ÿWPC? 0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“<¢ 0JÞ 0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 0¶ 1uF 0d» AQ Æp 0D6 0@z 0Dº U>þ D/< Bk Bˆ D3¥ U*Ø B) DC+ AMn 3» v~î vÓl˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- â Vã Uä å æ Dç è Dé Ó€õ ø n~<$3|xø VSOdellaggravator2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd "+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òAugust€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€$ŠÔÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÕaXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€ ÙßR€,-+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMAY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9707„CR„00259Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€DAILEY,ÏJUDGE€ó óÌÓ  Óò òODELL€SMITH,€à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€ó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)à à(FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER€)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òA.C.€WHARTONà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òW.€MARK€WARD€à àà àà àà àPETER€M.€COUGHLAN€Ìó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCriminal€Justice€Center,€Suite€201à àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌ201€Poplar€Avenueà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTI€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJERRY€HARRISó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDAVID€HENRYÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Center,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€)°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€)ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Defendant,€Odell€Smith,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictions€of€felonyÏmurder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€in€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court.ÌThe€jury€sentenced€Defendant€to€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€paroleÏfor€the€felony€murder.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€entered€a€judgment€sentencingÏDefendant€to€twenty€(20)€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€ÏThe€two€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently,€but€consecutive€to€aÏprior€offense€for€which€Defendant€was€on€parole€at€the€time€he€committed€theÏpresent€offenses.€€Defendant€argues€the€following€eight€(8)€issues€in€this€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 à1.€€Whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€convict€Defendant€of€theÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€of€the€victim;ÌÌà8 à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€on€attemptedÏrobbery€during€its€felony€murder€charge;ÌÌà8 à3.€€Whether€Defendant€was€entitled€to€a€jury€instruction€of€recklessÏhomicide,€criminally€negligent€homicide,€or€attempted€robbery;ÌÌà8 à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€properly€ruled€that€the€State€could€impeachÏDefendant€with€past€convictions€for€larceny,€burglary,€receiving€stolenÏproperty€and€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€during€the€guilt€phase€asÏwell€as€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€(Defendantððs€Issues€4€and€5);Ìà àÌà8 à5.€€Whether€the€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€State€to€rebutÏDefendantððs€mitigation€testimony€with€evidence€of€his€cocaine€use€inÏprison€(Defendantððs€Issue€6);ÌÌà8 à6.€€Whether€the€trial€court€properly€admitted€a€photograph€taken€of€theÏvictim€while€he€was€alive€(Defendantððs€Issue€7);ÌÌà8 à7.€€Whether€the€victim€impact€references€made€by€the€State€duringÏopening€and€closing€statements€were€proper€(Defendantððs€Issue€8);Ïand€ÌÌà8 à8.€€Whether€the€jury€verdict€regarding€the€statutory€aggravator€wasÏambiguous€(Defendantððs€Issue€9).à àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€facts€presented€at€trial€reveal€that€on€April€5,€1995,€the€victim€in€thisÏcase,€Michael€Spears,€worked€as€the€assistant€manager€of€the€Highway€OilÏService€Station€located€at€2840€South€Perkins€Road€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€TheÏvictimððs€brother,€Jeff€Spears,€was€the€manager€of€the€service€station.€€At€trial,€JeffÏSpears€testified€at€great€length€as€to€the€operations€of€the€station,€which€he€hadÏrun€for€18€years.€€He€said€that€the€customers€would€give€their€money€to€theÏemployee€on€duty€and€that€the€employee€kept€the€larger€bills€in€his€pockets.€€TheÏemployee€always€kept€small€bills€in€his€front€pocket€and€in€his€hand€to€makeÏchange.€€The€employee€also€wore€a€clip„on€coin€dispenser.€€When€the€money€inÏthe€employeeððs€pockets€reached€a€few€hundred€dollars,€the€money€was€wrappedÏwith€a€rubber„band,€recorded,€and€put€into€a€drop€safe€located€inside€the€station.€ÏHowever,€the€employees€always€kept€at€least€a€hundred€dollars€in€small€bills€onÏtheir€person€in€order€to€make€change€for€the€customers.€€Ìà àÌà àJeff€Spears€testified€that€he€convinced€his€brother€to€move€from€Atlanta€andÏto€come€work€with€him.€€Jeff€Spears€said€that€after€18€years€of€managing€theÍservice€station€that€the€place€had€never€run€as€well€as€when€his€brother€wasÏworking€with€him.€€Jeff€Spears€testified€that€he€completely€trusted€his€brother€andÏthat€no€money€had€ever€been€taken€while€his€brother€was€the€attendant€on€duty.ÌÌà àOn€the€night€of€April€5,€1995,€the€41„year„old€Defendant€was€in€a€car€withÏSolon€Brown€and€Lillie€Whitman.€€According€to€Ms.€Whitman,€Defendant€said€heÏwanted€to€stop€at€the€Spearsðð€gas€station€because€he€needed€to€ð ðpick€up€someÏmoneyðð€and€that€he€ð ðhad€to€take€care€of€some€business.ðð€€At€this€point,€WhitmanÏdemanded€to€be€taken€home€because€she€knew€what€Defendant€was€about€toÏdo€ð ðwasnððt€going€to€be€right.ðð€€Defendant€became€angry€and€slapped€Whitman€inÏthe€face,€telling€her€she€was€ð ðjinxed.ðð€€He€then€had€Brown€pull€into€a€lot€across€theÏstreet€from€the€Spearððs€gas€station,€where€he€got€out€of€the€car€and€walked€over€toÏthe€station.€€Ms.€Whitman,€who€waited€in€the€car€with€Mr.€Brown,€said€that€aÏcouple€of€minutes€later€she€heard€gun€shots€and€that€she€told€Brown€thatÏð ðsomebody€had€got€hurt.ðð€€She€then€saw€Defendant€running€back€across€the€streetÏtowards€the€car.€€Ms.€Whitman€testified€that€Defendant€said,€ð ð[W]e€got€to€get€out€ofÏhere€because€Iððm€not€going€back€to€jail.ððÌÌà àSeveral€witnesses€testified€at€trial€that€a€black€male€came€up€to€MichaelÏSpears€at€the€service€station,€struggled€with€him,€and€then€shot€and€killed€him.€ÏSpecifically,€Remey€Flowers€testified€that€she€had€just€paid€Michael€Spears€forÍgas.€€Spears€gave€her€change€from€a€roll€of€money€he€had€in€his€hand.€€He€stillÏhad€money€in€his€hand€when€she€went€to€pump€the€gas.€€She€testified€that€aboutÏtwo€minutes€later€she€heard€a€shot€and€looked€up€to€see€a€black€male€shootingÏMr.€Spears.€€Remey€Flowersðð€mother,€who€was€sitting€in€the€car€while€her€daughterÏpumped€the€gas,€testified€that€her€daughter€only€had€time€to€pump€about€twoÏdollars€worth€of€gas€before€the€shooting€occurred,€even€though€she€had€paid€for€tenÏdollars€worth€of€gas.ÌÌà àChris€Peters€had€pulled€up€in€his€car€to€within€100€feet€of€the€stationÏmoments€before€the€shooting.€€He€testified€that€he€saw€a€black€male€struggle€withÏMr.€Spears,€knock€off€Spearsðð€glasses,€and€then€shoot€Spears€from€a€distance€ofÏonly€a€few€feet.€€He€then€saw€the€same€black€man€run€across€the€street€carrying€aÏgun.€€€The€gas€station€was€well€lit€at€the€time€and€Peters€later€picked€Defendant€asÏthe€killer€in€a€photo€array.€€Peters€drove€to€cut€Defendant€off€from€the€getaway€carÏin€which€Brown€and€Whitman€were€waiting.€€Defendant€ran€away,€but€then€madeÏa€second€attempt€for€the€getaway€car.€€Peters€cut€him€off€again,€and€DefendantÏpointed€his€gun€at€Peters.€€Defendant€then€turned€and€ran€into€a€nearby€drainageÏditch.€€The€getaway€car€also€sped€away€at€this€point.€€ÌÌà àPeters€returned€to€the€scene€of€the€shooting€where€he€observed€that€MichaelÏSpears€had€been€shot€once€in€the€cheek€and€once€in€the€neck.€€Michael€SpearsÍdied€from€these€injuries.€€After€conducting€an€inventory,€Jeff€Spears€determined€thatÏapproximately€$53€dollars€was€missing.ÌÌà àLillie€Whitman€testified€that€she€later€asked€Defendant€why€he€shot€MichaelÏSpears€and€that€he€responded,€ð ð[I]t€was€either€[me]€or€the€man.ðð€€Defendant€toldÏWhitman€if€she€told€anyone€about€the€murder€he€would€put€a€contract€out€on€herÏlife.€€The€defense€presented€an€alibi€witness€who€testified€that€Defendant€was€atÏwork€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.ÌÌà àDefendant€chose€not€to€testify€at€trial€but€he€did€testify€during€the€sentencingÏphase€for€the€felony€murder€where€he€repeatedly€emphasized€his€lack€ofÏintelligence€and€the€fact€that€he€was€a€good€person.€€Defendant€denied€committingÏthe€crime.€€A€clinical€psychologist€testified€that€Defendant€suffered€from€mild€mentalÏretardation,€illiteracy,€alcohol€and€drug€dependence€and€brain€damage.€€Furthermore,Ïtwo€of€Defendantððs€sisters€testified€that€Defendant€was€raised€in€a€violent€andÏabusive€household.€€During€cross„examination,€Defendant€was€asked,€overÏobjection,€about€his€obtaining€cocaine€in€prison.€€The€trial€court€admitted€theÏtestimony€because€it€refuted€Defendantððs€claim€that€he€was€so€slow€that€he€couldÏnot€even€hand€his€father,€who€was€a€mechanic,€the€tools€he€asked€for.€€ÌÌà àIn€opening€and€closing€arguments€of€the€sentencing€phase,€the€State€referredÏto€the€pain€Mr.€Spearsðð€death€had€caused€his€family,€even€though€no€familyÏmembers€were€called€to€testify.€€The€only€proof€put€on€by€the€State€during€theÏsentencing€phase€related€to€the€statutory€aggravator,€a€prior€conviction€for€robberyÏwith€a€deadly€weapon.ÌÌà@ àI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceÌÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÏstandard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosection,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€ÏThis€standard€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€On€appeal,Ïthe€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏinferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.óó€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏBecause€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustratingÏwhy€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€914€S.W.2d€940,€945€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.ÍTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982));€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ï(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€jury€verdictÏapproved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€allÏconflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.à àÌÌà àMoreover,€a€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€byÏcircumstantial€evidence.€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€œv.ÏJonesóó,›€901€S.W.2d€393,€396€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634ÏS.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€However,€before€an€accused€may€beÏconvicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€factsÏand€circumstances€"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€every€other€reasonable€hypothesis€save€guilt€of€the€defendant."ÏòòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€478,€470€S.W.2d€610€(1971);€òòJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€atÏ396.€In€other€words,€"[a]€web€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€fromÏwhich€he€cannot€escape€and€from€which€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€couldÍdraw€no€other€reasonable€inference€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt."€òòCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€at€613;€òòState€v.€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2dÏ304,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€ÌÌà àDefendant€claims€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€convict€him€of€theÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€of€Michael€Spears.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏdefines€especially€aggravated€robbery€as€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€ofÏproperty€from€the€person€of€another€by€violence€or€putting€the€person€in€fearðð€andÏwhere€the€robbery€is€ð ðaccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€where€the€victimÏsuffers€serious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„401(a)€and€39„13„403(a)(1)„(2).€€ÌÌà àEvidence€presented€at€trial€showed€that€Defendant€told€his€friends€that€heÏneeded€money€and€to€take€him€to€the€Spearsðð€service€station.€€Several€witnessesÏtestified€that€a€black€male€came€up€to€the€victim,€struggled€with€him,€and€then€shotÏand€killed€him.€€Remey€Flowers€testified€that€the€victim€had€money€in€his€handÏwhen€she€went€to€pump€the€gas.€€She€only€had€time€to€pump€two€dollarsðð€worth€ofÏgas€before€the€shooting€occurred.€€Chris€Peters€testified€that€he€saw€DefendantÏstruggle€with€the€victim,€knock€off€the€victimððs€glasses€and€then€shoot€him.€€HeÏidentified€Defendant€as€the€person€who€shot€the€victim€in€a€photo€array.€€ÌÌà àJeff€Spears,€the€victimððs€brother€and€manager€of€the€service€station,€testifiedÏthat€approximately€$53€was€missing.€€Jeff€Spears€testified€at€great€length€aboutÏthe€way€in€which€money€was€handled€at€the€service€station€by€employees.€€HeÏfurther€stated€that€the€station€had€never€run€as€efficiently€as€it€had€since€his€brother,Ïthe€victim,€had€come€to€work€for€him.€€He€further€testified€how€honest€and€truthful€hisÏbrother€was€and€how€there€had€been€no€prior€incidences€of€an€employeeÏmisappropriating€funds.€€Defendant€presented€no€proof€to€refute€the€StateððsÏshowing€that€the€money€was€taken€by€the€Defendant.€€There€appears€to€beÏample€evidence€with€which€a€jury€could€believe€Defendant€confronted€MichaelÏSpears,€took€the€money€from€his€hand,€and€then€shot€and€killed€him,€thus€meetingÏthe€statutory€elements€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„401(a)€and€39„13„403(a)(1)„(2).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àII.€€Jury€Instruction€on€Attempted€RobberyÌÌà àDefendant€alleges€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€that€it€couldÏconvict€Defendant€of€felony€murder€if€it€found€the€killing€was€committed€during€theÏcourse€of€a€robbery€or€an€attempt€to€commit€a€robbery.€€Defendant€failed€to€raiseÏthis€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial,€and€it€has€therefore€been€waived.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€3(e).Ìà àÌà àIn€any€event,€Defendantððs€speculation€that€the€jury€could€have€relied€on€theÏattempt€language€ignores€the€verdict€reached€by€the€jury.€€The€jury€in€the€instantÏcase€convicted€Defendant€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€It€is€untenable€toÏsuggest€that,€while€convicting€Defendant€for€having€committed€the€robbery,€theyÏwould€then€convict€him€for€felony€murder€based€upon€an€attempted€robbery.€€HadÏthe€jury€believed€that€an€attempted€but€unsuccessful€robbery€had€occurred,€it€wouldÏnever€have€convicted€Defendant€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€œEven€if€error,€itÏwas€harmless€error.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àÓÓIII.€€Jury€Instructions€on€Reckless€Homicide,€Ìà@ àCriminally€Negligent€Homicide€and€Ìà@ àAttempted€RobberyÌÌÓÓÌà àDefendant€next€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€asÏto€the€lesser€offenses€of€reckless€homicide€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€and€inÏfailing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€attempted€robbery.€€Defendant€again€failed€to€raise€thisÏissue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Thus,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);Ïòòseeóó€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àEven€addressed€on€the€merits,€it€is€clear€from€the€proof€in€this€case€that€theÏjury€charges€Defendant€desires€were€not€warranted.€€A€trial€court€must€fully€instructÏthe€jury€on€the€general€principles€of€law€relevant€to€the€issues€raised€by€theÍevidence,€including€instructions€on€lesser€offenses€included€in€the€indictment.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a).€€However,€before€an€instruction€on€a€lesserÏoffense€is€warranted,€two€preliminary€determinations€must€be€made.€€First,€the€trialÏcourt€must€determine€the€lesser€offenses€of€the€offense€charged€in€the€indictment.€ÏòòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€MarioÏHawkinsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9701„CR„00014,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€July€2,€1998).€€Second,€after€determining€the€lesser€offenses€the€courtÏmust€determine€whether€such€an€instruction€on€any€of€the€lesser€offenses€isÏwarranted€by€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Elderóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9702„CR„00053,ÏKnox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€23,€1998)€(no€Rule€11€applicationÏfiled)€(citation€omitted).€€Where€the€evidence€clearly€establishes€the€defendantððs€guiltÏon€the€greater€offense,€it€is€not€error€to€fail€to€charge€on€the€lesser€included€offense.€ÏòòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€245€(Tenn.€1986).€€A€trial€judge€is€not€required€toÏinclude€instructions€for€lesser€included€offenses€if€the€evidence€offered€would€notÏsupport€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€included€offenses.€òòTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€311€n.Ï5.€Thus,€the€ð ðtrial€court€must€determine€whether€the€evidence,€when€viewed€in€theÏlight€most€favorable€to€the€òòdefendantððs€theoryóó€of€the€case,€would€justify€a€juryÏverdict€in€accord€with€the€defendantððs€theory,€and€would€permit€a€rational€trier€of€factÏto€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€lesser€offense€and€not€guilty€of€the€greaterÏoffense.ðð€€òòElderóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9702„CR„00053,€slip€op.€at€8€(citations€andÏfootnote€omitted)€(emphasis€in€original).€€ÌÌÌÌà àFirst,€the€evidence€in€this€case,€even€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorableÏto€the€Defendant,€is€not€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€Defendant€guiltyÏof€reckless€homicide€or€criminally€negligent€homicide€and€not€guilty€of€felony€murder.€ÏAs€previously€discussed€in€this€opinion,€the€evidence€shows€that€this€was€anÏintentional€killing€by€Defendant.€€Defendant€had€his€friends€drive€him€to€the€gasÏstation,€telling€them€that€he€needed€to€ð ðpick€up€some€moneyðð€and€ð ðtake€care€ofÏsome€business.ðð€€Lillie€Whitman,€a€passenger€in€the€car,€knew€what€DefendantÏwas€about€to€do€ð ðwasnððt€going€to€be€rightðð€and€asked€to€be€taken€home.€ÏDefendant€confronted€the€victim€at€the€gas€station€where€they€struggled,€and€thenÏDefendant€shot€the€victim€twice€before€running€towards€the€getaway€car.€€TwoÏeyewitnesses€identified€Defendant€as€the€person€they€saw€struggle€with€the€victimÏat€the€gas€station€and€then€fatally€shoot€him.ÌÌà àThe€record€in€this€case€clearly€shows€that€Defendant€was€guilty€of€theÏgreater€offense.€€Therefore,€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€not€charge€the€jury€onÏa€lesser€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€593€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074,€111€S.€Ct.€800,€112€L.€Ed.€2d€861€(1991).€€DefendantððsÏstatements€made€to€his€friends€before€the€killing,€the€fact€that€the€victim€was€shotÍtwo€times,€and€his€actions€following€the€shooting,€demonstrate€that€this€killing€wasÏneither€negligent€nor€reckless.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€not€charging€criminallyÏnegligent€or€reckless€homicide.€€ÌÇÌà àSecondly,€Defendant€alleges€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€not€instruct€theÏjury€on€the€law€of€attempt€on€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€charge.€€Again€thisÏissue€has€been€waived,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e),€but€we€will€briefly€address€it.€ÏDefendant€made€no€objection€at€the€trial,€so€we€do€not€have€the€benefit€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€on€this€issue.€€Nonetheless,€we€are€able€to€find€that€this€issue€isÏsubstantively€without€merit.€€At€trial,€the€State€proved€Defendant€intended€toÏconfront€the€victim€in€order€to€ð ðget€some€money.ðð€€The€victim€always€kept€money€onÏhim,€and€even€frequently€had€money€in€his€hand€to€make€change€for€customers.€ÏHe€normally€carried€larger€bills€in€his€pants€pockets€and€smaller€bills,€mostly€ones,€inÏhis€front€shirt€pocket€to€make€change.€€He€would€also€typically€have€money€in€hisÏhands,€especially€if€someone€had€just€paid€him.€€The€victimððs€brother,€Jeff€Spears,Ïmanaged€the€service€station€and€testified€that€the€station€had€been€doing€businessÏthis€way€for€years.€€He€further€testified€that€he€had€never€had€a€problem€withÏmoney€missing,€and€that€the€station€had€never€run€as€efficiently€as€it€had€since€hisÏbrother€had€come€to€work€for€him.€€He€also€said€that€his€brother€was€an€honestÏand€trustworthy€person.€€Remey€Flowers€testified€that€just€minutes€before€theÏrobbery,€she€gave€the€victim€$20€to€buy€gas.€€She€testified€that€he€gave€herÏchange€out€of€the€money€in€his€hand.€€When€she€turned€to€go€pump€the€gas,€theÏvictim€still€had€money€in€this€hand.€€Within€two€minutes,€Defendant€confronted€theÍvictim€and€struggled€with€him,€knocking€the€victimððs€glasses€off.€€He€then€shot€theÏvictim€twice€and€ran€away.ÌÌà àJeff€Spears€subsequently€discovered€that€approximately€$53€had€beenÏtaken€the€night€of€the€murder.€€Defendant€offered€no€other€explanation€for€the€loss€ofÏthe€money.€€The€victim€often€kept€money€in€his€hand€when€working€and€hadÏmoney€in€his€hand€two€minutes€before€Defendant€approached€him€that€night.€ÏHowever,€no€money€was€found€in€his€hand€or€on€the€ground€around€him€followingÏthe€murder.€€According€to€the€business€records,€$53€was€missing,€which€wasÏabout€the€amount€an€employee€would€keep€with€him€to€make€change€forÏcustomers.€€The€mere€fact€that€no€money€was€found€on€Defendantððs€person€isÏmeaningless€since€Defendant€eluded€police€for€several€days€before€being€arrested.€€ÌÌà àOur€courts€have€consistently€stated€it€is€unnecessary€to€charge€a€jury€whereÏð ðthe€charge€would€be€a€mere€abstraction€upon€hypothetical€questions€notÏsuggested€by€proof.ðð€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310,€315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1981)€(citation€omitted).€€ð ðThe€giving€of€instructions€on€offenses€for€which€there€is€noÏevidence€in€the€record€is€to€be€avoided.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€751€S.W.2d€167,€170Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€DefendantððsÏclaims€that€the€money€was€lost€or€taken€by€someone€else.€€Absent€any€proof€toÍthe€contrary,€we€find€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€not€instructing€the€jury€on€the€law€ofÏattempt€on€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€charge.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ì€Ìà@ àIV.€€Impeachment€EvidenceÌÌà àIn€Defendantððs€issues€Four€and€Five,€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€allowing€eleven€former€convictions€to€be€used€to€impeach€him€should€heÏchoose€to€testify.€€The€convictions€included€a€three„year€sentence€for€a€1975Ïconviction€for€grand€larceny;€a€three„year€sentence€for€a€1975€conviction€for€third„degree€burglary;€three€one„year€sentences€for€three€1975€convictions€for€petitÏlarceny;€four€three„year€sentences€for€four€1975€convictions€for€grand€larceny;€a€two„to„five€year€sentence€for€a€1978€conviction€for€receiving€stolen€property€under€$100;Ïand€a€15„year€sentence€in€1975€for€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€AfterÏconducting€a€òòMorganóó€hearing,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€State€to€impeachÏDefendantððs€credibility€with€these€crimes.€€As€a€result,€Defendant€chose€not€toÏtestify€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€although€he€did€testify€during€the€penaltyÏphase.ÌÌÓÓà8 àA.€€òòThe€trial€court€properly€allowed€the€State€to€impeach€DefendantÏwith€ten€convictions€for€larceny,€burglary€and€receiving€stolen€propertyÏunder€$100óó.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provide€that€a€judgment€of€conviction€mayÏbe€used€by€the€State€to€generally€impeach€the€testimony€of€a€defendant.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€609;€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€541€S.W.2d€385€(Tenn.€1976).€€ConvictionsÏare€not€admissible€if€a€period€of€more€than€ten€years€has€elapsed€between€theÏdate€of€release€from€confinement€and€the€commencement€of€the€prosecution€unlessÏtheir€probative€value,€supported€by€specific€facts€and€circumstances,€substantiallyÏoutweighs€their€prejudicial€effect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).€€The€burden€upon€theÏState€is€greater€than€that€standard€applicable€to€prior€offenses€less€than€ten€yearsÏold.€€As€to€the€latter,€the€State€must€only€show€that€the€probative€value€marginallyÏoutweighs€the€prejudicial€effect.€€A€trial€courtððs€ruling€under€Rule€609€will€not€beÏreversed€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€596€S.W.2d€97,Ï104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).à à€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€the€probative€value€of€a€prior€conviction€on€the€issueÏof€credibility€is€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues,€a€trialÏcourt€should€ð ð(a)€ððassess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crimeÏunderlying€the€impeaching€conviction,ðð€and€(b)€ððanalyze€the€relevance€theÏimpeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility.ðððð€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2dÏ837,€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(citation€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Jerry€LeeÏFinchóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9309„CC„00224,€Lauderdale€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€June€7,€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àHere,€the€trial€court€did€state€specific€findings€of€fact€in€admitting€the€priorÏconvictions.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€noted€that€the€purpose€of€admitting€theÏconvictions€is€to€help€the€jury€assess€Defendantððs€credibility,€and€it€further€statedÏthat€ð ðfew€convictions€.€.€.€go€more€to€the€heart€of€the€issue€of€credibility€than€theseÏtypes€of€convictions;€larcenies,€receiving€stolen€property€and€burglary.ðð€€The€courtÏnoted€that€had€the€convictions€been€for€drug€offenses€they€would€not€have€beenÏadmissible€because€they€do€not€tend€to€relate€to€a€witnessesðð€credibility.€€The€trialÏcourtððs€determination€is€supported€by€Tennessee€law.€€The€courts€of€this€StateÏhave€consistently€held€that€such€crimes€as€larceny,€receiving€stolen€property€andÏburglary€are€probative€of€a€witnessesðð€credibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.óó€òòMilleróó,€737€S.W.2dÏ556,€559„60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1987)€(burglary€is€aÏcrime€of€dishonesty);€òòState€v.€Hardisonóó,€705€S.W.2d€684,€686€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985)€(petit€larceny€is€a€crime€of€dishonesty);€òòState€v.€Robert€Davisóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï02C01„9407„CC„00148,€Lauderdale€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€23,Ï1995)€(receiving€stolen€property€is€a€crime€of€dishonesty).ÌÌà àAlso,€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€there€is€little€cause€for€concern€that€the€juryÏwould€improperly€use€the€crimes€to€find€that€Defendant€had€a€propensity€to€commitÏespecially€aggravated€robbery€or€murder€since€the€prior€crimes,€larceny,€burglaryÏand€receiving€stolen€property,€were€not€crimes€directly€against€the€person.€€ThisÍCourt€has€consistently€held€that€where€the€impeaching€crimes€are€dissimilar€to€theÏcrimes€for€which€the€defendant€is€on€trial,€the€impeaching€crimes€are€more€likely€toÏbe€admitted.€€òòFarmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€at€839.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€defense€relied€upon€by€Defendant€was€that€no€one€actuallyÏsaw€who€committed€the€robbery€and€murder.€€In€fact,€at€the€sentencing€phase,ÏDefendant€testified€that€he€was€not€the€one€who€committed€the€crimes.€€This€put€hisÏcredibility€directly€at€issue,€making€crimes€which€reflect€on€his€credibility€all€the€moreÏrelevant.€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court€provided€the€jury€with€an€appropriate€instruction€limitingÏthe€consideration€of€these€prior€convictions€to€the€issue€of€credibility.€€ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€also€consistently€held€that€the€probative€value€of€ten„yearÏplus€convictions€may€substantially€outweigh€any€prejudicial€effect€where€aÏdefendantððs€criminal€record€shows€ð ða€continuing€course€of€conduct€which€wasÏprobative€of€.€.€.€credibility.ðð€€òòJohnsonóó,€596€S.W.2d€at€104;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateóó€òòv.ÏAndrew€Waltonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9109„CR„00205,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Jackson,€Aug.€12,€1992).€€In€the€instant€case,€Defendantððs€ten€convictions€forÏrelated€crimes€of€dishonesty€within€a€three€year€period€sufficiently€establish€aÏpattern€of€conduct€which€is€highly€probative€of€Defendantððs€credibility.ÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€did€not€point€to€specific€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case€and€that€it€did€not€consider€the€interests€of€justice.€ÏHowever,€in€deciding€that€the€past€crimes€should€be€admitted,€the€court€specificallyÏcited€the€fact€that€Defendant€had€been€incarcerated€for€the€past€14€years,€betweenÏ1975€and€1994,€€for€a€pattern€of€misconduct,€and€the€court€read€the€dates€ofÏconviction€of€each€offense€into€evidence.€€Based€on€these€facts,€the€court€decidedÏthat€it€would€violate€public€policy€to€prohibit€the€admission€of€these€crimes€simplyÏbecause€Defendant€had€been€incarcerated€and€for€that€reason€could€not€commitÏfurther€crimes.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€considered€the€purpose€of€RuleÏ609€as€well€as€the€interests€of€justice€when€it€stated€that€prohibiting€the€convictionsÏwould€ð ðfly€in€the€fact€of€public€policy€to€apply€the€ten€year€rule€under€theseÏcircumstances.ðð€€ÌÌà àBased€on€all€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€believe€the€trial€courtððs€reasoningÏsupports€its€conclusion€that€the€probative€value€of€admitting€the€convictionsÏsubstantially€outweighed€the€prejudicial€effect€on€the€jury.€€Therefore,€we€cannotÏsay€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€ruling€that€the€prior€convictions€wouldÏbe€admissible€if€Defendant€chose€to€testify.ÌÌÓÓà8 àB.€€òòThe€trial€court€properly€admitted€Defendantððs€prior€convictions€forÏlarceny,€burglary€and€receiving€stolen€property€during€the€sentencingÏphase€of€Defendantððs€trialóó.ÌÓÓÌà àDefendant€alleges€that€even€if€his€convictions€were€ruled€admissible€duringÏthe€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€they€should€not€have€been€allowed€into€evidence€toÏimpeach€him€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€Defendant€asserts€that€theÏtrial€court€failed€to€re„weigh€the€probative€value€of€the€testimony,€the€possibleÏprejudice,€and€the€interests€of€justice€before€making€its€decision€to€admit€theÏimpeaching€evidence.€€He€further€alleges€that€had€the€court€conducted€a€secondÏbalancing€test,€the€result€as€to€their€admissibility€would€have€been€different€duringÏthe€sentencing€phase.ÌÌà àDefendant€cites€no€authority€for€the€proposition€that€the€trial€court€had€toÏconduct€a€new€òòMorganóó€hearing.€€Defendant€never€requested€a€new€hearing,€andÏDefendantððs€objection€to€the€admission€of€the€prior€crimes€was€made€when€theÏState€attempted€to€impeach€his€credibility€after€Defendant€had€testified€on€directÏexamination.€€Defendant€was€fully€aware€from€the€first€òòMorganóó€hearing€that€if€heÏtestified€that€the€prior€convictions€could€be€used€against€him.€€The€trial€court€wasÏunder€no€obligation€to€conduct€a€second€òòMorganóó€hearing.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€it€is€clear€that€the€admission€of€the€prior€crimes€was€whollyÏproper.€€As€the€trial€court€noted,€on€direct€examination€during€the€sentencing€phaseÏthe€Defendant€(1)€claimed€he€did€not€commit€the€crime,€(2)€begged€forgiveness€fromÍthe€family€but€said€he€had€nothing€to€do€with€the€murder,€and€(3)€testified€that€heÏwould€never€hurt€anyone.€€Obviously,€these€statements€put€Defendantððs€credibilityÏdirectly€at€issue.€€òòMilleróó,€737€S.W.2d€at€560.€€The€probative€value€of€the€larceny,Ïburglary€and€receiving€stolen€property€convictions€remained€the€same€between€theÏguilt€and€sentencing€phases€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àAlso,€the€prejudice€to€Defendant€of€admitting€the€crimes€during€the€sentencingÏphase€was€actually€less€than€it€would€have€been€during€the€guilt€phase.€€TheÏDefendant€had€already€been€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€aggravated€robbery,Ïso€there€was€no€concern€the€jury€would€convict€Defendant€based€on€a€propensityÏto€commit€crimes.€€Therefore,€even€if€a€second€òòMorganóó€hearing€was€required,€theÏtrial€courtððs€conclusion€to€allow€the€evidence€pursuant€to€Rule€609€was€proper.ÌÌÓÓà8 àC.€€òòThe€trial€court€properly€admitted€Defendantððs€conviction€for€robberyÏwith€a€deadly€weaponóó.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court€ruled€at€the€òòMorganóó€hearing€that€the€State€could€impeachÏDefendant€with€the€prior€conviction€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€DefendantÏthen€chose€not€to€testify€at€trial€and€now€claims€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€ruling€that€the€robbery€was€admissible.ÌÌà àDefendant€was€convicted€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€in€1975€andÏwas€released€from€prison€in€1994.€€Since€his€release€falls€within€the€ten„year€rule,Ïthe€proper€analysis€under€Rule€609€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€isÏwhether€the€probative€value€on€the€issue€of€credibility€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicialÏeffect€on€substantive€issues.€€This€is€obviously€a€less€strict€standard€than€for€priorÏconvictions€in€excess€of€ten€years.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).€€As€previouslyÏmentioned,€in€making€its€determination€regarding€probative€value,€the€trial€courtÏshould€ð ð(a)€ððassess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€and€the€crime€underlyingÏthe€impeaching€conviction,ðð€and€(b)€ððanalyze€the€relevance€the€impeachingÏconviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility.ðððð€€òòFarmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€at€839.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€trial€court€properly€found€the€probative€value€of€theÏconviction€outweighed€any€prejudicial€effect.€€First,€the€robbery€conviction€does€bearÏon€Defendantððs€credibility.€€This€Court€has€held€that€robbery€is€a€crime€ofÏdishonesty.€€òòState€v.€Caruthersóó,€676€S.W.2d€935,€941€(Tenn.€1984)€(holding€thatÏadmission€of€defendantððs€previous€armed€robbery€conviction€was€proper€in€trial€forÏfirst€degree€murder).€€It€logically€follows€that€it€directly€relates€to€Defendantððs€credibilityÏon€the€witness€stand.€€This€is€especially€true€where€a€defendant,€as€in€the€instantÏcase,€flatly€denies€he€committed€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòMilleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556.ÌÌà àDefendantððs€argument€pertaining€to€this€issue€focuses€on€Tennessee€caseÏlaw€holding€that€evidence€of€a€defendantððs€conviction€for€an€offense€similar€to€theÏone€for€which€he€is€presently€on€trial€should€not€be€introduced€because€there€is€tooÏgreat€a€danger€of€it€improperly€showing€a€propensity€to€commit€that€type€of€crime.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€703€S.W.2d€146€(Tenn.€1986)€(could€not€show€priorÏassault€and€battery€conviction€in€an€aggravated€assault€case);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€607ÏS.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(could€not€show€prior€second€degree€murderÏconviction€in€murder€assault€case).€€However,€the€fact€that€a€prior€convictionÏinvolves€a€similar€crime€for€which€a€defendant€is€being€tried€does€not€automaticallyÏrequire€its€exclusion.€€In€this€case,€Defendant€was€convicted€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€and€felony€murder.€€The€prior€conviction€was€for€robbery€with€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€The€trial€court€acknowledged€that€the€similarity€of€the€crimes€wasÏan€issue,€but€it€found€that€there€was€a€difference€between€them€in€that€the€crimesÏfor€which€Defendant€was€on€trial€were€more€serious€than€the€impeaching€priorÏoffense.€€ÌÌà àThe€mere€fact€a€prior€conviction€of€the€accused€is€identical€or€similar€in€natureÏto€the€offense€for€which€the€accused€is€being€tried€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€barÏthe€use€of€the€conviction€to€impeach€the€accused€as€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòMilleróó,€737ÏS.W.2d€at€560.€€The€appellate€courts€of€this€State€have€held€that€the€offense€ofÏrobbery€is€ð ðhighly€probative€of€credibilityðð€because€it€involves€dishonesty.€€òòState€v.ÍCrankóó,€721€S.W.2d€264,€266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1986);€òòState€v.€Tuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€922,€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€Thus,€the€appellate€courts€of€this€State€have€held€thatÏconvictions€for€this€felony€may€be€used€to€impeach€an€accused€being€tried€for€thisÏoffense€absent€circumstances€which€require€a€different€result.€€òòTuneóó,€872€S.W.2d€atÏ927.€€ÌÌà àWe€find€no€such€circumstances€in€this€case.€€In€fact,€the€robbery€conviction€inÏthe€case€before€us€is€ð ðparticularly€probative€regarding€credibility.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€EvenÏassuming€the€robbery€conviction€should€not€have€been€admitted,€any€error€wasÏharmless€in€light€of€the€compelling€evidence€against€Defendant€as€discussed€inÏprevious€issues.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà@ àV.€€Mitigation€TestimonyÌÌà àDefendant€argues€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€sentencing€hearing€because€theÏState€questioned€him€about€his€obtaining€cocaine€while€in€prison.€€Specifically,€heÏasserts€that€the€probative€value€of€this€testimony€is€outweighed€by€the€prejudicialÏeffect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€ÌÌà àThe€defense€attempted€to€show€that€Defendant€was€easily€susceptible€toÏbad€acts€at€the€urging€of€others.€€Defendant€repeatedly€testified€that€he€is€mentallyÏslow.€€He€said€that€he€was€employed€at€a€business€that€repaired€washingÏmachines,€but€that€he€could€not€learn€the€trade€because€he€would€forget€what€heÏwas€told€to€do.€€The€only€thing€he€was€able€to€do€was€hand€the€repairman€theÏtools.€€He€further€testified€that€while€his€brothers€learned€the€family€business€ofÏrepairing€cars,€that€he€was€never€able€to€do€so.€€In€fact,€he€testified€his€fatherÏwould€get€angry€with€him€because€he€could€not€even€bring€the€proper€tool€hisÏfather€asked€for.€€He€also€said€that€he€went€to€special€education€classes€and€thatÏhe€had€been€seen€by€doctors€because€he€was€mentally€slow.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€State€asked€Defendant€if€the€reason€he€got€intoÏtrouble€while€in€prison€was€because€of€his€use€of€cocaine.€€Defendant€said€thatÏcocaine€was€the€reason.€€He€later€testified€that€he€only€obtained€and€used€cocaineÏonce€in€prison.€€The€Stateððs€questioning€about€Defendantððs€ability€to€obtain€drugsÏwas€relevant€to€rebut€Defendantððs€assertions€that€he€was€not€even€able€to€doÏsimple€tasks.€€Despite€his€argument€that€he€could€not€even€find€the€right€tools€for€hisÏfather,€he€was€able€to€find€cocaine€in€prison.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€ruled€this€information€to€be€relevant€to€rebut€DefendantððsÏmitigation€testimony.€€In€doing€so€it€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]his€conduct€while€in€prison€is€offered€not€as€it€relates€toÏthe€underlying€offense€for€which€weððre€here€this€week€butÏas€it€relates€to€the€mitigation€that€you€elicited€through€directÏregarding€your€clientððs€limited€abilities,€his€inability€to€findÏthe€necessary€tools€to€help€his€father,€his€inability€toÏcomprehend€enough€about€the€washing€machineÏbusiness€to€help€Mr.€Bledsoe€„„€all€these€limitations€thatÏyour€client€had€suggested€that€he€was€just€a€very€dullÏand€slow€individual€that€had€very€limited€abilities.€€This,€IÏthink,€is€an€attempt€to€demonstrate€that€heððs€a€shrewderÏperson€than€was€painted€on€direct€.€.€.€The€statute€itselfÏclearly€specifically€states€that€the€State€is€entitled€to€offerÏproof€that€rebuts€mitigation.€€And€I€think€this€is€a€fairÏinterpretation€of€this€proof.€€ÓÓÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€is€probative€to€rebut€Defendantððs€implication€that€itÏwas€always€others€who€got€him€into€trouble.€€Defendant€repeatedly€testified€thatÏhe€unintentionally€surrounded€himself€with€people€who€were€bad€influences€on€himÏand€always€got€him€into€trouble.€€Defendantððs€decision€to€find€and€use€cocaineÏwhile€in€prison€does€rebut€his€repeated€assertion€that€it€was€always€someoneÏother€than€himself€who€got€him€into€trouble.€€When€the€State€asked€him€about€theÏcircumstances€of€his€cocaine€use€in€prison,€he€again€claimed€he€was€naive€aboutÏthe€drug€and€only€put€some€in€his€nose€because€a€man€at€the€prison€ð ðshowed€meÏwhat€it€was€about.ðð€€He€claimed€he€was€hospitalized€and€had€to€be€told€by€hisÏdoctor€to€ð ðnot€accept€things€from€people€that€try€to€give€me€things€like€that.ððÌÌà àThe€State€is€statutorily€entitled€to€rebut€the€mitigation€proof€put€on€byÏDefendant.€€Specifically,€the€sentencing€statute€states€that€ð ðevidence€may€beÏpresented€as€to€any€matter€that€the€court€deems€relevant€to€the€punishment€andÏmay€include€.€.€.€any€evidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€€Based€on€the€fact€that€Defendant€consistentlyÏdenied€ultimate€responsibility,€claiming€others€convinced€him€to€do€bad€things,€theÏState€clearly€had€a€right€to€rebut€this€theory.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àVI.€€Admissibility€of€Photograph€of€Victim€€ÌÌà àDefendant€alleges€in€this€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€aÏphotograph€of€the€victim€taken€while€he€was€alive.€€Defendant€claims€theÏphotograph€had€minimal€evidentiary€value€and€served€only€to€inflame€the€passionsÏof€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€courts€have€followed€a€policy€of€liberality€in€the€admission€ofÏphotographs€in€both€civil€and€criminal€cases.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,Ï949€(Tenn.€1978)€(citations€omitted).€€This€policy€translates€into€the€rule€that€ð ðtheÏadmissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€trialÏcourtððs€ð ðruling€in€this€respect,€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€except€upon€a€clearÏshowing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÍStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,Ï226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€€However,€before€aÏphotograph€may€be€admitted€into€evidence,€it€must€be€relevant€to€an€issue€that€theÏjury€must€decide€and€the€probative€value€of€the€photograph€must€outweigh€anyÏprejudicial€effect€that€it€may€have€upon€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867ÏS.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€denied€óó(Tenn.€1993)€(citationÏomitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401€and€403.ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€State€intended€to€call€eyewitnesses€who€wereÏcustomers€pumping€gas€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€€Two€of€these€witnesses€did€notÏknow€the€victim€by€name,€but€could€identify€him€from€a€picture.€€The€picture€wasÏintended€to€help€establish€the€identity€of€the€person€they€saw€murdered.€€The€StateÏtold€the€court€during€a€bench€conference€regarding€this€matter,€that€it€needed€toÏintroduce€the€photograph€because€two€witnesses€did€not€know€the€victim€byÏname.€€The€trial€court€responded,€ð ðall€right.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€State€that€simplyÏbecause€the€trial€court€did€not€reiterate€the€Stateððs€argument€by€restating€it€for€theÏrecord,€does€not€mean€it€did€not€agree€with€the€reasoning€offered€by€the€prosecutor.€ÏIt€is€unlikely€the€trial€court€would€have€admitted€the€photograph€if€it€did€not€agreeÏwith€the€Stateððs€rationale€regarding€the€photographððs€probative€value.ÌÌà à€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€prejudice€from€the€photograph€wasÏminimal.€€Specifically,€it€stated,€ð ðThis€is€a€fairly€neutral,€nondescript€sort€of€picture€ofÏthis€individual€sitting€on€a€couch€looking€at€the€camera.€€Itððs€not€taken€in€a€church€orÏat€a€graduation€ceremony€or€with€a€pack€of€boy€scouts€or€something€like€that.ðð€ÏFrom€this€statement,€the€trial€court€obviously€found€that€the€probative€value€of€theÏphotograph€was€not€outweighed€by€any€prejudicial€effect.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€photograph€had€ð ðspecificÏevidentiary€valueðð€and€that€it€was€not€the€type€of€picture€that€would€inflame€a€jury.€ÏThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€admitting€the€photograph.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.à àÌÌà@ àVII.€€Victim€Impact€EvidenceÌÌà àDefendant€argues€that€the€Stateððs€effort€during€the€penalty€phase€to€refer€toÏthe€impact€of€the€victimððs€death€on€the€victimððs€family€was€improper.€€Specifically€theÏprosecutor€stated€the€following€during€opening€arguments€at€the€sentencing€stage:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIððm€not€going€to€call€members€of€the€family€up€here€andÏhave€them€cry€and€make€them€hurt.€€Theyððve€beenÏthrough€enough.€€But€one€of€the€things€we€can€alsoÏshow€you€is€victim€impact€evidence.€€And€Iððll€incorporateÏthe€face€of€Mr.€Jeff€Spears€[victimððs€brother]€into€our€proof.€ÏWe€donððt€need€to€say€anything€else.€€You€saw€his€face.€ÏIf€it€didnððt€show€you€pain,€then€thereððs€no€use€in€meÍbringing€someone€up€here.€€You€can€take€that€intoÏconsideration.€Itððs€part€of€our€proof.ÌÓÓÌà à€€€The€defense€objected,€but€the€trial€judge€reserved€his€ruling€on€the€objectionÏuntil€after€he€had€heard€all€of€the€proof€during€the€sentencing€stage.€€The€State€didÏnot€put€on€any€members€of€the€victimððs€family€during€the€penalty€phase.€€The€StateÏonly€put€on€evidence€of€the€statutory€aggravator,€robbery€by€the€use€of€a€deadlyÏweapon.€€After€Defendant€presented€his€proof,€he€renewed€his€objection€to€anyÏreference€to€the€victimððs€family€during€closing€arguments.€€The€court€overruled€theÏobjection,€noting€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„38„204€intended€theÏState€to€have€the€opportunity€to€rebut€mitigating€proof.€€The€court€went€on€to€sayÏthat€in€cases€where€no€mitigating€proof€is€put€on€by€a€defendant,€then€the€StateÏwould€be€limited€to€only€proving€the€enhancement€factors.€€However,€sinceÏDefendant€spent€much€of€the€sentencing€phase€discussing€his€personality,€hisÏchildhood,€and€his€mental€limitations,€then€the€State€had€a€right€to€rebut€theseÏqualities€by€discussing€what€Defendant€did€and€how€it€affected€the€family€of€theÏvictim.€€ÌÌà àDuring€closing€arguments,€the€prosecutor€referred€to€the€picture€of€the€victimÏstating,€ð ðMr.€Smith€[Defendant]€got€up€there€and€cried€and€said,€ððI€want€to€live.ðð€€IfÏonly€this€picture€could€talk;€ððI€want€to€live.ðððð€€He€also€referred€to€the€victimððs€family,Ïsaying€ð ðHow€long€do€you€think€theyððve€been€crying€.€.€.€[a]€year€and€a€half?ðð€€HeÍfurther€said€that€the€killing€had€hurt€the€victimððs€family€and€had€taken€ð ðdreams€awayÏfrom€their€families.ððÌà àÌà àDefendant€argues€that€all€the€foregoing€statements€were€so€inflammatoryÏthat€they€prejudiced€the€sentencing€hearing€making€it€fundamentally€unfair.€ArgumentÏregarding€the€victim€and€the€impact€of€his€death€upon€his€family€is€not€precludedÏunder€either€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€State€Constitution€or€Article€I,€ðð€16Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10€(Tenn.€1990),€òòaffððdóó,ÏòòPayne€v.€Tennesseeóó,€501€U.S.€808,€111€S.€Ct.€2597,€115€L.€Ed.€2d€720€(1991).€ÏHowever,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€expressly€declined€to€forecloseÏchallenges€pursuant€to€statutory€sentencing€guidelines€and€the€14th€Amendment.€ÏIn€a€concurring€opinion,€it€was€noted€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€do€not€hold€today€that€victim€impact€evidence€mustÏbe€admitted,€or€even€that€it€should€be€admitted.€€WeÏmerely€hold€that,€if€a€State€decides€to€permit€considerationÏof€this€evidence,€the€Eighth€Amendment€erects€no€òòperóó€òòseóóÏbar.€€If€such€testimony€so€infects€the€sentencing€hearingÏas€to€render€it€fundamentally€unfair,€the€defendant€mayÏseek€the€appropriate€relief€under€the€Due€ProcessÏClause.€€ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€501€U.S.€at€831,€11€S.€Ct.€at€2612€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring).€€€In€other€words,Ïthis€does€not€mean€that€such€argument€is€otherwise€relevant€and€admissible€underÏTennessee€law.€€In€fact,€in€òòState€v.€Clarence€C.€Nesbitóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9510„CR„00293,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Apr.€22,€1997)€(transferredÍto€supreme€court€May€8,€1997,€No.€02S01„9705„CR„00043),€a€panel€of€this€CourtÏconcluded€that€victim€impact€testimony€is€not€admissible€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€In€òòNesbitóó€this€Court€said:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àUnder€Tennessee's€capital€sentencing€scheme,€ððthe€onlyÏevidence€which€is€relevant€during€the€sentencing€phase€.Ï.€.€is€that€evidence€which€is€relevant€to€establish€orÏdisprove€the€existence€of€aggravating€circumstances€orÏmitigating€factors.ðð€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€179Ï(Tenn.€1991)(òòcitingóó€òòCozzolino€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€765,Ï768€(Tenn.€1979);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ìà8 àà8 àðð€39„13„204(c).€Any€evidence€that€does€not€go€to€theÏproof€of€one€or€the€other€of€those€issues€is€irrelevant€to€theÏjury's€deliberation.€òòCozzolinoóó,€584€S.W.2d€at€768.Ï(Footnotes€omitted).€ÌÌSlip€op.€at€31„32.€ÌÓÓÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€victim€impact€is€not€listed€as€a€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€theÏargument€was€irrelevant€to€the€juryððs€sentencing€determination€and€was€thereforeÏimproper.€€€€ÌÌà àOur€review€must€now€focus€upon€whether€the€impermissible€argument€soÏaffected€the€juryððs€determination€as€to€require€a€remand€for€another€sentencingÏhearing.€€In€this€case,€the€victim€impact€references€were€brief€and€were€introducedÏsolely€by€the€prosecutor€during€his€opening€and€closing€arguments€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€No€members€of€the€victimððs€family€even€testified.€€In€the€contextÍof€the€total€argument€by€the€prosecutor,€the€part€involving€victim€impact€wasÏinsignificant.€€Notwithstanding€the€impermissibility€of€these€statements,€we€concludeÏthat€the€error€in€allowing€the€victim€impact€argument€during€the€penalty€phase€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï52(a).€€ÌÌà@ àVIII.€€Ambiguous€VerdictÌÌà àDefendant€asserts€in€this€issue,€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,€that€theÏjuryððs€verdict€regarding€the€statutory€aggravator€was€ambiguous,€and€that€he€isÏtherefore€entitled€to€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€We€disagree.€€Again,€this€issue€isÏdeemed€waived,€but€we€will€nevertheless€briefly€address€it.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï3(e).€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€charged€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€(1)€orÏmore€felonies,€ò òother€than€the€present€chargeó ó,€theÏstatutory€elements€of€which€involve€the€use€of€violence€toÏthe€person.€€The€state€is€relying€upon€the€crime€of€robberyÏby€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€which€is€a€felonyÏinvolving€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.€(emphasisÏadded).ÌÓÓÌà àThe€jury€completed€the€verdict€form€with€the€language€ð ðrobbery€by€use€of€aÏdeadly€weapon.ðð€€Defendant€asserts€that€since€he€was€convicted€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery,€the€jury€could€have€been€confused€between€the€old€robberyÏcharge€and€the€robbery€conviction€in€the€instant€case.€€Specifically,€DefendantÏasserts€that€when€the€jury€wrote€down€ð ðrobbery€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,ðð€theÏjury€could€have€meant€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€If€the€jury€had€in€fact€reliedÏon€the€robbery€conviction€in€the€instant€case€to€establish€the€aggravator,€then€itÏwould€be€a€violation€of€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó.€€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992);€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€James€Lloyd€Julian,€IIóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CV„00371,€LoudonÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€24,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1998).€€ÌÌà àHowever,€we€find€Defendantððs€assertion€to€be€pure€speculation.€€The€juryÏwas€specifically€told€that€to€find€an€aggravating€circumstance,€Defendant€mustÏhave€been€ð ðpreviously€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€ò òother€than€theÏpresent€chargeó ó,€the€statutory€elements€of€which€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€theÏpersonðð€(emphasis€added).€The€jury€was€also€informed€that€the€State€was€relyingÏon€ð ðrobbery€by€use€of€a€deadly€weaponðð€as€the€aggravator.€€In€finding€DefendantÏguilty,€the€jury€found€as€the€aggravator€ð ðrobbery€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.ððÌÌà àThere€is€no€basis€for€Defendantððs€claim€that,€after€being€properly€instructed,Ïand€listing€the€aggravating€factor€on€the€jury€form€as€ð ðrobbery€by€use€of€a€deadlyÏweapon,ðð€the€jury€actually€meant€ð ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.ðð€€AbsentÏevidence€to€the€contrary,€a€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followed€its€instruction.€€òòStateÏv.€Melvinóó,€913€S.W.2d€195,€201€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòperm.€to€appealÌdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