ÿWPCK Ô„¨˜²09RTj_yò’åÛ&;ç¥?@q0Ýw±ØáG²o¾X.{ŒÏ]äg¼ÆÏ©hÊ(Õ°ãU\Ÿ7–SúZ´d±¨…:%37ƒÚ;9v\6æbªšV£ à9ô#Yí£²KØ»pRY"7?äøk‰¤fÞ›ƒ¨ú±¹‚NÐé#4ˆÚ`©_ˆr*¾ û‚ÌT •$ãH/RlhOÖXÿe9ÇÝ~›XŸÈd ð_±?>C¢”ÊLgQ%¸~ÅïQ}‰ KEL—™—Ú¤‰l}¾“«oÿýȪ ÔcVla?S‚àÏ[!¹²›xó[ ÀLùk!EÖ;ãʋɖó}­'Z²‚ùÂùÖÇç?üþ¼†‘º/¾´Òýå‘MBµSò½“C¼Å…ZÔþÙÖ£Péàö5H•«9ÖÚ®ÒÒä¾{|z>÷WpS©ñZÐW€Zr¡À%]Û9]ƒ›w%'^á-`Çÿ´*ÅÿrÎØýlôT7ßúÊq¬‡ ËL9—\ºa»µ7ïœî Ú蛓@+—½X„½æpÂTÑO‰‹³,5À¤o¾í=sͼÈÿMŸ6‰Êƺd%Ëç‰sñù¾~cÓUè.ZM§“ã…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í w@ 4G [ j U:r b¬ 0l´ 0D d U:e e e e e e -Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ BÌ Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì D3é 0D 0D`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` AQ¤Æõõ 0D» D/ÿ B.˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÄÆ[Ç[È«ÉVÊËÌ«ÍeÎÓ€F&3|x×,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÷Ý ƒ+¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XòžXXXÔÔ€h XXòžÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XòžX hÔÐ  ÐÌMay€17,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€+-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҰÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X\ XXXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÑ7€ì«XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ€úÑñÌññÈñÓ=€ÌÞÐXdÐd=ÓñÈññÌññÈñœñÈññÊñò òÔ‡ XòžXXX\ ÔñÊññÌñÓ=€ì«XÐXdÐd=ÓñÌññÍñÑ€ ÑñÍññÊññÊññÎññÎññÊññÊññÎñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E»±` 8ttxPó°ð  rßñÎññÊñÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@.àˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡ „á„X XòžÔà@žž*àÔ#† XòžX„ „á¸#ÔÔ‡ èH8èX XòžÔAppendixÔ#† XòžXè èH8 #ԈРD!” Ðà@  à(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)€ˆÌó óÔ#†X\ XX Xòžc#ÔñÊññÉñÐ  ´#! ÐÑúÑÑ7€ì«XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑñÉñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÆÆ(àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌà@˜˜%àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONˆÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àó óà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9512„CC„00383Ð @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellee,ó óà h àà À àà  à)à p àHAMBLEN€COUNTYÐ  p  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òVS.ó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àò òHON.€LYNN€W.€BROWN,€JUDGEÐ P  Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ð@  Ðò òLEONARD€EDWARD€SMITH,ó óà À àà  à)à p à(Death€Penalty)Ð à0  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellant.ó óà h àà À àà  à)Ð À ÐÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð à ÐÌóóò òJ.€ROBERT€BOATRIGHTà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ pÀ Ðó ó150€Commerce€Streetà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ `° ÐKingsport,€TN€37660ÌÌò òLARRY€S.€WEDDINGTONà À àà  àà p àAMY€L.€TARKINGTONÐ 0€ Ðó ó200€Seventh€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€General€Ð  p ÐBristol,€TN€37620à  àà h àà À àà  àà p à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òH.€GREELY€WELLS,€JR.ó óÐ à0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àP.€O.€Box€526€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àBlountville,€TN€37617„0526ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€œFILED:›€œó óòòOctober€3,1997Ð À0,/ ÐÌÌÌóóò òAFFIRMEDÐ €4Ð/3 ÐÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÌÌÐ  :p59 Їà@AA(àO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÌñÇñó óñÇñÓÓà@á á à[Case€History€and€Evidence€at€Re„Sentencing€Hearing€Deleted]ñÇñó óñÇñˆÐ  ð ÐÌà@ùù"àò òI.