ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Lø 0JD 0TŽ 0^â 0h@ 0r¨ 0| 0†– 0 1u¬ 0d! B…U>¢U*àB) DC3 AMv D3ÃâöäØ 0@¼Áüv~½vÓ; 0N AO\Æ« 0Dq D/µ Bä˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ {E|}D~[€UE‚UƒE„Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd ØÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌDecember€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Defendantððs€name€is€also€spelled€ð ðJeffreyðð€in€various€pleadings.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  Ýà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€trial€court€did€not€specify€these€jurors€by€name.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ éXXdðdÈ7Ñò òœÙ€€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àOCTOBER€1997€SESSIONÌó óÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9610„CC„00426Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellee,à àà àà àò òà à)à àDICKSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€E.€BURCH,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌJEFFERY€S.€SPANN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó ó(Second€Degree€Murder)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àò òà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ó óÌÌóóò òDAVID€D.€WOLFEà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó ó304€East€College€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌDickson,€TN€37055Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKAREN€M.ÏYACUZZOà àà àó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493€Ìà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDAN€MITCHUMÏALSOBROOKSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òROBERT€S.€WILSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€580Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharlotte,€TN€37036ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€ éXXdðXXdð7Ñó óà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓÓó óà àThe€defendant,€Jeffery€S.€Spann,× ƒ, ××  ×€was€convicted€by€a€Dickson€County€jury€Ìof€second€degree€murder€and€received€the€maximum€Range€I€sentence€ofÏtwenty„five€(25)€years.€€On€appeal,€he€presents€the€following€issues€for€ourÏreview:ÌÓÓà à(1)à8 àwhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€theÏconviction;ÌÌà à(2)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€toÏintroduce€a€pre„trial€statement€by€the€defendantÏregarding€his€understanding€of€the€law€of€self„defense;ÌÌà à(3)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€state€toÏintroduce€threats€allegedly€made€by€the€defendantÏprior€to€the€shooting;ÌÌà à(4)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€defendantððsÏrequest€for€a€mistrial€after€a€witness€mentionedÍdefendantððs€drug€involvement;ÌÌà à(5)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€prohibiting€the€defenseÏfrom€introducing€evidence€of€œthe€presence€of€cocaine›Ïin€the€deceasedððs€body;€andÌÌà à(6)à àwhether€the€sentence€was€excessive.ÌÌÓÓWe€find€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€granting€a€mistrial;€therefore,€we€reverse€andÏremand€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSó óóóÌÌà àThe€stateððs€theory€at€trial€was€that€the€defendant€unlawfully€took€the€life€ofÏthe€victim€because€of€jealousy€relating€to€defendantððs€former€girlfriend.€ÏAccording€to€the€stateððs€proof,€the€homicide€occurred€after€defendant€learned€thatÏthe€victim€had€been€spending€time€with€his€former€girlfriend.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€self„defense.Ìà àœThe€homicide€occurred›€at€approximately€1:30€a.m.€on€a€Sunday.€€On€theÏpreceding€Saturday€morning,€defendant€learned€that€the€victim€had€beenÏspending€time€with€his€former€girlfriend.€€The€former€girlfriend€testified€that€theÏdefendant€was€jealous€and€possessive.€€ÌÌà àOn€that€Saturday€the€defendant€secured€his€two„shot€.357€œmagnum›Ïœderringer€from›€his€motherððs€residence.€€He€stated€to€a€friend€that€he€needed€to€getÏout€of€ð ðall€of€this€shitðð€in€Dickson;€otherwise,€ð ðhe€was€going€to€kill€somebodyÏtoday.ðð€€Ìà àDefendant€then€went€to€Nashville€where€he€saw€the€victim.€€DefendantÏasked€the€victim€if€he€had€seen€his€former€girlfriend,€and€the€victim€replied€in€theÏnegative.€€A€person€who€was€with€defendant€at€the€time€of€this€conversationÏtestified€that€the€defendant€stated€he€believed€the€victim€was€with€his€formerÏgirlfriend.€€The€defendant€seemed€ð ðpretty€jealous.ðð€€Ìà àDefendant€returned€to€Dickson€and€went€to€a€tavern.€€While€there€he€talkedÏto€one€of€his€friends€and€œspoke€of›€his€former€girlfriend.€€He€further€stated€ð ðheÏought€to€go€kill€them€both.ðð€€Defendant€then€displayed€an€open€hawk€bill€knife.€ÏThe€homicide€occurred€approximately€two€(2)€hours€after€this€conversation.€€Ìà àThere€were€no€eyewitnesses€to€the€actual€homicide€which€took€placeÏoutside€the€defendantððs€residence.€€Defendant€testified€that€upon€leaving€theÏtavern€he€went€to€the€Waffle€House€for€about€an€hour.€€When€he€returned€to€hisÏresidence,€he€stated€he€pulled€in€his€driveway€and€observed€the€victim,€who€wasÏhis€best€friend,€highly€intoxicated€and€kicking€the€defendantððs€Rottweiler€dog.€ÏThe€victimððs€truck€had€the€dog€trapped€against€a€fence.€€According€to€theÏdefendantððs€testimony,€he€asked€the€victim€to€leave€the€dog€alone€resulting€in€theÏvictim€shoving€the€defendant.€€Defendant€asked€the€victim€to€leave,€whereuponÏthe€victim€entered€his€vehicle.€€Defendant€then€secured€the€œderringer›€from€insideÏhis€residence.€€The€victim€backed€€up€his€vehicle€in€the€driveway,€jumped€out,Ïcursed€the€defendant€and€pushed€the€defendant€to€the€ground.€€Defendant€toldÏthe€investigating€officer€that,€œknowing›€the€victim€was€very€violent€when€he€wasÏintoxicated,€he€fired€one€shot€toward€the€victim€from€approximately€fifteen€(15)€toÏtwenty€(20)€feet€away.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€thisÍgunshot€wound€to€the€chest.€€Ìœà àThe€autopsy€report€revealed€that€the€victim€had€a€blood€alcoholÏconcentration€of€.23%.€€Several›€witnesses€testified€that€the€victim,€who€was€six€(6)Ïfeet€five€(5)€inches€tall€and€weighed€approximately€240€pounds,€had€a€reputationÏfor€violence€when€he€was€intoxicated.€€One€of€these€witnesses€was€a€policeÏofficer€who€testified€that€the€victim,€who€was€intoxicated€at€the€time,€violentlyÏassaulted€him€in€a€tavern.€€€€à àOn€the€other€hand,€the€stateððs€proof€showed€theÏfollowing:ÌÓÓà à(1)à8 àœthe›€victim€did€not€have€a€weapon€and€had€never€hitÏthe€defendant€prior€to€this€occasion;ÌÌà à(2)à8 àœprior›€to€this€occasion€the€defendant€had€been€told€byÏan€attorney€that€he€could€ð ðkill€one€a€day€as€long€as€itÏwas€self„defenseðð;ÌÌà à(3)à8 àœalthough›€defendant€claimed€the€victim€pushed€him€toÏthe€ground,€there€were€no€grass€stains,€dirt€or€marksÏon€defendantððs€clothing;ÌÌà à(4)à0 àà à€€€€€à8 àœthe›€neighbors€heard€no€loud€talking€or€shouting€prior€to€theÏgunshot,€which€was€contrary€to€defendantððs€testimony€that€the€victimÏwas€highly€intoxicated,€angry€and€cursed€the€defendant;ÌÌà à(5)à8 àœneighbors›€testified€that€only€ten€to€twenty€secondsÏpassed€from€the€time€they€heard€an€automobile€driveÏinto€the€driveway€until€the€time€they€heard€the€gunshot;ÌÌà à(6)à8 àœaccording›€to€the€pathologist,€the€gun€was€only€eight€toÏtwelve€inches€from€the€victim€at€the€time€of€theÏshooting;€andÌÌà à(7)à8 àœthe›€bulletððs€trajectory€was€from€top€to€bottom.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€state€theorized€in€final€argument€that€the€trajectory€indicated€that€theÏvictim€was€either€in€his€vehicle€or€just€exiting€his€vehicle€when€the€shot€was€fired.€ÍIn€essence,€the€state€argued€the€defendant€did€not€fire€in€self„defense.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌà àœIn›€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€court€does€not€reweighÏor€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€œS.W.2d›€832,€835€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€state's€witnessesÏand€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€œBigbee›óó,€885€œS.W.2d›€797,Ï803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€œS.W.2d›€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€On€appeal,Ïthe€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏlegitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòIdóó.€ThisÏcourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unlessÏthe€defendant€demonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€theÏinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€forÏa€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòStateÏv.€Breweróó,€932€œS.W.2d›€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp›.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€is€theÏappellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€theseÏstandards,€was€sufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Tenn.€R.€œApp›.€P.€13(e);€ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€œS.Ct›.€2781,€2789€61€L.€Ed.œ2d›€560Ï(1979);€€òòState€v.€œCazes›óó,€875€œS.W.2d›€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà@ àò òB.ó óÌà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder.€€Second€degreeÍmurder€is€the€knowing€killing€of€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)(1).€€InÏthis€case,€the€state€also€had€the€burden€of€proving€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€the€killing€was€not€in€self„defense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„203(d).Ìà àLooking€at€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€the€evidenceÏis€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict€of€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.€€Much€of€theÏevidence€was€inconsistent€with€the€defendantððs€version€that€he€acted€in€self„defense.€€It€was€clearly€a€jury€issue€as€to€whether€the€defendant€acted€in€self„defense.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòDEFENDANTððS€UNDERSTANDING€OF€SELF„DEFENSEó óóóÌÌà àShortly€after€the€defendantððs€arrest,€he€was€interrogated.€€During€thisÏinterrogation€the€defendant€stated€that,€prior€to€this€incident,€he€had€been€told€byÏhis€lawyer€that€he€could€ð ðkill€one€a€day€as€long€as€it€was€self„defense.ðð€ÏDefendant€contends€that€the€admission€of€this€statement€at€trial€was€œirrelevant,Ïprejudicial›€and€should€have€been€excluded.Ìà àIt€is€the€stateððs€contention€that€the€defendant€claimed€self„defense€simplyÏbecause€of€his€prior€knowledge€that€he€could€be€exonerated€based€upon€thisÏdefense.€€We€agree€that€this€evidence€was€relevant€to€show€why€defendantÏinsisted€on€self„defense€during€the€interrogation.€€Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPRIOR€THREATSÌÌó óóóà àOne€of€the€defendantððs€friends€testified€that€he€saw€the€defendant€in€aÏtavern€shortly€prior€to€the€homicide.€€The€defendant€spoke€of€his€former€girlfriendÏand€stated,€œð ð[h]e›€ought€to€kill€them€both.ðð€€He€then€displayed€an€open€knife.€€ThisÏoccurred€approximately€two€(2)€hours€prior€to€the€homicide.Ìà àDefendant€contends€this€evidence€was€irrelevant€and€the€prejudice€clearlyÏoutweighs€probative€value.€€œòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€We›€disagree.€€Although€theÏdefendant€does€not€mention€the€victim€by€name,€it€is€a€reasonable€inference€fromÏall€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€referring€to€the€victim€and€the€defendantððsÏformer€girlfriend.€€Obviously,€a€defendantððs€expressed€intent€to€kill€is€highlyÏrelevant€to€a€homicide€prosecution.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401;€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881ÏS.W.2d€œ1,€6›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€œÌà àThis›€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòREFUSAL€TO€GRANT€MISTRIALó óóóÌà@ àò òA.Ìà àó óOn€the€day€prior€to€the€homicide,€the€defendant€and€a€friend€went€toÏNashville.€€The€friend€testified€as€a€state€witness.€€When€asked€why€she€and€theÏdefendant€went€to€Nashville,€she€stated,€œð ð[w]e›€went€to€pick€up€some€drugs.ðð€€AnÏobjection€and€request€for€mistrial€immediately€ensued.€€It€is€undisputed€that€thisÏresponse€was€not€intentionally€solicited,€nor€was€it€anticipated€by€theÏprosecution.Ìà àAn€extensive€jury„out€hearing€followed€the€objection€and€request€forÏmistrial.€€The€trial€court€remarked€that€ð ðthe€reaction€from€the€jury€was€real€œstrong,ðð›Ïand€there€œð ðwere›€some€rather€shocked€faces€on€the€jury.ðð€€Upon€the€prosecutingÏattorney€suggesting€that€the€jury€might€think€the€witness€was€talking€about€goingÏto€a€pharmacy,€the€trial€court€responded,€œð ð[y]es,›€and€letððs€wait€for€the€EasterÏBunny.ðð€€Defense€counsel€noted€that€there€was,€in€fact,€an€audible€reaction€to€theÏtestimony.€€à àThe€trial€judge€suggested€that€the€jury€be€òòvoir€diredóó€as€to€the€effectÏof€the€testimony.€€Defense€counsel€objected€stating€this€would€simply€reinforceÏwhat€they€had€heard.€€Likewise,€the€district€attorney€general€agreed€that€thisÏwould€make€the€ð ðbell€ring€louder.ððÌà àThe€judge€again€remarked€that€the€statement€obviously€had€an€effect€uponÏthe€jury,€and€ð ðI€donððt€see€how€[a€òòvoir€direóó€of€the€jury]€can€do€any€worse.ðð€€The€trialÏcourt€then€made€the€following€œcomments:ÌÓÓà8 àBut›€just€the€normal€human€tendency€to€say,€ð ðWell,€if€œthis€fellow›€œwasÏon,€drugs,€then›€he€might€have€done€other€bad€œthings,›€œtoo.ð𛀀ThatððsÏthe€reason€that€the€œCourts›€are€œso€concerned›€about€a€defendantÏbeing€convicted€of€œone€crime›€because€of€being€involved€inÏsomething€else.€€œAnd€thatððs›€why€itððs€prejudicial€œhere.›ÌÌœà8 àYou›€know,€if€this€guy€was€on€drugs,€then€he€would€be€œmore€likely›€toÏcommit€a€murder€than€someone€who€was€œnot.€€Thatððs›€the€reason€IÏthink€itððs€so€œprejudicial.›ÌÌÓÓà àThe€court€further€noted€the€possibility€that€the€jury,€after€an€admonishment,Ïmight€be€more€likely€to€return€a€defendantððs€verdict.€€The€district€attorney€generalÏagreed€with€this€concern.Ìà àThe€trial€court€then€noted€that€he€would€conduct€an€individual€òòvoir€direóóÏð ðagainst€all€the€advice€that€[defense€counsel€and€the€two€prosecuting€attorneys]Íhave€given.ðð€€All€fourteen€(14)€jurors€were€individually€òòvoir€diredóó€by€the€trial€court,Ïand€all€explicitly€recalled€the€testimony€concerning€drugs.€€Each€juror€wasÏinformed€by€the€court€that€this€testimony€would€not€have€œbeen›€admitted€by€theÏcourt.€€Each€juror€was€asked€if€he€or€she€could€disregard€the€testimony€inÏreaching€a€verdict.€€The€jurors€stated€the€testimony€would€be€disregarded;Ïhowever,€at€least€four€(4)€jurors€were€somewhat€equivocal€at€some€point€in€theirÏòòvoir€direóó.€€Two€(2)€of€these€jurors€were€excused€by€the€court.€€The€other€two€(2)Ïjurors€who€respectively€stated,€ð ðI€believe€soðð€and€ð ðI€think€soðð€remained€on€theÏpanel.Ìà àAfter€the€trial€courtððs€individual€òòvoir€direóó,€the€district€attorney€general€statedÏthat€all€jurors€clearly€remembered€the€exact€testimony,€he€feared€it€would€raiseÏthe€stateððs€œburden›€of€proof,€and€he€further€agreed€with€defense€counsel€that€ð ðtheÏbell€got€run€pretty€loudly.ðð€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€noted€his€satisfaction€that€the€remaining€œtwelve€(12)€jurors›Ïwould€not€consider€the€testimony€against€either€the€defendant€or€the€state.€€TheÏcourt€further€noted€that€if€the€issue€is€brought€up€in€deliberations,€ð ðI€can€guaranteeÏyou€at€least€three€(3)€jurors€will€immediately€stop€that€problem.ðð× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€request€forÏmistrial€was€denied.€€Ìà@ àò òB.Ìó óà àThe€determination€of€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€rests€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€871€S.W.2d€œ667,€672›€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏThe€reviewing€court€should€not€overturn€that€decision€absent€an€abuse€ofÍdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€947€S.W.2d€œ181,€184›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€TheÏburden€of€establishing€the€necessity€for€mistrial€lies€with€the€party€seeking€it.€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€œ385,€388›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€making€thisÏdetermination,€no€abstract€formula€should€be€mechanically€œapplied,›€and€allÏcircumstances€should€be€taken€into€account.€€òòState€v.€Mounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€œ319,Ï322›€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ìà@ àò òC.Ìó óà àWe€have€examined€numerous€cases€in€which€the€failure€to€grant€a€mistrialÏhas€been€sustained€on€appeal.€€In€fact,€it€is€clearly€the€exception€when€theÏreviewing€court€finds€œan›€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€denial€of€a€mistrial.€€However,Ïour€review€of€these€cases€does€not€reveal€such€extensive€œobservations€of›Ïœprejudice€made€by€the›€trial€court€as€œin›€the€case€at€bar.€€Furthermore,€theÏobservations€in€this€case€support€the€necessity€of€the€granting€of€a€mistrial.Ìà àœA€summary€of€some€of€the€events€and€observations€made›€by€the€trial€courtÏupon€the€request€for€mistrial€œincludes›€the€following:ÌÓÓà à(1)€à8 àthe€reaction€from€the€jury€was€very€strong€andÏrevealed€ð ðshocked€œfacesðð;›€ÌÌà à(2)à8 àit€was€apparent€to€the€jury€that€the€witness€referred€toÏœdefendantððs€involvement€with€illicit›€drugs€and€not€legalÏprescription€œdrugs;Ì›Ìà à(3)€à8 àdue€to€the€nature€of€the€prejudice,€an€individual€òòvoirÏdireóó€could€not€œmake€it€any›€worse;ÌÌà à(4)à8 àdue€to€the€tendency€to€find€a€predisposition€to€commitÏœanother€›€offense€œif€there€is›€drug€involvement,€thereÏwas€prejudice;ÌÌà à(5)à0 àà àœà8 àindividual›€òòvoir€direóó€was€conducted€over€objection€of€both€the€stateÍand€the€defense€œwho€felt€it›€would€reinforce€the€effect€of€the€improperÏtestimony;ÌÌà à(6)€à0 àà àœà8 àeach›€juror€was€individually€told€œby€the€trial€court€the›€œdrug€evidence›Ïœshould›€not€have€been€admitted€œand›€questioned€as€to€whether€theÏjuror€could€disregard€it;ÌÌà à(7)€à8 àthe€improper€testimony€was€explicitly€recalled€by€allÏjurors;ÌÌà à(8)€à8 àœtwo›€(2)€jurors€who€remained€on€the€panel€were€at€leastÏsomewhat€equivocal€as€to€whether€the€evidence€couldÏbe€œcompletely›€œdisregarded;€and›ÌÌà à(9)à8 àafter€the€individual€òòvoir€œdire,óó›€both€the€prosecution€andÏthe€defense€agreed€ð ðthe€bell€got€œrung›€pretty€œloudly.ðð›€ÌÌÓÓà àBased€upon€the€œexpress›€observations€of€œprejudice€by€the›€trial€court,€theÏundisputed€proof€and€the€agreement€œat€the€time€of›€both€the€state€and€the€defenseÏthat€a€mistrial€should€œbe›€granted,€this€Court€has€no€alternative€but€to€find€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€denying€the€request€for€mistrial.ÌÌà@ àò òòòADMISSIBILITY€OF€PRESENCE€OF€COCAINE€IN€VICTIMððS€BODYÌÌó óóóà àNext,€defendant€complains€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€exclusion€of€medicalÏtestimony€concerning€the€presence€of€cocaine€in€the€victimððs€body€and€its€effectÏupon€the€victimððs€behavior.€€We€agree.Ìà àThe€pathologist€testified€that€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€concentration€wasÏ.23%.€€In€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€pathologist€further€testified€concerning€theÏpresence€of€a€small€amount€of€cocaine.€€Upon€being€asked€in€the€jury„outÏhearing€whether€the€presence€of€cocaine€in€addition€to€the€alcohol€would€make€aÍperson€more€aggressive,€the€pathologist€testified€that,€œð ð[o]n›€most€occasions€itÏprobably€would,€but€I€canððt€say€it€would€on€all€occasions.ðð€€The€pathologist€notedÏthat€cocaine€affects€different€people€in€different€ways€and,€in€this€instance,€wouldÏbe€the€equivalent€of€raising€the€blood€alcohol€concentration€from€.23%€to€.27%.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€that€injecting€the€issue€of€cocaine€œinto€the€trial€would›€makeÏthe€testimony€more€prejudicial€than€probative.€€Ìà àAlthough€this€is€a€close€issue,€we€find€the€testimony€should€have€beenÏadmitted.€€The€sole€issue€in€this€case€was€one€of€self„defense€based€uponÏtestimony€that€the€victim€became€very€violent€depending€upon€his€degree€ofÏintoxication.€€Therefore,€the€presence€and€extent€of€any€intoxicating€substancesÏwere€relevant.€€It€would€be€a€jury€question€as€to€the€weight,€if€any,€to€be€given€toÏthis€testimony.€€We€simply€conclude€the€jury€should€not€have€been€deprived€ofÏthe€testimony.Ì€à àThis€erroneous€exclusion€of€evidence€may€have€been€harmless€error€inÏand€of€itself.€€However,€since€the€case€must€be€remanded€for€a€new€trial€due€toÏthe€failure€to€grant€a€mistrial,€this€evidence€will€be€admissible€at€the€new€trial.ÌÌà@ àœò òòòSENTENCINGó óóó›ÌÌà àDefendant€contends€his€maximum€25„year€Range€I€sentence€for€the€ClassÏA€felony€of€second€degree€murder€was€excessive.€€Although€the€issue€appearsÏmoot€since€the€case€must€be€remanded€for€retrial,€the€issue€should€be€addressedÏfor€appellate€purposes.Ìà àThe€presumptive€sentence€for€a€Class€A€felony,€unlike€a€Class€B,€C,€D€or€EÏfelony,€is€the€midpoint€of€the€range€absent€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c).€€Therefore,€the€presumptive€œRange€I€sentence›Ïis€twenty€(20)€years€absent€enhancement€or€mitigating€factors.Ìà àIn€this€case,€however,€the€court€found€three€(3)€enhancement€factors;Ïnamely,€(1)€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€(Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114(1));€(2)€defendant€had€a€previous€history€of€unwillingness€toÏcomply€with€the€conditions€of€a€sentence€involving€release€in€the€communityÏ(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(8));€and€(3)€defendant€employed€a€firearm€duringÏthe€commission€of€the€œoffense€(Tenn.€›Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(9)).€€TheseÏœenhancement€factors›€are€not€œcontested€by€the€defendant.›€€œÌÌà àInstead,›€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€find€theÏfollowing€mitigating€factors:€(1)€the€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocationÏ(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(2));€(2)€substantial€grounds€existed€tending€toÏjustify€the€defendantððs€criminal€conduct€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„113(3));›€andÏ(3)€the€defendant€committed€the€offense€under€such€unusual€circumstances€that€itÏwas€unlikely€that€a€sustained€intent€to€violate€the€law€motivated€his€œconduct›Ïœ›œ(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(11)).€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€that€none€ofÏthese€mitigating€factors€was€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Our›€review€does€notÏindicate€the€trial€court€erred€in€rejecting€these€mitigating€factors.€€Accordingly,€theÏtrial€court€appropriately€sentenced€the€defendant€to€the€maximum€term.ÌÌœà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€conviction€is€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÓÓà à›à àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àò òà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌó óœÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÌÌCONCUR:ó ó›ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóò òJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌó óÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìóóò òWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€œJUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó ó›