ÿWPCþ ¹©Æa¦ø}`Éù%î®3ÅJu&ò_^À1 W"¨ßIÔÁ]AG b}\·˪Ãp™o4{0©’çÄŠå7ù8.b^s]®V.ªã—+ìŒ'¹†ªö±“å1ú‘•0–ɰ÷ÂW®cï{OH‘F2Ñ¨ë …Å4EC‡p¦ÓÿùFZ©5Q-% 2·ˆ=F÷[®Ôõ+ÔFêph°‹/å³åk ŸÚ.¿p7F–b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ 1Ð UN] Æ« Æq Æ7 Æý U@à NU@ 1uEEº 72¼ 0cî#ÁQ“ 0D¥éééééééééééééééééébññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ 0ëùùùù Bää 0¤ D5¥ D-Ú 0K ASRÆ¥ 0¤k 0D A«S »²ŠE)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularl;)bk2t°›3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman 3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 ‰Ý ƒRÏ›$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ ôÆß ò» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€issue€was€addressed€in€the€trial€court€and€in€the€briefs€in€this€court€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613(b).€€TheÐ ° Ðparties€have€not€addressed€the€admissibility€of€this€evidence€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€or€616.€€Likewise,€we€do€notÐ tÄ  Ðaddress€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence€under€these€two€rules.€€However,€if€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€admit€thisÐ ° Ðevidence€under€these€rules,€we€conclude€the€error€would€be€harmless€for€the€same€reasons€stated€above.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó - ù-(|G2Ï›$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€´»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ômèò»»Ô d(|3ò$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€´»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ò$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€´»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Œ»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼m¿»» »ÔÑ8€hìXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡ îd&î» ¼m¿ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#† ¼m¿»î îd& #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€2000à @ àà @` à€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡ X>kX» ¼m¿ÔÌò òÔ#† ¼m¿»X X>k #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€EUGENE€A.€TURNERòòóóÔ‡ X>kX» ¼m¿Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔMcNairyÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1160€€€€€€Jon€Kerry€Blackwood,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„01866„CCA„R3„CD€„€Decided€October€2,€2000Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant€appeals€his€jury€convictions€on€two€counts€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€for€whichÐ xÈ  Ðhe€received€concurrent€life€sentences.€€The€following€issues€are€presented€for€our€review:€€(1)€Ð d´ Ðwhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions;€€(2)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ P  Ðdisallowing€impeachment€evidence€against€a€state€witness;€€(3)€€whether€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÐ <Œ Ðadmitted€evidence€of€defendant€being€a€beneficiary€of€life€insurance€policies€on€one€of€the€victims;€Ð (x Ð(4)€€whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€inflammatory€evidence€relating€to€the€crime€scene;€Ð d Ð(5)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidence€of€alleged€threats€made€by€the€defendant;€€(6)€Ð P Ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidence€of€a€prior€argument€between€the€defendant€and€oneÐ ì< Ðof€the€victims;€and€€(7)€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€disallowing€evidence€of€defendant's€failureÐ Ø( Ðto€flee€and€avoid€arrest.€€We€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð Ä Ðò òó óÔ#† ¼m¿»X X>k…#ÔÔ‡ X>kX» ¼m¿ÔÌà@DDìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ˆÐ œì Ðó óÌòòÔ#† ¼m¿»à X>kj #ÔÔ‡ X>kX. ¼m¿ÔJoe€G.€Riley,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€óóM.€òòÔ_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòJohn€EverettÐ tÄ ÐWilliamsóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌC.€Michael€Robbins,€Memphis,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€and€Gary€F.€Ô_ÔAntricanÔ_Ô,€District€PublicÐ 8!ˆ  ÐDefender,€Somerville,€Tennessee€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Eugene€A.€Turner.€€Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ü#L# ÐElizabeth€T.€Rice,€District€Attorney€General;€James€W.€Ô_ÔFreelandÔ_Ô,€Jr.€and€Jerry€W.€Norwood,Ð è$8 $ ÐAssistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð Ô%$!% ÐÔ#† ¼m¿»X X>k. #ÔÔ‡ X>kX» ¼m¿ÔÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#† ¼m¿»X X>kœ #ÔÔ‡ X>kX» ¼m¿ÔˆÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòóóÔ#† ¼m¿»X X>kþ #ÔÔ€ X>kX» ¼m¿Ôà  àDefendant€was€convicted€by€a€Ô_ÔMcNairyÔ_Ô€County€jury€of€the€premeditated€first€degree€murdersÐ „)Ô$) Ðof€his€wife€and€stepdaughter,€for€which€he€received€two€concurrent€life€sentences.€€In€this€appeal€asÐ p*À%* Ðof€right,€he€presents€the€following€issues:Ð \+¬&+ ÐÌÓ€ (¶Ù83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà ` àÝ‚3£RÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ Ð Ð àÝ  Ýwhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions;€Ýƒ3£R—ÝŒÐ#4-„(-¸ Ð ¸ Ð ý¦ #ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  Ýwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€disallowing€impeachmentÐ ° Ðevidence€against€a€state€witness;€€Ýƒ3£ÝÝŒÐœì¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£òÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  Ýwhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€evidence€ofÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€being€a€beneficiary€of€life€insurance€policies€on€oneÐ tÄ Ðof€the€victims;€Ýƒ3£ò?ÝŒÐ`°¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£•ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  Ýwhether€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€inflammatoryÐ L œ Ðevidence€relating€to€the€crime€scene;€€Ýƒ3£•âÝŒÐ8 ˆ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£üÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  Ýwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidence€of€allegedÐ $ t Ðthreats€made€by€the€defendant;€€Ýƒ3£üI݌Р`¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£`ÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú6Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  Ýwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€evidence€of€a€priorÐ ü L  Ðargument€between€the€defendant€and€one€of€the€victims;€and݃3£`­ÝŒÐè 8 ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£ÞÝÔ2¶ÙÔ(Ú  Ú7Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  Ýwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€disallowing€evidence€ofÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant's€failure€to€flee€and€avoid€arrest.€Ýƒ3£Þ+ÝŒÐÀ ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourt.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà@¥¥(ìàò òòòFACTSóóˆÐ \¬ Ðó óà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àOn€December€3,€1997,€at€12:41€a.m.€the€defendant€placed€a€911€call€to€the€McNairy€CountyÐ 4„ ÐSheriffððs€Office.€€He€told€the€dispatcher€someone€had€broken€into€his€home€and€shot€his€wife.€Ð  p ÐOfficers€later€discovered€the€bodies€of€defendantððs€wife€and€stepdaughter€at€the€residence.€€Both€hadÐ  \ Ðbeen€shot€in€the€head€with€a€.9mm€handgun.€€The€wife€had€multiple€near€gunshot€wounds€to€theÐ øH Ðhead,€and€the€stepdaughter€had€one€near€gunshot€wound€to€the€head.€€The€family€dog€had€also€beenÐ ä4 Ðshot€and€killed.€€However,€there€was€no€evidence€of€forced€entry€into€the€mobile€home€and€noÐ Ð  Ðevidence€of€a€struggle€inside.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àSeveral€witnesses€testified€that€they€saw€the€defendant€with€a€.9mm€handgun€a€few€weeksÐ ”ä Ðprior€to€the€murder.€€Dewayne€Scott€testified€that€he€loaned€the€defendant€a€.9mm€RugerÐ €Ð Ðapproximately€six€months€prior€to€the€murder,€and€the€defendant€never€returned€the€weapon.€Ð l¼ ÐAnalysis€of€the€clothing€defendant€was€wearing€on€the€night€of€the€murders€revealed€the€presenceÐ X ¨ Ðof€gunpowder€residue.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€two€different€individuals€heard€the€defendant€threaten€to€kill€his€wife€prior€toÐ #l! Ðthe€murders.€€One€witness€testified€that€the€couple€fought€over€the€family€dog€on€several€occasions.Ð $X" ÐApproximately€one€week€before€the€murder,€the€defendant€stated€that€ð ðif€the€dog€gets€put€to€sleep,Ð ô$D # Ðthe€whole€damn€family€will€get€put€to€sleep.ðð€€Another€witness€testified€that€the€defendant€warned€Ð à%0!$ Ðhis€wife€on€two€separate€occasions€that€if€she€tried€to€leave€him,€he€would€kill€her.€€Furthermore,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcoupleððs€babysitter€stated€that€she€witnessed€a€drunken€altercation€between€the€couple.€€She€statedÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€two€were€ð ðfussing,ðð€and€the€defendant€placed€an€unloaded€gun€to€his€wifeððs€head€and€pulled€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtrigger€several€times.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThomas€Kiracofe,€the€defendantððs€cellmate,€testified€that€the€defendant€told€him€he€shot€hisÐ ° Ðâ âwife€during€an€argument€over€the€dog.€€Kiracofe€stated€defendant€then€told€him€that€he€shot€hisÐ œì Ðstepdaughter€because€she€was€a€witness€to€his€wifeððs€murder.€€Kiracofe€further€testified€that€he€andÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€planned€to€escape€from€prison.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial€but€his€statement€to€authorities€was€read€to€the€jury.€€InÐ L œ Ðthat€statement€the€defendant€stated€that€he€had€been€out€drinking€on€the€night€in€question,€did€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðown€a€gun,€and€did€not€kill€his€wife€and€stepdaughter.€€Defendant€also€endeavored€to€show€throughÐ $ t Ðother€witnesses€that€he€was€cooperative€with€authorities€throughout€the€investigation€and€voluntarilyÐ  ` Ðsurrendered€himself€for€questioning.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€two€counts€of€premeditated€murder,€and€he€received€twoÐ Ô$  Ðconcurrent€life€sentences.Ð À  ÐÌà@Š Š ìàòòò òSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€alleges€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€first€degreeÐ pÀ Ðmurder.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€claims€the€state€failed€to€prove€he€was€the€perpetrator€and€furtherÐ \¬ Ðfailed€to€establish€premeditation.€€We€disagree.Ð H˜ ÐÌò òA.€€Standard€of€ReviewÐ  p Ðó óÔ‡X>kXX X>kÔÌà  àIn€Tennessee,€great€weight€is€given€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury€in€a€criminal€trial.€€A€juryÐ øH Ðverdict€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ð ä4 Ð885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ Ð  Ðof€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ð ¼  Ð571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€guilty€verdict€removes€the€presumption€ofÐ ¨ø Ðinnocence€which€the€appellant€enjoyed€at€trial€and€raises€a€presumption€of€guilt€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.Ð ”ä ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€of€overcoming€thisÐ €Ð Ðpresumption€of€guilt.€€òòId.óóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àWhere€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€courtÐ D!” Ðis€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rational€trierÐ 0"€  Ðof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€or€crimes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð #l! ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560Ð $X" Ð(1979);€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€1996).€The€weight€and€credibility€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðwitnesses'€testimony€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€tries€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð à%0!$ ÐSheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ì&"% Ð1996).Ô#† X>kXXX>kQ*#Ôò òó óÐ ¸'#& ÐÌò òÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐB.€€Premeditationó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àÔ‡X>kXX X>kÔThe€applicable€definition€of€first€degree€murder€is,€ð ð[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killingÐ ˆØ Ðof€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1).€€Premeditation€necessitates€ð ða€previously€formedÐ tÄ Ðdesign€or€intent€to€kill,ðð€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992)(citations€omitted),€andÐ `° Ðð ðan€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment€.€.€.€[meaning]€that€the€intent€to€kill€mustÐ L œ Ðhave€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€It€also€requires€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðaccused€be€ð ðsufficiently€free€from€excitement€and€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.ðð€òòId.óóÐ $ t ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation,€€it€may€infer€premeditation€from€the€mannerÐ ü L  Ðand€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,Ð è 8  Ð905€S.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Our€Supreme€Court€delineated€severalÐ Ô$  Ðcircumstances€that€may€be€indicative€of€premeditation,€including€declarations€by€the€defendant€ofÐ À  Ðan€intent€to€kill,€evidence€of€procurement€of€a€weapon,€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmedÐ ¬ü  Ðvictim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,€the€making€of€preparations€before€the€killingÐ ˜è  Ðfor€the€purpose€of€concealing€the€crime,€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð „Ô  ÐNicholsóó,€___S.W.3d___,€___€(Tenn.€2000);€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660.€€€€Ô#† X>kXXX>ký1#ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌò òC.€€AnalysisÐ H˜ Ðó óÌà  àViewing€the€evidence€and€the€inferences€therefrom€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€weÐ  p Ðconclude€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€juryððs€finding€of€premeditation.€€Some€of€the€Ð  \ Ðcircumstances€enumerated€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòNicholsóó€are€present€in€the€instant€case.Ð øH ÐÌà  àSeveral€witness€testified€the€defendant€threatened€to€kill€his€wife€prior€to€her€murder.€€RayÐ Ð  ÐLipford,€the€defendantððs€neighbor,€testified€that€on€at€least€two€occasions€the€defendant€threatenedÐ ¼  Ðto€kill€his€wife.€€He€stated€these€altercations€occurred€about€one€month€prior€to€her€murder.€€DeborahÐ ¨ø ÐFloyd,€a€family€friend,€testified€that€the€couple€fought€about€the€dog.€€She€testified€that€about€oneÐ ”ä Ðweek€prior€to€the€murders,€the€defendant€stated,€ð ðif€the€dog€gets€put€to€sleep,€the€whole€damn€familyÐ €Ð Ðwill€be€put€to€sleep.ðð€€The€evidence€revealed€that€the€dog€was€shot€and€killed€by€the€defendant€alongÐ l¼ Ðwith€the€two€victims.€€Thomas€Kiracofe,€the€defendantððs€former€cellmate,€testified€the€defendant€toldÐ X ¨ Ðhim€the€couple€argued€over€the€dog€and€he€shot€his€wife.€€Kiracofe€stated€that€the€defendant€claimedÐ D!” Ðhe€then€shot€his€stepdaughter€because€she€had€witnessed€her€motherððs€murder.€€Ð 0"€  ЀÌà  àTestimonial€evidence€revealed€the€defendant€possessed€a€.9mm€handgun.€€Dewayne€ScottÐ $X" Ðtestified€that€he€loaned€the€defendant€his€.9mm€Ruger€handgun€about€six€months€prior€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðmurders,€and€both€Smith€and€Lipford€testified€that€they€had€seen€the€defendant€in€possession€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðweapon€less€than€a€month€before€the€murders.€€Additionally,€Wanda€Cobb€testified€that€she€observedÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant€aim€an€unloaded€gun€at€the€victimððs€head€and€pull€the€trigger.€€Testimony€from€crimeÐ ¸'#& Ðscene€investigators€revealed€that€neither€victim€was€armed,€and€there€was€no€sign€of€forced€entry€intoÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€mobile€home€or€any€sign€of€a€struggle€on€the€interior.€€Furthermore,€analysis€of€the€clothing€wornÐ )à$( Ðby€the€defendant€revealed€the€presence€of€gunpowder€residue.€€€€€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àFinally,€in€addition€to€taking€steps€to€destroy€evidence€of€his€crime,€the€defendant€exhibitedÐ ° Ðcalmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€He€called€his€brother€and€told€him€that€he€was€leaving€forÐ œì ÐLouisiana€to€visit€another€brother,€and€asked€him€to€check€on€his€family€the€next€day.€€Furthermore,Ð ˆØ Ðhe€drove€to€a€local€gas€station€and€obtained€a€receipt€for€cigarettes€in€order€to€establish€a€purportedÐ tÄ Ðalibi.€€He€then€€changed€his€clothes€and€called€911.€€The€officers€who€arrived€on€the€scene€stated€thatÐ `° Ðonce€the€defendant€was€placed€in€the€patrol€car,€he€fell€asleep.€€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€there€was€ample€evidence€to€support€defendantððs€convictions.€€This€issue€isÐ $ t Ðwithout€merit.€€Ð  ` ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òIMPEACHMENT€EVIDENCEÐ è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óóóó óà  àThe€defendant€argues€the€trial€court€erred€in€sustaining€the€stateððs€objection€to€theÐ À  Ðintroduction€of€extrinsic€evidence€to€impeach€Thomas€Kiracofe.€€He€claims€the€proper€foundationÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€laid€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613€(b).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination€of€Thomas€Kirakofe,€defense€counsel€asked€the€witness€if€he€everÐ pÀ Ðasked€Steven€Barker€to€ð ðgo€with€him€and€snitch,ðð€in€order€to€get€a€ð ðtime€cutðð.€€Kirakofe€replied€thatÐ \¬ Ðhe€did€not.€€To€rebut€Kiracofeððs€assertion,€the€defendant€sought€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€StevenÐ H˜ ÐBarker.€€Barkerððs€proffered€testimony€involved€an€alleged€incident€in€which€Kirakofe€requestedÐ 4„ ÐBarker€ð ðsnitchðð€on€another€inmate€so€that€Kirakofe€could€receive€a€reduction€in€his€federal€sentence.€Ð  p ÐThe€state€objected€to€this€testimony,€arguing€Kirakofe€had€not€been€given€ample€opportunity€to€admitÐ  \ Ðor€deny€making€the€statements.€€Therefore,€the€state€argued€the€defense€failed€to€lay€a€properÐ øH Ðfoundation€for€extrinsic€impeachment€evidence€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613(b).€€The€objection€wasÐ ä4 Ðsustained€as€to€the€specific€statements€regarding€this€incident,€but€the€trial€court€stressed€that€defenseÐ Ð  Ðcounsel€was€free€to€inquire€into€Kiracofeððs€reputation€for€truth€and€veracity.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€erred€in€disallowing€Barkerððs€testimony€about€Kiracofeððs€request€that€he€aidÐ ”ä Ðhim€in€obtaining€a€sentence€reduction€by€ð ðsnitchingðð€on€a€fellow€inmate.€€The€defendant€laid€a€properÐ €Ð Ðfoundation€for€this€inquiry,€and€Kiracofe€had€an€opportunity€to€admit€or€deny€the€statement.€€OnceÐ l¼ ÐKiracofe€denied€asking€Barker€to€corroborate€his€story€so€that€he€could€receive€a€sentence€reduction,Ð X ¨ Ðthe€defendant€should€have€been€given€an€opportunity€to€introduce€Barkerððs€testimony€to€impeachÐ D!” ÐKiracofe.€€However,€we€find€that€this€error€is€harmless.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àBarker€was€allowed€to€testify€that€Kiracofe€told€him€about€sentence€reductions€based€onÐ $X" Ðcooperation€with€the€prosecuting€authorities.€€Barker€was€also€allowed€to€testify€about€KiracofeððsÐ ô$D # Ðreputation€for€truthfulness€and€responded€by€testifying€that€Kiracofe€was€a€ð ðliarðð€and€a€"lying€snitch."€Ð à%0!$ ÐIn€light€of€this€testimony,€the€thorough€cross„examination€of€Kiracofe€and€the€overwhelmingÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence€of€guilt,€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¸'#& Ðò òòòÓ  ÓLIFE€INSURANCEÐ ° ÐÌóóó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€wife's€mother€to€testify€about€twoÐ ˆØ Ðinsurance€polies€in€which€the€defendant€had€a€financial€stake.€€He€argues€that€there€was€no€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðpresented€to€demonstrate€that€he€had€knowledge€of€these€policies.€€Thus,€he€claims€this€evidence€didÐ `° Ðnot€relate€to€motive€and,€therefore,€was€irrelevant€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€In€addition,€he€claimsÐ L œ Ðthe€prejudice€resulting€from€the€admission€of€this€evidence€outweighed€any€probative€value€it€mightÐ 8 ˆ Ðhave.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àBetty€Smith€testified€that€there€was€a€credit€life€insurance€policy€on€her€daughter€relating€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€mobile€home€she€and€the€defendant€co„owned.€€In€addition,€she€stated€her€daughter€had€a€lifeÐ è 8  Ðinsurance€policy€of€$42,000€naming€the€defendant€as€primary€beneficiary.€€However,€on€cross„Ð Ô$  Ðexamination€she€admitted€she€did€not€know€whether€or€not€the€defendant€was€aware€either€policyÐ À  Ðexisted,€and€stated€the€defendant€had€made€no€claim€on€either€policy.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àTenn.€R.€Evid.€401€states€that€evidence€is€relevant€if€it€ð ðtends€to€make€the€existence€of€anyÐ „Ô  Ðfact€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€wouldÐ pÀ Ðbe€without€the€evidence.ðð€€The€existence€of€life€insurance€can€certainly€be€relevant€to€prove€motive.€Ð \¬ ÐòòSee€óóòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòStephensonóó,€however,€there€wasÐ H˜ Ðproof€the€defendant€knew€about€the€policy€and€offered€the€amount€of€the€policy€as€payment€forÐ 4„ Ðkilling€the€victim.€€òòId.€€óóIn€the€instant€case€the€state€failed€to€show€the€defendant€was€motivated€byÐ  p Ðfinancial€gain.òòóó€€In€fact,€this€appears€to€be€contrary€to€the€stateððs€theory€that€the€defendant€simplyÐ  \ Ðcarried€out€his€previous€threats€to€kill€his€wife€for€reasons€unrelated€to€money.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€testimony€regarding€the€life€insurance€policies€was€brief.€€In€light€of€the€extensiveÐ Ð  Ðevidence€introduced€against€the€defendant,€we€find€this€error€to€be€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð ¼  Ð36(b).ò ò€€Ð ¨ø Ðó ó€Ð ˜è Ðà@ ìàòòò òCRIME€SCENE€EVIDENCEó óóóˆÐ „Ô ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€alleges€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€allowing€the€stateððs€forensicÐ \ ¬ Ðpathologist,€Dr.€Smith,€and€T.B.I.€Agent€Romanek€to€describe€crime€scene€photographs€of€theÐ H!˜ Ðvictims.€€He€argues€this€evidence€was€cumulative€and€prejudicial.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€arguesÐ 4"„  Ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€jury€to€view€the€video€of€the€crime€scene.Ð  #p! ÐÌò òA.€€Description€of€PhotographsÐ ø$H # ÐÌó óà  àAlthough€tÔ‡XhìXX X>kÔhe€photographs€were€not€introduced,€the€defendant€argues€the€descriptions€of€theÐ Ð& "% Ðphotographs€by€Dr.€Smith€and€Agent€Romanek€were€irrelevant€and€just€as€prejudicial€as€theÐ ¾'#& Ðphotographs.€Ô#† X>kXXXhìì]#ÔThe€defendant€asserts€Dr.€Smith€was€allowed€to€give€his€opinion€about€cause€of€deathÐ ° Ðand€the€type€of€injuries€suffered.€€Thus,€he€argues€the€descriptions€of€the€blood€splatters€andÐ žî Ðgruesome€details€of€the€wounds€were€unnecessary€and€highly€inflammatory.€€Additionally,€€theÐ ŠÚ Ðdefendant€claims€Agent€Romanek€could€have€described€the€position€of€the€bodies€without€furtherÐ vÆ Ðdetails€about€the€ð ðgruesome€scene.ððÐ b² ÐÌà  àÔ‡XhìXX X>kÔThe€admissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€whoseÐ : Š Ðruling€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòStateÐ $ t Ðv.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978);€òòState€v.€Lacyóó,€983€S.W.2d€686,€694€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  ^ Ð1997).€€We€conclude€testimony€describing€crime€scene€photos€should€be€analyzed€under€this€sameÐ ø H  Ðstandard.€€Nevertheless,€the€testimony€must€be€relevant€to€an€issue€at€trial€with€its€probative€valueÐ â 2  Ðoutweighing€any€prejudicial€effect€that€it€may€have€upon€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867Ð Ì  ÐS.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€€Relevant€evidence€is€evidence€ð ðhaving€any€tendencyÐ ¶  Ðto€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÐ  ð  Ðprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.Ð ŠÚ  ÐÌà  àÔ#† X>kXXXhìa#ÔÔ‡XhìXX X>kÔThe€testimony€about€the€photographs€was€necessary€to€corroborate€the€medical€testimony€andÐ ^® Ðto€give€the€jury€a€proper€description€of€the€crime€scene.€€The€description€given€by€Dr.€Smith€wasÐ H˜ Ðelicited€in€the€context€of€corroboration€for€his€medical€conclusions.€€In€addition,€Agent€RomanekÐ 2‚ Ðgave€only€a€brief€description€with€regard€to€the€location€of€the€wife's€body.€€Thus,€we€conclude€theÐ l Ðtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€Dr.€Smith€and€Agent€Romanek€to€discuss€theÐ V Ðcontent€of€the€photographs.€€Ð ð@ ÐÌò òB.€€VideotapeÐ Ä ÐÌó óà  àThe€defendant€argues€the€videotape€of€the€crime€scene€depicting€the€stepdaughterððs€body€wasÐ ˜è Ðparticularly€gruesome€and€inflammatory.€€The€video€was€edited€as€to€the€wife,€but€did€not€excludeÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€stepdaughter.€€The€defendant€argues€both€victims€should€have€been€excluded.€€Additionally,€heÐ l¼ Ðargues€the€video€was€needlessly€cumulative.€€He€contends€the€medical€testimony€and€the€testimonyÐ V¦ Ðof€crime€scene€investigators€was€sufficient€to€depict€the€injuries€to€the€victims,€placement€of€theÐ @ Ðbodies,€and€the€condition€of€the€crime€scene.Ð * z ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€a€color€videotape€of€the€crime€scene€was€shown€to€the€jury.€€Upon€defendantððsÐ þ!N  Ðobjection,€the€court€ordered€all€images€of€the€wife€be€edited€out€of€the€video.€€However,€the€courtÐ è"8! Ðfound€the€images€of€the€stepdaughter€ð ðwere€not€so€gruesome€as€to€substantially€outweigh€their€Ð Ò#"" Ðrelevance.ðð€€The€video€showed€the€exterior€and€interior€of€the€mobile€home,€including€images€of€herÐ ¼$ # Ðbody€as€she€was€found€by€investigators.Ð ¦%ö $ ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€a€videotape€€of€the€crime€scene€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ z'Ê"& Ðcourt,€and€we€will€not€overturn€its€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€this€evidence€without€a€clearÐ d(´#' Ðshowing€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121,€151€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.Ð N)ž$( ÐBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994).€€Ð 8*ˆ%) Ðâ âÐ "+r&* Ðà  àThe€defense€claimed€someone€broke€into€his€house€and€committed€the€murders.Ô#† X>kXXXhì”e#ÔÔ‡XhìXX X>kÔ€€Therefore,Ð ° Ðâ âthe€€state€argues€the€video€was€probative€because€it€showed€there€was€no€sign€of€forced€entry€intoÐ šê Ðthe€dwelling€and€no€sign€of€a€struggle€within€the€dwelling.€€We€agree€that€the€video€is€relevant€to€theÐ „Ô Ðissues€of€identification€and€premeditation.€€In€addition,€the€video€aided€the€jury€in€understanding€theÐ n¾ Ðtestimony€of€medical€examiners€and€crime€scene€investigators.€Furthermore,€the€portion€of€the€videoÐ X¨ Ðdepicting€the€stepdaughter€was€brief€and€was€merely€shown€to€document€the€position€of€the€bodyÐ B ’ Ðin€relation€to€the€bullet€path€and€the€shell€casings€that€were€found€at€the€scene.€€Furthermore,€ourÐ , | Ðreview€of€the€video€does€not€reveal€that€it€was€inflammatory.€€Thus,€we€conclude€the€probative€valueÐ  f Ðof€the€video€is€not€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÐ  P Ðin€allowing€the€edited€video€to€be€shown€to€the€jury.€Ð ê :  ÐÌà@  'ìàòòò òTHREATSó óóóˆÐ ¾  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€testimony€of€Ray€Lipford€and€Debbie€Floyd€regarding€threatsÐ ’â  Ðallegedly€made€prior€to€the€murders€was€irrelevant€and€should€have€been€excluded.€€He€argues€theÐ |Ì  Ðthreats€were€conditional,€and€the€state€did€not€present€evidence€that€the€conditions€were€everÐ f¶  Ðsatisfied.€€Therefore,€he€claims€the€testimony€was€not€relevant€to€prove€motive€or€state€of€mind.€€Ð P  ÐÌà  à€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ $t Ðevidence€of€a€defendant's€prior€acts€of€violence€and€threats€against€the€victim€is€admissible€underÐ ^ ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€in€a€murder€case€because€the€prior€bad€acts€are€relevant€to€showing€theÐ øH Ðdefendant's€hostility€toward€the€victim,€the€settled€purpose€to€harm€the€victim,€and€the€intent€andÐ â2 Ðmotive€for€the€killing.€€òòId.€óóat€574.€€Declarations€of€an€intent€to€kill€are€particularly€relevant€toÐ Ì Ðestablishing€premeditation.€€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€914€(Tenn.€1998).€€Furthermore,Ð ¶ Ðevidence€of€a€threat€is€relevant€and€admissible€even€though€the€threat€is€conditional€in€form.€€1Ð  ð Ðò òWhartonððs€Criminal€Evidenceó ó€ðð€141€(14òòthóó€ed.€1985).Ô#† X>kXXXhìbo#ÔÔ‡XhìXX X>kÔÐ ŠÚ ÐÌà8  àIt€is€immaterial€whether€the€condition€is€in€such€form€that€the€victim€can€avoid€theÐ `° Ðthreatened€harm€by€refraining€from€doing€a€specified€act,€or€that€the€victim€must€doÐ Jš Ða€specified€act€in€order€to€avoid€the€harm.€€Thus,€a€conditional€threat€is€admissibleÐ 4„ Ðwithout€regard€to€whether€the€victim€did€or€did€not€do€the€act€specified€in€theÐ  n Ðcondition.€òòÐ!XÐ Ð  ÐId.€€€óóÐ ò!B  ÐÌà  àLike€the€analysis€required€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403,€the€trial€court€must€weigh,€under€RuleÐ Æ#" Ð404(b)(3),€€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€against€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€òòóó€However,€theÐ °$ # Ðtest€for€making€such€a€determination€is€more€stringent€under€Rule€404€than€under€Rule€403.€€òòStateÐ š%ê $ Ðv.€DuBoseóó,€953€S.W.2d€649,€654€(Tenn.€1997).€€Nevertheless,€a€trial€courtððs€determination€pursuantÐ „&Ô!% Ðto€Rule€404(b)€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976Ð n'¾"& ÐS.W.2d€93,€102€(Tenn.€1998).Ð X(¨#' ÐÌò òÌÌA.€€Ray€Lipfordó óÐ ,P'+ Їà  àRay€Lipford,€the€defendantððs€neighbor,€€testified€that€on€two€different€occasions€he€heard€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€warn€the€victim€that€if€she€ever€tried€to€leave€him,€he€would€kill€her.€€He€stated€theÐ šê Ðincidents€happened€approximately€three€months€prior€to€the€murders.€€The€trial€court€held€theÐ „Ô Ðevidence€was€relevant€to€motive€and€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind.Ð n¾ ÐÌà  àThe€issue€of€motive€and€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind€were€critical€to€proving€premeditation,Ð B ’ Ða€required€element€of€the€charged€offense.€€We€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÐ , | Ðin€allowing€this€testimony.Ð  f ÐÌò òB.€€Debbie€FloydÐ ê :  ÐÌà  àó óDebbie€Floyd,€a€friend€of€the€wife,€testified€that€the€defendant€stated€that,€ð ðif€the€dog€gets€putÐ ¾  Ðto€sleep,€the€whole€damn€family€gets€put€to€sleep.ðð€€Again,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€evidence€asÐ ¨ø  Ðproof€of€motive€and€to€demonstrate€the€defendantððs€state€of€mind.€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€this€is€a€conditional€statement,€and€€there€is€no€evidence€the€conditionÐ f¶  Ðwas€fulfilled.€Ô#† X>kXXXhì…y#ÔÔ‡XhìXX X>kÔ€The€evidence€revealed€the€dog€was€killed€by€the€defendant€along€with€the€two€victims.€Ð P  ÐThus,€the€statement€by€the€defendant€that€the€family€would€be€put€to€sleep€if€the€dog€was€put€to€sleepÐ :Š Ðhas€direct€correlation€to€the€murders.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ $t Ðdiscretion€in€allowing€the€jury€to€hear€this€testimony.€€Ð ^ ÐÌà@˜ ˜ ìàòòò òREMOTENESS€OF€PRIOR€CONFRONTATIONó óóóˆÐ â2 ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€Wanda€Cobb€to€testify€about€anÐ ¶ Ðincident€she€witnessed€one€year€prior€to€the€murder.€€He€argues€the€incident€was€so€removed€inÐ  ð Ðtemporal€proximity€to€the€murders€as€to€make€any€relevance€it€might€have€with€regard€to€motive€orÐ ŠÚ Ðintent€too€remote;€thus,€its€prejudicial€effect€outweighed€its€probative€value.Ð tÄ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÌà  àWanda€Cobb€cared€for€the€stepdaughter€when€the€couple€was€out€of€town€or€at€work.€€AtÐ H˜ Ðtrial,€she€testified€that€approximately€one€year€prior€to€the€murders,€she€witnessed€the€defendant€andÐ 2‚ Ðvictim€in€a€drunken€argument.€€She€stated€the€defendant€pointed€an€unloaded€gun€at€his€wifeððs€headÐ  l Ðand€pulled€the€trigger€several€times.€€The€trial€court€found€this€evidence€was€relevant€and€furtherÐ !V Ðfound€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€was€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€Ð ð!@  ÐÌà  àAlthough€evidence€may€appear€to€be€relevant,€it€may€relate€to€a€time€so€remote€from€the€dateÐ Ä#" Ðof€the€alleged€crime€that€it€ceases€to€have€probative€value.€€1€ò òWhartonððs€Criminal€Evidenceó ó€ðð€92Ð ®$þ# Ð(14òòthóó€ed.€1985).€€No€rigid€rule€can€be€stated€to€determine€when€the€time€interval€is€so€great€that€aÐ š%ê $ Ðgiven€fact€has€no€probative€value.€€òòId.óó€òò€óóHowever,€objections€to€remoteness€are€ordinarily€regardedÐ „&Ô!% Ðas€affecting€the€weight€and€not€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence.€€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€575;€òòsee€alsoÐ n'¾"& Ðóó41€C.J.S.€ò òHomicideó ó€ðð€204(d)€(1991).Ô#† X>kXXXh쨃#Ô€€Ð X(¨#' ÐÌà  àTÔ‡XhìXX X>kÔhe€incident€occurred€approximately€one€year€before€the€murders.€€However,€ð ðthreats,€evenÐ 4*„%) Ðthough€remote,€are€competent€when€it€appears€that€they€were€repeated€from€time€to€time,€or€theÐ "+r&* Ðhostility€continued,€until€shortly€before€the€commission€of€the€offense€alleged.ðð€41€C.J.S.€ò òHomicideó óÐ  ,\'+ Ððð€204(d)€(1991).€€Here,€two€other€witnesses€testified€they€heard€the€defendant€threaten€to€kill€his€wifeÐ ° Ðshortly€before€the€murder.€€Lipford€testified€the€€defendant€threatened€the€victim€one€month€prior€toÐ šê Ðthe€murders,€and€Floyd€testified€that€she€heard€the€defendant€threaten€the€victim€the€week€before€theÐ „Ô Ðmurders.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€allowing€CobbððsÐ n¾ Ðtestimony.Ð X¨ ÐÌà@aa#ìàòòò òFAILURE€TO€FLEEó óóóˆÐ , | ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€rebut€Thomas€Kiracofeððs€testimonyÐ  P Ðthat€he€and€defendant€intended€to€escape.€€He€claims€the€state€attempted€to€introduce€evidence€thatÐ ê :  Ðhe€had€a€ð ðconsciousness€of€guilt,ðð€and€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€challenge€that€assertion.€€Ð Ô $  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€the€defendant€sought€to€introduce€testimony€from€Agent€McLean€of€the€T.B.I.€thatÐ ¨ø  Ðthe€defendant€was€not€arrested€until€approximately€two€months€after€the€murders,€and€that€heÐ ’â  Ðvoluntarily€surrendered.€€He€claimed€this€testimony€negated€Kirakofeððs€assertion€that€he€intendedÐ |Ì  Ðto€escape.€€The€state€objected€and€the€trial€court€held€that€the€defendant€could€establish€that€he€wasÐ f¶  Ðcooperative€and€that€he€did€not€flee€the€jurisdiction.€€However,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€length€ofÐ P  Ðtime€between€the€event€and€arrest€was€irrelevant€and,€therefore,€disallowed€testimony€regarding€theÐ :Š Ðactual€date€of€defendantððs€arrest.€€Ð $t ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€failure€of€the€defendant€to€flee€for€the€two€months€prior€to€his€arrestÐ øH Ðwas€relevant€in€light€of€the€stateððs€evidence.€€However,€the€defendant€was€given€ample€opportunityÐ â2 Ðto€establish€that€he€was€cooperative€during€the€investigation,€and€that€he€did€not€attempt€to€flee€theÐ Ì Ðjurisdiction€prior€to€his€arrest.€€The€fact€that€the€jury€was€unaware€that€the€actual€time€between€theÐ ¶ Ðcrime€and€defendantððs€arrest€was€two€months€did€not€prejudice€the€defendant.€€We,€therefore,Ð  ð Ðconclude€the€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Ð ŠÚ ÐÌà@FF%ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ^® ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€we€conclude:Ð 2‚ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)à0¸ ` x` xàthe€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€defendantððsÐ !V Ðconvictions€for€premeditated€murder;€Ðð!@ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€à0¸ ` x` xàthe€trial€courtððs€error€in€disallowing€the€defendant€to€presentÐ Ú"*! Ðimpeachment€evidence€against€a€state€witness€was€harmless;€ÐÄ#"¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(3)€à0¸ ` x` xàthe€trial€courtððs€error€in€admitting€evidence€pertaining€to€lifeÐ ®$þ# Ðinsurance€policies€was€harmless;И%è $¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(4)€à0¸ ` x` xàthe€crime€scene€evidence€was€properly€admitted;Ђ&Ò!%¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(5)€à0¸ ` x` xàthe€evidence€of€alleged€threats€made€by€the€defendant€againstÐ l'¼"& Ðhis€wife€was€properly€admitted;ÐV(¦#'¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(6)€à0¸ ` x` xàthe€evidence€of€a€prior€violent€argument€between€theÐ @)$( Ðdefendant€and€his€wife€was€properly€admitted;€and€Ð**z%)¸ x¸ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(7)€à0¸ ` x` xàthe€trial€court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€by€limiting€theÐ +d&* Ðdefendantððs€testimony€regarding€the€date€of€his€arrest.Ðþ+N'+¸ x¸ x ЇÌÌThus,€we€AFFIRM€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€Ð „Ô ÐÔ#† X>kXXXhìq#ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð 2 ‚ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEó óÐ  n ÐÌÌÌÌ