€€òòSELECTIVE€PROSECUTIONó óóóˆÐ ` ° ÐÌà ` àDefendant€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€requesting€that€the€district€attorney€generalÏdisclose€the€standards€used€to€determine€whether€to€seek€the€death€penalty€in€murderÏcases.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€explained€that€aggravating€andÏmitigating€circumstances€were€examined€and€weighed€in€order€to€determine€whetherÏto€seek€the€death€penalty€under€particular€facts.€€Defense€counselððs€request€to€put€theÏassistant€district€attorney€general€under€oath€to€testify€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà ` àProsecutorial€discretion€used€in€selecting€candidates€for€the€death€penalty€doesÏnot€result€in€any€constitutional€deprivation.€€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€198„99,Ð  p Ð96€S.Ct.€2909,€2937,€49€L.Ed.€2d€859€(1976);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€86Ð P Ð(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€issue€isÐ à0 Ðwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ÃÃ!àò òòòII.€€RECUSAL€OF€TRIAL€JUDGEóóó óˆÐ €%Ð # ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€judge€should€have€granted€a€motion€for€recusalÏsince€the€trial€judge€was€the€prosecuting€attorney€in€an€earlier€robbery€case€that€theÏstate€relied€upon€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€A€motion€for€recusal€based€uponÏthe€alleged€bias€or€prejudice€of€the€trial€judge€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€motion€for€recusalÐ  2ð-1 Ðshould€be€granted€whenever€the€judgeððs€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned.€ÏTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€10,€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3C;€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919Ð `6°15 ÐS.W.2d€573,€578€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÐ  :p59 Ðà ` àThe€issue€of€recusal€was€addressed€in€the€extraordinary€appeal€in€òòSmithóó€III.€€WeÐ ° Ðnoted€that€the€record€did€not€establish€that€the€trial€judge€acted€as€a€lawyer€in€anyÏmatter€ð ðin€controversyðð€and€further€found€no€indication€of€bias.€€òòSmithóó€III,€906€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ðat€12.€€We€found€that€the€disqualification€provisions€of€Article€6,€ðð€11€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€precluding€a€judge€from€presiding€ð ðon€the€trial€of€any€cause...€in€which€heÏmay€have€been€of€counsel...ðð€does€not€apply€to€prior€concluded€trials.€€òòIdóó.€at€12€(citingÐ `  ÐòòState€v.€Warneróó,€649€S.W.2d€580,€581€(Tenn.€1983)).€€We,€nevertheless,€concludedÐ ð@  Ðthat€the€issue€could€be€more€fully€litigated€in€the€direct€appeal€if€the€defendantÏestablishes€that€the€nature€of€the€trial€judgeððs€participation€in€the€earlier€prosecutionÏdeprived€the€defendant€of€a€fair€and€impartial€arbiter.€€Our€review€of€the€recordÏindicates€no€further€evidence€of€the€nature€of€the€trial€judgeððs€participation€in€theÏunderlying€charge.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@××!àò òòòIII.€€JURY€SELECTION€EXPERTó óóóˆÐ ` ÐÌà ` àDefendant€requested€the€expert€services€of€a€licensed€private€investigator,€twoÏ(2)€psychologists,€a€medical€doctor€and€a€jury€selection€expert.€€All€services€wereÏauthorized€except€the€jury€selection€expert.€€Defendant€challenges€this€denial.ÌÌà ` àThe€decision€of€whether€to€authorize€expert€services€lies€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€261€(Tenn.€1994),Ð 0*€%( Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€743,€130€L.Ed.2d€644€(1995);€òòState€v.€OððGuinnóó,Ð ,`'* Ð709€S.W.2d€561,€568€(Tenn.€1986)€òòcert.€denied,€óó479€U.S.€871,€107€S.Ct.€244,€93Ð ð-@), ÐL.Ed.2d€169€(1986).€€The€right€to€these€services€exists€only€upon€a€showing€of€aÏparticularized€need.€€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€904€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.Ð °1-0 ÐBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€179„80€(Tenn.€1991).€€ð ðThe€defendant€must€show€that€aÐ 3à.2 Ðsubstantial€need€exists€requiring€the€assistance€of€state€paid€supporting€services€andÏthat€his€defense€cannot€be€fully€developed€without€such€professional€assistance.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó€€510€U.S.€1064,€114Ð 09€48 ÐS.Ct.€740,€126€L.Ed.2d€702€(1994).ÌÌà ` àOur€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€there€is€no€constitutional€violation€in€the€denialÏof€a€capital€murder€defendantððs€request€for€funds€for€a€jury€selection€expert,€absent€aÏshowing€of€any€special€need.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179„80.€€There€wasÐ 0 € Ðno€showing€of€a€particularized€need€for€a€jury€selection€expert€in€the€case€at€bar.€ÏDefense€counsel€had€represented€defendant€in€both€of€his€prior€trials€and€conductedÏextensive€òòvoir€direóó€in€the€present€case.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ Ð  Ðdenying€funds€for€a€jury€selection€expert.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@yy%àò òòòIV.€€JURY€SELECTIONóóˆÐ pÀ Ðà@<<àA.€€Questionnaire€on€Life€ImprisonmentˆÌà ` àó óDefense€counsel€was€allowed€to€submit€an€extensive€questionnaire€to€potentialÐ 0€ Ðjurors€prior€to€the€jury€selection€process.€€The€trial€judge€disallowed,€however,€two€(2)Ïquestions€asking€whether€the€potential€juror€believed€that€a€person€sentenced€to€lifeÏwould€spend€the€rest€of€his€life€in€prison,€and€if€not,€how€many€years€he/she€thoughtÏsuch€a€person€would€serve.€€One€of€these€questions€also€asked€whether€this€wouldÏmake€the€potential€juror€less€likely€to€vote€for€a€life€sentence.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€scope€and€extent€of€òòvoir€direóó€is€entrusted€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judgeÐ P( #& Ðwhose€actions€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Irickóó,Ð 0*€%( Ð762€S.W.2d€121,€125€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€755€S.W.2d€41,€45€(Tenn.€1988).€Ð ,`'* ÐDefendant€contends€more€leeway€should€be€allowed€in€òòvoir€direóó€so€as€to€enable€himÐ ð-@), Ðto€intelligently€exercise€peremptory€challenges.€€Although€we€agree€with€this€generalÏstatement,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€this€instance.€€Without€the€opportunity€ofÏan€explanation€from€counsel€or€the€court€as€to€these€questions€on€the€questionnaire,Ïthis€could€lead€to€unwarranted€speculation€as€to€the€meaning€of€a€life€sentence.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÐ 09€48 Їà@&&%àò òB.€Group€Voir€Direó óˆÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€trial€judge€denied€defendantððs€request€for€individual€òòvoir€direóó€on€all€issuesÐ à Ðexcept€pre„trial€publicity€and€views€on€the€death€penalty.€€Defendant€cites€three€(3)Ïinstances€during€group€òòvoir€direóó€when€jurors€stated€they€would€be€unable€to€follow€theÐ P   Ðlaw.€€He€contends€he€was€prejudiced€by€group€òòvoir€direóó.€€All€of€these€jurors€wereÐ 0 € Ðultimately€excused€for€cause.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€authority€to€question€jurors€individually€is€permissive,€notÏmandatory.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€167€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó€116Ð ° ÐS.Ct.€137€(1994).€€It€is€only€where€there€is€a€significant€possibility€that€jurors€have€beenÏexposed€to€potentially€prejudicial€material€that€individual€òòvoir€direóó€is€mandated.€€òòStateÐ pÀ Ðv.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€262.€€Our€review€of€the€record€does€not€indicate€any€prejudiceÐ P  Ðto€the€defendant€as€a€result€of€group€òòvoir€direóó.€€The€three€(3)€instances€related€by€theÐ 0€ Ðdefendant€did€not€result€in€prejudicial€information€being€imparted€to€other€jurors.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ÞÞàò òC.€Alternating€Voir€Dire€Questioningó óˆÐ °"  Ðà ` àDefendant€complains€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€not€alternating€the€order€of€òòvoirÐ $à" Ðdireóó€between€the€state€and€the€defense.€€This€issue€was€rejected€in€òòSmithóó€II,€857Ð p&À!$ ÐS.W.2d€at€20.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€allowing€the€state€to€proceed€first€inÐ P( #& Ðòòvoir€direóó€questioning.Ð 0*€%( ÐÌà@ººàò òD.€€òòSua€Sponteóó€Dismissals€for€CauseˆÐ ð-@), Ðó óà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€by€òòsua€sponteóó€excusing€severalÐ Ð/ +. Ðprospective€jurors€for€cause.€€In€the€instances€cited€by€defendant,€each€juror€hadÏindicated€that€he€or€she€could€not€follow€the€law.€€It€is€clear€that€each€jurorððs€viewsÏwould€ð ðprevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€of€his€[her]€duties€as€a€juror€inÏaccordance€with€his€[her]€instructions€and€his€[her]€oath.ð𛀀òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.Ð P7 26 Ð412,€424,€105€S.Ct.€844,€852,€83€L.Ed.2d€841€(1985).Ð 09€48 Їà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€on€this€issue€are€entitled€to€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€since€they€involve€a€determination€of€demeanor€and€credibility,€and€theÏburden€rests€on€the€defendant€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€theÏtrial€courtððs€determinations€were€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506,€518Ð P   Ð(Tenn.€1989).€€The€responses€of€these€jurors€gave€the€judge€the€ð ðdefinite€impressionððÏthey€could€not€follow€the€law.€€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€at€425„26,€105€S.Ct.€at€853.Ð `  М̛à ` àThese€jurors€met€the€standard€for€dismissal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Hutchisonóó,€898Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€161€(Tenn.1994).€€Furthermore,€the€argument€that€defense€counsel€should€beÏallowed€to€rehabilitate€such€jurors€is€without€merit.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€65Ð à Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌœÌ›à@ÐÐàò òE.€€Failure€to€Excuse€for€Causeó óˆÐ 0€ Ðà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€judge€erred€in€failing€to€excuse€two€(2)€potentialÏjurors€who€stated€they€could€not€consider€mitigating€evidence.€€Although€both€potentialÏjurors€initially€stated€they€would€have€trouble€considering€certain€kinds€of€mitigatingÏevidence,€the€totality€of€the€questions€and€answers€reveals€that€they€could€follow€theÏlaw€in€weighing€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€trial€court€has€wideÏdiscretion€in€ruling€on€the€qualifications€of€jurors.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,Ð p&À!$ Ð248€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€failure€to€exclude€these€two€(2)€jurors€was€not€an€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.̛̜à ` àFurthermore,€one€of€the€jurors€was€excused€by€defendantððs€peremptoryÏchallenge.€€Neither€did€the€other€juror€sit€on€the€panel.€€The€defendant€exercised€onlyÏsix€(6)€peremptory€challenges€out€of€the€allowed€15€challenges.€€Therefore,€defendantÏis€entitled€to€no€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€248„49.€€€Ð 3à.2 МÌÌÐ 09€48 Їà@2 2 àñÆñò òñÆñ[V.€Failure€to€Present€Further€Mitigating€Proof€„€Deleted]ñÆñó óñÆñ›ˆÐ ° ÐÌà@. . àœò òòòVI.›€€ADMISSION€OF€WEBB€JUDGMENT€OF€CONVICTIONóóó óˆÐ pÀ М̛à ` àThe€state€introduced€the€judgment€showing€that€the€defendant€had€been€foundÏguilty€of€the€first€degree€murder€of€Webb.€€Defendant€contends€this€judgment€wasÏerroneously€relied€upon€by€the€state€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àNo€contemporaneous€objection€was€made€to€the€introduction€of€this€evidence.€ÏThe€issue€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2dÐ à Ð381,€386€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€will,€nevertheless,€address€this€issue.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àThis€was€a€re„sentencing€hearing€only€as€guilt€had€already€been€determinedÏand€affirmed€on€the€previous€appeal.€€The€state€was€entitled€to€show€to€the€jury€thatÏthe€defendant€had€in€fact€been€convicted€of€the€first€degree€murder€for€which€the€juryÏwas€to€determine€the€sentence.̛̜à ` àDefendantððs€primary€argument€is€that€the€state€was€improperly€allowed€to€useÏthis€first€degree€murder€conviction€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€in€the€same€case.€ÏThe€state€relied€upon€one€(1)€aggravating€circumstance;€namely,€the€defendant€wasÏpreviously€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€òòother€than€the€present€chargeóó,€whoseÐ 0*€%( Ðstatutory€elements€involved€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)›€(1982)€(emphasis€added).€€Obviously,€the€state€could€not€relyÏupon€the€present€conviction€as€one€of€the€previous€violent€felony€convictions.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àHowever,€our€reading€of€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€state€relied€uponÏthis€conviction€as€one€of€the€prior€violent€felonies.€€From€òòvoir€direóó€through€finalÐ p5À04 Ðargument€the€state€contended€€that€€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€of€three€(3)Ïprior€felony€offenses€involving€violence€or€the€threat€of€violence;€namely,€two€(2)Ð 09€48 Ðrobberies€and€the€first€degree€murder€of€Pierce.€€The€trial€judge€further€instructed€theÏjury€that€the€state€alleged€the€defendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€murder€inÏthe€first€degree€and€two€(2)€robberies.€€The€trial€court€was€obviously€referring€to€theÏPierce€first€degree€murder€conviction€which€had€been€made€an€exhibit.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.Ìà ` àÌà@¥¥ àœò òòòVII.›€€PRIOR€VIOLENT€FELONIESó óóóˆÐ ð@  ÐÌà ` àAs€previously€stated,€the€prosecution€relied€upon€the€prior€violent€feloniesÏaggravating€circumstance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)›€(1982),€the€statute€inÏeffect€at€the€time€of€this€crime,€defined€this€aggravating€circumstance€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€moreÌà ` àà ¸ àfelonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€which€involved€theÌà ` àà ¸ àuse€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person.ÌÌÓÓDefendant€contends€the€state€was€erroneously€allowed€to€introduce€evidence€inÏsupport€of€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€ÌœÌ›à@ÌÌ%àò òA.€€Pierce€JudgmentˆÐ  #ð! Ðó óà ` àDefendant€argues€that€the€introduction€of€his€conviction€and€redacted€Order€ofÐ €%Ð # ÐJudgment€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Pierce€was€erroneously€allowed€as€evidence.€ÏòòSmithóó€I€condemned€the€use€of€defendantððs€life€sentence€in€the€Pierce€case€as€evidenceÐ @)$' Ðin€the€Webb€case.€€755€S.W.2d€at€767„69.€€Upon€re„trial€the€state€again€failed€toÏobserve€the€warning€in€òòSmithóó€I€and€related€to€the€jury€that€the€defendant€had€receivedÐ -P(+ Ða€life€sentence€for€the€Pierce€murder.€€On€appeal€in€òòSmithóó€II€the€Court€againÐ à.0*- Ðcondemned€this€evidence€and€remanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€857€S.W.2dÏat€25.€€Both€òòSmithóó€I,€755€S.W.2d€at€769,€and€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€25,€recognizedÐ  2ð-1 Ðthe€sentencing€relevance€of€the€Pierce€òòconvictionóó€but€not€the€Pierce€òòlife€sentenceóó.€€€€Ð €4Ð/3 М̛à ` àThe€trial€judge€conducted€an€extensive€jury„out€hearing€and€redacted€the€PierceÏjudgment€omitting€any€reference€to€the€sentence.€€Upon€being€asked€if€there€were€anyÐ  :p59 Ðobjections€to€the€redactions,€defense€counsel€made€no€objection.€€The€issue€is,Ïtherefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€at€386.€Ð à ÐFurthermore,€the€jury€was€specifically€instructed€by€the€trial€judge€not€to€speculate€asÏto€the€significance€of€any€redactions.€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followed€theÏinstructions€of€the€court.€€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€211€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0 € Ð1990).€€à ¸ àÐ `  М̛à ` àThe€admission€of€the€redacted€judgment€showing€the€conviction€but€not€theÏsentence€is€in€compliance€with€the€dictates€of€òòSmithóó€I€and€òòSmithóó€II.€€This€issue€isÐ ° Ðwithout€merit.€€ÌœÌ›à@//àò òB.€€Direct€Participation€in€ViolenceˆÐ P  Ðó óà ` àDefendant€contends€that€he€did€not€directly€participate€in€the€use€of€violence€inÐ 0€ Ðthe€Pierce€murder€as€a€co„defendant€was€the€person€who€actually€fired€the€shot€thatÏkilled€Pierce.€€He€argues€that€direct€participation€is€necessary€to€trigger€this€homicideÏas€a€prior€violent€felony.€€This€issue€was€decided€contrary€to€defendantððs€argument€inÐ Ð  ÐòòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€10.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Teagueóó,€680€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.Ð °"  Ð1984).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.̛̜à@àò òC.€€Introduction€of€IndictmentˆÐ P( #& Ðó óà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€introduction€of€an€armedÐ 0*€%( Ðrobbery€indictment€since€the€judgment€of€conviction€was€only€for€simple€robbery.€€ThisÏissue€has€also€been€determined€contrary€to€defendantððs€argument€in€both€òòSmithóó€I,€755Ð ð-@), ÐS.W.2d€at€764,€and€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€20.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð Ð/ +. МÌà@àò ò[VIII.€Victim€Impact€Testimony€„€Deleted]ˆÐ 3à.2 Ðó ó›Ìà@¹¹ àœò òòòIX.›€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTóóó óˆÐ P7 26 ÐÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àDefendant€contends€that€prosecutorial€misconduct€undermined€his€rights€to€aÏfair€€trial€and€a€reliable€sentencing€determination.€€No€contemporaneous€objection€wasÏmade€to€any€of€the€alleged€improper€arguments.€€The€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727,€736€(Tenn.€1994).€€Nevertheless,€we€willÐ P   Ðaddress€these€issues.€€ÌœÌ›à@‹‹#àò òA.€€Intentional€MurderˆÐ ð@  Ðó óà ` àDefendant€contends€the€prosecutor€improperly€argued€to€the€jury€that€theÐ Ð  Ðhomicide€was€intentional€as€opposed€to€being€accidental.€€Our€review€of€the€argumentÏdoes€not€substantiate€this€claim.€€The€prosecutor€merely€related€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€murder€and€stated€the€barrel€of€the€gun€ð ðended€up€inÏher€nose,€and€thatððs€where€Leonard€Smith€pulled€the€trigger.ðð€€This€argument€was€notÏimproper.€€Ìœà@èè'àò òB.€€DeterrenceˆÐ ` Ðó óà ` àDefendant€contends€the€prosecutor€unlawfully€argued€the€need€for€deterrence.€Ð ð@ ÐAny€argument€based€upon€general€deterrence€is€improper.€€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð121,€131€(Tenn.€1988);€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€13.€€Ð °"  ÐÌà ` àThe€questioned€argument€was€actually€an€explanation€as€to€why€felony€murderÏwas€a€first€degree€murder,€the€most€serious€offense€under€our€law.€€The€prosecutorÏstated€that€without€felony€murder,€there€would€be€no€protection€for€those€victimized€byÏsomeone€like€the€defendant€and€his€co„defendant.€€We€do€not€view€this€as€aÏdeterrence€argument.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ÃÃ%àò òC.€€Webb€Convictionó óˆà È àÐ °1-0 Ðà ` àDefendant€contends€the€prosecutor€improperly€argued€that€the€presentÏconviction€was€a€prior€violent€felony€which€the€jury€could€consider€as€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€The€prosecutor€clearly€argued€to€the€jury€that€the€exhibit€representingÏthe€present€conviction€was€the€offense€for€which€the€jury€was€now€going€to€be€requiredÐ 09€48 Ðto€sentence€the€defendant€to€either€life€imprisonment€or€death.€€He€reviewed€the€otherÏthree€(3)€judgments€as€those€to€be€relied€upon€for€prior€felony€convictions.€€TheÏprosecutor€did€not€argue€that€the€present€conviction€could€be€considered€as€anÏaggravating€circumstance.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ää$àò òòòX.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óóóˆÐ ð@  ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€specificÏnon„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€Further,€the€defendant€contends€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€to€presume€that€a€sentence€to€life€imprisonmentÏmeant€the€defendant€would€spend€the€rest€of€his€life€in€prison,€whereas€a€sentence€toÏdeath€would€presume€death€by€electrocution.€€ÌÌà@{ { àò òA.€€Non„Statutory€Mitigating€CircumstancesˆÐ ð@ Ðó óà ` àDefendant€requested€that€the€trial€court€give€special€jury€instructions€listing€fourÐ Ð  Ðnon„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€trial€court€declined€to€do€so.€€Defendant€Ìcontends€this€is€reversible€error€under€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€30€(Tenn.Ð $à" Ð1996).€€ÌÌà ` àThe€present€offense€was€committed€prior€to€November€1,€1989;€therefore,Ïsentencing€for€this€capital€offense€is€governed€by€the€statutory€law€in€effect€on€the€dateÏof€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€174€(Tenn.Ð ð-@), Ð1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó€116€S.Ct.€137€(1995).€€At€the€time€of€the€commission€of€thisÐ Ð/ +. Ðoffense,€the€statute€did€not€require€that€the€jury€be€instructed€as€to€non„statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(e)(1982);€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,Ð 3à.2 Ð703€S.W.2d€106,€118€(Tenn.€1985).€€ÌÌà ` àòòState€v.€Odomóó€required€the€jury€to€be€instructed€on€non„statutory€mitigatingÐ 09€48 Ðcircumstances€when€raised€by€the€evidence€and€specifically€requested€by€either€theÏstate€or€the€defendant.€€928€S.W.2d€at€30.€€However,€òòOdomóó€was€based€upon€the€Ð à Ðrequirements€of€the€new€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1991).€€òòOdomóóÐ pÀ Ðspecifically€recognized€that€neither€the€United€States€Constitution€nor€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€required€the€submission€of€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€to€theÏjury.€€928€S.W.2d€at€30€(citing€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€€173„74).€€We,Ð `  Ðtherefore,€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€charge€non„statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances€as€was€allowable€under€the€statute€in€effect€on€the€date€of€theÏcommission€of€the€offense.€€ÌÌà@êê!àò òB.€€After„Effect€of€Verdictó óˆÐ pÀ Ðà ` àDefendant€requested€that€the€jury€be€instructed€that€they€were€to€presume€thatÏif€the€defendant€were€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment,€he€would€spend€the€rest€of€hisÏlife€in€prison;€and€that€if€he€were€sentenced€to€death,€he€would€be€executed€byÏelectrocution.€€Alternatively,€the€defendant€requested€that€the€jury€be€instructed€thatÏa€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€meant€the€defendant€would€remain€in€prison€for€theÏrest€of€his€life,€and€that€a€sentence€of€death€meant€that€the€defendant€would€beÏexecuted€by€electrocution.€€These€requests€were€rejected€by€the€trial€court.€€OurÏSupreme€Court€has€recently€ruled€that€the€jury€need€not€be€given€information€aboutÏparole€availability.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€òò€€€€óó€S.W.2d€òò€€€€òòóó€óó(1997).€€Likewise,€a€trial€court€doesÐ P( #& Ðnot€err€by€refusing€to€instruct€jurors€that€they€should€presume€that€the€sentence€theyÏassess€will€actually€be€carried€out.€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€543€(Tenn.Ð ,`'* Ð1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmithóó€II,€857€S.W.2d€at€11.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ð-@), ÐÌà@SSàò òòòXI.€€TAKING€EXHIBITS€TO€JURY€ROOMóóó óˆÐ °1-0 ÐÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€jury€to€take€the€exhibitsÏwith€them€to€the€jury€room€for€use€in€deliberations.€€More€specifically,€defendantÏcontends€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€redactions€on€the€Pierce€and€Webb€convictions.€Ð 09€48 ÐÌà ` àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€30.1€was€in€effect€at€the€time€of€trial.€€This€rule€provides€thatÏthe€jury€shall€take€to€the€jury€room€all€exhibits€that€were€received€in€evidence€unlessÏthe€Court,€for€good€cause,€determines€otherwise.€€Defendantððs€contention€that€the€juryÏwould€engage€in€undue€speculation€due€to€the€redactions€on€the€Pierce€and€WebbÏconvictions€is€without€merit.€€As€previously€noted,€the€jury€had€been€specificallyÏinstructed€not€to€speculate€concerning€these€matters.€€There€was€no€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€in€allowing€the€jury€to€take€these€exhibits€to€the€jury€room€pursuant€to€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€30.1.€€ÌÌà@¨ ¨ àòòò òXII.€€CONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€DEATH€PENALTYó óóóˆÐ pÀ Ðà ` àÌà ` àDefendant€contends€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statutes€are€unconstitutionalÏin€the€following€respects:ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ à(1)€the€statutes€fail€to€meaningfully€narrow€the€class€Ìà ` àà ¸ àof€death€eligible€defendants;ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à(2)€the€statutes€allow€the€death€penalty€to€be€imposedÌà ` àà ¸ àcapriciously€and€arbitrarily;ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à(3)€electrocution€constitutes€cruel€and€unusual€Ìà ` àà ¸ àpunishment;€andÌÌà ` àà ¸ à(4)€the€appellate€review€process€in€death€penaltyÌà ` àà ¸ àcases€is€constitutionally€inadequate.€€ÌÌÓÓÌEach€of€these€contentions€has€been€rejected€by€our€Supreme€Court.€€òòState€v.€Keenóó,Ð ,`'* Ð926€S.W.2d€at€741„44.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ì€Ìà@~~àò ò[XIII.€Proportionality€Review€„€Deleted]ó óˆÐ °1-0 ÐÌà ` àWe€find€no€reversible€error;€therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏAFFIRMED.ÌÓÓòòñËñà ` àà ¸ àà  àñËñóóñËñ[Signature€page€will€be€addñËññÃñòòñÃññËññÄñed€when€filed]ñÄññËññÃñòòñÃñÌóóÐ  :p59 Ї