WPC'n WjRƿ%*r涍* W f#19jR_y"YJ=Qkީu2ɅBm#-̭:-abz 7fKm.*rOAw\j: M9MCdʰfuq@haڿnJNYgzEɓӥ(g>sj%W艾>ۖi;, +'2/._\`ОX)ЭaRϋ:Rȶln?,e]Qg%}ч3{ŵks!Q 8I^D!k&iGZ#UzN % 0: 0U; 0 0s 0S 00 0 0 0 0 0CT 0 0h 06 0 0 0 0P 0 0@ 0  0 0 0j 0/ 0 0 0ll^ #w/43GV mXXo 0> 0D4 !!@"@"eaCGhIhIncKNESYG`` 0V cccglgggggggjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj B nHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  Ǔ--s 4L-rtyBar3|xU  )x$USUS.,      1    __:XXThe_ԀAppellantssubpoenaswereissuedonSeptember29,1998.ThepresentAttorneyGeneral,PaulG.#XZX:#:XXZSummers,was  notswornintoofficeuntilJanuary1999.#XZX:9#(:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0   * )x$USUS.,      2    __:XXThe_Ԁ JaspercaseinvolvedthedraggingdeathofafortynineyearoldAfricanAmericanmanbythreemembersofa  whitesupremacistgang.TheAfricanAmericanmanwaschainedbehindapickuptruckandpulledforthreemilesoverabumpyEast d Texasroad.Theincidentreceivednationwidepublicity.#XZX:# ! )x$USUS.,      3    __:XXDuring_Ԁjuryselection,thefollowingcolloquyoccurredbetweendefensecounselHuttonandpotentialJurorMcMillon:   0  0` xxHUTTON:Well,letsgiveyouanexample.TheresarealfamousoneinTexasacouple h ofdaysago.Arealhorriblecase.Inacaselikethat,couldyouimposethedeathpenalty  wheresomebody!` x` x    ` JURORMcMILLON:Nope. 8    ` HUTTON:"dragssomebodytodeath? P     ` JURORMcMILLON:Nope.     9 l    AfterfurthervoirdireexaminationofpotentialJurorMcMillon,thecourtexcusedJurorMcMillonforcauseandwasreplacedby  potentialJurorClothier.Thefollowingvoirdireofthisjurorensued:#XZX:# d  0  0` xx:XXZGENERALHENDERSON:ThelawsaysinTennesseeandIbelievethejudgewilltellyou X attheendthatiftheStateprovesatleastoneaggravatingcircumstancebeyondareasonable   doubt,andweprovetheaggravatingcircumstanceoutweighsanymitigatingevidenceinthe p casebeyondareasonabledoubt,andlawsaysthepunishmentshallbedeath.Ifyoufind $ t yourselfinthatsituationwhereweveproventhat#XZX:#:XXZԀaggravatingcircumstancebeyonda  ( reasonabledoubt,andweveproventhatitoutweighsanymitigatingevidencebeyonda   reasonabledoubt,wouldyoubeabletosignyournametoaverdictimposingthedeath @   penalty? D ` x` x    ` JURORCLOTHIER:IdontthinkIcould.#XZX:#:XXZ \   #XZX:#0  0` xx:XXZGENERALHENDERSON:Okay.Andagain,itsnotsomethingmostpeoplethinkabout   intheirordinarycourseoflife.Youunderstandthatundercertaincircumstancesthelaw x  saysthepunishmentshallbedeath?#XZX: #,| ` x` x   _:XXZ_   ` #XZX: #:XXZJURORCLOTHIER:_Yes._   0  0` xxGENERALHENDERSON:Ifyouwereapartofthejuryandfoundthiswasoneofthose L caseswherethelaw...saysthepunishmentshallbedeath,wouldyoubeabletofollow  thatlawandsignyournametotheverdictorwouldyoustandbyyourownpersonal d feelingsandsay,no.Icantdothat....h` x` x 0  0` xxJURORCLOTHIER:EventhoughIfeltlikethatmaybedeathwasdeservedinthatspecific  case,becauseofmyreligiousbeliefs,ImnotsurethatIcouldactuallysign!sign 4 somethingtoputsomeoneelsetodeath.8` x` x 0  0` xxGENERALHENDERSON:AndthatswhyIbringitup.Alotofpeoplesaysometimes P theythinkthattheyreinfavorofthedeathpenaltyorthattheythinkitsagoodthing,but T inTennesseewerequirealltwelvejurorstosigntheirnametoapieceofpapersentencing  thedefendanttodeathbyelectrocution.Andwerelookingfortwelvepeoplewhocando l  that....[D]oyouthinkyoucandothat? p!` x` x    ` JURORCLOTHIER:IdontknowthatIcaninthiscase....[N]o.Icannot.#XZX: # #   _:XXZ_#XZX:W# 0  0` xx:XXZGENERALHENDERSON:Isthereanythingaboutthiscase,woulditmakeanydifference @% whatcaseitwas?#XZX:#&` x` x :XXZ0  0` xxJURORCLOTHIER:Idontknow. ImeantheybroughtuptheJasper,Texas,thing.I H!( thinkthatsterrible.AndIthinkthatpersonprobablydoesdeservedeath.ButIdont !L) knowthatifIwasonthatjurythatIcouldsignit. #XZX:#"*` x` x    ` ... T$, :XXZ   ` THECOURT:Mr.Hutton,letmeletyouaddressthisjuror. 4&!. #XZX:#0  0` xx:XXZMR.HUTTON:Ms.Clothier,Idontwanttosoundlikeataperecorder...butIthinkits '"0 moreimportantthatjurorsultimatelyrealizethattheyarethejudges.Okay?TheStatenever P(#1 tellsyou,youmustimposethedeathpenalty....Unlessyoupersonallybelievethatan )T$2 _aggravator_Ԁfoundbyallofyououtweighsanymitigationthatyoufind.Themitigation  doesnthavetobeprovedbyeverybody.Anythingputforthintheevidencethatyou d believeismitigating,youhavetherightasajurortoweighagainstwhattheStatehad h provedasan_aggravator_.#XZX:I#:XXZ` x` x    ` #XZX:}#:XXZ  Ѐ0  0` xx...4` x` x #XZX:#:XXZ0  0` xx#XZX:#:XXZSomyquestionis,canyouthinkofacase,_ where_ԀliketheJaspermurder_cas e,_Ԁwhereyou   coulddothat?Whereyoucouldfind,well,thisisahorriblecrime.Itsahorriblemurder. P  TheresnothingIfindthatsmitigating.Andtherefore,Icouldgivethedeathsentence.And  T  Imean,itdoesnthavetobeeverycase.Doesnthavetobemanycases.Thequestionis,    canyouthinkofapossibility?_ Say_ԀtheJasper_cas e._ԀOryouknow,ifacloserelativewere l   murdered....#XZX:#:XXZ p ` x` x  #XZX:#:XXZ(#XZX:#:XXZEmphasisAdded).Atthistime,theStateobjectedtodefensecounselsvoirdireassertingthat [t]hatsanimpossiblehypothetical.   Ifacloserelativeweremurdered,shewouldntbeonthejury.ThecourtthenregainedcontrolofvoirdireandaskedMs.Clothier, <   Wouldyoubeopentoconsideringallformsofpunishment?JurorClothierrepliedaffirmatively.GeneralHenderson,again,posed @  thequestiontoClothierastowhethershewouldbeabletosignhername_to_Ԁaverdictimposingdeath.Clothierrepliedthatshecould   not.Thejurorwasthen_excused._ X     ` #XZX:# [ )x$USUS.,      4    __:XX Residual_Ԁdoubtevidenceisnot afactaboutthedefendantorthecircumstancesofthecrime,butisastateofmind  somewherebetweenreasonabledoubtandabsolutecertaintyofguilt.Teague,897S.W.2d253(citingStatev.Bigbee,885S.W.2d d 797,813(Tenn.1994)). Residualdoubtevidenceisadmissibleatacapitalresentencinghearingwheretheevidencerelatesdirectly h toamitigatingfactororrebutstheStatesproofastoanaggravatingfactor.Teague,897S.W.2dat253( [p]rohibitingevidence  regardingtheextenttowhichthedefendantdidordidnotparticipateinthecommissionofthecrimewoulddefeatinlargemeasure  thedefendantsrighttopresentevidencedenying,explainingorrebuttingevidenceofaggravatingcircumstances).#XZX:#  )x$USUS.,      6    _:XXTherecordshowsthatcodefendant_Casteel_Ԁreceivedatwentyyearsentenceandcodefendant_Blankenship_Ԁreceiveda  sentenceoflifeimprisonment.#XZX:q#  )x$USUS.,      5    __:XXThe_Ԁtestforadmissibilityisnotwhethertheevidencetendstoprovethedefendantdidordidnotcommitthecrime,but,  whetheritrelatestothecircumstancesofthecrimeortheaggravatingormitigatingcircumstances.SeeTeague,897S.W.2dat252.#XZX:# d )x$USUS.,      8    _:XTenn.Code_Ann._Ԁ392404(e)provides:  8  8`   Afterclosingargumentsinthesentencinghearing,thetrialjudgeshallincludeinhis h instructionsforthejurytoweighandconsideranymitigatingcircumstancesandanyofthe  statutoryaggravatingcircumstancessetforthinsubsection(i)ofthissectionwhichmaybe  raisedbytheevidenceateithertheguiltorsentencinghearing,orboth.Theseinstructions 4 andthemannerofarrivingatasentenceshallbegivenintheoralchargeandinwritingto 8 thejuryforitsdeliberations.  )x$USUS.,      11    __:XXThe_ԀBushcourtdidexpresslyrecognize,however,thenewsentencingoptionoflifewithoutthepossibilityofparole  effectiveJuly1,1993.SeeBush,942S.W.2dat503n.8.Thecourtalsoacknowledgedanotherpartof_the_Ԁlegislativeenactment d requiringthejurorsnowbeinstructed thatadefendantwhoreceivesasentenceof_imprisonment_Ԁforlifeshallnotbeeligiblefor h paroleconsiderationuntilthedefendanthasservedatleasttwentyfivefullcalendaryearsofsuchsentence.Id.Inaddition,jurors  mustbeinformedthat adefendantwhoreceivesasentenceofimprisonment_for_Ԁlifewithoutpossibilityofparoleshallneverbe  eligibleforreleaseonparole.Id._(citing_ԀTenn.Code_Ann._Ԁ3913204(e)(2)).#XZX:# ; )x$USUS.,      12    __XX#XZX#:XXZUnder_Ԁthelawexistingatthetimeofthisoffense,anaccessorybeforethefactwasdeemedaprincipaloffenderand  punishedassuch.See_Tenn._ԀCode_Ann._Ԁ39108.Thiscodesection,inadditionto_Tenn._ԀCode_Ann._Ԁ39109(definingaidersand d abettors),wassubsequentlyrepealedandreplacedbythecriminalresponsibilitystatute.See_Tenn._ԀCode_Ann._Ԁ3911402.Indeed, h  [s]ubdivision(2)[of_Tenn._ԀCode_Ann._Ԁ3911402]setsforththeconductofdefendantsformerlyknownasaccessoriesbefore  thefactandaidersandabettors.SentencingCommissionComments,_Tenn._ԀCode_Ann._Ԁ3911402.#XZX:#  )x$USUS.,      13    __:XXAdditionally,_ԀweacknowledgethattheAppellantraisedtheidenticalclaiminhisfederalhabeascorpuspetition.The  DistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennesseerejectedtheclaim,holdingthattheAppellants allegationofaMiddlebrooks d violationfailstopresentacognizablefederalclaim.Austinv.Bell,938F.Supp.1308,1326(M.D.Tenn.1996).Nonetheless,the h districtcourtproceededtoaddresstheissueonitsmerits,concluding  E Ї  [a]ccordingtothelawineffectatthetimeofJulianWatkinsmurder,anaccessorybefore  thefactwasdeemedaprincipleoffenderandpunishedassuch.See_Tenn._ԀCode_Ann._Ԁ39 d 108_(repealed_Ԁ_1989)._ԀBecausenoteverydefendantwhoisguiltyoffirstdegreemurder h pursuanttothecriminalresponsibilitystatutehasalsohiredanotherpersontocommitthe  murder,however,theaggravatingcircumstancethatPetitionersjuryfounddidnarrowthe  classofdeatheligibledefendantsinaccordancewithMiddlebrooks.Stephenson,878 4 S.W.2dat557.Therefore,theaggravatingcircumstancethatPetitionersjuryfounddid 8 narrowtheclassofdeatheligibledefendantsinaccordancewith_Middlebrooks_.     Austinv.Bell,938_F.Supp_.at1327.#XZX:# = )x$USUS.,      14    __:XXWe_Ԁnotethatfactors(i)(2),(i)(5),(i)(6),and(i)(7)donotpertaintothiscaseastheywerenotrelieduponbytheState.  Thus,anyindividualclaimwithrespecttothesefactorsiswithoutmerit.See,e.g.,Hall,958S.W.2dat715;_Brimmer_,876S.W.2d d at87.#XZX:#(.3$ !USUS.,    )x$USUS.,      7    _:XXTenn.Code_Ann.#XZX:q#:XXZ_Ԁ392407provides:  8  8`   #XZX:#:XXZAnypersontriedandconvictedasanaccessorybeforethefactofmurderinthefirstdegree h shallbepunishedbylifeimprisonmentorbydeathundertheprovisionsofTennesseeCode  Annotated,Sections392402,392404,392405and392406,andsaidtrialandsentence  shallnotdependonwhenoriftheprincipalisconvictednoronthepunishmentactually 4 imposedonsaidprincipal.#XZX:w# 9)USUS.,  _@$$" Appendix 󀄀@@( Pg.  1   b )x$USUS.,      9    _:XTenn.Code_Ann.#XZX:t#:XXZ_Ԁ392404(e)is_verbatim_Ԁ#XZXh:#:XZTenn.Code_Ann.#XZX:p#:XXZ_Ԁ392203(e).Thus,thesameanalysisisapplied.#XZX:#  )x$USUS.,      10    __:XXAlthough_ԀwefinditunnecessarytoaddresstheAppellantscontentionthatsentencesreceivedbycodefendantsarea  validnonstatutorymitigatingcircumstance,adeterminationofwhetherthecircumstanceismitigatingwouldbeacognizableissue d hadthe1989CriminalSentencingActbeenapplicable.SeegenerallyOdom,928S.W.2dat3032.Additionally,whilewetakeno h positionastothisdetermination,theAppellantiscorrectthatundertheFederalDeathPenaltyActthecircumstancethat [a]nother  defendantordefendants,equallyculpableinthecrime,willnotbepunishedbydeathisastatutorilyenumeratedmitigatingfactor.  18U.S.C.S.3592(a)(4).#XZX:# d !USUS.,  _  XX     APPENDIX   @@vv(ExcerptsfromtheCourtofCriminalAppealsDecision)#XZXO#PXXZ     ;INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  #XZXP%#PXXZATJACKSON , #XZXP#XXZJanuary9,2001Session X #XZXa# XXZSTATEOFTENNESSEEv.RICHARDHALEAUSTIN 8  #XZX#DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty h  No.B58357C.Creed_McGinley_,Judge,bydesignation X  No.W199900281CCAR3DDFiledMarch6,2001 (x   =  In1977,RichardHaleAustinwasfoundguiltybyaShelbyCountyjuryofaccessorybeforethefact H  tothefirstdegreemurderofJulianWatkins.Austinsconvictionstemmedfromhisrolein 8 commissioningthemurderofWatkins,areservedeputysheriff.Thejurysubsequentlyfoundthe ( presenceofaggravatingfactor(i)(4),murderforremuneration,andimposedasentenceofdeath.In  1997,AustinwasgrantedhabeascorpusreliefintheformofanewsentencinghearingbytheSixth  CircuitCourtofAppeals.Attheresentencinghearing,twentytwoyearsafterhisoriginaltrial,a  juryagainfoundthepresenceofthe(i)(4)aggravatingfactorandagainimposedasentenceofdeath.  ItisfromthissentencingdecisionthatAustinappeals.Inthisappeal,Austinpresentsnumerous  issuesforourreview,including(1)thedisqualificationoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt;(2) x challengestotheselectionofvariousjurors;(3)theadmissionandexclusionofevidence;(4)the h introductionofvictimimpactevidence;(5)prosecutorialmisconductduringclosingargument;(6) X theproprietyofthejuryinstructions;(7)whetherapplicationofthe(i)(4)aggravatorviolatesState H v._Middlebrooks_;(8)prejudiceduetothedelayinimposingasentenceofdeath;(9)the 8 constitutionalityofTennesseesdeathpenaltystatutes;and(10)whetherthejuryimposeda (x proportionatesentence.Afteracarefulreviewoftherecord,weaffirmtheimpositionofthesentence h ofdeath.  X    Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed. !8   :XXZ#XZXh: #DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.Riley:XZ#XZX: #and:XXZԀ#XZXh: #JohnEverett #  Williams,JJ.,joined. |$! FrankJ.Glankler,Jr.andRobertL.Hutton,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,RichardHale \&!# Austin. L'"$ PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral,AmyL. ,)|$& _Tarkington_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,andJohn *l%' CampbellandThomasHenderson,AssistantDistrictAttorneysGeneral,fortheAppellee,Stateof  +\&( Tennessee. +L')   XXZ -,)+     #XZX #   OPINION    [Deleted:FactualBackgroundandProofattheReSentencingHearing]   0   I. `  DisqualificationofTennesseeSupremeCourtand/orStateAttorneyGeneral P     Duringthependencyoftheresentencinghearing,theAppellantfiled,intheShelbyCounty 0  CriminalCourt,a MotiontoDisqualifySupremeCourtand/orAttorneyGeneralfromFuture  p  ProceedingsinthisCause.ThesubstanceofthemotionwasbasedupontheAppellantsallegation `  thattheTennesseeSupremeCourtsconstitutionaldirectivetoappointtheAttorneyGeneralresults P  inabiasedtribunalandviolatestheconstitutionallymandatedseparationofpowers.SeeTenn @  Const.Art.VI,sec.5;Tenn.CodeAnn.86101(1993).Contemporaneously,theAppellant 0  issuedsubpoenastothejusticesofthesupremecourt;CourtofCriminalAppealsJudgePaulG.   Summers;( *#  1      ׀Mr.Charles_Ferrell_,Director,AdministrativeOfficeoftheCourts;andAttorneyGeneral  Knox_Walkup_.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionandquashedthesubpoenas,findingthatthemotion  waspremature.ThiscourtdeniedtheAppellantsapplicationforextraordinaryreviewpursuantto  Tenn.R.App.P.10,holdingthatnoneofthepersonssubpoenaedhadanyinvolvementinthecase  atthetriallevel.SeeStatev.RichardHaleAustin,No.02C019811CR00341(Tenn._Crim_.App.  atJackson,Nov.9,1998).TheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedtheAppellantsapplicationfor p extraordinaryappealfromthiscourtsorder.SeeStatev.RichardHaleAustin,No.02S019811CR ` 00112(Tenn.atJackson,Feb.1,1999). P   Followingthereimpositionofthedeathpenalty,theAppellantfiledamotioninthiscourt 0 seekingleavetoissuesubpoenasandtaketestimony,or,inthealternative,toremandthecasetothe  p trialcourttotaketestimony.Inhismotion,theAppellantassertedthatthroughtheissuanceof ` subpoenashe wouldbeabletodevelopthe politicalinterconnectedness oftheTennessee P SupremeCourtandthepresentAttorneyGeneral,HonorablePaulSummers.Heallegedthatthe @ presentAttorneyGeneralisa favoritesonofthesupremecourtanda defactoemployee 0  beholdentothecourt.Essentially,theAppellantarguedthatthecircumstancessurroundingthe   appointmentofPaulSummersasAttorneyGeneralarecrucial toprovingadueprocessviolation ! astothelackofanunbiasedandimpartialSupremeCourt.ThiscourtdeniedtheAppellants "  motion,findingthatthiscourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoentertainthemotion.SeeStatev.Richard #! HaleAustin,No.W199900281CCAR3_PD_Ԁ(Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Dec.3,1999). $" Additionally,thiscourtnotedthat aclaiminvolvingdisqualificationorrecusaloftheTennessee % # SupremeCourtmaynotappropriatelybeconsideredbyeitherthetrialcourtorthiscourt.Id.(citing p&!$ Tenn.Sup.Ct.R.10,Canon3(E)(1)(a);Statev.Benson,973S.W.2d202(Tenn.1998)(allegations `'"% ofjudgesimpartialityorbiasconcerningapartyorapartyslawyermustbebroughttotheattention P(#& ofthejudge(s)sochallenged)). @)$' Ї  TheAppellantnowcomplainsofthepriorrulingsofthetrialcourtandthiscourt.  Specifically,heallegesthathadhebeenpermittedtodevelopproofatthehearingbeforethetrial  court,he   0  0` xxwouldhavebeenabletodemonstratethattheSupremeCourt p instructedMr.Knox_Walkup_,whoatthetimewasAttorneyGeneral, `  toresign,tellinghimthathewouldnotbereappointed.Furthermore, P  theproofwouldhavedemonstratedthattheCourthadpreviously @  madeaprivateagreementtoappointMr.PaulSummersasthenext 0  AttorneyGeneral,notwithstandingthefactthattheSupremeCourt  p  publiclyassertedithadapurportedlyneutralselectionprocessto `  selectanewAttorneyGeneral.Allofthesefactsdemonstratethe P  politicalinterconnectednessoftheSupremeCourtandtheAttorney @  General.0 ` x` x  !  Asdeterminedbypriorpanelsofthiscourtandbythetrialcourtinthismatter,thiscourtis  unabletoundertakereviewoftheAppellantschallenge.AlthoughtheAppellantraisesconstitutional  claimsagainstTennesseesmethodofselectingtheAttorneyGeneral,inessence,theAppellantseeks  recusalofthecurrentJusticesoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtbasedontheir favoritismtoward  currentAttorneyGeneralSummers.Indeed,hisargumentbeforethiscourt,asinhispriormotions,  appearstoassertapprovalofformerAttorneyGeneral_Walkup_.Thus,thiscourtwilltreatthisissue p asoneaddressingthesupremecourtsrecusalandnotasaconstitutionalchallengetothemethodof ` appointment. P   Therighttoafairtrialbeforeanimpartialtribunalisafundamentalconstitutionalright.See 0 Benson,973S.W.2dat205(citingChapmanv.California,386U.S.18,23n.8,87S.Ct.824,828  p n.8(1967)(internalcitationsomitted)).ArticleVI,11oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesthat `  [_n]o_ԀJudgeoftheSupremeofInferiorCourtsshallpresideonthetrialofanycauseintheeventof P whichhemaybeinterested.Benson,973S.W.2dat205.Thepurposeofthisconstitutional @ provisionistoguardagainsttheprejudgmentoftherightsoflitigantsandtoavoidsituationsin 0 whichthelitigantsmighthavecausetoconcludethatthecourthadreachedaprejudgedconclusion   becauseofinterest,partiality,orfavor.Id.(citing_Chumbley_Ԁv.PeoplesBank&TrustCo.,57 ! S.W.2d787,788(Tenn.1933)).Ajudgesdeterminationofwhetherheorshewilldisqualifyhim "  orherselffromsittinginacaseisamatterwithinthatjudgesdiscretion.Seegenerally_Kinard_Ԁv. #! _Kinard_,986S.W.2d220(Tenn.App.1998);Youngv.Young,971S.W.2d386(Tenn.App.1997); $" Statev.Connors,995S.W.2d146(Tenn.Crim.App.1995);_Wiseman_Ԁv.Spaulding,573S.W.2d % # 490,493(Tenn.App.1978)(citingStateofTenn.exrel.Phillipsv.Henderson,Warden,423S.W.2d p&!$ 489(Tenn.1968)).Thus,theAppellantsmotionmustbebroughttotheattentionofthejustices `'"% whomhehaschallenged.SeegenerallyTenn.Sup.Ct.R.10,Canon3(E)(1)(a).Cf.Holderv. P(#& TennesseeJudicialSelectionCommission,937S.W.2d877,879(Tenn.1996)(justicesdisqualified @)$' themselvespriortohearing);Piercev._Tharp_,461S.W.2d950,95354(Tenn.1970),cert.denied, 0*%( 402U.S.929,91S.Ct.1527(1971)(motiontorecusejusticesshouldhavebeenbroughtafter  +p&) certiorariwasgrantedbutbeforeargumentheard);_Chumbley_Ԁv.PeoplesBank&TrustCo.,57 ,`'* S.W.2dat787(supremecourtjusticesdeterminedproprietyofownrecusal);Hookerv._Sundquist_,  No.01A019709CH00533(Tenn.atNashville,Feb.16,1999)(motiontorecusejusticesfiledafter  applicationforpermissiontoappealfiled).    Neitherthetrialcourtnorthiscourthastheprerogativeorauthoritytoarriveatany p conclusionregardingtheallegedimpartialityorbiasofeachchallengedjustice.TheAppellanthas `  yettopresentthemotiontothesupremecourt.Heisnotyetprecludedfrompresentinghischallenge P  tothecourtandmayproperlyfilehismotionafterthecourthasacceptedreviewofhiscase. @  AlthoughnopreciseprocedureiscontemplatedbytheCanonsnorestablishedthroughcaselaw,the 0  acceptedpracticewhenseekingthedisqualificationofajudgeisthroughthefilingofamotionfor  p  recusalwithsupportingaffidavitsofprejudice.Seegenerally46Am.._Jur_.2D:XXZԀ#XZX:7#Judges194214 `  (1994&Supp.2000).Thereisnoauthorityfortheissuanceofsubpoenas,oranyotherdiscovery P  procedures,insupportofonesmotiontodisqualifyajudge.Id. @    Accordingly,forthereasonssetforthherein,wedeclinetheAppellantsinvitationto   disqualifythejusticesoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtfromparticipationinthereviewofhis  appeal.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtisthepropercourtbeforewhomtheAppellantscomplaint  shouldtobelodged.      II.  JurySelectionProcess p :   A.IndividualVoirDire P :  ImmediatelypriortotheAppellantstrial,theShelbyCountycaseofStatev.William 0 _Groseclose_ԀandRonald_Rickman_wasretried.The_Groseclose_/_Rickman_casewas,similarly,atwenty  p twoyearoldretrialofamurderforhire.Onretrial,both_Groseclose_Ԁand_Rickman_Ԁreceivedlife ` sentences.The newsentenceswerereportedbythemediaaswellasthepublicsadverseresponse P tothemorelenientsentences.Basedontheseevents,counselrequestedindividualvoirdireof @ prospectivejurorsforthepurposeofdeterminingtheimpactofanycollateralconsequences 0 stemmingfromthe_Groseclose_/_Rickman_verdicts.Thetrialcourtdeniedtherequest.TheAppellant   nowcontendsthathisrightstoanimpartialjuryanddueprocesswereviolatedasguaranteedbythe ! SixthandFourteenthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution. "    Theprevailingpracticeistoexaminejurorscollectively.Statev.Jefferson,529S.W.2d674, $" 681(Tenn.1975);Statev._Oody_,823S.W.2d554,563(Tenn.Crim.App.1991);Statev.Hopper, % # 695S.W.2d530,539(Tenn.Crim.App.1985).Indeed,eveninacapitalcase,thereisno p&!$ requirementthatdeathqualificationofacapitaljurymustbeconductedbyindividual,sequestered `'"% voirdire.Statev.Stephenson,878S.W.2d530,540(Tenn.1999)(citingStatev.Smith,857S.W.2d P(#& 1,19(Tenn.),cert.denied,510U.S.996,114S.Ct.561(1993);Statev._Porterfield_,746S.W.2d @)$' 441,447(Tenn.),cert.denied,486U.S.1017,108S.Ct.1756(1988)).Moreover,asageneralrule, 0*%( itiswithinthetrialcourtsdiscretiontoallowindividualvoirdireofprospectivejurors.Stephenson,  +p&) 878S.W.2dat540(citingStatev.Howell,868S.W.2d238,247(Tenn.1993),cert.denied,510U.S. ,`'* 1215,114S.Ct.1339(1994);Statev.Harris,839S.W.2d54,65(Tenn.1992),cert.denied,507  U.S.954,113S.Ct.1368(1993)).Theultimategoalofvoirdireistoinsurethatjurorsare  competent,unbiasedandimpartial,Statev._Cazes_,875S.W.2d253,262(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,  513U.S.1086,115S.Ct.743(1995);Howell,868S.W.2dat247,and [_i]ndividual_Ԁvoirdireis  mandatedonlywhenthereisasignificantpossibilitythatajurorhasbeenexposedtopotentially p prejudicialmaterial.Howell,868S.W.2dat247;Harris,839S.W.2dat65(citing_Porterfield_,746 `  S.W.2dat447).Themerefactthatprospectivejurorsknowsomethingaboutacaseatthetimeof P  impanelingisnotunusual,norisitsufficienttoinvokeindividualvoirdire,wherethetrialcourt @  takesthenecessarystepstoensurethattheaccusedreceivesafairtrialbyapanelofimpartialand 0  indifferentjurors.  p    TherecorddoesnotreflectthattheresentencingoftheAppellantwasgoingtobeahigh P  profilecase.Indeed,therecordrevealsthatonlyonejurorhadtoberemovedforcausebecausehe @  hadalreadyformedanopinionaboutthecase,thisjuroralsobeingthevictimscousin.Additionally, 0  althoughdefensecounselintroducedasexhibitsnewspaperarticlesregardingthe   _Groseclose_/_Rickman_resentencing,defensecounselfailedtoquestionthejurorsabouttheimpact  ofthiscaseontheAppellantsresentencing.Irregardlessofdefensecounselsfailure,themedia  attentionpaidtothe_Groseclose_/_Rickman_caseisoflittleimportregardingthenecessityofindividual  voirdireinthepresentcase.Wecannotconcludethatpretrialknowledgeofmattersarisingfrom  unrelatedcrimesmandatesindividualvoirdire.Cf.Statev.Mann,959S.W.2d503,531(Tenn.  1997)(Appendix)(jurorsdonotliveinavacuum).Anyconcernswhichmayremainregardingthe p impactofpublicityarisingfromthe_Groseclose_/_Rickman_resentencingweredispelledbythetrial ` judgesinstructiontothevenire: P  0  0` xxYoumustbaseyourverdictonlyuponthelawthatispresentedhere 0 incourt.Imeantheevidenceaspresentedhereincourtthrough  p witnessesthatareplacedunderoath,exhibits,andthelawthatI ` chargeyou.AndthereasonImtouchingonthatnowisthat[you] P cannotbase[your]decisionuponwhatyoumighthaveheard @ somewhereorwhatyoumighthavereadinthenewspapers.Andthe 0 attorneyswilltouchonthislater,butImsureeachofyou   understand,thatwecannothaveourjudicialsystemoperatebased ! uponwhatweveseenorheardoranypreconceivedideas." ` x` x  SPThejuryispresumedtofollowtheinstructionsofthecourt.Accordingly,wecannotconcludethat $" thetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingindividualvoirdire.Seegenerally_Porterfield_,746 % # S.W.2dat44647(ifnoprejudicialinformationiselicitedduringvoirdireandifthejurorsassert p&!$ theycandisregardthepretrialpublicity,thereisnoerrorindenyingindividualvoirdire).Thisissue `'"% iswithoutmerit. P(#&   @)$'      B.RehabilitationofJurors  V  TheAppellantnextcontendsthathewasdeniedanimpartialjurybecausethetrialcourt  deniedtheAppellanttheopportunitytorehabilitatepotentialjurorswhowereexcusedforcauseon  motionoftheStatebecauseoftheiroppositiontothedeathpenalty.Specifically,theAppellant p challengestheremovalforcauseofJurors_Hilliard_,_Eslahi_,_Buffaloe_,Massey,Brown,and_Corken_, `  andofAlternateJurorsBrooksandHudson. P    Tenn.R.Crim.P.24(b)givesthetrialjudgetherighttoexcuseajurorforcausewithout 0  examinationofcounsel.Statev.Hutchinson,898S.W.2d161,167(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,516  p  U.S.846,116S.Ct.137(1995)(citingStatev.Alley,776S.W.2d506(Tenn.1989);Statev. `  _Strouth_,620S.W.2d467,471(Tenn.1981),cert.denied,455U.S.983,102S.Ct.1491(1982)).In P  determiningwhenaprospectivejurormaybeexcusedforcausebecauseofhisorherviewsonthe @  deathpenalty,thestandardis whetherthejurorsviewswouldpreventorsubstantiallyimpairthe 0  performanceofhisdutiesasajurorinaccordancewithhisinstructionsandhisoath.Wainwright   v._Witt_,469U.S.412,424,105S.Ct.844,852(1985).TheSupremeCourtfurtherobservedthat   thisstandardlikewisedoesnotrequirethatajurorsbiasesbeprovedwithunmistakableclarity.  Id.However,thetrialjudgemusthavethe definiteimpressionthataprospectivejurorcouldnot  followthelaw.Hutchinson,898S.W.2dat167(citingWainwrightv._Witt_,469U.S.at42526,105  S.Ct.at853).Finally,thetrialcourtsfindingofbiasofajurorbecauseofhisorherviews  concerningthedeathpenaltyareaccordedapresumptionofcorrectness,andtheAppellantmust p establishbyconvincingevidencethatthetrialcourtsdeterminationwaserroneousbeforean ` appellatecourtwilloverturnthatdecision.Alley,776S.W.2dat518. P   Thechallengedremovalsforcausewerebasedonthefollowingresponsesbytherespective 0 jurorswhenquestionedwhethertheycould sign[their]nametoaverdictsentencingthedefendant  p todeath: ` 8  8`   JUROR_HILLIARD_:No....Idontbelievein[thedeathpenalty] @ ....Iwouldstandbymyown[personalconvictions.]0` x` x 8  8`   JUROR_ESLAHI_:No,sir....Thatscorrect,[Idontbelieveinthe ! deathpenalty]...Iwouldhavetostandbymypersonalfeelings." ` x` x 8  8`   JUROR_BUFFALOE_:No....Iwouldhavetorefuse.$"` x` x 8  8`   JURORMASSEY:Well,letmesayitlikethis,whenitcome[sic]to p&!$ thedeathpenalty,ifsomeoneelsedoessomething,ifsomebodysay `'"% that,Iminfavorofthedeathsentence.Sure.ButIcantsitthereand P(#& signmynametosomethinglikethat....No.Icantdothat.@)$'` x` x   0*%( 8  8`   JURORBROWN:No....Well,Icouldntdetermineandjustjudge  andsaythatIcould,youknow,givesomebodythedeathpenalty...  .No,Iwouldnt[considerthedeathpenalty.]` x` x  8  8`   JUROR_CORKEN_:...Illmakeastatementhere.AllmylifeI p thoughtIcould,butwhenIreallygetdowntoit,Icouldnt.Iwould `  notbeabletovoteforthedeathpenalty.Thatsthetruth....P ` x` x 8  8`   ALTERNATEJURORBROOKS:Ijust!Icouldntputanybodyto 0  death. p ` x` x 8  8`   ALTERNATEJURORHUDSON:IdontthinkIcandothat....I P  thinkIwouldhavetostandbesidemyownpersonalfeelings.@ ` x` x   Afterreviewingtheanswersoftheexcludedjurors,weconcludethattheiranswersleft no   leewayforrehabilitation._Strouth_,620S.W.2dat471;seealsoAlley,776S.W.2dat51718.Ineach  instance,eitherthecourtortheprosecutorextensivelyquestionedtheprospectivejurorsasto  whethertheycouldapplythelawtotheevidenceandconsiderallformsofpunishmentinthiscase.  Eachjurorwasconsistentinrespondingthatheorshewouldnotimposethedeathpenalty.These  jurorsmetthestandardfordismissal.SeeHutchinson,898S.W.2dat167.Thereisnoerror.      C.JasperCaseHypothetical ` l  Asadditionalerrorwithinthevoirdireprocess,theAppellantassertsthatthetrialcourterred @ byprohibitingquestioningofpotentialJurorClothierwithrespecttoarecenthomicideinJasper, 0 Texas.^ \XXZ+ *#  2      ׀#XZX \^Bn#ByusingtheJaspercaseasahypothetical,theAppellantassertsthathecouldhave  p determinedwhetherJurorClothierwouldbecompetent,unbiasedandimpartialinfollowingthelaw ` andcapableofrenderingacapitalverdictinaheinouscase.Therecorddoesnotindicatethatthetrial P courtpreventeddefensecounselfromquestioningJurorClothierregardingtheJasper,Texas,case.^ \XXZ- *#  3       @   #XZX \^՘p#Indeed,therecordrevealsthatJurorClothierconsideredtheTexascasewhenformulatingher  responsestoGeneralHenderson.Additionally,defensecounseldidincludetheJasper,Texas,  referenceinhisquestioningofthepotentialjuror.Thus,itisunclearhowthecourtdenieddefense  counselfrommakingreferencetotheJasper,Texas,hypothetical.Thisclaimiswithoutmerit.      D.ExaminationastoJurorsBeliefintheBible `  6s  Finally,withinhismanyclaimsregardingtheimpanelingofanimpartialjury,theAppellant @  claimsthat [_t]he_Ԁtrialcourtcommittederrorinrefusingtoallowquestioningofwhetherprospective 0  JurorScottsbeliefintheBiblewouldimpactherabilitytorenderafairdecision.Duringvoirdire  p  examination,potentialJurorScottstated, Well,allthedecisionsImakearebasedupontheBible, `  becauseIbelieveittobethetruth.JurorScottcontinuedtoexplain, Ibelievethatincertain P  circumstances[thedeathpenalty]iswarranted.Sheaddedthatherreligiousbeliefswouldnotaffect @  herdecisionregardingtheAppellant.Defensecounseltheninquired: 0  8  8`   ...CanyouputasideyourbeliefsintheBible,andtheBibleasyou  believeit,Imnotchallengingthat.Irespecteverybodysopinionon  that.Canyouputthatasideinthiscaseorafterhearingtheproof,do  youhaveabeliefthatwhenyougobackinthejuryroomsomehow  whatsintheBibleisgoingtoimpactthedecisionthatyougiveto  Mr.Austininthiscase?p` x` x TheStateobjectedandthecourtsustained,holding Youcanasktheirgeneralphilosophy.Ithink P theConstitutionwouldprohibityoufrominquiringintoreligiouspreferences.Undertheauthority @ ofMorganv.Illinois,504U.S.719,112S.Ct.2222(1992),theAppellantcontendsthat,sinceJuror 0 ScottstatedthateverythingshedoesisguidedbytheBible,hehadanabsoluterighttodetermine  whetherornotherreligiousbeliefsintheBiblewouldaffectherdecisioninthepresentcase.    Therighttoquestionveniremembersisnotunlimited,butmust,ofnecessity,belimitedto  inquiriesthatarematerialandrelevanttothespecificcasebeingtried.SeegenerallyLaymanv. p State,429S.W.2d832,836(Tenn.Crim.App.1968).Generally,atrialcourtmayproperlylimit `  inquiryintoaveniremembersreligiousbeliefsinthoseinstanceswherereligiousissuesare P  expresslypresentedinthecase,whereareligiousorganizationisapartytothelitigationorwhere @  theinquiryisanecessarypredicatetotheexerciseofperemptorychallenges.Seegenerally 0  Yarboroughv.UnitedStates,230F.2d56,63(4^ \XXZth#XZX \^ձ~#Cir.1956),cert.denied,351U.S.969,76S.Ct.  p  1034(1956);_Brandborg_Ԁv.Lucas,891F.Supp.352(E.D.Tex.1995);Statev.Via,704P.2d238, `  248(Ariz.1985),cert.denied,475U.S.1048,106S.Ct.1268(1986);Colemanv.UnitedStates, P  379A.2d951,954(D.C.Ct.App.1977);Rosev._Sheedy_,134S.W.2d18,19(Mo.1939);_Corey_ @  _Schriod_ԀSmithv.State,No.CR950205(Ala.Crim.App.Aug.25,2000).Indeed, 0  8  8`   Astoreligion,ourjuryselectionsystemwasnotdesignedtosubject  prospectivejurorstoacatechismoftheirtenetsoffaith,whetheritbe  Catholic,Jewish,Protestant,orMohammedan,ortoforcethemto  publiclydeclarethemselvestobeatheists.Indeed,manyajurormight  havearealdoubtastotheparticularreligiouscategoryintowhich  theycouldproperlyplacethemselves.p` x` x UnitedStatesv.Barnes,604F.2d121,141(2dCir.1979),cert.denied,446U.S.907,100S.Ct. P 1833(1980). @   Thetrialcourt,intheexerciseofitsdiscretion,controlsthequestionsthatcanbeaskedto  p keepthevoirdirewithinrelevantbounds.Inthepresentcase,weconcludethatthetrialcourt ` properlyrestrictedcounselfromdelvingintothejurorsreligiousbeliefs.Theprospectivejuror P previouslystatedthatherreligiousbeliefswouldnotaffectherdecisioninthepresentcase. @ Accordingly,anyforayintoherreligiousconvictionswasirrelevantashavingnodirectrelationship 0 tothepartiesinvolvedinthematterortheissuespresentedatresentencing.Additionally,anyerror   bythecourtinrestrictingvoirdireisnegatedbytheAppellantsuseofaperemptorystrikeagainst ! potentialjurorScottcoupledwithhisfailuretoexerciseallperemptorychallenges.Seegenerally "  Rossv.Oklahoma,487U.S.81,8387,108S.Ct.2273,22762277,_rehg_denied,487U.S.1250, #! 109S.Ct.11(1988)(defendantsuseofperemptorychallengeagainstchallengedprospectivejuror $" waivedcomplaintagainstjuroronappeal).Accordingly,theAppellantisnotentitledtoreliefasto % # thisclaim. p&!$ &    III. P(#& [Deleted:RefusaltoAdmitHearsayIntoEvidence]'P( @)$'  ( 0*%(        IV.  AdmissionofTestimonyoftheAppellantsPriorThreatsofViolence     MarilynLee_Pryor_,anemployeeatTheGoldenCueinMay1977,testifiedregarding  statementsmadebytheAppellantshortlyaftertheAprilraid.Specifically,shestatedthatthe p Appellantremarkedtoherthat [Watkins]shouldhavehisbrainsshotout.Additionally,she `  describedeventsoccurringimmediatelyafterthemurderofJulianWatkins.Ms._Pryor_Ԁrelatedthat P  shewasquestionedbyMemphisPoliceOfficersregardingtheAppellants whereaboutsandwas @  informedthatshewouldbesubpoenaedtocometocourttogiveastatement.Laterthatsameday, 0  theAppellanttoldhernottoworryaboutthesubpoena.ThefollowingmorningtheAppellant  p  arrangedforMs._Pryor_ԀtobedriventoherhomeinMississippi.Thenextday,unbeknownsttothe `  Appellant,Ms._Pryor_ԀreturnedtoMemphis,gaveherstatement,andreturnedtoMississippi. P    TheStatetheninquiredastowhethershehadspokentotheAppellantafterproviding 0  authoritieswithherstatementin1977.Overdefenseobjection,Ms._Pryor_Ԁtestifiedthat,whenshe   latertoldtheAppellantthat [she]hadtestifiedfortheState,[providedastatement],theAppellant   told[her]that[she]wasastupid,cold,bitchandthat[she]shouldhavebeenkilled,too....The  Appellantnowcomplainsthatadmissionofthistestimonywaserror.Specifically,hecontendsthat  8  8`   [_s]uch_ԀthreatswouldbeinadmissibleunderRule608(b)ofthe  TennesseeRulesofEvidencesincesuchconductisnotprobativeof p truthfulnessoruntruthfulness.Furthermore,thetestimonywashighly ` prejudicialbecauseallowingthejurytohearthatMr.Austinhad P previouslythreatenedherwouldonlyinflamethejuryandthe @ concernsubstantiallyoutweighedanyprobativevaluethetestimony 0 had. p` x` x   TheAppellantsrelianceontheRulesofEvidenceismisplaced.First,weagainacknowledge P that,atacapitalresentencinghearing, @ 8  8`   evidencemaybepresentedastoanymatterthatthecourtdeems   relevanttothepunishmentandmayinclude,butnotbelimitedto,the ! natureandcircumstancesofthecrime;thedefendantscharacter, "  background,history,andphysicalcondition;anyevidencetendingto #! establishorrebuttheaggravatingcircumstancesenumeratedin $" subsection(_i_)below;andanyevidencetendingtoestablishorrebut % # anymitigatingfactors. Anysuchevidencewhichthecourtdeems p&!$ tohaveprobativevalueontheissueofpunishmentmaybe `'"% receivedregardlessofitsadmissibilityundertherulesof P(#& evidence, providedthatthedefendantisaccordedafairopportunity @)$' torebutanyhearsaystatementssoadmitted....:XXZ0*%(` x` x    +p&) #XZX:#Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(c).Generally,evidenceofthreatsagainstwitnessesattributedtothe   accusedisprobativeasbeingeither(1)conductinconsistentwiththeaccusedsclaimofinnocence  or(2)conductconsistentwiththetheorythatthemakingofsuchthreatsevincesaconsciousnessof  guilt.SeegenerallyNeilP.Cohenetal.,TennesseeLawofEvidence4.01[13](4^ \XXZth#XZX \^ #ed.2000)  (citingStatev.Maddox,957S.W.2d547,552(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);_Tillery_Ԁv.State,565S.W.2d p 509(Tenn.Crim.App.1978)).AtthebasisoftheAppellantsmitigationtheorywasevidence `  tendingtonegatehisculpabilityfortheoffense.Thus,testimonyrelatingthattheAppellantwould P  havepreferredthatMs._Pryor_Ԁbekilled,ratherthanprovidetestimonyrelatingtoactivities @  surroundingthemurderofJulianWatkins,wasevidenceprobativetorebutthedefensetheoryof 0  mitigationandtoestablishresidualdoubtoftheAppellantsguilt.Accordingly,thetestimonywas  p  properlyadmittedandwefindnoerror. `       V. @  CrossexaminationofWitnessLevi_Haywood_ 0   ߟ  Duringtheresentencinghearing,defensecounselpresentedthetestimonyofLevi_Haywood_,  whotestifiedthathehadmetTerry_Casteel_ԀattheShelbyCountyJail._Casteel_Ԁinformed_Haywood_  thathehadbeenbeatenandcoercedintotestifyingagainsttheAppellant._Haywood_Ԁcontinuedto  statethat_Casteel_ԀregrettedhisroleasaprosecutingwitnessandassertedthattheAppellanthadnot  beeninvolvedinthemurder.Oncrossexamination,_Haywood_Ԁadmittedthathehadpreviously   omittedthat_Casteel_Ԁhadbeenbeatenbythepoliceinhisrecitationofhisdealingswith_Casteel_. p Theexaminationcontinuedtorevealthat_Casteel_Ԁwasconsideredtobea snitchbecausehehad ` implicatedtheAppellant.Thefollowingcolloquyensued: P 8  8`   GENERALCAMPBELL:Whathappenstosnitches,Mr._Haywood_?0` x` x 8  8`   _HAYWOOD_:Thatalldepends.`` x` x 8  8`   _GLANKLER_:Object.@` x` x 8  8`   COURT:Overruled. ` x` x 8  8`   GENERALCAMPBELL:Whathappenstosnitchesinthejail?" ` x` x 8  8`   _HAYWOOD_:Italldepends.IwasntasnitchandIalmostgot $" stabbedbyaplumberbecauseanofficersaidthatIkilledsomebody.% #` x` x 8  8`   GENERALCAMPBELL:Whathappenstoasnitch,Mr._Haywood_, `'"% inprison?P(#&` x` x 8  8`   _HAYWOOD_:Inprison?0*%(` x` x 8  8`   GENERALCAMPBELL:Yeah.,`'*` x` x Ї8  8`   _HAYWOOD_:Theymaygetbeatup.Theymaygetputonsegregated  lockup.Italldepends.` x` x 8  8`   GENERALCAMPBELL:Theymaygetkilled,too?` x` x 8  8`   _HAYWOOD_:Yeah,theymight.` ` x` x TheAppellantnowcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinpermittingintoevidence_Haywood_s @  testimonyabout [_w]hat_Ԁhappenstosnitchesinthejail.Specifically,hecontendsthatthetestimony 0  is speculativeandirrelevantandshouldnothavebeenadmittedintoevidence.  p    Again,atacapitalsentencinghearing, P  8  8`   evidencemaybepresentedastoanymatterthatthecourtdeems 0  relevanttothepunishmentandmayinclude,butnotbelimitedto,the   natureandcircumstancesofthecrime;thedefendantscharacter,  background,history,andphysicalcondition;anyevidencetendingto  establishorrebuttheaggravatingcircumstancesenumeratedin  subsection(_i_)below;and anyevidencetendingtoestablishor  rebutanymitigatingfactor s. Anysuchevidencewhichthecourt  deemstohaveprobativevalueontheissueofpunishmentmaybe p receivedregardlessofitsadmissibilityundertherulesof ` evidence, providedthatthedefendantisaccordedafairopportunity P torebutanyhearsaystatementssoadmitted.... :XXZ@` x` x #XZXh:#Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(c).Underthesecriteria,theStatemayproperlyintroducereliable 4 testimonyprobativetorebutanymitigatingcircumstanceadvancedbythedefense.Inthepresent $ case,theAppellantsoughttointroduce residualdoubtevidencetorebutthemurderfor  remunerationaggravatingcircumstance./ *#  4      ׀Specifically,hepresentedthetestimonyofLevi_Haywood_  torelatethatTerry_Casteel_ԀhadonlyimplicatedtheAppellantinthemurderbecause_Casteel_Ԁwas  physicallyintimidatedbythepolice.TheStatethensoughttoexplain_Casteel_smotiveinexplaining   to_Haywood_ԀandotherinmatesastowhyhetestifiedagainsttheAppellant.Evidenceregardingthe ! treatmentof snitcheswas,therefore,probativeinexplaining_Casteel_sdifferingjustificationofhis t"  testimonyto_Haywood_.1 *#  5      ׀Accordingly,wefindnoerrorinpermittingtheintroductionofsuch d#! evidence.Thisclaimiswithoutmerit.:XXZ T$" #XZX:ŷ#    VI.  FifthAmendmentRightsofJackCharles_Blankenship_   +  Priortotheresentencinghearing,defensecounselobtainedawritofhabeascorpusad p testificandumtobringJackCharles_Blankenship_ԀtoMemphistotestify.UponarrivinginMemphis, `  _Blankenship_ԀconsultedwithhisattorneyandwasadvisedtoasserthisFifthAmendmentprivilege P  againstselfincrimination.Attheresentencinghearing,_Blankenship_ԀinvokedhisFifthAmendment @  privilegeuponbeingcalledtothestand.Thetrialcourtfoundthat_Blankenship_sFifthAmendment 0  privilegehadexpiredinthepresentcasebecausehisconvictionforhiscriminalinvolvementin  p  Watkinsmurderwasfinalandhewasnotsubjecttofurtherprosecution.Assuch,thecourtordered `  _Blankenship_Ԁtotestify._Blankenship_Ԁproceededtotestify,corroboratingthetestimonyofTerry P  _Casteel_ԀandrecantinghisprevioustestimonywhichexculpatedtheAppellant.TheAppellantnow @  contendsthatthecourtunconstitutionallycompelled_Blankenship_stestimony. 0    AcriminaldefendantlacksstandingtocomplainoftheviolationofathirdpartysFifth  Amendmentprivilegeagainstselfincrimination.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv._Tribunella_,749F.2d104,  106n.1(2dCir.1984);UnitedStatesv.Minor,398F.2d511,513(2dCir.1968);Peoplev.Jenkins,  997P.2d1044,1089(Cal.2000),petitionforwritofcert.filed,(Oct.24,2000);Peoplev.Homes,  654N.E.2d662,668(Ill.App.1995).TheFifthAmendmentprivilegeispersonalandcannotbe  vicariouslyasserted.Rogersv.UnitedStates,340U.S.367,371,71S.Ct.438,_rehg_denied,341 p U.S.912,71S.Ct.619(1951).TheAppellantwasnotcompelledtotestify;_Blankenship_Ԁwas.Only ` _Blankenship_,andnottheAppellant,mayassertaviolationoftheprivilege.Whateverthemeritof P theAppellantsclaimmaybe,theAppellanthasnostandingtoasserttheallegedviolationofthe @ FifthAmendmentprivilegeof_Blankenship_.Accordingly,weneednotaddressthemeritsofthe 0 Appellantscomplaint.  p &    VII. P [Deleted:IntroductionofVictimImpactEvidence] @  +'     VIII.   ProsecutorialMisconductduringClosingArgument !    Inhisnextargument,theAppellantcontendsthattheStateviolatedhisrighttoafairtrialby #! arguingmattersnotinevidenceduringclosingargument.Specifically,heassertsthattheState: $" 8  8`   craftedablatantlyfalsemotiveforAustintokillWatkins,byarguing p&!$ tothejurythat[theAppellant]wouldhavelosthisamusementlicense `'"% andthuscouldnolongeroperateTheGoldenCue.However,[the P(#& Appellant]neverheldanamusementlicense,andtherewasput @)$' forwardnoproofbytheStatethatheeverdidhavesuchalicense.0*%(` x` x    +p&)   AsassertedbytheState,theAppellantfailedtomakeacontemporaneousobjectiontothe   prosecutorsstatementsduringclosingargument.SeeStatev.Green,947S.W.2d186(Tenn.Crim.  App.1997);Statev.Little,854S.W.2d643,651(Tenn.Crim.App.1992)(failuretoobjectto  prosecutor'sallegedmisconductduringclosingargumentwaiveslatercomplaint).Thefailureto  objecttotheprosecutorsstatementsresultsinwaiveronappeal.SeegenerallyStatev.Thornton, p 10S.W.3d229,234(Tenn.Crim.App.1999)(citingTenn.R.App.P.36(a)).Becausetheissuewas `  procedurallydefaulted,wedeclinereviewofitsmerits. P       IX. 0  RefusaltoInstructJuryastoSentencesReceivedbyCoDefendants  p     TheAppellantarguesthatnumerousconstitutionalrightswereviolatedbyvirtueofthetrial P  courtsfailuretoinstructthejurytoconsiderthesentencesreceivedbycodefendantsTerry_Casteel_ @  andJackCharles_Blankenship_Ԁasnonstatutorymitigatingcircumstances.0 *#  6      ^ \XXZԀ#XZX \^#Thetrialcourtrefusedto 0  soinstructthejury,finding:   8  8`   ...[_U]nder_Ԁthestatutorydefinitionofaccessorybeforethefact,it  says,thesentencemaybe,andImparaphrasing,Idontevenhave  itinfrontofme,maybelifeordeath.Andthenthatextralinefollows  that.Itsays,regardlessofpunishmentfortheprincipalorother  peopleinvolved.Andasaresultofthatstatutoryscheme,Ifeltits p inappropriatetobringthatup.Andasaresult,Ididnotputitin ` there.[: *#  7      ׀]P` x` x Concedingthatthestatuteprovidesthatanaccessorymayreceiveamoreseveresentencethanthe 0 principal,theAppellantmaintainsthatthisfactdoesnotprecludeconsiderationofthepunishments  p receivedbycodefendantsasamitigatingfactorindeterminingtheappropriatesentenceforan ` accessorybeforethefact.Insupportofhispositionthatsentencesreceivedbyequallyculpable P defendantsbeinstructedasamitigatingcircumstance,theAppellantreliesuponoursupremecourts @ opinioninStatev._Odom_,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996),andthefactthatthefederalcapital 0 sentencingprovisionsexpresslyprovidethatthenondeathsentencesreceivedbyequallyculpable   defendantsmaybeconsideredasamitigatingfactor.See18_U.S.C.S._Ԁ3592(a)(4)(Law.Coop. ! 2000Supp.). "   #!   InStatev._Odom_,oursupremecourtheldthat,althoughTenn.CodeAnn.392  204(e)(1)(1991),requirestrialcourts toinstructthejuryonanymitigatingcircumstancesraisedby  theevidenceateithertheguiltorsentencinghearing,orboth, neithertheUnitedStates  ConstitutionnortheTennesseeConstitutionrequiresthetrialjudgetoreadorsubmitnonstatutory  mitigatingcircumstancestothejury.Id.at2830.Thetrialcourt,additionally,notedthatthelaw p priorto1989,Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(e)(1982),didnotrequirethatnonstatutorymitigating `  factorsbeexpresslyinstructed._Odom_,928S.W.2dat29(citationsomitted);seealsoSmith,993 P  S.W.2dat32,(Appendix)(_Odom_sinterpretationofTenn.CodeAnn.392204(e)(1)not @  applicabletosentenceimposedunderpriorsentencinglaw). 0    BecausetheoffenseforwhichtheAppellantwasconvictedwascommittedin1977,the `  supremecourtsinterpretationofTenn.CodeAnn.392204(e)(1),involvingpost1989capital P  convictions,hasnoapplicationtothiscase.Thesentencinglawineffectatthetimeoftheoffense, @  i.e.,Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(e),didnotrequirethatthejurybeinstructedastononstatutory 0  mitigatingcircumstances.3 *#  8      ׀SeeSmith,993S.W.2dat32(392203(e)doesnotrequireinstruction   onnonstatutorymitigatingcircumstances).<0 *#  9      ׀Accordingly,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnot  errinrefusingtoinstructthejuryastothesentencesreceivedbytheAppellantscodefendantsas  suchaninstructionwasneitherstatutorilynorconstitutionallyrequired.C *#  10            X.  RefusaltoInstructJuryastoSentenceofLifeWithoutParole p  =  TheAppellantassertsthathewasentitledtohavethejuryinstructedastothesentencing P optionoflifewithoutthepossibilityofparole.In1993,theGeneralAssemblyamendedthecapital @ sentencingstatutestoprovideforthesentenceoflifeimprisonmentwithoutthepossibilityofparole. 0 Statev.Keen,31S.W.3d196,213(Tenn.2000),petitionforcert.filed,(Dec.5,2000)(citing1993  p Tenn.Pub.Actsch.473).Itiswellestablishedthatpriorto1993theonlypunishmentsavailablefor ` apersonconvictedoffirstdegreemurderwerelifeimprisonmentanddeath.SeeKeen,31S.W.3d P at213;Statev._Cauthern_,967S.W.2d726,735(Tenn.1998),cert.denied,525U.S.967,119S.Ct.  414(1998);seealsoStatev.BruceC._Reliford_,No.W199900826CCAR3CD(Tenn.Crim.App.  atJackson,Oct.2,2000).AlthoughtheAppellantsoffensewascommittedpriortotheeffectivedate  oftheact,heassertsthatheisentitledtoaninstructiononlifewithoutthepossibilityofparole  becausehissentencinghearingonremandoccurredaftertheactwaspassed.Specifically,insupport p ofhisposition,theAppellantadvancesthefollowingarguments: `  8  8`   (1)Asentencingschemethatdoesnotofferasentenceoflifewithout @  thepossibilityofparolecannotbereliedupontoreflectaproperly 0  guidedandreasoneddecisionthatdeathisthemostappropriate  p  punishment;` ` x` x 8  8`   (2)Asentencingschemethatdoesnotpermitconsiderationoflife @  withoutthepossibilityofparoleinfringesuponevolvingstandardsof 0  decencyprotectedbythefederalandstateconstitutions; ` x` x 8  8`   (3)Adeathsentencereturnedunderasentencingschemewhich  requiresjuriestosentencedefendantstothedeathpenaltyinorderto  incapacitatethedefendantsfromcommittingfurthercrimes  constitutesexcessivepunishment;and` x` x 8  8`   (4)Refusaltopermitconsiderationoflifewithoutthepossibilityof ` paroleviolatesrightstoequalprotectionsofthelaws.P` x` x WhilewerespecttheAppellantsargumentsinsupportofthisclaim,wenotethattheidentical 0 argumentswererecentlyrejectedbyoursupremecourtinStatev.Keen,31S.W.3dat213219.  p Accordingly,asweareboundbytheprecedentestablishedbythesupremecourt,wefindit ` unnecessarytorevisittheargumentsrecentlydismissedbythecourt.Thisclaimiswithoutmerit. P      XI. 0 RefusaltoInstructJuryRegardingParoleEligibility    w  Duringjurydeliberation,thejurysubmittedaquestiontothecourtasking howlongisalife "  sentenceandifthereisanypossibilityofparole.AfterconsultingwithboththeStateanddefense #! counsel,thetrialjudgeexplainedtothejurythat, onceajurystartsitsdeliberations,thetrialjudge $" isextremelylimitedonhisinvolvement....Thejudgecontinuedthathewas notatlibertyto % # respondtotheirquestionandthatthelawtobeappliedhadalreadybeencharged.Thejuryresumed p&!$ deliberationsat9:35a.m.andreturnedaverdictofdeathat1:50p.m.. `'"%   TheAppellantnowcomplainsthat,undertheauthorityofSimmonsv.SouthCarolina,512 @)$' U.S.154,114S.Ct.2187(1994),thetrialcourtsfailuretoanswerthejurysquestionviolated 0*%(  virtuallyeveryconstitutionalrightbelongingtoacapitaldefendant.AsadvancedbytheState,our  +p&) supremecourtreviewedandrejectedthisverysameargumentunderalmostidenticalcircumstances  inStatev.Bush,942S.W.2d489,503(Tenn.),cert.denied,522U.S.953,118S.Ct.376(1997).     InStatev.Bush,thejurysentanotetothecourtfifteenminutesafterdeliberationsbegan  asking, Howmanyyearsdoesthe[defendant]serveifhegetslifeimprisonmentandhowlong p beforeparole?Thetrialcourtinstructedthejury, paroleeligibilityisnotanissueinacapitalcase `  ....Inapprovingthetrialcourtsresponse,oursupremecourtnotedthat,inSimmons,theSupreme P  Courtheldthatdueprocessonlyrequiredaninstructionthatthedefendantisparoleineligible where @  thedefendantsfuturedangerousnessisatissue,andstatelawprohibitsthedefendantsreleaseon 0  parole.Bush,942S.W.2dat503(citingSimmons,512U.S.at155156,114S.Ct.at2190).The  p  SupremeCourtaddedthattheCourtwouldnot secondguesstherefusalofaStatetoallowproof, `  instruction,orargumenttothejuryontheavailabilityofparole [_i]f_Ԁparoleisanoptionfora P  defendantsentencedtolifeimprisonment.Bush,942S.W.2dat503(citingSimmons,512U.S.at @  168169,114S.Ct.at2196;seealsoSimmons,512U.S.at175177,114S.Ct.at2200(OConnor, 0  J.,concurring)(parentheticalomitted)).UnderthereasoningprovidedinSimmons,oursupreme   courtheldthat [_s]ince_ԀTennesseeisastateinwhichdefendantssentencedtolifeimprisonmentare  eligibleforparole,Simmonsdoesnotrequirethatthejurybegiveninformationaboutparole  availability.Bush,942S.W.2dat503.Thispositionissupportedbyotherdecisionsofthecourt   holdingthattheaftereffectofajurysverdict,suchasparoleavailability,isnotaproperinstruction  orconsiderationforthejuryduringdeliberations.4 *#  11      ׀Bush,942S.W.2dat503(citing_Caughron_,855  S.W.2dat543;Statev.Payne,791S.W.2d10,21(Tenn.1990),_affd_by,501U.S.808,111S.Ct. p 2597(1991)(internalfootnoteomitted)).Thisissueiswithoutmerit. `     XII. @ Whether_Aggravator_Ԁ(_i_)(4)ViolatesStatev._Middlebrooks_ 0    TheAppellantwasfoundguiltyofaccessorybeforethefacttofirstdegreemurder.An `  accessorybeforethefactis [_a]ny_Ԁpersonwhoshallfeloniouslymove,incite,counsel,hire, P command,orprocureanyotherpersontocommitafelony....Tenn.CodeAnn.39107.In @ imposingasentenceofdeathinthiscase,thejuryfoundthat [_t]he_Ԁdefendantcommittedthemurder 0 forremunerationorthepromiseofremuneration,oremployedanothertocommitthemurderfor   remunerationorthepromiseofremuneration.Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(i)(4).TheAppellantnow ! contendsthattheevidenceusedtoconvicthimasanaccessorybeforethefacttofirstdegreemurder "  duplicatedthatusedtosupporttheaggravatingfactorin:XXZԀ#XZXh:j#Tenn.CodeAnn.392404(i)(4) #! (employinganothertocommitthemurderforthepromiseofremuneration).RelyinguponStatev. $" _Middlebrooks_,840S.W.2d317(Tenn.1992),theAppellantassertsthattheduplicationoffactsto % # supportboththeconvictionandsentencedoesnotachievetheconstitutionallyrequired narrowing p&!$ ofdeatheligibledefendants.See_Zant_Ԁv.Stephens,462U.S.862,877,103S.Ct.2733(1983)  (aggravatingfactormust genuinelynarrowtheclassofpersonseligibleforthedeathpenaltyand  mustreasonablyjustifytheimpositionofamoreseveresentenceonthedefendantcomparedto  othersfoundguiltyofmurder).    InStatev._Middlebrooks_,840S.W.2dat346,oursupremecourtheldthat,whenadefendant `  isconvictedoffelonymurder,theaggravatingcircumstancesetoutin:XXZԀ#XZXh:"#Tenn.CodeAnn.3913 P  204(i)(7)(murdercommittedwhilecommittingcertainenumeratedfelonies)doesnotnarrowthe @  classofdeatheligiblemurdererssufficientlyundertheEighthAmendmenttotheUnitedStates 0  ConstitutionandArticleI,16oftheTennesseeConstitution"becauseitduplicatestheelements  p  oftheoffense."SeeStatev.Hall,958S.W.2d679,692(Tenn.1997),cert.denied,524U.S.941,118 `  S.Ct.2348(1998).Thecourtreasonedthatallparticipantsinafelonymurder,regardlessofthe P  degreeofculpability,enterthesentencingstageofthetrialwithatleastoneaggravatingfactor @  againstthembecausetheaggravatingfactorduplicatestheelementsoftheoffense._Middlebrooks_, 0  840S.W.2dat343(quotationomitted).      `     h      p       TheAppellantappliesthissameanalysistothe(i)(4)aggravatingfactorwhentheconviction  isbasedupon accessorybeforethefact.TheStateacknowledgesthatthiscourt,intheAppellants  fourthpetitionforpostconvictionrelief,rejectedthisidenticalissueandarguesthat,althoughnot  the lawofthecase,thiscourtshouldapplythesameanalysisinthisdirectappeal.SeeRichardH.  Austinv.State,No.02C019310CR00238(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,May3,1995),perm.to p appealdenied,(Tenn.Nov.6,1995).TheAppellantrespondsthatthiscourtmisappliedthesupreme ` courtsdecisioninStatev.StephensonindeterminingthattheAppellanthadno_Middlebrooks_issue. P Specifically,heassertsthattheStephensonanalysisisnotgermanetothepresentissuebecausethe @ Stephensoncourtbaseditsdecisiononthecriminalresponsibilitystatute,adifferentunderlying 0 statutethanthiscourtisfacedwithtoday.Afterreexaminationoftheissue,weremainconvinced  p thatourpreviousrationaleiscorrectandthesameanalysisapplies. `   InStatev.Stephenson,878S.W.2dat557,thedefendantwasconvictedoffirstdegree @ murderbyemployinganothertokillhiswife.Stephensonsconvictionwasbasedonhisroleinthe 0 killingunderthecriminalresponsibilitystatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.3911402(2)(1991),andthe   deathsentencewasbasedsolelyontheaggravatingfactorinvolvingmurderforremunerationor ! promiseofremuneration.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(4)(1991).Thedefendantclaimedthat "  theconstitutionallyrequirednarrowingofdeatheligibleoffenderswasnotachievedbecauseofthe #! duplicationoffactstosupporttheconvictionandthedeathsentence.Oursupremecourtdisagreed, $" notingthatthedefendantstoodconvictedoffirstdegreepremeditatedmurder,whichisdefinedas % # an intentional,premeditatedanddeliberatekillingofanother.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913 p&!$ 202(a)(1)(1991).Theconvictionwasbasedonthecriminalresponsibilitystatute,Tenn.CodeAnn. `'"% 3911402(2),whichprovides: P(#& 8  8`   Apersoniscriminallyresponsibleforanoffensecommittedbythe 0*%( conductofanotherif: +p&)` x` x  ,`'* 8  8`   Actingwithintenttopromoteorassistthecommissionoftheoffense,  ortobenefitintheproceedsorresultsoftheoffense,theperson  solicits,directs,aids,orattemptstoaidanotherpersontocommitthe  offense....` x` x Thesupremecourtconcludedthat thestatutoryaggravatingcircumstancefoundbythejuryisa `  propernarrowingdevicebecauseitprovidesaprincipledwayinwhichtodistinguishthecasesin P  whichthedeathpenaltyisimposedfromthemanycasesinwhichitisnot....Stephenson,878 @  S.W.2dat557.Thecourtreasoned: 0  8  8`   Theaggravatingcircumstancethedefendantemployedanotherto `  committhemurderforremunerationorthepromiseofremuneration P  doesnotduplicatetheelementsoftheoffense,evenincorporatingthe @  criminalresponsibilitystatutes.Constitutionalnarrowingis 0  accomplishedbecauseatthesentencinghearing,theStatewas   requiredtoprovethatthisdefendanthiredsomeonetokillhiswife,  orpromisedtopaysomeonetokillhiswife.Obviously,notevery  defendantwhoisguiltyoffirstdegreemurderpursuanttothe  criminalresponsibilitystatuteshasalsohiredanotherorpromised  topayanothertocommitthemurder.Thus,theaggravating  circumstancefoundbythejuryinthiscasenarrowstheclassofdeath p eligibledefendantsasrequiredbyStatev._Middlebrooks_,supra.`` x` x Id.at557(emphasisadded). @   AsnotedinthiscourtsdecisioninRichardH.Austinv.State,No.02C019310CR00238,  p theAppellantsconvictionwaspremisedonatheoryofcriminalresponsibilityfortheconductof ` another,althoughnotexpresslydesignatedassuchatthetime.5 *#  12      ׀Specifically,theAppellantwas P convictedofaccessorybeforethefacttofirstdegreemurder.Anaccessorybeforethefactis [_a]ny_ @ personwhoshallfeloniouslymove,incite,counsel,hire,command,orprocureanyotherpersonto 0 commitafelony....Tenn.CodeAnn.39107.ApplyingtheStephensonrationale,notevery   personwhoisconvictedasanaccessorybeforethefacttofirstdegreemurderhasalsohiredanother ! orpromisedtopayanothertocommitthemurder.6 *#  13      ׀Accordingly,asinStephenson,weconclude "  thattheaggravatingfactorenumeratedinTenn.CodeAnn:XXZ.#XZX:x"#392404(i)(4)achievesthe  constitutionallyrequirednarrowingofdeatheligibledefendantsevenwheretheconvictionisbased  onthedefendantsroleasanaccessorybeforethefact.SeeOwensv.State,13S.W.3d742,764765  (Tenn.Crim.App.1999),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.),cert.denied,!U.S.!,121S.Ct.116  (2000).Forthesereasons,theAppellantisdeniedreliefonthisclaim. p     XIII. P  ProprietyofCourtsRefusaltoImposeLifeSentenceDuetoTwentyyearDelay @   $  TheAppellantassertsthatthetwentyplusyearsdelayinimposingthedeathpenaltyhas  p  evisceratedanyjustificationforcarryingoutthesentenceofdeath;therefore,executionofthis `  sentenceatthispointwouldconstitutecruelandunusualpunishmentundertheEighthAmendment P  totheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,Section16oftheTennesseeConstitution.TheUnited @  StatesSupremeCourtdeclinedtoreviewasimilarissueinLackeyv.Texas,514U.S.1045,115S. 0  Ct.1421(1995),petitionfor_rehg_denied,520U.S.1183,117S.Ct.1465(1997)(whetherexecuting   aprisonerwhohasalreadyspentseventeenyearsondeathrowviolatestheEightAmendments  prohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishment).Notwithstanding,JusticeStevens,joinedby  Justice_Breyer_,filedamemorandum,emphasizingthatadenialofcertiorariwasnotarulingonits  meritsandnotinghisbeliefthatthisconcernshouldbefurtherexplored.Lackeyv.Texas,514U.S.  at1045,115S.Ct.at1421.Specifically,JusticeStevensrecognizedthatthedelayintheexecution  ofjudgmentsimposingthedeathpenaltyfrustratesthetwoprincipalsocialpurposesofthepenalty, p i.e.,retributionanddeterrence.Lackey,514U.S.at1045,115S.Ct.at1421(Stevens,J.,respecting ` denialofcertiorari).Insostating,JusticeStevensinvitedthestateandfederalcourtsto serveas P laboratoriesinwhichtheissue[may]receivefurtherstudybeforeitisaddressedbythisCourt.Id. @ at1045,115S.Ct.at1421(citing_McCray_Ԁv.NewYork,461U.S.962,963103S.Ct.2438,2439 0 (1983)).  p   TheissuewasagainpresentedtotheCourtinKnightv.Florida,528U.S.990,120S.Ct.459 P (1999).JusticeThomas,writingseparatelyinthecourtsdenialofcertiorari,opined: @ 8  8`   ...IamunawareofanysupportintheAmericanconstitutional   traditionorinthisCourtsprecedentforthepropositionthata ! defendantcanavailhimselfofthepanoplyofappellateandcollateral "  proceduresandthencomplainwhenhisexecutionisdelayed.  Consistencywouldseemtodemandthatthosewhoacceptourdeath  penaltyjurisprudenceasagivenalsoacceptthelengthydelay  betweensentencingandexecutionasanecessaryconsequence....It  isincongruoustoarmcapitaldefendantswithanarsenalof p  constitutionalclaimswithwhichtheymaydelaytheirexecutions, `  andsimultaneouslytocomplainwhenexecutionsareinevitably P  delayed.@ ` x` x 8  8`   ...0 ` x` x Knightv.Florida,_U.S.at__,120S.Ct.at45960(Thomas,J.,concurringindenialofcertiorari) `  (citationsomitted).JusticeThomas,notably,revisitedJusticeStevenspreviousinvitationforthe P  lowercourtstoserveas laboratoriesinwhichtheviabilityofthisclaimcouldreceivefurtherstudy. @  Heemphasizedthat,sinceJusticeStevensinvitation,thelowercourtshave resoundinglyrejected 0  theclaimas_meritless_.Id.at461,120S.Ct.at461(citingPeoplev.Frye,959P.2d183,262(Cal.   1998),cert.denied,526U.S.1023,119S.Ct.1262(1999);Peoplev._Massie_,967P.2d29,4445  (Cal.1998),cert.denied,526U.S.1113,119S.Ct.1759(1999);ExparteBush,695So.2d138,140  (Ala.1997);Statev._Schackart_,947P.2d315,336(Ariz.1997),cert.denied,525U.S.862,119S.  Ct.149(1998);Bellv.State,938S.W.2d35,53(Tex.Crim.App.1996),cert.denied,522U.S.827,  118S.Ct.90(1997);Statev.Smith,931P.2d1272,128788(Mont.1996),cert.denied,522U.S.  965,118S.Ct.410(1997);Whitev.Johnson,79F.3d432,43940(C.A.5),cert.denied,519U.S. p 911,117S.Ct.275(1996);Staffordv.Ward,59F.3d1025,1028(C.A.101995)).Apanelofthis ` courtsimilarlydismissedtheclaimwithoutreview.SeeStatev.CharlesEddieHartman,No.M1998 P 00803CCAR3DD(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,May17,2000). @   AfterconsiderationoftheAppellantsclaim,weperceivenoconstitutionalviolationunder  p eitherthefederalortheTennesseeconstitution.Weremainunconvincedthatneitherthisstates ` capitalsentencinglawnortheaccompanyingsubsequentappellatereviewofacapitalconvictionwas P enactedwithapurposetoprolongincarcerationinordertotortureinmatespriortotheirexecution. @ Asinmostcases,thedelayintheinstantcasewascausedinlargepartbynumerousappealsand 0 collateralattackslodgedbytheAppellant.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.        XIV. "  ConstitutionalChallengestoDeathPenalty #!  <0   (#(#   TheAppellantraisesnumerouschallengestotheconstitutionalityofTennesseesdeath % # penaltyprovisions.ThechallengesraisedbytheAppellanthavebeenpreviouslyexaminedand p&!$ rejectedbycaselawdecision.ThebodyoflawupholdingtheconstitutionalityofTennesseesdeath `'"% penaltyprovisions,specifically,thatrejectingtheclaimscurrentlyraisedbytheAppellant,isrecited P(#& asfollows: @)$'   1.Tennesseesdeathpenaltystatutesmeaningfullynarrowtheclass  +p&) ofdeatheligibledefendants;specifically,thestatutoryaggravating ,`'* circumstancessetforthinTenn.CodeAnn392203(i)(2),(i)(5),  (i)(6),and(i)(7)providesuchameaningfulbasisfornarrowingthe  populationofthoseconvictedoffirstdegreemurdertothoseeligible  forthesentenceofdeath._7 *#  14      _ԀSeeStatev._Vann_,976S.W.2d93,117  118(Tenn.1998)(Appendix),cert.denied,526U.S.1071,119S.Ct. p 1467(1999);Keen,926S.W.2dat742. `   ? ?  2.Thedeathsentenceisnotcapriciouslyandarbitrarilyimposedin @  that 0  0 (a)Theprosecutorisnotvestedwithunlimiteddiscretionas `  towhetherornottoseekthedeathpenalty.SeeStatev. P  _Hines_,919S.W.2d573,582(Tenn.1995),cert.denied,519 @  U.S.847,117S.Ct.133(1996).0  x x  8C *C 0  0` xx0 ` x` x(b)Thedeathpenaltyisnotimposedinadiscriminatory  mannerbased h uponeconomics,race,geography,andgender.  See_Hines_,919S.W.2dat582;_Brimmer_,876S.W.2dat87;  _Cazes_,875S.W.2dat268;Smith,857S.W.2dat23. x x  PE 0  0` xx0 ` x` x(c)Standardsorproceduresforjuryselectionexisttoinsure p openinquiryconcerningpotentiallyprejudicialsubject ` matter.See_Caughron_,855S.W.2dat542.P x x  gG 0  0` xx0 ` x` x(d)Thedeathqualificationprocessdoesnotskewthemake 0 upofthejuryanddoesnotresultinarelativelyprosecution  p proneguiltypronejury.SeeStatev._Teel_,793S.W.2d236, ` 246(Tenn.),cert.denied,498U.S.1007,111S.Ct.571 P (1990);Statev._Harbison_,704S.W.2d314,318(Tenn.),cert. @ denied,470U.S.1153,106S.Ct.2261(1986).0 x x 0  0` xx0 ` x` x(e)Defendantsarenotunconstitutionallyprohibitedfrom ! addressingjurorspopularmisconceptionsaboutmatters "  relevanttosentencing,i.e.,thecostofincarcerationversus #! costofexecution,deterrence,methodofexecution.See $" _Brimmer_,876S.W.2dat8687;_Cazes_,875S.W.2dat268; % # Black,815S.W.2dat179.p&!$ x x  H `'"%  0  0` xx0 ` x` x(f)Thereisnoconstitutionalviolationwhenthejuryis   instructedthatitmustagreeunanimouslyinordertoimpose  alifesentence,andisnottoldtheeffectofanonunanimous  verdict.See_Brimmer_,876S.W.2dat87;_Cazes_,875S.W.2d  at268;Smith,857S.W.2dat2223.p x x 0  0` xx0 ` x` x(g)Requiringthejurytoagreeunanimouslytoalifeverdict P  doesnotviolateMillsv.Marylandand_McKoy_Ԁv.North @  Carolina.See_Brimmer_,876S.W.2dat87;Thompson,768 0  S.W.2dat250;Statev.King,718S.W.2d241,249(Tenn.  p  1986),supersededbystatuteasrecognizedby,Hutchinson, `  898S.W.2dat161.P  x x 0  0` xx0 ` x` x(h)Thejuryisrequiredtomaketheultimatedetermination 0  thatdeathistheappropriatepenalty.See_Brimmer_,876   S.W.2dat87;Smith,857S.W.2dat22. x x 0  0` xx0 ` x` x(i)Thedefendantisnotdeniedclosingargumentinthe  penaltyphaseofthetrial.See_Brimmer_,876S.W.2dat87;  _Cazes_,875S.W.2dat269;Smith,857S.W.2dat24;  _Caughron_,855S.W.2dat542.p x x  M  3.Theappellatereviewprocessindeathpenaltycasesis P constitutionallyadequate.See_Cazes_,875S.W.2dat27071;Harris, @ 839S.W.2dat77.Moreover,thesupremecourthasrecentlyheld 0 that, whileimportantasanadditionalsafeguardagainstarbitraryor  p capricioussentencing,comparativeproportionalityreviewisnot ` constitutionallyrequired.SeeStatev.Bland,958S.W.2d651,663 P (Tenn.1997),cert.denied,523U.S.1083,118S.Ct.1536(1998). @  U UBasedupontheabovecasedecisions,theappellantsconstitutionalchallengestoTennesseesdeath   penaltystatutesarerejected. !  &    XV. #! [Deleted:ProportionalityofSentence] $"  OY'#CY     Conclusion p&!$  Y  InaccordancewiththemandateofTenn.CodeAnn.3913206(c)(1)andtheprinciples P(#& adoptedinpriordecisionsoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt,wehaveconsideredtheentirerecord @)$' inthiscauseandfindthatthesentenceofdeathwasnotimposedinanyarbitraryfashion,thatthe 0*%( evidencesupports,aspreviouslydiscussed,thejury'sfindingofthestatutoryaggravating  +p&) circumstance,andthejury'sfindingthattheaggravatingcircumstanceoutweighedmitigating ,`'* circumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913206(c)(1)(A)(C).Acomparative  proportionalityreview,consideringboth thenatureofthecrimeandthedefendant,convincesus  thatthesentenceofdeathisneitherexcessivenordisproportionatetothepenaltyimposedinsimilar  cases.Accordingly,weaffirmthesentenceofdeathimposedbythetrialcourt.  DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge `  CONCUR: 0  JOEG.RILEY,Judge `  JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,Judge  iXXZ @  #XZXi^#