ÿWPCA K# *U:5 %o 0uw@y4¹Í 0HÜ 0D$ AQh 0D¹ ý B 0J" 0Tl 0^À 0h 0r† 0|ø 0†t 0ú 1uŠÆÿ 0DÅ 0@  BI 0df D/Ê D3ùU!*,B)VDC AMÂáÌð÷¼è³›£ µí¿"Ú¬%w†'—ý,”0Š”25;7v~?:vÓ½;˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ /)E0)1)2)3)6e4) 5)6)E7)8)Ó€¸LË$3|xC)(ø(3YÙ$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ßÛXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó!"#&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óüÿP Pd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'÷ÿ dxd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ×Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ12,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÂÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔTrial€testimony€indicated€that€Sheriff€Sneed€and€the€appellant€were€distant€relatives.Ì íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔAppellant€admitted€at€trial€that€he€called€Sergeant€Owenby›€about€the€victim,€claiming€only€thatÏhe€was€concerned€for€her€safety.Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔAppellant€explained€that€he€had€purchased€the€tires€on€the€car€and€did€not€want€the€victimÏdriving€away€with€them.Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔAppellant€said€that€he€always€kept€a€gun€close€by€him€when€at€home€and€that€he€usually€put€theÏgun€closest€to€where€he€would€be€inside€the€house.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔThat€the€person€charged€acted€in€ð ðan€irrational€mannerðð€is€an€element€of€the€offense€ofÏvoluntary€manslaughter.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„211€(1991).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔEven€if€we€were€to€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€Mr.€Wagnerððs€testimony€was€not€characterÏevidence,€it€remains€that€the€proof€should€have€been€admitted.€€Outside€the€realm€of€characterÏevidence,€the€testimony€was€subject€to€the€normal€tests€of€relevance€and€unfair€prejudice€to€theÏappellant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid›.€401,€403.€€As€discussed€above,€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€corroborateÏone€aspect€of€the€appellantððs€defense.€€Therefore,€unless€the€probative€value€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€the€evidence€was€admissible.€€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€403.€€TheÏtestimony€would€not€have€been€unfairly€prejudicial€to€the€prosecution€because€of€the€substantialÏtestimony€previously€offered€about€the€nature€of€the€relationship€between€appellant€and€the€victim.€ÏRegardless€of€whether€we€characterize€the€testimony€as€evidence€of€character,€it€was€certainly€relevantÏand€admissible.Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔFollowing€òòPhipps›óó,€the€supreme€court€stated€that€ð ðevidence€of€a€defendantððs€mental€conditionÏcan€be€relevant€and€admissible€in€certain€cases€to€rebut€the€mens€œrea›€element€of€an€offense.ðð€€òòAbramsóó,Ï935€œS.W.2d›€at€402.€€The€court€commented€that€further€development€of€the€rule€of€diminished€capacityÏwould€be€deferred€to€ð ðanother€day.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ì ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔWe€note€that€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€do€not€include€a€charge€on€diminishedÏcapacity.Ì mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔThe€trial€courtððs€charge€on€diminished€capacity€did€not€limit€its€application€to€the€crime€of€firstÏdegree€murder,€but€charged€that€it€was€applicable€to€the€mental€states€necessary€for€lesser€includedÏoffenses.€€Although€not€explicitly€addressed,€the€òòHallóó€opinion€apparently€did€not€limit€application€of€theÏdoctrine€to€specific€intent€crimes,€as€this€Court€implied€in€òòPhipps›óó,€883€S.W.2d€at€149€n.19€(declining€toÏdecide€whether€diminished€capacity€negates€mental€states€other€than€specific€intent).€€We€believe€this€isÏimplicit€in€the€courtððs€repeated€statements€that€diminished€capacity€is€relevant€to€negate€the€requisiteÏculpable€mental€state,€not€just€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€690€(emphasisÏadded).€€Moreover,€the€distinction€between€general€and€specific€intent€crimes€has€been€abandoned€inÏour€criminal€code.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„11„301€(Sentencing€Commission€Comments).€€Nevertheless,Ïeven€if€that€portion€of€the€instruction€is€considered€error,€it€was€harmless.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔThe€trial€court€relied€upon€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€613€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€Crim›.€œApp›.€1980),€whichÏpertains€to€the€admissibility€of€a€statement€made€when€the€accused€was€under€the€influence€of€alcohol,Ïnarcotics,€or€was€insane.€€That€authority€relates€to€appellantððs€argument€before€the€trial€court€that€heÏsuffered€a€head€injury€during€his€arrest€which€affected€his€mental€faculties€and€affected€his€ability€to€makeÏa€knowing€waiver.€€Appellant€has€not€pursued€that€argument€on€appeal€and€the€case€is€inapplicable€to€hisÏremaining€arguments.Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔThe€appellant€did€not€testify€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€Deputy€Cranfield›€provided€the€onlyÏinformation€about€appellantððs€statement.Ì €Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔThere€is€no€constitutional€violation€where€questioning€ceases€in€light€of€an€accusedððs€requestÏfor€an€attorney,€but€the€accused€subsequently€initiates€conversation€with€law€enforcement.€€òòEdwards€v.ÏArizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€101€S.Ct.€1880,€1885,€68€L.Ed.2d€378€(1981).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔOur€review€on€this€issue€is€somewhat€hindered€because€neither€Sheriff€Sneed›ððs€report€norÏthe€letter€prepared€by€the€victimððs€mother€are€included€in€the€record.€Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔAn€additional€requirement,€that€the€defendant€request€the€information,€was€also€discussed€byÏour€supreme€court.€€òòEdgin›óó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389.€€Although€we€note€that€the€appellant€made€a€request,Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€test€for€materiality€applies€irrespective€of€such€aÏrequest.€€òòœKyles›€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€115€œS.Ct›.€1555,€131€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€490€(1995).€€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€!Ù›œßR€342A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€SEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9611„CR„00444€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRHEA€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€CURTIS€SMITH,ÌCALVIN€LEE€SNEED,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌ€a/k/a€MOONEY€SNEEDà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(First€Degree€Murder)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌPhilip€A.€Condraà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ204€Betsy€Pack€Driveà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌJasper,€TN€37347à àà àà àà àà àPeter€M.€Coughlanà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€Michael€TaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à265€Third€Avenue,€Suite€300Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDayton,€TN€37321ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€W.€Pope,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Calvin€Lee€Sneed,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€ofÏfirst€degree€murder€in€the€Rhea€County€Criminal€Court.€€After€a€jury€trial,€appellantÏwas€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€OnÏappeal,€he€presents€six€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€premeditation€andÏdeliberation;€ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€appellantððs€objection€to€theÏintroduction€of€live€rounds€of€ammunition€and€spent€shell€casingsÏrecovered€from€his€residence;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€testimony€pertaining€to€the€victimððsÏconduct€and€character;ÌÌà8 à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€diminishedÏcapacity€in€the€manner€requested€by€appellant;ÌÌà8 à(5)€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€hisÏstatement€given€to€law€enforcement€officials;€andÌÌà8 à(6)€appellant€was€denied€a€fair€trial€when€the€State€failed€to€discloseÏòòBradyóó€material€prior€to€trial.Ì€ÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€bothÏappellantððs€conviction€and€sentence.Ìà@ àò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àAt€approximately€10:45€p.m.€on€the€night€of€March€8,€1994,€Marvin€Shaver€wasÏfeeding€calves€at€his€farm€on€Shaver€Loop€Road€near€Dayton,€Tennessee.€€HeÏnoticed€a€car€turn€into€the€appellantððs€neighboring€driveway,€located€close€to€hisÏbarn.€€After€he€finished€his€work,€Mr.€Shaver€drove€the€short€distance€from€the€barn€toÏhis€home.€€As€he€exited€the€vehicle€and€approached€his€porch,€he€heard€a€gunshot,Ïfollowed€by€a€pause,€and€then€five€or€six€more€shots,€fired€in€rapid€succession.€€TheÏsound€of€the€gunshots€came€from€the€direction€of€his€barn€and€the€appellantððsÏresidence.€€Moments€later,€he€heard€a€ð ðracketðð€and€walked€to€the€road.€€From€there,Ïhe€could€hear€the€roaring€sound€of€a€vehicle€engine€and€he€assumed€that€a€vehicleÏhad€been€driven€into€a€ditch.€€He€also€noticed€an€orange€glow€around€the€area€andÏbelieved€the€vehicle€was€on€fire.€€He€phoned€911€and€informed€the€dispatcher€aboutÏthe€shots€and€the€car.€€Ìà àMr.€Shaver€thereafter€drove€to€the€scene€to€meet€Leon€Sneed,× ƒ5 ××  ×€the€Sheriff€ofÏRhea€County.€€The€men€found€that€a€car€had€gone€over€a€steep€embankment€andÏwas€nose„down€in€a€ditch.€€The€car€appeared€to€have€rolled€straight€down€theÏappellantððs€sloped€driveway€and€crashed€into€the€ditch.€€Portions€of€the€car€wereÏburning€and€it€was€surrounded€by€a€lot€of€smoke.€€Mr.€Shaver€and€Sheriff€SneedÏwalked€down€into€the€ditch€and€could€see€that€someone€was€still€inside€the€car.€€TheÏdriverððs€side€door€was€jammed€against€a€tree€and€the€men€struggled€to€get€inside€theÍcar.€€Finally€they€were€able€to€open€the€passengerððs€side€door€and€pull€a€woman€fromÏthe€car.€€Fearing€the€car€would€explode,€they€carried€the€woman€out€of€the€ditch€to€theÏpavement€above.€€In€the€illumination€of€car€headlights,€they€recognized€the€womanÏas€Carol€Dawson€Sneed,€the€appellantððs€wife.€€Emergency€personnel€arrived,€butÏMrs.€Sneed€was€already€dead.€€She€had€died€from€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€back€ofÏher€head.Ìà àAfter€discovering€the€victim,€Mr.€Shaver€and€Sheriff€Sneed€noticed€theÏappellant€standing€on€his€front€porch€about€150€feet€away.€€They€could€hear€himÏshouting,€but€were€unable€to€understand€what€he€was€saying.€€Sheriff€SneedÏapproached€appellantððs€residence€and€saw€him€holding€a€pistol.€€Appellant€refusedÏthe€sheriffððs€requests€to€put€down€the€gun,€saying€instead,€ð ðShe€come€up€here€andÏstarted€threatening€and€cussing€me€and€I€just€come€out€and€opened€up€on€her.ðð€€HeÏwas€resistant€of€Sheriff€Sneed€and€repeatedly€said€that€he€would€not€be€taken€alive.€ÏAlthough€appellant€continued€to€act€belligerently,€he€was€finally€coaxed€into€entering€Ïhis€house.€€Once€inside,€he€tossed€some€documents€onto€the€kitchen€table€and€urgedÏSheriff€Sneed€to€read€the€divorce€papers.€€Appellant€stated,€ð ðRight€here€is€what€theÏwhole€damn€thing€is€about€and€then€the€bitch€comes€out€here€running€her€mouth.ðð€Ìà àA€number€of€other€officers€arrived€on€the€scene€and€surrounded€appellantððsÏmobile€home.€€Sheriff€Sneed€eventually€convinced€appellant€to€give€up€his€weaponÏand€the€other€officers€rushed€into€the€trailer.€€Appellant€told€them,€ð ðYou€might€as€wellÍgo€ahead€and€kill€me,€Iððm€not€going€alive.ðð€€One€officer€struck€appellant€on€the€chinÏwith€the€butt€of€his€rifle,€knocking€him€to€the€ground.€€A€number€of€live€rounds€ofÏammunition€scattered€onto€the€kitchen€floor€from€appellantððs€bulging€shirt€pockets.€ÏAppellant€continued€to€struggle,€but€was€finally€subdued€and€placed€under€arrest.Ìà àSeveral€hours€later,€appellant€gave€a€statement€to€Dean€Cranfield,€anÏinvestigator€with€the€Rhea€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€Appellant€told€Cranfield€thatÏhe€called€the€victim€about€4:30€p.m.€that€afternoon€at€a€local€bar.€€He€said€that€theÏvictim€was€playing€a€video€poker€machine€and€had€her€fourteen„year„old€daughterÏwith€her.€€According€to€appellant,€the€victim€told€him€that€she€had€put€a€lot€of€moneyÏinto€the€poker€machine.€€He€said€that€he€called€the€bar€again€at€8:30€p.m.€and€wasÏtold€that€the€victim€was€not€there.€€He€then€stated€that€the€victim€telephoned€him€threeÏtimes€that€evening€from€two€different€bars.€€Ìà àAppellant€told€Cranfield€that€the€victim€came€to€his€house€around€11:00€p.m.Ïand€argued€with€him€about€alleged€infidelities.€€The€victim€searched€appellantððsÏmobile€home€looking€for€another€woman€and€appellant€shot€at€her€before€she€fled€toÏa€neighborððs€house.€€He€asserted€that€he€was€only€aiming€at€the€tires€on€her€car,€butÏmissed.€€He€also€stated€that€he€knew€if€he€hit€the€radiator,€she€could€not€leave;Ïhowever,€the€shots€he€fired€were€too€high.€€Finally,€appellant€told€Cranfield€that€ð ðsheÏneeded€itðð€and€he€emptied€the€gun€that€held€seventeen€shots.€€He,€nevertheless,Ïstated€that€he€loved€the€victim.Ìà àAppellant€was€indicted€for€the€first€degree€premeditated€murder€of€CarolÏDawson€Sneed.€€There€was€evidence€at€trial€indicating€that€the€relationship€betweenÏthe€two€had€been€stormy€and€unstable.€€They€were€first€married€in€1991,€divorced€inÏearly€1992,€and€then€remarried€in€1993.€€The€victim€had€again€filed€for€divorce€tenÏdays€before€her€death.€€Nevertheless,€appellant€and€the€victim€had€attempted€toÏreconcile€their€differences€the€prior€weekend€and€had€agreed€to€continue€livingÏtogether.Ìà àOn€the€day€of€the€murder,€appellant€called€the€victimððs€mother,€Joy€Dawson,Ïnumerous€times€looking€for€the€victim.€€He€told€her€that€he€had€contacted€a€local€bar,Ïbut€the€employee€would€not€let€him€talk€to€the€victim.€€Appellant€continued€to€call€Mrs.ÏDawson,€looking€for€the€victim,€asking€her€to€have€the€victim€call€him,€and€requestingÏthat€she€send€the€victim€home.€€During€one€phone€call,€the€appellant€said€that€if€theÏvictim€did€not€come€home,€he€would€go€after€her.€€During€another€conversation,€he€Ïtold€Mrs.€Dawson€that€if€the€victim€did€not€come€home,€he€was€ð ðgoing€over€there€andÏblow€everybody€away.ðð€€Ìà àThe€victim€arrived€at€Mrs.€Dawsonððs€house€around€10:15€p.m.,€just€as€theÏappellant€was€calling€again.€€The€victim€and€appellant€had€several€brief€telephoneÏconversations,€during€which€the€victim€repeatedly€refused€to€drive€to€the€appellantððsÏhome.€€Finally,€however,€the€victim€angrily€agreed€to€the€appellantððs€request.€€Mrs.ÍDawson€tried€to€discourage€the€victim€from€going€because€the€victim€had€beenÏdrinking€and€was€taking€the€prescription€drug,€Valium.€Ìà àFifteen€minutes€after€the€victim€left,€appellant€called€Mrs.€Dawson€again.€€ThisÏtime€he€said,€ð ðIððve€hit€your€bitch€daughter.€€When€the€law€comes,€theyððre€not€going€toÏtake€me€alive.ðð€€A€few€minutes€later,€appellant€talked€to€the€victimððs€daughter€and€saidÏshe€needed€to€come€get€her€mother€because€ð ðsheððs€laying€out€here€in€the€ditch.ððÌà àSeveral€witnesses€who€were€with€the€victim€over€the€course€of€the€eveningÏtestified€that€she€made€and€received€numerous€phone€calls€and€that€she€wasÏworried,€upset,€and€crying.€€The€victim€had€told€her€companions€that€she€did€not€wishÏto€speak€to€appellant€if€he€called.Ìà àPhysical€proof€introduced€at€trial€included€photographs€of€the€victimððs€car.€€TheÏcar€was€struck€by€bullets€in€five€separate€locations:€€the€vinyl„top€roof;€the€left€fender;Ïthe€taillight;€the€gas€tank;€and€the€license€plate,€through€which€a€bullet€traveled€intoÏthe€interior€of€the€car€and€lodged€in€the€rear€of€the€driverððs€seat.€€The€back€glass€of€theÏcar€was€missing,€apparently€shattered€by€the€bullet€which€struck€the€victim.€€TheÏmedical€examiner€testified€that€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€content€that€evening€wasÏ.15%.€€He€also€discovered€.4€micrograms€of€Valium€and€.3€micrograms€of€itsÏmetabolic€product€in€her€bloodstream.Ìà àA€total€of€sixteen€spent€cartridges€were€retrieved€from€the€appellantððs€drivewayÏand€porch.€€Numerous€other€cartridges€were€in€the€driveway,€but€officers€seized€onlyÍthose€that€were€least€tarnished€and€appeared€ð ðfresh.ðð€€Sixty„two€live€rounds€wereÏrecovered€from€the€appellantððs€kitchen€floor€and€an€additional€fifteen€rounds€wereÏtaken€from€the€pocket€of€a€jacket€found€in€appellantððs€kitchen.€€Two€empty€cartridgeÏboxes,€which€had€contained€cartridges€fitting€appellantððs€gun,€were€found€on€the€sofaÏin€his€living€room.€€They€each€held€a€capacity€of€fifty€rounds.€Ìà àThe€weapon€recovered€from€the€appellant€was€a€Smith€and€Wesson€semi„automatic€pistol€with€a€fifteen€round€magazine.€€When€seized,€it€contained€fifteen€liveÏrounds€in€the€magazine€and€one€in€the€chamber.€€The€live€rounds€taken€from€the€gunÏwere€hollow„point€bullets€with€a€protruding€lead€post.€€The€bullet€removed€from€theÏseat€of€the€victimððs€car€and€the€sixteen€spent€cartridges€found€in€appellantððs€drivewayÏwere€identified€as€having€been€fired€from€appellantððs€weapon.€€Bullet€fragmentsÏrecovered€from€the€victimððs€body€were€too€mutilated€for€comparison€or€identification.Ìà àSeveral€witnesses€testified€on€appellantððs€behalf.€€Helen€Sneed,€theÏappellantððs€mother,€testified€that€appellant€had€been€under€a€doctorððs€care€for€severalÏyears€prior€to€the€incident.€€She€stated€that€he€was€taking€Valium€for€his€ð ðnerves,ðð€andÏthat€the€victim€was€not€fond€of€appellantððs€family.€€Kathy€Smith,€appellantððs€cousin,Ïtestified€that€she€and€her€husband€had€socialized€with€appellant€and€the€victimÏregularly€until€their€relationship€became€stormy.€€She€and€her€husband€stoppedÏseeing€them€because€they€fought€so€often.€€Jack€œGeer›,€another€defense€witness,Ítestified€that€he€saw€the€victim€drinking€beer€in€a€local€bar€at€10:30€a.m.€on€theÏmorning€before€her€death.€€He€stated€that€she€was€still€there€when€he€left€at€2:30€p.m.Ìà àAppellant€introduced€into€evidence€a€copy€of€a€divorce€complaint€filed€by€theÏvictim€on€April€2,€1993.€€An€order€dismissing€the€complaint€at€the€victimððs€request€wasÏentered€May€27,€1993.€€A€second€divorce€complaint,€also€introduced€at€trial,€was€filedÏby€the€victim€on€February€25,€1994.€€Both€complaints€alleged€cruel€and€inhumanÏtreatment,€improper€marital€conduct,€and€irreconcilable€differences.€€The€latterÏcomplaint€was€served€on€appellant€four€days€before€the€murder.Ìà àMike€Owenby,€a€Sergeant€with€the€Rhea€County€Sheriffððs€Department€andÏfriend€of€the€appellant,€testified€that€appellant€called€him€on€March€8,€1994,€betweenÏ9:00€and€9:30€p.m.€and€said€that€the€victim€was€at€a€local€bar€and€was€intoxicated.€ÏAppellant€wanted€Sergeant€Owenby€or€another€officer€to€check€the€victim€and€arrestÏher€for€DUI€if€she€were€driving.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Owenby€testified€that€he€was€not€on€duty€that€nightÏand€took€no€action€after€talking€to€the€appellant.€€He€also€stated€that€he€was€aware€ofÏthe€volatile€relationship€between€the€victim€and€the€appellant.Ìà àDr.€Stewart€Bacon,€a€doctor€in€family€practice€in€Dayton,€testified€that€appellantÏhad€been€under€his€care€for€thirteen€years.€€Between€1990€and€1992,€he€diagnosedÏappellant€with€acute€and€chronic€anxiety€and€prescribed€tranquilizers€to€treat€thatÍcondition.€€He€also€had€appellant€evaluated€psychologically€and,€as€a€result€of€thatÏevaluation,€prescribed€a€stronger€medication€for€him.€€The€chief€jailer€at€the€RheaÏCounty€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€while€in€jail,€the€appellant€was€takingÏbetween€sixteen€and€twenty„three€pills€of€prescription€drugs€per€day.Ìà àRichard€Wagner,€an€attorney€from€Chattanooga,€also€testified€on€appellantððsÏbehalf.€€He€stated€that€he€had€represented€appellant€in€civil€matters,€including€the€lastÏdivorce€complaint€filed€by€the€victim.€€He€had€also€represented€the€victim€in€certainÏlegal€matters€while€she€and€appellant€were€married.€€In€the€summer€of€1993,Ïappellant€contacted€Mr.€Wagner€about€an€employment€discrimination€claim.€€Mr.ÏWagner€agreed€to€represent€him.€€He€testified€that€the€case€was€stressful€for€theÏappellant€because€he€was€very€worried€that€he€would€lose€his€job.€€Mr.€WagnerÏdescribed€appellant€as€ð ðscared€to€deathðð€and€stated€that€appellant,€during€that€time,Ïwas€ð ðnot€the€Calvin€Iððd€known€before.ððÌà àTestifying€in€his€own€defense,€the€appellant€said€that€in€February€and€March€ofÏ1994,€he€and€the€victim€were€together,€but€he€could€not€remember€if€they€wereÏmarried.€€He€testified€that€the€victim€would€often€decide€to€leave€and€take€all€of€herÏbelongings€from€their€home.€€He€further€indicated€that€he€was€having€healthÏproblems€during€that€time€which€caused€him€to€miss€work.€€Because€of€the€pendingÏemployment€discrimination€claim€and€his€marital€status,€appellant€stated€that€he€wasÏvery€sick,€nervous,€and€ð ðtore€upðð€during€those€months.Ìà àAppellant€related€that€on€March€4,€1994,€the€victim€called€to€tell€him€she€hadÏfiled€for€divorce€again.€€After€appellant€picked€up€the€summons€and€complaint€at€theÏSheriffððs€Department,€the€victim€came€to€his€house€and€informed€him€that€she€did€notÏwant€a€divorce€and€asked€that€the€two€of€them€go€away€for€the€weekend.€€AppellantÏagreed€and€they€spent€the€weekend€in€Dalton,€Georgia.€€During€that€time,€theyÏdiscussed€their€problems€and€defined€the€limits€of€their€marital€roles.€€One€of€theÏmajor€issues€was€the€victimððs€frequent€visits€to€local€bars,€which,€according€to€theÏappellant,€the€victim€agreed€to€limit.€€By€the€time€they€returned€home,€they€hadÏdecided€to€again€live€together€as€husband€and€wife.€€Ìà àAppellant€testified€that€he€had€a€doctorððs€appointment€in€Chattanooga€onÏMarch€8€and€that€the€victim€had€agreed€to€accompany€him.€€However,€when€heÏprepared€to€leave€that€morning,€she€declined€saying€she€had€other€things€to€do.€ÏWhen€he€returned€that€afternoon,€he€noticed€the€victimððs€car€in€the€parking€lot€of€aÏlocal€tavern.€€He€called€the€tavern€after€he€arrived€home€and€talked€to€the€victim.€€HeÏtestified€that€the€victim€told€him€she€was€eating€with€her€daughter€and€expected€to€beÏhome€around€5:00€or€5:30.Ìà àAppellant€testified€that€the€victim€did€not€come€home€at€that€time.€€He€thenÏdetailed€a€series€of€telephone€calls€he€made€to€Mrs.€Dawson€and€local€bars€thatÏevening€trying€to€get€the€victim€to€come€home.€€He€denied€threatening€to€ð ðblowÏeverybody€away.ðð€€Although€he€testified€that€some€of€the€conversations€with€the€victimÍwere€heated,€he€also€stated€that€during€one€phone€call,€the€victim€was€talkingÏcordially.€€However,€from€her€slurred€speech,€he€could€tell€that€she€had€beenÏdrinking.€€Appellant€stated€that€he€was€upset€she€was€not€abiding€by€her€promise€toÏlimit€her€bar€visits.€€He€later€admitted€that€he€had€been€drinking€some€that€day€andÏwas€also€taking€Valium.€€Ìà àThe€appellant€testified€that€he€spoke€to€the€victim€at€the€Dawson€residenceÏand€she€wanted€him€to€pick€her€up.€€When€he€refused,€she€responded,€ð ðThatððs€allÏright€you€son„of„a„bitch,€.€.€.€Iððll€be€out€[t]here€in€a€little€while.ðð€€The€victim€arrived€at€hisÏhouse€ten€to€fifteen€minutes€later€and,€according€to€appellant,€threw€down€her€purseÏand€asked€if€another€woman€was€there.€€He€said€that€she€then€searched€the€mobileÏhome€looking€for€someone€else.€€In€turn,€he€asked€her€who€she€had€been€with€thatÏevening.€€Appellant€testified€that€a€very€heated€argument€ensued€and€many€hurtfulÏthings€were€said.€€Finally,€the€victim€told€him€she€was€going€to€pick€up€a€ð ðrealðð€manÏand€go€ð ðpartying.ðð€€Appellant€replied,€ð ðNot€in€that€car,ðð× ƒ7 ××  ×€and€eventually€shot€at€the€carÏas€the€victim€tried€to€drive€away.€€He€denied€any€intention€of€hurting€the€victim,€statingÏthat€he€merely€wanted€to€cause€a€flat€tire.Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€appellant€remembered€that€the€victim€left€the€mobileÏhome,€but€then€returned€for€her€car€keys.€€He€admitted€firing€a€couple€of€shots€whileÍshe€was€getting€the€keys;€however,€he€tried€to€keep€her€from€leaving€because€sheÏwas€too€drunk€to€drive.€€He€also€admitted€firing€additional€shots€at€the€tires€as€theÏvictim€walked€toward€the€car.€€€He€could€not€remember€how€many€shots€he€firedÏbefore€he€€€went€back€inside€the€house.€€Thereafter,€he€heard€a€roaring€noise€andÏsaw€headlights€at€the€end€of€the€driveway€in€the€ditch.€Ìà àAppellant€stated€that€he€could€not€remember€reloading€the€pistol.€€He€alsoÏprofessed€that€he€could€not€remember€exactly€where€the€gun€was€before€the€victimÏarrived,€but€that€it€was€close€by€him.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€He€claimed€that€he€had€put€the€two€boxes€ofÏlive€rounds€on€the€sofa€when€he€talked€to€Sergeant€œOwenby›€because€he€wanted€toÏask€œOwenby›€to€order€new€shells€for€him.€€Appellant€testified€that€he€could€notÏremember€several€things€he€said€during€his€conversation€with€Dean€Cranfield,€norÏdid€he€remember€calling€Mrs.€Dawson€after€the€shooting.Ìà àBased€upon€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€jury€found€appellant€guilty€of€firstÏdegree€premeditated€murder.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€appellant€to€lifeÏimprisonment.Ìà@ àò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌà àAppellant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€proveÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€He€argues€that€the€State€failed€to€show€that€heÍdeliberated€over€his€plan€to€kill€the€victim€or€that€he€possessed€a€cool€mental€state.€ÏWe€disagree€and€find€€€abundant€evidence€of€both€premeditation€and€deliberation.Ìà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€weÏmust€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€inÏdetermining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ï307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluateÏthe€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€State€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1979).Ìà àAt€the€time€of€this€crime,€first€degree€murder€was€defined€as€an€intentional,Ïpremeditated€and€deliberate€killing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.Ï1994).€€A€ð ðpremeditated€actðð€was€statutorily€defined€as€ð ðone€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991).€€The€statuteÏalso€defined€a€ð ðdeliberate€actðð€as€ð ðone€performed€with€cool€purpose.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð39„13„201(b)(1)€(1991).€€Deliberation€necessarily€implies€that€the€offense€mustÏhave€been€committed€free€of€the€passions€of€that€moment.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2dÏ144,€147€(Tenn.€1992).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ìà àAll€murder€is€presumed€to€be€in€the€second€degree€and€the€State€bears€theÏburden€of€proving€that€the€killing€was€premeditated€and€deliberate.€€òòBrownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€543.€€Premeditation€and€deliberation€are€factual€determinations€for€the€juryÏand€may€be€inferred€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.ÏBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citation€omitted).€€Ìà àThe€factual€record€before€us€provides€ample€evidence€of€premeditation.€ÏSeveral€hours€before€the€murder,€appellant€called€the€victimððs€mother€and€threatenedÏto€go€to€the€bar€where€the€victim€was€and€ð ðblow€everybody€awayðð€if€the€victim€did€notÏcome€home.€€That€threat€included€the€victim€and€further€implied€that€appellant€wouldÏuse€a€gun€to€accomplish€the€deed.€€Moreover,€appellant€procured€his€pistol€and€hadÏit€nearby€well€in€advance€of€the€victimððs€arrival.€€He€also€prepared€the€weapon€andÏretrieved€boxes€of€ammunition€and€placed€them€on€the€couch€within€close€proximityÏof€where€he€was€sitting.€€Appellant€went€even€further€by€filling€his€shirt€pockets€withÏsixty„two€live€rounds€and€placing€fifteen€live€rounds€in€his€jacket€pocket,€the€exactÏnumber€necessary€to€refill€the€magazine€in€his€pistol.€€That€activity€was€strongÏevidence€of€premeditation.€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222.€€€€Ìà àAlthough€the€great€number€of€rounds€found€by€the€appellant€does€not€by€itselfÏestablish€premeditation,€that€evidence€was€relevant€for€the€juryððs€consideration€inÏconjunction€with€other€evidence.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€Sixteen€spentÏcartridges€were€recovered€from€appellantððs€driveway.€€At€least€six€bullets€struck€theÍcar€itself.€€In€appellantððs€statement€to€law€enforcement,€he€admitted€that€he€ð ðemptiedÏthe€gunðð€when€he€fired€at€the€victim.€€From€those€circumstances,€the€jury€could€inferÏthe€necessary€mens€rea.€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€222.€Ìà àWe€also€note€that€appellant€shot€at€the€unarmed€victim€when€she€was€walkingÏaway€from€his€house.€€When€the€fatal€bullet€was€fired,€the€victim€was€literally€drivingÏaway€from€appellantððs€residence.€€Considering€appellantððs€earlier€threat€to€ð ðblowÏeverybody€away,ðð€coupled€with€his€preparations,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€juryÏcould€find€that€appellant€formed€the€intent€to€kill€well€in€advance€of€the€murder.€€BothÏthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€on€an€unarmed€victim€and€declarations€of€an€intent€to€kill€Ïconstitute€circumstantial€evidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€from€which€theÏjury€could€find€the€necessary€state€of€mind.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541.€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997).€Ìà àThere€was€additional€evidence€that€appellant€acted€deliberately€and€with€aÏcool€purpose.€€€Deliberation€includes€the€process€of€weighing€the€wisdom€of€goingÏahead€with€the€proposed€killing,€the€manner€in€which€the€killing€will€beÏaccomplished,€and€the€consequences€to€be€placed€upon€the€killer€whenÏapprehended.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541.€€Appellant€had€ample€time€to€contemplateÏthe€murder€of€the€victim.€€By€his€own€admission,€he€retrieved€the€boxes€of€liveÏcartridges€while€talking€to€Sergeant€Owenby,€which€was€at€least€one€hour€before€theÏvictim€arrived€at€his€house.€€Over€the€course€of€the€evening,€appellant€tried€in€œvain›€toÍreach€the€victim€and€to€have€her€come€home.€€As€the€evening€wore€on,€the€appellantÏhad€substantial€time€to€weigh€the€wisdom€of€his€proposed€course€of€action.€€Ìà àProof€at€trial€also€demonstrated€that€appellant€was€calm€before€the€murder.ÏSeveral€of€appellantððs€friends€testified€that€they€had€telephone€conversations€withÏhim€that€evening€while€he€was€awaiting€the€victimððs€arrival.€€Appellant€was€not€upsetÏor€angry€during€those€conversations.€€In€fact,€Sergeant€Owenby€stated€that€he€andÏappellant€had€a€normal€conversation€which€lasted€approximately€fifteen€to€twentyÏminutes.€€He€also€stated€that€he€could€not€tell€that€appellant€was€angry.€€AnotherÏwitness€who€spoke€with€appellant€that€evening€stated€that€he€did€not€notice€anythingÏout€of€the€ordinary.€€As€a€result,€it€was€reasonable€for€the€jury€to€find€that€appellantÏwas€free€of€passion€and€excitement€when€he€contemplated€the€murder.€€òòBrownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€540.€Ìà àAppellantððs€statement€to€the€victimððs€mother€after€the€killing,€that€he€would€notÏpermit€the€authorities€to€apprehend€him€alive,€indicates€that€the€he€had€consideredÏthe€consequences€of€killing€the€victim€and€made€a€decision€to€die€rather€than€beÏarrested.€€That€is€additional€evidence€of€appellantððs€deliberation.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2dÏat€541.€€Further,€the€appellant€had€obviously€considered€the€manner€in€which€theÏmurder€would€be€accomplished€by€securing€his€weapon,€ensuring€it€was€loaded,€andÏarming€himself€with€excessive€amounts€of€ammunition.€€òòId.óóÌà àAlthough€there€was€evidence€in€the€record€that€appellant€and€the€victim€foughtÏimmediately€prior€to€the€shooting,€we€do€not€believe€that€negated€a€jury€finding€ofÏdeliberation.€€This€Court€has€previously€held€that€the€presence€of€agitation,€or€evenÏanger,€does€not€necessarily€preclude€a€finding€of€deliberation.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881ÏS.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Considering€the€evidence€in€this€case,€the€juryÏwas€justified€in€finding€that€appellant€coolly€carried€out€his€preconceived€plan€to€killÏthe€victim,€irrespective€of€the€emotion€associated€with€the€argument.€€Ìà àWe€also€conclude€that€the€jury€was€entitled€to€reject€the€appellantððs€claims€thatÏhe€was€only€shooting€at€the€tires€on€the€car.€€At€least€six€bullets€struck€the€car€andÏnone€of€them€were€in€close€proximity€to€the€tires.€€One€bullet€struck€the€roof€of€theÏvehicle€and€another€shattered€the€back€glass,€leading€to€the€victimððs€death.€€ThatÏevidence€clearly€justifies€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€appellantððs€intentions€were€other€€€Ïthan€shooting€the€tires.€€The€convicting€evidence€was€sufficient.Ìà@ àò òADMISSIBILITY€OF€LIVE€ROUNDS€AND€SPENT€SHELL€CASINGSó óÌà àAppellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€objection€toÏthe€introduction€of€the€ammunition€found€on€the€kitchen€floor€of€his€residence€and€theÏammunition€recovered€from€his€jacket.€€He€argues€that€the€evidence€was€not€relevantÏand€any€probative€value€was€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€a€pretrial€hearing€on€appellantððs€motion€in€limine,€butÏdeclined€to€rule€until€the€ammunition€evidence€was€offered€at€trial.€€Accordingly,Ïappellant€renewed€his€objection€to€the€introduction€of€the€evidence€prior€to€SheriffÏSneedððs€testimony.€€The€trial€court€again€heard€arguments€and€ruled€that€theÏevidence€was€admissible.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€found€the€evidence€relevant€toÏthe€issues€of€premeditation,€deliberation,€and€intent.€€It€further€found€that€theÏprobative€value€was€not€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.Ìà àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€generally€is€a€determination€that€rests€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);ÏòòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€134€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€To€demonstrate€error,Ïthe€appellant€must€show€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòId.óó€€Ìà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€ammunition€was€relevant€to€proveÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€ammunition€demonstrated€appellantððs€planningÏactivity€and€helped€to€explain€the€empty€boxes€of€shells€found€on€the€sofa€in€his€livingÏroom.€€The€trial€court€properly€found€that€the€probative€value€of€the€ammunition€wasÏnot€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Ìà àSimilarly,€appellant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€sixteen€spent€shell€casingsÏrecovered€from€his€driveway€after€the€murder.€€He€argued€that€the€shell€casingsÏshould€not€be€admitted€where€the€testimony€reflected€that€a€maximum€of€ten€shotsÏwas€heard.€€He€also€argued€that€the€State€was€unable€to€prove€a€ð ðnexusðð€betweenÍthose€empty€casings€and€the€alleged€crime.€€His€theory€was€that€the€empty€shellÏcasings€could€have€been€fired€at€any€time€prior€to€the€murder.€€The€trial€court€properlyÏfound€that€appellantððs€objection€went€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€not€to€itsÏadmissibility.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òEVIDENCE€OF€THE€VICTIMððS€CHARACTERó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€to€exclude€certainÏtestimony€which€he€believes€pertained€to€the€victimððs€character.€€He€contends€that€theÏtestimony€would€have€shown€the€aggressive€and€confrontational€character€of€theÏvictim€which€was€relevant€to€demonstrate€the€provocation€associated€with€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€In€turn,€he€argues€that€the€evidence€would€have€contradictedÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€Ìà àAppellant€sought€to€offer€opinion€testimony€from€a€Chattanooga€attorney,ÏRichard€Wagner,€that€the€victim€knew€how€to€provoke€the€appellant.€€The€trial€courtÏheld€a€hearing€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€and€received€an€offer€of€proof.€€Mr.ÏWagner€had€represented€both€the€appellant€and€the€victim€during€their€marriage€onÏcivil€matters€and€had€been€involved€in€the€1992€divorce€proceedings.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€was€ð ðfamiliar€with€the€problems€they€were€having€all€along.ðð€€He€further€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àIt€was€a€firm€opinion€that€I€had€then€and€have€now,€is€that€she€[theÏvictim]€knew€how€to€push€his€button.€€She€knew€how€to€get€him€angryÏand€how€to€excite€him€and€how€to€get€him€arrested,€yes€sir.€€And€I€haveÏan€opinion,€as€far€as€Calvin€goes,€I€think€he€did€feel€for€her,€but€it€wasÏkind€of€relation€that€he€wanted€her€company€and€she€wanted€his€moneyÏand€when€he€didnððt€have€any€money€she€didnððt€need€him.€€When€sheÏhad€money€then€she€didnððt€need€him€and€if€she€was€unemployed€andÏdidnððt€have€anything,€that€sheððd€be€back€with€Calvin.Ì€€ÌÓÓà àAfter€hearing€the€offer€of€proof,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€testimony€was€notÏevidence€of€a€character€trait,€but€rather€an€opinion€as€to€whom€was€at€fault€in€theÏmarriage.€€The€trial€court€excluded€the€testimony€because€it€was€not€within€theÏpurview€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(a)(2).€€Appellant€must€show€that€the€trialÏcourt€abused€its€discretion€in€that€ruling€before€this€Court€may€find€error.€€òòBanksóó,€564ÏS.W.2d€at€949.€€Ìà àGenerally,€character€evidence€is€inadmissible€to€prove€action€in€conformityÏwith€character€on€a€particular€occasion.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a).€€However,€there€areÏcertain€occasions€when€the€character€of€the€accused€and€the€victim€of€a€crime€isÏadmissible.€€òòId.óó€€In€particular,€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(a)(2)€allows:ÌÓÓà8 àEvidence€of€a€pertinent€character€trait€of€the€victim€of€a€crime€offered€byÏan€accused€or€by€the€prosecution€to€rebut€the€same,€or€evidence€of€aÏcharacter€trait€of€peacefulness€of€the€victim€offered€by€the€prosecution€inÏa€homicide€case€to€rebut€evidence€that€the€victim€was€the€firstÏaggressor.ÓÓÌBecause€the€appellant€did€not€pursue€a€theory€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor,Ïour€focus€is€on€the€first€portion€of€that€rule.Ìà àTo€determine€whether€Rule€404(a)(2)€controls,€we€must€first€decide€whetherÏthe€proffered€testimony€was€evidence€of€the€victimððs€character.€€Although€TennesseeÏauthority€on€what€constitutes€character€is€sparse,€one€respected€authority€describes€itÏas€ð ða€generalized€description€of€a€personððs€disposition€in€respect€to€a€general€trait,Ïsuch€as€honesty,€temperance€or€peacefulness.ðð€€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al,€òòTennessee€LawÏof€Evidenceóó€ðð404.1€at€162€(3d.€ed.€1995)€(quoting€òòMcCormick€on€Evidenceóó€574€(E.ÏCleary€3d€ed.€1984)).€€Character€has€also€been€defined€as€ð ðthe€aggregate€of€theÏmoral€qualities€which€belong€to€and€distinguish€an€individual€person.ðð€€òòBlackððs€LawÏDictionaryóó€232€(6th€ed.€1990).€€à àÌà àUsing€those€definitions€as€guidance,€we€conclude€that€portions€of€the€profferedÏtestimony€fell€within€the€realm€of€character€evidence.€€Testimony€that€the€victim€ð ðknewÏhow€to€push€his€[appellantððs]€buttonðð€was€relevant€to€demonstrate€the€manipulativeÏand€confrontational€character€of€the€victim.€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€the€characterÏtrait€at€issue€was€pertinent€to€appellantððs€theory€that€the€killing€was€committed€in€theÏheat€of€passion.€€The€appellant€sought€to€prove€that€the€victim€acted€in€a€manner€toÏsufficiently€provoke€the€shooting.Ìà àIn€reaching€the€foregoing€determination,€we€are€mindful€that€appellantððsÏdefense€theory€was€substantiated€by€more€than€just€argument€of€counsel.€€òòRuaneóó,Ï912€S.W.2d€at€781€(requiring€issue€of€first€aggressor€be€raised€by€the€evidence,€notÏjust€arguments€of€counsel).€€There€was€ample€proof€that€the€victim€and€appellant€hadÍargued€throughout€the€evening€preceding€the€murder.€€Fifteen€minutes€prior€to€herÏdeath,€the€victim€had€several€brief,€but€heated€telephone€conversations€with€theÏappellant.€€Defense€counsel€elicited€testimony€from€Sheriff€Sneed€that€appellant€wasÏð ðirrationalðð× ƒ9 ××  ×€when€he€arrived€on€the€scene.€€Appellant€buttressed€his€theory€byÏtestifying€that€he€and€the€victim€were€arguing€vehemently€before€he€fired€the€shots.€ÏSpecifically,€appellant€testified€that€the€victim€stated€she€was€ð ðgoing€to€get€her€a€realÏmanðð€and€ð ðgo€partying.ðð€€The€question€of€whether€those€arguments€and€statementsÏwere€adequate€provocation€to€create€a€state€of€passion€and€lead€a€reasonableÏperson€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner€was€a€factual€determination€for€the€jury.€ÏHowever,€the€appellant€was€entitled€to€submit€relevant€proof€on€the€issue.× ƒ: ××  ×€€€Ìà àNevertheless,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€exclusion€of€Mr.€WagnerððsÏstatement€rises€to€the€level€of€reversible€error.€€Both€the€prosecution€and€defenseÏpresented€significant€evidence€of€the€volatile€relationship€between€the€victim€andÍappellant.€€The€jury€was€aware€that€the€parties€had€been€married,€divorced,Ïremarried,€and€that€the€victim€had€filed€for€divorce€on€two€additional€occasions,Ïalleging€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment.€€A€relative€of€the€appellant€testified€that€sheÏdid€not€associate€with€the€couple€because€they€fought€so€often.€€Mrs.€DawsonÏtestified€that€the€victim€and€appellant€had€been€arguing€that€evening€and€thatÏappellant€was€upset€with€the€victim€because€she€was€not€at€home.€€AppellantððsÏtestimony€also€provided€abundant€proof€regarding€the€unstable€dynamics€of€hisÏmarriage€to€the€victim.€€Considering€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€are€certain€that€anyÏerror€in€excluding€Mr.€Wagnerððs€testimony€respecting€the€victimððs€character€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÌ€à@ àò òJURY€INSTRUCTION€ON€DIMINISHED€CAPACITYÌà àó óThe€appellant€next€challenges€the€jury€instruction€on€diminished€capacity.€€HeÏargues€that€the€trial€courtððs€charge€was€erroneous€because€it€failed€to€instruct€the€juryÏthat€diminished€capacity€applied€to€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€Although€weÏconclude€that€a€diminished€capacity€instruction€was€not€warranted€under€the€facts,Ïwe€find€no€error€in€the€instruction€given€by€the€trial€court.Ìà àIn€Tennessee,€the€doctrine€commonly€referred€to€as€ð ðdiminished€capacityðð€wasÏfirst€recognized€by€this€Court€in€1994.€€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,149€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€1994).€€After€an€exhaustive€review€of€authority€from€sister€states€and€theÏfederal€circuits,€this€Court€held€that€ð ðevidence,€including€expert€testimony,€on€anÏaccusedððs€mental€state,€is€admissible€in€Tennessee€to€negate€the€elements€ofÏspecific€intent,€including€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€a€first€degree€murderÏcase.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€supreme€court€summarily€agreed€with€òòœPhipps›óó€in€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935ÏS.W.2d€399,€402€(Tenn.€1996).× ƒ; ××  ×€€However,€the€court€did€not€specifically€address€theÏdoctrine€of€diminished€capacity€until€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ìà àIn€òòHallóó,€the€high€court€reviewed€the€exclusion€of€expert€testimony€which€theÏappellant€alleged€was€relevant€to€negate€the€essential€elements€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation.€€òòId.óó€at€688„692.€€Similar€to€the€discussion€in€òòPhippsóó,€the€òòHallóó€courtÏheld€that€evidence€of€diminished€capacity€is€not€admissible€to€justify€or€excuse€aÏcrime,€but€instead€to€prove€that€a€defendant€was€incapable€of€forming€the€requisiteÏmental€state,€thereby€resulting€in€a€conviction€of€a€lesser€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€692.€ÏThe€court€cautioned€against€referring€to€such€testimony€as€proof€of€ð ðdiminishedÏcapacity.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€690.€€Instead€such€evidence€should€be€presented€to€the€trial€court€toÏnegate€the€existence€of€the€òòmens€œrea›óó€for€the€charged€offense.€€òòId.óó€€Against€thisÏbackdrop,€we€must€evaluate€the€jury€instruction€given€at€appellantððs€trial.Ìà àThe€appellant€requested€a€jury€instruction€based€upon€the€charge€quoted€inÏfootnote€ten€of€òòPhippsóó.€€883€S.W.2d€at€143.€€Appellantððs€proposed€charge€read€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€jury€is€further€instructed€that€the€Defendant€has€submitted€evidenceÏthat€the€Defendant€was€suffering€from€a€mental€disorder€known€as€acuteÏand€chronic€anxiety.€€This€evidence€should€be€considered€by€you,Ïspecifically€in€reference€to€whether€or€not€the€Defendant€possessed€theÏnecessary€premeditation€or€deliberation€for€him€to€be€convicted€ofÏmurder€in€the€first€degree.ÌÌà8 àThe€jury€is€further€instructed€that€you€should€consider€this€condition€andÏthe€expert€testimony€thereto€in€relation€to€the€crimes€of€second€degreeÏmurder€and€voluntary€manslaughter€as€it€relates€to€whether€or€not€theÏmental€disorder€of€the€Defendant€further€obscured€his€reasoning€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense€and€also€affected€his€ability€to€be€reasonably€andÏadequately€provoked.ÌÌà8 àWhile€this€evidence€may€not€establish€a€defense€wherein€the€DefendantÏwould€be€found€not€guilty€of€any€offense,€it€may€be€considered€by€you€inÏdeliberating€upon€the€necessary€elements€of€murder€in€the€first€degree,Ïmurder€in€the€second€degree,€voluntary€manslaughter,€and€recklessÏhomicide€in€that€each€of€these€offenses€requires€that€the€Defendant€actÏintentionally€or€knowingly€or€evidence€a€conscious€disregard.ÌÌà8 àShould€you€find€that€the€necessary€elements€of€any€of€these€grades€ofÏhomicide€are€not€present,€the€Defendant€must€be€acquitted€as€to€thatÏcharge.ÌÌÓÓAfter€an€extensive€discussion€with€both€the€State€and€appellantððs€counsel,€the€trialÏcourt€modified€the€proposed€charge€to€read€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€Defendant€has€submitted€evidence€that€he€suffered€from€a€mentalÏdisorder€known€as€acute€and€chronic€anxiety.€€You€must€consider€whatÏaffect€[sic],€if€any,€this€condition€had€on€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€formÍthe€required€mental€states€necessary€for€him€to€be€convicted€of€theÏindicted€offense€and€any€lesser€included€offense.ÌÌà8 àWhile€this€evidence€may€not€establish€a€defense€resulting€in€DefendantÏbeing€found€not€guilty€of€any€offense,€it€may€be€considered€by€you€inÏdeliberating€upon€the€essential€elements€of€the€indicted€offense€andÏlesser€included€offenses.ÌÌà8 àShould€you€find€that€the€necessary€elements€of€either€the€indictedÏoffense€or€any€lesser€included€offenses€are€not€present,€or€if€you€have€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€the€necessary€elements€are€present,Ïyou€must€find€the€Defendant€not€guilty€of€that€charge.€€You€may€considerÏevidence€of€this€condition,€along€with€other€relevant€evidence€in€arrivingÏat€your€verdict.ÌÌÓÓWhile€the€proposed€charge€and€the€one€given€by€the€trial€court€differ€somewhat,€weÏconclude€that€the€overall€import€of€diminished€capacity€was€given€to€the€jury.Ìà àThe€jury€instruction€found€in€òòPhippsóó€was€not€intended€by€this€Court€to€be€theÏonly€charge€on€diminished€capacity.€€While€the€quoted€instruction€in€òòœPhipps›óó€isÏcorrect,€trial€courts€need€not€follow€it€word€for€word.× ƒ= ××  ×€€Nevertheless,€as€in€this€case,Ïtrial€courts€may€rely€on€that€instruction€when€charging€the€jury€on€diminishedÏcapacity.€Ìà àWe€find€no€error€in€the€instruction€given€by€the€trial€court.€€It€provided€that€ð ð€youÏmust€consider€what€affect,€if€any,€this€condition€had€on€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€formÏthe€required€mental€states€necessary€for€him€to€be€convicted€of€the€indicted€offenseÍand€any€lesser€included€offense.ðð× ƒ> ××  ×€€That€language€conforms€to€the€supreme€courtððsÏholding€that€evidence€of€diminished€capacity€is€ð ðrelevant€to€negate€the€existence€ofÏthe€culpable€mental€state€required€to€establish€the€criminal€offense€for€which€theÏdefendant€is€being€tried.ðð€€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€690;€òòState€v.€Kelleyóó,€868€S.W.2d€733,Ï736€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Appellantððs€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àò òSUPPRESSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€PRE„TRIAL€STATEMENTó óÌà àThe€appellant€next€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppress.ÏHis€argument€is€two„fold:€(1)€his€statement€was€not€given€freely,€voluntarily,€orÏknowingly;€and€(2)€the€written€statement€did€not€include€significant€information€that€heÏconveyed€to€the€officer€and€is€therefore€misleading.€€Ìà àDeputy€Dean€Cranfield€of€the€Rhea€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€atÏthe€hearing€on€appellantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€He€stated€that€he€took€a€statementÏfrom€the€appellant€at€the€jail€at€approximately€4:00€a.m.€on€March€9,€1994.€€He€readÏthe€òòMirandaóó€rights€to€the€appellant€and€appellant€acknowledged€that€he€understoodÏhis€rights.€€When€given€the€waiver€of€rights€form,€appellant€placed€an€ð ðXðð€to€signify€hisÍwaiver€of€those€rights.€€€Deputy€œCranfield›€testified€that€appellant€gave€his€statement€inÏnarrative€form€and€would€stop€and€ask€Deputy€Cranfield€if€he€could€look€at€what€theÏdeputy€was€writing€down.€€On€one€occasion,€the€appellant€asked€him€to€make€aÏchange,€which€he€did.€€When€appellant€requested€an€attorney,€Deputy€CranfieldÏstopped€the€interview.€€Appellant€grew€quiet€for€ð ðjust€a€minuteðð€and€then€beganÏtalking€again.Ìà àOn€cross„examination,€Deputy€Cranfield€admitted€that€his€written€notes,Ïconstituting€appellantððs€statement,€did€not€reflect€everything€that€the€appellant€said.€ÏDeputy€Cranfield€testified€that€he€wrote€down€what€he€thought€was€important€andÏchose€not€to€use€available€tape€recording€devices.€€In€addition,€he€stated€that€he€didÏnot€insist€that€appellant€sign€his€name€on€the€waiver€form€and€that€appellant€refusedÏto€sign€the€written€statement.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€did€not€formally€overrule€the€motion€to€suppress€on€the€record.€ÏBefore€appellantððs€statement€was€introduced€at€trial,€however,€the€trial€courtÏcommented€that€it€had€earlier€overruled€appellantððs€motion€off€the€record€and€cited€aÏcase€upon€which€it€relied.× ƒ? ××  ×€€The€statement€was€then€read€to€the€jury.€Ìà àThe€factual€findings€made€by€the€trial€court€after€a€suppression€hearing€will€beÏupheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2dÏ18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€Conversely,€the€ultimate€determination€of€admissibility€is€aÏquestion€of€law€to€be€reviewed€de€novo.€€òòState€v.€œYeargan›óó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629Ï(Tenn.€1997).€€Although€we€do€not€have€explicit€findings€of€fact,€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€deny€the€motion€indicates€a€determination€that€the€appellant€didÏvoluntarily€and€knowingly€waive€his€right€against€self„incrimination.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏHouseóó,€592€S.W.2d€902,€904€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€Moreover,€there€is€no€factualÏdispute€about€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€taking€of€appellantððs€statement.× ƒ@ ××  ×€ÏIn€appellantððs€brief€and€argument,€he€addresses€only€the€legal€conclusions€which€areÏwithin€the€parameters€of€appellant€review.€€Ìà àA€defendantððs€Fifth€Amendment€right€against€self„incrimination€may€be€waived€Ïonly€if€done€so€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently.€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.Ï436,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€16€L.Ed.2d€694€(1966).€€Similarly,€Article€I,€Section€9€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€requires€a€voluntary€and€knowing€waiver,€although€it€affordsÏgreater€protection€in€certain€scenarios.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2d€915,€919Ï(Tenn.€1992)€(setting€forth€stricter€standards€for€determining€voluntariness€of€aÏconfession€made€subsequent€to€an€illegally„obtained€initial€confession).€€Ìà àIn€order€for€an€accused€to€effect€a€waiver,€he€must€be€adequately€apprised€ofÏhis€right€to€remain€silent€and€the€consequence€of€deciding€to€abandon€it.€€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€€To€determine€whether€aÏconfession€was€made€voluntarily€and€knowingly,€the€totality€of€the€circumstancesÏmust€show€an€uncoerced€choice€and€the€required€level€of€comprehension.€€òòFare€v.ÏMichael€C.óó,€442€U.S.€707,€725,€99€S.Ct.€2560,€61€L.Ed.2d€197€(1979);€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,Ï603€S.W.2d€726,€728„29€(Tenn.€1980).€€Considering€the€circumstances€in€appellantððsÏcase,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€statement€was€admissible.Ìà àAppellant€does€not€deny€that€he€was€fully€informed€of€his€rights€and€that€heÏacknowledged€understanding€of€those€rights.€€He€signed€the€waiver€of€rights€form€byÏmaking€an€ð ðXðð€on€the€signature€line.€€Without€prompting€by€Deputy€Cranfield,Ïappellant€freely€conveyed€his€version€of€the€events.€€When€appellant€requested€anÏattorney,€the€questioning€ceased;€however,€appellant€spontaneously€reopened€theÏconversation.× ƒA ××  ×€€Deputy€Cranfield€stated€that€he€did€not€threaten€appellant€or€makeÏany€promises€to€him.€€The€record€contains€no€evidence€to€the€contrary€and€weÏconclude€that€the€waiver€was€knowing€and€voluntary.€€Ìà àAppellant,€however,€argues€that€the€marking€of€an€ð ðXðð€on€the€waiver€of€rightsÏform,€when€he€was€capable€of€signing€his€name,€is€ð ðstrong€evidence€that€he€did€notÍwaive€his€constitutional€rights.ðð€€Appellant€cites€no€authority€for€such€a€conclusionÏand€we€respectfully€disagree€with€his€contention.€€Although€an€express€written€or€oralÏstatement€of€waiver€of€the€right€to€remain€silent€is€strong€proof€of€the€validity€of€theÏwaiver,€it€is€not€necessary.€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Butleróó,€441€U.S.€370,€99€S.Ct.€1755,Ï1757,€60€L.Ed.2d€286€(1979).€€Ìà àTennessee€law€recognizes€that€the€lack€of€an€explicit€written€waiver€afterÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€are€given€does€not€per€se€require€exclusion€of€a€confession,€ifÏwaiver€can€be€found€from€the€facts€and€surrounding€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Elrodóó,Ï721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€622€S.W.2d€62,€67Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€454€U.S.€1096,€102€S.Ct.€667,€70€L.Ed.2d€636Ï(1981);€òòHouseóó,€579€S.W.2d€at€904€(citations€omitted).€€Because€we€are€required€toÏaddress€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€we€believe€the€marking€on€the€waiver€ofÏrights€form€is€but€one€factor€to€consider.€€In€our€view,€the€ð ðXðð€served€as€a€sufficientÏacknowledgment,€even€though€it€was€not€appellantððs€signature.€€The€argument€isÏwithout€merit.Ìà àSimilarly€unpersuasive€is€appellantððs€argument€that€the€statement€should€haveÏbeen€suppressed€because€it€did€not€contain€every€statement€given€to€DeputyÏCranfield.€€The€fact€that€a€law€enforcement€official€does€not€record€everything€theÏaccused€told€him€does€not€lead€to€the€suppression€of€the€otherwise€admissibleÏconfession.€€òòState€v.€Caldwellóó,€696€S.W.2d€541,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€ÍHowever,€the€accused€is€entitled€to€submit€evidence€of€all€that€he€said€to€officials,Ïincluding€any€exculpatory€or€self„serving€declarations.€€òòId.óó€€Ìà àIn€this€regard,€we€note€that€€Deputy€Cranfield€was€cross„examined€extensivelyÏabout€other€statements€made€by€the€appellant.€€Deputy€Cranfield€candidly€admittedÏbefore€the€jury€that€the€written€statement€did€not€contain€everything€the€appellantÏsaid.€€Defense€counsel€further€questioned€Deputy€Cranfield€about€certain€statementsÏthat€the€appellant€alleged€he€made.€€Therefore,€in€accordance€with€òòCaldwellóó,€theÏappellant€was€given€the€opportunity€to€present€his€additional€statements€to€the€jury.€ÏAppellant€is€entitled€to€no€relief€on€this€issue.Ìà@ àò òFAILURE€TO€DISCLOSE€òòBRADYóó€MATERIALó óÌà àAppellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecution€suppressed€exculpatoryÏevidence€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194,€10€L.Ed.2dÏ215€(1963).€€He€argues€that€a€report€prepared€by€Sheriff€Sneed€contains€exculpatoryÏinformation€and€should€have€been€disclosed€to€him€before€trial.€€In€addition,€heÏargues€that€a€letter€written€by€the€victimððs€mother€was€relevant€for€impeachment€andÏshould€have€been€disclosed€before€trial.× ƒB ××  ×€€Ìà àIn€order€to€substantiate€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€an€appellantÏmust€demonstrate€that:€(1)€the€State€suppressed€the€information;€(2)€the€informationÍwas€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€(3)€the€information€was€material.× ƒC ××  ×€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,Ï902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€394,€402€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€and€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,Ï232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€The€burden€of€showing€this€constitutional€violation€fallsÏon€the€appellant€and€requires€a€showing€that€the€omission€is€so€significant€as€to€denyÏthe€defendant€the€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389€(citations€omitted).Ìà àSheriff€Sneed€prepared€a€report€at€3:32€a.m.€on€March€9,€1994,€after€appellantÏwas€arrested.€€At€trial,€the€State€provided€appellantððs€counsel€with€a€copy€of€thatÏreport€only€after€the€Sheriff€testified€on€direct€examination.€€At€issue,€according€to€theÏappellant,€is€information€in€the€report€that€he€was€ð ðsuicidal,ðð€ð ðreal€mad,ðð€and€ð ðoverlyÏmad€over€a€situation.ðð€€We€agree€that€those€statements€were€favorable€to€appellantððsÏtheory€that€he€committed€the€crime€in€a€state€of€passion.€€A€portion€of€appellantððsÏdefense€was€devoted€to€showing€that€he€acted€in€a€state€of€passion,€consistent€withÏthe€lesser€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„211€(1991).Ìà àIn€addition,€appellant€argues€that€other€statements€in€the€report€were€favorableÏto€his€defense€as€being€contradictory€to€the€Sheriffððs€testimony€and€other€proof€at€trial.€ÏWhile€we€recognize€that€evidence€impeaching€the€Sheriffððs€credibility€may€have€beenÍexculpatory€within€the€meaning€of€òòBradyóó,€appellant€was€not€deprived€of€anÏimpeachment€opportunity.€€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€101€(Tenn.€1995)Ï(citations€omitted).€€Having€received€and€reviewed€the€report€prior€to€cross„examination,€appellantððs€counsel€was€able€to€question€Sheriff€Sneed€about€anyÏinconsistencies.€€à àÌà àFurthermore,€although€the€report€contained€exculpatory€information,€it€certainlyÏwas€not€material€within€the€meaning€of€òòBradyóó.€€To€constitute€material€evidence,€thereÏmust€be€a€ð ðreasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€theÏdefense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902ÏS.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995)€(quoting€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€115€S.Ct.Ï1555,€131€L.Ed.2d€490€(1995)).€€We€are€unable€to€say€that€the€suppression€of€theÏreport€until€after€direct€examination€undermines€confidence€in€the€outcome€ofÏappellantððs€trial.€€òòId.óó€€€Our€conclusion€is€strengthened€by€the€fact€that€defense€counselÏused€the€report€to€impeach€the€Sheriffððs€testimony€and€to€present€arguments€beforeÏthe€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòPhilpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€402.Ìà àAdditionally,€appellant€contends€that€the€report€was€subject€to€his€motion€forÏdiscovery€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€16€because€it€contained€hisÏoral€statements.€€Under€Rule€16,€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€discover€ð ðthe€substance€ofÏany€oral€statement€which€the€state€intends€to€offer€in€evidence€at€the€trial€made€by€theÏdefendant€whether€before€or€after€arrest€in€response€to€interrogations€by€any€personÍthen€known€to€the€defendant€to€be€a€law„enforcement€officer.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï16(a)(1)(A)€(emphasis€added).€€Ìà àOur€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€when€appellant€made€those€statements€Ïto€Sheriff€œSneed›,€he€was€not€being€interrogated.€€At€that€time,€appellant€was€armedÏand€holding€a€weapon€on€the€Sheriff.€€Any€comments€that€he€made€during€the€timeÏofficers€were€trying€to€subdue€and€disarm€him€cannot€be€logically€considered€ð ðinÏresponse€to€interrogation.ðð€€Outside€of€Rule€16,€reports€or€memoranda€of€lawÏenforcement€officials€are€not€generally€discoverable.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(2).€ÏAccordingly,€the€report€was€not€subject€to€discovery€prior€to€trial€under€the€proceduralÏrules.Ìà àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€written€account€of€events€prepared€in€a€letter€byÏthe€victimððs€mother,€Joy€Dawson,€was€non„disclosed€òòBradyóó€material.€€As€above,Ïdefense€counsel€was€not€provided€with€the€letter€until€after€the€direct€examination€ofÏMrs.€Dawson.€€However,€counsel€was€given€an€opportunity€to€cross„examine€Mrs.ÏDawson€about€any€inconsistencies€in€the€letter.€€In€appellantððs€brief,€counsel€admitsÏthat€he€thoroughly€cross„examined€the€witness,€saying€he€ð ðwent€line€by€line€throughÏthis€letter€trying€to€establish€the€omissions€and€contradictions.ðð€€Any€prejudiceÏappellant€may€have€suffered€from€the€late€disclosure€was€certainly€diminished€in€thatÏregard.€€Neither€can€we€say€that€in€the€overall€scheme€of€the€trial,€the€letter€wasÏmaterial.€€There€is€no€showing€that€the€result€of€the€trial€would€have€been€differentÍhad€the€letter€been€disclosed€pretrial.€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389.€€Appellant€isÏentitled€to€no€relief.Ìà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€no€reversible€error€committed€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€conviction€and€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  Ñœ›