ÿWPC% …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ B9U >VU*” D3¾B)ñDC 0@] AMëêæÕð» «çKu2v~§vÓ% AOø#ÆG$ 0D % D/Q% B€%˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ GHDIJDKLUMDNOPÓ€Úƒç"3|x[((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial""""'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òOctober€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€The€defendantððs€reason€for€the€request€to€waive€further€mitigating€proof€andÏargument€is€not€revealed€in€the€record.€€Arguably,€it€could€be€strictly€tactical€hoping€for€a€lifeÏsentence,€or€it€could€be€that€defendant€desired€the€death€penalty.€€The€defendantððs€motive€isÏnot€determinative€of€this€issue€on€appeal.€€Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Noting€that€it€would€be€inappropriate€to€require€defense€counsel€to€present€mitigatingÏevidence€contrary€to€the€wishes€of€the€client€and€further€noting€the€inappropriateness€of€theÏpresentation€of€such€proof€by€the€prosecutor€or€under€the€authority€of€the€trial€judge,€it€hasÏbeen€suggested€that€the€best€accommodation€of€interests€would€be€achieved€by€appointing€anÏindependent€attorney€whose€specific€role€is€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€Linda€E.€Carter,ÏòòMaintaining€Systemic€Integrity€In€Capital€Cases:€The€Use€of€Court„Appointed€Counsel€toÏPresent€Mitigating€Evidence€When€the€Defendant€Advocates€Deathóó,€55€TÔ€(ôÔENN.€Ô€(XÔL.€RÔ€(ôÔEV.€Ô€(XÔ95,Ï147„49€(1987).€€We€do€not€find€that€such€is€required€by€the€United€States€Constitution€or€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€Ì –Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€We€are€mindful€that€other€panels€of€this€court€have€found€error€in€the€admission€ofÏvictim€impact€testimony.€€òòState€v.€Clarence€C.€Nesbitóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9510„CR„00293Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Apr.€22,€1997,€at€Jackson);€òòState€v.€Perry€A.€Cribbsóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï02C01„9508„CR„00211€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Feb.€14,€1997,€at€Jackson);€òòState€v.€AntonioÏM.€Byrdóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9508„CR„00232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Dec.€30,€1996,€atÏJackson).€€However,€harmless€error€was€found€in€each€case.Ì ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Although›€there€is€no€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€report€by€the€trial€judge€filedÏœin€the›€record,€we€have€examined€the€reports€filed€after€both€prior€trials€of€this€case.€€TheÏabsence€of€a€new€report€does€not€prevent€adequate€proportionality€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ï893€S.W.2d€908,€927€(Tenn.€1994).Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ À Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€No€execution€date€is€set€since€this€case€will€be€automatically€reviewed€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1).€€If€the€death€sentence€isÏaffirmed,€that€Court€will€set€the€execution€date.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€(ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€<ÛXXdðdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó óà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9512„CC„00383Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àò òAppellee,ó óà àà àà à)à àHAMBLEN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òVS.ó óà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òHON.€LYNN€W.€BROWN,ÏJUDGEÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òLEONARD€EDWARD€SMITH,ó óà àà à)à à(Death€Penalty)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àò òAppellant.ó óà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌò òóóJ.€ROBERT€BOATRIGHTà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó150€Commerce€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKingsport,€TN€37660ÌÌò òLARRY€S.€WEDDINGTONà àà àà àAMY€L.€TARKINGTONÌó ó200€Seventh€Streetà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€ÌBristol,€TN€37620à àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òH.€GREELY€WELLS,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€526€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617„0526ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€€ó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌò òóóAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€<ÛXXdðXXdð7ÑÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÓÓó óÌà àThis€is€the€third€trial€in€which€the€defendant,€Leonard€Edward€Smith,€wasÏsentenced€for€the€felony€murder€of€Novella€Webb.€€On€each€occasion€he€wasÏsentenced€to€death€by€electrocution.€€The€guilt€of€the€defendant€having€beenÏpreviously€affirmed€on€direct€appeal,€the€present€appeal€resulted€solely€from€theÏre„sentencing€hearing.€€Finding€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€that€theÏdefendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€other€thanÏthe€present€charge,€which€involved€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person,€theÏjury€again€imposed€the€death€penalty.€€Defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏour€review:ÌÓÓà àà à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€allowing€the€defendant€Ìà àà à€€€€€€to€establish€selective€prosecution€by€the€district€attorney€Ìà à€€€à à€€€€€€general€in€death€penalty€cases;ÌÌà àà à(2)€whether€the€trial€judge€erred€by€not€recusing€himself;ÌÌà àà à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€defendant€Ìà àà à€€€€€€the€services€of€a€jury€selection€expert;ÌÌà àà à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€errors€with€regard€toÌà àà à€€€€€€the€jury€selection€process;ÌÌà àà à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€honoring€the€defendantððs€Ìà àà à€€€€€€request€not€to€present€further€mitigating€evidence;ÌÌà àà à(6)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€introductionÌà àà à€€€€€€of€the€judgment€of€conviction€for€the€present€offense;ÌÌà àà à(7)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€with€regard€to€the€introductionÌà àà à€€€€€€of€evidence€of€prior€violent€felonies€of€which€the€defendantÌà àà à€€€€€€had€been€convicted;ÌÌà àà à(8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€introductionÌà àà à€€€€€€of€victim€impact€evidence;ÌÌà àà à(9)€whether€the€state€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct;ÌÌà à€€€€€€€€€(10)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€errors€with€regard€to€the€Ìà àà à€€€€€€jury€instructions;ÌÌà à€€€€€€€€€(11)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€jurorsÌà àà à€€€€€€to€take€exhibits€to€the€jury€room€during€deliberations;ÌÌà à€€€€€€€€€(12)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€declaring€the€death€penaltyÌà àà à€€€€€€statutes€constitutional;€andÌÌÌà à€€€€€€€€€(13)€whether€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€was€excessive€andÌà àà à€€€€€€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€ÌÌFinding€no€reversible€error,€we€€AFFIRM€€the€sentence€of€death.€€ÌÌÓÓà@ àò òòòCASE€HISTORYóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€was€originally€charged€with€the€murder€of€John€Pierce€andÍNovella€Webb,€both€of€whom€were€killed€in€Sullivan€County.€€Venue€was€changedÏto€Hamblen€County€at€defendantððs€request,€and€he€was€convicted€on€two€(2)Ïcounts€of€felony€murder.