ÿWPC· 7JUN\ %ª 0°U:·w@ñ41E 0KT 0DŸ 0Jã- 0T5 U .‰ 0@· 0^÷ 0hU 0r½ 0|/ 0†« 01 1uÁ 0d6 Bš D3· U>ê U*( AQRÆ£ 0Di 0D­ D/ñ B B)=DCf AM©àö•Öûkv~fvÓäc:\office\wpwin\template\opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ßZ>$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X³—XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular l[mnoDpqrDsÓ€€Œƒ*#3|x€(û(3…˜$¤¤Ý ƒZ>!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÐ’XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€f:XXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô%ä2¼A`ArialTT("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times*+,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd*0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ7,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ‹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€also€was€armed€with€a€.38€caliber€pistol.Ì ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€a€well„established€rule€of€law€that€questions€concerning€the€admissibility€ofÏevidence€rest€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court;€and€an€appellate€court€willÏnot€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€this€discretion€absent€a€clear€abuse€appearing€on€theÏface€of€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,Ï511€U.S.€1046,€114€S.Ct.€1577,€128€L.Ed.2d€220€(1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÏ54,€73€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.€1368,€122€L.Ed.2d€746Ï(1993);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€751€S.W.2d€154,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1987).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›Ó  ÓœÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌ̜ـ*ÙßR€120A1-j|:Y` à. `€€@ÿRß›AT€JACKSONÌÌJANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)ÌÓ` °‡XœÈ“XÓà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9602„CR„00048Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àChris€B.€Craft,€JudgeÌHOLLIS€G.€WILLIAMS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Murder€First€Degree)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌW.€Mark€Wardà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkup€ÌAsst.€Shelby€County€Public€Defenderà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ147€Jefferson,€Suite€900à àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0497Ì(On€Appeal)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌRonald€S.€Johnsonà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAsst.€Shelby€County€Public€Defenderà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201à àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947Ì(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àWilliam€L.€GibbonsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌBetty€J.€Thomasà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301ÌAsst.€Shelby€County€Public€Defenderà àMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947Ì201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947à àà àJames€C.€Beasley,€Jr.Ì(At€Trial)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301ÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÌÌA€C€Wharton,€Jr.à àà àà àà àAmy€J.€WeirichÌShelby€County€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€201à àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947à àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€__________________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌØØÙ  Ùò òÓ  ÓÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€„Ôó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌÓÓà àó óThe€appellant,€Hollis€G.€Williams€(defendant),€was€convicted€of€first„degreeÏfelony€murder€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€sought€the€extremeÏpenalty€of€death.€€However,€the€jury€set€his€punishment€at€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole.€€The€defendant€presents€three€issues€for€review.€€He€contends€(a)€the€evidenceÏis€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€support€his€conviction€for€a€murder€committedÏduring€an€attempt€to€commit€robbery,€(b)€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicialÏdimensions€by€ruling€his€two€convictions€for€attempt€to€commit€robbery€could€be€usedÏto€impeach€him€if€he€opted€to€testify€in€support€of€his€defense,€and€(c)€the€trial€courtÏcommitted€error€of€prejudicial€dimensions€by€permitting€the€state€to€introduce€victimÏimpact€testimony€during€the€sentencing€hearing.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,Ïthe€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€law€governing€the€issues€presented€forÏreview,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.€€Ìà àThe€victim,€Manop€S.€Thomas,€was€fifteen€years€of€age€and€a€sophomore€inÏhigh€school€when€he€was€fatally€wounded€by€the€defendant.€€He€lived€at€home€with€hisÍmother€and€three€other€siblings.€Ìà àOn€the€afternoon€of€January€31,€1994,€the€victim€was€en€route€to€a€residence€onÏRedcliff€Cove€in€the€Frayser€area€of€Memphis.€€While€walking€to€his€destination,€he€metÏWordies€Tate,€a€friend€and€classmate.€€Tate€was€riding€his€bicycle.€€He€asked€Tate€toÏgo€with€him€to€the€Redcliff€Cove€residence.€€Tate€agreed€to€accompany€the€victim.€€TateÏrode€his€bicycle€slowly€as€he€and€the€victim€proceeded€to€the€victimððs€destination.Ìà àAs€Tate€and€the€victim€were€crossing€the€street,€a€car€coming€from€the€oppositeÏdirection€stopped.€€The€defendant€exited€the€vehicle€and€told€the€victim€to€come€to€theÏcar.€€The€victim€knew€the€driver€of€the€vehicle,€Clifford€Sims.€€He€entered€the€vehicleÏthrough€the€back€door€on€the€passenger€side€of€the€car.€€A€conversation€ensued.€€SimsÏtold€the€victim€he€would€see€him€later.€€The€victim€and€the€defendant€exited€the€carÏsimultaneously.€€The€defendant€removed€a€.380€automatic€pistol€from€his€clothing.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€HeÏtold€the€victim€to€ð ðdrop€it€off,ðð€meaning€the€victim€should€give€him€the€Michigan€starterÏjacket€he€was€wearing.€€When€the€defendant€reached€for€the€hood€attached€to€theÏjacket,€the€victim€broke€loose€and€ran€away.€€The€defendant€followed€the€victim€andÏbegan€firing€the€.380€pistol€at€the€victim.€€He€fired€approximately€four€shots.€€OneÏprojectile€struck€the€victim€in€the€left€lower€back.€€The€projectile€penetrated€the€left€lungÏand€struck€the€victimððs€heart.€€A€pathologist€€testified€the€organs€in€the€chest€cavity€wereÏshifted€to€the€right€side€of€the€victim.€€In€summary,€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€theÏgunshot€wound€and€the€complications€it€created.Ìà àThe€defendant€left€the€situs€of€the€killing€in€Simsððs€vehicle.€€He€told€Sims€theÏvictim€should€have€ð ðdropped€it€offðð€when€he€told€him€to€do€so.€€The€defendant€related€toÍSims€he€was€going€to€either€Chicago,€Illinois€or€Detroit,€Michigan.€€The€defendant€alsoÏexpressed€concern€about€Sims€because€he€thought€Sims€was€the€only€witness€to€theÏkilling.€€The€defendant€did€not€know€Tate€also€saw€most€of€what€occurred,€and€TateÏcould€identify€Simsððs€vehicle€and€the€defendant.€€Tate€witnessed€most€of€whatÏoccurred€on€the€date€in€question.Ìò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌ€€€à àThe€defendant€contends€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€is€insufficient,€asÏa€matter€of€law,€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€that€he€was€guilty€of€felonyÏmurder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€He€argues€the€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€thatÏhe€€was€attempting€to€commit€the€crime€of€robbery€when€the€killing€occurred.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏCourt€must€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€is€sufficientÏ"to€support€the€finding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(e).€This€rule€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€based€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòStateÏv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€this€Court€does€notÏreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€itsÍinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact€from€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòLiakas€v.ÏStateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€352€U.S.€845,€77€S.Ct.Ï39,€1€L.Ed.2d€49€(1956).€€To€the€contrary,€this€Court€is€required€to€afford€the€State€ofÏTennessee€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€asÏwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ìà àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€In€òòState€v.ÏGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973),€our€Supreme€Court€said:€€"A€guilty€verdictÏby€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€theory€of€the€State."Ìà àSince€a€verdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€itÏwith€a€presumption€of€guilt,€the€accused,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€in€this€CourtÏof€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trierÏof€fact.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€Court€will€not€disturbÏa€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€facts€contained€in€theÏrecord€are€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€that€theÏaccused€is€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€record€establishes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€defendant€was€in€theÏprocess€of€attempting€to€commit€aggravated€robbery€when€the€killing€occurred.€€Sims,Ía€lifelong€friend€of€the€defendant,€testified€the€defendant€removed€a€.380€pistol€from€hisÏclothing€and€attempted€to€take€the€starter€jacket€the€victim€was€wearing.€€When€theÏvictim€broke€away€and€ran,€the€defendant€followed€the€victim.€€He€fired€four€or€fiveÏprojectiles€as€he€pursued€the€victim.€€One€of€these€projectiles€struck€the€victim.€€TheÏvictim€died€as€a€result€of€the€projectile€striking€him.€€In€summary,€the€evidence€is€clearlyÏsufficient€to€support€a€finding€by€a€rational€trier€of€fact€the€defendant€was€attempting€toÏcommit€aggravated€robbery€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€moved€the€trial€court€to€rule€upon€the€admissibility€of€two€priorÏaggravated€robbery€convictions€to€impeach€him€if€he€testified€in€support€of€his€defense.€€ÏThe€trial€court€found€the€probative€value€of€these€felonies€for€impeachment€outweighedÏthe€prejudicial€effect€the€admission€of€these€convictions€may€have€upon€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏThe€defendant€argues€the€similarity€of€his€prior€convictions€to€the€offense€for€which€heÏwas€being€tried,€killing€the€victim€during€an€attempt€to€commit€aggravated€robbery,Ïwould€be€highly€prejudicial.€Ìà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€may€use€a€prior€conviction€to€impeach€an€accused€ifÏthe€conviction€meets€the€criteria€established€by€Rule€609,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏEvidence.€€According€to€this€rule,€a€conviction€may€be€used€to€impeach€the€accused€ifÏ(a)€the€conviction€was€for€a€crime€that€is€punishable€by€death€or€imprisonment€inÍexcess€of€one€(1)€year€or€a€misdemeanor€involving€dishonesty€or€a€false€statement,€(b)Ïless€than€ten€(10)€years€elapsed€between€the€date€the€accused€was€released€fromÏconfinement€for€the€prior€conviction€and€the€commencement€of€the€prosecution€for€theÏpresent€offense,€(c)€the€State€of€Tennessee€gave€reasonable€written€notice€of€theÏparticular€conviction€it€intends€to€use€to€impeach€him,€and€(d)€the€trial€court€determinesÏthe€probative€value€of€the€felony€or€misdemeanor€on€the€issue€of€credibility€outweighsÏits€prejudicial€effect€on€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Farmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€837,€839€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdismissed€óó€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€this€case,€the€first€three€requisites,Ï(a)€through€(c),€have€been€satisfied.€€Thus,€the€only€issue€is€whether€the€probativeÏvalue€of€the€aggravated€robbery€convictions€outweighs€the€unfair€prejudicial€effect€dueÏto€the€similarity€between€the€convictions€and€the€offense€alleged€in€the€indictment.Ìà àIn€determining€whether€the€probative€value€of€the€felony€sought€to€be€used€toÏimpeach€an€accused€outweighs€its€unfair€prejudicial€effect€on€the€issue€to€be€resolvedÏby€the€jury,€a€trial€court€should€(a)€ð ðassess€the€similarity€between€the€crime€on€trial€andÏthe€crime€underlying€the€impeaching€conviction,ðð€and€(b)€ð ðanalyze€the€relevance€theÏimpeaching€conviction€has€to€the€issue€of€credibility.ðð€€N.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€and€S.ÏSheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€609.€9€at€p.€288€(2nd€ed.€1990);€òòseeóóÏòòFarmeróó,€841€S.W.2d€839.€€When€this€analysis€is€applied€to€the€conviction€in€this€case,Ïthe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€ruling€the€two€aggravated€robberyÏconvictions€could€be€used€to€impeach€the€defendant€if€he€opted€to€testify€in€support€ofÏhis€defense.× ƒ4 ××  ×Ìà àThe€mere€fact€a€prior€conviction€of€the€accused€is€identical,€or€similar€in€nature,Ïto€the€offense€for€which€the€accused€is€being€tried€does€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€bar€theÏuse€of€the€conviction€to€impeach€an€accused€as€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737ÏS.W.2d€556,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€The€appellateÏcourts€of€this€state€have€held€the€offense€of€robbery€is€ð ðhighly€probative€on€theÏcredibility€question,ðð€€òòState€v.€Crankóó,€721€S.W.2d€264,€266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1986),€because€this€crime€involves€dishonesty.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏStaffordóó,€670€S.W.2d€243,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1984).€ÏThus,€the€appellate€courts€have€held€a€conviction€for€robbery€may€be€used€to€impeachÏan€accused€being€tried€for€an€offense€involving€robbery€absent€circumstances€whichÏrequire€a€different€result.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€692€S.W.2d€32,€37€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Norrisóó,€684€S.W.2d€650,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€649€S.W.2d€12,€13€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1982),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Fluellenóó,€626€S.W.2d€299,€300Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).Ìà àThe€consideration€of€this€issue€is€strictly€academic.€€The€defendant€testified€at€aÏjury„out€hearing€that€he€had€no€intention€of€testifying€in€support€of€his€defenseÏregardless€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€his€prior€convictions.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X Òò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€permitting€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€ð ðprejudice€the€jury€with€inflammatory€victimÏimpact€evidence€which€was€not€relevant€to€any€aggravating€circumstance.ðð€€He€arguesÏthe€jury€may€have€sentenced€the€defendant€to€life€rather€than€life€without€the€possibilityÏof€parole.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€contends€this€evidence€was€properly€admitted.€€TheÏstate€argues€the€supreme€court€has€adopted€the€rationale€of€òòPayne€v.€Tennesseeóó,€501ÏU.S.€808,€111€S.Ct.€2597,€115€L.Ed.2d€720€(1991).Ìà àThe€state€was€permitted€to€elicit€from€the€victimððs€aunt,€Mary€L.€Teal,€theÏfollowing€testimony€over€the€objection€of€the€defendant:ÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.€€How€many€children€did€Ms.€Thomas€(the€victimððs€mother)Ïhave?ÌÌA.€€Six.ÌÌQ.€€How€many€of€them€were€living€there€at€the€home€withÏher?ÌÌA.€€With€ð ðNopieðð€(the€victim)€it€was€four.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*ÌÌÓ  ÓQ.€€Of€the€four€that€were€in€the€home€with€her,€who€was€theÏoldest?ÌÌA.€€Nopie.ÌÌQ.€€And€what€were€the€ages€of€the€other€children?ÌÌA.€€Oh,€at€the€time,€I€think,€eight,€one€year,€and€nine.ÌÌQ.€€What€type€of€relationship€did€Manop€have€with€hisÏyounger€brothers€and€sisters?ÌÌA.€€€Oh,€very€close.ÌÌQ.€€Specifically,€I€believe€the€youngest?ÌÌA.€€The€baby.ÌÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€*€€ÌÌÓ  ÓQ.€€Ms.€Teal,€you€were€describing€this€relationship€thatÏManop€Thomas€had€with€his€youngest€sibling.ÌÌA.€€They€were€very€close.€€A€lot€of€people€thought€that€heÏwas€the€father€of€his€brother,€because€they€had€that€boundÏ[sic]€and€he€treated€him€that€way.€€And€when€you€would€seeÏthem€out€they€would€come€in€and€say,€is€that€your€son?€€AndÏhe€would€say,€yeah.€€And€thatððs€the€way€they€were.ÌÌQ.€€What€type€of€effect€has€the€death€of€Manop€had€on,Ïspecifically,€this€young€child?ÌÌA.€€Uh,€he€misses€him€and€he€knows€heððs€not€thereÏanymore.€€He€picks€up€his€pictures,€goes€to€them.€€He€wonððtÏallow€anyone€else€to€touch€his€pictures.€€He€calls€his€nameÏoften,€and€heððs€even€picked€up€a€lot€of€his€characteristics.ÌÌQ.€€What€about€the€other€brothers€and€sisters€left€at€home,Ïhow€has€it€affected€them?ÌÌA.€€John,€he€was€under€Nopie,€heððs€„„€in€dealing€with€it€„„Ïheððs€more€to€himself,€heððs€kind€of€like€shut€in.€€And€heððsÏslowly€starting€to€come€out.ÌÌNeesy,€sheððs€the€only€girl.€€Her€and€Nopie€were€close€andÏshe€went€through€a€lot€of€„„€I€guess€of€what€youððd€see€in€anÏadult,€the€stress€that€she€went€€through,€it€completely€took€allÏof€her€hair€out.€€And€her€nerves€were€just€shot,€and€she€hadÏa€lot€of€physical€ailments€behind€it.ÌÌQ.€€And€Mrs.€Thomas,€what€effect€has€this€had€on€her?ÌÌA.€€Emotional,€physical€„„€to€[sic]€much€to€describe.€€It€comesÏand€goes.€€She€has€good€days.€€She€has€bad€days.€€GoodÏphysical€days,€bad€physical€days.€€Good€emotional€days,Ïbad€emotional€days.€€Some€days€might€be€a€good€and€aÏbad€day.€€You€just€never€know.€€The€baby€call€his€name,Ïand€everybody€could€be€having€a€good€day€at€the€time€andÏit€just€turns€it€upside€down€and€all€around.€€You€just€neverÏknow.€€Itððs€really€just€hour€to€hour€instead€of€a€day€to€day.ÌÌQ.€€As€a€result€of€Ms.€Thomasðð€testimony€here€in€court€theÏother€day,€was€she€physically€able,€or€emotionally€able€toÏbe€here€to€testify€as€to€what€youððre€testifying€to€today?ÌÌA.€€No,€she€wasnððt.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àSince€òòPayneóó€the€supreme€court€has€not€addressed€the€admissibility€of€victimÏimpact€testimony€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€However,€the€supremeÏcourt€has€alluded€to€victim€impact€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Shepardóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,Ï902€(Tenn.€1995)(victim€impact€argument€by€state€during€rebuttal€summation€proper);ÏòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€811„12€(Tenn.€1994)(victim€impact€testimony€is€notÏprecluded€by€either€the€federal€or€state€constitution);€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,Ï67€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€933,€115€S.Ct.€328,€130€L.Ed.2d€287Ï(1994)(victim€impact€evidence€that€the€victim€ð ðwas€the€mother€of€five€children€and€herÏfather€was€a€retired€sergeant€major€who€had€served€26€years€in€the€special€forces€as€aÏGreen€Beretðð€held€proper€testimony);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€86Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€513€U.S.€1020,€115€S.Ct.€585,€130€L.Ed.2d€499€(1994);ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€14€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€996,€114€S.Ct.Ï561,€126€L.Ed.2d€461€(1993);€òòEdward€Jerome€Harbison€v.€Stateóó,€Hamilton€County€No.Ï03„C„01„9204„CR„00125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€21,€1996),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Íòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€November€12,€1996).Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Clarence€C.€Nesbitóó,€Shelby€County€No.€02„C„01„9510„CR„00293Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€April€22,€1997),€a€panel€of€this€Court€concluded€that€victimÏimpact€testimony€is€not€admissible€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€InÏòòNesbitóó€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àUnder€Tennesseeððs€capital€sentencing€scheme,€€ð ð[t]he€onlyÏevidence€which€is€òòrelevantóó€during€sentencing€phase.€.€.€isÏthat€evidence€which€is€relevant€to€establish€or€disprove€theÏexistence€of€aggravating€circumstances€or€mitigatingÏfactors.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€179€(Tenn.Ï1991)(citing€òòCozzolino€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€765,€768Ï(Tenn.€1979)(emphasis€added);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„204(c).€Any€evidence€that€does€not€go€to€the€proof€of€one€orÏthe€other€of€those€issues€is€irrelevant€to€the€juryððsÏdeliberation.€€òòCozzolinoóó,€584€S.W.2d€at€768.€€(FootnotesÏomitted).ÌÌÌSlip€op.€at€31„32.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àJudge€David€G.€Hayes,€the€author€of€òòNesbitóó,€set€forth€a€scholarly€dissertation€onÏhow€€victim€impact€testimony€may€affect€the€sentencing€process€to€support€theÏconclusion€this€testimony€was€not€relevant€to€the€sentencing€process€in€death€penaltyÏsentencing€hearings.€€However,€a€majority€of€the€panel€concluded€the€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà àThis€Court€concludes,€as€it€did€in€òòNesbitóó,€the€admission€of€this€evidenceÏconstituted€error.€€Judge€Paul€€G.€Summers€and€Judge€Hayes€are€of€the€opinion€theÏvictim€impact€€testimony€introduced€by€the€state€constituted€harmless€error.€€Judge€JoeÏB.€Jones€is€of€the€opinion€that€while€the€jury€spared€the€defendant€a€death€sentence,Íthe€extensive€nature€of€this€testimony€could€have€been€the€difference€between€a€lifeÏsentence€and€the€sentence€imposed,€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(b).€€Therefore,€Judge€Jones€believes€the€conviction€should€be€affirmed,€butÏthis€case€should€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.Ìò òÌÓÓó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€à à€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌœòò(see€separate€concurring€opinion)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€›Ìà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________________Ìà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE