ÿWPCõ ¹G-0Ê–bP•d›"ñ*™»3>K½¼óÙ¬¾Dý¢RõŠlyZÞtKÈÞ_П‘“!¸^mçzŸjðiû˜°ºhΦ®œ×%¤aŠ6"4À·C¬Kh£ —·‘qpð£Pš,ª$8“b>VëÍ™â³X·xh\*%d¨Ý¤`'Y UÐðUêÙg—àËebÄà=O²Uâö·H]"ä¤ÇÖÖ;ö\lRò¼ù©à bOeë^ŠÒš;(D¤ÂQ/Œ ÅOƒN­W>Ë5䛯—º£üB w'0å­€[ –±/8(Ax¶Sg ÿœ¶^Óm!µÙÄOï¡ûÔÿId&óû¥ÊéŠÀÚà«ØâÔ¸¦¦E (â2‚¡@E^ÔTˆRMÞ…m£mx¼#Nä|: Â´†‰J) ´Ë"—…#¶Ž£Ró5~ó –UBêø?†¦º¡qœd d9ëï§à££l ZlÈà2>´¬Y¥U¼â‘bŠò9/"Ý«`Hnn[êr}f ¥¢ïÚJ$é­2ÕŸ³Ã^í–‰Ül-1N¨½’ËÇ^³·w;KÚ“˜õ ¥4~ tûBã<ˆ·:]›™÷Cƒë²ÚiÔM\òJkóul#0Bí1Ð#ÁàUN¡ %ï 0(õU:wW4[o~b†NŽ^ œ mžU@µ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M PostScriptÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularEt|)8°x|||3|x- ù-¶†)L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XÅèXXXÔÑ8€ÅèXXdædÈ8ÑÑ  Ñò òÓ€Óó óÔ‡¼¼¹»XXÅèÔÑ€ ÑÐ ° ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡¼’§»»¼¼¹Ôà@&ìàÔ#†XrHX»¼’§û#ÔÔ‡„µî„XXrHÔAPPENDIXˆÐ k» Ðà@xxìà(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)Ô#†XrHX„„µî #Ôò òÓ€æÓó óÔ#†XÅèXXXrHL#ԈР {Ë  ÐÓ  Óò òòòÑ  ÑÔ€XrHXXXÅèÔÔ€ mþ XXrHÔOPINIONóóó óÐ ° ÐÌò òÔ€XrHX  mþÔ[Deleted:€€Summary€of€Facts]ó óÐ $t ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÌà@' ' ìàò ò[Deleted:€Forfeiture€of€Right€to€Counsel]ó óˆÐ è 8 ÐÌò òÓÓà@ìàòòConsolidation€of€Indictmentsó óóóˆÐ ˜ è  Ðà  àAppellant€Carruthers€claims€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€requiring€the€state€to€elect€upon€whichÐ „Ô  Ðindictments€it€intended€to€proceed€upon€at€trial.€€In€March€1994,€both€appellants€were€originallyÐ pÀ  Ðindicted€on€three€counts€of€first€degree€murder.€€Subsequently,€in€November€1995,€both€appellantsÐ \¬  Ðwere€indicted€on€three€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€one€count€of€especiallyÐ H˜  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€All€of€these€offenses€arose€from€the€same€criminal€episode€and€involved€theÐ 4„  Ðsame€three€victims.€€The€trial€date€in€this€matter€was€originally€scheduled€for€February€1995,€priorÐ  p Ðto€the€return€of€the€second€set€of€indictments.€€However,€due€mainly€to€Carruthersðð€conduct€regardingÐ  \ Ðcounsel,€the€trial€was€eventually€continued€several€times€until€the€Spring€of€1996.Ð øH ÐÌà  àCarruthers€contends€that€the€murder€indictments€should€have€been€dismissed.€€Because€theÐ Ð  Ðstate€was€not€forced€to€elect€between€the€two€indictments,€according€to€the€appellantððs€argument,€heÐ ¼  Ðð ðcould€not€reasonably€have€known€whether€he€was€defending€murder€charges€or€charges€ofÐ ¨ø Ðkidnapping€and€robbery.ðð€€The€appellant€further€claims€that€if€the€trial€court€had€followed€ð ðnormalÐ ”ä Ðprocedure,ðð€he€would€have€never€been€tried€on€the€murder€charges.€€The€state€disagrees€and€assertsÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€appellant€was€properly€tried€on€all€charges.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àTenn.R.Crim.P.€8(a)€(emphasis€added)€regarding€mandatory€joinder€of€offenses€provides:Ð D” ÐÌà8  àTwo€or€more€offenses€òòshall€be€joinedóó€in€the€same€indictment,€presentment,€orÐ l Ðinformation,€with€each€offense€stated€in€a€separate€count,€òòor€consolidatedóó€pursuantÐ  X Ðto€Rule€13€if€the€offenses€are€based€upon€the€same€conduct€or€arise€from€the€sameÐ ô D Ðcriminal€episode€and€if€such€offenses€are€known€to€the€appropriate€prosecutingÐ à!0 Ðofficial€at€the€time€of€the€return€of€the€indictment(s),€presentment(s),€orÐ Ì"  Ðinformation(s)€and€if€they€are€within€the€jurisdiction€of€a€single€court.€€A€defendantÐ ¸#! Ðshall€not€be€subject€to€separate€trials€for€multiple€offenses€falling€within€thisÐ ¤$ô" Ðsubsection€unless€they€are€severed€pursuant€to€Rule€14.Ð%à #Ð Ð  ÐÌÌThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€8€further€provide,€in€pertinent€part:Ð T(¤#& ÐÌÌà8  àThis€rule€is€designed€to€encourage€the€disposition€in€a€single€trial€of€multiple€offensesÐ +h&) Ðarising€from€the€same€conduct€and€from€the€same€criminal€episode,€and€shouldÐ ,T'* Ðtherefore€promote€efficiency€and€economy.€€Where€such€joinder€of€offenses€mightÐ ° Ðgive€rise€to€an€injustice,€Rule€14(b)(2)€allows€the€trial€court€to€relax€the€rule.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Commission€wishes€to€make€clear€that€section€(a)€is€meant€to€stop€the€practiceÐ tÄ Ðby€some€prosecuting€attorneys€of€ð ðsaving€backðð€one€or€more€charges€arising€from€theÐ `° Ðsame€conduct€or€from€the€same€criminal€episode.€€Such€other€charges€are€barred€fromÐ L œ Ðfuture€prosecution€if€known€to€the€appropriate€prosecuting€official€at€the€time€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðother€prosecution€is€commenced,€but€deliberately€not€presented€to€a€grand€jury.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌÌà  àCarruthersðð€argument€ignores€the€basic€premise€behind€the€Rule.€€The€purpose€of€Rule€8€isÐ è 8  Ðto€promote€efficient€administration€of€justice€and€to€protect€the€rights€of€the€accused.€€The€ruleÐ Ô$  Ðclearly€permits€a€subsequently€returned€indictment€to€be€joined€with€a€previous€indictment€where€theÐ À  Ðalleged€offenses€relate€to€the€same€criminal€episode.€€òòSeeóó€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€717€S.W.2d€306€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐCrim.€App.€1986).€€This€practice,€however,€does€have€certain€limitations€which,€as€the€commentsÐ ˜è  Ðnote,€safeguard€an€accused€against€prosecutorial€abuse.€€For€example,€a€prosecutor€cannot€simplyÐ „Ô  Ðdecide€to€ð ðsaveðð€charges€on€other€offenses€arising€out€of€the€same€conduct€until€after€a€trial€is€hadÐ pÀ Ðon€the€original€charges.€€Obviously,€this€would€result€in€multiple€trials€and€prejudice€the€defendant.€Ð \¬ ÐThis€concern,€however,€is€not€present€in€the€case€at€hand€because€the€subsequent€indictments€wereÐ H˜ Ðreturned€well€before€the€start€of€trial.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAlthough€there€is€no€written€trial€court€order€consolidating€the€indictments€in€this€case,€notÐ  \ Ðonly€was€consolidation€mandated€by€the€rules,€it€was€clearly€understood€by€the€court€and€all€partiesÐ øH Ðinvolved€in€this€case.€€As€soon€as€the€1995€indictments€were€returned,€the€appellants€filed€a€motionÐ ä4 Ðto€dismiss.€€After€a€hearing€on€December€19,€1995,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€and€the€matterÐ Ð  Ðproceeded€on€all€charges.€€In€fact,€counsel€admitted€that€they€knew€they€were€going€to€trial€on€theÐ ¼  Ðmurder€charges;€they€moved€to€dismiss€the€new€charges.€€Carruthersðð€claim€that€he€did€not€knowÐ ¨ø Ðwhat€charges€the€state€was€prosecuting€is€wholly€without€merit.€€Not€only€did€the€appellant€file€aÐ ”ä Ðmotion€to€dismiss€the€subsequent€charges,€which€was€denied,€the€style€of€the€pleadings€and€ordersÐ €Ð Ðfiled€in€this€case€after€the€return€of€the€1995€indictments,€including€letters€Carruthers€wrote€to€hisÐ l¼ Ðattorney,€refer€to€both€the€1994€and€1995€indictments.€€Moreover,€jury€selection€had€already€startedÐ X ¨ Ðin€early€January€1996,€when€the€state€moved€for€a€continuance.€€There€certainly€was€no€confusionÐ D!” Ðas€to€charges€being€tried€when€a€jury€was€again€selected€and€trial€finally€began€three€months€later€inÐ 0"€  ÐApril€1996.€€All€of€the€indictments€were€read€to€the€jury€at€the€beginning€of€the€trial.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAs€this€Court€observed€in€òòKingóó,Ð ô$D # Ðà8  àWe€do€not€perceive€that€any€evil€results€from€subsequent€indictments€being€returnedÐ à%0!$ Ðagainst€a€defendant€charging€him€with€additional€offenses€which€are€based€on€theÐ Ì&"% Ðsame€conduct€or€which€arise€from€the€same€criminal€episode€upon€which€priorÐ ¸'#& Ðindictments€have€been€returned;€when€the€defendant€has€not€been€tried€on€any€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoffenses€at€the€time€the€subsequent€indictments€are€returned.€€As€previously€noted,Ð )à$( Ðâ âthe€purpose€of€Rule€8€is€to€prevent€multiple€trials€on€charges€arising€from€the€sameÐ |*Ì%) Ðconduct€or€from€the€same€criminal€episode€except€under€the€circumstances€stated€inÐ ° Ðthe€rule.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌÌ717€S.W.2d€at€308.€€To€follow€the€appellantððs€suggestion€in€this€case€would€result€in€the€non„Ð `° Ðprosecution€of€three€murder€charges.€€Surely€this€type€of€windfall€was€not€contemplated€by€theÐ L œ Ðdrafters€of€the€Rules.€€The€appellant€has€simply€failed€to€show€how€he€was€unprepared€to€defend€onÐ 8 ˆ Ðkidnapping€and€robbery€charges€that€stemmed€from€the€same€criminal€episode€in€which€threeÐ $ t Ðindividuals€were€killed.Ð  ` ÐÌà@ìàò ò[Deleted:€Grand€Jury€Proceedings]ó óˆÐ è 8  Ðò òÌà@iiìàòòLetters€from€Carruthers€to€Mazeó óóóˆÐ À  Ðà  àNext,€Carruthers€claims€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€into€evidence€two€letters€theÐ ¬ü  Ðappellant€wrote€to€Jimmy€Maze.€€In€these€letters,€Carruthers€refers€to€a€master€plan€for€makingÐ ˜è  Ðmoney.€€The€state€alleged€that€this€plan€involved€the€murder€of€Marcellos€Anderson€and€the€theft€ofÐ „Ô  Ðhis€drugs€and€money.€€The€appellant€argues€that€the€letters€are€too€vague,€have€no€evidentiary€value,Ð pÀ Ðand€are€highly€prejudicial.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€evidence€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€CourtÐ 4„ Ðwill€not€interfere€with€that€discretion€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€926Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€579,€585€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(overruled€on€other€grounds).€€Evidence€is€relevant€if€itÐ  \ Ðhas€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€ofÐ øH Ðthe€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Rule€401,Ð ä4 ÐTenn.R.Evid.€€However,€relevant€evidence€"may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÐ Ð  Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury."€€RuleÐ ¼  Ð403.€€Of€course,€simply€because€evidence€is€prejudicial€does€not€mean€the€evidence€must€be€excludedÐ ¨ø Ðas€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€app.Ð ”ä Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€Court€must€still€determine€the€relevance€of€the€evidence€and€weigh€itsÐ €Ð Ðprobative€value€against€any€undue€prejudice.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€letters€are€irrelevant€because€they€were€written€too€far€inÐ D!” Ðadvance€of€the€actual€murders€and€do€not€refer€to€the€victims€or€mention€how€the€money€would€beÐ 0"€  Ðmade.€€He€also€suggests€that€the€letters€are€improper€evidence€of€other€crimes€or€wrongdoings.€€AfterÐ #l! Ða€jury„out€hearing€as€to€whether€these€letters€should€be€admitted,€the€trial€court€made€the€followingÐ $X" Ðfindings:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà ` àBut€the€proof€itself,€I€think,€goes€directly€toward€establishing€this€oneÐ Ì&"% Ðadditional€link,€one€additional€factor€in€establishing,€from€the€Stateððs€perspective,€theÐ ¸'#& Ðexistence€of€a€conspiracy.