€between€theÐ ³  Ðcommission€of€a€crime€and€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€may€affect€the€likelihoodÐ œì  Ðthat€incriminating€evidence€will€be€found,€probable€cause€is€a€case-by-caseÐ …Õ  Ðdetermination.€€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121,€124€(Tenn.Crim.App.),€perm.€app.Ð n¾  Ðdenied€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€making€this€determination,€courts€should€consider€whetherÐ W§  Ðthe€criminal€activity€under€investigation€was€an€isolated€event€or€a€protracted€Ô% €ò ÔpatternÐ @ Ðof€conduct.€€Courts€also€should€consider€the€nature€of€the€property€sought,€the€normalÐ )y Ðinferences€as€to€where€a€criminal€would€hide€the€evidence,€and€the€perpetratorððsÐ b Ðopportunity€to€dispose€of€incriminating€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dellingeóór,€79€S.W.3d€458,Ð ûK Ð469-70€(Tenn.€2002);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€572€(Tenn.1993).Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌ€à8  àà ` à.€.€.€[T]he€criminal€conduct€under€investigation€was€not€an€isolated€event.€€€AsÐ ¶ Ðindicated€in€the€warrants,€the€crimes€occurred€almost€one€month€apart,€with€the€lastÐ Ÿï Ðcrime€committed€on€March€23,€1997,€less€than€three€months€prior€to€the€time€theÐ ˆØ Ðwarrants€were€being€sought.€€The€warrants€sought€any€items€that€had€been€taken€fromÐ qÁ Ðthe€restaurants€or€the€victims€or€that€may€have€been€used€to€cause€the€death€of€theÐ Zª Ðvictims.€€The€affidavits€set€out€the€circumstances€of€the€Captain€Dððs€and€McDonaldððsÐ C“ Ðrobberies,€including€the€fact€that€the€only€person€who€had€survived€the€crimes€hadÐ ,| Ðbeen€repeatedly€stabbed€and€left€for€dead.€€€The€affidavits€further€noted€that€theÐ e Ðdefendantððs€fingerprint€had€been€recovered€from€an€item€belonging€to€one€of€theÐ þN ÐCaptain€Dððs€victims,€that€the€murder€scenes€were€extremely€bloody,€that€the€victimsððÐ ç 7 Ðblood€could€be€on€the€defendantððs€clothing,€and€that€the€defendant€could€still€haveÐ Ð!   Ðin€his€possession€or€on€his€premises€instruments€of€violence€used€to€murder€theÐ ¹" ! Ðvictims€or€personal€items€belonging€to€the€victims.€€Clearly,€the€affidavits€provideÐ ¢#ò" Ðan€explanation€for€why€the€items€sought€by€the€warrants€are€capable€of,€and€are€inÐ ‹$Û# Ðfact,€likely€to€be€hidden€in€the€defendantððs€residence.€.€.€.€Where,€as€here,€aÐ t%Ä $ Ðperpetrator€believes€he€has€eliminated€or€incapacitated€all€witnesses€so€that€lawÐ ]&­!% Ðenforcement€officials€are€unlikely€to€discover€his€criminal€activity,€it€is€neitherÐ F'–"& Ðunreasonable€nor€unlikely€that€the€perpetrator€would€keep€clothing,€or€the€murderÐ /(#' Ðweapons,€or€items€taken€during€the€crime€at€his€residence.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ )h$( Ðat€572.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ *Q%) Ðcorrectly€ò òó ófound€that€the€affidavits€set€forth€sufficient€facts€from€which€the€magistrateÐ ê*:&* Ðreasonably€could€have€concluded€that€a€nexus€existed€between€the€crime€and€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðplace€to€be€searched€and€that€the€facts€were€sufficiently€recent€to€establish€probableÐ ° Ðcause.ЙéÐ Ð  ÐÌòòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€275„76.€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àAppellant€has€not€shown€how€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ =  Ðin€this€case.€€ð ð[T]he€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€theÐ & v Ðevidence€preponderates€otherwise.ðð€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€theÐ  _ Ðapplication€of€the€law€to€the€facts€as€found€by€the€trial€court€is€a€question€of€law,€which€the€appellateÐ ø H Ðcourt€reviews€de€novo.€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997).Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAppellant€concedes€that€the€Supreme€Court€held€two€of€the€search€warrants€at€issue€in€thisÐ ³  Ðcase€valid€in€the€Captain€Dððs€appeal€but€argues€that€this€court€should€not€follow€the€reasoning€setÐ œì  Ðforth€by€the€Supreme€Court€because€it€misinterpreted€and€misapplied€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòLeaóó.€Ð …Õ  ÐAppellant€argues€that€the€less€exacting€particularity€requirement€set€forth€in€òòLeaóó€applies€only€whenÐ n¾  Ðthe€property€to€be€seized€is€of€an€illicit€or€illegal€nature.€€Appellant€contends€that€the€danger€inÐ W§  Ðfailing€to€abide€by€the€òòLeaóó€courtððs€precise€holding€is€that€a€more€expansive€interpretation€of€the€caseÐ @ Ðwill€result€in€the€ð ðgeneral€searchesðð€prohibited€by€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€AppellantÐ )y Ðmaintains€that,€because€the€warrants€at€issue€do€not€comply€with€the€requirements€set€forth€in€òòLeaóó,Ð b Ðthe€warrants€are€constitutionally€defective.€€This€court,€however,€adopts€the€reasoning€of€theÐ ûK ÐSupreme€Court€in€òòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€273„76,€and€determines€that€warrants€145€and€146€are€valid.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€he€did€not€receive€a€copy€of€warrant€189€at€the€time€the€warrant€wasÐ ¶ Ðexecuted€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€41.€€In€dismissing€the€identical€issueÐ Ÿï Ðwith€respect€to€warrant€149€in€òòReidóó,€the€Supreme€Court€found:Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌà8  àÔ% € ÔÔ4‚ÔÝ‚¤ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6|´ÔÝ‚¤ÍO´ÿÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7¾´Ôà ` àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€officers€executing€the€warrants€were€aware€of€theÐ C“ Ðdefendantððs€whereabouts.€€€It€is€also€undisputed€that€the€detectives€left€a€copy€of€theÐ ,| Ðsearch€warrant€locked€inside€the€defendantððs€residence,€from€which€the€property€wasÐ e Ðtaken.€€€The€rule€requires€nothing€more.€.€.€.€[T]here€was€no€one€present€on€whom€theÐ þN Ðofficers€could€serve€the€warrant€at€the€time€it€was€executed;€€therefore,€òòit€was€notÐ ç 7 Ðpossibleóó€for€the€officers€to€leave€a€copy€with€the€person€being€served.€€Rule€41(c)Ð Ð!   Ðdoes€not€require€officers€to€deliver€a€copy€of€the€search€warrant€to€a€person€who€isÐ ¹" ! Ðnot€present.€€€Instead,€subsection€(d)€of€Rule€41€indicates€that€an€officer€takingÐ ¢#ò" Ðproperty€under€a€warrant€shall€ð ðgive€to€the€person€from€whom€or€from€whoseÐ ‹$Û# Ðpremises€the€property€was€taken€a€copy€of€the€warrant€and€a€receipt€for€the€propertyÐ t%Ä $ Ðtaken€òòor€shall€leave€the€copy€and€receipt€at€a€place€from€which€the€property€wasÐ ]&­!% Ðtakenòòóó.óóðð€(Emphasis€added.)€€In€this€case,€the€officers€left€the€warrant€at€theÐ F'–"& Ðdefendantððs€residence,€the€place€from€which€the€property€was€taken.€€This€issue€isÐ /(#' Ðwithout€merit.Ð)h$(Ð Ð  ÐÌòòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€276.€€€€Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà  àIn€pertinent€part,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€41€provides:€ð ð[T]he€failure€of€theÐ ° Ðserving€officer€òòwhere€possible€to€leave€a€copy€with€the€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€searchÐ ™é Ðwarrant€is€being€servedóó,€shall€make€any€search€conducted€under€said€search€warrant€an€illegal€searchÐ ‚Ò Ðand€any€seizure€thereunder€an€illegal€seizure.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41€(emphasis€added).€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àDetective€Postiglione€testified€in€a€pretrial€motion€hearing€that€he€and€Detective€RollandÐ =  Ðserved€a€copy€of€warrant€189€on€appellant€at€the€Sheriffððs€Department€at€the€Davidson€CountyÐ & v ÐCriminal€Justice€Center.€€The€search€warrant€shows€that€it€was€executed€and€returned€on€the€sameÐ  _ Ðdate€it€was€issued,€August€6,€1997.€€Therefore,€it€appears€that€Tennessee€Rule€Criminal€ProcedureÐ ø H Ð41(c)€was€satisfied.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAppellant€asserts€as€a€final€argument€that€warrant€189€lacked€probable€cause€to€permitÐ ³  Ðseizure€of€appellantððs€hair€and€blood€because€the€warrant€failed€to€state€hair€and€blood€samples€hadÐ œì  Ðbeen€obtained€from€either€of€the€victims€or€the€crime€scenes€that€could€be€used€to€compare€toÐ …Õ  Ðappellantððs€hair€or€blood.€€The€warrant€states,€however,€that€ð ðPaul€Dennis€Reid€Jr.€may€have€beenÐ n¾  Ðcut€or€injured€to€the€point€where€bleeding€occurred,€thus€leaving€his€blood€either€on€the€victims€orÐ W§  Ðin€the€area€[of]€the€crime€scenes.€€It€is€also€possible€that€during€this€contact€Paul€Dennis€Reid€Jr.€leftÐ @ Ðbehind€body€hairs€either€on€the€victims€or€in€the€area€of€the€crime€scenes.ðð€€Thus,€the€warrantÐ )y Ðprovided€an€explanation€for€why€the€items€sought€may€be€found€on€appellant€and€set€forth€sufficientÐ b Ðfacts€for€a€magistrate€to€reasonably€conclude€that€a€nexus€existed€between€the€crime€and€appellantððsÐ ûK Ðhair€and€blood.€€Based€on€the€reasoning€set€forth€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€appellantððs€prior€appealÐ ä4 Ðof€the€Captain€Dððs€murders€and€the€reasoning€set€forth€above,€this€Court€finds€warrant€189€to€beÐ Í Ðconstitutionally€valid.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ò òÐ ¶ ÐÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€Crime€Scene€VideoÐ G— ÐÓgÄÓÌó óà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€videotape€of€the€crime€sceneÐ k Ðinto€evidence.€€Specifically,€appellant€contends€that€the€videotape€was€not€necessary€to€establishÐ  T Ðwhere€the€bodies€were€found€or€the€extent€of€the€victimsððs€injuries€because€the€videotape€was€merelyÐ í = Ðcumulativeò ò€ó óof€testimony€of€other€witnesses.€€Appellant€further€contends€that€the€depiction€of€theÐ Ö!&  Ðcrime€scene€in€the€videotape€was€ð ðgruesome€and€graphicðð€and,€thus,€prejudicial.€€Appellant€submitsÐ Â"! Ðthat€the€only€purpose€of€the€video€was€to€inflame€and€prejudice€the€jury€against€appellant.Ð «#û" ÐÌÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Ö#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôà  àThe€admissibility€of€a€videotape€of€a€crime€sceneÔ#†XÆ·XX X7Ö®Ç#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ }%Í $ Ðjudge,€and€his€or€her€ruling€on€admissibility€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€showingÐ f&¶!% Ðof€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,€576„57€(Tenn.€2000),€òòcert.Ð O'Ÿ"& Ðdeniedóó,€533€U.S.€953€(2001);€òòStateòò€óóv.€Banksòòóó,€óó564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.Ð 8(ˆ#' ÐBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993),Ð !)q$( Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€511€U.S.€1046€(1994).€€As€the€Supreme€Court€stated€in€òòCarruthersóó,€the€modern€trendÐ  *Z%) Ðis€to€vest€more€discretion€in€the€trial€judgeððs€rulings€on€admissibility.€€òòCarruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€at€577Ð ó*C&* Ð(citing€òòBanksòòóó,€óó564€S.W.2d€at€949;€òòState€v.€Michael€Carlton€Baileyóó,€No.€01C01„9403„CC„00105Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Ö-È#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô,Ð Ü+,'+ Ð1995€WL€424996,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July.€20,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Jan.€8,€1996).Ð ™é ÐÔdæ6‚ÒÔ€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð æ6 Ðà  àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÐ Ï Ðconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÐ ¸ Ðwithout€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Ö-Ì#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€401.€€However,€relevant€evidence€ð ðmay€be€excluded€if€itsÐ ¡ ñ Ðprobative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÐ Š Ú Ðissues,€or€misleading€the€jury.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Prejudicial€evidence€is€not€excluded€as€a€matterÐ s à Ðof€law.€€òòCarruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€at€577€(citing€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð \ ¬ Ð1993))òò.óó€€The€court€must€still€determine€the€relevance€of€the€evidence€and€weigh€its€probative€valueÐ E •  Ðagainst€any€undue€prejudice.€€òòIdóó.€€The€term€ð ðundue€prejudiceðð€has€been€defined€as€ð ð[a]n€undueÐ .~  Ðtendency€to€suggest€decision€on€an€improper€basis,€commonly,€though€not€necessarily,€an€emotionalÐ g  Ðone.ðð€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€950„51.€€In€òòBanksóó,€the€Supreme€Court€gave€the€trial€courts€guidanceÐ P  Ðfor€determining€the€admissibility€of€relevant€photographic€evidence€and€determined€that€a€trial€courtÐ é9  Ðshould€consider:€(1)€the€accuracy€and€clarity€of€the€picture€and€its€value€as€evidence;€(2)€whetherÐ Ò"  Ðthe€picture€depicts€the€body€as€it€was€found;€(3)€the€adequacy€of€testimonial€evidence€in€relating€theÐ »  Ðfacts€to€the€jury;€and€(4)€the€need€for€the€evidence€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€guilt€or€to€rebutÐ ¤ô Ðthe€defendantððs€contentions.€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ý ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€video€aided€the€jury€in€understanding€the€testimonyÐ _¯ Ðof€medical€examiners,€crime€scene€investigators,€and€witnesses.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€juryÐ H˜ Ðwas€from€Memphis€and€presumably€unfamiliar€with€the€area€and€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park.€Ô#†XÆ·XX X7ÖwÎ#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôòòóó€The€trialÐ 1 Ðcourt€also€found€that€the€video€depicted€the€location€of€the€bodies€and€was€shown€to€document€theÐ j Ðposition€of€the€bodies€in€relation€to€the€lake,€the€trail€described€by€investigators€and€witnesses,€theÐ S Ðparking€lot,€and€the€cave.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€video€was€not€ð ðparticularly€gruesome.ðð€Ð ì< ÐAppellant€advances€the€argument€that€the€video€was€graphic€and€gruesome€only€because€the€videoÐ Õ% Ðshows€the€bodies€of€the€victims€as€they€were€found€at€the€crime€scene.€€The€crime€scene€video€ofÐ ¾ Ðmost€murders€will€necessarily€depict€the€bodies€of€the€victims€as€they€were€found.€€If€this€court€wereÐ §÷ Ðto€accept€appellantððs€argument€in€this€regard,€no€crime€scene€videotapes€of€murders€would€ever€beÐ à Ðadmissible.Ð yÉ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€further€concludes€that€while€the€videotape€and€the€other€evidence€admitted€in€thisÐ K!› Ðcase€may€have€contained€some€of€the€same€material,€it€was€not€error€to€admit€the€videotape.€€òòSeeóóÐ 4"„  ÐòòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€807€(holding€that€it€was€not€error€to€admit€a€videotape€of€the€crime€sceneÐ #m! Ðalthough€it€depicted€images€similar€to€those€of€photographs€also€admitted).€€Each€of€the€differentÐ $V" Ðforms€of€evidence€admitted€in€this€case€served€different€purposes€and€were€probative€of€the€issuesÐ ï$? # Ðto€be€decided€by€the€jury.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€theÐ Ø%(!$ Ðvideotape€into€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Kelvin€Anthony€Leeóó,€No.€02C01„9603„CC„00085,Ð Á&"% Ð1997€WL€686258,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Nov.€5,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð ª'ú"& ÐAug.€3,€1998.)€€The€probative€value€of€the€video€of€the€crime€scene€is€not€outweighed€by€itsÐ “(ã#' Ðprejudicial€effect.€€Ô#†XÆ·XX X7ÖøÕ#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔThis€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÔ#†XÆ·XX X7ÖCÞ#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÐ |)Ì$( ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Grand€Jury€Rough€NotesÐ O+Ÿ&* ÐÓÙÞÓÐ 9,‰'+ Ðà  àó óAppellant€contends€thatò ò€ó óthe€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€order€the€State€to€disclose€grandÐ ° Ðjury€testimony.€€In€a€pretrial€motion,€appellant€asked€the€trial€court€to€require€disclosure€of€grandÐ œì Ðjury€testimony,€including€notes€taken€by€the€Assistant€Attorney€General€ð ðfor€the€purpose€ofÐ …Õ Ðascertaining€whether€the€witnessðð€grand€jury€testimony€is€consistent€with€the€testimony€given€by€theÐ n¾ Ðwitnesses€before€the€court€in€the€trialðð,€at€least€to€the€extent€that€testimony€was€revealed€in€roughÐ W§ Ðnotes€of€the€testimony€taken€by€the€assistant€district€attorney€general.€€In€the€alternative,€the€motionÐ @  Ðsought€for€the€court€to€review€the€notes€in„camera€to€ascertain€whether€or€not€the€witnessesððÐ ) y Ðtestimony€was€consistent€with€the€testimony€that€the€witnesses€gave€before€the€grand€jury.€€€The€trialÐ  b Ðcourt€granted€appellantððs€motion€to€the€extent€the€grand€jury€testimony€was€revealed€in€rough€notesÐ û K Ðtaken€by€the€assistant€attorney€general€but€denied€it€as€to€the€disclosure€of€grand€jury€testimony.€€TheÐ ä 4  ÐState€responded€that€it€did€not€possess€any€rough€notes€of€the€grand€jury€testimony.€€Ð Í   ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€appellant€relies€on€the€exception€to€the€rule€of€secrecy€of€grand€jury€testimonyÐ Ÿï  Ðfound€in€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€6(k)(2),€which€allows€a€òòmemberóó€of€the€grand€juryÐ ˆØ  Ðto€be€ð ðrequired€by€the€court€to€disclose€the€testimony€of€a€witness€examined€before€them,€for€theÐ qÁ  Ðpurpose€of€ascertaining€whether€it€is€consistent€with€that€given€by€the€witness€before€the€court,ðð€toÐ Zª  Ðargue€that€the€trial€court€should€have€ordered€the€State€to€disclose€its€rough€notes€of€the€grand€juryÐ C“ Ðtestimony.€€Appellant€argues€that€ð ð[b]ecause€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€allowed€the€State€to€take€suchÐ ,| Ðan€incredible€position,€.€.€.€the€court€erred€in€so€ruling.ðð€€The€rule€does€not€require€the€districtÐ e Ðattorneyððs€rough€notes€of€grand€jury€testimony€to€be€turned€over€to€opposing€counsel,€the€ruleÐ þN Ðrequires€the€disclosure€of€witness€testimony€for€the€purpose€of€ascertaining€the€consistency€of€theÐ ç7 Ðwitnessðð€testimony.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€any€error€committed€by€the€trial€court.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðappellant€merely€asked€for€the€notes€of€the€testimony€that€were€taken€by€the€prosecutor,€and€thereÐ ¹  Ðwere€no€actual€allegations€of€inconsistencies€in€the€grand€jury€testimony.€€Moreover,€the€StateÐ ¢ò Ðcannot€produce€documents€it€does€not€possess.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ò òÐ ‹Û ÐÓ  ÓIV.€€Limited€Jury€QuestionnaireÐ tÄ ÐÓêÓÌà  àó óAppellantò ò€ó óargues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€disseminate€aÐ H˜ Ðquestionnaire€to€prospective€jurors€inquiring€about€the€jurorsðð€gender,€birth€date,€educationalÐ 4„ Ðbackground,€and€economic€class.€€Specifically,€appellant€argues€that€the€courtððs€questionnaire€didÐ m Ðnot€cover€the€topics€in€sufficient€detail€to€evaluate€the€representation€of€cognizable€groups,€relying€Ð  V Ðupon€òòDuren€v.€Missourióó,€439€U.S.€357€(1979),€which€holds€that€a€defendant€has€a€right€to€challengeÐ ï ? Ðthe€venire€to€ensure€adequate€representation€of€cognizable€groups.Ð Ø!(  ÐÌà  àAppellant€fails€to€cite€to€the€portion€of€the€appellate€record€containing€the€questionnaire€heÐ ª#ú" Ðrequested€be€disseminated€to€the€jury.€€Further,€it€does€not€appear€that€the€questionnaire€submittedÐ “$ã# Ðto€the€jurors€by€the€trial€court€was€made€a€part€of€the€appellate€record.€€ð ðIssues€which€are€notÐ |%Ì $ Ðsupported€by€argument,€citation€to€authorities,€or€appropriate€references€to€the€record€will€be€treatedÐ e&µ!% Ðas€waived€in€this€court.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€Ð N'ž"& ÐÌà  àMoreover,€the€control€of€voir€dire€proceedings€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ  )p$( Ðcourt,€and€this€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€this€discretion€unless€clear€abuse€appearsÐ  *Y%) Ðon€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€247€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.Ð ò*B&* Ð1215€(1994).€€Furthermore,€a€trial€judge€has€a€right€to€participate€in€voir€dire€examination.€€Tenn.Ð Û++'+ ÐR.€Crim.€P.€24(a).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€24(a)€provides:€ð ðThe€court€may€put€to€theÐ ° Ðrespective€jurors€appropriate€questions€regarding€their€qualifications€to€serve€as€jurors€in€the€case.Ð ™é Ð.€.€.ðð€€The€trial€court€found€that€its€juror€questionnaire€covered€the€topics€sufficiently.€€Appellant€hasÐ ‚Ò Ðfailed€to€show€that€the€inquiries€made€by€the€trial€court€were€improper€or€inadequate€and€has€failedÐ k» Ðto€show€any€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€trial€court.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€€ò ò€Ð T¤ ÐÌÓ  ÓV.€€Information€on€Past€Performance€of€Prospective€JurorsÐ * z ÐÓ>ôÓÌà  àó óAppellant€contends€thatò ò€ó óthe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€requiring€the€State€toÐ þ N Ðproduce€any€information€it€had€with€regard€to€the€past€performance€of€prospective€jurors.€€AppellantÐ ê :  Ðargued€that€he€did€not€have€the€funds€to€hire€an€investigator€to€discover€this€information.€€The€trialÐ Ó #  Ðcourt€denied€the€motion€and€ruled€that€such€information€could€be€found€in€the€juror€questionnaireÐ ¼  Ðand€developed€through€voir€dire.€€Appellant€contends€on€appeal€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€violatedÐ ¥õ  Ðhis€right€to€a€jury€trial€found€in€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€violated€hisÐ ŽÞ  Ðdue€process€rights€found€in€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€Moreover,€appellant€contends€thatÐ wÇ  Ðthe€courtððs€questionnaire€did€not€adequately€address€this€issue€and€that€voir€dire€is€an€insufficientÐ `°  Ðtool€because€of€the€possibility€of€false€statement€or€faulty€memory€as€to€past€service.€€ò ò€Ð I™ ÐÌó óà  àAppellant€fails€to€cite€to€the€portion€of€the€appellate€record€containing€the€questionnaire€heÐ o Ðchallenges€with€respect€to€this€issue.€€Further,€it€does€not€appear€that€the€questionnaire€submitted€toÐ X Ðthe€jurors€by€the€trial€court€was€made€a€part€of€the€appellate€record.€€ð ðIssues€which€are€not€supportedÐ ñA Ðby€argument,€citation€to€authorities,€or€appropriate€references€to€the€record€will€be€treated€as€waivedÐ Ú* Ðin€this€court.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€€Appellantððs€brief€and€the€appellate€record€are€devoidÐ Ã Ðof€any€evidence€that€appellant€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€require€the€State€toÐ ¬ü Ðprovide€appellant€with€information€regarding€the€past€performance€of€prospective€jurors.€€This€issueÐ •å Ðis€without€merit.€Ð ~Î ЀòòóóÐ g· Ðò òÓ  ÓVI.€€Constitutionality€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€22„1„102Ð P  ÐÓªüÓÌà  àó óAppellant€challenges€two€subsections€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€22„1„102,€whichÐ $t Ðdeem€certain€persons€incompetent€to€act€as€jurors.€€€Specifically,€appellant€contends€that€the€statuteÐ  ] Ðis€unconstitutional€to€the€extent€it€excludes€persons€who€have€been€convicted€of€certain€infamousÐ ö F Ðoffenses,€persons€of€unsound€mind,€and€habitual€drunkards.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€22„1„102(a)(1),€(4).€Ð ß!/  ÐÌÌà  àIn€making€his€argument,€appellant€notes€that€jury€service€is€a€right€secured€to€all€citizensÐ š$ê# Ðunder€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€òòGeorgia€v.€McCollumóó,€505€U.S.€42,€48„50€(1992);€òòWolfÐ ƒ%Ó $ Ðv.€Sundquistóó,€955€S.W.2d€626,€633€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€He€argues€that€Tennessee€CodeÐ l&¼!% ÐAnnotated€section€22„1„102€is€overly€broad€in€excluding€all€felons€from€jury€service€when€someÐ U'¥"& Ðfelons€have€rehabilitated€themselves€to€the€extent€they€could€serve€impartially€on€a€jury.€€He€furtherÐ >(Ž#' Ðcontends€that€the€statute€is€overly€broad€in€excluding€ð ðhabitual€drunkardsðð€from€serving€on€juriesÐ ')w$( Ðas€some€functional€alcoholics€are€capable€of€serving€in€an€impartial€and€attentive€manner€so€longÐ *`%) Ðas€they€are€not€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€at€the€time€of€trial.€€Finally,€appellant€contends€thatÐ ù*I&* Ðthe€statute€is€vague€as€it€relates€to€persons€of€ð ðunsound€mind.ðð€€Appellant€argues€that€there€is€noÐ â+2'+ Ðaccepted€definition€of€unsound€mind€in€the€psychiatric€or€psychological€community.€€AppellantÐ ° Ðcontends€that€because€the€term€can€mean€anything€the€court€wants€it€to€mean,€it€is€void€forÐ ™é Ðvagueness.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àAs€the€State€noted€in€its€brief,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€states€are€ð ðfreeÐ T¤ Ðto€prescribe€qualifications€for€[their]€jurors€and€to€provide€reasonable€exemptions€so€long€as€it€mayÐ =  Ðbe€fairly€said€that€the€jury€lists€or€panels€are€representative€of€the€community.ððò ò€€ó óòòTaylor€v.€Louisianaóó,Ð & v Ð419€U.S.€522,€538€(1975).€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€operation€of€this€statute€violates€the€fairÐ  b Ðcross„section€requirement€of€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ò òà x àÐ û K ÐÌÓ  ÓVII.€€Exclusion€of€Jurors€Based€on€ReligionÐ Î   ÐÓÆÓÌà  àó óAppellant€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€prevent€prospective€jurors€who€stated€that€they€could€notÐ ¢ò  Ðimpose€the€death€penalty€due€to€their€religious€convictions€from€being€excluded€from€the€jury.€Ð ‹Û  ÐAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€prevent€exclusion€ofÐ tÄ  Ðprospective€jurors€because€of€their€religion.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€exclusion€of€jurors€who€claimÐ ]­  Ðthat€they€cannot€impose€the€death€penalty€due€to€their€religious€convictions€violates€the€TennesseeÐ F– ÐConstitution,€which€provides€that€ð ðno€political€or€religious€test€shall€ever€be€required€as€aÐ / Ðqualification€for€jurors.ðð€€The€trial€court€denied€appellantððs€motion,€stating€that€it€would€use€the€testsÐ h Ðformulated€in€òòWitherspoon€v.€Illinoisóó,€391€U.S.€510€(1968)€and€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€412Ð Q Ð(1985)€to€determine€juror€qualification.€€Ð ê: ÐÌÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Ö¤Þ#Ôà  àAppellant€raised€this€issue€in€the€appeal€of€his€conviction€for€the€Captain€Dððs€murders.€€TheÐ ¼  ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€ultimately€held€that€the€exclusion€of€prospective€jurors€by€a€trial€courtÐ ¥õ Ðbecause€of€their€moral€or€religious€based€reluctance€to€impose€the€death€penalty€is€not€error.€€òòReidóó,Ð ŽÞ Ð91€S.W.3d€at€289„90.€€ð ðIn€this€regard,€potential€jurors€are€removed€for€cause€not€because€of€theirÐ wÇ Ðreligious€opinion€or€affiliation€but€because€the€jurors€are€unable€to€view€the€proceedings€impartiallyÐ `° Ðand€perform€their€duties€in€accordance€with€the€jurorððs€oath.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€290.€€Questioning€of€a€juror€withÐ I™ Ðregard€to€the€death€penalty€does€not€amount€to€a€religious€test.€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòWolfóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€631.)òòóó€Ð 2‚ ÐÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔAppellant€acknowledges€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€rejected€this€argument€but€makesÐ k Ðthe€argument€in€order€to€preserve€it€for€later€review.€€ò òó óÔ#†XÆ·XXX7ÖÜ#ÔAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  T ÐÌÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôò òÓ  ÓVIII.€€Exclusion€of€Jurors€who€Were€not€ð ðDeath€QualifiedððÐ Ö!&  ÐÓ.Ó€à0  àÐÀ"!(#(# Ðà  àó óPretrial,€appellant€moved€the€court€to€refrain€from€excluding€jurors€for€cause€based€on€theirÐ ª#ú" Ðopposition€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€because€the€exclusion€of€jurors€who€are€not€ð ðdeathÐ “$ã# Ðqualifiedðð€under€òòWitherspoonóó€and€òòWainwrightóó€denied€him€a€constitutional€right€to€have€an€impartialÐ |%Ì $ Ðjury€composed€of€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community.€€Appellant€acknowledges€the€TennesseeÐ e&µ!% ÐSupreme€Court€has€rejected€this€argument€but€asserts€it€in€order€to€preserve€later€review.€Ð N'ž"& ÐAccordingly,€this€argument€is€without€merit.Ð 7(‡#' Ðò òà  àÌÓ  ÓIX.€€Separate€Juries€on€Issues€of€Guilt€and€SentencingÐ  *Z%) Ðâ âÓ€ÓÐ ô*D&* Ðà  àó óAppellant€moved€the€trial€court€to€have€one€jury€determine€his€guilt€or€innocence€and€aÐ ° Ðâ âsecond€jury€to€determine€his€sentence,€which€the€trial€court€denied.€€On€appeal,€appellant€asserts€thatÐ ™é Ðseparate€juries€are€necessary€to€ensure€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€under€the€Tennessee€and€federalÐ ‚Ò Ðconstitutions.€€This€argument€was€rejected€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Dellingeróó,€79€S.W.3dÐ k» Ð458,€478„79€(Tenn.€2002),€which€appellant€acknowledges.€€Appellant€asserts€this€issue€in€order€toÐ T¤ Ðpreserve€it€for€later€review.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ò òÐ =  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓX.€€Constitutionality€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€39„13„204(h)Ð ú J ÐÓÅÓÌó óà  àAppellant€moved€the€trial€court€to€declare€Tennessee€Code€Annotatedòòóó€section€39„13„204(h)Ð Î   Ðunconstitutional,€arguing€that€prohibiting€the€trial€court€from€informing€the€jury€as€to€the€effect€ofÐ ·  Ða€nonunanimous€verdict€in€the€sentencing€phase€violates€his€state€and€federal€constitutional€rightsÐ  ð  Ðto€a€fair€trial.€€Appellant€acknowledges€that€this€argument€was€rejected€by€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ‰Ù  ÐCourt€in€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€718€(Tenn.€1997),€but€asserts€the€issue€in€order€to€preserveÐ r  Ðit€for€later€review.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð [«  Ѐò òÐ D” ÐÓ  ÓXI.€€Constitutionality€of€Death€PenaltyÐ -} ÐÓÓÌà  àó óAppellant€contends€thatò ò€ó óthe€death€penalty€statute€is€unconstitutional€because€it€constitutesÐ Q Ðcruel€and€unusual€punishment€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€Ð í= ÐAppellant€concedes€that€this€argument€was€rejected€by€the€supreme€court€in€€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€Ð Ö& Ð718,€but€asserts€this€issue€in€order€to€preserve€it€for€later€review.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€withoutÐ ¿ Ðmerit.€ò òà  àÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ  ÓXII.€€Constitutionality€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Sections€39„13„204€and€39„13„206Ð {Ë ÐÓˆÓÌó óà  àò òó óAppellant€contends€that€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statutes€are€unconstitutional.€€However,Ð OŸ Ðhe€fails€to€present€any€constitutional€challenges€to€the€death€penalty€statutes€that€have€not€beenÐ 8ˆ Ðpreviously€reviewed€and€rejected.€Ð !q ÐÌà  àAppellant€relies€upon€the€case€of€òòUnited€States€v.€Fellóó,€217€F.€Supp.€2d€469€(D.Vt.€2002),Ð ó C Ðin€arguing€that€Tennesseeððs€capital€sentencing€scheme,€particularly€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ Ü!,  Ðsection€39„13„204(c),€is€unconstitutional€because€it€allows€the€death€penalty€to€be€imposed€basedÐ Å"! Ðon€evidence€that€is€not€subject€to€the€guarantees€of€reliability€and€trustworthiness€required€by€theÐ ®#þ" Ðdue€process€and€confrontation€clauses€of€the€federal€constitution.€€This€Court€rejected€that€argumentÐ —$ç# Ðin€òòState€v.€Gdongalay€Berryóó,Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö #Ô€No.€M2001„02023„CCA„R3„DD,€2003€WL€1855099,€at€*7€(Tenn.Ð €%Ð $ ÐCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Apr.€10,€2003)Ô‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€(holding€that€Tennesseeððs€sentencing€scheme,€includingÐ i&¹!% ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(c),€is€constitutional).€€Appellant€argues,€however,€thatÐ R'¢"& Ðthe€òòBerryóó€court€erred€in€finding€Tennesseeððs€sentencing€scheme€constitutional.€€Specifically,Ð ;(‹#' Ðappellant€contends€that€the€court€erred€by€rejecting€the€analysis€of€the€òòFellóó€court€and€adopting€theÐ $)t$( Ðreasoning€of€òòUnited€States€v.€Matthewsóó,€246€F.€Supp.€2d€137€(N.D.N.Y.€2002).€€€€AppellantÐ  *]%) Ðmaintains€that€both€òòMatthewsóó€and€òòBerryóó€ignore€a€central€theme€in€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ ö*F&* Ðjurisprudence:€that€because€death€is€a€unique€punishment€in€terms€of€its€irrevocability,€it€requiresÐ ß+/'+ Ðmore€rigorous€and€scrupulous€procedures€than€other€criminal€matters€to€ensure€maximum€reliability.€Ð ° ÐFurther,€appellant€contends€that€because€the€Tennessee€sentencing€scheme€does€not€contain€aÐ ™é Ðprovision€analogous€to€Federal€Rule€of€Evidence€403,€allowing€the€trial€court€to€exclude€evidenceÐ ‚Ò Ðif€its€prejudicial€effect€outweighs€its€probative€value,€the€trial€court€must€admit€any€evidence€thatÐ k» Ðis€ð ðrelevantðð€or€ð ðprobativeðð€to€the€issue€of€punishment,€regardless€of€whether€the€evidence€is€reliableÐ T¤ Ðor€more€prejudicial€than€probative.€€Accordingly,€appellant€contends€that€the€òòBerryóó€court€erred€inÐ =  Ðupholding€the€constitutionality€of€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(c)€and€urges€thisÐ & v Ðcourt€to€dispense€with€the€òòBerryóó€opinion,€find€the€statute€unconstitutional,€and€reverse€this€case.€Ð  _ ÐÌà  àThe€death€penalty€statutes€have€repeatedly€been€held€constitutional.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Keenóó,Ð á 1  Ð31€S.W.3d€196,€233€(Tenn.€2000),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€532€U.S.€907€(2001);€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2dÐ Ê   Ð872,€902€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€526€U.S.€1052€(1999);€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€117Ð ³  Ð(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€526€U.S.€1071€(1999);€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€663€(Tenn.€1997),Ð œì  Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€523€U.S.€1083€(1998);€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€813„14;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,Ð …Õ  Ð21„22€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€996€(1993);€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€853€S.W.2d€483,€488€(Tenn.Ð n¾  Ð1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBerryóó,Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö\!#Ô€2003€WL€1855099,€at€*4„*5.€€Ô‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÐ W§  ÐÌÌÌò òÌÓ  ÓXIII.€ó ó€ò òFailure€to€Dismiss€Indictment€Pursuant€to€Article€I,€Section€19€of€TennesseeÐ å5 ÐConstitutionÐ Ñ! ÐÓ5,ÓÌó óà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictmentÐ ¥õ Ðbased€upon€its€violation€of€Article€I,€Section€19€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€AppellantÐ ŽÞ Ðacknowledges€that€the€supreme€court€rejected€this€argument€in€òòVan€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€481,€butÐ wÇ Ðasserts€the€issue€on€appeal€to€preserve€it€for€later€review.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€ò òÐ `° ÐÌÓ  ÓXIV.€€Failure€to€Dismiss€Indictment€Because€Aggravating€Factors€not€Listed€in€IndictmentÐ 3ƒ ÐÓË.ÓÌó óÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Öú+#Ôà  àNext,€appellant€contends€that€because€the€indictment€returned€against€him€did€not€set€forthÐ  W Ðthe€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€relied€upon€by€the€State€in€charging€him€with€a€capitalÐ ð @ Ðoffense,€the€indictment€is€faulty€and€must€be€dismissed.€€In€making€his€argument,€appellant€reliesÐ Ù!)  Ðon€òòRing€v.€Arizonaóó,€536€U.S.€584€(2002),€òòApprendi€v.€New€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.€466€(2000)òòóó,€and€severalÐ Â"! Ðlower€federal€court€cases€interpreting€òòApprendióó€and€òòRingóó.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÐ «#û" Ðdetermined€that€the€principles€of€òòApprendióó€do€not€apply€to€Tennesseeððs€capital€sentencing€scheme.€Ð ”$ä# ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dellingeróó,€79€S.W.3d€458€(Tenn.€2002),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€537€U.S.€1090€(2002).€€Further,Ð }%Í $ Ðthis€Court€has€held€that€neither€òòApprendióó€nor€òòRingóó€apply€to€Tennesseeððs€capital€sentencing€scheme.€Ð f&¶!% ÐòòSeeóó€òòBerryóó,€2003€WL€1855099,€at€*6„*7.€€Appellant€bases€his€argument€in€part€on€òòFellóó,€217€F.€Supp.Ð O'Ÿ"& Ð2d€at€484.€€Ô‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔFederal€district€court€decisions€do€not€bind€this€Court.€The€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ 8(ˆ#' Ðis€the€only€federal€court€Tennessee€courts€are€bound€to€Ô% €m Ôfollow.€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,Ð !)q$( Ð174€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bowersóó,€673€S.W.2d€887,€889€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€Ð  *Z%) ÐAppellantððs€arguments€have€been€rejected€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòDellingeróó€and€by€this€Court€inÐ ó*C&* ÐòòBerryóó.€€€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö4#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔThis€Court€has€stated€on€more€than€one€occasion€that€òòRingóó€does€not€affect€the€supremeÐ Ü+,'+ Ðcourtððs€decision€in€òòDellingeróó.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Robert€Faulkneróó,€No.€W2001„02614„CCA„R3„DD,Ð ° Ð2003€WL€22220341,€at€*29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Sept.€26,€2003);€òòBerryóó,€2003€WLÐ ™é Ð1855099,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Apr.€10,€2003);€òòState€v.€Richard€Odomóó,€No.€W2000„Ð ‚Ò Ð02301„CCA„R3„DD,€2002€WL€31322532,€at€*13€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Oct.€15,€2002).€Ð k» ÐThe€cases€from€this€Court€rely€on€footnote€6€from€òòRingóó,€which€states,€ð ð[o]f€the€38€States€with€capitalÐ T¤ Ðpunishment,€29€generally€commit€sentencing€decisions€to€juries.€€See€.€.€.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð =  Ð204.ðð€€òòRingóó,€536€U.S.€at€608€n.6.€€As€we€have€previously€stated,€because€sentencing€decisions€inÐ & v Ðcapital€cases€are€submitted€to€the€jury€instead€of€decided€by€a€trial€judge,€the€Supreme€CourtððsÐ  _ Ðdecision€in€òòRingóó€does€not€affect€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòDellingeróó.€€òòRobertÐ ø H ÐFaulkneróó,€2003€WL€22220341€at€*29;€òòGdongalay€P.€Berryóó,€2003€WL€1855099€at€*5;€òòRichard€Odomóó,Ð á 1  Ð2002€WL€31322532€at€*13€n.1.€€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7ÖD6#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔAlthough€appellant€submits€that€òòDellingeróó€was€ð ðwrongly€decidedððÐ Ê   Ðand€urges€this€court€to€reject€the€precedent€set€forth€in€that€case,€we€decline€to€do€so.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Öö;#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€€Accordingly,Ð ³  Ðthis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð œì  ÐÔ#†XÆ·XXX7ÖD=#Ô€€Ð …Õ  ÐÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôò òÓ  ÓXV.€€Failure€to€Allow€Defendant€to€Address€the€Jury€LastÐ n¾  Ðó óÓ>ӀРX¨  Ðà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€allow€him€to€address€the€jury€lastÐ A‘ Ðduring€closing€arguments€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€This€issue€has€been€rejected€by€ourÐ *z Ðsupreme€court.€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€24.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð c Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÓ  ÓXVI.€€Reliability€of€DNA€TestingÐ æ6 ÐÓ6@ÓÌó óà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€for€a€pretrial€hearing€toÐ º  Ðdetermine€the€reliability€of€the€polymerase€chain€reaction€(ð ðPCRðð)€DNA€testing€used€in€this€case,Ð £ó Ðpursuant€to€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€1997).€€€€In€òòMcDanielóó,Ð ŒÜ Ðthe€Supreme€Court€clarified€the€standards€for€the€admission€of€scientific€evidence€under€TennesseeÐ uÅ ÐRules€of€Evidence€702€and€703òòóó.€€Subsequently,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€pursuant€toÐ ^® ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€24„7„117,€mitochondrial€DNA€evidence€met€the€generalÐ G— Ðstandards€for€admission€of€scientific€or€technical€evidence€and€could€be€allowed€as€a€method€ofÐ 0€ Ðproving€identification€without€expert€testimony€as€to€its€reliability.€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€33€S.W.3d€746,Ð i Ð756„60€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€trial€court€herein€relied€on€òòScottóó€and€ruled€that€a€pretrial€hearing€toÐ  R Ðdetermine€the€reliability€of€the€DNA€testing€was€not€necessary.€€Appellant€argues€that,€althoughÐ ë ; ÐòòScottóó€held€that€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€did€not€have€to€be€conducted€as€to€mitochondrial€DNA€testing,Ð Ô!$  Ðthis€case€involves€PCR€DNA€testing€rather€than€mitochondrial€DNA€testing.€€Appellant€furtherÐ ½" ! Ðcontends€that,€ð ð[b]ecause€the€scientific€reliability€of€the€specific€type€of€testing€used€in€this€case€hasÐ ¦#ö" Ðnever€been€established,€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€order€a€òòDanielóó€[sic]€hearing.ððÐ $ß# Ðâ âÐ x%È $ Ðà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€ð ðthe€PCR€method€of€DNA€analysis€an€inherentlyÐ ° Ðtrustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identification.ðð€€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€477€(Tenn.Ð ™é Ð1997).€€In€òòBegleyóó,€the€court€held:€à8 h àЂÒhphp Ðâ âÌà8  àò òó ó[h]ereafter,€the€PCR€method€of€DNA€analysis€shall€be€admissible€into€evidenceÐ T¤ Ðwithout€antecedent€expert€testimony€as€to€its€trustworthiness€and€reliability,€pursuantÐ =  Ðto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117(b)(1).€€As€provided€by€that€statute,€parties€areÐ & v Ðnevertheless€allowed€to€offer€proof€that€DNA€analysis€is€not€trustworthy€and€reliable.€Ð  _ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„7„117(b)(2)Ô4‚=™ÔÝ‚¤ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6xJÔÝ‚¤ÍOŒJ4‚ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7™ºJÔ.€€For€example,€a€party€can€challenge€the€reliabilityÐ ø H Ðof€a€particular€test€in€any€given€case€by€a€showing€of€sloppy€handling€of€samples,Ð á 1  Ðfailure€to€train€the€personnel€performing€the€testing,€failure€to€follow€protocol,€andÐ Ê   Ðthe€like.€Ô% €> ÔSuch€a€challenge,€however,€will€go€to€the€weight,€not€the€admissibility,€ofÐ ³  ÐDNA€evidence.Ðœì Ð Ð  ÐòòÌIdóó.€at€478€(footnote€omitted).€€Herein,€PCR€DNA€testing€was€utilized€by€the€TBI€and€LabCorp€expertÐ n¾  Ðwitnesses.€€In€accordance€with€òòBegleyóó,€we€conclude€that€the€PCR€DNA€evidence€was€admissibleÐ W§  Ðwithout€antecedent€expert€witness€testimony€as€to€its€trustworthiness€and€reliability.€€Accordingly,Ð @ Ðthis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð )y ÐÌÌò òÌÓ  ÓXVII.€€Admission€of€Victim€Impact€EvidenceÐ Î Ðó óÓ€NÓà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motions€to€exclude€all€victimÐ ¡ñ Ðimpact€evidence€and€challenges€the€victim€impact€jury€instruction€in€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2dÐ ŠÚ Ð872,€892€(Tenn.€1998).€€Specifically,€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Öñ=#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôappellant€argues€victim€impact€testimony€is€prejudicial€andÐ sà Ðirrelevant€under€the€capital€sentencing€structure€established€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ \¬ Ð39„13„204(g)(1)€and€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€892,Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Ö@P#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€and€should€be€excluded.ò ò€ó ó€Appellant€asserts€thatÐ E• ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(g)(1)Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Ö|Q#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€mandates€that€a€jury€ð ðshallðð€return€a€verdict€ofÐ 1 ÐdeathÔ#†XÆ·XX X7Ö9R#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€once€a€jury€decides€that€aggravating€circumstances€exist€and€they€outweigh€any€mitigatingÐ j Ðcircumstances.€€Appellant€asserts€that,€under€òòNesbitóó,Ô#†XÆ·XX X7ÖÌR#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€the€jury€is€not€permitted€to€consider€the€victimÐ  S Ðimpact€evidence€until€after€finding€that€at€least€one€aggravating€circumstance€exists€and€that€theÐ ì < Ðò òó óaggravating€circumstance(s)€outweigh€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Ö¸S#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôò ò€€ó óÔ#†XÆ·XX X7ÖU#ÔÐ Õ!%  ÐÌà  àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€òòNesbitóó€jury€instruction€is€illogical.€€The€instruction€reads€asÐ ª#ú" Ðfollows:Ð “$ã# ÐÌà8  àYou€may€consider€the€victim€impact€evidence€in€determining€the€appropriateness€ofÐ e&µ!% Ðthe€death€penalty€only€if€you€first€find€that€the€existence€of€one€or€more€aggravatingÐ N'ž"& Ðcircumstances€has€been€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€by€evidence€independentÐ 7(‡#' Ðfrom€the€victim€impact€evidence,€and€find€that€the€aggravating€circumstance(s)€foundÐ  )p$( Ðoutweigh€the€finding€of€one€or€more€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonableÐ  *Y%) Ðdoubt.Ðò*B&*Ð Ð  ÐÐ Û++'+ ÐòòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€892.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€jury€charge€in€effect€ð ðmootsðð€the€victim€impact€evidence€becauseÐ ‚Ò ÐÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(g)(1)€requires€the€jury€to€return€a€verdict€of€death€ifÐ k» Ðit€finds€that€an€aggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€exist€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€andÐ T¤ Ðoutweigh€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö Y#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÐ =  ÐÌÔ#†XÆ·XX X7ÖŒZ#Ôà  àVictim€impact€evidence€has€been€declared€constitutional€by€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ  _ Ðand€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòPayne€v.€Tennesseeóó,€501€U.S.€808,€827€(1991);€òòNesbitóó,€978Ð ø H ÐS.W.2d€at€889.Ô‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôò ò€€ó óFurthermore,€the€argument€advanced€by€appellant€that€victim€impact€testimony€isÐ á 1  Ðirrelevant€and€should€be€excluded€under€Tennesseeððs€current€capital€sentencing€system,Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Öé[#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€has€alsoÐ Í   Ðbeen€rejected€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€282„83€(holding€that€anyÐ ¶  Ðcontradiction€between€the€statute€and€the€òòNesbitóó€instruction€inures€to€the€benefit€of€the€defendant;Ð Ÿï  Ðtherefore,€this€argument€does€not€entitle€the€defendant€to€relief).Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Öð\#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ò òÐ ˆØ  ÐÔ#†XÆ·XX X7Ö‘^#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÌÓ  ÓXVIII.€€Amendment€of€IndictmentÐ [«  ÐÓ*_ÓÌó óà  àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€amend€the€indictment.€€TheÐ / Ðoriginal€indictment€in€this€case€charged€appellant€with€two€counts€of€premeditated€first€degreeÐ h Ðmurder,€two€counts€of€first€degree€felony€murder,€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,Ð Q Ðand€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€On€September€3,€1999,€approximately€a€weekÐ ê: Ðbefore€the€trial€began,€the€State€moved€to€amend€the€indictment€by€deleting€the€words€ð ðespeciallyÐ Ó# Ðaggravatedðð€from€counts€2€and€4€to€reflect€thatò ò€ó óappellant€committed€felony€murder€in€each€count€inÐ ¼  Ðthe€perpetration€of€robbery.€€In€essence,€the€State€moved€to€amend€the€indictment€to€charge€robberyÐ ¨ø Ðrather€than€especially€aggravated€robbery€as€the€underlying€felony.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÐ ‘á Ðmotion€to€amend€the€indictment,€finding€that€the€amendment€was€permitted€under€Tennessee€RuleÐ zÊ Ðof€Criminal€Procedure€7(b).Ð c³ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€grant€or€deny€a€motion€to€amend€an€indictment,€and€thisÐ 5… Ðcourt€will€alter€such€a€ruling€only€where€that€discretion€has€been€abused.€€òòState€v.€Kirklandóó,€696Ð n ÐS.W.2d€544,€545€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€7(b)€reads:€ð ðAnÐ  W Ðindictment,€presentment€or€information€may€be€amended€in€all€cases€with€the€consent€of€theÐ ð @ Ðdefendant.€€If€no€additional€or€different€offense€is€thereby€charged€and€no€substantial€rights€of€theÐ Ù!)  Ðdefendant€are€thereby€prejudiced,€the€court€may€permit€an€amendment€without€the€defendantððsÐ Â"! Ðconsent€before€jeopardy€attaches.ððÐ «#û" ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€jeopardy€had€not€attached€and€the€amendment€would€neitherÐ }%Í $ Ðsubject€appellant€to€prosecution€for€additional€or€different€offenses€than€those€alleged€in€the€formerÐ f&¶!% Ðindictment.Ð O'Ÿ"& ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€because€felony€murder€had€been€charged,€the€underlying€offense€isÐ !)q$( Ðof€ð ðcrucial€importance.ðð€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€amendment€charged€an€additional€orÐ  *Z%) Ðdifferent€offense€because€the€amendment€relieved€the€State€of€the€ð ðburden€of€proving€that€[appellant]Ð ó*C&* Ðused€a€weapon€and€caused€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€victims€at€Baskin„Robbins€„€the€only€placeÐ Ü+,'+ Ðwhere€there€is€any€evidence€that€a€theft€occurredðð€and€required€the€State€to€prove€merely€that€theÐ ° Ðappellant€committed€theft€by€violence€or€putting€a€person€in€fear.€€In€other€words,€he€argues€that€theÐ ™é Ðrequirement€of€proof€of€a€weapon€and€infliction€of€serious€bodily€injury€was€eliminated€by€theÐ ‚Ò Ðamended€indictment.€€Therefore,€appellant€contends€that€ð ðit€is€clear€that€by€amending€the€indictmentÐ k» Ðto€provide€for€simple€robbery€as€the€underlying€felony,€[appellant]€was€charged€with€a€ððdifferentððÐ T¤ Ðoffense€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(b).ðð€Ð =  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€appellant€contends€that€charging€a€different€offense€in€the€amended€indictmentÐ  _ Ðgave€rise€to€prejudice.€€Appellant€submits€that€under€the€original€indictment,€he€knew€that€he€couldÐ ø H Ðnot€be€convicted€of€felony€murder€unless€the€State€could€show€that€he€entered€the€ice€cream€store,Ð á 1  Ðused€a€weapon€to€accomplish€the€theft,€and€then€inflicted€serious€bodily€injury€on€the€victims€eitherÐ Ê   Ðimmediately€or€very€shortly€thereafter.€€After€the€amendment,€he€could€no€longer€rely€on€thisÐ ³  Ðassumption,€which€in€turn€prejudiced€him.€€The€State€argues€that€appellant€has€failed€to€show€anyÐ œì  Ðprejudice.€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àThe€State€contends€that€robbery€is€a€lesser€included€offense€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.Ð W§  ÐòòState€v.€Lockeóó,€90€S.W.3d€663,€673€(Tenn.€2002).€€Therefore,€the€amendment€did€not€substitute€aÐ @ Ðdifferent€or€new€predicate€felony€for€the€felony€murder€counts€but€instead€simply€charged€a€lesser„Ð )y Ðincluded€offense€of€the€predicate€felony.€€We€agree.€€€€à p àÐ b ÐÌà  àMoreover,€after€a€review€of€the€record,€this€court€has€determined€that€there€is€no€showing€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€amendment€acted€to€prejudice€appellant.€€The€jury€convicted€appellant€of€two€counts€ofÐ Í Ðpremeditated€murder€in€addition€to€the€two€counts€of€felony€murder.€€The€felony€murder€convictionsÐ ¶ Ðwere€merged€into€the€premeditated€murder€convictions.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÐ Ÿï Ðconvictions€as€set€forth€òòinfraóó.€€Therefore,€any€error€in€allowing€the€amendment€is€at€most€harmless.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓXIX.€€€Failure€to€Consolidate€This€Case€with€Davidson€County€CasesÐ Zª ÐÓ•sÓÌó óà  àOn€August€13,€1998,€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€consolidate€this€case€with€the€two€pendingÐ .~ Ðcases€in€Davidson€County€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€13(a)€and€8(b).€€TheÐ g Ðtrial€court€found€that€while€consolidation€was€legally€permissible€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÐ  P ÐProcedure€8€and€13,€it€was€not€appropriate€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€€Ð é 9 ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€8(b)€provides€for€permissive€joinder€if€the€ð ðoffensesÐ »" ! Ðconstitute€parts€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€or€if€they€are€of€the€same€or€similar€character.ðð€€€TheÐ ¤#ô" Ðtrial€court€issued€a€well„reasoned€memorandum,€finding€that€joinder€was€not€appropriate€underÐ $Ý# ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€8(b)€because€it€did€not€have€sufficient€evidence€to€supportÐ v%Æ $ Ðthe€theory€that€the€offenses€involved€constituted€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€The€court€found€thatÐ _&¯!% Ðit€had€insufficient€facts€to€establish€that€the€modus€operendi€in€the€Davidson€County€incidents€wasÐ H'˜"& Ðprobative€of€appellantððs€identity€in€the€Montgomery€County€incident.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€theÐ 1(#' Ðperpetrator€in€the€Montgomery€County€incident€removed€the€victims€from€the€scene€and€killed€themÐ )j$( Ðby€cutting€their€throats€with€a€knife,€whereas€the€Davidson€County€perpetrator€shot€the€majority€ofÐ *S%) Ðthe€victims€at€the€two€crime€scenes.€€Therefore,€the€court€concluded€that€it€could€not€find€that€thereÐ ì*<&* Ðwas€a€unique€method€used€in€committing€the€crimes€as€required€by€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,Ð Õ+%'+ Ð943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€although€some€of€the€witnesses€wouldÐ ° Ðtestify€in€the€trials€of€all€three€offenses,€many€of€the€witnesses€were€necessary€for€only€one€of€theÐ ™é Ðtrials.€The€trial€court€then€reasoned€that€ð ðcapital€trials€are€very€lengthy€and€very€complicated.€€A€juryÐ ‚Ò Ðin€this€type€of€case€is€required€to€absorb,€process,€and€evaluate€a€great€deal€of€information.€€GivenÐ k» Ðthe€limited€factual€similarities€among€the€cases,€consolidating€€them€would€create€an€unnecessaryÐ T¤ Ðand,€arguably,€unmanageable€burden€on€the€jury.ðð€€The€courtððs€memorandum€on€the€issue€of€theÐ =  Ðfactual€appropriateness€of€consolidation€spans€five€pages€with€citations€to€case€law€and€the€RulesÐ & v Ðof€Criminal€Procedure.€€Thus,€appellant€mischaracterized€€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€consolidationÐ  _ Ðby€stating€that€it€ð ðgave€no€specific€reason€for€its€decision,€simply€explaining€that€the€decision€ofÐ ø H Ðwhether€to€order€consolidation€is€in€the€courtððs€discretion.ðð€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àPermissive€joinder€pursuant€to€Rule€8(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€isÐ ³  Ðgoverned€by€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€and€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€consolidate€offenses€willÐ œì  Ðnot€be€reversed€unless€the€court€applied€an€incorrect€legal€standard€or€reached€a€decision€which€isÐ …Õ  Ðagainst€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€an€injustice€to€the€party€complaining.€€òòSpicer€v.€Stateóó,€12Ð n¾  ÐS.W.3d€438,€442„43€(Tenn.€2000).€òòóóÐ W§  ÐÌà  àAppellant€asserts€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€courtððs€decision€not€to€consolidate.€€HeÐ )y Ðasserts€that€ð ðif€the€jury€had€been€able€to€hear€the€details€of€the€other,€similar€murders€it€might€wellÐ b Ðhave€afforded€the€expert€proof€regarding€Defendantððs€well„documented€mental€illnesses€moreÐ ûK Ðcredence.ðð€€After€a€review€of€the€record€on€this€issue,€this€Court€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÐ ä4 Ðabused€its€discretion€in€denying€appellantððs€motion€to€consolidate.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Í Ðà  àÌò òÓ  ÓXX.€€Competency€of€Appellant€to€Stand€TrialÐ Ÿï ÐÓA„ÓÌà  àó óThe€test€for€determining€whether€a€defendant€is€competent€to€stand€trial€is€whether€ò òó ótheÐ sà Ðdefendant€has€ð ðthe€capacity€to€understand€the€nature€and€object€of€the€proceedings€against€him,€toÐ \¬ Ðconsult€with€counsel€and€to€assist€in€preparing€his€defense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€173„74Ð E• Ð(Tenn.€1991);€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDusky€v.Ð .~ ÐUnited€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€402„03€(1960).€€ð ðThe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€establish€hisÐ g Ðincompetency€to€stand€trial€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,Ð  P Ð559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCooper€v.€Oklahomaóó,€517€U.S.€348,€355€(1996)€(holding€thatÐ é 9 Ðcriminal€defendants€may€be€required€to€prove€their€incompetency€to€stand€trial€by€a€preponderanceÐ Ò!"  Ðâ âof€the€evidence€but€not€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence);€òòJordan€v.€Stateóó,€135€S.W.€327€(Tenn.Ð »" ! Ð1911)€(finding€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€jury€charge€referencing€the€presumption€of€sanity׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€untilÐ ° Ðâ ârebutted€and€overturned).€€Furthermore,€the€ð ðfindings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appealÐ ™é Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ðð€€òòOodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€559€(citing€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512Ð ‚Ò ÐS.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973)).€Ð k» ÐÌà  àThis€case€presents€a€classic€battle€of€the€experts.€€The€defense€experts,€Dr.€Pamela€Auble€andÐ =  ÐDr.€Xavier€Amador,€testified€that€appellant€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial,€whereas€the€StateððsÐ & v Ðexpert,€Dr.€William€Bernet,€and€the€independent€expert€appointed€by€the€trial€court,€Dr.€CynthiaÐ  _ ÐTurner„Graham,€found€appellant€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Ð ø H ÐÌà  àDr.€Auble€testified€that€appellant€suffered€from€delusions.€€She€explained€that€she€first€beganÐ Ê   Ðto€question€appellantððs€competency€following€appellantððs€convictions€in€the€Captain€Dððs€murdersÐ ³  Ðbecause€appellant€abruptly€decided€not€to€present€mitigating€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Dr.Ð œì  ÐAuble€admitted€that€appellant€eventually€agreed€that€his€counsel€could€present€mitigating€proof,€andÐ …Õ  Ðthe€same€was€presented€on€his€behalf.€€During€this€time,€appellant€advised€her€that€he€believed€theÐ n¾  Ðgovernment€had€attempted€to€kill€him€on€three€occasions,€the€last€of€which€was€the€governmentððsÐ W§  Ðframing€of€him€for€the€Captain€Dððs€murders.€€Dr.€Auble€opined€that€appellantððs€governmentÐ @ Ðsurveillance€delusions€interfered€with€his€rational€understanding€of€the€charges€against€him€in€thisÐ )y Ðcase.€€Therefore,€she€believed€that€appellant€was€unable€to€appraise€the€outcome€of€the€proceedings,Ð b Ðcould€not€make€decisions,€and€was€unable€to€assist€with€his€defense.€€She€further€explained€thatÐ ûK Ðappellant€suffered€from€anosognosia,€which€also€interfered€with€his€rational€understanding€of€hisÐ ä4 Ðcase.€€She€acknowledged€that€appellant€understood€courtroom€procedure€and€had€a€ð ðsuperficialððÐ Í Ðunderstanding€of€courtroom€activities.€€She€also€admitted€that€appellant€was€previously€diagnosedÐ ¶ Ðwith€malingering€but€denied€that€he€was€currently€malingering.€€She€testified€that€appellantððsÐ Ÿï Ðanswers€on€the€Minnesota€Multi„Phasic€Personality€Inventory€(MMPI)€did€not€indicate€malingering.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDr.€Xavier€Amador€also€testified€that€appellant€was€incompetent€to€stand€trial.€€Dr.€AmadorÐ Zª Ðtestified€that€he€met€with€appellant€on€several€occasions€and€performed€twenty€hours€of€clinicalÐ C“ Ðinterviews.€€He€concluded€that€appellant€was€competent€to€stand€trial€in€January€1999,€despite€theÐ ,| Ðfact€that€he€suffered€from€delusions€and€anosognosia.€€However,€following€that€time,€appellant€beganÐ e Ðto€incorporate€the€people€assisting€in€his€defense€into€his€delusions.€€Dr.€Amador€concluded€thatÐ þN Ðappellant€suffered€from€schizophrenia€and€anosognosia,€which€combined€to€render€him€unable€toÐ ç 7 Ðassist€his€counsel.€€Dr.€Amador€testified€that€appellantððs€schizophrenia€and€resulting€delusionalÐ Ð!   Ðbeliefs€destroyed€his€understanding€of€the€legal€process€and€caused€him€to€believe€that€his€ownÐ ¹" ! Ðattorneys€worked€to€convict€him.€€The€anosognosia€also€affected€his€ability€to€assist€in€his€defenseÐ ¢#ò" Ðbecause€he€did€not€want€to€discuss€any€aspect€of€his€case€that€he€believed€would€reveal€his€mentalÐ ‹$Û# Ðillnesses.€€€Dr.€Amador€agreed€with€the€other€experts€that€appellant€had€a€factual€understanding€ofÐ t%Ä $ Ðthe€legal€proceedings,€but€he€did€not€believe€that€appellant€had€a€rational€understanding€of€theÐ ]&­!% Ðproceedings.€€Dr.€Amador€did€not€believe€appellant€was€malingering.Ð F'–"& Їà  àDr.€William€Bernet€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€he€evaluatedÐ ° Ðappellant€on€three€occasions.€€It€was€Dr.€Bernetððs€opinion€that€appellant€understood€the€legal€processÐ ™é Ðand€the€possible€penalties.€€He€further€believed€that€appellant€was€able€to€cooperate€andÐ ‚Ò Ðcommunicate€with€his€attorneys.€€Appellant€was€able€to€explain€the€correct€understanding€of€theÐ k» ÐFifth€Amendment€privilege€against€self„incrimination€and€correctly€explained€the€possible€outcomesÐ T¤ Ðof€the€trial€and€the€penalties€he€faced.€€Further,€appellant€understood€the€role€of€his€attorneys€andÐ =  Ðdiscussed€with€them€plea€bargains,€trial€strategy,€witnesses,€DNA€evidence,€and€an€alibi€defense.€Ð & v ÐAppellant€told€Dr.€Bernet€that€he€understood€the€two€phases€of€the€trial€and€discussed€possibleÐ  _ Ðmitigation€evidence.€€Dr.€Bernet€concluded€that€appellant€suffered€from€an€antisocial€disorder€andÐ ø H Ðdelusional€paranoia€but€malingered.ò ò€€ó óHe€testified€that,€despite€appellantððs€mental€problems,€he€wasÐ á 1  Ðcompetent€to€stand€trial.Ð Í   ÐÌà  àDr.€Cynthia€Turner„Graham€testified€as€an€independent€expert€appointed€by€the€court.€€Dr.Ð Ÿï  ÐTurner„Graham€interviewed€appellant€once,€just€prior€to€the€competency€hearing.€€As€a€result€of€herÐ ˆØ  Ðinterview,€she€concluded€that€appellant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Dr.€Turner„Graham€testifiedÐ qÁ  Ðthat€appellant€understood€the€nature€of€the€legal€process,€the€charges€pending€against€him,€and€theÐ Zª  Ðpotential€consequences.€€She€further€testified€that€appellant€could€advise€counsel€and€participate€inÐ C“ Ðhis€own€defense.€€Appellant€understood€that€he€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€murder,€butÐ ,| Ðmaintained€his€innocence.€€He€believed€that€a€successful€defense€could€be€established€by€presentingÐ e Ðan€alibi€defense€and€disputing€DNA€and€fiber€evidence.€€She€determined€that€he€worked€with€hisÐ þN Ðattorneys€but,€at€times,€disagreed€about€the€best€approach€to€take€with€his€defense.€€AppellantÐ ç7 Ðadmitted€to€her€that€he€had€malingered€psychiatric€symptoms€in€the€past€to€minimize€punishmentÐ Ð  Ðduring€earlier€legal€proceedings.€€Appellant€understood€courtroom€procedure€and€the€roles€of€theÐ ¹  Ðplayers€in€the€courtroom.€€She€concluded€that€appellant€suffered€from€antisocial€personality€disorderÐ ¢ò Ðand€malingered€when€it€was€ð ðexpedient€given€the€realities€of€the€current€situation,ðð€but€was€ð ðclearlyÐ ‹Û Ðcompetent€to€stand€trial.ðð€€ò òÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àó óFollowing€the€proof,€the€trial€court€found€that€appellant€suffered€from€a€brain€injury€and€hadÐ G— Ðother€physical€conditions€that€caused€him€difficulty€in€learning€to€behave€appropriately€in€certainÐ 0€ Ðsituations.€€The€trial€court€found€that,€although€this€made€it€somewhat€difficult€for€appellant€toÐ i Ðcommunicate€with€his€attorneys,€it€did€not€rise€to€the€level€of€incompetence.€€The€court€accreditedÐ  R Ðthe€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witness€and€the€court„appointed€expert.€€The€trial€court€found€theÐ ë ; Ðtestimony€of€the€defense€experts€to€be€inconsistent€in€that€they€found€that€appellant€believed€thatÐ Ô!$  Ðeveryone€was€controlled€and€had€no€free€will€but,€at€the€same€time,€acknowledged€that€appellantÐ ½" ! Ðdisagreed€with€his€attorneys€about€his€defense.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€evidence€showed€thatÐ ¦#ö" Ðappellant€assisted€his€attorneys€in€a€meaningful€way€by€suggesting€rational€legal€theories.€€The€trialÐ $ß# Ðcourt€concluded€that€appellant€had€a€rational€understanding€of€the€proceedings€and€the€participantsÐ x%È $ Ðand€was€capable€of€cooperating€with€his€attorneys,€when€he€chose€to€do€so,€and€he€was,€therefore,Ð a&±!% Ðcompetent€to€stand€trial.€€The€trial€court€noted€that,€because€there€was€a€dispute€as€to€which€partyÐ J'š"& Ðbore€the€burden€of€proof€at€the€hearing,€the€court€evaluated€the€proof€under€both€standards€andÐ 3(ƒ#' Ðconcluded€that€appellant€was€competent€under€each€standard.Ð )l$( ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€defense€experts€wereÐ î*>&* Ðinconsistent€is€erroneous.€€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€Dr.€AmadorððsÐ ×+''+ Ðtestimony€was€inconsistent€reflects€a€ð ðserious€misunderstanding€of€Dr.€Amadorððs€testimony.ðð€Ð ° ÐLikewise,€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€Dr.€Aubleððs€testimony€wasÐ ™é Ðinconsistent€reflects€a€ð ðfundamental€misunderstanding€of€the€expert€proof.ðð€€Appellant€further€assertsÐ ‚Ò Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Stateððs€expert€and€the€court„appointed€expert€were€more€credibleÐ k» Ðis€erroneous.€€When€a€trial€court€conducts€a€hearing,€it€has€the€opportunity€to€see€and€hear€theÐ T¤ Ðwitnesses€and€their€conflicting€testimony.€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€have€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdictÐ =  Ðon€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€615€S.W.2d€161,€162€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€Ð & v ÐÌà  àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€thatÐ ø H Ðappellant€was€competent€to€stand€trial€was€erroneous.€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€are€supported€byÐ á 1  Ðample€evidence.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€withoutÐ Ê   Ðmerit.€€€€€€€€€ò òÐ ³  ÐÌÓ  ÓXXI.€€and€XXII.€€Testimony€of€Rev.€Joe€Ingle,€Mary€Ann€Hea,€and€Ron€Lax€at€CompetencyÐ †Ö  ÐHearingÐ pÀ  ÐÓŽ±ÓÌà  àó óAt€the€competency€hearing,ò ò€ó óappellant€sought€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€Reverend€JoeÐ D” ÐIngle,€Mary€Ann€Hea,€and€Ron€Lax.€€He€asserts€that€these€three€witnesses€would€have€testified€asÐ 0€ Ðto€appellantððs€incompetency€to€stand€trial.€€Appellant€contends€that€the€information€possessed€byÐ i Ðthese€witnesses€is€absolutely€critical€to€a€fair€determination€of€his€competency€to€stand€trial.€€Rev.Ð R ÐIngle€was€not€allowed€to€testify€because€appellant€refused€to€waive€the€priest/parishoner€privilege.€Ð ë; ÐDefense€counsel€withdrew€witnesses€Hea€and€Lax€because€the€court€ruled€that€it€would€permit€ð ðwideÐ Ô$ Ðopenðð€cross„examination€as€to€each€of€these€witnesses€on€matters€relevant€to€competency,€evenÐ ½  Ðthough€defense€counsel€requested€that€the€cross„examination€of€these€witnesses€be€limited€becauseÐ ¦ö Ðthey€each€worked€with€appellantððs€ð ðdefense€teamðð€in€connection€with€appellantððs€Davidson€CountyÐ ß Ðcases.€€The€court€determined€that€because€these€witnesses€were€part€of€appellantððs€defense€team,Ð xÈ Ðappellant€would€be€required€to€waive€the€attorney/client€privilege.€€Appellant€refused€to€waive€hisÐ a± Ðprivileges.€€Ð Jš ÐÌà  àRev.€Joe€Ingle,€appellantððs€minister,€was€prepared€to€testify€that€he€had€visited€and€counseledÐ l Ðhundreds€of€mentally€ill€prisoners€over€the€past€twenty„five€years,€and€appellant€was€the€mostÐ  U Ðmentally€ill€prisoner€he€had€ever€counseled.€€€Rev.€Ingle€had€spent€more€time€with€appellant€than€allÐ î > Ðof€the€expert€witnesses€combined.€€Appellant€contends€that,€although€Rev.€Ingle€is€not€a€trainedÐ ×!'  Ðpsychiatrist€or€psychologist,€his€lay€perceptions€of€appellant€mirror€those€offered€by€Drs.€Auble€andÐ À"! ÐAmador,€which€is€€ð ðhighly€significant.ðð€€In€the€affidavit€offered€by€Rev.€Ingle,€he€states€thatÐ ©#ù" Ðappellant€is€obsessed€with€the€desire€to€be€normal.€€When€he€was€able€to€break€through€appellantððsÐ ’$â# Ðð ðmask€of€normalcyðð€and€get€him€to€reveal€his€true€thoughts,€he€found€appellantððs€thinking€bizarreÐ {%Ë $ Ðand€delusional.€€Appellant€advised€Rev.€Ingle€that€he€is€being€ð ðset€upðð€by€the€government.€Ð d&´!% ÐAppellant€further€contends€that€Rev.€Ingleððs€testimony€would€have€provided€a€disinterestedÐ M'"& Ðperspective€on€his€mental€health€that€could€have€rehabilitated€the€defense€experts.Ð 6(†#' Ѐ€Ð )o$( Ðà  àMary€Ann€Hea€is€a€social€worker€employed€by€the€Davidson€County€Public€DefenderððsÐ *X%) Ðâ âOffice.€€Hea€would€have€testified€to€the€substance€of€her€many€interviewsò ò€ó ówith€appellant.€€The€trialÐ ñ*A&* Ðcourt€held€that€because€Hea€was€employed€by€the€public€defenderððs€office,€she€stood€in€the€sameÐ ° Ðposition€as€an€attorney.€€Thereafter,€defense€counsel€excused€Ms.€Hea€as€a€witness.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àAppellant€also€sought€to€call€Ron€Lax€as€a€witness€at€the€competency€hearing.€€Mr.€Lax€isÐ k» Ða€defense€investigator€involved€in€appellantððs€McDonaldððs€murders€case€in€Davidson€County.€€TheÐ T¤ Ðdefense€sought€to€question€Lax€based€upon€two€interviews€with€appellant€during€June€1999,€andÐ =  Ðcounsel€requested€that€the€court€limit€the€Stateððs€cross„examination€of€Lax€to€these€two€interviews.€Ð & v ÐThe€trial€court€denied€the€request,€ruling€that€on€cross„examination€the€State€would€be€entitled€to€askÐ  _ ÐLax€about€all€of€the€interviews€he€had€conducted€with€appellant,€and€the€State€would€be€able€toÐ ø H Ðdiscover€all€of€Laxððs€reports€of€these€interviews€as€òòJenksóó€material.€€As€a€result,€the€defense€did€notÐ á 1  Ðoffer€Lax€as€a€witness.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àò òó óAppellant€acknowledges€that€Tennessee€follows€the€ð ðwide„openðð€approach€to€cross„Ð œì  Ðexamination€but€argues€that€cross„examination€is€limited€to€questions€that€are€designed€to€elicitÐ …Õ  Ðrelevant€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€645€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€AppellantÐ n¾  Ðasserts€that€because€the€defense€experts€testified€that€appellant€was€competent€to€stand€trial€until€theÐ W§  Ðlate€spring€or€early€summer€1999,€appellantððs€competency€to€that€point€was€not€at€issue,€and€theÐ @ ÐState€should€have€been€limited€to€questioning€Lax€as€to€his€interviews€of€appellant€following€theÐ )y Ðappellantððs€ð ðdeteriorated€stateðð€only.€€Otherwise,€the€trial€court€was€authorizing€the€State€to€ð ðdelveÐ b Ðinto€wholly€irrelevant€matters€in€its€cross„examination.ðð€€The€State€counters€that€it€should€have€beenÐ ûK Ðprovided€the€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€witness€with€regard€to€his€conversations€andÐ ä4 Ðinteractions€with€the€appellant€touching€on€his€competency€and€incompetency.€€Ð Í ЀÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€611(b)€provides€that€the€scope€of€cross„examination€extends€toÐ Ÿï Ðð ðany€matter€relevant€to€any€issue€in€the€case,€including€credibility.ðð€€Because€appellantððsÐ ˆØ Ðcompetency€was€at€issue,€conversations€and€interactions€Lax€had€with€appellant€prior€to€hisÐ qÁ Ðdetermination€that€appellant€was€no€longer€competent€would€be€relevant.€€The€differences€inÐ Zª Ðappellantððs€actions€and€statements€in€his€prior€interviews€and€the€June€1999€interviews€would€beÐ C“ Ðrelevant,€and€they€would€certainly€be€an€area€ripe€for€cross„examination.€€Mr.€Lax€certainly€madeÐ ,| Ðhis€determination€as€to€appellantððs€competency€based€upon€his€relationship€and€involvement€inÐ e Ðappellantððs€case€over€the€two€year€period€he€worked€with€appellant,€rather€than€solely€on€the€twoÐ þN ÐJune€1999€interviews.€This€court€determines€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€withÐ ç 7 Ðregard€to€this€ruling.€€€Ð Ð!   Ðò òà  àó óÌà  àAs€for€witnesses€Hea€and€Ingle,€appellant€asserts€that€a€criminal€defendant€has€a€due€processÐ ¢#ò" Ðright€to€call€witnesses€on€his€own€behalf.€€òòWashington€v.€Texasóó,€388€U.S.€14,€23€(1976).€€AppellantÐ ‹$Û# Ðthen€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€with€respect€to€these€witnesses€ð ðimpinged€upon€[his]€rightÐ t%Ä $ Ðto€present€a€defense€to€an€unconstitutional€degreeðð€and€cites€òòKnight€v.€Duggeróó,€863€F.2d€705,€725„29Ð ]&­!% Ð(11thòòóó€Cir.€1988).€ò ò€ó óAppellant€further€contendsò ò€ó óthat€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€invoked€mereÐ F'–"& Ðevidentiary€privileges€to€deny,€or€at€least€diminish,€his€right€to€call€witnesses€to€support€his€claimÐ 2(‚#' Ðof€competency.€€The€issue€of€the€appropriate€burden€in€establishing€competency€is€of€manifestÐ )k$( Ðimportance€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€appellant€to€assert€his€privileges.€Ð *T%) Ðâ âà  àÐ í*=&* Ðà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€as€to€Ingle€and€Hea€are€incorrect€becauseÐ ° Ðâ âappellant€was€presumed€to€be€incompetent€at€the€hearing€and,€therefore,€did€not€have€the€ability€toÐ ™é Ðassert€or€waive€either€the€priest/parishoner€privilege€or€the€attorney/client€privilege.€€The€appellantÐ ‚Ò Ðrelies€upon€the€1911€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€case€of€òòJordan€v.€Stateóó,€135€S.W.€327,€329€(Tenn.Ð k» Ð1911),€and€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€174€(Tenn.€1991),€for€the€proposition€thatÐ T¤ Ðthe€State€bears€the€burden€of€proving€a€defendantððs€competence€to€stand€trial€once€the€issue€ofÐ =  Ðcompetency€is€raised.€€It€is€the€appellantððs€position€that,€once€competency€is€raised,€a€criminalÐ & v Ðdefendant€is€presumed€incompetent€until€the€State€proves€otherwise.€€The€State,€however,€assertsÐ  _ Ðthat€the€burden€is€on€the€criminal€defendant€to€establish€his€incompetency€to€stand€trial€by€aÐ ø H Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€and€relies€on€òòUnited€States€v.€Shepardóó,€538€F.2d€107,€110€(6thòòóó€Cir.€Ð á 1  Ð1976),€and€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€trial€court€assertedÐ Ê   Ðin€its€memorandum€opinion€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€that€the€law€on€the€burden€of€proof€isÐ ³  Ðunclear.€€Appellant€asserts€that€the€supreme€court€cases€of€€òòJordanóó€and€òòBlackóó€place€the€burden€ofÐ œì  Ðproof€on€the€State€by€ð ðapprovingðð€jury€instructions€that€placed€the€burden€on€the€State.€€AppellantÐ …Õ  Ðsubmits€that€because€the€supreme€court€is€the€highest€court€in€the€state,€the€court€of€criminal€appealsððÐ n¾  Ðdecision€in€òòOodyóó€ð ðis€of€no€consequence.ððà À àÐ W§  ÐÌà  àThis€Court€determines€that,€based€on€òòOodyóó,€the€burden€of€proof€at€a€competency€hearingÐ )y Ðrests€on€the€criminal€defendant€to€establish€incompetency€to€stand€trial€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ b Ðevidenceòòóó.€€Appellantððs€reliance€on€òòBlackóó€and€òòJordanóó€is€misplaced.€€òòJordanóó€did€not€hold€simply€thatÐ ûK Ðthe€burden€was€on€the€State€to€prove€competency€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€as€argued€byÐ ä4 Ðappellant.€€Rather,€òòJordanóó€€adopted€a€shifting€of€the€burden€when€it€found€that€the€following€juryÐ Í Ðcharge€was€ð ðin€all€things€correct.ðð€òòJordanóó,€135€S.W.€at€329.Ð ¶ ÐÌà8  àThe€law€presumes€that€all€persons€are€of€sound€mind€until€the€contrary€is€made€toÐ ˆØ Ðappear.€€When,€therefore,€any€person€charged€with€a€criminal€offense€punishable€byÐ qÁ Ðdeath€or€imprisonment€pleads€òòinsanity,€as€in€this€caseóó,òò€óóand€presents€evidenceÐ Zª Ðestablishing€or€tending€to€establish€òòóóthe€said€plea,€which€evidence€is€sufficient€to€rebutÐ C“ Ðand€overturn€the€presumption€of€sanity,€then€it€must€be€made€to€appear€to€yourÐ ,| Ðsatisfaction€from€all€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€is€of€sufficient€mental€capacityÐ e Ðto€give€sane€advice€to€his€counsel€involving€the€charge€in€the€indictment.ÐþNÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€328€(emphasis€added).€€€€This€charge€does€not€support€appellantððs€contention€that€once€theÐ Ð!   Ðissue€of€competency€is€raised,€the€burden€is€on€the€State€the€prove€competency.€€Instead,€òòJordanóóÐ ¹" ! Ðrequires€a€shifting€of€the€burden€whereby€the€defendant€must€first€present€evidence€establishingÐ ¢#ò" Ðincompetency,€rebutting€and€overturning€the€presumption€of€competency.€€If€the€presumption€ofÐ ‹$Û# Ðcompetency€is€sufficiently€rebutted,€then€the€burden€shifts€to€the€State.€€Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àFurther,€the€mere€reference€of€a€trial€courtððs€statement€in€òòBlackóó€that€the€burden€of€proof€wasÐ F'–"& Ðon€the€State€to€prove€competency€does€not€relegate€that€statement€to€the€law€in€Tennessee.€€TheÐ /(#' Ðholding€in€òòBlackóó,€relevant€to€the€competency€issue,€was€a€determination€that€the€criminal€defendantÐ )h$( Ðin€that€case€was€competent€to€stand€trial€under€the€standards€enunciated€in€the€cases€of€òòDuskeyóó,Ð *Q%) ÐòòMackeyóó,€and€òòBentonóó,€not€who€bore€the€burden€at€the€competency€hearing.€€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€atÐ ê*:&* Ð173„75.€€Moreover,€three€months€after€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòBlackóó,€the€TennesseeÐ Ó+#'+ ÐSupreme€Court€declined€to€grant€permission€to€appeal€in€òòOodyóó€and€has€not€since€addressed€thisÐ ° Ðissueòòóó.€€€Ð ™é Ѐ€€Ð ‚Ò Ðà  àBecause€appellant€is€presumed€competent€at€the€hearing,€appellant€had€the€right€to€assert€hisÐ k» Ðprivileges,€which€prevented€the€witnesses€at€issue€from€testifying.€€This€Court€concludes€that€thereÐ T¤ Ðwas€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€on€this€issue.€Ð =  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓXXIII.€€Testimony€of€Dr.€Xavier€Amadorà @À àà @ àà @p àà @È àà @  àÐ  _ ÐÓóãÓÌà  àó óAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€courtò ò€ó óerred€in€forcing€defense€expert€Dr.€Xavier€AmadorÐ ã 3  Ðto€testify€at€the€competency€hearing€without€giving€him€sufficient€time€to:€(1)€review€cassette€tapes€Ð Ï   ÐDr.€Bernet€had€recorded€during€his€interview€with€appellant€prior€to€the€competency€hearing€and€(2)Ð ¸  Ðreview€Dr.€Turner„Grahamððs€report.€€The€proof€at€the€competency€hearing€was€presented€out€ofÐ ¡ñ  Ðorder€€due€to€Dr.€Amadorððs€scheduling€constraints.€€The€defense€presented€Dr.€Pamela€Auble€as€itsÐ ŠÚ  Ðfirst€expert.€€Next,€the€State€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Bernet,€during€which€cassette€tapes€ofÐ sà  Ða€two€hour€and€fifteen€minute€interview€with€appellant€were€introduced.€€Dr.€Cynthia€Turner„Ð \¬  ÐGraham€testified€next.€€Following€her€testimony,€the€court€asked€defense€counsel€to€call€its€nextÐ E• Ðwitness.€€Dr.€Amadorððs€flight,€however,€had€been€cancelled€the€previous€night,€and€he€had€not€yetÐ .~ Ðarrived.€€When€Dr.€Amador€arrived,€he€was€given€Dr.€Turner„Grahamððs€report€and€the€tapes€fromÐ g ÐDr.€Bernetððs€interview€for€his€review.€€Ð P ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€asked€that€Dr.€Amador€be€given€additional€time€to€review€the€tapes€andÐ Ò" Ðreport€upon€his€arrival.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request€explaining€that€Dr.€Amador€had€at€leastÐ »  Ðthirty€minutes€to€review€the€report,€and€that€he€could€review€the€tapes€during€the€lunch€break.€Ð ¤ô ÐFurther,€the€court€explained€that€defense€counsel€heard€the€tapes€and€could€advise€him€concerningÐ Ý Ðthe€same.€€Ð vÆ ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€never€indicated€that€his€testimony€was€compromised€by€insufficient€time€toÐ H˜ Ðreview€the€report€or€the€tapes.€€€Appellant€argues€that,€if€Dr.€Amador€had€been€given€additional€timeÐ 1 Ðto€review€Dr.€Bernetððs€taped€interview,€he€would€have€been€better€equipped€to€challenge€Dr.Ð j ÐBernetððs€conclusions.€€This€court€finds€that€the€record€does€not€support€appellantððs€arguments€on€thisÐ  S Ðissue.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€ò òÐ ì < ÐÌÓ  ÓXXIV.€€Testimony€of€Dr.€Turner„GrahamÐ ¿"! ÐÓ™íÓÌà  àó óOne€day€following€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€Gary€C.€Tamkin,€an€assistant€public€defenderÐ “$ã# Ðwith€the€Metropolitan€Public€Defenderððsò ò€ó óOffice€executed€an€affidavit€stating€in€pertinent€part:Ð |%Ì $ ÐÌà8  à1.€€I€am€an€Assistant€Public€Defender€with€the€Metropolitan€Public€DefenderððsÐ Q'¡"& ÐOffice.Ð:(Š#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€On€Monday,€September€6,€1999,€in€the€early€evening,€Dr.€Cynthia€Turner„Ð #)s$( ÐGraham,€a€friend€of€mine,€visited€my€residence€and€mentioned€that€she€was€asked€byÐ  *\%) Ðâ âthe€Court€to€conduct€a€competency€evaluation€of€Paul€Reid.Ðõ*E&*Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€During€the€course€of€this€conversation,€she€said€that€she€believed€that€she€had€metÐ ° Ðâ âone€of€the€victims€in€the€Paul€Reid€cases.€€She€said€that€she€thought€one€of€theÐ ™é Ðvictims€knew€her€son€and€had€actually€been€to€her€house.€€ò òЂÒÐ Ð  Ðà  àÌà  àó óBased€upon€this€affidavit,€appellant€requested€a€new€competency€hearing€in€his€motion€forÐ U¥ Ðnew€trial.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€finding€that€the€affidavit€was€not€credible€partiallyÐ > Ž Ðbecause€the€affiant€spoke€to€the€expert€witness€several€days€before€trial€but€did€not€execute€hisÐ ' w Ðaffidavit€until€one€day€following€the€conclusion€of€the€trial.€€The€trial€court€found€it€ð ðinconceivableððÐ  ` Ðthat€an€assistant€public€defender€would€receive€that€type€of€information€prior€to€trial€and€fail€toÐ ù I Ðcommunicate€it€to€his€colleagues.€Ð â 2  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€also€placed€great€weight€on€the€failure€of€appellant€to€present€any€testimonyÐ ´  Ðat€the€new€trial€hearing,€given€the€importance€of€the€competency€issue.€€The€court€found€that,€evenÐ í  Ðassuming€that€the€allegations€in€the€affidavit€were€true,€it€was€giving€them€little€weight.€€The€courtÐ †Ö  Ðnoted€that€the€affidavit€did€not€affirmatively€establish€that€Dr.€Turner„Graham€knew€one€of€theÐ o¿  Ðvictims.€€Instead,€ð ðthe€affidavit€establishes€that€Dr.€Turner„Graham€òòmightóó€have€met€a€victim€whoÐ X¨  Ðòòmightóó€have€known€her€son€and€òòmightóó€have€visited€her€home.ðð€€The€court€then€noted€that€the€victimÐ A‘ Ðreferenced€was€one€of€the€victims€in€one€of€appellantððs€Davidson€County€cases.€€The€courtÐ *z Ðconcluded€that€ð ð[g]iven€the€circumstances,€the€Court€finds€that€the€defendant€has€offered€no€proofÐ c Ðand€alleged€no€facts€which€would€cause€the€court€to€alter€its€opinion€regarding€the€credibility€of€Dr.Ð üL ÐTurner„Graham.ððÐ å5 ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred.€€He€contends€that€the€caseload€of€theÐ · ÐMetropolitan€Public€Defenderððs€Office€is€ð ðstaggering,ðð€and€ð ðeach€attorney€simply€does€not€have€theÐ  ð Ðtime€or€mental€wherewithal€to€keep€up€with€the€schedules€of€his€colleagues€in€addition€to€his€own.ðð€Ð ‰Ù ÐAppellant€asserts,€therefore,€that€it€is€reasonable€that€Tamkin€did€not€relay€this€information€toÐ r Ðdefense€counsel€in€time€for€the€competency€hearing.€€Appellant€further€notes€that€Tamkin€is€anÐ [« Ðofficer€of€the€court€and€has€an€ethical€obligation€to€be€truthful€in€his€dealings€with€any€court.€€€€Ð D” ÐÌà  àThis€court€finds€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€this€issue.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€isÐ f Ðwithout€merit.€òòò òóóÐ ÿO ÐÌÓ  ÓXXV.€€€Testimony€of€Elfreida€LaneÐ Ò!"  ÐÓ¯üÓÌó óà  àDuring€Elfeida€Laneððs€redirect€testimony,€the€prosecuting€attorney€asked€her€if€she€had€everÐ ¦#ö" Ðbeen€through€the€drive„thru€window€at€Baskin„Robbins€with€her€daughter€and€appellant.€€Ms.€LaneÐ $ß# Ðreplied,€ð ðWe€did€not€go€through€Baskin€Robbins,€sir.ðð€€Counsel€then€attempted€to€ask€anotherÐ x%È $ Ðquestion,€and€Ms.€Lane€interrupted€and€said,€ð ðthat€was€my€daughter€that€said€that€not€„€„€we€did€notÐ a&±!% Ðgo€through€Baskin€Robbins.€€Not€to€my€knowledge.ðð€€Defense€counsel€then€objected€to€the€hearsay.€Ð J'š"& ÐThe€State€responded€that€it€had€not€intended€to€elicit€hearsay€testimony.€€The€trial€court€sustainedÐ 3(ƒ#' Ðthe€objection€and€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€that€portion€of€Ms.€Laneððs€testimony€and€considerÐ )l$( Ðit€for€no€purpose.€€Thereafter,€the€State€asked€Ms.€Lane€if€she€and€a€member€of€her€family€andÐ *U%) Ðâ âappellant€had€gone€through€the€drive„thru€at€Baskin„Robbins.€€After€Lane€responded€that€she€couldÐ î*>&* Ðnot€remember€doing€so,€counsel€asked€if€it€was€possible€that,€after€they€dined€at€Loganððs,€they€wentÐ ° Ðto€get€ice€cream.€€Ms.€Lane€stated€that€she€could€not€remember€doing€so.Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àAt€no€point€during€this€exchange€did€defense€counsel€request€a€mistrial.€€Appellant€nowÐ k» Ðasserts€that€the€court€should€have€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€granted€a€mistrial.€€A€mistrial€should€be€declared€in€aÐ T¤ Ðcriminal€trial€only€in€the€event€of€a€ð ðmanifest€necessityðð€that€requires€such€action.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€976Ð =  ÐS.W.2d€121,€147€(Tenn.€1998)€€ð ðThe€purpose€for€declaring€a€mistrial€is€to€correct€damage€done€toÐ & v Ðthe€judicial€process€when€some€event€has€occurred€which€precludes€an€impartial€verdict.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð  _ ÐWilliamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€determination€of€whether€to€grantÐ ø H Ða€mistrial€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€871€S.W.2d€667,€672Ð á 1  Ð(Tenn.€1994).€€The€reviewing€court€should€not€overturn€that€decision€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€Ð Ê   ÐòòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€279.€€Moreover,€the€burden€of€establishing€the€necessity€for€a€mistrial€lies€withÐ ³  Ðthe€party€seeking€it.€€òòWilliamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€388.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àAppellantððs€counsel€did€not€move€for€a€mistrial€based€upon€the€hearsay€testimony€by€Ms.Ð n¾  ÐLane.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€gave€a€curative€instruction,€which€the€jury€is€presumed€to€haveÐ W§  Ðfollowed.€€òòHallóó,€976€S.W.2d€at€148.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÐ @ ÐÌÓ  ÓXXVI.€€Testimony€of€Loretta€Diorio€and€Stephen€DiorioÐ c Ðó óÓ<ÓÌà  àDuring€a€break€in€the€testimony€of€Stephen€Diorio,€he€went€into€the€hallway€and€sat€with€hisÐ æ6 Ðmother,€Loretta€Diorio,€who€had€already€testified.€€As€they€were€sitting€in€the€hallway,€a€newsÐ Ï Ðreporter€was€making€a€live€broadcast€concerning€the€trial.€€Appellantððs€counsel€immediately€alertedÐ ¸ Ðthe€court€and€moved€to€strike€the€testimony€of€both€Stephen€and€Loretta€Diorio.€€The€courtÐ ¡ñ Ðquestioned€Stephen€Diorio€outside€of€the€presence€of€the€jury€about€what€he€had€heard.€€StephenÐ ŠÚ Ðadmitted€that€he€heard€part€of€the€news€report€and€that€the€reporter€stated€that,€after€a€long€pause,Ð sà Ðð ðI€pointed€out€the€person.ðð€€He€did€not€hear€anything€else€the€reporter€said.€€The€court€then€ruled€thatÐ \¬ Ðthere€was€no€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€615€violation.€€The€court€went€on€to€state€that,€althoughÐ E• Ðwitness€Stephen€Diorio€could€have€been€adversely€affected€and€the€Rule€compromised,€the€same€hadÐ .~ Ðnot€occurred.Ð g ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€615Ð é 9 Ðprovides€in€pertinent€part:€ð ðAt€the€request€of€a€party€the€court€shall€order€witnesses,€includingÐ Ò!"  Ðrebuttal€witnesses,€excluded€at€trial€or€other€adjudicatory€hearing€.€.€.€€The€court€shall€order€allÐ »" ! Ðpersons€not€to€disclose€by€any€means€to€excluded€witnesses€any€live€trial€testimony€or€exhibitsÐ ¤#ô" Ðcreated€in€the€courtroom€by€a€witness.ðð€€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€615.€€The€sequestration€rule€is€designed€toÐ $Ý# Ðprevent€witnesses€from€hearing€the€testimony€of€other€witnesses€and€subsequently€adjusting€theirÐ v%Æ $ Ðtestimony.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€68€(Tenn.€1992).€€When€a€sequestration€rule€violationÐ _&¯!% Ðis€raised€on€appeal,€the€court€shall€consider€the€seriousness€of€the€violation€and€the€prejudice,€if€any,Ð H'˜"& Ðsuffered€by€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.€at€68„69.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€any€violation€was€minor,€appellantÐ 1(#' Ðsuffered€no€resulting€prejudice.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð )j$( Ðò òÌÓ  ÓXXVII.€€Introduction€of€Undergarment€of€Victim€Angela€HolmesÐ í*=&* ÐÓ ÓÐ ×+''+ Ðó óà  àDuring€the€trial,€Tobaris€Holmes€identified€the€clothing€his€wife€was€wearing€on€the€nightÐ ° Ðof€her€murder.€€The€clothing€was€found€at€the€crime€scene€and€included€Angela€Holmesððs€bra.€€TheÐ ™é ÐState€moved€for€the€admission€of€the€articles€of€clothing€into€evidence€without€objection.€€AppellantÐ ‚Ò Ðnow€argues€that€the€court€should€have€removed€the€bra€from€evidence.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€braÐ k» Ðhad€little€or€no€relevancy€and€that€any€relevancy€was€outweighed€by€the€prejudice€it€caused.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àAppellant€failed€to€object€when€the€bra€was€admitted€into€evidence.€€The€failure€to€make€aÐ & v Ðcontemporaneous€objection€constitutes€a€waiver€of€the€issue€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòseeÐ  _ Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643,€651€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€Ð ø H Ѐò òÐ á 1  ÐÓ  ÓXXVIII.€€Exclusion€of€TBI€MemorandumÐ Ê   ÐÓ ÓÌó óà  àDuring€the€cross„examination€of€TBI€agent€Samera€Zavero,€appellant€attempted€to€introduceÐ žî  Ðinto€evidence€a€TBI€memorandum,€which€stated€that€a€person€named€James€Jones€could€not€beÐ ‡×  Ðexcluded€as€a€possible€donor€of€the€DNA€found€on€appellantððs€right€shoe.€€The€trial€court€excludedÐ pÀ  Ðthe€memorandum€as€irrelevant€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€James€Jones€had€anything€to€doÐ Y©  Ðwith€the€case.€€Appellant€argued€that€the€memorandum€was€relevant€because€the€State€mentionedÐ B’ ÐJames€Jones€in€opening€statement.€€Ð +{ ÐÌà  àDuring€its€opening€statement,€the€State€told€the€jury€that€the€case€had€been€a€hard€case€forÐ ýM Ðlaw€enforcement€and€the€proof€might€show€that€appellant€was€not€the€first€suspect€in€this€case.€Ð æ6 ÐThree€men,€Jones,€Shelly,€and€Black,€all€of€whom€had€a€crack€problem€and€were€partying,€takingÐ Ï Ðguns,€and€selling€them€for€crack,€may€have€been€the€first€suspects.€€Later€in€the€opening,€the€StateÐ ¸ Ðdiscussed€the€expected€DNA€evidence€found€on€appellantððs€shoes€and€commented€ð ðthatððs€why€[theÐ ¡ñ ÐDNA€evidence€of]€Jones€and€Shelly€and€Black€were€given€up.ðð€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÐ ŠÚ Ðmention€of€James€Jones€during€opening€statement€was€insufficient€to€establish€the€relevance€of€theÐ sà Ðdocument€without€any€other€evidence€that€James€Jones€had€an€involvement€in€the€case.€€€ò òÐ \¬ Ðà  àÌó óÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Ö _#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôà  àÔ#†XÆ·XX X7ÖË#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔAppellant€contends€that,€because€the€State€injected€the€name€of€James€Jones€into€the€issueÐ / Ðof€the€identity€of€the€perpetrator€of€the€crimes,€the€memorandum€is€relevant.€€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔEvidence€is€relevantÐ h Ðif€it€has€ð ðany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determinationÐ  Q Ðof€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Ö#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÐ ê : Ð401.€€Relevant€evidence€ð ðmay€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€theÐ Ó!#  Ðdanger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ô#†XÆ·XX X7Öh#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôò ò€Ð ¼" ! Ðó óHowever,€ð ð[o]f€critical€importance€here€is€the€nature€of€opening€statements.€€They€are€intendedÐ ¨#ø" Ðmerely€to€inform€the€trial€judge€and€jury,€in€a€general€way,€of€the€nature€of€the€case€and€to€outline,Ð ‘$á# Ðgenerally,€the€facts€each€party€intends€to€prove.€€Such€statements€do€not€amount€to€stipulations€andÐ z%Ê $ Ðcertainly€are€not€a€substitute€for€the€pleadings€or€for€the€evidence.ðð€òòHarris€v.€Baptist€Memððl€Hosp.óó,Ð c&³!% Ð574€S.W.2d€730,€732€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð L'œ"& ÐÌà  àAfter€a€review€of€the€evidence,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€excluding€theÐ )n$( ÐTBI€memorandum.€€James€Jones€was€never€shown€to€have€any€involvement€with€the€case.€€As€such,Ð *W%) Ðany€reference€to€him€in€a€TBI€memorandum€is€irrelevant€to€the€determination€of€the€facts€at€issue.Ð ð*@&* ÐAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ò ò€Ð Ù+)'+ ЇÓ  ÓXXIX.€€€Testimony€of€Jeffrey€PotterÐ ° Ðó óÓ®$ÓÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€testimony€of€Jeffrey€Potter€should€have€been€excluded€becauseÐ ƒÓ Ðhis€conversation€with€appellant€was€too€far€removed€in€time€from€the€Baskin„Robbins€incident€toÐ l¼ Ðprovide€meaningful€insight€into€appellantððs€motive.€€The€testimony€was€about€a€conversation€Mr.Ð U¥ ÐPotter€had€with€appellant€wherein€the€appellant€told€him€robbery€would€be€an€easy€way€to€makeÐ > Ž Ðmoney.€€The€trial€court€held€a€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€when€the€comment€was€made€in€relationÐ ' w Ðto€the€Baskin„Robbins€murders.€€Potter€could€not€recall€the€date€of€the€conversation€but€testified€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€statement€was€made€a€few€months€before€the€Baskin„Robbins€murders.€€€He€also€testified€thatÐ ù I Ðthe€statement€was€made€in€late€summer€1996.€€Further,€he€could€recall€that€the€statement€was€madeÐ â 2  Ðduring€appellantððs€second€term€of€employment€with€Shoneyððs€and€that€appellant€made€the€statementÐ Ë   Ðshortly€before€he€was€terminated.€€The€court€ruled€that€the€statement€was€not€too€remote€in€time€andÐ ´  Ðallowed€him€to€testify€as€to€the€statement.€€Ð í  ÐÌà  àPotter€testified€before€the€jury€that€appellant€made€the€statement€in€January€1997,€shortlyÐ o¿  Ðbefore€he€was€fired.€€Defense€counsel€questioned€him€on€the€discrepancy€in€his€testimony,€and€heÐ X¨  Ðreplied€that€he€had€gone€home,€thought€about€it,€and€tried€to€get€everything€right.Ð A‘ ÐÌà  àThis€court€cannot€find€that€the€court€erred€in€allowing€Potter€to€testify€as€to€the€statementÐ c Ðmade€by€appellant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÐ üL ÐÌÓ  ÓXXX.€€€Use€of€Styrofoam€Heads€by€Dr.€Harlan€as€Demonstrative€EvidenceÐ Ï ÐÓ,ÓÌó óà  àAppellant€challenges€the€use€of€demonstrative€evidence€by€the€medical€examiner€asÐ £ó Ðinappropriate.€€During€Dr.€Harlanððs€testimony,€he€used€styrofoam€heads€to€demonstrate,€with€a€pen,Ð ŒÜ Ðthe€head€wounds€suffered€by€the€victims.€€This€court€approved€the€use€of€this€type€of€demonstrativeÐ uÅ Ðevidence€in€òòState€v.€Robert€E.€Coleóó,€No.€02C01„9207„CR„00165,€1993€WL€539185,€at€*3€(Tenn.Ð ^® ÐCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€30,€1993).€€In€òòColeóó,€this€Court€concluded€that€the€evidence€was€ð ðhighlyÐ G— Ðprobative€as€to€the€issues€to€be€decided€by€the€jury.€€Under€the€circumstances,€the€trial€court€did€notÐ 0€ Ðerr€in€admitting€the€challenged€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241€(Tenn.€1986);Ð i ÐòòState€v.€Sextonóó,€725€S.W.2d€371€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)).€€Ð  R ÐÌà  àThis€court€cannot€find€that€the€use€of€the€styrofoam€heads€was€inappropriate€in€this€case€asÐ Ô!$  Ðthe€appellant€urges.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€its€ruling€that€the€use€of€the€styrofoam€heads€wouldÐ ½" ! Ðassist€Dr.€Harlan€in€demonstrating€the€location€of€the€wounds.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÐ ¦#ö" ÐÌÓ  ÓXXXI.€€Failure€to€Allow€Introduction€of€Police€ReportÐ y%É $ ÐÓ±1ÓÌó óà0  àAt€trial,€the€defense€called€Detective€R.W.€Knight€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€Jay€Smith€ÐM'"&(#(# Ðand€LaVonda€Zimmerman€concerning€statements€or€reports€they€made€to€the€police€during€theÐ 6(†#' Ðinvestigation€of€this€case.€€In€particular,€Detective€Knight€testified€that€Smith€gave€him€a€tag€numberÐ )o$( Ðof€a€red€car€that€he€believed€was€the€same€car€he€saw€in€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park.€€SubsequentÐ *X%) Ðinvestigation€revealed,€however,€that€the€car€belonged€to€someone€other€than€appellant.€Ð ñ*A&* ÐAdditionally,€Detective€Knight€testified€that€the€police€asked€Zimmerman€about€cars€pulling€intoÐ Ú+*'+ Ðthe€Baskin„Robbins€parking€lot,€but€Zimmerman€stated€she€did€not€mention€the€red€car€pulling€intoÐ ° Ðthe€parking€lot€because€the€police€did€not€ask€her€about€any€such€cars.€€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€Detective€Knightððs€testimony,€the€defense€requested€that€the€reportsÐ k» Ðsummarizing€Detective€Knightððs€interviews€with€Smith€and€Zimmerman€be€admitted€into€evidence.€Ð T¤ ÐThe€State€objected€on€the€basis€that€appellant€had€elected€to€use€a€witness€to€impeach€the€testimonyÐ =  Ðof€the€witness€rather€than€use€the€reports€of€the€statements€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€613.€Ð & v ÐThe€trial€court€sustained€the€Stateððs€objection,€finding€that€appellant€could€have€confronted€SmithÐ  _ Ðand€Zimmerman€with€the€prior€inconsistent€statements€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€613€butÐ ø H Ðchose€not€to€do€so,€and€he€instead€utilized€the€testimony€of€Detective€Knight.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€613€does€not€limit€the€manner€ofÐ ³  Ðimpeaching€a€witness€to€either€extrinsic€evidence€or€a€witness€and€that€nothing€in€the€rule€indicatesÐ œì  Ðthat€the€methods€listed€are€mutually€exclusive.€€We€agree.€€However,€we€note€that€Tennessee€RuleÐ …Õ  Ðof€Evidence€613(b)€provides,€in€pertinent€part:Ð n¾  ÐÌà8  à[e]xtrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€by€a€witness€is€not€admissibleÐ @ Ðòòunlessóó€the€witness€is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€the€same€and€theÐ )y Ðopposite€party€is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€interrogate€the€witness€thereon,€or€theÐ b Ðinterests€of€justice€otherwise€require.€ÐûKÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€613(b)€(2002)€(emphasis€added).׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Í ÐÌà  àAs€a€general€matter,€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence€is€a€matter€within€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ÿï Ðdiscretion,€and€a€trial€courtððs€decision€in€this€regard€will€be€overturned€only€if€the€court€abused€itsÐ ˆØ Ðdiscretion.€òòóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Additionally,€whileÐ qÁ Ðneither€party€has€cited€to€any€case€law€to€support€their€respective€positions,€we€note€that€òòState€v.Ð Zª ÐMartinóó,€964€S.W.2d€564€(Tenn.€1998),€held€that€before€extrinsic€evidence€of€a€statement€is€offered,Ð C“ Ðthe€fact€witness€sought€to€be€impeached€must€be€asked€about€the€inconsistency€and€be€given€aÐ ,| Ðchance€to€explain€or€deny€it.€€In€òòMartinóó,€the€witness,€the€defendantððs€girlfriend,€testified€that€theÐ e Ðdefendant€was€with€her€at€their€apartment€at€the€time€of€the€robbery€at€issue.€€òòId.óó€at€566.€€On€cross„Ð þN Ðexamination,€the€witness€admitted€speaking€to€an€officer€shortly€after€the€robbery,€and€she€said€thatÐ ç 7 Ðshe€did€not€tell€the€officer€that€the€defendant€was€with€her€when€the€robbery€occurred.€€òòId.óó€€OnÐ Ð!   Ðrebuttal,€the€State€called€the€officer€who€testified€that€when€told€the€date€of€the€robbery,€the€witnessÐ ¹" ! Ðsaid€to€the€defendant,€ð ðI€donððt€know€where€you€were,€I€was€in€the€motel.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€extrinsicÐ ¢#ò" Ðevidence€of€the€prior€inconsistent€statement€was€introduced€without€first€asking€the€witness€whetherÐ ‹$Û# Ðshe€had€made€the€statement€to€the€defendant€or€to€anyone€else,€the€supreme€court€held€that€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðextrinsic€evidence€should€not€have€been€admitted,€because€ð ðthe€admissibility€of€the€extrinsicÐ ]&­!% Ðevidence€is€contingent€upon€whether€the€witness€admits€or€denies€having€made€the€prior€inconsistentÐ F'–"& Ðstatement.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€567„68.€€In€other€words,€ð ðextrinsic€evidence€[of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement]Ð ° Ðremains€inadmissible€until€the€witness€either€denies€or€equivocates€as€to€having€made€the€priorÐ ™é Ðinconsistent€statement.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€567.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àHere,€Zimmerman€was€questioned€extensively€on€cross„examination€regarding€her€statements€Ð T¤ Ðto€the€police€after€her€trip€to€Baskin„Robbins.€€She€was€even€shown€the€statement€she€made€to€policeÐ =  Ðin€an€attempt€to€refresh€her€memory.€€After€examining€the€statement,€Zimmerman€denied€telling€theÐ & v Ðpolice€that€she€saw€a€red€car€pulling€into€the€parking€lot€that€night€because€she€insisted€that€no€oneÐ  _ Ðasked€her€about€a€car.€€Therefore,€Zimmerman,€as€required€by€Rule€613,€had€a€chance€to€admit€orÐ ø H Ðdeny€making€the€statement€prior€to€the€introduction€of€the€extrinsic€evidence,€namely€DetectiveÐ á 1  ÐKnightððs€testimony.€€Smith€was€also€questioned€extensively€about€whether€he€made€a€phone€call€toÐ Ê   Ðpolice€on€May€1€in€which€he€provided€them€with€the€make,€model,€and€tag€number€of€the€car€heÐ ³  Ðbelieved€he€saw€at€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park€on€the€night€of€the€murders.€€After€reviewing€a€documentÐ œì  Ðwhich€contained€the€contents€of€the€telephone€call,€Smith€did€not€deny€making€the€statement.€€HeÐ …Õ  Ðstated,€ð ðIt€says€I€did.€€I€did.€€I€will€say€I€did.€.€.€[b]ut€honest€to€God€[I]€do€not€remember€making€aÐ n¾  Ðphone€call€about€that.ðð€€Therefore,€Smith,€when€given€the€opportunity€to€admit€or€deny€the€statementÐ W§  Ðprior€to€the€introduction€of€the€extrinsic€evidence,€as€required€by€Rule€613,€could€not€rememberÐ @ Ðmaking€the€telephone€call.€€The€testimony€of€Detective€Knight€was€introduced€after€the€testimonyÐ )y Ðof€both€Smith€and€Zimmerman€for€the€purposes€of€impeachment.€€He€testified€regarding€theÐ b Ðinconsistencies€in€their€testimony€as€compared€to€the€statements€each€made€to€the€authorities.€€TheÐ ûK Ðtrial€court€chose€to€exclude€the€introduction€of€the€actual€police€report€on€the€basis€that€Rule€613Ð ä4 Ðonly€allowed€introduction€of€one€form€of€extrinsic€evidence.€€Ð Í ÐÌà  àWhile€the€plain€language€of€the€rule€does€not€limit€the€introduction€of€extrinsic€evidence€ofÐ Ÿï Ðprior€inconsistent€statements€to€one€form,€we€determine€that,€in€any€event,€the€introduction€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðreport€would€have€been€cumulative€to€Detective€Knightððs€testimony€under€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ qÁ ÐEvidence€403.€€òòSeeóó€òòU.S.€v.€H.J.K.€Theatre€Corp.óó,€236€F.2d€502,€508€(1956)€(holding€that€where€trialÐ Zª Ðtestimony€of€a€witness€as€to€a€particular€fact€had€been€impeached€by€one€passage€in€witnessðð€priorÐ C“ Ðtestimony€before€a€grand€jury,€it€was€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€prevent,€as€unduly€time„Ð ,| Ðconsuming€and€unimportantly€cumulative,€an€inspection€of,€and€cross„examination€on,€otherÐ e Ðpassages€in€previous€testimony€as€to€the€same€matters€on€the€same€occasion€before€the€grand€jury).€Ð þN ÐDetective€Knight€had€already€testified€as€to€the€contents€of€the€report;€therefore,€the€report€wouldÐ ç 7 Ðnot€have€offered€any€new€evidence€for€the€jury€to€consider.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ Ð!   Ðdiscretion€in€failing€to€admit€the€report.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ò òÐ ¹" ! ÐÌÓ  ÓXXXII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÐ Œ$Ü# Ðó óÓSÓÌÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Öž #Ôà  àAppellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€Appellant€contends€theÐ _&¯!% Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€prove€the€convictions€of€premeditated€murder,€felony€murder,€especiallyÐ H'˜"& Ðaggravated€kidnapping,€and€especially€aggravated€robbery,€Ô‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôrelying€primarily€on€the€fact€that€theÐ 1(#' Ðevidence€was€circumstantial.Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö¹T#Ô€The€State€argues€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient.€€We€agree.Ð )j$( ÐÌÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôà  àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€is€obliged€to€reviewÐ ì*<&* Ðthat€claim€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€A€verdict€of€guilty,€rendered€by€a€jury€andÐ Õ+%'+ Ðð ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theðð€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€allÐ ° Ðconflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Ð ™é ÐòòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75.€€Thus,€although€the€accused€is€originally€cloaked€with€a€presumption€ofÐ ‚Ò Ðinnocence,€the€jury€verdict€of€guilty€removes€this€presumption€ð ðand€replaces€it€with€one€of€guilt.ðð€Ð k» ÐòòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€the€burden€of€proof€restsÐ T¤ Ðwith€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€The€relevantÐ =  Ðquestion€the€reviewing€court€must€answer€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÐ & v Ðaccused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð  _ Ð13(e);€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75.€In€making€this€decision,€we€are€to€accord€the€state€ð ðthe€strongestÐ ø H Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ á 1  Ðtherefrom.ðð€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€As€such,€this€Court€is€precluded€from€re„weighing€orÐ Ê   Ðreconsidering€the€evidence€when€evaluating€the€convicting€proof.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€929€S.W.2d€380,Ð ³  Ð383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð œì  ÐWe€may€not€substitute€our€own€ð ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantialÐ …Õ  Ðevidence.ðð€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€779.Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö¥U#Ôò òó ó€€Ô‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7ÖÛ]#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔHowever,€a€conviction€may€be€based€entirely€onÐ n¾  Ðcircumstantial€evidence€where€the€facts€are€ð ðso€clearly€interwoven€and€connected€that€the€finger€ofÐ W§  Ðguilt€is€pointed€unerringly€at€the€Defendant€and€the€Defendant€alone.ðð€òòReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€at€277Ð @ Ð(quoting€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€569).Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö^#Ô€€Ô‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔQuestions€about€witness€credibility€were€resolved€by€the€jury.Ð )y ÐòòSeeòòóó€óóòòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€659.€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7ÖÄ_#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÐ b ÐÌÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Ö‰`#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôà  à€The€record€reflects€that,€prior€to€this€crime,€the€defendant€discussed€robbing€fast€foodÐ ä4 Ðrestaurants€with€co-workers€as€a€way€to€obtain€more€money.€€Appellant€had€a€large€knife€in€the€trunkÐ Í Ðof€his€car€in€late€May€or€June€1997,€with€a€blade€of€approximately€eight€to€nine€inches.€€The€victimsÐ ¶ Ðwere€murdered€with€a€cutting€instrument€consistent€with€a€knife€that€had€a€blade€of€eight€to€nineÐ Ÿï Ðinches.€€Although€appellant€lived€in€Nashville,€he€was€in€Clarksville€on€the€night€of€the€murders.€Ð ˆØ ÐAppellant€purchased€gasoline€at€a€Texaco€station€near€the€Baskin„Robbins€shortly€before€theÐ qÁ Ðmurders.€He€called€Elfreida€Lane€the€day€following€the€murders€and€told€her€he€was€in€ClarksvilleÐ Zª Ðthe€night€before€and€was€going€to€stop€by€to€see€her,€but€he€did€not€because€it€was€too€late.€Ð C“ ÐAppellant€was€seen€in€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park€prior€to€the€murders,€and€a€car€matching€theÐ ,| Ðdescription€of€his€was€seen€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€Dunbar€Cave€State€Park€shortly€after€theÐ e Ðdisappearance€of€the€victims€from€Baskin„Robbins.€€The€victimsðð€bodies€were€found€near€theÐ þN Ðparking€lot€of€the€park.€€Appellant€was€fired€from€his€employment€at€Shoneyððs€in€January€1997.€Ð ç 7 ÐCash€in€the€amount€of€$1,565.58€was€taken€from€Baskin„Robbins.€€Despite€being€unemployed€andÐ Ð!   Ðhaving€very€little€money€in€his€checking€account,€appellant€mailed€a€money€order€in€the€amount€ofÐ ¹" ! Ð$125€to€Linda€Patton€less€than€three€days€after€the€murders€to€pay€for€one„half€of€her€airfare€toÐ ¢#ò" ÐNashville.€Once€Ms.€Patton€arrived€in€Nashville,€appellant€entertained€her€by€paying€for€her€hotelÐ ‹$Û# Ðroom€for€five€days,€meals,€and€sightseeing€attractions.€€Ms.€Patton€testified€that€he€used€cash€to€payÐ t%Ä $ Ðfor€most€of€the€expenses.€€Eleven€fibers€found€on€the€victimsðð€clothing€were€consistent€with€fibersÐ ]&­!% Ðfrom€various€locations€in€appellantððs€car.€€DNA€evidence€on€the€appellantððs€left€brown€Nike€shoeÐ F'–"& Ðwas€consistent€with€the€DNA€profile€of€Angela€Holmes.€€Neither€Angela€Holmes€nor€Michelle€MaceÐ /(#' Ðcould€be€excluded€as€donors€of€the€blood€stains€found€on€appellantððs€right,€brown€Nike€shoe.€€Ð )h$( ÐConsidering€the€proof€in€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€conclude€that€theÐ *Q%) Ðproof€points€the€finger€of€guilt€unerringly€at€appellant€and€appellant€alone.€€€Therefore,€theÐ ê*:&* Ðappellantððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€Ô% €> Ôthe€evidence€is€without€merit.à  àÐ Ó+#'+ ЇÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌÓ  ÓXXXIII.€€Prosecutorial€Misconduct€in€Guilt€PhaseÐ ã 3  Ðó óÓlÓÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€prosecutors€committed€numerous€acts€of€prosecutorialÐ ¶  Ðmisconduct€during€their€arguments€in€the€guilt€phase.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€reviewing€allegations€of€prosecutorialÐ Ÿï  Ðmisconduct,€ð ð[t]he€general€test€to€be€applied€is€whether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affectedÐ ˆØ  Ðthe€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.Ð qÁ  Ð1965);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€995€S.W.2d€119,€127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€The€factorsÐ Zª  Ðrelevant€to€the€courtððs€determination€are:€€€ò òÐ C“ Ðó óÔ#†¼f»XX7ÖÚ#ÔÔ‡ôS½ò»¼fÔÔ#†ô®LòòôS½á`#ÔÔ‡#ôv•òòô®LÔÌà8  àÔ#†#¼>z»ò#ôv•¢o#ÔÔ‡#X›£X»#¼>zÔÔ#†XÆ·XX#X›£äo#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÐ Ý- Ðcase;€ÐÆÐ Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€Ð¯ÿÐ Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€arguments;€Ð˜èÐ Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€Ð Ñ Ðand€ÐjºÐ Ð  Ðà8  à5.€€The€relative€strength€and€weakness€of€the€case.€ÐS£Ð Ð  ÐÌòòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€894.Ð %u Ðò òÌà  àReference€to€Danny€Tackettððs€testimonyó óÐ øH ÐÌà  àDuring€opening€statement,€the€prosecutor€commented:€Ð Ë Ðâ âÐ ´  Ðà8  àYou€are€going€to€hear€testimony€from€Danny€Tackett€and€maybe€another€co„workerÐ ° Ðâ â.€.€.€We€think€Mr.€Tackett€is€going€to€tell€you€that€he€worked€with€Mr.€Reid€at€aÐ ™é ÐShoneyððsò ò€ó ó.€.€.€and€that€thereò ò€ó ówas€talkò ò€ó ówhen€the€two€of€them€worked€about€raisingÐ ‚Ò Ðmoney,€not€by€donating€money€at€the€Plasma€center€or€anything€like€that.€€There€wasÐ n¾ Ðtalk€about€raising€money€by€conducting€robberies.ò ò€ó óÐW§Ð Ð  ÐÌDefense€counsel€objected,€and€the€court€conducted€a€sidebar€conference.€€The€court€remindedÐ , | Ðdefense€counsel€that€Tackettððs€testimony€about€the€conversation€would€be€admissible€at€trial,€aÐ  e Ðfinding€he€had€previously€made.€€The€court€then€advised€the€prosecutor€to€limit€his€remarks€toÐ þ N Ðanticipated€evidence€that€he€believed€in€good€faith€would€be€forthcoming,€not€otherwise.€€At€trial,Ð ç 7  ÐTackett€testified€that€when€appellant€asked€him€about€how€he€could€get€money,€he€suggestedÐ Ð  Ðcommitting€robbery€as€a€means€of€making€money€and€mentioned€a€ð ðfast€food€place,€you€know,Ð ¹  Ðmiddle€of€night,€no€witnesses.ðð€€Tackett€agreed€that€he€made€the€suggestion€to€appellant.€€Ð ¢ò  ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€the€prosecutorððs€comment€during€opening€statement€intimated€thatÐ tÄ  Ðappellant,€not€Tackett,€made€the€robbery€statement€about€committing€a€robbery;€therefore,€theÐ ]­  Ðprosecutor€committed€misconduct.€€The€prosecutorððs€comments€regarding€Danny€HackettððsÐ F– Ðsuspected€testimony€were€not€improper.€€Moreover,€the€comments€could€not€have€affected€theÐ / Ðverdict€to€the€prejudice€of€appellant,€because€the€jury€heard€Tackett€testify€he€brought€up€the€robberyÐ h Ðsuggestion.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Q Ðà  àÌà  àò òWriting€of€the€word€ð ðmatchðð€on€visual€aidÐ Ó# Ðó óÌà  àDuring€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€used€a€visual€aid€in€connection€with€his€argumentÐ ¦ö Ðas€to€the€fiber€evidence€in€the€case€upon€which€the€word€ð ðmatchðð€was€written.€€The€defense€objected,Ð ß Ðarguing€that€the€word€ð ðmatchðð€implied€identity,€whereas€the€testimony€of€the€expert€witness€hadÐ xÈ Ðbeen€that€the€fibers€found€on€the€victimsðð€clothing€were€ð ðconsistentðð€with€fibers€found€in€appellantððsÐ a± Ðcar.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection,€stating,€ð ðThe€rules€provide€that€the€closing€argumentÐ Jš Ðby€the€State€is€limited€to€the€subject€matter€covered€in€the€Stateððs€argument€and€the€argument€by€theÐ 3ƒ Ðdefendant.€€Also€the€law€provides€that€counsel€may€comment€on€the€evidence€and€reasonableÐ l Ðinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€Discussion€about€fibers€was€included€in€the€StateððsÐ  U Ðopening€argument.€€It€was€also€covered€by€the€defendant€in€his€argument.€€So,€the€rules€provide€thatÐ î > Ðsubject€matter€is€fair€game.ðð€€The€trial€court€further€explained,€ð ðThe€specific€use€of€the€word€matchÐ ×!'  Ð.€.€.€if€he€uses€it,€thatððs€his€take€on€the€evidence.€€He€can€comment€on€what€he€thinks€the€evidenceÐ À"! Ðis.€.€.€€The€jury€heard€the€evidence,€and€its€[sic]€up€to€them€to€sort€out€whether€his€use€of€the€wordÐ ©#ù" Ðmatch€is€appropriate€or€not.ðð€Ð ’$â# ÐÌà  àThe€closing€argument€is€a€valuable€privilege€for€both€the€State€and€the€defense€and€counselÐ d&´!% Ðis€afforded€wide€latitude€in€presenting€final€argument€to€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2dÐ M'"& Ð773,€783€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Coneóó,€665€S.W.2d€87,€94€(Tenn.€1984).€€However,€when€aÐ 6(†#' Ðprosecutorððs€argument€ð ðveers€beyond€the€wide€latitude€afforded,€the€test€for€determining€if€reversalÐ )o$( Ðis€required€is€whether€the€impropriety€ððaffected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ððððÐ *X%) ÐòòCribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€783.€€Appellant€argues€that€the€use€of€the€word€ð ðmatchðð€characterized€theÐ ñ*A&* Ðproof€as€much€stronger€than€it€actually€was,€which€thereby€misled€the€jury.€€The€prosecutor€did€notÐ Ú+*'+ Ðexceed€the€latitude€given€him€in€writing€the€word€match€on€the€visual€aid.€€Moreover,€the€wordÐ ° Ðð ðmatchðð€on€the€visual€aid€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€appellant.€€The€jury€heard€theÐ ™é Ðexpertsðð€testimony€that€the€fibers€on€the€victimsðð€clothes€were€ð ðconsistent.ðð€€The€experts€wereÐ ‚Ò Ðthoroughly€cross„examined€on€this€point.€€Additionally,€the€jury€was€instructed€that€arguments€ofÐ k» Ðcounsel€are€not€to€be€considered€evidence.€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€follow€instructions.€€òòState€v.Ð T¤ ÐSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€914€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð =  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌÌÌÌà  àò òAppeal€to€juryððs€passionó óÐ Ê   ÐÌà  àIn€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€placed€pictures€of€each€victim€on€a€projector€and€leftÐ í  Ðthem€there€for€seven€minutes.€€At€some€point,€the€prosecutor€threw€dollar€bills€on€the€projector€usedÐ †Ö  Ðto€display€the€images€of€the€victims.€€Appellant€asserts€that,€by€these€acts,€the€prosecutor€intendedÐ o¿  Ðto€inflame€the€passion€of€the€jury,€which€is€prohibited.€€òòSeeóó€òòWatkins€v.€Stateóó,€203€S.W.2d€344,€345„Ð X¨  Ð46€(Tenn.€1918).€€The€State€argues€that€the€prosecutor€was€simply€demonstrating€to€the€jury€that€itÐ A‘ Ðwas€money€that€motivated€appellant€to€rob,€kidnap,€and€murder€the€victims,€whose€pictures€wereÐ *z Ðbeing€projected,€and€to€eliminate€the€victims€as€witnesses.€€These€actions,€although€dramatic,€wereÐ c Ðnot€ð ðconduct€so€improper€that€it€affected€the€verdict.ðð€€òòHarringtonóó,€385€S.W.2d€at€759.€€This€issueÐ üL Ðis€without€merit.Ð å5 Ðò òó óÌà  àò òBiblical€referenceó óÐ · ÐÌà  àIn€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€stated,€ð ðNo€matter€how€hard€you€try€murder€will€out.€Ð ŠÚ ÐIf€necessary€the€stones€themselves€will€cry€out.€€The€shoes€themselves€will€cry€out€as€they€did€in€thisÐ sà Ðcase.€€They€will€show€the€blood.€€Blood€will€out,€and€it€did€in€this€case.€€He€couldnððt€get€rid€of€everyÐ \¬ Ðspeck€of€blood.ðð€€Appellant€contends€that€this€argument€was€based€on€a€passage€from€the€book€of€Ð E• ÐHabbukuk€in€the€Bible.€€€€Habbukuk€2:€9„11€reads€as€follows:Ð .~ ÐÌà8  à9.€€Woe€to€him€who€gets€evil€for€his€house,€to€set€his€nest€on€high,€to€be€safe€from€theÐ  P Ðreach€of€harm!Ðé 9Ð Ð  Ðà8  à10.€€You€have€devised€shame€to€your€house€by€cutting€off€any€peoples;€you€haveÐ Ò!"  Ðforfeited€your€life.л" !Ð Ð  Ðà8  à11.€€For€the€stone€will€cry€out€from€the€wall,€and€the€beam€from€the€woodworkÐ ¤#ô" Ðrespond.Ð$Ý#Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHabbukukóó€2:9„11€(Revised€Standard€Edition).€Appellant€did€not€make€a€contemporaneous€objectionÐ _&¯!% Ðto€the€prosecutorððs€comments.€€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeòòóó€óóòòThorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€234Ð H'˜"& Ð(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a));€òòGreenóó,€974€S.W.2d€at€188;òò€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€651Ô4‚&nÐ(ÔÝ‚¤ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6Ö’ÔÝ‚¤ÍOê’ ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7nÐ(“Ô.òòÐ 1(#' ÐÌà  àóóAlthough€appellant€did€not€make€a€contemporaneous€objection€to€the€Biblical€reference,€heÐ *S%) Ðmoved€for€a€mistrial€after€the€completion€of€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€and€after€the€jury€had€leftÐ ì*<&* Ðthe€courtroom.€€Appellant€argued€that€based€on€the€totality€of€the€prosecutorððs€argument,€specificallyÐ Õ+%'+ Ðincluding€the€Biblical€reference,€the€pictures€of€the€victims€on€the€projector€for€seven€minutes,€theÐ ° Ðlatex€gloves€comments,€and€the€bank€of€justice€analogy,€the€argument€appealed€to€the€passion€andÐ ™é Ðsympathy€of€the€jury.€€A€mistrial€should€be€declared€in€a€criminal€trial€only€in€the€event€of€aÐ ‚Ò Ðð ðmanifest€necessityðð€that€requires€such€action.€€òòHallóó,€976€S.W.2d€at€147.€€ð ðThe€purpose€for€declaringÐ k» Ða€mistrial€is€to€correct€damage€done€to€the€judicial€process€when€some€event€has€occurred€whichÐ T¤ Ðprecludes€an€impartial€verdict.ðð€€òòWilliamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€at€388.€€The€determination€of€whether€toÐ =  Ðgrant€a€mistrial€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSmithóó,€871€S.W.2d€at€672.€€TheÐ & v Ðreviewing€court€should€not€overturn€that€decision€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòReidóó,€91€S.W.3dÐ  _ Ðat€279.€€€€In€this€case,€the€trial€judge€found€there€was€no€manifest€necessity€requiring€a€mistrial.€€WeÐ ø H Ðagree.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€appellant€correctly€notes€that€any€references€to€the€Bible€during€closing€argumentÐ ³  Ðare€prohibited.€€òòSeeóó€òòCribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€783.€€The€supreme€court€has€held€a€Biblical€reference€toÐ œì  Ðbe€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€783€(holding€prosecutorððs€quotation€to€the€Bible,€ð ðWhatever€a€manÐ …Õ  Ðsows,€so€shall€be€reapedðð€as€harmless).€€In€òòCribbsóó,€the€prosecutor€acknowledged€in€his€closing€thatÐ n¾  Ðit€made€him€uncomfortable€to€mention€Biblical€references,€but€he€then€quoted€the€reap€what€you€sowÐ W§  Ðpassage.€€òòIdóó.€€He€then€explained€to€the€jury€that€he€did€not€want€anyone€to€be€offended€by€theÐ @ ÐBiblical€reference,€but€it€was€a€very€important€part€of€our€law.€€òòIdóó.€€Notwithstanding,€the€court€heldÐ )y Ðthat€the€prosecutorððs€comments€were€harmless€because€they€did€not€affect€the€verdict€of€the€jury.€€Ð b ÐÌà  àIn€the€order€denying€appellantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€referenceÐ ä4 Ðwas€of€a€religious€nature€and€constituted€error,€but€found€that€it€was€harmless.€€The€court€noted€thatÐ Í Ðthe€ð ðpassage€is€one€of€relative€obscurity.€€Therefore,€the€court€finds€it€unlikely€that€the€jurors€wereÐ ¶ Ðactually€aware€of€the€remainder€of€the€passage€and/or€its€meaning.€€This€is€particularly€true€givenÐ Ÿï Ðthe€context€of€the€reference.ðð€€€Based€on€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€prosecutorððsÐ ˆØ ÐBiblical€reference€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€appellant€and€that€the€trial€court€didÐ qÁ Ðnot€abuse€its€discretion.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€Ð Zª Ðò òÌÓ  ÓXXXIV.€€Life€Photographs€of€VictimsÐ -} ÐÓÄ Ó€Ìó óà  àÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Öup#ÔÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔAppellant€challenges€the€introduction€of€photographs€of€the€victims€before€they€wereÐ  Q Ðmurdered€during€the€victim€impact€testimony.€€Appellant€asserts€that€the€photographs€served€onlyÐ ê : Ðto€inflame€the€jurors€and€appeal€to€their€emotions.€€The€State€counters€that€the€photographs€wereÐ Ó!#  Ðprobative€of€the€issue€of€€the€impact€of€the€death€on€the€victimsðð€family€members€and€to€show€thoseÐ ¼" ! Ðunique€characteristics€which€provide€a€brief€glimpse€into€the€life€of€the€victims.€€The€supreme€courtÐ ¥#õ" Ðhas€held:Ð Ž$Þ# ÐÌà8  à[g]enerally,€victim€impact€evidence€should€be€limited€to€information€to€show€thoseÐ `&°!% Ðunique€characteristics€which€provide€a€brief€glimpse€into€the€life€of€the€individualÐ I'™"& Ðwho€has€been€killed,€the€contemporaneous€and€prospective€circumstancesÐ 2(‚#' Ðsurrounding€the€individualððs€death,€and€how€those€circumstances€financially,Ð )k$( Ðemotionally,€psychologically€or€physically€impacted€upon€members€of€the€victimððsÐ *T%) Ðimmediate€family.Ðí*=&*Ð Ð  ÐÐ Ö+&'+ ÐòòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€887.€€In€this€case,€the€photographs€were€introduced€to€provide€a€brief€glimpseÐ ° Ðinto€the€lives€of€the€victims,€as€allowed€by€òòNesbit.óó€€Accordingly,€the€court€did€not€err€in€allowingÐ ™é Ðthe€introduction€of€these€photographs.€€Ô#†XÆ·XX X7ÖL¡#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôò òÐ ‚Ò ÐÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓXXXV.€€Photographs€of€Victims€at€Crime€Scene€€Ð  c ÐÓŸ§ÓÌó óà  àAppellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€one€crime€scene€photograph€ofÐ ç 7  Ðeach€victim€during€the€penalty€phase€because€they€were€cumulative€to€other€evidence€and€theirÐ Ð  Ðprobative€value€was€outweighed€by€their€prejudicial€effect.€€The€State€sought€to€admit€theÐ ¹  Ðphotographs€as€relevant€to€prove€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravatorðð€under€Tennessee€CodeÐ ¢ò  ÐAnnotated€section€39„13„204(i)(5).€€€The€trial€court€admitted€the€photographs€for€that€purpose.€Ð ‹Û  ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€has€addressed€postmortem€photographs€introduced€not€only€to€illustrateÐ ]­  Ðtestimony€but€also€to€show€the€brutality€of€the€attack€and€extent€of€force€used€against€the€victim,Ð F– Ðfrom€which€the€jury€could€infer€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravatorðð€as€follows:€€€Ð / ÐÌà8  àWith€regard€to€the€postmortem€photograph,€our€supreme€court€has€held€thatÐ Q Ðphotographs€may€be€introduced€in€order€to€illustrate€testimony.€€òòStephensonóó,€878Ð ê: ÐS.W.2d€at€542.€€€Moreover,€the€decision€to€admit€or€limit€cumulative€evidence€restsÐ Ó# Ðwithin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€553Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.1992)€(photographs€of€victimððs€body€admissible€despite€oral€testimonyÐ ¥õ Ðð ðgraphicallyðð€describing€victim's€injuries).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2dÐ ŽÞ Ð465,€477€(Tenn.1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€511€U.S.€1046,€114€S.Ct.€1577,€128€L.Ed.2d€220Ð wÇ Ð(1994)€(color€photographs€of€deceased€victims€at€scene€of€crime€were€admissibleÐ `° Ðdespite€introduction€of€extensive€color€videotape€showing€victimsðð€bodies€as€theyÐ I™ Ðwere€found).€€In€any€event,€a€relevant€photograph€is€not€rendered€inadmissibleÐ 2‚ Ðmerely€because€it€is€cumulative.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€807;€€òòVan€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2dÐ k Ðat€477.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€924€(photographs€of€victim€appropriately€admittedÐ  T Ðfor€establishing€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€cruelðð€aggravating€factor).Ðí =Ð Ð  ÐÌ€à8  àп"!Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Keenóó,€31€S.W.3d€196,€212„13€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€photographs€in€this€case€were€relevant€toÐ ¨#ø" Ðshow€the€brutality€of€the€attack€and€the€extent€of€force€used€against€each€victim€in€cutting€theirÐ ‘$á# Ðthroats€all€the€way€to€the€spinal€cord.€€The€trial€court€found€that€ð ðthe€truly€devastating€nature€of€theÐ z%Ê $ Ðwounds€inflicted€upon€these€victims€cannot€be€conveyed€in€words€or€demonstrations.ðð€€TheÐ c&³!% Ðphotographs€are€not€particularly€gruesome;€they€do€not€depict€large€amounts€of€blood€or€close„upÐ L'œ"& Ðviews€of€the€wounds.€€Instead,€the€photographs€are€nearly€full€body€photographs€of€each€victim.€€TheÐ 5(…#' Ðphotographs€are€admissible€to€prove€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravatorðð,€and€the€trial€courtÐ )n$( Ðdid€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€òòò òóóÐ *W%) Ðà  àÌÓ  ÓXXXVI.€€Victim€Impact€Testimony€of€Tobaris€Holmes€Ð Ú+*'+ ÐÓµÓÌó óà  àAppellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€the€victim€impact€testimonyÐ šê Ðof€Tobaris€Holmes€during€the€penalty€phase,€wherein€Mr.€Holmes€testified€that€his€daughter€RyaneÐ ƒÓ Ðð ðkisses€Angelaððs€picture€and€not€Angela.ðð€€This€testimony€was€given€in€response€to€the€prosecutorððsÐ l¼ Ðquestion,€ð ðMr.€Holmes,€how€has€Angelaððs€murder€affected€your€family?ðð€€Appellant€did€not€objectÐ U¥ Ðto€Mr.€Holmesððs€€testimony;€therefore,€this€issue€is€waived.€€€ò òó óòòSeeòòóó€óóòòThorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€234€(citingÐ > Ž ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a));€òòGreenóó,€974€S.W.2d€at€188;€òòLittleóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€651Ô4‚'nÐ_ÔÝ‚¤ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6c¸ÔÝ‚¤ÍOw¸ ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7nÐ_¥¸Ô.€€Further,€we€find€thatÐ ' w Ðthis€statement€was€proper€victim€impact€testimony€under€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€879.€€Accordingly,Ð  ` Ðthis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€ò òÐ ù I ÐÌÓ  ÓXXXVII.€€€Testimony€of€Patricia€AllenÐ Ì   ÐÓç¹ÓÌó óà  àPatricia€Allen€testified€at€the€penalty€phase€as€a€speech€language€pathologist.€€She€testifiedÐ  ð  Ðthat€she€evaluates€people€with€brain€injuries€to€determine€if€they€have€been€affected€by€the€brainÐ ‰Ù  Ðinjury.€€She€explained€that€ð ðlanguage€is€a€code€that€reflects€how€someone€is€thinking.ðð€€She€thenÐ r  Ðtestified€that,€in€evaluating€a€patient,€she€would€look€at€their€ð ðreading€and€writing€and€the€words€theyÐ [«  Ðput€together€in€sentences,€we€would€also€look€at€their€thinking€skills;€things€such€as€their€ability€toÐ D” Ðattend,€to€remember,€to€solve€problems€and€to€reason.€€Things€like€that.ðð€€She€further€explained€thatÐ -} Ða€speech€language€pathologist€was€more€involved€in€treatment€and€helping€people€with€brain€injuriesÐ f Ðto€function,€while€a€neuropsychologist€would€be€more€involved€in€the€evaluation€of€how€the€brainÐ ÿO Ðis€working€and€the€behavior€of€the€individual.€€€€Ð è8 ÐÌà  àLater€in€defense€counselððs€direct€examination€of€Ms.€Allen,€counsel€asked€how€appellantððsÐ º  Ðbrain€injury€would€have€impacted€his€ability€to€conform€to€the€rules€established€in€the€home.€€TheÐ £ó ÐState€objected,€arguing€that€such€was€outside€her€area€of€expertise.€€The€court€overruled€theÐ ŒÜ Ðobjection,€and€the€witness€responded.€€Next,€after€Ms.€Allen€confirmed€that€people€with€brainÐ uÅ Ðinjuries€have€difficulty€with€rules,€defense€counsel€asked:€ð ðHow€so?ðð€€Again,€the€State€objected€toÐ ^® Ðthe€questioning€as€being€outside€Ms.€Allenððs€area€of€expertise.€€This€time€the€court€sustained€theÐ G— Ðobjection.€€Ð 0€ ÐÌà  àIt€is€the€longstanding€principle€that€the€ð ðpropriety,€scope,€manner€and€control€of€examinationÐ  R Ðof€witnesses€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.ðð€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€72.€€Ms.€Allen€testified€thatÐ ë ; Ðshe,€as€a€speech€language€pathologist,€was€more€involved€in€treatment€and€helping€people€with€brainÐ Ô!$  Ðinjuries€to€function,€while€a€neuropsychologist€was€more€involved€in€the€evaluation€of€how€the€brainÐ ½" ! Ðis€working€and€the€behavior€of€the€individual.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€precludingÐ ¦#ö" ÐMs.€Allen€from€testifying€as€to€how€a€person€with€a€brain€injury€would€have€difficulty€with€rules.€ò òÐ $ß# Ðó óMoreover,€as€the€trial€court€found,€any€such€error€in€precluding€the€testimony€was€harmless.€€Ð x%È $ ÐAppellant€did€not€make€an€offer€of€proof.€€Therefore,€he€failed€to€demonstrate€how€he€wasÐ a&±!% Ðprejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Galmoreóó,€994€S.W.2d€120,€125€(Tenn.€1999)Ð J'š"& Ð(although€an€offer€of€proof€is€unnecessary€to€preserve€this€issue,€it€may€be€the€only€way€toÐ 3(ƒ#' Ðdemonstrate€prejudice).€€Furthermore,€Ms.€Allen€and€the€other€defense€experts€testified€at€length€asÐ )l$( Ðto€appellantððs€physical€and€mental€abnormalities€and€the€effects€of€the€same.€€Therefore,€any€errorÐ *U%) Ðin€sustaining€the€Stateððs€objection€was€harmless.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð î*>&* Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÐ ×+''+ ÐÓ  ÓXXXVIII,€€XXXIX€and€XL.€€Jury€Charge€of€Mitigating€FactorsÐ ° ÐÓÈÓÌà  àó óAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€as€to€mitigating€factors€inÐ „Ô Ðthree€respects.€€First,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€charge€the€jury€on€theÐ m½ Ðstatutory€mitigator€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotatedò ò€ó ósectionò ò€ó ó39„123„204(j)(6),ò ò€ó ówhich€providesÐ V¦ Ðthat€ð ðthe€defendant€acted€underò ò€ó óextreme€duress€or€under€the€substantial€domination€of€anotherÐ B ’ Ðperson.ðð€€Appellant€contends€that€his€delusions€caused€him€to€believe€he€was€acting€under€theÐ . ~ Ðcontrol€of€government€agents€and,€as€a€result,€the€ð ðsubstantial€dominationðð€mitigator€should€haveÐ  g Ðbeen€charged.€€There€is€no€authoritative€support€for€appellantððs€contention.ò ò€€ó óMoreover,€appellantððsÐ  P Ðmental€illnesses€were€addressed€in€the€statutory€and€non„statutory€mitigators€charged€to€the€jury.Ð ì <  ÐÌà  àNext,€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€charge€the€non„statutoryÐ ¾  Ðmitigators€in€the€same€affirmative€manner€as€the€statutory€mitigators.€€Basically,€appellant€attacksÐ §÷  Ðthe€non„statutory€mitigators€because€they€were€not€in€the€same€ð ðsentence€structureðð€as€the€statutoryÐ à  Ðmitigators.€€The€charge€the€trial€court€gave€complies€with€the€non„statutory€instructions€approvedÐ yÉ  Ðby€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€31„32,€and€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€352Ð b²  Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð K› ÐÌà  àFinally,€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€charged€the€ð ðcatch„allðð€mitigatorÐ m Ðset€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(j)(9).€€Appellant€did€not,€however,€raiseÐ V Ðthis€issue€at€trial€or€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Failure€to€make€a€contemporaneous€objectionÐ ï? Ðconstitutes€a€waiver€of€the€issue.€ò òó ó€ò òó óòòSeeòòóó€óóòòThorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€234€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a));€Ð Ø( ÐòòGreenóó,€974€S.W.2d€at€188;€òòLittleóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€651Ô4‚(nÐÔÝ‚¤ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6FÑÔÝ‚¤ÍOZÑ ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7nЈÑÔ.€€Moreover,€failure€to€raise€issues€concerningÐ Á Ðjury€instructions€in€a€motion€for€new€trial€constitutes€a€waiver€of€such€issues€for€purposes€of€appeal.€Ð ªú ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€(3)(e);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Ð “ã Ðà  àÌà  àNotwithstanding€appellantððs€failure€to€object€or€raise€the€issue€in€a€motion€for€new€trial,€heÐ eµ Ðcontends€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€the€catch„all€mitigator€constitutes€plain€error€andÐ Nž Ðshould€be€reviewed€by€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b);€òòState€v.€Ogleóó,€666€S.W.2d€58€(Tenn.Ð 7‡ Ð1984).€€€Plain€error€exists€where€the€error€affects€a€substantial€right€of€the€defendant€and€strikes€atÐ  p Ðthe€very€fairness€or€integrity€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b);€òòState€v.€Wootenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553,Ð  Y Ð559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€€The€failure€to€charge€the€catch„all€statutory€mitigator€does€not€strikeÐ ò B Ðat€the€very€fairness€or€integrity€of€the€trial€and,€therefore,€does€not€constitute€plain€error.€€This€issueÐ Û!+  Ðis€without€merit.€€ò òÐ Ä"! ÐÌÓ  ÓXLI.€€€Trial€Court€Comments€on€Stateððs€Proof€During€Penalty€PhaseÐ —$ç# ÐÓ¦ÖÓà  àà ` àÌó óà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€courtððs€explanation€to€the€jury€of€the€sentencing€process,€the€courtÐ k&»!% Ðstated:Ð T'¤"& ÐÌà8  àBut€I€say€this€only€because€I€want€you€to€develop€your€mind€now€with€a€view€toÐ &)v$( Ðlooking€to€the€State€to€offer€evidence€regarding€the€aggravating€circumstances€theyÐ *_%) Ðcontend€apply,€remembering€that€you€must€be€convinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ ø*H&* Ðand€also€applying€the€guidelines€as€I€give€you€in€my€instructions€that€tell€you€howÐ á+1'+ Ðto€go€about€considering€those€aggravating€circumstances€and€whether€or€not€theyÐ ° Ðoutweigh€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€mitigation€evidence,€if€you€find€such€exists,Ð ™é Ðthat€has€been€raised€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€ò òЂÒÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óÌAppellant€argues€that€this€statement€by€the€court€encouraged,€at€least€implicitly,€the€jury€toÐ T¤ Ðconcentrate€on€the€Stateððs€proof€as€opposed€to€that€raised€by€appellant.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€allegeÐ =  Ðhow€this€statement€prejudiced€him.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð & v Ðò òÌÓ  ÓXLII.€€Prosecutorial€Misconduct€During€Penalty€PhaseÐ ù I ÐÓ4ÜÓÌà  àó óAppellant€has€alleged€that€the€prosecutor€committed€several€acts€of€prosecutorial€misconductÐ Í   Ðduring€the€final€argument€of€the€sentencing€phase.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€set€forth€òòsupraóó,€the€test€to€be€applied€whenÐ ¶  Ðreviewing€allegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€is€whether€the€improper€conduct€could€haveÐ Ÿï  Ðaffected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€òòHarringtonóó,€385€S.W.2d€at€759;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòÐ ˆØ  ÐRichardsonóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€127.€€The€factors€relevant€to€the€courtððs€determination€are:€€€ò òÐ qÁ  Ðó óÔ#†¼f»XX7Ö3p#ÔÔ‡ôS½ò»¼fÔÔ#†ô®LòòôS½d§#ÔÔ‡#ôv•òòô®LÔÌà8  àÔ#†#¼>z»ò#ôv•…ß#ÔÔ‡#X›£X»#¼>zÔÔ#†XÆ·XX#X›£Çß#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô1.€€The€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÐ  [ Ðcase;€ÐôDÐ Ð  Ðà8  à2.€€The€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€ÐÝ-Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€€The€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€arguments;€ÐÆÐ Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€The€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€Ð ¯ÿ Ðand€Ð˜èÐ Ð  Ðà8  à5.€€The€relative€strength€and€weakness€of€the€case.€ÐÑÐ Ð  ÐÌòòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€894.Ð S£ ÐÌà  àò òReferences€to€the€defendant€murdering€four€people€in€cold€bloodó óÐ %u ÐÌà  àAppellant€asserts€that€the€prosecutor,€in€referencing€prior€crimes€committed€by€appellant,Ð øH Ðcommitted€prosecutorial€misconduct€by€ð ðrepeatedly€assert[ing]€that€Defendant€had€murdered€fourÐ á1 Ðpeople€in€ððcold€blood.ðððð€As€support€for€this€argument,€appellant€points€to€seven€passages€of€theÐ Ê ÐStateððs€closing€argument.€€In€each€of€the€seven€passages,€the€prosecutor€referenced€the€fact€thatÐ ³  Ðappellant€had€killed€four€people,€but€in€only€two€of€those€passages€did€the€prosecutor€assert€that€theÐ œ!ì  Ðmurders€had€been€committed€in€ð ðcold€blood.ðð€€Appellant€asserts€that€the€term€ð ðcold€bloodðð€refersÐ …"Õ! Ðto€premeditation.€€He€argues€that€the€evidence€only€showed€that€appellant€had€been€convicted€ofÐ n#¾" Ðfirst„degree€murder€in€April€1999€rather€than€premeditated€murder.€€Further,€appellant€contends€thatÐ W$§# Ðthese€statements€shifted€the€focus€of€the€trial€to€the€previous€crimes€for€which€he€had€already€beenÐ @% $ Ðtried€and€convicted,€which€is€prohibited.€€òòSeeóó€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809„12.Ð )&y!% Їà  àAfter€the€seventh€reference€to€the€four€murders€that€appellant€had€committed,€defenseÐ ° Ðcounsel€objected.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objection€and€gave€the€following€curative€instructionÐ ™é Ðat€the€conclusion€of€the€sentencing€hearing:Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà8  àà ` àStatements,€arguments,€and€remarks€of€counsel€are€intended€to€help€you€inÐ T¤ Ðunderstanding€the€evidence€and€applying€the€law,€but€they€are€not€evidence.€€If€anyÐ =  Ðstatements€or€arguments€were€made€that€you€believe€are€not€supported€by€theÐ & v Ðevidence,€you€should€disregard€them.Ð _Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€its€closing€argument,€the€State€may€have€implied€that€the€jury€shouldÐ á 1  Ðimpose€death€because€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€killing€four€people.€€TheÐ Ê   Ðdefendant€has€been€tried,€convicted€and€sentenced€for€his€prior€convictions.€€You€areÐ ³  Ðto€consider€those€convictions€only€for€the€purpose€of€determining€whether€the€StateÐ œì  Ðhas€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€an€aggravating€circumstance,Ð …Õ  Ðand€for€no€other€purpose.€€Ðn¾ Ð Ð  ЀÌà  àA€jury€is€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€880€S.W.2dÐ @ Ð395,€399€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€€Having€considered€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòNesbitóó,€and€the€testÐ )y Ðset€forth€in€òòHarringtonóó,€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutorððs€comments€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€theÐ b Ðprejudice€of€the€appellant.€Ð ûK Ѐ€€ò òÐ ä4 ÐÓ  ÓXLIII.€€€Heinous,€Atrocious€and€Cruel€Aggravating€FactorÐ Í ÐÓ ïÓÌó óà0  àThe€jury€found€that€the€murders€of€Angela€Holmes€and€Michelle€Mace€were€ð ðespeciallyСñ(#(# Ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€[they]€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÐ ŠÚ Ðnecessary€to€produce€death,ðð€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(i)(5).€Ð sà ÐAppellant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€legally€insufficientò ò€ó óto€establish€this€aggravator€beyond€aÐ \¬ Ðreasonable€doubt.€€We€disagree.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€facts€of€this€case€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€Angela€Holmesððs€and€Michelle€MaceððsÐ j Ðmurders€were€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.ðð€€These€two€young€women€were€kidnappedÐ  S Ðfrom€their€place€of€employment€at€night;€driven€to€a€dark,€wooded€park;€and€savagely€murdered.€Ð ì < ÐThe€victims€were€murdered€with€their€hands€bound,€stabbed€numerous€times,€and€left€in€the€dark€toÐ Õ!%  Ðbleed€to€death.€€Their€murders€were€so€brutal€that€the€deep€lacerations€to€their€throats€cut€into€theirÐ ¾"! Ðbackbones.€€Angela€Holmes€had€other€stab€wounds,€including€non„penetrating€stab€wounds€to€theÐ §#÷" Ðhead.€€Ms.€Holmesððs€neck€wound€was€a€deep€wound€that€went€ð ðall€the€way€to€the€backbone,ððÐ $à# Ðtransected€the€left€common€carotid€artery€and€the€jugular€vein,€injured€the€spinal€column,€and€cutÐ y%É $ Ðinto€the€backbone€in€two€areas.€€Michelle€Maceððs€neck€wound€was€so€barbarous€that€the€cutÐ b&²!% Ðpenetrated€her€backbone€one€quarter€of€an€inch€deep,€resulted€in€five€cuts€to€her€vertebral€column,Ð K'›"& Ðand€occurred€as€the€result€of€a€ð ðsawingðð€motion.€€She€sustained€a€total€of€fourteen€stab€wounds.€Ð 4(„#' ÐBoth€victims€were€left€to€bleed€to€death€following€their€attacks.€€The€proof€showed€that€they€bothÐ )m$( Ðwould€have€remained€alive€for€five€to€fifteen€minutes€following€the€fatal€stab€wounds€and€wouldÐ *V%) Ðhave€been€conscious€eighty€percent€of€that€time.€€Ð ï*?&* ÐÐ Ø+('+ Ðà  àBased€on€the€evidence,€we€find€that€the€jury€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€murders€of€AngelaÐ ° ÐHolmes€and€Michelle€Mace€were€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ™é Ðdoubt.€€€€ò òÐ ‚Ò Ðà  àà ` àÌÓ  ÓXLIV.€€Sufficiency€of€Evidence€to€Support€Juryððs€Finding€that€Aggravating€CircumstancesÐ U¥ ÐOutweighed€Mitigating€Factors€Beyond€a€Reasonable€DoubtÐ ?  ÐÓ2ùÓÌó óà  àPursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(c)(1)(C),€this€court€mustÐ  c Ðdetermine€whether€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstancesÐ ü L Ðoutweigh€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€proper€standard€for€makingÐ å 5  Ðthis€determination€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ð Î   Ða€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€theÐ ·  Ðmitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€24€S.W.3d€307,Ð  ð  Ð313€(Tenn.€2000)òòóó.€Ð ‰Ù  ÐÌà  àThe€jury€found€three€aggravating€circumstances€following€the€sentencing€hearing:€(1)Ð [«  Ðappellant€had€previously€been€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€theÐ D” Ðstatutory€elements€of€which€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ô#†XÆ·XXX7ÖXà#Ô€ððÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€39„13„Ð -} Ð204(i)(2);€(2)€murders€were€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€or€preventingÐ f Ða€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€defendant€or€another,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ötþ#ÔððÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€39„13„204(i)(6);€and€(3)Ð ÿO Ðthe€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÐ è8 Ðabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö”ÿ#Ôðð€Ô‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô39„13„204(i)(5).€€As€mitigation,Ð Ñ! Ðappellant€presented€testimony€related€to€his€unstable€childhood,€several€documented€brain€injuries,Ð º  Ðand€the€mental€disorders€of€schizophrenia€and€anosognosia.€€Additionally,€appellantððs€expertsÐ £ó Ðtestified€that€his€brain€injury€affected€his€behavior.€€As€rebuttal,€the€State€presented€proof€at€theÐ ŒÜ Ðsentencing€hearing€that€there€was€no€link€between€appellantððs€brain€injury€and€his€criminal€actions.€Ð uÅ ÐMoreover,€the€State€presented€proof€that€appellant€had€malingered€in€order€to€escape€responsibilityÐ ^® Ðfor€his€crimes.€€Ð G— ÐÌà  àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€record€and€conclude€that€despite€the€substantial€mitigationÐ i Ðproof€presented€by€appellant,€the€evidence€fully€supports€the€finding€of€the€jury€that€the€aggravatingÐ  R Ðcircumstances€outweigh€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€Ð ë ; ÐÌò òÓ  ÓXLV.€€Proportionality€Reviewà @h àà @À àÐ ½" ! ÐÓùÓÌó óÔ#†XÆ·XXX7ÖÂ#Ôà  àFinally,€appellant€contends€that€the€sentence€of€death€in€his€case€is€disproportionate€to€theÐ ‘$á# Ðsentences€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€In€reviewing€a€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€for€first€degreeÐ z%Ê $ Ðmurder,€ð ðthe€reviewing€court€shall€determine€whether€.€.€.€the€sentence€of€death€is€excessive€orÐ c&³!% Ðdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€the€nature€of€the€crimeÐ L'œ"& Ðand€the€defendant.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206.Ð 5(…#' ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€has€explained€comparative€proportionality€review€as€follows:Ð *W%) Ðâ âÐ ð*@&* Ðò òÔ‡ X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÔdd°Ôó óà8  àIn€conducting€a€comparative€proportionality€review,€we€begin€with€the€presumptionÐ d Ðâ âthat€the€sentence€of€death€is€proportional€with€the€crime€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòStateÐ ýM Ðv.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn.€1997)òò.óó€A€sentence€of€death€may€be€foundÐ æ6 Ðdisproportionate€if€the€case€being€reviewed€is€ð ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstancesÐ Ï Ðconsistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€previously€beenÐ ¸ Ðimposed.ðð€òòIdóó.€citing€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€864€S.W.2d€320,€328€(Mo.€1993)òò.€€óóA€sentenceÐ ¡ ñ Ðof€death€is€not€disproportionate€merely€because€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€areÐ Š Ú Ðsimilar€to€those€of€another€offense€for€which€a€defendant€has€received€a€life€sentence.Ð s à ÐòòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,Ð \ ¬ Ð251€(Tenn.€1986))òò.óó€Our€inquiry,€therefore,€does€not€require€a€finding€that€a€sentenceÐ E •  Ðð ðless€than€death€was€never€imposed€in€a€case€with€similar€characteristics.ðð€òò€Blandóó,Ð .~  Ð958€S.W.2d€at€665òò.óó€Our€duty€ð ðis€to€assure€that€no€aberrant€death€sentence€isÐ g  Ðaffirmed.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€(citing€òòState€v.€Webbóó,€238€Conn.€389,€680€A.2d€147,€203€(Conn.Ð P  Ð1996))òò.Ðé9 Ð Ð  ÐÔd6† Ò" Ôóóà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àOur€proportionality€review€is€neither€a€rigid€nor€an€objective€€test.€€òòHallóó,€958Ð o ÐS.W.2d€at€699òò.óó€There€is€no€ð ðmathematical€formula€or€scientific€grid,ðð€and€we€are€notÐ X Ðbound€to€consider€only€cases€in€which€the€same€aggravating€circumstances€wereÐ ñA Ðfound€applicable€by€a€jury.€€òòIdóó.;€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€84€(Tenn.€1994)òò.€Ð Ú* ÐóóThis€Court€considers€many€variables€when€choosing€and€comparing€cases.€€òòBlandóó,Ð Ã Ð958€S.W.2d€at€667òò.óó€€Among€these€variables€are:€(1)€the€means€of€death;€(2)€theÐ ¬ü Ðmanner€of€death€(e.g.,€violent,€torturous,€etc.);€(3)€the€motivation€for€the€killing;€(4)Ð •å Ðthe€place€of€death;€(5)€the€similarity€of€the€victimsðð€circumstances€including€age,Ð ~Î Ðphysical€and€mental€conditions,€and€the€victimsðð€treatment€during€the€killing;€(6)€theÐ g· Ðabsence€or€presence€of€premeditation;€(7)€the€absence€or€presence€of€provocation;€(8)Ð P  Ðthe€absence€or€presence€of€justification;€and€(9)€the€injury€to€and€effects€on€non„Ð 9‰ Ðdecedent€victims.€òòId.óó;€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€699òò.óó€Factors€considered€when€comparingÐ "r Ðcharacteristics€of€defendants€include:€(1)€the€defendantsðð€prior€criminal€record€orÐ  [ Ðprior€criminal€activity;€(2)€the€defendants€age,€race,€and€gender;€(3)€the€defendantsððÐ ôD Ðmental,€emotional€or€physical€condition;€(4)€the€defendantsðð€involvement€or€role€inÐ Ý- Ðthe€murder;€(5)€the€defendantsðð€cooperation€with€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantsððÐ Æ  Ðremorse;€(7)€the€defendantsðð€knowledge€of€helplessness€of€victim(s);€and€(8)€theÐ ¯!ÿ Ðdefendantsðð€capacity€for€rehabilitation.€òòId.óóИ"è Ð Ð  ÐÔdå#5#ÑÔÔ#†XÆ·XX X7ÖJ#ÔÌòòHallóó,€976€S.W.2d€at€135.€Ð Î$ " Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà  àWe€have€compared€the€circumstances€of€the€present€case€with€the€circumstances€of€similarÐ  &ð!$ Ðcases€and€conclude€that€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€case€is€proportionate€to€the€sentences€imposedÐ ‰'Ù"% Ðin€similar€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1998)€(imposing€the€death€penaltyÐ r(Â#& Ðwhere€defendant€separated€mother€and€daughter,€restrained€the€victims,€and€stabbed€one€victimÐ [)«$' Ðseventeen€times€and€the€other€victim€numerous€times,€upon€finding€of€aggravating€circumstancesÐ D*”%( Ð(i)(5)€and€(i)(7));€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W2d€489€(Tenn.€1997)€òòóó(imposing€the€death€penalty€where€theÐ -+}&) Ðdefendant€murdered€a€79€year„old€widow€upon€finding€aggravating€circumstance€(i)(5),€despiteÐ ,f'* Ðsubstantial€mitigation€proof);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54€(Tenn.€1992)€(imposing€death€penaltyÐ ° Ðfor€murders€of€two€victims,€where€victims€had€been€both€shot€and€stabbed,€but€fatal€wound€as€to€oneÐ ™é Ðvictim€was€a€deep€cut€to€the€throat€that€cut€the€trachea€and€major€blood€vessels€and€chipped€theÐ ‚Ò Ðspinal€column);€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10€(Tenn.€1990)€(imposing€death€penalty€for€stabbingÐ k» Ðtwo€victims,€where€one€victim€was€stabbed€forty„one€times€and€the€second€was€stabbed€nine€timesÐ T¤ Ðupon€finding€aggravating€circumstances€(i)(3)€and€(i)(5));€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545€(Tenn.Ð =  Ð1990)€(imposing€death€penalty€where€a€thirty„eight„year„old€murdered€the€victim€who€was€stabbedÐ & v Ðsix€times€after€being€bound,€gagged€and€blindfolded,€upon€finding€of€(i)(2),€(i)(5)€and€(i)(6)Ð  _ Ðaggravating€circumstances);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989)€(imposing€deathÐ ø H Ðpenalty€where€female€victim€was€taken€to€a€remote€location€and€stabbed€repeatedly,€upon€findingÐ á 1  Ðaggravating€circumstances€(i)(5),€(i)(6),€and€(i)(7));€and€the€companion€cases€of€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615Ð Ê   ÐS.W.2d€126€(Tenn.€1981),€and€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€1981)€(imposing€deathÐ ³  Ðpenalty€where€co„defendants€robbed€a€store€and€slit€the€throat€of€elderly€man€who€bled€to€death,Ð œì  Ðupon€finding€aggravating€circumstances€(i)(5)€and€(i)(7)).€€òòóóAfter€reviewing€the€above€cited€cases,Ð …Õ  Ðas€well€as€cases€not€specifically€cited,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€penalty€imposed€by€the€jury€inÐ n¾  Ðthis€case€is€not€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€for€similar€crimes.€Ð W§  ÐÌÌÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ôòòò òÓ  ÓóóCONCLUSIONó óÐ b ÐÓË!ÓÌò òó óà  àIn€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô#†XÆ·XXX7Ö¦!#ÔððÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·Ô€39„13„206(c),€we€have€considered€the€entire€recordÐ å5 Ðand€conclude€that€the€sentence€of€death€has€not€been€imposed€arbitrarily,€that€the€evidence€supportsÐ Î Ðthe€juryððs€finding€of€the€statutory€circumstances,€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€thatÐ · Ðthe€aggravating€circumstances€outweigh€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ð  ð Ðand€that€the€sentence€is€not€disproportionate.€€We€have€also€reviewed€all€issues€raised€by€appellantÐ ‰Ù Ðand€conclude€there€is€no€reversible€error.€€As€a€result,€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€theÐ r Ðsentence€of€death€imposed€by€the€jury€are€affirmed.Ð [« Ðò òÌó óÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Öi"#ÔÔ‡X7ÖXXXÆ·ÔÔ#†¼f»XX7Öà#ÔÔ‡X7ÖX»¼fÔÌÔ#†XÆ·XXX7Ö%#ÔÔ#†¼›ù»XXÆ·ß%#ÔÌÔ€XÆ·X»¼›ùÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ' w Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE