ÿWPCÓF +9ÿþÅ"=8«ô ¸çô(—áXæõ&¯NþmG|~xê΢R”AâP ¯A†v­Ciâ[Ú¸´ü@¶ÖŸ£w¥ªÅ}åÑöð«S¬²ÈÕ¢ Zhñ~¸}ƒ D8IšÌ¿ ãèb° F–+¬'lÙ÷ûK9¤;‚»7ùÝbZ¡¹–@øð²Í@üg»ŸuÔ¹JðÛ1‚¸Êÿ¿ÆعàyˆÍ £Ôßýã½êøÝ“QIàÓ¼/@ƒ1@ m´B´B´B´BBËBU: D D D DUNGDN•D^ —D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D—D 0P£D D5óDóDóDóDóD AQ(EÆyE 0P?F 0DF˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi ;Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ#€Pÿÿd#Ñ ñÝ ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ôžÀôXX¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô³¹ ôôôžÀÔÔ‡&’ø& ôô³¹ÔAt€trial,€Wade€Bass,€another€of€defendantððs€acquaintances,€testified€that€he€hadÐ  Ðtaken€the€wallet€after€he€found€it€lying€on€the€floor€of€a€tavern€where€the€defendant€andÏGaines€had€been€drinking.€€The€wallet€contained€$300€in€cash€and€checks.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(" $Ô€X·XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó{Z='hH H ´ \H ô(‚(2H¨$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|x ¸Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ ôžÀôX X¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€found€the€following€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€wasÐ  Ðpreviously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies€involving€the€use€or€threat€of€violence;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)€and€(5)€(1982).€€These€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€wereÏredefined€in€1989€and€are€currently€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2)€and€(5)€(1998ÏSupp.). Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ ôžÀôX X¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô³¹ ôô ôžÀÔ"Whenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgmentÐ  Ðhas€become€final€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€of€direct€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourt€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€The€affirmance€of€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€deathÏshall€be€automatically€reviewed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€the€affirmance€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€clerk€shall€docket€the€case€in€the€Supreme€Court€and€the€case€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ðð =Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ôžÀôXX¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€proof€showed€that€the€defendantððs€parents€were€out€of€the€country€in€Germany€at€theÐ  Ðtime€this€burning€allegedly€occurred.- ù-, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ñ °7 Ñ :Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ ôžÀôX X¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô³¹ ôô ôžÀÔTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€ð ðPrior€to€theÐ  Ðsetting€of€oral€argument,€the€Court€shall€review€the€record€and€briefs€and€consider€òòallóó€errorsÐ ÐÈ Ðassigned.€€The€Court€may€enter€an€order€designating€those€issues€it€wishes€addressed€at€oralÏargument.ððÔ#† ôžÀô ôô³¹©#Ô ;Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ#€Pÿÿd#Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular UÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€the€òòLynnóó€decision€when€it€ruled€onÐ  Ðthe€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€in€this€case.  Ý ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€Denise,€on€the€day€after€Gainesðð€house€burned,€the€defendantððs€brotherÐ  Ðconfessed€to€her€that€he€had€set€fire€to€Gainesðð€house€by€placing€a€lighted€candle€in€the€middle€ofÏthe€bed€in€the€left€front€bedroom. Ý ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€with€respect€to€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€wasÐ  Ðequivalent€to€a€post„conviction€hearing.€€We€find€trial€counselððs€failure€to€prepare€for€and€presentÏevidence€at€the€sentencing€phase€troubling;€however,€we€need€not€evaluate€counselððsÏrepresentation€because€we€reverse€on€other€grounds.€, øð AZ"Arial Regular- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d zÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€found€the€following€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€defendant€wasÐ  Ðpreviously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€which€involve€the€useÏor€threat€of€violence€to€the€person;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€orÏcruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(2)€and€(5)Ï(1982).€€These€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€were€redefined€in€1989€and€are€currentlyÏcodified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(2)€and€(5)€(1998€Supp.). ëÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€author€of€this€opinion€filed€a€separate€dissenting€opinion€in€òòLynnóó€on€the€basis€thatÐ  Ðthe€defendant€in€òòLynnóó€had€objected€to€the€special€venire€before€the€jury€was€sworn,€but€elected€toÐ Ê Ðdefer€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€the€objection€until€after€the€trial€was€completed.€€Under€thoseÏcircumstances,€the€error€was€invited€and€did€not€require€reversal.€€In€this€case,€unlike€òòLynnóó,€theÐ N F Ðdefendant€objected€before€the€jury€was€sworn,€and€the€issue€has€been€properly€presented€forÏreview€on€appeal. Ñ  ÑÑ €% Ñ, øð AZ"Arial Regular LÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô=íõõô=íÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1997€Repl.).Ô#†ô=íõõô=í¹#ÔÔ‡ô=íõõô=íÔ QÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€this€highly€publicized€capital€case,€it€is€difficult€to€understand€why€only€sixty€potentialÐ  Ðjurors€were€summoned€as€part€of€the€original€venire. Ñ °7 Ñ ¬Ý ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€trial,€the€sequestration€statute€provided€as€follows:€ð ðIn€allÐ  Ðcriminal€prosecutions€except€in€those€in€which€a€death€sentence€may€be€rendered,€the€judge€ofÏthe€criminal€court€may,€in€his€discretion,€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant,€and€with€the€consent€ofÏthe€district€attorney€general,€permit€the€jurors€to€separate€at€times€when€they€are€not€engagedÏupon€the€actual€trial€or€deliberation€of€the€case.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„116€(1982€Repl.).€€€ cÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝTen€of€the€twelve€jurors€who€rendered€the€verdict€in€this€case€had€been€exposed€toÐ  Ðpretrial€publicity,€though€all€the€jurors€stated€they€had€not€formed€an€opinion.€€ íÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ô=íõõô=íÔIn€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€694€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.€1985),€another€death€penalty€case€which€wasÐ  Ðtried€in€Maury€County,€the€jury€was€allowed€to€drive€their€personal€automobiles€from€the€hotel€toÏthe€courthouse€on€the€last€day€of€trial.€€The€defendant€raised€this€separation€in€his€motion€for€newÏtrial.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€judge€held€an€extensive€hearing.€€In€response€to€questions€by€the€trialÏjudge,€the€State,€and€the€defense,€ð ð[e]ach€juror€testified€positively€.€.€.€that€there€was€noÏinterference,€no€outside€contact,€and€no€improper€suggestion€made€to€them.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€946.€€€BasedÐ Ò Ê Ðupon€that€proof,€this€Court€rejected€Kingððs€claim€that€his€conviction€and€sentence€had€to€beÏreversed€because€of€a€jury€separation.Ô#†ô=íõõ ô=íª#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€defendant€also€raised€a€separate€challenge€to€the€procedures€used€toÐ  Ðselect€the€òòoriginalóó€venire€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€defendant€offered€proof€to€establishÐ Ê Ðtwenty„five€deviations€from€the€relevant€statutory€procedures.€€Relying€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„¼2„313,€the€lower€courts€held€that€this€issue€had€been€waived€because€the€defendant€had€notÏobjected€prior€to€the€time€the€jury€was€sworn.€€We€agree€with€the€lower€courtsðð€finding€that€thisÏissue€was€waived.€€Before€the€jury€was€sworn,€the€defendant€only€challenged€the€procedures€usedÏto€select€the€òòspecialóó€venire€and€did€not€challenge€the€procedures€used€to€select€the€òòoriginalóó€venire.Ð ” Œ ÐHowever,€we€take€this€opportunity€to€admonish€Maury€County€officials€to€carefully€and€fully€complyÏwith€the€clear€and€detailed€statutes€governing€jury€selection.€€As€we€stated€in€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,Ð   Ð865€S.W.2d€455,€458€(Tenn.€1993),€future€continued€deviations€from€the€statutory€proceduresÏcould€constitute€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular GÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€language€of€the€pre„1989€aggravating€factor€is€applicable€in€this€caseÐ  Ðsince€the€offense€was€allegedly€committed€in€1986.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡ ô=íõõô=íÔState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€82Ð Ê Ð(Tenn.€1994)(jury€should€be€instructed€in€accordance€with€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€the€offenseÏwas€committed).Ô#†ô=íõõ ô=íW#Ô, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÒÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ô=íõõô=íÔAt€trial,€Wade€Bass,€another€of€defendantððs€acquaintances,€testified€that€he€had€taken€theÐ  Ðwallet€after€he€found€it€lying€on€the€floor€of€a€tavern€where€the€defendant€and€Gaines€had€beenÏdrinking.€€The€wallet€contained€$300€in€cash€and€checks. ãÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝCurrently,€the€sequestration€statute€provides€as€follows:€ð ðIn€all€criminal€prosecutions,Ð  Ðexcept€those€in€which€a€death€sentence€may€be€rendered,€jurors€shall€only€be€sequestered€on€theÏjudgeððs€motion€or€on€the€motion€of€the€counsel€for€the€defendant€or€the€district€attorney€general,Ïwhich€shall€prohibit€the€jurors€from€separating€at€times€when€they€are€not€engaged€upon€the€actualÏtrial€or€deliberation€of€the€case.€€The€party€making€the€motion€to€sequester€shall€be€unknown€toÏthe€jury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„116€(1997€Repl.).€€€€ ·Ý ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThough€we€have€not€included€a€detailed€recitation€of€the€facts,€we€have€carefullyÐ  Ðreviewed€the€record€and€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€defendantððs€challengeÏto€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€is€without€merit. QÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ô=íõõô=íÔThe€proof€showed€that€the€defendantððs€parents€were€out€of€the€country€at€the€time€thisÐ  Ðburning€allegedly€occurred. yÝ ƒ H¨$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¦ XXXÔÔ€ô=íõXX¦ Ôà Ø àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ô=íõõô=íÔThe€defendant€asserts€that€both€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€inÐ  Ðconcluding€that€he€lacked€standing€to€object€to€the€search€of€his€parentsðð€home€and€property.€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€lower€courtsðð€findings.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€defendantððs€claim€that€the€evidence€should€be€suppressed€is€without€merit.€€This€evidence€wasÏproperly€admitted.ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 8Ý ƒb­¸"ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€<X¦ XXXÔÔ€<äX<X¦ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€<X¦ X<äÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€7,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA„Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularökK'L ((3­¸$££Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý )ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3­¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÑTR[° AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ8€ ¦  XXdædÈ8ÑÑ€¤ÑÑ€¤ŸÑÔ‡0X¦ XXXÔÑ€#dªÑÓ=€uäXÐXdÐd=ÓÔ_Ôà@ƒ ƒ Ìàò òÔ‡0¼öC»X0X¦ ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@(ÌàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†0X¦ X»0¼öCÕ#Ôó óˆÐ  Ðßx€`;[B2.jzÀH`  `€€@ÿEžx ` 8ttxPÖ0 ( H xßÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÐ È À ÐÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àò òFiled:ó óà @ àò òSeptember€7,€1999ó óÐ š’ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àMAURY€COUNTYÐ ld  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à(Transferred€from€Giles€County)Ð RJ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à(Trial€Court€Nos.€7040€and€7041)Ð 80  Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,Ð ü  ÐPAT€BONDURANT,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àJudgeÐ êâ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellant.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àSupreme€CourtÐ ¶® Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€01„S01„9804„CC„00064Ð œ” ÐÌÌòòÌÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àòòà è àFOR€APPELLEE:óóÐ  ÐÌWilliam€P.€Redick,€Jr.à à àà 8 àà  àà è àMichael€MooreÐ æÞ ÐWhites€Creek,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àSolicitor€GeneralÐ ÌÄ Ð(After€Trial€&€On€Appeal)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àÌPeter€D.€Heilà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAmy€L.€TarkingtonÐ ~!v ÐNashville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€TennesseeÐ d"\ Ð(After€Trial€&€On€Appeal)Ìà Ø àà 0 àÌJerry€C.€Colleyà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àT.€Michael€BottomsÐ %! ÐJohn€Colleyà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà H! àÐ ü%ô" ÐColley€&€Colleyà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à22nd€Judicial€DistrictÐ â&Ú# ÐColumbia,€Tennessee€à à àà 8 àà  àÐ È'À $ Ð(Trial€Only)à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJames€C.€SandersÐ ®(¦!% Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJames€G.€White,€IIÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àColumbia,€TennesseeÌÌÌà@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌÌÔ‡0„Œ „X0X¦ Ôà@VV(Ìàò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ#†0X¦ X „0„ŒQ#ԈРª1¢*/ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌFOR€A€NEW€TRIAL.à à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àDROWOTA,€J.€Ð X9P27 ÐÓÓà Ø àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant,€Pat€Bondurant,€was€convicted€of€premeditatedÏfirst€degree€murder€and€arson.€€Upon€finding€that€the€State€had€proven€two€statutoryÐ  <5: ÐѤŸÑâ âÑ°ÑÑÑÑ8€uäXdê XXdæ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñaggravating€circumstances׃!×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X!° XX0X¦ ÔÔ€ X¦ X XX!°ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô€0X¦ XX X¦ Ô€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€that€there€were€noÐ  Ðmitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution€on€theÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€On€the€arson€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentencedÏthe€defendant€to€ten€years€consecutive€to€the€death€penalty.€The€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,€the€case€was€docketed€in€thisÏCourt׃%×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X!° XX0X¦ ÔÔ€ X¦ X XX!°ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô€0X¦ XX X¦ Ô€and€set€for€oral€argument€with€respect€to€eight€of€the€issues€raised€by€theÐ ÐÈ  Ðdefendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€12.Ð œ”  ÐÌà Ø àAfter€carefully€considering€the€briefs€and€arguments€of€counsel,€relevant€legalÏauthority,€and€the€entire€record€on€appeal,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€of€first€degree€murder€and€arson€must€be€reversed€and€the€caseÏremanded€for€a€new€trial.€€The€defendant€offered€clear€proof€to€establish€that€theÏstatutory€procedures€governing€selection€of€a€special€jury€venire€were€totallyÏdisregarded€and€that€the€jury,€which€was€required€by€law€to€remain€sequestered,€wasÏallowed€to€separate€twice€daily€to€drive€between€their€lodgings€and€the€courthouse.€ÏNo€evidence€was€offered€by€the€prosecution€to€refute€the€defendantððs€claim€regardingÏthe€selection€of€the€special€venire€or€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€prima€facie€showing€ofÏjury€separation.€€Under€clear€and€longstanding€Tennessee€precedent€a€new€trial€isÏrequired€if€the€State€does€not€offer€proof€to€negate€prejudice€once€the€fact€of€juryÏseparation€has€been€established€by€the€defense.Ìâ âÐ Ä,¼%* Ðà Ø àFurthermore,€in€a€highly€publicized€capital€murder€case€it€is€particularlyÏâ âimportant€that€trial€courts€scrupulously€enforce€the€statutory€directives€governingÏselection€of€a€special€venire€and€the€law€requiring€jury€sequestration.€€Otherwise,€theÏrisk€is€great€that€a€jury€will€base€its€decision€on€extraneous€information.€€Here,€the€trialÏcourt€€failed€to€utilize€the€selection€procedures€prescribed€by€the€statute€and€alsoÏallowed€the€jury€to€separate€twice€daily€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€In€the€absenceÏof€countervailing€proof€from€the€State€to€show€that€the€juryððs€decision€was€notÏinfluenced€by€extraneous€information,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€these€seriousÏerrors€were€harmless.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€convictions€are€reversed€and€theÏcase€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌà Ø àAs€a€result€of€the€remand,€many€of€the€errors€assigned€by€the€defendant€in€thisÏappeal€have€been€rendered€moot€and€are€pretermitted.€€However,€because€this€issueÏwill€be€relevant€upon€remand,€we€have€also€considered€the€defendantððs€claim€that€theÏindictment€should€be€quashed€because€of€racial€discrimination€in€the€selection€of€theÏgrand€jury€foreperson€and€now€conclude€that€the€claim€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@-ÌàÔ#†XuäXX0X¦ C#ÔÔ‡+Xÿ1 XXXuäÔò òÔ‡+¼ff» X+Xÿ1ÔòòI.óóÔ#†+Xÿ1 X»+¼ffù#Ôó óÔ#†XuäX X+Xÿ1×#ÔÔ‡0X¦ XXXuäԈР”%Œ" Ðà@%Ìàòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóˆÐ ¼'´ $ Ðà Ø àWhile€the€dispositive€issues€in€this€appeal€relate€to€the€selection€of€a€specialÏvenire€and€the€sequestration€of€the€jury,€the€following€brief€summary€of€the€StateððsÏtrial€proof€is€offered€to€place€the€issues€in€context.׃3×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XX0X¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ,-$&* ÐÌÔ#†XuäXXX¦ i #ÔÔ‡Xÿ1 XXXuäÔà Ø àÔ#†XuäX XXÿ1z"#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXXuäÔThe€defendant,€Pat€Bondurant,€and€the€victim,€William€Ronnie€ð ðHippyðð€Gaines,Ð Ä0¼). Ðwere€friends€and€co„workers€at€the€Pulaski€Rubber€Company€in€Giles€County.€Ð 2ˆ+0 ÐGaines€left€work€on€Friday,€October€17,€1986,€and€has€never€been€seen€alive€since.€ÏFive€days€later,€on€Wednesday,€October€22,€1986,€Gainesðð€house€was€damaged€byÏa€fire€that€arson€investigators€determined€had€been€set€in€the€front€left€bedroom.€€AÏmissing€person€investigation€to€locate€Gaines€began€on€the€evening€after€the€fire€but€Ïwas€unsuccessful.ÌÌà Ø àMore€than€three€years€later,€in€May€of€1990,€law€enforcement€officersÏinterviewed€Denise€Bondurant,€the€defendantððs€estranged€wife.€€According€to€DeniseÏBondurant,€who€testified€at€trial,€the€defendant€had€confessed€to€her€both€the€killingÏof€Gaines€and€the€burning€of€the€victimððs€house.׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XX X¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Denise€testified€that€the€defendantÐ 4, Ðhad€been€angry€at€Gaines€for€some€time€because€the€defendant€suspected€thatÏGaines€had€stolen€his€wallet€containing€money€from€the€monthly€social€securityÏdisability€check€belonging€to€the€Bondurantsðð€disabled€son,€Matthew.׃1Ö×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€During€thisÐ ˜ Ðtime,€the€defendant€had€made€veiled€threats€against€anyone€who€stole€ð ðfrom€him€orÏlittle€Matthew.ðð€€The€defendant€told€Denise€that€on€the€evening€of€October€17,€whileÏat€Gainesðð€house,€he€caught€Gaines€cheating€while€playing€cards.€€At€this€point,€theÏdefendant€ð ðjust€went€off,ðð€and€beat€Gaines€to€death€with€a€small€rocking€chairÏbecause€he€ð ðcould€not€allow€anyone€to€take€anything€from€little€Matthew.ðð€€TheÏbeating,€which€continued€for€thirty€minutes€after€Gaines€had€died,€was€of€such€forceÏas€to€leave€only€a€small€piece€of€the€rocking€chair€intact.€€The€defendant€and€hisÏbrother,€Pete€Bondurant,€dismembered€the€victimððs€body,€cleaned€the€house€so€thatÏno€trace€of€blood€or€hair€remained,€and€transported€the€body€to€their€parentsðð€homeÏin€Westpoint,€Tennessee,€where€they€burned€the€corpse.׃4ä×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р.ˆ', Їà Ø àIn€May€of€1990,€relying€upon€information€provided€by€Denise€Bondurant,€lawÏenforcement€officials€obtained€a€search€warrant€and€returned€to€the€Westpoint€houseÏwhere,€with€the€help€of€a€team€of€forensic€anthropologists,€they€located€seven€burnedÏhuman€cranial€fragments.׃6×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.€William€Bass,€the€leader€of€the€forensicÐ l d Ðanthropologists,€testified€that€he€was€100€percent€certain€that€the€bones€were€human,Ï75€percent€certain€that€they€came€from€a€male,€over€50€percent€certain€that€bluntÏtrauma€had€been€applied€to€the€skull€before€it€had€been€burned,€and€90€percentÏcertain€that€the€bones€had€been€in€the€ground€no€less€than€one€nor€more€than€fifteenÏto€twenty€years.ÌÌà Ø àOther€proof€€also€supported€Deniseððs€testimony€and€the€forensic€evidence.€€ForÏexample,€a€childððs€rocking€chair€that€had€been€in€the€front€left€bedroom€of€GainesððÏhouse€was€missing€after€the€fire.€€The€defendant€had€also€made€several€strange€orÏincriminating€statements€around€the€time€of€Gainesðð€disappearance.€€TheseÏstatements€ranged€from€the€defendantððs€remark€that€Gaines€had€joined€the€ForeignÏLegion€to€the€defendantððs€outright€admission€to€one€co„worker€that€he€had€ð ðkilled€theÏson„of„a„bitch.ððÌÌà Ø àBased€on€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first„degreeÏpremeditated€murder€and€arson.ÌÌà Ø àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€introduced€proof€of€the€defendantððsÏconviction€of€second€degree€murder€in€Giles€County€in€March€of€1991.€€The€defenseÏpresented€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€mother,€who€recounted€the€circumstancesÏof€the€defendantððs€childhood€and€described€him€as€an€exemplary€son,€who€hadÐ (2 +0 Ðhelped€his€parents,€maintained€a€close€and€loving€relationship€with€his€family,€andÏworked€steadily€for€seventeen€years.€€Relying€on€this€proof,€the€jury€found€that€thereÏwere€no€mitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€twoÏaggravating€circumstances€proven€by€the€State€and€imposed€a€sentence€of€death€byÏelectrocution.Ô#†XuäXXX¦ È"#ÔÔ‡0X¦ XXXuäÔ€€On€the€arson€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€tenÐ 80 Ðyears€consecutive€to€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà Ø àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€Thereafter,Ô#†XuäXX0X¦ Ç4#ÔÔ‡X¦ XXXuäÔ€William€Redick€andÐ œ”  ÐPeter€Heil€were€substitutedÔ#†XuäXXX¦ Ô5#ÔÔ‡X¦ XXXuäÔ€for€trial€counsel,€Jerry€and€John€Colley,€who€had€beenÐ h` Ðallowed€to€withdraw.€€An€amended€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed€on€behalf€of€theÏdefendant€by€Redick€and€Heil€in€which€several€additional€claims€were€raised,Ïincluding€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XuäXXX¦ Y6#Ô€€Ô€$X¦ XXXuäÔA€full€hearing€was€conducted€onÐ ÌÄ Ðthe€motionÔ‡ X¦ XX$X¦ Ô,€and€a€great€deal€of€proof€was€introduced€by€the€defense€in€support€of€theÐ ¤œ Ðmotion€which€will€be€discussed€in€further€detail€hereafter.€€No€additional€proof€wasÏintroduced€by€the€prosecution€at€the€hearing.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€forÏnew€trial,€thereby,€upholding€the€defendantððs€convictions€and€sentences,€and€theÔ#†$X¦ XX X¦ ˆ8#ÔÔ‡0X¦ XX$X¦ ÔÐ " ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà Ø àBecause€the€trial€court€completely€departed€from€the€statutory€proceduresÏwhich€govern€selection€of€a€special€jury€venire€and€because€the€sequestered€jury€wasÏallowed€to€separate€twice€daily€during€the€trial,€we€reverse€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€and€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial.Ô#†$X¦ XX0X¦ ':#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XX$X¦ Ô€€Ô#†$X¦ XX X¦ í;#ÔÔ‡X¦ XX$X¦ ÔWe€will€first€address€the€two€issuesÐ Ð,È%* Ðwhich€require€reversal.€Ô#†$X¦ XXX¦ 1<#ÔÐ œ.”', ÐÌÐ 42,+0 Ðà@SS-ÌàÔ‡$¼öC»X$X¦ ÔÔ‡¼ff»»$¼öCÔò òòòII.óóÔ#†$¼öC»»¼ff =#ÔÔ‡ ¼öC»»$¼öCÔÔ#† X¦ X» ¼öC=#Ôó óˆÐ  ÐÔ#†$X¦ XX X¦ n=#ÔÔ€X¦ XX$X¦ Ôà@ŒŒ!Ìàò òòòSELECTION€OF€SPECIAL€VENIREóóó óˆÐ 0 ( Ðà Ø àThe€defendant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€the€trial€courtÏflagrantly,€unnecessarily,€and€substantially€deviated€from€the€statutory€procedure€forÏselecting€a€special€jury€venire€in€this€case.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€deviationsÏconstitute€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process€and€undermine€the€publicððs€confidence€inÏthe€administration€of€justice.€€We€agree.€€The€facts€relevant€to€this€issue€are€brieflyÏsummarized€below.ÌÌà Ø àThe€record€in€this€case€reflects€that€only€sixty€potential€jurors€reported€to€courtÏon€the€first€day€of€jury€selection.€€Within€a€few€hours,€twenty„five€of€the€sixty€had€beenÏexcused€for€various€reasons,€leaving€only€thirty„five€remaining€potential€jurors.€€At€thatÏpoint,€the€fact€that€there€were€not€enough€potential€jurors€remaining€to€seat€the€panelÏin€this€case€became€apparent.€€The€trial€judge€then€told€the€court€clerk,€ð ðI€think€youÏbetter€go€up€there€and€call€in€right€now.€€Tell€those€women€to€get€on€the€phone€andÏstart€calling.Ô‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ôðð€The€trial€judge€instructed€the€court€clerk€to€ð ðcall€in€another€125.ððÐ d"\ ÐÌà Ø àAdditional€potential€jurors€reported€to€court€the€next€day,€and€a€jury€had€beenÏchosen€by€the€fourth€day€of€trial.€€However,€immediately€before€the€jury€was€sworn,Ïdefense€counsel€Jerry€Colley€challenged€the€special€venire.€€In€support€of€hisÏchallenge,€Colley€called€the€circuit€court€clerk€as€a€witness.€€The€clerk€testified€thatÏthe€chief€deputy€and€one€of€the€deputy€clerks€had€drawn€the€names€of€the€specialÏvenire€of€125€from€the€jury€box.€€Once€the€names€had€been€drawn,€employees€of€theÏclerkððs€office€telephoned€the€potential€jurors€and€instructed€the€individuals€to€appearÏat€court€for€jury€service€the€next€day.ÌÌà Ø àIn€arguing€his€objection€to€the€trial€court,€Colley€emphasized€that€he€did€notÏparticularly€want€to€start€all€over€again€with€jury€selection€but€cautioned€that€ð ðwe€areÐ ô7ì06 Ðcourting€real€danger€if€we€go€up€in€a€death€case€to€the€Supreme€Court,€and€that€CourtÏsees€how€this€panel€was€selected,€we€are€in€trouble.ðð€€The€trial€court€responded:€ð ðIÏthought€we€sat,€right€here€in€my€office,€and€we€all€agreed€that€this€was€the€only€wayÏwe€could€proceed€with€this€trial€and€get€these€jurors,€here.€€No€one€raised€anyÏobjection€to€doing€it€that€way.ðð€€Defense€counsel€replied:€ð ðat€that€time,€I€did€not€knowÏthat€the€jury€commission€wasnððt€going€to€draw€them,€and€we€were€going€to€limit€thisÏto€people€who€had€telephones.ðð€€The€trial€court€overruled€defense€counselððsÏchallenge€to€the€special€venire,€stating:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àIððm€going€to€overrule€your€motion.€€The€defense€counsel€agreed€to€thisÏmethod€of€selecting€the€jury.€€We€have€a€full€cross€section€of€theÏcitizens€of€this€county.€€And€the€Court€is€going€to€overrule€your€motion.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ®HÓÌà Ø àFollowing€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€the€jury€was€sworn€and€rendered€a€verdict€ofÏguilty€on€the€charges.€€However,€the€challenge€to€the€special€venire€was€renewed€inÏthe€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€and€additional€proof€was€offered€at€the€hearingÏon€the€motion.ÌÌà Ø àThe€testimony€is€ambiguous€as€to€exactly€who€opened€the€jury€box€and€drewÏthe€names€for€the€special€venire,€but€the€trial€judge€clearly€did€not€perform€this€task.€ÏIn€any€event,€after€the€names€had€been€drawn,€they€were€divided€among€the€deputyÏclerks,€who€then€attempted€to€match€each€to€a€name€appearing€in€the€telephoneÏdirectory.€€If€the€name€on€the€jury€ticket€was€found€in€the€telephone€directory€but€theÏaddress€on€the€jury€ticket€did€not€match€the€address€in€the€telephone€directory,€theÏjury€ticket€was€set€aside,€and€no€telephone€call€was€placed.€€One€of€the€deputy€clerksÏtestified€that,€of€the€people€she€attempted€to€contact,€very€few€were€actuallyÏcontacted€because€it€was€ð ðduring€a€working€day€that€we€would€be€calling€theseÏpeople,€and€you€just€wouldnððt€get€any€response,€most€of€the€time,€to€most€telephoneÏâ ânumbers€that€you€called.ðð€€When€the€deputy€clerk€was€able€to€contact€someone,€sheÐ Ú4Ò-3 ÐÑ#dª Ñâ #âÑ  ÑÑ €%XÑâ #âÑ  Ñtold€them€ð ðthat€we€had€a€case€going€in€court€and€their€names€had€been€drawn€fromÏthe€jury€box,€and€that€we€expected€them€to€come€in€the€next€day€for€jury€service.ððÌâ âÌà Ø àWith€respect€to€this€procedure,€another€deputy€clerk€testified€that€she€ð ðwasÏsuccessful€with€some,€and€some€I€couldnððt€reach.€€Some€people€I€knew,€and€knewÏwhere€they€worked,€so€I€had€called€them.€€I€called€some€of€them€at€work.€€I€knew€aÏfew€of€the€people.€€And€then,€later€on€in€the€afternoon,€some€of€the€people€calledÏback.€€They€thought€that€„„€they€had€been€called,€and€they€thought€it€might€be€a€jokeÏand€that€we€didnððt€call€for€them.€€They€had€never€been€called€that€way,€before.ðð€ÏAnother€deÔ#†X¦ XX X¦ WB#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ôputy€clerk€testified€that€not€all€125€people€had€been€contacted€by€the€endÐ 4, Ðof€the€work€day;€therefore,€she€continued€calling€potential€jurors€from€her€home€thatÏevening,€directing€them€to€appear€in€court€the€next€day€at€9:00€a.m.€The€proof€at€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€also€showed€that€no€one€had€prepared€a€masterÏlist€of€the€names€drawn€or€the€names€summoned€and€that€no€punishment€wasÏimposed€or€accounting€required€of€those€who€had€failed€to€appear.ÌÌà Ø àDespite€this€additional€proof,€the€trial€court€once€again€overruled€theÏdefendantððs€objection,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.€€For€the€reasonsÏthat€follow,€we€reverse.€ÌÌà Ø àInitially€we€note€our€disagreement€with€the€lower€courtsðð€finding€that€defenseÏcounsel€acquiesced€in€the€procedure€used€to€select€the€special€venire.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€defense€counsel€only€acquiesced€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€summonÏadditional€potential€jurors€after€jury€selection€had€begun.€€Defense€counsel€wasÏunaware€of€the€method€used€to€summon€the€potential€jurors€until€immediately€beforeÏthe€jury€was€sworn,€which€was€four€days€into€the€trial.€€As€soon€as€defense€counselÏlearned€of€the€method€utilized,€an€objection€was€interposed.€€Accordingly,€contraryÏto€the€decisions€of€the€lower€courts,€we€hold€that€defense€counsel€did€not€acquiesceÐ Œ7„06 Ðin€the€method€used€to€select€the€special€venire€and€properly€objected€to€theÏunauthorized€procedure€before€the€jury€had€been€sworn.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„¼313€(1994€Repl.)(ð ðòò[i]n€the€absence€of€fraudóó,€no€irregularity€with€respect€to€theÐ   ˜ Ðprovisions€of€this€part€or€the€procedure€thereunder€shall€affect€the€validity€of€anyÏselection€of€any€grand€jury,€or€the€validity€of€any€verdict€rendered€by€the€trial€juryÏòòunless€such€irregularity€has€been€specially€pointed€out€and€exceptions€taken€theretoÐ ü  Ðbefore€the€jury€is€sworn.óóðð)€(emphasis€added).׃,×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XX X¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X¦ XXX¦ ßQ#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ ÔÐ ÐÈ  ÐÌà Ø àIn€addition,€we€have€also€determined€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erredÏin€distinguishing€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Lynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€892€(Tenn.Ð 4, Ð1996),Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ ZZ#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ô׃æ ×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XX X¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€involved€facts€quite€similar€to€the€circumstances€ofÔ#†X¦ XXX¦ [#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ô€this€case.€€In€thatÐ ø Ðcase,€the€trial€court€directed€the€court€clerk€to€draw€new€names€for€a€special€venireÏafter€a€hearing€had€disclosed€evidence€that€the€original€venire€was€tainted€by€juryÏtampering.€€The€court€clerk€opened€the€jury€box€in€his€office,€unsealed€it,€and€drewÏsufficient€names€to€constitute€the€special€jury€venire.€€Counsel€was€not€supplied€a€listÏof€the€names€until€immediately€before€jury€selection.€€òòId.óó€at€894.€Ð ü!ô ÐÌà Ø àAfter€reviewing€the€statutory€provisions€that€prescribe€the€method€by€which€aÏspecial€venire€is€to€be€selected,€this€Court€held€that€proof€of€actual€prejudice€is€notÏrequired€in€circumstances€involving€flagrant,€unreasonable,€and€unnecessaryÏdeviations€from€those€statutory€provisions.€€In€so€holding,€we€stated€as€follows:Ð ø*ð#( ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àWe€do€not€question€the€integrity€of€the€court€officials€in€this€case.€ÏUndoubtedly,€their€motives€and€intentions€were€honorable.€€WeÏacknowledge€that€they€were€called€upon€to€perform€an€infrequentlyÏused€procedure,€that€of€impaneling€a€special€venire.€€Nonetheless,€theÏstatutes€are€explicit.€€The€procedures€required€are€detailed.€€ThisÏjudicial€proceeding€had€already€been€discolored€by€the€trial€judgeððsÏearlier€findings€of€jury€tampering.€€The€fundamental€principles€ofÏimpartiality,€disinterestedness,€and€fairness€are€even€more€essential€inÏa€case,€such€as€this,€in€which€a€previous€attempt€to€circumvent€fairnessÏhas€occurred.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àOften,€the€public€sees€in€our€justice€system€somethingÏsubstantially€different€from€what€actually€exists.€€It€is€the€appearanceÏthat€often€undermines€or€resurrects€faith€in€the€system.€€To€promoteÏpublic€confidence€in€the€fairness€of€the€system€and€to€preserve€theÏsystemððs€integrity€in€the€eyes€of€the€litigants€and€the€public,€ð ðjusticeÏmust€satisfy€the€appearance€of€justice.ðð€€òòOffutt€v.€United€Statesóó,€348Ð h` ÐU.S.€11,€14,€75€S.€Ct.€11,€13,€99€L.Ed.11€(1954).Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓÒ_ÓÌòòId.óó€at€898.Ð ø ÐÌà Ø àWhile€acknowledging€the€existence€of€òòLynnóó,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€inÐ ˜ Ðthis€case€stated€that€òòLynnóó€applied€ð ðnarrowly€to€the€facts€of€that€case.€.€.€[where]€thereÐ d\ Ðwere€claims€of€jury€tampering.ðð€€We€disagree€and€Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ o\#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ôconclude€that€the€holding€of€òòLynnóóÐ 0 ( Ðapplies€with€equal€force€in€the€context€and€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Here,€the€trialÏcourt€substantially,€flagrantly,€and€unnecessarily€deviated€from€the€statutoryÏprocedures,€and€the€defendant€objected€to€the€deviations€prior€to€the€time€the€juryÏwas€sworn.׃"×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X!° XX X¦ ÔÔ€ X¦ X XX!°ÔòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ *f#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ ÔÐ `'X $ ÐÌà Ø àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€22„2„308(a)(2)(1994€Repl.),€provides€theÏfollowing€procedures€to€govern€the€selection€of€a€special€venire:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àIn€the€event€by€reason€of€the€disqualification€of€proposed€jurors,€orÏother€cause,€the€required€number€of€jurors€cannot€be€obtained€from€theÏvenire,€the€clerk€of€the€court€shall€produce€in€open€court€the€jury€box,Ïand€the€box€shall€be€opened€by€the€court€and€there€shall€be€drawnÐ B1:*/ Ðtherefrom,€as€directed€by€the€court,€the€number€of€names€deemed€byÏthe€judge€sufficient€to€complete€the€juries.€€This€process€shall,€ifÏnecessary,€continue€until€the€grand€and€petit€juries€are€completed;€butÏthe€judge€of€the€court€instead€of€following€the€last€mentioned€procedureÏmay,€if€the€judge€shall€deem€proper,€furnish€a€sufficient€number€ofÏnames€of€persons€to€be€summoned€to€the€sheriff,€or€the€judge€may,€ifÏthe€judge€thinks€proper,€direct€the€sheriff€to€summon€a€sufficientÏnumber€to€complete€the€juries.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÌÓÓAs€we€recognized€in€òòLynnóó,€this€statute€prescribes€three€options€which€may€be€usedÐ ü  Ðto€select€a€special€venire.€€The€trial€judge€has€the€discretion€to€choose€between€theÏthree,€but€if€the€judge€does€not€select€the€second€or€third€option,€the€first€option€isÏmandatory.€€That€option€requires€the€court€clerk€to€produce€the€jury€box€in€open€courtÏwhere€the€judge€is€required€to€open€it€and€direct€the€drawing€of€a€sufficient€numberÏof€jurors.€€òòId.óó,€924€S.W.2d€at€895.€€€Ð ø ÐÌà Ø àIn€this€case,€as€in€òòLynnóó,€none€of€these€procedures€were€followed.€€The€trialÐ ˜ Ðjudge€did€not€attempt€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€but,€instead,€the€trialÏcourt€conceived€of€and€implemented€an€alternative€procedure€that€was€not€authorizedÏby€law.Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ @h#Ô€€The€jury€box€was€not€produced€in€open€court,€and€the€names€were€drawn€byÐ ü!ô Ðclerkððs€office€employees€outside€the€presence€of€both€the€trial€judge€and€the€courtÏclerk.€Ô‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ô€As€we€have€previously€recognized,€Ð ”%Œ" ÐÓÓà8 Ø à[r]ules€prescribing€jury€selection€procedures€are€intended€to€protect€theÏintegrity€of€the€jury€system€by€providing€a€uniform€and€ordered€methodÏthat€ensures€the€accused€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€chosen€from€a€fairÏcross„section€of€the€community.€.€.€.€€Compliance€with€the€procedureÏset€forth€.€.€.€safeguards€the€judicial€process€and€protects€theÏadministration€of€justice.€€€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓæpÓòòColemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€at€458€(citations€omitted).Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ p#Ô€€€The€proof€offered€by€the€defendantÐ ª-¢&+ Ðon€this€issue€clearly€illustrates€that€the€method€employed€in€this€case€denigrated€theÏintegrity€of€the€jury€system€and€resulted€in€a€subjective€and€disorderly€selectionÏprocess.Ìâ âÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðà Ø àFor€example,€even€assuming€that€the€names€were€randomly€drawn€from€theÏâ âjury€box€by€clerkððs€office€employees,€the€method€used€to€summon€potential€jurorsÏcompromised€the€randomness€of€the€procedure.€€The€evidence€reflects€that€potentialÏjurors€known€to€the€clerkððs€office€employees€were€called€at€work€while€all€otherÏpotential€jurors€were€called€at€home.€€Given€the€fact€that€the€potential€jurors€wereÏbeing€called€in€the€middle€of€a€work€day,€it€is€much€more€likely€that€those€actuallyÏcontacted€were€potential€jurors€with€whom€the€clerkððs€office€employees€wereÏacquainted.€€The€manner€in€which€this€erroneous€procedure€impugned€the€integrityÏof€the€jury€system€is€sharply€illustrated€by€the€fact€that€some€potential€jurors€believedÏthe€telephone€ð ðsummonsðð€was€a€joke€since€they€had€never€before€been€summonedÏfor€jury€service€in€that€manner.€€The€fact€that€potential€jurors€were€aware€that€theÏsummons€procedure€was€unusual€also€could€have€inherently€caused€jurors€toÏspeculate€that€the€defendant€was€more€dangerous€or€that€the€alleged€crime€was€moreÏserious€than€other€criminal€cases.€€Also€quite€troubling€is€the€fact€that€the€specialÏvenire€was€called€after€jury€selection€had€already€begun.€€The€record€reflects€that€aÏnews€account€of€the€facts€of€the€case€and€of€the€progress€of€jury€selection€had€beenÏpublished€in€a€local€evening€newspaper€at€the€end€of€the€first€day€of€jury€selection.€ÏMany€of€the€potential€jurors€who€reported€on€the€second€day€of€jury€selection€inÏresponse€to€the€special€venire€had€read€the€article.׃)×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `'X $ ÐÌà Ø àJust€as€in€Ô‡ X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòLynnóó,€we€do€not€question€the€integrity,€motives,€or€intentions€of€theÐ ø*ð#( Ðcourt€officials.€€To€the€contrary,€we€realize€that€the€trial€court€was€faced€with€aÏdilemma€when€almost€one„half€of€the€original€venire€was€excused€after€only€a€fewÏhours€of€voir€dire.׃&×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XX X¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€this€dilemma€did€not€empower€the€trial€court€to€employÐ \0T). Ðan€illegal€method€of€jury€selection.€€In€serious€and€highly€publicized€capital€murderÐ (2 +0 Ðtrials,€such€as€this€one,€meticulous€and€conscientious€adherence€to€the€statutory€juryÏselection€procedures€is€particularly€important.€€Moreover,€as€the€defendant€points€out,Ïthe€statute€provides€two€options€which€the€trial€court€could€have€used€to€solve€the€Ïdilemma.€€Specifically,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„308(a)(2)€allows€a€trial€judge€toÏÔ#†X¦ XXX¦ Îz#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ôð ðfurnish€a€sufficient€number€of€names€of€persons€to€be€summoned€to€the€sheriff,€orÐ 80 Ð.€.€.€.€€direct€the€sheriff€to€summon€a€sufficient€number€to€complete€the€juries.ðð€€TheseÏstatutory€options€appear€to€contemplate€situations€in€which€expedited€summons€areÏneeded.Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ ³~#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ ÔÐ œ”  ÐÌà Ø àWe€have€declined€to€reverse€convictions€for€minor€deviations€from€theÏstatutory€jury€selection€procedure€when€the€deviations€are€either€inadvertent€orÏnecessitated€by€circumstances€beyond€the€trial€courtððs€control.€€However,€we€will€notÏsanction€flagrant€and€unnecessary€deviations.€€The€trial€court€in€this€case€completelyÏfailed€to€comply€with€applicable€law€in€choosing€the€special€venire.€€The€deviationsÏwere€flagrant€and€unnecessary.Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ €#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ô€€As€we€stated€in€òòLynnóó,€ð ð[t]o€promote€publicÐ 0 ( Ðconfidence€in€the€fairness€of€the€system€and€to€preserve€the€systemððs€integrity€in€theÏeyes€of€the€litigants€and€the€public,€ððjustice€must€satisfy€the€appearance€of€justice.ððððÐ È#À  ÐòòLynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€898,€quoting€òòOffutt€v.€United€Statesóó,€348€U.S.€11,€14,€75€S.€Ct.Ð ”%Œ" Ð11,€13,€99€L.Ed.11€(1954).€€The€procedure€employed€by€the€trial€court€in€this€caseÏsatisfied€neither€justice,€nor€the€appearance€of€justice.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€and€sentences€must€be€reversed.ÌÌÌà@%%,Ìàòòò òÔ‡ ¼öC»X X¦ ÔÔ#†¼öC»» ¼öC3‚#ÔÔ‡-¼ff»»¼öCÔIII.ó óóóÔ#†¼öC»»-¼ff…#ÔÔ#†X¦ X»¼öCÕ„#ԈР\0T). Ðòòò òà@'ÌàJURY€SEPARATIONóóó óˆÐ „2|+0 Ðà Ø àReversal€is€also€required€in€this€case€because€the€defendant€offered€unrefutedÏâ âproof€showing€that€€the€jurors,€who€were€required€by€law€to€remain€sequestered,€wereÐ (6 /4 Ðallowed€to€separate€twice€each€day€to€drive€their€personal€vehicles€between€theirÏlodgings€and€the€courthouse.Ìâ âÌà Ø àIn€the€defendantððs€initial€motion€for€new€trial€filed€by€defense€counsel€JerryÏColley,€the€following€claim€was€asserted:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€jury€was€not€properly€sequestered€throughout€the€eightÏday€trial€in€that€they€were€allowed€to€separate€continuously.€€The€juryÏwas€quartered€at€the€Holiday€Inn€in€Columbia,€Tennessee,€some€twoÏmiles€from€the€Maury€County€Courthouse€where€the€trial€was€beingÏheld.€€The€jurors€were€allowed€to€drive€their€individually€ownedÏautomobiles€to€and€from€the€Holiday€Inn€each€day€and€were€thereforeÏseparated€numerous€times.€€All€of€this€was€prejudicial€to€the€DefendantÏin€that€this€was€a€highly€publicized€trial€covered€by€all€of€the€mediaÏincluding€the€newspapers,€television,€and€radio.€€Affidavits€are€attachedÏhereto€to€support€this€ground.€€The€burden€is€on€the€State€to€show€aÏlack€of€prejudice€under€the€principles€outlined€in€ò òGonzales€v.€Stateó ó,Ð ø Ð593€S.W.2d€288,€and€this€has€not€been€done.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓ¯‡Ó(Emphasis€in€original.)€€The€affidavit€of€Ralph€Sands,€the€court€officer€responsible€forÏsupervising€the€sequestration€of€the€jurors,€was€offered€in€support€of€the€claim.€€In€theÏaffidavit,€Sands€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 Ø à1.€€I€am€Ralph€Sands,€court€officer€for€the€Circuit€Court€of€MauryÏCounty,€Tennessee,€and€one€of€my€duties€in€December,€1991,€wasÏsecuring,€isolating,€transporting,€and€generally€supervising€theÏsequestration€of€the€twelve„person€jury€and€alternates€in€the€PatÏBondurant€capital€murder€case.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à2.€€From€the€beginning€of€jury€selection€on€Monday,€December€2,€1991,Ïuntil€the€jury€was€excused€on€Wednesday,€December€11,€1991,€theÏjurors€were€sequestered€and€boarded€at€the€Holiday€Inn,€NashvilleÏHighway,€Columbia,€Tennessee.€€The€Holiday€Inn€is€2.5€miles€from€theÏMaury€County€Courthouse.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à3.€€The€jurors€were€allowed€to€travel€to€and€from€their€motel€to€theÏCourthouse€separately€and€alone€or€in€pairs€in€their€own€privateÏvehicles.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à4.€€Each€and€every€day€Court€was€held,€the€jurors€traveled€separatelyÏand€alone€or€in€pairs€to€the€Courthouse€parking€lot€in€the€morning€andÏthen€back€to€the€motel€in€the€same€fashion€in€the€afternoon.€€In€theÏmorning,€I€would€wait€until€all€of€the€jurors€had€arrived€and€then€weÏwould€walk€in€one€group€to€the€Courthouse;€in€the€afternoon,€we€wouldÏdepart€as€one€group€from€the€Courthouse€to€the€parking€lot.€€AnyoneÏin€the€Courthouse€would€think€that€the€jurors€were€being€transported€asÏa€group€to€and€from€their€lodgings€at€the€motel.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÐ ’7Š06 Ðà8 Ø à5.€€I€had€no€control€over€the€jurors€during€their€travels€between€theÏCourthouse€and€their€motel€nor€did€I€have€any€knowledge€of€theirÏactivities€during€those€travels€or€the€stops€they€may€have€made,€if€any,Ïduring€those€travels.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÌÓŒÓThis€affidavit€was€filed€on€February€19,€1992,€and€the€defense€relied€upon€theÏaffidavit€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€held€in€October€of€1994.€€The€StateÏoffered€no€proof€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€prima€facie€showing€of€jury€separation.ÌÌà Ø àInitially€we€note€that€at€common€law,€the€sequestration€rule€required€that€jurorsÏbe€physically€kept€together€within€the€presence€of€each€other€without€food,€drink,€fireÏor€light€until€a€verdict€was€agreed€upon.€€òòState€v.€Gonzalesóó,€593€S.W.2d€288,€2922Ð 4, Ð(Tenn.€1980);€Annotation,€òòSeparation€of€Jury€in€Criminal€Caseóó,€34€A.L.R.€1115,€1117Ð ø Ð(1925).€€€The€common€law€rule€has€been€greatly€relaxed,€and€currently,€sequestrationÏis€a€creature€of€statute.€€Mary€Strauss,€òòSequestrationóó,€24€Am.J.€Crim.€L.€63,€70€(FallÐ ˜ Ð1996).€€Moreover,€under€modern€law,€the€test€of€keeping€a€jury€ð ðtogetherðð€is€not€aÏliteral€one,€requiring€each€juror€to€be€at€all€times€in€the€presence€of€all€others.€€TheÏpractical€needs€of€personal€hygiene€and€separate€rooms€for€sleeping,€if€nothing€else,Ïpreclude€such€a€literal€application.€€The€real€test€is€whether€a€juror€passes€from€theÏattendance€and€control€of€the€court€officer.€€òòState€v.€Bartlettóó,€407€A.2d€163,€166€(Vt.Ð ”%Œ" Ð1979).€ÌÌÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ôà Ø àAlthough€the€sequestration€rule€is€no€longer€literally€applied,€the€purpose€of€theÐ ø*ð#( Ðrule€„„€to€preserve€a€defendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€impartial€jury€by€protectingÏjurors€from€outside€influences€so€that€the€verdict€will€be€based€only€upon€evidenceÏdeveloped€at€trial€„„€is€perhaps€more€important€in€the€modern€age,€considering€theÏpervasiveness€of€media€coverage€and€publicity.€€€23A€C.J.S.€òòCriminal€Lawóó€ðð€1363(a)Ð (2 +0 Ð(1989).€€Many€years€ago,€this€Court€emphasized€that€ð ð[t]oo€much€strictness€cannotÏbe€used€to€keep€a€jury€charged€with€the€life€or€liberty€of€a€citizen,€from€mingling€withÏthe€community€during€their€deliberations,€and€this€the€more€especially€where€thereÐ Œ7„06 Ðis€any€excitement€for€or€against€the€prisoner.ðð€€òòCochran€v.€Stateóó,€26€Tenn.€(7€Hum.)Ð  Ð544,€547€(1847).€Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ ˜#ÔÐ ÔÌ ÐÌà Ø àAt€the€time€of€this€trial,׃(×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€currently,Ô‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ô׃2Z×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X!° XX X¦ ÔÔ€ X¦ X XX!°ÔòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ Žœ#Ô€sequestration€of€jurors€is€required€inÐ l d Ðcapital€cases.€€€It€is€well„settled€in€Tennessee€that€once€separation€of€a€sequesteredÏjury€has€been€shown€by€the€defendant,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€showing€that€suchÏseparation€did€not€result€in€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòGonzalesóó,€593€S.W.2d€at€291.€Ð ÐÈ  Ðð ðððIt€is€the€opportunity€of€tampering€with€a€juror,€afforded€by€the€separation€whichÏconstitutes€the€ground€for€a€new€trial,€but€if€such€separation€afforded€no€suchÏopportunity,€there€can€be€no€cause€for€a€new€trial.ðððð€òòGonzalesóó,€593€S.W.2d€at€291,Ð 4, Ðquoting€òòCartwright€v.€Stateóó,€80€Tenn.€620€(1883).€€If€the€State€fails€to€meet€the€burdenÐ ø Ðof€showing€that€the€separation€did€not€result€in€prejudice,€a€new€trial€is€required.€€òòId.óóÐ ÌÄ ÐÌà Ø àThe€leading€modern€Tennessee€case€on€the€issue€of€jury€separation€isÏòòGonzalesóó.€€However,€the€rule€applied€therein€had€been€well„established€in€TennesseeÐ 0 ( Ðfor€over€one€hundred€years€prior€to€the€decision€in€òòGonzalesóó.€€€For€example,€inÐ ü!ô ÐòòMcLain€v.€Stateóó,€18€Tenn.€(10€Yer.)€241€(1837),€this€Court€stated:Ð È#À  ÐÓÓà8 Ø àThat€the€person€accused€may€have€the€full€benefit€of€a€judgment€by€hisÏpeers,€it€is€absolutely€necessary€that€the€minds€of€the€jurors€should€notÏhave€prejudged€his€case,€that€no€impression€should€be€made€toÏoperate€on€them,€except€what€is€derived€from€the€testimony€given€inÏcourt,€and€that€they€should€continue€impartial€and€unbiased.€€TheseÏobjects€can€only€be€obtained€by€selecting€those€who€have€noÏpreconceived€opinion€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€prisoner,€andÏby€not€permitting€them€to€separate€from€each€other€after€they€haveÏbeen€sworn,€and€mingle€with€the€balance€of€the€community.€€òòIt€is€notÐ Ä,¼%* Ðnecessary€for€the€prisoner€to€prove€that€they€were,€during€theirÏabsence,€subjected€to€improper€influence€from€others;€it€is€sufficient€ifÏthey€might€have€been.€€There€would€be€no€safety€in€a€different€rule€ofÏpractice,€for€it€would€be€almost€impossible€ever€to€bring€direct€proof€ofÏthe€fact€that€it€was€done.óóР ˜Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€241„42€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHines€v.€Stateóó,€27€Tenn.€(8€Hum.)€597,€602Ð R J Ð(1848);€€òòCartwright€v.€Stateóó,€80€Tenn.€(12€Lea)€620,€625€(1883);€òòSherman€v.€Stateóó,Ð   Ð125€Tenn.€19,€58,€140€S.W.€209€(1911);€òòHickerson€v.€Stateóó,€141€Tenn.€502,€213€S.W.Ð êâ  Ð917€(1918);€òòSteadman€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€66,€70,€282€S.W.2d€777,€778„79€(1955).Ð ¶®  ÐÌà Ø àTherefore,€applying€this€longstanding€Tennessee€precedent€to€the€facts€in€thisÏcase,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€established€a€prima€facie€showing€of€juryÏseparation.€€Contrary€to€the€Stateððs€assertion,€the€proof€in€this€record€establishesÏmore€than€ð ðthe€possibility€of€a€separation.ðð€€The€facts€of€this€case€are€not€at€allÏanalogous€to€a€situation€where€jurors€occupy€separate€hotel€rooms€under€theÏwatchful€eyes€of€officers€sworn€to€supervise€the€sequestration€of€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ JB Ðv.€McClainóó,€667€S.W.2d€64€(Tenn.€1984).€€As€was€previously€stated,€the€key€isÐ ! Ðwhether€a€juror€is€outside€the€presence€and€control€of€a€court€officer.€€Officer€SandsÏclearly€and€unequivocally€stated€in€his€affidavit:€ð ðI€had€no€control€over€the€jurorsÏduring€their€travels€between€the€Courthouse€and€their€motel€nor€did€I€have€anyÏknowledge€of€their€activities€during€those€travels€or€the€stops€they€may€have€madeÏif€any€during€those€travels.ðð€€Interestingly,€the€facts€of€the€affidavit€regarding€juryÏseparation€are€convincingly,€though€perhaps€inadvertently,€corroborated€by€an€orderÏof€the€trial€judge€reimbursing€jurors€twenty„two€cents€per€mile€for€the€expense€theyÏincurred€during€the€trial€traveling€between€the€hotel€and€the€courthouse.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€reject€the€Stateððs€assertion€that€this€case€presents€only€the€possibility€of€aÏseparation€and€not€an€actual€separation.Ìâ âÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðà Ø àWe€also€reject€the€Stateððs€argument€that€a€defendant€must€show€an€actualÏâ âð ðmingling€with€the€communityðð€to€establish€a€separation.€€Over€one€hundred€years€agoÏthis€Court€stated€the€applicable€standard:€ð ð[i]t€is€not€necessary€for€the€prisoner€toÏprove€that€they€[the€jurors]€were,€during€their€absence,€subjected€to€improperÏinfluence€from€others;€it€is€sufficient€if€they€might€have€been.ðð€€òòMcClainóó,€18€Tenn.€atÐ 80 Ð241„42;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€17€Tenn.€Juris.€òòJuryóó€ðð€42€(1994).€€The€proof€in€this€record€clearlyÐ ü  Ðmeets€that€standard.€ÌÌà Ø àHaving€concluded€that€the€defendant€offered€proof€to€establish€the€fact€of€aÏjury€separation,€ordinarily,€we€would€next€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€StateÏmet€its€burden€of€proving€that€the€separation€did€not€prejudice€the€defense.€€However,Ïbecause€the€State€in€this€case€did€not€offer€any€proof€in€response€to€the€defendantððsÏnew€trial€motion,€the€State€obviously€has€not€satisfied€its€burden.€€In€light€of€theÏlongstanding€authority€requiring€the€State€to€rebut€a€showing€of€separation,€we€areÏbewildered€by€the€Stateððs€complete€inaction€in€this€case.€€Certainly,€the€State€couldÏhave€attempted€to€rebut€the€claim€of€jury€separation€by€calling€the€jurors€as€witnessesÏat€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€questioning€them€as€to€whether€theyÏhad€any€improper€contacts€or€were€influenced€by€any€publicity€or€extraneousÏinformation€during€the€separation.€€There€is€certainly€precedent€for€such€a€hearing.׃*×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XXX¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`'X $ ÐÌà Ø àWe€note€that€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€and€the€affidavit€of€OfficerÏSands€were€filed€more€than€two€years€before€the€hearing€on€the€motion€wasÏconducted.€€Therefore,€the€State€had€ample€time€to€muster€its€proof.€Nonetheless,Ïthe€State,€for€whatever€reason,€did€not€offer€any€proof€in€this€case€to€rebut€the€primaÐ \0T). Ðfacie€showing€of€jury€separation.€€As€we€have€previously€stated,€this€was€a€highlyÏpublicized€case,€and,€according€to€the€record,€the€trial€was€being€closely€followed€byÏthe€local€newspaper€and€the€Nashville€television€news€organizations.€€In€the€face€ofÏthis€clear€showing€of€jury€separation€and€in€the€absence€of€countervailing€proof€fromÏthe€State,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€jury€separation€error€was€harmless.€ÏThe€risk€that€jurors€were€influenced€by€extraneous€information€or€based€their€decisionÏon€facts€that€were€not€developed€at€trial€is€simply€too€great.€€Ô‡ X¦ XXX¦ ÔAccordingly,€a€new€trialÐ ÐÈ  Ðis€required.€€Ô#†X¦ XX X¦ .¸#ÔÐ œ”  ÐÌà Ø àGiven€the€fact€that€the€General€Assembly€has€mandated€sequestration€ofÏjurors€in€capital€cases,€we€take€this€opportunity€to€urge€trial€judges€to€use€all€availableÏmeasures€to€comply€with€this€legislative€mandate.€€We€particularly€encourage€trialÏjudges€to€ensure€that€local€law€enforcement€officials€transport€the€jury€in€a€mannerÏthat€will€not€compromise€sequestration.€€We€are€in€agreement€with€the€well„knownÏmaxim€„„€an€ounce€of€prevention€is€worth€a€pound€of€cure.€€In€other€words,€if€trialÏcourts€will€fastidiously€enforce€compliance€with€the€procedural€protections€designedÏto€eliminate€prejudice€at€its€inception,€the€errors€which€require€reversal€in€this€caseÏwill€not€arise€again.€ÌÌÌà@---Ìàò òòòÔ‡-Xÿ1 XXX¦ ÔÔ‡-¼ff» X-Xÿ1ÔIV.ó óóóÔ#†¼öC»»-¼ff›»#ÔÔ#†X¦ X»¼öCº»#ԈРø*ð#( Ðò òòòÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ôà@ˆ ˆ ÌàDISCRIMINATION€„€GRAND€JURY€FOREPERSONSó óóóˆÐ  -&* Ðà Ø àHaving€concluded€that€a€new€trial€is€required,€we€will€next€address€theÏdefendantððs€claim€that€his€indictment€should€be€quashedÔ#†X¦ XX X¦ D¼#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ô€because€of€racialÐ Ä0¼). Ðdiscrimination€in€the€selection€of€grand€jury€forepersons€in€Giles€County.€€In€supportÏof€his€claim,€the€defendant€says€that€although€African„Americans€comprise€twelveÏpercent€of€the€adult€population€in€Giles€County,€no€African„American€served€asÏforeperson€of€the€grand€jury€in€Giles€County€from€1919€to€1990.€€The€defendantÐ ô7ì06 Ðintroduced€statistical€data€to€show€that€this€is€an€absolute€disparity€of€sixteen€percent,Ïa€comparative€disparity€of€thirty€percent,€and€a€discrepancy€of€almost€twenty€standardÏdeviations.€€As€legal€support€for€his€assertion,€the€defendant€relies€upon€òòRose€v.Ð   ˜ ÐMitchellóó,€443€U.S.€545,€99€S.Ct.€2993,€61€L.Ed.2d€739€(1979).Ð l d ÐÌà Ø àThe€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€rejected€the€defendantððsÏclaim€and€found€that€grand€jury€forepersons€in€Tennessee€are€ministerial€and€co„¼equal€with€other€grand€jurors;€therefore,€to€establish€a€prima€facie€equal€protectionÏclaim,€Tennessee€defendants€must€offer€proof€that€racial€discrimination€tainted€theÏentire€grand€jury.€€We€agree.ÌÌà Ø àAn€identical€claim€was€raised€by€the€defendant€in€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€769Ð ÌÄ ÐS.W.2d€875€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(perm.€app.€denied€April€3,€1989).€€TheÏintermediate€appellate€court€in€òòJeffersonóó€fully€considered€the€relevant€case€law€andÐ d\ Ðrejected€the€defendantððs€claim,€stating€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àIn€Tennessee,€the€foreman€is€the€spokesperson€for€the€grandÏjury€and€has€the€same€voting€power€as€any€other€grand€jury€member.€ÏòòBolen€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€918,€920€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€NotÐ È#À  Ðonly€does€the€foreman€not€have€the€power€to€veto€an€indictment,€hisÏauthority,€within€this€context,€is€no€greater€than€any€other€member€ofÏthe€grand€jury€venire.€€òòState€v.€Collinsóó,€65€Tenn.€151,€153„54€(1873);Ð z&r# ÐòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòApplewhite€v.€Stateóó,€597€S.W.2d€328€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `'X $ Ð1979);€òòBird€v.€Stateóó,€103€Tenn.€343,€52€S.W.€1076€(1899);€òòState€v.Ð F(>!% ÐChamblessóó,€682€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€The€aboveÐ ,)$"& Ðholding€is€bolstered€by€the€observation€of€this€Court€in€òòState€v.Ð * #' ÐChamblessóó€that€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Hobbyóó,€[468Ð ø*ð#( ÐU.S.€339,€104€S.Ct.€3093,€82€L.Ed.2d€260€(1984)]€ð ðgreatlyÏexaggeratedðð€the€powers€of€the€Tennessee€grand€jury€foreman.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àSecondly,€again€with€all€due€respect,€we€agree€with€the€StateððsÏcontention€that€the€Supreme€Courtððs€interpretation€of€the€role€andÏpower€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson€in€Tennessee€is€the€result€of€aÏmisperception€commencing€with€footnote€2€in€òòRose€v.€Mitchellóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð B1:*/ Ðand€carried€over€without€any€other€citation€in€òòHobby€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð (2 +0 Ðòòsupraóó.€€òòRoseóó€involved€a€federal€habeas€corpus€proceeding€whereinÐ 3,1 ÐTennessee€litigants€claimed€they€were€victims€of€racial€discrimination,Ïin€violation€of€the€equal€protection€clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment,€in€the€selection€of€the€grand€jury€which€indicted€them€forÏmurder€in€the€first€degree.€€At€issue€was€the€question€of€whether€theÏclaim€of€the€grand€jury€discrimination€constituted€harmless€error€whenÐ Œ7„06 Ðraised€by€a€defendant€found€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€by€aÏpetit€jury€trial,€free€of€reversible€error.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àClearly,€the€role€or€power€of€Tennesseeððs€grand€jury€forepersonsÏwas€not€at€issue€in€òòRoseóó€and€no€evidence€was€adduced€at€trial€relatedÐ   ˜ Ðthereto.€€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòRoseóó€did€state€that€for€the€purposes€ofÐ † ~ Ðthat€case€it€could€be€assumed€that€the€Tennessee€method€of€selectingÏa€grand€jury€foreperson€suggests€potential€for€abuse.€€443€U.S.€at€566,Ï99€S.Ct.€at€3005.€€However,€nowhere€in€the€majority€opinion€does€theÏCourt€in€òòRoseóó€conclude€that€the€Tennessee€grand€jury€foreperson€hasÐ   Ðvirtual€veto€power€over€the€indictment€proceedings.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àòòHobby€v.€United€Statesóó,€òòsupraóó,€which€did€not€involve€TennesseeÐ ÐÈ  Ðlitigants€or€matters€of€Tennessee€law,€decided€the€narrow€question€ofÏwhether€discrimination€in€the€selection€of€a€federal€grand€juryÏforepersons€required€reversal€of€a€valid€conviction€of€a€white€male€andÏthe€dismissal€of€the€indictment€against€him.€€468€U.S.€at€340,€104€S.Ct.Ïat€3094.€€Although€the€Court€in€òòHobbyóó€did€not€address€an€issue€ofÐ NF ÐTennessee€law,€it€appears€to€have€given€rise€to€a€misperception€andÏgroundless€assumption€of€the€authority€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson€inÏTennessee.€€òòSeeóó€468€U.S.€at€346„47,€104€S.Ct.€at€3097„98.€€WithÐ ø Ðdeference€to€our€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòHobbyóó€it€appearsÐ æÞ Ðthat€the€Court€relied€merely€upon€the€aforementioned€footnote€in€òòRoseóó,Ð ÌÄ Ðwithout€citation€to€authority,€and€surmised€that€the€Tennessee€grandÏjury€foreperson€had€powers€greater€than€those€bestowed€by€statute€orÏexercised€òòdeóó€òòfactoóó.€€€Ð~vØ À!Ø À! ÐÌÌòòJeffersonóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€877„78.Ð 0 ( ÐÓPÃÓÔ#†X¦ XX X¦ i½#Ôà Ø àWe€agree€with€intermediate€appellate€courtððs€discussion€of€òòRoseóó€and€òòHobbyóóÐ ! Ðand€therefore€hold€that€the€role€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson€in€Tennessee€isÏministerial€and€administrative.€€We€also€reject€the€defendantððs€claim€that€òòCampbellÐ ®$¦! Ðv.€Louisianaóó,€__€U.S.__,€118€S.Ct.€1419,€140€L.Ed.2d€551€(1998)€requires€that€theÐ z&r# Ðindictment€be€quashed.€€As€we€read€òòCampbellóó,€the€method€of€selection€of€the€grandÐ F(>!% Ðjury€foreperson€is€relevant€only€to€the€extent€that€it€affects€the€racial€composition€ofÏthe€entire€grand€jury.€€Here,€the€defendant€offered€no€proof€as€to€the€racialÏcomposition€of€the€entire€grand€jury.€€In€addition,€we€note€that€the€disputed€issue€inÐ ª-¢&+ ÐòòCampbellóó€was€whether€a€white€defendant€has€standing€to€claim€discrimination€againstÐ v/n(- ÐAfrican„Americans€in€the€selection€of€grand€jurors.€€Louisiana€law,€rather€thanÏTennessee€law,€was€at€issue.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€has€failed€toÏâ âestablish€a€prima€facie€claim€because€he€failed€to€offer€proof€showing€that€racialÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðdiscrimination€tainted€the€entire€grand€jury.€€We,€therefore,€reject€the€defendantððsÏclaim€that€his€indictment€must€be€quashed.Ìâ âÌÌà@[[-ÌàÔ‡@Xÿ1 XXX¦ ÔÔ‡@¼ff» X@Xÿ1Ôòòò òV.Ô#†@Xÿ1 X»@¼ffgØ#ÔÔ#†X¦ X X@Xÿ1HØ#Ôó óóóˆÐ 80 Ðà@66%Ìàò òòòPRETERMITTED€ISSUESóóó óˆÐ `X  ÐÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ôà Ø àÔ#†X¦ XX X¦ 7Ù#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ ÔBecause€of€the€necessityÔ#†X¦ XX X¦ …Ù#ÔÔ‡ X¦ XXX¦ Ô€of€a€new€trial,€some€issues€raised€on€this€appeal,Ð 80  Ðsuch€as€errors€alleged€to€have€occurred€during€voir€dire€and€the€question€of€theÏproportionality€of€the€defendantððs€sentence,€are€pretermitted€as€moot.€€However,Ïbecause€certain€aspects€of€several€issues€may€become€relevant€upon€retrial,€we€offerÏthe€following€guidance€to€the€trial€court€and€trial€counsel.ÌÌà Ø àWith€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€the€marital€privilege€resulting€fromÏDenise€Bondurantððs€testimony,€we€note€that€a€statute€defining€the€marital€privilegeÏwas€enacted€while€this€case€was€pending€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð24„1„Ð ˜  Ð201€(Supp.€1998).€€We€express€no€opinion€on€the€effect€or€application€of€the€statuteÏto€this€case.ÌÌà Ø àOn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€has€complained€of€allegedly€erroneousÏreferences€during€his€trial€to€the€murder€of€Gwen€Dugger,€the€death€of€Terry€LynnÏClark,€and€the€discovery€of€Clarkððs€body€at€a€house€owned€by€the€defendantððsÏbrother.€€We€caution€that€at€any€new€trial,€references€to€Duggerððs€murder€and€ClarkððsÏdeath€should€be€admitted€only€when€and€if€relevant€to€an€issue€in€dispute.€€However,Ïa€scenario€under€which€it€would€be€relevant€or€necessary€to€mention€that€Clarkððs€bodyÏwas€found€in€Pete€Bondurantððs€home€is€difficult€to€imagine.ÌÌà Ø àThe€defendant€also€complained€of€error€regarding€the€Stateððs€impeachmentÏof€the€defendant€with€his€prior€murder€conviction.€€In€this€respect,€we€direct€counselÐ ô7ì06 Ðand€the€trial€court€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609€and€to€this€Courtððs€recent€decision€in€òòStateÐ  Ðv.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€673€(Tenn.€1999).Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà Ø àThe€defendant€has€alleged€that€several€errors€occurred€during€the€sentencingÏphase€of€his€trial.€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€most€of€theÏdefendantððs€claims€of€instructional€error€at€the€sentencing€phase€have€beenÏpreviously€considered€and€rejected€by€this€Court.€€For€example,€we€have€repeatedlyÏupheld€the€constitutionality€of€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance,€which€theÏdefendant€challenges€in€this€appeal.€€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1999);Ð h` ÐòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1999).€€However,€the€State€hasÐ 4, Ðconceded€in€this€Court€that€there€is€no€proof€in€this€record€to€support€a€jury€finding€ofÏtorture€because€there€is€no€proof€to€establish€that€the€victim€was€conscious€during€theÏbeating€allegedly€perpetrated€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959Ð ˜ ÐS.W.2d€503€(Tenn.€1997)(stating€that€torture€requires€proof€that€the€defendantÏinflicted€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€on€the€victim€while€the€victim€was€alive€andÐ 0 ( Ðòòconsciousóó).€€If€the€State€relies€upon€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance€at€the€newÐ ü!ô Ðsentencing€hearing€but€does€not€offer€additional€proof€to€establish€that€the€victim€wasÏconscious€when€beaten,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€323,€331€(Tenn.Ð ”%Œ" Ð1996)(holding€that€the€State€may€offer€additional€evidence€at€re„sentencing€in€supportÏof€an€aggravating€circumstance€that€was€relied€upon€at€the€original€sentencingÏhearing),€the€jury€should€be€instructed€only€as€to€the€depravity€of€mind€portion€of€theÏaggravating€circumstance„„that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÏin€that€it€involved€depravity€of€mind.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€479Ð .ˆ', Ðâ â(Tenn.€1993)(holding€that€the€trial€court€correctly€deleted€ð ðtortureðð€from€its€instructionÐ \0T). Ðto€the€jury€since€no€evidence€supported€a€finding€of€ð ðtortureðð€as€that€term€has€beenÏdefined).׃/×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X¦ XX X¦ ÔòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà Ø àFinally,€with€respect€to€the€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€raisedÏon€this€appeal,€we€emphasize€that€counsel€has€a€duty€to€investigate€and€prepare€forÏboth€the€guilt€and€sentencing€stages€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363Ð ü  Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€In€preparation€for€a€new€trial€in€this€case,€defense€counsel€obviouslyÏshould€review€and€consider€the€evidence€in€this€record€offered€at€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€for€new€trial€in€support€of€the€claim€that€former€counsel€were€ineffective.€€InÏaddition,€upon€remand,€the€need€for€another€change€of€venue€ought€to€be€carefullyÏreassessed€given€the€publicity€that€has€been€focused€upon€this€case€in€MauryÏCounty.€€òòCompareóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€26€(Tenn.€1993)(Daughtrey,€J.,Ð ÌÄ Ðconcurring€and€dissenting)(exhorting€the€trial€court€and€counsel€to€consider€whetherÏanother€change€of€venue€would€be€warranted€for€the€third€re„sentencing€hearing).ÌÌÔ#†X¦ XXX¦ ßÙ#Ôà@---ÌàÔ‡¼öC»XX¦ ÔÔ‡.¼ff»»¼öCÔòòò òVI.ó óóóÔ#†¼öC»».¼ffŸí#ÔÔ#†X¦ X»¼öC€í#ԈРü!ô Ðà@,,)Ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ $$  ÐÔ‡X¦ XXX¦ Ôà Ø àBecause€the€trial€court€totally€disregarded€the€statutory€procedures€governingÐ ü%ô" Ðselection€of€a€special€jury€venire€and€because€the€sequestered€jury€was€allowed€toÏseparate€twice€daily,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€first€degreeÏmurder€and€arson€must€be€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€CostsÏof€this€appeal€shall€be€paid€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÐ 2ˆ+0 Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________ÌÔ#†X¦ XXX¦ gî#ÔÔ‡X¦ XXX¦ Ôà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,Ð îæ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àJUSTICEòòÐ ÔÌ Ðóóò òÌÌConcur:Ìó óAnderson,€C.J.,Ð ~ v ÐBirch,€Holder,€Barker,€JJ.Ô#†X¦ XXX¦ ßð#Ôà à à