€€Itððs€very€relevant,€in€my€judgment.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€talks€about€a€master€plan.€€It€talks€about€having€the€support€personnel€linedÐ |*Ì%) Ðup.€€It€talks€about€having€the€manpower€lined€up.€€It€talks€about€ð ðjoining€with€meððÐ h+¸&* Ðand€getting€with€the€program,€in€effect,€and€ð ðget€with€me€when€I€get€out.ðð€€And€itÐ ° Ðmakes€reference€to€the€fact€that€he€is€trying€to€get€transferred€to€Ô_ÔMLRCÔ_Ô,€Mark€Ô_ÔLuttrellÔ_ÔÐ œì ÐReception€Center,€which€then€ties€in€to€the€testimony€that€Charles€Smith€gave,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðwould€„„€of€having€overheard€some€conversations€along€these€line€[sic]€as€well.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àYou€know,€again,€the€jury€may€not€believe€any€of€it,€and€thatððs€up€to€the€jury.€Ð L œ ÐOr€they€may€believe€it€all.€€But€it€all€ties€in,€and€it€all€ties€together.€€The€letters€tie€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€what€Mr.€Smith€testified€to.Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ð.€.€.Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà ` àAnd€again,€this€is€additionally€why€these€matters€need€to€be€heard€during€theÐ è 8  Ðtrial€and€not€pretrial,€because€I€now€have€the€benefit€of€having€heard€Charles€SmithððsÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony€and€having€heard€other€testimony€now€that€Mr.€Maze€is€now€on€the€stand,Ð À  Ðand€I€can€better€judge€how€his€testimony€fits€in€with€all€of€the€other€testimony.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌÌà  àThe€trial€judge€clearly€explained€how€these€letters€were€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried,€andÐ pÀ Ðhaving€reviewed€the€transcript€of€the€jury„out€hearing,€we€are€satisfied€that€the€judge€did€not€abuseÐ \¬ Ðhis€discretion€in€admitting€these€letters€into€evidence.€€Their€probative€value€substantiallyÐ H˜ Ðoutweighed€any€prejudicial€effect.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 4„ ÐÌò òà@U U ìà[Deleted:€Statement€of€Co„Conspirator]ó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌà@¬¬ìàòòò òEvidence€of€Other€Perpetratorsó óóóˆÐ ä4 Ðà  àBoth€appellants€argue€the€trial€court€limited€their€ability€to€establish€that€other€peopleÐ Ð  Ðinvolved€in€the€Memphis€drug€trade€had€motives€to€kill€the€victims€in€this€case.€€Again,€theÐ ¼  Ðadmissibility€of€evidence€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€Court€will€notÐ ¨ø Ðinterfere€with€that€discretion€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€926€S.W.2d€579,Ð ”ä Ð585€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996).€€Evidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€ofÐ €Ð Ðany€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÐ l¼ Ðit€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Rule€401,€Ô_ÔTenn.R.EvidÔ_Ô.€€However,€relevant€evidence€"may€beÐ X ¨ Ðexcluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,Ð D!” Ðconfusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury."€€Rule€403.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAs€is€commonly€recognized,€an€accused€is€entitled€to€present€evidence€implicating€others€inÐ $X" Ðthe€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòGreen€v.€Stateóó,€285€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€554€(1926);€òòSawyers€v.€Stateóó,€83€Tenn.€694€(1885);€òòStateÐ ô$D # Ðv.€Ô_ÔSpurlockÔ_Ôóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€612„13€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993).€€Evidence€in€support€of€this€thirdÐ à%0!$ Ðparty€defense,€however,€must€conform€to€the€general€rules€governing€the€admissibility€of€evidence.€Ð Ì&"% ЀòòState€v.€Ô_ÔMcAlisterÔ_Ôóó,€751€S.W.2d€436,€439€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1987).€€The€evidence€must€be€the€typeÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€would€be€admissible€against€the€third€party€if€he€or€she€were€on€trial,€and€the€proof€must€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlimited€to€facts€inconsistent€with€the€appellantððs€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKilburnÔ_Ôóó,€782€S.W.2d€199,€204„05Ð )à$( Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1989).€€Accordingly,€hearsay€evidence€implicating€another€individual€would€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðbe€admissible.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àHaving€reviewed€the€record€in€light€of€the€appellantsðð€claims,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€didÐ ° Ðnot€exclude€any€relevant€admissible€evidence€tending€to€implicate€others€in€the€murders€whileÐ œì Ðexonerating€the€appellants.€€The€jury€was€well€aware€that€Ô_ÔMarcellosÔ_Ô€Anderson€was€heavily€involvedÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€drug€trade€in€Memphis.€€The€jury€heard€evidence€about€Andersonððs€drug€dealings€withÐ tÄ ÐJohnson€and€Adair.€€The€jury€heard€that€Anderson€and€Adair€had€previously€been€shot€by€others€inÐ `° Ðdrive„by€shootings.€€They€heard€that€Andre€Tucker,€the€brother€of€one€of€the€victims€in€this€case,€wasÐ L œ Ðsubsequently€killed€after€the€appellants€had€been€arrested€on€the€present€charges.€€As€the€state€notes,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthis€evidence€clearly€suggests€that€the€killings€in€the€drug€world€were€still€happening.€€The€evidenceÐ $ t Ðthe€appellants€refer€to€was€either€hearsay€(testimony€that€Anderson€was€in€debt€to€Colombian€drugÐ  ` Ðdealers)€or€cumulative€and€would€have€confused€the€issues€and€misled€the€jury€(attacks€on€othersÐ ü L  Ðinvolved€in€the€Memphis€drug€trade).€€Again,€the€jury€knew€this€case€centered€around€activities€inÐ è 8  Ðthe€drug€world€and€they€could€reasonably€have€used€their€common€knowledge€to€conclude€that€thereÐ Ô$  Ðwere€many€players€involved.€€The€evidence€in€this€case,€however,€pointed€to€the€guilt€of€theÐ À  Ðappellants.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌò òÌà@– – ìàòòCompetency€of€Witness€Ô_ÔNakeitaÔ_Ô€Shawó óóóˆÐ pÀ Ðà  àCarruthers€next€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€ordering€a€competency€evaluation€ofÐ \¬ ÐÔ_ÔNakeitaÔ_Ô€Shaw.€€Prior€to€trial,€counsel€representing€Carruthers€at€the€time€requested€an€evaluation€ofÐ H˜ ÐShaw€and€any€records€of€a€history€of€mental€treatment.€€The€state€indicated€that€it€had€no€record€ofÐ 4„ Ðtreatment.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request.€€During€the€first€jury€selection,€the€state€asked€for€aÐ  p Ðtrial€continuance€because€Shaw€had€checked€herself€into€a€hospital€for€depression€and€could€notÐ  \ Ðappear€in€court.€€The€court€granted€the€continuance.€€Carruthers€claims,€however,€that€this€fact€shouldÐ øH Ðhave€been€a€compelling€enough€reason€for€the€trial€court€to€exercise€its€inherent€power€to€order€aÐ ä4 Ðcompetency€evaluation.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€his€claim,€Carruthers€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176€(Tenn.Ð ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1981).€€Carruthersðð€reliance€is€misplaced.€€In€òòGarlandóó,€this€Court€specifically€heldÐ ”ä Ðð ð[Ô_Ôt]hereÔ_Ô€is€no€statutory€or€case€law€in€Tennessee€authorizing€a€court€to€compel€a€prospective€witness,Ð €Ð Ðnot€a€party€interested€in€the€case€and€present€only€by€compulsion€of€a€subpoena,€to€submit€to€aÐ l¼ Ðpsychiatric€examination.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€185.€€The€Court€further€held€that€the€ruling€in€òòForbes€v.€Stateóó,€559Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€1977),€that€the€trial€court€has€the€inherent€power€to€compel€a€psychiatric€orÐ D!” Ðpsychological€examination€of€the€òòvictimóó,€was€restricted€to€complaining€victims€in€sex€cases.€€TheÐ 0"€  ÐCourt€refused€to€broaden€this€holding,€and€neither€of€the€parties€in€the€case€before€us€have€cited€toÐ #l! Ðany€authority€which€has€done€so.€€The€case€cited€by€the€appellant€involves€the€physical€examinationÐ $X" Ðof€a€complainant€in€a€sex€case.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBaroneÔ_Ôóó,€852€S.W.2d€216€(Tenn.€1993).€€It€clearly€appearsÐ ô$D # Ðthat€the€court€ordered€examination€of€witnesses€has€been€limited€to€complainants€in€sex€cases,€andÐ à%0!$ Ðwe€do€not€intend€to€broaden€the€holding€in€òòForbesóó€any€further.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔTenn.R.EvidÔ_Ô.€601€provides€that€every€person€is€presumed€competent€to€be€a€witness.€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAdvisory€Commission€Comments€to€this€rule€state€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôv]irtuallyÔ_Ô€all€witnesses€may€be€permittedÐ )à$( Ðto€testify:€children,€òòmentally€incompetent€personsóó,€convicted€felons.ðð€(Emphasis€added).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐAccordingly,€any€prospective€witness€may€testify€as€long€as€they€have€personal€knowledge€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðmatter€about€which€they€are€testifying,€Rule€602,€and€swear€they€will€testify€truthfully,€Rule€603.€Ð ° ÐThe€trial€judge€has€the€discretion€to€determine€whether€a€witness€is€competent€to€testify.€€òòState€v.Ð œì ÐÔ_ÔCaughronÔ_Ôóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€538€(Tenn.€1993).€€This€determination€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appealÐ ˆØ Ðabsent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€926€S.W.2d€579,€584€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996)Ð tÄ Ð(overruled€on€other€grounds).€€In€òòGarlandóó,€this€Court€held:€Ð `° ÐÌà8  àA€lunatic€or€a€person€adjudged€insane€is€competent€as€a€witness€if,€at€the€time€he€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðoffered€as€a€witness,€he€has€sufficient€understanding€to€comprehend€the€obligationÐ $ t Ðof€an€oath€and€capable€of€giving€a€correct€account€of€the€matters€which€he€has€seenÐ  ` Ðor€heard€in€reference€to€the€questions€at€issue.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÓÓ617€S.W.2d€at€184.Ð À  ÐÓÓà  àDespite€the€above„cited€authority,€the€state€claims€Carruthers€has€waived€this€issue€1)€by€notÐ ˜è  Ðrenewing€his€request€for€a€mental€examination€of€Shaw€before€she€took€the€witness€stand€and€2)€byÐ „Ô  Ðfailing€to€question€her€on€cross„examination€about€her€hospitalization.€€òòSeeóó€Ô_ÔT.R.A.P.Ô_Ô€36(a).€€WeÐ pÀ Ðagree.€€Since€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€order€a€mental€evaluation€of€Shaw,€andÐ \¬ Ðbecause€Carruthers€failed€to€preserve€the€issue,€this€matter€has€been€waived.€€Regardless,€even€ifÐ H˜ ÐShaw€had€been€found€to€be€mentally€incompetent,€she€could€have€testified€as€long€as€she€was€ableÐ 4„ Ðto€understand€the€obligation€of€an€oath€and€had€personal€knowledge€of€the€matter€to€which€sheÐ  p Ðtestified.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔCaughronÔ_Ôóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€538.€€The€trial€judge€apparently€determined€that€she€wasÐ  \ Ðcompetent€according€to€the€law€to€testify,€and€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€he€abused€hisÐ øH Ðdiscretion.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ä4 ÐÌò òÌà@   ìàòòPhotographic€Evidenceó óóóˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àBoth€appellants€claim€that€the€videotape€and€photographic€evidence€of€the€crime€scene€andÐ ”ä Ðdeceased€victims€were€irrelevant,€cumulative,€highly€prejudicial€and€erroneously€admitted€to€inflameÐ €Ð Ðthe€passion€of€the€jury.€€They€claim€this€evidence€did€not€assist€the€jury€in€identifying€the€perpetratorsÐ l¼ Ðand€was€cumulative€of€the€oral€testimony€of€the€witnesses.€€Furthermore,€the€appellants€argue€theÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€should€not€have€been€shown€to€the€jury€because€the€appellants€offered€to€stipulate€to€theÐ D!” Ðfact€that€the€victims€were€found€bound€in€the€grave€site.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€relevant€photographs€and€videotapes€of€the€crime€scene€and€victims€isÐ $X" Ðwithin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€his€or€her€ruling€on€admissibility€will€not€beÐ ô$D # Ðdisturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564Ð à%0!$ ÐS.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ôóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994);€òòStateÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Van€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ôóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993).€€Moreover,€the€modern€trend€is€to€vest€moreÐ ¸'#& Ðdiscretion€in€the€trial€judge's€rulings€on€admissibility.€€òòSeeóó€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949;€òòState€v.€Baileyóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð01C01„9403„CC„00105€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Nashville,€July€20,€1995);€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð )à$( ÐJan.€8,€1996).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÐ ° Ðconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÐ œì Ðwithout€the€evidence."€€Rule€401,€Ô_ÔTenn.R.EvidÔ_Ô.€€However,€relevant€evidence€"may€be€excluded€ifÐ ˆØ Ðits€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÐ tÄ Ðissues,€or€misleading€the€jury."€€Rule€403.€€Of€course,€simply€because€evidence€is€prejudicial€doesÐ `° Ðnot€mean€the€evidence€must€be€excluded€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€6Ð L œ Ð(Tenn..€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993).€€The€court€must€still€determine€the€relevance€of€the€visual€evidence€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðweigh€its€probative€value€against€any€undue€prejudice.€€Along€these€lines,€the€trial€court€should€beÐ $ t Ðguided€by€the€following€matters€in€determining€the€admissibility€of€relevant€videotape€andÐ  ` Ðphotographic€evidence:€the€accuracy€and€clarity€of€the€picture€and€its€value€as€evidence;€whether€theÐ ü L  Ðpicture€depicts€the€body€as€it€was€found;€the€adequacy€of€testimonial€evidence€in€relating€the€factsÐ è 8  Ðto€the€jury;€and€the€need€for€the€evidence€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€guilt€or€to€rebut€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant's€contentions.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.Ð À  ÐÌà  àContrary€to€the€assertion€of€the€appellants,€the€identity€of€the€perpetrators€was€not€the€onlyÐ ˜è  Ðissue€in€this€case.€€The€state€also€had€to€prove€to€the€jury€the€existence€of€the€elements€of€all€theÐ „Ô  Ðoffenses.€€The€video€shows€the€location€of€the€grave€site€and€the€efforts€to€conceal€the€presence€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€bodies.€€The€trial€court€limited€the€number€of€still€photographs,€but€allowed€in€several€to€showÐ \¬ Ðthe€restraints€on€the€victims.€€As€the€state€observes,€the€trial€judge€in€this€case€was€very€conscientiousÐ H˜ Ðin€his€review€of€the€admission€of€the€photographic€evidence.€€The€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€stateððsÐ 4„ Ðcase€and€assisted€the€jury€in€its€finding€that€the€state€proved€each€element€of€the€offenses.€€We€do€notÐ  p Ðfind€that€the€evidence€was€cumulative€or€unduly€prejudicial.€€Moreover,€the€admissibility€ofÐ  \ Ðphotographic€evidence€does€not€depend€upon€the€defendantððs€offer€to€stipulate€to€the€facts€depictedÐ øH Ðtherein,€especially€when€the€prosecution€does€not€agree€to€the€stipulation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔSchaferÔ_Ôóó,€973Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€269,€274„75€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔGriffisÔ_Ôóó,€964€S.W.2d€577,€595€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1997)€(ð ðan€accused€cannot€marshal€the€evidence€of€the€state€by€simply€offering€to€stipulate€toÐ ¼  Ða€fact€for€the€purpose€of€barring€the€state€from€introducing€admissible,€demonstrative€evidence€theÐ ¨ø Ðaccused€does€not€want€the€jury€to€seeðð).€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€this€case,Ð ”ä Ðtherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àMontgomery€also€challenges€the€introduction€of€photographs€of€the€victims€before€they€wereÐ X ¨ Ðmurdered.€€The€appellant€cites€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126,€128€(Tenn.€1981).€€However,€in€òòStateÐ D!” Ðv.€Ô_ÔNesbitÔ_Ôóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€901„02€(Tenn.€1998),€the€Supreme€Court€adopted€that€portion€of€thisÐ 0"€  ÐCourtððs€opinion€which€held€that€a€photograph€of€the€victim€while€alive€was€relevant€to€the€stateððsÐ #l! Ðcase„in„chief€in€proving€that€the€person€murdered€was€the€same€person€named€in€the€indictment.€€WeÐ $X" Ðfind€this€evidence€was€not€cumulative€and€was€properly€admitted.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌò òà@C C ìà[Deleted:€Sentencing€on€Non„capital€Offenses]ó óˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌò òà@¥¥ìàòòProsecutorial€Misconductó óóóˆÐ )à$( Ðà  àBoth€appellants€claim€the€prosecutors€made€improper€arguments€during€both€phases€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðtrial€which€require€a€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAs€is€commonly€recognized,€closing€arguments€are€an€important€tool€for€the€parties€duringÐ ° Ðthe€trial€process.€€Consequently,€the€attorneys€are€usually€given€wide€latitude€in€the€scope€of€theirÐ œì Ðarguments,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994),€and€trial€judges,€in€turn,€areÐ ˆØ Ðaccorded€wide€discretion€in€their€control€of€those€arguments,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,Ð tÄ Ð888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€Such€scope€and€discretion,€however,€is€not€completely€unfettered.€Ð `° ÐArgument€must€be€temperate,€based€upon€the€evidence€introduced€at€trial,€relevant€to€the€issuesÐ L œ Ðbeing€tried,€and€not€otherwise€improper€under€the€facts€or€law.€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€test€for€determining€whether€the€prosecuting€attorney€committedÐ $ t Ðreversible€misconduct€in€the€argument€is€ð ðwhether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€theÐ  ` Ðverdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€Ð ü L  ÐThe€following€factors€have€been€recognized€to€aid€the€Court€in€this€determination:€1)€the€conductÐ è 8  Ðcomplained€of,€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€2)€the€curative€measuresÐ Ô$  Ðundertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecutor;€3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÐ À  Ðstatement;€4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€andÐ ¬ü  Ð5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994);Ð ˜è  ÐòòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àInitially,€Carruthers€claims€that€because€he€was€representing€himself€the€trial€court€shouldÐ \¬ Ðhave€taken€a€more€active€role€in€guarding€against€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€argument.€€As€weÐ H˜ Ðnoted€earlier,€there€are€certain€perils€a€defendant€faces€when€representing€himself€at€trial.€€KnowingÐ 4„ Ðwhen€to€object€during€argument€obviously€is€one€of€those€perils.€€While€the€trial€court€can€interveneÐ  p Ðsua€sponte€and€take€curative€measures€when€the€argument€becomes€blatantly€improper,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð  \ ÐòòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€737€(Tenn.€1998),€the€trial€court€must€exercise€its€discretion€andÐ øH Ðshould€not€exert€too€much€control€over€the€arguments.€€The€judge€does€not€serve€as€a€pro€seÐ ä4 Ðdefendantððs€counselor€during€trial.€€The€judge€should€intervene€only€when€requested€or€when€theÐ Ð  Ðjudge€deems€proper€in€the€interest€of€justice.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àCarruthers€refers€to€several€instances€of€allegedly€improper€argument€that€occurred€duringÐ ”ä Ðthe€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€He€claims€the€prosecutor€improperly€characterized€him€as€a€conniver€andÐ €Ð Ðliar€and€accused€him€of€manipulating€the€jury.€€Evidence€was€introduced€that€Carruthers€was€theÐ l¼ Ðmastermind€behind€these€crimes,€and€therefore,€any€reference€by€the€state€in€this€regard€was€notÐ X ¨ Ðimproper.€€However,€the€prosecutor€may€not€comment€unfavorably€upon€the€defendantððs€pro€seÐ D!” Ðrepresentation€of€himself€or€the€presentation€of€his€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Nor€should€a€prosecutor€express€his€or€her€personal€opinion€about€theÐ #l! Ðcredibility€of€witnesses,€unless€the€comments€are€grounded€upon€evidence€in€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ $X" Ðv.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€394€(Tenn.€1989).€€Moreover,€a€prosecutor€is€strictly€prohibited€fromÐ ô$D # Ðcommenting€on€the€defendantððs€decision€not€to€testify.€€òòCokeróó,€911€S.W.2d€at€368.€€This€wouldÐ à%0!$ Ðinclude€his€decision€not€to€present€any€proof.€€However,€a€prosecutor's€statement€that€proof€isÐ Ì&"% Ðunrefuted€or€uncontradicted€is€not€an€improper€comment€upon€a€defendant's€failure€to€testify.€€òòStateÐ ¸'#& Ðv.€Thomasóó,€818€S.W.2d€350,€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòState€v.€Couryóó,€697€S.W.2d€373,€378Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1985).€€The€prosecutor€should€also€refrain€from€calling€the€defendant€derogatoryÐ )à$( Ðnames.€€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€737€(Tenn.€1998).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€this€case,€it€was€improper€for€the€prosecutor€to€call€the€appellant€names,€such€as€a€liar.€€Ð ° ÐHowever,€we€do€not€find€improper€the€comments€telling€the€jury€to€watch€out€for€ð ðpitfallsðð€andÐ œì Ðð ðmind€gamesðð€and€not€to€succumb€to€a€ð ðguilt€trip.ðð€€The€prosecutor€was€simply€making€referenceÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€strength€of€the€stateððs€proof.€€Also,€the€prosecutor€should€not€have€insinuated€that€CarruthersÐ tÄ Ðwas€trying€to€manipulate€the€jury€or€comment€that€Carruthers€did€not€call€any€credible€witnesses€onÐ `° Ðhis€behalf.€€Contrary€to€Carruthersðð€claim,€however,€we€do€not€believe€these€comments€improperlyÐ L œ Ðreferred€to€Carruthersðð€failure€to€testify.€€Similarly,€Carruthers€complains€about€the€prosecutorððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatements€that€Carruthers€was€trying€to€manipulate€the€media.€€However,€Alfredo€Shaw€testifiedÐ $ t Ðabout€this.€€Moreover,€the€state€is€permitted€to€argue€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€theÐ  ` Ðrecord.€€òòÔ_ÔCokerÔ_Ôóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€368.€€The€stateððs€argument€in€this€respect€was€not€improper.€Ð ü L  ÐCarruthers€also€claims€the€stateððs€reference€to€the€ð ðsecond€partðð€of€Carruthersðð€master€planÐ è 8  Ðmentioned€in€the€letters€he€wrote€to€Maze€was€improper.€€Since€this€was€brought€up€by€the€evidence,Ð Ô$  Ðwe€do€not€think€this€comment€was€improper.€€€Carruthers€also€claims€the€prosecutorððs€statement€toÐ À  Ðthe€jury€that€they€have€a€responsibility€to€the€victimsðð€family€improperly€appealed€to€the€emotionsÐ ¬ü  Ðand€sympathies€of€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ôóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€agree.€Ð ˜è  ÐFinally,€Carruthers€contends€the€prosecutorððs€comment€that€there€is€a€ð ðgapðð€in€the€evidence€wasÐ „Ô  Ðimproper.€€Carruthers€claims€this€was€an€improper€inference€on€his€failure€to€testify.€€We€disagree.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€stateððs€case€was€based€on€circumstantial€evidence€and€the€prosecutorððs€comment€in€this€respectÐ \¬ Ðmerely€informed€the€jury€that€not€all€the€pieces€to€the€puzzle€were€presented€at€trial.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àBoth€appellants€complain€about€certain€comments€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€argumentÐ  p Ðat€the€penalty€phase€of€trial.€€Both€appellants€take€issue€with€the€prosecutorððs€mention€of€the€tenÐ  \ Ðcommandments€in€the€Bible.€€Just€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€995€S.W.2d€550,€559€(Tenn.Ð øH Ð1999),€our€Supreme€Court€made€the€following€comment€regarding€this€type€of€argument:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà ` àWe€have€condemned€Biblical€and€scriptural€references€in€a€prosecutorððsÐ ¼  Ðclosing€argument€so€frequently€that€it€is€difficult€not€to€conclude€that€the€remarks€inÐ ¨ø Ðthis€case€were€made€either€with€blatant€disregard€for€our€decisions€or€a€level€ofÐ ”ä Ðastonishing€ignorance€of€the€state€of€law€in€this€regard.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌThis€argument€by€the€prosecutor€was€obviously€improper€under€the€decisions€of€our€Supreme€Court.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àBoth€appellants€also€contend€that€the€state€made€improper€victim€impact€argument.€€VictimÐ 0"€  Ðimpact€evidence€and€argument€during€sentencing€are€not€prohibited€by€the€constitution€or€statute.€Ð #l! ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872€(Tenn.€1998).€€However,€the€argument€must€be€relevant€to€theÐ $X" Ðspecific€harm€to€the€victimððs€family,€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€at€558,€and€must€be€limited€toÐ ô$D # Ðð ðinformation€designed€to€show€those€unique€characteristics€which€provide€a€brief€glimpse€into€theÐ à%0!$ Ðlife€of€the€individual€who€has€been€killed,€the€contemporaneous€and€prospective€circumstancesÐ Ì&"% Ðsurrounding€the€individualððs€death,€and€how€those€circumstances€financially,€emotionally,Ð ¸'#& Ðpsychologically€or€physically€impacted€upon€members€of€the€victimððs€family.ðð€€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2dÐ ¤(ô#' Ðat€891€(footnote€omitted).€€The€ð ðvictimððs€family€membersðð€characterization€and€opinion€about€theÐ )à$( Ðcrime,€the€defendant,€and€the€appropriate€sentence€violates€the€Eighth€Amendment.ðð€€òòId.óóat€888€n.8.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐAgain,€the€prosecutor€cannot€simply€appeal€to€the€emotions€and€sympathies€of€the€jury€whileÐ h+¸&* Ðinvoking€victim€impact€argument.€€òòId.óó€at€891€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797€(Tenn.€1994)).€Ð ° ÐWe€agree€with€the€appellants€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€commented€that€the€family€membersÐ œì Ðwho€testified€did€not€cry€and€had€remained€quiet€during€trial.€€Also€improper€was€the€comment€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€families€ð ðtrust€in€you€[the€jury].ðð€€The€family€members€could€have€testified€that€they€missed€theÐ tÄ Ðvictims€(emotional€impact€of€victimððs€death),€and€the€comment€by€the€prosecutor€that€they€chose€notÐ `° Ðto€solicit€this€testimony€was€not€improper.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àMontgomery€also€claims€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€asserted€his€personal€opinion€intoÐ $ t Ðclosing€argument.€€While€a€prosecutor€may€not€express€a€personal€opinion€or€belief,€commentsÐ  ` Ðduring€argument€prefaced€by€phrases€such€as€ð ðI€thinkðð€or€ð ðI€submitðð€are€unlikely€to€be€adjudgedÐ ü L  Ðopinions.€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Accordingly,€we€do€notÐ è 8  Ðbelieve€the€comments€Montgomery€complain€about€which€contain€these€phrases€were€improper.€Ð Ô$  ÐMontgomery€asserts€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€read€to€the€jury€a€dictionary€definition€of€the€termÐ À  Ðð ðmitigateðð€and€improperly€asked€the€jury€to€use€that€definition€to€determine€whether€any€mitigatingÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€was€presented.€€According€to€Montgomery,€the€prosecutor€erroneously€told€the€jury€thatÐ ˜è  Ðmitigating€evidence€is€that€which€mitigates€the€crime,€rather€than€that€which€mitigates€theÐ „Ô  Ðpunishment.€€Although€the€prosecutor€may€have€not€clearly€provided€the€jury€with€the€legal€meaningÐ pÀ Ðof€mitigation,€the€trial€judge€properly€instructed€the€jury€and€the€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followedÐ \¬ Ðthose€instructions.€€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€784€(Tenn.€1998).€€Finally,€we€agree€with€theÐ H˜ Ðstate€that€the€death€penalty€statute€does€not€limit€the€stateððs€final€closing€argument€to€rebutting€thatÐ 4„ Ðwhich€the€defendant€argued.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(d).Ð  p ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€the€appellants€have€waived€any€challenge€regarding€the€majority€of€theÐ øH Ðcomments€about€which€they€complain€because€they€failed€to€voice€a€contemporaneous€objection.€Ð ä4 ÐT.R.A.P.€36(a);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643,€651€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Nonetheless,Ð Ð  Ðwe€have€reviewed€the€entire€arguments€of€all€parties,€and€considering€the€factors€listed€above,€weÐ ¼  Ðfind€that€the€relatively€few€improper€comments€by€the€prosecutors€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðprejudice€of€the€appellants.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€However,€we€remind€counsel€of€theÐ ”ä Ðwarnings€recently€related€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€995€S.W.2d€550,€561Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€1999):€Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThose€who€interpret€these€cases€as€precedent€for€the€view€that€improperÐ D!” Ðclosing€argument€and€misconduct€of€this€nature€will€be€held€harmless€error€in€allÐ 0"€  Ðcases€do€so€at€their€own€professional€peril€and€at€the€risk€that€the€misconduct,€evenÐ #l! Ðif€it€does€not€prejudicially€affect€the€verdict,€may€be€deemed€to€be€prejudicial€to€theÐ $X" Ðjudicial€process€as€a€whole€and€therefore€require€a€new€trial€or€sentencing€hearing.€Ð ô$D # ЀÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓò òà@[[ ìà[Deleted:€Gag€Order]ó óˆÐ ¸'#& Ðà@ ìàò ò[Deleted:€Severance]ó óˆÐ )à$( Ðà@    ìàò ò[Deleted:€Testimony€of€Benton€West€and€Nakeita€Shaw]ó óˆÐ h+¸&* Ðò òà@ìà[Deleted:€Testimony€of€Ô_ÔTerrellÔ_Ô€Adair,€Andre€Johnson€and€Chris€Ô_ÔHinesÔ_Ô]ó óˆÐ ° Ðà@õõìàò ò[Deleted:€Opinion€Testimony]ó óˆÐ ˆØ Ðà@IIìàò ò[Deleted:€Jury€Instructions]ó óˆÐ `° Ðà@¬ ¬ ìàò ò[Deleted:€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence]ó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌò òÓÓà@II ìàòòDeath€Penalty€Statuteó óóóˆÐ è 8  Ðà  àBoth€appellants€challenge€the€constitutionality€of€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statute.€€All€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€numerous€claims€raised€by€the€appellants€have€repeatedly€been€denied€by€our€Supreme€Court.€Ð À  ÐòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€979€S.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€1998)€(adopting€this€Courtððs€review€of€this€issue);Ð ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€74€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð ˜è  ÐAccordingly,€these€claims€must€fail.€€Carruthers€also€claims€that€the€recent€amendment€to€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ððÐ „Ô  Ð40„23„114€(1998€Supp.),€which€allows€those€capital€case€defendants€who€committed€their€offenseÐ pÀ Ðprior€to€January€1,€1999,€to€elect€to€be€put€to€death€by€lethal€injection€constitutes€an€unconstitutionalÐ \¬ Ðdelegation€of€legislative€authority.€€We€disagree.€€The€statute€clearly€states€that€this€class€of€offendersÐ H˜ Ðshall€be€put€to€death€by€electrocution.€€The€statute,€however,€gives€the€offender€the€option€to€waiveÐ 4„ Ðthis€method€of€execution€and€elect€lethal€injection€instead.€€This€is€not€a€delegation€of€theÐ  p Ðlegislatureððs€authority.€€This€claim€is€without€merit.€€At€any€rate,€this€statute€does€not€affect€theÐ  \ Ðappellantsðð€convictions€or€sentences.Ð øH ÐÌà@KKìàò ò[Deleted:€Proportionality€Review]ó óˆÐ Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àTHOMAS€T.€Ô_ÔWOODALLÔ_Ô,€JUDGEÐ l¼ ÐCONCUR:Ð X ¨ ÐÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÐ 0"€  ÐÌJOSEPH€M.€Ô_ÔTIPTONÔ_Ô,€Judgeà  à