ÿWPCx dÒ!45IëÔà ¡^PÒª#1 àÔØ ,”¹Äe½,8[qNlµ ‡xúˆ[0Uí– `úà.ïbâ*ÿͳ-1â©OíåM<¦:¨Šr«=r0¥Æà€í/ºüãꂦfWIh üE¤×”—³¶‚«²¸ôÅHиDáå/‚ªÒ­Àg¿Ú¡O¥ÜÑ7v¬3»Ö°àEÒðÊÔ š¶ÁԞŧKMÿ‘|$€0]ò: ²Óš}2ÇWt‡ÄGHñ‹á¬¿ ŠGQµ½i·¦csd¿FàÅP|Hqž8 ¹“@š€fsÑm¸ßÊR“èu³­FÄœBåÚ3½µ [OMA”îmÆ…·“c€çáÐÁ_U.ˆ÷Ë®Ýã)õˆd”™ö½Ä»Õ7#º½òi¼ç—÷¶ÌË#´˜À¶6Ú1%)Ö^‚Ä—z kþ™”êjµ;sÀ/­*+õÔkµ½¨æið» MK>8A£'©ê¶FLæùÈ ;#P©¨º£÷—·Ÿ€pv1b…‹Ä¤i÷Ø´mïÉw:†–™Pp’£úõí˜` òÝh 2¤ñHâ¾ar_“€µ›J Š'¥!]ùàöÆæLªcÇ"Cíöi:3cÔb %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ &Ð 0Dö Æ: Æ ÆÆ ÆŒ #ÉRNJEgUNiU@·(÷÷÷5MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUbkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 0ëssss B^^ 0¤{ D5 D-T 0K ASÌÆ 0¤å 0D‰ A«Í»„‹/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ~‰/ê:i¢×+003|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 Ý ƒRz§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÚ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€issue€is€also€discussed€subsequently€in€this€opinion€as€it€relates€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€of€counsel.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 @Ý ƒRz§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÚ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial,€Dr.€Smith€testified€the€victim€sustained€a€ð ðloose€contact€gunshot€wound.ðð€€Trial€counsel€used€the€termÐ ° Ðð ðloosely€appliedðð€when€cross„examining€Dr.€Smith.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  Ñ À Ñ Ñ°°Ñ  Ñ  Ñ- ù-(|G2z§$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Â!»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÚ ò»»Ô d(|3ø§$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Â!»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ø§$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Â!»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Â!»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Â!»»»ÔÑ8€„XXdê»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼òX»»¼Â!ÔÑ€?c ÑÑ€‡µ ÑÑ€ oN Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îÅòXÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼òX»îîÅ^#ÔˆÐ Ï ÐÓ  ÓNovember€4,€2003€SessionÐ î> ÐÔ‡X?ŠX»¼òXÔÌò òÔ#†¼òX»XX?ŠN#ÔCORWYN€E.€WINFIELD€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€Ô‡X?ŠX»¼òXÔó óÐ à0 ÐÌò òDirect€ó óà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ Ò " Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P€26030€€€€€€James€C.€Beasley,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ ¸  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<i` AßÐ jº  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„00889„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€December€10,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ _¯  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<*` AßÐ +{  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€relating€to€his€conviction€for€secondÐ  p  Ðdegree€murder.€€He€argues:€(1)€the€trial€court€at€his€original€trial€improperly€instructed€the€juryÐ V Ðregarding€the€definition€of€ð ðknowingðð;€(2)€the€prosecutor€committed€misconduct€during€closingÐ ì< Ðargument€at€the€original€trial;€and€(3)€he€did€not€receive€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trialÐ Ò" Ðand€on€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð ¸ ÐÓ÷ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ „Ô ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼òX»àX?ŠÃ#ÔÔ‡X?ŠX.¼òXÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòJohn€EverettÐ P  ÐWilliams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð 6† ÐÌEdward€Witt€Chandler,€Mountain€Home,€Arkansas,€for€the€appellant,€Corwyn€E.€Winfield.€Ð R ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Aslinger,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Î ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Paul€Hagerman,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ´ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð šê ÐÌÓ¼Óò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼òX»XX?Šë#ÔÔ‡X?ŠX»¼òXÔÐ f!¶! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼òX»XX?ŠŽ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X?ŠX»¼òXÔà  àA€Shelby€County€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€second€degree€murder€for€shooting€his€Ð 2#‚# Ðgirlfriend€as€they€were€driving€in€his€car.€€His€conviction€was€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.Ð $h$ ÐCorwyn€E.€Winfieldóó,€No.€W2000„00660„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€522€(Tenn.Ð þ$N % ÐCrim.€App.€July€11,€2001,€at€Jackson).€€The€petitioner€subsequently€sought€post„conviction€relief,Ð ä%4!& Ðwhich€was€denied.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð Ê&"' ÐÌà@%ìàò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ –(æ#) ÐÌÓ*°,X‚Xʸ —X°œX*Óà  àAccording€to€our€opinion€in€the€direct€appeal,€the€following€proof€was€presented€during€theÐ b*²%+ Ðpetitionerððs€original€trial:Ð H+˜&, ÐÌà8  àà Ê àThe€defendant€and€the€victim,€Chijuana€Bassett,€both€in€their€early€twenties€Ô#cdddÔatÐ -d(. Ðthe€time€of€the€offense,€had€been€in€a€romantic,€but€apparently€volatile,€relationshipÐ ú-J)/ý ÐÔ#ddcdÔsince€their€high€school€days€at€Fairley€High€School€in€Memphis€and€together€had€aÐ ° Ðfive-year-old€daughter.€€The€relationship€had€lasted€some€nine€years.€.€.€.€€€Ð–æÐ Ð  ÐÌà  à.€.€.€Ð b² ÐÌà8  àà Ê àÔ#__ddÔThe€defendant€gave€two€different€explanations€of€the€shooting€to€investigators.Ð . ~ ÐÔ#dd__ÔAccording€to€the€first€oral€statement,€.€.€.€the€victim€called€the€defendant€at€his€homeÐ  d Ðon€November€25,€1997,€and€said€that€she€had€gotten€off€work€early€by€giving€anÐ ú J Ðexcuse€about€having€to€pick€up€their€daughter€from€school€because€the€child€wasÐ à 0 Ðsick.€€She€told€the€defendant€that€she€wanted€to€come€over€to€his€house.€TheÐ Æ   Ðdefendant€was€cooking€something€when€he€heard€her€drive€up€and€stop€in€front€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðhis€house.€€When€she€did€not€immediately€come€to€the€door,€he€looked€outside€andÐ ’â  Ðsaw€her€slumped€over€in€the€car.€€He€went€to€check€on€her€and€realized€that€she€hadÐ xÈ  Ðbeen€shot.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€then€dragged€the€victim€from€her€car€into€hisÐ ^®  Ð1993,€three-door,€green€Honda€Civic€and€drove€her€to€the€emergency€room€atÐ D”  ÐMethodist€Hospital-South.Ð*z Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà Ê àAfter€Sergeants€Shemwell€and€Logan€had€told€the€defendant€of€informationÐ öF Ðthey€had€which€was€inconsistent€with€this€version€of€the€shooting,€the€defendant€thenÐ Ü, Ðgave€a€second€version.€€According€to€the€defendantððs€second€version€of€events,€whatÐ Â Ðactually€happened€was€that€the€victim€had€paged€him€from€the€Circle€K€on€ShelbyÐ ¨ø ÐDrive€at€approximately€1:30€p.m.€€When€he€called€her€back,€she€told€him€she€hadÐ ŽÞ Ðtaken€off€work€early.€€He€told€her€to€come€on€to€the€car€wash€where€he€was€waitingÐ tÄ Ðto€have€his€car€cleaned.€€They€then€drove€in€her€car€to€a€liquor€store€where€heÐ Zª Ðpurchased€gin.€€They€went€back€to€get€his€car€and€then€drove€to€his€house€where€theyÐ @ ÐÔ#ccddÔcontinued€drinking.€€Subsequently,€they€left€his€house€in€his€Honda€Civic€and€wereÐ &v Ðdriving€east€on€Shelby€Drive€when€the€victim€mentioned€something€about€theÐ  \ Ðdefendantððs€handgun.€€He€took€the€gun€out€from€underneath€his€seat€and€the€followingÐ òB Ðoccurred,€according€to€the€defendant:ÐØ(Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8ÊÐ Ð àà ¸ àShe€said,€ð ðYou€ainððt€gonna€do€nuthin€with€it€so€put€it€up.ðð€€So,Ð ¤ô ÐI€said,€ð ðWhatever.ðð€€So€at€that€time€I€had€my€right€arm€around€her€seat€andÐ Š Ú ÐI€was€stearing€[sic]€the€car€with€my€right€knee€and€I€had€the€gun€in€my€leftÐ p!À  Ðhand.€€At€that€point,€I€had€cocked€it.€€She€reached€over€as€I€was€uncockingÐ V"¦! Ðthe€gun€and€she€grabbed€my€hand€and€the€gun€fired.Ð<#Œ"ÊÊ ÐÌà8  àà8ÊÐ Ð àà ¸ àWhen€the€gun€fired,€I€looked€at€Chijuana€and€she€was€likeÐ %X $ Ðcoughing€so€I€looked€down€and€seen€that€she€had€been€shot€under€her€leftÐ î%>!% Ðarm€near€her€breast€so€I€€drove€to€Swinnea€Road€and€made€a€left,€then€IÐ Ô&$"& Ðdrove€to€Winchester€and€made€a€left.€€About€Winchester€and€Airways€IÐ º' #' Ðcalled€Vonrico€from€my€cellular€phone€(605-0947)€and€I€told€him€that€IÐ  (ð#( Ðhad€accidentally€shot€my€girl€and€I€didnððt€know€what€to€do.€€So,€he€toldÐ †)Ö$) Ðme€to€take€her€to€the€hospital€and€I€told€him€thatððs€where€I€was€headed€andÐ l*¼%* Ðhe€said€that€he€would€meet€me€there.€€So€I€drove€down€Winchester€ððtill€IÐ R+¢&+ Ðgot€to€Graceland€and€made€a€left€and€drove€down€Graceland€past€the€firstÐ 8,ˆ', Ðstop€sign€and€I€threw€the€gun€out€in€a€gutter€on€Graceland€by€some€leavesÐ ° Ðon€the€east€curb.€€I€continued€down€Graceland€to€Raines€Road€where€IÐ –æ Ðmade€a€right€[and]€went€[down]€Faronia€where€I€made€a€left€and€drove€toÐ |Ì ÐMethodist€South€Emergency€Room.Ðb²ÊÊ ÐÌà  àà8 Ê à.€.€.Ð. ~ÊÊ ÐÌà8  àà Ê àThus,€the€defendant€maintained€that€the€shooting€was€accidental.€€Although€heÐ ú J Ðchose€not€to€testify,€in€his€statement€read€to€the€jury,€the€defendant€denied€that€he€andÐ à 0 Ðthe€victim€were€fighting€or€arguing€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€In€fact,€the€defendantÐ Æ   Ðclaimed€that€the€two€were€making€plans€to€marry€before€Christmas.€€The€defendantÐ ¬ ü  Ðexplained€the€presence€of€several€long€scratches€on€the€back€of€his€neck€in€theÐ ’â  Ðfollowing€statement,€ð ðWhen€I€get€my€hair€cut,€the€back€of€my€neck€itches€a€lot€so€IÐ xÈ  Ðscratch€it€with€my€nails€and€I€have€a€rash€on€both€sides€of€my€neck€and€they€itch€aÐ ^®  Ðlot.ððÐD” Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà Ê àDr.€OððBrian€Cleary€Smith,€Shelby€County€Medical€Examiner,€testifiedÐ ` Ðconcerning€the€victimððs€injuries€and€the€cause€of€death.€€He€said€that€the€victim€wasÐ öF Ðfive€feet,€four€inches€tall€and€weighed€218€pounds.€€The€victim€had€bruised€musclesÐ Ü, Ðon€the€right€and€left€side€of€the€hyoid€bone,€the€bone€right€underneath€the€jaw,€as€wellÐ Â Ðas€bleeding€behind€the€esophagus.€€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€such€injuries€wereÐ ¨ø Ðconsistent€with€a€ð ðblow€to€the€throat€or€it€could€be€a€squeezing€type€action€whichÐ ŽÞ Ðwould€cause€the€tissues€to€be€crushed€underneath.ðð€€Dr.€Smith€also€stated€that€it€wasÐ tÄ Ðpossible€to€damage€underlying€tissues€without€damaging€the€skin.€€The€choking€typeÐ Zª Ðinjuries€to€the€victim€were€described€by€Dr.€Smith€as€ð ðcontemporaneousðð€with€theÐ @ Ðgunshot€wound,€in€that€the€injuries€to€the€victimððs€neck€could€have€occurred€no€moreÐ &v Ðthan€an€hour€prior€to€the€gunshot€wound.€€Dr.€Smith€testified€further€that€the€injuriesÐ  \ Ðto€the€victimððs€neck€could€not€have€been€caused€by€the€intubation€of€the€victim€duringÐ òB Ðthe€emergency€room€resuscitation€procedures.€ÐØ(Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà Ê àThe€gunshot€wound€suffered€by€the€victim€was€classified€by€Dr.€Smith€as€aÐ ¤ô Ðð ðloose€contact€gunshot€woundðð€or€one€where€the€muzzle€of€the€weapon€ð ðwould€hadÐ Š Ú Ð[sic]€been€pressed€up€against€the€cloth€surface€and€the€cloth€up€against€the€skin€at€theÐ p!À  Ðtime€the€weapon€was€fired.ðð€€It€was€a€wound€that€would€cause€death€in€about€sevenÐ V"¦! Ðto€eight€minutes€without€intervention.€.€.€.€Ð<#Œ"Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à.€.€.€Ð %X $ ÐÌÔ#cdccÔà8  àà Ê àThe€bullet€taken€from€the€victimððs€body€was€identified€by€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ Ô&$"& ÐÔ#ddcdÔInvestigation€Special€Agent€Steve€Scott€as€a€.22€caliber€bullet.€€According€to€theÐ º' #' Ðdefendantððs€statement,€the€victim€was€shot€with€a€ð ð.22€caliber€revolver,€6-shot,€blackÐ  (ð#( Ðwith€pistol€grip€handles,ðð€a€weapon€he€claimed€to€have€thrown€from€his€car.€€AÐ †)Ö$) Ðthorough€search€by€police€of€the€area€where€the€defendant€said€he€threw€the€weaponÐ l*¼%* Ðwas€unsuccessful.€Officer€Robert€Martin€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€testifiedÐ R+¢&+ Ðthat€on€August€19,€1998,€some€nine€months€after€the€shooting,€he€and€his€partnerÐ 8,ˆ', Ðrecovered€a€.22€caliber€revolver€with€pistol€grip€handles€from€the€trunk€of€the€greenÐ ° ÐHonda€Civic€owned€by€the€defendant.€€Special€Agent€Scott€was€unable€to€determineÐ –æ Ðconclusively€that€the€bullet€taken€from€the€victimððs€body€had€been€fired€from€theÐ |Ì Ðweapon€retrieved€from€the€defendantððs€car€trunk,€but€neither€was€he€able€to€excludeÐ b² Ðthe€weapon€as€the€murder€weapon.€€Laboratory€results€were€inconclusive.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐòòÌId.€óóat€**2„11€(footnotes€omitted).€€Ð  d ÐÌà@ ìàò òPROOF€AT€POST„CONVICTION€HEARINGó óˆÐ à 0 ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€was€preparedÐ ¬ ü  Ðfor€trial,€was€ready€to€cross„examine€the€stateððs€witnesses,€and€was€ready€to€present€the€defenseÐ ’â  Ðtheory€that€the€shooting€was€accidental.€€Trial€counsel€indicated€his€trial€strategy€was€formed€basedÐ xÈ  Ðupon€all€the€evidence€available€to€him€at€the€time€of€trial.€€He€stated€he€received€discovery€from€theÐ ^®  Ðstate,€met€with€state€witnesses,€and€investigated€the€route€the€petitioner€drove€to€the€hospital.€€HeÐ D”  Ðsaid€he€met€with€the€petitioner€on€several€occasions€prior€to€trial,€and€they€discussed€the€stateððsÐ *z  Ðevidence,€potential€witnesses,€and€trial€strategy.€€According€to€trial€counsel,€a€ð ðcharacterðð€defenseÐ ` Ðwas€not€viable€because€of€the€petitionerððs€prior€inconsistent€statements.Ð öF ÐÌÔ#cdddÔà  àTrial€counsel€testified€he€did€not€file€a€motion€seeking€evidence€of€gunpowder€on€the€victimððsÐ Â ÐÔ#ddcdÔhands.€He€explained€that€while€the€presence€of€gunpowder€on€the€victimððs€hands€would€haveÐ ¨ø Ðcorroborated€the€petitionerððs€statement€that€the€victim€grabbed€the€gun,€it€did€not€establish€that€theÐ ŽÞ ÐÔ#cdddÔshooting€was€accidental.€€Further,€he€said€that€if€a€test€revealed€the€absence€of€gunpowder,€this€wouldÐ tÄ ÐÔ#ddcdÔhave€conflicted€with€the€petitionerððs€statement€and€would€have€been€very€detrimental.€€Thus,€trialÐ Zª Ðcounsel€saw€no€real€benefit€to€a€gunpowder€residue€test.Ð @ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€did€not€file€a€pre„trial€motion€to€suppress€evidence€of€the€pistol€found€in€theÐ  \ Ðpetitionerððs€car.€€Trial€counsel€explained€the€gun€was€found€when€the€police€arrested€the€petitionerÐ òB Ðon€unrelated€charges€a€few€months€before€his€trial.€€He€testified€the€general€sessions€courtÐ Ø( Ðsuppressed€the€evidence€due€to€an€illegal€search€of€the€petitionerððs€vehicle,€and€the€charges€wereÐ ¾ Ðdismissed.€€At€trial,€he€objected€to€the€admissibility€of€evidence€concerning€the€weapon,€but€the€trialÐ ¤ô Ðcourt€overruled€his€objection.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€he€opined€the€pistol€was€not€ð ðfatalððÐ Š Ú Ðto€the€petitionerððs€case€because€there€was€no€ballistics€match€between€the€pistol€and€the€bullet€thatÐ p!À  Ðkilled€the€victim.Ð V"¦! Ѐà  àà Ê àÐ <#Œ" Ðà  àTrial€counsel€stated€he€was€surprised€by€the€testimony€of€the€medical€examiner,€Dr.€Smith,Ð "$r# Ðregarding€the€injuries€to€the€victimððs€throat.€€He€indicated€he€spoke€with€Dr.€Smith€prior€to€trial,€butÐ %X $ ÐDr.€Smith€did€not€express€these€views€about€the€injuries€to€the€victimððs€throat.€€According€to€trialÐ î%>!% Ðcounsel,€neither€the€autopsy€nor€Dr.€Smithððs€written€report€indicated€the€victimððs€throat€had€beenÐ Ô&$"& Ðsqueezed.€€He€opined€it€was€ð ðout€of€characterðð€for€Dr.€Smith€to€testify€to€information€not€found€inÐ º' #' Ðhis€written€report.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€said€that€as€part€of€his€investigation,€he€also€spoke€with€Dr.€McMillan,€whoÐ l*¼%* Ðtestified€that€he€did€not€believe€the€intubation€during€the€emergency€room€procedure€caused€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðinjuries.€€He€said€he€discussed€the€victimððs€intubation€with€Dr.€J.€Pervis€Milnor,€a€physician€who€hadÐ 8,ˆ', Ðexperience€in€trauma€medicine,€because€ð ðbased€on€what€I€knew€that€there€may€be€some€issue€aboutÐ ° Ðit.ðð€€He€said€Dr.€Milnor€reviewed€the€autopsy€report€and€opined€the€possibility€of€the€intubationÐ –æ Ðcausing€the€throat€injuries€was€ð ðremote.ððÐ |Ì ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€stated€he€was€also€surprised€by€Dr.€Smithððs€use€of€the€term€ð ðloosely€appliedððÐ H˜ Ðregarding€the€proximity€of€the€weapon€to€the€victim€when€it€was€fired.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€said€he€had€never€heardÐ . ~ Ðthat€term€before,€but€it€ð ðclearly€conveyedðð€that€the€victimððs€gunshot€wound€ð ðwas€not€a€contactÐ  d Ðwound.ðð€€He€testified€he€did€not€object€to€Dr.€Smithððs€use€of€the€term€because€it€was€not€inconsistentÐ ú J Ðwith€their€theory€of€defense;€cross„examination€about€the€meaning€of€the€term€might€have€elicitedÐ à 0 Ðharmful€information;€and€there€was€no€basis€for€an€objection.Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€presented€the€affidavit€of€trauma€surgeon€Dr.€John€Otten,€who€questioned€Dr.Ð ’â  ÐSmithððs€conclusions€about€the€injuries€to€the€victimððs€throat.€€Dr.€Otten€opined€in€the€affidavit€it€wasÐ xÈ  Ðpossible€to€cause€such€injuries€during€an€emergency€intubation.€€At€the€hearing,€the€petitionerÐ ^®  Ðstipulated€that€the€affidavit€would€not€be€introduced€as€evidence€of€the€truth€of€the€matters€assertedÐ D”  Ðby€Dr.€Otten.Ð *z  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€he€advised€the€petitioner€of€his€right€to€testify,€but€did€not€encourageÐ öF Ðhim€to€testify€due€to€his€prior€conflicting€statements.€€The€attorney€stated€he€did€not€object€to€theÐ Ü, Ðprosecutorððs€closing€argument€that€the€petitioner€went€on€a€ð ðwild€ride€around€Whitehavenðð€afterÐ Â Ðshooting€the€victim.€€He€explained€he€believed€her€statements€were€a€ð ðreasonable€inference€from€theÐ ¨ø Ðproof€,ðð€and€raising€an€objection€would€call€attention€to€her€remarks.€€He€said€that€the€only€issue€heÐ ŽÞ Ðraised€on€appeal€involved€the€admissibility€of€evidence€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b)Ð tÄ Ðof€the€defendantððs€alleged€prior€assault€of€the€victim.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€father,€Tommy€Winfield,€testified€that€following€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony€atÐ &v Ðtrial,€the€petitionerððs€brother,€a€respiratory€therapist,€advised€trial€counsel€that€patients€wereÐ  \ Ðfrequently€injured€during€intubation.€€Winfield€stated€trial€counsel€instructed€them€that€the€brotherÐ òB Ðcould€not€testify€because€he€was€related€to€the€petitioner.€€He€also€said€that€the€petitioner€took€theÐ Ø( Ðmost€direct€route€to€the€hospital€following€the€shooting.Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àThe€record€established€the€trial€court€gave€the€jury€the€following€instruction€on€the€definitionÐ Š Ú Ðof€ð ðknowinglyðð€as€it€applied€to€the€charged€offense€of€second€degree€murder:Ð p!À  ÐÌà8  àð ðKnowinglyðð€means€that€a€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€the€conduct€or€toÐ <#Œ" Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€theÐ "$r# Ðconduct€or€that€the€circumstances€exist.€€A€person€acts€knowingly€with€respect€to€aÐ %X $ Ðresult€of€the€personððs€conduct€when€the€person€is€aware€that€the€conduct€isÐ î%>!% Ðreasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.ÐÔ&$"&Ð Ð  ÐÌÐ  (ð#( Ðòòóóà  àà@U U ìàò òPOST„CONVICTION€COURTððS€FINDINGSˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àó óThe€post„conviction€court€issued€extensive€findings€and€addressed€each€of€the€thirty„fourÐ |Ì Ðgrounds€for€post„conviction€relief€alleged€by€the€petitioner.€€In€summary,€the€post„conviction€courtÐ b² Ðfound:€(1)€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€defining€ð ðknowinglyðð€by€using€the€entire€statutory€definitionÐ H˜ Ðwas€harmless€and€did€not€prejudice€the€petitioner;€(2)€there€was€no€prosecutorial€misconduct;€andÐ . ~ Ð(3)€each€of€the€more€than€thirty€specific€allegations€of€deficiency€of€trial€counsel€was€unfounded.€Ð  d ÐAccordingly,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief.Ð ú J ÐÌò òà@  "ìàJURY€INSTRUCTIONó óˆÐ Æ   ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€first€contends€he€was€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€because€the€trial€courtÐ ’â  Ðfailed€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€regarding€the€definition€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€as€it€applied€to€the€òòmensÐ xÈ  Ðreaóó€element€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€state€concedes€the€jury€instruction€was€in€error,€butÐ ^®  Ðcontends€the€failure€to€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal€waives€the€issue€for€post„conviction€purposes.€Ð D”  ÐWe€agree€with€the€state.€Ð *z  ÐÌà  à€A€ð ðknowing€killing€of€anotherðð€is€second€degree€murder.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð öF Ð210(a)(1).€€The€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€that€ð ðknowingðð€refers€only€to€the€resultÐ Ü, Ðof€the€defendantððs€conduct,€the€death€of€the€victim,€and€erred€by€including€as€part€of€the€definitionÐ Â Ðthe€nature€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Pageóó,€81€S.W.3d€781,€787„88Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2002).€€Regardless,€the€error€was€waived€when€it€was€not€raised€in€the€directÐ ŽÞ Ðappeal€of€the€petitionerððs€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(g).€€Further,€the€plain€errorÐ tÄ Ðdoctrine€has€no€application€in€post„conviction€relief€proceedings.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€19€S.W.3d€753,Ð Zª Ð756„57€(Tenn.€2000).€€òòóóAccordingly,€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€grant€reliefÐ @ Ðbased€on€the€erroneous€jury€instruction.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð &v ÐÌà@ ìàò òPROSECUTORððS€CLOSING€ARGUMENTó óˆÐ òB ÐÌà  àNext,€the€petitioner€maintains€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€denying€him€relief€becauseÐ ¾ Ðthe€prosecution€violated€his€right€to€due€process€during€its€closing€argument€at€his€original€trial.€Ð ¤ô ÐMore€specifically,€he€contends€the€state€improperly€relied€upon€the€proof€that€he€had€previouslyÐ Š Ú ÐÔ#cdddÔassaulted€the€victim.€€This€court€addressed€this€issue€in€the€direct€appeal€of€the€petitionerððs€convictionÐ p!À  Ðand€found€the€prosecutorððs€argument€was€not€improper.€€òòSee€óóòòCorwyn€E.€Winfieldóó,€2001€Tenn.€Crim.Ð V"¦! ÐApp.€LEXIS€522,€at€**23„24.€€Post„conviction€relief€is€not€available€for€grounds€that€have€beenÐ <#Œ" Ðpreviously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(h)€(2003).€€To€the€extent€the€petitioner€allegesÐ "$r# Ðfurther€Ô#ddcdÔbases€for€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€the€original€trial,€those€matters€are€waived€forÐ %X $ Ðfailure€to€raise€them€on€direct€appeal.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„30„106(g).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð î%>!% ÐÌÌÐ  (ð#( Ðà@  ìàò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€petitioner€argues€his€trial€counsel€did€not€provide€him€with€effectiveÐ |Ì Ðrepresentation.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€he€cites€numerous€alleged€errors€on€the€part€of€trialÐ b² Ðcounsel.€€Based€on€our€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€the€post„conviction€court€did€notÐ H˜ Ðerr€in€finding€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð . ~ ÐÌò òA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óÐ ú J ÐÌà  àWhen€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made€under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€theÐ Æ   Ðburden€is€upon€the€complaining€party€to€show€(1)€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€(2)Ð ¬ ü  Ðthe€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€theÐ ’â  Ðtrial€was€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð xÈ  ÐU.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984)òòóóòòóó.€€In€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,Ð ^®  Ð936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€court€required€that€the€services€be€rendered€within€the€range€ofÐ D”  Ðcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€In€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€we€assess€Ð *z  Ðperformance€by€eliminating€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight€and€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÐ ` Ðcounselððs€perspective€at€the€time.€€òòWiggins€v.€Smithóó,€___€U.S.€___,€___,€123€S.€Ct.€2527,€2536,€156Ð öF ÐL.€Ed.€2d€471€(2003);€òòóóòòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€90€S.W.3d€576,€587€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àIt€is€unnecessary€for€a€court€to€address€deficiency€and€prejudice€in€any€particular€order,€orÐ ¨ø Ðeven€to€address€both€if€the€petitioner€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€either.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð ŽÞ ÐÔ#cdddÔat€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€In€order€to€establish€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€establish€a€ð ðððreasonableÐ tÄ ÐÔ#ddcdÔprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÐ Zª Ðbeen€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ @ Ðoutcome.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€463€(Tenn.€1999)€(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,Ð &v Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2068)€(citations€omitted).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€factual€allegations€that€would€entitle€petitionerÐ Ø( Ðto€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòòòóóóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-110(f)€(2003).€€We€review€theÐ ¾ Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€factual€findings€underlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€underÐ ¤ô Ða€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€ð!ð€unless€the€preponderanceÐ Š Ú Ðof€the€evidence€establishes€otherwise.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€However,€the€post„convictionÐ p!À  Ðcourtððs€conclusions€of€law€ð!ð€€such€as€whether€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€or€whether€thatÐ V"¦! Ðdeficiency€was€prejudicial€ð!ð€are€reviewed€under€a€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€no€presumption€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðcorrectness.€€òòóóòòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€457€(Tenn.€2001)€(citations€omitted)òòóóòòóó.Ð "$r# ÐÌò òB.€€Tactical€Decisionsó óÐ î%>!% ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€disclose€the€incriminatingÐ º' #' Ðinformation€against€the€petitioner€in€his€opening€statement.€€Similarly,€he€contends€trial€counselððsÐ  (ð#( ÐÔ#bdddÔclosing€argument€was€weak;€he€failed€to€ð ðzealously€argue€the€differences€of€the€substantive€definitionsÐ †)Ö$) ÐÔ#ddbdÔof€the€crime€chargedðð;€he€ð ðfailed€to€explain€and€evaluate€the€significance€of€false€claims€by€theÐ l*¼%* Ðprosecutorðð;€and€he€failed€to€argue€passionately.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recently€Ð R+¢&+ Ðaddressed€a€habeas€corpus€petitionerððs€claim€that€his€trial€attorney€was€ineffective€during€closingÐ 8,ˆ', Ðargument.€€òòSee€óóòòYarborough€v.€Gentryóó,€òò€€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€€óó,€124€S.€Ct.€1,€157€L.€Ed.€2d€1€(2003).€€In€thatÐ ° Ðcase,€the€Court€stated€ð ð[j]udicial€review€of€a€defense€attorneyððs€summation€is€.€.€.€highly€deferential.ðð€Ð –æ ÐòòóóòòId.óó€at€___.€€The€high€court€noted€that€although€the€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€extendsÐ |Ì Ðto€closing€arguments,€counsel€ð ðhas€wide€latitude€in€deciding€how€to€best€represent€a€client,€andÐ b² Ðdeference€to€counselððs€tactical€decisions€in€his€closing€presentation€is€particularly€important€becauseÐ H˜ Ðof€the€broad€range€of€legitimate€defense€strategy€at€that€stage.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€___.Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àWe€also€observe€trial€counselððs€statements€to€the€jury€were€clearly€part€of€trial€counselððs€trialÐ ú J Ðstrategy,€which€was€to€show€that€the€gun€was€fired€accidentally.€€Deference€is€made€for€sound€trialÐ à 0 Ðstrategy€if€the€choices€are€informed€and€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð Æ   ÐS.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€record€established€trial€counselððs€strategy€decisions€wereÐ ¬ ü  Ðinformed€ones€based€on€adequate€preparation.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€trial€counsel€wasÐ ’â  Ðdeficient.Ð xÈ  ÐÌò òC.€€Misstating€the€Lawó óÐ D”  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€trial€counsel€misquoted€the€applicable€law€during€his€closingÐ ` Ðargument.€€However,€the€only€citations€to€the€record€refer€to€the€òòprosecutionððsóó€closing€argument€thatÐ öF Ðthe€petitioner€was€guilty€of€second€degree€murder€if€he€killed€the€victim€intentionally.€€ThisÐ Ü, Ðstatement€was€accurate.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„301(a)(2)€(stating€the€ð ðknowingðð€òòmens€reaóóÐ Â Ðis€satisfied€if€the€person€acts€ð ðintentionallyðð).€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€trial€counselððsÐ ¨ø Ðperformance€was€deficient.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌò òD.€€The€Pistoló óÐ Zª ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€object€to€the€admissibility€Ð &v Ðof€the€pistol€found€in€his€car€months€after€the€offense€because€(1)€it€was€irrelevant,€and€(2)€it€wasÐ  \ Ðillegally€seized.€€The€trial€record€established€trial€counsel€argued€against€the€admissibility€of€thisÐ òB Ðevidence€contending€the€state€could€not€establish€it€was€the€murder€weapon,€but€the€trial€courtÐ Ø( Ðallowed€admittance.€€The€petitioner€also€claims€trial€counsel€erred€in€failing€to€appeal€the€issue.€€WeÐ ¾ Ðconclude,€after€a€review€of€the€trial€record,€that€the€seized€.22€caliber€weapon€was€relevant€andÐ ¤ô Ðproperly€admitted€at€trial.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€did€not€establish€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÐ Š Ú Ðthat€the€pistol€was€illegally€seized€or€otherwise€subject€to€suppression.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€toÐ p!À  Ðestablish€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€or€that€he€suffered€prejudice€as€a€result.Ð V"¦! ÐÌò òE.€€DNA€Evidenceó ó€Ð "$r# ЀÌà  àThe€petitioner€claims€trial€counsel€failed€to€obtain€DNA€evidence€to€establish€his€skin€orÐ î%>!% Ðcells€were€not€found€underneath€the€victimððs€fingernails.€€However,€the€pathologistððs€testimony€atÐ Ô&$"& ÐÔ#cdddÔtrial€established€the€victimððs€€ð ðfingernails€were€clean.ðð€€We€discern€no€deficiency.€€€Further,€there€wasÐ º' #' ÐÔ#ddcdÔno€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€as€to€what€DNA€testing€would€have€revealed.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌÌÌÐ 8,ˆ', Ðò òF.€€Impeaching€the€Officeró óÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€trial€counsel€failed€to€properly€cross„examine€Sergeant€Shemwell,€whoÐ |Ì Ðtestified€at€trial€regarding€the€petitionerððs€prior€statements.€€He€maintains€trial€counsel€should€haveÐ b² Ðproven€Sergeant€Shemwellððs€testimony€was€untruthful.€€Yet,€the€petitioner€presented€no€evidenceÐ H˜ Ðto€establish€the€officerððs€testimony€was€false.Ð . ~ ÐÌò òG.€€Not€Interviewing€and€Not€Using€Witnessesó óÐ ú J ЀÌà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€trial€counsel€failed€to€interview€key€witnesses€and€failed€to€interview€Ð Æ   Ðand€consider€defense€character€witnesses;€however,€he€does€not€name€the€potential€witnesses€heÐ ¬ ü  Ðclaims€trial€counsel€should€have€interviewed.€€The€decision€not€to€present€character€witnesses€wasÐ ’â  ÐÔ#bbddÔa€tactical€decision.€€Moreover,€the€only€witnesses€who€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€were€trialÐ xÈ  Ðcounsel€and€the€defendantððs€father.€€ð ðWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€discover,Ð ^®  ÐÔ#ddbbÔinterview,€or€present€witnesses€in€support€of€his€defense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€theÐ D”  Ðpetitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð *z  Ð1990);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòScott€v.€Stateóó,€936€S.W.2d€271,€273€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€theÐ ` Ðpetitioner€failed€to€establish€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€interview€witnesses€or€presentÐ öF Ðtheir€testimony€at€trial.Ð Ü, ÐÌò òH.€€Failing€to€Challenge€Expert€Testimonyó 󀀀Р¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€trial€counsel€should€have€argued€Dr.€Smithððs€expert€testimonyÐ tÄ Ðregarding€the€victimððs€throat€injuries€was€not€reliable€scientific€evidence.€€òòSee€óóòòDaubert€v.€MerrellÐ Zª ÐDow€Pharmaceuticals,€Incóó.,€509€U.S.€579,€589,€113€S.€Ct.€2786,€125€L.€Ed.€2d€469€(1993).€Ð @ ÐSimilarly,€he€claims€ð ðloose€contactðð€was€not€a€scientific€term.€€Our€review€of€the€record€shows€Dr.Ð &v ÐSmithððs€testimony€regarding€the€victimððs€throat€injury€was€based€on€the€autopsy€as€well€as€hisÐ  \ Ðinterview€with€Ô#cdddÔthe€emergency€physician€who€treated€the€victim.€€Further,€during€his€testimonyÐ òB Ðregarding€the€victimððs€Ô#ddcdÔgunshot€wound,€he€explained€what€he€meant€by€the€term€ð ðloose€contactÐ Ø( Ðwound.ðð€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€indicating€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony€was€inadmissible.€€TheÐ ¾ Ðpetitioner€has€not€proven€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony.Ð ¤ô ÐÌò òI.€€Examination€of€Dr.€Smithó óÐ p!À  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€argues€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€interview€Dr.€SmithÐ <#Œ" Ðprior€to€trial€and€for€failing€to€properly€cross„examine€him.€€€However,€the€proof€at€the€hearingÐ "$r# Ðestablished€trial€counsel€interviewed€Dr.€Smith€prior€to€trial€and€even€reviewed€Dr.€Smithððs€autopsyÐ %X $ Ðreport€with€another€physician.€€Further,€the€trial€record€shows€trial€counsel€extensively€cross„Ð î%>!% Ðexamined€Dr.€Smith.€€The€petitioner€further€maintains€trial€counsel€should€have€cross„examined€Dr.Ð Ô&$"& ÐSmith€regarding€his€salary€and€the€number€of€times€he€had€testified€for€the€state.€€This€type€of€cross„Ð º' #' Ðexamination€is€a€matter€of€trial€strategy,€and€the€petitioner€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€basedÐ  (ð#( Ðtrial€strategy.€€òòÔ_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847Ð †)Ö$) ÐS.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€This€argument€lacks€merit.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ?c Ñâ âÑÀ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñò òJ.€€Failure€to€Obtain€Expertó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€trial€counsel€failed€to€obtain€expert€testimony€to€rebut€Dr.€SmithððsÐ |Ì Ðopinion€that€the€victimððs€throat€was€injured€by€squeezing€or€by€a€blunt€trauma.€€The€petitioner€hasÐ b² Ðfailed€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced.€€He€presented€Dr.€Ottenððs€affidavit€indicating€the€throatÐ H˜ Ðinjuries€could€reasonably€have€been€caused€by€the€medical€treatment€and€there€was€no€evidence€ofÐ . ~ Ðchoking.€€However,€he€stipulated€the€affidavit€was€not€submitted€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€mattersÐ  d Ðasserted€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔOttenÔ_Ô.Ð ú J ÐÌà  àWe€fail€to€see€any€evidentiary€value€in€the€affidavit€if€it€was€not€submitted€for€its€truth.€Ð Æ   ÐRegardless,€we€are€unpersuaded€that€the€petitionerððs€post„trial€discovery€of€an€expert€who€wouldÐ ¬ ü  Ðdisagree€with€Dr.€Smithððs€opinions€somehow€translates€into€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Dr.Ð ’â  ÐDavid€McMillan€also€testified€at€trial€that€the€medical€procedures€did€not€cause€any€trauma€to€theÐ xÈ  Ðneck.€€In€addition,€trial€counsel€conferred€with€Dr.€J.€Pervis€Milnor,€a€physician€with€experience€inÐ ^®  Ðtrauma€medicine,€prior€to€trial.€€Dr.€Milnor€advised€trial€counsel€that€the€possibility€of€the€medicalÐ D”  Ðprocedures€causing€the€neck€injuries€was€ð ðremote.ðð€€Trial€counsel€was€not€deficient€in€failing€to€seekÐ *z  Ðother€expert€assistance€with€regard€to€the€neck€injuries.Ð ` ÐÌò òK.€€Route€to€Hospitaló óÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€claims€trial€counsel€failed€to€challenge€the€stateððs€theory€that€the€petitionerÐ ¨ø Ðdid€not€travel€a€direct€route€to€the€hospital€following€the€shooting.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ ŽÞ Ðdetermined€the€petitionerððs€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€actually€established€that€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner€did€not€take€the€most€direct€route€to€the€hospital.€€The€post„conviction€court€furtherÐ Zª Ðconcluded€the€proposed€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€The€evidenceÐ @ Ðdoes€not€preponderate€against€these€findings€of€the€trial€court.Ð &v ÐÌò òL.€€The€Smirkó ó€Ð òB ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€a€police€officer€testified€he€observed€the€petitioner€arrive€at€the€hospital€with€theÐ ¾ Ðvictim.€€According€to€the€officer,€the€petitioner€had€ð ða€smirk€type€look€on€his€face.ðð€€The€officerÐ ¤ô Ðstated€the€petitionerððs€expression€changed€to€a€ð ðscared€lookðð€when€he€saw€him.€€In€this€appeal,€theÐ Š Ú Ðpetitioner€argues€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€presenting€the€testimony€of€a€psychologicalÐ p!À  Ðexpert€to€rebut€the€officerððs€testimony.€€We€are€simply€unable€to€conclude€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ V"¦! Ðdeficient€for€failing€to€secure€expert€testimony€to€explain€facial€expressions.€€Further,€the€petitionerÐ <#Œ" Ðhas€failed€to€establish€he€was€prejudiced€by€trial€counselððs€alleged€error€because€he€did€not€presentÐ "$r# Ðany€expert€proof€on€this€issue€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.Ð %X $ ÐÌò òM.€€Failure€to€Testifyó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€trial€counsel€improperly€advised€him€about€his€right€to€testify.€€€HeÐ  (ð#( Ðcontends€he€would€have€made€a€good€witness.€€The€post„conviction€court€found,€and€the€trial€recordÐ †)Ö$) Ðreflects,€that€the€petitioner€chose€not€to€testify€after€trial€counsel€voir„dired€him€regarding€his€rightÐ l*¼%* Ðto€testify.€€According€to€trial€counsel,€he€did€not€encourage€the€petitioner€to€testify€due€to€his€priorÐ R+¢&+ Ðâ âinconsistent€statements.€€The€petitioner€did€not€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€We€cannotÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ oN Ñâ  âÑÀÑâ  âÑ  ÑÔ  Ôâ âconclude€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€encouraging€the€petitioner€to€testify,€nor€does€theÐ ° Ðevidence€preponderate€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitioner€decided€not€toÐ –æ Ðtestify€after€being€advised€of€his€rights.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€trial€counselððsÐ |Ì Ðperformance€was€deficient.Ð b² ÐÌò òN.€€Failure€to€Object€to€Closing€Argumentó óÐ . ~ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€maintains€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€objecting€to€the€stateððs€closingÐ ú J Ðargument€regarding€the€alleged€prior€assault.€€As€previously€discussed,€this€court,€on€direct€appeal,Ð à 0 Ðfound€the€prosecutionððs€argument€was€proper.€€òòSee€óóòòCorwyn€E.€Winfieldóó,€2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Æ   ÐLEXIS€522,€at€**23„24.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌò òO.€€The€ð ðKnowingðð€Jury€Instructionó óÐ xÈ  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€petitioner€did€not€specifically€raise€the€issue€in€his€initial€brief,€he€argued€inÐ D”  Ðhis€reply€brief€and€at€oral€argument€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€raising€the€issue€of€theÐ *z  Ðtrial€courtððs€erroneous€jury€charge€on€the€definition€of€ð ðknowingðð€on€appeal.€€It€is€arguable€that€heÐ ` Ðhas€waived€the€issue.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€€Regardless,€we€elect€to€address€it.Ð öF ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€case€was€tried€in€February€2000.€€Judgment€was€entered€March€17,€2000.€Ð  ÐNotice€of€appeal€was€filed€March€23,€2000.€€The€petitionerððs€brief€was€filed€December€28,€2000.€Ð ¨ø ÐOral€arguments€were€heard€May€8,€2001.€€This€court€entered€its€judgment€and€opinion€affirming€theÐ ŽÞ Ðpetitionerððs€conviction€on€July€11,€2001.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àÔ#gdddÔOn€July€14,€2000,€our€state€supreme€court€filed€its€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Duckeróó,€27€S.W.3dÐ @ ÐÔ#ddgdÔ889€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€holding€that€child€abuse€was€not€a€result„of„conduct€offense,€the€court€statedÐ &v Ðsecond€degree€murder€was€a€result„of„conduct€offense.€€òòDuckeróó,€27€S.W.3d€at€896.€€However,Ð  \ ÐòòDuckeróó€did€not€discuss€jury€charges.Ð òB ÐÌà  àIn€the€unreported€opinion€of€òòState€v.€Keith€T.€Dupreeóó,€W1999„01019„CCA„R3„CD,€2001Ð ¾ ÐTenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€65€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€30,€2001,€at€Jackson),€this€court,€facing€an€issueÐ ¤ô Ðof€first€impression,€held€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€charge€the€jury€that€the€defendant€mustÐ Š Ú Ðhave€acted€ð ðknowinglyðð€with€regard€to€the€result€of€his€conduct€to€be€found€guilty€of€second€degreeÐ p!À  Ðmurder.€€òòId.€óóat€**11„12.Ð V"¦! ÐÌà  àOn€April€16,€2002,€this€court€issued€its€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Pageóó,€81€S.W.3d€781€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð "$r# ÐApp.€2002),€in€which€we€held€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€that€the€defendant€could€beÐ %X $ Ðconvicted€of€second€degree€murder€if€he€acted€knowingly€with€respect€to€his€conduct€and€theÐ î%>!% Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€offense.€€òòId.€óóat€786.€€In€òòPageóó,€we€statedÐ Ô&$"& ÐÌà8  àÔ#cdddÔ[Ô_ÔI]tÔ_Ô€is€now€established€that€a€knowing€second€degree€murder€is€strictly€a€result„of„Ð  (ð#( Ðâ âconduct€offense€.€.€.€.€€A€jury€instruction€that€allows€a€jury€to€convict€on€second€degreeÐ †)Ö$) Ðчµ Ñâ âѰÑâ âÑ  Ñmurder€based€only€upon€awareness€of€the€nature€of€the€conduct€or€circumstancesÐ ° Ðsurrounding€the€conduct€improperly€lessens€the€stateððs€burden€of€proof.ЖæÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòÔ#ddcdÔId.€óóat€788€(citation€omitted).€€€€€€€€Ð b² ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€question€by€noting€that€the€òòPageóó€opinion€was€filed€more€thanÐ . ~ Ðnine€months€after€the€petitionerððs€appeal€was€concluded.€€òòDuckeróó€was€decided€after€the€trial€of€thisÐ  d Ðcase;€thus,€defense€counsel€could€only€raise€this€issue€on€appeal€under€the€plain€error€doctrine.€€òòSee€óóÐ ú J ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€52(b).€€While€it€is€arguable€appellate€counsel€could€have€anticipated€our€holdingÐ à 0 Ðin€òòPageóó€based€upon€òòDuckeróó€and€òòDupreeóó,€we€do€not€find€his€performance€was€deficient€for€failing€toÐ Æ   ÐÔ#ccddÔdo€so.€€As€we€observed€in€òòPageóó,€òòDuckeróó€was€not€a€second€degree€murder€case€and€did€not€discuss€juryÐ ¬ ü  ÐÔ#bbccÔcharges.€€òòSeeóó€òòPageóó,€81€S.W.3d€at€788.€€Furthermore,€the€jury€instruction€in€òòÔ_ÔDupreeÔ_Ôóó€was€distinguishableÐ ’â  ÐÔ#ddbbÔfrom€the€jury€charge€in€both€òòPageóó€and€the€instant€case.€€òòSee€id.óó€€In€addition,€òòDupreeóó€was€decidedÐ xÈ  Ðafter€the€petitionerððs€brief€was€filed€and€shortly€before€oral€argument.€€Given€this€chronology€ofÐ ^®  Ðevents,€we€cannot€conclude€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient.Ð D”  ÐÌò òP.€€Unsupported€Allegationsó óÐ ` ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€trial€counsel€failed€to€properly€investigate€or€prepare€for€trial,€failedÐ Ü, Ðto€properly€interview€the€petitioner,€Ô‡X?ŠXXX?ŠÔfailed€to€obtain€exculpatory€evidence,€failed€ð ðto€perform€hisÐ Â Ðduties,ðð€Ô#†X?ŠXXX?Š˜´#ÔÔ‡X?ŠXXX?ŠÔand€failed€to€obtain€and€analyze€the€evidence.€€He€claims€trial€counsel€failed€to€obtainÐ ¨ø Ðscientific€and€forensic€findings€and€failed€to€properly€voir€dire€the€jury.€€Further,€he€alleges€trialÐ ŽÞ Ðcounsel€failed€to€object€to€the€misconduct€of€the€prosecutor.€€These€arguments€are€waived€since€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant€has€failed€to€make€appropriate€references€to€the€record.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);Ð Zª ÐòòState€v.€Schalleróó,€975€S.W.2d€313,€318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);òòóó€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7)Ð @ Ðand€(g).Ô#†X?ŠXXX?Š;µ#ÔÐ &v ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ òB ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€did€not€err€in€denying€post„conviction€relief.€€Accordingly,€weÐ ¾ Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð ¤ô ÐÌÌÌà  àà Ê àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________€Ð <#Œ" Ðà  àà Ê àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE