ÿWPC~( jÂÔ—‚ýÈKBRUc.yØ“åìDžÝ¨Ÿ± Ià¥ị́ܖ’ól Á‹yUž®üi`SoÐ5³ëìýNq#Ïv3Íg>8㪤>õ$­’ø‡6Û.uÅ‡ÊØ€ž×T#cp0·v„à »y‚³-º¢¡¬d2d€äÄÕÿÂÞ¾wÑ}59?<-´…ßH{ÇÔxp>ý8vZ_]]ßvXŠŒòÜáN\&U_##ûQYZ±óÞkýJnkt슯@¾Iª#HÀyÔ»¡-çÚû}Zx!†^ÞÞ@OGð×G¸ÌtŒfª ”ÏA+ÐÈöf3Y×fh ªQ–‚*¬¬)€pv‰ýãwö›½jULUNŠÖ,½ÆA¼ÍM.Õ~¨Ÿv—¥Ñ™[²/¥çˆõ¥Ñ'’%›M€X*ŽQ Ù›ëÃÕ ìõY˜N0¡göÍÁšlØ.í—[ö´™D_sµ>U™„™(æš• ²›tÉN}þ– (=|ï=&Šù˜‘×"øêaæŠáÛ`ºÜ]y£Ô䘈’= †0JF¬©? 'lÐBBÜ u29ºHS°‡Ÿ,¦ a‚Â÷eU‹*Í ¹ü’ªQí±‚ýqèûånå“R»#næ}æ=# VU Na %¯ 0(µU :ÝU:w@Q4‘¥U:´hî 0 ªV 0c Æc 0D) U:m U.§ U:Õ 1m 0c| ¨ß À‡GU:JJJJJJJ1„µµ‘¶¶ BG?d£ 0D¸Øü AQÔÔ 0D%] ii D/Æ& Bõ&õ&)' D3;(;(;(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(bv(˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular`"Arial Regular õ4Uö4D÷4Dø4Dù4Dú4û4ü4Pý4Dþ4Ó€ìu[%Ô\@Ôô3|x5,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ^Ý ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ô~¯ôXXÔÔ€ô;Áôôô~¯Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Prior€to€the€1989€amendments,€the€trial€court€was€not€required€to€inform€the€jury€that€no€Ð `  Ðà  àà0 ` àdistinction€shall€be€made€between€statutory€and€specifically€requested€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€à  àfactors.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€39„13„203(e)€(1982).€€The€judge€here€instructed€the€juryÐ Ü | Ðnot€to€distinguish€between€à À àthe€two€types€of€factors.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(Supp.Ð š : Ð1995.).(Z(2O$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ô”ôXXÔÔ€ôzúôôô”Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("Y‘$Ô€XܨXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular%ä2¼A`ArialTT,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular#4e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³¾$´´Ô24eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à žÝ ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ôŽö ôXXÔÔ€ô#‚ ô ôôŽöÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔÔ#†ô#‚ ô ôô#‚#ÔÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔOur€ruling€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€on€flight€was€not€error€renders€moot€theÐ `  Ðdefendantððs€contention€that€the€ð ðerrorðð€was€not€harmless. ¶Ý ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ô~¯ôXXÔÔ€ô;Áôôô~¯Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€appellant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€the€statement,€but€his€objection€was€groundedÐ `  Ðupon€à0  àsomething€other€than€the€reference€to€the€prior€acquittal;€he€objected€because€the€statement€wasÐ  ¾ Ðnot€an€exact€transcript€of€the€interview€which€was€conducted. ùÝ ƒ+¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X­š XXXÔÔ€( XX­šÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X­š X(ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular 'Ý ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ôŽö ôXXÔÔ€ô#‚ ô ôôŽöÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔThe€mitigation€proof€consisted€of€the€defendantððs€parentsðð€testimony€that€he€was€a€ð ðgood€sonððÐ `  Ðand€that€they€loved€him;€his€brotherððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€had€been€a€good€employee€and€that€heÏhad€never€known€the€defendant€to€be€violent;€testimony€that€the€defendant€had€attended€church€servicesÏregularly;€and€that€he€had€been€well€behaved€in€jail.€ ÷Ý ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ôŽö ôXXÔÔ€ô#‚ ô ôôŽöÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔÔ#†ô#‚ ô ôô#‚#ÔÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔU.S.€Const.€amend.€V. ‡Ý ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ôŽö ôXXÔÔ€ô#‚ ô ôôŽöÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔÔ#†ô#‚ ô ôô#‚#ÔÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔEven€if€the€photograph€were€not€relevant,€we€deem€its€admission€to€have€been€harmless€error€inÐ `  Ðlight€of€the€other€evidence€against€the€defendant. d 5Ý ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ôŽö ôXXÔÔ€ô#‚ ô ôôŽöÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔThe€statutorily€required€determination€that€the€death€penalty€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitraryÐ `  Ðfashion€was€made€without€the€benefit€of€the€ð ðReport€of€Trial€Judge€in€Capital€Casesðð€as€required€by€ourÏSupreme€Court€in€its€Rule€12.€€The€absence€of€this€report€does€not€prevent€us€from€conducting€theÏrequired€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270€(Tenn.€1994). Ñ  Ñ(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ÎÝ ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ô~¯ôXXÔÔ€ô;Áôôô~¯Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€No€execution€date€is€set€in€this€opinion.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(a)(1)€Ð `  Ðà0  àprovides€for€automatic€review€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€upon€affirmance€of€the€deathÏpenalty.€€If€the€sentence€of€death€is€upheld€by€the€Supreme€Court€on€review,€that€court€will€set€theÏexecution€date.+'.Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý S Ý ƒ €?$ÝÔ€ôŽö ôXXÔÔ€ô#‚ ô ôôŽöÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔÔ#†ô#‚ ô ôô#‚#ÔÔ‡ô#‚ ô ôô#‚ÔòòCf.óó€òòSaylor€v.€Corneliusóó,€845€F.2d€1401€(6th€Cir.€1988).€€In€òòSayloróó,€the€defendant€had€beenÐ `  Ðindicted€on€one€count€of€murder,€which€count€encompassed€murder€as€a€principal,€as€an€accomplice,€andÏby€conspiracy.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€only€on€the€theory€of€the€defendantððs€involvement€as€aÏconspirator.€€The€prosecution€did€not€object€to€the€instructions€nor€request€a€charge€on€accompliceÏliability.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€and€the€conviction€was€later€reversed€for€insufficient€evidence.€ÏAlthough€there€was€ð ðconsiderable€evidenceðð€supporting€the€defendantððs€role€as€an€accomplice,€the€6thÏCircuit€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€double€jeopardy€principles€barred€retrial€on€that€ground.€€The€CourtÏstated,€ð ðOnce€the€jury€returned€its€verdict,€the€failure€to€instruct€on€the€accomplice€liability€theoryÏterminated€Saylorððs€jeopardy€.€.€.€.€€To€deny€this€proposition€would€mean€that€the€prosecution€couldÏproceed€on€several€theories€of€liability€throughout€a€trial,€and,€simply€by€withholding€instructions€on€anyÏone€of€them,€reserve€that€theory€for€retrial€at€a€later€date.ðð€€845€F.2d€at€1404.€The€Court€later€limited€itsÏholding€in€òòSayloróó,€stating€that€its€significance€was€ð ðlimited€by€the€unusual€situation€we€were€addressing€inÐ Š*  Ðthat€case:€€because€of€prosecutorial€absent„mindedness,€Mr.€Saylorððs€trial€ended€without€an€acquittal€or€aÏconviction€on€a€charge€that€had€been€properly€presented€in€an€indictment€and€emphasized€at€trial.ðð€€òòU.S.Ð ¦  Ðv.€Davisóó,€873€F.2d€900,€906€(6th€Cir.€1989).€€This€case€is€clearly€distinguishable€from€òòSayloróó,€althoughÐ Äd  Ðboth€cases€involve€unfortunate€jury€instructions.€€In€òòSayloróó,€the€trial€courtððs€action€was€the€functionalÐ ‚"  Ðequivalent€of€a€dismissal€of€the€accomplice€theory,€in€which€the€prosecution€acquiesced.€€The€defendant,Ïon€the€other€hand,€had€objected€to€proceeding€on€the€conspiracy€theory.€€In€the€present€case,€the€trialÏcourt€did€submit€the€alternative€count€to€the€jury€but,€in€effect,€relieved€it€of€its€duty€to€consider€that€countÏupon€its€finding€Burns€guilty€of€attempted€felony€murder.€€The€prosecution€was€in€no€way€trying€to€ð ðreserveÏa€theoryðð€for€later€use€in€the€event€the€jury€acquitted€the€defendant€of€attempted€felony€murder.€€Ô#†ô#‚ ô ôô#‚Ã#Ô//'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd Ý ƒ+¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ‡X­š XXXÔÔ‡( XX­šÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ#†X­š X(:#ÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€25,€1997Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ‡ôzúô XX­šÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd- ù-Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÔ€ŠR€ŠXXÔÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ ŠÌŠŠŠR€ÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ñXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ€<ÑÑ€&P¸Ññþ4ñßr€)2<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rßñþ4ñÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÔ€ „Œ „Š ŠÌÔà@$$(DàA€P€P€E€N€D€I€Xóóó óˆÐ Èh ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌñ÷4ñÐ 4:Ô0( ÐÑ&P¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÐ 4:Ô0(d ÐÑ&P¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ÷4ñÔ€ ¼6 ¼„ „Œ ÔÐ  48Ô.( ÐÑ&P¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññú4ñ›ñú4ñÔ€ ŠÌŠ ¼ ¼6Ôñú4ñà@š š Dàò òIN€THE€TENNESSEE€œCOURT›€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSˆÐ `  Ðà@††*DàAT€JACKSONˆÌà@$$'DàJULY€1996€SESSIONˆÌÌœSTATE›€OF€œTENNESSEE,›à À àà  àœ)›Ð @ à Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àó óAppellee,ò òà  àà h àà À àà  àœ)à p àC.C.A.›€NO.€02C01„9506„CC„00164Ð 0Ð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìó óVS.ò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àGIBSON€COUNTY€(TRANSFERREDÐ  À Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àFROM€MONTGOMERY€COUNTY)Ð ¸  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà  à)Ð °  ÐRONNIE€MICHAEL€CAUTHERN,Ô#† ŠIŠŠŠI#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà  à)à p àHONORABLE€DICK€JERMAN,€JR.Ð ¨  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àó óAppellant.ò òà  àà h àà À àà  àœñú4ññö4ñ„ñö4ññú4ñ)à p àó ó(Sentencing„Death€Penalty)ò ò›Ð ø˜  ÐÌó óÌœòòFor›€the€Appellantóóà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòòFor€the€AppelleeóóÐ à€ ÐÌHugh€Reid€Poland,€Jr.à h àà À àà  àà p àCharles€W.€BursonÐ Ðp ÐÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠI–#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ408€Franklin€Streetà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ Èh ÐÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠIö #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔClarksville,€TN€37040à h àà À àà  àà p à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ð À` ÐÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠI­ #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð ¸X ÐÌÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠIb #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔRobert€T.€BatemanÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠI& #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€P.€CauleyÐ ¨H ÐÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠIy #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ221€South€Third€StreetÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠI #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà h àà À àÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠIf #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ   @ ÐÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠIÀ #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔClarksville,€TN€37040Ô#† ŠIŠŠŠII#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà h àà À àà  àà p à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ð ˜!8 ÐÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠI #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà ` àà ¸ àà  àÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠI@#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àClayburn€PeeplesÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à109€E.€First€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àTrenton,€TN€38382ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€CarneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à204Ô#† ŠIŠŠŠI¦#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ€Franklin€Street,€Suite€200Ð H+è!# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àClarksville,€TN€37040ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSteve€GarrettÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ#† ŠIŠŠŠI #ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ204Ô#† ŠIŠŠŠI#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ€Franklin€Street,€Suite€200Ô#† ŠIŠŠŠI]#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔÐ  0À&( Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àClarksville,€TN€37040Ô#† ŠIŠŠŠIº#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔÐ 1¸') Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌœñú4ññø4ñÌñø4ññú4ñOPINION€FILED:€à  àòòDecember€2,€1996óóÐ 3¨)+ ÐÌDEATH€PENALTY€AFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLESÌJUDGEñú4ññù4ñ›Ð  :À00 Лñù4ññú4ñÐ  à7€.0 ЛÔ€„?¦„ŠŠIÔà@ÊÊ,DàœòòOPINION›óóˆÐ `  ÐÌœÔ#† „?¦„„„?¦z#Ôò òÔ€ ¼X9 ¼„ „?¦Ôà@''DàCONSTITUTIONALITY›€OF€THE€ESPECIALLY€œHEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS,€€à@@}}&DàˆÐ  ´ ÐOR›€CRUEL€œAGGRAVATORó ó›Ð  ¾ ÐÌÓÓà ` àNext,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€language€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(i)(5)Ïis€too€vague€to€satisfy€constitutional€standards.€€This€aggravatingÏcircumstance€can€be€imposed€in€the€death€penalty€context€if€the€juryÏdetermines€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Furthermore,€theÐ ªJ Ðappellant€claims€the€definitions€of€the€terms€in€the€statute€given€by€the€trialÏcourt€are€themselves€too€vague€as€well.€€The€Supreme€Court€recentlyÏaddressed€this€issue€in€òòOdomóó.€€The€Court€upheld€the€validity€of€theÐ æ!† Ðaggravating€circumstance€under€constitutional€attacks.€€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928Ð ú#š ÐS.W.2d€at€25„26.€€Accordingly,€the€appellantððs€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@"DàADMISSION€OF€THE€VIDEOTAPEó óˆÐ 6*Ö  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€byÏallowing€into€evidence€a€videotape€depicting€the€crime€scene.€€Specifically,Ïthe€appellant€argues€that€those€segments€of€the€tape€showing€the€officersÏturning€the€bodies€over€onto€their€backs€in€order€to€obtain€an€anterior€viewÏwere€highly€inflammatory€and€irrelevant.€€The€appellant€places€great€weightÏupon€the€fact€that€the€original€trial€judge€redacted€from€the€juryððs€viewÏduring€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€those€scenes€depicting€the€moving€of€theÐ Â8b/- Ðbodies.€€In€response,€the€State€argues€that€the€video€was€relevant€to€showÏthe€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€nature€of€the€crime.ÌÌÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà ` àThe€admissibility€of€relevant€videotapes€of€the€crime€scene€andÐ œ< Ðvictims€has€long€been€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€hisÏor€her€ruling€on€admissibility€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€clearÏshowing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,Ð Øx  Ð949€(Tenn.€1978).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.Ð ìŒ Ð1994);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993).€€Moreover,Ð   Ðthe€recent€trend€is€to€vest€more€discretion€in€the€trial€judge's€rulings€onÏadmissibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949;€òòState€v.€Baileyóó,€No.€01C01„Ð (È Ð9403„CC„00105,€Dickson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€20,Ï1995);€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.,€(Tenn.€1996).Ð P"ð ÐÌà ` àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€ofÏany€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÏprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€401.€€However,€relevant€evidence€"may€be€excluded€if€its€probativeÏvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,Ïconfusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€AlongÏthese€lines,€the€trial€court€should€be€guided€by€the€following€matters€inÏdetermining€the€admissibility€of€relevant€videotape€evidence:€the€accuracyÏand€clarity€of€the€video€and€its€value€as€evidence;€whether€the€videoÏdepicts€the€body€as€it€was€found;€the€adequacy€of€testimonial€evidence€inÐ ,9Ì/. Ðrelating€the€facts€to€the€jury;€and€the€need€for€the€evidence€to€establish€aÏòòprima€facieóó€case€of€guilt€or€to€rebut€the€defendant's€contentions.€€òòBanksóó,Ð t  Ð564€S.W.2d€at€951.ÌÔ#† ¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9§#ÔÌà ` àPrior€to€the€sentencing€hearing€on€remand,€the€trial€judge€heardÏarguments€regarding€the€admission€of€the€videotape€and€ruled€that€theÏprobative€value€of€the€evidence€in€regards€to€the€aggravating€factorÏoutweighed€any€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€€The€court€also€ordered€that€theÏsound€be€turned€off€so€as€to€avoid€any€improper€influence€from€theÏcomments€of€the€officers.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477Ð ´ Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€The€segments€of€the€videotape€at€issue€in€this€appeal€dealÏwith€the€camera€shots€of€the€victims.€€Those€portions€showing€the€generalÏlayout€of€the€house€and€the€evidence€of€the€burglary,€while€arguablyÏirrelevant€for€purposes€of€sentencing,€are€not€at€issue.ÌÌà ` àBoth€victims€were€found€lying€face€down.€€Mr.€Smithððs€body€wasÏwrapped€in€the€covers€kneeling€against€and€on€the€bed,€and€Mrs.€SmithððsÏbody€was€nude€on€the€floor.€€The€video€shows€close„ups€of€both€victims€asÏthey€were€found.€€The€video€then€shows€the€officers€removing€the€coversÏfrom€around€Mr.€Smithððs€body,€turning€his€body€onto€his€back,€andÏexamining€his€neck,€arms€and€legs.€€The€video€zooms€in€on€the€woundsÏaround€his€neck€and€face.€€Likewise,€the€video€shows€the€officers€removingÏthe€scarf€from€around€Mrs.€Smithððs€neck€and€flipping€her€body€over.€€Again,Ïthe€video€zooms€in€on€the€wounds€around€her€neck€and€face.€€Ð ,9Ì/. Їà ` àBoth€bodies€exhibit€a€bluish€tint€to€the€skin€and€lips,€as€well€as€theÏeffects€of€lividity€and€rigor€mortis.€€While€the€appellant€may€be€correct€toÏargue€that€these€postmortem€features€are€irrelevant€to€any€aspect€of€theÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravator,€the€nature€of€the€various€woundsÏto€the€neck€do€appear€relevant.€€Each€victim€was€strangled€with€a€differentÏobject,€and€thus€received€different€types€of€strangulation€marks€around€theÏneck.€€Moreover,€as€the€expert€testimony€demonstrated,€the€pictures€ofÏwhat€are€probably€fingernail€scratches€indicate€that€the€victims€attemptedÏto€free€the€pressure€from€around€their€necks.€€Because€of€the€position€inÏwhich€the€victims€were€found,€it€was€necessary€for€the€officers€to€turn€theÏbodies€over€to€examine€the€wounds€to€the€neck.€€As€the€forensicÏpathologist€stated,€the€bluish€color€of€the€skin,€i.e.€cyanosis,€is€a€naturalÏconsequence€of€this€type€of€killing.€€The€stiffness€of€the€bodies€resultingÏfrom€the€rigor€mortis€is€also€common€after€death,€and€not€in€and€of€itself€soÏinflammatory.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð x& ÐAs€the€trial€court€noted,€though€the€condition€of€the€bodies€is€not€pleasantÏby€any€means,€it€is€ð ðnot€so€gruesome€as€to€.€.€.€shock€the€conscience€of€theÏCourt€or€of€the€jury.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àWe€believe€the€videos€were€relevant€to€the€juryððs€determination€ofÏwhether€the€murders€were€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€probative€value€of€the€videotape€outweighs€any€unfairÏprejudicial€effect,€and€the€trial€judge€therefore€acted€appropriately.€ÏContrary€to€the€appellantððs€argument,€the€fact€that€the€judge€on€remandÐ ,9Ì/. Ðallowed€more€of€the€video€to€be€shown€than€did€the€original€trial€judge€isÏirrelevant€to€this€Courtððs€inquiry€into€the€issue.€€The€original€judgeððs€rulingÏwas€based€in€part€on€showing€the€video€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trialÏrather€than€the€sentencing€phase.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@VV!DàEVIDENCE€OF€UNRELATED€CRIMESó óˆÐ Äd  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€reversible€error€occurred€when€theÏState€introduced€evidence€concerning€a€different€robbery€for€which€theÏappellant€had€been€tried€and€acquitted.€€In€response,€the€State€argues€theÏappellant€has€waived€the€issue€because€he€permitted€the€introduction€ofÏthe€evidence€and€denied€the€courtððs€offer€of€a€curative€instruction.ÌÌà ` àThe€appellant€was€originally€indicted€on€eight€counts€in€this€case.€ÏThree€of€those€charges€pertained€to€crimes€unrelated€to€the€incident€at€theÏSmithsðð€residence,€and€they€were€severed€from€the€indictment.€€TheÏappellant€was€subsequently€tried€and€acquitted€on€those€three€counts.€ÏPrior€to€the€resentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€granted€the€appellantððsÏmotion€to€keep€the€separate€charges€from€the€jury€and€warned€the€StateÏthat€a€mistrial€could€follow€if€evidence€of€them€surfaced.€€ÌÌà ` àDuring€the€Stateððs€proof€in€the€hearing,€the€State€asked€DetectiveÏCharles€Denton€to€read€one€of€the€appellantððs€statements€into€evidence.€ÏThis€statement€was€obtained€during€the€first€interview€with€the€appellant€onÏJanuary€12,€1987.€€The€appellant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€thisÐ ,9Ì/. Ðstatement€because€it€was€not€a€verbatim€recording€of€the€conversationÏbetween€the€officer€and€the€appellant,€but€rather€consisted€of€DetectiveÏDentonððs€annotations€from€the€interview.€€The€court€overruled€the€objectionÏand€allowed€the€jury€to€review€copies€of€the€statement€while€the€officerÏread€it€aloud€on€the€stand.€€The€following€question€and€answer€appear€inÏthis€statement:€ð ðQuestion€„€Do€you€know€who€committed€the€armed€robberyÏat€the€Hornbuckle€66?€€Answer€„€No.ðð€€This€reference€was€to€one€of€theÏthree€charges€on€which€the€appellant€was€acquitted.€€After€this€portion€ofÏthe€statement€was€read,€the€appellant€voiced€another€objection.€€The€courtÏinformed€the€witness€not€to€read€one€further€question€in€the€statementÏpertaining€to€the€Hornbuckle€robbery.€€The€appellant,€however,€moved€for€aÏmistrial€because€the€jury€was€in€fact€reading€along€with€the€officer€andÏcould€see€the€next€question:€ð ðQuestion€„€Do€you€know€if€Joe€commit€[sic]Ïthe€burglary€„€robbery€with€Pat?€€Answer€„€I€think€so.ðð€€The€court€overruledÏthe€motion€for€mistrial,€and€the€following€exchange€occurred:€ð ðCourt€„€WhatÏinstruction€do€you€suggest€I€give?€.€.€.€[Appellantððs€counsel]€„€Weððll€justÏstand€on€the€Motion€for€Mistrial.ððÌÌà ` àThis€situation€is€quite€similar€to€that€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2dÐ È.h%$ Ð908€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòSmithóó,€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€made€referenceÐ Ü0|'& Ðto€the€defendantððs€prior€jail€time.€€The€defendant€moved€for€a€mistrial,Ïwhich€the€court€denied.€€The€court,€however,€gave€the€jury€a€curativeÏinstruction€to€disregard€the€statement€and€not€to€consider€it€for€anyÏpurpose.€€òòId.óó€at€923.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€it€must€assume€the€juryÐ ,9Ì/. Ðfollowed€the€trial€courtððs€instruction.€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€the€Court€noted€thatÐ `  Ðgiven€the€record€as€a€whole€in€that€capital€case,€the€statement,€thoughÏimproper,€could€not€have€prejudicially€affected€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€(citing€T.R.A.P.Ð ˆ ( Ð36(b)).€€Likewise,€in€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992)€(citingÐ œ< ÐT.R.A.P.€36(b)),€the€Supreme€Court,€in€considering€the€effect€of€statementsÏconcerning€prior€criminal€activity€on€the€juryððs€verdict€in€a€capital€case,Ïstated€that€the€admission€of€the€evidence€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€when€viewed€in€context€of€the€entire€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÐ ìŒ ÐòòState€v.€Bakeróó,€751€S.W.2d€154,€164€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.Ð   ÐLawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ð ´ ÐÌà ` àThe€decisions€in€the€above„cited€cases€were€based€in€part€upon€theÏappellate€courtððs€assumption€that€the€jury€obeyed€the€trial€courtððs€curativeÏinstruction€pertaining€to€the€inadmissible€evidence.€€In€the€case€at€hand,Ïthe€trial€court€gave€no€curative€instruction.€€However,€as€the€State€notes,Ïthe€appellant€refused€to€entertain€the€trial€courtððs€offer€to€give€such€anÏinstruction.€€The€decisions€in€the€above„cited€opinions€also€relied€upon€theÏrationale€of€T.R.A.P.€36(b):€ð ðA€final€judgment€from€which€relief€is€availableÏand€otherwise€appropriate€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless,€considering€theÏwhole€record,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€than€notÏaffected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð€ÏThe€first€part€of€that€same€rule€states,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ðNothing€in€thisÏrule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€a€party€responsibleÐ 7¸-, Ðfor€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€availableÏto€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€€ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€although€the€trial€court€seemed€willing€to€entertain€aÏrequest€for€an€instruction,€the€appellant€refused€to€recommend€anÏinstruction€and€decided€instead€to€stand€on€his€motion€for€mistrial.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€that€the€appellant€also€had€an€opportunity€to€review€theÏstatement€before€it€was€introduced,€and€did€not€object€to€the€improperÏreferences.׃×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€¼X9 ¼ ¼ ¼X9ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€believe€Rule€36(a)€controls€our€decision€here.€€Moreover,Ð   Ðconsidering€the€whole€record€as€mandated€by€36(b),€we€find€the€error€to€beÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€improper€statements€wereÏbrief,€and€given€the€context€in€which€they€were€made,€added€no€ð ðððnewÏdimension€to€the€jurorsðð€view€of€[the€appellant]ðððð.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð P"ð ÐS.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€247„Ð d$ Ð48€(Tenn.€1986)).€€The€statements€do€not€associate€the€appellant€with€anyÏother€criminal€activity€or€legal€proceedings.€€Furthermore,€before€theÏhearing,€the€trial€judge€stated€that€a€mistrial€could€be€warranted€if€anyÏimproper€evidence€concerning€the€prior€acquittals€were€introduced.€€Ô‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔSinceÐ ´,T#" Ðhe€overruled€the€appellantððs€motion,Ô#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9qM#Ô€the€judge€must€have€been€satisfiedÐ È.h%$ Ðthat€no€prejudice€resulted€from€these€improper€statements.€€We€agree.€ÏThis€issue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.ÌÐ 5¤+* Ðò òà@R R DàADMISSION€OF€TRANSCRIPT€OF€RECORDED€STATEMENT€ó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àNext,€the€appellant€contends€it€was€reversible€error€for€the€trial€courtÏto€allow€a€transcript€of€a€tape„recorded€statement€into€evidence€when€theÏState€was€unable€to€produce€the€original€recording.€€The€State€argues€thatÏthe€original€has€been€lost€and€that€the€transcript€was€properly€admittedÏunder€the€exception€to€the€best€evidence€rule.ÌÌà ` àThe€evidence€at€issue€here€consists€of€a€transcript€of€a€tape„¼recorded€interview€between€the€appellant€and€Detectives€Denton€andÏGriffy.€€On€the€initial€direct€appeal€of€this€case,€the€Supreme€CourtÏreversed€the€death€penalty€based€upon€the€improper€introduction€of€aÏportion€of€the€interview.€€In€accordance€with€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion,Ïthat€portion€of€the€statement€was€not€introduced€during€the€hearing€onÏremand.€€On€remand,€a€redacted€transcript€was€read€into€evidence€whichÏomitted€any€mention€of€Brett€Patterson.€€As€part€of€his€complaint,€theÏappellant€argues€that€he€was€ð ðforced€into€the€untenable€positionðð€ofÏsubsequently€having€to€introduce€the€unredacted€portions€of€the€statementÏwhich€referred€to€Pattersonððs€involvement.ÌÌà ` àPrior€to€the€introduction€of€the€transcript€into€evidence,€there€wasÏsome€discussion€among€the€parties€and€the€judge€concerning€theÏwhereabouts€of€the€original€taped€recording.€€Apparently,€the€tape€was€lostÏor€misplaced€by€the€Supreme€Court€sometime€during€the€priorÏproceedings.€€The€trial€judge€made€the€following€ruling:Ð ,9Ì/. ÐÓÓÌà8 ` àAll€right.€€And,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€already€seen€it.€ÏItððs€been€authenticated€by€the€Trial€Court€in€MontgomeryÏCounty€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Iððm€going€to€letÏthem€read€that€portion€which€the€Supreme€Court€said€wasÏadmissible€.€.€.€As€an€officer€of€the€Court,€Iððm€saying€that€[theÏstate]€properly€has€this€transcribed€from€the€original€tapes,€andÏover€your€objection€and€after€noting€your€exception,€Iððm€goingÏto€allow€its€admission€.€.€.€€Itððs€just€that€the€tape€is€now€goneÏand€has€been€lost€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€.€.€.€andÏIððm€assuming€that€this€transcript€.€.€.€is€proper.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àAccording€to€the€record€before€the€Court,€the€transcript€of€theÏrecorded€interview€was€authenticated€and€introduced€during€the€originalÏtrial€of€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39,€41€(Tenn.Ð  ª Ð1989).€€During€that€trial,€the€trial€judge€ordered€the€State€to€redact€œthoseÏportions€of€the€statement€that€referred€to€Patterson€before€the€statementÏwas€introduced.€€Moreover,€the€trial€judge€on€remand€acknowledged€theÏfact€that€the€taped€recording€has€been€lost.€€Rule€1004€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence€provides€that€other€evidence€of€the€original€recording€isÏadmissible€if€the€original€has€been€lost€or€destroyed.€€Accordingly,€theÏintroduction€of€the€transcript€was€proper.€€ÌÌà ` àNeither€is€there€any€merit€to€the€appellantððs€claim€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€introduction€of€both€the€redacted€and€unredactedÏtranscripts.€€The€appellant€seems€to€suggest€that€the€evidence€of€theÏredacted€statement€placed€undue€emphasis€on€his€involvement€in€theÏcrimes.€€The€trial€judge,€however,€allowed€the€witness€to€take€the€standÏagain€and€read€the€unredacted€portions€into€evidence.€€Any€harm€causedÐ "8Â.- Ðby€the€redacted€statement,€therefore,€was€cured€by€the€additionalÏevidence.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ˆ ˆ DàNONSTATUTORY€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESó óˆÐ œ< Ðà ` àThe€appellant€claims€the€trial€judge€should€have€instructed€the€jury€itÏcould€consider€as€mitigating€factors€the€fact€that€the€appellantððs€co„¼defendant€received€a€life€sentence,€and€that€the€appellant€has€been€aÏmodel€prisoner€and€has€helped€others€inside€and€outside€the€prison.€€TheÏState€argues€that€neither€the€state€nor€federal€constitution€require€theÏjudge€to€instruct€the€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€concerning€the€following€statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances:€1)€the€appellant€has€no€significant€criminalÏhistory;€2)€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€appellant€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance;€3)€the€youth€of€theÏappellant€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€4)€the€capacity€of€the€appellant€toÏappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€toÏthe€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€ofÏmental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establishÏa€defense€as€a€matter€of€law€but€which€substantially€affected€his€judgmentÏthrough€the€ingestion€of€drugs;€and€5)€any€other€mitigating€evidence€whichÏis€raised€by€the€evidence.€€The€judge€also€instructed€the€jury€on€theÏfollowing€nonstatutory€circumstances:€1)€the€appellant€was€an€enterprisingÏyoung€man€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€2)€the€appellant€has€a€minor€child;€andÐ ,9Ì/. Ð3)€the€appellant€is€married.€€The€trial€judge€refused,€however,€to€instruct€theÏjury€that€Patterson€received€a€life€sentence,€the€appellant€has€been€aÏmodel€prisoner,€and€the€appellant€has€helped€others€while€in€prison.ÌÌÑ °XÑà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€the€Supreme€Court€recently€addressed€the€issue€ofÐ °P Ðinstructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigators€under€the€death€penalty€statute€asÏamended€in€1989.€€Although€the€Court€recognized€that€the€trial€court€is€notÏconstitutionally€mandated€to€instruct€the€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏfactors,€the€Court€did€construe€the€1989€amendments,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ   ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(Supp.€1995),€to€require€the€judge€to€give€the€juryÏspecifically€requested€instructions€on€mitigating€circumstances€that€areÏraised€by€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€29„30.€€In€itsÐ < Ü Ðdiscussion,€however,€the€Court€also€acknowledged€that€under€the€law€as€itÏpreviously€existed,€òòseeóó€ðð€39„13„203(e)€(1982),€there€was€no€statutoryÐ d$ Ðprovision€requiring€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€Ô‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔspecifically€Ô#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9 g#ÔonÐ x& Ðnonstatutory€mitigators:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ à[T]he€only€mandatory€instructions€with€respect€toÏmitigating€circumstances€are€that€those€statutoryÏcircumstances€which€are€raised€by€the€evidence€shall€beÏexpressly€charged,€and€the€jury€must€be€told€that€they€shallÏweigh€and€consider€any€other€facts€or€circumstances€that€areÏraised€by€the€evidence€that€they€find€to€be€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€in€making€the€determination€of€whichÏcircumstances,€aggravating€or€mitigating,€outweigh€the€other.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€29€(quoting€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€118Ð ú3š*) Ð(Tenn.€1985)).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268€(Tenn.Ð 6®,+ Ð1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€15€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€756Ð "8Â.- ÐS.W.2d€669,€674€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€249€(Tenn.Ð `  Ð1986).ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€judge€in€this€case€instructed€the€jury€on€the€law€governingÏmitigating€circumstances€as€amended€in€1989.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ °P Ð39„13„204(e)(1)€(Supp.€1995).׃ ×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€judge€also€instructed€the€jury€on€threeÐ Äd  Ðspecific€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors.€€As€discussed€previously,€theÏgeneral€provisions€of€ðð€39„11„112€and€the€principles€against€retroactiveÏapplication€of€statutes€mandate€that€an€offense€committed€under€aÏrepealed€or€amended€law€shall€be€prosecuted€under€that€law,€unless€theÏnew€law€provides€for€a€lesser€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2dÐ (È Ð908,€919€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€82€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð < Ü ÐThe€amendments€to€those€sections€of€the€death€penalty€statute€addressingÏmitigating€circumstances,€however,€do€not€pertain€to€lesser€penalties.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€trial€judge€was€not€compelled€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏspecific€nonstatutory€mitigating€factors,€and€should€have€instructed€the€juryÏunder€the€law€as€it€existed€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€ÏHowever,€because€the€instructions€on€the€several€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€inured€to€the€benefit€of€the€appellant,€any€errors€in€the€trialÏcourtððs€actions€were€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòsupraóó€note€3.€€Furthermore,€becauseÐ ð2)( Ðthe€prior€law€did€not€require€the€judge€to€instruct€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€the€trial€judgeððs€refusal€to€instruct€on€the€requestedÏmitigating€factors€at€issue€here€was€proper.€€This€issue,€therefore,€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌò òà@? ? DàCOMPETENCY€OF€JUROR€FOREPERSONó óˆÐ Äd  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€juror€forepersonððs€inability€toÏread€the€verdict€form€without€the€assistance€of€the€trial€judge€effectivelyÏdenied€him€the€right€to€an€impartial€jury.€€Specifically,€the€appellantÏsuggests€that€since€the€foreperson€had€difficulty€reading€the€verdict€formÏaloud€in€open€court,€she€probably€encountered€difficulty€understanding€theÏlegal€instructions€contained€in€the€written€charges.€€The€State€contendsÏthat€although€the€foreperson€experienced€some€trouble€reading€the€verdictÏform,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€which€indicates€she€could€notÏunderstand€the€spoken€word€of€the€oral€charges€given€by€the€judge.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€judge€read€the€charges€to€the€jury€in€open€court€beforeÏallowing€them€to€retire.€€Once€the€jury€returned€from€their€deliberations,€theÏfollowing€exchange€ensued:ÌÒXÒÓÓÌà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Iððm€going€to€ask€you€to€readÏthat€for€me€if€you€will.€€With€regard€to€the€first€countÏof€the€indictment€which€alleges€the€murder€ofÏPatrick€Smith,€what€is€your€verdict?Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€VALERIE€CLARK:€Life€imprisonment.€€We,€theÏjury€„„Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Will€you€read€it€„„€read€that€for€me?Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„€okay€„„€whatððs€that?Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.Ð6:Ö0/` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Unanimously€determine€that€one€„„Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Statutory.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Statutory.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Aggravating€„„Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Circumstances.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Circumstances€has€been€proven€byÏthe€State€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We,€the€jury,Ïtherefore,€find€the€sentence€shall€be€imprisonmentÏfor€life.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€And,€youððve€each€affixed€your€nameÏto€that.€€Is€that€right?Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Right.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€With€regard€to€the€second€count€ofÏthe€indictment€which€alleges€the€death€of€RosemaryÏSmith,€what€is€your€verdict?Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Punishment€of€death.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Will€you€read€that€for€me,€please?Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Unanimously€find€that€the€following€listÏ„„€listing€„„Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Statutory.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Statutory.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Aggravating.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Circumstances.Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€Circumstances€of€„„Ð ` x` x Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Do€you€want€to€list€this€for€me?€€CanÏyou€read€that,€please?Ð ` x` x ÐÒXÒà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€The€murder€was€especially€human€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Heinous.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€heinous€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Atrocious.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€atrocious,€and€cruel,€in€that€is€involved€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Torture.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€torture€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Or€serious€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€prove€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€€„„€produce€death.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€produce€death.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Will€you€continue€to€read?Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€unanimously€find€that€the€State€has€beenÏproven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€circumstances€are„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Statutory.Ð6:Ö0/` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€statutory€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€aggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€soÏto€list€above€outweigh€any€other€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Mitigating.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€mitigating€circumstances.€€Therefore,€we,€theÏjury,€unanimously€find€that€the€punishment€for€the€defendant,ÏRonnie€„„Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Cauthern.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€Cauthern€shall€be€death.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Be€seated€please.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓñò4ñÌñò4ñà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€dealt€with€this€very€issue€in€òòKirkendoll€v.€Stateóó,Ð ìŒ Ð281€S.W.2d€243€(Tenn.€1955),€a€case€wherein€the€death€penalty€wasÏaffirmed.€€The€Court€held€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€judge€to€accept€a€jurorÏwho€could€not€read€the€written€charges€given€by€the€court.€€òòId.óó€at€255.€€TheÐ (È ÐSupreme€Court€reasoned€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àWe€think€though€that€other€jurors€if€necessary€could€readÏthis€to€that€juror€who€could€not€read€while€in€the€jury€room.€€TheÏpurpose€of€having€the€written€charge€before€them€.€.€.€was€toÏprevent€and€keep€the€jury€from€having€to€keep€runningÏbackward€and€forward€into€court€getting€the€court€to€rechargeÏthem€on€various€and€sundry€little€things€that€they€might€haveÏforgotten.€€It€seems€to€us€that€as€long€as€this€written€charge€isÏin€the€jury€room€that€there€are€others€there€who€can€read€thatÏthis€would€satisfy€that€question.€€Consequently€this€assignmentÏmust€be€overruled.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌòòId.óó€€Ð ¾-^$# ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àWe€believe€that€the€holding€and€reasoning€in€òòKirkendollóó€is€dispositiveÐ Ü0|'& Ðof€the€issue€before€us€here.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€point€to€anything€inÏthe€record,€apart€from€the€difficultly€in€the€reading€of€the€verdict€form,€whichÏsuggests€Ms.€Clark€did€not€understand€the€oral€charges€given€by€the€judge.€ÏNor€has€the€appellant€demonstrated€that€he€suffered€any€prejudice€as€aÐ ,9Ì/. Ðresult€of€the€Ms.€Clarkððs€reading€skills.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ DàINDIVIDUAL€AND€SEQUESTERED€VOIR€DIREó óˆÐ œ< Ðà ` àNext,€the€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€theÏappellantððs€motion€for€individual€and€sequestered€voir€dire.€€Specifically,Ïthe€appellant€contends€the€prospective€jurors€may€have€been€aware€of€theÏfacts€of€this€case€prior€to€the€hearing.€€The€State€contends€the€trial€courtÏacted€appropriately.ÌÌà ` àThe€appellant€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€requesting€permission€toÏconduct€individual€and€sequestered€voir€dire€of€the€prospective€jurors.€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€the€motion.€€During€the€voir€dire,€the€prosecutor€asked,Ïamong€others,€the€following€questions:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` àHave€any€of€you€heard€or€read€anything€at€all€about€this€case?Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àHave€any€of€you€heard€anyone€express€an€opinion€about€whatÏought€to€happen€in€this€case?Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àThere€will€be€testimony€that€this€crime€occurred€in€Clarksville,ÏTennessee.€€This€is€a€case,€by€the€way,€about€two€ArmyÏnurses,€a€husband,€Patrick€Smith,€and€his€wife,€Rosemary.€ÏThis€crime€occurred€either€on€the€night€of€January€the€8th,€1987Ïor€the€early€morning€hours€of€January€the€9th.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.ÏSmith€„„€Captain€Smith€and€Captain€Smith€were€captains€in€theÏArmy€„„€were€at€home€asleep€when€two€defendants,€RonaldÏCauthern€and€another€man,€broke€into€their€home,€attackingÏboth€of€them,€raped€Mrs.€Smith,€garroted€„„€thatððs€a€term€youÏmay€not€know€the€meaning€of€right€now,€but€if€youððre€chosen€asÏa€juror€you€will€before€this€case€is€over€„„€and€left€them€bothÏdead.€€Now,€have€any€of€you€ever€heard€anything€about€thisÏfact€situation?Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àÐ6:Ö0/` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àIs€there€anybody€here€who€doesnððt€think€they€can€give€theÏdefendant€a€fair€trial?Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓThe€prospective€jurors€all€responded€negatively€to€each€of€these€questions.ÌÌà ` àIndividual€and€sequestered€voir€dire€is€required€only€when€there€is€aÏð ðsignificant€possibilityðð€that€the€prospective€jurors€have€been€exposed€toÏpotentially€prejudicial€material€before€the€trial.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ În  Ð238,€247€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€65€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð â‚  ÐThe€decision€of€whether€to€grant€individual€and€sequestered€voir€dire€ofÏprospective€jurors€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€andÏthat€decision€will€not€be€overturned€absent€a€finding€of€ð ðmanifest€error.ðð€ÏòòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€247„48;€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€65.€€Ð 2Ò ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€in€the€case€at€hand€anyÏprejudice€resulting€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion.€€All€of€theÏprospective€jurors€indicated€they€had€no€knowledge€of€the€facts€orÏcircumstances€of€this€case.€€The€fact€that€the€jury€knew€the€appellant€wasÏalready€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,€contrary€to€the€appellantððs€claim,Ïis€irrelevant€to€this€issue.€€The€nature€of€the€proceedings€in€a€capital€caseÏnecessarily€creates€a€situation€where€the€sentencing€jury€will€always€knowÏthe€guilt€determination.€€The€fact€that€this€was€a€resentencing€hearing€doesÏnot€present€any€substantial€distinctions,€especially€when€the€jury€wasÏunaware€of€the€prior€proceedings.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€appellantððs€motion.ÌÐ 6:Ö0/ Ðò òà@aa'DàMERCY€INSTRUCTIONó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€juryÏthat€it€could€recommend€mercy€when€rendering€its€sentence.€€TheÏSupreme€Court€has€continually€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€thisÏrespect.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€813„14€(Tenn€1994);€òòStateÐ °P Ðv.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€269€n.6€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703Ð Äd  ÐS.W.2d€106,€119€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€366Ð Øx  Ð(Tenn.€1982).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@• • DàEVIDENCE€OF€THE€UNDERLYING€FELONIESó óˆÐ ´ Ðà ` àThe€appellant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisÏmotion€to€prevent€the€State€from€introducing€evidence€of€the€underlyingÏburglary€and€rape.€€He€contends€this€evidence€did€not€relate€to€either€theÏaggravating€or€mitigating€circumstances€and€thus€was€improperly€beforeÏthe€jury.€€In€response,€the€State€asserts€that€the€trial€court€actedÏappropriately.ÌÌà ` àPrior€to€trial,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€prevent€the€State€fromÏintroducing€evidence€of€the€underlying€burglary€and€rape.€€The€trial€judgeÏdenied€the€motion,€stating:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThis€was€all€evidence€that€was€originally€introduced€at€theÏoriginal€trial€„„€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€and€I€think€the€juryÏis€entitled€to€all€the€evidence€from€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€inÏmaking€their€determination€as€to€what€the€proper€punishmentÏis.€€I€think€thatððs€the€law.€€I€donððt€think€that€the€rape€itself€couldÏbe€an€aggravating€circumstance,€but€evidence€of€the€rape€couldÏgo€to€the€proof€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€youððreÐ 6:Ö0/ Ðalleging,€and€for€that€reason€thatððs€why€Iððm€going€to€allow€theÏintroduction.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà ` àÌÓÓà ` àIn€his€argument€before€the€Court,€the€appellant€seems€to€suggestÏthat€the€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2dÐ ’2 Ð317€(Tenn.€1992)€controls€this€issue.€€òòMiddlebrooksóó€stands€for€theÐ ¦F Ðproposition€that€the€State€cannot€rely€upon€the€underlying€felony€in€supportÏof€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€murder€was€committed€in€theÏperpetration€of€a€felony€when€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder.€ÏòòId.óó€at€346.€€In€the€instant€case,€however,€the€State€sought€to€prove€theÐ ö– Ðexistence€of€only€one€aggravating€circumstance,€that€the€murder€wasÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€Thus,€there€is€no€duplication€problem€like€thatÏencountered€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€òòId.óóÐ 2Ò ÐÌà ` àMoreover,€in€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270€(Tenn.€1994),€theÐ Z#ú ÐSupreme€Court,€while€conducting€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€harmless€error€analysis,Ð n% Ðstated:€€ð ðA€sentencing€jury€may€properly€hear€evidence€regarding€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,Ð –)6  Ð925€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€the€trial€court€implied,€the€jury€must€be€allowed€toÏconsider€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€murder€in€order€toÏappropriately€determine€the€existence€of€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÏaggravating€circumstance.€€The€circumstances€surrounding€the€murderÏinclude€evidence€of€the€separate€felonies.€€The€trial€court€ruled,€however,Ïthat€the€State€could€not€inform€the€jury€that€the€appellant€had€beenÏconvicted€of€burglary€and€rape.€€Because€we€believe€the€trial€court€actedÏappropriately€in€this€regard,€we€find€no€merit€to€this€issue.Ð 6:Ö0/ Їò òà@¿ ¿ DàEXCLUSION€OF€PROSPECTIVE€JURORó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€appellant€maintains€that€the€trial€judge€committed€reversibleÏerror€by€excusing€a€prospective€juror€because€of€his€perceived€views€onÏcapital€punishment.€€During€voir€dire,€a€prospective€juror€informed€theÏprosecutor€that€he€did€not€think€he€could€ð ðlive€withðð€the€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty.€€Subsequently,€the€judge€asked€the€prospective€juror€if€heÏcould€follow€the€law.€€He€responded€by€stating€that€ð ðthe€Lord€makes€theÏdecision€on€death,ðð€and€that€he€did€not€think€he€could€impose€the€penalty.€ÏThe€judge€thereafter€excused€the€man€from€the€jury.ÌÌà ` àÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔThe€applicable€standard€for€determining€whether€a€juror€was€properlyÐ (È Ðexcused€for€cause€because€of€his€beliefs€on€the€death€penalty€wasÏdelineated€in€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.€412,€424,€105€S.Ct.€844,€852,€83Ð P"ð ÐL.Ed.2d€841€(1985),€and€is€as€follows:€€"whether€the€juror's€views€wouldÏ'prevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€of€his€duties€as€a€juror€inÏaccordance€with€his€instructions€and€his€oath.'"€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776Ð Œ(, ÐS.W.2d€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989)€(Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adoptsÏòòWainwrightóó€standard).€€Furthermore,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€heldÐ ´,T#" Ðthat€"this€standard€does€not€require€that€a€juror's€bias€be€proved€withÏ'unmistakable€clarity.'"€òòWainwrightóó,€469€U.S.€at€424,€105€S.Ct.€at€852.€€TheÐ Ü0|'& ÐCourt€also€noted€that€"deference€must€be€paid€to€the€trial€judge€who€seesÏand€hears€the€jurors."€€òòId.óó€at€426,€105€S.Ct.€at€853.Ð 5¤+* ÐÔ#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9Æ«#ÔÐ 7¸-, Ðà ` àÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔWe€agree€that€the€prospective€jurorððs€answers€suggesting€that€heÏcould€not€impose€the€death€penalty€"would€'prevent€or€substantially€impairÏthe€performance€of€his€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€his€instructionsÏand€his€oath.'"€òòId.óó€at€424,€105€S.Ct.€at€852.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893Ð œ< ÐS.W.2d€908,€915„16€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€this€determination€might€notÏbe€"unmistakably€clear,"€it€need€not€be.€€Moreover,€as€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€has€held,€great€deference€should€be€given€to€the€trialÏjudge,€who€is€"left€with€the€definite€impression€that€a€prospective€jurorÏwould€be€unable€to€faithfully€and€impartially€apply€the€law."€€òòWainwrightóó,Ð   Ð469€U.S.€at€426,€105€S.Ct.€at€853.€€The€trial€judge's€findings€"shall€beÏaccordedÔ#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9°#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ€a€presumption€of€correctness€and€the€burden€shall€rest€upon€theÐ (È Ðappellant€to€establish€by€convincing€evidence€that€[those€findings€were]Ïerroneous."€€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989).€€TheÐ P"ð Ðappellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€in€this€case.ÌÔ#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9“³#ÔÌà ` àÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔThe€appellant€also€contends€that€excusing€the€prospective€jurorÐ Œ(, Ðbecause€of€his€religious€beliefs€further€interferes€with€the€appellant'sÏconstitutional€rights.€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€because€a€juror'sÏ"'views€on€capital€punishment€may€have€had€a€religious€foundation€doesÏnot€necessarily€transform€the€test€mandated€by€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€in€[òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó]€into€religious€tests€for€.€.€.€[constitutionalÐ ð2)( Ðpurposes].'"€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545,€547€(Tenn.€1990)€(1990)Ð 5¤+* Ð(quoting€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€949€(Tenn.€1987)).€€Accordingly,Ð 7¸-, ÐMr.€Williamsðð€opposition€to€the€death€penalty,€though€possibly€based€onÐ ,9Ì/. Ðreligion,€appropriately€rendered€him€unfit€as€a€juror.Ô#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9µ#Ô€€The€trial€judge€actedÐ `  Ðproperly,€and€this€issue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.Ìñõ4ñÌñõ4ñÌò òà@i i DàADMISSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€STATEMENTSó óˆÐ °P Ðà ` àThe€appellant,€relying€on€his€brief€submitted€during€the€initial€directÏappeal€of€this€case,€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€theÏintroduction€of€the€appellantððs€statements€into€evidence.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€previously€addressed€this€issue€on€the€original€appeal€of€this€case.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€remand€of€thisÐ ´ Ðcase€was€based€upon€the€Courtððs€determination€that€a€portion€of€theÏappellantððs€statement€was€erroneously€introduced.€€òòId.óó€at€47.€€During€theÐ < Ü Ðresentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€followed€the€Supreme€Courtððs€mandateÏand€excluded€the€objectionable€portions€of€the€statement.€€Accordingly,Ïbecause€the€Supreme€Court€has€already€addressed€this€issue,€theÏappellantððs€argument€must€fail.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€THE€DEATH€PENALTYó óÐ ´,T#" ÐÓ  Óà ` àFinally,€the€appellant€asserts€the€death€penalty€is€cruel€and€unusualÏpunishment€in€violation€of€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€On€directÏappeal,€the€Supreme€Court€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,Ð ð2)( Ð778€S.W.2d€39,€47€(Tenn.€1989).€€Likewise,€the€Court€has€repeatedly€upheldÏthe€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€face€of€similar€challenges.€€òòÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔSeeóóÐ 7¸-, ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€Ô#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9¾#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ893€S.W.2d€908Ô#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9¿#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔ€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2dÐ ,9Ì/. Ð75€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð `  ÐSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.Ð t  Ð1991);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793Ð ˆ ( ÐS.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989).€Ð œ< ÐAccordingly,€this€argument€is€without€merit.Ô#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9R¿#ÔÐ °P ÐÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔñó4ñÌñó4ñÌà@44*Dàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ìŒ ÐÔ#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9®Á#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔà ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€issues€and€the€record€before€us€asÐ   Ðmandated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(b)€and€(c)Ô#†¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X94Â#Ôñú4ñÔ‡ŠÌŠŠ ŠÌÔñú4ñ,€andÐ ´ Ðfor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€sentence€of€death.€ÏWe€conclude€that€the€sentence€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion,€theÏevidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€aggravating€circumstance,€and€theÏevidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏoutweighs€any€mitigating€circumstances.€€Moreover,€a€comparativeÏproportionality€review,€considering€both€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€andÏthe€nature€of€the€appellant,€convinces€us€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€neitherñô4ñÌÌñô4ñ€excessive€nor€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.׃(×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€¼X9 ¼ ¼¼X9ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð È.h%$ ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÐ 5¤+* ÐÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGE›ñú4ññû4ñÔ#† ŠÌŠŠŠÌbÃ#ÔÔ‡Šr ŠŠ ŠÌÔÔ‡XñX ŠŠrÔà ` àà ¸ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  Ðßt€)12>.*jxÿN` `€€@E­ž ` ttx$åP ð " tßÌà@ºº*DàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌà@CC%DàFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà  à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò ò)ó óà p àò òC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9605„CR„00170ó óÐ À`  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,à h àò ò€€€€€à À àà  à)Ð °P  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àSHELBY€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€BROWN,€JR.,Ð €  ÐKEVIN€B.€BURNS,à  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àJUDGEÐ p Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àó óAppellant.ò òà h àà À àà  à)à p àó ó(First„degree€murder€death€penalty;ò òÐ Pð Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò ò)ó óà p à€attempted€felony€murder)Ð @à ÐÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà h àà À àà  à€€€€€òòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òGLENN€I.€WRIGHTà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó ó200€Jefferson€Ave.à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÐ Ð p Ðó óSuite€800ò òÐ À!` Ðó óMemphis,€TN€€€38103à h àò òà À àà  àà p àDARIAN€B.€TAYLORó óÐ °"P Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òWILLIAM€L.€JOHNSONó óà h àà À àà  àà p à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.à (# à€€€€€50Ð $0 ÐN.€Front€St.à ¸ àà  àñû4ññü4ñà h àñü4ññû4ñà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð €%  ÐSuite€1150à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÐ p& ÐMemphis,€TN€€€38103à h àò òà À àà  àà p àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIó óÐ `'  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òà À àà  àà p àTHOMAS€D.€HENDERSON€Ð 0*Ð # Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à€€€€€ó ó„and„Ð  +À!$ Ðò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€WHEELER€CAMPBELLó óÐ ,°"% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à201€Poplar€Ave.à x àÐ ð-$' Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMemphis,€TN€€€38103Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òCONVICTIONS€FOR€FIRST„DEGREE€MURDER€AND€DEATH€PENALTY€AFFIRMED;Ð P7ð-1 ÐCONVICTIONS€FOR€ATTEMPTED€FELONY€MURDER€REVERSED€ANDÏREMANDEDó óÐ 09Ð/3 ÐÐ  :À04 Ðò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ `  ÐJudgeñû4ññý4ññû4ñÐ ä9„06 Ðñû4ññý4ññû4ñÐ  P ð ÐÓ  Óà@õõ)Dàò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÐ `  ÐÌÌÌó óóóÓ  Óà@JJ+Dàò òANALYSISˆÐ ø ˜ Ðà@"DàSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óˆÐ Þ ~ ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€first€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€which€hisÏmurder€convictions€are€based.€Ô#† X%“XXX%“ È#ÔÔ‡X%“XX X%“Ô€When€a€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ v  Ðconvicting€evidence,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosecution€in€determining€whether€ð ðòòanyóó€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essentialÐ ®  Ðelements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319Ð Úz  Ð(1979).€€We€do€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€and€are€required€to€afford€the€StateÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonableÏand€legitimate€infer‚ences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2dÐ >Þ Ð832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€beÏgiven€to€the€evidence,€as€well€as€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€theÏtrier€of€fact,€not€this€Court.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835.€€A€guilty€verdict€rendered€byÐ :%Ú Ðthe€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€theÏState,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,Ð Ò(r# Ð493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).Ô#† X%“XXX%“NÙ#ÔÔ‡X%“XX X%“ÔÐ ž*>!% ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThese€murders€were€committed€on€April€20,€1992.€€At€that€time,€the€form€ofÏfirst„degree€murder€known€as€ð ðfelony€murderðð€consisted€of€ð ð[a]€reckless€killing€of€anotherÏcommitted€in€the€perpetration€of,€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,Ïrape,€robbery,€burglary,€theft,€kidnapping€or€aircraft€piracy.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)Ï(1991€Repl).€€In€this€case,€the€murders€were€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€ÏRobbery€is€ð ðthe€intentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€byÏviolence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„401(a)€(1991€Repl).€€Furthermore,Ð þ8ž/5 Ða€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€conduct€of€another€when€the€person,€ð ð[a]cting€withÏintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€orÏresults€of€the€offense,€.€.€.€solicits,€directs,€aids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commitÏthe€offense.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„402(2)€(1991€Repl).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€statement€to€agent€Harbaugh,€the€defendant€indicated€that€he€had€Ïaccompanied€Shaw€and€three€other€men€to€the€scene€of€the€crime€and€that€their€intent€hadÏbeen€to€confront€the€people€who€had€ð ðjumpedðð€Shawððs€cousin.€€Once€they€arrived€in€theÏgeneral€proximity,€Shaw€gave€the€defendant€a€handgun.€€Nothing€in€the€record€demon…¼strates€that€the€defendant€refused€the€weapon€or€was€forced€to€carry€it.€€The€defendantÏfurther€indicated€in€his€statement€that€he€had€willingly€walked€toward€Dawsonððs€car€and€thatÏhe€subsequently€shot€three€times€in€the€direction€of€the€fleeing€occupant.€€Thus,€since€thereÏappears€to€be€no€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€present€at€the€scene€of€the€crime,€theÏpivotal€question€becomes€whether€the€proof€was€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€he€killedÏDawson€and€Johnson€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery€and/or€that€he€was€criminallyÏresponsible€for€the€conduct€of€another€in€this€respect.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€record€establishes€that€Johnson,€Dawson€and€Thomas€were€robbed€asÏthey€sat€in€Dawsonððs€car,€and€that€they€were€all€shot€as€soon€as€the€robbery€was€complete.€ÏThomas€testified€that€Carlito€Adams€and€several€other€individuals€had€surrounded€the€car,Ïð ð[p]ulled€out€their€pistols,€had€their€pistols€aimed€at€us.€€Took€money€from€me;€took€jewelryÏfrom€[Johnson];€took€jewelry€from€[Dawson].ðð€€Upon€being€asked€what€happened€next,€heÏtestified,€ð ðthey€opened€fire,€and€they€started€shooting€us.ðð€€Shortly€after€the€shootings,ÏThomas€identified€one€of€the€assailants€from€a€photo€spread.€€He€testified€at€trial€that€thisÏhad€been€the€man€who€had€taken€his€property€and€then€shot€him.€€Although€Thomas€didÏnot€make€an€in„court€identification€of€the€defendant,€this€photo€spread€was€provided€to€theÏjury€members€and€they€were€able€to€determine€with€their€own€eyes€whether€or€not€theÏphoto€was€of€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€agent€Harbaugh€testified€that€the€photo€appearedÐ ä9„06 Ðto€be€of€the€defendant.€Thus,€the€jury€could€properly€have€concluded€from€ThomasððÏtestimony€alone€that€the€defendant€participated€in€the€robbery€and€shot€at€the€carððsÏoccupants.€€However,€the€jury€also€had€before€it€Mary€Jonesðð€testimony€that€she€had€seenÏthe€defendant€shoot€Dawson,€that€she€had€been€ð ðlooking€right€at€himðð€and€that€ð ð[a]s€[theÏdefendant]€was€running€down€the€driveway,€after€he€finished€shooting€[Dawson],€thatððsÏwhen€I€got€a€real€good€look€in€his€face.ðð€€And€Eric€Jonesðð€testimony€corroborated€ThomasððÏtestimony€that€Thomas,€Johnson€and€Dawson€had€all€been€robbed€and€then€fired€upon.€ÏJohnsonððs€mother€testified€that€she€had€seen€her€son€wearing€a€jewelry€chain€the€morningÏof€his€murder.€€When€he€was€found€by€the€police,€immediately€after€the€shooting€occurred,Ïthere€was€no€jewelry.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àTaken€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€this€proof€was€more€thanÏsufficient€to€establish€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€had€participated€in€aÏrobbery€of€Thomas,€Johnson€and€Dawson€and€that,€immediately€following€the€robbery,€heÏshot€and€killed€Dawson.€€And€although€there€was€no€direct€proof€that€the€defendant€shotÏat€and€killed€Johnson,€the€evidence€established€that€Johnson€had€been€shot€while€in€theÏcar€following€the€robbery€in€which€the€defendant€participated.€€Thus,€although€one€or€moreÏof€the€other€men€surrounding€the€car€and€robbing€its€occupants€may€have€actually€fired€theÏbullet€that€killed€Johnson,€the€defendant€remains€responsible€for€Johnsonððs€murder:ÌÒ°XÒÓÓÒô ÒThe€Tennessee€offense€[of€felony€murder€during€the€perpetration€ofÏa€robbery]€extends€both€to€the€killer€and€his€accomplices.€€A€defen…¼dant€who€is€a€willing€and€active€participant€in€a€robbery€becomesÏaccountable€for€all€of€the€consequences€flowing€from€the€robbery€andÏmay€be€convicted€of€first„degree€murder€where€a€co„perpetrator€ofÏthe€felony€is€the€actual€killer.ÌÌÒ¦°ÒòòÒDô ÒÓÓState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€336€(Tenn.€1992).Ð Î1n(- ÐÌà œ àà ô àÔ#† X%“XXX%“ˆÞ#ÔÔ‡X%“XX X%“ÔThe€felony€murder€statute€dealt€with€in€Ô#† X%“XXX%“úò#ÔÔ‡X%“XX X%“ÔòòMiddlebrooksóó€was€slightly€differentÐ f5,1 Ðfrom€the€one€at€issue€in€this€case,€providing,€ð ðEvery€murder€.€.€.€committed€in€theÏperpetration€of,€or€attempt€to€perpetrate,€any€murder€in€the€first€degree,€arson,€rape,Ð þ8ž/5 Ðrobbery,€burglary,€larceny,€kidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€the€unlawful€throwing,€placingÏor€discharging€of€a€destructive€device€or€bomb,€is€murder€in€the€first€degree.ðð€€T.C.A.€Ìðð€39„2„202(a)€(1982).€€In€1989,€the€statute€was€amended€to€provide€that€the€killing€in€theÏperpetration€of€the€enumerated€felonies€be€ð ðreckless.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(1989ÏSupp).€€ð ðRecklessðð€in€turn€refers€to€a€person€who,€although€aware€of€a€substantial€andÏunjustifiable€risk€that€a€person€or€persons€will€be€killed€as€a€result€of€his€conduct,Ïnevertheless€consciously€disregards€that€risk€and€engages€in€the€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.Ð (È  Ððð€39„11„106(31)€(1991€Repl).€€This€Court€has€previously€held€that€this€addition€of€theÏword€ð ðrecklessðð€to€the€felony€murder€statute€ð ðdoes€not€alter€the€principle€that€anÏaccomplice€to€the€underlying€felony€may€also€be€guilty€of€felony€murder€even€though€theÏkilling€has€been€committedÔ#† X%“XXX%“dó#ÔÔ‡X%“XX X%“Ô€by€a€co„felon.€€The€jury€need€only€find€that€the€defendant€wasÐ Xø Ða€participant€in€the€perpetration€of€the€underlying€felony€and€that€his€conduct€as€to€theÏkilling€was€ððreckless.ðð€ðð€€òòState€v.€Timothy€D.€Harrisóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9211„CR„00258,Ð ð ÐShelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€April€13,€1994,€at€Jackson),€òòrevððd€on€other€groundsóóÐ ¼ \ Ð(1996).€€And,€as€our€Supreme€Court€noted€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€ð ðone€who€purposelyÐ ˆ"( Ðundertakes€a€felony€that€results€in€a€death,€almost€always€can€be€found€reckless.ðð€€840ÏS.W.2d€at€345.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àIn€this€case,€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€proof€in€favor€of€the€StateÏis€that€the€defendant€approached€Dawsonððs€car€with€a€loaded€pistol,€participated€in€aÏrobbery€in€which€other€armed€individuals€were€also€participating,€and€then€shot€severalÏtimes€into€the€car.€€The€defendantððs€actions€satisfy€the€statutory€definition€of€ð ðreckless.ðð€ÏAccordingly,€the€proof€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏdefendant€murdered€Dawson€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery,€and€that€he€was€criminallyÏresponsible€for€Johnsonððs€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€the€same€robbery.€€BothÏconvictions€are€supported€by€the€evidence€and€this€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà@^ ^ ;àò òSUPPRESSION€OF€DEFENDANTððS€STATEMENTˆÐ ä9„06 Ðó óà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€hisÐ `  Ðmotion€to€suppress€his€statement.€The€defendant€was€apprehended€in€Chicago€by€FBIÏagents.€€He€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€had€been€read€his€rights€whenÏhe€was€first€arrested€and€handcuffed.€€He€also€testified€that€he€had€understood€his€rightsÏbefore€making€his€statement,€that€he€had€not€been€promised€anything€in€return€for€hisÏstatement,€and€that€he€had€not€been€threatened€into€making€his€statement.€€However,Ïwhen€asked€at€the€suppression€hearing,€ð ðyou€knew€you€didnððt€have€to€talk€to€[theÏagent]?ðð,€the€defendant€responded,€ð ðI€didnððt€really€understand,€but€I€did€because€he€wasÏasking€me€questions.ðð€€This€is€the€crux€of€the€defendantððs€contention€that€he€did€not€waiveÏhis€constitutional€rights€freely€and€voluntarily.€ÌÌà œ àà ô àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€judge€to€determine€the€voluntariness€and€theÏadmissibility€of€a€defendantððs€pre„trial€statement.€€òòState€v.€Pursleyóó,€550€S.W.2d€949,€952Ð ð Ð(Tenn.€1977).€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€a€confession€was€givenÏknowingly€and€voluntarily€is€binding€on€the€appellate€courts€unless€the€appellant€canÏshow€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928Ð T$ô ÐS.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€the€instant€case,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrateÏhow€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.ÌÌà œ àà ô àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏstated€the€following:ÌÓÓÒô DÒÒ°¦ÒThe€defendant€says€the€person€that€handcuffed€him€gave€him€hisÏrights€on€the€scene€„„€he€didnððt€read€them€from€a€card,€but€he€saidÏthem€to€him.€€He€said€he€understood€his€rights.€€He€doesnððt€remem…¼ber€all€of€them,€but€he€knows€that€he€was€advised,€ððYou€have€a€rightÐ Î1n(- Ðto€remain€silent€and€anything€you€say€can€and€will€be€used€againstÏyou.ððÌÌHe€doesnððt€recall€the€one€about€right€to€counsel,€as€is€complained€ofÏin€the€motion;€but€he,€too,€does€not€deny€that€he€was€not€[sic]€toldÏthis.€€He€admits,€freely,€that€he€was€advised€of€his€rights€when€heÏwas€initially€handcuffed.€€Through€his€own€statement,€he€was€advisedÏâ âof€his€rights;€he€understood€them;€heððs€a€high„school€graduate;€heÐ þ8ž/5 Ðwas€not€coerced;€he€was€not€pressured;€he€was€not€threatened;Ïnobody€promised€him€anything.Ìâ âÌ.€.€.€.€ÌÌBut€from€what€the€court€has€.€.€.€seen€here,€it€would€appear€that,€onÏall€fours,€the€defendant€freely€and€voluntarily,€understandingly,Ïknowingly,€advisedly,€and€intelligently€waived€his€rights€free€from€anyÏcoercion,€threats,€pressures€of€any€kind€that€would€have€induced€himÏor€caused€him€to€have€abandoned€his€rights.ÌÌHe€claims€he€understood€them,€and€from€his€testimony,€the€courtÏwould€have€to€find€that€even€if€his€recall€is€more€accurate€than€that€ofÏAgent€Landman,€through€his€own€evidence,€the€statement€that€isÏpurportedly€given€by€the€defendant€to€Agent€Landman€would€beÏadmissible€into€evidence.€€The€motion€to€suppress,€respectfully,€willÏbe€denied.ÌÒDô ÒÒ¦°ÒÌÓÓThis€ruling€by€the€trial€court€was€proper.€€Although€he€claims€in€his€brief€that€he€ð ðdid€notÏunderstand€his€rights,ðð€the€defendant€admitted€during€the€suppression€hearing€that€heÏhad€understood€the€waiver€form€and€that€he€had€freely€and€voluntarily€talked€to€theÏagents.€€There€is€nothing€before€this€Court€which€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà œ àà ô àÌà@YY%;àò òINSTRUCTION€ON€FLIGHTˆÐ  &À  Ðó óà œ àà ô àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€itÐ ì'Œ" Ðinstructed€the€jury€on€flight.€€He€further€contends€that€this€error€was€not€harmless€becauseÏof€the€ð ðheavy€emphasisðð€the€prosecutor€placed€on€it€during€closing€argument.€€WeÏdisagree€and€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà œ àà ô àAgent€Harbaugh€testified€that,€in€his€statement,€the€defendant€had€admittedÏto€leaving€the€crime€scene€immediately€after€the€shootings.€€Later,€he€heard€somethingÏabout€a€shooting€in€East€Memphis€and€thought€it€might€be€the€one€in€which€he€had€beenÏinvolved.€€He€then€left€his€residence€and€went€to€Chicago€where€he€remained€until€he€wasÏâ âapprehended€by€the€FBI€in€June€1992.€€He€now€contends€that€a€jury€instruction€on€flightÐ 8¸.4 Ðwas€not€warranted€because€he€ð ðnever€committed€any€act€of€hiding€out,€evasion€orÏconcealment€of€his€person€in€the€community.ððÌâ âÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€misapprehends€the€circumstances€necessary€to€justify€a€juryÏinstruction€on€flight.€€This€Court€has€previously€recognized€that€there€is€evidence€sufficientÏto€support€a€jury€instruction€on€flight€where€there€is€proof€of€ð ð€ððboth€a€leaving€the€sceneÐ \ü  Ðof€the€difficulty€and€a€subsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€or€concealment€in€the€community,Ð (È  Ðòòor€a€leaving€of€the€community€for€parts€unknownóó.ðð€ðð€€òòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,Ð ô”  Ð498€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€€And€the€trial€court€inÏthis€case€charged€the€jury€accordingly,€stating,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€Ð Œ, ÐÒô DÒÒ°¦ÒÓÓThe€law€makes€no€nice€or€refined€distinction€as€to€the€manner€orÏmethod€of€a€flight;€it€may€be€open,€or€it€may€be€a€hurried€or€con…¼cealed€departure,€or€it€may€be€a€concealment€within€the€jurisdiction;Ïhowever,€òòit€takes€both€the€leaving€the€scene€of€the€difficulty€and€aÐ  ª Ðsubsequent€hiding€out,€evasion,€or€concealment€in€the€community,€orÏa€leaving€of€the€community€for€parts€unknown,€to€constitute€flight.ÌóóÌÒDô ÒÒ¦°ÒÓÓ(emphasis€added).€€Here,€the€defendant€both€ran€from€the€crime€scene€and€subsequentlyÏleft€his€home€in€West€Memphis€for€Chicago.€€Such€evidence€supported€a€jury€instructionÏon€flight,€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€so€instructing€the€jury.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.׃×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€X%“XXX%“ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð '¦! ÐÌÌà@TT$;àò òATTEMPTED€FELONY€MURDERˆÐ j, #' Ðà œ àó óÔ#† X%“XXX%“hø#ÔÔ‡X%“XX X%“Ôà ô àIn€addition€to€being€convicted€of€two€counts€of€felony€murder,€the€defendantÐ 6.Ö$) Ðwas€convicted€of€two€counts€of€attempted€felony€murder.€€The€State€correctly€concedesÏthat€attempted€felony€murder€does€not€constitute€a€crime€in€Tennessee.€€òòState€v.Ð Î1n(- ÐKimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€888,€892€(Tenn.€1996).€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€and€dismissÐ š3:*/ Ðthose€two€convictions.€€However,€we€are€left€with€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendant€mayÏnow€be€retried€on€the€charges€of€attempted€premeditated€murder.€€The€precise€issue€isÐ 27Ò-3 Ðwhether€a€defendant€may€be€retried€under€an€alternative€count€on€which€the€jury€madeÏno€finding€where€the€count€of€which€the€defendant€was€convicted€fails€to€state€an€offense.€ÏWe€find€this€issue€to€be€a€matter€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.Ìà œ àà ô àÌà œ àà ô àA€defendant€may€be€retried€for€an€offense€when€his€conviction€is€set€asideÏbecause€of€an€error€in€the€proceedings€rather€than€because€the€State€failed€in€its€effortÏto€prove€him€guilty.€€òòBurks€v.€United€Statesóó,€437€U.S.€1€(1978);€òòState€v.€Hutchersonóó,€790Ð (È  ÐS.W.2d€532,€535€(Tenn.€1990).€€For€instance,€retrial€is€appropriate€where€the€convictionÏis€reversed€due€to€the€ð ðincorrect€receipt€or€rejection€of€evidence,€incorrect€instructions,Ïor€prosecutorial€misconduct.ðð€€òòBurks€v.€United€Statesóó,€437€U.S.€1,€15€(1978).€€Similarly,Ð Œ, Ða€defendant€may€be€reindicted€and€tried€on€other€offenses€where€his€conviction€isÏreversed€because€the€underlying€statute€is€later€deemed€unconstitutional.€€òòState€v.€Haleóó,Ð $Ä Ð840€S.W.2d€307,€308€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€the€instant€case,€the€defendantððs€convictions€forÏattempted€felony€murder€are€being€reversed€because€our€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€thatÏno€such€offense€exists.€€That€is,€due€to€a€fundamental€error€in€the€proceedings,€theÏdefendant€was€tried€for€a€crime€which€is€impossible€to€commit.€€Obviously,€he€cannot€beÏretried€for€attempted€felony€murder.€€We€must€determine,€then,€whether€he€can€be€retriedÏfor€attempted€premeditated€first„degree€murder.€€€We€hold€that€Burns€has€been€neitherÏconvicted€nor€acquitted€of€these€crimes€and€principles€of€double€jeopardy€do€notÏtherefore€prohibit€his€retrial.ÌÌà œ àà ô àBurns€was€indicted€for€both€attempted€felony€murder€and€attemptedÏpremeditated€first„degree€murder,€and€both€counts€were€sent€to€the€jury.€€However,€theÏtrial€court€instructed€the€jury€in€this€case€to€first€consider€Count€1€of€the€indictments€whichÏcharged€the€offense€of€attempted€felony€murder.€€The€jury€was€instructed€that€if€theyÏfound€the€defendant€guilty€of€attempted€felony€murder,€they€would€so€report.€€The€juryÏwas€further€instructed€that€if€they€found€the€defendant€not€guilty€of€that€offense,€theyÏwould€then€proceed€to€inquire€as€to€his€guilt€of€attempted€premeditated€first„degreeÐ ä9„06 Ðmurder€as€charged€in€Count€2€of€the€indictments.€€In€other€words,€the€jury€was€not€toÏconsider€attempted€premeditated€first„degree€murder€if€they€found€the€defendant€guiltyÏof€attempted€felony€murder.ÌÌà œ àà ô àTypically,€when€a€jury€is€given€a€multi„count€charge€and€returns€a€specialÏverdict€convicting€the€defendant€of€one€of€the€charges€but€which€is€silent€as€to€the€otherÏcharges,€the€defendant€is€deemed€acquitted€of€the€other€charges.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòConner€v.Ð (È  ÐStateóó,€531€S.W.2d€119,126€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€The€State€is€then€prohibited€fromÐ ô”  Ðretrying€the€defendant€on€the€acquitted€charges€even€if€the€conviction€is€later€reversed.Ð À` ÐòòIdóó.€€As€this€Court€held€in€òòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€however,€ð ðwe€are€of€the€opinion€that€this€rule€isÐ Œ, Ðnot€applicable€to€the€situation€involved€in€the€present€case.ðð€€637€S.W.2d€891,€895€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1982).ÌÌà œ àà ô àIn€òòArnoldóó,€each€of€the€defendants€had€been€charged€with€a€conspiracy€toÐ ¼ \ Ðengage€in€the€protracted€and€repeated€sales€of€controlled€substances,€with€being€aÏhabitual€drug€offender,€and€with€specific€drug€transactions€as€separate€and€additionalÏoffenses.€€The€controlling€statute€(and€the€jury€instructions)€limited€the€jury€to€finding€theÏdefendants€guilty€of€either€being€habitual€drug€offenders€or€of€committing€the€specificÏdrug€deals,€but€not€both.€€The€jury€found€each€of€the€defendants€guilty€of€being€a€habitualÏdrug€offender.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€found€the€evidence€to€have€been€insufficient€toÏsupport€the€habitual€drug€offender€convictions.€€Nevertheless,€the€case€was€remandedÏfor€a€new€trial€on€the€specific€drug€transactions.ÌÌà œ àà ô àIn€so€holding,€this€Court€acknowledged€the€general€rule€that€ð ða€specialÏverdict€upon€one€count€of€an€indictment€operates€as€an€acquittal€upon€the€other€countsÏto€which€the€jury€did€not€respond.ðð€€òòArnoldóó,€637€S.W.2d€at€895.€€In€distinguishing€the€caseÐ L6ì,2 Ðbefore€it,€this€Court€reasoned€that€ÌÓÓÐ ä9„06 Ðà œ àà8 ô à[i]mplicit€in€the€juryððs€verdict€finding€the€appellants€guilty€under€theÏfirst€count€of€being€habitual€drug€offenders€is€a€finding€of€their€guiltÏof€the€transactions€separately€charged€in€the€fourth€and€fifth€counts;Ïyet,€because€of€the€restrictions€in€the€statute,€the€jury,€once€it€foundÏthe€appellants€guilty€under€the€first€count,€was€precluded€fromÏreporting€a€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€separate€offenses€charged€in€theÏfourth€and€fifth€counts.Ð ô Ú"ô Ú" ÐÌà œ àà8 ô àTherefore,€we€conclude€that€because€of€the€restrictive€languageÏcontained€in€the€habitual€drug€offender€statute,€the€juryððs€failure€toÏreport€a€verdict€on€the€fourth€and€fifth€counts€did€not€operate€as€aÏverdict€of€acquittal€on€those€charges,€and€a€remand€for€trial€on€thoseÏcounts€would€be€in€order.Ð ô Ú"ô Ú" ÐÌÌòòÓÓArnoldóó,€637€S.W.2d€at€895.€€Although€we€are€not€dealing€with€a€statutory€restriction€in€theÐ Úz  Ðcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€find€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury€to€have€operated€to€theÐ ¦F Ðsame€effect.€€Once€the€jury€found€Burns€guilty€of€attempted€felony€murder,€its€instructionsÏwere€to€move€on€and€make€no€report€on€the€charges€of€attempted€premeditated€murderÏand€its€lesser€offenses.€€Yet,€implicit€in€the€convictions€for€attempted€felony€murder€wasÏa€finding€that€the€defendant€had€indeed€attempted€to€kill€two€people.€€While€we€cannotÏknow€whether€the€jury€would€have€convicted€the€defendant€of€attempted€premeditatedÏmurder€or€one€of€its€lesser€offenses€had€it€been€given€the€opportunity€to€consider€thoseÏcharges,€the€evidence€was€certainly€sufficient€for€it€to€have€done€so.ÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€also€spoken€on€implied€acquittals,Ïfinding€them€to€bar€retrial€under€the€federal€Double€Jeopardy€Clause׃ ×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€X%“XXX%“ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€when€the€jury€hasÐ ž*>!% Ðbeen€given€ð ða€full€opportunity€to€return€a€verdictðð€on€a€charge€and€instead€found€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€a€lesser€charge.€€òòPrice€v.€Georgiaóó,€398€U.S.€323,€329€(1970)(footnoteÐ 6.Ö$) Ðomitted).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòGreen€v.€United€Statesóó,€355€U.S.€184€(1957).€€That€is,€ð ð[o]nly€whereÐ 0¢&+ Ðthe€jury€is€given€the€full€opportunity€to€return€a€verdict€òòeitheróó€on€the€greater€òòor,Ð Î1n(- Ðalternativelyóó,€on€the€lesser€€included€offense€does€the€doctrine€of€implied€acquittal€obtain.ðð€Ð š3:*/ ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Reedóó,€617€F.Supp.€792,€800€(D.C.Md.€1985)€(emphasis€in€original).€Ð f5,1 ÐWhile€we€realize€that€attempted€premeditated€murder€is€not€a€lesser€offense€of€attemptedÐ 27Ò-3 Ðfelony€murder,€we€are€convinced€that€the€same€analysis€is€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòSchiro€v.Ð `  ÐFarleyóó,€510€U.S.€222,€__,€114€S.Ct.€783,€792€(1994)€(ð ðThe€failure€to€return€a€verdict€doesÐ , Ì Ðnot€have€collateral€estoppel€effect€.€.€.€unless€the€record€establishes€that€the€issue€wasÏactually€and€necessarily€decided€in€the€defendantððs€favor.ðð)€€Here,€the€jury€was€not€givenÏthe€full€opportunity€to€return€a€verdict€either€on€attempted€felony€murder€or,€alternatively,Ïon€attempted€premeditated€murder€and€its€lesser€offenses.€€Because€the€jury€was€notÏgiven€that€opportunity,€its€verdict€did€not€necessarily€resolve€in€Burnsðð€favor€the€issue€ofÏhis€guilt€of€the€alternative€crimes€and€the€doctrine€of€implied€acquittal€should€not€apply.׃,×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€X%“XXX%“ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#† X%“XXX%“Ð#ÔÔ‡X%“XX X%“ÔÐ ô”  ÐÌà œ àà ô àFinally,€our€Supreme€Court€has€made€it€clear€that€a€defendant€may€beÏretried€for€lesser€offenses€following€reversal€of€his€or€her€conviction€for€the€greaterÏoffense.€€òòState€v.€Maupinóó,€859€S.W.2d€313,€317€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€òòMaupinóó,€the€defendantÐ $Ä Ðhad€been€charged€in€a€single€count€indictment€with€aiding€and€abetting€first„degreeÏmurder€of€a€child€resulting€from€repeated€child€abuse.€€The€jury€was€charged€with€theÏindicted€offense€as€well€as€with€the€lesser€offenses€of€aiding€and€abetting€second„degreeÏmurder,€aiding€and€abetting€aggravated€child€abuse€and€aiding€and€abetting€child€abuse.€ÏnThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€aiding€and€abetting€first„degree€murder€charge.€ÏHowever,€the€statute€creating€that€grade€of€first„degree€murder,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„Ð ì'Œ" Ð202(a)(2)(Supp.€1988),€was€later€found€unconstitutional.€€òòState€v.€Haleóó,€840€S.W.2d€307Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€Accordingly,€our€Supreme€Court€reversed€Maupinððs€conviction€but€ruledÏthat€she€could€be€retried€on€the€lesser€offenses.€€In€so€holding,€the€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà œ àà8 ô àMaupin€was€not€acquitted€of€any€of€the€lesser€offenses€as€the€juryÏwas€not€required€to€pass€judgment€upon€them.Ð ô Ú"ô Ú" Ðà œ àà ô à.€.€.€ÌÌà œ àà8 ô à[D]ouble€jeopardy€should€not€bar€a€retrial€when€the€trier€of€fact€doesÏnot€pass€upon€lesser€offenses€one€way€or€the€other.€€There€havingÏbeen€no€factual€resolution€of€Maupinððs€guilt€or€innocence€on€theÏlesser€offenses,€she€can€be€tried€for€those€offenses€without€violatingÏdouble€jeopardy.Ð ô Ú"ô Ú" Ðà œ àà ô à.€.€.€ÌÌà œ àà8 ô àWe€find€no€double€jeopardy€impediment€in€allowing€Maupin,€likeÏHale,€to€be€tried€for€lesser€offenses€simply€because€she€wasÏconvicted€of€the€greater€offense€under€a€flawed€statute.Ð ô Ú"ô Ú" ÐÌÌÓÓ859€S.W.2d€at€318„19.€€ÌÌà œ àà ô àSimilarly,€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€jury€was€not€required€to€pass€on€theÏalternative€counts€of€attempted€premeditated€murder€and€its€lesser€offenses€and€thereÏhas€therefore€been€no€factual€resolution€of€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€of€thoseÏcrimes.€€Indeed,€the€only€factual€resolution€made€by€the€jury€on€the€attempted€murderÏcounts€was€that€the€defendant€òòdidóó€attempt€to€murder€two€people.€€Analogously€to€Maupin,Ð ¸)X $ Ðthe€defendant€in€this€case€was€convicted€of€an€offense€under€a€flawed€legal€interpretationÏof€the€attempt€and€felony€murder€statutes.€€The€jury€was€not€given€an€opportunity€toÏconvict€Burns€of€the€cognizable€crimes€of€attempted€premeditated€murder€or€its€lesserÏoffenses.€€Double€jeopardy€should€not,€therefore,€bar€his€retrial€for€these€offenses.€ÏAccordingly€we€hold€that€this€matter€is€to€be€remanded€for€the€defendant€to€be€retried€onÏtwo€counts€of€attempted€premeditated€murder.ÌÌÌÐ ä9„06 Ðà@';àò òSPECTATOR€DISPLAYó óˆÐ `  Ðà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€he€should€be€given€a€new€trial€becauseÏof€an€ð ðoutburstðð€by€members€of€the€victimsðð€families€during€testimony.€€He€argues€that€thisÏð ðoutburstðð€was€ð ðprejudicial€and€designed€to€gain€the€jurorsðð€sympathy.ðð€€However,€uponÏhis€lawyerððs€objection,€the€trial€court€found€as€follows:€ÌÒô DÒÒ°¦ÒÓÓWhat€you€have€here€is€two€individuals€involved€„„€the€mothers€of€theÏdeceased€two€individuals.€€It€was€not€a€great€outburst.€€It€wasÏsomething€the€court€would€characterize€more€as€a€sob,€and€that€wasÏclosely€contiguous€with€testimony€that€the€deceased,€[Johnson],Ïsomehow€got€out€of€the€car;€he€stopped€to€see€if€traffic€was€coming€„„Ïcar€was€coming;€he€got€across€the€street;€he€was€holding€his€handsÏout.€€The€witness€demonstrated€saying€ð ðHelp€me,€help€me,ðð€then€heÏstumbled€and€fell.€€At€that€point,€I€believe€one€of€the€ladies,€who€wasÏa€parent€of€that€deceased,€and€one€other€who€was€the€parent€of€theÏother€deceased,€got€up€and€left€the€courtroom.€€They€didnððt€slam€theÏdoor€or€anything€like€that.€€I€wouldnððt€say€there€was€a€great€hubbubÏor€anything€like€that.€€One€of€them€sobbed.€€I€would€not€say€it€was€aÏparticularly€loud€one.€€It€was€noticeable,€but€thatððs€about€it.ÌÌ.€.€.€.€ÌÌI€donððt€think€itððs€unexpected€by€any€of€the€jurors€that€someone€wouldÏnot€have€some€emotional€reaction€to€a€description€of€their€child.ÌÌ.€.€.€ÌÌUnder€the€circumstances,€as€they€exist€right€now,€the€court€does€notÏthink€itððs€something€thatððs€going€on,€on€an€on„going€basis.€€It€does€notÏappear€to€be€any€calculated€display€of€histrionics€or€anything€like€thatÏfor€the€purpose€of€influencing€the€jury€or€soliciting€or€eliciting€theirÏpassions.ÌÌ.€.€.€.€ÌÌIt€was€not€anything€that€was€done€overtly.€€It€was€a€sob,€and€theÏparties€immediately€removed€themselves€without€undue€display€whenÏtheir€emotions€got€out€of€control.€€Now,€I€donððt€believe€there€are€goingÏto€be€any€other€witnesses€that€would€testify€to€being€eyewitnesses€toÏthese€events.€€So,€I€donððt€think€the€problem€is€going€to€rise€again.ÌÌ.€.€.€ÌÌI€donððt€think€that€the€behavior€exhibited€by€the€two€ladies€in€questionÏis€outrageous€or€anything€like€that€or€particularly€offensive.€€I€donððtÏthink€itððs€likely€to€happen€again,€so€I€donððt€think€we€will€have€anyÏfurther€problem.€€But€in€any€event,€looking€at€the€juryððs€reaction€„„€IÏalways€do€that€„„€it€did€not€appear€that€they€were€unduly€disturbed€byÏthe€thing.ÌÌÓÓÐ ä9„06 ÐÒDô ÒÒ¦°Òà œ àà ô àWe€first€note€that€defense€counsel€did€not€move€for€a€mistrial€at€the€time€thisÏincident€occurred.€€Rather,€he€objected€and€requested€that€the€mothers€removeÏthemselves€from€the€courtroom€if€the€testimony€was€ð ðgoing€to€be€too€painful€for€them€toÏsit€[there]€without€an€outburst.ðð€€Defendant€then€raised€for€the€first€time€in€his€motion€forÏnew€trial€the€argument,€again€presented€here,€that€the€trial€court€should€have€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóóÐ 0 Ðgranted€a€mistrial.ÌÌà œ àà ô àWe€disagree.€€As€this€Court€has€stated€earlier,€ÌÓÓÒô DÒÒ°¦ÒThe€entry€of€a€mistrial€is€appropriate€when€the€trial€cannot€continue,Ïor,€if€the€trial€does€continue,€a€miscarriage€of€justice€will€occur.ÌÌWhether€an€occurrence€during€the€course€of€a€trial€warrants€the€entryÏof€a€mistrial€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretionÏof€the€trial€court;€and€this€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€exercise€ofÏthis€discretion€absent€clear€abuse€appearing€on€the€face€of€theÏrecord.ÌÌÌòòÒDô ÒÒ¦°ÒÓÓState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€In€òòMcPhersonóó,€theÐ ¼ \ Ðdefendant€was€on€trial€for€aggravated€rape.€€In€recounting€the€crime€on€the€witness€stand,Ïthe€victim€became€upset.€€The€court€called€a€recess,€but€before€the€jury€had€left€the€room,Ïthe€victim„witness€coordinator€for€the€district€attorneyððs€office€came€into€the€courtroomÏand€began€hugging€the€victim.€€The€defendant€requested€a€mistrial,€which€the€trial€courtÏdenied€on€the€grounds€that€it€was€ð ð€ððsatisfied€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€it€did€notÐ ¸)X $ Ðchange€the€outcome€of€[the]€trial.ðð€ðð€òòId.óó€€€This€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision,Ð „+$"& Ðfinding€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€Similarly,€in€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€the€minor€victim€becameÐ P-ð#( Ðupset€and€cried€while€on€the€witness€stand€in€an€aggravated€sexual€battery€case.€€TheÏjury€was€not€sent€out€of€the€courtroom€until€two€to€four€minutes€had€passed.€€On€appeal,Ïthe€defendant€contended€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€mistrial€and€new€trial€on€this€basis.€ÏOur€Supreme€Court€held,€ð ðWe€do€not€believe€the€behavior€of€the€witness€was€soÏprejudicial€that€the€defendant€could€not€receive€a€fair€trial.€.€.€.€€The€granting€of€a€mistrialÏis€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€A€reviewing€court€will€not€disturb€that€actionÏabsent€a€finding€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.ðð€€786€S.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990).Ð ä9„06 Їà œ àà ô àIn€the€instant€case,€although€no€motion€for€mistrial€was€made,€it€is€clear€fromÏthe€courtððs€remarks€in€response€to€defense€counselððs€objection€that€it€had€determined€theÏdefendant€suffered€no€prejudice€from€the€victimsðð€mothersðð€conduct.€€Defense€counselÏdeclined€to€request€a€curative€instruction€and€appeared€satisfied€with€the€trial€courtððsÏresponse€to€his€objection.€€No€abuse€of€discretion€has€been€demonstrated€in€the€trialÏcourtððs€refusal€to€declare€a€mistrial€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð \ü  ÐÌÌà@tt$;àò òADMISSION€OF€PHOTOGRAPHó óˆÐ À` Ðà œ àà ô àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏadmitting€into€evidence€a€photograph€of€the€driverððs€seat€in€which€Dawson€had€beenÏsitting.€€The€photograph€depicts€bloodstains€on€the€seat€as€well€as€a€small€amount€ofÏunidentified€material€which€the€defendant€describes€as€ð ðwhat€could€be€considered€guts.ðð€ÏHe€argues€that€the€photograph€was€not€probative€of€any€issue€and€that€it€was€prejudicialÏand€served€merely€to€ð ðinflame€the€jury.ðð€€The€State€responds€that€the€photograph€wasÏoffered€in€order€to€prove€that€Dawson€ð ðdid€not€have€a€weapon€in€the€front€seat,€and€toÏshow€the€force€from€the€close€range€shots€that€threw€[him]€over€to€the€armrest,€where€heÏbled€considerably.ðð€€At€trial€and€upon€the€defendantððs€objection€to€the€introduction€of€thisÏphotograph,€the€trial€court€found,€ÌÒô DÒÒ°¦ÒÓÓThere€is€some€smearing€of€blood.€€I€donððt€believe€„„€well,€in€the€courtððsÏopinion,€looking€at€that,€itððs€not€unduly€prejudicial.€€It€€doesnððt€elicitÏany€particular€revulsion€in€light€of€whatððs€commonly€on€television€forÏadult€viewing€these€days.€.€.€.€€Itððs€not€particularly€bloody.€€Now,€IÏdonððt€think€any€adults€or€any€ordinary€jury€is€going€to€get€particularlyÏrevolted€or€so€distressed€by€looking€at€some€moderate€to€smallÏamount€of€dried€blood€on€a€front€seat.ÌÌÒDô ÒÒ¦°ÒÓÓà œ àà ô àUnder€our€rules€of€evidence,€the€test€for€determining€whether€evidence€isÏð ðrelevantðð€is€easy€to€pass:€ð ðevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€anyÏfact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€lessÏprobable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidenceðð€is€relevant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€As€theÏState€points€out€in€its€brief,€the€defendant€had€been€charged€with€premeditated€first„Ð ä9„06 Ðdegree€murder.€€In€order€to€prove€this€offense,€the€State€had€to€prove€that€the€defendantÏkilled€Dawson€intentionally,€deliberately€and€with€premeditation.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€€Ð , Ì Ððð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1989€Supp).€€The€amount€of€blood€depicted€in€the€photograph,Ïtogether€with€the€implied€position€of€the€victimððs€body,€satisfies€the€definition€of€relevantÏevidence€insofar€as€tending€to€prove€that€the€defendant€shot€Dawson€intentionally€and/orÏdeliberately.€€That€is,€the€photograph€was€probative€as€to€the€effect€of€the€gunshots€uponÏDawsonððs€body€and,€therefore,€as€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendant€shot€himÏaccidentally€or€intentionally€and/or€deliberately.€€The€photograph€was€also€probative€asÏto€the€Stateððs€theory€of€how€the€victim€was€killed.€€Therefore,€we€disagree€with€theÏdefendant€that€the€photograph€was€not€relevant.ÌÌà œ àà ô àWhile€relevant,€a€photograph€may€be€excluded€ð ðif€its€probative€value€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€ÏHowever,€this€balancing€test€is€committed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€andÏits€decision€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€ÏòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.€1994).€€No€such€showing€has€beenÐ T$ô Ðmade€here.€€This€issue€is€accordingly€without€merit.׃"×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€X%“XXX%“ÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  &À  ÐÌÌà@c c ;àò òTRIAL€COURTððS€RESPONSE€TO€JUROR€QUESTIONSˆÐ „+$"& Ðó óà œ àà ô àIn€his€next€issue,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€itsÐ P-ð#( Ðresponse€to€the€jury€when€the€jury€asked€certain€questions€during€its€deliberations€in€theÏpenalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€Those€questions€propounded€by€the€jury€to€the€trial€court€wereÏas€follows:ÌÓÓÒô DÒÒ°¦Ò(1)à L àHow€many€years€for€life?Ð €4 +0 ÐÌ(2)à L àWhat€does€ððlife€sentenceðð€mean?Ð L6ì,2 ÐÐ 27Ò-3 Ð(3)à L àCan€we€ask€for€life€without€parole?€€Can€we€stipulate€life€plus€Ð `  Ðà L àso€many€years?ÌÌ(4)à L àCan€we€ask€for€consecutive€life€sentences?Ð  ² ÐÌ(5)à L àWhat€does€it€mean€if€youððre€sentenced€to€death€and€life?Ð Þ ~ ÐÌÒDô ÒÒ¦°ÒÓÓIn€response€to€these€questions,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðAll€right.€€Youððre€directed€to€referÏto€the€charges€and€instructions€that€are€contained€in€the€jacket.€€Thank€you.€€You€mayÏretire€to€continue€your€deliberations.ðð€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€questions€posedÏindicated€that€the€jury€was€considering€improper€matters,€and€that€the€trial€court€ð ðshouldÏhave€directed€the€jury€that€the€questions€posed€were€not€proper€considerations€in€theÏdetermination€of€the€sentence.ðð€€The€defendant€concedes€that€there€is€no€authority€for€theÏrequirement€that€the€trial€court€give€this€direction€prior€to€referring€the€jury€to€the€chargeÏand€instructions€given€initially.€€The€State€responds,€first,€that€this€issue€is€waivedÏbecause€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€response€to€the€juryððs€questionsÏat€the€time€it€was€given,€and€second,€that€the€trial€courtððs€response€was€proper€and€thatÏthis€issue€is€therefore€without€merit€even€if€we€should€consider€it.ÌÌà œ àà ô àWe€agree€with€the€State€on€both€counts.€€As€a€general€rule,€ð ð[a]€partyÏcannot€witness€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€court,€await€the€result€of€the€verdict,€andÏthen,€if€it€is€against€him€or€her,€object€to€the€alleged€misconduct.ðð€€€òòState€v.€Tuneóó,€872Ð Ò(r# ÐS.W.2d€922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€trial€court€in€this€case€took€the€questionsÏfrom€the€jury€after€recalling€counsel,€the€defendant,€the€court€reporter€and€the€jury€backÏinto€open€court€in€order€to€take€the€matter€up€on€the€record.€€Thus,€defense€counsel€hadÏevery€opportunity€to€object€at€the€time€the€trial€court€gave€its€response.€€Defense€counselÏchose€not€to€do€so.€€The€defendant€will€not€now€be€heard€to€complain.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.Ð Î1n(- Ð36(a)€(ð ðNothing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€a€partyÏresponsible€for€an€error€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€availableÏto€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð)ÌÐ þ8ž/5 Ðà œ àà ô àEven€if€the€defendant€had€not€waived€this€ð ðerror,ðð€however,€this€issue€hasÏno€merit.€€As€the€defendant€acknowledges,€the€trial€court€followed€the€proper€method€ofÏfielding€the€juryððs€questions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Maysóó,€677€S.W.2d€476,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ø ˜ Ð1984)€(ð ðThe€proper€method€of€fielding€questions€propounded€by€the€jury€duringÏdeliberations€is€to€recall€the€jury,€counsel,€the€defendant(s),€and€the€court€reporter€backÏinto€open€court€and€to€take€the€matter€up€on€the€record.ðð)€€€Additionally,€contrary€to€theÏdefendantððs€contention,€the€trial€court€responded€properly€to€the€juryððs€inquiry.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð (È  ÐòòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€698€S.W.2d€631€(Tenn.€1985).€€In€òòJohnsonóó,€a€capital€case,€ourÐ ô”  ÐSupreme€Court€addressed€a€situation€in€which€one€of€the€jurors€had€asked€questionsÏregarding€parole€during€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó.€€The€Court€stated,€ð ðthe€preferable€response€to€a€jurorððsÐ Œ, Ðinquiry€about€parole€is€to€instruct€the€jury€to€limit€their€deliberations€to€the€instructionsÏgiven€them€at€the€close€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€633.€€That€is€exactly€what€the€trial€courtÐ $Ä Ðdid€in€this€case.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993),€another€capital€case,€ourÐ ð ÐSupreme€Court€again€addressed€the€proper€response€to€jury€inquiries€about€sentencingÏand€parole.€€The€trial€court€had€refused€to€supplement€its€original€instructions.€€TheÏdefendant€argued€that€information€about€parole€eligibility€might€operate€as€mitigatingÏevidence€and€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€additional€instructions€ð ðsomehow€create[d]Ïa€non„statutory€aggravating€factor€of€future€dangerousness.ðð€€857€S.W.2d€at€11.€€TheÏCourt€rejected€this€argument,€opining€ð ðthat€to€provide€a€jury€with€the€sort€of€informationÏrequested€by€defendant€could€result€in€sentences€of€death€based€on€sheer€speculationÏand€on€factors€other€than€those€enumerated€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203€and€sanctioned€underÏeither€[the€Tennessee€or€United€States]€Constitution.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€itsÐ /¼%* Ðresponse€to€the€juryððs€questions€in€this€case,€and€this€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà œ àà ô àÌà@  ";àò òPROPRIETY€OF€DEATH€SENTENCEó óˆÐ L6ì,2 Ðà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€ð ðhis€role€was€minor€in€this€case,€and€asÏsuch,€requires€reversal€of€the€death€sentence.ðð€€We€first€note€that€the€death€penalty€in€thisÐ ä9„06 Ðcase€was€imposed€for€the€defendantððs€felony€murder€of€Damond€Dawson.€€We€also€note,Ïas€set€forth€above,€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€that€theÏdefendant€murdered€Dawson€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€€The€defendantððs€role€inÏthis€crime,€as€determined€by€the€jury,€was€hardly€ð ðminor.ððÌÌà œ àà ô àThe€defendant€argues€that,€since€he€was€under€the€impression€he€wasÏjoining€the€other€assailants€to€participate€in€a€fight,€and€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€theÏrobbery€or€intent€to€commit€it,€the€sentence€imposed€is€disproportionate€to€his€culpability,Ïrelying€on€òòEnmund€v.€Floridaóó,€458€U.S.€782€(1982),€and€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2dÐ À` Ð563€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€òòBranamóó,€our€Supreme€Court€outlined€the€controlling€law€addressingÐ Œ, Ðthe€defendantððs€claim,€construing€òòEnmundóó€in€the€process:Ð Xø ÐÓÓÒô DÒÒ°¦ÒIn€òòEnmund€v.€Floridaóó,€.€.€.€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ $Ä Ðdeath€is€a€disproportionate€penalty€and,€therefore,€constitutes€cruelÏand€unusual€punishment€under€the€Eighth€Amendment,€where€it€isÏimposed€against€a€defendant€ððsolely€for€participation€in€a€robbery€inÐ Öv Ðwhich€another€robber€takes€life,ðð€without€proof€that€the€defendantÏhimself€attempted€or€intended€to€kill,€or€intended€that€lethal€force€beÏused.€€This€constitutional€standard€was€refined€by€the€Court€in€òòTisonÐ ˆ"( Ðv.€Arizonaóó€.€.€.€in€which€it€was€held€that€the€Eighth€Amendment€doesÐ n# Ðnot€prohibit€the€death€penalty€in€the€case€of€a€defendant€whoseÏparticipation€in€a€felony€that€results€in€murder€is€major€and€whoseÏmental€state€at€the€time€is€one€of€reckless€indifference€to€the€value€ofÏhuman€life€„„€even€though€the€proof€fails€to€show€intent€to€kill.ÌÌÒDô ÒÒ¦°ÒÓÓ855€S.W.2d€at€570.ÌÌÒDÒà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€argument€on€this€issue€assumes€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€prove€that€he€is€guilty€of€felony€murder.€€As€is€seen€above,€however,€theÏevidence€does€sufficiently€prove€his€guilt.€€Even€if€the€defendant€did€not€actually€shootÏDawson,€as€the€evidence€indicates,€the€defendantððs€own€statement€that€he€shot€severalÏtimes€at€Blackman€demonstrated€that€he€ð ðattempted€or€intended€to€kill,€or€intended€thatÏlethal€force€be€used.ðð€€At€the€very€least,€this€represents€a€ð ðreckless€indifference€to€theÏvalue€of€human€life.ðð€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÐ þ8ž/5 Ðà ` àà ¸ àWe€deem€it€appropriate€to€consider€within€the€context€of€this€issue€theÏpropriety€of€the€defendantððs€death€sentence€in€light€of€the€determinations€which€ourÏlegislature€requires€this€Court€to€make€in€every€direct€appeal€of€death€penalty€cases.€€ThatÏis,€we€must€determine€whether€the€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€was€imposed€in€anyÏarbitrary€fashion;€whether€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance;€whether€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€outweighs€the€mitigating€circumstances;€and€whether€the€defendantððs€deathÏsentence€is€excessive€or€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,Ïconsidering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)Ï(1996€Supp).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€set€forth€above,€we€have€determined€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððsÏfinding€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€defendant€knowingly€created€a€great€riskÏof€death€to€two€or€more€persons,€other€than€Dawson,€during€his€murder€of€Dawson.€€TheÏevidence€also€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€outweighedÏthe€mitigating€circumstances€offered€during€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.׃×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€X%“XXX%“ÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€further€find,Ð T$ô Ðbased€upon€our€review€of€the€entire€record€of€this€cause,€that€the€sentence€of€death€wasÏnot€imposed€in€any€arbitrary€fashion.€€Finally,€we€have€determined€that€the€death€sentenceÏin€this€case€is€neither€excessive€nor€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similarÏcases,€considering€the€nature€of€this€felony€murder€and€the€defendant.׃%ˆ×Ý ƒ Y‘ÝÔ€X%“XXX%“ÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð „+$"& ÐÌÌÐ è0ˆ', Ðà@àò òCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€DEATH€PENALTYó óà@@;;@;àˆÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€last€contention,€the€defendant€maintains€that€Tennesseeððs€deathÏpenalty€statutes€are€unconstitutional.€€He€acknowledges€that€his€challenges€have€beenÏrejected€by€our€Supreme€Court,€but€reserves€the€issues€for€later€review.€€This€Court€is,€ofÏcourse,€bound€by€our€Supreme€Courtððs€prior€holdings€that€Tennesseeððs€death€penaltyÏstatutes€are€constitutional.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€without€further€discussion€these€issuesÏto€be€meritless.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€__Ð (È  ÐU.S.€__€(1995);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€__€U.S.€__Ð ô”  Ð(1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€__€U.S.€__€(1995);Ð À` ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€996€(1993);€òòState€v.Ð Œ, ÐBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.Ð Xø Ðdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074€(1991);€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð $Ä Ð498€U.S.€1007€(1990);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð ð Ð497€U.S.€1031€(1990).Ìà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€convictions€for€attempted€felony€murder€are€reversed€andÏdismissed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€on€the€two€counts€ofÏattempted€premeditated€murder.€€The€judgment€below€is€otherwise€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÔ#† X%“XXX%“:#ÔÔ#† ŠIŠX X%“,È#ÔÔ‡ŠIŠŠ ŠIÔñû4ñ›