ÿWPCß1 3# Ú %å 0¯ë4š® 0 ó½ 0J° 0Dú 0T> 0^’ 0hðU>X 0r– 0|w@„ 0†Ä 0J 1uÚ U ,O 0d{ ß U,ç U 6 U.I @w · .Ò^^ Bî` kKˆDÓ<?S"ü’#v~Ž*vÓ ,˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5EÌÌøøøøÌÌ0 X(‡ÿ$$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑŒ Œ ÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒà°ÒÓ  ÓÑ7€*XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñv{ x3|x& (£(3E$¤¤Ý ƒÿ$!ÝÑ  ÑÑŒ °ÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒà°ÒÓ  ÓÑ7€rÿXXdðXXdð7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  D  D D! " `e# $ D% & D2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(a)(2).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFor€a€detailed€discussion€and€state„by„state€analysis€of€theÏ"especially€heinous"€aggravating€circumstance€see€Richard€A.€Rosen,ÏòòThe€"Especially€Heinous"€Aggravating€Circumstance€in€Capital€Cases„„The€Standardless€Standardóó,€64€N.C.€L.€Rev.€941€(1986).Ì $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý443€U.S.€307€(1979).Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý780€P.2d€1203€(Utah€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€494€U.S.€1018€(1990).Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€suggests,€but€does€not€argue,€that€the€jury€beÏrequired€to€make€two€additional€determinations€before€finding€thisÏaggravating€circumstance:€€(1)€that€the€defendant€specificallyÏintended€to€inflict€such€"serious€physical€abuse;"€and€(2)€thatÏsuch€abuse€was€inflicted€before€death.€€We€decline€to€extend€theÏdefinition€of€"serious€physical€abuse"€in€this€manner.Ì d VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý703€S.W.2d€106€(Tenn.€1985),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€478€U.S.€1010Ï(1986).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòBut€seeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734„35€(Tenn.€1994),Ïwhere€a€crime€committed€under€the€old€law€was€tried€under€the€newÏlaw.€€The€Court€seemed€to€recognize€that€the€language€in€the€newÏstatute€required€that€a€specific€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstance€be€presented€for€consideration€by€the€jury€in€anÏinstruction.€€The€defendant€in€that€case,€however,€althoughÏpresented€with€an€opportunity€to€do€so,€did€not€specificallyÏrequest€that€any€such€mitigating€circumstance€be€charged€to€theÏjury.Ì AÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)(Supp.€1995).Ì :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Commission€Comments€discussing€the€1989€amendments€toÏðð39„13„204€do€not,€however,€include€a€requirement€to€instruct€non„Ïstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€among€the€changes€the€CommentsÏnote€in€the€statute.€€On€the€other€hand,€David€Raybin,€who€chairedÏthe€Penal€Code€Revision€Subcommittee,€interprets€subsection€(e)(1)Ïas€requiring€that€upon€special€request€the€judge€instruct€the€juryÏon€all€mitigating€factors€raised€by€the€proof:ÌÌà8 àUnder€prior€case€law,€the€mitigating€factors€were€thoughtÏof€as€"statutory"€and€"non„statutory"€in€the€sense€thatÏthe€latter€had€relatively€no€significance€because€theÏjudge€was€not€required€to€instruct€the€jury€on€such€"non„statutory"€factors.€€This€suspect€practice€has€beenÏclarified€by€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„203€[sic](e)€which€requiresÏthat€the€judge€instruct€the€jury€on€all€mitigatingÏfactors€raised€by€the€proof.€€Obviously,€a€specialÏrequest€is€required€as€to€those€factors€which€areÏmitigating€in€nature.ÌÌ11€Raybin,€òòTennessee€Practiceóó:€€òòCriminal€Practice€and€Procedureóó,Ïðð32.45€(Supp.€1995).Ì 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝConversely,€evidence€that€does€not€bear€on€the€defendant'sÏcharacter,€prior€record€or€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€is€notÏrelevant€and€may€be€excluded€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòDelo€v.ÏLashleyóó,€507€U.S.€272€(1993);€òòLockettóó,€438€U.S.€at€605€n.12.€ÏExamples€of€evidence€found€to€be€relevant€as€mitigatingÏcircumstances€are:€€mental€retardation,€òòPenry€v.€Lynaughóó,€492€U.S.Ï302,€328€(1989);€physical€abuse€as€a€child,€òòid.óó;€difficult€familyÏhistory,€òòEddingsóó,€455€U.S.€at€115;€and€emotional€disturbance,€òòid.óóÌ 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1).Ì òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDefendant's€special€instruction€request€1:€€"A€mitigatingÏcircumstance€is€any€circumstance€which€extenuates€the€gravity€ofÏthe€crime€even€though€it€is€not€a€legal€excuse€for€the€crime."Ìà àDefendant's€special€instruction€request€2:€€"You€may€considerÏthe€defendant's€family€background,€history€of€abandonment,Ïadoption,€child€abuse€or€any€other€circumstance€of€his€life€inÏdeciding€whether€or€not€there€are€mitigating€circumstances€shown€byÏthe€proof."Ìà àDefendant's€special€instruction€request€3:€€"You€may€considerÏas€a€mitigating€circumstance€mental€problems€of€the€defendant,ÏRichard€Odom,€even€though€they€fall€below€the€statutory€aggravatingÏrequirement€that€the€defendant€was€suffering€from€òòextremeóó€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance."Ìà àDefendant's€special€instruction€request€4:€€"You€may€considerÏas€a€mitigating€circumstance€evidence€that€the€accused,€RichardÏOdom,€was€abused€both€mentally€and€physically€as€a€child."Ìà àDefendant's€special€instruction€request€5:€€"In€consideringÏwhether€there€are€mitigating€circumstances,€you€may€consider€thatÏthe€defendant,€Richard€Odom,€confessed€to€the€crime,€has€shownÏremorse€for€his€acts€and€asked€for€help€with€his€problems."Ìà àDefendant's€special€instruction€request€6:€€"Even€though€thereÏhas€been€proof€by€the€defendant,€Richard€Odom,€of€mitigatingÏcircumstances€which€are€not€listed€in€the€statute,€these€mitigatingÏcircumstances€are€no€less€worthy€of€your€consideration€than€thoseÏlisted€in€the€statute."ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  eskto Monaco ÒÒ  eskto Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ à ÒÓ  ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÑ#€##Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÒñXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€For€PublicationÌà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Filed:€June€3,€1996Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Shelby€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRICHARD€ODOM,à àà àà àà àà à)€€€No.€02„S„01„9502„CR„00014Ìa/k/a€OTIS€SMITH,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Hon.€Joseph€B.€McCartie,Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà à)à à€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌòòON€APPEALóóÌA.C.€WHARTONà àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌShelby€County€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌW.€MARK€WARDà àà àà àà àà àREBECCA€GUNDTÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌMemphis,€TNà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌBROCK€MEHLERà àà àà àà àà àÌCapital€Case€Resource€Centerà àÌNashville,€TNÌÌòòAT€TRIALà àÌóóEDWARD€THOMPSONà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌCAROLYN€WATKINSà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€DefendersÌMemphis,€TNòòà àà àà àà àóóà àDON€D.€STROTHERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPHILLIP€GERALD€HARRISÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneysÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TNÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌCONVICTION€AFFIRMED;€SENTENCE€à àà àà àà àà àBirch,€J.ÌVACATED;€REMANDED€FOR€RESENTENCINGÓÓà àÌ›à àIn€this€capital€case,€the€defendant,€Richard€Odom,€wasÏconvicted€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€of€first„degree€murder€committedÏin€the€perpetration€of€rape.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€juryÏfound€three€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€Ï(1)€the€defendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€one€or€moreÏviolent€felonies;€(2)€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,Ïor€cruel;€and€(3)€the€murder€was€committed€during€the€defendant'sÏescape€from€lawful€custody€or€from€a€place€of€lawful€confinement.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204€(i)(2),€(5),€and€(8).€€The€jury€foundÏthe€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€the€mitigatingÏcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€sentenced€the€defendantÏto€death€by€electrocution.€€We€address€five€issues:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à(1)à àWhether€the€standard€of€reviewÏfor€trial€court€rulings€onÏsuppression€issues€is€aÏ"preponderance€of€the€evidence"Ístandard,€or€an€"any€materialÏevidence"€standard;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€Whether€this€Court€should€adoptÏa€rule€of€law€requiring€theÏelectronic€recording€of€custodialÏinterrogations;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àWhether€the€trial€court'sÏfailure€to€admit€portions€of€theÏtestimony€of€John€Hutson,€Ph.D.,€aÏclinical€psychologist,€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€wasÏreversible€error;€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àWhether€the€change€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)€adding€theÏlanguage€"No€distinction€shall€beÏmade€between€mitigating€circumstancesÏas€set€forth€in€subsection€(j)€andÏthose€otherwise€raised€by€theÏevidence€which€are€specificallyÏrequested€by€either€the€state€or€theÏdefense€to€be€instructed€to€the€jury"Ïis€evidence€of€the€legislature'sÏintent€that€trial€courts€specificallyÏcharge€the€jury€on€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€factors;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à àWhether€the€definition€ofÏ"serious€physical€abuse"€in€theÏ"heinous,€atrocious,€and€cruel"Ïaggravator€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204€(i)(5)€is€unconstitutionallyÏvague.ÌÓÓÌWe€have€determined€from€our€independent€review€of€the€record€beforeÏus€that€Odom€received€a€fair€trial€in€the€convicting€phase€and€thatÏthe€jury's€verdict€of€"guilty"€of€first„degree€murder€(felony)€andÍaggravated€rape€is€sufficiently€supported€by€the€evidence.€ÏAccordingly,€the€convictions€are€affirmed.€€We€conclude,€however,Ïthat€reversible€error€was€committed€in€the€sentencing€phase€in€theÏfollowing€regard:€€(1)€the€intermediate€court's€conclusion€that€theÏ"heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel"€aggravating€circumstance€wasÏsupported€by€the€evidence;€(2)€the€jury's€finding€that€"[t]heÏmurder€was€committed€by€the€defendant€while€the€defendant€was€inÏlawful€custody€or€in€a€place€of€lawful€confinement€or€during€theÏdefendant's€escape€from€lawful€custody€or€from€a€place€of€lawfulÏconfinement;"€(3)€the€trial€court's€failure€to€permit€the€defendantÏto€present€mitigating€evidence€in€the€form€of€Dr.€John€Hutson'sÏtestimony;€and€(4)€the€trial€court's€failure€to€properly€instructÏthe€jury€as€to€€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€raised€by€theÏevidence€and€specifically€requested€by€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(8)(Supp.€1995).ÌÌà àConsidering€the€entire€record€of€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïwe€find€the€errors€found€therein€involve€substantial€rights€andÏmore€probably€than€not€affected€the€sentencing€judgment€or€wouldÏresult€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Í36(b).€€Accordingly,€the€sentence€of€death€is€vacated,€and€theÏcause€is€remanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà@ àFACTSÌÌà àThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence.€€Nevertheless,€a€brief€summary€of€thatÏevidence,€adduced€at€the€guilt€phase,€will€put€the€issues€inÏperspective.€€Other€evidence€will€be€discussed€as€is€appropriate€toÏspecific€issues.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€at€approximately€1:15€p.m.€onÏMay€10,€1991,€Ms.€Mina€Ethel€Johnson€left€the€residence€of€herÏsister,€Ms.€Mary€Louise€Long,€to€keep€a€2:30€p.m.€appointment€withÏher€podiatrist,€Stanley€Zellner,€D.P.M.€€She€agreed€to€purchase€aÏfew€groceries€while€she€was€out.€€Johnson€had€not€returned€at€5Ïp.m.;€this€delay€prompted€Long€to€call€Zellner.€€He€told€Long€thatÏJohnson€had€not€kept€her€appointment.€€As€a€result€of€a€subsequentÏcall€from€Long,€Zellner€agreed€to€return€to€his€office€and€look€forÏJohnson's€car€in€the€parking€garage.€€He€located€her€car€in€theÍparking€garage€and€observed€her€body€inside.€€He€went€immediatelyÏto€the€Union€Avenue€police€precinct€and€notified€officers.€€ÌÌà àInvestigating€officers€found€Johnson's€body€on€the€rearÏfloorboard€of€her€car€with€her€face€down€in€the€back€seat.€€HerÏdress€was€up€over€her€back,€and€an€undergarment€was€around€herÏankles.€€One€of€several€latent€fingerprints€lifted€from€the€"leftÏrear€seat€belt€fastener"€of€Johnson's€car€matched€a€fingerprintÏbelonging€to€the€defendant,€Richard€Odom,€alias€Otis€Smith.€€ÌÌà àThe€medical€examiner€testified€that€Johnson€had€sufferedÏmultiple€stab€wounds€to€the€body,€including€penetrating€wounds€toÏthe€heart,€lung,€and€liver.€€These€wounds€caused€internal€bleedingÏand,€ultimately,€death.€€The€medical€examiner€noted€"defensive"Ïwounds€on€her€hands.€€Further€examination€revealed€a€tear€in€theÏvaginal€wall€and€the€presence€of€semen€inside€the€vagina.€€In€theÏmedical€examiner's€opinion,€death€was€neither€instantaneous€norÏimmediate€to€the€wounds€but€had€occurred€"rather€quickly."ÌÌà àThree€days€after€the€incident,€Sergeant€Ronnie€McWilliamsÏof€the€Homicide€Unit,€Memphis€Police€Department,€arrested€theÍdefendant.€€As€a€result€of€a€search€incident€to€arrest,€McWilliamsÏconfiscated€a€large,€open,€lock„blade€knife€from€the€defendant.€ÏWhen€they€arrived€at€the€homicide€office,€McWilliams€told€theÏdefendant€of€the€charges€against€him€and€read€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€toÏhim.€€The€defendant€executed€a€"Waiver€of€Rights"€form,€signingÏ"Otis€Smith."€€A€short€time€later€he€acknowledged€having€identifiedÏhimself€falsely,€executed€a€second€rights€waiver€by€signingÏ"Richard€Odom"€and€gave€McWilliams€a€complete,€written€statement.€€ÌÌà àIn€his€statement,€the€defendant€said€that€his€initialÏintention€was€to€accost€Johnson€and€"snatch"€her€purse€after€havingÏseen€her€in€the€parking€garage€beside€her€car.€€He€ran€to€her€andÏgrabbed€her;€both€of€them€fell€into€the€front€seat.€€He€then€pushedÏher€over€the€console€into€the€rear€seat.€€He€"cut"€Johnson€with€hisÏknife.€€Johnson€addressed€him€as€"son."€€This€appellationÏapparently€enraged€the€defendant;€he€responded€that€"[he]€wouldÏgive€her€a€son."€€He€penetrated€her€vaginally;€he€felt€that€JohnsonÏwas€then€still€alive€because€she€spoke€to€him.€€Beyond€the€firstÏwound,€the€defendant€claimed€not€to€have€remembered€inflicting€theÏother€stab€wounds.€€Thereafter,€the€defendant€climbed€into€theÏfront€seat€and€rifled€through€Johnson's€purse.€€He€found€nothing€ofÍvalue€to€him,€except€the€car€keys,€which€he€later€discarded.€€HeÏthen€went€to€an€abandoned€building€where€he€had€clothing€andÏchanged€clothes.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€presented€no€evidence€at€this€phase€of€theÏtrial.