€€At€the€conclusion€of€all€the€proof€in€the€first€trial,€the€stateÏwithdrew€the€death€penalty€request€for€the€murder€of€Pierce,€whereupon€defendantÏreceived€a€life€sentence€for€this€homicide.€€He€was€then€sentenced€to€death€for€theÏmurder€of€Webb.€€On€his€first€direct€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏaffirmed€the€conviction€and€the€life€sentence€for€the€murder€of€Pierce€but€reversedÏthe€conviction€for€the€murder€of€Webb.€€Finding€an€improper€joinder€of€offenses€asÏwell€as€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€final€argument,€the€Court€reversed€andÏremanded€for€a€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€755€S.W.2d€757€(Tenn.€1988)Ï(hereinafter€ð ðòòSmithóó€Iðð).€€Ìà àDefendant€was€re„tried€and€convicted€for€the€felony€murder€of€Webb€andÏagain€sentenced€to€death€by€electrocution.€€On€direct€appeal€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€affirmed€the€conviction€but€vacated€the€death€penalty€finding€(1)Ïthe€jury€was€improperly€allowed€to€consider€the€life€sentence€imposed€for€theÏPierce€murder€in€considering€the€death€penalty€for€the€Webb€murder;€and€(2)€theÏunderlying€felony€was€improperly€used€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€pursuantÏto€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993)€(hereinafter€ð ðòòSmithóó€IIðð).€€Ìà àUpon€remand€the€trial€judge€òòsua€sponteóó€changed€venue€from€HamblenÏCounty€to€Johnson€County.€€The€trial€judge€further€overruled€a€motion€for€recusal.€ÏAn€extraordinary€appeal€was€granted€by€this€Court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï10(a).€€On€extraordinary€appeal€this€Court€found€the€trial€court€erred€by€changingÍvenue€without€defendantððs€consent.€€The€refusal€of€the€trial€judge€to€recuse€himselfÏwas€affirmed;€however,€this€Court€noted€that€this€issue€could€be€re„litigated€onÏdirect€appeal.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Smithóó,€906€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ï(hereinafter€ð ðòòSmithóó€IIIðð).Ìà àA€re„sentencing€hearing€was€then€conducted€before€a€jury€in€HamblenÏCounty.€€Finding€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€defendant€hadÏpreviously€been€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€presentÏcharge,€which€involved€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person,€the€jury€againÏimposed€the€death€penalty.€€The€trial€court€ordered€that€the€death€penalty€runÏconsecutively€to€the€life€sentence€in€the€Pierce€murder.€€This€appeal€resulted.€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòEVIDENCE€AT€RE„SENTENCING€HEARINGóóó óÌÌà àThe€evidence€offered€at€the€re„sentencing€hearing€was€rather€limited.€€TheÏstate€introduced€a€Carter€County€indictment€charging€the€defendant€with€armedÏrobbery€along€with€the€judgment€revealing€that€defendant€was€convicted€of€simpleÏrobbery.€€An€officer€with€the€Carter€County€Sheriffððs€Department€identified€theÏdefendant€as€the€same€Leonard€Edward€Smith€convicted€of€that€robbery.€€TheÏstate€introduced€another€Carter€County€indictment€and€judgment€of€conviction€ofÏsimple€robbery.€€Another€officer€identified€the€defendant€as€the€same€LeonardÏEdward€Smith€who€was€convicted€of€that€robbery.€€Ìà àThe€state€then€introduced€the€redacted€judgment€revealing€that€defendantÏhad€been€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€in€the€Pierce€case.€€The€reference€to€theÍlife€sentence€was€redacted.€€Also€introduced€was€the€judgment€of€conviction€in€theÏinstant€case,€the€Webb€murder,€revealing€that€defendant€had€been€convicted€ofÏfirst€degree€murder.€€There€was€no€reference€to€the€sentence€previously€imposed.€ÏAn€agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€identified€the€defendant€asÏbeing€the€same€Leonard€Edward€Smith€convicted€of€these€two€murders.€€Ìà àThe€daughter€of€the€victim€testified€that€her€parents€operated€a€country€storeÏfor€many€years,€and€her€mother€was€59€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€her€death.€€SheÏfurther€ÌÌtestified€that€her€father€was€hospitalized€as€a€result€of€this€robbery€and€was€neverÏable€to€work€again.€€She€stated€that€her€family€lived€with€the€murder€all€the€time.€€Ìà àThe€defendantððs€only€witness€was€the€detective€in€charge€of€theÏinvestigation€of€the€case.€€At€the€request€of€defense€counsel,€he€read€defendantððsÏstatement€which€was€taken€shortly€after€the€arrest:€€€€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àI,€Leonard€Edward€Smith,€am€giving€thisÏstatement€of€my€own€free€will€and€without€any€threatsÏor€promises€being€made€to€me.€€On€Monday,€May€21,Ï1984,€I€was€with€my€girlfriend€Angie€O'Quinn€andÏDavid€Hartsock€and€we€went€and€got€some€liquorÏand€went€to€a€road€near€the€Sullivan„Carter€CountyÏline.€€We€parked€and€were€just€drinking€and€talkingÏand€smoked€some€joints.€€While€we€were€on€thatÏroad€in€my€black€Ford€Pinto€which€I€had€paintedÏblack€because€it€used€to€be€orange,€David€said€"GetÏout,€I€want€to€talk€to€you."€€€He€and€I€got€out€andÏwalked€a€ways€from€the€car€where€Angie€couldn'tÏhear€us€talking€and€David€said,€"I€can€get€us€a€little€bitÏof€money€down€here€at€this€store."€€€He€said,€"It€is€theÏstore€down€at€the€county€line,"€and€I€asked€him€if€itÍwas€Shorty€Malone's€and€he€said,€"Yes."€€Angie€and€IÏdrove€David€down€there,€and€let€him€off€a€little€waysÏfrom€the€store.€€I€parked€on€the€little€paved€roadÏbeside€the€store.€€David€had€a€thirty„two€caliberÏchrome€plated€pistol€with€him.€€The€pistol€was€hisÏpistol.€€I€heard€several€shots€fired€and€just€a€fewÏseconds€later€David€came€running€around€the€store.€ÏDavid€jumped€into€the€car€and€said,€"Get€the€hell€outÏof€here,€I€had€to€shoot€him."€€€I€figured€it€was€ShortyÏbecause€he€ran€the€store.€€We€drove€out€the€road€thatÏgoes€behind€theò ò€ó óside€of€Malone's€Grocery,€and€itÏdead€ends,€and€you€can€turn€left€to€the€WautaugaÏarea€or€right€back€to€Sullivan€County.€€We€turnedÏonto€the€Wautauga€Highway€and€drove€to€what€isÏknown€as€Mountain€Road.€€I€asked€David€if€he€shotÏthe€man,€and€he€said€that€he€shot€him€one€time€andÏthe€man€pulled€a€gun€and€started€shooting€at€him.€€IÏdon't€remember€if€he€said€what€money€he€got.€€IÏdrunk€some€more€liquor,€and€made€Angie€get€out€ofÏthe€car.€€I€started€driving€and€was€just€going€to€driveÏus€out€of€the€mountain.€€We€came€out€at€some€store,Ïand€I€turned€left,€and€drove€until€I€realized€I€wasÏgoing€to€[sic]€wrong€way,€and€I€pulled€in€at€Webb'sÏStore€to€turn.€€I€stopped€the€car€at€Webb's€and€DavidÏjumped€out,€and€I€ran€in€the€store€behind€him.€€DavidÏran€and€jumped€on€the€counter,€and€knocked€the€oldÏman€over€and€yelled€to€me,€"Get€that€bitch"€referringÏto€an€old€woman€at€the€end€of€the€counter.€€I€startedÏtowards€her,€and€she€started€throwing€things€at€meÏand€started€spraying€paint€on€me.€€I€fired€one€shotÏjust€to€scare€people,€but€the€old€woman€just€keptÏspraying€orange€paint€and€came€towards€me.€€IÏcouldn't€see€because€of€the€paint€and€I€held€the€gunÏup€and€apparently€the€old€lady€was€trying€to€get€theÏgun€away€from€me€and€it€went€off.€€We€ran€from€theÏstore€when€I€fired€the€second€shot.€€I€didn't€reallyÏknow€that€I€had€shot€her€until€we€heard€it€later€on€theÏnews.€€When€we€were€in€Webb's€Store€the€old€manÏwas€hollering,€"Help€me,€help€me,"€and€hollering€forÏhis€wife.€€The€old€woman€never€did€say€anything€thatÏI€remember.€€I€know€that€before€we€left€the€store,Ïsome€man€came€up€to€the€door,€and€I€told€him€to€getÏout€of€there.€€I€didn't€get€any€money€from€either€store,Ïand€David€didn't€say€if€he€did€or€not.