ÿWPCul …# VUNa %¯ 0!(µU:Ýw@ 4W k 0Dz 0J¾ 0T 0^\ 0hº 0r" 1m” 0c 0|d 0†à 0@f D3¦ 0Ù i 1uqU<æ 0d" B†U>£áUQ*éU* 0DEB)‰UH²bú 0ÆDCÈ AM Xboowænîy\ÕqÝN$7V$Š%UF(UF](b£(r§(b-Œ-b©.b­.b±.†¹._ ?4ìž?óŠCÿ}G;|IM·JíLñMúOüPVSykUyäUU6]V“VLªWöXÈ ZÄÕ\v~™^vÓ` 0wêe 0Šaf 0 ëf 0´‹g 0Ç?h 0Ûi 0ïái AOÐjÆk 0Dåk D/)l BXl˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular =:D>:î?:U@: îA:DB:UC:-îD: Ó€P:Ó€\:Ӏ܀ƒ"x#3|xg:(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT RomanP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý% Line 7 d<à09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular- ù-(v(2àõ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X-òXXXÔÔ€ôR‹ôXX-òÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó////7Border 1dd€3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òApril€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó- ù- eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€not€relevant€to€this€appeal,€the€trial€judge€imposed€a€three„year€sentenceÏconcurrent€to€the€death€penalty€for€the€burglary€conviction.€Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"Whenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgmentÏhas€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.ððÌ dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€ð ðPrior€to€theÏsetting€of€oral€argument,€the€Court€shall€review€the€record€and€briefs€and€consider€all€errorsÏassigned.€€The€Court€may€enter€an€order€designating€those€issues€it€will€review.€€Selection€of€suchÏissues€will€be€based€on€the€criteria€of€T.R.A.P.€11(a).ðð€€This€is€the€first€capital€case€using€this€newÏprocedure.Ì oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€crime€occurred€in€Putnam€County,€Bush€was€tried€in€Cumberland€CountyÏfollowing€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€his€motion€for€a€change€of€venue.Ì gÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€was€instructed€to€consider€the€following€mitigating€circumstances:Ì(1)The€defendant€has€no€significant€history€of€prior€criminal€activity;Ì(2)€The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance.€€Extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance€is€a€temporary€state€of€mind€soÏenraged,€inflamed€or€disturbed€as€to€overcome€oneððs€judgment€and€to€cause€one€to€act€from€theÏcompelling€force€of€the€disturbance€rather€than€for€evil€or€malicious€purposes.€€It€is€not€a€mentalÏdisturbance€in€itself€and€an€enraged,€inflamed€or€disturbed€emotional€state€does€not€constitute€anÏextreme€emotional€disturbance€unless€there€is€a€reasonable€explanation€or€excuse€for€it;Ì(3)€The€youth€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€crime;Ì(4)The€capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€hisÏconduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€illness€orÏdefect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€a€defense€to€the€crime€but€whichÏsubstantially€affected€his€judgment;Ì(5)The€defendant€was€subjected€to€physical€and/or€psychological€abuse€or€cruelty€during€hisÏformative€years;Ì(6)That€the€defendant€has€considerable€poetic€abilities;Ì(7)That€the€defendant€can€be€treated€in€a€prison€setting;Ì(8)That€at€a€very€early€age€the€defendant€exhibited€signs€of€mental€or€emotional€disturbance€thatÏwent€untreated;Ì(9)€That€the€defendant€was€immature€for€his€age€and€lacked€the€normal€emotional€development€atÏthe€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense;€andÌ(10)€Any€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidence€produced€by€either€the€prosecutionÏor€defense€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencing€hearing.€€That€is,€you€shall€consider€any€aspect€of€theÏdefendantððs€character€or€record€or€any€aspect€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€favorable€to€theÏdefendant€which€is€supported€by€the€evidence.€€€€€€Ì -Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThat€statute€has€now€been€replaced€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996).€Ì €Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€also€note€that€unlike€òòSimmonsóó,€the€trial€judge€in€this€case€appropriately€did€not€allowÏthe€State€to€argue€future€dangerousness€to€the€jury€as€a€basis€for€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€ÏAt€one€point€during€the€closing€argument€prosecution€counsel€commented,€ð ðItððs€not€going€toÏprotect€the€other€Jodie€Lefevers€of€the€world.ðð€€Defense€counsel€immediately€objected€and€the€trialÏjudge€sustained€the€objection.Ì<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular ù hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEffective€July€1,€1993,€the€available€punishments€for€first€degree€murder€are€now€(1)Ïdeath;€(2)€imprisonment€for€life€without€possibility€of€parole;€or€(3)€imprisonment€for€life.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„202€(b)€(1996€Supp.).€€Prior€to€that€enactment,€the€only€available€punishment€€optionsÏfor€first€degree€murder€were€death€and€life€with€the€possibility€of€parole.€€Another€part€of€the€recentÏlegislative€enactment€requires€that€jurors€now€be€instructed€ð ðthat€a€defendant€who€receives€aÏsentence€of€imprisonment€for€life€shall€not€be€eligible€for€parole€consideration€until€the€defendantÏhas€served€at€least€twenty„five€(25)€full€calendar€years€of€such€sentence.ðð€€In€addition,€jurors€must€beÏinformed€that€ð ða€defendant€who€receives€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€for€life€without€possibility€ofÏparole€shall€never€be€eligible€for€release€on€parole.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(2)€(1996ÏSupp.).Ì ù ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€emphasize€that€the€record€in€this€case€reflects€that€the€trial€court€conscientiouslyÏapplied€current€and€available€law€to€ensure€that€this€defendant€received€a€fair€trial.Ì ù ù- ù- |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€entire€sentencing€hearing€in€this€case€was€conducted€in€accordance€with€the€1989Ïlaw.€€Clearly,€portions€of€that€statute€are€beneficial€to€the€defendant€in€all€cases€and€impose€a€higherÏburden€upon€the€State.€€For€example,€the€1989€statute€explicitly€requires€the€State€to€prove€theÏexistence€of€€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€must€establish€that€theÏaggravating€circumstances€outweigh€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(f)€&€(g)€(1991€Repl).€€In€contrast,€the€1982€statute€required€only€a€showingÏthat€there€were€no€mitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(g)(2)(1982€Repl.).€€In€addition,€unlike€the€1982Ïstatute,€the€1989€statute€entitles€a€defendant€to€instructions€on€non„statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)€(1991€Repl)€&€òòOdomóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Given€the€overallÏbenefits,€it€is€certainly€conceivable€that€a€defendant€would€prefer€instructions€in€accordance€with€theÏ1989€statute.€€We€again€emphasize€that€the€instruction€now€complained€of€as€error€was€notÏchallenged€in€the€trial€court.Ì U Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€in€his€brief€suggests€that€the€trial€court's€decision€to€deny€the€appellant€theÏmarital€privilege€implicates€the€òòex€post€factoóó€provisions€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions.€€We€disagree.€€Between€the€time€of€the€offense€and€the€time€of€trial,€there€were€noÏsignificant€changes€in€the€law€of€marital€privilege€in€criminal€cases.€€Although€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Evidence€were€adopted€in€1990,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€501€simply€states,€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒExcept€as€otherwise€provided€by€constitution,€statute,€common€law,€or€byÏthese€or€other€rules€promulgated€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€noÏperson€has€a€privilege€to:Ì(1)€€Refuse€to€be€a€witness;Ì(2)€€Refuse€to€disclose€any€matter;Ì(3)€€Refuse€to€produce€any€object€or€writing;€orÌ(4)€€Prevent€another€from€being€a€witness€or€disclosing€any€€€Ì€€€€€€matter€or€producing€any€object€or€writing.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€501€refer€one€to€òòMcCormickóó€for€the€rule€governingÏspousal€communications€in€criminal€cases.€€Clearly,€Rule€501€also€encompasses€the€exceptions€toÏthe€marital€privilege€implicit€in€this€court's€opinion€in€òòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€804€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1978).Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€64€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€328Ï(1994),€our€supreme€court€modified€the€marital€privilege€in€criminal€cases€so€that€the€testifyingÏspouse€alone€had€the€right€to€invoke€the€privilege.€€However,€the€opinion€was€filed€on€April€5,€1993,Ïapproximately€two€months€after€the€appellant's€trial.€€Thus,€obviously,€the€trial€court€did€not€apply€theÏòòHurleyóó€rule€in€this€case.€€In€any€event,€even€had€the€trial€court€applied€the€new€rule,€we€have€heldÏthat€the€òòHurleyóó€rule€is€a€procedural€rule€that€does€not€affect€any€substantial€rights€of€a€defendant€in€aÏcriminal€case€and,€therefore,€does€not€implicate€òòex€post€factoóó€constitutional€provisions.€€òòState€v.ÏBraganóó,€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€5,€1995).€€Ìà àFinally,€we€note€that€the€òòHurleyóó€modification€of€the€common€law€rule€was€superseded€byÏstatute€when€the€legislature,€in€1995,€amended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24„1„201,€which€hadÏpreviously€only€applied€in€civil€cases.€€Section€24„1„201€now€provides,ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` Ò(a)€€In€either€a€civil€or€criminal€proceeding,€no€married€person€has€privilegeÏto€refuse€to€take€the€witness€stand€solely€because€that€person's€spouseÏis€a€party€to€the€proceeding.Ì(b)€€In€either€a€civil€or€criminal€proceeding,€confidential€communicationsÏbetween€married€persons€are€privileged€€and€inadmissible€if€eitherÏspouse€objects.Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€is€applicable€to€the€statesÏthrough€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€òòPointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400,€403,€85€S.Ct.€1065,€1068Ï(1965).€€Moreover,€our€supreme€court€has€largely€adopted€the€standards€of€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€in€determining€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€332€(Tenn.€1992)(however,Ïwith€respect€to€the€right€to€òòphysicallyóó€confront€one's€accusers,€our€supreme€court€has€observed€thatÏ"[t]he€'face„to„face'€language€found€in€the€Tennessee€Constitution€has€been€held€to€impose€aÏhigher€right€than€that€found€in€the€federal€constitution,"€òòState€v.€Deuteróó,€839€S.W.2d€391,€395Ï(Tenn.€1992)).Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€òòKentucky€v.€Stinceróó,€482€U.S.€730,€738,€107€S.Ct.€2658,€2663€n.9€(1987),€JusticeÏBlackmun€stated€that,€in€òòhisóó€opinion,€denying€a€defendant€access€to€information€before€trial€òòmayóóÏhinder€that€defendant's€opportunity€for€effective€cross„examination,€thereby€implicating€theÏConfrontation€Clause.€€However,€our€supreme€court€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€832,€notedÏthat€"[t]he€right€to€cross„examine€witnesses€...€does€not€include€the€power€to€require€the€pretrialÏdisclosure€of€any€and€all€information€that€might€be€useful€in€contradicting€unfavorable€testimony."€€InÏany€event,€the€State€in€this€case€followed€a€policy€of€open€file€discovery€and,€prior€to€trial,€informedÏthe€appellant's€counsel€of€the€statements€made€by€the€appellant€to€Sheila€Bush€Hammock.€€Ì õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€was€arrested€on€September€25,€1988,€and€indicted€the€next€day.€€TheÏrecord€does€not€reflect€precisely€when€the€appellant€made€the€incriminating€statements.€€However,Ïthe€statements€were€made€after€the€appellant's€arrest€and€consequent€incarceration€in€the€PutnamÏCounty€Jail.Ì 1Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€any€event,€no€tapes€were€ever€introduced€either€at€the€suppression€hearing€or€at€trial.€€Ì CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Deputy€Lane€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€the€resultant€tapes€contained€noÏincriminating€evidence.Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòSee€supraóó€Section€III,€Issue€#6€"Whether€the€Appellant€is€Entitled€to€Relief€Based€onÏAllegations€of€Prosecutorial€Misconduct,"€(C)(1)€Closing€Argument,€Massive€Investigation,€for€aÏgeneral€discussion€of€the€standard€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€counsel's€argument.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant's€trial€was€set€for€February€of€1993.Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€also€note€that,€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€the€jury€was€likewise€instructed€asÏto€"a€moral€certainty"€regarding€the€finding€of€aggravating€circumstances€"beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt."€€(charge€of€the€court,€transcript€of€the€evidence,€vol.€eight,€ðð€III,€pp.€1153„1154).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€298€U.S.€39,€41,€111€S.Ct.€328,Ï329€(1990),€held€that€"moral€certainty"€modified€by€the€phrases€"grave€uncertainty"€and€"actualÏsubstantial€doubt"€did€not€meaningfully€convey€the€definition€of€reasonable€doubt,€and,€thus,Ïviolated€the€due€process€clause.Ì LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note,€however,€that€a€federal€district€court€has€recently€held€that€the€phrase€"let€theÏmind€rest€easily,"€when€used€to€qualify€"moral€certainty,"€does€not€sufficiently€convey€to€the€jury€theÏrequisite€burden€of€proof€required€by€the€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€864€F.Supp.€686Ï(M.D.€Tenn.€1994).€€We€are€not,€however,€bound€by€that€court's€decision.Ì oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ.)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ.)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òApril€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€^ÔAs€noted€in€the€main€opinion,€òòBrimmeróó€was€decided€after€this€caseÏhad€been€tried.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òApril€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý(i)€€Ô€^ÔNo€death€penalty€shall€be€imposed€but€upon€a€unanimous€findingÏthat€the€state€has€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€oneÏ(1)€or€more€of€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstances,€which€are€limitedÏto€the€following:ÌÌà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 à(6)€€The€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,Ïinterfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€orÏprosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(6)(1991).Ì ºÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€^ÔAlthough€òòZirkleóó€refers€to€the€standard€of€proof€required€toÏestablish€guilt€when€the€evidence€against€the€defendant€is€entirelyÏcircumstantial,€I€think€it€is€equally€applicable€here.Ô€)ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÝ  Ý›Ò € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ÔÑ€1ÑÑ7€XXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€--X°d&Ӝـ€ÙßR€453A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó ó€ò òAPRIL€7,€1997ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àCUMBERLAND€COUNTY€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Leon€Burns,€Jr.,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌMICHAEL€DEAN€BUSH,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)à àSupreme€CourtÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„S01„9604„CC„00047ÌÌÌòòÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòà àFOR€APPELLEE:óóÌÌMartelia€T.€Crawfordà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌCookeville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌRichard€McGeeà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGordon€W.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAmy€L.€TarkingtonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€Edward€GibsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àOwen€G.€BurnettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€A.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLillie€Ann€SellsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€A.€Pattersonà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCookeville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÔ€+„Ôà@ àÌÌœ›à@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€+XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœTRIAL›€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àDROWOTA,€J.€ÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€capital€case,€the€defendant,€Michael€Dean€Bush,€was€convicted€ofÏÑ , ÑÑ ` Ñpremeditated€first€degree€murder€and€first€degree€burglary.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€In€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[t]he€murder€wasÏcommitted€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€or€preventing€a€lawfulÏarrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€and€(6)€(1991).€€Finding€that€the€two€aggravating€circumstancesÍoutweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€juryÏsentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà àOn€direct€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendantÏchallenged€both€his€conviction€and€sentence,€raising€nineteen€claims€of€error,Ïeach€with€numerous€subparts.€€After€fully€considering€defendantððs€claims,€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,Ïpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1996€Supp.),× ƒ9 ××  ×€the€case€wasÏdocketed€in€this€Court.€ÌÌÓ` °ŽXÊ&Ø'XÓà àThe€defendant€raised€numerous€issues€in€this€Court,€but€after€carefullyÏexamining€the€entire€record€and€the€law,€including€the€thorough€opinion€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€the€briefs€of€the€defendant€and€the€State,€thisÏCourt,€on€October€14,€1996,€entered€an€Order€limiting€review€to€seven€issues€andÍsetting€the€cause€for€oral€argument€at€the€January€1997€term€of€Court€inÏKnoxville.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€12.× ƒ: ××  ×€€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€explained€below,€we€have€determined€that€none€of€theÏalleged€errors€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€verdict€of€guilt€or€theÏsentence€imposed.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€findings€as€toÏaggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances,€and€the€sentence€of€death€is€notÏdisproportionate€or€arbitrary.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€firstÏdegree€murder€and€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€are€affirmed.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€premeditated€murder€of€Jodie€Lefever,Ïa€seventy„nine„year„old€widow€who€lived€alone€in€her€home€in€the€Silver€PointÍcommunity€of€Putnam€County.× ƒ; ××  ×€€The€evidence€presented€at€the€guilt€phase€of€theÏtrial€established€that€Lefeverððs€body€was€discovered€by€a€neighbor€on€August€19,Ï1988,€lying€face€down€on€the€floor€in€her€den€next€to€the€side€door€of€the€house.€ÏShe€had€been€stabbed€numerous€times.€€A€large€amount€of€blood€was€on€herÏback,€her€head€and€the€floor.€€Blood€was€also€splattered€on€the€door€and€nearbyÏwall.€€Two€holes€of€unknown€origin€were€in€the€wall€near€Lefeverððs€body.€€ÌÌà àInvestigating€officers€found€a€piece€of€pressure„treated€wood€on€the€floorÏnext€to€the€den€sofa€and€another€piece€of€pressure„treated€wood€behind€theÏtelevision€set€in€the€same€room.€€Officers€also€found€drops€of€blood€on€a€chair€inÏthe€den,€on€the€utility€room€floor€leading€from€the€den€to€the€kitchen,€on€theÏkitchen€floor,€and€on€a€rug€in€the€hallway€leading€to€the€bedroom.€€One€drawer€inÏthe€bedroom€dresser€was€open.€€The€front€door€and€windows€of€the€house€wereÏlocked,€and€there€was€no€sign€of€forced€entry.€€The€house€and€its€furnishingsÏwere€essentially€undisturbed.€€The€only€item€missing€from€the€house€was€aÍbutcher€knife€that€was€kept€in€a€drawer€next€to€the€kitchen€sink.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Gretel€Harlan,€assistant€medical€examiner€with€the€State€MedicalÏExaminerððs€Office,€testified€that€Lefever€died€as€a€result€of€being€stabbed€forty„three€times.€€The€wounds€extended€down€the€left€side€of€her€face,€down€the€backÏof€her€neck,€across€her€shoulders,€and€down€her€back.€€They€were€consistent€withÏwounds€inflicted€by€a€butcher€knife€like€that€taken€from€the€kitchen.€€Several€of€theÏwounds€were€fatal€and€had€passed€through€Lefeverððs€back€and€penetratedÏvarious€vital€organs€and€blood€vessels.€€The€location€of€the€injuries€indicated€thatÏLefever€had€probably€been€lying€down€during€the€attack.€€All€the€wounds€hadÏbeen€made€while€Lefever€was€alive;€but€it€was€impossible€to€determine€the€orderÏin€which€they€had€been€inflicted.€€Some€wounds€would€have€resulted€inÏunconsciousness€in€three€to€€five€minutes.€€However,€if€other€wounds€had€beenÏinflicted€first,€Lefever€could€have€been€alive€and€conscious€for€twenty€to€thirtyÏminutes.€Because€the€stab€wounds€did€not€damage€Lefeverððs€central€nervousÏsystem,€it€was€possible,€according€to€Dr.€Harlan,€that€Lefever€felt€the€wounds€asÏthey€were€inflicted,€a€sensation€that€Dr.€Harlan€compared€to€undergoing€surgeryÍwithout€anaesthetic.€€In€addition€to€the€stab€wounds,€there€were€two€small€ð ðscrapeÏareasðð€on€the€victimððs€left€knee€and€elbow€consistent€with€a€fall€onto€those€parts€ofÏher€body€before€collapsing€to€the€ground.€€Lefeverððs€left€collarbone€had€beenÏbruised€either€shortly€before€the€stabbing€or€during€the€fall.€€Contusions€foundÏaround€her€eyes€could€likewise€have€been€inflicted€before€she€fell€or€could€haveÏresulted€from€one€of€the€stab€wounds€that€had€penetrated€the€left€eye.ÌÌà àDespite€extensive€investigation,€law€enforcement€officials€had€no€suspectsÏon€September€25,€1988,€when€Putnam€County€Sheriff€Jerry€Abston€was€notifiedÏby€his€office€that€eighteen„year„old€Michael€Dean€Bush€and€his€father€were€at€theÏSheriffððs€office€and€had€information€regarding€Lefeverððs€murder.€€€Lefever€hadÏbeen€the€best€friend€of€the€defendantððs€grandmother,€and€Bush€had€mowedÏLefeverððs€lawn€and€helped€her€get€groceries.€€In€a€series€of€statements€recordedÏat€the€Cookeville€police€department€and€played€for€the€jury€at€trial,€€Bush€told€lawÏenforcement€officers€that€on€the€afternoon€of€August€16,€1988,€while€he€was€livingÏat€his€mother„in„lawððs€trailer,€he€received€a€telephone€call€to€go€to€the€Silver€PointÏcommunity€after€dark,€if€he€ever€wanted€to€see€his€family€again.€€After€calling€hisÍparentsðð€house€and€receiving€no€answer,€the€defendant€concluded€somethingÏwas€wrong.ÌÌà àLater€that€evening,€after€dark,€the€defendant€instructed€his€wife€to€drive€himÏto€an€area€near€Lefeverððs€house.€€When€his€wife€asked€him€what€was€going€on,Ïhe€told€her€that€they€ð ðneeded€some€money€.€.€.€and€[he]€was€going€to€go€rob€theÏold€woman€that€lived€down€there.ðð€€After€his€wife€dropped€him€off€and€left,€BushÏsaid€he€was€met€by€four€men€wearing€black€ski€masks.€€One€pulled€a€gun€on€himÏand€said€that€they€ð ðneeded€somebody€Jodie€trusts.ðð€€Bush€said€Lefever€was€onÏthe€telephone€when€he€knocked€on€her€side€door.€€After€Bush€identified€himself,ÏLefever€unlocked€the€door.€€The€men€then€pushed€him€inside€the€house€andÏbegan€to€hit€Lefever€so€hard€that€she€fell€back€and€hit€the€wall€with€her€elbow.€ÏOne€of€the€men€ran€through€the€kitchen€and€the€rest€of€the€house.€€When€the€stickÏbeing€used€to€beat€the€victim€broke,€the€men€quickly€gathered€the€pieces€andÏhanded€them€to€Bush€and€told€him€to€go€outside.€€€A€few€minutes€later€the€menÏcame€out€and€gave€the€defendant€a€knife.€€The€defendantððs€hand€was€cut€by€theÏblade€as€he€took€the€knife.€€The€men€instructed€Bush€to€ð ðtake€the€stuff€and€get€ridÍof€itðð€and€forget€everything€he€had€seen.€€As€Bush€was€walking€to€meet€his€wife,Ïone€of€€the€men€drove€up€beside€him€and€said€ð ðloose€lips€sink€ships.ððÌÌà àShortly€afterward€the€defendantððs€wife€picked€him€up.€€He€was€crying€andÏhad€blood€all€over€him.€€When€his€wife€asked€him€what€had€happened,€he€said,€ð ðIÏkilled€Jodie.ðð€€They€drove€to€Center€Hill€Lake,€where€he€threw€the€knife€and€theÏpieces€of€the€broken€stick€into€the€water€and€washed€himself€off.€€Bush€then€toldÏhis€wife€that€he€had€not€killed€Lefever€but€blamed€another€man,€Jackie€Maxwell.ÌÌà àOn€the€same€day€and€approximately€the€same€time€as€Bush€was€giving€hisÏstatements€to€law€enforcement€officials€at€the€Cookeville€police€department,€hisÏseventeen„year„old€wife,€Sheila€Bush,€made€several€statements€to€officers€at€theÏPutnam€County€sheriffððs€office.€€She€testified€to€the€substance€of€those€statementsÏat€trial.€€While€most€of€her€story€matched€that€of€the€defendantððs,€it€was€different€inÏone€vitally€important€aspect.€€Shelia€Bush€incriminated€the€defendant€as€the€soleÏperpetrator€of€the€offense.€€According€to€Sheila€Bush,€on€the€evening€of€AugustÏ16,€1988,€the€defendant€told€her€that€they€needed€money€and€that€he€knew€ð ðaÍwoman€he€could€knock€in€the€head€and€get€some€money,ðð€but€he€would€not€tellÏShelia€Bush€the€name€of€the€woman€nor€the€location€of€her€home.€€TheÏdefendant€removed€a€piece€of€wood€from€the€frame€around€his€wifeððs€bedroomÏdoor€and€directed€his€wife€to€drive€him€to€an€area€in€the€Silver€Point€community.€ÏOnce€there,€he€got€out€of€the€car€and€told€her€to€come€back€in€twenty€minutes.€ÏAfter€driving€to€Center€Hill€Dam,€Shelia€Bush€returned€to€find€the€defendantÏstanding€in€the€road.€€He€had€his€shirt€off€and€was€covered€with€blood.€€As€he€gotÏinto€the€car,€he€excitedly€told€his€wife€that€he€had€ð ðkilled€her.ðð€€The€defendant€saidÏhe€had€ð ðstabbed€her€with€a€knifeðð€and€that€he€had€cut€his€hand€wide€open.€€At€theÏdefendantððs€directions,€Sheila€Bush€drove€to€a€boat€ramp€near€the€dam,€whereÏthe€defendant€threw€his€shirt,€some€pieces€of€wood,€a€knife€and€a€pair€ofÏsunglasses€into€the€lake.€€He€then€washed€off€the€blood€that€was€on€him.€ÌÌà àThe€next€day,€according€to€Sheila€Bush,€the€defendant€told€her€how€heÏhad€killed€Lefever,€how€he€knocked€on€the€door€as€the€victim€spoke€on€theÏphone,€how€she€let€him€in€once€she€recognized€him,€and€how€he€had€struck€herÏin€the€head€with€the€stick€and€caused€her€to€fall.€€The€defendant€said€that€theÍvictim€told€him€to€ð ðget€a€hold€of€himself.ðð€€When€Lefever€indicated€that€there€wasÏsomeone€in€the€back€of€the€house,€the€defendant€searched€the€house.€€FindingÏno€one€there,€he€removed€his€shirt,€wrapped€it€around€his€hand,€and€as€he€cameÏback€through€the€kitchen,€€took€a€knife€out€of€the€kitchen€drawer.€€He€took€theÏknife€into€the€den€and€stabbed€Lefever€thirty€or€forty€times.€€The€defendantÏdemonstrated€how€he€had€killed€Lefever€by€having€his€wife€lie€on€her€stomach€onÏthe€floor€as€he€pretended€to€stab€her€in€the€head€and€the€back.€€The€defendant,€aÏkarate€student€and€enthusiast,€also€told€his€wife€that€he€practiced€karate€onÏLefever.€€The€next€instant,€however,€he€told€his€wife€that€he€was€ð ðjust€kiddingðð€andÏthat€Jackie€Maxwell€had€killed€Lefever.€€Sheila€Bush€explained€that€she€had€notÏreported€this€information€earlier€because€the€defendant€told€her€that€the€MafiaÏwas€watching€her€and€that€something€would€happen€if€she€mentioned€anything.ÌÌà àPhysical€evidence€supported€the€statement€of€Sheila€Bush.€€Going€to€theÏspot€where€the€defendant€had€allegedly€thrown€away€the€murder€weapon,ÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(T.B.I.)€divers€recovered€a€knife€from€theÏwaters€of€Center€Hill€Lake.€€Lefeverððs€grandson€identified€the€knife€as€one€hisÍgrandmother€kept€in€a€drawer€next€to€the€kitchen€sink.€€A€forensic€scientist,€whoÏhad€analyzed€the€two€pieces€of€wood€discovered€in€Lefeverððs€den,€testified€thatÏthey€came€from€the€top€of€a€bedroom€door€in€the€trailer€belonging€to€SheilaÏBushððs€mother.€€A€T.B.I.€serologist€testified€that€the€blood€found€on€the€rug€in€theÏhallway€and€kitchen€floor€was€consistent€with€that€of€the€defendant.€€Only€twoÏpercent€of€the€Tennessee€population€have€this€blood„type.€€ÌÌà àOther€witnesses€tied€the€defendant€to€the€killing.€€James€Mullins,€a€friend€ofÏthe€defendant,€testified€that€on€the€day€after€Lefeverððs€body€was€found,€theÏdefendant€brought€a€newspaper€reporting€the€discovery€of€the€body€to€MullinsððÏhouse.€€The€defendant€was€excited€and€grinning,€ð ðall€wound€up€like€a€kid€that€hadÏtoo€much€Kool„Aid.ðð€€Two€of€defendantððs€fellow€inmates€at€the€Putnam€County€jail,ÏJimmy€Myers€and€William€Roger€Moore,€testified€that€the€defendant€told€them€heÏhad€killed€the€victim.€€According€to€Myers,€the€defendant€said€that€his€wife€hadÏtaken€him€to€Lefeverððs€house€to€borrow€or€get€some€money€and,€when€theÏdefendant€could€not€find€any€money,€he€stabbed€Lefever€to€death.€€After€this€firstÏaccount,€however,€the€defendant€kept€changing€his€story€because,€the€defendantÍsaid€his€lawyers€had€told€him€that€people€in€the€jail€might€be€witnesses€againstÏhim.€€The€defendant€also€told€Myers€that€he€would€try€to€make€people€think€heÏwas€crazy.€€The€second€inmate,€William€Roger€Moore,€testified€that€the€defendantÏdiscussed€the€crime€ð ðat€lengthðð€with€him.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€had€gone€toÏLefever€to€get€some€money€because€he€had€borrowed€money€from€her€in€theÏpast.€€An€argument€erupted,€he€lost€his€temper,€and€stabbed€her€repeatedly€withÏa€knife€he€had€taken€from€the€kitchen.€€The€defendant€also€told€Moore€that€he€wasÏð ðgoing€to€make€a€ploy€for€craziness.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€did€not€testify€nor€did€he€offer€any€evidence€at€the€guiltÏphase€of€the€trial.€€Based€on€the€proof€presented€at€the€guilt€phase,€the€jury€foundÏBush€guilty€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.ÌÌà àThe€State€presented€no€additional€proof€during€its€case„in„chief€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€but€instead€relied€upon€the€evidence€presentedÏduring€the€guilt€phase.ÌÌà àThrough€the€videotaped€deposition€testimony€of€his€grandmother€and€theÏlive€testimony€of€his€father,€sister,€and€uncle,€the€defendant€presented€evidenceÏof€his€childhood€and€alleged€mental€illness.€€The€defendant€was€the€second€ofÏthree€children.€€His€father,€a€Vietnam€War€veteran,€was€a€truck€driver,€whoÏabused€alcohol€and€was€away€from€home€for€long€periods€of€time€when€theÏdefendant€was€young.€€His€father€physically€abused€the€defendantððs€mother€andÏsingled€out€the€defendant,€who€was€particularly€strong„willed,€for€strict€discipline,Ïbeatings€and€whippings.€€The€defendant€was€placed€on€Ritalin,€a€medication€forÏhyperactivity,€at€a€very€young€age.€€At€the€age€of€three€or€four,€he€began€sniffingÏgasoline.€€At€the€age€of€ten,€he€seriously€injured€his€head€in€a€bicycle€accident.€ÏAfterwards,€his€personality€seemed€to€change;€he€became€nocturnal,€distant€andÏquick€tempered.€€He€was€involved€in€fights€at€school.€€He€expressed€the€wish€toÏdie,€heard€voices,€suffered€from€nightmares,€drew€pictures€of€demons€andÏmonsters€and€became€fascinated€with€death€and€twins.€€In€1987€the€defendantÏdropped€out€of€high€school€before€completing€his€senior€year.€€In€March€of€1988,Ïhis€mother€was€diagnosed€with€terminal€colon€cancer.€€In€May€and€June€of€1988,Ïhe€attempted€suicide€by€overdosing€on€Tylenol€and€Advil.€€At€that€time€he€wasÍreferred€to€the€Plateau€Mental€Health€Center€for€treatment.€€ÌÌà àFollowing€his€arrest€in€September€of€1988,€the€trial€court,€upon€the€requestÏof€his€court€appointed€attorney,€referred€the€defendant€to€the€Middle€TennesseeÏMental€Health€Institute€(M.T.M.H.I)€for€a€competency€and€sanity€evaluation.€€ThreeÏmembers€of€the€evaluation€team,€a€social€worker,€Rebecca€Jane€Smith,€€Dr.ÏGillian€Blair,€a€clinical€psychologist,€and€Dr.€John€Cain,€a€psychiatrist,€testifiedÏthat€they€had€diagnosed€the€defendant€as€suffering€from€schizophrenia€paranoidÏsubtype€sub€chronic,€an€adjustment€disorder,€and€substance€abuse€(inhalingÏsolvents).€€Dr.€Blair€opined€that€the€schizophrenia€had€begun€before€theÏdefendantððs€admission€to€M.T.M.H.I.€€Dr.€Cain€said€that€the€defendant€had€shownÏsymptoms€of€schizophrenia€beginning€in€high€school.€The€evaluation€teamÏadministered€tests€to€determine€whether€Bush€was€malingering.€€Dr.€BlairÏadministered€an€ð ðMðð€test,€the€results€of€which€indicated€that€Bush€wasÏschizophrenic€and€not€malingering.€€In€addition,€Dr.€Cain€administered€sodiumÏamitol,€popularly€known€as€truth€serum.€€According€to€Dr.€Cain,€under€theÏinfluence€of€that€drug,€Bushððs€psychotic€symptoms€became€even€moreÍpronounced€which€indicated€that€Bush€was€not€malingering.€€The€Wexler€AdultÏIntelligence€Test€showed€that€the€defendant€had€a€full€scale€I.Q.€of€96.€€ÌÌà àIn€rebuttal€the€State€presented€two€members€of€the€M.T.M.H.I€treatmentÏteam€who€had€worked€with€the€defendant€from€May€to€August€of€1991€when€heÏwas€again€admitted€for€treatment€and€evaluation.€€One€of€these,€Dr.€Zillur€Athar,€aÏpsychiatrist,€testified€that€the€defendant€was€not€actively€psychotic€at€that€time€butÏmalingering.€€Dr.€Athar€diagnosed€defendant€as€suffering€from€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder.€€Edean€Gerdes,€coordinator€for€the€treatment€ward,€said€thatÏshe€had€observed€the€defendant€reading€books€about€vampires,€which€he€saidÏhad€been€given€to€him€by€his€lawyers.ÌÌà àThe€State€also€presented€a€deputy€with€the€Putnam€County€sheriffððsÏdepartment€who€had€transported€the€defendant€to€mental€health€institutions€onÏseveral€occasions.€€He€testified€that€in€1989€the€defendant€told€him€ð ðsome€of€theÏdoctors€were€easy€to€fool.ðð€€At€a€later€time,€the€defendant€told€the€deputy€that€a€lotÏof€the€doctors€were€foreigners€and€asked€silly€questions.€€The€defendantððs€formerÍmother„in„law€testified€that€in€1988,€when€the€defendant€was€married€to€herÏdaughter,€he€was€normal,€intelligent€and€quick€tempered.€€She€had€neverÏobserved€any€bizarre€behavior€on€his€part.€€A€high€school€friend€of€the€defendantÏtestified€that€Bush€had€been€a€normal,€happy€person.€€On€cross„examination,Ïhowever,€he€admitted€telling€the€assistant€district€attorney€in€1989€that€in€1988Ïthe€defendant€had€begun€to€act€strangely€and€talked€about€dreams€of€men€killingÏpeople€in€the€Silver€Point€area.ÌÓÓÌÌÓÓà àBased€on€the€proof,€the€jury€determined€that€the€State€had€proven€theÏexistence€of€two€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€(1)€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€or€preventingÏa€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„204(I)(5)€and€(6)€(1991).€€€In€addition,€the€jury€found€that€the€aggravatingÍcircumstances€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances× ƒ= ××  ×€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€and,€as€a€result,€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.€€TheÏtrial€court€entered€a€judgment€in€accordance€with€the€verdict€and€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€affirmed.€€After€reviewing€the€record€and€considering€the€errorsÏalleged€by€the€defendant,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€Court€ofÍCriminal€Appeals.ÌÔ€+¼Ôà@ àò òÔ€ ÔIÔ€+Ô.ó óÔ€+XÔÌòòò òà@ àMOTION€TO€SUPPRESSóóó óÌà àPrior€to€trial,€defense€counsel€moved€to€suppress€a€series€of€statementsÏgiven€by€Bush€to€police€officers€on€September€25,€1988,€alleging€that€theÏstatements€were€obtained€in€violation€of€the€defendantððs€rights€under€the€FifthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€First,€Bush€alleged€that€he€was€not€given€warnings€inÏaccordance€with€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€16€L.Ed.2dÏ694€(1966),€before€he€gave€the€first€tape„recorded€statement€even€though€he€wasÏsubjected€to€custodial€interrogation.€€As€a€result,€Bush€urged€that€the€initial€andÏall€subsequent€statements€were€tainted.€€Alternatively,€Bush€asserted€that€theÏwaiver€of€his€rights€given€prior€to€the€second€interview€was€not€valid€because€heÏwas€mentally€ill€and€not€competent€to€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€hisÏòòMirandaóó€rights.€€Finally,€Bush€contended€that€the€officers€continued€to€questionÏhim€after€he€invoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€ÌÌà àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€the€motion€to€suppress.€€SheriffÏAbston€testified€that€on€Sunday,€September€25,€1988,€he€was€contacted€by€hisÏoffice€that€Larry€Bush€wanted€to€bring€his€son€to€the€jail€to€discuss€the€JodieÏLefever€homicide.€€Defendant,€along€with€his€father,€met€Sheriff€Abston€at€theÏcounty€jail€around€1:30€p.m.€€Larry€Bush€told€Sheriff€Abston€that€the€defendantÏwanted€to€make€a€statement€that€he€was€with€the€people€who€murdered€Lefever.€ÏBecause€the€jail€was€crowded€with€visitors€on€Sundays,€and€because€BushÏindicated€that€he€also€had€information€about€an€unrelated€homicide€that€hadÏoccurred€in€the€city€of€Cookeville,€Sheriff€Abston€asked€the€defendant€and€hisÏfather€if€they€would€be€willing€to€go€with€him€to€the€Cookeville€police€station€toÏdiscuss€the€case.€€They€agreed.€€Larry€Bush€rode€in€the€front€passenger€seat€of€aÏdeputy€sheriffððs€patrol€car€and€the€defendant€rode,€unrestrained,€in€the€back€seatÏof€the€same€car.Ìà àò òòòÌà àóóó óAt€approximately€2:47€p.m.,€officer€Bob€Terry,€Sheriff€Abston,€and€theÏdefendant€entered€an€investigatorððs€office,€where€the€defendant€gave€a€tape„recorded€statement,€admitting€his€presence€during€the€murder€of€Lefever,€butÍdenying€his€involvement€in€the€crime.€€Essentially,€Bush€told€law€enforcementÏofficials€that€he€had€received€a€phone€call,€in€which€the€unknown€callerÏthreatened€to€harm€his€family€if€he€did€not€follow€the€callerððs€instructions.€€BushÏbelieved€the€caller,€and€as€instructed,€went€to€Lefeverððs€home€where€he€was€metÏby€four€unknown€hooded€men€who€forced€him€to€knock€on€the€door€so€they€couldÏgain€entry€to€Lefeverððs€home.€€€Bush€recounted€how€the€hooded€intruders€beatÏand€eventually€murdered€Lefever.Ìò òòòÌóóó óà àWhen€this€interview€ended,€Sheriff€Abston€and€Officer€Terry€left€the€room,Ïand€were€approached€in€the€hallway€by€Deputy€Doug€Burgess€and€T.B.I.€agentÏLarry€OððRear€who€told€them€that€Shelia€Bush,€the€defendant€ððs€wife,€had€given€aÏstatement€at€the€Putnam€County€sheriffððs€office€in€which€she€had€implicatedÏMichael€Bush€and€said€that€he€had€admitted€to€her€that€he€had€killed€Lefever.€ÏUpon€receiving€this€information,€Sheriff€Abston€testified€that€he€then€consideredÏthe€defendant€to€be€a€suspect€in€the€homicide.€€Bush€was€given€his€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings€for€the€first€time€at€approximately€4:17€p.m.€€He€signed€a€waiver€of€thoseÏrights,€and€a€second€tape„recorded€interview€was€conducted€during€which€BushÍbasically€repeated€the€information€given€in€his€first€statement.€€In€addition,€BushÏdescribed€the€position€in€which€Lefever€was€lying€when€he€left€her€home,€and€heÏtold€officers€that,€at€the€direction€of€the€hooded€men,€€he€had€disposed€of€theÏpieces€of€the€stick€used€to€beat€Lefever€and€a€knife€near€a€boat€ramp€on€CenterÏHill€Dam.€€This€second€interview€ended€when€Bush€and€Officer€Terry€becameÏinvolved€in€a€heated€discussion€about€the€defendantððs€involvement€in€the€murder.ÌÌà àA€third€interview€began€at€approximately€6:04€in€which€Bush€gave€aÏstatement€about€the€unrelated€Cookeville€homicide.€€However,€Bush€requestedÏan€attorney€during€this€session€and€the€police€officers€testified€that€all€questioningÏthen€ceased.€ÌÌà àDavid€Brady,€the€attorney€appointed€to€represent€Bush€after€he€requestedÏcounsel€testified€that€the€trial€judge€contacted€him€around€10:00€p.m.€and€he€sawÏBush€at€approximately€11:00€p.m.€€According€to€Brady,€Bush€was€strangely€calmÏand€detached€and€his€answers€to€questions€were€vague€and€non„specific.€€BradyÏconsidered€Bushððs€behavior€unusual€and€requested€a€psychiatric€evaluation.ÌÌà àDr.€Blair,€the€clinical€psychologist€who€had€examined€Bush€in€early€1989Ïwhen€he€was€first€referred€to€M.T.M.H.I.€for€a€competency€evaluation€also€testifiedÏat€the€suppression€hearing.€€Dr.€Blair€opined,€based€upon€her€examinations€ofÏthe€defendant€and€review€of€the€taped€statements,€that€the€defendant€wasÏsuffering€from€paranoid€schizophrenia€when€he€executed€the€waiver€of€his€rightsÏprior€to€the€second€tape„recorded€interview€and€that€the€waiver€was€not€ð ðaÏproduct€of€rational€reasoning.ððÌÌà àLaw€enforcement€officials€who€conducted€the€interviews€with€Bush€allÏtestified€that€he€was€coherent€and€responsive€to€questioning€and€appearedÏnormal.€€Bush€did€not,€according€to€the€officers,€discuss€demons,€vampires,€orÏother€delusions.€€In€addition,€Sheriff€Abston€testified€that€neither€the€defendantÏnor€Larry€Bush€indicated€that€there€was€any€problem€with€the€defendantððs€mentalÏcondition€at€the€time€he€came€in€to€give€the€statement.ÌÌà àUpon€considering€the€proof,€the€trial€judge€denied€the€motion€to€suppressÍfinding€that€(1)€Bush€was€not€entitled€to€òòMirandaóó€warnings€prior€to€the€initialÏinterview€because€he€was€not€subjected€to€custodial€interrogation;€(2)€Bush€wasÏnot€a€suspect€in€the€mind€of€Sheriff€Abston€until€after€the€conclusion€of€the€initialÏinterview;€(3)€Bush€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€before€the€secondÏinterview;€and€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€those€rights;€and€(4)€Bush€wasÏnot€questioned€further€after€he€invoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€TheÏtrial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€was€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.Ìà àà àÌà@ àòòò òA.€Custodial€Interrogationóóó óÌà àDefendant€first€urges,€in€this€Court,€that€the€statements€should€have€beenÏsuppressed€because€he€was€not€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€warnings€even€thoughÏhe€was€in€custody€when€he€gave€the€first€tape„recorded€statement.€€In€reviewingÏthis€issue,€we€are€mindful€that€an€appellate€court€must€uphold€a€trial€courtððsÏfindings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.ò ò€€òòó óState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.Ï1996).òòò òÌÌà àóóó óWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€issue€with€the€òòMirandaóó€decision€in€which€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€defendantððs€statements€given€duringÏcustodial€police€interrogation€are€inadmissible€as€evidence€in€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief€unless€the€State€establishes€that€the€defendant€was€advised€of€certainÏconstitutional€rights€and€waived€those€rights.€€Specifically,€òòMirandaóó€requiresÏpolice€to€inform€the€person€being€questioned€that€(a)€he€has€the€right€to€remainÏsilent;€(b)€any€statement€made€may€be€used€as€evidence€against€him;€(c)€he€hasÏthe€right€to€the€presence€of€an€attorney;€and€(d)€if€he€can€not€afford€an€attorney,Ïone€will€be€appointed€for€him€prior€to€questioning,€if€he€so€desires.€€òòIdóó.,€384€U.S.Ïat€444,€86€S.Ct.€at€1612.ÌÌà àHowever,€police€officers€are€only€obligated€to€administer€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings€prior€to€ð ðcustodial€interrogationðð€which€has€been€defined€as€a€ð ðformalÏarrest€or€restraint€on€freedom€of€movement€of€the€degree€associated€with€a€formalÏarrest.ðð€€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€114€S.Ct.€1526,€1529,€128ÏL.Ed.2d€293€(1994).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€it€isÏappropriate€to€apply€an€objective€test€to€determine€whether€a€person€is€in€custodyÍand€therefore€entitled€to€receive€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€Courts€must€consider€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€interrogation€and€inquire€ð ðhow€a€reasonableÏman€in€the€suspectððs€position€would€have€understood€his€situation.ðð€€òòBerkemer€v.ÏMcCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€422,€104€S.Ct.€3138,€3151,€82€L.Ed.2d€317€(1984);€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€___,€114€S.Ct.€at€1529.€€€The€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€has€emphasized,€however,€that€ð ðany€inquiry€into€whether€the€interrogatingÏofficers€have€focused€their€suspicions€upon€the€individual€being€questionedÏ(assuming€those€suspicions€remain€undisclosed)€is€not€relevant€for€purposes€ofÏòòMirandaóó.ðð€€òòStansburyóó,€511€U.S.€at€___,€114€S.Ct.€at€1530.òòò òÌÌà àóóó óRecently,€this€Court,€in€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€__€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1996),Ïexpressly€adopted€the€objective€analysis€employed€by€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€and€rejected€as€irrelevant€to€the€determination€of€custody€anyÏinquiry€into€the€subjective€beliefs€of€€law€enforcement€officialsò ò€ó óabout€theÏculpability€or€guilt€of€the€person€being€questioned.€€We€adopted€severalÏnonexclusive€factors€to€aid€in€the€objective€assessment€of€whether€a€reasonableÏperson€would€consider€himself€or€herself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€aÍdegree€associated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€Relevant€factors€include€(1)€the€time€andÏlocation€of€the€interrogation;€(2)€the€duration€and€character€of€the€questioning;€(3)Ïthe€officerððs€tone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€(4)€the€method€of€transportationÏto€the€place€of€questioning;€(5)€the€number€of€police€officers€present;€(6)Ïlimitations€on€movement€or€other€forms€of€restraint€imposed€during€theÏinterrogation;€(7)€interactions€between€the€officer€and€the€person€beingÏquestioned,€including€the€words€spoken€by€the€officer€and€the€verbal€orÏnonverbal€responses€of€the€person€being€questioned;€(8)€the€extent€to€which€theÏperson€being€questioned€is€confronted€with€the€officerððs€suspicions€of€guilt€orÏevidence€of€guilt;€and€finally€(9)€the€extent€to€which€the€person€being€questionedÏis€aware€that€he€or€she€is€free€to€refrain€from€answering€questions€or€to€end€theÏinterview€at€will.€€òòAndersonóó,€___€S.W.2d€at€___.ÌÌà àConsidering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€including€the€factorsÏdelineated€in€òòAndersonóó,€the€evidence€in€this€record€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€lower€courtsðð€finding€that€Bush€was€not€in€custody€when€he€wasÏinitially€interviewed€by€law€enforcement€officials.€€Bush€initiated€the€contact€withÍSheriff€Abston.€€He€asked€his€father€to€go€with€him€to€the€Putnam€County€SheriffððsÏoffice.€€Indeed,€Sheriff€Abston€was€called€from€the€golf€course€on€a€Sunday€by€hisÏoffice€to€meet€Bush.€€He€voluntarily€sought€to€give€information€about€the€murder€ofÏJodie€Lefever.€€€Bush€and€his€father€agreed€to€accompany€Sheriff€Abston€to€theÏCookeville€police€department€to€further€discuss€the€case.€€Although€Bush€wasÏtransported€to€the€Cookeville€police€department€in€a€patrol€car,€he€was€notÏrestrained,€and€his€father€rode€along€in€the€front€seat€of€the€same€car.€Bush€wasÏnot€restrained€upon€arrival€at€the€police€station€nor€during€the€interview.€€Only€twoÏofficers€were€present€during€the€initial€interview,€and€they€did€not€accuse€Bush€ofÏthe€crime€or€question€the€truth€of€his€story.€€Indeed,€Bush€did€most€of€the€talkingÏand€seemed€eager€to€give€the€statement,€with€the€officers€asking€very€fewÏquestions.€€While€Bush€was€not€told€that€he€was€free€to€leave,€he€was€also€neverÏtold€that€he€could€òònotóó€leave,€and€he€did€not€at€any€point€attempt€to€leave.€€Finally,Ïeven€assuming,€as€the€defense€argues,€that€law€enforcement€officials€wereÏaware€of€Shelia€Bushððs€statement€and€considered€the€defendant€a€suspect€fromÏthe€moment€he€arrived€at€the€sheriffððs€office,€that€has€no€bearing€on€theÏdetermination€of€whether€Michael€Bush€was€in€custody.€€The€undisclosedÍknowledge€or€suspicions€of€law€enforcement€officials€are€irrelevant€to€theÏquestion€of€whether€a€reasonable€person€in€the€position€of€Michael€Bush€wouldÏhave€considered€himself€deprived€of€freedom€of€movement€to€a€degreeÏassociated€with€a€formal€arrest.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€determinationÏthat€Bush€was€not€in€custody€during€the€initial€interview.€€€Therefore,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òB.€Waiver€of€RightsÌà àóóó óBush€next€contends€that€the€statements€resulting€from€the€second,€and€anyÏsubsequent€interviews,€should€have€been€suppressed€because€he€presentedÏexpert€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€was€not€competent€to€make€aÏknowing€and€intelligent€waiver€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Essentially€Bush€arguesÏthat€because€the€State€did€not€offer€expert€proof€on€his€mental€condition,€theÏvalidity€of€the€waiver€was€not€established.€€As€support€for€his€argument,€theÏdefendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Hammockóó,€867€S.W.2d€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÏIn€that€case,€defendant€presented€unequivocal€expert€testimony€to€establish€thatÍhe€was€legally€insane€at€the€time€he€committed€the€murders.€€Rather€thanÏpresenting€expert€proof€to€contradict€the€defendantððs€claim,€the€State€relied€uponÏlay€witnesses€who€testified€to€the€defendantððs€appearance€and€actions.€€UnderÏthose€circumstances,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€finding€that€the€State€had€failed€to€prove€sanity€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€In€òòHammockóó,€therefore,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€was€concernedÏwith€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€establish€the€offense.€€No€waiver€issuesÏwere€involved.ÌÌà àContrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertion,€òòHammockóó€should€not€be€read€asÏestablishing€the€broad€proposition€that€the€State€òòmustóó€introduce€expert€proof€thatÏa€waiver€was€knowingly€and€intelligently€executed€whenever€a€defendantÏintroduces€expert€testimony€to€the€contrary.€€Unlike€the€element€of€sanity€inÏòòHammockóó€which€required€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€State€need€onlyÏprove€waiver€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòColorado€v.€Connellyóó,€479ÏU.S.€157,€173,€107€S.Ct.€515,€523,€93€L.Ed.2d€473€(1986).€€In€determiningÏwhether€the€State€has€satisfied€that€burden€of€proof,€courts€must€look€to€theÍtotality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€€Applying€those€principles,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€concluded€that€theÏwaiver€was€valid.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€that€finding.€ÌÌà àEven€assuming,€as€Dr.€Blair€testified,€that€Bush€executed€the€waiverÏbecause€he€was€suffering€from€paranoid€schizophrenia,€that€fact€does€not€renderÏthe€waiver€invalid.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòConnellyóó,€òòsupraóó,€refusedÏto€adopt€a€ð ðfree€willðð€rule€that€would€require€a€court€to€find€a€waiver€invalidÏwhenever€a€defendant€feels€compelled€by€a€mental€illness€to€waive€his€rights.€€InÏso€holding,€the€Court€statedÌÓÓà8 àòòMiranda€óó€protects€defendants€against€government€coercion€leadingÏthem€to€surrender€rights€protected€by€the€Fifth€Amendment;€it€goesÏno€further€.€€Respondentððs€perception€of€coercion€flowing€from€theÏð ðvoice€of€God,ðð€however€important€or€significant€such€a€perceptionÏmay€be€in€other€disciplines,€is€a€matter€to€which€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€does€not€speak.ÌÓÓÌòòConnellyóó,€479€U.S.€at€174,€107€S.Ct.€at€524.€€Here,€as€in€òòConnellyóó,€there€is€noÏproof€of€police€overreaching.€€Law€enforcement€officials€testified€that€BushÏappeared€normal,€was€coherent€and€responsive€to€questioning,€and€did€notÍdiscuss€demons,€vampires,€or€other€delusions.€€Therefore,€in€the€absence€ofÏpolice€overreaching,€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€not€err€inÏupholding€the€validity€of€the€waiver,€even€assuming€that€the€defendantððs€decisionÏto€execute€the€waiver€could€have€been€influenced€by€mental€illness.ÌÌà@ àÌà@ àòòò òC.€Right€to€Counselóóó óÌà àIn€his€final€argument€for€suppression€of€his€statements€defendant€contendsÏthat€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€mistakenly€characterized€his€right€to€counselÏclaim€as€an€alleged€violation€of€the€Sixth€rather€than€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€WeÏdisagree.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€simply€noted€that€the€Sixth€AmendmentÏright€to€counsel€does€not€attach€until€after€formal€proceedings€have€begun.€€TheÏintermediate€court€then€recognized€the€applicability€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€rightÏto€counsel.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€when€the€defendantÏinvoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel,€questioning€ceased€and€anÏattorney€was€appointed.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€therefore€affirmed€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€no€violation€of€the€defendantððs€Fifth€Amendment€right€toÍcounsel€occurred.€The€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€thatÏfinding.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òÔ€ ÔÔ€ ¼ÔII.Ô€+Ôó óÔ€+XÔÌòòò òà@ àSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEóóó óÌà àRelying€upon€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€defendantÏnext€contends€that€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€findingÏthe€evidence€sufficient€to€establish€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€InÏconsidering€this€claim,€we€apply€the€familiar€rule€that€where€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€court€isÏwhether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,Ï61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAt€the€time€the€offense€was€committed,€premeditated€first€degree€murderÏwas€defined€as€the€ð ðwillful,€deliberate,€malicious€and€premeditated€killing€ofÍanother.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1988).× ƒ? ××  ×€€In€òòBrownóó,€òòsupraóó,€weÏstated€that€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€not€synonymous€terms.€€While€theÏexistence€of€both€elements€may€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence€alone,Ïpremeditation€requires€proof€of€a€previous€intent€to€kill,€while€deliberationÏrequires€proof€of€a€ð ðcool€purposeðð€that€includes€some€period€of€reflection€duringÏwhich€the€mind€is€free€from€passion€and€excitement.€€òòIdóó.€at€539.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€deliberation,€the€proof€shows€that€the€defendantÏannounced€to€his€wife€that€he€knew€ð ða€woman€he€could€knock€in€the€head€andÏget€some€money.ðð€€Since€Bush€was€acquainted€with€Lefever,€he€necessarilyÏknew€she€was€a€frail,€elderly€lady.€€Despite€that€knowledge€he€took€a€board€withÏhim€to€her€house€to€accomplish€his€stated€intention.€€Evidence€of€procurement€ofÏa€weapon€is€probative€to€prove€premeditation.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541.€€AfterÏBush€€broke€the€board€by€striking€the€victim€with€it,€he€did€not€end€the€assault€butÏprocured€a€second€weapon,€the€butcher€knife,€from€the€kitchen€and€proceeded€toÏstab€Lefever€forty„three€times€down€the€side€of€her€head€and€on€her€back.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€deliberation,€the€evidence€shows€that€before€opening€theÏdrawer€to€obtain€the€butcher€knife,€Bush€removed€his€shirt€and€wrapped€his€handÏin€what€reasonably€can€be€inferred€to€be€an€attempt€to€avoid€leaving€fingerprints.€ÏAfter€stabbing€Lefever€forty„three€times,€Bush€maintained€the€presence€of€mindÏand€took€the€time€to€collect€the€broken€board.€€He€walked€back€to€the€designatedÏplace€and€met€his€wife,€and€from€there€he€immediately€directed€his€wife€to€driveÏhim€to€Center€Hill€Lake€where€he€disposed€of€the€evidence.€€These€facts€areÏsufficient€to€establish€that€the€killing€was€committed€with€deliberation€and€in€theÏabsence€of€passion.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àConsidering€the€proof€in€this€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ïas€we€are€required€to€do,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€establish€premeditation€and€deliberation.€Ìò òòòÌà@ àóóÔ€ ÔÔ€ ¼ÔIII.Ô€ XÔÔ€+ÔòòÌà@ àREBUTTAL€PSYCHIATRIC€EVIDENCEóóó óÌà àDefendant€next€contends€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Athar,€a€psychiatrist€whoÏhad€treated€defendant€in€1991€while€he€was€a€patient€at€M.T.M.H.I,€and€EndeanÏGerdes,€the€treatment€coordinator€at€M.T.M.H.I.,€introduced€at€the€sentencingÏhearing€by€the€State€to€rebut€the€mitigating€evidence€that€the€defendant€wasÏmentally€ill,€was€obtained€in€violation€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counselÏand€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€remain€silent.ÌÌà àIn€òòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€451€U.S.€454,€101€S.Ct.€1866,€68€L.Ed.2d€359€(1981),€Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€Fifth€Amendment€right€againstÏcompelled€self„incrimination€precludes€the€State€from€subjecting€a€capitalÏdefendant€to€a€psychiatric€examination€concerning€future€dangerousness€withoutÏfirst€informing€the€defendant€that€he€has€a€right€to€remain€silent€and€that€anythingÏhe€says€can€be€used€against€him€at€the€sentencing€proceeding.€€òòIdóó.,€451€U.S.€atÏ471,€101€S.Ct.€at€1872„76.€€Once€a€capital€defendant€is€formally€charged,€theÏSixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€precludes€such€an€examination€unlessÏdefense€counsel€is€first€notified€that€the€psychiatric€examination€will€encompassÏthe€issue€of€the€defendantððs€future€dangerousness.€€òòIdóó.,€451€U.S.€at€471,€101ÍS.Ct.€1877;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPowell€v.€Texasóó,€492€U.S.€680,€109€S.Ct.€3146,€106€L.Ed.2dÏ551€(1989).€€When€a€capital€defendant€asserts€a€mental€status€defense,€however,Ïhe€waives€the€right€to€raise€a€Fifth€Amendment€challenge€to€the€prosecutionððs€useÏof€evidence€obtained€through€the€psychiatric€examination€to€rebut€the€defense.€ÏòòBuchanan€v.€Kentuckyóó,€483€U.S.€4022,€422„23,€107€S.Ct.€2906,€2917,€2918Ï(1987).€€Likewise,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€there€is€noÏSixth€Amendment€violation€where€defense€counsel€requests€the€psychiatricÏevaluation€and€is€on€notice€that€if€a€mental€status€defense€is€presented,Ïpsychological€evidence€will€be€used€by€the€State€in€rebuttal.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àApplying€those€principles€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€we€agree€with€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€Stateððs€rebuttal€testimony€wasÏappropriately€introduced.€€Defense€counsel€requested€the€first€mental€evaluationÏin€this€case€and€was€notified€of€each€subsequent€psychiatric€evaluation€whichÏwas€court€ordered€at€the€request€of€either€the€defendant€€or€the€State.€€BushÏrelied€upon€his€mental€status€at€the€time€of€the€offense€as€a€mitigatingÏcircumstance€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€Accordingly,€introduction€of€theÍrebuttal€testimony€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€Fifth€or€Sixth€Amendment€rights.ÌÌà@ àò òÔ€ ÔÔ€ ¼ÔIV.Ô€ XÔÔ€+Ôó óà àÌòòò òà@ àLIFE€IMPRISONMENT€AND€PAROLE€ELIGIBILITYÌà àóóó óApproximately€fifteen€minutes€after€deliberations€began€in€the€sentencingÏphase€of€this€case,€the€jury€sent€a€note€to€the€trial€court€asking,€ð ðHow€many€yearsÏdoes€the€[defendant]€serve€if€he€gets€life€imprisonment€and€how€long€beforeÏparole?ðð€€Counsel€for€Bush€requested€that€the€jury€be€instructed€that€underÏpresent€law€the€defendant€would€have€to€serve€a€minimum€of€thirty€calendarÏyears€before€becoming€eligible€for€parole.€€In€addition,€counsel€requested€that€theÏjury€be€instructed€that€a€life€sentence€is€literally€a€life€sentence€since€Bush€has€noÏabsolute€legal€right€to€parole€even€though€he€might€at€some€point€become€paroleÏeligible.€€The€trial€judge€denied€defense€counselððs€request,€and€instead,Ïinstructed€the€jury€that€ð ðparole€eligibility€is€not€an€issue€in€a€capital€case.€.€.€.ðð€€TheÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€action.ÌÌà àRelying€upon€a€recent€United€States€Supreme€Court€decision,€òòSimmons€v.ÍSouth€Carolinaóó,€___€U.S.€____,€114€S.Ct.€1392,€129€L.Ed.2d€133€(1994),€theÏdefendant€contends€in€this€Court€that€the€trial€courtððs€response€to€the€juryÏquestion€violated€his€right€to€Due€Process.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àIn€òòSimmonsóó,€the€prosecution€was€allowed€to€argue€future€dangerousnessÏto€the€jury€as€a€basis€supporting€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€SimmonsÏsought€to€rebut€the€prosecutionððs€generalized€argument€in€two€ways.€€First,€heÏattempted€to€introduce€proof€that€due€to€his€unique€psychological€problems,€hisÏfuture€dangerousness€was€limited€to€elderly€women€and€would€not€be€a€threat€inÏa€prison€setting€where€he€would€have€no€contact€with€such€individuals.€ÏSecondly,€Simmons€sought€to€introduce€proof€that€under€South€Carolina€law,€heÏwould€not€be€eligible€for€parole€if€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€and€thereforeÏwould€never€pose€a€future€danger€to€elderly€women.€€The€trial€judge€refused€toÏallow€Simmons€to€offer€any€rebuttal€proof€of€his€parole€ineligibility€and€alsoÏrefused€Simmons€requested€jury€instruction€defining€a€life€sentence€asÏð ðimprisonment€in€the€state€penitentiary€for€the€balance€of€his€natural€life.ððÌÌà àAfter€deliberating€ninety€minutes€on€the€appropriate€sentence,€the€jury€sentÏa€note€to€the€judge€asking,€ð ðDoes€the€imposition€of€a€life€sentence€carry€with€it€theÏpossibility€of€parole?ðð€€Over€Simmonsðð€objection,€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€juryÏð ðnot€to€consider€parole€or€parole€eligibility€in€reaching€your€verdict.€€That€is€not€aÏproper€issue€for€your€consideration.€€The€terms€life€imprisonment€and€deathÏsentence€are€to€be€understood€in€their€plan€[sic]€and€ordinary€meaning.ðð€€Twenty„five€minutes€later€the€jury€returned€to€the€courtroom€with€a€sentence€of€death.ÌÌà àOn€appeal€to€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€Simmons€claimed€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€refusal€to€allow€proof€or€instruction€about€his€parole€ineligibilityÏviolated€his€rights€under€the€Due€Process€Clause.€€A€majority€of€the€Court€inÏòòSimmonsóó€agreed€and€held€that€ð ðwhere€the€defendantððs€future€dangerousness€isÏat€issue,€and€state€law€prohibits€the€defendantððs€release€on€parole,€due€processÏrequires€that€the€sentencing€jury€be€informed€that€the€defendant€is€paroleÏineligible.ðð€€òòSimmonsóó,€___€U.S.€at€___,€114€S.Ct.€at€2190.€€If€parole€òòisóó€an€optionÏfor€a€defendant€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment,€however,€the€òòSimmonsóó€CourtÏemphasized€that€it€will€not€second„guess€the€refusal€of€a€State€to€allow€proof,Íinstruction,€or€argument€to€the€jury€on€the€availability€of€parole.€€òòSimmonsóó,€___ÏU.S.€at€___,€114€S.Ct.€at€2196;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSimmonsóó,€___€U.S.€at€___,€114€S.Ct.€atÏ2200€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring)€(ð ðIn€a€state€in€which€parole€is€available,€theÏConstitution€does€not€require€(or€preclude)€jury€consideration€of€that€fact.ðð)ÌÌà àSince€Tennessee€is€a€state€in€which€defendants€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment€are€eligible€for€parole,€òòSimmonsóó€does€not€require€that€the€jury€beÏgiven€information€about€parole€availability.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€Indeed,€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÏgive€defendantððs€requested€response€to€the€jury€question€was€entirely€consistentÏwith€prior€decisions€of€this€Court€holding€that€the€after„effect€of€a€juryððs€verdict,Ïsuch€as€parole€availability,€is€not€a€proper€instruction€or€consideration€for€the€juryÏduring€deliberations.€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€543€(Tenn.€1993);ÍòòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€21€(Tenn.€1990).× ƒF ××  ×€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€err€by€refusing€to€respond€to€the€juryððs€question€as€theÏdefendant€requested.ÌÌà@ àÌà@ àÔ€ Ôò òÔ€ ¼ÔV.Ô€ XÔó óÔ€+ÔÌà@ àòòò òMURDER€TO€PREVENT€ARREST€„€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCEÏ(I)(6)ó óóóÌà àWith€respect€to€this€issue,€defendant€first€argues€that,€if€interpreted€to€applyÏunder€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€aggravating€circumstance,€ð ðthe€murder€wasÏcommitted€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawfulÍarrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€anotherðð€violates€the€narrowingÏprinciples€adopted€by€a€majority€of€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840ÏS.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€only€basis€for€finding€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€in€this€case,€according€to€the€defendant,€is€the€theory€that€he€killedÏthe€victim€to€prevent€his€arrest€for€killing€her,€a€theory€and€circumstance€arguablyÏpresent€in€every€first€degree€murder€in€which€the€victim€knows€the€murderer.€ÏDefendant€urges€this€Court€to€adopt€a€narrowing€construction€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€and€find€the€evidence€in€this€case€insufficient€to€support€itsÏapplication.ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€to€establish€the€applicability€of€thisÏaggravating€circumstance,€the€State€must€prove€that€avoidance€of€prosecution€orÏarrest€was€one€of€the€purposes€motivating€the€killing.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2dÏ561,€581€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€have€refused€to€narrow€the€application€of€theÏcircumstance€to€only€those€killings€which€are€solely€or€predominantly€motivatedÏby€a€desire€to€avoid€arrest€or€prosecution.€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€250Ï(Tenn.€1986)€(avoidance€of€arrest€need€not€be€sole€motive€for€murder).€€While€weÍagree€with€the€defendant€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€logically€can€not€andÏdoes€not€apply€when€the€only€theory€advanced€by€the€State€is€that€the€victim€wasÏkilled€to€prevent€the€defendant€from€being€arrested€or€prosecuted€for€the€killing,Ïwe€do€not€agree€that€was€the€only€theory€advanced€by€the€State€and€supportedÏby€the€proof,€in€this€record.ÌÌà àIndeed,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€observed,€the€evidence€supportsÏthe€conclusion€that€the€victim€was€killed€to€prevent€the€defendantððs€apprehensionÏand€prosecution€for€the€separate€offense€of€burglary€of€which€the€defendant€wasÏconvicted.€€The€proof€shows€that€the€defendant€intended€to€ð ðgetðð€money€from€aÏvictim€with€whom€he€was€well„acquainted.€€By€refusing€to€reveal€the€residence€orÏidentity€of€the€intended€victim€to€his€wife,€the€defendant€was€obviously€attemptingÏto€avoid€having€anyone€witness€the€crime.€€By€his€own€statement,€the€defendantÏadmitted€that€the€victim€recognized€him.€€The€proof€therefore€supports€the€juryððsÏfinding€that€one€purpose€of€the€murder€was€to€avoid€prosecution€or€arrest.€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€14€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2dÏ185€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.ÍIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Coeóó,€655€S.W.2d€903€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€distinguishable€from€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€563€(Tenn.€1993),€on€which€the€defendant€relies.€€In€òòBranamóó,€the€proofÏshowed€that€the€killer€was€a€person€whom€the€victim€did€not€know,€and€theÏdefendant,€whom€the€victim€knew,€remained€out€of€the€victimððs€sight.€€Therefore,Ïthere€was€no€proof€that€the€victim€could€have€identified€the€triggerman€or€theÏdefendant,€and€therefore,€no€proof€that€one€purpose€motivating€the€killing€wasÏavoidance€of€prosecution€or€arrest.ÌÌà àApplication€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€also€does€not€violate€theÏnarrowing€principles€of€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€€In€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€a€majority€of€this€CourtÏheld€that€when€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€the€statutory€offense€of€felony€murder,Ïthe€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance,€which€duplicates€the€elements€ofÏthe€underlying€offense,€does€not€sufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€persons€eligibleÏfor€the€death€penalty€and€can€not€be€relied€upon€as€a€basis€for€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€premeditated€first€degreeÏmurder€which€required€the€State€prove,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€willful,Ïdeliberate,€malicious€and€premeditated€killing€of€another.€€The€State€was€notÏstatutorily€required€to€prove,€as€part€of€the€offense,€that€one€purpose€motivatingÏthe€killing€was€the€avoidance€of€arrest€or€prosecution.€Therefore,€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€does€not€duplicate€the€elements€of€the€underlying€offense€andÏsufficiently€narrows€the€class€of€persons€eligible€for€the€death€penalty.€€òòCfóó.€òòStateÏv.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1994)€(murder€for€renumeration).€ÏConsequently,€we€decline€the€defendantððs€invitation€to€further€limit€application€ofÏthe€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà@ àÔ€+¼ÔÔ€ Ôò òVI.ó óÔ€+ÔÔ€+XÔÌà@ àòòò òJURY€INSTRUCTION€„€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€(i)(5)óóó ó€Ìà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€jury€was€not€properlyÏinstructed€with€respect€to€the€remaining€aggravating€circumstances.€€€JodieÏLefever€was€murdered€in€1988.€€At€the€time€of€the€killing,€one€of€the€aggravatingÍcircumstances€upon€which€the€State€relied€was€defined€by€statute€as€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏdepravity€of€mind.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(I)(5)(1982).€€In€1989,€theÏstatute€was€amended€and€the€aggravating€circumstance€redefined€as€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏòòserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€deathóó.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5)(1991)(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àThe€trial€of€this€defendant€was€held€in€February€of€1993.€€The€trial€court,Ïwithout€objection€from€the€defense€or€the€State,€instructed€the€jury€in€theÏlanguage€of€the€1989€statute,€rather€than€in€accordance€with€the€law€as€it€existedÏwhen€the€offense€was€committed€in€1988.€€Under€decisions€of€this€CourtÏrendered€òòafteróó€the€trial€of€this€case,× ƒH ××  ×€it€is€clear€that€the€sentencing€hearing€shouldÏhave€been€conducted€in€accordance€with€the€1988€law,€the€law€in€effect€at€theÏtime€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€82Í(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àTherefore,€instructing€the€jury€in€the€terms€of€the€amended€statute€wasÏerroneous.€€The€defendant€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€sentencing€hearingÏwhich€must€be€conducted€in€accordance€with€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€theÏoffense€was€committed.€€The€State€argues€that€the€error€was€harmless€and€reliesÏupon€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€which€held€that€the€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€the€amended€definition€of€theÏaggravating€circumstance€ð ðrequired€a€higher€burden€on€the€State€to€prove€thatÏthe€act€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse.ðð€€While€we€do€not€agree€withÏthe€intermediate€court€that€the€amended€definition€imposed€a€higher€burdenÏupon€the€State,€€we€have€determined,€for€the€reasons€explained€below,€that€theÏerroneous€jury€instruction€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€does€notÏð ðaffirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits.ðð€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àThe€1989€version€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€is€different€from€theÍ1988€version€in€that€it€substitutes€the€phrase€ð ðserious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€produce€deathðð€for€the€phrase€ð ðdepravity€of€mind.ðð€€The€aggravatingÏcircumstance€is€redefined.€€Unlike€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€we€consider€theÏamendment€a€substantive€change€which€imposes€not€a€different€òòlevelóó€of€proofÏupon€the€State,€but€different€òòfactorsóó€of€proof.€€Therefore,€it€is€not€accurate€toÏbroadly€characterize€an€instructional€error€such€as€that€complained€of€on€appealÏin€this€case€as€beneficial€to€the€defendant.× ƒN ××  ×€€Depending€upon€the€facts€of€theÏcase,€such€an€error€could€conceivably€be€beneficial€to€the€State.€€We€do€notÏagree,€however,€with€the€defendantððs€argument€that€such€an€error€alwaysÏrequires€reversal€and€may€never€be€harmless.€€The€defendantððs€reliance€uponÍòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€875€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1994)€is€misplaced.€€TheÏcircumstances€in€òòStephensonóó€were€unique€and€are€not€present€in€this€case.€€TheÏjury€was€instructed€and€returned€a€verdict€in€accordance€with€1988€law,€thoughÏthe€offense€was€committed€after€the€statute€was€amended€in€1989.€€TheÏdefendant€was€therefore€deprived€of€the€previously€noted€benefits€of€the€1989Ïlaw.€€When€the€error€was€called€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention,€the€jurors€wereÏrecalled,€some€two€weeks€after€the€trial,€and€questioned€by€the€trial€court€toÏestablish€that€the€erroneous€jury€instructions€had€no€impact€on€the€verdictÏrendered,€a€procedure€that€was€clearly€inappropriate.€€Under€suchÏcircumstances,€this€Court€found€that€error€required€reversal.€€€Unlike€òòStephensonóó,Ïthe€instructional€error€in€this€case€is€harmless€for€two€reasons.ÌÌà àFirst,€this€aggravating€circumstance€was€sufficiently€proven€by€evidence€ofÏtorture,€independent€of€the€depravity€or€serious€physical€abuse€prong€of€theÏaggravating€circumstance.€€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€587€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏThe€trial€court€correctly€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€definitions€of€the€termsÏð ðheinous,ðð€ð ðatrocious,ðð€and€ð ðcruelðð€in€accordance€with€this€Courtððs€decision€inÍòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985).€€Also€in€accordance€withÏòòWilliamsóó,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€ð ðtortureðð€means€ð ðthe€infliction€ofÏsevere€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remains€alive€orÏconscious.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€proof€introduced€by€the€State€during€the€trial€clearlyÏestablished€torture.€€The€victim€was€initially€assaulted€and€knocked€to€the€floor€byÏthe€defendant.€€While€she€was€lying€helpless€on€the€floor,€the€defendant€retrievedÏa€butcher€knife,€returned€to€the€den,€and€began€stabbing€her.€€Dr.€Harlan€testifiedÏthat€the€victim€would€have€been€alive€and€conscious€for€at€least€three€to€fiveÏminutes€during€the€assault,€and€possibly€as€long€as€thirty€minutes.€€The€pain€ofÏthe€stabbing€during€that€period€of€consciousness€would€have€been€comparable,Ïaccording€to€Dr.€Harlan,€to€undergoing€surgery€without€an€anesthetic.€€€Therefore,Ïbased€upon€the€proof€in€this€record,€we€are€convinced€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€had€the€sentencing€jury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€aggravatingÏcriteria€[serious€physical€abuse],€the€defendantððs€sentence€would€have€been€theÏsame.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€260„61€(Tenn.€1993).€€Therefore€theÏerror€does€not€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€sentencingÏhearing.Ìà àÌà àAlternatively,€we€are€convinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€had€theÏjury€been€properly€instructed,€it€would€have€found€the€evidence€sufficient€toÏestablish€depravity€of€mind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€this€CourtÏstated€that€depravity€is€inherent€in€the€state€of€mind€of€a€murderer€who€willfullyÏinflicts€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€on€a€victim€prior€to€death€or€at€a€time€veryÏclose€to€the€victimððs€death.€€òòIdóó.,€690€S.W.2d€at€529.€€In€this€case€the€defendantÏbeat€and€stabbed€the€victim,€a€person€whom€he€knew,€and€later€boasted€aboutÏhow€he€had€practiced€karate€on€Lefever.€€Such€evidence€clearly€establishes€thatÏthe€defendant€willfully€inflicted€severe€physical€pain€upon€the€victim.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€conclude€that€had€the€jury€been€properly€instructed€it€would€have€foundÏdepravity€of€mind.€€Therefore,€the€instructional€error€in€this€case€does€notÏaffirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€verdict€and€is€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.ÌÌà@ àÔ€ Ôò òÔ€ ¼ÔVII.Ô€ XÔó óÔ€+ÔÌà@ àà@ àòòò òPROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWóóó óÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€mandate€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(1991€Repl.),€we€have€considered€the€entire€record€in€this€cause€andÏfind€that€the€sentence€of€death€was€not€imposed€in€any€arbitrary€fashion;€that€theÏevidence€supports,€as€previously€discussed,€the€juryððs€findings€of€the€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances;€and€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€outweigh€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(A)„(C)(1991€Repl.).€€Finally,€comparativeÏproportionality€review€convinces€us€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€neitherÏexcessive€nor€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€casesÏconsidering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D)€(1991€Repl.).ÌÌà àOur€1977€statute€created€a€comparative€proportionality€review€to€serve€asÏan€additional€safeguard€against€arbitrary€or€capricious€sentencing.€€Such€reviewÏof€death€cases€insures€rationality€and€consistency€in€the€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty.€€We€have€studied,€compared,€and€analyzed€cases€and€conducted€aÏmeaningful€proportionality€review€as€outlined€in€€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2dÍ659,€663„68€(Tenn.€1988).€€We€have€reviewed€Rule€12€reports€from€trial€judgesÏsubmitted€over€the€past€eighteen€years€in€all€criminal€trials€for€first€degree€murderÏin€which€life€imprisonment€or€a€sentence€of€death€has€been€imposed.€€We€haveÏmade€an€independent,€conscientious€and€thorough€review€of€this€case,€as€weÏhave€in€every€other€capital€case€that€has€come€before€this€Court.€€As€a€result€ofÏthat€review,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€senseless,€gruesome,€premeditatedÏkilling€of€this€innocent,€helpless,€elderly€woman€clearly€warrants€the€imposition€ofÏthe€death€penalty.€€Defendantððs€deliberate€acts€showed€a€total€disregard€forÏhuman€life.€€The€victim,€a€seventy„nine€year€old€widow,€was€the€best€friend€of€theÏdefendantððs€grandmother.€€The€defendant€used€this€relationship€to€gain€access€toÏher€home.€€The€defendant€savagely€beat€the€victim€with€a€stick€and€then€stabbedÏher€forty„three€times.€€This€brutal€murder€places€the€defendant€Bush€into€the€classÏof€defendants€deserving€capital€punishment€and€is€not€disproportionate€to€theÏsentences€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€McNishóó,€722€S.W.2d€490€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,Ï704€S.W.2d€314€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Barnesóó,€703€S.W.2d€611€(Tenn.€1985);€ÏòòState€v.€Coneóó,€665€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€664€S.W.2d€281Í(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342€(Tenn.€1982).€€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àWe€have€considered€the€defendantððs€assignments€of€error€and€determinedÏthat€none€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€verdict€of€the€trial€or€theÏsentencing€proceeding.€€With€respect€to€issues€not€specifically€addressed€herein,Ïwe€affirm€the€well„reasoned€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€authoredÏby€Judge€David€Hayes€and€joined€in€by€Judge€Paul€G.€Summers€and€JudgeÏWilliam€M.€Barker.€€Relevant€portions€of€that€opinion€are€published€hereafter€asÏan€appendix.€€The€defendantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€and€sentence€ofÏdeath€by€electrocution€are€affirmed.€€The€sentence€of€death€will€be€carried€out€asÏprovided€by€law€on€the€7th€day€of€July€1997€unless€otherwise€ordered€by€thisÏCourt,€or€other€proper€authorities.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€adjudged€against€theÏdefendant.€€à ààH0 0 0 àÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFrank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJusticeÌÌÌò òConcur:ó óÌÌAnderson,€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌReid,€J.,€Concurring€by€Separate€OpinionÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€Dissenting€by€Separate€OpinionÌÌÓÓÒ ž ÒÒ À Òò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€+„Ôà@ àÔ€+èÔAppendixÔ€+XÔÌà@ à(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÇ3.€THE€MARITAL€PRIVILEGEó óÌò òÌA.€€à0 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULING€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€THE€TESTIMONY€OFÏSHEILA€BUSH€HAMMOCKó ó€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€marital€privilege€should€have€barred,€atÏtrial,€the€testimony€of€Sheila€Bush€Hammock€concerning€statements€made€by€theÏappellant€to€Ms.€Hammock€during€their€marriage.€€Specifically,€the€appellantÏargues€that,€because€the€trial€court€restricted€examination€of€Ms.€Hammock€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€to€"the€circumstances€under€which€any€statements€wereÏmade€that€might€be€attributable€or€not€attributable€to€some€marital€privilege,"€€theÏcourt€was€unable€to€properly€determine€whether€the€appellant€could€invoke€theÏprivilege.€€In€other€words,€according€to€the€appellant,€testimony€concerning€"theÏdetails€and€contents€of€the€statements"€was€essential€to€the€resolution€of€theÏappellant's€motion.Ì€€Ìà àThe€suppression€hearing€was€held€on€June€9,€1992.€€At€the€hearing,€Ms.ÏHammock€testified€that€she€had€married€the€appellant€on€August€13,€1988,€threeÏdays€prior€to€the€murder€of€Jodie€Lefever.€€She€further€testified€that€she€and€theÏappellant€had€been€dating€"off€and€on€two€years"€before€their€marriage.€€BothÏbefore€and€after€their€marriage,€the€appellant€"threatened"€and€"beat"€Ms.ÏHammock.€€Ms.€Hammock€also€stated,€"He€would€always€call€me€names€andÏmake€fun€of€me.€€I€couldn't€say€anything€right."€€Moreover,€following€theirÏmarriage,€while€the€appellant€and€Ms.€Hammock€were€living€with€her€mother,€theÏappellant€would€not€allow€Ms.€Hammock€to€visit€friends.€€After€they€moved€to€hisÏparents'€house,€the€appellant€would€not€allow€her€to€visit€her€mother.ÌÌà àMs.€Hammock€concluded€that€she€"was€just€scared€of€Michael,"€and€thatÏher€relationship€with€the€appellant€was€a€relationship€built€upon€fear€and€threats.€ÏFor€example,€after€the€appellant€admitted€to€her€that€he€had€killed€Ms.€Lefever,Ïhe€told€Ms.€Hammock€that€the€Mafia€was€watching€her,€and€that,€if€she€ever€toldÏanyone€what€he€had€done,€she€would€be€killed.€€On€the€day€that€Ms.€HammockÏdecided€to€leave€the€appellant,€he€again€physically€abused€her.€€The€StateÍintroduced€into€evidence€a€picture€of€bruises€that€Ms.€Hammock€suffered€as€aÏresult€of€the€appellant's€abuse.€€At€the€time€of€the€suppression€hearing,€Ms.ÏHammock€and€the€appellant€had€been€divorced€for€approximately€two€years.ÌÌÓ ` ÜXÆ*ˆ,‹X Óà àThe€rule€of€marital€privilege€applicable€in€the€appellant's€case€wasÏannounced€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòMcCormick€v.€Stateóó,€186€S.W.€95€(Tenn.Ï1916).× ƒQ ××  ×€€In€òòMcCormickóó,€186€S.W.€at€97,€the€supreme€court€held€that€"[s]oundÍpublic€policy€requires€that€neither€the€husband€nor€the€wife€shall€be€permitted€toÏtestify,€in€criminal€cases,€as€to€any€matter€coming€to€his€or€her€knowledge€byÏreason€of€the€marital€relation."€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBurton€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€814,€817„819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1973);€€òòBraganóó,€No.Ï03C01„9403„CR„00121.€€Under€this€rule,€either€the€testifying€or€non„testifyingÏspouse€can€invoke€the€privilege.€€òòBraganóó,€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00121.€ÏHowever,€the€privilege€is€not€absolute.€€In€òòAdamsóó,€563€S.W.2d€at€808,€this€courtÏobserved€that€the€following€conditions€must€exist€before€a€communicationÏbetween€husband€and€wife€can€be€considered€privileged:ÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ(1)€€The€communications€must€originate€in€a€confidence€thatÏthey€will€not€be€disclosed.ÌÌ(2)€€This€element€of€confidentiality€must€be€essential€to€theÏfull€and€satisfactory€maintenance€of€the€relation€betweenÏthe€parties.ÌÌÌ(3)€€The€relation€must€be€one€which,€in€the€opinion€of€theÏcommunity,€ought€to€be€sedulously€fostered.ÌÌ(4)€€The€injury€that€would€inure€to€the€relation€by€theÏdisclosure€of€the€communications€must€be€greater€than€theÏbenefit€thereby€gained€for€the€correct€disposal€of€litigation.ÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ž ÒÒ À ÒÓÓÌThe€court€in€òòAdamsóó€noted€that€exceptions€to€the€marital€privilege€generally€ariseÏfrom€the€failure€of€the€communication€to€meet€these€conditions.€€òòIdóó.€€"All€four€ofÏthese€conditions€must€exist€to€protect€the€evidence€by€the€marital€privilege."€ÏòòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€183€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981).€€Thus,€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€relevant€to€theÏfirst€two€conditions€was€unnecessary€if€sufficient€evidence€was€presented€toÏnegate€the€last€two€conditions.ÌÌà à€In€òòGarlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€at€182„183,€this€court€observed€that€theÏapplication€of€the€marital€privilege€was€inappropriate€where€the€marriageÍbetween€the€parties€was€"extremely€tumultuous."€€Similarly,€in€this€case,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€the€appellant's€motion€to€suppress€on€the€basis€of€the€followingÏfindings€of€fact:ÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓSheila€(Bush)€Hammock€and€the€defendant€were€marriedÏon€August€13,€1988.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€partiesÏseparated€on€or€about€September€25,€1988.€€From€theÏtestimony,€the€Court€further€finds€that€a€divorce€was€grantedÏto€the€parties€approximately€two€(2)€years€prior€to€the€date€ofÏthis€hearing.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€marriage€wasÏextremely€turbulent€and€disturbing€from€its€beginning.€€TheÏdefendant€regularly€beat€and€physically€abused€theÏprospective€witness.€€He€subjected€her€to€various€forms€ofÏmental€and€verbal€abuse€on€a€regular€basis.€€He€threatenedÏher€with€physical€harm€and€death€if€she€ever€disclosed€anyÏof€the€crimes€which€he€allegedly€committed.€€The€threatsÏwere€made€before€and€after€the€threats€[sic]€were€allegedlyÏcommitted.ÌÓÓÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ž ÒÒ À ÒThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€areÏafforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict;€€this€court€will€not€set€aside€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€itsÏfindings.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Dickóó,Ï872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993);€ÏòòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€We€concludeÍthat€the€record€supports€the€trial€court's€findings.€€Thus,€as€in€òòGarlandóó,€617ÏS.W.2d€at€183,€"we€do€not€believe€that€the€conditions€3€and€4€enumerated€inÏòòAdamsóó€are€met."€€Therefore,€contrary€to€the€appellant's€argument€in€his€brief,Ïfurther€testimony€regarding€the€òòcontentsóó€of€the€appellant's€statements€to€Ms.ÏHammock€was€unnecessary€to€the€proper€resolution€of€the€appellant's€motion.ÌÌò òÓÓB.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT'S€LIMITATION€AT€THEÏSUPPRESSION€HEARING€OF€CROSS„EXAMINATION€OFÏSHEILA€BUSH€HAMMOCK€VIOLATED€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€RIGHT€TO€CONFRONTATION€UNDER€THEÏSIXTH€AMENDMENT€TO€THE€UNITED€STATESÏCONSTITUTION€AND€ARTICLE€I,€SECTION€9€OF€THEÏTENNESSEE€CONSTITUTION.ó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that,€at€the€suppression€hearing,€he€"was€limitedÏand€restricted€from€confronting€[his]€accuser,€Sheila€Bush€(Hammock),€andÏthereby€denied€his€rights€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution."€€The€right€toÏconfrontation€set€forth€in€the€Sixth€Amendment€includes€the€right€to€conductÍcross„examination.× ƒR ××  ×€€However,€we€have€previously€observed,€"[I]t€is€elementaryÏthat€the€exclusion€of€immaterial€or€irrelevant€evidence€does€not€abridge€anÏaccused's€right€to€confrontation."€€òòState€v.€Marquadisóó,€649€S.W.2d€15,€17€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòDelaware€v.€Van€Arsdallóó,€475€U.S.€673,€679,€106ÏS.Ct.€1431,€1435€(1986)("trial€judges€retain€wide€latitude€insofar€as€theÏConfrontation€Clause€is€concerned€to€impose€reasonable€limits€on€...€cross„examination€based€on€concerns€about,€among€other€things,€harassment,Ïprejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€the€witness'€safety,€or€interrogation€that€isÏrepetitive€or€only€marginally€relevant");€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€611(a)€("[t]he€court€shallÏexercise€appropriate€control€over€the€presentation€of€evidence€and€conduct€ofÏthe€trial€when€necessary€to€avoid€abuse€by€counsel").€€In€other€words,€"theÏConfrontation€Clause€only€guarantees€'an€òòopportunityóó€for€effective€cross„examination,€not€cross„examination€that€is€effective€in€whatever€way,€and€toÏwhatever€extent,€the€defense€counsel€might€wish.'"€€òòPennsylvania€v.€Ritchieóó,€480ÏU.S.€39,€53,€107€S.Ct.€989,€999€(1987)(citation€omitted).€€We€have€alreadyÏconcluded€that€the€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€concerning€the€contentsÏof€the€appellant's€statements€to€Ms.€Hammock€would€have€been€superfluous.ÌÌà àMoreover,€this€court€has€held€that€"the€'confrontation'€guaranteed€by€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€is€confrontation€at€trial."€€òòHaggard€v.€Stateóó,€475ÏS.W.2d€186,€187€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1971).€ÏSimilarly,€in€òòRitchieóó,€480€U.S.€at€52,€107€S.Ct.€at€999,€a€plurality€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€observed€that€"the€right€to€confrontation€is€a€òòtrialóó€right."€ÏòòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Sassonóó,€62€F.3d€874,€881€n.€5€(7th€Cir.€1995);€€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€De€Los€Santosóó,€819€F.2d€94,€97€(5th€Cir.€1987);€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏBoyceóó,€797€F.2d€691,€693€(8th€Cir.€1986).× ƒS ××  ×€€Defense€counsel€was€able€to€fullyÍand€extensively€cross„examine€Ms.€Hammock€at€trial.€€This€claim€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓ4.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULINGÏTHE€APPELLANT'S€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€THEÏTESTIMONY€OF€OTHER€INMATES.ó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€jailhouseÏinformants€to€testify€against€the€appellant€concerning€statements€made€by€theÏappellant€during€his€incarceration.€€The€appellant€filed€a€motion€on€October€16,Ï1992,€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€William€Moore,€Jimmy€Myers,€Billy€Goney,€andÏother€inmates,€based€on€the€allegation€that€law€enforcement€officers€asked€theÏinmates€to€elicit€statements€from€the€appellant€in€violation€of€òòMassiah€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€377€U.S.€201,€84€S.Ct.€1199€(1964).€€On€November€13,€1992,€anÏevidentiary€hearing€was€held€to€resolve€the€appellant's€motion.€€ÌÌà àBilly€Goney€and€Jimmy€Myers€testified€at€the€hearing.€€Billy€Goney€statedÏthat€he€was€incarcerated€with€Michael€Bush€at€the€Putnam€County€Jail€betweenÍSeptember€or€October€of€1988€and€April€of€1989.€€He€further€alleged€that,Ïapproximately€one€week€after€the€appellant€was€placed€in€the€jail,€Bobby€LaneÏand€Doug€Burgess,€investigators€with€the€Putnam€County€Sheriff's€Department,Ïasked€Goney€and€fellow€inmates,€Guy€Ramsey€and€Jimmy€Myers,€to€tapeÏconversations€with€Michael€Bush.€€The€inmates€were€told€that,€if€they€cooperatedÏwith€the€police,€the€police€"would€help€[them]€out."€€The€inmates€already€hadÏaccess€to€tape€recorders€and€tapes,€and€the€inmates€used€the€equipment€to€tapeÏconversations€with€the€appellant.€€However,€Goney€added,ÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[W]hat€we'd€do€was€like€Jimmy€would€ask€Michael€aÏquestion,€say,€did€you€kill€that€old€woman,€and€we'd€haveÏthe€recorder€playing€and€we'd€ease€up€off€the€play€button.€ÏThen€they€would€ask€him€another€question€like,€do€you€likeÏkarate,€and€he€would€say,€yeah,€and€we'd€push€yeah€whenÏhe€was€saying€yes.ÌÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ž ÒÒ À ÒÓÓGoney€stated€that€he€and€his€fellow€informants€made€approximately€three€tapes,Ïand€that€Jimmy€Myers,€his€half„brother,€delivered€the€tapes€to€Deputy€Lane.€ÏGoney€insisted€that€he€never€heard€the€appellant€admit€to€killing€Jodie€Lefever.ÌÌà àJimmy€Myers€also€testified€at€the€hearing.€€He€was€also€incarcerated€at€theÍPutnam€County€Jail€in€September€of€1988.€€Indeed,€he€shared€a€cell€with€theÏappellant.€€However,€Myers€testified€that€neither€Deputy€Burgess€nor€DeputyÏLane€asked€the€inmates€to€record€conversations€with€Michael€Bush.€€Rather,ÏMyers€asserted€that€Goney€and€Ramsey€first€suggested€taping€the€appellant€andÏfirst€contacted€Deputies€Lane€and€Burgess.€€His€testimony€is€somewhat€unclearÏas€to€whether€the€tapes€were€made€before€or€after€the€inmates€contacted€theÏdeputies.€€Myers€conceded€that€the€officers€may€have€been€aware€that€the€tapesÏwere€being€made.€€ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€before€the€tapes€were€made,€Myers€heard€the€appellantÏadmit€to€killing€Ms.€Lefever.ÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓWell,€one€time€he€was€telling€me€and€Billy€and€Ramsey€all,€IÏmean,€he€told€us€he€tied€Ms.€Lefever€up€and€stuff€andÏstabbed€her€and€waited€on€his€wife.€€His€wife€dropped€himÏoff€and€came€back€to€pick€him€up,€and€he€went€down€to€theÏdam€and€washed€blood€off€of€him€and€stuff.€€And,€I€mean,Ïthat's€about€all€he€said.€€And€then€some€other€times€heÏwould€tell€a€different€story.ÌÌÒ ž ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ž ÒÒ À ÒÓÓAgain,€Myers€could€not€remember€whether€he€and€the€other€inmates€spoke€to€theÏdeputies€before€or€after€they€overheard€this€statement.€€Finally,€Myers€concededÍon€cross„examination€that€it€was€common€knowledge€at€the€jail€that€inmatesÏcould€get€help€from€the€police€if€they€provided€information.€€However,€he€testifiedÏthat€he€was€not€promised€any€assistance€in€return€for€his€testimony.ÌÌà àDeputy€Burgess€testified€at€the€hearing€that€he€never€asked€any€of€theÏinmates€to€tape€conversations€with€Michael€Bush,€nor,€to€his€knowledge,€had€anyÏother€deputy€made€such€a€request.€€Moreover,€he€never€received€any€tapes,€norÏwas€he€aware€that€tapes€had€been€turned€over€to€the€Sheriff's€Department€untilÏhe€found€a€tape€in€Bobby€Lane's€office€the€day€before€the€hearing.€€He€was€notÏaware€of€any€agreement€between€jailhouse€informants€and€the€police.€€HeÏtestified€that€Billy€Goney€and,€possibly,€Jimmy€Myers€had€asked€to€speak€withÏhim€several€times.€€He€spoke€with€Goney€privately€"maybe€one€or€two"€times.€€HeÏtold€Goney€"to€keep€his€ears€open€and€if€he€heard€anything,€let€us€know."€€GoneyÏwas€unable€to€provide€any€useful€information.€€At€a€subsequent€hearing,€onÏDecember€10,€1992,€Burgess€stated€that€he€would€not€have€turned€to€inmates€toÏobtain€incriminating€statements€from€Michael€Bush€because€"[t]hat's€no€good€inÏcourt.€€We€can't€use€it."ÌÌà àAt€the€December€10€hearing,€Deputy€Bobby€Lane€testified€that,€during€theÏcourse€of€his€investigation€of€the€Lefever€murder,€he€never€asked€inmates€toÏsecretly€record€conversations€with€the€appellant.€€Goney€approached€him€withÏtwo€tapes,€but€"[t]he€tapes€was€garbage.€€There€wasn't€any€use€in€keeping€theÏtapes."€€Lane€did€not€have€any€subsequent€conversations€with€Goney€about€theÏtapes,€nor€did€Lane€talk€to€any€other€inmate.€€On€December€22,€1992,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€the€appellant's€motion,€observing,€"I€think€it's€a€question€ofÏcredibility€for€the€jury€to€decide."ÌÌà àAt€trial,€no€tapes€were€introduced€into€evidence.€€However,€Jimmy€MyersÏand€William€Roger€Moore€testified.€€Jimmy€Myers€again€stated€that€he€had€heardÏthe€appellant€admit€to€killing€Jodie€Lefever.€€Bush€also€told€Myers€that€"he€wasÏgoing€to€try€to€make€people€think€he€was€crazy."€€Myers€testified€that€theseÏstatements€were€not€recorded,€as€the€informants€began€taping€the€appellant€onlyÏafter€the€appellant's€lawyers€advised€him€against€talking€to€fellow€inmates€aboutÏthe€murder.€€After€the€appellant€was€so€advised,€he€changed€his€story€severalÍtimes.€€Finally,€Myers€insisted€that€he€was€never€offered€any€form€ofÏcompensation€in€return€for€his€testimony.€€On€cross„examination,€he€concededÏthat€he€had€written€a€letter€to€an€assistant€district€attorney,€in€which€he€stated,€"IfÏyou€can€help€me€out€in€any€way,€I€promise€you€that€you€will€not€be€sorry."ÌÌà àFinally,€William€Roger€Moore,€another€fellow€inmate€of€Michael€BushÏfollowing€the€appellant's€incarceration€at€the€Putnam€County€Jail,€also€testified€atÏtrial.€€Moore€stated€that,€as€there€was€very€little€to€do€at€the€jail,€Bush€approachedÏhim€and€initiated€several€conversations.€€The€appellant€admitted€to€Moore€that€heÏhad€killed€Jodie€Lefever.€€The€appellant€also€stated€that€he€was€going€to€"make€aÏploy€for€craziness."€€Moore€imparted€this€information€to€Special€Agent€O'Rear,€anÏagent€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€Moore€testified€that€he€wasÏnot€offered€any€compensation€in€return€for€his€cooperation,€nor€did€he€ask€for€anyÏcompensation.ÌÌà àAgain,€the€appellant€argues€that€any€incriminating€statements€made€by€theÏappellant€to€fellow€inmates€were€elicited€in€violation€of€òòMassiahóó.€€We€note,Íinitially,€that,€because€only€Jimmy€Myers€and€William€Moore€testified€at€trial,€theÏdenial€of€the€motion€to€suppress€with€respect€to€Goney€and€other€inmates,€even€ifÏerroneous,€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€100€(Tenn.Ï1995);€€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€727€S.W.2d€480,€482€(Tenn.€1987),€òòpost„conviction€reliefÏgrantedóó,€No.€03S01„9212„CR„00105€(Tenn.€May€10,€1993).€€With€respect€toÏMyers€and€Moore,€"the€clear€rule€of€òòMassiahóó€is€that€once€adversary€proceedingsÏhave€commenced€against€an€individual,€he€has€a€right€to€legal€representationÏwhen€the€government€interrogates€him."€€òòBrewer€v.€Williamsóó,€430€U.S.€387,€401,Ï97€S.Ct.€1232,€1240€(1977).€€Thus,€in€order€to€find€a€òòMassiahóó€violation,€a€courtÏmust€first€determine€(1)€whether€adversary€proceedings€had€commenced;€(2)Ïwhether€the€informant€was€a€government€agent;€and€(3)€whether€the€agentÏ"interrogated"€the€appellant€within€the€meaning€of€òòMassiahóó.ÌÌà àThe€initiation€of€adversary€proceedings€is€"marked€by€formal€charge,Ïwhich€[has€been]€construe[d]€to€be€an€arrest€warrant,€or€at€the€time€of€theÏpreliminary€hearing€in€those€rare€cases€where€a€preliminary€hearing€is€notÏpreceded€by€an€arrest€warrant,€or€by€indictment€or€presentment."€€òòState€v.ÍMitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€280,€286€(Tenn.€1980),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€449€U.S.€845,€101ÏS.Ct.€128€(1980).€€Clearly,€at€the€time€the€appellant€allegedly€made€theÏincriminating€statements€to€fellow€inmates,€he€had€been€formally€charged€and,Ïprobably,€indicted.× ƒT ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIt€is€arguably€unclear€whether€Myers€was€acting€as€a€government€agent.€ÏThis€court€in€òòState€v.€Dunnóó,€No.€85„356„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€June€6,Ï1986)€observed,€"Although€òòMassiahóó€and€it€progeny€do€not€explicitly€define€theÏterm€'state€agent,'€the€conduit€in€each€of€these€cases€was€clearly€a€state€agent,Ïoperating€as€such,€when€the€conversations€occurred."€€Thus,€any€admissionsÏmade€by€the€appellant€òòbeforeóó€law€enforcement€officers€became€involved€would,Ïof€course,€be€admissible.€€òòHartmanóó,€896€S.W.2d€at€100.€€"[T]he€Sixth€AmendmentÏis€not€violated€whenever€„€by€luck€or€happenstance€„€the€State€obtainsÏincriminating€statements€from€the€accused€after€the€right€to€counsel€hasÍattached."€€òòMaine€v.€Moultonóó,€474€U.S.€159,€176,€106€S.Ct.€477,€487€(1985).€€ÌÌà àAgain,€at€the€suppression€hearing,€Goney€testified€that€Deputies€BurgessÏand€Lane€asked€inmates,€including€Myers,€to€record€conversations€with€theÏappellant.€€However,€Goney's€testimony€was€largely€contradicted€by€theÏtestimony€of€both€deputies€and€by€the€testimony€of€Myers.× ƒU ××  ×€€At€trial,€MyersÏrecounted€statements€by€the€appellant,€overheard€prior€to€the€recording€of€anyÏconversations.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Myers€could€not€remember€whetherÏhe€heard€these€statements€before€or€after€first€talking€to€Burgess€and€Lane.€€BothÏdeputies,€for€the€most€part,€denied€enlisting€inmates€to€obtain€statements€fromÏthe€appellant,€although€Deputy€Burgess€admitted€that€he€might€have€askedÏòòGoneyóó€"to€keep€his€ears€open."ÌÌà àEven€assuming€that€Myers€was€a€state€agent,€the€appellant€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€also€carried€the€burden€of€demonstrating€"that€the€policeÏand€their€informant€took€some€action,€beyond€merely€listening,€that€wasÍdesigned€deliberately€to€elicit€incriminating€remarks."€€òòKuhlmann€v.€Wilsonóó,€477ÏU.S.€436,€456,€459,€106€S.Ct.€2616,€2628,€2630€(1986).€€At€the€suppressionÏhearing,€Goney€testified€that€he€and€Guy€Ramsey€recorded€conversations€withÏthe€appellant,€during€which€they€attempted,€with€Myers'€assistance,€to€elicit€and,Ïindeed,€fabricate€a€confession.× ƒV ××  ×€€However,€Myers€testified€that€he€did€notÏparticipate€in€the€recording€of€any€statements.€€Rather,€he€testified€both€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€and€at€trial€that€he€merely€overheard€the€appellant€confessÏto€the€murder€of€Ms.€Lefever.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€thisÏstatement€was€made€in€response€to€efforts€by€the€other€inmates€to€stimulateÏconversation€about€the€crime€charged.€€ÌÌà àGiven€the€conflicting€testimony€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing,€theÏrecord€supports€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€appellant's€motion€with€respect€toÏJimmy€Myers.€€The€findings€made€by€the€trial€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearingÏare€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict;€€this€court€will€not€set€aside€the€judgmentÍof€the€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€itsÏfindings.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Dickóó,Ï872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993);€ÏòòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€assuming€for€the€sake€of€argument€that€Myers€was€a€stateÏagent€òòandóó€assuming€that€he€"interrogated"€the€appellant€within€the€meaning€ofÏòòMassiahóó,€the€admission€at€trial€of€Myers'€testimony€was€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóóÏòòHartmanóó,€896€S.W.2d€at€100;€€òòSparksóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€482.€€William€MooreÏtestified€at€trial€concerning€almost€identical€statements€made€by€the€appellant€toÏhim€in€the€Putnam€County€Jail.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€Moore€wasÏa€state€agent€at€the€time€of€his€conversations€with€Michael€Bush,€nor€is€thereÏevidence€that€he€made€any€effort€to€elicit€statements€from€the€accused€about€theÏcrime€charged.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òÓÓ5.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€ERRED€IN€OVERRULINGÏTHE€APPELLANT'S€OBJECTION€TO€THE€INTRODUCTIONÍOF€CERTAIN€PHOTOGRAPHS€OF€THE€VICTIM.ó ó€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€toÏsuppress€certain€photographs€of€the€victim.€€Specifically,€he€insists€that€theÏpictures€were€admitted€only€for€the€purpose€of€inflaming€the€jury,€thus,€theirÏprejudicial€effect€outweighed€their€probative€value.€€Additionally,€the€appellantÏargues€that€the€photographs€had€no€probative€value€in€light€of€the€vividÏdescription€of€the€victim's€body€given€in€Officer€Lane's€testimony.ÌÌà àDuring€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€State€attempted€to€present€four€photographsÏof€the€victim.€€Exhibit€25€was€a€photograph€of€the€victim€as€she€was€discoveredÏby€Officer€Lane.€€Exhibit€26€was€a€photograph€which€showed€wounds€to€theÏvictim's€head.€€Exhibit€27€was€a€photograph€which€showed€the€lower€dental€plateÏof€the€victim€on€the€floor€next€to€her€body.€€Exhibit€28€showed€a€wound€to€theÏvictim's€left€knee.€€The€State€argued€that€the€photographs€were€relevant€toÏcorroborate€medical€testimony,€to€aid€the€jury€in€determining€the€extent€of€theÏwounds,€and€to€establish€the€element€of€malice.€€The€appellant€responded€thatÍthe€pictures€did€not€add€to€testimonial€value€as€Officer€Lane€had€alreadyÏdescribed€the€wounds€in€great€detail.€€The€appellant€concluded€that,€moreover,Ïthe€pictures€were€more€prejudicial€than€probative.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€accepted€the€State's€argument€that€Exhibit€25€wasÏprobative€to€show€the€placement€of€the€wounds€on€the€body,€Exhibit€27€wasÏprobative€as€to€the€amount€of€force€that€was€used€to€dislodge€the€dental€plateÏfrom€the€victim's€mouth,€and€Exhibit€28€was€probative€to€show€additional€woundsÏon€the€body.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€probative€value€of€theseÏthree€photographs€was€not€outweighed€by€their€prejudicial€effect.€€However,€theÏtrial€court€sustained€the€appellant's€objection€to€Exhibit€26,€finding€it€to€be€theÏmost€gruesome€of€the€pictures,€and€finding€it€to€not€accurately€depict€the€victim'sÏwounds.ÌÌà àTo€be€admissible,€a€photograph€must€be€relevant€to€some€issue€at€trial,Ïand€its€prejudicial€effect€must€not€outweigh€its€probative€value.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,Ï564€S.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.€1978);€òòsee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€discretionÍof€a€trial€judge€in€allowing€the€admission€of€a€photograph€into€evidence€will€notÏbe€overturned€except€upon€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.ÏBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€214,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citations€omitted);€€òòseeÏalsoóó€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€it€was€not€error€to€admit€the€photographs€in€this€case.€ÏThe€photographs€were€relevant€to€supplement€the€testimony€of€the€medicalÏexaminer€and€the€officer€who€initially€investigated€the€crime€scene€inÏestablishing€the€cause€of€death,€€òòseeóó€€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€542,€and€toÏshow€the€brutality€of€the€attack€and€extent€of€force€used€against€the€victim,€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€infer€malice.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€551Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌò òÓÓ6.à8 àWHETHER€THE€APPELLANT€IS€ENTITLED€TO€RELIEFÏBASED€ON€ALLEGATIONS€OF€PROSECUTORIALÏMISCONDUCT.ÌÌÌÓÓà@ àA.€€LACK€OF€REMORSEó óà à€€Ìà àThe€appellant€first€argues€that€the€prosecutor€erroneously€elicitedÏtestimony€concerning€the€appellant's€lack€of€remorse€from€three€witnesses.€ÏWhen€questioned€by€the€prosecutor€as€to€whether€the€appellant€had€expressedÏany€remorse€for€what€he€had€done,€William€Roger€Moore,€an€inmate€who€hadÏbeen€incarcerated€with€the€appellant,€answered€that€the€appellant€hadÏexpressed€remorse€only€in€that€he€had€gotten€caught.€€When€asked€whether€heÏhad€observed€any€sadness€on€the€part€of€the€appellant€when€the€appellant€hadÏshown€him€a€newspaper€account€of€the€murder,€James€Mullins,€a€friend€of€theÏappellant,€testified€that€he€had€observed€no€sadness.€€When€asked€whether€theÏappellant€had€expressed€any€remorse€or€sadness€for€what€he€had€done,€SheliaÏBush€(Hammock)€testified€that€he€had€expressed€no€remorse.ÌÌÌà àThe€failure€of€defense€counsel€to€make€a€contemporaneous€objectionÏwaives€consideration€of€the€issue€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2dÍ915,926€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.ÏKillebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€235€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1988);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€A€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€of€theÏthree€statements€to€which€the€appellant€now€objects,€the€appellant€only€objectedÏto€the€prosecutor's€question€to€James€Mullins,€and€the€objection€was€based€onÏthe€fact€that€it€was€a€leading€question.€€We€conclude€that€the€appellant€hasÏwaived€this€issue.ÌÌò òà@ àB.€€IRRELEVANT€OPINION€EVIDENCEÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€erred€in€elicitingÏirrelevant€opinion€evidence€from€Jimmy€Myers,€another€inmate€who€had€beenÏincarcerated€with€the€appellant.€€On€redirect€examination,€the€prosecutor€askedÏMyers€why€he€was€in€court€testifying.€€Myers€responded€that€it€"could€be€myÏmother€or€my€grandmother,€someone€that's€you€know,€laying€there€dead€youÏknow.€€I€don't€think€someone€should€kill€someone€like€that€and€just€walk€theÏstreets.€€Get€out€scot€free."ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€deliberately€brought€beforeÏthe€jury€evidence€which€was€wholly€irrelevant€to€the€appellant's€guilt€orÏinnocence.€€However,€the€record€reveals€that€on€cross„examination,€appellant'sÏcounsel€questioned€Myers€extensively€concerning€his€true€motivation€forÏtestifying.€€We€conclude€that€the€question€asked€by€the€prosecutor€wasÏappropriate,€notwithstanding€the€witness'€nonresponsive€statement.€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€Ìò òÌà@ àÌà@ àC.€€CLOSING€ARGUMENT€Ìà@ à(1)€MASSIVE€INVESTIGATIONÌà àó óThe€appellant€also€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€reversal€of€his€convictionÏdue€to€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€closing€argument.€€He€objects€to€theÏprosecutor's€remark€that€the€investigation€was€"the€most€extensive€investigationÏ...€that€I've€ever€heard€of"€and€to€the€prosecutor's€statement€that€the€appellantÏwas€the€only€suspect€resulting€from€the€investigation.€€The€appellant€contendsÏthat€evidence€of€such€an€investigation€was€not€before€the€jury,€and€that€theÍprosecutor's€comments€exceeded€the€scope€of€proper€argument.ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€observed€that€"argument€of€counsel€is€a€valuableÏprivilege€that€should€not€be€unduly€restricted.€€Our€courts€seek€to€give€greatÏlatitude€to€counsel€in€expressing€their€views€of€the€case€to€the€jury."€€òòSmith€v.ÏStateóó,€527€S.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€in€controllingÏthe€argument€of€counsel.€€òòSmithóó,€527€S.W.2d€at€739.€€Generally,€on€appeal,€thisÏcourt€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€of€that€discretion€in€the€absence€of€abuseÏthereof.€€òòIdóó.€€However,€if€the€prosecutor's€remarks,€in€fact,€"stray[ed]€beyond€theÏwide€latitude€afforded,"€this€court€should€consider,€among€other€factors,€the€intentÏof€the€prosecutor,€any€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court,€the€improperÏconduct€viewed€in€context€and€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,Ïthe€cumulative€effect€of€the€remarks€with€any€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€theÏrelative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809;€€òòJudge€v.ÏStateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€We€note€that€"curativeÏinstructions€will€not€render€all€improper€comments€harmless;€€the€test€is€whetherÍthe€conduct€...€affected€the€results€to€the€prejudice€of€the€appellant."€€òòState€v.ÏByerleyóó,€658€S.W.2d€134,€139€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBigbeeóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€at€809.ÌÌÌà àIn€arguing€that€the€investigation€was€extensive,€the€prosecutor€specificallyÏreferred€to€Deputy€Richard€Smith's€testimony€that€the€Sheriff's€Department€hadÏinterviewed€between€200€and€250€people€regarding€this€case.€€The€prosecutor'sÏobservation,€that€the€appellant€was€the€only€suspect,€was€similarly€supported€byÏthe€evidence€introduced€at€trial.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€allowing€the€argument.Ìò òÌÌà@ à(2)€€PROSECUTOR'S€PERSONAL€VIEWSÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€erred€in€referring€to€thisÏmurder€as€being€"a€murder€of€the€worst€kind,"€"one€of€the€worst€kind€of€murdersÏimaginable,"€and€"a€most€heinous€and€brutal€act."€€The€appellant€contends€thatÍthe€prosecutor€expressed€his€personal€views€of€the€offense€in€an€effort€to€inflameÏthe€passions€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àHowever,€evaluating€the€prosecutor's€comments€in€light€of€his€entireÏargument,€we€conclude€that€the€comments€referred€to€the€fact€that€the€appellantÏtook€advantage€of€a€lady€who€was€a€close€friend€of€his€grandmother.€€Even€ifÏimproper,€we€do€not€view€this€argument€as€being€so€prejudicial€as€to€require€aÏnew€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ìò òÌà@ àD.€€BOLSTERINGÌó óà àFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€prosecutor€erred€by€improperlyÏbolstering€the€testimony€of€William€Roger€Moore€and€Shelia€Bush€(Hammock)€byÏasking€them€if€they€were€telling€the€truth.€€He€also€asked€Ms.€Bush€if€she€wasÏhaving€dreams€about€the€case.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Carpenteróó,€773€S.W.2d.€1,€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989),€this€court€held€that€bolstering€was€permitted€toÍrehabilitate€an€impeached€witness€to€rebut€the€inference€that€the€witness'sÏtestimony€was€a€recent€fabrication.€€Bolstering€has€also€been€permitted€to€allowÏseemingly€inconsistent€statements€to€be€placed€into€context.€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797ÏS.W.2d€589,€594€(Tenn.€1990).€€We€conclude€that€the€prosecutor's€questionsÏwere€not€inappropriate.ÌÌà àThe€question€asked€of€Ms.€Bush€concerning€whether€she€had€dreamsÏabout€the€offense€were€posed€in€the€context€of€remembering€things€that€she€hadÏnot€thought€of€and€explaining€why€there€had€been€inconsistencies€in€previousÏstatements.€€Again,€we€conclude€that€the€prosecutor€could€use€this€question€toÏrehabilitate€his€witness.€€This€issue€is€without€meritò ò.ÌÌÌÓÓ7.à8 àWHETHER€THE€PROSECUTOR'S€STATEMENTS€DURINGÏTHE€CLOSING€ARGUMENT€OF€THE€PENALTY€PHASE€OFÏTHE€TRIAL€DENIED€THE€APPELLANT€A€FAIR€TRIAL.× ƒW ××  ×ÌÌÓÓà@ àA.€òòCALDWELLóó€VIOLATIONÌà àó óThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€prosecutor,€in€violation€of€theÏSupreme€Court's€holding€in€òòCaldwell€v.€Mississippióó,€472€U.S.€320,€328„29,€105ÏS.Ct.€2633,€2639€(1985),€"led€the€jury€to€believe€that€the€responsibility€forÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€the€defendant's€death€rests€elsewhere."€€TheÏappellant€cites€the€following€portion€of€the€prosecutor's€argument€to€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 àI€submit€to€you€that€the€most€important€day€in€the€defendant's€lifeÏwas€the€day€that€he€chose€„„€not€you;€not€I;€„„€the€day€that€he€choseÏto€go€to€the€home€of€Jodie€Lefever€and€murder€her€horribly,Ïheinously,€atrociously,€in€cold€blood.€€They'll€tell€you€that€you€haveÏa€choice€to€make€here€today,€that€is€his€life€is€literally€in€your€hands.€ÏAnd€I€submit€to€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€that's€not€true.€ÏWhen€he€went€to€the€home€of€Jodie€Lefever€and€had€her€open€theÏdoor€as€a€friend,€he€took€his€life€in€his€own€hands.€€He€took€his€lifeÏin€his€own€hands.ÌÓÓÌà àWhen€reviewing€an€alleged€òòCaldwellóó€error,€this€court€must€first€determineÏwhether€the€prosecutor's€comments€minimized€the€jury's€role€in€determining€theÏappropriateness€of€death.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€399€(Tenn.€1989),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€497€U.S.€1010,€110€S.Ct.€3254€(1990).€€If€the€prosecutor'sÏcomments€were€improper,€we€must€then€decide€whether€the€trial€judge'sÍinstructions€to€the€jury€sufficiently€corrected€the€error.€€òòIdóó.€€"If€the€Court€cannot€sayÏthe€comments€had€no€effect€on€the€sentencing,€then€the€jury's€decision€does€notÏmeet€the€standard€of€reliability€required€by€the€Eighth€Amendment."€€òòState€v.€Irickóó,Ï762€S.W.2d€121,€131€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072,€109€S.Ct.€1357Ï(1989).ÌÌà àWe€have€previously€observed€that€the€State€may€properly€argue€that€aÏdefendant€is€the€"author€of€his€own€fate."€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9105„CR„00149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€1129€(1995).€€In€any€case,€the€prosecutor'sÏcomments€must€be€evaluated€in€the€context€of€the€total€argument€by€the€partiesÏand,€of€course,€the€trial€court's€instructions€to€the€jury€about€its€obligations€underÏthe€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€733€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óóÏU.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995).€€ÌÌà àImmediately€following€the€quoted€portion€of€the€prosecutor's€argument,€theÏprosecutor€reminded€the€jurors€that€they€had€been€asked€during€voir€direÍwhether€they€would€be€able€to€impose€the€death€penalty€if€the€State€were€able€toÏprove€that€aggravating€factors€outweighed€any€mitigating€factors.€€The€prosecutorÏthen€reviewed€the€aggravating€circumstances€presented€by€the€State.€€DuringÏrebuttal€argument,€the€prosecutor€again€explained€the€weighing€process,Ïremarking,€"You€have€a€job€to€do€and€it's€a€serious€job.€€It's€probably€one€of€theÏmost€tough€things€that€you've€ever€been€called€upon€to€do€in€your€life."€€DefenseÏcounsel,€during€closing€argument,€emphasized€the€importance€of€the€jury's€roleÏin€determining€the€appropriate€punishment.€€Defense€counsel€observed,€"TheÏverdict€you€render€on€the€question€you€have€today€is€whether€a€young€man€livesÏor€dies.€€You€are€the€supreme€decision€makers€in€this€case."€€Finally,€immediatelyÏbefore€the€jury€began€deliberations,€the€trial€court€correctly€instructed€the€jury€asÏto€their€responsibility€for€determining€the€appropriate€punishment.€€We€conclude,Ïtherefore,€that€even€if€the€prosecutor's€comments,€by€themselves,€violatedÏòòCaldwellóó,€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ò òÌÌà@ àB.€PROSECUTORIAL€EXPERTISEÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€alluded€to€prosecutorialÍexpertise€when€she€asked€that€the€jury€impose€the€death€penalty.€€That€is,€theÏprosecutor,€according€to€the€appellant,€argued€that€the€jury€should€impose€theÏdeath€penalty€because€the€State,€in€its€expertise,€chose€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty.€€However,€the€record€reveals€that,€in€the€portion€of€the€argument€toÏwhich€the€appellant€refers,€the€prosecutor€merely€reviewed€the€facts€of€the€caseÏand€concluded€that€"[i]f€that's€not€a€set€of€circumstances€that€deserves€the€deathÏpenalty,€one€would€wonder€what€it€takes."€€We€conclude€that€the€prosecutor'sÏargument€did€not€rely€upon€prosecutorial€expertise,€and€that€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìò òÌà@ àC.€DENIGRATION€OF€MITIGATING€EVIDENCEÌó óà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€misled€and€inflamed€theÏjury€by€denigrating€the€appellant's€mitigating€evidence,€characterizing€theÏevidence€as€an€"excuse"€which€should€be€disregarded.€€First,€our€supreme€courtÏfound€"nothing€wrong€with€counsel's€argument"€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2dÏ908,€922€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€116€S.Ct.€99€(1995),€a€case€inÏwhich€the€prosecutor€similarly€referred€to€the€defendant's€mitigating€evidence€asÍan€excuse.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€No.€02S01„9112„CR„00064€(Tenn.€May€23,Ï1994),€òòrehearing€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€May€16,€1995).€€Second,€the€record€revealsÏthat,€although€the€State€generally€downplayed€the€mitigating€evidence€presentedÏby€the€appellant,€the€prosecutor,€during€rebuttal,€conceded€that€two€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€appellant's€youth€and€his€lack€of€a€significant€criminal€history,€hadÏbeen€proven.€€During€the€course€of€argument,€the€prosecutor€also€explained€thatÏthe€appellant€could€"present€proof€on€anything€[he]€want[s]€to€and€call€it€aÏmitigator.€€Whether€it's€a€mitigator€or€not€is€up€to€you."€€We€conclude€that€theÏchallenged€comments€do€not€rise€to€the€level€of€reversible€error.ÌÌò òà@ àD.€MERCYÌó óà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€prosecutor€attempted€to€discourageÏthe€jury's€consideration€of€mercy.€€Specifically,€in€rebuttal,€the€prosecutor€argued,Ï"We€want€you€to€use€the€same€mercy€that€this€defendant€used€on€Jodie€LefeverÏas€she€lay€helpless€in€her€floor."€€Our€supreme€court€has€observed€that€thisÏargument€"encourage[s]€the€jury€to€make€a€retaliatory€sentencing€decision,€ratherÏthan€a€decision€based€on€a€reasoned€moral€response€to€the€evidence,"€and€isÍtherefore€improper.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€812.€€However,€the€record€revealsÏthat€the€trial€court€sustained€the€appellant's€objection€to€the€prosecutor's€remark.€ÏMoreover,€at€the€conclusion€of€argument,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÏthey€could€"decide€to€sentence€the€appellant€to€life€imprisonment€simply€becauseÏbased€on€the€evidence€introduced€at€either€the€guilt/innocence€or€sentencingÏphase€at€this€trial€you€find€it€appropriate€to€exercise€mercy."€€We€conclude€thatÏthe€appellant€was€not€unduly€prejudiced€by€the€prosecutor's€statement.Ìò òÌÌà@ àE.€MISCELLANEOUSÌó óà àThe€appellant€complains€that€the€prosecutor€waived€the€murder€weaponÏbefore€the€jury.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€argued€that€theÏdeath€penalty€would€protect€all€the€"other€Jodie€Lefevers€of€the€world."€€Finally,Ïthe€appellant€argues€that€the€prosecutor,€during€argument,€impermissiblyÏremarked€that€the€appellant's€expert€witnesses€received€a€fee€for€their€services.ÌÌà àFirst,€the€murder€weapon€was€properly€introduced€into€evidence€at€trialÍand,€therefore,€could€be€displayed€to€the€jury€and€otherwise€referred€to€duringÏthe€State's€closing€argument.€€Moreover,€the€prosecutor€is€an€advocate€and€isÏentitled€to€pursue€his€role€with€thoroughness€and€vigor.€€òòPost€v.€Stateóó,€580ÏS.W.2d€801,€808€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1979).€ÏSecond,€although€argument€based€on€general€deterrence€and,€perhaps,Ïdeterrence€of€the€defendant,€is€in€fact€improper,€€òòseeóó€òòIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€at€131,€theÏtrial€court€sustained€the€appellant's€objection€to€the€prosecutor's€remark.€€Finally,Ïwith€respect€to€any€remarks€addressing€fees€paid€to€expert€witnesses,€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€616€provides,€"A€party€may€offer€evidence€by€cross„examination,€extrinsicÏevidence,€or€both,€that€a€witness€is€biased€in€favor€of€or€prejudiced€against€aÏparty€or€another€witness."€€Thus,€in€cross„examining€the€appellant's€expertÏwitnesses€during€trial,€the€prosecutor€properly€inquired€about€fees.€€Therefore,Ïthe€prosecutor's€statements€during€closing€argument€were€grounded€in€the€proofÏpresented€at€trial.€€ÌÌà à"Closing€argument€must€be€temperate,€must€be€predicated€on€evidenceÏintroduced€during€the€trial€of€a€case,€and€must€be€pertinent€to€the€issues€beingÍtried."€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€No.€02C01„9305„CR„00080€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,ÏOctober€19,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏTysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€We€conclude€that€theÏState's€argument€largely€complied€with€this€standard,€and€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€controlling€closing€argument€during€the€penalty€phaseÏof€the€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òÓÓ8.à8 àWHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€PROPERLY€CHARGEDÏTHE€JURY€REGARDING€THE€CREDIBILITY€OFÏWITNESSES.ÌÌÓÓÌà àó óThe€appellant€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€given€by€the€trial€judgeÏregarding€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€impeachment€of€witnesses,€and€theÏmethod€of€resolving€conflicts€in€the€testimony€of€witnesses€unconstitutionallyÏrestrained€the€jury€in€their€determination€of€credibility.ÌÌà àThe€instructions€about€which€the€appellant€complains€are€the€pattern€juryÍinstructions€for€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€impeachment€of€witnesses.€ÏT.P.I.€„„€Crim.€ðð€ðð€€37.01,€37.02.€€Both€of€these€instructions€have€been€held€by€thisÏcourt€to€be€a€proper€statement€of€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Glebockóó,€616€S.W.2dÏ897,€906€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1981).€€WeÏconclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òÓÓ9.à8 àWHETHER€THE€APPELLANT€WAS€PROPERLYÏCONVICTED€OF€FIRST€DEGREE€BURGLARY.ÌÓÓó óÌò òà@ àA.€INSUFFICIENT€EVIDENCEÌÓ ` °œXÓó óà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€there€was€insufficient€evidence€toÏconvict€him€of€first€degree€burglary.€€He€specifically€claims€that€the€State€failed€toÏprove€that€there€had€been€a€"breaking€and€entering"€of€the€victim's€house.€€TheÏstandard€of€review€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€outlined€in€theÏappellant's€second€issue€will€be€used€to€evaluate€this€contention€also.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòsupraóó,€€Section€III,€Issue€#2€"Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€theÏappellant's€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€as€to€the€charge€of€premeditatedÍmurder.".ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„401€(1988)€defined€first€degree€burglary€as€"theÏbreaking€and€entering€into€a€dwelling€house€.€.€.€by€night,€with€intent€to€commit€aÏfelony."€€The€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€that€"[a]ny€person€who€afterÏhaving€entered€the€premises€mentioned€in€ðð39„3„401,€with€intent€to€commit€aÏfelony,€shall€break€any€premises,€or€any€safe€or€receptacle€therein,€shall€receiveÏthe€same€punishment€as€if€he€had€broken€into€the€premises€in€the€first€instance."€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„402€(1988).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€demonstrated€that€the€appellantÏhad€been€granted€entry€by€the€victim.€€However,€the€breaking€element€can€beÏeither€actual€or€constructive,€and€if€entry€was€gained€by€either€fraud€or€threat,€theÏbreaking€will€be€considered€constructive.€€òòState€v.€Hollandóó,€860€S.W.2d€53,€58€fn.Ï11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Since€the€appellant€was€armed€with€a€piece€ofÏwood,€there€was€at€least€circumstantial€evidence€that€the€appellant€gained€entryÏby€threat.€€Likewise,€because€the€victim€knew€the€appellant,€entry€could€haveÍbeen€gained€by€fraud€if€the€appellant€told€her€that€he€was€there€for€legitimateÏbusiness.ÌÌà àMoreover,€in€consideration€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„402,€the€StateÏproved€that€the€top€right„hand€dresser€drawer€had€been€opened€and€that€theÏappellant€had€opened€the€kitchen€drawer€to€remove€the€butcher€knife.€€BasedÏupon€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏappellant€guilty€of€first€degree€burglary.Ìò òÌÌà@ àB.€VARIANCE€Ìó óà àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€he€was€denied€notice€of€the€charges€beingÏbrought€against€him€because€the€indictment€charged€the€breaking€and€enteringÏinto€the€home€while€the€proof€demonstrated€only€the€breaking€into€the€drawers€ofÏthe€home.€€€He€further€contends€that€he€was€denied€due€process€and€a€fair€trialÏbecause€he€was€convicted€on€a€charge€never€made€in€the€indictment.€ò òÌÌà àó óIn€order€to€satisfy€constitutional€requirements,€an€indictment€must€provideÏthe€defendant€with€notice€of€the€offense€charged,€provide€the€court€with€anÏadequate€ground€upon€which€a€judgment€may€be€entered,€and€provide€theÏdefendant€with€protection€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.€2dÏ739,€741€(Tenn.€1991).€€Moreover,€in€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€662€S.W.2d€590,€592€(Tenn.Ï1984),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€variance€between€the€proofÏand€the€indictment€did€not€prejudice€the€defendant's€rights€if€the€indictmentÏsufficiently€informed€the€defendant€of€the€charges€against€him€so€that€he€couldÏproperly€prepare€his€defense€and€not€be€misled€or€surprised€at€trial€and€if€theÏvariance€was€not€such€that€it€would€present€a€danger€that€the€defendant€could€beÏprosecuted€a€second€time€for€the€same€offense.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€appellant€was€aware€of€the€facts€surrounding€the€entryÏinto€Ms.€Lefever's€home€and€the€entry€into€the€two€drawers€of€her€home.€ÏAlthough€the€appellant€contends€that€he€was€surprised€at€trial,€he€has€notÏdemonstrated€how€he€could€have€better€defended€had€he€been€given€priorÏnotice€that€the€breaking€involved€breaking€into€the€drawers.€€All€of€the€activityÍwas€involved€in€one€criminal€episode.€€For€these€reasons€we€conclude€that,€evenÏif€a€variance€existed,€it€was€harmless€under€these€circumstances.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌÌÌò òÓÓ11.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€APPELLANT€WAS€GIVEN€PROPERÏNOTICE€OF€THE€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCESÏUPON€WHICH€THE€STATE€INTENDED€TO€RELY.ó ó€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€not€provided€sufficient€notice€of€theÏfacts€supporting€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€"[t]he€murder€was€committedÏfor€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€orÏprosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another."€€Although€the€appellant€requested€a€billÏof€particulars€for€information€concerning€this€circumstance,€the€State€did€notÏreply.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(c)€allows€the€court€to€direct€the€filing€of€a€bill€ofÍparticulars€"so€as€to€adequately€identify€the€offense€charged."€€"This€provision€isÏto€be€construed€to€serve€that€òòsingular€purposeóó,€and€is€not€meant€to€be€used€forÏpurposes€of€broad€discovery."€€(emphasis€added)€Advisory€CommissionÏComments,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530Ï(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€ÏTherefore,€Rule€7(c)€is€not€applicable€to€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÏproceedings.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(b)€requires€the€State€to€provide€notice€of€its€intent€toÏseek€the€death€penalty€no€less€than€thirty€days€prior€to€trial.€€The€rule€alsoÏrequires€the€State€to€specify€the€aggravating€circumstances€upon€which€it€tendsÏto€rely€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Specification€may€be€satisfied€by€a€citation€toÏthe€aggravating€circumstance.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(b).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€State€amended€its€notice€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty€to€include€the€subsection€(i)(6)€aggravating€factor€on€November€5,€1992,Íwell€within€the€statutorily€mandated€time€period.× ƒX ××  ×€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÓÓò ò14.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€PROPERLY€INSTRUCTEDÏTHE€JURY€"REGARDING€REASONABLE€DOUBT."ó ó€€ò òÌÌÌÓÓó óà àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€rights€under€Article€I,ÏSections€6,€7,€8,€16,€17,€and€18€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€and€the€Sixth,ÏEighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€becauseÏthe€jury€was€unconstitutionally€instructed€concerning€the€meaning€of€"reasonableÏdoubt"€at€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€At€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,Ïthe€jury€received€the€following€instruction€concerning€the€meaning€ofÏ"reasonable€doubt."ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ À ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€anÏinvestigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,Ïafter€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€as€to€theÏcertainty€of€guilt.€€Reasonable€doubt€does€not€mean€aÏcaptious,€possible,€or€imaginary€doubt.€€Absolute€certaintyÍof€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€to€convict€of€any€criminalÏcharge,€but€moral€certainty€is€required,€and€this€certainty€isÏrequired€as€to€every€element€of€proof€necessary€toÏconstitute€the€offense.ÌÓÓÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò(charge€of€the€court,€transcript€of€the€evidence,€vol.€five,€ðð€III,€p.€681).× ƒY ××  ×ÌÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€this€instruction€equating€"beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt"€with€"a€moral€certainty"€violated€his€due€process€rights€under€the€newÏstandard€set€forth€in€òòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€1239€(1994).€€InÏòòVictoróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€phrase€"moral€certainty"Ïmay€have€lost€its€historical€meaning,€and€that€a€jury€might€"understand€it€to€allowÏconviction€on€proof€that€does€not€meet€the€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏstandard."€€òòVictoróó,€„„„€U.S.€at€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€at€1247.€€It€reasoned€that€"'moralÏcertainty,'€standing€alone,€might€not€be€recognized€by€modern€jurors€as€aÏsynonym€for€'proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,'€"€but€"something€less€than€theÍvery€high€level€of€probability€required€by€the€Constitution€in€criminal€cases."€€òòIdóó.€ÏWhile€the€Court€stated€that€it€did€not€condone€the€use€of€the€"moral€certainty"Ïphrase,€the€Court€held€that€the€phrase€could€pass€constitutional€muster€if€usedÏin€conjunction€with€a€modifying€instruction€that€lent€meaning€to€the€phrase.€ÏòòVictoróó,€„„„€U.S.€at€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€at€1248.× ƒZ ××  ×€€In€order€to€meet€the€requirements€ofÏdue€process,€the€jury€instructions€must€be€examined€as€a€whole,€withoutÏconsidering€particular€phrases€out€of€context.€€òòVictoróó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€114€S.Ct.€atÏ1243.ÌÌà àThe€instruction€provided€to€the€jury€in€the€present€case€used€the€termÏ"moral€certainty"€in€conjunction€with€"let€the€mind€rest€easily"€and€"arise€fromÏpossibility."€€Though€neither€of€these€phrases€have€been€before€the€UnitedÍStates€Supreme€Court,× ƒ[ ××  ×€€the€courts€of€this€state€have€consistently€upheld€theÏconstitutionality€of€this€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.€2d€722Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„„€U.S.€„„„,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995);€€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€ÏòòState€v.€Beckhamóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,ÏSept.€27,€1995);€€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,€€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00107€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€28,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€granted€in€part,€denied€in€partóó,Ï(Tenn.€May€30,€1995);€€òòState€v.€Voadenóó,€No.€01C01„9305„CC„00151€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Dec.€22,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€May€1,Ï1995);€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9312„CR„00393€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€July€1,€1994).€€Specifically,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€inÏòòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€734,€that€"the€use€of€the€phrase€'moral€certainty'Ïby€itself€is€insufficient€to€invalidate€an€instruction€on€the€meaning€of€reasonableÏdoubt."€€The€court€distinguished€the€Tennessee€instruction€from€the€oneÍinvalidated€in€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó€because€the€Tennessee€instruction€does€notÏrequire€"grave€uncertainty"€to€support€acquittal.€€Moreover,€the€court€concludedÏthat:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[w]hen€considered€in€conjunction€with€an€instruction€thatÏ"[r]easonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€anÏinvestigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,Ïafter€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€upon€theÏcertainty€of€your€verdict,"€we€find€that€the€instruction€properlyÏreflects€the€evidentiary€certainty€required€by€the€"dueÏprocess"€clause€of€the€federal€constitution€and€the€"law€ofÏthe€land"€provision€in€our€state€constitution.ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€734.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€charge€given€byÏthe€trial€court,€although€containing€the€phrase€"moral€certainty,"€did€not€violateÏthe€appellant's€rights€under€the€United€States€or€the€Tennessee€Constitutions.ÌÌÌò òÓÓ15.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT'S€INSTRUCTIONS€INÏTHE€PENALTY€PHASE€PROHIBITED€THE€JURY€FROMÏCONSIDERING€AND€GIVING€FULL€EFFECT€TO€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€MITIGATING€EVIDENCE.ÌÌÓÓà@ àA.€MODIFIER€"EXTREME"Ìó óà àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€precluded€the€juryÍfrom€considering€mitigating€evidence€of€mental€or€emotional€disturbance€whichÏdid€not€rise€to€the€level€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance.€€In€its€juryÏinstructions,€the€trial€court€recited€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(j)(2)€in€instructing€the€jury€that€in€arriving€at€the€punishment€the€jury€shallÏconsider€the€mitigating€factors€including,€but€not€limited€to€that€"[t]he€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance."€€The€appellant€contends€that€use€of€the€modifierÏ"extreme"€misled€the€jury€in€its€consideration€of€the€evidence.€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€rejected€this€same€argument€in€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„U.S.„„,€114€S.€Ct.€561Ï(1993).€€Moreover,€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€jury€was€also€instructed€that€it€couldÏconsider€any€mitigating€factor€raised€by€the€evidence€at€either€the€guilt€orÏpenalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àB.€MODIFIER€"SUBSTANTIALLY"Ìó óà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€precluded€the€juryÍfrom€considering€mitigating€evidence€of€mental€illness€and€intoxication€whichÏdid€not€rise€to€the€level€of€"substantially"€affecting€the€appellant's€ability€toÏconform€his€conduct€to€the€law.€€Again,€this€argument€was€rejected€in€òòSmithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€at€16„17,€and€we€find€the€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àC.€UNANIMOUS€AGREEMENT€ON€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESÌó óà àLastly,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€unconstitutionally€limitedÏthe€consideration€of€mitigating€evidence€by€requiring€the€jury€to€unanimouslyÏagree€on€a€verdict€of€life€or€death.€€€This€argument€was€rejected€in€òòSmithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€at€18,€and€we€agree€that€"nothing€in€the€Tennessee€statutes,€and€theÏinstructions€given€the€jury,€or€in€the€verdict€form€submitted€to€the€jury,€was€likelyÏto€lead€any€juror€to€believe€that€he€or€she€was€precluded€from€consideringÏmitigating€circumstances€unless€all€jurors€agreed€that€the€circumstancesÏexisted."€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓ16.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€TRIAL€COURT€FAILED€TO€PROVIDEÏTHE€JURY€WITH€PROPOSED€INSTRUCTIONSÏNECESSARY€FOR€THE€PROPER€DETERMINATION€OFÍSENTENCE.ÌÌÓÓó óÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€give€certainÏrequested€jury€instructions€during€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€trial€courtÏrejected€the€following€special€instructions:ÌÓÓà à1.(2)à àBurden€of€proof€„generally;Ìà à2.(4)à àLife€means€life€„death€means€death€„sentence€will€be€carried€Ìà àà àoutÌà à3.(5)à àDefinition€of€life€and€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à4.(6)à àJury€has€responsibility€for€final€decision€„€sentencing;Ìà à5.(7)à àDecision€to€be€made€by€individual€jurors€„€sentencing;Ìà à6.(9)à àAggravating€circumstance€„€definition€„€sentencing;ÌÌÌà à7.(10)à àWeighing€aggravation€and€mitigation€„€defining€mitigation€„Ïà àà àà àsentencing;Ìà à8.(13)à àAggravating€circumstance€„€standards€for€consideration€„Ïà àà àà àsentencing;Ìà à9.(14)à àPresumption€regarding€aggravating€circumstances€„€sentencing;Ìà à10.(15)Aggravating€circumstances€„€unanimity€„€sentencing:Ìà à11.(16)Aggravating€circumstance€„€individual€consideration€butÏà àà àà àrequirement€of€unanimity€„€sentencing;Ìà à12.(18)Sentence€„€crime€in€society;Ìà à13.(19)Deterrence€„€cost€sentencing;Ìà à14.(20)Definition€„€weight€and€unanimity€„€sentencing;Ìà à15.(21)Definition€„€mitigating€circumstances€„€sentencing;Ìà à16.(22)Mitigating€circumstance€„€definition€„sentencing;Ìà à17.(23)Mitigating€circumstance€„€definition€„sentencing;Ìà à18.(24)Standard€of€proof€„€sentencing;Ìà à19.(26)Weighing€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances€„Ïà àà àà àsentencing;Ìà à20.(27)Doubt€inures€to€the€benefit€of€the€defendant€„€sentencing;Ìà à21.(28)Mercy€„€sentencing;Ìà à22.(29)Consideration€for€sentence€less€than€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à23.(30)Mitigation€„€reason€for€sentence€less€than€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à24.(31)Sympathy€„€sentencing;Ìà à25.(32)Compassion€„€mercy€„€sentencing;Ìà à26.(33)Mitigation€„€reason€for€sentence€less€than€death€„€sentencing;Ìà à27.(34)Mitigating€circumstances€„€basis€for€sentence€less€than€death€„Ïà àà àsentencing;Ìà à28.(35)Imposing€a€sentence€less€than€death;Ìà à29.(36)May€vote€life€„€sentencing;Ìà à30.(37)Finding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€death€is€appropriate€„€Ìà àà àsentencing;Ìà à31.(38)Lingering€doubt€„sentencing;Ìà à32.(39)Jury€verdict€„€inability€to€agree€„€sentencing;Ìà à33.(40)No€evidence€except€that€introduced€at€trial€„€sentencing;Ìà à34.(42)Mitigating€circumstance€„€age€„€sentencing;Ìà à35.(44)Mitigating€circumstance€„€mental€illness€„€sentencing;Ìà à36.(46)Mitigating€circumstance€„€capacity€to€appreciate€criminality€„Ïà àà àsentencing;Ìà à37.(47)Mitigating€circumstance€„€emotional€development€„€sentencing;Ìà à38.(50)Mitigating€circumstance€„€adolescent€„€sentencing;Ìà à39.(51)Mitigating€circumstance€„€parental€expectations€„€sentencing;Ìà à40.(53)Mitigating€circumstance€„€health€of€another€„€sentencing;Ìà à41.(54)Mitigating€circumstance€„€domination€„€sentencing;Ìà à42.(55)Mitigating€circumstance€„€planning€of€crime€„€sentencing;Ìà à43.(56)Mitigating€circumstance€„€death€of€victim€„€sentencing;Ìà à44.(57)Mitigating€circumstance€„€lingering€doubt€„€sentencing.ÌÌà àÌÓÓà àWhen€a€trial€court's€instructions€correctly€charge€the€applicable€law,€theÏcourt€does€not€err€by€refusing€special€requests.€€òòTillet€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€509,Ï511(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Nor€is€it€error€to€refuse€to€give€an€inaccurateÏspecial€request.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€751€S.W.2d€464,€467€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.Ïòòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1988).€€After€reviewing€the€instructions€given€by€theÏtrial€court,€we€conclude€that€the€instructions€adequately€charge€the€applicableÏlaw.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓÓ17.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€DEATH€PENALTYÏUNCONSTITUTIONALLY€INFRINGES€UPON€THEÏAPPELLANT'S€FUNDAMENTAL€RIGHT€TO€LIFE.ÌÌÌÌÓÓó óà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional€in€that€the€right€to€life€is€fundamental€and€the€punishment€ofÏdeath€is€not€necessary€to€promote€any€compelling€state€interest.€€The€appellantÏargues€that€less€severe€penalties€are€available€to€serve€the€state's€interest€inÏpunishing€the€appellant.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€asserts€that€"compelling€stateÍinterests€are€those€which€secure€our€democratic€institutions€and/or€insureÏnational€security."€€While€this€argument€is€somewhat€novel€in€its€approach,€weÏnote€that€one€of€the€state's€most€basic€functions€is€to€enforce€the€penal€laws€asÏestablished€by€the€legislature.€€We€quote€from€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdecision,€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€183,€96€S.Ct.€2909,€2930€(1976):ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[C]apital€punishment€is€an€expression€of€society's€moralÏoutrage€at€particularly€offensive€conduct.€€This€function€mayÏbe€unappealing€to€many,€but€it€is€essential€in€an€orderedÏsociety€that€asks€its€citizens€to€rely€on€legal€processesÏrather€than€self„help€to€vindicate€their€wrongs.ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€state's€death€penaltyÏstatute,€òòper€seóó,€meets€due€process€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.Ï2d€166,€190€(Tenn.€1991);€€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Grosecloseóó,€615€S.W.2d€142Ï(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€882,€102€S.Ct.€366€(1981).€€This€issue€isÏtherefore€without€merit.ò òÌó óÌò òÓÓ18.à8 à€WHETHER€THE€STATE'S€DEATH€PENALTY€STATUTEÏIS€CONSTITUTIONAL.ÌÌÓÓÌà àó óThe€appellant€raises€several€constitutional€objections€to€the€TennesseeÏdeath€penalty€statute.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€deathÏpenalty€statute€is€unconstitutional€in€that:ÌÓÓ(a)€it€provides€insufficient€guidance€to€the€jury€concerning€who€has€the€burdenÏof€proving€whether€mitigation€outweighs€aggravation€and€what€standard€the€juryÏshould€use€in€making€that€determination;€ÌÌ(b)€it€fails€to€sufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€death€penalty€eligible€defendants;ÌÌ(c)€it€insufficiently€limits€the€jury's€discretion€in€that€once€it€finds€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€it€can€impose€death,€regardless€ofÏwhat€mitigation€is€shown;ÌÌ(d)€it€requires€that€if€the€jury€finds€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighÏthe€mitigating€circumstances,€it€must€impose€death;ÌÌ(e)€it€allows€the€jury€to€afford€too€little€weight€to€non„statutory€mitigating€factors.€ÏThe€statute€requires€that€the€jury€consider€"any€mitigating€circumstances";ÌÌ(f)€it€does€not€require€the€jury€to€make€the€ultimate€determination€that€death€isÏappropriate€in€that€it€is€"merely€filling€in€the€blanks"€in€determining€andÏcomparing€mitigating€and€aggravating€circumstances.;ÌÌ(g)€it€does€not€inform€the€jury€of€its€ability€to€impose€mercy;ÌÌ(h)€it€provides€no€requirement€that€the€jury€make€findings€of€fact€as€to€theÏpresence€or€absence€of€mitigating€circumstances,€thereby€preventing€effectiveÏappellate€review;€€ÌÌ(i)€it€prohibits€the€jury€from€being€informed€of€the€consequences€of€its€failure€toÏreach€a€unanimous€verdict€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial;ÌÌ(j)€it€allows€the€imposition€of€a€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€and€in€that€itÏallows€death€to€be€imposed€by€electrocution;ÌÌ(k)€it€has€been€imposed€discriminately€on€the€basis€of€race,€sex,€geographicÏregion,€and€economic€and€political€status€of€the€defendant;ÌÌ(l)€the€proportionality€of€arbitrariness€review€conducted€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„13„205€is€inadequate€andÏdeficient;ÌÌ(m)€it€permits€the€introduction€of€relatively€unreliable€evidence€in€the€State'sÏproof€of€aggravating€circumstances€and€in€its€rebuttal€of€mitigatingÏcircumstances;ÌÌ(n)€it€allows€the€State€to€make€final€closing€arguments€to€the€jury€in€the€penaltyÏphase€of€the€trial;ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àAll€of€the€appellant's€arguments€except€(g)€have€been€rejected€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268„269Ï(Tenn.€1994);.òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17,€23€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€258€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,Ï185,€187€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€596€(Tenn.€1990);€òòStateÍv.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€366,€368€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€€Grosecloseóó,€615ÏS.W.2d€142,€150€€(Tenn.€1981).€€With€respect€to€the€argument€in€(g),€inÏconsideration€of€the€jury€instructions€given€in€a€capital€case,€we€find€this€issue€toÏbe€without€merit.Ìò òÓÓÌ19.à8 àWHETHER€THE€CUMULATIVE€EFFECT€OF€ALL€ERRORSÏVIOLATE€THE€APPELLANT'S€CONSTITUTIONALÏRIGHTS.ó ó€€€ÌÌÓÓò òÌà àó óAs€his€final€argument,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€cumulative€effect€ofÏall€errors€alleged€both€at€trial€and€at€sentencing€violates€his€constitutional€rights.€ÏAs€this€court€has€not€found€any€error€with€respect€to€the€appellant's€previousÏeighteen€issues,€we€find€this€final€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ̛ր\ÖÖ€]ÖÔ€^ÔÑ€61ÑÑ7€0šQ0XXdÈXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñœ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌœßJ€4_;+'b| ` Å `€@ÿJß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Cumberland€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€Leon€Burns,€Jr.,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€03„S01„9604„CC„00047ÌMICHAEL€DEAN€BUSH,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à(ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCURRING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌÌÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àI€concur€in€affirming€the€conviction€of€firstÏdegree€murder€and€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àI€write€separately€to€state€my€reasons€for€notÏfinding€as€prejudicial€error€the€trial€court's€charging€ofÏthe€1989€version€of€aggravating€circumstance€(i)(5),€toÏexpress€my€continuing€concern€regarding€the€CourtððsÏcomparative€proportionality€review,€and€to€comment€on€aÏdisturbing€aspect€of€the€case€which€is€insulated€from€review.€€Ìà àFirst,€I€repeat€an€observation€made€in€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€263€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïconcurring),€which€is€applicable€to€the€performance€of€theÏtrial€judge€in€this€case:€€"The€trial€judge€demonstrated€theÏqualities€critically€important€in€conducting€a€highlyÏemotional€and€legally€exacting€trial.€€The€record€shows€thatÏthe€case€was€decided€by€a€competent€and€impartial€jury.€€TheÏrecord€demonstrates€that€capital€cases€can€be€triedÍrelatively€free€of€error."€€Counsel€pressed€to€the€line€theÏwide€latitude€necessary€for€effective€advocacy€but€wereÏappropriately€restrained€by€the€cool€hand€of€the€judge.€€TheÏcase€also€demonstrates€that€having€a€review€by€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€of€all€assignments€of€error€in€capitalÏcases,€with€a€final€review€by€this€Court€of€a€limited€numberÏof€issues€in€addition€to€those€issues€mandated€by€statute,€isÏan€efficient€utilization€of€judicial€resources.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€relied€upon,€and€the€jury€found,Ïaggravating€circumstance€(i)(5).€€The€offense€in€this€caseÏwas€committed€in€1988;€the€trial€was€held€in€1993.€€At€theÏtime€the€offense€was€committed,€aggravating€circumstancesÏ(i)(5)€was€defined€as€a€murder€that€"was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravityÏof€mind."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982).€€In€1989,Ïthat€definition€was€amended€by€deleting€"depravity€of€mind"Ïand€substituting€"serious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÍnecessary€to€produce€death."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€(1991).€€Without€objection,€the€trial€court€chargedÏthe€1989€version€of€the€statute.€ÌÌà àThe€Court€held€in€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,Ï82€(Tenn.€1994),€that€in€capital€cases€the€applicable€law€isÏthe€law€that€was€in€effect€at€the€time€the€offense€wasÏcommitted.€€The€defendant€insists€that€charging€the€1989Ïdefinition€was€reversible€error.€€There€can€be€no€denyingÏthat€under€the€authority€of€òòBrimmeróó,€the€instruction€wasÏerroneous.× ƒ` ××  ×€€However,€in€my€opinion,€the€effect€of€the€errorÏwas€ameliorative€rather€than€prejudicial,€and,€therefore,Ïdoes€not€constitute€reversible€error.ÌÌà àI€have€dissented€in€every€case€decided€by€thisÏCourt€since€September€1990€in€which€there€was€reliance€forÍthe€sentence€of€death€on€a€finding€that€the€murder€involvedÏdepravity€of€mind.€€The€basis€of€those€dissents€is€that€everyÏfirst€degree€murder€is€"especially€heinous,€atrocious€orÏcruel€in€that€it€involved€depravity€of€mind";€consequently,Ïthat€instruction€has€no€reasonably€precise€meaning€and€doesÏnot€aid€the€jurors€in€determining€if€death€is€an€appropriateÏpunishment.€€In€the€first€case,€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2dÏ166,€196„97€(Tenn.€1991)€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring€andÏdissenting),€I€suggested€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àa€proper€limiting€construction€ofÏ"depravity€of€mind"€to€be€given€in€thoseÏcases€where€torture€is€absent€would€beÏestablished€by€adopting€the€definition€ofÏthat€term€set€forth€by€the€New€JerseyÏSupreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Ramseuróó,€106ÏN.J.€123,€524€A.2d€188,€230„231€(1987),Ïwhere€it€held€that€this€phrase€marksÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ p Òsociety's€concern€to€punish€severelyÏthose€who€murder€without€purpose€orÏmeaning€as€distinguished€from€thoseÏwho€murder€for€a€purpose€(albeit€aÏcompletely€unjustified€purpose).€€ThisÏterm€isolates€conduct€that€causes€theÏgreatest€abhorrence€and€terror€withinÍan€ordered€society,€because€citizensÏcannot€either€in€fact€or€in€perceptionÏprotect€themselves€from€these€randomÏacts€of€violence.€€The€killer€who€doesÏit€because€he€likes€it,€perhaps€evenÏbecause€it€makes€him€feel€better,€whoÏkills€bystanders€without€reason,€whoÏkills€children€and€others€whoseÏhelplessness€would€indicate€that€thereÏwas€no€reason€to€murder,€evinces€whatÏwe€define€as€depravity€of€mind.ÌÌ.€.€.ÌÌWhat€society€is€concerned€with€here€.Ï.€.€is€the€complete€absence„„fromÏsociety's€point€of€view„„of€any€of€theÏrecognizable€motivations€or€emotionsÏthat€ordinarily€explain€murder.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ p ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓIn€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€488€(Tenn.€1993)Ï(Daughtrey,€J.,€dissenting),€I€joined€Justice€Daughtrey€inÏstating:€€Ó&` Ü` †Xx‘X&Ó"Because€the€"depravity€of€mind"€prong€of€aggravatedÏcircumstance€(i)(5)€is€so€vague,€the€instruction€given€in€thisÏcase€allowed€the€jury€to€exercise€the€sort€of€unguidedÏdiscretion€condemned€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€inÏòòGodfrey€v.€Georgiaóó,€446€U.S.€420,€100€S.Ct.€1759,€64€L.Ed.2dÍ398€(1980),€and€òòMaynard€v.€Cartwrightóó,€486€U.S.€356,€108ÏS.Ct.€1853,€100€L.Ed.2d€372€(1988)."ÌÌà àHaving€obviously€failed€to€convince€my€colleagues€ofÏthe€correctness€of€my€position,€I€stated€the€matter€a€bit€moreÏfirmly€in€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€909€(Tenn.€1995)Ï(Reid,€J.,€dissenting):€ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€As€stated€in€prior€dissents,€theÏwords€"heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel"€are€soÏbereft€of€particular€meaning€that€thisÏaggravating€circumstance€does€notÏaccomplish€the€constitutional€mandate€ofÏdirecting€and€limiting€the€jury'sÏdiscretion€"so€as€to€minimize€the€risk€ofÏwholly€arbitrary€and€capricious€action."€ÏòòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€189,€96ÏS.Ct.€2909,€2932,€49€L.Ed.2d€859€(1976);Ïòòseeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€195Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€The€precariousness€of€theÏCourt's€persistent€reliance€upon€thisÏpatently€invalid€aggravating€circumstanceÏis€indicated€by€the€opinion€of€JusticeÏStevens€in€òòBarber€v.€Tennesseeóó,€_____€U.S.Ï_____,€115€S.Ct.€1177,€130€L.Ed.2d€1129Ï(1995).€€In€denying€the€capitalÏdefendant's€petition€for€certiorari€fromÏthe€judgment€of€this€Court€denying€post„conviction€relief,€Justice€Stevens€stated:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò.€.€.€In€this€case,€for€example,€Ìthere€are€valid€reasons€for€the€Court'sÏdecision€to€deny€review.€€But€this€doesÏnot€mean€petitioner's€challenge€to€hisÏdeath€sentence,€based€in€part€upon€theÏtrial€judge's€definition€of€anÏaggravating€circumstance,€lacks€merit.€ÏUnder€the€trial€court's€instruction,€aÏjury€could€find€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€sufficient€to€impose€theÏdeath€penalty€merely€by€concluding€that€aÏmurderer's€state€of€mind€was€"wicked€orÏmorally€corrupt."€€Because€such€a€stateÏof€mind€is€a€characteristic€of€everyÏmurder,€the€instruction€is€plainlyÏimpermissible€under€this€Court's€holdingsÏin€òòGodfrey€v.€Georgiaóó,€446€U.S.€420,€428„429€[100€S.Ct.€1759,€1764„65,€64€L.Ed.2dÏ398]€(1980)€(striking€down€instructionÏallowing€jury€to€find€aggravatingÏcircumstance€if€murder€was€"'outrageouslyÏor€wantonly€vile,€horrible€andÏinhuman'"),€and€òòMaynard€v.€Cartwrightóó,Ï486€U.S.€356,€363„364€[108€S.Ct.€1853,Ï1858,€100€L.Ed.2d€372]€(1988)Ï("'especially€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel'").ÌÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÒ ° ÒÒ À ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ À Ò(Footnotes€omitted.)€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWhile€"depravity€of€mind,"€in€my€view,€is€fatallyÏdeficient€in€meaning,€the€language€of€the€1989€statute,Ï"serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÏdeath,"€is€plain€and€provides€a€meaningful€standard€forÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€death€as€a€penalty.€€As€aÏpractical€matter,€then,€the€substantive€effect€of€the€ð ðerrorððÏin€this€case€was€to€elide,€or€even€to€correct,€theÏunconstitutional€portion€of€this€aggravating€circumstance.€ÏThe€error€was€entirely€technical€and€curative€of€thoseÏconstitutional€defects€which€I€have€previously€found€in€thisÏaggravating€circumstance€and,€under€the€facts€of€this€case,Ïthe€instruction€gave€the€jury€a€constitutional€equivalent€toÏthe€prior€unconstitutional€version€of€aggravating€circumstanceÏ(i)(5)€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(5)Ô€+Ô.›€€Ô€^Ô€€I€have€notÏin€any€prior€case,€and€I€do€not€now,€find€that€definitionÏdeficient€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€Consequently,€IÏagree€with€the€main€opinion€that€giving€the€erroneousÏinstruction€to€the€jury€is€not€grounds€for€reversal€of€theÍsentence.ÌÌà àAlso,€in€some€prior€cases,€I€have€insisted€that€theÏevidence€did€not€support€a€finding€of€torture€as€anÏaggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€253,€272€(Tenn.€1994)€(Reid,€J.,€concurring€andÏdissenting);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€483€(Tenn.Ï1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring€and€dissenting);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,Ï815€S.W.2d€at€196.€€The€facts€of€this€case,€as€stated€in€theÏmain€opinion,€clearly€support€a€finding€of€torture€as€thatÏterm€is€generally€understood.€€Perhaps€it€is€noteworthy€thatÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€this€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€though€mandated€by€statute€for€review,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(B)€(Supp.€1996),€was€not€raised€byÏthe€defendant.€€Consequently,€I€concur€in€the€holding€that€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€jury's€finding€of€theÏtorture€component€of€aggravating€circumstance€(i)(5).ÌÌà àAnother€issue€which,€in€my€view,€requires€furtherÏdiscussion€is€the€comparative€proportionality€review€mandatedÏby€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(l)(D)€(Supp.€1996);€thisÏissue€has€been€the€basis€for€prior€dissent.€€There€is€noÏmethodology€to€the€majority's€analysis.€€The€review€consistsÏentirely€of€conclusory,€and€defensive,€statements€followed€byÏa€further€recitation€of€the€facts.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877ÏS.W.2d€722,€744€(Tenn.€1994)€(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting);€òòStateÏv.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€71€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïdissenting);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€271„72€(Reid,ÏC.J.,€concurring);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€484„85Ï(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring€and€dissenting);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839ÏS.W.2d€54,€84„85€(Tenn.€1992)(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting).€€€ÌÌà àNevertheless,€as€in€òòState€v.€Howellóó€and€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€585€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïconcurring),€the€record€establishes€that€upon€comparison€ofÏthe€character€of€the€defendant€and€the€nature€of€his€crime,€toÍother€defendants€and€other€first€degree€murders,€by€anyÏrational€standard,€the€defendant€is€among€the€worst€of€theÏbad.€ÌÌà àThe€character€of€the€defendant€and€the€circumstancesÏof€the€killing€in€this€case€would€justify€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€judged€by€the€definition€of€"depravity€of€mind"€urged€inÏòòState€v.€Blackóó,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóó,€at€_____€[p.€4].€€The€defendant'sÏconduct€in€killing€an€aged€and€helpless€victim,€whoÏsurrendered€her€last€means€of€protection€by€opening€the€doorÏof€her€home€to€the€grandson€of€her€best€friend,€is€conductÏwhich€causes€the€greatest€abhorrence€and€terror€within€anÏordered€society.€€There€is€no€protection€against€a€randomÏkilling€by€a€trusted€acquaintance.€€The€character€of€theÏdefendant€shows€more€than€a€calculated€robbery€which€got€outÏof€hand.€€The€evidence€shows€a€person€of€intelligence€who€isÏfascinated€with€vampires€and€demons,€€who€dreams€of€killing,Ïand€whose€life€is€inhabited€by€demons€and€monsters.€€HisÍexplanation€of€the€homicide€is€disturbing;€he€was€compelled€byÏan€underworld€group.€€But€that€fanciful€compulsion€is€beliedÏby€œhis€manner€of€performing€the€act€so€that€he€literallyÏbecame€›drenchedœ€with€the€victimððs€blood€and€by€the€relish€withÏwhich€he€recounted€the€crime€to€acquaintances.€€As€stated€inÏòòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€272,€"comparison€of€the€character€of€theÏdefendant€in€this€case€and€the€nature€of€his€crime,€by€anyÏstandard€of€analysis,€would€show€that€he€is€among€the€worst€ofÏthe€bad."€ÌÌà àIt€is,€in€fact,€the€abundant€evidence€of€theÏdefendant's€maleficence€that€is€disturbing.€€The€recordÏcontains€significant€evidence€beyond€the€circumstancesÏrelating€directly€to€the€crime.€€The€defendant€has€beenÏexhibiting€symptoms€of€schizophrenia€since€he€was€in€highÏschool€and€was€diagnosed€as€a€schizophrenic€while€awaitingÏtrial.€€The€record€discloses€that,€based€upon€the€assessmentÏof€court„appointed€mental€health€experts,€the€trial€courtÏÑ à Ñfound€that€the€defendant€was€incompetent€to€stand€trial.€ÏThose€same€mental€health€professionals€also€found€that€anÏinsanity€defense€could€be€supported.€€However,€the€defendantÏhas€not€challenged€the€court's€subsequent€determination€ofÏcompetency,€and€the€record€discloses€no€facts€upon€which€plainÍerror€can€be€found€in€this€regard.€€Apparently,€counsel€wasÏcontent€to€present€evidence€of€the€defendant's€mentalÏcondition€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Since€the€record€doesÏnot€facially€establish€that€the€mental€condition€of€theÏdefendant€is€disproportionate€to€that€of€other€defendantsÏsentenced€to€death,€this€aspect€of€the€case€cannot€effectivelyÏbe€reviewed€on€the€record€before€the€Court.€€ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€the€record€does€not€discloseÏreversible€error,€but€rather,€supports€the€judgment€rendered€Ìin€the€trial€court€and€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€and€this€Court.€€ÌÌÓÓÔ€^Ôà àà àà àà à___________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àÔ€^XÔReid,€J.Ô€+ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›Ñ P ÑÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÓÓÓÓÑ  ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÔ€^ÔÑ7€D DXXdÖ0XXdÈ7ÑÑ€E6ÑœßJ€4a;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ  Óà0 àà àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àœFILED:€€APRIL€7,€1997›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà à)à àCUMBERLAND€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMICHAEL€DEAN€BUSH,à àà àà à)à àHON.€LEON€BURNS,€JR.,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)à àNO.€03„S„01„9604„CC„00047ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóÌÓÓÌÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ€LEÑÑ7€B BXXdÖDXXdÖ7Ñà àThe€majority€concludes€that€aggravating€factor€œ(i)(6)× ƒb ××  ×›Íhas€been€sufficiently€demonstrated€in€the€instant€case.€€In€myÏview,€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€warrant€its€application.€ÏBecause€I€find€that€this€error€more€probably€than€not€affectedÏthe€juryððs€decision€to€impose€the€death€sentence,€I€would€vacateÏthe€sentence€of€death€and€remand€this€cause€for€a€new€sentencingÏhearing.ÌÌà àAlthough€this€is€a€close€case,€I€do€not€find€that€theÏState€presented€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€conclude€Ñ€KLÑthatÏBush€killed€the€victim€in€order€to€avoid€arrest€or€prosecutionÏfor€the€robbery.€€When€the€evidence€is€entirely€circumstantial,Ïas€in€this€case,€then€that€evidence€must€preclude€every€otherÏreasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€that€which€it€tends€toÏsupport,€i.e.,€that€the€killing€was,€in€fact,€motivated€by€aÏdesire€to€eradicate€a€witness.€€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,Í882€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(citing€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€203€Tenn.Ï440,€313€S.W.2d€451,€456€(1958)).× ƒc ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€majority€relies€in€part€on€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€and€the€victim€knew€one€another.€€Such€is€notÏsufficient,€without€more,€to€establish€the€(i)(6)€aggravatingÏfactor.€€In€many€cases,€the€victim€either€knows€the€defendant€orÏhas€observed€the€defendant€sufficiently€to€be€able€to€laterÏidentify€that€person.€€This€circumstance€is€so€prevalent€that€toÏallow€it€to€establish€the€œ(i)(6)›€aggravating€factor€would€undulyÏand€unconstitutionally€enlarge€the€class€of€defendants€subject€toÏthe€death€penalty.ÌÌà àMoreover,€our€prior€application€of€the€œ(i)(6)›Ïaggravator€in€similar€cases€has€not€been€consistent.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185€(Tenn.€1992)(aggravating€factor€œ(i)(6)›Ïapplied€where€defendant,€a€former€employee,€returned,€robbedÏmarket,€and€killed€a€clerk€whom€he€knew).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€VanÍTranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993)(aggravating€factor€œ(i)(6)›€notÏapplied€where€defendant,€former€employee,€returned,€robbedÏÑ€IKÑrestaurant,€and€killed€owner€whom€he€knew).€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767ÏS.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989)(aggravating€factor€œ(i)(6)›€applied€whereÏdefendant€and€co„defendant€were€convicted€of€the€murder€of€a€girlÏwho€knew€co„defendant€and€could€identify€defendant).€€òòBut€seeóóÏòòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563€(Tenn.€1993)(aggravating€factorÏœ(i)(6)›€not€applied€where€defendant€and€co„defendant€wereÏconvicted€for€the€murder€of€a€woman€who€knew€defendant€and€couldÏidentify€co„defendant).ÌÌà àBecause€of€the€inconsistent€application€of€the€œ(i)(6)›Ïaggravating€factor€and€the€danger€of€unconstitutionally€enlargingÏthe€class€of€defendants€subject€to€the€death€penalty,€I€wouldÏhold€that€the€fact€that€the€victim€knew€the€assailant,€withoutÏmore,€is€not€sufficient€to€prove€that€the€killing€was€in€factÏmotivated€by€a€desire€to€evade€arrest€or€avoid€prosecution.€€ByÏrequiring€additional€evidence,€we€would€screen€out€those€cases€inÏwhich€a€œdefendant›€œinitially›€œintented›€to€commit€a€non„capitalÍoffense€but€for€a€reason€other€than€witness€elimination,Ïescalated€the€conduct€to€include€an€unlawful€killing.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€Stateððs€theory€was€that€Bush€killedÏLefever€so€that€she€could€not€identify€him€as€the€individual€whoÏbroke€into€her€house€and€robbed€her.€€From€my€review,€however,Ïthere€is€substantial€evidence€that€Bush€did€not€kill€Lefever€inÏorder€to€eliminate€her€as€a€witness€to€the€burglary/robbery.€ÏFirst,€Bush€made€no€attempt€to€conceal€the€intended€crime€fromÏhis€wife;€rather,€he€told€her€that€he€was€going€to€hit€the€oldÏwoman€over€the€head€and€take€her€money.€€The€majority€finds€itÏsignificant€that€the€defendant€withheld€from€his€wife€the€name€orÏaddress€of€the€intended€victim€concluding€that€Bush€wished€toÏprevent€her€from€"witnessing€the€burglary."€€However,€there€is€noÏdispute€that€Bush€told€his€wife€of€his€intent€to€commit€theÏburglary€and€asked€her€to€drive€him€to€the€scene.€€In€my€view,Ïthis€evidence€indicates€that€Bush€was€not€concerned€aboutÏconcealing€the€burglary.€€I€find€that€this€testimony€indicatesÏthat€Bush€simply€did€not€want€to€implicate€his€wife€in€the€crime.€ÏHence,€I€find€this€evidence€insufficient€to€support€theÍmajorityððs€conclusion€that€the€defendant€killed€the€victim€toÏeliminate€her€as€a€witness.ÌÌà àMore€to€the€point,€Bush€related€versions€of€whatÏhappened€to€two€fellow€inmates€who€testified€as€witnesses€for€theÏState.€€The€first€testified€that€Bush€told€him€that€he€had€killedÏthe€victim€when€he€could€not€find€any€money.€€The€secondÏtestified€that€Bush€told€him€that€he€killed€the€victim€when€heÏlost€his€temper€after€an€argument€erupted.€€In€these€twoÏversions,€Bush€clearly€identifies€himself€as€the€killer.€€GivenÏthis€disclosure,€there€was€no€reason€for€him€to€lie€about€hisÏmotivation€for€the€killing.€€In€both€versions,€Bush€killedÏLefever€because€he€was€angry€and€frustrated.€€In€my€view,€thisÏevidence€clearly€indicates€that€Bush€was€not€concerned€aboutÏLefeverððs€ability€to€identify€him€as€the€burglar/robber€when€heÏkilled€her.€€This€evidence€raises,€in€the€very€least,€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€the€defendant€was€motivated€by€aÏdesire€to€avoid€arrest€or€prosecution.€ÌÌÑ€GIÑà àWe€have€previously€held€that€the€State€does€not€have€toÏprove€that€avoidance€of€arrest€or€prosecution€was€the€defendantððsÏsole€or€predominant€motivation€to€establish€the€applicability€ofÏthe€œ(i)(6)›€aggravating€factor.€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,Ï250€(Tenn.€1986).€€However,€we€should€require€that€the€StateÏprove€that€a€desire€to€avoid€arrest€or€prosecution€was€at€least€òòaóóÏmotivation€for€the€crime.€€In€my€view,€the€State€failed€to€carryÏthat€burden€in€this€case.ÌÌà àTo€reiterate,€I€would€restrict€the€application€of€theÏœ(i)(6)›€aggravating€circumstance€to€cases€where€the€evidenceÏclearly€establishes€that€the€defendant€was€motivated€by€a€desireÏto€avoid€arrest€or€prosecution€by€eliminating€the€witness.€€ToÏillustrate,€the€œ(i)(6)›€aggravator€was€appropriately€applied€inÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993)(victim€killed€whileÏdialing€911);€òòState€v.€McCormickóó,€778€S.W.2d€48€(Tenn.Ï1989)(undercover€agent€testified€that€defendant€confessed€that€heÏkilled€victim€to€prevent€her€from€"spilling€her€guts"€aboutÏproperty€defendant€had€stolen);€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€725€S.W.2d€660Ï(Tenn.€1987)(evidence€that€defendant€eliminated€the€victim€whoÍwas€to€testify€against€defendant€for€the€shooting€of€defendantððsÏgirlfriend);€and€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€632€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.Ï1982)(defendant€told€friend€that€he€was€going€to€rob€a€market€andÏthat€he€intended€to€leave€no€witnesses).ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€I€find€that€under€the€facts€of€thisÏcase,€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€the€œ(i)(6)›Ïaggravating€factor.€€I€find€also€that€the€erroneous€use€of€thisÏaggravating€factor€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€juryððsÏdecision€to€impose€the€death€sentence.€€Accordingly,€I€wouldÏvacate€the€sentence€of€death€and€remand€the€cause€for€a€newÏsentencing€hearing.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€Chief€œJusticeÔ€+Ô›