€€Based€on€the€evidence€above,€the€jury€convicted€theÏdefendant€of€first„degree€murder€committed€in€the€perpetration€ofÏrape.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓSTANDARD€OF€REVIEW€OF€SUPPRESSION€ISSUEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àPretrial,€the€defendant€moved€to€suppress€the€statementsÏhe€had€given€to€police€following€his€arrest.€€He€claimed€that€heÏhad€been€threatened€and€coerced€into€confessing€and€that€hisÏrepeated€requests€for€an€attorney€were€refused.€€At€the€suppressionÏhearing,€McWilliams€testified€that€the€defendant€was€neverÏthreatened€or€coerced€and€that€he€never€requested€an€attorney.€€TheÏtrial€court€weighed€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€accreditedÏthe€testimony€of€McWilliams.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏdefendant€knew€and€understood€his€constitutional€rights€and€hadÍvoluntarily€waived€those€rights€before€giving€his€confession.€€TheÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€reviewing€this€issue€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€determination€by€a€trial€courtÏthat€a€confession€was€given€knowinglyÏand€voluntarily€is€binding€on€theÏappellate€courts€unless€the€defendantÏcan€show€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trialÏcourt's€ruling.€€òòState€v.€O'Guinnóó,Ï709€S.W.2d€561,€566€(Tenn.€1986).€ÏThere€is€no€proof€in€the€record€whichÏpreponderates€against€the€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÓÓÌà àIn€our€consideration€of€this€issue,€we€note€thatÏappellate€courts€of€this€state€have€not€been€consistent€in€theÏchoice€of€standard€under€which€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€on€suppression€issues€are€reviewed.€€SomeÏcourts,€as€did€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case,€haveÏapplied€a€"preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard."€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994)("[A]€trialÏcourt's€determination€at€a€suppression€hearing€is€presumptivelyÏcorrect€on€appeal.€.€.€.€[T]he€presumption€of€correctness€may€onlyÏbe€overcome€on€appeal€if€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€court's€findings.");€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2dÏ726,€729€(Tenn.€1980)("[T]he€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€thisÍCourt€are€bound€to€accept€that€determination€[by€the€trial€courtÏthat€a€confession€was€freely€and€voluntarily€given]€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€that€finding.");€òòStateÏv.€Adamsóó,€859€S.W.2d€359,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)("Findings€ofÏfact€made€by€the€trial€judge€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€of€aÏmotion€to€suppress€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€andÏthis€court€will€not€set€aside€the€trial€court's€judgment€unless€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€hisÏfindings.").ÌÌà àFrequently,€however,€courts€have€used€the€"any€materialÏevidence"€standard€to€review€a€trial€court's€decision€on€aÏsuppression€motion.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,Ï732€(Tenn.€1994)("With€regard€to€the€claim€that€the€confession€wasÏinvoluntary,€a€trial€court's€determination€at€a€suppression€hearingÏwill€not€be€overturned€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€supportÏit.");€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€473€(Tenn.Ï1993)("Findings€of€fact€made€by€a€trial€court€on€issues€surroundingÏthe€giving€of€a€custodial€statement€are€binding€upon€appellateÏreview€if€there€is€any€evidence€to€support€them.");€òòState€v.€Irickóó,Ï762€S.W.2d€121,€127€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072Í(1989)("If€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€finding€of€theÏtrial€judge,€that€determination€is€binding€upon€the€appellateÏcourts.");€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€661€S.W.2d€854,€860€(Tenn.€1983)("AÏtrial€court's€factual€determination€of€the€voluntariness€of€aÏdefendant's€confession€and€of€compliance€with€the€requirements€ofÏthe€òòMirandaóó€decision€is€conclusive€on€appeal€if€there€be€anyÏmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€determination.");€òòState€v.ÏPritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127,€133€(Tenn.€1981)("The€trial€judge'sÏruling€that€the€statement€was€freely€and€voluntarily€given€has€theÏweight€of€a€jury€verdict€in€this€Court€if€there€is€any€materialÏevidence€to€support€it.").ÌÌà àOn€occasion,€courts€have€combined€the€two€standards.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€318€(Tenn.Ï1986)("[T]he€presumption€of€correctness€[of€the€trial€court'sÏfindings]€may€only€be€overcome€on€appeal€if€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€finding€.€.€.€.Ï[S]uch€a€ruling€is€binding€on€this€Court€if€there€is€any€materialÏevidence€to€support€it.");€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€233Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)(The€trial€judge's€findings€"at€theÏconclusion€of€a€suppression€hearing€are€afforded€the€weight€of€aÍjury€verdict;€and€this€Court€will€not€set€aside€the€judgment€.€.€.Ïunless€the€evidence€.€.€.€preponderates€against€his€findings.€ÏWhere€.€.€.€there€is€material€evidence€.€.€.€to€support€the€trialÏjudge's€finding€.€.€.€this€Court€is€required€to€affirm€hisÏjudgment.").ÌÌà àQuestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€of€the€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidenceÏare€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€TheÏparty€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearingÏas€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€beÏdrawn€from€that€evidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€theÏevidence€supports€the€trial€court's€findings,€those€findings€shallÏbe€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€in€aÏsuppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€We€also€note€that€this€standard€of€reviewÏis€consistent€with€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€which€provides€that€inÏcivil€cases,€findings€of€fact€by€a€trial€court€are€presumed€correctÏ"unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise."€ÏHereafter,€the€proper€standard€to€be€applied€in€reviewingÍsuppression€issues€is€the€"preponderance€of€the€evidence"€standard.ÏÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€applied€the€proper€standardÏin€upholding€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€suppression€motion.€ÏThat€court€found,€as€we€do,€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€court's€ruling€that€the€defendant€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€waived€his€Fifth€Amendment€rights;€consequently,€theÏconfession€was€properly€admitted€at€trial.ÌÌà@ àTAPE€RECORDING€OF€CUSTODIAL€INTERROGATIONSÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€fully€briefed€the€issue€whetherÏ"station„house€interrogations€should€be€recorded."€€Predictably,€heÏasserts€that€they€should€be.€€Because€this€is€not€a€dispositiveÏissue,€we€decline€to€address€it.€€Even€so,€we€believe€that€theÏissue€is€one€more€properly€directed€to€the€General€Assembly.ÌÌà@ àSENTENCING€HEARINGÌÌà àAs€we€have€stated,€reversible€error€was€committed€duringÏthe€sentencing€phase.€€The€legislature€has€mandated€that€thisÏCourt,€when€reviewing€capital€cases,€determine€whether€the€evidenceÏsupports€the€jury's€finding€of€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance(s).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206€(Supp.€1995).€ÏAdditionally,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b)€authorizes€appellate€courtsÏto€notice,€at€any€time,€error€which€has€affected€the€substantialÏrights€of€an€accused€even€though€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€newÏtrial€or€assigned€as€error€on€appeal,€in€the€discretion€of€theÏappellate€court€where€necessary€to€do€substantial€justice.ÌÌà@ àA.€€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCESÌÌà àThe€State€introduced€evidence€of€the€defendant's€previousÏconviction€in€Rankin€County,€Mississippi,€for€first„degree€murder.€ÏAdditionally,€the€State€proved€a€1991€Shelby€County€conviction€forÏrobbery.€€Together,€these€two€convictions€provided€the€requisiteÏbasis€for€the€jury's€finding€that€the€defendant€had€been€previouslyÏconvicted€of€one€or€more€violent€felonies.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2)(Supp.€1995).ÌÌà àIn€proving€the€second€aggravating€circumstance„„"theÏmurder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)„„the€State€relied€chiefly€upon€the€evidence€adducedÏduring€the€guilt€phase.€€As€additional€evidence,€the€StateÏintroduced€photographs€of€the€victim's€body€taken€after€it€had€beenÏremoved€from€the€car.€€For€the€reasons€appearing€below,€we€findÏthat€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€the€finding€of€thisÏaggravating€circumstance.× ƒ% ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€we€are€presented€with€our€first€opportunityÏto€address€the€constitutionality€of€the€"heinous,€atrocious,€andÏcruel"€statutory€aggravating€circumstance€as€amended€in€1989.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àThe€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€death.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€issue,€as€the€defendant€has€framed€it,€has€twoÏprongs:€€(1)€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€the€findingÏof€this€aggravating€circumstance;€and€(2)€the€constitutionality€ofÏthe€aggravating€circumstance€as€defined€and€applied.€€Since€theÏprongs€overlap,€we€will€consider€them€together.ÌÌà àIn€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendant€contendedÏthat€the€evidence€was€insufficient€under€the€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó× ƒ& ××  ×Ïstandard€to€support€the€jury's€finding€of€the€(i)(5)€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€In€concluding€that€the€evidence€was,€indeed,Ïsufficient,€the€intermediate€court€considered,€but€stopped€short€ofÏadopting,€the€definition€of€physical€abuse€promulgated€by€the€UtahÏSupreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó.× ƒ' ××  ×€€The€Utah€court€defined€"seriousÏphysical€abuse"€as€"[that€physical€abuse€which€is]€qualitativelyÏand€quantitatively€different€and€more€culpable€than€that€necessaryÏto€accomplish€the€murder."€€780€P.2d€at€1217.€€The€intermediateÏcourt€then€reiterated€the€definition€of€"torture"€as€"theÏinfliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€whileÍhe€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious."€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690ÏS.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985).€€At€that€point,€apparently,€theÏintermediate€court€combined€the€two€definitions€and€into€thatÏproduct€factored€other€language€from€òòWilliamsóó:€€"In€proving€suchÏtorture,€depravity€may€be€shown€by€acts€occurring€at€or€shortlyÏafter€the€victim's€death."€€The€intermediate€court€then€concludedÏthat€the€evidence€supported€the€finding€of€the€heinous,€atrocious,Ïand€cruel€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà àIn€this€Court,€the€defendant€challenges€the€intermediateÏcourt's€definition€of€"serious€physical€abuse"€as€constitutionallyÏinsufficient.€€He€vigorously€urges€us€to€adopt€the€òòTuttleóóÏdefinition€as€Tennessee's€definition€of€"serious€physical€abuse"€inÏapplying€the€aggravating€circumstance€under€review.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€State,€however,€insists€that€the€term€"seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death"€meetsÍapplicable€federal€and€state€constitutional€standards€as€it€isÏwritten€and€requires€no€further€definition.€€Thus,€the€State,€withÏequal€vigor,€urges€us€to€reject€the€òòTuttleóó€language.ÌÌà àThe€State€has€a€constitutional€responsibility€to€tailorÏand€apply€its€death€penalty€law€in€a€manner€that€avoids€theÏarbitrary€and€capricious€infliction€of€this€ultimate€penalty.€ÏòòGodfrey€v.€Georgiaóó,€446€U.S.€420,€427€(1980).€€"[A]n€aggravatingÏcircumstance€must€genuinely€narrow€the€class€of€persons€eligibleÏfor€the€death€penalty,"€òòZant€v.€Stephensóó,€462€U.S.€862,€877€(1983),Ïand€"provide€a€meaningful€basis€for€distinguishing€the€few€cases€inÏwhich€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€from€the€many€cases€in€which€itÏis€not,"€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.€238,€313€(1972)(White,€J.,Ïconcurring).ÌÌà àAs€a€constitutionally€necessary€first€step€under€theÏEighth€Amendment,€the€Supreme€Court€has€required€the€states€toÏnarrow€the€sentencers'€consideration€of€the€death€penalty€to€aÏsmaller,€more€culpable€class€of€homicide€defendants€than€theÏpre„òòFurmanóó€class€of€death„eligible€murderers.€òòSeeóó€òòPulley€v.€Harrisóó,Ï465€U.S.€37€(1984).€€€A€proper€narrowing€device€insures€that,€evenÍthough€some€defendants€who€fall€within€the€restricted€class€ofÏdeath„eligible€defendants€manage€to€avoid€the€death€penalty,€thoseÏwho€receive€it€will€be€among€the€worst€murderers„„those€whoseÏcrimes€are€particularly€serious,€or€for€whom€the€death€penalty€isÏpeculiarly€appropriate.€òòSeeóó€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153€(1976).ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€implicitly€approvedÏthe€statutory€language€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€at€issue.€ÏIn€òòMaynard€v.€Cartwrightóó,€the€Court€opined€that€"a€heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel€aggravator€would€be€constitutionally€acceptableÏif€construed€to€require€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse."€€486ÏU.S.€356,€364„65€(1988).€€The€Court€acknowledged,€however,€thatÏsome€kind€of€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€was€not€the€onlyÏlimiting€construction€that€would€be€constitutionally€acceptable.€ÏòòId.óó€at€365;€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWalton€v.€Arizonaóó,€497€U.S.€639,€652„55Ï(1990).ÌÌà àOther€courts€reviewing€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstances€similar€to€those€of€Tennessee€have€upheld€deathÏsentences€imposed€in€reliance€on€such€aggravators.€€òòSeeóó€òòHatch€v.ÏOklahomaóó,€58€F.3d€1447,€1468„69€(10th€Cir.€1995)(a€limitingÍconstruction€mandating€that€the€murder€involve€"torture€of€theÏvictim€or€serious€physical€abuse"€was€constitutionallyÏpermissible);€òòBattle€v.€Deloóó,€19€F.3d€1547,€1562€(8th€Cir.Ï1994)("'some€kind€of€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€is€[aÏsufficient€limiting]€construction'");€òòBertolotti€v.€Duggeróó,€883ÏF.2d€1503,€1526„27€(11th€Cir.€1989),€òòcert.€denied,óó€497€U.S.€1032Ï(1990)(Florida's€limiting€construction€that€required€the€murder€toÏbe€a€"conscienceless€or€pitiless€crime€which€is€unnecessarilyÏtortuous€to€the€victim"€was€approved);€òòState€v.€Bretonóó,€562€A.2dÏ1060,€1066€(Conn.€1989)(for€the€murder€to€be€"especially€cruel"€itÏhad€to€involve€"the€intentional€infliction€of€extreme€pain€orÏtorture€above€and€beyond€that€necessarily€accompanying€theÏunderlying€killing");€òòConner€v.€Stateóó,€632€€So.2d€1239€(Miss.Ï1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.€Ct.€314Ï(1994)(Mississippi's€limiting€instruction€that€required€the€murderÏto€be€a€"conscienceless€or€pitiless€crime€which€is€unnecessarilyÏtortuous€to€the€victim"€was€approved);€òòState€v.€Griffinóó,€756€S.W.2dÏ475,€490€(Mo.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€490€U.S.€1113€(the€murder€mustÏinvolve€"serious€physical€abuse"€and€"evidence€that€the€murderÏvictim€.€.€.€[was]€.€.€.€beaten€or€evidence€that€numerous€woundsÏwere€inflicted€upon€a€victim"€is€sufficient);€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€422ÍS.E.2d€133,€148€(S.C.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€113€S.€Ct.Ï2355€(1993)€("physical€torture€occurs€when€a€person€is€subject€toÏ'serious€physical€abuse'€and€'aggravated€battery'").ÌÌà àWe€decline€to€adopt€the€definition€of€"serious€physicalÏabuse"€set€out€by€the€Utah€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó€becauseÏthat€definition€fails€to€provide€guidance€to€a€capital€sentencerÏbeyond€that€which€our€statute€already€provides.€€The€Utah€statuteÏat€issue€in€òòTuttleóó€provided€that€a€knowing€and€intentional€killingÏwas€first„degree€murder€punishable€by€death€if€"[t]he€homicide€wasÏcommitted€in€an€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€cruel,€orÏexceptionally€depraved€manner,€any€of€which€must€be€demonstrated€byÏphysical€torture,€serious€physical€abuse,€or€serious€bodily€injuryÏof€the€victim€before€death."€€Utah€Code€Ann.€ðð€76„5„202(1)(q)(Supp.Ï1988).€€As€the€Utah€Court€noted,€the€language€of€the€statute€couldÏbe€interpreted€so€broadly€as€to€describe€all€murders€not€resultingÏin€instantaneous€death€and,€therefore,€did€not€sufficiently€narrowÏthe€class€of€offenders€subject€to€the€death€penalty.€€780€P.2d€atÏ1216.€€By€contrast,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€narrows€theÏconstruction€of€"serious€physical€abuse"€to€abuse€"beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€produce€death."€€ÌÌà àAs€discussed€above,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)Ïnarrows€and€defines€the€meaning€of€"heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel"Ïin€that€the€act€must€involve€"torture€or€serious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death."€€"Torture"€has€beenÏdefined€as€the€infliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€uponÏthe€victim€while€he€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985).€€Because€theÏlegislature€added€the€words€"serious€physical€abuse,"€it€must€beÏassumed€that€the€legislature€intended€the€words€ð ðserious€physicalÏabuseðð€to€mean€something€distinct€from€"torture."€€The€wordÏ"serious"€alludes€to€a€matter€of€degree.€€The€abuse€must€beÏphysical,€as€opposed€to€mental,€and€it€must€be€"beyond€that"€orÏmore€than€what€is€"necessary€to€produce€death."€€"Abuse"€is€definedÏas€an€act€that€is€"excessive"€or€which€makes€"improper€use€of€aÏthing,"€or€which€uses€a€thing€"in€a€manner€contrary€to€the€naturalÏor€legal€rules€for€its€use."€€òòBlack's€Law€Dictionaryóó€11€(6th€ed.Ï1990).€€We€find€the€language€of€the€statute€constitutionallyÏsufficient€to€narrow€the€class€of€offenders€subject€to€the€deathÏpenalty.€€ÌÌà àThe€issue€remains€whether€the€evidence€in€this€case€wasÏsufficient€to€uphold€a€finding€of€the€(i)(5)€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€We€well€understand€that€almost€all€murders€areÏ"heinous,€atrocious,€and€cruel"€to€some€degree,€and€we€have€noÏpurpose€to€demean€or€minimize€the€ordeal€this€murder€victimÏexperienced.€€In€our€view,€however,€rape€(penile€penetration)€doesÏnot€ordinarily€constitute€"torture"€or€"serious€physical€abuse"Ïwithin€the€meaning€of€the€statute.€€Were€we€to€hold€otherwise,Ïevery€murder€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€rape€could€beÏclassified€as€a€death„eligible€offense.€€Such€a€result,€obviously,Ïwould€not€sufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€perpetrators,€nor€wouldÏit€distinguish€the€"worst€of€the€worse"€for€whom€the€ultimateÏpenalty€must€be€reserved.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2dÏ317€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€a€similar€vein,€and€with€the€same€disclaimerÏabove„appearing,€we€must€reject€the€conclusion€that€the€three€stabÏwounds€evidenced€in€this€case€constituted€"torture"€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ÌÌà àAs€we€consider€the€circumstances€here,€we€do€not€intendÏto€diminish€what€surely€must€have€been€a€terrifying€and€horror„filled€experience€for€the€victim.€€Most€assuredly,€the€murder€wasÍreprehensible€in€the€purest€sense€of€the€word„„nearly€all€murdersÏare.€€However,€the€aggravating€circumstance€under€review€must€beÏreserved€for€application€only€to€those€cases€which,€by€comparisonÏor€contrast,€can€be€articulately€determined€to€be€the€very€ð ðworstÏof€the€worse.ððÌÌà àAs€previously€stated,€the€defendant€contends€that€theÏevidence€does€not€support€the€jury's€finding€that€the€murder€wasÏ"especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel."€€We€have€thoroughlyÏconsidered€this€contention€and€conclude€that€under€the€criteria€weÏhave€discussed€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€support€theÏjury's€finding€of€the€"heinous,€atrocious,€and€cruel"€circumstance.ÌÌà àFor€the€third€aggravating€circumstance,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€Ï39„13„204(i)(8),€the€State€proved€that€the€defendant€had€escaped€onÏMarch€28,€1991,€from€the€Mississippi€jail€where€he€was€serving€aÏlife€sentence€for€murder.€€This€aggravating€circumstance€allowsÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€upon€a€finding€that€ð ðthe€murder€wasÏcommitted€by€the€defendant€while€the€defendant€was€in€lawfulÏcustody€or€in€a€place€of€lawful€confinement€or€during€theÍdefendant's€escape€from€lawful€custody€or€from€a€place€of€lawfulÏconfinement."ÌÌà àIn€our€view,€the€record€before€us€contains€noÏjustification€for€the€jury's€finding€of€the€(i)(8)€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€Based€on€our€prior€application€of€(i)(8),€theÏrequisites€simply€have€not€been€met.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,Ï896€S.W.2d€94,€104€(Tenn.€1995)(murder€committed€while€defendant,€aÏprison€ð ðtrusty,ðð€was€in€constructive€custody€of€sheriffÏdepartment);€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€767€(Tenn.€1988),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031€(1990)(murder€committed€while€defendantÏwas€in€place€of€lawful€confinement);€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€868€S.W.2dÏ705,€712„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)(murder€committed€duringÏdefendantððs€escape€from€lawful€custody€of€police€officer€followingÏarrest).€€Our€rationale€is€simple„„"during"€as€used€in€the€statuteÏmeans€"throughout€the€continuance€of."€€The€end€of€the€escape€marksÏthe€beginning€of€oneððs€status€as€an€"escapee."€€Although€Odom€was,Ïassuredly,€an€"escapee,"€by€no€stretch€can€we€say€that€the€murderÏoccurred€during€the€defendant's€escape€from€lawful€confinement€orÏduring€the€defendant's€escape€from€lawful€custody€or€from€a€placeÍof€lawful€confinement.€€When€he€committed€the€murder,€Odom's€escapeÏwas€an€accomplished€fact„„òòa€fait€accomplióó.ÌÌà@ àB.€€DR.€HUTSON'S€TESTIMONYÌÌà àIn€mitigation,€John€Hutson,€Ph.D.,€a€practicing€clinicalÏpsychologist€since€1975,€testified€for€the€defendant.€€He€statedÏthat€he€had€interviewed€the€defendant€on€five€occasions.€€FromÏthese€meetings,€Hutson€gleaned€that€the€defendant's€first€twelveÏyears€had€been€chaotic.€€He€opined€that€the€defendant€harbored€muchÏanger€toward€parental€figures€in€general€and€toward€mothers€inÏparticular.€€He€found€it€significant€that€the€victim€had€addressedÏthe€defendant€as€"son."€€ÌÌà àHutson€related€that€the€defendant€had€becomeÏprogressively€less€hostile,€defensive,€sullen,€and€arrogant€overÏthe€course€of€the€evaluation€process.€€Concerning€the€defendantððsÏmental€state,€Hutson€testified€that€the€defendant€"has€never€beenÏdiagnosed€with€any€significant€psychiatric€disorder,€such€as€wouldÏbe€likely€to€impair€his€ability€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€ofÏhis€actions,€or€to€impair€his€ability€to€conform€his€behavior€toÍthe€requirements€of€the€law."€€Hutson€opined€further€that€theÏdefendant€"likely€can€be€diagnosed€as€a€personality€disorder."ÌÌà àDuring€the€evaluation€process,€Hutson€obtained€a€historyÏfrom€the€defendant.€€As€the€defendant's€counsel€began€to€ask€HutsonÏabout€some€of€the€details€of€this€history,€the€State€objected€onÏhearsay€grounds.€€During€a€jury„out€offer€of€proof,€the€defendant'sÏcounsel€attempted€to€show€the€relevance€of€the€personal€history€toÏthe€evaluation.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€hearsay€objection€toÏthe€testimony.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏrefusing€to€admit€Hutson's€testimony€concerning€the€defendant'sÏpersonal€history.€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€inÏits€conclusion€that€the€trial€court€did,€indeed,€err€in€thisÏregard.€ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€controls,€to€a€largeÏextent,€the€admissibility€of€evidence€at€a€capital€sentencingÏproceeding;€€it€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,Ïevidence€may€be€presented€as€to€anyÏmatter€that€the€court€deems€relevantÏto€the€punishment€and€may€include,Ïbut€not€be€limited€to,€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€crime;€theÏdefendant's€character,€backgroundÏhistory,€and€physical€condition;€anyÏevidence€tending€to€establish€orÏrebut€the€aggravating€circumstancesÏenumerated€in€subsection€(i);€and€anyÏevidence€tending€to€establish€orÏrebut€any€mitigating€factors.€€AnyÏsuch€evidence€which€the€court€deemsÏto€have€probative€value€on€the€issueÏof€punishment€may€be€receivedòòÏregardless€of€its€admissibility€underÏthe€rules€of€evidence;€óó€provided,Ïthat€the€defendant€is€accorded€a€fairÏopportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsayÏstatements€so€admitted.€€€However,Ïthis€subsection€shall€not€beÏconstrued€to€authorize€theÏintroduction€of€any€evidence€securedÏin€violation€of€the€constitution€ofÏthe€United€States€or€the€constitutionÏof€Tennessee.ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c)(Supp.€1995)(emphasis€added).€€ThisÏstatute€expressly€exempts€evidence€adduced€in€capital€sentencingÏproceedings€from€the€usual€evidentiary€rules.€€Hence,€evidenceÏconcerning€a€capital€defendant's€personal€or€psychological€historyÏwould€clearly€be€admissible€under€the€above€statute.€€The€trialÏcourt's€ruling€in€this€regard€was€in€blatant€disregard€of€theÍstatute's€unmistakable€language.€€We€cannot€find€this€error€Ïharmless€under€the€standards€of€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àC.€€NONSTATUTORY€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESÌÌà àEven€though€the€defendant's€expert€witness€was€notÏpermitted€to€testify€in€detail,€he€did€testify€generally€aboutÏcertain€aspects€of€the€defendant's€social€and€psychologicalÏcondition.€€A€summary€of€that€testimony€appears€earlier€in€thisÏopinion.€€With€this€pertinent,€but€sparse,€testimony€as€aÏpredicate,€the€defendant€submitted€several€written€requests€forÏinstructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€trialÏcourt€refused€to€accept€any€of€the€requested€instructions€forÏinclusion€in€those€to€be€given€to€the€jury,€stating€that€theÏinstructions€to€be€given€would€adequately€cover€the€requestedÏmatters.€€The€defendant€contends€that€this€refusal€constitutedÏreversible€error.€€ÌÌà àWith€the€enactment€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1),Ïtrial€courts€are€now€required€to€instruct€the€jury€on€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€raised€by€the€evidence€at€either€the€guiltÏor€sentencing€hearing,€or€both.€€In€order€to€place€the€issue€inÏperspective,€however,€a€brief€overview€of€the€law€as€it€existedÏpreviously€may€prove€helpful.€€Before€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÏ1989,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(e)(1982)€governed€the€introductionÏof€mitigating€circumstances€in€capital€sentencing€proceedings.€€ItÏprovided:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à(e)€€After€closing€arguments€in€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏshall€include€in€his€instructions€forÏthe€jury€to€weigh€and€consider€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€and€any€ofÏthe€statutory€aggravating€circum„stances€set€forth€in€subsection€(i)Ïof€this€section€which€may€be€raisedÏby€the€evidence€at€either€the€guiltÏor€sentencing€hearing,€or€both.€ÏThese€instructions€and€the€manner€ofÏarriving€at€a€sentence€shall€be€givenÏin€the€oral€charge€and€in€writing€toÏthe€jury€for€its€deliberations.ÌÓÓÌSubsection€(j)€of€this€statute€complemented€subsection€(e)€byÏspecifying€the€mitigating€circumstances:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à(j)€€In€arriving€at€the€punishmentÏthe€jury€shall€consider,€asÍheretofore€indicated,€any€mitigatingÏcircumstances€which€shall€include,Ïbut€not€be€limited€to€the€following:Ìà8 àà8 à(1)€€The€defendant€has€no€significantÏhistory€of€prior€criminal€activity;Ìà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€murder€was€committed€whileÏthe€defendant€was€under€the€influenceÏof€extreme€mental€or€emotionalÏdisturbance;Ìà8 àà8 à(3)€€The€victim€was€a€participant€inÏthe€defendant's€conduct€or€consentedÏto€the€act;Ìà8 àà8 à(4)€€The€murder€was€committed€underÏcircumstances€which€the€defendantÏreasonably€believed€to€provide€aÏmoral€justification€for€his€conduct;Ìà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€was€an€accompliceÏin€the€murder€committed€by€anotherÏperson€and€the€defendant'sÏparticipation€was€relatively€minor;Ìà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€acted€underÏextreme€duress€or€under€theÏsubstantial€domination€of€anotherÏperson;Ìà8 àà8 à(7)€€The€youth€or€advanced€age€of€theÏdefendant€at€the€time€of€the€crime;ÏandÌà8 àà8 à(8)€€The€capacity€of€the€defendant€toÏappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÏconduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€toÏthe€requirements€of€the€law€wasÏsubstantially€impaired€as€a€result€ofÏmental€disease€or€defect€orÏintoxication€which€was€insufficientÏto€establish€a€defense€to€the€crimeÏbut€which€substantially€affected€hisÏjudgment.ÌÓÓà àÌà àThe€case€of€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó× ƒ* ××  ×€was€tried€under€the€formerÏprovision€as€above€quoted.€€In€òòHartmanóó,€we€considered€the€questionÏof€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€in€the€context€of€theirÏincorporation€into€the€instructions€to€the€jury.€€We€found€thatÏthere€was€no€statutory€requirement€that€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏfactors€be€expressly€instructed:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à[T]he€only€mandatory€instructionsÏwith€respect€to€mitigatingÏcircumstances€are€that€thoseÏstatutory€circumstances€which€areÏraised€by€the€evidence€shall€beÏexpressly€charged,€and€the€jury€mustÏbe€told€that€they€shall€weigh€andÏconsider€any€other€facts€orÏcircumstances€that€are€raised€by€theÏevidence€that€they€find€to€beÏmitigating€circumstances,€in€makingÏthe€determination€of€whichÏcircumstances,€aggravating€orÏmitigating,€outweigh€the€other.ÌÓÓÌ703€S.W.2d€at€118;€òòaccordóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€15€(Tenn.€1993);€òòStateÍv.€Wrightóó,€756€S.W.2d€669,€674€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718ÏS.W.2d€241,€249€(Tenn.€1986).× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€1989€the€General€Assembly€enacted€the€CriminalÏSentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€The€section€governing€juryÏinstructions€in€capital€sentencing€hearings€was€revised€in€anÏapparent€response€to€òòHartmanóó.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203(e)(Supp.Ï1989).€€Presently,€the€section€as€revised€provides€(for€comparison,Ïrevisions€are€italicized):ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àAfter€closing€arguments€in€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏshall€include€in€òòtheóó€instructions€forÏthe€jury€to€weigh€and€consider€any€òòofÏtheóó€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstances€set€forth€in€subsectionÏ(i)€which€may€be€raised€by€theÏevidence€at€either€the€guilt€orÏsentencing€hearing,€or€both.€€TheÏtrial€judge€shall€òòalsoóó€include€in€theÏinstructions€for€the€jury€to€weighÏand€consider€any€mitigatingÍcircumstances€raised€by€the€evidenceÏat€either€the€guilt€or€sentencingÏhearing€or€both€òòwhich€shall€include,Ïbut€not€be€limited€to,€thoseÏcircumstances€set€forth€in€subsectionÏ(j).€€No€distinction€shall€be€madeÏbetween€mitigating€circumstances€asÏset€forth€in€subsection€(j)€and€thoseÏotherwise€raised€by€the€evidenceÏwhich€are€specifically€requested€byÏeither€the€state€or€the€defense€to€beÏinstructed€to€the€jury.€óó€TheseÏinstructions€and€the€manner€ofÏarriving€at€a€sentence€shall€be€givenÏin€the€oral€charge€and€in€writing€toÏthe€jury€for€its€deliberations.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÓÓÌà àProper€resolution€of€this€issue€requires€us€to€construeÏthe€statute:€in€doing€so,€our€paramount€responsibilities€are€toÏascertain€the€legislative€intent€and€to€effectuate€it.€òòState€v.ÏBoboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€952€(Tenn.€1987);€òòLong€v.€Stateline€Sys.,ÏInc.óó,€738€S.W.2d€622,€623€(Tenn.€1985).€€Initially,€such€intent€isÏgathered€from€the€natural,€ordinary,€and€commonly€accepted€meaningÏof€the€language€used€in€the€statute€itself.€€òòBoboóó,€727€S.W.2d€atÏ952;€òòWeaver€v.€Woodsóó,€594€S.W.2d€693,€695€(Tenn.€1980).€€ÌÌà àIn€construing€a€statute€the€Court€must€give€effect€toÏevery€word,€phrase,€clause,€and€sentence€of€the€act€to€achieve€theÍlegislature's€intent.€€òòUnited€Canners,€Inc.€v.€Kingóó,€696€S.W.2dÏ525,€527€(Tenn.€1985);€òòCity€of€Caryville€v.€Campbell€Countyóó,€660ÏS.W.2d€510,€512€(Tenn.€App€1983).€€"Every€word€used€[in€a€statute]Ïis€presumed€to€have€meaning€and€purpose€and€should€be€given€fullÏeffect€if€doing€so€does€not€violate€the€obvious€intention€of€theÏLegislature."€€òòMarsh€v.€Hendersonóó,€424€S.W.2d€193,€196€(Tenn.Ï1968).€€Furthermore,€a€statute€should€be€construed,€if€practicable,Ïso€that€its€component€parts€are€consistent€and€reasonable;Ïinconsistent€phrases€should€be€harmonized,€where€possible,€so€as€toÏreach€the€legislative€intent.€€òòId.óó€€To€construe€the€statute€as€notÏrequiring€specific€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€would€ignore€the€language€referring€to€requestedÏinstructions€in€the€next€to€last€sentence€of€subsection€(e)(1)€andÏthereby€contravene€these€basic€rules€of€statutory€construction.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€when€the€legislature€makes€a€substantialÏchange€in€a€statute€that€has€been€the€subject€of€judicialÏconstruction,€as€was€this€statute€in€òòHartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€at€106,Ïand€the€cases€subsequent€to€it,€the€legislature€is€presumed€to€haveÏbeen€fully€aware€of€the€judicial€construction€and€to€have€intendedÏto€alter€the€law.€€òòHamby€v.€McDanielóó,€559€S.W.2d€774,€776€(Tenn.Í1977).€€When€the€legislature€amends€a€statute,€it€presumably€doesÏso€either€to€change€the€law€or€to€clarify€it.€€In€light€of€theÏlanguage€referring€to€instruction€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€and€the€fact€that€the€meaning€of€the€statute€had€beenÏclearly€set€out€in€judicial€decisions,€it€is€reasonable€to€assumeÏthat€the€legislature€meant€to€modify€this€Court's€earlier€holdingÏon€this€issue.× ƒ- ××  ×€€To€these€principles€we€must€add€the€rule€ofÏstatutory€construction€that€criminal€statutes€must€be€strictlyÏconstrued€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€òòKey€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€184,Ï188€(Tenn.€1978).€€ÌÌà àIn€considering€all€of€the€above,€we€reach€the€inescapableÏconclusion€that€the€legislature€intended€the€trial€court€toÏinstruct€the€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€whenÏraised€by€the€evidence€and€specifically€requested€by€either€theÏState€or€the€defendant.€€The€trial€court€failed€to€heed€this€clearÏstatutory€mandate;€this€failure€constitutes€reversible€error.€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€his€argument€that€his€requestedÏinstructions€are€statutorily€required,€the€defendant€contends€thatÏthe€instructions€are€constitutionally€required€as€well.€€WeÏdisagree€with€this€contention.€€In€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2dÏ161,€173„74€(Tenn.€1994),€we€held€that€ð ðneither€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€nor€the€Tennessee€Constitution€requires€the€trialÏjudge€to€read€or€submit€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€toÏthe€jury.ððÌÌà àTwo€items€remain:€(1)€to€summarize€the€criteria€forÏdetermining€whether€a€circumstance€is€a€mitigating€one€as€a€matterÏof€law;€and€(2)€to€provide,€to€the€extent€possible,€a€measure€ofÏguidance€to€the€trial€court€regarding€instructions€on€nonstatutoryÍmitigating€circumstances.€€Obviously,€whether€a€circumstance€isÏ"mitigating"€as€a€matter€of€law€depends€in€large€measure€upon€theÏevidence€presented.€€Far€better€that€this€classification€beÏdetermined€case€by€case€rather€than€by€resorting€to€a€mechanicalÏformula.€€Thus,€our€discussion€must€be€general.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€should€keep€in€mind€the€proviso€ofÏòòLockett€v.€Ohioóó€that€"the€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€requireÏthat€the€sentencer,€in€all€but€the€rarest€kind€of€capital€case,€notÏbe€precluded€from€considering€as€a€mitigating€factor,€any€aspect€ofÏa€defendant's€character€or€record€and€any€of€the€circumstances€ofÏthe€offense€that€the€defendant€proffers€as€a€basis€for€a€sentenceÏless€than€death."€€438€U.S.€586,€604€(1978)(footnote€omitted).€€òòAÏfortiorióó,€any€evidence€relevant€to€the€issue€of€the€defendant'sÏculpability€should€be€admitted€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€duringÏthe€penalty€stage€of€a€capital€trial.× ƒ. ××  ×€€Once€evidence€has€beenÍadmitted€as€relevant€on€the€issue€of€whether€mitigatingÏcircumstances€exist,€the€jury€has€the€freedom€to€give€independentÏmitigating€weight€to€those€aspects€of€a€defendant's€character€andÏrecord€and€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€as€they€see€fit.€ÏThe€trial€court€is€not€free€to,€in€effect,€give€it€no€weight€byÏexcluding€such€evidence€from€the€jury's€consideration.€€òòEddings€v.ÏOklahomaóó,€455€U.S.€104,€110,€114„15€(1982).€€The€first€role€of€theÏtrial€court,€then,€is€to€decide€the€threshold€question€whetherÏevidence€proffered€in€mitigation€is€"relevant."€€ÌÌà àEvidence€of€a€defendant's€background€and€character€areÏconsidered€relevant€because€defendants€who€come€from€aÏdisadvantaged€background€or€who€have€emotional€and/or€mentalÏproblems€may€be€less€culpable€than€defendants€who€have€no€suchÏexcuse.€€òòBoyde€v.€Californiaóó,€494€U.S.€370,€382€(1990);€òòPenryóó,€402ÏU.S.€at€319.€€Likewise,€the€circumstances€of€a€particular€offenseÏare€relevant€to€emphasize€the€differences€in€offenders€and€crimes.€ÏòòEddingsóó,€455€U.S.€at€112.€€In€essence,€these€kinds€of€informationÏare€deemed€relevant€because€"in€capital€cases€the€fundamentalÏrespect€for€humanity€underlying€the€Eighth€Amendment€...€requiresÏconsideration€of€the€òòcharacter€and€record€of€the€individualÍoffenderóó€and€the€òòcircumstances€of€the€particular€offenseóó€as€aÏconstitutionally€indispensable€part€of€the€process€of€inflictingÏthe€penalty€of€death."€€òòWoodson€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€428€U.S.€280,Ï304€(1976)(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àOnce€the€trial€court€has€determined,€using€the€aboveÏcriteria,€that€a€circumstance€is€a€mitigating€one,€it€must€decideÏwhether€the€circumstance€has€been€"raised€by€the€evidence."€ÏEmbedded€in€Tennessee€law€is€the€rule€that€"the€defendant€has€aÏright€to€have€every€issue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€andÏmaterial€to€his€defense€submitted€to€the€jury€upon€properÏinstructions€by€the€judge."€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€519€S.W.2d€789,€792Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€The€trial€court€should€encounter€little€difficultyÏin€determining€whether€the€circumstance€has€been€raised€by€theÏevidence.€Once€the€trial€court€decides€that€the€proffered€evidenceÏis€"mitigating"€in€nature€and€that€it€has€been€"raised€by€theÏevidence,ðð€it€becomes€a€"mitigating€circumstance"€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€and€the€trial€court€must€include€it€in€the€instructions.€€TheÏjury€instructions€are€critical€in€enabling€the€jury€to€make€aÏsentencing€determination€that€is€demonstrably€reliable.€€To€ensureÏthis€reliability,€the€jury€must€be€given€specific€instructions€onÍthose€circumstances€offered€by€the€capital€defendant€asÏjustification€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.€€In€this€regard,€theÏparty€desiring€such€an€instruction€must€submit€the€requestedÏinstruction€in€writing€to€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àWe€come€to€that€portion€of€the€statute€which€provides:€Ï"No€distinction€shall€be€made€between€mitigating€circumstances€asÏset€forth€in€subsection€(j)€and€those€otherwise€raised€by€theÏevidence€which€are€specifically€requested€.€.€.€to€be€instructed€toÏthe€jury."× ƒ/ ××  ×€€In€our€view,€the€legislature€intended€this€language€asÏa€mandate€to€the€trial€court€to€place€all€mitigating€circumstances„„statutory€and€nonstatutory„„on€equal€footing€before€the€jury.€€IfÏthe€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€are€submitted€to€the€jury€inÏwriting€as€the€statute€requires,€then€any€other€mitigatingÏcircumstance€raised€by€the€evidence€and€proffered€by€a€defendant€asÏhaving€mitigating€value€must,€upon€defendant's€timely€and€properÏrequest,€also€be€submitted€to€the€jury€in€writing.€€As€a€corollary,Ïwe€think€the€trial€court€is€prohibited€from€revealing€to€the€juryÏthat€a€request€was€made,€nor€should€the€trial€judge€identify€theÏpart(ies)€making€the€request.€€Only€strict€adherence€to€the€letterÍand€the€spirit€of€the€statute€will€permit€the€sentencing€procedureÏto€attain€that€degree€of€integrity€that€is€legislatively€intended.ÌÌà àWe€deem€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€to€beÏprofoundly€significant.€€It€requires,€in€our€view,€that€theÏinstructions€be€drafted€so€that€when€they€are€considered€by€theÏjury,€the€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€are€indistinguishableÏfrom€the€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances.ÌÌà àThe€language€of€the€requested€instruction€must€not€runÏafoul€of€constitutional€mandates€or€established€law.€€First,ÏArticle€VI,€section€9,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€specificallyÏprovides€that€"[t]he€Judges€shall€not€charge€juries€with€respect€toÏmatters€of€fact,€but€may€state€the€testimony€and€declare€the€law."€ÏThe€purpose€of€this€provision€is€to€provide€all€litigants€with€anÏimpartial€trial€judge€and€to€preserve€the€jury's€role€as€a€finder„of„fact.€€These€purposes€are€accomplished€by€preventing€the€trialÏcourt€from€influencing€the€jury's€deliberations€by€"summing€up"€theÏevidence€in€the€manner€of€English€courts,€commenting€on€the€weightÏof€the€evidence,€or€instructing€the€jury€concerning€the€factualÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòTyrus€v.€Kansas€City,ÍFt.€S.€&€M.€R.€Co.óó,€86€S.W.€1074,€1075€(Tenn.€1905);€òòIvey€v.ÏHodgesóó,€23€Tenn.€(4€Hum.)€154,€155€(1843);€òòSasser€v.€AverittÏExpress,€Inc.óó,€839€S.W.2d€422,€430„31€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€òòClecknerÏv.€Daleóó,€719€S.W.2d€535,€542€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€ÌØ ØÓ&€##XÀd&ÓÑ7€ÒñXXdðXXdð7ÑÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€submitted€several€requestsÏfor€special€jury€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÏThe€language€in€some€of€these€requested€instructions€implies€thatÍthe€trial€court€has€made€findings€of€fact,€i.e.,€that€the€defendantÏhad€mental€problems,€that€he€had€confessed,€and€that€he€wasÏremorseful€and€sought€help.€€We€observe€that€a€defendant'sÏrequested€instructions€on€mitigating€circumstances€often€constituteÏthe€theory€of€his€case€in€the€penalty€phase;€however,€as€we€haveÏstated,€an€instruction€that€implies€to€the€jury€that€the€trialÏcourt€has€found€or€believes€that€certain€facts€have€beenÏestablished€is€improper€under€our€state€constitution.€€Tenn.€Const.Ïart.€VI,€ðð€9;€òòCrain€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€187,€194€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€692€S.W.2d€651,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995).ÌÌà@ àSUMMARYÌÌà à1.€€The€standard€for€appellate€review€of€trial€courtÏrulings€on€suppression€issues€is€the€"preponderance€of€theÏevidence"€standard.ÌÌà à2.€€This€Court€leaves€to€the€General€Assembly€theÏdecision€whether€to€require€the€electronic€recording€of€custodialÏinterrogations.ÌÌà à3.€€The€"heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel"€aggravatingÏcircumstance€is€constitutional;€however,€the€facts€of€record€do€notÏsupport€the€jury's€finding€of€this€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà à4.€€The€evidence€does€not€support€the€jury's€finding€thatÏthe€defendant€committed€the€murder€during€an€escape€from€lawfulÏcustody.ÌÌà à5.€€The€trial€court's€refusal€to€permit€a€portion€of€Dr.ÏHutson's€testimony€constituted€reversible€error.ÌÌà à6.€€The€"no€distinction"€language€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„204(e)€means€exactly€what€it€says.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€conviction€upon€the€charge€of€first„degree€murder€(felony)€is€affirmed.€€The€sentence€of€death€byÏelectrocution€is€vacated.€€The€cause€is€remanded€for€a€newÏÔ  Ôsentencing€hearing€to€be€conducted€in€a€manner€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌœReid,›€White,€JJ.ÌÌCONCURRING/DISSENTING€SEPARATELY:ÌAnderson,€œC.J.;€Drowota,€J.›