€€David€and€I€leftÍWebb's€and€went€back€up€towards€Mountain€Road,Ïand€picked€Angie€up.€€I€told€her€we€had€to€get€out€ofÏthere,€and€we€drove€down€towards€Underwood€Park,Ïand€set€the€car€on€fire.€€David€cut€a€hose€next€to€theÏcarburetor€and€set€the€car€on€fire.€€David€and€AngieÏand€me€took€off€on€the€trails,€and€really€didn't€knowÏwhich€way€to€go.€€We€came€out€at€a€house€on€IndianaÏCreek.€€It€was€the€Johnson€residence€because€myÏdad€had€sold€them€the€house.€€We€didn't€go€to€theÏhouse€until€late€last€night,€and€Angie€got€GladysÏSheets€to€take€us€to€the€home€where€we€wereÏarrested€this€morning.€€I€had€never€been€to€the€houseÏbefore€but€had€been€in€the€area.€€When€Gladys€droveÏup€to€Dennis€Cove,€she€said€she€thought€we€did€it.€€IÏhad€taken€my€shirt€and€wrapped€my€feet€so€I€couldÏwalk€and€I€think€I€left€it€in€Gladys'€car€or€at€the€house.€ÏGladys€had€told€us€that€Mrs.€Webb,€and€the€man€atÏMalone's€were€both€dead.€€We€told€Gladys€that€weÏdidn't€do€it€and€she€said,€"If€you€didn't,€you€betterÏkeep€the€gun€because€the€news€said€it€was€aÏthirty„eight"€and€she€knew€we€had€a€thirty„two€caliber.€ÏI€told€David€to€throw€the€gun€out€anyway€because€IÏknew€we€had€done€it.€€He€threw€it€out€as€we€wentÏover€a€bridge,€and€we€drove€on€up€to€the€house.€€WeÏstopped€at€a€grocery€store,€and€Angie€and€GladysÏwent€in€and€got€some€food€for€us€to€take€to€the€house.€ÏWe€fixed€something€to€eat,€went€to€sleep,€but€I€felt€likeÏthey€knew€where€we€were€at.€€I€had€cut€mine€andÏDavid's€hair€with€a€pair€of€scissors€Angie€had€in€herÏpocketbook€because€I€knew€they€would€be€lookingÏfor€somebody€with€longer€hair.€€This€morning€I€heardÏa€loud€noise,€and€I€knew€we€were€caught€then.€€I€toldÏAngie€I€was€going€out,€and€you€come€out€too,€so€weÏwon't€get€hurt.€€Somebody€had€yelled€for€us€to€comeÏout,€and€David€went€out€first.€€All€I€know€is€thatÏeverything€didn't€turn€out€the€way€it€was€supposed€to,Ïand€it€shouldn't€have€happened.€€I€am€sorry€for€whatÏhappened,€because€I€know€I€am€a€thief,€but€I€don'tÏthink€of€myself€as€a€murderer.€€This€is€all€I€know€to€tellÏyou€about€what€happened.Ìà àÌà àÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÓÓà àAfter€the€testimony€of€the€detective,€the€defendant€requested€that€hisÍattorneys€present€no€further€mitigating€evidence€nor€make€a€closing€argument.€ÏThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€make€such€aÏrequest.€€No€further€mitigating€evidence€was€submitted.€€Ìà àThe€stateððs€rebuttal€proof€consisted€of€re„calling€the€daughter€of€the€victim.€ÏShe€testified€that€during€the€11€years€since€the€homicide,€she€had€never€seen€anyÏevidence€of€remorse€from€the€defendant.€€Ìà àThe€state€made€a€closing€argument.€€Defense€counsel,€honoringÏdefendantððs€request,€did€not.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€òòSELECTIVE€PROSECUTIONó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€requesting€that€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral€disclose€the€standards€used€to€determine€whether€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty€in€murder€cases.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€explained€thatÏaggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances€were€examined€and€weighed€in€order€toÏdetermine€whether€to€seek€the€death€penalty€under€particular€facts.€€DefenseÏcounselððs€request€to€put€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€under€oath€to€testifyÏwas€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àProsecutorial€discretion€used€in€selecting€candidates€for€the€death€penaltyÏdoes€not€result€in€any€constitutional€deprivation.€€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,Ï198„99,€96€S.Ct.€2909,€2937,€49€L.Ed.€2d€859€(1976);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876ÏS.W.2d€75,€86€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòII.€€RECUSAL€OF€TRIAL€JUDGEóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€judge€should€have€granted€a€motion€forÏrecusal€since€the€trial€judge€was€the€prosecuting€attorney€in€an€earlier€robberyÏcase€that€the€state€relied€upon€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€A€motion€forÏrecusal€based€upon€the€alleged€bias€or€prejudice€of€the€trial€judge€addresses€itselfÏto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absentÏa€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€67€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1991).€€A€motion€for€recusal€should€be€granted€whenever€the€judgeððsÏimpartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€10,€Code€ofÏJudicial€Conduct,€Canon€3C;€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€578€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àThe€issue€of€recusal€was€addressed€in€the€extraordinary€appeal€in€òòSmithóó€III.€ÏWe€noted€that€the€record€did€not€establish€that€the€trial€judge€acted€as€a€lawyer€inÏany€matter€ð ðin€controversyðð€and€further€found€no€indication€of€bias.€€òòSmithóó€III,€906ÏS.W.2d€at€12.€€We€found€that€the€disqualification€provisions€of€Article€6,€ðð€11€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€precluding€a€judge€from€presiding€ð ðon€the€trial€of€anyÏcause...€in€which€he€may€have€been€of€counsel...ðð€does€not€apply€to€priorÏconcluded€trials.€€òòIdóó.€at€12€(citing€òòState€v.€Warneróó,€649€S.W.2d€580,€581€(Tenn.Ï1983)).€€We,€nevertheless,€concluded€that€the€issue€could€be€more€fully€litigated€inÏthe€direct€appeal€if€the€defendant€establishes€that€the€nature€of€the€trial€judgeððsÏparticipation€in€the€earlier€prosecution€deprived€the€defendant€of€a€fair€andÏimpartial€arbiter.€€Our€review€of€the€record€indicates€no€further€evidence€of€theÍnature€of€the€trial€judgeððs€participation€in€the€underlying€charge.€€Accordingly,€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòIII.€€JURY€SELECTION€EXPERTó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€requested€the€expert€services€of€a€licensed€private€investigator,Ïtwo€(2)€psychologists,€a€medical€doctor€and€a€jury€selection€expert.€€All€servicesÏwere€authorized€except€the€jury€selection€expert.€€Defendant€challenges€thisÏdenial.Ìà àThe€decision€of€whether€to€authorize€expert€services€lies€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€261€(Tenn.Ï1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€743,€130€L.Ed.2d€644€(1995);€òòState€v.ÏOððGuinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561,€568€(Tenn.€1986)€òòcert.€denied,€óó479€U.S.€871,€107€S.Ct.Ï244,€93€L.Ed.2d€169€(1986).€€The€right€to€these€services€exists€only€upon€aÏshowing€of€a€particularized€need.€€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€904€(Tenn.Ï1995);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€179„80€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€defendant€mustÏshow€that€a€substantial€need€exists€requiring€the€assistance€of€state€paidÏsupporting€services€and€that€his€defense€cannot€be€fully€developed€without€suchÏprofessional€assistance.ðð€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó€€510€U.S.€1064,€114€S.Ct.€740,€126€L.Ed.2d€702€(1994).Ìà àOur€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€there€is€no€constitutional€violation€in€theÏdenial€of€a€capital€murder€defendantððs€request€for€funds€for€a€jury€selection€expert,Ïabsent€a€showing€of€any€special€need.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179„80.€ÍThere€was€no€showing€of€a€particularized€need€for€a€jury€selection€expert€in€theÏcase€at€bar.€€Defense€counsel€had€represented€defendant€in€both€of€his€prior€trialsÏand€conducted€extensive€òòvoir€direóó€in€the€present€case.€€The€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€denying€funds€for€a€jury€selection€expert.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòIV.€€JURY€SELECTIONóóÌà@ àA.€€Questionnaire€on€Life€ImprisonmentÌà àó óDefense€counsel€was€allowed€to€submit€an€extensive€questionnaire€toÏpotential€jurors€prior€to€the€jury€selection€process.€€The€trial€judge€disallowed,Ïhowever,€two€(2)€questions€asking€whether€the€potential€juror€believed€that€aÏperson€sentenced€to€life€would€spend€the€rest€of€his€life€in€prison,€and€if€not,€howÏmany€years€he/she€thought€such€a€person€would€serve.€€One€of€these€questionsÏalso€asked€whether€this€would€make€the€potential€juror€less€likely€to€vote€for€a€lifeÏsentence.€€Ìà àThe€scope€and€extent€of€òòvoir€direóó€is€entrusted€to€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge€whose€actions€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòState€v.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€125€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€755€S.W.2d€41,€45Ï(Tenn.€1988).€€Defendant€contends€more€leeway€should€be€allowed€in€òòvoir€direóó€soÏas€to€enable€him€to€intelligently€exercise€peremptory€challenges.€€Although€weÏagree€with€this€general€statement,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€instance.€ÏWithout€the€opportunity€of€an€explanation€from€counsel€or€the€court€as€to€theseÏquestions€on€the€questionnaire,€this€could€lead€to€unwarranted€speculation€as€toÍthe€meaning€of€a€life€sentence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€Group€Voir€Direó óÌà àThe€trial€judge€denied€defendantððs€request€for€individual€òòvoir€direóó€on€allÏissues€except€pre„trial€publicity€and€views€on€the€death€penalty.€€Defendant€citesÏthree€(3)€instances€during€group€òòvoir€direóó€when€jurors€stated€they€would€be€unableÏto€follow€the€law.€€He€contends€he€was€prejudiced€by€group€òòvoir€direóó.€€All€of€theseÏjurors€were€ultimately€excused€for€cause.€€Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€authority€to€question€jurors€individually€is€permissive,€notÏmandatory.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€167€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóóÏ116€S.Ct.€137€(1994).€€It€is€only€where€there€is€a€significant€possibility€that€jurorsÏhave€been€exposed€to€potentially€prejudicial€material€that€individual€òòvoir€direóó€isÏmandated.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€262.€€Our€review€of€the€record€does€notÏindicate€any€prejudice€to€the€defendant€as€a€result€of€group€òòvoir€direóó.€€The€three€(3)Ïinstances€related€by€the€defendant€did€not€result€in€prejudicial€information€beingÏimparted€to€other€jurors.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà@ àò òC.€Alternating€Voir€Dire€Questioningó óÌà àDefendant€complains€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€not€alternating€the€order€ofÏòòvoir€direóó€between€the€state€and€the€defense.€€This€issue€was€rejected€in€òòSmithóó€II,Ï857€S.W.2d€at€20.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€allowing€the€state€to€proceedÏfirst€in€òòvoir€direóó€questioning.Ìà@ àò òD.€€òòSua€Sponteóó€Dismissals€for€CauseÌó óà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€òòsua€sponteóó€excusing€severalÏprospective€jurors€for€cause.€€In€the€instances€cited€by€defendant,€each€juror€hadÏindicated€that€he€or€she€could€not€follow€the€law.€€It€is€clear€that€each€jurorððs€viewsÏwould€ð ðprevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€of€his€[her]€duties€as€a€jurorÏin€accordance€with€his€[her]€instructions€and€his€[her]€œoath.ð𛀀òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469ÏU.S.€412,€424,€105€S.Ct.€844,€852,€83€L.Ed.2d€841€(1985).Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€on€this€issue€are€entitled€to€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€since€they€involve€a€determination€of€demeanor€and€credibility,€andÏthe€burden€rests€on€the€defendant€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏthat€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€were€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2dÏ506,€518€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€responses€of€these€jurors€gave€the€judge€the€ð ðdefiniteÏimpressionðð€they€could€not€follow€the€law.€€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€at€425„26,Ï105€S.Ct.€at€853.Ìà àThese€jurors€met€the€standard€for€dismissal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Hutchisonóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€161€(Tenn.1994).€€Furthermore,€the€argument€that€defense€counsel€shouldÏbe€allowed€to€rehabilitate€such€jurors€is€without€merit.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÏ54,€65€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ìà@ àò òE.€€Failure€to€Excuse€for€Causeó óÌà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€judge€erred€in€failing€to€excuse€two€(2)Ïpotential€jurors€who€stated€they€could€not€consider€mitigating€evidence.€€AlthoughÏboth€potential€jurors€initially€stated€they€would€have€trouble€considering€certainÏkinds€of€mitigating€evidence,€the€totality€of€the€questions€and€answers€reveals€thatÏthey€could€follow€the€law€in€weighing€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances.€ÍThe€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€ruling€on€the€qualifications€of€jurors.€€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€248€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€failure€to€exclude€these€two€(2)Ïjurors€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ìà àFurthermore,€one€of€the€jurors€was€excused€by€defendantððs€peremptoryÏchallenge.€€Neither€did€the€other€juror€sit€on€the€panel.€€The€defendant€exercisedÏonly€six€(6)€peremptory€challenges€out€of€the€allowed€15€challenges.€€Therefore,Ïdefendant€is€entitled€to€no€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€248„49.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòV.€€FAILURE€TO€PRESENT€FURTHER€MITIGATING€PROOFó óóóÌÌà àAfter€the€testimony€of€the€investigating€detective€who€read€the€defendantððsÏpre„trial€statement€to€the€jury,€defense€counsel€advised€the€trial€judge€that€theÏdefendant€wanted€to€waive€further€mitigating€proof.€€Since€this€was€against€theÏadvice€of€counsel,€the€trial€judge€allowed€a€recess€in€which€counsel€discussed€thisÏissue€with€the€defendant.€€Upon€returning€to€the€courtroom,€counsel€again€statedÏdefendantððs€desire€to€rest€the€case€and€waive€final€argument.€€According€toÏcounsel,€defendant€had€considered€waiving€mitigation€proof€several€monthsÏearlier.€€The€trial€court€questioned€the€defendant€as€to€this€decision,€including€theÏlikelihood€that€the€ð ðjury€will€almost€certainly€return€with€a€verdict€of€death€byÏelectrocution.ðð€€Defendant,€who€refused€to€communicate€directly€with€the€trialÏjudge,€acknowledged€through€counsel€that€he€understood.€€Ìà àDefense€counsel€was€questioned€extensively€by€the€trial€judge€as€toÏdefendantððs€competency.€€Noting€that€defendant€had€been€examined€by€variousÍexperts,€defense€counsel€stated€none€of€the€reports€indicated€that€he€wasÏincompetent.€€Both€defense€counsel€advised€the€court€they€had€no€doubts€aboutÏdefendantððs€competency€and€ability€to€make€this€decision.€€The€trial€judge€wasÏsatisfied€that€the€defendant€understood€the€ramifications€of€this€decision.€€Ìà àDefense€counsel€then€rested€the€case€even€though€other€witnesses€wereÏprepared€to€testify€on€behalf€of€the€defendant.€€Final€argument€was€also€waived€atÏthe€request€of€the€defendant.€€Defendant€now€contends€the€trial€court€erred€inÏallowing€the€defendant€to€waive€further€proof€and€final€argument.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Ìà@ àò òA.€€Waiveró óÌà àFirstly,€we€note€that€the€issue€of€the€failure€to€present€further€mitigating€proofÏand€final€argument€has€been€waived.€€Defendant€seeks€relief€for€something€heÏchose€to€do.€Relief€may€not€be€granted€to€a€party€responsible€for€an€alleged€errorÏor€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullifyÏthe€harmful€effect€of€the€alleged€error.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,Ï862€S.W.2d€574€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€issue€is€also€waived€by€the€failureÏto€raise€it€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Moffettóó,€729ÏS.W.2d€679€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Nonetheless,€we€will€address€the€issue.ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Defendantððs€Right€to€Control€DefenseÌó óà àDefendant€now€contends€he€had€no€right€to€control€the€presentation€of€hisÏdefense;€therefore,€it€was€error€for€the€court€to€allow€defense€counsel€to€follow€hisÏdirective€to€present€no€further€mitigating€proof€nor€make€a€closing€argument.€€Ìà àIn€death€penalty€cases,€the€sentencer€may€not€be€precluded€fromÏconsidering€any€aspect€of€a€defendantððs€character€or€record€as€a€basis€for€aÏsentence€less€than€death.€€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604„05,€98€S.Ct.€2954,Ï2964„65,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978)€(plurality€opinion);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJohnson€v.€Texasóó,Ï509€U.S.€350,€361,€113€S.Ct.€2658,€2666,€125€L.Ed.2d€290,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€509€U.S.Ï941,€114€S.Ct.€15,€125€L.Ed.2d€767€(1993).€€The€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏhas€held€that€mitigating€evidence€is€relevant€to€sentencing€hearings€and€should€beÏheard.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€541,€107€S.Ct.€837,€839,€93ÏL.Ed.2d€934€(1987);€òòEddings€v.€Oklahomaóó,€455€U.S.€104,€113„15,€102€S.Ct.€869,Ï876„77,€71€L.Ed.2d€1€(1982).€€As€a€general€rule,€counsel€should€present€mitigatingÏevidence.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€there€is€no€Ïlegal€requirement€and€no€established€practice€that€the€accused€must€offerÏevidence€at€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,Ï421€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.Ct.€211,€107€L.Ed.2d€164Ï(1989);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDarden€v.€Wainwrightóó,€477€U.S.€168,€184„85,€106€S.Ct.€2464,Ï2473,€91€L.Ed.2d€144€(1986).€In€fact,€counsel€has€properly€seen€fit€not€to€offer€anyÏevidence€at€the€penalty€phase€in€many€death€penalty€cases.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€at€421€(citing€sixteen€cases€heard€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court).€€Ìà àAt€the€heart€of€the€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€counsel€should€disregardÏthe€clientððs€desires€as€to€how€the€defense€should€be€conducted.€€The€purpose€of€aÍdefense€lawyer€is€to€assist€a€defendant€in€making€a€defense€and€to€represent€theÏdefendant€before€the€court.€€òòState€v.€Franklinóó,€714€S.W.2d€252,€262€(Tenn.€1986).€ÏAlthough€a€client€may€conduct€his€or€her€own€defense€ultimately€to€his€or€herÏdetriment,€that€choice€must€be€honored€out€of€ð ðthat€respect€for€the€individual€whichÏis€the€lifeblood€of€the€law.ðð€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€834,€95€S.Ct.€2525,Ï2541,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€(1975).€€We€are€certainly€not€suggesting€that€counsel€mustÏhonor€an€illegal€or€unethical€request€from€the€client.€€However,€€the€authority€toÏmake€decisions€generally€belongs€to€the€client€and,€if€made€within€the€frameworkÏof€the€law,€such€decisions€are€binding€on€counsel.€€Sup.€Ct.€Rules,€Rule€8,€Code€ofÏProf.€Resp.,€EC€7„7.€€Ìà àThe€nature€of€the€attorney„client€relationship€in€a€criminal€case€wasÏaddressed€in€òòState€v.€Alióó,€329€N.C.€394,€407€S.E.2d€183€(1991).€€The€court€foundÏno€constitutional€violation€when€counsel€complied€with€the€wishes€of€theÏdefendant€in€accepting€a€juror€when€counsel€suggested€otherwise.€€The€courtÏfound€that€the€attorney„client€relationship€is€one€based€upon€principles€of€agencyÏas€opposed€to€guardian€and€ward.€€òòAlióó,€407€S.E.2d€at€189;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPeople€v.ÏWilkersonóó,€123€Ill.App.3d€527,€463€N.E.2d€139€(1984).Ìà àWe€likewise€find€that€the€attorney„client€relationship€is€primarily€one€ofÏagency.€€If€a€competent€defendant€knowingly€and€voluntarily€chooses€a€lawfulÏcourse€of€conduct,€counsel€is€ordinarily€bound€by€that€decision.€€If€the€defense€isÏprejudiced€because€of€a€defendantððs€choice,€a€defendant€should€not€later€beÏheard€to€complain€as€to€the€course€the€defendant€chose.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Lea€v.ÏBrownóó,€166€Tenn.€669,€64€S.W.2d€841,€848€(1933);€òòDukes€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2dÍ659,€665€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).Ìà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€the€right€of€a€mentallyÏcompetent€defendant€to€forego€appellate€review.€€òòDemosthenes€v.€Baalóó,€495€U.S.Ï731,€110€S.Ct.€2223,€109€L.Ed.2d€762€(1990);€òòWhitmore€v.€Arkansasóó,€495€U.S.Ï149,€110€S.Ct.€1717,€109€L.Ed.2d€135€(1990);€òòGilmore€v.€Utahóó,€429€U.S.€1012,€97ÏS.Ct.€436,€50€L.Ed.2d€632€(1976).€€A€competent€defendant€may,€therefore,€waiveÏthe€right€to€present€certain€mitigating€evidence.€€òòSingleton€v.€Lockhartóó,€962€F.2dÏ1315,€1322€(8th€Cir.€1992).€€Counsel€is€not€ineffective€if€he€or€she€follows€theÏdefendantððs€request€not€to€fight€the€death€penalty.€€òòAutry€v.€McKaskleóó,€727€F.2dÏ358€(5th€Cir.€1984);€òòClark€v.€Stateóó,€613€S.2d€412€(Fla.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€114ÏS.Ct.€114€(1993).€€Ìà àIn€this€case€trial€counsel€received€explicit€instructions€from€their€client€not€toÏpresent€further€mitigating€evidence€nor€make€a€closing€argument.€€Trial€counselÏbelieved€the€defendant€to€be€competent€as€did€the€trial€judge.€€In€view€of€counselsððÏand€the€courtððs€explanations€to€defendant€of€the€ramifications€of€his€decision,€theÏcompetence€of€the€defendant,€and€his€knowing€and€voluntary€request€that€noÏfurther€mitigating€evidence€nor€argument€be€presented,€we€find€no€error€committedÏby€the€trial€court€in€allowing€the€waiver€of€further€mitigating€evidence€and€closingÏargument.Ìà@ àò òC.€€CompetencyÌó óà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€conduct€a€sufficientÏinquiry€into€the€defendantððs€competency€when€defendant€decided€not€to€presentÏfurther€mitigating€evidence€and€closing€argument.€€Ìà àFirstly,€this€issue€was€waived€by€the€failure€to€request€the€trial€court€to€doÏanything€further.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Estesóó,€655€S.W.2d€179,Ï182€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(holding€that€the€failure€of€counsel€to€bring€the€matterÏof€competency€before€the€court€amounted€to€a€waiver€of€that€issue).€€Ìà àSecondly,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€defendant€wasÏincompetent.€€He€had€been€examined€by€a€clinical€psychologist€and€a€psychiatrist€Ïbefore€this€trial.€€Counsel€indicated€there€was€nothing€that€would€establishÏincompetence.€€The€defendant€was€questioned€by€the€trial€judge.€€Counsel€statedÏseveral€times€that€the€defendant€was€now€and€had€always€been€competent.€€TheÏtrial€judgeððs€determination€that€the€defendant€was€competent€to€make€this€decisionÏis€supported€by€the€record.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìà@ àò òD.€€Reliability€of€Appellate€ReviewÌó óà àDefendant€contends€that€meaningful€appellate€review€of€death€penaltyÏcases€is€undermined€by€the€failure€to€present€available€mitigating€evidence.€€Ìà àAfter€restricting€the€class€of€death„eligible€offenses,€a€state€must€utilizeÏadditional€procedures€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€to€assure€reliability€in€the€determination€that€death€is€the€appropriateÏpunishment€in€a€given€capital€case.€€òòSee€óóòòWoodson€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€428€U.S.Ï280,€96€S.Ct.€2978,€49€L.Ed.2d€944€(1976).€€Individualized€determinations€on€theÏbasis€of€the€character€of€the€individual€and€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€must€beÏallowed.€€òòZant€v.€Stephensóó,€462€U.S.€862,€103€S.Ct.€2733,€77€L.Ed.2d€235€(1983);ÏòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€256.€€A€proper€narrowing€device€must€differentiateÏa€death€penalty€case€in€an€objective,€œÌÌeven„handed,›€and€substantially€rational€way€from€murder€cases€in€which€the€deathÏpenalty€may€not€be€imposed.€€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€583.€€Ìà àComparative€proportionality€review€by€an€appellate€court€is€notÏconstitutionally€required€in€every€case€in€which€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€andÏthe€defendant€requests€it.€€òòPulley€v.€Harrisóó,€465€U.S.€37,€104€S.Ct.€871,€79€L.Ed.2dÏ29€(1984).€€However,€meaningful€appellate€review€does€play€a€crucial€role€inÏensuring€that€the€death€penalty€is€not€imposed€arbitrarily€or€irrationally.€€òòParker€v.ÏDuggeróó,€498€U.S.€308,€321,€111€S.Ct.€731,€739,€112€L.Ed.2d€812€(1991).€€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€statute€creates€a€comparative€proportionality€review€toÏserve€as€an€additional€safeguard€against€arbitrary€or€capricious€sentencing.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„205€(1982)€[presently€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€39„13„206)(Supp.Ï1996)];€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€òò€€€€€óó€S.W.2d€òò€€€€€óó€(Tenn.€1997);€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,Ï84€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€addition,€Sup.€Ct.€Rules,€Rule€12€requires€the€submission€of€aÏtrial€judgeððs€report€to€be€used€by€the€appellate€court€as€an€integral€part€ofÏproportionality€review.€òò€Seeóó€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€663„64€(Tenn.Ï1988).€€Ìà àUnfortunately,€in€this€case€the€only€way€to€have€gotten€further€possibleÏmitigating€evidence€before€the€jury€would€have€required€counsel€to€disregard€theirÏclientððs€emphatic€instructions,€thereby€creating€an€untenable€conflict.€€This€theyÏcould€not€do.€€Trial€counsel€must€function€as€an€advocate€for€the€defendant€asÏopposed€to€a€mere€friend€of€the€court.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Cronicóó,€466€U.S.€648,€104ÏS.Ct.€2039,€80€L.Ed.2d€657€(1984).Ìà àThe€heightened€standard€of€reliability€in€death€penalty€cases€does€notÏmandate€or€justify€forcing€an€unwilling€defendant€to€present€certain€mitigatingÏevidence.€€òòWallace€v.€Stateóó,€893€P.2d€504€(Okla.€Crim.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó€116ÏS.Ct.€232€(1995).€€As€did€the€court€in€òòWallaceóó,€we€likewise€conclude€that€the€EighthÏAmendment€does€not€require€the€presentation€of€such€proof€under€theseÏcircumstances€and€does€not€prevent€an€adequate€appellate€review.× ƒ1 ××  ×Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòVI.€€ADMISSION€OF€WEBB€JUDGMENT€OF€CONVICTIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€state€introduced€the€judgment€showing€that€the€defendant€had€beenÏfound€guilty€of€the€first€degree€murder€of€Webb.€€Defendant€contends€this€judgmentÏwas€erroneously€relied€upon€by€the€state€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€Ìà àNo€contemporaneous€objection€was€made€to€the€introduction€of€thisÏevidence.€€The€issue€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,Ï910€S.W.2d€381,€386€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€will,€nevertheless,€address€this€issue.€€Ìà àThis€was€a€re„sentencing€hearing€only€as€guilt€had€already€beenÏdetermined€and€affirmed€on€the€previous€appeal.€€The€state€was€entitled€to€show€toÍthe€jury€that€the€defendant€had€in€fact€been€convicted€of€the€first€degree€murder€forÏwhich€the€jury€was€to€determine€the€sentence.Ìà àDefendantððs€primary€argument€is€that€the€state€was€improperly€allowed€toÏuse€this€first€degree€murder€conviction€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€in€theÏsame€case.€€The€state€relied€upon€one€(1)€aggravating€circumstance;€namely,€theÏdefendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€òòother€than€theÏpresent€chargeóó,€whose€statutory€elements€involved€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€toÏthe€person.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)›€(1982)€(emphasis€added).€ÏObviously,€the€state€could€not€rely€upon€the€present€conviction€as€one€of€theÏprevious€violent€felony€convictions.€€Ìà àHowever,€our€reading€of€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€state€reliedÏupon€this€conviction€as€one€of€the€prior€violent€felonies.€€From€òòvoir€direóó€throughÏfinal€argument€the€state€contended€€that€€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€ofÏthree€(3)€prior€felony€offenses€involving€violence€or€the€threat€of€violence;€namely,Ïtwo€(2)€robberies€and€the€first€degree€murder€of€Pierce.€€The€trial€judge€furtherÏinstructed€the€jury€that€the€state€alleged€the€defendant€had€been€previouslyÏconvicted€of€murder€in€the€first€degree€and€two€(2)€robberies.€€The€trial€court€wasÏobviously€referring€to€the€Pierce€first€degree€murder€conviction€which€had€beenÏmade€an€exhibit.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àÌà@ àò òòòVII.€€PRIOR€VIOLENT€FELONIESó óóóÌÌà àAs€previously€stated,€the€prosecution€relied€upon€the€prior€violent€feloniesÍaggravating€circumstance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)›€(1982),€the€statute€inÏeffect€at€the€time€of€this€crime,€defined€this€aggravating€circumstance€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€moreÌà àà àfelonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€which€involved€theÌà àà àuse€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person.ÌÌÓÓDefendant€contends€the€state€was€erroneously€allowed€to€introduce€evidence€inÏsupport€of€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€Ìà@ àò òA.€€Pierce€JudgmentÌó óà àDefendant€argues€that€the€introduction€of€his€conviction€and€redacted€OrderÏof€Judgment€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Pierce€was€erroneously€allowed€asÏevidence.€€òòSmithóó€I€condemned€the€use€of€defendantððs€life€sentence€in€the€PierceÏcase€as€evidence€in€the€Webb€case.€€755€S.W.2d€at€767„69.€€Upon€re„trial€the€stateÏagain€failed€to€observe€the€warning€in€òòSmithóó€I€and€related€to€the€jury€that€theÏdefendant€had€received€a€life€sentence€for€the€Pierce€murder.€€On€appeal€in€òòSmithóóÏII€the€Court€again€condemned€this€evidence€and€remanded€for€a€new€sentencingÏhearing.€€857€S.W.2d€at€25.€€Both€òòSmithóó€I,€755€S.W.2d€at€769,€and€òòSmithóó€II,€857ÏS.W.2d€at€25,€recognized€the€sentencing€relevance€of€the€Pierce€òòconvictionóó€but€notÏthe€Pierce€òòlife€sentenceóó.€€€€Ìà àThe€trial€judge€conducted€an€extensive€jury„out€hearing€and€redacted€theÏPierce€judgment€omitting€any€reference€to€the€sentence.€€Upon€being€asked€ifÏthere€were€any€objections€to€the€redactions,€defense€counsel€made€no€objection.€ÏThe€issue€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910ÏS.W.2d€at€386.€€Furthermore,€the€jury€was€specifically€instructed€by€the€trial€judgeÍnot€to€speculate€as€to€the€significance€of€any€redactions.€€The€jury€is€presumed€toÏhave€followed€the€instructions€of€the€court.€€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€211Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€à àÌà àThe€admission€of€the€redacted€judgment€showing€the€conviction€but€not€theÏsentence€is€in€compliance€with€the€dictates€of€òòSmithóó€I€and€òòSmithóó€II.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€Ìà@ àò òB.€€Direct€Participation€in€ViolenceÌó óà àDefendant€contends€that€he€did€not€directly€participate€in€the€use€of€violenceÏin€the€Pierce€murder€as€a€co„defendant€was€the€person€who€actually€fired€the€shotÏthat€killed€Pierce.€€He€argues€that€direct€participation€is€necessary€to€trigger€thisÏhomicide€as€a€prior€violent€felony.€€This€issue€was€decided€contrary€to€defendantððsÏargument€in€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€10.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Teagueóó,€680€S.W.2dÏ785,€789€(Tenn.€1984).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àò òC.€€Introduction€of€IndictmentÌó óà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€introduction€of€anÏarmed€robbery€indictment€since€the€judgment€of€conviction€was€only€for€simpleÏrobbery.€€This€issue€has€also€been€determined€contrary€to€defendantððs€argument€inÏboth€òòSmithóó€I,€755€S.W.2d€at€764,€and€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€20.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòVIII.€€VICTIM€IMPACT€TESTIMONYÌóóó óÌà àThe€daughter€of€the€victim€testified€briefly€at€the€hearing.€€She€related€thatÏher€parents€operated€this€country€store€for€many€years.€€She€stated€her€motherÏwas€59€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€her€death,€that€her€father€was€never€able€to€workÏagain€after€his€wife€was€killed,€and€that€her€family€had€to€live€with€this€murder€everyÏday.€€When€the€detective€as€a€defense€witness€read€the€defendantððs€pre„trialÏstatement€acknowledging€sorrow€for€what€had€happened,€the€victimððs€daughterÏtestified€in€rebuttal€that€defendant€had€never€exhibited€remorse.€€DefendantÏcontends€this€victim€impact€testimony€was€erroneously€admitted.€€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€18€(Tenn.€1990),€our€Supreme€Court€heldÏthat,€€while€this€kind€of€evidence€might€be€ð ðtechnically€irrelevant,ðð€the€evidence€isÏadmissible€relating€to€the€defendantððs€personal€responsibility€and€moral€guilt.€€ThisÏruling€was€affirmed€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€when€it€held€that€there€isÏno€òòper€seóó€€Eighth€Amendment€bar€to€such€evidence.€€òòPayne€v.€Tennesseeóó,€501ÏU.S.€808,€111€S.Ct.€2597,€115€L.Ed.2d€720€(1991).€€More€recently,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€announced€its€adherence€to€the€admissibility€of€such€evidenceÏfinding€no€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2dÏ75,€86€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€issue€regarding€victim€impact€testimony€was€raised€inÏòòSmithóó€II,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€determined€such€testimony€to€beÏadmissible.€€857€S.W.2d€at€14.€€The€trial€judge€relied€upon€this€holding€in€admittingÏthe€testimony.€€Ìà àEven€accepting€these€decisions,€the€defendant€contends€these€cases€doÏnot€authorize€victim€impact€testimony€when€such€is€not€authorized€under€state€law.€ÍSpecifically,€defendant€contends€that€victim€impact€testimony€is€not€recognized€asÏan€aggravating€circumstance€under€our€law.€€Ìà àIt€is€undisputed€that€victim€impact€is€not€listed€as€a€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)›€(1982)€[presently€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€œ39„13„204(i)(Supp.1996)].›€€However,€the€only€ð ðvictim€impactðð€testimony€wasÏgiven€by€the€daughter€and€was€extremely€brief.€€The€reference€to€victim€impact€inÏthe€stateððs€final€argument€was€also€very€brief.€€If€there€was€error,€it€was€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).× ƒ2 ××  ×€€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòIX.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€contends€that€prosecutorial€misconduct€undermined€his€rights€toÏa€fair€€trial€and€a€reliable€sentencing€determination.€€No€contemporaneousÏobjection€was€made€to€any€of€the€alleged€improper€arguments.€€The€issue€isÏwaived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727,€736€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏNevertheless,€we€will€address€these€issues.€€Ìà@ àò òA.€€Intentional€MurderÌó óà àDefendant€contends€the€prosecutor€improperly€argued€to€the€jury€that€theÏhomicide€was€intentional€as€opposed€to€being€accidental.€€Our€review€of€theÍargument€does€not€substantiate€this€claim.€€The€prosecutor€merely€related€the€factsÏand€circumstances€surrounding€the€murder€and€stated€the€barrel€of€the€gunÏð ðended€up€in€her€nose,€and€thatððs€where€Leonard€Smith€pulled€the€trigger.ðð€€ThisÏargument€was€not€improper.€€Ìà@ àò òB.€€Victim€ImpactÌó óà àDefendant€contends€the€prosecutor€improperly€argued€victim€impact€to€theÏjury.€€As€previously€stated,€the€alleged€victim€impact€argument€was€extremelyÏlimited.€€The€prosecutor€simply€related€that€the€victim€and€her€husband€had€run€aÏcountry€store€for€some€40€years,€the€husband€was€elderly€and€in€failing€health,€andÏthe€victim€was€59€years€of€age.€€The€prosecutor€further€stated€that€the€homicideÏgreatly€affected€the€family€and€ð ðwonððt€go€away.ðð€€If€there€was€error,€at€most€it€wasÏharmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ìà@ àò òC.€€DeterrenceÌó óà àDefendant€contends€the€prosecutor€unlawfully€argued€the€need€forÏdeterrence.€€Any€argument€based€upon€general€deterrence€is€improper.€€òòState€v.ÏIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€131€(Tenn.€1988);€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€13.€€Ìà àThe€questioned€argument€was€actually€an€explanation€as€to€why€felonyÏmurder€was€a€first€degree€murder,€the€most€serious€offense€under€our€law.€€TheÏprosecutor€stated€that€without€felony€murder,€there€would€be€no€protection€forÏthose€victimized€by€someone€like€the€defendant€and€his€co„defendant.€€We€do€notÏview€this€as€a€deterrence€argument.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àò òD.€€Webb€Convictionó óà àÌà àDefendant€contends€the€prosecutor€improperly€argued€that€the€presentÍconviction€was€a€prior€violent€felony€which€the€jury€could€consider€as€anÏaggravating€circumstance.€€The€prosecutor€clearly€argued€to€the€jury€that€theÏexhibit€representing€the€present€conviction€was€the€offense€for€which€the€jury€wasÏnow€going€to€be€required€to€sentence€the€defendant€to€either€life€imprisonment€orÏdeath.€€He€reviewed€the€other€three€(3)€judgments€as€those€to€be€relied€upon€forÏprior€felony€convictions.€€The€prosecutor€did€not€argue€that€the€present€convictionÏcould€be€considered€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòX.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óóóÌÌà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏspecific€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€Further,€the€defendant€contendsÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€to€presume€that€a€sentence€to€lifeÏimprisonment€meant€the€defendant€would€spend€the€rest€of€his€life€in€prison,Ïwhereas€a€sentence€to€death€would€presume€death€by€electrocution.€€Ìà@ àò òA.€€Non„Statutory€Mitigating€CircumstancesÌó óà àDefendant€requested€that€the€trial€court€give€special€jury€instructions€listingÏfour€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€do€so.€ÏDefendant€Ìcontends€this€is€reversible€error€under€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€30€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€Ìà àThe€present€offense€was€committed€prior€to€November€1,€1989;€therefore,Ïsentencing€for€this€capital€offense€is€governed€by€the€statutory€law€in€effect€on€theÍdate€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€174Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó€116€S.Ct.€137€(1995).€€At€the€time€of€the€commission€ofÏthis€offense,€the€statute€did€not€require€that€the€jury€be€instructed€as€to€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(e)(1982);€òòState€v.ÏHartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€118€(Tenn.€1985).€€Ìà àòòState€v.€Odomóó€required€the€jury€to€be€instructed€on€non„statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€when€raised€by€the€evidence€and€specifically€requested€by€eitherÏthe€state€or€the€defendant.€€928€S.W.2d€at€30.€€However,€òòOdomóó€was€based€uponÏthe€€requirements€of€the€new€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1991).€ÏòòOdomóó€specifically€recognized€that€neither€the€United€States€Constitution€nor€theÏTennessee€Constitution€required€the€submission€of€non„statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€to€the€jury.€€928€S.W.2d€at€30€(citing€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2dÏat€€173„74).€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€in€refusing€toÏcharge€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€as€was€allowable€under€the€statuteÏin€effect€on€the€date€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Ìà@ àò òB.€€After„Effect€of€Verdictó óÌà àDefendant€requested€that€the€jury€be€instructed€that€they€were€to€presumeÏthat€if€the€defendant€were€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment,€he€would€spend€the€restÏof€his€life€in€prison;€and€that€if€he€were€sentenced€to€death,€he€would€be€executedÏby€electrocution.€€Alternatively,€the€defendant€requested€that€the€jury€be€instructedÏthat€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€meant€the€defendant€would€remain€in€prisonÏfor€the€rest€of€his€life,€and€that€a€sentence€of€death€meant€that€the€defendant€wouldÏbe€executed€by€electrocution.€€These€requests€were€rejected€by€the€trial€court.€€OurÍSupreme€Court€has€recently€ruled€that€the€jury€need€not€be€given€informationÏabout€parole€availability.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€òò€€€€óó€S.W.2d€òò€€€€òòóó€óó(1997).€€Likewise,€a€trialÏcourt€does€not€err€by€refusing€to€instruct€jurors€that€they€should€presume€that€theÏsentence€they€assess€will€actually€be€carried€out.€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2dÏ526,€543€(Tenn.€1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€11.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòXI.€€TAKING€EXHIBITS€TO€JURY€ROOMóóó óÌÌà àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€jury€to€take€theÏexhibits€with€them€to€the€jury€room€for€use€in€deliberations.€€More€specifically,Ïdefendant€contends€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€redactions€on€the€Pierce€and€WebbÏconvictions.€€à àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.1€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€trial.€€This€ruleÏprovides€that€the€jury€shall€take€to€the€jury€room€all€exhibits€that€were€received€inÏevidence€unless€the€Court,€for€good€cause,€determines€otherwise.€€DefendantððsÏcontention€that€the€jury€would€engage€in€undue€speculation€due€to€the€redactionsÏon€the€Pierce€and€Webb€convictions€is€without€merit.€€As€previously€noted,€the€juryÏhad€been€specifically€instructed€not€to€speculate€concerning€these€matters.€€ThereÏwas€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€allowing€the€jury€to€take€these€exhibits€to€the€juryÏroom€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.1.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òXII.€€CONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€DEATH€PENALTYó óóóÌà àÌà àDefendant€contends€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statutes€areÏunconstitutional€in€the€following€respects:ÌÓÓà àà à(1)€the€statutes€fail€to€meaningfully€narrow€the€class€Ìà àà àof€death€eligible€defendants;ÌÌà àà à(2)€the€statutes€allow€the€death€penalty€to€be€imposedÌà àà àcapriciously€and€arbitrarily;ÌÌà àà à(3)€electrocution€constitutes€cruel€and€unusual€Ìà àà àpunishment;€andÌÌà àà à(4)€the€appellate€review€process€in€death€penaltyÌà àà àcases€is€constitutionally€inadequate.€€ÌÌÓÓÌEach€of€these€contentions€has€been€rejected€by€our€Supreme€Court.€€òòState€v.ÏKeenóó,€926€S.W.2d€at€741„44.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòXIII.€€PROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWó óóóÌÌà àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„205(c)€(1982)€[presently€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð39„13„206(c)(1)(Supp.1996)],€we€have€reviewed€the€sentence€of€death€forÏthis€felony€murder.€€The€sentence€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion,€and€theÏevidence€clearly€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance€relating€to€the€conviction€of€three€(3)€prior€violent€felonies.€€TheÏevidence€further€clearly€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€this€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance€outweighs€any€mitigating€circumstances.€€We€have€further€conductedÏa€proportionality€review€as€required€by€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€663„68Í(Tenn.1988).œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€€The€sentence€is€neither€excessive€nor€disproportionate€to€deathÏsentences€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€762€S.W.2dÏ110€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Goadóó,Ï707€S.W.2d€846€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€698€S.W.2d€631€(Tenn.€1985);ÏòòState€v.€Kingóó,€694€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€McKayóó,€680€S.W.2d€447Ï(Tenn.€œ1984);›€òòState€v.€Harriesóó,€657€S.W.2d€414€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Simonóó,€635ÏS.W.2d€498€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€619€S.W.2d€112€(Tenn.€1981).€€Ìà àWe€find€no€reversible€error;€therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏAFFIRMED.× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÓÓòòÌà àà àà àà àà àà àóó€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóCHRIS€CRAFT,€SPECIAL€JUDGE