ÿWPCî :# <UNG %• 0(›w@Ã4 0ª& 0DÐ 0J 0T^ AQ² 0^ba 0hiÑ 0rÙÆK 0| b 0†• 0 U:« bå 1uí bb 0Dj 0@® 0Dî B2 D/O B~ D3› 0dÎ U>2 U*p B)š DCà AMSDYv~vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ DDEDDÓ€) ƒ‰#3|x)(Z(2=±$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XQ¤XXXÔòòà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)- ù-(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd"4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òJanuary€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€2Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔJudge€Blackwood€was€designated€to€hear€this€case€after€Judge€Lafferty€suffered€a€medical€emergency.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€2Ôò òÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€<¢XXdðXXdð7ÑœÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÙ€ÙœßR€564A1-j|…<` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌOCTOBER€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€œ02C01›„9702„CR„00054Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Shelby€CountyÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Hon.€Jon€Kerry€œBlackwood›,€JudgeÌò òJOHN€PARKER€ROE,ó óà àà àà à)€Ìò òà àà à€à àó óà àà àà à)€(First€DegreeÏMurder)à àà àà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌWayne€œEmmons›à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ2502€Mt.€œMoriah›€œRd›.,€œA100›à àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38115à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌEdward€œWitt›€Chandlerà àà àà àDeborah€A.€œTullis›ÌChandler€Law€Firmà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ2502€Mt.€œMoriah›€œRd›.,€œA100›à àà àœCordell›€Hull€œBldg›.,€œ2d›€FloorÌMemphis,€TN€38115à àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243€€€€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€L.€GibbonsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€D.€HendersonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKaren€CookÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌó óÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òÌÌÑ7€<¢XXdðXXdð7ÑØØÑ€ÑO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€appellant,€John€Parker€Roe,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first€degreeÏmurder€for€killing€his€wife,€Lisa€Michelle€Trainor€Roe.€€Judge€Jon€KerryÏBlackwood€sentenced€the€appellant€to€life€in€prison.€€On€appeal,€the€appellantÏpresents€eight€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà àà à1.€€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€regarding€premedi„Ìà àà à€€€€€€tation€and€deliberation€and€sanity.ÌÌà àà à2.€€Whether€the€trial€judge€as€the€thirteenth€juror€should€haveÌà àà à€€€€€set€aside€the€guilty€verdict€of€first€degree€murder€as€toÌà àà à€€€€€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.ÌÌà àà à3.€€Whether€the€indictment€should€have€been€dismissed€onÌà àà à€€€€€the€grounds€of€double€jeopardy€under€the€Fifth€AmendmentÌà àà à€€€€€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€10Ìà àà à€€€€€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà àà à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€should€have€denied€the€appellantððsÌà àà à€€€€€use€of€expert€witness€testimony€because€the€appellantÌà àà à€€€€€refused€to€discuss€the€facts€of€the€killing€with€the€stateððsÌà àà à€€€€€psychologist.ÌÌà àà à5.€€Whether€the€state€should€have€been€allowed€to€proceedÌà àà à€€€€€with€a€ð ðdeath„qualifiedðð€or€ð ðconviction„proneðð€jury€overÌà àà à€€€€€defense€objection€that€there€was€no€aggravatingÌà àà à€€€€€circumstance,€specifically€torture.ÌÌà àà à6.€€Whether€the€jailhouse€conversation€between€theÌà àà à€€€€€appellant€and€his€friend€should€have€beenÌà àà à€€€€€suppressed€on€the€grounds€that€it€was€illegallyÌà àà à€€€€€intercepted€in€violation€of€Title€III€of€the€OmnibusÌà àà à€€€€€Crime€Control€and€Safe€Streets€Act,€as€well€as€theÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.Ìà àà à€€€€€€€Ìà àà à7.€€Whether€the€testimony€regarding€Michelle€RoeððsÌà àà à€€€€€state€of€mind€should€have€been€admitted€over€theÌà àà à€€€€€defenseððs€objection.ÌÌà àà à8.€€Whether€a€mistrial€should€have€been€grantedÌà àà à€€€€€after€the€testimony€of€Penny€Mays.ÌÌÓÓà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record€before€us,€we€affirm€the€appellantððsÏconviction.ÌÌÌÓ  ÓFACTSÌÌÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ€Ñà àJohn€Parker€Roe,€a€Memphis€police€officer,€shot€his€wife€of€two€years,€ÌLisa€Michelle€Trainor€Roe,€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€Friday,€September€16,Ï1994,€at€their€home€in€Shelby€County.€€Michelle,€a€student€at€Shelby€StateÏCommunity€College,€died€as€a€result€of€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€head.€ÌÌà àDuring€the€spring€of€1994,€Daniel€Kaltreider€attended€a€barbecue€inÍwhich€Michelle€and€John€Roe€were€present.€€Sometime€during€this€barbecue,Ïthe€appellant€and€Kaltreider,€who€had€not€met€before,€engaged€in€aÏconversation.€€The€appellant€told€Kaltreider€that€he€had€a€tremendous€amount€ofÏanger€toward€his€wife€and€that€he€kept€track€of€her€by€checking€her€odometer.€ÏThe€appellant€then€stated,€ð ðIððm€gonna€kill€her,€do€you€think€I€could€get€away€withÏit€if€I€said€it€was€an€accidental€discharge?ðð€€Kaltreider€replied,€ð ðNo,€Iððll€have€toÏtestify€against€you€in€open€court.ðð€€€When€the€appellant€then€threatened€to€killÏKaltreider,€€Kaltreider€replied,€ð ðI€fail€to€see€the€humor€in€that.ðð€€The€appellantÏthen€mentioned€something€about€an€artery€and€said,€ð ðWell,€Iððll€just€have€to€playÏcrazy€for€about€seven„„six€months.ðð€€Kaltreider€replied,€ð ðNo,€youððll€have€to€playÏcrazy€a€lot€longer€than€six€months,€and€by€the€time€you€get€finished,€you€will€beÏcrazy.ðð€€Because€he€wanted€to€give€the€appellant€the€benefit€of€the€doubt,ÏKaltreider€did€not€report€this€conversation€to€the€Memphis€Police€Department.€ÏHowever,€upon€learning€of€Michelle€Roeððs€death,€he€reported€his€conversationÏwith€the€appellant€to€the€Shelby€County€District€Attorneyððs€office.ÌÌà àLater€that€same€year,€around€June€or€July€of€1994,€the€appellant€called€aÏfriend€of€his,€John€ð ðJayðð€Barnette,€and€asked€him€to€come€to€his€house.€€He€toldÏBarnette€that€he€and€Michelle€had€been€in€a€fight.€€€He€stated€that€he€was€afraidÏshe€was€going€to€leave€him,€so€he€asked€Barnette€to€come€over€to€help€calm€theÏsituation€down.€€The€appellant€told€Barnette€that€he€had€handcuffed€Michelle€toÏthe€bed€to€prevent€her€from€leaving€him.€€Shortly€thereafter,€œhe›€œsaw›€MichelleÏsitting€on€the€bed€with€her€right€hand€tied€to€the€bed€and€her€face€in€her€lap.€ÍWhen€he€saw€her€face,€Barnette€could€tell€she€had€been€crying.ÌÑ€ÑÌà àThe€appellant€had€previously€told€Barnette€that€he€and€Michelle€fought€aÏgreat€deal€and€that€he€had€thought€about€killing€her.€€Also,€the€appellant€toldÏBarnette€that€he€had€choked€her€before€and€had€thought€about€choking€her€toÏdeath.€€Barnette€further€testified€that€he€and€the€appellant€frequently€engaged€inÏconversations€about€killing€people€and€disposing€of€their€bodies.€€BarnetteÏstated€that€the€appellant€had€talked€about€killing€Michelle€and€her€parents.€€TheÏappellant€told€Barnette€that€he€thought€Michelle€was€lying€to€him€and€he€wouldÏcheck€her€odometer€and€follow€her€to€school.€€Barnette€even€accompanied€theÏappellant€several€times€when€he€followed€Michelle.ÌÌà àOn€September€14,€1994,€two€days€before€she€was€killed,€MichelleÏapproached€Peter€Connelly,€one€of€her€teachers€at€Shelby€State€CommunityÏCollege,€and€told€him€that€her€husband€had€abused€her€and€had€threatened€toÏkill€her.€€She€asked€him€to€call€her€parents€if€she€did€not€come€to€class€onÏFriday.€€She€wrote€her€parentsðð€phone€numbers€on€a€piece€of€paper€and€gaveÏthe€paper€to€Connelly.ÌÌà àThe€next€day,€September€15,€1994,€was€the€appellantððs€birthday.€€He€hadÏtaken€the€day€off€from€work.€€At€approximately€11:00€p.m.,€the€appellant€began€aÏfive„hour€telephone€conversation€with€a€fellow€police€officer€from€the€MemphisÏPolice€Department,€Carl€Fowler.€€It€apparently€was€not€uncommon€for€theÍappellant€to€engage€in€lengthy€telephone€conversations.€€During€thisÏconversation,€€the€appellant€indicated€to€Fowler€that€he€believed€Michelle€hadÏlied€to€him€about€a€wedding€gift.€€At€trial,€Fowler€testified€that€nothing€occurredÏduring€the€conversation€which€would€indicate€that€anything€was€wrong.€€€€TheÏphone€conversation€ended€around€4:00€a.m.€because€Fowler€was€getting€tiredÏand€the€appellant€told€him€that€he€needed€to€wake€Michelle€up€for€an€earlyÏclass.ÌExcept€for€the€appellant,€no€one€knows€what€occurred€at€the€Roesðð€homeÏbetween€the€hours€of€4:00€a.m.€and€7:00€a.m.;€but€Michelle€Roe€was€killed€byÏJohn€Roe€during€this€period€of€time.ÌÌà àAccording€to€Fowler,€the€appellant€telephoned€and€asked€him€to€come€toÏhis€house€around€7:00€a.m.€€When€he€arrived€at€the€appellantððs€house€aroundÏ8:00€a.m.,€the€appellant€answered€the€door,€and€Fowler€attempted€to€go€into€theÏhouse.€€€However,€the€appellant€blocked€the€doorway.€€Fowler€asked€theÏappellant€three€times€about€Michelle,€and€after€Fowler€asked€him€the€third€time,Ïthe€appellant€admitted€that€he€shot€her,€pointing€to€a€bloodstain€on€the€knee€ofÏhis€sweatpants.€€€According€to€Fowler,€the€appellant€was€not€wearing€a€shirt€orÏshoes,€only€sweatpants.€€€At€first,€the€appellant€told€Fowler€that€he€had€beenÏrabbit€hunting€with€Michelle€and€had€accidentally€shot€her€in€the€head€with€hisÏservice€weapon.€The€appellant€also€told€Fowler€that€Michelle€was€in€theÏbottoms.€€Fowler€told€him€that€they€had€to€call€the€police,€and€the€appellantÏirately€responded€ð ðNo.ðð€€€€€€ÌÌà àMeanwhile,€Catherine€Trainor,€Michelleððs€mother,€had€received€aÏtelephone€call€from€her€husband€saying€that€Michelle€had€not€arrived€at€school.€ÏMrs.€Trainor,€who€was€at€work,€tried€to€call€Michelle€at€her€home,€but€theÏtelephone€was€busy.€€She€then€asked€a€friend€at€work€to€drive€her€to€MichelleððsÏhouse.€€When€they€arrived€at€the€house€around€8:30€a.m.,€Michelleððs€car,€theÏappellantððs€truck,€and€another€vehicle€unfamiliar€to€Mrs.€Trainor€were€in€theÏdriveway.€€ÌÌà àMrs.€Trainor€walked€up€to€the€front€porch€and€saw€the€appellant€andÏanother€man€standing€on€the€porch.€€The€appellant€introduced€Mrs.€Trainor€to€ÏCarl€Fowler.€€The€appellant€told€Mrs.€Trainor€that€Michelle€had€gone€to€school.ÏMrs.€Trainor€then€told€the€appellant€that€she€had€received€a€call€from€someoneÏtelling€her€that€Michelle€had€not€shown€up€for€school.€€€The€appellant€told€herÏthat€Michelleððs€friend€Amy€had€taken€her€to€school,€but€Mrs.€Trainor€knew€thatÏthe€appellant€was€lying.€€Amy€was€the€one€who€called€to€say€that€Michelle€wasÏnot€at€school.€€Because€she€felt€€that€something€was€wrong,€Mrs.€Trainor€left€toÏget€help.ÌÌà àFowler€told€the€appellant€that€he€was€leaving€to€call€the€police,€and€theÏappellant€said€okay.€€Fowler€came€upon€a€motorcycle€police€officer,€WilliamÏHughes,€as€he€was€driving€to€a€store€to€call€the€police.€€As€Fowler€was€talking€toÏthe€officer,€Mrs.€Trainor€arrived€and€spoke€with€Officer€Hughes€as€well.€€Mrs.ÍTrainor€waited€there€while€the€situation€at€her€daughterððs€house€wasÏinvestigated.€€Officers€returned€later€and€told€her€that€her€daughter€was€dead.ÌÌà àOfficer€Hughes€called€for€backup,€and€once€Officer€Scott€ChambersÏarrived€as€backup,€the€two€officers€went€to€the€appellantððs€house.€€When€theyÏarrived,€the€appellant,€who€had€been€wearing€only€sweatpants€when€Fowler€leftÏto€get€help,€was€now€dressed€in€blue€sweatpants,€a€white€t„shirt,€and€tennisÏshoes€and€was€sitting€on€the€tailgate€of€his€truck€drinking€from€a€glass.€€€TheÏappellant,€who€responded€to€questions€by€the€officers,€appeared€to€be€underÏsome€stress€and€was€sweating€a€great€deal.ÌÌ€à àOfficer€Chambers€searched€the€house€while€Officer€Hughes€stayed€withÏthe€appellant.€€Officer€Chambers€found€Michelle€dressed€in€her€white€uniformÏlying€on€the€bed.€€A€towel€had€been€draped€over€the€top€of€her€head.€€WhenÏOfficer€Chambers€came€out€of€€the€house,€he€and€Officer€Hughes€searched€theÏappellant€for€weapons,€handcuffed€him,€and€informed€him€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€ÌÌà àThe€paramedics€arrived,€but€they€were€unable€to€get€a€heartbeat€fromÏMichelle.€€€€One€of€the€officers€asked€paramedic€Randall€Rhodes€to€examine€theÏappellant€because€he€had€been€sweating€profusely.€€The€appellant€told€RhodesÏthat€he€had€not€been€taking€any€drugs,€but€had€been€under€a€great€deal€ofÏstress€lately.€€Although€the€appellantððs€vital€signs€were€somewhat€high,€theyÏwere€normal€for€an€excited€situation.€€Although€Rhodes€did€not€recommend€thatÍthe€appellant€be€taken€to€a€hospital,€the€appellant€was€taken€to€MemphisÏMedical€Center€Hospital.€€There,€he€was€observed€by€Major€Clyde€Keenan,€aÏwatch€commander€with€the€Memphis€Police€Department,€who€was€called€to€theÏhospital€because€a€Memphis€police€officer€had€been€arrested.€€He€testified€thatÏthe€appellant€was€lying€in€the€back€of€the€car,€halfway€on€the€seat€and€halfwayÏon€the€floorboard.€He€testified€that€the€appellant€appeared€to€be€ð ðover€the€edgeððÏand€had€ð ðsort€of€a€wild€look€about€him.ððÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€taken€from€the€hospital€to€the€Criminal€Justice€CenterÏin€Memphis€where€he€met€with€his€attorney,€Thomas€Hansom.€€Hansom€testifiedÏthat€the€appellant€ð ðappeared€to€be€unable€to€communicateðð€and€ð ðif€he€[theÏappellant]€did€respond€in€any€way€it€was€not€coherent.ððÌÌà àElton€Douglas,€a€Shelby€County€jailer,€also€testified€that€he€observed€theÏappellant€for€five€days€on€a€ð ðsuicide€watch.ðð€€He€stated€that€when€asked€aÏquestion,€the€appellant€would€mumble€a€response.€€The€jailer€also€testified€thatÏsince€the€time€when€the€appellant€was€first€brought€to€the€jail,€the€appellantððsÏbehavior€had€changed.€€He€could€now€ask€him€a€question€and€get€an€answer.ÌÌà àLarry€Graham,€a€friend€of€the€appellantððs,€went€to€visit€him€in€jail.€€ÏBecause€there€was€a€glass€window€separating€Graham€from€the€appellant,€theÏtwo€had€to€communicate€by€telephone.€€Graham€testified€that€while€the€two€wereÏtalking,€the€appellant€put€down€the€phone€and€indicated€to€Graham€that€heÍwanted€him€to€retrieve€a€bag€that€was€hidden€behind€the€appellantððs€house.€ÏAlthough€Graham€tried€to€find€the€bag,€he€was€unable€to€do€so€and€told€theÏappellant.€€Approximately€one€week€after€Graham€searched€for€this€bag,€theÏSheriffððs€Office€called€him€and€asked€him€to€answer€some€questions€about€theÏbag.€€Graham€told€the€sheriff€that€the€appellant€had€asked€him€to€look€for€theÏbag€and€that€the€appellant€had€told€him€that€he€had€accidentally€killed€Michelle.ÌÌà àSteve€Scott,€a€firearms€identification€expert€with€the€Tennessee€BureauÏof€Investigation,€testified€that€the€bullet€that€killed€Michelle€was€fired€from€theÏappellantððs€service€weapon€and€that€the€gun€and€all€safety€features€were€inÏoperating€condition.ÌÌà àDr.€O.C.€Smith,€assistant€medical€examiner,€performed€the€autopsy€onÏMichelle€Roe.€€He€testified€that€the€cause€of€death€was€a€gunshot€wound€to€theÏright€temple.€€€Dr.€Smith€also€noted€that€the€victim€had€a€bruise€on€the€inside€ofÏher€left€wrist€and€the€backs€of€her€elbows€had€abrasions,€as€if€they€had€beenÏscraped€over€a€carpet.€€Dr.€Smith€also€observed€abrasions€below€MichelleððsÏlower€lip€that€occurred€after€her€death.€€Dr.€Smith€further€determined€from€theÏpattern€of€blood€spatters€on€the€headboard€of€the€bed€that€Michelle€was€sittingÏup€when€she€was€shot,€although€the€appellant€disputes€this€assertion.€€ÏHowever,€when€Dr.€Smith€first€saw€Michelle,€she€was€fully€clothed€and€was€lyingÏon€the€bed€with€both€feet€on€the€bed.ÌÌÓ  ÓSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€evidence€was€insufficientÏas€to€premeditation€and€deliberation€and€sanity.€€Therefore,€his€convictionÏshould€be€reversed€or€reduced€to€second€degree€murder.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient.€€It€contends€that€becauseÏthe€appellant€admitted€to€killing€his€wife,€the€only€issue€for€the€jury€to€determineÏwas€whether€the€killing€was€a€result€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€TheÏstate€asserts€that€the€jury€could€infer€premeditation€from€the€appellantððs€use€of€aÏgun€against€an€unarmed€victim€and€that€the€appellant€acted€deliberately€byÏarranging€the€victimððs€body€on€the€bed,€by€calmly€telling€Fowler€that€he€had€shotÏMichelle,€by€calmly€telling€Michelleððs€mother€that€Michelle€was€at€school,€and€byÏgetting€fully€dressed€after€Fowler€left€to€get€help.€€Also,€the€state€contends€thatÏthe€appellant€executed€his€plan€to€shoot€Michelle€and€then€claimed€that€it€wasÏan€accident€and€that€he€was€insane.€€The€state€insists€that€the€appellant€wasÏunable€to€raise€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€his€sanity.€ÌÌà àA€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€murder€in€the€first€degree,€which€atÏthat€time€was€defined€as€ð ð[œa]n›€intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€ofÏanother.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(œSupp›.€1994).€€A€premeditated€act€isÏð ðone€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991).€€A€deliberate€act€is€ð ðone€performed€with€a€cool€purpose.ððÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1).ÌÌà àGreat€weight€is€accorded€jury€verdicts€in€criminal€trials.€€Jury€verdictsÏaccredit€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolve€all€evidentiary€conflicts€in€the€stateððsÏfavor.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€œS.W.2d›€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874ÏS.W.2d€73,€78€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€bothÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€Moreover,€guilty€verdicts€remove€the€presumption€of€innocence,€enjoyedÏby€defendants€at€trial,€and€replace€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,Ï493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€€Appellants,€therefore,€carry€the€burden€ofÏovercoming€a€presumption€of€guilt€when€appealing€€jury€convictions.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àWhen€appellants€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€CourtÏmust€determine€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€a€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307€(1979);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òò€State€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63€(Tenn.Ï1985).€€The€weight€and€credibility€of€a€witnessðð€testimony€are€matters€entrustedÏexclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542Ï(Tenn.€1984);€òòByrge€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€admitted€to€killing€his€wife.€€Several€months€before€heÍkilled€her,€the€appellant€told€a€total€stranger,€Daniel€Kaltreider,€that€he€wasÏgoing€to€kill€his€wife€and€claim€that€it€was€an€accident€or€that€he€was€insane,Ïwhich€the€appellant€eventually€did.€€€Also,€the€appellant€told€Jay€Barnette€that€heÏhad€thought€about€killing€Michelle€by€choking€her€to€death,€and€Barnette€andÏthe€appellant€had€engaged€in€several€conversations€about€how€to€kill€peopleÏand€then€dispose€of€their€bodies.€€€The€appellant€stated€to€Barnette€theÏpossibility€of€killing€Michelle€and€her€parents.€€On€the€day€that€he€killed€Michelle,Ïthe€appellant€talked€calmly€to€Michelleððs€mother,€to€police€officers€Hughes€andÏChambers,€and€to€paramedic€Rhodes.€€The€appellant€changed€clothing€afterÏOfficer€Fowler€left€to€get€help.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€chose€to€accredit€the€stateððs€witnesses€on€the€issues€ofÏpremeditation,€deliberation,€and€sanity.€€Based€upon€the€record€before€us,€weÏsee€no€evidence€requiring€us€to€disturb€the€juryððs€verdict.€€The€evidence€isÏsufficient.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓTHIRTEENTH€JURORÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€judge,€as€theÏthirteenth€juror,€should€have€set€aside€the€guilty€verdict€of€the€jury€because€theÍevidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€appellantððsÏsanity.€€Although€the€appellant€concedes€that€the€trial€judge€approved€the€juryððsÏverdict€when€he€ruled€on€motion€for€new€trial,€he€still€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€error.€€In€his€brief,€he€asserts€that€ð ð[œt]he›€trial€judge€did€not€set€forth€anyÏfacts€or€make€any€findings€sufficient€to€justify€this€approval€and€this€was€errorÏand€the€conviction€should€be€reversed.€.€..ðð€€€Therefore,€the€appellant€contendsÏthat€his€conviction€should€be€reversed€or€reduced€to€second€degree€murder.ÌThe€state€argues€that€the€trial€judge€did€perform€his€role€as€thirteenth€juror€byÏapproving€the€juryððs€verdict.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€was€notÏrequired€to€place€on€the€record€his€findings€of€fact.ÌÌà àRule€33(f)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provides€whatÏis€commonly€referred€to€as€the€ð ðthirteenth€jurorðð€rule:ÌÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(f)€New€Trial€Where€Verdict€Is€Against€the€Weight€of€theÌà àEvidence.„„€The€trial€court€may€grant€a€new€trial€following€a€verdict€ofÏà àguilty€if€it€disagrees€with€the€jury€about€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€Ìà àIf€the€trial€court€grants€a€new€trial€because€the€verdict€is€contrary€Ìà àto€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€upon€request€of€either€party€the€Ìà ànew€trial€shall€be€conducted€by€a€different€judge.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€committed€error€by€not€makingÏany€findings€on€the€record.€€The€proper€inquiry€is€not€whether€the€trial€courtÏmade€any€findings€on€the€record,€but€whether€the€trial€court€unequivocally€foundÏthe€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€The€appellant€even€concedesÏthat€the€trial€judge€approved€the€juryððs€verdict€when€he€ruled€on€the€appellantððsÏmotion€for€new€trial.€€€€During€the€hearing€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€judge€stated,Íð ð[œa]s›€the€thirteenth€juror,€the€Court€accepts€the€verdict.ðð€€ÌÌà àOnce€the€trial€court€approves€the€verdict€as€the€thirteenth€juror€andÏimposes€judgment,€the€review€of€the€evidence€on€appeal€is€quite€limited,Ïrequiring€the€accrediting€of€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€state€and€theÏresolution€of€evidentiary€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€trial€judge€neither€equivocated€on€whetherÏthe€evidence€was€sufficient€nor€expressed€dissatisfaction€with€the€judgment.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œDankworth›óó,€919€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Therefore,Ïthis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓDOUBLE€JEOPARDYÌÌÓ  Óà àThird,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€indictment€should€have€beenÏdismissed€on€the€grounds€of€double€jeopardy.€€He€asserts€that€he€wasÏð ðpunished€twice:ðð€once€by€the€Memphis€Police€Department€by€terminating€hisÏemployment€and€again€by€prosecution€of€the€first€degree€murder€charge.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€loss€of€employment€does€not€constitute€punishment.€€ItÏmaintains€that€the€appellant€was€fired€from€his€job€as€a€police€officer€becauseÏhe€violated€the€policies€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department,€not€because€heÏkilled€his€wife.ÌÌà àWe€must€agree€with€the€state€that€loss€of€employment€from€oneððs€job,Íwhile€undoubtedly€disturbing,€is€not€ð ðpunishmentðð€as€contemplated€for€doubleÏjeopardy€purposes.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Ó€TRIAL€COURTððS€DENIAL€OF€EXPERT€TESTIMONYÓ  ÓÌà àNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÏdefense€the€testimony€of€expert€witnesses€at€trial€because€the€appellant€refusedÏto€discuss€the€facts€of€the€killing€with€the€stateððs€psychologist.€€€The€appellantÏfiled€notice€of€his€intention€to€use€insanity€as€a€defense.€€He€contends€that€hisÏuse€of€pills€called€Mini„Thins€caused€him€to€suffer€from€ð ðtoxic€psychosis.ðð€€TheÏappellant€argues€that€the€stateððs€psychologist,€Dr.€Lynne€D.€Zager,€routinelyÏtestified€for€the€state€in€criminal€cases€and€was€a€ð ðpersonal€friendðð€of€TomÏHenderson,€the€prosecutor€in€this€case.€€€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€€arguesÏthat€he€refused€to€make€a€statement€about€the€facts€of€the€case€to€Dr.€Zager,Ïœrather€than€refusing›€to€be€œexamined›œ.›ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€expert€witnessÏtestimony€by€defense€experts€regarding€insanity.€€€The€state€asserts€that€thisÏissue€is€waived€because€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€the€preliminaryÏhearing€transcript€upon€which€the€trial€court€based€its€decision€to€exclude€expertÏwitness€testimony.€€€Nevertheless,€the€state€addressed€this€issue€in€its€brief€andÏargued€that€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€expert€testimony€by€the€appellantÏpursuant€to€Rule€12.2(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€TheÏstate€maintains€that€the€appellant,€who€on€advice€from€counsel,€refused€toÍcooperate€with€Dr.€Zager€on€three€separate€occasions.€€Thus,€the€trial€courtÏsubsequently€found€that€the€appellant€had€willfully€failed€to€comply€with€its€orderÏthat€he€submit€to€a€psychiatric€evaluation€by€the€stateððs€expert€and€denied€theÏappellant€the€use€of€expert€witnesses.€€Ìà àÌà àAlthough€the€preliminary€hearing€transcript€is€not€included€in€the€record,Ïthe€order€denying€expert€testimony€entered€by€Judge€Lafferty× ƒ7 ××  ×€is€part€of€theÏrecord€before€us.€€Rule€12.2(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÏprovides:ÌÓÓà àà à(c)€Mental€Examination€of€Defendant.„„€In€an€appropriateÌà àcase€the€court€may,€upon€motion€of€the€district€attorney,€orderÌà àthe€defendant€to€submit€to€a€mental€examination€by€a€psychiatristÌà àor€the€other€expert€designated€for€this€purpose€in€the€order€of€theÌà àcourt.€€No€statement€made€by€the€defendant€in€the€course€of€anyÌà àexamination€provided€for€by€this€rule,€whether€the€examinationÌà àbe€with€or€without€the€consent€of€the€defendant,€no€testimonyÌà àby€the€expert€based€upon€such€statement,€and€no€otherÌà àfruits€of€the€statement€shall€be€admitted€in€evidence€againstÌà àthe€defendant€in€any€criminal€proceeding€except€for€impeach„Ìà àœment›€purposes€or€on€an€issue€respecting€mental€condition€onÌà àwhich€the€defendant€has€introduced€testimony.ÌÌÓÓRule€12.2(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€states:ÌÓÓà àà à(d)€Failure€to€Comply.„„If€there€is€a€failure€to€give€Ìà ànotice€when€required€by€subdivision€(b)€of€this€rule€or€to€submit€Ìà àto€an€examination€when€ordered€under€subdivision€œ(c)€of›€thisÌà àrule,€the€court€may€exclude€the€testimony€of€any€expert€witness€Ìà àoffered€by€the€defendant€on€the€issue€of€the€defendantððs€Ìà àmental€condition.ÌÓÓà àò òÌà àó óThe€appellant€raised€the€issue€of€sanity,€yet€wanted€the€court€to,€in€effect,Ítie€the€hands€of€the€prosecutors€by€not€having€the€appellant€submit€to€a€mentalÏexamination.€€The€appellant€argues€that€he€did€not€refuse€to€be€examined,€œjust›Ïœnot€to›€discuss€the€ð ðfacts€of€the€caseðð€with€the€stateððs€psychologist.€€€Rule€œ12.2(c)Ïclearly›€protects€the€appellantððs€constitutional€rights.€€The€appellant€made€theÏdecision€not€to€comply€with€Rule€12.€€He€cannot€now€complain€that€he€was€inÏany€way€prejudiced.€€The€state,€like€the€appellant,€is€entitled€to€a€fair€trial.€€€òòStateÏv.€œLivingston›óó,€607€S.W.2d€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ò òÌÌÓ  Óó óDEATH„QUALIFIED€JURYò òÌÌÓ  Óà àó óIn€his€next€issue,€the€appellant€presents€a€twofold€argument€that€the€juryÏselection€process€violated€his€constitutional€rights:€the€state€engaged€inÏmisconduct€by€seeking€the€death€penalty€based€upon€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€that€it€knew€it€could€not€prove€and€consequently,€acquired€aÏð ðdeath„qualifiedðð€or€ð ðconviction„proneðð€jury,€which€prejudiced€the€appellant.ÌAlthough€the€appellant€sought€a€clarification€of€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏupon€which€the€state€based€its€decision€to€seek€the€death€penalty,€the€stateÏnever€revealed€the€nature€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€until€after€theÏÔ  Ôappellant€was€found€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€appellant€contends€that€Ô  ÔÌÌthe€state€wanted€to€prejudice€the€jury€in€its€favor€by€getting€a€ð ðdeath„qualifiedðð€orÏð ðconviction„proneðð€jury.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€decision€to€seek€the€death€penalty€was€withinÏthe€discretion€of€the€prosecutor.€€In€seeking€the€death€penalty,€the€stateÏattempted€to€prove€the€aggravating€circumstance€of€torture€through€allegedÏinstances€of€œspousal›€abuse.€ò ò€ó óThe€state€insists€that€the€appellant€has€not€shownÏhow€the€stateððs€decision€to€seek€the€death€penalty€based€upon€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€of€torture€was€ð ðbased€upon€anything€other€than€the€facts€of€thisÏcrime.ðð€ÌÌà àIn€addressing€the€appellantððs€argument€on€this€issue,€we€begin€first€withÏhis€contention€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€selection€of€a€ð ðdeath„qualifiedðð€orÏð ðconviction„proneðð€jury.€€The€appellant€provides€no€evidence€to€support€hisÏcontention€that€a€death„qualified€jury€prejudiced€him.€€Furthermore,€as€the€stateÏcorrectly€notes€in€its€brief,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€have€both€found€that€a€death„qualified€jury€could€apply€the€lawÏto€the€facts.€€òòSeeóó€òòœLockhart›€v.€œMcCree›óó,€476€U.S.€162€(1986);€òòState€v.€œMcKay›óó,€680ÏS.W.2d€447€(Tenn.€1984).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àNext,€with€regard€to€the€appellantððs€contention€of€prosecutorialÏmisconduct,€we€must€agree€to€some€extent.€€A€prosecutorððs€duty€encompassesÏfar€more€than€securing€a€conviction.€€His€or€her€role€isÌÓÓà à€€€€€not€of€an€ordinary€party€to€a€controversy,€but€of€a€sovereigntyÌà à€€€€€whose€obligation€to€govern€impartially€is€as€compelling€as€itsÌà à€€€€€obligation€to€govern€at€all;€and€whose€interest,€therefore,Ìà à€€€€€in€a€criminal€prosecution€is€not€that€it€shall€win€a€case,Ìà à€€€€€but€that€justice€shall€be€done.€.€.€.€€He€[she]€may€prosecute€withÌà à€€€€€earnestness€and€vigor„„indeed,€he€[she]€should€do€so.€€But,Ìà à€€€€€while€he€[she]€may€strike€hard€blows,€he€[she]€is€not€at€liberty€toÌà à€€€€€strike€foul€ones.€€It€is€as€much€his€[her]€duty€to€refrain€from€Ìà à€€€€€improper€methods€calculated€to€produce€a€wrongfulÌà à€€€€€conviction€as€it€is€to€use€every€legitimate€means€to€bring€aboutÌà à€€€€€a€just€one.ÌÓÓÌòòBerger€v.€United€Statesóó,€295€U.S.€78€(1935).ò ò€€ó óòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€œSpurlock›óó,€874ÏS.W.2d€602,€611€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€803€S.W.2d€709,€710Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ò òÌà àó óÌà à€While€we€fail€to€find€that€the€prosecution€acted€in€bad€faith,€we€admonish€Ïthe€state€for€pursuing€the€death€penalty€based€upon€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€of€torture,€which€consisted€of€alleged€instances€of€abuse€occurringÏmonths€before€the€victim€was€killed.€€At€trial,€the€state€admitted€that€it€had€noÏlegal€authority€for€its€position,€and€conceded€its€position€when€questioned€byÏthe€trial€court,€which€later€ruled€in€favor€of€the€appellant€after€hearing€theÏevidence€provided€by€the€state.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€we€must€note€that€the€state€had€only€one€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€torture,€on€which€it€based€its€decision€to€seek€the€death€penalty.€€ÌOur€Supreme€Court€defined€torture€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529Ï(Tenn.€1985),€as€ð ðthe€infliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victimÏwhile€he€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious.ðð€€We€find€it€difficult€to€believe€thatÏthe€prosecutors€actually€believed€that€instances€of€alleged€abuse€that€occurredÍmonths€before€the€victimððs€death€could€be€considered€torture€as€defined€by€ourÏhighest€court.€€€Although€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutorsðð€actions€did€not€affectÏthe€verdict€in€this€case,€they€would€be€well€advised€to€refrain€from€using€suchÏweak€œaggravators›€in€future€trials.ÌÌÓ  ÓINTERCEPTED€CONVERSATIONÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€his€jailhouse€conversation€with€his€friendÏLarry€Graham€was€illegally€intercepted,€thus€constituting€a€warrantless€seizureÏof€information.€€The€state,€however,€asserts€that€nothing€in€the€record€indicatesÏthat€this€conversation€was€intercepted€or€how€the€sheriffððs€office€learned€aboutÏthe€context€of€the€conversation,€which€dealt€with€hiding€a€bag€of€videotapes€andÏsex€toys.ÌÌà àThe€state€incorrectly€asserts€that€nothing€in€the€record€indicates€how€theÏsheriffððs€office€learned€about€this€bag.€€During€the€motion€for€new€trial€hearing,ÏLieutenant€E.€D.€Scallions€of€the€Shelby€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€had€received€a€telephone€call€from€a€woman€who€refused€to€identifyÏherself.€€The€woman€stated€to€Scallions€that€she€had€talked€to€Larry€GrahamððsÏwife€and€that€his€wife€had€told€her€about€a€conversation€between€the€appellantÏand€Graham.€€Scallions€testified€that€Graham€was€then€interviewed€and€theÏsheriffððs€department€€began€looking€for€a€bag€that€had€been€placed€in€theÏvicinity€of€the€appellantððs€house.€ÌÌà àThe€state€is€correct,€however,€in€its€assertion€that€the€appellant€did€notÏoffer€any€evidence€that€his€conversation€with€Graham€had€been€intercepted.€ÏThis€fact,€coupled€with€what€appears€to€be€a€logical€explanation€regarding€howÏthe€sheriffððs€department€learned€of€the€bagððs€existence,€leads€us€to€concludeÏthat€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€MIND€HEARSAY€EXCEPTIONÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellantððs€next€issue€concerns€the€testimony€of€Peter€Connelly,€whoÏwas€one€of€Michelle€Roeððs€teachers€at€Shelby€State€Community€College.€ÏConnelly€testified€that€two€days€before€she€was€killedÌÓÓà àà àMichelle€came€up€to€me€after€class,€and€she€stated€to€meÌà àà àthat€her€husband€had€abused€her€and€that€her€husbandÌà àà àhad€threatened€to€kill€her.€€And€she€asked€me€to€callÌà àà àher€mom€and€dad€if€she€did€not€show€up€for€clinic€onÌà àà àFriday.€€And€she€wrote€down€the€phone€numbers€ofÌà àà àher€mom€and€dad€on€this€piece€of€paper.ÌÓÓà àà àÌà àOn€appeal,€the€state€argues€that€Connellyððs€testimony€is€relevant€andÏadmissible€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(3),€which€is€commonlyÏreferred€to€as€the€ð ðstate€of€mindðð€hearsay€exception.€€It€asserts€that€ConnellyððsÏtestimony€is€admissible€to€rebut€the€appellantððs€assertion€in€his€openingÏstatement€that€his€marriage€to€the€victim€was€ð ða€good€marriage€and€a€happyÏmarriageðð€and€that€the€appellant€and€the€victim€loved€each€other.€€The€stateÏmaintains€that€because€the€marital€relationship€of€€the€appellant€and€the€victimÍwas€an€issue€at€trial,€Connellyððs€testimony€is€relevant.ÌÌà àThe€appellant,€however,€argues€that€Connellyððs€testimony€is€not€relevantÏand€is€ð ðrank€hearsay.ðð€€The€appellant€asserts€that€the€state€is€trying€to€use€ð ðtheÏdeceasedððs€state€of€mind€to€prove€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind.ðð€€The€appellantÏfurther€contends€that€Connellyððs€testimony€was€ð ðextremely€prejudicial€withÏrespect€to€the€issue€of€premeditation€and€deliberationðð€because€the€appellantÏcould€not€confront€the€deceased,€thereby€violating€his€constitutional€rights.ÌÌà àThe€first€step€is€to€determine€whether€Peter€Connellyððs€testimony€€isÏrelevant.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€401€states:€ð ðððRelevant€evidenceðð€meansÏevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probableÏthan€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€relationship€between€the€appellant€and€the€victim€was€an€issue€atÏtrial.€€On€appeal€the€state€relies€solely€on€the€fact€that€the€appellant€opened€theÏdoor€by€declaring€in€his€opening€statement€that€he€and€the€victim€had€ð ða€goodÏmarriage€and€a€happy€marriage.ðð€€€However,€other€instances€of€trouble€in€theÏcoupleððs€marriage€also€made€their€relationship€relevant€at€trial.€€The€victimððsÏmother,€Catherine€Trainor,€and€Jay€Barnette€testified€that€there€had€beenÏproblems€in€the€coupleððs€marriage.€€Therefore,€although€the€state€focuses€solelyÏon€the€appellantððs€opening€statement,€the€coupleððs€marital€relationship€wouldÍstill€have€been€an€issue€based€upon€the€testimony€of€these€two€witnesses.ÏConsequently,€we€find,€as€did€the€trial€court,€that€Connellyððs€testimony€wasÏrelevant.ÌÌà àNext,€we€must€determine€whether€the€testimony€is€hearsay.€€On€appeal,Ïthe€state€argues€that€Connellyððs€testimony€is€admissible€under€Tennessee€RuleÏof€Evidence€803(3),€€the€ð ðstate€of€mindðð€hearsay€exception€as€some€indication€ofÏthe€victimððs€feelings€toward€the€appellant.€€The€state,€however,€at€trial€relied€onÏòòState€v.€Howellóó,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,ÏFeb.€12,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€òòconcurring€in€results€onlyóó,€(Tenn.€July€8,Ï1996),€arguing€that€Connellyððs€testimony€of€the€victimððs€statements€was€beingÏoffered€to€prove€premeditation€and€deliberation€by€the€appellant.ÌÌ€€à àTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€œ801(c)€defines›€hearsay€as€ð ða€statement,Ïother€than€one€made€by€the€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,Ïoffered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.ðð€€€Tennessee€RuleÏof€Evidence€803(3)€states€that€the€following€types€of€statements€are€admissibleÏas€exceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule:ÌÓÓà à€A€statement€of€the€declarantððs€then€existing€state€of€mind,Ìà à€emotion,€sensation,€or€physical€condition€(such€as€intent,Ìà à€plan,€motive,€design,€mental€feeling,€pain,€and€bodily€Ìà à€health),€but€not€including€a€statement€of€memory€or€beliefÌà à€to€prove€the€fact€remembered€or€believed€unless€itÌà à€relates€to€the€execution,€revocation,€identification,€orÌà à€terms€of€declarantððs€will.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€following€provides€an€interpretation€of€the€803(3)€state€of€mindÏhearsay€exception:ÌÓÓà àIn€order€for€Rule€803(3)€to€apply,€the€declarations€of€mentalÌà àcondition€should€òòexpressly€assertóó€the€declarantððs€mental€state.Ìà àCommon€examples€include€statements€of€love€(ððI€love€Karenðð),€Ìà àfear€(ððIððm€afraid€Adolph€will€kill€meðð),€and€hate€(ððI€hate€himðð).Ìà àMany€times€a€statement€does€not€òòliterally€assertóó€the€declarantððsÌà àmental€state€when€offered€to€prove€that€mental€state.€€If€so,Ìà àthe€statement€should€be€admitted€as€œnonhearsay›....€In€anyÌà àevent,€both€circumstantial€declarations€of€mental€state€andÌà àexpress€declarations€of€mental€state€are€admissible.ÌÌÓÓNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€€ðð€803(3).2,€at€540€(œ3d›€ed.Ï1995)€€(emphasis€added).€ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€the€fact€that€the€state€offered€Connellyððs€testimony€at€trialÏfor€one€purpose,€to€prove€the€appellantððs€premeditation€and€deliberation,€yet€onÏappeal,€contends€that€it€was€offered€to€rebut€the€appellantððs€assertion€that€heÏand€the€victim€had€ð ða€good€marriage€and€a€happy€marriage.ðð€€€At€trial,€the€stateÏrelied€on€òòHowellóó,€which€indicates€that€Rule€803(3)€permits€a€victimððs€statementÏto€prove€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind.€€However,€Rule€803(3)€does€not€permitÏsuch€an€interpretation.€€€€As€noted€earlier,€the€state€of€mind€hearsay€exceptionÏallows€the€òòdeclarantððsóó€state€of€mind€to€be€proven,€and€no€one€elseððs.€Therefore,Ïthe€state€erred€by€relying€on€òòHowellóó€to€prove€premeditation€and€deliberation€byÏthe€appellant.ÌÌà àIn€its€brief,€the€state€also€incorrectly€asserts€that€Connellyððs€testimony€wasÏadmissible€under€Rule€803(3),€the€state€of€mind€hearsay€exception.€€òòTennesseeÍLaw€of€Evidenceóó€in€its€interpretation€of€Rule€803(3)€states€that€ð ð[œm]any›€times€aÏstatement€does€not€literally€assert€the€declarantððs€mental€state€when€offered€toÏprove€that€mental€state.€€If€so,€the€statement€should€be€admitted€as€œnonhearsay›.ððÏòòId.óó€€€Section€801.7€of€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€which€discusses€œnonhearsay›Ïdeclarations€to€prove€circumstantially€the€declarantððs€mental€state,€states€thatÏð ðutterances€offered€for€the€òòunderlyingóó€òòimpliedóó€assertion€that€is€circumstantiallyÏimplicit€in€the€literal€spoken€or€written€words.€.€.€.€[are]€often€viewed€asÏœnonhearsay›.ðð€€€òòId.óó€ðð€801.7,€at€498„99€(emphasis€in€original);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€œGoins›óó,ÏNo.€03C01„9502„CR„00026€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€filed€July€30,€1996).ÌÌà à€Nowhere€in€Peter€Connellyððs€testimony€is€there€an€express€assertion€ofÏthe€declarantððs,€that€is€the€victimððs,€mental€state.€€Connellyððs€testimony€does,Ïhowever,€contain€statements€by€the€victim€that€òòcircumstantially€implyóó€her€mentalÏstate€toward€the€appellant€at€the€time€the€statements€were€made.€€The€key€toÏdetermining€whether€a€statement€is€hearsay€is€the€purpose€for€which€it€isÏoffered.€€Therefore,€had€the€state€at€trial€offered€the€statements€of€the€victim€toÏrebut€the€appellantððs€assertion€in€his€opening€statement€that€he€had€a€goodÏmarriage,€Connellyððs€testimony€would€have€been€admissible€as€œnonhearsay›€forÏa€circumstantial€implication€of€the€victimððs€mental€state.€€However,€the€state€didÏnot€offer€Connellyððs€testimony€for€that€purpose€at€trial,€but€instead€offered€hisÏtestimony€of€the€victimððs€state€of€mind€to€prove€the€appellantððs€state€of€mind€as€toÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€This€was€error.€€However,€because€theÏevidence€as€to€premeditation€and€deliberation€is€overwhelming,€€we€concludeÍthat€any€error€was€harmless.€€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÓ  ÓMOTION€FOR€A€MISTRIALÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€his€last€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÏgranting€his€motion€for€a€mistrial.€€The€appellant€moved€for€a€mistrial€after€theÏtestimony€of€Penny€Mays,€one€of€the€victimððs€instructors€at€Shelby€StateÏCommunity€College.€€She€testified€that€during€a€conversation€she€had€withÏMichelle€Roe€the€day€before€she€was€killed,€Michelle€indicated€to€her€that€sheÏwas€fearful,€although€she€did€not€indicate€why€or€of€whom€she€was€frightened.Ìà àÌà àAt€trial,€the€state€argued€that€Ms.€Mays€testimony€was€similar€to€PeterÏConnellyððs€testimony€in€that€it€showed€that€in€the€days€preceding€the€victimððsÏdeath€she€was€fearful€and€that€she€asked€Ms.€Mays,€as€well€as€Mr.€Connelly,€toÏcall€her€parents€if€she€did€not€show€up€for€class€on€Friday.€€The€defense,Ïhowever,€at€trial€argued€that€Ms.€Mays€testimony€ð ðwas€more€general€[thanÏConnellyððs€testimony]„„it€was€much€more€vague.€€There€was€not€a€threat€to€kill€.€.Ï..ðð€€The€defense€moved€to€have€Ms.€Maysðð€testimony€stricken,€and€the€trial€court€ÌÌagreed.€€€The€trial€court€then€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€Ms.€MaysððÏtestimony.ÌÌà àIn€his€brief,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€could€not€ð ðœunring›€theÍbellðð€by€simply€telling€jurors€not€to€consider€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Mays€once€theyÏhad€heard€it.€€The€appellant€contends€that€Maysðð€testimony€was€extremelyÏprejudicial€regarding€the€issue€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€stateÏhowever€argues€that€because€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€to€ignore€MaysððÏtestimony,€the€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followed€his€instructions.€€Thus,€the€stateÏmaintains€that€the€trial€court€correctly€denied€the€appellantððs€motion€for€aÏmistrial.ÌÌà àThe€decision€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€733€S.W.2d€517,€522€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÏThe€trial€judgeððs€decision€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€unless€there€was€anÏabuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòId.óó€€A€mistrial€is€usually€appropriate€in€a€criminal€caseÏonly€where€there€is€a€ð ðmanifest€necessity.ðð€€òòArnold€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€792,Ï794€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€The€purpose€for€declaring€a€mistrial€is€to€correctÏdamage€done€to€the€judicial€process€when€some€event€has€occurred€whichÏprecludes€an€impartial€verdict.€€òòId.óó€€The€burden€of€establishing€a€ð ðmanifestÏnecessityðð€lies€with€the€appellant.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€conceded€at€trial€that€Ms.€Maysðð€testimony€was€extremelyÏgeneral€and€vague,€yet€now€argues€that€her€testimony€was€so€prejudicial€that€aÏmistrial€should€have€been€granted.€€The€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€ð ðtoÏdisregard€the€testimony€of€the€last€witness,€Miss€Mays.€€You€are€not€to€considerÏthat€testimony,€at€all,€for€any€purpose€whatsoever.€€You€can€totally€disregard€thatÍtestimony.ðð€Based€upon€the€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that€Ms.€MaysððÏtestimony€did€not€preclude€an€impartial€verdict€by€the€jury.€€Accordingly,€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.€Ó  ÓCONCLUSIONÌÌÓ  Óà àAfter€careful€consideration€of€the€issues€presented€by€the€appellant,€weÏaffirm€his€conviction€of€first€degree€murder.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJOHN€H.€œPEAY›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge