WPC H}AedSU,CĖn y '2T`vdMOfFA9bIAT4R;jClks`[$^,,.c#~xB;|ETTЛ@J}*èd K,BǴT.3\MًҔM(Wj7ir6eIիXvst7`)j"ԤW/+veNE=4Lwٴ۵+fn Pm250ʄ9쏬=m "]\\=KEW+*Jb9Dx}Zw~|{ Y‘9Q"xTl8̢wV~d<1i[mʬ$9e 9, Z5mai>[EVOE8lX&s8NJeo/QaBC2R 0BpI*# LUNW % 0(LU:w@Y4 0U: ] 0D    '1 U:X       B AQ% v 0D< 0D 0D D/ B7 D3THP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,  AZ"Arial Regular DDePPUDӀ:M+%3|x(v(2$ !  X X#XXX ܊X X# `   0  ,cAZ"Arial RegularHisfied&doucmentdocument(embarassembarrassimbed embed$equipedequipped(eroneouserroneous,exagerateexaggerate*existanceexistence(fasinatefascinate$Febu   >$X X?XXX  X X? `   1    Oneofthesewitnesses,EllisThornhill,dideventuallytestifyatthemotionfornewtrial,buthis  testimonydidnotestablishanyprejudicetothedefendantresultingfromhisfailuretotestifyattrial.(#$  0             ""  X#XXXLgXX#   Ad FILEDX#XLg   October2,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.܊XX#AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular                d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !  ݛX#XXX  7FfXXdXXd7  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T?cOa?cOa?c Oa Oa Oar )<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ rߛINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ATKNOXVILLEMARCH1998SESSION  STATEOFTENNESSEE,   t   )C.C.A.03C019707CR00325  0    l      t   )HAMILTONCOUNTY   l      t   )   l Appellee,   t   )Hon.StephenM.Bevil,Judge      l      t   )vs.   l      t   )(FIRSTDEGREEMURDER) ^     l      t   )No.203997STEVENTOLBERT,   t   ) *z     l      t   )   l Appellant.   t   ) F FORTHEAPPELLANT:   t   FORTHEAPPELLEE:  A.CHRISTIANLANIER,III t   JOHNKNOXWALKUP Z 615LindsayStreet,Suite150 t   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter @ Chattanooga,TN37402   l      l      t   ELLENH.POLLACK   l      t   AssistantAttorneyGeneral   l      t   425FifthAvenueNorth   l      t   Nashville,TN372430493   l      t   WILLIAMH.COX,III   l      t   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   l      t   THOMASJ.EVANS   l      t   AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral   l      t   600MarketStreetCourtsBldg.   l      t   Chattanooga,TN37402OPINIONFILED:_______________AFFIRMEDCORNELIAA.CLARKSpecialJudge  OPINION :5<  ~;6=S      l Thedefendantwasindictedforfirstdegreepremeditatedmurder  andwasconvictedofthatoffensebyajury.Hewassubsequentlysentencedtolifeimprisonment.Henowappealsasofrightfromhisconvictionandraisesthefollowingissuesforreview:  (1)sufficiencyoftheevidence;  0  (2)exclusionofcertaintestimonyconcerningthevictim'sallegedpropensityforviolence;  (# (#   (3)admissionoftheE911audiotape;  (4)allowingtheStatetoquestionhimregardinghispriorincarceration;  (5)useofimproperjuryinstructions;  (6)failuretosequesterthejury;  (7)ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel;and  (8)exclusionofevidencethatthevictimhadusedmarijuana.Uponourreviewoftherecord,weaffirmtheconviction.  FACTS       l DefendantStevenTolbertawokeaboutnoononSeptember7,1994.Hetelephonedhisfriend,MichaelSmith,tocomeovertohishouseandgowithhimtohaverepairworkdoneontheradioinhisMaximaautomobile.WhendefendantandSmitharrivedatPenguinsRepairShopinCleveland,Tennessee,Smithlookedatseveralradioswhilethedefendantwenttothedepartmentwherespeakerswereinstalled.AtthattimethedefendantremovedhisCDcasefromthecartoensurethatnonewouldbestolenwhiletherepairworkwasbeingdone.WhilereachingfortheCDcasehenoticedthathisguncasewasinthebackseatoftheautomobile.Becausehewasconcernedthatworkerswouldbegoingthroughhiscarandmightfindthegunandhavehimarrestedforpossessionofaweapon,hetookthegunwithhim.   l DefendantlefthisMaximaautomobileattherepairshop.HeandSmithleftindefendantsothercar,aFordProbe.Smithwasdriving.Becausethedefendantneededtogetadditionalmoneybecausethesoundsystemhe 95; hadselectedcostmorethanhehadanticipated,thetwomendecidedtodrivetoChattanoogatoseeoneofdefendantsgirlfriendsandaskforfundstopayforthesoundsystem.Accordingtothedefendant,hehadcheckedinsidetheguncasewhileridingtoChattanoogaanddeterminedthattheclipwasmissing.Asinthepast,hehadallowedhisroommate,JeffPierce,totaketheguntoagunrangeearlierthatmorning.HeassumedthatPiercehadputtheclipelsewhere.   l DefendantandSmithreachedChattanooga,visitedthegirlfriendandgotthenecessaryfunds.ThetwomenthenheadedbacktowardCleveland.Atabout2:00p.m.theycametoastopatatrafficlight.Atthesametimethevictim,ToddHughes,wasdrivinganotherautomobileaccompaniedbyhisbrother,||||Torey||||.TheHughescarwasgoingintheoppositedirection.Defendant,whoknewtheHughesbrothers,reachedover,blewthehornofhiscar,motionedtoHughes,andyelledtohim.Atthattimethedefendant'scarturnedaroundandfollowedtheHughescarintotheparkinglotatFranksMarket.Defendanttestifiedthatthevictimhadmotionedforhimtofollowhiscar.||||Torey||||Hughestestifiedthat,oncethedefendant'scarwasbehindthem,Toddhad pointedlikewe'regoingtogotoFrank'sGroceryStore.DefendantfurthertestifiedthathehadthoughtHughesmighthavesomemoneytorepayadebtthatheowedtodefendant.Theexchangethathappenednextwasstronglycontestedattrial.   l Accordingto||||Torey||||Hughes,thevictimsbrother,thedefendantscarhadimmediatelyblockedtheHughescarintheparkinglot.Toddgotoutandwalkedtowardthedefendantscarinanonthreateningmanner.||||Torey||||testifiedthatToddhadbeenwearingtrousers,butnotashirt,andthatitwas 0948 clearthathedidnothaveaweapon.ToreyfurthertestifiedthatthedefendanthadgottenoutofhiscarandimmediatelysaidtoTodd Whereismymoneyat?Themenbegantoargue.Toddsaid Idonthaveyourmoney.Whatyougonnado,whipmyass?Toddthensaid Imthroughwithitandthedefendantresponded Iwasgoingtogetyou.Toddturnedandstartedtowalktowardthestore.Defendantopenedhiscardoor,reachedinandtookoutagunthatwasonthefrontfloorboard.AccordingtoTorey,thegunhadnotbeeninacase,butwas readytogoandtherewasaclipinit.Toreythencalledouttohisbrother, He'sgotagun.Toddturnedtofacethedefendant,atwhichpointthedefendantshothimonceinthechest.AccordingtoDr.CharlesHarlan,whohadperformedtheautopsyonthevictim,thebarrelofthegunhadbeennomorethantwofeetawayfromTodd.Thewoundultimatelykilledthevictim.   l ReginaldDuaneKitchenstestifiedthathehadbeenatatirealignmentstorenearFrank'sMarketwhenhesawandheardthevictimandthedefendantarguing.Hetestifiedthatthevictimhadtoldthedefendant hecouldn'twhiphimandthatthevictimhadthenturnedtowalkaway.Thedefendanthadthensaid, Iwasgoingtogetyou,and,accordingtoKitchens, reachedinthecarandgotthegunandaimedituplikethisandshothim.Kitchenssaidthatthegun||||hadhad|||| alongclipinthebottomofit.   l ThedefendanttestifiedthatwhenhehadpulledintoFranksMarketbehindHughes,hetoldSmiththathewantedto chitchat withHughes.Hegotoutofhiscar,shuthisdoorandwenttogreetHughesasusual.DefendanttestifiedthatHugheshadnotcomeuptohiminanormalmanner,sohebackedupandleanedagainsthiscar.DefendanttestifiedthathehadthoughtthathehadcaughtHughesonabaddayandthathemighthaveachiponhisshoulder.WhenHughesdidnotactpleasanttohim,defendant 0948 said Whatsup,man?Whatyouupto?Hughesresponded Shit.Defendantthensaid CanIgetalittlechangeonthatmoneyyouoweme?Thevictimreplied No,I||||aint||||givingyounothing.IdonemoreforyouthanyourfamilyandIamtiredofyou,youaskingaboutthatmoney,andfurthermoreifyouwantyourmoney,takeit.Defendanttestifiedthathehadresponded, Man,damn,man,whyyoucomingoffonmelikethat?Whyyoutalkingtomelikethat?Youknowweneverhadafussbeforeaboutnothing.WedidnthaveafusswhenIloanedyouthemoney,sowhyiswehavingafussandfightrightnowformetoreceivesomeofmymoneyback?Defendanttestifiedthatthevictimhadthensaid YouheardwhatIsaid.AndIgotsomethingforyouthatwillstopyoufromaskingmeforthatmoney.BythattimethevictimsbrotherToreyHugheshadexitedtheircarandMikeSmithhadgottenoutofdefendantscar.Thefourmenfacedeachother.Thevictimthensaid Waitaminuteandturnedaroundtogotohiscar.DefendanttestifiedthathehadthoughtToddHugheswasgoingforhisgun,whichdefendantknewtobea||||Glock||||9millimeter.DefendantalsoknewthattheHughesfamilyownedapawnshopwhichcarriedvariousweaponsandammunition.Defendantclaimedtobeawareofanumberofincidentsinwhichthevictimhadusedaguntowardothersinadisputeandtestifiedthatthevictimhadonceinvitedhimtoassistwithadrivebyrevengeshooting.Becauseofhisfearofwhatthevictimmightdoasheheadedforhisowncar,defendanttestified,hehadreachedintohiscar,openedtheguncase,tookholdofhis9mm.gun,placedhisfingeronthetriggerand turnedaroundsoquicklyinajerkingmotionandthegunwentoff.His jerkingmotioncausedtheguntogooffbecausetheϢ||||Tec||||9hadan easytrigger.Hetestifiedthathehad neverintendedtoshoot[Hughes]andthatwhenthegunwentoff,he wasinshock.Hefurthertestifiedthatthecliphadnotbeeninthegunandthathehadnotknownwhetheritwas(otherwise)loaded. 0948    l AftertheshootingdefendantandSmithleftimmediatelyandheadedbacktoCleveland.AccordingtoSmith,defendantwasnervous,upsetandfrightenedaboutwhathadhappened.WhentheyarrivedbackinClevelandthedefendantthrewthegunintoapond,fromwhichitwasneverrecovered.SmiththentookdefendanttoPenguins.TheyhuggedeachotherandSmithtestifiedthathehadthenlefttoturnhimselfinattheBradleyCountyjusticesystem.However,hehadawreckonthewaytothejusticecenter.Whenpolicearrivedtoinvestigatethewreckhetoldthemthattherewassomethingheneededtosay,andwentontoexplainwhathadhappened.DefendantpickeduphiscaratPenguins,wenttoLorraineThompsonshome,andspentthenight.Duringtheeveninghetelephonedseveralpeople,tryingtoexplaintothemwhathadhappened.Hetoldone,||||Velisa||||Looney,thathehadnotmeanttoshootToddHughes.Ms.LooneyusedhercallerIDtoprovideinformationtotheauthoritiesaboutdefendantswhereabouts.Hewasapprehendedbythe||||S.W.A.T.||||teamthenextday.Hedidnotresistarrest.   l Otherwitnessestestifiedthatthedefendanthadcalledthemaftertheshooting.AccordingtoMiranda||||Phelps||||,thevictims||||fianc||||,hehadtoldher Ihadto[doit],Ihadtotakecareofit.Twoweeksbeforetheshooting,thedefendanthadtoldseveralpeoplehewasgoingtokillthevictim.ToreyHughestestifiedthatthevictimhadevenacknowledgedasheturnedintoFranksGrocerythatheknewthedefendantwasgoingtokillhimbecauseofthemoneyowed.Thedefendantdeniedtheseallegations.     @  @  @  @  @      l Dr.FrankKing,coroner,testifiedthatatoxicologyexaminationhadbeenperformedonthevictim.Hisbloodalcoholtestandblooddrugscreenwerenegative.However,hisurinedrugscreenwaspositiveformarijuana.Dr.Kingcharacterizedtheamountofmarijuanaasa generousrecreationallevelandtestifiedthattheeffectsuponapersonwouldinclude 0948  somesedation,someeuphoriaorhappiness.Othereffectsmightincludedistortionoftime,place,hearing,orimpairmentofjudgmentandconfusion.Healsostatedthatthelevelofmarijuanacouldmakeanangrypersonangrier.  SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE<   l Defendantfirstcontendsthattheevidencewasinsufficientto `  supporthisconviction.Heassertsinparticularthattheevidenceofpremeditationanddeliberationwasinsufficient.   l Onappeal,ofcourse,theStateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferenceswhichmightbedrawntherefrom.Statev.Cabbage,571||S.W.2d||832,835(Tenn.1978). P Whenanaccusedchallengesthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,thestandardiswhether,afterreviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443   U.S.307,319,99||||S.Ct||||.2781,61||||L.Ed||||.||||2d||||560(1979).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventheevidence,aswellasallfactualissuesraisedbytheevidence,areresolvedbythetrieroffact,notthisCourt.Statev.||Pappas||,754||S.W.2d||620,623(Tenn.||Crim||.||App||. P(#& 1987).NormaythisCourtreweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev. 0*%( Cabbage,571||S.W.2d||832,835(Tenn.1978). ,`'*      l Atthetimethisoffensewascommitted,firstdegreemurderwasdefinedas [||||a]n||||intentional,premeditatedanddeliberatekillingofanother.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(1)(||||Supp||||.1994)(repealedJuly1,1995).Premeditationrequiredapreviouslyformeddesignorintenttokill.Statev. p504 West,844||S.W.2d||144,147(Tenn.1992).Deliberationwasdefinedatthe P726 timeascoolpurpose,whenakillingisotherthanonemadeinamomentary 0948 stateofpassion.Id.Someperiodofreflection, duringwhichthemindisfree  fromtheinfluenceofexcitement'isrequiredfordeliberation.Statev.Brown,  836||S.W.2d530,540(Tenn.1992)(quotingClarkev.State,402S.W.2d863, p 868(Tenn.1966)).Boththeelementsofpremeditationanddeliberationarejuryquestionswhichmaybeinferredfromthecircumstancessurroundingthekilling.Statev.Gentry,881}}S.W.~~2d1,3(Tenn.Crim.App.1993). `     l Inourview,theStatesevidence,accreditedbythejury,||}}issufficienttosupportthedefendant'sconvictionforanintentional,premeditatedanddeliberatekillingofanother.Thereisampleevidencefromwhichthejurycouldfindthat,twoweeksbeforetheactualshooting,thedefendanthadtoldotherpersonsheplannedtokillthevictim.OnthedayoftheshootinghefollowedthevictiminacartotheparkinglotofFranksMarket.Hiscarblockedthevictimscar.Hewaiteduntilthevictim,whoclearlywasnotcarryingaweapon,gotoutofthecar,andbegananargumentabouttheborrowedmoney.Then,asthevictimdisengagedfromtheconversationandstartedtowalktowardthestore,thedefendantreturnedtohisowncar,reachedin,gotagunwithaclipalreadyinit,andshotthevictiminthechestatcloserange.Helatertoldthedefendantsfiancthat Ihadto[doit],Ihadtotakecareofit.Byaccreditingthatevidence,arationaljurycouldhavefoundthedefendantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt.Statev.JohnC.Garrison,BledsoeCounty, 0*%( No.03C019702CC00047(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,February27,1998)).Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  EVIDENTIARYRULINGSO   l Defendantnextcomplainsaboutseveralevidentiaryrulingsmade 3.2 bythetrialcourt.Wewilladdressthoseissuestogether.First,defendantclaimsthetrialcourterredinexcludingthetestimonyoftwowitnessesregardingthedeceasedspriorpossession,saleof,and/orpropensitytocarry 0948 guns.DefendantstheoryattrialwasselfdefenseandhesoughttoofferthetestimonyofDemetriasFreemanaboutanincidentafewmonthspriortothemurder,inwhichthedeceasedsbrother,ToreyHughes,wasobservedtohave p agunwhichhadslidoutfromunderthefrontpassengerseatofhisautomobile.FreemansawToreyHughesmovethegunbackupundertheseat.ThedefendantalsoattemptedtoofferErnestThomastocorroborate(1)defendantsreputationforviolence,and(2)thefactthatthevictimhadengagedinsellingguns.ThetrialcourtpermittedThomasstestimonyontheissueofdefendantsreputationforviolencebutotherwiseexcludedthetestimonyofbothindividuals,findingthattheproofwasnotrelevantontheissueofwhetherthevictimwasthefirstaggressorasunderstoodinthedefenseofselfdefense.   l Incasesinvolvingaselfdefenseissue,Tennesseelawdoespermittheintroductionofevidenceofavictimsviolentconducttowardthirdpersons,evenifthedefendantisunawareofthatconduct,undercertaincircumstances.SeeStatev.Ruane,912S.W.2d766,77982(Tenn.Crim. "  App.1995).Theadmissibilityofsuchevidencedependsuponthepurposeforwhichitisintroduced.Thetreatmentofproofofferedassubstantiveevidenceisdifferentfromthatofproofofferedforcorroborativepurposesonly.     l ThetreatmentofproofofavictimsviolentcharacterofferedassubstantiveevidenceisgovernedgenerallybyTennesseeRulesofEvidence404(a)(2)and405.Undertheserules,evidenceofthevictimsviolentcharacterisadmissiblebutislimitedtoopiniontestimonyortestimonyaboutthevictimsreputationinthecommunity.SeealsoStatev.Barnes,675 3.2 ТS.W.2d195,197(Tenn.Crim.App.1984).Theprinciplesgoverningtheadmissibilityofspecificviolentactsofanindividualagainstthirdpersonsaresomewhatmorestringent.Ifthedefendantwasawareofthevictimsconduct 0948 ?c   againstotherindividualsatthetimeoftheoffense,suchproofisadmissibleassubstantiveevidenceofthedefendantsstateofmind.SeeRuane,912  S.W.2dat779(citingStatev.Hill,885S.W.2d357,361(Tenn.Crim.App. p 1994)).Becausesuchevidenceisofferedtoestablishthedefendantsstateofmindwithrespecttothevictim,thedefendantsknowledgeofthespecificviolentactsofthevictimagainstothersisrequired.SeeWilliamsv.State,565 `  S.W.2d503,506(Tenn.1978).If,ontheotherhand,thedefendantwasunawareofthevictimsviolentconducttowardothers,theevidenceobviouslyhasnobearingonthedefendantsstateofmindandisnotadmissibleassubstantiveproofonthatissue.SeeStatev.West,825S.W.2d695,697  (Tenn.Crim.App.1992).Suchevidenceisadmissible,however,forthelimitedpurposeofcorroboratingaselfdefenseclaimthatthevictimwasthefirstaggressor.Ruane,912S.W.2dat781.Becausetheevidenceis 0 corroborativeinnatureratherthansubstantive,itisnotgovernedbyTennesseeRulesofEvidence404(a)(2)or405.Statev.JohnD.Joslin,Knox @ County,No.03C019510CR00299(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,September18,1997);NeilP.Cohenetal.,TennesseeLawofEvidence404.4(Supp. "  1996).Thus,individualsotherthanthedefendantmaytestifyaboutthreateningorviolentconductofthevictim,eventhoughthedefendanthadnoknowledgeofthatconductatthetimeoftheoffense,aslongasthetestimonyisofferedonlytocorroboratethedefendantsselfdefenseclaimthatthevictimwasthefirstaggressor.Id.ButseeStatev.Hill,885S.W.2d357,36263 ,`'* (Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(suggestingthatsuchevidenceisonlyadmissibleoncrossexamination).   l Intheinstantcasethedefendantattemptedtointroducetestimonythatthevictimsbrothercarriedagun.Thisproofisnotrelevanttoanydeterminationofthepossibilitythatthevictimwasthefirstaggressor.Similarly,thefactthatthevictimmayhavesoldgunsinthepastisnotdirectlyrelevantontheprobabilityofhisuseofadeadlyweapon.Thetestimonyof ;`6: Oa   FreemanandThomaswasproperlyexcluded.   l Further,byfailingtogivethecourtanexplanationandargumentforadmissibilityofthetestimonyunderthe firstaggressorrationale,thedefendantdidnottakeactionreasonablyavailabletopreventtheexclusionoftheevidenceandthus,haswaivedthisissue.T.R.A.P.36;Statev.BlaineM. `  Wright,No.03C019410CR00388,CumberlandCounty(Tenn.Crim.App. @  filedDec.11,1995,atKnoxville).Notwithstandingtheproceduralwaiver,eveniftheevidencewasadmissibleasevidenceoffirstaggression,itsexclusioninthiscasewasharmlesserror.Severalwitnessestestifiedthatthevictimwasclearlyunarmed,thatitwasthedefendantwhobegantheverbalaltercation,andthatitwasthedefendantwhowentandgothisgunandshotthevictimatcloserangeafterthevictimhadsoughttodisengagefromtheencounter.Thejury,initscapacityastrieroffact,resolvedthefactualissuesinfavoroftheState.   l Next,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinpermittingthestatetoplaythe911tapebeforethejury.Thedefendantappearstoarguethatthetapewasprejudicial,thatthecallerswerenotproperlyidentifiedasrequiredunderTennesseeRuleofEvidence901(b)(5),andthatthecallsshouldnotbeconsidered excitedutterancesadmissibleunderTennesseeRuleofEvidence803(2)becausethecallerswerenotthevictim.However,thisCourtisprecludedfromconsideringdefendantsallegationsoftheprejudicialimpactofthetapebecauseneitherthetapenoratranscriptionofthetaperecordinghasbeenincludedintherecord.SeeState 1-0 v.JuliusE.Parker,ShelbyCounty,No.02C019606CR000188(Tenn.Crim. 3.2 App.filedApril23,1997,atJackson).Itistheresponsibilityofthecomplainingpartytoprepareafullandadequaterecord.T.R.A.P.24(b). 0948 Oa      l Additionally,theevidenceofdefendantsguiltisoverwhelminginthiscase.Therefore,anyerrorthatmightattachtotheadmissionofthetapeisatmostharmless.   l Defendantnextcomplainsofthetrialcourtsadmissionofevidenceconcerninghispreviousincarceration.ItwaspartoftheStatestheoryinthiscasethatthedefendantsmotiveformurderingthevictimrelatedtotheloanthathehadpreviouslymadetoHughes.Aftermakingtheloanthedefendantwasarrestedandneededhismoneybacktomakebond.Becausethevictimdidnotimmediatelyrepaytheloanedmoney,thedefendantwasrequiredtoremaininjaillongerthanheotherwisewouldhave.TheStatestheorywasthatthisangeredhimandresultedinhisdeterminationtokillthevictim.   l ThetrialcourtinitiallysustaineddefendantsmotioninlimineandprohibitedtheStateduringitscaseinchieffromelicitingormentioningthefactthatthedefendanthadbeenincarceratedandneededmoneyforbond,orthefactthatsincethevictimhadnotrepaidmoneyowedtothedefendant,hehadhadtoremaininjaillongerthanhewouldhaveotherwise.However,duringthecourseofhisdirecttestimonythedefendanthadreferredonlytothedebtasthesourceofhisargumentwiththevictim.Followingthistestimony,theStatearguedthatthisversionofeventsdifferedsignificantlyfromthedefendant'sstatementtothepoliceabouttheextratimeinjailhehadspentbecausethevictimhadnotpaidthemoneytogethimout.TheStatearguedthatitshouldbeallowedtocrossexaminethedefendantonthisissuebecauseitwenttohismotiveforthemurder.Thereafter,thetrialjudgeallowedtheStatetocrossexaminedefendantonthesubject.Thetrialcourtcontemporaneouslyinstructedthejuryasfollows:  8 l Membersofthejury,theCourthasallowedthistestimonythatyouvejustheardforthesoleorforthepurposeof  :p59 possiblemotiveinthiscaseorintentofthedefendantatthetimeoftheshooting.Youarenottospeculateastowhyhewasinjailatthattime.Thatistohavenobearingonyourdecision.Youaretoonlyconsiderthistestimonyasto  whetherornotitdidcreateamotiveorwhetheror p notitaffectedtheintentofthedefendantatthetimeoftheshooting,andwhetheritdidordidnotisuptoyoutomakethatdetermination. l l  Afterfurtherdiscussionwithcounselduringabenchconference,thecourtaddedanadditionalcontemporaneousinstruction:  8 l Membersofthejury,forsomeclarificationpurposes,theCourtisnotsuggestingtothejurythatthistestimonythatyouhearddoesestablishamotive.TheCourtisallowingthistestimonyinforyoutomakethatdeterminationastowhetheritdoesordoesnoteffectamotive[sic]butthatstheonlyreasonthatthistestimonyisallowed,foryoutomakethatdetermination.Youmayfindthatitdoesnot.Youmayfindthatitdidntaffectthedefendantsintentormotiveonewayortheotheroryoumayfindthatitdoes,butthatsstrictlyuptoyoutomakethatdetermination. l l     l Evidencemaybeproperlyadmittedforalimitedpurposeuponanappropriateinstructionfromthecourt.SeeTenn.R.Evid.105.And,while P evidenceofpriorcrimes,wrongsoractsmaynotbeadmittedtoprovecharacteroractsinconformitytherewith,itmaybeadmissibletoproveintentormotive.SeeTenn.R.Evid.404(b)andAdvisoryCommissionComment.In #! thiscase,thetrialcourtheldtherequisitehearingoutsidethejury'spresenceanddeterminedthattheevidencehadbecome probativeandrelevantwithrespectto possiblemotiveorintent.Itthengavethejurytwolimitinginstructionsontheuseoftheevidence,andwemustpresumethatthejuryfollowedtheseinstructions.Statev.Blackmon,701S.W.2d228,233(Tenn. -P(+ Crim.App.1985).Thetrialcourtdidnoterrinthisregardandthisissueiswithoutmerit.   l     JURYINSTRUCTIONS 4/3    l Defendantraisesseveralissuesconcerningthejudgeschargeto `615 thejury.Hisfirstissueconcernsthejudgeschargeonseconddegreemurder.  :p59 Thetrialcourtchargedthejurythat:8  0  ̛   l Foryoutofindthedefendantguiltyofmurderinthe   l seconddegree,theStatemusthaveprovenbeyonda !      l reasonabledoubttheexistenceofthefollowingelements: !  p    l Numberone,thatthedefendantunlawfullykilledthe   l allegedvictim;andnumbertwo,thatthekillingwas   l knowing.   l    l Laterinthecharge,thetrialcourtdefined intentionaland knowingasfollows:  8 l Intentional:Apersonactsintentionallyorwithintentwhenthatpersonactswithaconsciousobjectiveeither,one,tocauseaparticularresult;ortwo,toengageinparticularconduct. l l    8 l Knowing:Apersonactsknowinglyorwithknowledgeifthatpersonactswithanawarenesseither,one,thathisorherconductisofaparticularnature;ortwo,thataparticularcircumstanceexists. l l    Thenthecourtstatedthat:  8 l Apersonactsknowinglywithrespecttoaresultofapersonsconductwhenthepersonisawarethattheconductisreasonablycertaintocausetheresult. l l     l   8 l Intentionalisnotanelementofmurderintheseconddegree,butifyoufindthatthedefendantactedintentionally,thatwillsatisfytherequiredelementofknowing. l l  Itisthislatterportionoftheinstructiontowhichdefendantobjects,arguingthat ajurycouldbackstepfromaSecondDegreeconvictiontoaFirstDegreeConvictionbyconcludingthatmerelyknowing'thatdeathislikelytoresultis P(#& enoughtofindtheintent'requiredforaFirstDegreeconviction.Weare 0*%( unpersuaded.Thecourt'sinstructionstothejuryproperlypermittedthejurytofind knowingconductuponproofof intentionalconduct.SeeT.C.A.3911 -@), 301(a)(2).Thecourt'sinstructionsdidnotpermitthejurytofindtheopposite. / +. Rather,thecourt'sinstructionforpremeditatedmurderrequiredtheStateto haveprovenbeyondareasonabledoubttheexistenceofthefollowingessentialelements:numberone,thatthedefendantunlawfullykilledtheallegedvictim;andnumbertwo,thatthekillingwasintentional;andnumber P726 three,thatthekillingwasdeliberate;andnumberfour,thatthekillingwas 0948 Їpremeditated(emphasisadded).Theinstructiondidnotpermitthejurytodoasthedefendantclaims.Assetforthearlierinthisopinion,ajuryispresumedtofollowitsinstructions.Blackmon,701S.W.2dat233.Moreover,the p defendantcitesnoauthorityforhisposition.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   l Defendantnextcontendsthatthetrialcourt'sinstructionsonpresumptionofguiltwereerroneous.Onthisissuethecourtinstructedthejurythat:  8 l Apersonaccusedofacrimeispresumedtobeinnocent.Thismeansthatyoumuststartwiththepresumptionthatthedefendantisinnocent.Thispresumptioncontinuesthroughoutthetrialandentitlesthedefendanttoaverdictofnotguiltyunlessyouaresatisfiedbeyondareasonabledoubtthatheisguilty. l l    8 l Thedefendantisnotrequiredtoprovehisinnocenceortodoanything.Everycrimeismadeupofpartscalledelements.TheStatemustproveeachelementofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.IfyoufindthattheStatehasnotproveneveryelementbeyondareasonabledoubt,thenyoumustfindthedefendantnotguilty. l l    8 l Areasonabledoubtisadoubtbaseduponreasonandcommonsenseaftercarefulandimpartialconsiderationofalltheevidenceinthecase.Itisnotnecessarythatthedefendantsguiltbeprovedbeyondallpossibledoubt,asabsolutecertaintyofguiltisnotdemandedbythelaw @ toconvictofanycriminalcharge.Areasonabledoubtisjustthatadoubtthatisreasonable,afteranexaminationofallthefactsofthecaseandaninabilitytoallowthemindtoresteasilyonthecertaintyofguilt. l l  TheseinstructionsaresubstantiallyinaccordancewiththeTennesseePatternJuryInstructions.Theyadequatelyaddresstheissueofreasonabledoubtandpresumptionofinnocence.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   l Defendantnextcontendsthatthecourterredinchargingthejurythatevidenceofflightandofdestructionofevidencemayjustifyaninferenceofguilt.Thetrialcourtspecificallyinstructedthejurythat:  8 l Flight.Theflightofapersonaccusedofacrimeisacircumstancewhich,whenconsideredtogetherwithallthefactsofthecase,mayjustifyaninferenceofguilt.Flightisthevoluntarywithdrawalofonesselfforthepurposeof  :p59 evadingarrestorprosecutionforthecrimecharged.Whethertheevidencepresentedprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantfledisaquestionforyourdetermination. l l    8 l Thelawmakesnoniceorrefineddistinctionastothematterormethodofaflight;itmaybeopen,oritmaybeahurriedorconcealeddeparture,oritmaybeaconcealmentwithinthejurisdiction.However,ittakesbothaleavingthesceneofthedifficultyandasubsequenthidingout,evasionorconcealmentinthecommunity,oraleavingofthecommunityforpartsunknown,toconstituteflight. l l    8 l Ifflightisproved,thefactofflightalonedoesnotallowyoutofindthatthedefendantisguiltyofthecrimealleged.However,sinceflightbya  defendantmaybecausedbya  consciousnessofguilt,youmayconsiderthefactofflight,ifflightissoproventogetherwillalltheotherevidencewhenyoudecidetheguiltorinnocenceofthedefendant.Ontheotherhand,anentirelyinnocentpersonmaytakeflightandsuchflightmaybeexplainedbyproofoffered,orthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase. l l    8 l Whethertherewasflightbythedefendant,thereasonsforit,andtheweighttobegiventoit,arequestionsforyoutodetermine....Thejuryisfurtherinstructedthatanyattempttosuppress,destroyorconcealevidencebyapersonchargedwithacrimeisacircumstancefromwhichguiltofanaccusedsoactingmaybeinferred. l l    8 l Inference.TheCourthaschargedthejuryconcerninganinferencethatthejurymaymakeinregardtocertainevidenceinthiscase.However,thejuryisnotrequiredtomakethisinference.Itistheexclusiveprovinceofthejurytodeterminewhetherthefactsandcircumstancesshownbyalltheevidenceinthecasewarranttheinferencewhichthelawpermitsthejurytodraw.Theinferencemayberebuttedbydirectorcircumstantialevidenceorboth,whetheritexistsintheevidenceoftheStateorisofferedbythedefendant. l l    8 l Althoughthedefendantisnotrequiredbylawtodoso,whenthedefendantoffersanexplanationtorebuttheinferenceraised,youshouldconsidersuchexplanationalongwithalltheevidencetodeterminenotonlythecorrectnessoftheinference,butalsothereasonablenessofthedefendantsexplanation.Youarenotboundtoaccepteithertheinferenceorthedefendantsexplanation.TheStatemustprovebeyondareasonabledoubteveryelementoftheoffensebeforethedefendantcanbefoundguilty. l l  Thisinstruction,takenasawhole,properlychargesthejurythatflightandthedestructionofevidencemayberelevanttoguilt.SeeStatev.Kendricks,947 @837 S.W.2d875,88586(Tenn.Crim.App.1996)(flightinstructionproperwhere  :p59 ?c  ?c  ?c  defendantfledsceneandthrewgunoutofcarwindow)andStatev.West,844  S.W.2d144,15051(Tenn.1992)(instructiononconcealmentofevidenceproperasrelevanttoguilt)(citingCaglev.State,507S.W.2d121,129(Tenn. p Crim.App.1973)).Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   l DefendantnextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinchargingthejurythattheStatemustprovevenueinacriminalcaseonlybyapreponderanceoftheevidenceratherthanbeyondareasonabledoubt.Anaccusedhasaconstitutionalrighttobetriedinthecountywheretheoffenseisallegedtohavebeencommitted.Tenn.Const.Art.I.9.Consequently,theStatehastheburdenofprovingthattheoffensesallegedintheindictmentwerecommittedinthecountywheretheaccusedisbeingtried.However,sincevenueisjurisdictionalasopposedtoanelementoftheoffense,Statev. 0 Bloodsaw,746S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.Crim.App.1987),thestandardof ` proofisbypreponderanceoftheevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911201(e);Harveyv.State,376S.W.2d497,498(Tenn.1964).Thedefendants   argumentiswithoutmerit.Further,thereisnodisputeinthiscasethatthecrimeactuallyoccurredinHamiltonCounty,Tennessee.Therefore,thisissueismootbeyondareasonabledoubt.   l Thedefendantnextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinitsinstructiononminimumreleaseeligibilitydatesforalloffensesofhomicide,andastotherangeofpunishment.However,defendantconcedesthatpriorpanelsofthisCourthaveupheldtheapplicationofTenn.CodeAnn.4035201(b).Seee.g.,Statev.HowardE.King,ShelbyCounty,No.02C019601 1-0 CR00032(Tenn.Crim.App.filedOct.22,1996,atJackson),affd,Statev. 3.2 King,__S.W.2d__,__(Tenn.1998).Defendantdoesnotciteanycontrary p504 authorityforhisposition,butinsteadasksthisCourtto reconsiderthestatute.InlightofourSupremeCourtsactionintheKingcase,thisCourtdeclinesto 0948 doso.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. ;`6: Oa     @ INEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSEL     l Defendantnextcontendsthathistrialcounsel,KarlaGothard,didnotrendereffectiveassistanceduringhistrial.Webeginbynotingthatwhileineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimsmayberaisedondirectappealmerelyontherecord,suchapracticeis fraughtwithperil.Statev.JosephClyde `  Beard,Jr.,No.03C019502CR00044,SullivanCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filed @  Sept.26,1996,atKnoxville),quotingKirbyGeorgeWallacev.State,No.   01C019308CC00275,StewartCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedSept.15,1994,atNashville).Thisisbecausewithoutanevidentiaryhearingitisvirtuallyimpossibletodemonstrateprejudiceasrequiredinineffectiveassistanceclaims.Id.Inthiscase,however,anevidentiaryhearingwasconductedin P conjunctionwiththemotionfornewtrialafternewcounselhadbeenappointed.Defendantandotherwitnessestestified.Wethereforeconsiderthisquestiononthemerits.   l Inordertoestablishineffectiverepresentation,defendantmustshowthatcounselsperformancewasnotwithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcasesandthat,butforhiscounselsdeficientperformance,theresultofhistrialwouldlikelyhavebeendifferent.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,694(1984).InBaxterv.Rose,523 0*%( S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975),ourSupremeCourtdecidedthattherangeofcompetenceshouldbemeasuredbythedutiesandcriteriasetforthinBeasley -@), v.UnitedStates,491F.2d687,696(6thCir.1974),andUnitedStatesv. / +. DeCoster,487F.2d1997,120204(D.C.Cir.1973),cert.denied,444U.S. 1-0 944(1979).Inreviewingcounselsconduct, [a]fairassessmentofattorneyperformancerequiresthateveryeffortbemadetoeliminatethedistortingeffectsofhindsight,toreconstructthecircumstancesofcounselschallengedconduct,andtoevaluatetheconductfromcounselsperspectiveatthetime. 0948 Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.at689;seeHellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,  9(Tenn.1982).Thus,thefactthataparticularstrategyortacticfailedorevenhurtthedefensedoesnotaloneestablishaclaimofineffectiveassistance.Deferenceismadetotrialstrategyortacticalchoicesiftheyareinformedonesbaseduponadequatepreparation.SeeHellard,629S.W.2dat9. 0     l Also,wenotethattheapproachtotheissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounseldoesnothavetostartwithananalysisofanattorneysconduct.Ifprejudiceisnotshown,weneednotseektodeterminethevalidityoftheallegationsaboutdeficientperformance.Stricklandv.Washington,466  U.S.at697,104S.Ct.at2069.Moreover,onappeal,weareboundbythetrialjudgesfindingsoffactunlessweconcludethattheevidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Blackv.State,794S.W.2d752,755 0 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990).Inthisrespectthedefendanthastheburdenofillustratinghowtheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgmententered.Id. @    @ JURYSEQUESTRATION "       l Astothespecificincidencesinwhichcounselwasineffective,defendantfirstcontendsthattrialcounselerredbyfailingtorequestsequestrationofthejury.Hisstatedconcernisthathewatchedthetelevisionnewsreportseacheveningandsawstoriesabouthistrialcontainingmisinformation.Hetestifiedthatheaskedthathisattorneyrequestsequestration,butshedeclinedtodosobasedonthegroundsthatitmightmakethejurorsunhappy.   l Defendanthasabasicrighttohaveasequesteredjury.See 3.2 Statev.Furlough,797S.W.2d631,644(Tenn.Crim.App.1990).However,in p504 theinstantcase,defendantisunabletoshowanyactualprejudicethatresultedfromcounselsfailuretorequestasequesteredjury.Thejurywas 0948 ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  ?c  instructednottoviewanymediaorotheroutsidereportsonthetrial.Thereisnoevidenceintherecordtosuggestthatanyindividualjurorviolatedthatinstruction.Absentsuchproofofactualprejudice,ineffectiveassistanceofcounselcannotbeinferredfromthisfailure.  EXAMINATIONOFQUANDAHARRISON     l DuringthetrialLisaLooneytestifiedthatthedefendanthad @  drivenherandQuandaHarrisontothevictimsplaceofemployment.Shefurthertestifiedthatshethereoverheadaconversationbetweenthedefendantandthevictiminwhichthedefendantaskedforthemoney,thevictimsaidhedidn'thaveit,andthedefendantthensaidhewasgoingtoshoothim.DefendantclaimsthateffectivequestioningofLooneyandHarrisonwouldhaveestablishedthat Looneywasactuallynotinapositionwhereshecouldhaveoverheardtheconversationsheclaimed.However,trialcounseldidaskHarrisonwhethershehadbeenabletoheartheconversationbetweenthedefendantandthevictimwhilesheandLooneysatinthecar,andshetestified No.Moreover,defensecounselelicitedfromLooneyoncrossexaminationthatshehadoverheardthevictimstatetothedefendant, Ifyoushootme,youbettergetmebeforeIgetyou.Defensecounselwasnotineffectiveinthisregard.   l Thedefendantalsoclaimsthatcounselfailedtopresentanavailablerebuttalwitness,ArteliaPhelps,whocouldhavecontradictedMirandaPhelpsaboutthedefendantsreasonforcallingher.However,duringthemotionfornewtrial,ArteliatestifiedthatthedefendanthadtoldherhehadshotToddHughesforhaving playedhimlikeabitch.Wedeclinetocriticizedefensecounselfornotcallingthiswitness.   l DefendantfinallyassertsthathaddefensecounselsubpoenaedtelephonerecordstheywouldhaveshownthatdefendantdidnotcallMiranda ;`6: Oa  Oa  Oa  Oa  Oa  Oa  Oa  Oa  Oa  Phelpsatherresidence.However,petitionerdoesnotpresentthetelephonerecordsinquestion.Therefore,noprejudicehasbeenshownbythisallegedfailure.   l Inaseparateargument,defendantassertsthatseveralotherwitnessesshouldhavebeencalledattrial.Theotherwitnessesalludedtobydefendantdidnottestifyatthemotionfornewtrial.Thus,theirtestimonyhasnotbeenpreservedanywhereintherecord. #  1      ׀Therefore,defendantcannot   showprejudicebytheirabsence.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  TRIALCOUNSELSILLNESS p "   l Trialcounselforthedefendantsuffersfromarthritis.Afterthe P firstdayoftrialshebecamesoillthattheproceedingsweredelayedfromNovember2,1995toNovember6,1995.Defendantassertsthatthis interruptedtheflowofthecaseandresultedinsomeofhiswitnessesnotbeingattrial.However,noauthorityforthispositionhasbeencitednoranyevidencepresented.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  FAILURETOOBJECTTOTOREYHUGHESTESTIMONY p&!$      l Defendantcontendsthatcounselwasineffectiveinnotmakinga P(#& contemporaneousobjectiontothefollowingdirectexaminationtestimonyofToreyHughes,thevictimsbrother:  A. l No.ThatswhenmybrothertoldmethatStevesaidhewas -@),    l goingtokillhimbecauseheowedStevesomemoney.So   l wegottothelightandStevewasbehind,likeblowinghishorn,   l andmybrotherpointedlikeweregoingtogotoFranksGrocery   l Store.Thestatementelicitedisanexampleof hearsaywithinhearsay.SeeTenn. 3.2 R.Evid.805.Assuch,thestatementisadmissible ifeachpartofthe p504 Oa  Oa  Oa  combinedstatementsconformswithanexceptiontothehearsayrule.Id.  thatportionofthestatementreflectingwhatthevictimsaidtoToreyisadmissibleasastatementofhis thenexistingstateofmind,emotion,sensation,orphysicalcondition.Tenn.R.Evid.803(3).Thatportionofthestatementreflectingwhatthedefendanthadtoldthevictimisadmissibleasanadmissionofapartyopponent,Tenn.R.Evid.803(1.2).Thus,theentirestatementwasadmissibleandacontemporaneousobjectionwouldhavebeenproperlyoverruled.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   l Inshort,thedefendanthasfailedtoprovethathewasdeniedhisrighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,andthisissueiswithoutmerit.@%rREMAININGISSUES 0    l Thedefendantnextcontendsthatthetrialcourt erredinsustainingtheState'smotioninliminetopreventadmissionofevidencethatthedeceasedhadusedmarijuana.Thedefendant'scontentionismisplaced.Thetrialcourtdidallowthedefensetopresentproofthatthevictimhadtestedpositiveformarijuanaatthetimeofhisdeath.Indeed,Dr.Kingwasallowedtotestifythatthelevelofmarijuanadeterminedtobepresentinthevictim'surinecouldmakeanangrypersonangrier.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   l Finally,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinrulinginadmissibleMirandaPhelps'stestimonyaboutwhetherthevictimhadboughtagunforheranddeliveredittoherhouse.Hearguesthattheanswertothisquestionwasrelevantbecauseitwenttothevictim'spropensityforviolenceandgoingarmed.Wedisagree.AnaffirmativeanswermayhaveestablishedPhelps'propensitytogoarmeditwouldhavedonelittletoestablishthe p504 victim'spropensityforsame.Evenifmarginallyrelevant,theexclusionofanaffirmativeanswer(whichisdoubtfulgiventhetenorofPhelps'other 0948 testimony)was,atmost,harmlesserror.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   l Thedefendant'scontentionsbeingmeritless,weaffirmthejudgementbelow.   l      t ___________________________________   l      t CORNELIAA.CLARK,SpecialJudgeCONCUR:________________________________JOHNH.%  ԢPEAY,Judge________________________________PAULG.SUMMERS,Judge  #X]XXX?P#