ÿWPCÁA ŸºŽYAïá‹´4¡@T'‚DQsêš'¸/¶âdIÑÞÈ°þ¾¬s(*QréÆr> 0D8? 0D|? 0DÀ? D/@ B3@P@ D3TAU:‡A˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ3|xyX- ù- ~Ý ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X•wXXXÔÔ€ôƒÌôXX•wÔÔ‡ôƒÌôôôƒÌÔ€€These€cases€are€simply€distinguishable€from€the€few€cases€in€which€a€violation€of€due€processÐ  Ðhas€been€found.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Medinaóó,€41€Cal.€App.3d€438,€455,€116€Cal.€Rptr.€133,€141€(1974),€forÐ ÐÈ Ðexample,€the€effect€of€the€plea€agreement€was€to€place€an€accomplice€under€a€ð ðstrong€compulsionðð€toÏtestify€against€the€defendant€in€a€particular€fashion€that€amounted€to€scripted€testimony.€€€Similarly,€inÏòòPeople€v.€Greenóó,€102€Cal.€App.€2d€831,€833„36,€228€P.2d€867,€868„72€(1951),€the€agreement€wasÐ (  Ðconditioned€upon€the€accompliceððs€testimony€producing€a€specific€result.Ô#†ôƒÌôôôƒÌ#Ô€€Finally,€in€òòFranklin€v.€Stateóó,€577Ð ð è ÐP.2d€860€(Nev.€1978),€the€Court€reversed€a€conviction€after€finding€that€a€codefendantððs€testimony€violatedÏthe€defendantððs€right€to€due€process€and€holding€that€the€prosecutionððs€withholding€of€the€benefits€of€anÏagreement€until€after€an€accomplice€testifies€is€inconsistent€with€the€search€for€truth.€€The€NevadaÏSupreme€Court,€however,€has€since€overruled€òòFranklinóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòSheriff,€Humbolt€County€v.€Acunaóó,€819€P.2dÐ   Ðat€201.<@p¸ `(Courier”ÿÿ‰?xxx°XXxÅ$þÿþÿþÿþÿþÿþÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿþÿþÿþÿÿÿÿÿ”ÿÿ°XôxÅ$þÿþÿþÿþÿþÿþÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿþÿþÿþÿÿÿÿÿ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular gDhiEjklmnDoÓ€yìu[%, øð AZ"Arial Regular ´Ý ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X•wXXXÔÔ€ôƒÌôXX•wÔ€€The€instruction€stated:€ð ðAs€jurors,€you€have€the€responsibility€of€judging€the€credibility€orÐ  Ðbelievability€of€the€witnesses€and€weighing€their€testimony.€€If€there€are€conflicts,€you€should€try€toÏreconcile€them.€€Do€not€hastily€conclude€that€a€witness€testified€falsely€since€the€law€allows€you€toÏpresume€that€witnesses€are€truthful.€€In€determining€the€credibility€or€believability€of€a€witness,€you€mayÏconsider€the€witnessððs€appearance,€demeanor,€motive,€interest€or€lack€of€interest€in€the€trialððs€outcome,Ïgeneral€character,€reputation€for€truth,€fairness€or€bias,€means€of€knowledge,€reasonableness€of€theÏtestimony,€material€contradictory€statements€as€well€as€all€the€other€evidence€which€tends€to€corroborateÏor€to€contradict€the€witness.€.€.€.ðð(8(2´à$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular iÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X•wXXXÔÔ€ôƒÌôXX•wÔÔ‡ôƒÌôôôƒÌÔ€€These€cases€are€easily€distinguished€from€the€few€cases€in€which€a€violation€of€due€process€hasÐ  Ðbeen€found.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Medinaóó,€41€Cal.€App.3d€438,€455,€116€Cal.€Rptr.€133,€141€(1974),€for€example,Ð ÐÈ Ðthe€effect€of€the€plea€agreement€was€to€place€an€accomplice€under€a€ð ðstrong€compulsionðð€to€testify€againstÏthe€defendant€in€a€particular€fashion€that€amounted€to€scripted€testimony.€€€Similarly,€in€òòPeople€v.€Greenóó,Ð ` X Ð102€Cal.€App.€2d€831,€833„36,€228€P.2d€867,€868„72€(1951),€the€agreement€was€conditioned€upon€theÏaccompliceððs€testimony€producing€a€specific€result.Ô#†ôƒÌôôôƒÌ#Ô€€Finally,€in€òòFranklin€v.€Stateóó,€577€P.2d€860€(Nev.€1978),Ð ð è Ðthe€Court€reversed€a€conviction€after€finding€that€a€co„defendantððs€testimony€violated€the€defendantððs€rightÏto€due€process€and€holding€that€the€prosecutionððs€withholding€of€the€benefits€of€an€agreement€until€after€anÏaccomplice€testifies€is€inconsistent€with€the€search€for€truth.€€The€Nevada€Supreme€Court,€however,€hasÏsince€overruled€òòFranklinóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòSheriff,€Humbolt€County€v.€Acunaóó,€819€P.2d€at€201.,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ëÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôƒÌôXXÔ€Hayes€was€extensively€cross„examined€about€the€change€in€his€testimony€and€the€timing€of€theÐ  Ðmore€favorable€plea€agreement.€€Hayes€maintained€that€he€shot€the€victim€because€he€was€afraid€ofÏBolden.€€Hayes€stated€that€he€had€received€letters€from€Bolden€asking€Hayes€to€commit€perjury,€andÏthreatening€to€harm€him€if€Hayes€testified€truthfully.,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ëÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôƒÌôXXÔ€Hayes€was€extensively€cross„examined€about€the€change€in€his€testimony€and€the€timing€of€theÐ  Ðmore€favorable€plea€agreement.€€Hayes€maintained€that€he€shot€the€victim€because€he€was€afraid€ofÏBolden.€€Hayes€stated€that€he€had€received€letters€from€Bolden€asking€Hayes€to€commit€perjury,€andÏthreatening€to€harm€him€if€Hayes€testified€truthfully., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ëÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô–ôXXÔ€Hayes€was€extensively€cross„examined€about€the€change€in€his€testimony€and€the€timing€of€theÐ  Ðmore€favorable€plea€agreement.€€Hayes€maintained€that€he€shot€the€victim€because€he€was€afraid€ofÏBolden.€€Hayes€stated€that€he€had€received€letters€from€Bolden€asking€Hayes€to€commit€perjury,€andÏthreatening€to€harm€him€if€Hayes€testified€truthfully. d ‰Ý ƒ#¯-)ÝÝ  ÝÔ.Hƒ$8G:\TSC1\OPINIONS\BOLDENS.OPNHÔG:\TSC1\OPINIONS\BOLDENS.OPNÔ/  Ô •Ý ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô–ôXXÔ€€The€instruction€stated:€ð ðAs€jurors,€you€have€the€responsibility€of€judging€the€credibility€orÐ  Ðbelievability€of€the€witnesses€and€weighing€their€testimony.€€If€there€are€conflicts,€you€should€try€toÏreconcile€them.€€Do€not€hastily€conclude€that€a€witness€testified€falsely€since€the€law€allows€you€toÏpresume€that€witnesses€are€truthful.€€In€determining€the€credibility€or€believability€of€a€witness,€you€mayÏconsider€the€witnessððs€appearance,€demeanor,€motive,€interest€or€lack€of€interest€in€the€trialððs€outcome,Ïgeneral€character,€reputation€for€truth,€fairness€or€bias,€means€of€knowledge,€reasonableness€of€theÏtestimony,€material€contradictory€statements€as€well€as€all€the€other€evidence€which€tends€to€corroborateÏor€to€contradict€the€witness.€.€.€.ðð ìÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô–ôXXÔ€€These€cases€are€easily€distinguished€from€the€few€cases€in€which€a€violation€of€due€process€hasÐ  Ðbeen€found.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Medinaóó,€41€Cal.€App.€3d€438,€455,€116€Cal.€Rptr.€133,€141€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1974),Рƾ Ðfor€example,€the€effect€of€the€plea€agreement€was€to€place€an€accomplice€under€a€ð ðstrong€compulsionðð€toÏtestify€against€the€defendant€in€a€particular€fashion€that€amounted€to€scripted€testimony.€€€Similarly,€inÏòòPeople€v.€Greenóó,€228€P.2d€867,€868„72€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1951),€the€agreement€was€conditioned€upon€theÐ  ø Ðaccompliceððs€testimony€producing€a€specific€result.€€Finally,€in€òòFranklin€v.€Stateóó,€577€P.2d€860€(Nev.€1978),Ð ¾ ¶ Ðthe€court€reversed€a€conviction€after€finding€that€a€co„defendantððs€testimony€violated€the€defendantððs€rightÏto€due€process€and€holding€that€the€prosecutionððs€withholding€of€the€benefits€of€an€agreement€until€after€anÏaccomplice€testifies€is€inconsistent€with€the€search€for€truth.€€The€Nevada€Supreme€Court,€however,€hasÏsince€overruled€òòFranklinóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòAcunaóó,€819€P.2d€at€201.(3¯-$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý  îÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&ôä÷ôXXÔ€€These€cases€are€easily€distinguished€from€the€few€cases€in€which€a€violation€of€due€process€hasÐ  Ðbeen€found.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Medinaóó,€41€Cal.€App.€3d€438,€455,€116€Cal.€Rptr.€133,€141€(1974),€for€example,Рƾ Ðthe€effect€of€the€plea€agreement€was€to€place€an€accomplice€under€a€ð ðstrong€compulsionðð€to€testify€againstÏthe€defendant€in€a€particular€fashion€that€amounted€to€scripted€testimony.€€€Similarly,€in€òòPeople€v.€Greenóó,Ð B : Ð102€Cal.€App.€2d€831,€833„36,€228€P.2d€867,€868„72€(1951),€the€agreement€was€conditioned€upon€theÏaccompliceððs€testimony€producing€a€specific€result.€€Finally,€in€òòFranklin€v.€Stateóó,€577€P.2d€860€(Nev.€1978),Ð ¾ ¶ Ðthe€court€reversed€a€conviction€after€finding€that€a€co„defendantððs€testimony€violated€the€defendantððs€rightÏto€due€process€and€holding€that€the€prosecutionððs€withholding€of€the€benefits€of€an€agreement€until€after€anÏaccomplice€testifies€is€inconsistent€with€the€search€for€truth.€€The€Nevada€Supreme€Court,€however,€hasÏsince€overruled€òòFranklinóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòAcunaóó,€819€P.2d€at€201., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ÉÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡(ô–ôXXÔ€€These€cases€are€easily€distinguished€from€the€few€cases€in€which€a€violation€of€due€process€hasÐ  Ðbeen€found.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Medinaóó,€___€P.2d.€___€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1974),€for€example,€the€effect€of€the€pleaРƾ Ðagreement€was€to€place€an€accomplice€under€a€ð ðstrong€compulsionðð€to€testify€against€the€defendant€in€aÏparticular€fashion€that€amounted€to€scripted€testimony.€€€Similarly,€in€òòPeople€v.€Greenóó,€228€P.2d€867,€868„Ð B : Ð72€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1951),€the€agreement€was€conditioned€upon€the€accompliceððs€testimony€producing€aÏspecific€result.€€Finally,€in€òòFranklin€v.€Stateóó,€577€P.2d€860€(Nev.€1978),€the€court€reversed€a€convictionÐ ¾ ¶ Ðafter€finding€that€a€co„defendantððs€testimony€violated€the€defendantððs€right€to€due€process€and€holding€thatÏthe€prosecutionððs€withholding€of€the€benefits€of€an€agreement€until€after€an€accomplice€testifies€isÏinconsistent€with€the€search€for€truth.€€The€Nevada€Supreme€Court,€however,€has€since€overruledÏòòFranklinóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòAcunaóó,€819€P.2d€at€201., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- ëÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô$¿ôXXÔ€Hayes€was€extensively€cross„examined€about€the€change€in€his€testimony€and€the€timing€of€theÐ  Ðmore€favorable€plea€agreement.€€Hayes€maintained€that€he€shot€the€victim€because€he€was€afraid€ofÏBolden.€€Hayes€stated€that€he€had€received€letters€from€Bolden€asking€Hayes€to€commit€perjury,€andÏthreatening€to€harm€him€if€Hayes€testified€truthfully. •Ý ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô$¿ôXXÔ€€The€instruction€stated:€ð ðAs€jurors,€you€have€the€responsibility€of€judging€the€credibility€orÐ  Ðbelievability€of€the€witnesses€and€weighing€their€testimony.€€If€there€are€conflicts,€you€should€try€toÏreconcile€them.€€Do€not€hastily€conclude€that€a€witness€testified€falsely€since€the€law€allows€you€toÏpresume€that€witnesses€are€truthful.€€In€determining€the€credibility€or€believability€of€a€witness,€you€mayÏconsider€the€witnessððs€appearance,€demeanor,€motive,€interest€or€lack€of€interest€in€the€trialððs€outcome,Ïgeneral€character,€reputation€for€truth,€fairness€or€bias,€means€of€knowledge,€reasonableness€of€theÏtestimony,€material€contradictory€statements€as€well€as€all€the€other€evidence€which€tends€to€corroborateÏor€to€contradict€the€witness.€.€.€.ðð ìÝ ƒ´à$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô$¿ôXXÔ€€These€cases€are€easily€distinguished€from€the€few€cases€in€which€a€violation€of€due€process€hasÐ  Ðbeen€found.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Medinaóó,€41€Cal.€App.€3d€438,€455,€116€Cal.€Rptr.€133,€141€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1974),Рƾ Ðfor€example,€the€effect€of€the€plea€agreement€was€to€place€an€accomplice€under€a€ð ðstrong€compulsionðð€toÏtestify€against€the€defendant€in€a€particular€fashion€that€amounted€to€scripted€testimony.€€€Similarly,€inÏòòPeople€v.€Greenóó,€228€P.2d€867,€868„72€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€1951),€the€agreement€was€conditioned€upon€theÐ  ø Ðaccompliceððs€testimony€producing€a€specific€result.€€Finally,€in€òòFranklin€v.€Stateóó,€577€P.2d€860€(Nev.€1978),Ð ¾ ¶ Ðthe€court€reversed€a€conviction€after€finding€that€a€co„defendantððs€testimony€violated€the€defendantððs€rightÏto€due€process€and€holding€that€the€prosecutionððs€withholding€of€the€benefits€of€an€agreement€until€after€anÏaccomplice€testifies€is€inconsistent€with€the€search€for€truth.€€The€Nevada€Supreme€Court,€however,€hasÏsince€overruled€òòFranklinóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòAcunaóó,€819€P.2d€at€201../012Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó33'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd úÝ ƒ/¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€6X:šXXXÔÔ€6.X6X:šÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€6X:šX6.ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€16,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularÑ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñoñ›ñoñÑ  ÑÓ=€:šXÐXdÐd=Óñyññoñßr€-45<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñoññyññyññyññyññoñ›ñoññyññyñ›ñyñà@MMDàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñyñœßt€-45>.*jx§ÿ` `€€@EÇ` 8ttxPÿîð  tß›ñyñÌà@ÎÎ*DàAT€JACKSONˆÌ̛̜ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àœ€€€€òòò òFOR›€PUBLICATIONóóó óÐ R J ÐÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà  à)Ð $  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àœò òòòFiled:€€November€16,€1998ó ó›óóÐ    Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À àà  à)Ð öî  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ ÜÔ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àœ€€€€€€€€DYER›€œCRIMINAL›Ð º  ÐVs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à€Ð ¨   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌSTEVEN€BOLDEN,à  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€œñgñR.›€LEE›€MOOREñgññhñJOñhññiññhñ€ñhññiññjñE€G.€RILEYñjñ,›€JUDGEÐ tl Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àœAppellant.›à h àà À àà  àœ)à p àNo.€€02„S„01„9711„CC„00102›à (# àÐ & Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àœ)›ÌÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€à p àÐ Š‚ Ðò òòòFor€Appellant:óó€€ó óà  àà h àà À àà  àòòò òà p àFor€Appellee:ó óóó€òòò òÐ ph Ðœó óóóVanedda›€Princeà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ \T ÐFOWLER,€PRINCE€&€WEBBà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€Reporteròòò òÐ B : Ðó óóóUnion€City,€Tennesseeà h àà À àà  àà p àÐ (!  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMichael€E.€MooreÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àKathy€MoranteÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àKenneth€W.€RuckerÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌœà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€Tennessee›Ìò òòòÌœó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAt€Trial:óóÐ +$( Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àC.€Phillip€BivensÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDyersburg,€Tennesseeòòò ò›Ð Â-º&+ ÐÌÌÌóóó óÌÔ‡„)„XXÔò òà@ÎÎ)DàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ#†X:šX„„)ÿ#ԈРR2J+0 ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌœñgñ››ñgñCñgñ›››ñgñOñgñ›ñgñUñgñ›ñgñRñgñ›ñgñTñgñ›ñgñ€ñgñ›ñgñOñgñ›ñgñFñgñ›ñgñ€ñgñ›ñgñCñgñ›ñgñRñgñ›ñgñIñgñ›ñgñMñgñ›ñgñIñgñ›ñgñNñgñ›ñgñAñgñ›ñgñLñgñ›ñgñ€ñgñ›ñgñAñgñ›ñgñPñgñ›ñgñPñgñ›ñgñEñgñ›ñgñAñgñ›ñgñLñgñ›ñgñS›ÌAFFIRMEDà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àANDERSON,€œC.J.Ð  :ø28 ЛÓÓÓ  ÓÑ€)ÑÑ7€ X Xdðdæ7Ñà ` àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€œtwo€issues:€€first,€whether›€a€co„defendantððsÐ  Ðtestimony€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement€with€the€prosecution€violated€the€defendantððsÏœrightñkñsñkñ›€to€due€process€of€law€and€a€fair€trial€under€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏœConstitutions;›€œand€second,›€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€to€considerÏthe€lesser€included€offense€of€œsecond€degree›€murder€over€the€defendantððs€objection.€€ÌÌà ` àIn€affirming€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€œsecond€degree›€murder,€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€held€that€the€co„defendantððs€testimony€did€not€violate€the€defendantððsÏconstitutional€rights€because€the€plea€agreement€was€œdisclosed,›€and€the€defendant€hadÏthe€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€œco„defendant.›€€The€œappellate€court›€also€concludedÏthat€since€the€evidence€supported€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder,€the€trial€courtÏwas€required€by€statute€to€charge€the€jury€on€that€offense.€ÌÌà ` àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€co„defendantððsÏplea€agreement€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€œrightñlñsñlñ›€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial.€ÏThe€plea€agreement€was€disclosed€to€the€defendant€and€to€the€jury,€and€the€defendantÏfully€cross„examined€the€co„defendant€with€respect€to€his€motives€in€entering€into€theÏagreement.€€We€also€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€trial€judge€had€aÏstatutory€duty€to€instruct€the€jury€on€œsecond€degree›€murder.€€Thus,€we€affirm€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment.ÌÌà@kk*Dàò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóˆÐ Ä,¼%* Ðà ` àKabrian€Hayes€and€the€defendant,€Steven€Bolden,€were€charged€with€the€œfirst€›Ïdegree€premeditated€murder€of€Sammy€Davidson.€€Hayes€made€a€plea€agreement€withÏthe€prosecution€in€which€he€agreed€to€plead€guilty€to€œsecond€degree›€murder€and€receiveÏa€25„year€sentence€in€exchange€for€his€testimony€against€Bolden.€€At€Boldenððs€trial,Ïhowever,€Hayes€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€the€events€that€occurred€on€the€night€ofÏthe€murder.€€Upon€further€questioning,€he€claimed€only€that€unknown€persons€gave€himÏrides€to€and€from€the€murder€scene.€€Ð d9\28 Їà ` àDuring€a€recess€in€the€trial,€further€discussion€took€place€between€Hayes,€HayesððÏmother,€defense€counsel,€and€the€prosecution.€€A€second€plea€agreement€was€made€byÏwhich€Hayes€would€plead€guilty€to€œsecond€degree›€murder€and€allow€the€trial€court€toÏdetermine€the€sentence€from€the€range€of€œ15›€to€œ25›€years.€€In€return,€Hayes€agreed€toÏtestify€truthfully,€in€accordance€with€a€prior€statement€he€had€given€to€a€lawÏenforcement€officer,€and€as€to€threats€made€to€him€by€Bolden.€€The€written€agreementÏstated:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` àIf€Kabrian€Hayes€testifies€truthfully€as€to€Steve€Boldenððs€involvement€in€theÏmurder€of€Sammy€Davidson€and€as€he€stated€in€his€statement€to€[TBIÏagent]€Roger€Hughes€on€3/21/94€at€6:05€p.m.€and€as€to€threats€made€toÏhim€by€Steve€Bolden€then€I€will€offer€a€plea€to€2d€Degree€Murder,€Range€I,Ïjudicial€sentencing.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àAfter€the€recess,€the€trial€resumed.€€Hayes€then€testified€that€on€March€16,€1994,Ïhe€and€Bolden€drove€around€Tiptonville,€Tennessee,ò ò€ó ósearching€for€the€victim€DavidsonÐ ˜ Ðfor€the€purpose€of€collecting€œforty€dollars€($40)›€which€he€owed€Bolden€for€two€rocks€ofÏcocaine.€€Bolden€was€œdriving,›€and€Hayes€rode€in€the€front€passenger€seat.€€Hayes€andÏBolden€found€the€victim,€who€was€ordered€by€Bolden€to€get€into€the€car.€€Bolden€droveÏto€a€remote,€unpopulated€area€near€the€Mississippi€River€where€he€asked€the€victim€toÏpay€him€the€œforty€dollars€($40).›€€When€the€victim€indicated€that€he€did€not€have€anyÏmoney,€Bolden€told€Hayes€to€shoot€the€victim.€€Hayes,€armed€with€a€9„mm.€pistol€givenÏto€him€by€Bolden,€shot€the€victim€twice€in€the€chest€at€point€blank€range.€€Bolden€andÏHayes€then€threw€the€victimððs€body€in€the€river.׃*×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ø*ð#( ÐÌà ` àHayesðð€testimony€was€corroborated€with€other€evidence.€€Terrance€MontgomeryÏtestified€that€he€saw€Hayes€and€Bolden€together€on€the€evening€of€the€murder.€€BoldenÏtold€Montgomery€that€they€were€looking€for€the€victim,€who€ð ðhad€messed€[Bolden]€out€ofÏforty€dollars.ðð€€Bolden€expressed€his€intent€to€kill€the€victim€to€œMontgomery,›€who€alsoÏnoticed€that€Hayes€was€in€possession€of€a€9€mm.€œpistol.€€Ð À5¸.4 Їà ` àBolden›€œgave›€two€statements€to€œthe€police.›€€œAfter€first›€œdenying›€that€he€was€in€theÏcar€when€the€victim€was€œshot,›€œBolden›€admitted€that€he€was€in€the€car€when€KabrianÏHayes€shot€and€killed€the€victim.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€trial,€defendant€Bolden€objected€to€a€œproposed€jury›Ïinstruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€œsecond€degree›€murder€œseeking›€to€limit€theÏjury's€consideration€to€œfirst€degree›€murder.€€œDespite€the€objection,€the›€trial€court€œcharged›Ïthe€jury€on€œfirst€degree›€premeditated€murder€and€the€lesser€included€offense€of€œsecond€›Ïdegree€murder.€€The€jury€convicted€Bolden€of€œsecond€degree›€murder.€€ÌÌà ` àœOn€appeal,›€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€œaffirmed€defendantððs€conviction,Ïholding€that›€the€co-defendant's€plea€bargain€did€not€violate€Bolden's€right€to€dueÏprocess€because€the€jury€was€aware€of€the€œagreement›€and€the€defendant€wasÏpermitted€to€œconduct€a€thorough€cross-examination€of›€the€co-defendant.€€The€œappellateÏcourt›€œalso›€held€that€the€trial€court€had€a€statutory€duty€to€charge€the€jury€with€all€lesserÏgrades€or€classes€of€œfirst€degree›€murder€supported€by€the€evidence€and€did€not€err€byÏinstructing€the€jury€on€œsecond€degree›€murder.€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€review€two€questions:€€œfirst,›€whether€œthe€co-defendant›ÏHayesðð€plea€agreement€violated€defendantððs€œrightñmñsñmñ›€to€due€œprocess€and€a€fair€trial;›€andÏsecond,€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€charging€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offenseÏof€second€degree€murder€over€the€defendant's€objection.€ÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓCO„DEFENDANTððS€PLEA€œBARGAINó óóó›Ð \0T). ÐœÓH+Óà ` àBolden›€argues€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial€underÏthe€Tennessee€and€United€States€œConstitutions›€because€the€prosecutorððs€pleaÏagreement€with€Kabrian€Hayes€required€Hayes€to€testify€to€specific€œfacts.€€Specifically,ÏBolden€contends€that€requiring›€Hayes€to€testify€ð ðas€he€stated€in€his€statements€to€[TBIÏagent]€Roger€Hughesðð€was€tantamount€to€requiring€scripted€testimony.€€The€StateÐ X9P28 Ðmaintains€that€œthe€agreement€required€truthful€testimony€and€that€disclosure›€of€theÏagreement€to€the€jury€and€œcross„examination€of€Hayes›€preserved€the€defendantððs€rightÏto€due€process€and€a€fair€trial.ÌÌà ` àWe€begin€by€observing€œthat€the›€testimony€of€an€accomplice€is€œgenerallyÏadmissible›€even€if€it€is€obtained€through€a€plea€agreement.€€œòòSeeó󛀜òòGiglio›€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð ü  Ð405€U.S.€150,€92€œS.€Ct.›€763,€31€œL.€Ed.€2d›€104€œ(1972).€€A€promise€of€leniency€or€otherÏfavorable€agreement€goes€only€to€the€credibility€of€a€witnessððs€testimony,€not€to€itsÏadmissibility.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Hoffaóó,€385€U.S.€293,€87€S.€Ct.€408,€17€L.€Ed.€2d€374Ð h` Ð(1966);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Garciaóó,€630€P.2d€665,€673€(Idaho€1981);€òòKelley€v.€Stateóó,€460Ð 4, ÐN.E.2d€137,€140€(Ind.€1984);€òòState€v.€Burchettóó,€399€N.W.2d€258,€266€(Neb.€1987).Ð ø ÐÌà ` àMany€courts,€however,€require€that€safeguards€be€followed€before€admitting€Ïtestimony€procured€through€plea€bargain€agreements.€€These€requirements,€theÏpurpose€of€which€is€to€preserve€the€defendantððs€rights€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial,€Ïhave€been€held€to€include€the€following:€€(1)€full€disclosure€of€the€terms€of€theÏagreements€struck€with€the€witnesses;€(2)€the€opportunity€for€full€cross„examination€ofÏthose€witnesses€concerning€the€agreements€and€the€effect€of€those€agreements€on€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses;€and€(3)€instructions€cautioning€the€jury€to€carefully€evaluateÏthe€weight€and€credibility€of€the€testimony€of€such€witnesses€who€have€been€induced€byÏagreements€with€the€State€to€testify€against€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGarciaóó,€630€P.2dÐ ø*ð#( Ðat€673;€òòPeople€v.€Lopezóó,€610€N.E.2d€189€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,€583Ð Ä,¼%* ÐN.E.2d€122€(Ind.€1991);€òòSheriff,€Humboldt€County€v.€Acunaóó,€819€P.2d€197€(Nev.€1991);Ð .ˆ', ÐòòState€v.€Leonardóó,€328€S.E.2d€593€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€Nerisonóó,€401€N.W.2d€1Ð \0T). Ð(Wis.€1987)Ô‡ XxªXXXxªÔ.Ð (2 +0 ÐÌà ` àAs€the€Iowa€Supreme€Court€has€explained:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€most€instances,€any€potential€for€prejudice€to€a€defendantððs€caseÏwill€be€avoided€by€allowing€the€witness€to€testify€subject€to€searchingÏcross„examination€intended€to€develop€fully€any€evidence€of€bias€orÐ >:639 Ðmotive€on€the€part€of€the€witness,€or€improper€conduct€on€the€part€of€theÏState.€€Every€fact€that€might€in€some€way€influence€the€truthfulness€andÏcredibility€of€the€witnessððs€testimony€should€be€laid€before€the€jury.€€ThisÏensures€no€unnecessary€barriers€will€be€imposed€on€the€Stateððs€ability€toÏbargain€for€truthful€testimony,€and€at€the€same€time€ensures€the€jury€willÏbe€able€to€determine€what€weight,€if€any,€in€light€of€all€the€evidence,€toÏgive€the€witnessððs€testimony.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€McGonigleóó,€401€N.W.2d€39,€42€(Iowa€1987)€(citation€omitted).€€€Ð   ÐÌà ` àIn€addition€to€these€safeguards,€courts€in€Nebraska,€Nevada,€and€California€haveÏemphasized€that€a€plea€bargain€may€not€be€conditioned€on€a€witness€giving€false€orÏscripted€testimony.€€òòBurchettóó,€399€N.W.2d€at€266;€òòAcunaóó,€819€P.2d€at€201.€€TheÐ NF ÐCalifornia€Supreme€Court€has€stated,€for€instance,€that€a€plea€bargain€consummated€inÏexchange€for€€testimony€is€unacceptable€where€ð ðthe€testimony€must€be€confined€to€aÏpredetermined€formulationðð€or€must€produce€a€ð ðgiven€result,€that€is€to€say,€a€conviction.ðð€ÏòòPeople€v.€Garrisonóó,€765€P.2d€419€(Cal.€1989);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€DeWittóó,€286€N.W.2dÐ ~v Ð379,€384€(Iowa€1979)€(plea€agreement€for€accompliceððs€false€or€specific€testimony€isÏinadmissible).€ÌÔ#†XxªXX Xxª»5#ÔòòÌóóà ` à€Although€we€have€not€addressed€this€precise€issue€in€the€past,€we€agree€withÐ ®$¦! Ðthe€principles€espoused€by€the€majority€of€other€state€courts€and€find€that€theseÏprinciples€are€consistent€with€our€Tennessee€cases€addressing€related€issues.€€ForÏexample,€the€safeguards€attendant€to€allowing€testimony€induced€by€a€plea€agreement€Ï„„€full€disclosure€of€the€terms€of€the€plea€agreement€and€cross„examination€into€theÏwitnessðð€motives€and€bias€„„€place€the€responsibility€of€weighing€the€testimony€andÏcredibility€of€the€witness€upon€the€jury.€€òòE.g.óó,€ñnñ€ñnñòòState€v.€Hornsbyóó,€858€S.W.2d€892€(Tenn.Ð v/n(- Ð1993)€(weighing€evidence€and€credibility€is€function€for€trier€of€fact).€ÌÌà ` àMoreover,€the€limitations€expressed€in€these€cases€„„€that€a€plea€agreement€mayÏnot€be€conditioned€upon€false,€scripted,€predetermined,€or€specific€testimony€withoutÏregard€for€the€truthfulness€of€the€witnessðð€testimony€„„€are€consistent€with€establishedÏprinciples€of€due€process€which€prohibit€the€State€from€using€testimony€known€to€beÐ >:639 Ðfalse€or€later€learned€to€be€false.€€òòÔ‡ XxªXXXxªÔGiglioóó,€405€U.S.€at€154,€92€S.€Ct.€at€766;€òòState€v.Ð  ÐSpurlockóó,€872€S.W.2d€602,€621€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð ÔÌ ÐÌÔ#†XxªXX XxªpA#Ôà ` àIn€applying€these€principles€to€the€case€at€hand,€it€is€readily€apparent€that€theÐ l d Ðrequisite€safeguards€were€followed€in€allowing€Hayes€to€testify.€€The€plea€agreement,Ïwhich€was€written€on€a€single€legal€page,€was€disclosed€to€the€defendant€and€to€theÏjury.€€Counsel€for€defendant€Bolden€had€ample€opportunity€to€cross„examine€KabrianÏHayes,€and€in€fact€conducted€a€vigorous€examination€into€Hayesðð€motives€and€conduct.€€ÏBoldenððs€counsel,€for€instance,€elicited€(a)€the€details€of€the€first€plea€agreement;€(b)ÏHayesðð€first€statement€of€the€offense,€which€did€not€implicate€Bolden;€(c)€the€details€ofÏthe€second€plea€agreement;€and€(d)€the€fact€that€Hayesðð€testimony€implicated€BoldenÏonly€òòafteróó€Hayes€agreed€to€the€second€plea€agreement€with€its€possibility€of€a€moreÐ ÌÄ Ðlenient€€sentence.€€Finally,€the€jury€was€instructed€that€it€was€required€to€judge€theÏcredibility€or€believability€of€witnesses€and€to€weigh€their€testimony.׃+×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð d\ ÐÌà ` àA€somewhat€more€difficult€issue,€and€the€issue€to€which€defendant€BoldenÏdevotes€much€of€his€argument,€is€whether€the€second€plea€agreement€required€HayesÏto€testify€in€a€particular€manner€or€according€to€a€predetermined€script.€€As€BoldenÏnotes,€the€plea€agreement€stated€that€the€plea€offer€would€be€made€by€the€prosecutorÏð ðifðð€Hayes€testified€ð ðas€he€stated€in€his€statement€to€[agent]€Hughes€on€3/24/94€at€6:05Ïp.m.€and€as€to€threats€made€to€him€by€Steve€Bolden.ðð€€The€agreement€also€stated,Ïhowever,€that€Kabrian€Hayes€was€to€ð ðtestif[y]€truthfully€as€to€Steve€Boldenððs€involvementÏin€the€murder€of€Sammy€Davidson.ðð€Ìâ âÐ \0T). Ðà ` àSeveral€state€courts€have€concluded€that€requiring€specific€testimony€of€a€co„¼â âdefendant€as€a€condition€of€a€plea€agreement€is€not€a€violation€of€due€process€so€longÏas€the€testimony€is€required€to€be€truthful.€€In€a€1987€Nebraska€case,€òòBurchettóó,€399Ð   ˜ ÐN.W.2d€258,€the€defendant€argued€that€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€was€violated€because€aÏco„defendant€testified€under€a€plea€bargain€agreement€which€required€that€he€testify€toÏð ðhis€last€version€of€the€eventsðð€leading€to€the€victimððs€death€and€to€the€satisfaction€of€theÏprosecutor€before€receiving€the€benefit€of€the€agreement.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€Nebraska€Supreme€Court€began€its€analysis€by€stating€that€ð ðit€is€only€whereÏthe€prosecution€has€bargained€for€false€or€specific€testimony,€or€a€specific€result,€thatÏan€accompliceððs€testimony€is€so€tainted€as€to€require...preclusion.ðð€€€The€court€thenÏobserved€that€the€plea€agreement€required€the€co„defendant€to€assist€the€prosecutionÏby€ð ðspeaking€truthfully€with€a€representative€of€the€[state]€and€testifying€truthfully€at€anyÏcourt€hearingðð€regarding€the€events€of€the€murder.€€Although€the€record€indicated€thatÏthe€co„defendant€had€given€several€different€statements,€the€court€said€that€the€ð ðfinalÏversionðð€implicating€the€defendant€was€understood€to€be€truthful.€€òòIdóó.€at€266„67.Ð ü!ô ÐÌà ` àA€Washington€appellate€court€also€rejected€the€claim€that€a€co„defendantððs€pleaÏagreement€violated€the€defendantððs€right€to€due€process€by€requiring€specific€testimony.€ÏThe€court€noted€the€plea€agreement€required€the€co„defendant€to€ð ðgive€ðða€complete€andÏtruthfulðð€òòstatementóó€concerning€[the€victimððs]€death,€confirming€that€he€did€not€have€priorÐ ø*ð#( Ðknowledge€of€the€killing,€did€not€commit€the€murder,€and€did€not€aid€in€the€commissionÏof€the€murder.ðð€€òòState€v.€Clarkóó,€743€P.2d€822,€828€(Wash.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(emphasis€inÐ .ˆ', Ðoriginal).€€The€court€concluded€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` àà ¸ àUnder€the€terms€of€the€immunity€agreement,€the€Stateððs€promisesÏdid€not€extend€to€false€or€misleading€statements€or€perjury.€€Thus,€òòwhileÐ ô3ì,2 Ðthe€agreement€provided€some€incentive€for€[co„defendant]€to€confirm€hisÏprior€accounts€of€the€killing,€it€provided€an€equal€incentive€that€he€notÏenter€the€agreement€at€all€unless€the€statement€was€in€fact€the€truthóó.€.€.€.Ð ¦6ž/5 Ð[W]e€conclude€that€the€immunity€agreement€in€the€instant€case€was€notÏimproperly€conditioned€on€testimony€setting€forth€a€particular€formulationÏof€the€facts€or€on€the€achievement€of€a€certain€result.Ð ` (#` (# ÐòòÐ >:639 ЇÓÓClarkóó,€743€P.2d€at€828„29€(emphasis€added).Ð  ÐÌà ` àThe€Nevada€Supreme€Court€has€made€similar€observations€in€rejecting€a€claimÏthat€a€co„defendantððs€agreement€violated€due€process€principles:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` à[I]t€is€not€improper€for€the€State€to€require€the€promisee€to€testify€in€aÏgeneral€manner€that€is€consistent€with€the€information€provided€to€theÏState€as€an€inducement€for€the€bargain,€subject,€of€course,€to€any€changeÏmandated€by€truth€if€the€promisee€subsequently€admits€to€falsifying€theÏinformation€upon€which€the€bargain€is€based.€.€.€.€òòThe€testimonyÐ ¶®  Ðcondemned€by€the€courts€.€.€.€is€that€which€must€be€played€according€to€aÏpredetermined€script€and€irrespective€of€its€truthfulnessóó.€€The€witnessÐ ‚z  Ðmust€understand€that€he€is€not€free€to€commit€perjury,€and€that€the€pleaÏbargain€may€not€be€based€upon€false€testimony.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÌòòÓÓAcunaóó,€819€P.2d€at€201€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDeWittóó,€286€N.W.2d€at€386€(co„Ð ø Ðdefendant€required€to€testify€ð ðfully€about€[his]€knowledge€of€all€of€the€facts€.€.€.€do€so€andÏtruthfullyðð).׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜ ÐÌà ` àIn€our€view,€the€present€case€is€consistent€with€these€cases.€€There€is€noÏindication€that€the€prosecutionððs€agreement€with€Kabrian€Hayes€required€false€orÏperjured€testimony,€nor€that€Hayes€was€required€to€testify€in€accordance€with€aÏparticular€script.€€Although€the€references€to€Hayesðð€prior€statement€to€Agent€HughesÏand€the€threats€made€by€Bolden€appear€to€refer€to€improper€specific€testimony,€the€firstÏprovision€in€the€plea€agreement€stated€that€Hayes€must€ð ðtestify€truthfully,ðð€a€conditionÏwhich€necessarily€engulfed€the€other€provisions.€€In€sum,€the€agreement€hinged€uponÏtruthful€testimony.€€Accordingly,€we€are€convinced€that€Hayes'€testimony€was€not€taintedÏby€the€plea€agreement.€€Moreover,€the€essential€safeguards€were€followed:€€the€juryÏand€the€defendant€were€fully€apprised€of€the€agreement;€the€defendant€conducted€a€fullÐ \0T). Ðand€vigorous€cross„examination€of€Hayes,€which€revealed€that€Hayes€had€received€aÏnew€and€more€limited€plea€agreement€and€then€changed€his€story€on€the€stand;€and€theÏjury€was€instructed€that€its€function€was€to€weigh€the€testimony€and€determine€theÏcredibility€of€the€witness.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€admission€of€HayesððÏtestimony€induced€by€a€plea€agreement€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€rights€to€dueÏprocess€and€a€fair€trial.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòLESSER€INCLUDED€OFFENSESó óóóÐ œ”  ÐÓ  Óà ` àOver€Boldenððs€objection,€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury€on€the€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€second€degree€murder€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-18-110(a)€(1997),Ïwhich€provides:€€ð ðIt€is€the€duty€of€all€judges€charging€juries€in€cases€of€criminalÏprosecutions€for€any€felony€wherein€two€(2)€or€more€grades€or€classes€of€offense€mayÏbe€included€in€the€indictment,€to€charge€the€jury€as€to€all€of€the€law€of€each€offenseÏincluded€in€the€indictment,€without€any€request€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€do€so.ðð€ÏBolden€argues€that€this€statute€is€intended€to€benefit€the€accused€and€that€the€accusedÏmay,€therefore,€object€to€the€trial€court€instructions€on€lesser€offenses.€€The€StateÏmaintains,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held,€that€the€instruction€to€the€jury€wasÏmandatory€since€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€charge€on€second€degreeÏmurder.›ÌÌà ` àThis€Court€has€interpreted€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-18-110(a)€to€mean€that€a€trialÏcourt€must€instruct€the€jury€on€all€lesser€œoffenses›€if€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial€isÏlegally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€œoffense.€€òòState›€v.€Clevelandóó,€959Ð .ˆ', ÐS.W.2d€548,€553€(Tenn.€œ1997).›€œ€An›€offense€is€lesser€included€in€another€"only€if€theÏelements€of€the€greater€offense,€as€those€elements€are€set€forth€in€the€indictment,Ïinclude€but€are€not€congruent€with,€all€the€elements€of€the€lesser."€œ€òòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€578Ð ô3ì,2 ÐS.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€1979);€òòseeóó›œòòalsoóó›€òòClevelandóó,€959€S.W.2d€at€553.€€€€œÐ À5¸.4 Ðâ âÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ` àWe€have€frequently€held€that€the€trial€courtððs€obligation€under€this€statute€isÏâ âmandatory,€provided€there€is€sufficient€evidence€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€aÏdefendant€guilty€of€a€lesser€offense.€€òòStrader€v.€Stateóó,€362€S.W.2d€224,€228€(Tenn.Ð   ˜ Ð1962).€€The€failure€to€instruct€on€a€lesser€offense,€however,€may€be€shown€to€beÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€under€some€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ð 80 Ð___€S.W.2d€____€(Tenn.€1998)€(failure€to€instruct€on€voluntary€manslaughter€harmlessÏerror€where€jury€convicted€defendant€of€first€degree€murder€despite€being€instructed€onÏother€lesser€included€offenses).ÌÌà ` àOne€purpose€of€the€statute€is€to€protect€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€by€instructing€theÏjury€on€the€elements€of€all€offenses€embraced€by€the€indictment.€€Although€it€oftenÏbenefits€the€defendant€to€have€a€jury€consider€lesser€offenses,€the€mandatory€nature€ofÏthe€statute€indicates€that€it€facilitates€the€overall€truth„seeking€function€of€the€process.€ÏIn€addressing€a€similar€issue,€the€California€Supreme€Court€observed:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` à[T]he€evidence€may€show€that€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€someÏintermediate€offense€included€within,€but€lesser€than,€the€crime€charged.€ÏA€trial€courtððs€failure€to€inform€the€jury€of€its€option€to€find€the€defendantÏguilty€of€the€lesser€offense€would€impair€the€juryððs€truth„ascertainmentÏfunction.€€Consequently,€neither€the€prosecution€nor€the€defense€shouldÏbe€allowed,€based€on€their€trial€strategy,€to€preclude€the€jury€fromÏconsidering€guilt€of€a€lesser€offense€included€in€the€crime€charged.€€ToÏpermit€this€would€force€the€jury€to€make€an€ððall€or€nothingðð€choice€betweenÏconviction€of€the€crime€charged€or€complete€acquital,€thereby€denying€theÏjury€the€opportunity€to€decide€whether€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€a€lesserÏincluded€offense€established€by€the€evidence.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÌÓÓòòPeople€v.€Bartonóó,€906€P.2d€531,€536€(Cal.€1995)€(trial€court€properly€instructed€jury€onÐ Ä,¼%* Ðlesser€offense€of€involuntary€manslaughter€over€the€defendantððs€objection).€€ÌÌà ` àIn€view€of€the€foregoing,€the€only€remaining€argument€and€the€only€question€forÏreview€is€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€the€lesserÏincluded€offense€of€second€degree€murder.€€Here,€defendant€Bolden€was€charged€withÏthe€offense€of€first€degree€murder,€which€is€"[a]€premeditated€and€intentional€killing€ofÏanother."€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-202(1)€(1997€&€Supp.€1998).€€Second€degreeÐ X9P28 Ðmurder,€which€requires€"[a]€knowing€killing€of€another,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-210(1)€Ï(1997),€is€a€lesser€included€offense.€€At€trial,€Boldenððs›€guilt€was€predicated€on€hisÏcriminal€responsibility€for€the€conduct€of€Hayes.€€A€person€is€criminally€responsible€forÏthe€conduct€of€another€when€the€person€œ"[a]cting›€with€œintent›€to€promote€or€assist€theÏcommission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,.€.€.Ïsolicits,€directs,€œaids,›€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€the€offense."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ39-11-402(2)€(1997).›€œÌÌà ` àThe›€jury€was€presented€with€evidence€that€œBolden€and€Hayes€drove€aroundÏlooking€for€the€victim,€who€owed€Bolden€money.€€Bolden€had€expressed€his€intent€to€killÏthe€victim.€€He€and€Hayes,€after€finding€the€victim,€drove€to€a€deserted›€dirt€road€on€theÏbanks€of€the€Mississippi.€€œWhen€the€victim€said€he€did€not€have€any€money,€BoldenÏordered€Hayes›€to€shoot€the€œvictim€with€a€weapon€Bolden€had€given€Hayes.›€€œAfter€HayesÏshot€the€victim€twice€in€the€chest,€Bolden›€helped€œdump›€the€victim's€body€into€the€water.€€œÌÌà ` àWe›€agree€with€the€œlower€courtsðð€determinations€that›€there€was€sufficient€evidenceÏpresented€to€warrant€a€œconviction€of›€œsecond€degree›€œmurder.€€Accordingly,€we€concludeÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€complying€with€its€mandatory€statutory€obligation€ofÏinstructing€the€jury€on€the€offense.€€›ÌÌÓ  Óœòòò òCONCLUSIONó ó›óóÐ ø*ð#( ÐÓ  Óà ` àAfter€our€review€of€the€œrecord›€and€the€applicable€authority,€we€conclude€that€theÏadmission€of€the€œco„defendantððs›€testimony€induced€by€a€plea€agreement€did€not€violateÏthe€œdefendantððs›€rights€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial€under€the€United€States€andÏTennessee€Constitutions.€€We€further€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏinstructing€the€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€œsecond€degree›€œmurder€over€theÏdefendantððs€objection.›€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment.Ìâ âÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ` àCosts€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€Steven€Bolden,€for€which€executionÏâ âmay€issue€if€necessary.Ìà ` àÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌ̛̜̜ò òCONCUR:›Ð ÐÈ  Ðœó óÌDrowota,›€œBirch,€and€Holder,›€JJ.Ìœ