ÿWPC$ …UBV %˜U .žÌnXÜ 0 P4 4„ ˜ 0”  0D4 w@x ¸ mº 0@Ñ 0@ 0JQ 0T› 0^ï 0hM 0rµ 0|' 0†£ 0) 1u¹ 0d. B’ ¯ D3µ 0@èU6(B)^DC‡ AMÊ2II*’º¼ævÆ\u"v~—vÓ AOè"Æ7# 0Dý# D/A$ Bp$<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|Xd«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÚƒç" (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó PQURESbTUEVWXUYÓ€ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2'ã0Quick HðHðà0 à2 ÿÿ0Quick ððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ dHÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ9,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ›Ô€ÔElsewhere€in€the€record€it€is€established€that€the€two€men€walked€out€of€the€bar€shortly€beforeÏ11:00€p.m.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ›Ô€ÔThe€defendant€told€Officer€Sneed€that€he€did€not€know€the€other€man's€name.Ì °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ›Ô€ÔThe€choice€was€made€following€defense€counsel's€objection€and€the€trial€court's€ruling.€ÏAccordingly,€counsel's€participation€in€choosing€the€photograph€did€not€waive€the€defendant's€right€toÏraise€this€issue€on€appeal.Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ›Ô€ÔIn€response€to€the€State's€question€as€to€what€she€meant€by€ð ðweird,ðð€Sherrill€explained€that€sheÏhad€noticed€that€whenever€the€defendant€spoke€to€Branum,€he€would€look€up€rather€than€at€him.€€SheÏalso€said€that€the€defendant€had€ð ðkept€buggingðð€Branum.Ì ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ›Ô€ÔThe€only€ð ðinformationðð€reflected€in€the€record€is€the€witness'€prior€relationship€with€defenseÏcounsel€and€defense€counsel's€father.€€We€are€aware€of€nothing€which€establishes€that€such€aÏrelationship€is€probative€of€perjury.Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔ›Ô€ÔGiven€our€ruling€on€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€defendant's€new€trial€is€limited€toÏsecond„degree€murder€and€any€appropriate€lesser€offenses.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€aXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ% €( ÔÙ€€ÙßR€120A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àSEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€¢03C01£„9702„CR„00057ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÌ¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,ÌJEFFERY€SCOTT€¢SCHAFER£,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(First„degree€murder)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òLARRY€G.€RODDYà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€¢WALKUP£Ìó óP.O.€Box€714à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óSale€Creek,€TN€€€37373ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€¢FAHEY£,€IIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€COX,€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àC.€LELAND€DAVISó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€St.,€Suite€300Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€€37402Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÓ  ÓÑ Ü Ñœ›à@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€first„degree€premeditated€murder.€€AfterÏa€jury€trial,€he€was€convicted€of€that€offense€and€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€HeÏnow€appeals,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœ1.à àThe›€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;ÌœÌ2.à àWhether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€into€evidence€aÏœà àà àphotograph›€œof›€the€victim;€ÌÌœ3.à àWhether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€a€lay€witness€to€testifyÏœà àabout›€œher›€opinion€of€the€defendant€and€his€actions;€ÌÌœ4.à àWhether›€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€treatment€of€one€of€the€State'sÏœà àwitnesses,›€thereby€causing€the€witness€to€change€his€testimonyÏœà àto€the›€defendant's€prejudice;€andÌœÌ5.à àWhether›€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€instructed€the€jury€aboutÏœà àparole›€œeligibility›€dates.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœUpon›€our€review€of€the€record,€we€reverse€the€judgment€below€and€remand€thisÏcause€for€a€new€trial.̛̜à@ àò òFACTSó óÌà àà àOn€the€evening€of€August€31,€1994,€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€GaryÏLynn€Branum,€were€drinking€beer€together€in€a€bar€called€Fuzzyððs€Place.€€¢Kellie£ÏDenise€Sherrill,€who€was€working€as€a€bartender€that€night,€testified€that€Branum€hadÍbeen€a€regular€customer€but€that€she€had€never€seen€the€defendant€before.€€SheÏarrived€at€the€bar€at€approximately€7:00€p.m.;€Branum€and€the€defendant€wereÏalready€there,€drinking€beer.€€ÌÌà àà àVicki€Irene€Jentry€was€a€friend€of€Sherrillððs€and€also€arrived€at€the€bar€atÏabout€7:00€p.m.€€She€had€never€met€either€man,€and€while€she€was€talking€toÏSherrill,€Branum€walked€over€to€her€and€Sherill€introduced€them.€€Jentry€testified€thatÏBranum€had€then€asked€her€if€he€could€sit€next€to€her,€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðgettingÏon€[his]€nerves.ðð€€After€Branum€sat€next€to€her,€the€defendant€came€and€sat€on€theÏother€side€of€her,€continuing€to€talk€to€Branum.€€She€testified€that,€each€time€she€hadÏmoved,€this€scene€would€replay.€€She€testified€that€the€men€had€talked€about€theÏVietnam€war€and€her€impression€was€that€the€defendant€had€served€there.€ÏAccording€to€Jentry,€right€before€the€two€men€walked€outside€the€bar,× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÒ ô ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓœÌÒ ô ÒÒ  Òthey›€got€to€talking€about€having€to€kill€people€whenÏ[Branum]€was€in€Vietnam€and€[the€defendant]€saidÏsomething€about€he€understood€how€he€felt€and€[Branum]Ïlooked€at€him€and€told€him,€he€said,€ððYou€donððt€know€whatÏyouððre€talking€about.ðð€€He€said,€ððYou€¢ainððt£€never€killedÏnobody.ðð€€He€said,€ððIf€[sic]€you€didnððt€ever€serve,ðð€he€said,€ððIÏcan€tell€by€the€way€„„€the€look€in€your€eyes,ðð€he€said,€ððIððveÏbeen€through€it.ððÌÌœAnd›€[the€defendant]€said,€ððNot€in€the€Army.ððÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœWhen›€asked€about€Branum's€demeanor€during€this€conversation,€Jentry€testified€thatÏhe€had€been€ð ðjust€calm,€he€never€„„€his€voice€never€changed€or€anything.ðð€€FollowingÏthis€exchange,€according€to€Jentry,€the€two€men€rose€and€walked€out€the€front€door€ofÏthe€bar,€the€victim€in€front€and€the€defendant€following€him.€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€the€men€left€the€door€open€and€the€air€conditioner€was€on,ÏJentry€went€to€close€it.€€As€she€did€so,€she€testified,€she€saw€Branum€and€theÏdefendant€standing€behind€Branumððs€car.€€Branum€was€facing€her€and€the€defendantÏhad€his€back€to€her.€€After€closing€the€door,€she€went€back€to€the€bar€and€within€oneÏor€two€minutes€heard€a€ð ðpop.ðð€€She€and€Sherrill€then€ð ðscreamed€he€shot€himðð€andÏshe€saw€the€defendant€walk€by€the€window€going€to€the€side€of€the€building.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€and€Sherrill€had€then€run€to€the€front€door€and€saw€Branum€ð ðlayingÏthere.ðð€€The€next€time€she€saw€the€defendant,€she€testified,€was€when€ð ð[¢h]e£€come€inÏthe€back€door,€walked€around€and€sat€at€the€end€of€the€bar€.€.€.€and€he€looked€atÏ[Sherrill]€and€he€said,€ððHave€you€seen€my€checkbook?ðð€ðð€€She€testified€that€he€hadÏsaid€nothing€about€hearing€a€gunshot€and€that€ð ðhe€was€just€as€calm€as€he€could€be.ðð€ÏShe€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€she€had€not€seen€the€defendant€with€a€gun.Ì€€€€€Ìà àà àSherrill€also€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€two€men€walk€out€the€frontÏdoor€of€the€bar,€both€leaving€half„empty€beer€bottles€behind€and€the€defendant€alsoÏleaving€his€checkbook€behind.€€She€saw€Jentry€shut€the€door€and€after€Jentry€hadÏreturned€to€the€bar,€she€testified,€she€ð ðheard€a€pop€and€I€looked€at€[Jentry]€and€I€said,ÏððOh,€my€God,€he€shot€him.ðð€ðð€œ€She›€further€testified€that€she€had€ð ðjust€assumed€[theÏdefendant]€shot€him€and€about€the€time€I€looked€up€[the€defendant]€walked€by€theÏside€window.ðð€€Like€Jentry,€she€testified€that€the€defendant€had€subsequently€walkedÏin€the€back€door€and€asked€her€if€she€had€seen€his€checkbook.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€commotion,€someone€called€911€and€after€the€defendantÏhad€reentered€the€bar,€Sherrill€received€a€phone€call€from€the€police€department.€ÏOfficer€Max€Edward€Johnson€of€the€Hamilton€County€Sheriffððs€Department€arrivedÏshortly€thereafter.€€When€he€got€there,€he€found€the€victim€œlying›€in€the€parking€lot;€heÏdid€not€see€anyone€else€outside.€€While€he€was€outside,€he€testified,€Sherrill€hadÏcome€to€the€door€and€told€him€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€guy€that€shot€himðð€was€still€there.€€JohnsonÏwent€into€the€bar,€met€the€defendant,€patted€him€down€for€weapons€and€put€him€inÏthe€patrol€car.€€He€subsequently€located€a€shell€casing€underneath€Branumððs€car€andÏthe€murder€weapon€approximately€forty€feet€to€the€right€and€toward€the€back€of€theÏbuilding.€€A€holster€for€the€weapon€was€found€on€the€driverððs€seat€of€Branumððs€car.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Larry€Sneed€of€the€Hamilton€County€Sheriff's€DepartmentÏtestified€that€he€had€arrived€at€the€scene€after€Officer€Johnson€was€already€there.€€HeÏidentified€the€murder€weapon€as€a€ð ðStar€388€automatic€pistolðð€and€stated€that€theÏholster€found€in€the€victimððs€car€ð ðappears€to€fit€a€380.ðð€€The€gun€was€stipulated€asÏbelonging€to€the€victim.€€€Several€hours€after€the€murder,€Officer€Sneed€€took€aÏstatement€from€the€defendant,€in€which€the€defendant€acknowledged€having€beenÏtalking€with€another€man€at€the€bar× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€ð ðtalking€about€being€in€the€service.ðð€€HeÏdenied€going€outside€with€Branum€to€Branumððs€car,€stating€ð ðI€was€inside€the€bar€untilÏthe€police€came€and€got€me.ðð€€In€response€to€Officer€Sneedððs€question,€ð ðWhere€didÏ[Branum]€go?ðð€the€defendant€responded€ð ðI€didnððt€know€he€left.ðð€€In€response€to€theÏofficerððs€question€about€whether€he€had€mentioned€anything€about€having€killedÏsomeone€before,€the€defendant€stated,€ð ðThat€would€be€hard€to€do€because€Iððve€neverÏkilled€anything,€you€know,€except€a€deer€once,€you€know,€and€a€squirrel,€but€.€.€.€ððÌÌà àà àLloyd€Dorn€testified€that€he€had€been€driving€by€the€bar€on€the€night€inÏquestion€and€saw€Branum,€whom€he€knew,€and€another€man€in€the€parking€lot€of€theÏbar.€€He€testified€that€Branum€had€been€at€the€back€of€a€car€with€the€other€man€aboutÏtwo€feet€behind€him.€€He€testified€that€he€hadn't€seen€anyone€else€in€the€parking€lot.€ÍOn€cross„examination,€he€testified€that€the€defendant€was€not€the€other€person€thatÏhe€had€seen.€€An€extensive€jury„out€hearing€was€then€had,€during€which€both€theÏprosecuting€attorney€and€the€trial€judge€threatened€Dorn€with€a€perjury€investigation.€ÏAt€the€Stateððs€request,€the€trial€judge€declared€Dorn€to€be€a€hostile€witness.€€The€nextÏday,€the€State€recalled€Dorn€and€asked€him,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€ð ðyou€canððt€tell€the€jury€with€anyÏcertainty€whether€or€not€you€saw€this€man€on€that€parking€lot€or€not;€can€you?ðð€€DornÏresponded,€ð ðAs€today€I€cannot.ðð€€On€further€cross„examination,€Dorn€described€theÏman€he€had€seen€as€ð ðprobably€5'5",€5'6",€around€150€or€160€pounds,€curly€hair€andÏstuff.ðð€€Although€the€record€does€not€include€the€height€and€weight€of€the€defendant,Ïthe€record€does€indicate€that€the€defendantððs€physical€description€varies€somewhatÏfrom€this.€€Ìà à€Ìà àà à¢Oakley£€¢McKinney£€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€testifiedÏthat€€he€had€tested€the€murder€weapon€for€latent€fingerprints€and€did€not€find€any.€ÏJames€Russell€Davis,€œII,›€of€the€¢TBI£€œtestified›€that€the€results€of€testing€for€gunshotÏresidue€on€the€defendantððs€hands€were€ð ðinconclusive.ðð€€In€other€words,€the€residueÏtest€could€neither€implicate€nor€exclude€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€had€shotÏthe€weapon.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Frank€King,€a€forensic€pathologist€and€medical€examiner,€testifiedÍthat€Branum€had€died€from€a€single€gunshot€wound€ð ðthat€entered€the€left€side€of€theÏhead€just€above€the€left€eyeball€and€just€below€the€left€eyebrow.ðð€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€this€shot€had€been€fired€ð ðwithin€two€feet€of€the€bodyðð€and€that€the€injury€was€ð ð100Ïpercent€fatal.ðð€€€€Ìœ›à àà àThe€defendant€did€not€offer€any€proof.€€ÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€aÏfinding€that€the€homicide€was€committed€with€premeditation€and€deliberation€asÏrequired€for€first„degree€(premeditated)€murder.€€He€argues€that€the€evidenceÏsupports€no€more€than€a€second„degree€murder€conviction.€€We€agree.ÌÒ S ÒÒ ¦ ÒÌà àà àWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecutionÏin€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€¢S.Ct£.€2781,€61€¢L.Ed£.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€¢reweigh£€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€infer‚encesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Í1978).€ÌÌà àà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guiltyÏverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimonyÏof€the€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€this€homicide€was€committed,€first„degree€premeditatedÏmurder€was€defined€as€the€ð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€ofÏanother.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1994).€€A€deliberate€and€premeditatedÏkilling€was€ð ðone€performed€with€a€cool€purposeðð€and€ð ðone€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€&€(2)€(1991).€€Where€no€directÏevidence€of€the€defendant's€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€the€killing€is€available,Ïœð ð[¢d]eliberation£›€and€premeditation€may€be€inferred€from€the€circumstances€whereÏthose€circumstances€affirmatively€establish€that€the€defendant€premeditated€hisÏassault€and€then€deliberately€performed€the€act.ðð€€òòState€v.€James€¢Dumas£óó,€No.Ï¢02C01£„9502„CR„00031,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Oct.€4,€1995,€atÏJackson).€€However,€circumstantial€evidence€of€a€defendant's€state€of€mind€will€notÍsupport€a€jury€verdict€of€premeditated€murder€unless€the€proof€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€is€ð ðso€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€other€reasonableÏhypothesis€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant,€and€that€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(Tenn.€1971).€€ð ðA€web€of€guilt€must€beÏwoven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€and€from€which€facts€andÏcircumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€ofÏthe€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€613.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€Court€has€previously€recognized€the€nature€of€proof€which€must€beÏpresented€before€a€jury€may€properly€infer€either€deliberation€or€premeditation:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœ(1)›€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€to€theÏactual€killing€which€show€he€was€engaged€in€activityÏdirected€toward€the€killing,€that€is,€òòplanning€activityóó;ÌÒ D ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ ô ÒÒ  Òœ(2)›€facts€about€the€defendant's€prior€relationship€andÏconduct€with€the€victim€from€which€òòmotiveóó€may€be€inferred;ÏandÌÌœ(3)›€facts€about€the€òònature€of€the€killingóó€from€which€it€may€beÏinferred€that€the€manner€of€killing€was€so€particular€andÏexacting€that€the€defendant€must€have€intentionally€killedÏaccording€to€a€preconceived€design.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓòòœState›€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòquotingóó€2€W.€¢LaFave£€andÏA.€Scott,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€7.7€(1986)€(emphasis€in€original).€€In€this€case,Ïthere€is€simply€no€proof€in€the€record€which€indicates€that€the€defendant€planned€toÍmurder€the€victim.€€Indeed,€the€evidence€points€instead€to€a€spontaneous€act€ofÏkilling.€€The€victim€was€killed€with€his€own€gun,€and€there€is€no€proof€whatsoever€thatÏthe€defendant€was€even€aware€that€the€victim€had€this€gun.€€Nor€is€there€any€proofÏthat€the€defendant€might€have€planned€to€murder€the€victim€by€some€other€method.€ÏIn€short,€there€is€no€evidence€of€ð ðplanning€activity.ððÌÌà àà àAs€to€motive,€the€State€concedes€that€the€proof€demonstrates€noÏargument€between€the€two€men.€€The€proof€further€demonstrates€little€to€no€priorÏrelationship€between€the€defendant€and€Branum:€€the€only€evidence€of€any€priorÏmeeting€is€the€defendant's€statement€to€Officer€Sneed€that€he€had€ð ðseen€the€guy€[he]Ïwas€talking€to€once€beforeðð€and€Sherrill's€testimony€that€Branum€had€saidÏð ðsomething€about€he€met€him€once€before.ðð€€€Moreover,€in€his€statement€theÏdefendant€said€that€he€did€not€even€know€the€victim's€name.€€The€State€posits€theÏtheory€that€the€defendant€took€silent€offense€when€Branum€indicated€his€disbelief€thatÏthe€defendant€had€ever€killed€anyone.€€Yet€the€only€proof€the€State€offers€up€of€this€isÏthe€murder€œitself.›€€As€succinctly€put€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.€1992),€€ð ð[¢w]hile£€the€state's€theory€may€be€true,€it€remains€onlyÏa€theory,€because€the€prosecution€has€no€evidence€to€support€it.ðð€€There€simply€is€noÏproof€in€the€record€of€a€prior€relationship€and/or€the€defendant's€conduct€with€BranumÏfrom€which€a€motive€for€premeditated€murder€may€be€inferred.ÌÌà àà àThe€nature€of€the€killing€supports€only€the€inference€that€the€defendantÏmade€a€spontaneous€and€impulsive€decision€to€shoot€the€victim.€€The€proofÏdemonstrates€that€they€were€outside€the€bar€and€out€of€sight€for€only€moments€beforeÏthe€victim€was€shot.€€Moreover,€he€was€shot€with€his€own€gun:€€and,€as€pointed€outÏabove,€there€is€absolutely€no€proof€that€the€defendant€was€aware€that€the€victim€evenÏhad€this€gun,€much€less€that€he€would€be€given€an€opportunity€to€get€his€hands€on€it.€ÏThe€State€points€to€the€defendant's€ð ðcalm€demeanor€and€his€immediate€concealmentÏof€the€weaponðð€after€the€shooting€as€ð ðindicative€of€a€cool,€dispassionate€premeditatedÏmurder.ðð€€We€acknowledge€that€ð ð[¢c]almness£€immediately€after€a€killing€may€beÏevidence€of€a€cool,€dispassionate,€premeditated€murder.ðð€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.€ÏUnder€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€however,€we€simply€do€not€think€theÏdefendant's€demeanor€after€the€shooting€establishes€that€he€planned€the€murderÏprior€to€committing€it.€€òòCf.óó€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148€(ð ð[¢W]hile£€the€defendant's€behaviorÏmanifests€.€.€.€€indifference€to€the€victim€and€fear€of€detection€[such]€that€the€jury€mightÏdiscredit€his€self„defense€story,€[his]€failure€to€report€the€shooting€to€the€police€fails€toÏestablish€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€advance€of€the€murder.ðð)ÌÌà àà àSimilarly,€that€the€defendant€apparently€threw€the€gun€to€the€side€of€theÏbuilding€after€shooting€Branum€is€not€sufficient€evidence€of€premeditation€and/orÍdeliberation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Masonóó,€___€S.W.2d€___,€___€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)Ï(ððWhile€we€cannot€infer€premeditation€and€deliberation€from€[the€defendant's]Ïconcealment€of€the€weapon€after€the€shooting,€concealment€does€contradict€theÏ[defendant's]€theory€of€self„defense€by€illustrating€fear€of€detection.ðð).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148€(ð ðThe€concealment€of€evidence€.€.€.€may€be€associatedÏwith€the€commission€of€òòanyóó€crime€and€the€accompanying€fear€of€punishment.ðð)Ï(emphasis€in€original).€ÌÌà àà à€ð ðThe€law€in€Tennessee€has€long€recognized€that€once€the€homicideÏhas€been€established,€it€is€presumed€to€be€murder€in€the€second€degree.€€The€stateÏbears€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€sufficient€toÏelevate€the€offense€to€first„degree€murder.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€543Ï(Tenn.€1992)€(citation€omitted).€€In€this€case,€the€State€has€simply€failed€to€meet€thisÏburden€and€the€presumption€of€second„degree€murder€is€therefore€¢unrebutted£.€ÏAccordingly,€were€it€not€for€our€remand€of€this€case€due€to€the€reversible€trial€error€setÏforth€below,€we€would€reduce€the€defendant's€conviction€to€second„degree€murder.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏwhen€it€admitted€into€evidence€a€photograph€of€the€victim€showing€the€gunshotÏwound.€€He€argues€that€defense€counsel€offered€to€stipulate€to€the€only€fact€which€theÍphotograph€was€offered€to€prove:€€that€the€shot€had€been€fired€at€very€close€range,Ïthereby€causing€powder€burns€to€the€victim's€face.€€Moreover,€he€points€out,€thereÏwas€expert€testimony€about€the€ð ðstipplingðð€and€the€nearness€of€the€range€from€whichÏthe€shot€was€fired.€€Accordingly,€the€photograph€became€needlessly€cumulative€andÏserved€merely€to€inflame€the€jury€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403Ï(ð ð[¢a]lthough£€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleadingÏthe€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentationÏof€cumulative€evidence.ðð)ÌÌà àà àIn€response,€the€State€argues€that€the€photograph€was€properlyÏadmitted€as€illustrative€of€the€expert€witness's€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,Ï878€S.W.2d€œ530,›€542€(Tenn.€1994).€€It€also€contends€that€defense€counsel'sÏstipulation€is€only€one€factor€that€the€trial€court€must€weigh€in€determining€whetherÏthe€probative€value€of€the€photograph€outweighs€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,Ïciting€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€874€S.W.2d€590,€597€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àà àThis€Court€will€not€overturn€a€trial€court's€decision€to€admit€aÏphotograph€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€No€such€showing€has€been€made€here.€€WithÍdefense€counsel€participating,€the€photograph€was€selected€from€several€as€beingÏthe€least€gruesome.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€determined€that€the€probative€value€of€theÏphotograph€outweighed€ð ðany€prejudiceðð€and€that,€in€spite€of€defense€counsel's€offerÏto€stipulate€(to€which€the€prosecution€did€not€agree),€ð ðthe€picture€is€worth€a€thousandÏwords.ðð€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€court's€ruling,€and€this€issue€isÏtherefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏpermitted€Sherrill€to€testify€that,€in€her€personal€opinion,€he€was€ð ðweirdðð€and€that€sheÏhad€ð ðassumedðð€and€ð ðsuspectedðð€that€he€had€shot€Branum.€€He€argues€that€herÏdescription€of€him€as€ð ðweirdðð€amounted€to€character€evidence€and€that€ð ðIf€the€juryÏaccredited€[her]€testimony€then€it€could€have€been€a€substitute€for€motive.ðð€€The€StateÏresponds€that,€following€her€labeling€of€the€defendant€as€ð ðweird,ðð€Sherrill€testifiedÏabout€specific€instances€of€his€behavior€which€had€led€her€to€that€conclusion.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Thus,Ïaccording€to€the€State,€ð ðSherrill€was€not€testifying€about€possible€motives,€she€wasÍmerely€giving€a€simple€description€of€[the€defendant's]€behavior.ðð€€The€State€alsoÏargues€that€Sherrill's€stated€suspicion€helped€the€jury€to€understand€why€she€hadÏtold€the€police€dispatcher€(who€had€called€in€response€to€the€911€call)€that€theÏshooter€was€still€at€the€bar.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€trial€in€1995,€our€rules€of€evidence€provided€that€a€layÏwitness€could€testify€ð ðin€the€form€of€opinions€or€inferencesðð€only€where€the€opinionsÏand€inferences€ð ð(1)€.€.€.€do€not€require€a€special€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€orÏtraining;€(2)€The€witness€cannot€readily€and€with€equal€accuracy€and€adequacyÏcommunicate€what€the€witness€has€perceived€to€the€trier€of€fact€without€testifying€inÏterms€of€opinions€or€inferences;€and€(3)€The€opinions€or€inferences€will€not€misleadÏthe€trier€of€fact€to€the€prejudice€of€the€objecting€party.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701(a)€(1995).€ÏOur€standard€of€review€in€determining€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÏtestimony€at€issue€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€¢Caughron£óó,€855€S.W.2d€526,Ï540€(Tenn.€1993)€(ð ðIt€is€well„settled€that€the€propriety,€scope,€manner€and€control€ofÏthe€examination€of€witnesses€is€a€matter€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,Ïsubject€to€appellate€review€for€abuse€of€discretion.ðð)ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€we€think€the€court€abused€its€discretion€in€allowing€SherrillÏto€testify€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðweirdðð€and€that€she€had€suspected€him€of€shootingÍBranum.€€Her€testimony€should€have€been€limited€to€describing€her€observations€ofÏthe€defendant's€behavior.€€The€jury€could€then€have€drawn€appropriate€inferencesÏfrom€these€observations.€€Instead,€Sherrill€was€allowed€to€testify€that€she€had€foundÏthe€defendant€ð ðweirdðð€with€very€little€factual€basis€on€which€to€support€this€opinion.€ÏWorse,€her€assumption€that€the€defendant€had€shot€¢Branum£€¢„„£€voiced€before€sheÏeven€saw€¢Branum£€on€the€ground€„„€was€based€on€no€specific€event€or€conduct€orÏwords€about€which€she€testified,€other€than€having€heard€a€ð ðpop.ðð€€We€find€that€thisÏtestimony€was€misleading€to€the€defendant's€prejudice.€€Thus,€this€testimony€did€notÏsatisfy€the€requirements€of€the€applicable€rule€of€evidence€and€should€have€beenÏexcluded.ÌÌà àà àHowever,€that€portion€of€¢Sherrill£ððs€testimony€at€issue€was€useful€to€theÏState€only€for€proof€of€premeditation€and/or€deliberation,€insofar€as€it€may€haveÏassisted€the€jury€in€determining€why€the€defendant€killed€¢Branum£€(because€he€wasÏð ðweirdðð)€or€in€concluding€that€Sherrill€suspected€him€because€she€had€observedÏsome€behavior€on€his€part€that€indicated€his€intent€or€plan€to€kill€Branum:€but€whichÏobservation€was€otherwise€not€elicited€during€her€testimony.€€In€other€words,€the€juryÏmay€have€inferred€from€Sherrillððs€inferences€that€the€defendant€had€in€factÏdemonstrated€some€premeditation€or€deliberation,€and€that€Sherrill€simply€did€notÏtestify€about€all€of€the€specifics€underlying€her€opinions.€€Yet,€even€with€thisÍerroneously€admitted€testimony,€we€have€found€the€evidence€to€be€insufficient€toÏsupport€a€verdict€of€premeditated€first„degree€murder.€€Thus,€it€is€unnecessary€for€thisÏCourt€to€determine€whether€its€admission€constituted€reversible€error.€€We€cautionÏthe€trial€court,€however,€that€this€opinion€testimony€would€be€irrelevant€in€theÏdefendant's€new€trial.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÏerror€in€its€treatment€of€Lloyd€Dorn.€€We€agree.€€On€initial€cross„examination,€defenseÏcounsel€asked€Dorn,€ð ðYou€can't€identify€the€other€person€that€was€there,€can€you€tellÏme€whether€or€not€it€was€him?ðð€apparently€pointing€to€the€defendant.€€DornÏresponded,€ð ðNo,€it€wasn't€that€guy.ðð€€On€redirect,€the€prosecuting€attorney€asked,Ïð ðYou're€saying€today,€you€see€this€man€here€[again,€apparently€pointing€to€theÏdefendant]€and€you€don't€recognize€him€as€the€person€you€saw€in€the€parking€lot?ðð€toÏwhich€Dorn€responded,€ð ðNo,€I€do€not€recognize€him.ðð€€The€State€then€asked,€ð ðIs€itÏyour€testimony€today€that€you€can€describe€what€that€other€person€looked€like€or€youÏjust€don't€know?ðð€and€Dorn€said,€ð ðThe€other€person€was€shorter€than€this€guy.ðð€€TheÏprosecutor€then€asked€that€Dorn€be€declared€a€hostile€witness€because€heÏð ðinterviewed€this€man€on€Sunday€and€he€told€me€very€specifically€he€had€no€idea.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àThe€jury€was€removed€and€the€State€proceeded€to€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó€the€witness.€ÍDorn€indicated€that€the€man€he€had€seen€on€the€parking€was€not€only€shorter€thanÏthe€defendant,€but€his€hair€was€different€and€he€was€stockier€than€the€defendant.€€TheÏprosecuting€attorney€then€reviewed€with€Dorn€the€statement€that€Dorn€had€given€toÏOfficer€Sneed€during€the€investigation€in€which€no€mention€was€made€of€the€otherÏperson's€build.€€Dorn€testified€that€ð ðhe€didn't€ask€me,€you€know,€what€the€personÏlooked€like.ðð€€The€prosecutor€then€questioned€Dorn€about€a€conversation€betweenÏDorn,€the€attorney€and€Officer€Sneed€on€the€Sunday€preceding€the€trial:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒœQ:›€€And€do€you€remember€us€asking€you€about€him?ÌœA:›€€You€just€asked€me,€you€know,€who€I€seen.ÌœQ:›€€Yeah,€I€asked€you€a€lot€of€things;€didn't€I?ÌœA:›€€And€you€asked€me€if€I€knew€the€other€person€and€I€said€no.ÌœQ:›€€And€I€asked€you€what€he€looked€like?ÌœA:›€€Now,€I€don't€remember€you€asking€me€that.ÌÓÓœQ:›€€You€don't€remember,€you€don't€remember€me€asking€you€what€heÏlooked€like€and€you€said,€ð ðI€don't€know,€I€couldn't€identify€himðð?ÌÌœA:›€€No,€I€couldn't€identify€him€because€I€don't€„„€I€never€have€seen€theÏperson€in€my€life.ÌÌœQ:›€.€.€.€Did€you€or€did€you€not€tell€me€on€Sunday€that€you€couldn'tÏidentify€the€man€who€was€on€that€parking€lot€if€he€was€standing€rightÏthere€in€front€of€you,€weren't€those€your€words?ÌÌœA:›€€No,€I€don't€think€so.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAt€this€point,€the€prosecutor€admonished€Dorn,€ð ðI€want€you€to€think€about€thatÏanswer.ðð€€Defense€counsel€objected,€and€the€trial€judge€stated€to€Dorn,€ð ðNo,€I've€gotÏto€caution€Mr.€Dorn€that€you€know€that€you€are€under€oath?€.€.€.€œ€Perjury›€is€lying€underÏœoath€.›€.€.€.€œ€And›€it€carries€one€to€six€years€in€the€œpenitentiary€.›€.€.€.€œ€So›€just€rememberÏthat€when€you're€answering€questions.ððÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€instructing€the€witness€about€theÏsignificance€of€his€oath.€€However,€at€this€point€in€the€proceedings,€defense€counselÏstated,€ð ðWell,€Judge,€I€don't€think€there's€any€reason€to€think€that€this€witness€is€lyingððÏand€the€judge€responded,€ð ðWell,€I€think€there's€every€reason€to€believe€that.ðð€€AfterÏsome€further€discussion€with€defense€counsel,€the€trial€court€declared€Dorn€to€be€aÏhostile€witness.€€The€prosecutor€subsequently€stated,€ð ðI€have€a€good€faith€basis€toÏbelieve€that€this€man€is€committing€perjury€and€I'm€on€the€verge€of€recommendingÏthat€we€go€to€the€grand€jury€with€it€and€I'm€going€to€give€you€an€opportunity€to€explainÏyour€answer€clearly€at€12€o'clock€„„€ðð€€Defense€counsel€then€asked€to€state€anÏobjection€to€which€the€court€responded,€ð ðNo,€let€the€Attorney€General€continue.ðð€ÏDefense€counsel€attempted€again,€and€the€judge€stated,€ð ðMr.€Roddy,€sit€down.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àThe€prosecutor€then€continued€its€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó€of€Dorn,€stating€that€he€hadÏasked€Dorn€on€Sunday,€ð ðcould€you€give€me€any€description€of€the€person€who€wasÍon€the€lot€that€night?ðð€€Dorn€responded,€ð ðI€understand€you€asked€me€did€I€know€theÏperson€that€was€there€and€I€said€no.ðð€€After€further€fruitless€questioning,€the€StateÏcalled€Officer€Sneed€to€the€stand€to€discuss€Sunday's€discussion€with€Dorn.€€OfficerÏSneed€testified€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€had€ð ðasked€[Dorn]€about€the€otherÏperson€and€Mr.€Dorn€did€make€the€statement€that€he€didn't€believe€he€could€identifyÏthat€man€or€recognize€that€man€if€he€was€on€the€parking€lot€with€us€at€that€time.ðð€€OnÏcross„examination€defense€counsel€asked€Officer€Sneed€if€he€had€ever€asked€DornÏto€describe€the€person€he€had€seen,€and€Officer€Sneed€responded,€ð ðNo,€sir.ðð€€He€alsoÏadmitted€that€he€had€not€shown€Dorn€any€photographs.€€Dorn€was€then€recalled€toÏthe€witness€stand€and€he€reiterated€in€response€to€further€questioning€by€the€StateÏthat€he€had€never€seen€the€defendant€ð ðuntil€this€morning.ðð€€The€judge€thenÏquestioned€Dorn,€asking€him€if€he€had€spoken€with€any€of€the€defendant's€friends€orÏfamily,€or€if€he€had€discussed€the€matter€with€anyone€other€than€defense€counsel,€toÏwhich€Dorn€replied€no.€ÌÌà àà àAt€this€point€in€the€proceedings,€it€is€obvious€that€the€State€had€beenÏunpleasantly€surprised€by€Dorn's€testimony.€€However,€stating€that€you€could€notÏidentify€or€recognize€someone€if€you€saw€them€again€is€different€from,€òòbut€notÏinconsistent€withóó,€later€stating€that€a€particular€person€is€not€the€person€you€had€seenÏearlier.€€During€its€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó€of€both€Dorn€and€Office€Sneed,€the€State€did€not€establishÍthat€Dorn€had€earlier€refused€to€give€a€description€of€the€man€he€had€seen.€€Nor€did€itÏestablish€that€it€had€provided€Dorn€with€an€opportunity€to€identify€or€recognize€theÏdefendant€in€which€Dorn€responded€differently€than€he€did€at€trial.€€Thus,€the€StateÏfailed€to€establish€on€the€record€that€there€was€a€good€faith€basis€to€suspect€Dorn€ofÏperjury.€€Indeed,€after€the€prosecuting€attorney€finished€examining€Dorn€he€stated€toÏthe€court,€ð ðI€think€the€man's€offered€perjured€testimony,€but€I€don't€think€it's€strongÏenough€to€move€for€an€indictment€on€it.ðð€€The€court€responded,€ð ðNo,€I€don't€think€[so]Ïeither.ðð€€However,€the€judge€then€stated,€in€Dorn's€presence,€ð ðI€think€that€Mr.€SneedÏor€members€of€the€sheriff's€department€should€investigate€this€case€further€to€see€ifÏ[Dorn]€has€had€contact€with€anyone€else€and€if€he€has€then€he€should€be€indicted€forÏperjury.ððÌÌà àà àWhen€the€court€reiterated€its€declaration€of€Dorn€as€a€hostile€witness,Ïdefense€counsel€objected.€€The€judge€responded,€still€in€Dorn's€presence,€ð ðI€believeÏthat€Mr.€Dorn€is€lying€under€oath.€€I€don't€think€there's€sufficient€proof€at€this€time,€but€IÏthink€he€thinks€that€he€can€come€into€court€like€other€witnesses€do€at€times,Ïunfortunately€we€do€have€too€much€perjury€in€court€and€I€think€that€this€man€isÏcommitting€perjury.ðð€€In€its€continuing€colloquy€with€counsel,€the€court€went€on:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœI›€think€the€man€is€committing€perjury.Ìœ.›€.€.€ÌœAnd›€he€may€suffer€the€consequences€if€„„Ìœ.›€.€.€Ìœ„„›€the€county€investigates€and€can€prove€it€because€to€me€murder€isÏextremely€serious€and€is€something€that€we€should€definitely€try,€but€toÏme€the€second€thing€is€perjury.€€Anything€that€corrupts€the€judicialÏprocess€is€a€very€serious€offense€and€all€efforts€should€be€expended€toÏprosecute€anyone€who€commits€perjury€so€they€should€investigate.Ìœ.›€.€.€ÌœI'm›€a€pretty€good€lie€detector.Ìœ.›€.€.€ÌœI›€think€the€man€is€lying€under€oath.€€It's€that€simple.Ìœ.›€.€.€ÌœBut›€as€I€say€if€he's€not€then€nothing€will€happen,€if€he€is€hopefully€theyÏwill€be€able€to€prosecute€him€for€it€because€I€do€not€think€that€„„€treat€thatÏvery€lightly€that€anyone€would€come€into€court€and€lie€under€oath.Ìà àà8 à€€€€€€ÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓDefense€counsel€then€repeated€its€objection€to€Dorn€being€declared€a€hostileÏwitness.ÌÌà àà àThe€prosecutor€then€spoke€up,€and€the€trial€judge€stated€to€him,€ð ðBut€IÏthink€Mr.€Davis€you'd€be€pretty€foolish€to€question€him€much€further€because€I€thinkÏhe's€already€testified€and€I€think€the€best€thing€you€could€do€is€move€on€and€hopeÏthat€the€jury€believes€the€other€œwitnesses€.›€.€.€.€œ€Because›€you€don't€want€to€get€off€onÏtrying€this€œmanÌ.›€.€.€.€œ€Because›€see,€you€know,€that's€always€a€good€ploy€is€to€try€somebody€else€so€IÏthink€it€would€be€best€if€we€continue€trying€Mr.€¢Schafer£.ðð€€The€jury€was€subsequentlyÏreturned€to€the€courtroom€and€the€State€initially€passed€on€further€questions.€ÍDefense€counsel€then€asked€Dorn,€ð ðIs€that€the€man€that€was€out€there€when€youÏdrove€by?ðð€and€Dorn€responded,€ð ðTo€my€best€recollection,€no.ðð€€The€State€followedÏwith€a€short€redirect.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€next€day,€the€State€again€called€Dorn€to€the€stand€outside€theÏpresence€of€the€jury€and€established€that€he€knew€defense€counsel€and€defenseÏcounsel's€father€independently€of€the€case.€€Following€this,€Dorn€asked€to€make€aÏstatement€and€the€court€said,€ÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœOkay.›€€See,€let€me€advise€you€of€this,€Mr.€Dorn,€you€haveÏevery€right€to€be€represented€by€a€lawyer€because€thisÏCourt€believes€that€you€lied€under€oath€yesterday,€just€flatÏlied€and€you€thought€that€you€could€get€away€with€it€andÏyou€may€be€able€to€get€away€with€it€because€the€State€mayÏnot€be€able€to€prove€that€you€lied€under€oath,€but€it€looksÏlike€they've€done€a€pretty€good€job€in€one€evening€ofÏdigging€up€some€information€about€you× ƒ7 ××  ×€so€if€you€want€toÏsay€anything€I'll€let€you€say€anything€you€want€to€say,€but€IÏwant€to€caution€you€that€anything€you€say€could€be€usedÏagainst€you€and€everything€you€say€is€being€taken€down.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓDorn€then€explained€how€he€had€talked€with€his€wife€the€night€before€and€that€he€hadÏð ðworried€and€worried€and€worried€and€run€through€my€mind€about€seeing€the€personÏthere.ðð€€He€explained€that€he€and€his€wife€had€driven€by€Fuzzy's€again€the€nightÍbefore€and€tested€his€ability€to€recognize€and€remember€the€vehicles€he€saw€as€theyÏdrove€by.€€He€then€said,€ð ðI€could€have€made€a€mistake.€€I€am€only€human,€Judge.ðð€ÏThe€following€then€took€place:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœTHE›€COURT:€€Well,€no,€the€Court€just€obviously€thinks€whatÏyou€intended€to€do€was€assist€Mr.€Roddy.€€I€don't€accuseÏMr.€Roddy€of€doing€anything€improper,€but€I€accuse€you€ofÏwanting€to€help€Mr.€Roddy€by€saying€that€this€man€definitelyÏwasn't€the€person€you€saw€there€and€you€never€indicatedÏthat€to€Mr.€Davis€or€to€Detective€Sneed€ahead€of€time.ÌÌœTHE›€WITNESS:€€Well,€I€was€never€actually€asked€aboutÏthat.ÌÌœTHE›€COURT:€€No,€I€think€you're€trying€to€backpedal€now€orÏsomething,€but€anyhow,€you've€had€your€say€on€that.€Ìœ.›€.€.€ÌœTHE›€COURT:€€So€you€could€have€been€wrong€about€thatÏnot€possibly€being€him?ÌÌœTHE›€WITNESS:€€Yes.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓThe€jury€was€then€returned€to€the€courtroom€and€the€prosecutor€asked,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,Ïð ðYou€can't€tell€us,€you€can't€tell€the€jury€with€any€certainty€whether€or€not€you€saw€thisÏman€on€that€parking€lot€or€not;€can€you?ðð€€Dorn€responded,€ð ðAs€today€I€cannot.ðð€€InÏresponse€to€further€questioning,€he€testified,€ð ðI'm€only€human€and€a€person€can€beÏwrong.€.€.€.€œ€I›€was€wrong€yesterday,€yes.ððÌÌà àà àClearly,€the€multiple€threats€of€prosecution€by€the€State€òòand€the€courtóó,Íand€the€court's€repeated€declarations€that€it€believed€Dorn€to€be€guilty€of€perjury€inÏspite€of€the€fact€that€Dorn€was€not€on€trial€for€same,€had€an€effect€on€Dorn's€testimony.€ÏJust€as€clearly,€the€change€in€testimony€was€to€the€defendant's€detriment.€€While€weÏagree€that€a€trial€court€may€properly€advise€a€witness€of€the€significance€of€lyingÏunder€oath,€the€court€in€this€case€went€far€beyond€an€appropriate€warning.€€In€thisÏcase,€the€court€went€so€far€in€threatening€and€intimidating€the€witness,€with€resultingÏprejudice€to€the€defendant,€that€the€defendant's€right€to€a€fair€trial€was€compromisedÏand€the€outcome€of€the€trial€brought€into€question.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€the€trial€court's€comments€to€the€witness€and€the€prosecution€constitutedÏreversible€error.€€òòSeeóó€¢T.R.A.P.£€36(b)€(ð ðA€final€judgment€from€which€relief€is€availableÏand€otherwise€appropriate€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,€considering€the€wholeÏrecord,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€than€not€affected€theÏjudgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð)€€Accordingly,€weÏreverse€the€judgment€below€and€remand€this€matter€for€a€new€trial.× ƒ8 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÏinstructed€the€jury€on€parole€eligibility€dates.€€However,€he€candidly€concedes€that€heÏð ðbelieves€the€[trial€court]€correctly€charged€the€jury€pursuant€to€[T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„201]Íbut€respectfully€submits€that€the€instruction€denied€him€due€process€of€lawðð€under€theÏfourteenth€amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€Because€he€cites€us€to€noÏauthority€in€support€of€this€proposition,€this€issue€is€waived.€€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€being€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€first„degreeÏpremeditated€murder€and€the€court€below€having€committed€reversible€error,€weÏreverse€the€defendant's€conviction€for€first„degree€premeditated€murder€and€remandÏthis€matter€for€a€new€trial€on€second„degree€murder€and€any€appropriate€lesserÏoffenses.ÌÓӜ̛œÌ›à àà àà àœà àà àà àà à______________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àJOHN›€H.€¢PEAY£,€JudgeÌÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœÌ______________________________›ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌœÌ______________________________›ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge