ÿWPCM3 sÐuÇÖà¥R5°y,™NPîN»Í8ïë)D‰¦ÆD#ÿ¾-ÄÍV¡šˆBïÚé†î÷u©&žæŒÈÅ3Ï[!;½ÿª¹öÏPpÝd8Õv~Ì©ôHR#_ßç'²€¹è—ÛØÒÓÅ•}Žy{ÔY=ŸIÍØ²ìT¸CuÝÒ~d«ÜêT¢ |°`¨±õct’ó‰°tAðÌÝÄ6*}ͼ鉹dkµFmøu׫%çým…a`HÈ&üdhÙ¦éÕýÏ;®÷‘d¹íϪoªGhpE#Œ?8”øíŸ Ìo÷îãÃb%b”gÐ;Œñï Í{‰=Q;Tx³‰HÇsõ&ï‹€-ÔÂLM0•}¹bЋÔ/GDë¨i9P„äi‚Œ24¯ï·Üy +:fbÄÌFEvu_‘†x†D(ú–þa§Ê-»×ÕºEÛ-Íi~7kF2Òæ¥…p~¢<ìÀ×öŒ%{ Jb~«å8Ëî3•†Š1K¼u1à [³è=¦Þɨœ›~à1é}\§8Œ$y zæ ͸iX÷20)ÞÞ5MÚ󙲿|l/[˜{ §—IžKÁ–úà—s‘+&6 |qíY$íÃ8 Eû°ø™«f74åfb#Á\ % U N# 0ˆq U‘Nù 0CG 0ÅŠ zO ÒÉ 0D› ß è÷ i߯HÆÆÔÆšU@`N U *¢U@ÌE  0Ñ 0Îß 0Ë­ 0Èxx 0Â@ 0¿ýÁUH>¾ 1uü 72q ^ £ w¯ 4³ Ç Ö mØ Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø bï Ý÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ 1eÔ"Ô"Ô"Ô"Ô" 0ë9# 1‡$$$$ 0c«$ B%% 0¤+% D3Ï% D-& 0K/&' z& AS¡0Æô0 0¤º1 0D^2 A«¢2˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*8J ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àIn€addition,€another€witness,€Kimberly€Brown,€recounted€a€threat€that€the€defendant€had€made€againstÐ ° Ðthe€victim. ÞÝ ƒRG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€victim€had€begun€selling€clothes€on€the€side€as€a€means€of€earning€extra€income. _Ý ƒRG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€jury€also€heard€a€video„taped€statement€made€by€the€defendant.€€However,€as€discussed€òòinfraóó,Ð ° Ðneither€the€tape€nor€the€transcript€of€the€tape€has€been€included€in€the€appellate€record.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(@øÐ Z(Times New Roman %ä2¼A`‹Arial(öû Z‹(Times New Roman *DJ ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AJ ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>J ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;J ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5J ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2J ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó óÝ ƒRG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔAt€trial,€the€state€played€the€defendantððs€video„taped€statement€for€the€jury€and€provided€the€jury€withÐ ° Ða€transcript€of€the€recording.€ò òÔ#†ôýåòòôýåŠ#Ôó óÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔ€From€the€references€to€this€video„taped€statement€in€the€trial€transcript,€we€gather€that€theÐ tÄ Ðstate€played€a€video„taped€recording€of€the€defendantððs€police€interview€for€the€jury€and€that€in€this€interview,€theÐ 8ˆ Ðdefendant€discussed€his€involvement€in€the€instant€crimes.€ò òó óUndoubtedly,€the€jury€could€have€used€the€informationÐ üL Ðcontained€in€this€recording€as€a€basis€of€its€guilty€verdicts,€especially€if€the€defendant€made€self„incriminating€statementsÐ À Ðin€the€recording.€€Neither€this€tape€recording€nor€the€transcript€of€it€appear€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€Although€it€is€usuallyÐ „Ô Ðthe€duty€of€the€appellant€to€furnish€this€Court€with€a€complete€record€for€review,€in€such€an€instance€as€this€prudenceÐ H ˜ Ðwould€dictate€that€the€State€ensure€that€all€of€its€incriminating€proof€is€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.Ô#†ôýåòòôýåq#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔ€Ô#†ôýåòòôýå\#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔRegardless€ofÐ  \ Ðthis€omission,€we€find€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€based€on€the€portion€of€the€appellate€record€before€usÔ#†ôýåòòôýåŸ#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔ€to€supportÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendantððs€convictionsÔ#†ôýåòòôýår#Ô.ô\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)Z ”-s üPH,3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù- ÓÝ ƒRG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àAt€the€time€the€defendant€moved€to€strike€Juror€Webster,€the€venire€was€comprised€of€two€African„Ð ° ÐAmericans.€€While€the€defendantððs€attempt€to€strike€one€of€these€two€individuals€may€be€òòprima€facieóó€evidence€of€aÐ tÄ Ðdiscriminatory€intent,€it€is€not€conclusive€evidence€of€such€intent. ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2G$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýåò»»Ô(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à d(|3G€$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó  Ý ƒRG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àA€jury€may€disregard€expert€testimony€and€make€its€own€factual€determinations.€€òòSeeóóÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔ€òòState€v.€TeresaÐ ° ÐAnn€Colemanóó,€Ô#†ôýåòòôýåã#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå]#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåŸ#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåá#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå##ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåe#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå§#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåé#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå+#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåm#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå¯#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåñ#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå3#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåu#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå·#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåù#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå;#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå}#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå¿#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåC#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå…#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåÇ#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå #ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåK#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåÏ#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýå#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåòòôýåS#ÔÔ‡ô¯ñ òòôýåÔÔ#†ôýåò òô¯ñ•#ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔNo.€02C01„9503„CC„00083,Ô#†ôýåòòôýå×#ÔÔ‡ô¯ñ òòôýåÔ€Ô#†ôýåò òô¯ñ1 #ÔÔ‡ôýåòòôýåÔ1996€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€49Ô#†ôýåòòôýåt #Ô,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jan.Ð tÄ Ð31,€1996).^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G€$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ZM»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îM,ZMÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ZM»îîM, #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJanuary€16,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼ZMÔÌò òÔ#†¼ZM»XX#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€Ô_ÔDONDIEÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔTIDWELLÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XX»¼ZMÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€F„46136A€€€€€€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„2628„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€18,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXXÔÌà  àA€Rutherford€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant,€Ô_ÔDondieÔ_Ô€Eugene€Ô_ÔTidwellÔ_Ô,€of€two€countsÐ d´ Ðof€first€degree€murder,€one€count€of€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€one€count€ofÐ P  Ðespecially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€and€one€count€of€theft€over€$10,000.ò òó ó€€The€trial€court€merged€theÐ <Œ Ðdefendantððs€two€first€degree€murder€convictions€and€ordered€the€defendant€to€serve€twenty„threeÐ (x Ðyears€for€his€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder€conviction,€twenty„three€years€for€hisÐ d Ðespecially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€conviction,€and€four€years€and€six€months€for€his€theft€conviction.Ð P Ðò òó óThe€trial€court€ordered€these€sentences€to€run€concurrently€to€each€other€and€consecutively€to€theÐ ì< Ðdefendantððs€sentence€for€his€merged€first€degree€murder€conviction,€life€without€the€possibility€ofÐ Ø( Ðparole.€ò òó ó€Thus,€the€defendant€received€an€aggregate€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€paroleÐ Ä Ðplus€twenty„three€years.€ò òó óThe€defendant€now€brings€this€appeal,€challenging€his€convictions€and€hisÐ ° Ðsentence€on€the€bases€that€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€him€to€excuse€a€juror€usingÐ œì Ða€peremptory€challenge;€(2)€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€is€insufficient€to€support€his€convictions;Ð ˆØ Ð(3)€the€prosecutor€made€inappropriate€comments€when€delivering€the€stateððs€opening€statement;€(4)Ð tÄ Ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€an€expert€to€testify€on€subjects€beyond€the€scope€of€that€witnessððsÐ `° Ðexpertise;€(5)€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€allow€him€to€introduce€evidence€of€the€drugs€thatÐ L œ Ðwere€present€in€the€victimððs€system€at€the€time€of€the€victimððs€death;€(6)€the€trial€court€instructed€theÐ 8!ˆ  Ðjury€incorrectly€on€the€charge€of€conspiracy;€(7)€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€a€photograph€ofÐ $"t! Ðthe€victim€taken€after€the€victimððs€death€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial;€(8)€the€trial€courtÐ #`" Ðerred€by€refusing,€in€the€sentencing€phase,€to€allow€the€defendant€to€compare€his€potential€sentenceÐ ü#L# Ðto€the€sentence€received€by€his€co„conspirator;€(9)€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€introductionÐ è$8 $ Ðof€certain€hearsay€evidence;€(10)€the€prosecutor€exceeded€the€permissible€scope€of€his€rebuttalÐ Ô%$!% Ðclosing€argument;€and€(11)€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€consecutive€sentencing.€€After€reviewingÐ À&"& Ðthe€record,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€err€by€refusing€to€allow€the€defendant€to€exercise€aÐ ¬'ü"' Ðperemptory€challenge€and€that€therefore€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€this€basis.€Ð ˜(è#( ÐHowever,€we€find€that€the€remainder€of€the€issues€presented€in€this€appeal€have€either€been€waivedÐ „)Ô$) Ðor€lack€merit.Ô#†XXXX#ÔÔ#†¼ZM»XXÌ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼ZMÔÐ p*À%* ÐÓüÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Reversed.ó óÐ H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý÷ ÐÔ_ÔòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ZM»àXÞ#ÔÔ‡XX.¼ZMÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð ° ÐWoodall,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌJohn€B.€Nisbet,€III,€Cookeville,€Tennessee;€Larry€M.€Warner,€Crossville,€Tennessee;€and€Larry€F.Ð tÄ ÐWallace,€LaVergne,€Tennessee,€for€appellant,€Dondie€Tidwell.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Bledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€William€C.€Whitsell,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General€for€appellee,€State€of€TennesseeÐ $ t ÐÓ¹ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ZM»XXè#ÔÔ‡XX»¼ZMÔÐ ü L  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ZM»XX®#ÔÔ‡XX»¼ZMÔÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡XXXXÔà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundˆà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ Ô$  Ðà  àóóó óÌà  àOn€July€17,€1996,€the€body€of€the€victim,€Greg€Dodson,€was€discovered.ò òó ó€The€defendant€andÐ ¬ü  ÐChris€Stacey,€the€defendantððs€co„conspirator,€were€convicted€of€murdering€him.€ò òó óThe€defendant€andÐ ˜è  ÐStacey€were€related€to€the€victim€by€marriage.ò ò€ó ó€The€victimððs€wife,€Joy€Dodson,€was€Staceyððs€sisterÐ „Ô  Ðand€the€defendantððs€aunt.ò òó ó€The€defendant,€Stacey,€and€Ms.€Dodson€are€of€Caucasian€descent,€whereasÐ tÄ Ðthe€victim€was€an€African„American.€€Although€the€victim€and€Ms.€Dodson€had€experienced€maritalÐ `° Ðproblems€that€had€led€the€victim€to€move€back€temporarily€into€his€motherððs€home€in€Baltimore,€theÐ Lœ Ðcouple€had€decided€to€attempt€a€reconciliation,€in€part€on€behalf€of€their€two€small€children.ò òó ó€€At€theÐ 8ˆ Ðtime€of€the€victimððs€murder,€Stacey€was€living€with€Ms.€Dodson€and€cared€for€her€children€while€sheÐ $t Ðwas€at€work.ò òó óÐ ` Ðà  àOn€the€17th€Ms.€Dodson€left€for€work€and€told€Stacey€that€the€victim€might€visit€the€childrenÐ üL Ðthat€day.€ò òó ó€When€she€returned€home€very€late€that€night,€Stacey,€uncharacteristically,€was€still€awake.Ð è8 Ðò òó óAccording€to€Ms.€Dodson,€Stacey€told€her€that€the€victim€had€visited€the€children€and€said€that€heÐ Ô$ Ðwould€call€Ms.€Dodson€at€approximately€11:00€a.m.ò òó ó€Ms.€Dodson€also€indicated€that€the€defendantÐ À Ðhad€not€approved€of€her€relationship€with€the€victim€because€of€the€victimððs€race.€ò òó ó€She€added€thatÐ ¬ü Ðthe€defendant€had€threatened€to€ð ðtake€care€of€the€victimðð€when€he€returned€to€Tennessee,€but€Ms.Ð ˜è ÐDodson€had€not€taken€the€defendant€seriously.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ „Ô Ðà  àUnbeknownst€to€Ms.€Dodson,€that€same€night,€Stacey€had€attempted€to€sell€a€white€NissanÐ pÀ ÐStanza€for€$500.00,€which€was€later€found€to€belong€to€the€victim.€ò òó ó€Stacey€encountered€JimmyÐ \ ¬ ÐDaniel€Prater€at€a€convenience€store€located€in€Murfreesboro.€€ò òó óAlthough€this€was€the€first€time€thatÐ H!˜ Ðhe€and€Prater€had€met,€Stacey€offered€to€sell€Prater€the€car€and€its€contents.€ò òó ó€Prater€got€into€the€StanzaÐ 4"„  Ðwith€Stacey€to€pick€up€some€clothing€included€in€the€deal.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òó óOn€the€way€Stacey€stopped€at€a€bridge,Ð  #p! Ðjumped€from€the€car,€and€retrieved€a€shotgun€wrapped€in€a€towel€from€under€the€bridge.€€Prater€alsoÐ  $\" Ðsaw€12€gauge,€No.€6€shot,€shells€laying€in€the€road€where€Stacey€recovered€the€shotgun.€ò òó ó€Stacey€alsoÐ ø$H # Ðdiscarded€a€spent€cartridge€from€the€weapon.ò òó ó€Ultimately,€Prater€drove€Stacey€to€his€apartment€andÐ ä%4!$ Ðarranged€to€meet€Stacey€the€following€day€at€approximately€dinner€time€with€the€money€for€the€saleÐ Ð& "% Ðof€the€Stanza.ò òó ó€Once€Prater€purchased€the€car€and€was€inspecting€the€carððs€contents,€he€discovered€theÐ ° Ðvictimððs€social€security€card,€driverððs€license,€and€personal€belongings€in€the€car€and€thereforeÐ œì Ðdecided€to€contact€the€police.ò ò€€ó óIt€was€determined€by€police€that€the€car€belonged€to€the€victim.€TheÐ ˆØ Ðsubsequent€police€investigation€led€to€the€discovery€of€the€victimððs€body€and€Staceyððs€arrest.ò ò€ó ó€TheÐ xÈ Ðfollowing€day€the€defendant€was€also€arrested.ò òó óÐ h¸ Ðà  àThe€victimððs€autopsy€revealed€that€the€victim€received€a€shot€to€the€head€that€resulted€in€hisÐ T ¤ Ðdeath.€ò ò€ó óFrom€this€examination,€the€medical€examiner€opined€that€the€shot€had€been€fired€somewhereÐ @  Ðaround€zero€to€twenty„four€inches€from€the€victimððs€head.€ò òó óBecause€of€the€damage€caused€by€theÐ 0 € Ðblast,€the€examiner€was€unable€to€determine€if€the€killer(s)€had€also€beaten€the€victim€about€the€headÐ  l Ðwith€a€baseball€bat€or€other€object.ò ò€ó ó€A€bat€with€blood€matching€the€victimððs€blood€type€had€beenÐ  X  Ðfound€in€the€Stanza.€Ð ø H  Ðà  àAt€around€9:30€p.m.€on€the€night€of€the€murder,€the€victim€participated€in€a€three„way€phoneÐ ä4  Ðcall€with€two€friends,€Dina€Ivey€and€Teri€Moman,€to€let€them€know€that€he€had€returned€to€the€area.Ð Ð  ÐDuring€this€phone€call,€both€Ivey€and€Moman€heard€voices€in€the€background€that€they€identified€asÐ ¼  Ðthe€voices€of€the€victimððs€children,€the€defendant,€and€Stacey.ò òó ó€€Moman€testified€that€the€victimÐ ¨ø  Ðabruptly€ended€the€conversation€by€stating€that€he€needed€to€leave.Ð ”ä  Ðà  àAt€approximately€9:30€to€10:00€p.m.€on€the€evening€of€the€victimððs€murder,€Vivian€Knox,Ð €Ð Ðone€of€Ms.€Dodsonððs€neighbors€in€their€apartment€complex,€heard€an€argument€erupt€in€Ms.Ð l¼ ÐDodsonððs€apartment.ò ò€ó ó€She€heard€two€or€three€voices€arguing,€and€the€commotion€caused€objects€toÐ X¨ Ðfall€off€of€her€walls.€€ò òó óSoon€afterward,€she€observed€the€victim€walking€to€his€car€with€his€handsÐ H˜ Ðwrapped€in€a€towel€in€front€of€him.ò ò€ó ó€Stacey€followed€behind€and€pushed€the€victim€into€the€car€whileÐ 4„ Ðtelling€him€that€he€was€taking€the€victim€to€the€hospital€to€treat€his€arm.ò òó ó€€Around€30€minutes€later,Ð $t ÐKnox€saw€Stacey€return,€but€did€not€see€the€victim€in€the€car.€ò ò€ó óAt€approximately€10:15€p.m.,€a€racoonÐ ` Ðhunter€in€Rutherford€County€heard€two€or€three€people€talking,€loud€music,€and€one€shotgun€blastÐ P Ðsound€from€the€general€area€where€the€victimððs€body€was€later€found.Ð ì< Ðà  àThe€defendant€told€his€girlfriend,€Sherry€Harris,€that€he€had€not€been€involved€in€the€victimððsÐ Ø( Ðmurder,€but€later€he€admitted€to€being€present€during€the€commission€of€the€murder.€€In€his€revisedÐ Ä Ðaccount€to€Harris,€he€followed€the€victim€and€Stacey,€bringing€the€victimððs€children€with€him,€andÐ ° Ðwhen€Stacey€removed€the€shotgun€from€the€defendantððs€trunk,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€left.Ð œì ÐHowever,€the€defendant€also€told€Steven€Mitchell€Riggan,€a€former€fellow€inmate,€that€he€and€StaceyÐ ˆØ Ðwaited€for€the€victim€to€arrive€and€planned€to€beat€the€victim,€tie€him,€and€kill€him.€ò òó ó€The€defendantÐ t Ä Ðlater€stated€that€he€and€Stacey€had€restrained€the€victim€and€beaten€him€with€a€bat,€but€that€he€hadÐ `!° Ðnot€shot€the€victim.€€Ð L"œ  Ðà  àFinally,€Stacey€testified€and€assumed€considerable€blame€for€the€victimððs€assault,€abduction,Ð 8#ˆ! Ðand€murder.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€taken€a€concrete€tool€and€baseball€bat€into€the€victimððsÐ $$t" Ðapartment.€Stacey€also€claimed€that€the€defendant€had€struck€the€victim€a€couple€of€times€but€thatÐ %` # Ðthe€defendant€had€not€been€involved€in€tying€the€victim,€despite€Staceyððs€request€that€he€do€so.€€HeÐ ü%L!$ Ðfurther€testified€that€the€defendant€had€flashed€his€lights€when€Stacey€had€turned€the€oppositeÐ è&8"% Ðdirection€from€the€hospital€where€Stacey€was€supposedly€taking€the€victim.ò òó ó€Moreover,€StaceyÐ Ô'$#& Ðclaimed€that€the€defendant€had€tried€to€talk€him€out€of€shooting€the€victim€and€that€the€defendant€hadÐ À($' Ðleft€the€murder€scene€only€after€being€told€to€mind€his€own€business.ò ò€ó ó€However,€StaceyÐ ¬)ü$( Ðacknowledged€that€he€lied€to€the€authorities€concerning€the€murder€and€that€he€had€previouslyÐ œ*ì%) Ðclaimed€that€the€defendant€played€a€greater€role€in€the€commission€of€the€crimes.€€Specifically,Ð ˆ+Ø&* ÐStacey€once€told€police€officers€that€the€defendant€convinced€Stacey€to€become€involved,€that€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€had€struck€the€victim€ð ða€lot,ðð€and€that€the€defendant€had€told€Stacey,€ð ðCome€on,€man,Ð œì Ðfinish€him€off.€€Letððs€get€him€out€of€here.ðð׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó ó€€This€concluded€the€proof.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌÓ  Óò òòòPeremptory€Challengeóóó óÐ `° ÐÓg8Óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€reinstating€a€juror€after€the€defendant€struckÐ L œ Ðthat€juror€by€using€a€peremptory€challenge.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€didÐ 8 ˆ Ðnot€follow€the€mandates€of€òòState€v.€Sprattóó,€31€S.W.3d€587€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000),€which€outlinesÐ $ t Ðthe€procedure€that€a€trial€court€must€follow€when€determining€whether€a€party€has€exercised€a€race„Ð  ` Ðbased€peremptory€challenge.€€The€state€counters€that€the€trial€court€did€follow€the€required€procedureÐ ü L  Ðand€that€the€trial€courtððs€reinstatement€of€the€juror€was€proper€and€supported€by€the€courtððs€findings.Ð è 8  Ðà  àDuring€a€jury„out€bench€conference€at€the€conclusion€of€the€initial€portion€of€voir€dire,€theÐ Ô$  Ðprosecutor€noted€that€two€of€the€twelve€prospective€jurors€then€selected€were€African„Americans.Ð À  Ðò òó óThe€prosecutor€noted€this€fact€to€the€trial€court€ð ðso€it€doesnððt€come€out€in€court.ððò òó ó€When€the€juryÐ ¬ü  Ðreturned,€the€process€of€excusing€jurors€with€peremptory€challenges€began,€and€three€jurors€wereÐ ˜è  Ðinitially€struck€as€a€result€of€peremptory€challenges.€€When€the€second€set€of€challenges€wereÐ „Ô  Ðpresented€to€the€trial€court,€the€prosecutor€requested€a€hearing€in€chambers.€Once€in€chambers,€theÐ pÀ Ðfollowing€colloquy,€which€is€a€complete€transcript€of€the€in„chambers€hearing,€took€place:Ð \¬ Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àYour€Honor,€may€it€please€the€Court,€weððre€on€the€recordÐ H˜ Ðnow.€€This€is€concerning€the€Courtððs€bringing€it€to€ourÐ 4„ Ðattention€that€the€defense€now€has€challenged€Mr.€JeffreyÐ  p ÐWebster.€€I€would€note€to€the€Court€that€he€is€one€of€twoÐ  \ ÐAfrican€American€jurors€that€is€on€the€venire€at€this€time.€Ð øH ÐAnd€Iððm€not€sure€that€there€are€others.€€I€know€there€was€oneÐ ä4 Ðother€African€American€who€said€he€had€a€problem€earlierÐ Ð  Ðthis€morning.€€Ð¼ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:€à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àYes.ШøÐ Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àHe€has€not€found€his€way€onto€the€jury€yet€even€this€far.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà h àIn€the€colloquy€of€questions€that€were€propounded€toÐ €Ð Ðthe€jury,€the€only€response€that€has€come€from€this€juror,€beÐ l¼ Ðhe€examined€by€the€State€or€defense,€is€that€he€has€had€someÐ X ¨ Ðprior€legal€training€that€has€answered,€also.€€I€would€point€outÐ D!” Ðthis€fact.€€That€was€not€went€into€in€any€detail€by€any€party.Ð 0"€  ÐAnd€I€would€challenge€this€as€being€simply€an€attempt€on€theÐ #l! Ðpart€of€the€defense€to€take€off€an€African€American.€€Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà h àAnd€based€on€the€makeup€and€the€facts€of€this€case,Ð ô$D # Ðone€of€the€linchpins€that€the€State€will€advance€in€this€case€isÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€this€murder€anticipated€by€this€Defendant€was€motivatedÐ Ì&"% Ðby€race€and€hatred€by€the€fact€that€his€aunt€was€in€anÐ ¸'#& Ðinterracial€marriage.€€This€had€evidenced€itself€by€statementsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmade€by€this€Defendant,€not€only€before€his€aunt€but€others.€Ð ° ÐThatððs€our€theory.€€We€donððt€believe€it€could€be€anythingÐ œì Ðother€than€that.€I€challenge€them€to€make€a€response€and€showÐ ˆØ Ðhow€it€is€otherwise.ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:€à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àAll€right.Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àMr.€Warner:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àYour€honor,€Mr.€Webster€is€a€manager€and€works€in€humanÐ L œ Ðresources.€€The€reason€we€challenged€him€is€that€we€are€afraidÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€would€use€those€managerial€skills€and€become€a€leader€onÐ $ t Ðthis€jury.€€We€are€seeking€to€have€a€leaderless€jury.€€And€he€isÐ  ` Ðvery€highly€educated.€€If€youððll€notice,€that€is€consistent€withÐ ü L  Ðour€other€challenges.€€The€first€challenge€out€of€the€box€wasÐ è 8  Ðon€the€gentleman€that€is€a€Ph.D.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àYeah,€the€doctor.ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àMr.€Warner:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àFor€the€same€reason.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àOkay.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àMr.€Warner:€à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àAnd€if€youððll€notice€it,€theyððre€both€landlords.€€I€donððt€knowÐ „Ô  Ðthat€that€really€matters.ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àIf€it€does,€Iððm€a€landlord.Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àJudge,€if€you€look€at€the€venire€ð!ð€and€I€donððt€have€my€juryÐ H˜ Ðseating€chart€ð!ð€you€will€see,€your€Honor,€that€there€are€aÐ 4„ Ðnumber€of€people€with€education€beyond€highschool.€€I€see€anÐ  p ÐMBA€on€here,€masterððs€degrees.€€Of€course,€we€discussed€theÐ  \ ÐPh.D.€that€was€on€there.€€There€are€other€people€in€leadership.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà h àI€believe€that€thatððs€just€simply€a€bootstrapping€of€thisÐ ä4 Ðcase.€They€didnððt€go€into€that,€had€that€been€a€problem.€€TheyÐ Ð  Ðdonððt€know€what€he€does.€€The€know€simply€what€theyððveÐ ¼  Ðtold€the€Court.€€If€that€was€a€real€problem,€then€they€couldÐ ¨ø Ðhave€went€into€more€depth€with€that.€€I€do€not€believe€that€thatÐ ”ä Ðholds€water€in€this€case,€and€I€would€ask€the€Court€to€denyÐ €Ð Ðthis€argument.Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:€€à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWell,€I€show€here€that€he€is€in€human€resources€at€Nissan,€inÐ X ¨ Ðemployee€relations.€€I€donððt€know€that€thatððs€going€to€giveÐ D!” Ðhim€any€leg€up€on€anybody€else€as€far€as€being€a€leader€ofÐ 0"€  Ðpeople.Ð#l!Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àYour€Honor,€just€to€give€an€example.€€What€about€PrenticeÐ $X" ÐAlsup,€a€self„employed€businessman?€€Was€he€questioned?€Ð ô$D # ÐWas€that€brought€up€about€him?€€Has€he€been€kicked€off?Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà h àDropping€down€to€James€Beck,€warehouse€employee,Ð Ì&"% Ð59€years€old.€€Has€anything€been€said€about€him?€€Has€thereÐ ¸'#& Ðbeen€one€sought€against€him?Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà h àDropping€on€down€from€that,€take€Gregory€Cook,€aÐ )à$( Ðâ âbachelor€of€arts,€St.€Thomas€Hospital.€€What€does€he€do?€Ð |*Ì%) ÐDoes€he€have€managerial€powers?€€Has€there€been€a€challengeÐ ° Ðas€to€him?МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWell,€theyððre€not€through€with€their€challenges€yet.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àExactly.€€But€the€point€of€it€is,€there€was€nothing€propoundedÐ tÄ Ðto€him€to€go€into€detail€about€this.€€I€submit€that€whateverÐ `° Ðmight€have€been€on€that,€they€would€have€twisted€somewayÐ L œ Ðin€utilizing€that€to€say€this€to€the€Court€now.€€It€is€just€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðsufficient€based€on€the€fact€that€it€is€exclusionary,€and€that€isÐ $ t Ðwhat€the€Court€has€to€guard€against,€is€a€jury€that€excludesÐ  ` Ðpeople€because€of€their€race€just€to€somehow€advance€theÐ ü L  Ðissues€of€whoever€the€litigants€are,€be€they€defense€orÐ è 8  Ðprosecution.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà h àWe€are€held€to€that€standard,€and€I€donððt€think€theÐ À  ÐCourt€would€buy€our€argument€if€thatððs€what€I€advanced€to€theÐ ¬ü  ÐCourt.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWell,€youððre€probably€right,€General.€€I€probably€wouldnððt.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àAnd€the€Defendant€has€no€more€right€in€this€hunt€thanÐ pÀ Ðanybody€else€because€the€issue€is€not€the€protection€ofÐ \¬ Ðanybodyððs€rights€that€are€litigants.€€It€is€a€protection€of€a€classÐ H˜ Ðfrom€being€excluded€in€participating€in€this,€the€greatest€ofÐ 4„ Ðour€liberties€in€our€government.Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àMr.€Warner.Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àMr.€Warner:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àYour€Honor,€my€jury€expert€ð!ð€and€Iððm€quoting€exactlyÐ øH Ðregarding€Mr.€Webster.€€ð ðAs€a€human€resources€manager,€heÐ ä4 Ðis€likely€to€be€unduly€effective€in€influencing€other€jurors.€€AsÐ Ð  Ða€rule,€a€leaderless€jury€is€better€for€the€defense.ððà x àм Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àà h àThatððs€what€an€expert€told€me.€€I€havenððt€written€thatÐ ¨ø Ðdown€myself.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àThat€doesnððt€hold€any€water€here.€€Iððve€talked€to€an€expert.€€IÐ €Ð Ðtalked€to€Mr.€Newman.€Itððs€the€same€thing.€€There€have€beenÐ l¼ Ðno€qualifications€about€this,€and€that€means€nothing€to€thisÐ X ¨ ÐCourt.€€Thatððs€a€nullity.ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWell,€it€seems€to€me€that€the€fact€that€a€person€might€be€aÐ 0"€  Ðleader€of€course€is€questionable€because€you€never€knowÐ #l! Ðwhoððs€going€to€be€a€leader€of€a€jury.Ð$X"Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:€à0Ð Ð àBut€we€do€know€what€race€he€is€and€how€many€people€of€thatÐ ô$D # Ðrace€are€here€to€be€on€this€jury.€€And€theyððre€excluding€him,Ð à%0!$ Ðyour€Honor,€and€Iððm€asking€this€Court€straight€up€as€a€legalÐ Ì&"% Ðmatter€to€not€let€that€happen€in€this€case.€€Ð¸'#&Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àI€donððt€think€thatððs€a€valid€reason,€is€my€line€of€thinking.€€Ð¤(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àThank€you.€€Thank€you.€€Appreciate€it.Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  àMr.€Wallace:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àJudge,€in€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€it€simply€says€that€we€mustÐ |*Ì%) Ðadvance€a€race„neutral€reason.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àJudge,€you€canððt€stop€at€òòBatsonóó.€€Youððve€got€to€go€forward.€Ð ° ÐThatððs€old€law€now.€€Youððve€got€to€go€into€the€future.€€AndÐ œì Ðyouððve€had€the€case€that€gives€you€this€rule€about€the€defenseÐ ˆØ Ðcannot€challenge€people€based€on€race,€òòGeorgia€v.€McCollumóó,Ð tÄ ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€case.€€And€down€to€the€one€thatÐ `° Ðapplies€here€on€us€in€Tennessee,€òòWoodson€v.€Porter€BrownÐ L œ ÐLimestoneóó€that€Iððve€told€the€Court€about.€€Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àI€wish€we€didnððt€have€this€problem.Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àI€wish€we€didnððt€either,€but€we€do.Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àBut€we€do.€If€we€didnððt€have€it,€it€would€be€a€lot€simpler.€Ð ü L  ÐSometimes€it€doesnððt€make€a€whole€lot€of€sense€to€me€thatÐ è 8  Ðyou€can€challenge€any€of€the€other€jurors€in€the€venire,€butÐ Ô$  Ðthatððs€what€the€law€says,€that€you€have€to€have€an€articulableÐ À  Ðreason.€€I€have€to€make€a€finding€of€fact,€and€we€donððt€knowÐ ¬ü  Ðwhether€Mr.€Webster,€the€fact€that€heððs€in€human€relations.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àHuman€Resources.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€Court:à0¸ Ð Ð àà0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àHuman€resources,€in€the€personnel€department,€in€theÐ pÀ Ðemployee€relations€department€down€at€Nissan,€that€heððsÐ \¬ Ðgoing€to€have€any€more€influence€on€the€jurors€than€anybodyÐ H˜ Ðelse.Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àGeneral€Jackson:à0Ð Ð àThank€you,€your€Honor.Ð pÐ Ð  Ðò òó óÌà  àApproximately€one€month€after€the€defendantððs€trial,€this€Court€published€òòState€v.€Sprattóó,€31Ð øH ÐS.W.3d€587€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€In€òòSprattóó,€we€addressed€peremptory€challenges€and€the€lawÐ ä4 Ðgoverning€a€trial€courtððs€determination€of€whether€a€party€has€improperly€exercised€a€race„basedÐ Ð  Ðperemptory€challenge.Ô#†XXXX=#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ ¼  Ðà8  àð ðThe€peremptory€challenge€is€one€of€the€oldest€established€rights€of€the€criminalÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant.ðð€òòUnited€States€v.€Annigonióó,€96€F.3d€1132,€1136€(9th€Cir.€1996).€For€moreÐ ”ä Ðthan€one€hundred€years,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€thatÐ €Ð Ðperemptory€challenges€are€ð ðan€essential€part€of€the€trial.ðð€òòLewis€v.€United€Statesóó,€146Ð l¼ ÐU.S.€370,€376,€13€S.€Ct.€136,€138,€36€L.€Ed.€1011€(1892).€The€Supreme€Court€hasÐ X ¨ Ðalso€stated€that€the€right€of€peremptory€challenge€is€ð ðone€of€the€most€important€of€theÐ D!” Ðrights€secured€to€the€accused.ðð€òòPointer€v.€United€Statesóó,€151€U.S.€396,€408,€14€S.€Ct.Ð 0"€  Ð410,€414,€38€L.€Ed.€208€(1894).€The€importance€of€the€right€to€make€peremptoryÐ #l! Ðchallenges€is€demonstrated€by€the€extraordinary€remedy€courts€have€traditionallyÐ $X" Ðafforded€to€an€accused€who€was€deprived€of€the€right:€reversal€of€conviction,€withoutÐ ô$D # Ða€showing€of€prejudice.€òòLewisóó,€146€U.S.€at€376,€13€S.€Ct.€at€138.€Ô#†XXXXÓo#ÔÔ‡Xj² XXXÔÔ#†¼à » XXj² #ÔÔ‡ô¯ñ ò »¼ÃÔÐà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†¼à » òô¯ñët#ÔÔ‡Xj² X »¼ÃÔÔ#†XX XXj²©t#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÌà8  àð ðPeremptory€challenges,€along€with€challenges€for€ððcause,ðð€are€the€principal€tools€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðenable€litigants€to€remove€unfavorable€jurors€during€the€jury€selection€process.ððÐ ¤(ô#' ÐòòAnnigonióó,€96€F.3d€at€1137.€ð ðThe€central€function€of€the€right€of€peremptory€challengeÐ )à$( Ðis€to€enable€a€litigant€to€remove€a€certain€number€of€potential€jurors€who€are€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðchallengeable€for€cause,€but€in€whom€the€litigant€perceives€bias€or€hostility.ðð€òòId.óó€ð ðTheÐ h+¸&* Ðfunction€of€the€[peremptory]€challenge€is€not€only€to€eliminate€extremes€of€partialityÐ ° Ðon€both€sides,€but€to€assure€the€parties€that€the€jurors€before€whom€they€try€the€caseÐ œì Ðwill€decide€on€the€basis€of€the€evidence€placed€before€them,€and€not€otherwise.ððÐ ˆØ ÐòòSwain€v.€Alabamaóó,€380€U.S.€202,€219,€85€S.€Ct.€824,€835,€13€L.€Ed.€2d€759€(1965),Ð tÄ Ðoverruled€on€other€grounds,€òòBatsonóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€S.€Ct.€1712,€90€L.€Ed.€2d€69.€Ô#†XXXXŽu#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ`°Ð Ð  ÐÌòòSprattóó,€31€S.W.2d€597„98.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àÔ#†XXXXz#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔIn€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€106€S.€Ct.€1712,€90€L.€Ed.€2d€69€(1986),€theÐ  ` ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðthe€Equal€Protection€Clause€forbids€theÐ ü L  Ðprosecutor€to€challenge€potential€jurors€solely€on€account€of€their€race.ðð€òòId.óó,€476€U.S.Ð è 8  Ðat€89,€S.€Ct.€at€1718.€In€òòGeorgia€v.€McCollumóó,€505€U.S.€42,€112€S.€Ct.€2348,€120€L.Ð Ô$  ÐEd.€2d€33€(1992),€the€Supreme€Court€extended€this€rule€to€prohibit€defendants€fromÐ À  Ðstriking€jurors€on€the€basis€of€their€race.€òòMcCollumóó,€505€U.S.€at€59,€112€S.€Ct.€atÐ ¬ü  Ð2359.€Thus,€the€State€may€make€a€ð ðreverse€òòBatsonóó€objection.ðð€òòState€v.€Hathawaóóy,Ð ˜è  Ð1997€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€1342,€No.€02C01„9702„CR„00082,€1997€WL€793505,Ð „Ô  Ðat€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€30,€1997),€app.€denied,€(Tenn.€Oct.€12,Ð pÀ Ð1998).€Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àTo€invoke€the€protections€of€òòBatsonóó€and€its€progeny,€the€State€must€establish€a€primaÐ 4„ Ðfacie€case€that€a€juror€is€being€challenged€on€the€basis€of€race.€òòPurkett€v.€Elemóó,€514Ð  p ÐU.S.€765,€767,€115€S.€Ct.€1769,€1770„71,€131€L.€Ed.€2d€834€(1995);€òòBatsonóó,€476€U.S.Ð  \ Ðat€93„94,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1721.€Once€the€State€has€presented€a€prima€facie€case,€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourt€shall€require€the€defendant€to€give€a€race„neutral€reason€for€the€challenge.Ð ä4 ÐòòPurkettóó,€514€U.S.€at€767,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1770„71;€òòMcCollumóó,€505€U.S.€at€59,€112€S.Ð Ð  ÐCt.€at€2359.€ð ðThe€race€or€gender€neutral€explanation€need€not€be€persuasive,€or€evenÐ ¼  Ðplausible.€.€.€.€Unless€a€discriminatory€intent€is€inherent€in€the€[proponentððs]Ð ¨ø Ðexplanation,€the€reason€offered€will€be€deemed€race€neutral.ðð€òòPurkettóó,€514€U.S.€atÐ ”ä Ð767,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1770„71.€If€a€race€or€gender€neutral€explanation€is€given,€the€courtÐ €Ð Ðmust€then€determine,€given€all€the€circumstances,€whether€the€State€has€establishedÐ l¼ Ðpurposeful€discrimination.€òòPurkettóó,€514€U.S.€at€767,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1770„71;€òòBatsonóó,Ð X ¨ Ð476€U.S.€at€96„98,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1723„24.€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àð ðThe€trial€judge€must€carefully€articulate€specific€reasons€for€each€finding€on€theÐ #l! Ðrecord,€i.e.,€whether€a€prima€facie€case€has€been€established;€whether€a€neutralÐ $X" Ðexplanation€has€been€given;€and€whether€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€support€aÐ ô$D # Ðfinding€of€purposeful€discrimination.ðð€òòWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Co.óó,Ð à%0!$ ÐInc.,€916€S.W.2d€896,€906€(Tenn.€1996).€€ð ðThe€trial€court's€factual€findings€areÐ Ì&"% Ðimperative€in€this€context.ðð€òòId.óó€ð ðOn€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€to€beÐ ¸'#& Ðaccorded€great€deference€and€not€set€aside€unless€clearly€erroneous.ðð€òòId.óó€(citationÐ ¤(ô#' Ðomitted).€ð ðThus,€specificity€in€the€findings€is€crucial.ðð€òòId.óóÐ)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌòòSprattóó,€31€S.W.3d€at€595„96.à8  àÐh+¸&*ÈÈ Ðà  àIn€òòSprattóó,€a€factually€analogous€case,€the€defendant€struck€several€jurors€using€peremptoryÐ ° Ðchallenges,€and€the€state€objected,€arguing€that€the€defense€was€striking€jurors€based€solely€on€theirÐ œì Ðrace.€€òòId.óó€at€595.€€The€trial€court€reseated€some€of€these€jurors€after€determining€that€these€jurors€wereÐ ˆØ Ðstruck€solely€on€the€basis€of€their€race.€€òòId.óó€€However,€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€its€findingsÐ tÄ Ðsupporting€this€ruling€with€any€specificity.€òòId.óó€at€596.€€This€Court€determined€that€the€trial€courtÐ `° Ðerroneously€applied€the€òòBatsonóó€test€and€therefore€improperly€reinstated€the€jurors.€òòId.óó€at€596„97€€Ð L œ ÐSpecifically,€in€òòSprattóó€we€found€that€although€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€first€prong€of€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòBatsonóó€test€and€correctly€determined€that€the€state€raised€a€prima€facie€case€of€discrimination,€ð ðtheÐ $ t Ðtrial€court€erroneously€combined€parts€two€and€three€and€placed€the€burden€on€Defendant€both€toÐ  ` Ðpropose€race„neutral€reasons€for€the€challenges€and€then€prove€that€the€race„neutral€reasons€whereÐ ü L  Ð[sic]€in€fact€the€actual€reasons.ðð€òòId.óó€at€596.€€We€deemed€this€ð ðimproper,ðð€noting€that€the€United€StatesÐ è 8  ÐSupreme€Court€has€explained€that€ð ðððthe€ultimate€burden€of€persuasion€regarding€[discriminatory]Ð Ô$  Ðmotivation€rests€with,€and€never€shifts€from,€the€opponent€of€the€strike.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòPurkettóó,€514Ð À  ÐU.S.€at€798,€115€S.€Ct.€1769).Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€analysis€was€similarly€erroneous.€€AsÐ ˜è  Ðdiscussed€òòsupraóó,€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€the€state€had€offered€a€prima€facie€case€ofÐ „Ô  Ðdiscriminatory€intent.׃/×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€defendant€advanced€his€race„neutral€reason€for€striking€Juror€Webster,Ð pÀ Ðnamely€that€the€defendant€feared€that€the€jurorððs€vocation€indicated€that€the€juror€could€easily€assumeÐ \¬ Ða€leadership€role€in€the€jury.€€The€defendantððs€jury€expert€had€advised€him€not€to€retain€€humanÐ H˜ Ðresources€managers€because€they€are€ð ðlikely€to€be€unduly€effective€in€influencing€other€jurors,ðð€andÐ 4„ Ða€leaderless€jury€is€generally€best€for€the€defense.€However,€although€the€race„neutral€explanationÐ  p Ðð ðneed€not€be€persuasive,€or€even€plausible,ðð€òòPuckettóó,€514€U.S.€at€767,€it€appears€that€rather€thanÐ  \ Ðweighing€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€and€determining€whether€the€state€had€met€its€burden€ofÐ øH Ðproving€that€the€strike€was€race„based,€the€trial€court,€like€the€trial€court€in€òòSprattóó,€instead€shifted€theÐ ä4 Ðburden€of€proving€that€the€strike€was€not€racially€motivated€to€the€defendant;€the€trial€court€foundÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€defendantððs€explanation€was€not€a€legitimate€reason€for€striking€a€juror€and€that€thereforeÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendantððs€reason€for€striking€the€juror€must€be€racially€motivated.Ð ¨ø Ðà  àWe€conclude€that,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€state€failed€to€establish€that€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€acted€with€purposeful€discrimination€when€moving€to€strike€Juror€Webster.€€The€defendantÐ €Ð Ðoffered€a€persuasive€race„neutral€reason€for€striking€Juror€Webster,€namely€that€he€feared€that€JurorÐ l¼ ÐWebster€would€unduly€influence€his€fellow€jurors€and€become€a€leader€on€the€jury,€a€probability€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€defendantððs€jury€expert€warned€could€be€detrimental€to€the€defendantððs€case.€€The€legitimacy€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€defendantððs€concern€is€evidenced€by€the€fact€that€the€jury€eventually€elected€Juror€Webster€toÐ 0"€  Ðserve€as€the€jury€foreperson.ò òÔ#†XXXX´z#Ôó óÔ‡XXXXÔ€ð ðWhen€a€defendant€is€wrongly€deprived€of€peremptory€challengesÐ #l! Ðbecause€of€a€trial€courtððs€erroneous€application€of€the€òòBatsonóó€test,€the€remedy€is€a€reversal€of€theÐ $X" Ðconviction€and€a€remand€for€a€new€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€598€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€McFerronóó,€163€F.3d€952,Ð ô$D # Ð955€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1998)).€€Therefore,€we€reverse€the€defendantððs€convictions€and€remand€his€case€for€aÐ à%0!$ Ðnew€trial.€€However,€in€the€event€of€further€appeal,€we€will€address€the€defendantððs€other€allegationsÐ Ì&"% Ðof€error.Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ  Óòòò òSufficiencyó óóóÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€to€support€hisÐ ˆØ Ðconvictions.€€Ô#†XXXXY˜#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔWhen€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€is€obliged€toÐ tÄ Ðreview€that€claim€according€to€certain€well-settled€principles.€A€verdict€of€guilty,€rendered€by€a€juryÐ `° Ðand€ð ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€theðð€stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€allÐ L œ Ðconflicts€in€the€testimony€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992).€€Thus,€although€the€accused€is€originally€cloakedÐ $ t Ðwith€a€presumption€of€innocence,€the€jury€verdict€of€guilty€removes€this€presumption€ð ðand€replacesÐ  ` Ðit€with€one€of€guilt.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€Hence,€on€appeal,€theÐ ü L  Ðburden€of€proof€rests€with€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€the€insufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Ð è 8  ÐòòId.óó€€The€relevant€question€the€reviewing€court€must€answer€is€whether€any€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÐ Ô$  Ðhave€found€the€accused€guilty€of€every€element€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð À  ÐR.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75.€In€making€this€decision,€we€are€to€accord€the€state€ð ðtheÐ ¬ü  Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€mayÐ ˜è  Ðbe€drawn€therefrom.ðð€òòSeeóó€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€As€such,€this€Court€is€precluded€from€re„Ð „Ô  Ðweighing€or€reconsidering€the€evidence€when€evaluating€the€convicting€proof.€€òòState€v.€Tilsonóó,€929Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€380,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð \¬ ÐApp.€1990).€Moreover,€we€may€not€substitute€our€own€ð ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€factÐ H˜ Ðfrom€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€òòMatthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€at€779.Ô#†XXXXé›#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ 4„ Ðà  àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€two€counts€of€first€degree€murder,€one€count€ofÐ  p Ðconspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€oneÐ  \ Ðcount€of€theft€of€property€over€$10,000.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€state€introduced€evidence€at€trial€that,€prior€to€the€dayÐ øH Ðof€the€murder,€the€defendant€had€called€the€victim€racial€epithets€and€threatened€the€victimððs€life.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€state€also€introduced€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€present€at€the€victimððs€apartment€on€theÐ Ð  Ðevening€of€the€murder,€present€during€the€victimððs€murder,€and€was€seen€both€leaving€the€victimððsÐ ¼  Ðapartment€shortly€before€the€time€of€his€murder€and€returning€to€the€apartment€with€the€victimððsÐ ¨ø Ðchildren€later€that€evening.€€Furthermore,€the€state€also€introduced€evidence€that€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðadmitted€to€a€former€fellow€inmate€that€he€and€Stacey€planned€to€beat,€restrain,€and€shoot€the€victimÐ €Ð Ðand€that€they€had€waited€for€the€victim€to€arrive€at€the€apartment€in€order€to€do€so.€€This€witness€alsoÐ l¼ Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€hit€the€victim€with€a€baseball€bat€and€that€his€motivationÐ X ¨ Ðfor€killing€the€victim€was€greed.€€Based€on€the€foregoing€evidence,€we€conclude€that€a€rationale€juryÐ D!” Ðcould€have€found€the€defendant€guilty€first€degree€murder,€conspiracy€to€commit€murder,€especiallyÐ 0"€  Ðaggravated€kidnapping,€and€theft€over€$10,000.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€sufficiency€challenge€lacksÐ ° Ðmerit.€€Ô#†XXXX6¤#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ œì ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÔ#†XXXX‹«#ÔòòÔ‡XXXXÔÓ  Óò òPropriety€of€the€Prosecutorððs€Opening€Statementó óóóÐ `° ÐÌÓ¬ÓÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€prosecutor€made€improper€remarks€in€his€openingÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatement€by€stating€that€ð ðIððm€just€going€to€basically€tell€you€what€I€believe€that€the€proof€is€goingÐ $ t Ðto€be€and€what€I€think€youððre€going€to€hear,ðð€as€well€as€other€ð ðI€believeðð€and€ð ðI€thinkðð€statements.€Ð  ` Ðò òÔ#†XXXXó«#Ôó óÔ‡XXXXÔThe€defendant€argues€that€the€prosecutorððs€remarks€regarding€what€he€believed€constitute€a€violationÐ ü L  Ðof€his€ethical€duty€to€refrain€from€asserting€his€own€ð ðpersonal€opinion€as€to€the€justness€of€a€cause,Ð è 8  Ðas€to€the€credibility€of€a€witness,€as€to€the€culpability€of€a€civil€litigant,€or€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocenceÐ Ô$  Ðof€an€accused.ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8€DR€7„106(C)(4).€€The€state€counters€by€noting€that€the€defendantÐ À  Ðhas€waived€this€issue€on€appeal€by€failing€to€make€a€contemporaneous€objection€at€trial€and€byÐ ¬ü  Ðfailing€to€prove€how€the€statement€was€improper€or€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€prosecutorððsÐ ˜è  Ðremarks.Ð „Ô  Ðà  àWe€agree€with€the€state€that€the€defendant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€make€aÐ pÀ Ðcontemporaneous€objection€to€the€prosecutorððs€remarks€at€trial.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Everett€D.€Cainóó,Ð \¬ ÐNo.€02„C„01„9504„CR„00104,€1996€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€461,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ H˜ ÐJackson,€July€26,€1996)€(stating€that€ð ð[t]he€failure€to€make€a€contemporaneous€objection€when€theÐ 4„ Ðassistant€district€attorney€general€made€the€comment€during€his€opening€statement€constituted€aÐ  p Ðwaiver€of€this€issueðð€and€Ô#†XXXX2®#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔciting€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€373Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€and€òòStateÐ øH Ðv.€Thomasóó,€818€S.W.2d€350,€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991))Ô#†XXXXæ³#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ.Ô#†XXXXBµ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Ô#†XXXX…µ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Moreover,€the€defendant€has€failed€toÐ ä4 Ðprove€that€the€prosecutorððs€remarks€were€improper,€as€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€similar€ð ðIÐ Ð  Ðbelieveððremarks€are€not€expressions€of€an€attorneyððs€personal€opinion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(stating€that€ð ðif€argument€is€predicated€by€the€words€ððIÐ ¨ø Ðthinkðð€or€ððI€submit,ðð€it€is€unlikely€to€be€adjudged€as€a€personal€opinionðð€and€citing€Ô#†XXXXȵ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòUnited€States€v.Ð ”ä ÐStulgaóó,€584€F.2d€142€(6th€Cir.€1978)),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€119€S.W.3d€753Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€2000).€Ô#†XXXX'¸#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Finally,€assuming€that€the€prosecutorððs€remarks€were€improper,€the€defendant€has€alsoÐ l¼ Ðfailed€to€allege€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€those€remarks,€and€the€defendant€must€prove€prejudice€inÐ X ¨ Ðorder€for€this€Court€to€grant€his€requested€relief.€€Ô#†XXXX%¹#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.Ð D!” Ð1994)Ô#†XXXXº#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€(instructing€that€when€a€prosecutor€makes€improper€remarks€during€a€closing€argument,€theÐ 0"€  Ðappellate€court€must€determine€Ô#†XXXX»#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔð ðwhether€the€impropriety€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÐ #l! Ðdefendantðð).€€For€these€reasons,€we€find€that€this€issue€lacks€merit.€Ô#†XXXXè»#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ $X" ÐÌÌÓ€ M(ÿÿ03 ÓÔ#†XXXXм#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÓ  Óòòò òScope€of€Expertððs€Testimonyó óóóÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÓɽÓà  àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€an€expert€qualified€in€the€fieldsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€firearm€identification,€muzzle€to€garment€distance€determination,€and€toolmark€examination€toÐ )à$( Ðtestify€beyond€the€scope€of€his€expertise,€namely€on€the€subject€of€whether€the€shotgun€shell€waddingÐ |*Ì%) Ðat€issue€was€damaged€by€passing€through€the€victimððs€skull€and€brain€tissue.€€The€state€maintains€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€decision€because€the€testimony€dealt€with€the€cause€of€damageÐ ° Ðto€the€wadding,€a€subject€on€which€the€expert€was€qualified€to€testify.Ð œì ÐÔ#†XXXXª½#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà  àÔ#†XXXX Á#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€702,€entitled€ð ð[t]estimony€by€experts,ðð€states€that€ð ð[i]f€scientific,Ð ˆØ Ðtechnical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€theÐ tÄ Ðevidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,Ð `° Ðexperience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ðð€€Ô#†XXXXYÁ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔTenn.€R.Ð L œ ÐEvid.€702.€Ô#†XXXXeÃ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€703,€entitled€ð ð[b]ases€of€opinion€testimony€by€experts,ððÐ 8 ˆ Ðstates€that€Ô#†XXXXÏÃ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà8 ` àÐ$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  à[t]he€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinion€orÐ ü L  Ðinference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€theÐ è 8  Ðhearing.€If€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€inÐ Ô$  Ðforming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÐ À  Ðadmissible€in€evidence.€The€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÐ ¬ü  Ðor€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.€Ð˜è Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€703.€€Ô#†XXXXŒÄ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔFurthermore,€ð ðin€general,€questions€regarding€the€admissibility,€qualifications,Ð pÀ Ðrelevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€are€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€The€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourtððs€ruling€in€this€regard€may€only€be€overturned€if€the€discretion€is€arbitrarily€exercised€orÐ H˜ Ðabused.ððòò€McDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€263„64€(Tenn.€1997),Ô#†XXXXŠÇ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòóó€(citing€òòState€v.Ð 4„ ÐBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993)).€Ð  p Ðà  àAs€mentioned€òòsupraóó,€in€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€qualified€the€witness€at€issue€as€anÐ  \ Ðexpert€in€the€fields€of€firearm€identification,€muzzle€to€garment€distance€determination,€and€toolmark€Ð øH Ðexamination.€Ô#†XXXX|É#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔDuring€€direct€examination,€the€prosecutor€and€the€expert€witness€had€the€followingÐ ä4 Ðexchange:Ð Ð  ÐÓ€ S(н80MÓØ! !ØÝ"‚U3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚U3£…ÌÝÔ2нÔÚ  ÚQÚ  Ú:Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝNow€I€have€a€hypothetical€question€for€you.€€I€want€you€to€assume€that€theÐ ¼  Ðvictim€in€this€case,€that€the€shotgun€was€placed€against€the€back€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðvictimððs€head.€€I€want€you€to€assume€further€that€the€gun€was€fired€while€inÐ ”ä Ðcontact€with€the€back€of€the€victimððs€head.€€I€want€you€to€assume€that€theÐ €Ð Ðpellets€and€the€wadding€enter€the€back€of€the€victimððs€head.€€I€want€you€toÐ l¼ Ðfurther€assume€that€an€x„ray€was€taken.€.€.€.€I€want€you€to€assume€further€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthis€x„ray€was€taken€and€this€was€the€results€of€the€x„ray€[referencing€an€x„rayÐ D!” Ðtaken€of€the€victimððs€head].݃U3£…̾ÌÝŒÐ0"€ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àA:€€à0` Ð Ð àYes,€sir.Ð#l!` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àQ:€€à0` Ð Ð àAnd€I€want€you€to€assume€further€that€at€the€autopsy€Dr.€Harlan€removed€aÐ $X" Ðsampling€of€the€pellets€and€submitted€them€to€your€examination.€€I€want€youÐ ô$D # Ðalso€to€assume€further€that€the€wadding€given€to€you€for€examination€was€alsoÐ à%0!$ Ðobtained€at€the€autopsy€and€was€removed€from€the€brain€and€the€skull€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðvictim.€€And€then€I€could€have€this€question€for€you.€€Could€the€damage€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðyou€observed,€which€results€now€in€you€being€unable€to€tell€us€whether€it€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€12€or€a€16€gauge€wadding,€be€caused€by€the€wadding€passing€through€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âskull€and€the€brain€tissue€of€the€victim?Ð|*Ì%)` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àA:€à0` Ð Ð àThe€wadding€ð!ð€[Witness€interrupted€by€defenseððs€objection,€which€is€arguedÐ ° Ðâ âand€overruled.]€€The€damage€to€these€type€of€waddings,€these€are€fibrous,Ð œì Ðcardboard€type€waddings.€That€means€theyððre€not€very€strong.€€Damage€canÐ ˆØ Ðbe€created€by€bones,€and€those€type€of€things€can€damage€wads€as€they€goÐ tÄ Ðinto€and€penetrate€into€a€person.€€So€that€is€a€possibility,€yes.Ð`°` Ð ` Ð  ÐÔ#†XXXX>Ë#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÌò òó óThe€defendant€objected€to€the€prosecutorððs€question€on€the€basis€that€it€delved€into€a€subject€beyondÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€scope€of€the€witnessððs€expertise,€requiring€him€to€testify€about€human€anatomy.€Ô#†XXXXÁÕ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€The€prosecutorÐ $ t Ðcountered€thatò ò€ó óthe€question€did€not€call€for€the€witnessððs€expertise€in€anatomy,€but€rather€requiredÐ  ` Ðhim€to€draw€upon€his€expertise€regarding€possible€causes€of€damage€to€shotgun€wadding.ò òÔ#†XXXXÞÖ#Ôó óÔ‡XXXXÔ€Indeed,Ð  P  Ðbased€on€the€witnessððs€response€to€the€hypothetical€question,€it€is€evident€that€the€question€calledÐ ì <  Ðupon€the€witnessððs€knowledge€of€the€composition€of€the€shotgun€wadding€recovered€from€the€victimÐ Ø(  Ðand€what€possible€effect€the€collision€with€the€victimððs€skulls€and€brain€tissue€could€have€had€on€theÐ Ä  Ðwadding.€€Accordingly,€because€the€witness€was€testifying€regarding€his€knowledge€of€firearms,€weÐ °  Ðfind€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€allowing€him€to€answer€the€prosecutorððs€hypothetical€question.€Ð œì  ÐThis€issue€lacks€merit.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòAdmissibility€of€Evidence€of€Drugs€in€the€Victimððs€SystemóóÐ Lœ ÐÌÓôÚÓà  àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€stateððs€motion€òòin€limineóó€to€excludeÐ $t Ðevidence€of€cocaine€found€in€the€victimððs€system€during€the€victimððs€autopsy€interfered€with€his€rightÐ ` Ðto€present€a€defense€at€trial.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€the€defendant€cites€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€29Ð üL ÐS.W.3d€427€(Tenn.€2000),€which€outlines€the€factors€to€consider€when€determining€ð ðwhether€theÐ è8 Ðconstitutional€right€to€present€a€defense€has€been€violated€by€the€exclusion€of€evidence.ðð€€òòBrownóóÐ Ô$ Ðinstructs€that€ð ðthe€analysis€should€consider€whether€(1)€the€excluded€evidence€is€critical€to€theÐ À Ðdefense;€(2)€the€evidence€bears€sufficient€indicia€of€reliability;€and€(3)€the€interest€supportingÐ ¬ü Ðexclusion€of€the€evidence€is€substantially€important.ðð€òòId.óó€at€433„34.€€Ð ˜è Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€ruled€to€exclude€evidence€that€the€victim€had€a€trace€amountÐ „Ô Ðof€cocaine€in€his€system€at€the€time€of€his€death€after€the€medical€examiner€who€performed€theÐ pÀ Ðvictimððs€autopsy€testified€that€this€amount€of€cocaine€in€the€victimððs€system€would€have€no€bearingÐ \ ¬ Ðon€his€actions,€reactions,€emotions,€or€manner€of€death.ò òÔ#†XXXX"Ø#Ôó óÔ‡XXXXÔ€The€defendant€complains€that€this€ruling€Ð H!˜ Ðinterfered€with€his€ability€to€present€a€defense,€but€he€fails€to€allege€how€this€omitted€evidence€wasÐ 4"„  Ðcritical€to€his€defense.€€Accordingly,€per€òòBrownóó,€he€has€not€alleged€appropriate€grounds€for€relief.€Ð  #p! ÐThus,€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ð  $\" ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòJury€Instructions€Regarding€Conspiracyóóó óÐ Ð& "% ÐÌÓŸâÓà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€the€stateððs€motion€to€amend€theÐ ¨(ø#' Ðpattern€jury€instruction€on€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder€by€adding€the€followingÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âlanguage:Ð €*Ð%) Ðà8  àà ` àNow,€a€conspiracy,€in€general€terms€is€a€combination€of€two€or€more€personsÐ ° Ðâ âby€some€concerted€action€to€accomplish€some€criminal€act€or€unlawful€purpose.€€NoÐ œì Ðformal€agreement€between€the€parties€to€do€the€act€charged€is€necessary€to€constituteÐ ˆØ Ða€conspiracy,€it€being€sufficient€that€the€minds€of€the€parties€meet€understandingly.ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àWhen€a€conspiracy€is€established,€the€act€or€declaration€of€one€conspirator€inÐ `° Ðthe€prosecution€of€the€common€enterprise€is€considered€the€act€of€all€and€is€evidenceÐ L œ Ðagainst€all.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTo€prove€the€existence€of€a€conspiracy,€it€is€[sic]€necessary€that€theÐ $ t Ðprosecution€show€the€existence€of€a€formal€agreement€between€the€parties€to€do€theÐ  ` Ðunlawful€act.€€A€mutual€implied€understanding€is€sufficient,€although€not€manifestedÐ ü L  Ðby€any€formal€words€or€by€a€written€agreement.€€Conspiracy€implies€concert€of€designÐ è 8  Ðand€not€participation€in€every€detail€of€execution.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€unlawful€confederation€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidenceÐ À  Ðand€by€the€conduct€of€the€parties€in€the€execution€of€the€criminal€enterprise.€€The€actÐ ¬ü  Ðof€one€in€furtherance€of€a€conspiracy€is€considered€the€act€of€all€and,€therefore,€isÐ ˜è  Ðimputable€to€all.€€Everyone€who€enters€into€a€conspiracy€is€a€party€to€every€act€whichÐ „Ô  Ðhas€before€been€done€by€the€others€and€to€every€act€by€the€others€afterwards€inÐ pÀ Ðfurtherance€of€a€common€design.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓò òó óà  àÓÓÔ#†XXXXá#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔA€defendant€has€the€constitutional€right€to€complete€and€accurate€jury€instructions€on€the€law,Ð 4„ Ðand€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€provide€complete€and€accurate€jury€instructions€deprives€a€defendantÐ  p Ðof€the€constitutional€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990).ò ò€Ð  \ Ðó óErroneous€jury€instructions€are€subject€to€harmless€error€review.€€òòState€v.€Belseóór,€945€S.W.2d€776,Ð üL Ð782€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€However,€if€the€error€is€constitutional€in€nature,€there€must€be€aÐ è8 Ðreversal€unless€the€error€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òòId.óó€Ð Ô$ Ðà  àÔ#†XXXX¡ë#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Ô#†XXXX¼î#Ôò òó óÔ‡XXXXÔThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€inclusion€of€this€additional€language€wasÐ À Ðerroneous€because€the€language€inaccurately€defines€conspiracy€and€because€the€language€deviatesÐ ¬ü Ðfrom€the€pattern€jury€instruction.€€However,€the€additional€language€charged€reflects€an€accurateÐ ˜è Ðstatement€of€the€law€regarding€criminal€conspiracy,€with€the€exception€that€it€erroneously€omits€theÐ „Ô Ðword€ð ðnotðð€as€indicated€by€the€ð ðsicðð€notation€above.€We€note€that€this€omission€would€tend€to€benefitÐ pÀ Ðrather€than€prejudice€the€defendant.€€Furthermore,€a€trial€court€does€not€err€by€deviating€from€aÐ \ ¬ Ðpattern€jury€instruction,€provided€that€the€instruction€given€is€accurate.€€òòSeeóó€Ô#†XXXXï#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòState€v.€Westóó,€844Ð H!˜ ÐS.W.2d€144,€151€(Tenn.€1992)€(ð ðThere€is€no€requirement€limiting€a€trial€court€to€the€use€of€ððpatternÐ 4"„  Ðinstructions.ðððð).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€including€this€additionalÐ  #p! Ðlanguage€in€the€jury€charge.€€Thus,€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ô#†XXXXjò#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ  $\" ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†XXXXô#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÓ  Óò òòòAdmission€of€Victimððs€Photograph€During€Sentencing€Phaseóóó óÐ ä%4!$ ÐÌÓ˜ôÓÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€an€autopsy€photograph€of€theÐ ¼' #& Ðvictim€because€the€prejudicial€nature€of€the€photograph€outweighs€its€probative€value.€€TheÐ ¨(ø#' Ðphotograph€depicts€the€victimððs€face,€which€has€been€deformed€due€to€the€injuries€that€the€victimÐ ”)ä$( Ðsustained.€Ô#†XXXXyô#Ôò òó óÔ‡XXXXÔ€€The€trial€court€admitted€the€photograph€on€the€basis€that€it€was€probative€on€the€issueÐ €*Ð%) Ðof€whether€the€victimððs€death€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€Ô#†XXXX´ö#Ôò òó óÔ‡XXXXÔ€However,€the€defendantÐ l+¼&* Ðargues€that€the€medical€examiner€testified€regarding€the€nature,€extent,€and€seriousness€of€theÐ ° Ðvictimððs€injuries€and€that€therefore€the€picture€was€not€necessary€for€the€state€to€prove€thisÐ œì Ðenhancement€factor.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àIn€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€addressed€Defendant€HallððsÐ tÄ Ðcomplaint€that€the€victimððs€photograph€was€introduced€during€the€sentencing€phase€in€order€to€proveÐ `° Ðthat€the€victimððs€death€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€Ð L œ ÐÔ#†XXXX¸÷#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÔ#†XXXX”ú#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔThe€admissibility€of€photographs€is€generally€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ $ t Ðjudge,€and€his€or€her€ruling€on€admissibility€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absentÐ  ` Ðan€abuse€of€that€discretion.€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€TheÐ ü L  Ðadmissibility€of€evidence€at€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€is€€controlled€by€Tenn.€CodeÐ è 8  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€(1991),€which€allows€the€admission€of€any€evidence€ð ðthe€courtÐ Ô$  Ðdeems€relevant€to€the€punishment€.€.€.€regardless€of€its€admissibility€under€the€rulesÐ À  Ðof€evidence,ðð€subject€to€a€defendantððs€opportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsay€statementsÐ ¬ü  Ðand€to€constitutional€limitations.€Ô#†XXXXû#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔИè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àHistorically,€photographs€depicting€a€victimððs€injuries€have€been€held€admissible€toÐ pÀ Ðestablish€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€under€aggravating€circumstance€(i)(5).€òòSee,Ð \¬ Ðe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€924€(Tenn.€1994)€(photographs€depicting€theÐ H˜ Ðvictim's€body,€including€one€of€the€slash€wound€to€the€throat,€which€was€ð ðundeniablyÐ 4„ Ðgruesome,ðð€were€relevant€to€prove€that€the€killing€was€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,Ð  p Ðor€cruelðð€and€were€admissible€for€that€purpose);€òòState€v.€McNishóó,€727€S.W.2d€490,Ð  \ Ð494„95€(Tenn.€1987)€(photographs€of€the€body€of€the€victim€who€was€beaten€to€deathÐ øH Ðwere€relevant€and€admissible€to€show€the€heavy,€repeated€and€vicious€blows€to€theÐ ä4 Ðvictim€and€to€prove€that€the€killing€was€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð).€ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ð ¼  Ðà8  àThe€photographs€in€question€depicted€Mrs.€Hallððs€body€during€the€autopsy,€prior€toÐ ¨ø Ðany€surgical€examination€of€her€internal€organs.€While€certainly€not€pleasant€to€view,Ð ”ä Ðthey€were€illustrative€of€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Smith€and€highly€relevant€to€the€extentÐ €Ð Ðof€abuse€endured€by€Mrs.€Hall€prior€to€her€death.€They€were€not€so€gruesome€as€toÐ l¼ Ðhave€unduly€inflamed€the€members€of€the€jury.€We€find€that€the€photographs€wereÐ X ¨ Ðdirectly€relevant€to€the€existence€of€torture€and€serious€physical€abuse,€necessaryÐ D!” Ðelements€of€the€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€aggravating€circumstance€ofÐ 0"€  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€(1991),€and€were€properly€admitted€intoÐ #l! Ðevidence.€Ô#†XXXXZþ#ÔÔ‡Xj² XXXÔÔ#†¼à » XXj²Lu#ÔÔ‡ô¯ñ ò »¼ÃÔÐ$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ#†¼à » òô¯ñV#ÔÔ‡Xj² X »¼ÃÔÔ#†XX XXj²#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòHallóó,€8€S.W.3d€at€602.€€We€find€this€analysis€applicable€to€the€instant€case,€as€well.€€The€trial€courtÐ ²%!$ Ðruled€that€the€victimððs€post„mortem€photograph€was€admissible€as€relevant€on€the€issue€of€whether€Ð ž&î!% Ðthe€victimððs€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€The€court€found€that€ð ðthe€State€isÐ Š'Ú"& Ðgoing€to€be€hard„pressed€to€prove€that€without€this€photograph.ððÔ#†XXXXú#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€€Ô#†XXXXú#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔIndeed,€while€the€medical€examinerÐ v(Æ#' Ðtestified€regarding€the€cause€of€death,€he€was€unable€to€conclusively€determine€if€the€injury€to€theÐ b)²$( Ðvictimððs€head,€which€is€depicted€in€the€contested€photograph,€was€caused€by€the€gunshot€wound€thatÐ N*ž%) Ðâ âkilled€him€or€by€a€baseball€bat€injury€prior€to€his€death.€€Thus,€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€enableÐ :+Š&* Ðthe€jury€to€make€this€factual€determination.׃\×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Furthermore,€while€the€picture€is€undeniablyÐ ° Ðâ âunpleasant,€as€it€depicts€the€victimððs€face€deformed€by€his€injuries,€we€do€not€find€that€the€pictureÐ œì Ðis€ð ðso€gruesome€as€to€have€unduly€inflamed€the€members€of€the€jury.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€We€therefore€find€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€admitting€the€victimððs€photograph€during€the€sentencingÐ tÄ Ðphase€of€the€trial.€€Thus,€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ð `° ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òTrial€Courtððs€Prohibition€of€Comparative€Sentencing€Argumentsó óóóÐ $ t ÐÌÓ¡ Óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€he€could€not€introduce€evidenceÐ ü L  Ðof€the€sentence€that€his€co„conspirator,€Stacey,€received€and€argues€that€his€sentence€should€beÐ è 8  Ðcomparable€to€Staceyððs€sentence.€€The€defendant€alleges€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€interfered€withÐ Ô$  Ðhis€constitutional€right€to€present€a€defense€and€cites€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€29€S.W.3d€427€(Tenn.€2000),Ð À  Ðin€support€of€this€allegation.€€As€we€discussed€òòsupraóó,€Ô#†XXXX> #ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòBrownóó€instructs€that€when€determining€whetherÐ ¬ü  Ða€defendantððs€right€to€present€a€defense€has€been€violated,€ð ðthe€analysis€should€consider€whether€(1)Ð ˜è  Ðthe€excluded€evidence€is€critical€to€the€defense;€(2)€the€evidence€bears€sufficient€indicia€of€reliability;Ð „Ô  Ðand€(3)€the€interest€supporting€exclusion€of€the€evidence€is€substantially€important.ðð€òòId.óó€at€433„34.Ð pÀ ÐIn€his€arguments€to€this€Court,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€include€the€length€and€terms€of€his€co„Ð \¬ Ðconspiratorððs€sentence€and€how€his€sentence€differed€from€his€co„conspiratorððs€sentence.€€Therefore,Ð H˜ Ðhe€has€not€proven€how€this€excluded€information€was€critical€to€his€defense€and€thus€how€he€wasÐ 4„ Ðprejudiced€by€the€omission.Ô#†XXXXq#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Accordingly,€we€cannot€properly€evaluate€the€defendantððs€claim.€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€Ð  p ÐThis€issue€does€not€entitle€the€defendant€to€relief.Ð  \ ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòAdmission€of€Hearsay€During€Sentencing€Phaseóóó óÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÛÓà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€inÐ ¨ø Ðallowing€the€state€to€introduce€hearsay€statements€made€by€the€victimððs€daughter€through€theÐ ”ä Ðtestimony€of€the€victimððs€wife.€€The€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€theÐ €Ð Ðhearsay€statements€because€of€their€unduly€prejudicial€nature.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ l¼ Ð39„13„204(c)€addresses€the€appropriate€scope€of€admissible€evidence€in€a€sentencing€hearing€for€firstÐ X ¨ Ðdegree€murder€and€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð D!” ÐÔ#†XXXX#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà8  àIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,€evidence€may€be€presented€as€to€any€matter€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€deems€relevant€to€the€punishment€and€may€include,€but€not€be€limited€to,€theÐ #l! Ðnature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime;€the€defendantððs€character,€background€history,Ð $X" Ðand€physical€condition;€any€evidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€the€aggravatingÐ ô$D # Ðcircumstances€enumerated€in€subsection€(i);€and€any€evidence€tending€to€establish€orÐ à%0!$ Ðrebut€any€mitigating€factors.€Any€such€evidence€which€the€court€deems€to€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðprobative€value€on€the€issue€of€punishment€may€be€received€regardless€of€itsÐ ¸'#& Ðadmissibility€under€the€rules€of€evidence;€provided,€that€the€defendant€is€accorded€aÐ ° Ðfair€opportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsay€statements€so€admitted.€However,€thisÐ œì Ðsubsection€(c)€shall€not€be€construed€to€authorize€the€introduction€of€any€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðsecured€in€violation€of€the€constitution€of€the€United€States€or€the€constitution€ofÐ tÄ ÐTennessee.€.€.€.€The€court€shall€permit€a€member€or€members,€or€a€representative€orÐ `° Ðrepresentatives€of€the€victimððs€family€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing€about€theÐ L œ Ðvictim€and€about€the€impact€of€the€murder€on€the€family€of€the€victim€and€otherÐ 8 ˆ Ðrelevant€persons.€Such€evidence€may€be€considered€by€the€jury€in€determining€whichÐ $ t Ðsentence€to€impose.€The€court€shall€permit€members€or€representatives€of€the€victimððsÐ  ` Ðfamily€to€attend€the€trial,€and€those€persons€shall€not€be€excluded€because€the€personÐ ü L  Ðor€persons€shall€testify€during€the€sentencing€proceeding€as€to€the€impact€of€theÐ è 8  Ðoffense.€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€Ô#†XXXX#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ39„13„204(c)Ô#†XXXXâ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÔ#†XXXX0 #ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà  àAs€our€supreme€court€has€noted€many€times,€hearsay€is€admissible€in€first€degree€murderÐ „Ô  Ðsentencing€hearings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô#†XXXX‰ #ÔÔ‡XXXXÔRichard€HaleÔ#†XXXXo!#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Austinóó,€No.€W1999„00281„SC„DDT„DD,€2002Ð pÀ ÐTenn.€LEXIS€400,€at€*11€(Tenn.€at€Jackson,€Sept.€16€2002)€(Southwest€Reporter€citation€not€yetÐ \¬ Ðavailable);€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€28€(Tenn.€1996).€€Moreover,€victim„impact€hearsayÐ H˜ Ðstatements€are€admissible€in€these€sentencing€hearings,€subject€to€the€limitations€that€our€supremeÐ 4„ Ðcourt€has€placed€€on€the€admissibility€of€these€statements.Ð  p ÐÔ#†XXXX½!#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔà8  àVictim€impact€evidence€and€prosecutorial€argument€on€the€evidence€are€not€barredÐ  \ Ðby€the€Tennessee€Constitution€or€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States.€òòSeeóó€[òòState€v.Ð øH Ð]Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€[872,€]889[€(Tenn.€1998)].€However,€not€all€victim€impactÐ ä4 Ðevidence€is€admissible.€Victim€impact€evidence€may€not€be€introduced€if€(1)€it€is€soÐ Ð  Ðunduly€prejudicial€that€it€renders€the€trial€fundamentally€unfair,€or€(2)€its€probativeÐ ¼  Ðvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€impact.€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€891.€Generally,Ð ¨ø Ðvictim€impact€evidence€should€be€limited€to€information€which€provides€ð ða€briefÐ ”ä Ðglimpse€into€the€life€of€the€individual€who€has€been€killed,€the€contemporaneous€andÐ €Ð Ðprospective€circumstances€surrounding€the€individualððs€death,€and€how€thoseÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€financially,€emotionally,€psychologically€or€physically€impacted€uponÐ X ¨ Ðmembers€of€the€victimððs€immediate€family.ðð€òòId.Ô#†XXXXð##ÔÔ‡XXXXÔóóÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ#†XXXXš(#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔòòRichard€HaleÔ#†XXXXÿ(#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Austinóó,€2002€Tenn.€LEXIS€400,€at€*22„*23.€€Ð #l! Ðà  àThe€victimððs€wife,€Joy€Dodson,€testified€that€after€the€victimððs€murder,€her€daughter€pointedÐ $X" Ðout€some€scuff€marks€on€the€wall€that€she€claimed€the€defendant€and€his€co„conspirator€created,€asÐ ô$D # Ðwell€as€a€damaged€desk,€which€she€claimed€was€damaged€during€the€fight.ò ò€ó ó€Ms.€Dodson€also€testifiedÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€her€daughter€told€her€that€the€defendant€drove€her€out€into€the€woods€and€turned€up€the€car€radio;Ð Ð& "% Ðhowever,€she€still€heard€a€loud€ð ðboom.ðð€ò òó óÔ#†XXXXP)#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Ms.€Dodson€further€testified€that€her€daughter€startedÐ ¼' #& Ðhaving€nightmares€and€exhibiting€violent€behavior€after€the€victimððs€murder,€which€caused€her€toÐ ¨(ø#' Ðseek€professional€psychological€treatment€for€her€daughter.ò ò€ó óÔ#†XXXXþ+#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔWe€conclude€that€this€evidence€wasÐ ”)ä$( Ðrelevant€to€the€sentencing€hearing,€as€it€addressed€the€emotional€and€psychological€impact€that€theÐ „*Ô%) Ðvictimððs€death€had€on€his€immediate€family.€€òòSeeóó€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€889Ô#†XXXXF-#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ.€€Furthermore,€we€findÐ p+À&* Ðthat€the€evidence€was€not€unduly€prejudicial€to€the€defendant€because€evidence€that€was€introducedÐ ° Ðat€trial€(1)€that€the€defendant€had€struggled€with€the€victim€at€his€apartment€and€(2)€that€the€defendantÐ œì Ðdrove€the€victimððs€children€into€the€woods€at€the€time€of€and€near€the€site€of€the€victimððs€murder.€Ð ˆØ ÐAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ð tÄ ÐÌÌÔ#†XXXX.#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÓ  Óòòò òPropriety€of€Prosecutorððs€Second€Closing€Argument€During€the€Sentencing€Hearingó óóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓÝ0Óà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€prosecutor€exceeded€the€scope€of€permissible€subjectÐ  ` Ðmatter€in€his€rebuttal€closing€argument€because€he€argued€facts€that€neither€the€prosecutor€norÐ ü L  Ðdefense€counsel€addressed€in€their€initial€closing€argument.€€The€state€counters€by€arguing€that€theÐ è 8  Ðprosecutor€argued€facts€that€were€related€to€a€subject€covered€in€his€initial€closing€argument.€€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àThe€stateððs€rebuttal€closing€argument€may€not€exceed€the€scope€of€the€subject€matter€coveredÐ À  Ðin€the€stateððs€initial€closing€argument€and€the€defendantððs€intervening€closing€argument.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐR.€Crim.€P.€29.1(b).€€Moreover,€a€partyððs€closing€argument€ð ðmust€be€temperate,€predicated€onÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€introduced€during€the€trial,€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried,€and€not€otherwise€improperÐ „Ô  Ðunder€the€facts€or€law.ðð€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€550,€557€(Tenn.€1999)òòóó.€Beyond€theseÐ pÀ Ðlimitations,€the€manner€and€conduct€of€closing€argument€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.Ð \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€Generally,€the€trial€court€may€afford€both€theÐ H˜ Ðstate€and€the€defense€wide€latitude€in€the€scope€of€their€closing€argument.€òòId.óó€€€In€turn,€the€trial€courtÐ 4„ Ðis€afforded€wide€discretion€in€its€determination€of€the€propriety€of€counselððs€closing€argument,€andÐ  p Ðthe€courtððs€decision€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€òòSeeóóÐ  \ ÐòòMiddlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€557;òòóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð øH ÐFor€a€defendant€to€be€granted€a€new€trial€based€on€the€prosecutorððs€improper€comments€duringÐ ä4 Ðclosing,€the€contested€conduct€must€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€òòSeeóóÐ Ð  ÐòòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€Ð ¼  Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case,€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€following€portion€of€the€prosecutorððsÐ ¨ø Ðrebuttal€closing€argument€on€the€basis€that€the€prosecutor€was€exceeding€the€permissible€scope€ofÐ ”ä Ðthis€argument:Ð €Ð Ðà8  àà ` àThe€testimony€from€Mr.€Stacey€was€that€he€met€Mr.€Tidwell€in€the€bathroom.Ð l¼ ÐHe€took€the€bat,€Mr.€Tidwell€had€the€trowel,€and€that€he€more€or€less€ambushed€Mr.Ð X ¨ ÐDodson.€€And€he€tells€you€that€he€hit€him€in€the€chest.ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àWhat€is€significant€about€that,€ladies€and€gentleman,€is€that€the€evidence€inÐ 0"€  Ðthis€case,€the€physical€evidence€in€this€case,€does€not€show€that.€€There€are€no€woundsÐ #l! Ðdescribed€by€Dr.€Harlan€or€in€the€medical€examinerððs€report€that€show€any€bruising,Ð $X" Ðany€breaking€of€bones€in€the€rib€area.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌò òó óIn€his€initial€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€did€not€argue€that€the€defendant€lied€about€hitting€theÐ Ì&"% Ðvictim€in€the€chestò òó ó,€nor€did€defense€counsel€address€this€subject€in€his€closing€argument.€€However,Ð ¸'#& Ðafter€a€bench€conference€following€defense€counselððs€objection,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€prosecutorÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€continue€with€his€rebuttal€closing€argument.Ð )à$( Ðà  àAs€mentioned€òòsupraóó,€the€stateððs€rebuttal€closing€argument€is€limited€to€subject€matter€coveredÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€the€proceeding€closing€arguments.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29.1(b).€€òòóó€Accordingly,€we€find€that€theÐ h+¸&* Ðtrial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€prosecutor€to€argue€facts€that€were€beyond€the€permissible€scope€ofÐ ° Ðhis€closing€argument€and€by€failing€to€issue€a€curative€instruction.€€However,€we€find€that€the€trialÐ œì Ðcourtððs€error€was€harmless€because€the€defendant€has€failed€to€allege€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€thisÐ ˆØ Ðportion€of€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument.€This€court€cannot€grant€the€defendant€his€requestedÐ tÄ Ðrelief€for€this€error€without€a€finding€that€the€contested€conduct€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudiceÐ `° Ðof€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarringtonóó,€385€S.W.2d€at€759.€€Thus,€this€issue€does€not€warrant€relief.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòÔ#†XXXX¾0#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔSentencing€Challengeó óóóÐ  ` ÐÌÓšCÓà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€improperly€sentenced€him€by€ordering€him€toÐ è 8  Ðserve€his€concurrent€sentences€for€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€especially€aggravatedÐ Ô$  Ðkidnapping,€and€theft€over€$10,000€consecutively€to€his€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€sentenceÐ À  Ðfor€his€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€ð ðWhen€reviewing€sentencing€issues€.€.€.€,€the€appellate€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðshall€conduct€a€de€novo€review€on€the€record€of€such€issues.€€Such€review€shall€be€conducted€withÐ ˜è  Ða€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€Ð „Ô  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-401(d).€€ð ðHowever,€the€presumption€of€correctness€which€accompaniesÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€action€is€conditioned€upon€the€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€courtÐ \¬ Ðconsidered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€conducting€our€review,€we€must€consider€the€defendantððsÐ 4„ Ðpotential€for€rehabilitation,€the€trial€and€sentencing€hearing€evidence,€the€pre„sentence€report,€theÐ  p Ðsentencing€principles,€sentencing€alternative€arguments,€the€nature€and€character€of€the€offense,€theÐ  \ Ðenhancing€and€mitigating€factors,€and€the€defendantððs€statements.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÐ øH Ð40-35-103(5),€-210(b);€€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€We€are€to€also€recognize€that€the€defendant€bearsÐ ä4 Ðð ðthe€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€sentence€is€improper.ðð€òòId.óóÐ Ð  Ðà  àÔ#†XXXXÏC#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔA€trial€court€may€impose€consecutive€sentencing€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€criteria€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„115(b)€exists.€This€section€permitsÐ ¨ø Ðthe€trial€court€to€impose€consecutive€sentences€if€the€court€finds,€among€other€criteria,€that€ð ðtheÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whose€behavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,€andÐ €Ð Ðno€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€which€the€risk€to€human€life€is€high.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð l¼ Ððð€40„35„115(b)(4).€€However,€before€sentencing€the€defendant€to€serve€consecutive€sentences€on€theÐ X ¨ Ðbasis€that€he€is€a€dangerous€offender,€the€trial€court€must€find€that€the€resulting€sentence€isÐ D!” Ðreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€crimes,€necessary€to€protect€the€public€against€furtherÐ 0"€  Ðcriminal€conduct,€and€in€accord€with€the€general€sentencing€principles.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Imfeldóó,€70Ð #l! ÐS.W.3d€698,€708„09€(Tenn.€2002);€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938„39€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð $X" Ðà  àÔ#†XXXXiK#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€a€dangerous€offender€and€accordingly€orderedÐ ô$D # Ðhim€to€serve€his€concurrent€sentences€for€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€especiallyÐ à%0!$ Ðaggravated€kidnapping,€and€theft€over€$10,000€consecutively€to€his€sentence€for€first€degree€murder.Ô#†XXXX`P#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ Ì&"% ÐWhen€ordering€the€defendant€to€serve€his€sentences€consecutively,€the€trial€court€specifically€foundÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€Mr.€Tidwell€is€a€dangerous€offender€based€on€the€fact€that€his€crimes€involved€cruelty,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðspecifically€ð ðthe€beating€of€an€individual€in€front€of€his€children€prior€to€taking€him€out€in€the€woodsÐ )à$( Ð[and€then]€taking€the€children€with€him€[when€taking€the€defendant€to€the€woods€to€murder€him].ððÐ |*Ì%) Ðò òÔ#†XXXXçQ#Ôó óÔ‡XXXXÔThe€court€further€found€that€it€believed€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€reasonably€related€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðseverity€of€the€offenses€and€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€appropriate€after€considering€ð ðall€of€theÐ ° Ðcircumstances€that€were€present€at€the€trial.ððò òÔ#†XXXX&T#Ôó óÔ‡XXXXÔ€We€note€that€Ô#†XXXX”U#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔthe€circumstances€surrounding€a€criminalÐ œì Ðepisode€are€proper€considerations€for€determining€whether€to€sentence€a€defendant€to€serve€hisÐ ˆØ Ðconvictions€stemming€from€that€episode€consecutively.€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòImfeldóó,€70€S.W.3d€at€708„09.€Ô#†XXXXäU#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€€WeÐ tÄ Ðfind€that€the€trial€court€sufficiently€analyzed€Ô#†XXXX@W#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔthe€requisite€criteria€for€classifying€the€defendant€as€aÐ `° Ðdangerous€offender€eligible€for€consecutive€sentencing.€€Thus,€the€defendant€was€properly€sentenced,Ð L œ Ðand€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓConclusionóóó óÐ  ` ÐÌÓèXÓà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€one€of€the€defendantððs€issue€merits€a€new€trial€andÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€remainder€of€the€issues€raised€in€this€appeal€either€have€been€waived€or€lack€merit.€Ð Ô$  ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€lower€court€is€REVERSED€AND€REMANDED€for€furtherÐ À  Ðproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ô#†XXXXËW#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÔ#†XXXXÎZ#ÔÔ#†¼ZM»XX¸#ÔÔ€XX»¼ZMÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE