ÿWPCK; Þœ6Kú ¥jÁZ3ŸTócKŽ$.RÛÍ+;—ˆ{™:\¤:AÀ HÏ*T¶W2nóÃ>Øè¨UÖ¤9"DdmÙ©2yñ¼(…&æŽÀ5‡ M‚11®Är“ë“´nÖÚ²PrHVªõð L"Ù97×úà‚¹— ×ÈÉõÞ†›y©Ù%.;)À£·µšs­ Ó¸¨µO(“N ­>~2QàËTÖÞðu82ÁQ:¯ß]+ã…uA ÙðLúXÂßlf¥#»õ²oý™iÉÎ éá6fOºˆÍØ{·6ÿTІÁ.hc:ˆQŽRTè1,=ΕÆ(¼Xi¯ÄR=;ßV¤pX2Ú³Ç ËÈJ0³ÁÉ­¥æßÀ-ª¸4-Ÿó¶cgÉSv_2í>œ&k,1c v¦y›7ƒ—¬Ž2Ä\%¼Ùž¾îc4'ˆ›¯x FcûžÛŠÓh6i/‡Ú%`†Ñ¹â ýµCC Ѻ\Ô ðûQ!Xz‹‰¶m¬ÃÎ c‡æŸ¡E¼rÏtŒËÎ’—án“ä’M÷W?&ÁüöP…¢i ¦|R+J ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+J ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+J ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+J ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+J ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*/+J ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*DJ ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AJ ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>J ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù- *;J ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8J ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5J ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2J ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(/J ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(DJ ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AJ ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>J ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;J ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8J ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5J ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2J ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&/J ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (|G2X$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H=»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáÕò»»Ô d(|3 S$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H=»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 S$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H=»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H=»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼H=»»»ÔÑ8€AXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€Oa Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î_LH=ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼H=»îî_L#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€4,€2002€Session€Heard€at€NashvilleÐ üL ÐÔ‡XAX»¼H=ÔÓ  ÓÌÓ/Óò òÔ#†¼H=»XXA#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóv.€RICHARD€HALE€AUSTINó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ€XAX»¼H=Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ  p ÐCriminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€B„58357€€€€€€C.€Creed€Ô_ÔMcGinleyÔ_Ô,€Judge,€by€DesignationÐ ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„00281„SC„DDT„DD€„€Filed€September€16,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appeal€in€this€capital€case€arises€from€the€resentencing€of€Richard€Hale€Austin,€who€originallyÐ ŠÚ Ðwas€convicted€and€sentenced€to€death€in€1977€as€an€accessory€before€the€fact€in€the€premeditatedÐ vÆ Ðmurder€of€Julian€Watkins.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€conviction€and€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Austinóó,Ð b² Ð618€S.W.2d€738€(Tenn.€1981),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€1128€(1981).€€In€1997€the€Sixth€Circuit€CourtÐ Nž Ðof€Appeals€granted€habeas€corpus€relief€as€to€Austinððs€sentenceò ò,ó ó€holding€that€counsel€was€ineffectiveÐ :Š Ðat€the€penalty€phase€of€the€original€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòAustin€v.€Bellóó,€126€F.3d€843€(6th€Cir.€1997),€òòcert.Ð *z Ðdeniedóó,€523€U.S.€1079€and€532€U.S.€1088€(1998).€€Following€a€resentencing€hearingò ò,ó ó€the€jury€againÐ f Ðimposed€a€sentence€of€death,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.€€On€automatic€appealÐ V Ðunder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39-13-206(a)(1)€(1997),€we€designated€the€following€issuesÐ òB Ðfor€oral€argument:׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€1)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€in€excluding€certainÐ Þ. Ðmitigating€evidence;€2)€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€in€admitting€victim€impactÐ Ê Ðevidence;€and€3)€whether€the€sentence€of€death€is€disproportionate,€and€all€other€issues€mandated€byÐ ¶ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39-13-206(c)(1).€€Having€carefully€reviewed€these€issues€and€theÐ ¢ò Ðremainder€of€the€issues€raised€by€Austin,€we€conclude€that€they€do€not€warrant€relief.€€Accordingly,Ð ŽÞ Ðwe€affirm€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€all€respects.Ð z Ê ÐÓ"ÓÌò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39-13-206(a)(1);€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmed.ó óÐ R"¢! ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJanice€M.€Holder,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòPanel:€Frank€F.€Drowota,€III,Ð *$z# ÐC.J.,óó€and€òòE.€Riley€Anderson€óóandòò€William€M.€Barker,€JJóó.,€joined.€€òòAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€J.,Ð %f $ Ðóófiled€a€dissenting€opinion.Ð &R!% ÐÌFrank€J.€Ô_ÔGlanklerÔ_Ô,€Jr.€and€Robert€L.€Hutton,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Richard€HaleÐ Ú'*#' ÐAustin.Ð Æ($( ÐÐ ²)%)ýE ÐPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€and€AmyÐ ° ÐL.€Ô_ÔTarkingtonÔ_Ô,€Deputy€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð œì ÐÓ ÓÌÔ  Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óò òà@!ìàFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àIn€early€1977€Watkins€was€an€undercover€agent€investigating€illegal€gambling€at€the€GoldenÐ $ t ÐCue,€Austinððs€pool€hall€in€Memphis.€€Based€on€Watkinsðð€work,€indictments€were€returned€againstÐ  ` ÐAustin,€his€wife,€and€several€of€his€employees€and€associates,€including€Terry€Lee€Casteel.€€WatkinsÐ ü L  Ðwas€to€be€the€principal€witness€against€them.€€At€the€resentencing€hearing,€Casteel€testified€for€theÐ è 8  ÐState€that€Austin€was€upset€about€the€gambling€charges€and€blamed€Watkins.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Austin€told€Casteel,Ð Ô$  Ðð ðI€need€to€do€something€about€it.€€I€need€to€take€care€of€him.ðð€€Austin€eventually€hired€Jack€CharlesÐ À  ÐBlankenship,€an€escaped€convict,€to€murder€Watkins.€€On€the€evening€of€May€22,€1977,€Casteel€andÐ ¬ü  ÐBlankenship€drove€to€Watkinsðð€house,€but€Watkins€was€not€at€home.€€Blankenship€spent€the€nightÐ ˜è  Ðin€a€trailer€owned€by€Austinððs€wife.€€The€next€morning€Casteel€drove€Blankenship€to€WatkinsððÐ „Ô  Ðautomobile€body€repair€shop.€€Blankenship€lured€Watkins€outside€and€then€fatally€shot€him€in€theÐ pÀ Ðhead,€neck,€and€chest.€€Casteel€and€Blankenship€returned€to€the€trailer,€where€Austin€paidÐ \¬ ÐBlankenship€$980€for€the€murder.׃Ü×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMarilyn€Lee€Pryor,€who€worked€at€the€Golden€Cue,€testified€that€in€early€May€1977€AustinÐ  p Ðcommented€that€Watkins€was€an€ð ðS-O-B,€and€that€he€should€have€his€brains€shot€out.ðð€€Pryor€sawÐ  \ Ða€man€fitting€Blankenshipððs€description€leave€the€Golden€Cue€with€Austin€and€Casteel€the€nightÐ øH Ðbefore€Watkinsðð€murder.€€The€next€morning,€as€Austin€and€Casteel€were€leaving€the€Golden€Cue,Ð ä4 ÐAustin€told€Pryor€that€ð ðthey€had€to€take€care€of€some€business.ðð€€When€Pryor€later€told€Austin€thatÐ Ð  Ðshe€had€given€the€police€a€statement€in€connection€with€the€murder€investigation,€he€told€her€that€sheÐ ¼  Ðwas€a€ð ðstupid,€cold€bitch€and€that€[she]€should€have€been€killed,€too.ððÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€proof€regarding€the€circumstances€of€the€murder,€the€State€introduced€victimÐ €Ð Ðimpact€evidence.€€Carolyn€Watkins„Cupp,€Watkinsðð€widow,€testified€that€the€victim€had€been€aÐ l¼ Ðloving,€kind,€generous,€hard„working€man€who€had€been€active€in€his€community.€€Steve€Watkins,Ð X ¨ Ðthe€youngest€of€the€victimððs€three€sons,€testified€that€he€was€eight€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€Ð D!” ÐHe€described€his€father€as€everything€to€him€and€as€good€as€anyone€can€be.€€Both€witnesses€testifiedÐ 0"€  Ðthat€Watkinsðð€death€had€left€an€emptiness€in€the€family.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€defense€tried€to€create€lingering€doubt€as€to€Austinððs€involvement€in€the€murder.€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðdefense€theory€was€that€Casteel€had€hired€Blankenship.€€Levi€Haywood,€an€inmate€who€had€been€inÐ à%0!$ Ðjail€with€Casteel€in€1977,€testified€that€Casteel€told€him€that€Austin€was€not€involved€in€WatkinsððÐ ° Ðmurder.€€Troy€Bullock,€a€friend€of€Austin,€testified€that€several€days€before€Watkinsðð€murder€CasteelÐ œì Ðpicked€up€a€piece€of€paper€with€Blankenshipððs€telephone€number€on€it€and€stated,€ð ðI€will€take€careÐ ˆØ Ðof€this....€€Iððm€taking€care€of€[Austinððs]€business.ððÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defense€called€Blankenship,€the€actual€killer,€to€testify€on€Austinððs€behalf.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€AfterÐ L œ Ðsupporting€Austinððs€innocence€for€twenty„two€years,€Blankenship€suddenly€and€surprisinglyÐ 8 ˆ Ðrepudiated€his€prior€statements.€€Blankenship€stated€that€he€had€lied€in€the€past€and€would€now€tellÐ $ t Ðthe€truth€because€he€had€made€his€peace€with€God.€€Blankenship€then€testified€in€detail€about€theÐ  ` Ðcircumstances€of€the€killing€and€how€Austin€had€recruited€and€paid€him€to€murder€Watkins.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€defense€next€introduced€testimony€from€employees€of€the€Department€of€Correction€thatÐ Ô$  ÐAustin,€who€at€the€time€of€resentencing€was€almost€sixty€years€old,€was€a€model€prisoner€and€a€manÐ À  Ðof€good€character.€€Austin€had€only€one€minor€disciplinary€write„up€in€his€twenty„two€years€on€deathÐ ¬ü  Ðrow€and€had€achieved€the€highest€classification€level€possible€based€on€good€behavior.€€He€was€aÐ ˜è  Ðteacherððs€aidò òeó ó€and€tutored€other€inmates€for€the€GED€examination.€€Two€retired€guards€told€howÐ „Ô  ÐAustin€had€saved€their€lives€during€a€prison€riot€in€1985.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMembers€of€Austinððs€family€testified€that€Austin€was€the€fourth€of€eight€children€and€was€aÐ Lœ Ðgood€pool€player.€€At€the€time€of€resentencing,€he€suffered€from€diabetes.€€Despite€his€long€years€inÐ 8ˆ Ðprison,€Austin€remained€in€close€contact€with€family€members€who€visited€him€often.€€HisÐ $t Ðstepdaughter€described€Austin€as€kind,€generous,€and€honest.Ð ` ÐÌà  àThe€last€witness€for€the€defense€was€Dr.€Mark€Cunningham,€a€clinical€and€forensicÐ è8 Ðpsychologist,€who€had€evaluated€Austin.€€Dr.€Cunningham€opined€that€there€was€a€very€highÐ Ô$ Ðlikelihood€that€Austin€would€continue€to€have€a€good€adjustment€to€incarceration€and€a€low€to€veryÐ À Ðlow€likelihood€that€he€would€commit€acts€of€serious€violence.€€Dr.€Cunningham€also€stated€thatÐ ¬ü ÐAustinððs€presence€would€tend€to€reduce€overall€violence€in€the€prison€system.€Ð ˜è ÐÌà  àBased€on€this€proof,€the€jury€found€that€the€State€had€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€theÐ pÀ Ðfollowing€aggravating€circumstance:€€ð ðThe€defendant€committed€the€murder€for€remuneration€or€theÐ \ ¬ Ðpromise€of€remuneration,€or€employed€another€to€commit€the€murder€for€remuneration€or€theÐ H!˜ Ðâ âpromise€of€remuneration.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39-2404(i)(4)€(Supp.€1977).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€addition,€the€juryÐ 4"„  Ðfound€that€the€State€had€proven€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighed€any€mitigatingÐ ° Ðcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€a€result,€the€jury€sentenced€Austin€to€death.Ð œì Ðâ âÌÔ  ÔÓ  Óò òEXCLUSION€OF€MITIGATING€EVIDENCEó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAustin€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€of€certain€mitigating€evidence€during€theÐ L œ Ðresentencing€hearing.€€Specifically,€Austin€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€excluded€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðfollowing€evidence:€€1)€a€vice€squad€report€requesting€indictments€based€on€Watkinsðð€undercoverÐ $ t Ðgambling€investigation;€2)€testimony€of€Terry€Casteel€that€Austin€had€reported€his€automobile€stolenÐ  ` Ðwhile€Casteel€was€using€it;€3)€testimony€of€Reverend€Joe€Ingle€about€Austinððs€actions€during€a€1985Ð ü L  Ðprison€riot;€and€4)€a€1995€deposition€of€Jack€Charles€Blankenship.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€at€the€resentencing€hearing€in€this€case€is€governed€primarilyÐ À  Ðby€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section39-2404(c)€(Supp.€1977)€[now€section39-13-204(c)€(Supp.Ð ¬ü  Ð2001)],׃Ü×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€provides:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,€evidence€may€be€presented€as€to€anyÐ pÀ Ðmatter€that€the€court€deems€relevant€to€the€punishment€and€mayÐ \¬ Ðinclude,€but€not€be€limited€to,€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÐ H˜ Ðcrime;€the€defendantððs€character,€background€history,€and€physicalÐ 4„ Ðcondition;€any€evidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€the€aggravatingÐ  p Ðcircumstances€enumerated€in€subsection€(i)€below;€and€any€evidenceÐ  \ Ðtending€to€establish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors.€€Any€suchÐ øH Ðevidence€which€the€court€deems€to€have€probative€value€on€the€issueÐ ä4 Ðof€punishment€may€be€received€regardless€of€its€admissibility€underÐ Ð  Ðthe€rules€of€evidence,€provided€that€the€defendant€is€accorded€a€fairÐ ¼  Ðopportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsay€statements€so€admitted.€€However,Ð ¨ø Ðthis€subsection€shall€not€be€construed€to€authorize€the€introduction€ofÐ ”ä Ðany€evidence€secured€in€violation€of€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÐ €Ð ÐStates€or€of€the€state€of€Tennessee.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌUnder€this€statute,€any€evidence€relevant€to€the€circumstances€of€the€murder,€the€aggravatingÐ D!” Ðcircumstances€of€the€murder,€or€the€mitigating€circumstances,€which€has€probative€value€in€theÐ 0"€  Ðdetermination€of€punishment,€is€admissible.€€òòState€v.€Teagueóó,€897€S.W.2d€248,€250€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð #l! ÐBecause€the€exclusion€of€mitigating€evidence€potentially€undermines€the€reliability€of€the€sentencingÐ $X" Ðdetermination,€we€review€any€error€in€failing€to€admit€such€evidence€under€a€constitutional€harmlessÐ ô$D # Ðerror€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€739€(Tenn.€1998).Ð à%0!$ ЇÔ  ÔÓ  Óò òVice€Squad€Report€ó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àDuring€the€testimony€of€Floyd€Cupp,€the€defense€sought€to€introduce€a€vice€squad€report,Ð ˆØ Ðdated€March€31,€1977,€requesting€indictments€on€several€people€based€on€Watkinsðð€undercoverÐ tÄ Ðgambling€investigation.€€Cupp€was€a€retired€Memphis€police€officer€who€had€worked€with€WatkinsÐ `° Ðduring€the€undercover€gambling€investigation€and€had€prepared€the€report.€€The€defense€argued€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€report€was€evidence€of€other€persons€who€had€a€motive€for€killing€Watkins.€€The€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðrefused€to€admit€the€report€on€the€ground€that€it€was€hearsay.€Ð $ t ÐÌÒe°Òà  àContrary€to€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court,€hearsay€is€admissible€in€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.€Ð ü L  ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€28€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€Rules€of€Evidence€should€not€be€appliedÐ è 8  Ðto€preclude€the€admission€of€relevant€evidence€in€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€45Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.3d€1,€14€(Tenn.€2001).€€Because€Austin€did€not€offer€any€evidence€linking€any€of€the€otherÐ À  Ðpersons€named€in€the€vice€squad€report€to€Watkinsðð€murder,€the€report€was€of€negligible€probativeÐ ¬ü  Ðvalue.€€However,€it€was€not€irrelevant.€€Evidence€concerning€other€persons€who€had€a€motive€to€killÐ ˜è  ÐWatkins€was€relevant€to€support€residual€doubt€as€a€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstance.€€The€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€allowed€defense€counsel€to€cross„examine€Cupp€concerning€the€names€contained€in€the€report.€Ð pÀ ÐIf€testimony€concerning€the€content€of€the€vice€squad€report€was€relevant€enough€to€be€admissible,Ð \¬ Ðthen€the€report€was€admissible€as€well.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excludingÐ H˜ Ðthe€report.€€However,€because€the€essence€of€the€vice€squad€report€was€admitted€through€CuppððsÐ 4„ Ðtestimony,€the€error€in€excluding€the€report€itself€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóóÐ  p ÐòòCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€739.Ð  \ ÐÌÔ  ÔÓ  Óò òTestimony€of€Terry€Casteeló óÐ ä4 ÐÌÓ  Óà  àTerry€Casteel€testified€that€he€had€used€Austinððs€Cadillac€to€drive€Marilyn€Pryor€to€her€homeÐ ¼  Ðin€Greenwood,€Mississippi,€two€or€three€days€after€Watkinsðð€murder.€€On€cross„examination,€defenseÐ ¨ø Ðcounsel€asked€Casteel€if€he€knew€that€Austin€had€reported€to€the€Memphis€Police€Department€thatÐ ”ä Ðthe€automobile€had€been€stolen.€€After€Casteel€answered€that€he€had€been€told€that€Austin€had€madeÐ €Ð Ðthe€report,€the€trial€court€sustained€the€Stateððs€hearsay€objection.€€Austin€complains€that€the€trial€courtÐ l¼ Ðerred€by€excluding€as€hearsay€Casteelððs€acknowledgment€that€Austin€reported€his€automobile€stolen.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  à€The€defense€theory€was€that€Austin€would€not€have€alerted€the€police€to€look€for€theÐ 0"€  Ðautomobile€while€Casteel€was€using€it€if€the€two€men€had€been€accomplices€in€Watkinsðð€murder.€Ð #l! ÐEvidence€that€Austin€reported€his€automobile€stolen€therefore€was€relevant€to€rebut€proof€that€AustinÐ $X" Ðhad€orchestrated€Watkinsðð€murder€with€Casteel€and€Blankenship.€€As€we€indicated€above,€hearsay€isÐ ô$D # Ðadmissible€in€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€in€sustaining€the€StateððsÐ à%0!$ Ðhearsay€objection.€€We€conclude,€however,€that€any€error€in€failing€to€admit€Casteelððs€statement€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€jury€was€unlikely€to€find€that€Austinððs€reporting€theÐ ¸'#& Ðautomobile€stolen€several€days€after€the€shooting€rebutted€the€overwhelming€evidence€establishingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€Austin€and€Casteel€were€accomplices€in€Watkinsðð€murder.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÔ  Ôâ âò òÓ  ÓTestimony€of€Reverend€Joe€Ingleó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAs€mitigation€proof,€Austin€presented€the€videotape€depositions€of€two€retired€prison€guards,Ð ˆØ ÐHardin€Green€and€John€Owen,€describing€Austinððs€actions€during€a€1985€prison€riot.€€Both€Green€andÐ tÄ ÐOwen€testified€that€Austin€protected€them€and€five€other€guards€from€inmates€in€the€generalÐ `° Ðpopulation€who€had€started€a€riot€and€were€trying€to€break€into€the€death„row€unit.€€Later,€AustinÐ L œ Ðpresented€the€testimony€of€Reverend€Joe€Ingle,€a€prison€minister€who€had€had€a€pastoral€relationshipÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€Austin€for€twenty„two€years.€€After€relating€information€about€Austin,€Ingle€was€asked€toÐ $ t Ðspecifically€recall€the€1985€prison€riot.€€Ingle€explained€that€his€knowledge€of€the€riot€was€gainedÐ  ` Ðfrom€conversations€with€John€Owen.€€When€Ingle€began€to€relate€what€Owen€had€told€him,€the€StateÐ ü L  Ðobjected.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objection,€finding€that€Ingleððs€testimony€was€hearsay׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ è 8  Ðduplicated€Owenððs€testimony.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€note€that€Austin€failed€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€concerningÐ ¬ü  ÐIngleððs€testimony.€€Under€similar€circumstances,€we€have€held€that€the€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ˜è  ÐStoutóó,€46€S.W.3d€689,€704€n.10€(Tenn.€2001);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSimsóó,€45€S.W.3d€at€15.€€Because€IngleððsÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony€about€Austinððs€actions€during€the€riot€presumably€would€have€mirrored€Owenððs€testimony,Ð pÀ Ðwe€conclude€that€the€record€is€adequate€for€review.€€We€will€therefore€address€the€issue€on€its€merits.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àCiting€òòSkipper€v.€South€Carolinaóó,€476€U.S.€1€(1986),€Austin€contends€that€Ingleððs€testimonyÐ 4„ Ðwas€not€cumulative€because€Ingle€was€the€only€live€witness€presented€to€testify€regarding€AustinððsÐ  p Ðactions€during€the€riot.€€In€òòSkipperóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€determined€that€mitigatingÐ  \ Ðtestimony€about€the€defendantððs€good€behavior€in€prison€was€not€cumulative€because€it€came€fromÐ øH Ðdisinterested€witnesses€such€as€jailers€while€the€earlier€evidence€had€come€from€the€defendant€andÐ ä4 Ðhis€family€and€was€the€typeò ò€ó óof€evidence€a€jury€would€naturally€discount€as€self„serving.€€476€U.S.€atÐ Ð  Ð7-8.€€Unlike€òòSkipperóó,€the€jury€in€Austinððs€case€already€had€heard€the€testimony€of€two€disinterestedÐ À Ðwitnesses€ð!ð€Green€and€Owen€ð!ð€concerning€the€mitigating€evidence.€€Moreover,€the€excludedÐ ¬ü Ðtestimony€was€based€on€second„hand€knowledge,€not€first„hand€observation€as€in€òòSkipperóó.€€IngleððsÐ ˜è Ðtestimony€was€no€less€cumulative€because€the€prior€testimony€was€presented€by€videotapeÐ „Ô Ðdepositions.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àA€finding€that€mitigating€evidence€is€cumulative,€however,€does€not€make€such€evidenceÐ H!˜ Ðinadmissible.€€As€we€have€indicated,€the€Rules€of€Evidence€do€not€govern€the€admissibility€ofÐ 4"„  Ðevidence€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section39-2404(c)€(Supp.€1977)€[nowÐ  #p! Ðsection39-13-204(c)€(Supp.€2001)].€€òòSeeóó€òòSimsóó,€45€S.W.3d€at€14.€€We€have€found€error€when€a€trialÐ  $\" Ðcourt€excluded€mitigating€evidence€on€the€ground€that€it€was€cumulative.€€òòSeeóó€òòCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2dÐ ø$H # Ðat€738.€€In€that€case,€the€trial€court€excluded€a€letter€written€to€the€defendant€from€his€eight„year„oldÐ ä%4!$ Ðson€expressing€love€and€support.€€In€light€of€the€principles€expressed€in€section39-13-204(c),€weÐ Ð& "% Ðconcluded€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€the€letter.€€967€S.W.2d€at€738.€€We€further€held,Ð ¼' #& Ðhowever,€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€because€the€essence€of€the€evidenceÐ ¨(ø#' Ðwas€presented€to€the€jury€in€other€forms.€€ò òó óòòId.ò òóó€ó óat€739.Ð ”)ä$( Їà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€excluded€evidence€was€more€than€cumulative€ð!ð€it€was€duplicative.€Ð ° ÐIngle€was€not€an€eyewitness€to€Austinððs€actions€during€the€prison€riot.€€Ingle€could€only€repeat€whatÐ œì ÐOwen€had€told€him.€€With€no€offer€of€proof€to€demonstrate€otherwise,€we€must€assume€that€IngleððsÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€would€have€consisted€of€hearsay€duplicating€Owenððs€previous€testimony.€€NotwithstandingÐ tÄ Ðthe€principles€expressed€in€ðð39-2404(c)€(Supp.€1977)€[now€ðð39-13-204(c)],€a€trial€court€still€retainsÐ `° Ðsome€discretion€in€controlling€the€presentation€of€proof€in€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€within€theÐ L œ Ðconfines€of€constitutional€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€òòSimsóó,€45€S.W.3d€at€14.€€Given€the€duplicative€natureÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€Ingleððs€hearsay€testimony,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€theÐ $ t Ðevidence.€€Furthermore,€even€if€Ingleððs€testimony€should€have€been€admitted,€any€error€in€excludingÐ  ` Ðthe€testimony€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€at€739.Ð ü L  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔDeposition€of€Jack€Charles€Blankenshipó óÐ Ô$  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àIn€a€deposition€taken€in€1995€for€Austinððs€federal€habeas€corpus€proceedings,€BlankenshipÐ ¬ü  Ðdenied€that€Austin€had€any€involvement€in€Watkinsðð€murder.€€During€the€Ô_ÔresentencingÔ_Ô€hearing,Ð ˜è  Ðhowever,€Ô_ÔBlankenshipÔ_Ô€repudiated€his€prior€statements.€€To€counter€Ô_ÔBlankenshipÔ_Ôððs€testimony,€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefense€cross„examined€Ô_ÔBlankenshipÔ_Ô€concerning€his€prior€statements€and€then€sought€to€introduceÐ pÀ Ðas€substantive€evidence€the€1995€deposition€of€Blankenshipò ò€ó óin€its€entirety.€€ò òó óò òó óThe€trial€court€denied€theÐ \¬ Ðrequest€butò òó ó€permittedÔ‡AXAXXXAÔ€the€deposition€to€be€marked€as€an€exhibit€for€the€limited€purpose€of€impeachingÐ Lœ Ðthe€witness.€€The€court€instructed€the€jury€accordingly.Ô#†XAXXAXAÔa#ԀР8ˆ ÐÌà  àAs€we€have€previously€stated,€hearsay€is€admissible€in€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.Ð ` ÐBlankenshipððs€1995€deposition€was€relevant€to€rebut€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€murderÐ üL Ðwas€committed€for€remuneration€and€to€support€residual€doubt€as€a€nonstatutory€mitigatingÐ è8 Ðcircumstance.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€the€deposition€to€be€used€as€substantiveÐ Ô$ Ðevidence.€€Although€the€trial€court€did€not€completely€exclude€the€deposition,€the€limitation€on€theÐ À Ðjuryððs€consideration€of€the€deposition€potentially€undermined€the€reliability€of€the€sentencingÐ ¬ü Ðdetermination€and€is,€therefore,€an€error€of€constitutional€magnitude.€€òòCf.óó€òòCauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€atÐ ˜è Ð739.Ð „Ô ÐÌà  à€Austin€contends€that€the€error€was€not€harmless€for€several€reasons.€€First,€he€argues€that€theÐ \ ¬ Ðlimitation€on€the€juryððs€consideration€of€the€deposition€cannot€be€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ H!˜ Ðbecause€the€deposition€was€relevant€to€rebut€the€only€aggravating€circumstance.€€Austin€has€presentedÐ 4"„  Ðno€authority€and€we€have€found€no€support€for€a€per€se€reversible€error€rule€in€cases€where€only€oneÐ  #p! Ðaggravating€circumstance€exists.€€Second,€Austin€contends€that€the€only€other€proof€supporting€theÐ  $\" Ðaggravating€circumstance€ð!ð€the€testimony€of€Terry€Casteel€ð!ð€lacked€credibility.€€Contrary€to€AustinððsÐ ø$H # Ðassertion,€overwhelming€evidence,€including€the€testimony€of€Marilyn€Pryor€corroborating€CasteelððsÐ ä%4!$ Ðtestimony,€supported€the€aggravating€circumstance.€€Finally,€Austin€asserts€that€the€error€cannot€beÐ Ð& "% Ðharmless€because€Blankenshipððs€testimony€in€the€deposition€was€ð ðcompelling€and€unequivocal.ðð€€TheÐ ¼' #& Ðjury€was€in€the€best€position€to€assess€the€credibility€of€Blankenship.€€Ifò ò,ó ó€despite€vigorous€cross„Ð ¨(ø#' Ðexamination,€the€jury€believed€Blankenshipððs€recantation€of€his€prior€deposition€testimony,€it€isÐ ˜)è$( Ðunlikely€that€reading€the€entire€deposition€into€evidence€would€have€produced€a€different€result.€ò òó óÐ „*Ô%) ÐÐ p+À&* Ðà  àIn€a€similar€case,€we€found€the€exclusion€of€such€mitigating€evidence€to€be€harmless€beyondÐ ° Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòStoutóó,€46€S.W.3d€at€705.€€In€òòStoutóó,€the€defendant€sought€to€introduce€theÐ œì Ðtestimony€of€two€accomplices€in€an€effort€to€show€that€his€own€involvement€in€the€murder€was€minor.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€defendant€also€sought€to€call€a€chaplain€to€testify€about€a€gang€practice€of€blaming€crimes€onÐ tÄ Ðformer€members.€€Although€we€concluded€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€the€proposedÐ `° Ðmitigating€evidence,€we€held€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€testimonyÐ L œ Ðof€the€accomplices€was€of€dubious€value€because€they€had€testified€during€the€guilt€phase€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€led€the€offenses€and€shot€the€victim.€€ò òó óòòId.óó€€Likewise,€other€evidence€was€presented€regardingÐ $ t Ðthe€defendantððs€theory€that€he€was€falsely€accused€by€gang€members,€and€this€evidence€obviously€wasÐ  ` Ðrejected€by€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€€Likeò ò€ó óthe€evidence€in€òòStoutóó,€the€excluded€evidence€in€this€case€was€of€dubiousÐ ü L  Ðvalue.€€Blankenship€testified€at€the€resentencing€hearing€that€Austin€hired€him€to€kill€Watkins.€€TheÐ ì <  Ð1995€deposition€proclaiming€Austinððs€innocence€likely€would€not€have€been€very€persuasive€to€theÐ Ø(  Ðjury€since€Blankenship€fully€admitted€that€the€deposition€testimony€was€false.€€Additionally,€just€asÐ Ä  Ðin€òòStoutóó,€Austin€presented€other€proof€to€support€his€residual€doubt€theory,€and€the€proof€obviouslyÐ °  Ðwas€rejected€by€the€jury.Ð œì  ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€42€S.W.3d€44€(Tenn.€2001),€we€reversed€the€sentence€because€of€aÐ tÄ Ðcombination€of€errors:€the€exclusion€of€evidence€relevant€to€residual€doubt€as€a€mitigatingÐ `° Ðcircumstance€and€insufficient€evidence€to€support€one€of€the€aggravating€circumstances.€€òòId.óó€at€59.€Ð Lœ ÐThe€present€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòHartmanóó.€€Unlike€òòHartmanóó,€the€jury€in€this€case€did€not€relyÐ 8ˆ Ðon€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.€€Moreover,€the€residual€doubt€evidence€in€this€case€was€notÐ $t Ðcompletely€excluded.€€Substantial€portions€of€the€deposition€were€read€to€the€jury€duringÐ ` ÐBlankenshipððs€testimony.€€The€entire€deposition€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit.€€The€jury€was€precludedÐ üL Ðonly€from€considering€the€deposition€as€substantive€evidence.Ð è8 ÐÌà  àThe€practical€effect€of€using€the€deposition€for€impeachment€purposes€was€not€much€differentÐ À Ðthan€introducing€it€as€substantive€evidence.€€The€jury€was€presented€with€two€theories:€either€AustinÐ ¬ü Ðhired€Blankenship€to€commit€the€murder€or€ò òó óAustin€did€not.€€Rejection€of€the€first€theory€wouldÐ ˜è Ðnecessarily€mean€acceptance€of€the€second.€€If€the€jury€had€found€that€the€deposition€impeachedÐ „Ô ÐBlankenshipððs€credibility,€then€the€jury€would€not€have€believed€Blankenshipððs€testimony€at€theÐ pÀ Ðresentencing€hearing€and€would€have€found,€instead,€that€Austin€did€not€hire€Blankenship€to€murderÐ \ ¬ ÐWatkins.€€It€is€not€likely€that€the€result€would€have€been€any€different€if€the€deposition€had€beenÐ H!˜ Ðintroduced€as€substantive€evidence.€€The€limitation€on€the€juryððs€consideration€of€the€deposition€didÐ 4"„  Ðnot€affect€the€juryððs€decision€to€Austinððs€prejudice€and€was,€therefore,€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÐ  #p! Ðdoubt.Ð  $\" ÐÌÔ  ÔÓ  Óò òVICTIM€IMPACT€EVIDENCEó óÐ ä%4!$ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€trial€court€admitted€victim€impact€evidence€from€Carolyn€Watkins„Cupp,€the€victimððsÐ ¼' #& Ðwidow,€and€Steve€Watkins,€one€of€the€victimððs€sons.€€Austin€raises€three€arguments€regarding€theÐ ¨(ø#' Ðvictim€impact€evidence.€€First,€Austin€contends€that€the€evidence€was€unduly€prejudicial€andÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âcumulative.€€Second,€he€asserts€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€the€procedure€set€out€in€òòState€v.Ð €*Ð%) ÐNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€891€(Tenn.€1998).€€Finally,€he€claims€that€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argumentÐ ° Ðregarding€the€function€of€victim€impact€evidence€was€improper€under€òòNesbitóó.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àVictim€impact€evidence€and€prosecutorial€argument€on€the€evidence€are€not€barred€by€theÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€Constitution€or€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States.€€òòSeeóó€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€889.€Ð `° ÐHowever,€not€all€victim€impact€evidence€is€admissible.€€Victim€impact€evidence€may€not€beÐ L œ Ðintroduced€if€1)€it€is€so€unduly€prejudicial€that€it€renders€the€trial€fundamentally€unfair,€or€2)€itsÐ 8 ˆ Ðprobative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€impact.€€òòSeeò òóóó ó€òòid.óó€at€891.€€Generally,Ð $ t Ðvictim€impact€evidence€should€be€limited€to€information€which€provides€ð ða€brief€glimpse€into€the€lifeÐ  ` Ðof€the€individual€who€has€been€killed,€the€contemporaneous€and€prospective€circumstancesÐ ü L  Ðsurrounding€the€individualððs€death,€and€how€those€circumstances€financially,€emotionally,Ð è 8  Ðpsychologically€or€physically€impacted€upon€members€of€the€victimððs€immediate€family.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€victim€impact€evidence€about€which€Austin€complains€was€limited€to€the€victimððs€roleÐ ¬ü  Ðas€husband€and€father€and€toò ò€ó óthe€loss€suffered€by€the€victimððs€immediate€family.€€This€evidence€is€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€nature€contemplated€by€òòNesbitóó€and€is€similar€to€the€victim€impact€evidence€found€appropriate€inÐ ˆØ  ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€993€S.W.2d€6,€17€(Tenn.€1999).€€We€conclude€that€the€victim€impact€evidence€in€thisÐ tÄ Ðcase€was€not€cumulative€or€unduly€prejudicial€and€that€its€probative€value€was€not€substantiallyÐ `° Ðoutweighed€by€its€prejudicial€impact.Ð Lœ ÐÌà  àIn€òòNesbitóó,€we€established€the€following€procedural€guidelines€for€the€admission€of€victimÐ $t Ðimpact€evidence:€1)€the€State€must€notify€the€trial€court€of€its€intent€to€produce€victim€impactÐ ` Ðevidence;€2)€upon€receiving€notification,€the€trial€court€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€of€the€presenceÐ üL Ðof€the€jury€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence;€and€3)€the€victim€impact€evidence€shouldÐ è8 Ðnot€be€admitted€until€the€trial€court€determines€that€evidence€of€one€or€more€aggravatingÐ Ô$ Ðcircumstances€is€already€present€in€the€record.€€978€S.W.2d€at€891.€€Austin€asserts€that€this€procedureÐ À Ðis€constitutional€in€nature.€€Although€the€admission€of€unduly€prejudicial€victim€impact€evidence€mayÐ ¬ü Ðimplicate€due€process€concerns,€the€procedure€established€in€òòNesbitóó€is€not€constitutionally€mandated.€Ð ˜è ÐThis€procedure€merely€enables€the€trial€court€to€adequately€supervise€the€admission€of€victim€impactÐ „Ô Ðevidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€compliance€with€the€procedural€requirement€established€in€òòNesbitóó,€the€State€in€this€caseÐ H!˜ Ðnotified€the€trial€court€of€its€intent€to€introduce€victim€impact€evidence,€and€the€trial€court€conductedÐ 4"„  Ða€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€the€evidence.€€However,€òòNesbitóóððs€thirdÐ  #p! Ðrequirement€was€not€fulfilled€when€the€trial€court€allowed€the€victim€impact€testimony€of€WatkinsððÐ  $\" Ðwidow€to€be€presented€before€any€proof€of€an€aggravating€circumstance€existed€in€the€record.€Ð ø$H # ÐRequiring€the€existence€in€the€record€of€proof€of€an€aggravating€circumstance€before€the€presentationÐ ä%4!$ Ðof€victim€impact€evidence€lessens€the€risk€that€the€admission€of€unduly€prejudicial€victim€impactÐ Ð& "% Ðevidence€will€render€the€trial€fundamentally€unfair.€€If€unduly€prejudicial€victim€impact€evidence€isÐ ¼' #& Ðadmitted€first,€then€the€danger€exists€that€the€jury€may€not€fairly€consider€the€other€evidence€presentedÐ ¨(ø#' Ðat€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Because€the€victim€impact€testimony€of€Watkinsðð€widow€was€not€undulyÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âprejudicial,€we€conclude€that€the€variance€from€the€procedure€established€in€òòNesbitóó€did€not€affect€theÐ €*Ð%) ÐÑOa Ñâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñresult€of€the€resentencing€hearing€on€the€merits€and,€therefore,€was€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð ° ÐCrim.€P.€52(a).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€his€final€challenge€to€the€victim€impact€evidence,€Austin€contends€that€the€prosecutorÐ tÄ Ðimproperly€told€the€jury€how€to€weigh€the€evidence.€€In€òòNesbitóó,€we€cautioned€that€victim€impactÐ `° Ðevidence€ð ðdoes€not€carry€the€force€and€effect€of€an€aggravating€circumstance€in€the€sentencingÐ L œ Ðcalculation.ðð€€978€S.W.2d€at€894.€€We€held€that€the€prosecutor€in€that€case€erroneously€characterizedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€victim€impact€evidence€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€to€weigh€against€mitigation€proof.€€òòId.óó€€InÐ $ t Ðthe€present€case,€the€prosecutor€specifically€told€the€jury€that€they€could€only€weigh€aggravating€andÐ  ` Ðmitigating€circumstances.€€The€prosecutorððs€comment€that€they€were€also€required€to€consider€ð ðtheÐ ü L  Ðimpact€of€this€crimeðð€did€not€improperly€characterize€the€victim€impact€evidence€as€an€aggravatingÐ è 8  Ðcircumstance.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€error€in€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ  Ôà@vvàò òPROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€are€bound€by€statute€to€review€the€application€of€the€death€penalty€to€determine€whether:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(A)€The€sentence€of€death€was€imposed€in€any€arbitrary€fashion;Ð\¬` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(B)€The€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€statutory€aggravatingÐ 4„ Ðcircumstance€or€circumstances;Ð p` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(C)€The€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravatingÐ øH Ðcircumstance€or€circumstances€outweigh€any€mitigating€circumstances;Ð ä4 Ðand€ÐÐ ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(D)€The€sentence€of€death€is€excessive€or€disproportionate€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðpenalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€the€nature€of€theÐ ”ä Ðcrime€and€the€defendant.ЀÐ` Ã` à ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39-13-206(c)(1)€(1997).€€Having€thoroughly€reviewed€the€record,€we€find€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðsentence€of€death€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion.€€We€conclude€that€the€State€presentedÐ D!” Ðsufficient€proof€to€uphold€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ 0"€  ÐAnnotated€section39-2404(i)(4)€(Supp.€1977):€€ð ðThe€defendant€committed€the€murder€forÐ #l! Ðremuneration€or€the€promise€of€remuneration,€or€employed€another€to€commit€the€murder€forÐ $X" Ðremuneration€or€the€promise€of€remuneration.ðð€€This€aggravating€circumstance€was€amply€supportedÐ ô$D # Ðby€the€testimony€of€Casteel€and€Blankenship€that€Austin€hired€Blankenship€to€murder€Watkins.€€WeÐ à%0!$ Ðfurther€hold€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstanceÐ Ì&"% Ðoutweighed€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Contrary€to€Austinððs€assertion,Ð ¸'#& Ða€reasonable€jury€could€have€found€that€the€proffered€mitigating€circumstances€of€residual€doubt,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðrelative€culpability€for€the€offense,€and€positive€prison€behavior€were€outweighed€by€the€aggravatingÐ )à$( Ðcircumstance.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWe€next€determine€whether€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€case€is€disproportionate€to€the€penaltyÐ ° Ðimposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð œì Ððð39-13-206(c)(1)(D)€(1997).€€We€are€mindful€of€the€following€principles€applicable€toÐ ˆØ Ðproportionality€review:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà ¸ àIn€conducting€a€comparative€proportionality€review,€we€beginÐ L œ Ðwith€the€presumption€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€proportional€withÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€crime€of€first€degree€murder.€€A€sentence€of€death€may€be€foundÐ $ t Ðdisproportionate€if€the€case€being€reviewed€is€ð ðplainly€lacking€inÐ  ` Ðcircumstances€consistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€in€which€the€deathÐ ü L  Ðpenalty€has€been€imposed.ðð€€A€sentence€of€death€is€notÐ è 8  Ðdisproportionate€merely€because€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€areÐ Ô$  Ðsimilar€to€those€of€another€offense€for€which€a€defendant€has€receivedÐ À  Ða€life€sentence.€€Our€inquiry,€therefore,€does€not€require€a€finding€thatÐ ¬ü  Ða€sentence€ð ðless€than€death€was€never€imposed€in€a€case€with€similarÐ ˜è  Ðcharacteristics.ðð€€Our€duty€ð ðis€to€assure€that€no€aberrant€death€sentenceÐ „Ô  Ðis€affirmed.ððÐpÀ` Ã` à ÐÌòòState€v.€Hallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121,€135€(Tenn.€1998)€(citations€omitted).€€We€have€found€the€followingÐ H˜ Ðfactors€helpful€in€choosing€and€comparing€cases:€1)€the€means€and€manner€of€death;€2)€the€motivationÐ 4„ Ðfor€killing;€3)€the€place€of€death;€4)€the€similarity€of€the€victims€and€treatment€of€the€victims;€5)€theÐ  p Ðabsence€or€presence€of€premeditation,€provocation,€and€justification;€and€6)€the€injury€to€and€effectsÐ  \ Ðon€non„decedent€victims.€€òòId.óó€€In€comparing€defendants,€we€consider€the€following€traits:€1)€priorÐ øH Ðcriminal€history;€2)€age,€race,€and€gender;€3)€mental,€emotional,€and€physical€condition;€4)€role€in€theÐ ä4 Ðmurder;€5)€cooperation€with€authorities;€6)€remorse;€7)€knowledge€of€helplessness€of€victim;€and€8)Ð Ð  Ðcapacity€for€rehabilitation.€€òòId.óóÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€victim€was€shot€execution„style€in€the€head€and€then€several€moreÐ ”ä Ðtimes€in€the€neck€and€chest.€€The€motive€for€the€killing€was€to€retaliate€against€the€victim€for€hisÐ €Ð Ðundercover€work€exposing€Austinððs€illegal€gambling.€The€murder€clearly€was€premeditated€in€thatÐ l¼ ÐAustin€hired€another€person€to€commit€the€murder.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAustin,€a€white€male,€was€thirty„seven€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€murder€and€almost€sixtyÐ 0"€  Ðyears€old€at€the€time€of€the€resentencing€hearing.€€A€psychologist€testified€for€the€defense€that€anÐ #l! Ðinmate€of€Austinððs€age€was€exceedingly€unlikely€to€commit€acts€of€serious€violence€in€prison.€€AustinÐ $X" Ðpresented€mitigating€evidence€attesting€to€his€positive€contributions€to€the€prison€community€whileÐ ô$D # Ðincarcerated€and€his€efforts€to€ensure€the€safety€of€prison€guards€during€a€prison€riot.€€No€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðof€prior€criminal€history€was€presented€at€the€resentencing€hearing.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Austinððs€role€in€the€murder€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðsignificant€in€that€he€instigated€the€plan€to€murder€the€victim€and€hired€the€actual€killer.€€No€evidenceÐ ¸'#& Ðwas€presented€to€show€that€Austin€cooperated€with€the€authorities€or€showed€any€remorse€for€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmurder.€€Considering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant,€we€conclude€that€this€murder€placesÐ ° ÐAustin€into€the€class€of€defendants€for€whom€the€death€penalty€is€an€appropriate€punishment.Ð œì ÐÌà  àAustin€contends€that€his€sentence€is€comparatively€disproportionate€because€his€co-defendants,Ð tÄ ÐCasteel€and€Blankenship,€received€lesser€sentences.€€Statutory€proportionality€review€involves€aÐ `° Ðcomparison€only€with€cases€in€which€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€was€actually€conducted.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ L œ Ðv.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€666€(Tenn.€1997).€€Because€neither€Blankenship€nor€Casteel€was€subjectedÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€capital€proceedings,€their€cases€are€not€similar€cases€for€purposes€of€proportionality€review.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àCiting€òòNuthill€v.€Stateóó,€30€Tenn.€(11€Hum.)€247€(1850),€Austin€argues€that€he€could€notÐ ü L  Ðreceive€a€greater€sentence€than€Blankenship€as€a€matter€of€law€because€a€defendant€convicted€as€anÐ è 8  Ðaccessory€before€the€fact€cannot€be€sentenced€to€death€if€the€principal€received€a€life€sentence.€Ð Ô$  ÐAustinððs€reliance€on€òòNuthillóó€is€misplaced.€€At€the€time€of€the€offense€in€this€case,€Tennessee€CodeÐ À  ÐAnnotated€section€39-2407€(Supp.€1977)€expressly€provided€that€the€punishment€imposed€upon€anÐ ¬ü  Ðaccessory€before€the€fact€of€murder€in€the€first€degree€did€not€depend€on€the€sentence€imposed€on€theÐ ˜è  Ðprincipal.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAustin€also€asserts€that€he€has€not€found€a€case€in€Tennessee€historyò òó ó€in€which€an€accessoryÐ \¬ Ðbefore€the€fact€received€a€sentence€of€death€and€the€principal€was€sentenced€to€life.€€Tennessee€lawÐ H˜ Ðno€longer€distinguishes€between€accessory€before€the€fact€and€the€principal.€€In€three€cases,€we€haveÐ 4„ Ðupheld€the€death€penalty€for€the€person€who€instigated€the€murder€ð!ð€the€equivalent€of€accessory€beforeÐ  p Ðthe€fact€ð!ð€when€the€actual€killer€received€a€lesser€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stevensóó,€___€S.W.3d€___Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€2002);€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð530€(Tenn.€1994).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àBased€upon€an€exhaustive€review€of€the€record€and€Rule€12€reports€from€trial€judges€in€trialsÐ ¼  Ðfor€first€degree€murder,€we€conclude€that€the€present€case€is€proportionate€when€compared€to€otherÐ ¨ø Ðmurders€for€hire€in€which€the€death€penalty€was€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€òòStevensóó,€òò€€€€€óó€S.W.3d€òò€€€€€óó€(defendantÐ ”ä Ðhired€acquaintance€to€murder€wife€and€mother„in„law);€òòÔ_ÔHutchisonÔ_Ôóó,€898€S.W.2d€161€(defendant€hiredÐ €Ð Ðseveral€people€to€drown€victim€for€insurance€proceeds);€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530€(defendantÐ l¼ Ðhired€acquaintance€to€kill€wife);€òòState€v.€Wilcoxsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€1989)€(defendant,€whoÐ X ¨ Ðwas€hired€by€wife€of€victim€to€kill€her€husband,€procured€brother€to€commit€offense);׃ d×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòState€v.Ð D!” Ðâ âPorterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441€(Tenn.€1988)€(defendant€hired€co„defendant€to€kill€husband);€òòState€v.Ð 0"€  ÐCokeróó,€746€S.W.2d€167€(Tenn.€1987)€(defendant€arranged€for€murder€of€paramourððs€husband).׃!×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€InÐ ° Ðâ âtwo€of€these€cases,€murder€for€hire€was€the€sole€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔHutchisonÔ_Ôóó,€898Ð œì ÐS.W.2d€161,€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530.€€After€reviewing€these€cases,€and€many€others€not€cited,Ð ˆØ Ðwe€conclude€that€the€penalty€imposed€by€the€jury€in€this€case€is€not€disproportionate€to€the€penaltyÐ tÄ Ðimposed€for€similar€crimes.Ð `° ÐÌà  àWe€have€considered€Austinððs€argument€that€the€only€Tennessee€cases€similar€to€his€are€thoseÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€William€Groseclose€and€Ronald€Rickman.€€Groseclose€hired€Rickman€and€another€man€to€kill€hisÐ $ t Ðwife.€€On€direct€appeal,€we€found€the€death€sentences€to€be€proportionate.€€òòState€v.€Grosecloseóó,€615Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€142,€150-51€(Tenn.€1981).€€In€federal€habeas€corpus€proceedings,€the€convictions€andÐ ü L  Ðsentences€were€reversed€based€on€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòGroseclose€v.€Bellóó,€130€F.3dÐ è 8  Ð1161€(6th€Cir.€1997);€òòRickman€v.€Bellóó,€131€F.3d€1150€(6th€Cir.€1997).€€On€retrial,€the€jury€againÐ Ô$  Ðconvicted€Groseclose€and€Rickman€of€first€degree€murder€but€sentenced€them€to€life€imprisonment.€Ð À  ÐThe€Rule€12€report€reflects€that€the€trial€judge€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€jury€did€not€impose€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdeath€penalty€because€of€the€defendantsðð€twenty€years€of€good€behavior€in€prison.€€As€we€have€statedÐ ˜è  Ðmany€times,€ð ðthe€isolated€decision€of€a€jury€to€afford€mercy€does€not€render€a€death€sentenceÐ „Ô  Ðdisproportionate.ðð€€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€31€S.W.3d€196,€222€(Tenn.€2000)€(citations€omitted).€€We€recentlyÐ pÀ Ðaffirmed€the€sentence€of€death€in€a€resentencing€case€involving€similar€mitigating€evidence€of€goodÐ \¬ Ðbehavior€in€prison.€€òòSeeóó€òòTerry€v.€Stateóó,€46€S.W.3d€147€(Tenn.€2001).€€Given€the€numerous€similarÐ H˜ Ðcases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€sentence€ofÐ 4„ Ðdeath€imposed€by€the€jury€in€this€case€represents€an€aberrant€sentence.Ð  p ÐÌÔ  ÔÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ øH ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€accordance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section39-13-206(c)(1)€and€the€principlesÐ Ð  Ðadopted€in€prior€decisions,€we€have€considered€the€entire€record€and€conclude€that€the€sentence€ofÐ ¼  Ðdeath€has€not€been€imposed€arbitrarily,€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€statutoryÐ ¨ø Ðaggravating€circumstance,€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravatingÐ ”ä Ðcircumstance€outweighs€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€that€the€sentenceÐ €Ð Ðis€not€excessive€or€disproportionate.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àHaving€carefully€considered€the€issues€raised€by€Austin€regarding€the€exclusion€of€mitigatingÐ D!” Ðevidence€and€the€admission€of€victim€impact€evidence,€we€hold€that€these€issues€are€without€meritÐ 0"€  Ðor€do€not€require€reversal.€€Having€reviewed€all€of€the€other€issues€raised€by€Austin,€we€conclude€thatÐ #l! Ðthey€do€not€warrant€relief.€€With€respect€to€issues€not€addressed€in€this€opinion,€we€affirm€the€decisionÐ $X" Ðof€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€Relevant€portions€of€that€opinion€are€incorporated€herein€and€areÐ ô$D # Ðattached€as€an€appendix.€€The€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€is€affirmed€and€shall€be€carried€out€onÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âthe€23rd€day€of€January,€2003,€unless€otherwise€ordered€by€this€Court€or€proper€authority.€€ItÐ Ì&"% Ðappearing€that€defendant€Richard€Hale€Austin€is€indigent,€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€StateÐ ° Ðof€Tennessee.Ð œì Ðâ âÌÌÌà0  àà0` s#s#àà0¸ ` s#` s#àà0¸ s#¸ s#àà0hs#s#àà0Àhs#hs#à___________________________________€ÐL œÀs#Às# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICE