ÿWPCY5 M# FUNQ %Ÿ 0(¥w@Í4 ! 0 Æ0 0DöU:: 0Jt 0T¾ 0^ 0hpØbà 0rè 0|Z 0†Ö 0D\ 0  1u0 0d¥ B U>& U**d U*Ž B)¸ DCá AM$ U:q 2« UÝ*2g\ÃÆ AQŒÆÝ 0D£ 0@ç 0D' D/k Bšƒ· D3:ûm 1mh" 0cÕ"8#h@#b¨%°%f/'é•'v~)ô+v~.vÓ†/˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ í$Uî$Dï$Dð$âeñ$Ó€ý$%%V%î%VWX$x3|x%(v(2¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€.X—XXXÔÔ€.ô,ØôX.X—Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(5Ã$òòÚ  Ú9Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd68,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ7"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òMarch€23,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ÂÔ€ð ðWhenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgment€has€becomeÏfinal€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€to€direct€appeal€from€the€trial€court€to€the€court€of€criminalÏappeals.€€The€affirmance€of€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€death€shall€be€automatically€reviewed€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€the€affirmance€by€the€court€of€criminal€appeals,€the€clerk€shall€docket€the€caseÏin€the€supreme€court€and€the€case€shall€proceed€in€accordance€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure.ðð€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)(Supp.€1996).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€)ÂÔThe€defendant€was€also€convicted€of€first„degree€burglary,€for€which€he€was€sentenced€to€ten€years,Ïand€aggravated€rape,€for€which€he€was€sentenced€to€forty€years;€the€forty„year€sentence€is€to€run€consecutivelyÏto€the€death€sentence.€€A€co„defendant,€Brett€Patterson,€received€a€life€sentence€for€each€murder.Ì ]Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€)ÂÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€&€(7)(1982)[Now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€&€(7)(1991€&ÏSupp.€1996)].Ì ¹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€There€was€evidence€of€a€wet,€cloudy€substance€on€the€bed€in€which€Mrs.€Smith€was€found,Ïas€well€as€on€Mrs.€Smithððs€face€and€thigh.€€Police€also€discovered€two€bottle€caps€from€wine€coolers€inÏthe€hallway€outside€the€bedroom.Ì üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€When€this€offense€was€committed,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(g)€required€the€jury€to€findÏthat€no€mitigating€factors€were€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€The€trial€court€here€charged€the€jury€with€the€statute€as€amended€in€1989,€whichÏprovides€that€the€jury€must€find€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€proven€by€the€State€outweigh€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204€(g)(1)(B)(1991).€ÏObviously,€the€1989€version€is€more€favorable€to€the€defendant.€Ì6789:Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó;;'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€òòTison€v.€Arizonaóó,€481€U.S.€137,€158,€107€S.Ct.€1676,€1688,€95€L.Ed.2d€127€(1987),€theÏSupreme€Court€held€that€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€does€not€prohibitÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€where€a€defendant€is€a€major€participant€in€a€felony,€and€his€mentalÏstate€is€one€of€reckless€indifference€to€human€life.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563€(Tenn.Ï1993).Ì""""'ÿÿdxd ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€law€as€to€mitigating€circumstances€as€amended€inÏ1989,€which€requires€instructions€on€statutory€and€also€non„statutory€factors€if€raised€by€the€evidenceÏand€specifically€requested.€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€30.€€The€statute€at€the€time€of€this€offenseÏrequired€instructions€only€on€statutory€mitigating€factors€raised€by€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð39„2„203(e)(1982)[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1991)].€€Again,€the€difference€in€theÏinstructions€favored€the€defendant.ÌB#be37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³Õ$´´Ô2beÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à ^Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note,€however,€that€the€prosecutor€began€his€rebuttal€by€discussing€the€videotape€ofÏthe€murder€scene.€€When€the€defense€objected€to€the€scope€of€the€rebuttal,€the€prosecutor€statedÏthat€he€"intend[ed]€to€make€it€relevant€to€counsel's€remarks€.€.€."€€The€trial€court€overruled€theÏobjection.€€The€prosecutor€then€launched€into€the€argument€set€forth€above.€€No€further€objectionsÏwere€made.Ì- ù- uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€As€discussed€earlier,€the€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€this€offense€did€not€require€the€trialÏcourt€to€charge€the€jury€on€non„statutory€mitigating€factors.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€appellant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€the€statement,€but€his€objection€wasÏgrounded€upon€à0 àsomething€other€than€the€reference€to€the€prior€acquittal;€he€objectedÏbecause€the€statement€was€not€an€exact€transcript€of€the€interview€which€wasÏconducted.Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Prior€to€the€1989€amendments,€the€trial€court€was€not€required€to€inform€the€jury€that€no€à àà0 àdistinction€shall€be€made€between€statutory€and€specifically€requested€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏà àfactors.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€39„13„203(e)€(1982).€€The€judge€here€instructed€the€jury€not€to€distinguishÏbetween€à àthe€two€types€of€factors.€€òòSeeóó€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(Supp.€1995.).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)ÔÔ€)ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€No€execution€date€is€set€in€this€opinion.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(a)(1)€à0 àprovides€for€automatic€review€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€upon€affirmance€ofÏthe€death€penalty.€€If€the€sentence€of€death€is€upheld€by€the€Supreme€Court€onÏreview,€that€court€will€set€the€execution€date.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€,èXdðdÈ7ÑÔ€)ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€**XÐd&Ó›Þ ÞÌ€à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àœò òòòFiled:€€March€23,€1998ó ó›óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€GIBSON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€œ€€€(Transferred›€from€Montgomery€Co.)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€6ÙœßR€-/,A1-j||œ` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àHON.€€DICK€JERMAN,€JUDGE›ÌRONNIE€MICHAEL€CAUTHERN,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à àNo.€02„S„01„9612„CC„00108ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌœHugh›€R.€Poland,€Jr.à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌPOLAND€&€POLANDà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌClarksville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌRobert€T.€Batemanà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌBATEMAN,€BATEMANÌ€€&€DARNELL,€P.C.à àà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌClarksville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòAt€Trial:ó óóóÌ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àClayburn€PeeplesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€CarneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSteve€GarrettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÔ€)„Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€)XÔÌÌœCONVICTION€AND€SENTENCE›ÌœOF€DEATH€AFFIRMED.›à àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÇÓÓÔ€(ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€ 4 XXdðXdð7Ñà àÔ€)ÔThis€case€is€before€the€Court€for€automatic€review€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppealsðð€affirmance€of€a€conviction€for€first„degree€murder€and€a€sentence€of€deathÏimposed€upon€the€defendant,€Ronnie€M.€Cauthern,€in€a€Gibson€CountyÏresentencing€hearing.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€In€addition€to€the€death€sentence€imposed€for€the€murder€ofÏRosemary€Smith,€the€jury€returned€a€life€sentence€for€the€murder€of€Patrick€Smith.€ÏIn€imposing€the€death€sentence,€the€jury€found€that€the€evidence€of€oneÏaggravating€circumstance,€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelÏin€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€death,ðð€outweighed€the€evidence€of€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(g)€and€(i)(5)(1991).ÌÌà àAlthough€the€defendantððs€1988€convictions€for€first„degree€murder€wereÏaffirmed€on€direct€appeal€by€this€Court,€the€case€was€remanded€for€resentencingÏbecause€the€trial€court€failed€to€suppress€portions€of€a€statement€given€by€theÏdefendant€after€he€rescinded€his€waiver€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€remainÏsilent.€€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€495€U.S.€904,Ï110€S.Ct.€1922,€109€L.Ed.2d€286€(1990).€€In€the€1988€Clarksville€trial,€theÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€murdering€Patrick€and€Rosemary€Smith€in€theÍperpetration€of€a€felony.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€jury€imposed€the€death€sentence€for€both€murdersÏafter€finding€that€the€evidence€of€two€aggravating€circumstances,€the€murders€wereÏð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel,€in€that€[they]€involved€torture€or€depravity€ofÏmind,ðð€and€the€murders€were€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€a€felony,Ïoutweighed€the€evidence€of€any€mitigating€factors.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€After€a€remand€forÏresentencing,€the€Clarksville€trial€court€granted€a€motion€for€change€of€venue€toÏGibson€County,€Tennessee.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€a€number€of€errors€occurred€in€the€resentencingÏhearing€in€the€Gibson€County€trial€court,€including€but€not€limited€to€the€sufficiencyÏof€the€evidence€and€the€jury€instruction€as€to€the€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelÏaggravating€circumstance,€the€jury€instruction€as€to€the€penalty€of€life€withoutÏparole,€prosecutorial€misconduct,€and€whether€the€death€penalty€wasÏdisproportionate.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€the€issues€raised,€and€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appealsðð€opinion,€we€have€determined€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€thatÏnone€of€the€alleged€errors€affected€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€jury;€moreover,€theÏevidence€supports€the€juryððs€sentence€of€death€and€the€sentence€is€notÍdisproportionate€or€arbitrary€as€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÏsentence€of€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àA€summary€of€the€Stateððs€evidence€offered€at€the€resentencing€hearingÏbegins€on€the€morning€of€January€9,€1987,€when€police€responded€to€a€ð ðburglary€inÏprogressðð€at€the€home€of€Patrick€and€Rosemary€Smith€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee.€ÏUpon€arriving€at€the€Smithsðð€home,€the€police€discovered€that€a€back€door€hadÏbeen€kicked€in,€a€window€had€been€broken,€and€the€phone€lines€had€beenÏsevered.€€ÌÌà àInside,€police€discovered€the€body€of€Patrick€Smith€partially€lying€across€theÏbed€in€the€master€bedroom;€abrasions€and€marks€on€his€neck€indicated€that€he€hadÏbeen€strangled.€The€body€of€Rosemary€Smith€was€discovered€in€another€bedroom;Ïher€underclothes€were€next€to€her€body€and€her€nightgown€was€in€the€corner€of€theÏroom.€€A€scarf€had€been€tied€around€her€neck€and€knotted,€with€a€small€vaseÏinserted€between€the€nape€of€the€neck€and€the€knot,€creating€a€tourniquet.ÌÌà àThe€master€bedroom€was€in€disarray,€indicating€that€a€violent€struggle€hadÏtaken€place.€€The€bedrail€had€splintered€away€from€the€headboard€and€the€mattressÏwas€on€the€floor.€€Credit€cards,€electronic€gear€and€a€videocassette€recorderÍappeared€to€be€missing€from€the€house.€€Police€found€costume€jewelry€in€theÏhouse,€but€no€jewelry€of€value.€€A€slip€of€paper€containing€the€name€of€theÏdefendant,€Ronnie€Cauthern,€was€also€found.ÌÌà àThe€medical€examiner,€Dr.€Charles€Harlan,€concluded€that€the€victims€diedÏof€ligature€strangulation.€€Neither€victim€died€instantaneously€and€could€have€livedÏfor€as€much€as€three€to€six€minutes€from€the€time€the€blood€supply€was€cut€off;Ïhowever,€they€may€have€been€rendered€unconscious€in€approximately€thirtyÏseconds.€There€was€evidence€that€someone€had€unsuccessfully€attempted€toÏstrangle€Rosemary€Smith€with€the€scarf,€and€finally€accomplished€the€strangulationÏby€using€a€vase€as€a€tourniquet€to€increase€pressure.€€The€medical€examiner€alsoÏfound€evidence€that€Rosemary€Smith€had€attempted€to€relieve€the€pressure€on€herÏneck€when€the€strangulation€instrument€was€being€applied.€€There€were€abrasionsÏon€her€neck€and€face,€and€the€thyroid€cartilage€surrounding€her€larynx€had€beenÏfractured.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€foregoing,€other€evidence€offered€at€the€resentencingÏhearing€was€as€follows.€€James€Phillip€Andrew€testified€that€he€was€with€theÏdefendant,€Ronnie€Cauthern,€and€Brett€Patterson€shortly€after€the€offenses.€€WhileÏwatching€television,€they€all€saw€an€account€of€the€Smithsðð€murders€in€which€aÏreward€was€offered€for€information.€€Cauthern€told€Andrew€that€he€had€worked€forÏthe€Smiths€in€the€past€and€that€he€broke€into€their€home€and€made€the€woman€getÍinto€the€closet,€while€he€and€Patterson€strangled€the€man.€€Cauthern€told€AndrewÏthat€he€raped€the€woman€once€and€that€he€had€stolen€a€wedding€ring,€a€VCR,€andÏsome€credit€cards.€€Andrew€testified€that€Cauthern€seemed€proud€of€what€he€hadÏdone,€and€that€he€threatened€to€kill€Andrew€if€he€repeated€anything€about€theÏmurders.ÌÌà àJoe€Denning,€Andrewððs€roommate,€also€testified€that€Ronnie€CauthernÏadmitted€his€role€in€the€killings.€€€Cauthern€told€Denning€that€he€had€cut€theÏtelephone€lines€to€the€house,€had€broken€in€through€the€back€door,€had€shinedÏflashlights€in€the€victimsðð€faces€in€order€to€wake€them,€and€had€placed€RosemaryÏSmith€in€a€closet.€€He€admitted€to€Denning€that€he€had€raped€the€woman€andÏpoured€wine€coolers€over€her,× ƒ3 ××  ×€and€then€attempted€to€kill€her.€€He€said€he€tried€toÏstrangle€the€woman€by€tying€a€scarf€around€her€neck,€but€did€not€have€the€strengthÏto€kill€her,€so€he€used€the€vase€to€create€a€tourniquet.€€Denning€testified€thatÏCauthernððs€demeanor€was€ð ðhyperðð€and€ð ðexcitedðð€when€he€related€what€he€andÏPatterson€had€done.€€He€said€that€he€was€going€to€be€famous€and€that€he€would€notÏbe€caught€alive.€€He€showed€Denning€credit€cards,€a€checkbook,€and€some€stolenÏjewelry€which€he€intended€to€give€to€his€girlfriend.ÌÌà àCauthernððs€former€girlfriend,€Jackie€Pigue,€testified€that€on€Thursday€night,ÏJanuary€8,€1987,€Cauthern€and€Patterson€were€ð ðsolemnðð€and€ð ðquiet.ðð€€The€next€dayÏCauthern€gave€her€a€watch€and€a€wedding€ring.€€He€told€her€that€someone€owedÏhim€money€and€he€was€holding€the€items€as€collateral.€€When€she€later€saw€a€newsÏreport€regarding€the€murders€and€Cauthernððs€arrest,€she€went€to€the€police€andÏgave€them€the€jewelry.ÌÌà àCauthern€and€Patterson€were€arrested€on€January€12,€1987.€€SearchÏwarrants€were€obtained€for€Cauthernððs€car€and€Pattersonððs€house.€€Among€theÏitems€found€were€the€victimsðð€credit€cards,€identification€cards,€receipts,€checks€andÏtwo€key€rings€containing€keys€which€unlocked€the€Smithsðð€home€and€automobiles.€ÏThe€police€also€found€two€ski€masks,€several€handguns,€a€roll€of€880€military€cord,Ïand€Patrick€Smithððs€jacket.ÌÌà àInitially,€Cauthern€gave€several€statements€to€the€police,€all€of€which€wereÏadmitted€into€evidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€In€the€first€statement,€he€deniedÏknowing€the€Smiths€or€anything€about€the€murders.€€In€a€later€statement,€which€wasÏrecorded€and€transcribed,€Cauthern€admitted€that€he€was€in€the€Smithsðð€home,€butÏdenied€that€he€had€raped€or€murdered€anyone.€€Claiming€that€he€and€Mrs.€SmithÏwere€having€an€affair,€he€contended€that€she€had€called€and€invited€him€to€come€toÏthe€Smith€house€and€enter€through€the€back€door.€€He€said€that€both€he€andÍPatterson€had€consensual€sex€with€Mrs.€Smith,€and€he€denied€that€he€participatedÏin€the€murders,€raped€the€victim,€or€removed€any€items€from€the€house.€€€ÌÌà àIn€the€mitigation€portion€of€the€resentencing€hearing,€Cauthern€testified€thatÏhe€was€nineteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€murders.€€He€stated€that€he€never€knewÏhis€birth€father€and€saw€his€birth€mother€approximately€three€times€during€his€entireÏlife.€€His€birth€mother€died,€and€he€was€adopted€by€his€maternal€grandmother€andÏstep„grandfather€who€moved€to€Clarksville€in€1973.€€The€defendant€attendedÏNortheast€High€School,€but€dropped€out€to€care€for€his€grandmother€who€hadÏParkinsonððs€disease,€so€that€his€step„grandfather€could€continue€to€work.€€He€wasÏmarried€at€the€age€of€eighteen€and€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€had€an€eight„year„oldÏson.€€Although€he€had€divorced€his€sonððs€mother,€he€continued€to€see€his€son€everyÏthree€to€five€months.€€Since€his€incarceration€he€had€remarried.€€His€wife,€who€livedÏin€Canada,€was€not€at€the€hearing.€€He€testified€that€he€helps€his€parents€by€writingÏletters€for€them.€€ÌÌà àCauthern€also€said€he€had€completed€the€Graduate€EquivalencyÏExamination€and€a€paralegal€course€since€being€incarcerated,€and€he€serves€as€aÏteacherððs€aide€to€the€unit€prison€teacher.€€He€has€achieved€ð ðAðð€status€at€RiverbendÏMaximum€Security€Institution€for€privilege€purposes,€which€is€the€highest€statusÏavailable€for€a€prisoner.€€He€introduced€letters€of€appreciation€from€a€correctionalÏofficer€and€the€prison€teacher.€€A€Unit€Review€Panel€Hearing€form€containingÍpositive€comments€concerning€his€behavior€and€attitude€was€also€introduced.€€HeÏmakes€extra€money€by€drawing€greeting€cards€and€selling€them€to€other€prisoners.€ÏCharles€Tracy,€a€teacher€for€the€Department€of€Correction,€testified€that€he€choseÏCauthern€as€a€teacherððs€aide€because€he€gets€along€well€with€others€and€has€goodÏcommunication€skills.€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòJURY€INSTRUCTION€„€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€(i)(5)€„ÏTORTUREóóó óÌà àThe€defendant€first€argued€that€the€jury€instruction€as€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð39„13„204(i)(5)(1991)€„€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravating€circumstanceÏ„€was€reversible€error€because€the€1989€amendment€was€instructed€to€the€juryÏrather€than€the€statute€as€it€existed€at€the€time€of€the€offense€in€1987.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€aggravating€circumstance€set€out€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)(1982)€provided€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€In€1989,Ïthe€statute€was€amended€to€provide€as€follows:€€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)Ï(1991).€€At€the€resentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€inÏaccordance€with€the€1989€amendment,€rather€than€in€accordance€with€the€statuteÍas€it€existed€in€1987€at€the€time€the€offense€was€committed.€€Neither€the€defendantÏnor€the€State€objected€at€trial.ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€decided€that€a€resentencing€hearing€must€be€conducted€inÏaccordance€with€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876ÏS.W.2d€75,€82€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1020,€115€S.Ct.€585,€130€L.Ed.2dÏ499€(1994).€€We€have€also€held€that€the€1989€amendment€to€aggravatingÏcircumstance€(i)(5)€is€ð ða€substantive€change€which€imposes€not€a€different€òòlevelóó€ofÏproof€upon€the€State,€but€different€òòfactorsóó€of€proof.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,Ï505€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€118€S.Ct.€376,€139€L.Ed.2d€293€(1997).€ÏObviously,€the€amended€version€substitutes€the€phrase€ð ðserious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death,ðð€for€the€words€ð ðdepravity€of€mind.ðð€€It€isÏtherefore€obvious€that€the€trial€judge€committed€error€in€charging€the€jury€with€theÏ1989€version€of€the€statute,€rather€than€the€statute€as€it€existed€at€the€time€of€theÏcommission€of€the€offense€in€1987.€€òòIdóó.€€€ÌÌà àAssuming€there€is€error,€as€we€must,€the€next€question€is€whether€the€error€isÏharmless.€€We€faced€a€similar€position€in€òòBushóó,€a€case€where€the€victim€was€beatenÏand€stabbed€forty„three€times€in€the€face,€neck,€shoulders,€and€chest.€€Although€theÏoffense€occurred€before€1989,€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€instructing€the€juryÏas€to€the€law€as€changed€in€1989,€i.e.,€that€the€appropriate€aggravatingÏcircumstance€was€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5),€ð ðtorture€or€seriousÍphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death,ðð€instead€of€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5),€ð ðtorture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€In€spite€of€the€error,€we€heldÏthat€the€defendantððs€treatment€of€the€victim€constituted€ð ðtorture,ðð€independent€of€theÏdepravity€prong€in€„203(i)(5)€or€the€serious€physical€abuse€prong€of€„204(i)(5).€ÏMoreover,€we€found€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establish€ð ðdepravity€of€mindððÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€even€though€the€jury€was€not€instructed€with€regard€toÏthe€definition€of€ð ðdepravity€of€mind.ðð€€Accordingly,€we€held€that€the€trial€courtððs€errorÏin€failing€to€instruct€on€the€pre„1989€version€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòIdóó.€at€506.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€òòBushóó€analysis,€we€must€review€the€evidence€in€this€case€toÏdetermine€whether€it€is€sufficient€to€support€the€ð ðtortureðð€prong€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€independent€of€the€depravity€or€serious€physical€abuse€prong.€€InÏthis€case,€the€trial€court€correctly€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€terms€ð ðheinous,Ïatrocious,ðð€and€ð ðcruelðð€as€defined€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.Ï1985).€€The€trial€judge€also€correctly€instructed€the€jury€that€ð ðtortureðð€means€ð ðtheÏinfliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remainsÏalive€and€conscious.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€529.ÌÌà àApplying€these€principles,€we€find€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€in€thisÏrecord€to€establish€the€torture€factor€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€orÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5),€independent€of€the€depravity€or€seriousÍphysical€abuse€prongs€of€the€aggravating€circumstances.€€The€victim,€RosemaryÏSmith,€was€placed€in€a€closet,€first€enduring€the€mental€anguish€of€her€husbandððsÏmurder€in€the€next€room.€€She€then€was€raped€twice,€ridiculed,€suffered€through€aÏbungled€attempt€at€strangulation€and€strangled€to€death€with€a€tourniquet€deviceÏplaced€around€her€neck€that€caused€massive€damage€to€her€throat€and€larynx.€ÏThere€was€evidence€that€the€victim€struggled€to€save€herself€while€still€alive€andÏconscious€by€attempting€to€release€the€pressure€which€was€applied€to€her€neck.€ÏAfter€the€blood€supply€was€finally€cut€off€at€the€end€of€the€struggle,€she€may€haveÏlost€consciousness€in€thirty€seconds€but€remained€alive€for€three€to€six€minutes.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,Ï118€S.Ct.€567,€___€L.Ed.2d€___€€(1997)€(mental€and€physical€pain€suffered€byÏvictim€of€strangulation€constituted€torture).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€proof€ofÏtorture€establishes€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€jury€would€have€sentencedÏthe€defendant€to€death,€even€had€no€weight€been€given€to€the€invalid€criteria€ofÏð ðserious€physical€abuse.ðð€€€ÌÌà àWe€also€determined€in€òòBushóó€that€had€the€jury€been€properly€instructed,€itÏwould€have€found€the€evidence€sufficient€to€establish€depravity€of€mind€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€ð ð[D]epravity€is€inherent€in€the€state€of€mind€of€a€murderer€whoÏwillfully€inflicts€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€on€a€victim€prior€to€death€or€at€a€timeÏvery€close€to€the€victimððs€death.ðð€€òòBushóó,€942€S.W.2d€at€506;€òòWilliamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€atÏ529.€€The€evidence€outlined€above€is€sufficient€to€conclude€in€this€case€that€had€theÍjury€been€properly€instructed€regarding€depravity€of€mind,€it€would€have€found€theÏevidence€sufficient€to€establish€this€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€OððGuinnóó,€709€S.W.2dÏ561€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€479€U.S.€871,€107€S.Ct.€244,€93€L.Ed.2d€169€(1986)Ï(ligature€strangulation€constituted€depravity€of€mind).ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCE€TO€SUPPORT€DETERMINATIONóóÌà@ àòòTHAT€MURDER€WAS€ð ðHEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS€OR€CRUELððó óóóÌÌÓÓà àIn€addition€to€the€instructional€error€claimed,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÏproof€is€insufficient€to€support€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€aggravatingÏcircumstance€and€is€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€this€lone€factor€outweighsÏthe€mitigating€€circumstances€presented€in€this€case.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€The€defendant€contends€thatÏthe€evidence€implicated€his€co„defendant€as€the€actual€murderer€and€that€theÏevidence€failed€to€show€ð ðtortureðð€because€the€victim€lost€consciousness€thirtyÏseconds€into€the€act€of€killing€her.€€The€defendant€also€relies€on€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996),€in€which€a€majority€of€this€Court€found€the€evidenceÏinsufficient€to€support€this€aggravating€factor.€€We€reject€each€of€these€contentions.€€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€established€that€the€defendant€Cauthern€was€a€majorÏparticipant€in€the€crimes.× ƒ< ××  ×€€Cauthern€and€his€co„defendant€kicked€in€the€door€to€theÏvictimsðð€home€in€the€middle€of€the€night€and€cut€the€phone€lines.€€They€wokeÏRosemary€Smith€and€the€defendant€placed€her€in€a€closet€while€her€husband€wasÏmurdered€in€the€next€room.€€The€defendant€raped€the€victim,€poured€alcohol€on€her,Ïand€attempted€to€strangle€her€to€death,€an€act€that€ultimately€required€the€use€of€aÏtourniquet.€€Although€the€victim€may€have€lost€consciousness€in€thirty€seconds,Ïthere€was€evidence€of€an€earlier€unsuccessful€attempt€at€strangulation€after€which€aÏvase€was€used€as€an€aid€to€increase€pressure€on€the€neck€before€the€blood€supplyÏwas€finally€cut€off.€€Other€evidence€demonstrated€that€she€tried€to€relieve€theÏpressure€on€her€neck€as€her€larynx€was€being€crushed€and€that€she€survived€forÏthree€to€six€minutes€after€the€blood€supply€was€cut€off.ÌÌà àThe€evidence€of€torture€in€this€case€is€remarkably€similar€to€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,Ïòòsupraóó.€€There€the€victim€was€bound€and€handcuffed€to€a€bed€while€the€defendantÏransacked€his€home€for€property€and€money.€€After€discussing€with€a€co„defendantÏwhether€the€victim€should€be€killed,€the€defendant€strangled€the€victim€to€death.€€AsÏto€the€torture€prong,€we€commented€and€held:ÌÌà8 àÓÓ[T]he€victim€suffered€considerable€mental€pain€as€the€defendant,Ïalong€with€[a€co„defendant],€ransacked€his€home,€looking€for€valuableÏproperty€and€money.€€The€helpless€victimððs€mental€pain,€no€doubt,Ïincreased€when€the€defendant€and€[a€co„defendant]€.€.€.€discussedÏwhether€or€not€they€should€kill€the€victim.€€The€evidence€surroundingÏthe€murder€itself€shows€that€the€victim€pleaded€.€.€.€for€his€life.€€Dr.ÏHarlan€testified€that€the€killing€would€have€taken€between€three€to€fiveÏminutes€to€accomplish€and€that€the€victim€would€have€been€consciousÏfor€most€of€this€period.€[The€co„defendant]€testified€that€she€heard€theÏvictim€moaning€and€making€a€choking€sound.€€òòThe€facts€andÏcircumstances€surrounding€this€murder,€including€the€strangulation,Ïare€clearly€sufficient€to€establish€torture€as€that€term€has€been€definedÏ.€.€.€and€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€this€murder€was€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel,€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€deathóó.ÌÌÓÓÌ944€S.W.2d€at€358€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2dÏ895€(Tenn.€1995)(asphyxiation€and€suffocation€of€victim€constituted€(i)(5));€òòState€v.ÏJohnsonóó,€743€S.W.2d€154€(Tenn.€1987),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€485€U.S.€994,€108€S.Ct.€1303,Ï99€L.Ed.2d€513€(1988)(suffocation,€taking€four€minutes€for€victim€to€die,€wasÏsufficient€to€prove€(i)(5)).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficientÏto€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€this€aggravating€circumstance€under€the€facts€of€thisÏcase.€ÌÌà àIn€making€this€determination,€we€distinguish€this€case€from€òòState€v.€Odomóó,Ïwhich€is€relied€upon€by€the€defendant.€€In€òòOdomóó,€the€defendant€accosted€the€victim,Ïstabbed€her€three€times,€raped€her,€and€took€her€purse.€€A€majority€of€this€CourtÍfound€that€the€circumstance€of€that€rape€did€not€constitute€torture€and€that,Ïaccording€to€the€majority,€such€a€holding€would€have€permitted€every€murder€in€theÏperpetration€of€a€rape€to€be€automatically€classified€as€a€death€eligible€offense€andÏwould€not€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€offenders€as€required€by€the€EighthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð16€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€In€contrast,€the€defendant€in€the€present€case€was€also€convicted€ofÏfirst„degree€burglary,€which,€when€coupled€with€the€murder€of€the€victimððs€husband,Ïthe€òòmultipleóó€rapes€and€strangulations€of€the€victim,€and€the€other€evidence€of€tortureÏas€outlined€above,€not€only€is€sufficient€to€prove€the€aggravating€circumstance€butÏalso€serves€to€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€offenders€and€distinguish€this€caseÏfrom€òòOdomóó.€€Thus,€òòOdomóó€does€not€support€the€defendantððs€argument€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient€to€support€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àFinally,€the€jury€was€instructed€to€consider€several€statutory€mitigatingÏfactors:€1)€the€defendant€had€no€significant€criminal€history;€2)€the€murders€wereÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance;€3)€the€youth€of€the€defendant;€4)€the€defendantððs€capacity€toÏappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€orÏdefect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€a€defense€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw€but€which€substantially€affected€his€judgment€through€the€ingestion€of€drugs;Ïand€5)€any€other€mitigating€evidence€which€was€raised€by€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(1991).€€The€trial€court€also€instructed€the€jury€on€severalÏnonstatutory€circumstances:€1)€the€defendant€was€an€enterprising€young€man€at€theÏtime€of€the€crimes;€2)€the€defendant€has€a€minor€child;€and€3)€the€defendant€isÏmarried.× ƒ> ××  ×€€The€jury€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances€in€this€case,€and,€asÏdiscussed€above,€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€this€finding.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòLIFE€WITHOUT€POSSIBILITY€OF€PAROLE€„€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÌà àó óóóThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€instructing€theÏjury€that€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€was€a€possible€punishment.€€The€StateÏresponds€that€the€punishment€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€was€statutorilyÏinapplicable€to€the€defendantððs€case€and€that€the€defendant€expressly€asked€theÏtrial€court€not€to€charge€it.€€We€agree€with€the€State€that€the€defendant€has€clearlyÏwaived€this€issue,€but€we€also€find€that€the€option€was€unavailable€to€the€defendantÏin€this€case.ÌÌà àPrior€to€1993,€the€only€punishments€available€for€a€person€convicted€of€first„degree€murder€were€life€imprisonment€or€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(b)(1991).€€The€legislature€later€amended€the€statute€to€add€life€withoutÏpossibility€of€parole€as€a€sentencing€option.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(c)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€The€amendment€was€specifically€made€applicable€to€offensesÏcommitted€on€or€after€July€1,€1993.€€òòSeeóó€1993€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€473,€ðð1.€€ÌÌà àConceding€that€this€offense€occurred€well€before€July€1,€1993,€the€defendantÏargues€that€life€without€parole€was€a€viable€sentencing€alternative€because€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(k)(Supp.€1996),€which€provides€that€if€a€defendant€isÏgranted€a€new€trial,€ð ðeither€as€to€guilt€or€punishment€or€both,€the€new€trial€shallÏinclude€the€possible€punishments€of€death,€imprisonment€for€life€without€possibilityÏof€parole€or€imprisonment€for€life.ðð€€Because€life€without€parole€is€a€lesser€penaltyÏthan€death,€the€defendant€also€relies€upon€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„112€(1991),Ïwhich€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àà8 àWhenever€any€penal€statute€or€penal€legislative€act€ofÏthe€state€is€repealed€or€amended€by€a€subsequentÏlegislative€act,€any€offense,€as€defined€by€the€statute€orÏact€being€repealed€or€amended,€committed€while€suchÏstatute€or€act€was€in€full€force€and€effect€shall€beÏprosecuted€under€the€act€or€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€ofÏthe€commission€of€the€offense.€€Except€as€providedÏunder€the€provisions€of€ðð€40„35„117,€òòin€the€event€theÏsubsequent€act€provides€for€a€lesser€penalty,€anyÏpunishment€imposed€shall€be€in€accordance€with€theÏsubsequent€actóó.ÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).à àÌÌà àFirst,€the€defendant€clearly€waived€this€issue€prior€to€trial€when€he€filed€aÏmotion€in€which€he€specifically€requested€that€the€trial€court€ð ðnot€.€.€.€submit€to€theÏjury€the€possible€sentence€of€ððLife€Without€Parole.ðððð€€Comments€prior€to€juryÏselection€by€the€trial€court€and€counsel€make€it€abundantly€clear€that€the€defendantÏdid€not€want€the€jury€to€be€charged€on€the€option€of€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole.€€Furthermore,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€State€objected€to€thisÏprocedure.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï36(a).€€Nevertheless,€we€will€address€the€issue€on€the€merits€to€provide€furtherÏguidance€on€these€statutory€provisions.ÌÌà àThis€Courtððs€role€in€construing€a€statute€is€to€determine€and€to€ð ðgive€effect€toÏthe€legislative€intent€without€unduly€restricting€or€expanding€a€statuteððs€coverageÏbeyond€its€intended€scope.ðð€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏWe€must€determine€the€legislative€intent€from€the€plain€language€of€the€statute,Ïð ðread€in€context€of€the€entire€statute,€without€any€forced€or€subtle€construction€whichÏwould€extend€or€limit€its€meaning.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€561€(Tenn.Ï1997).€€As€a€matter€of€statutory€construction,€a€specific€statutory€provision€willÏcontrol€over€a€more€general€statutory€provision.€€òòMatter€of€Harrisóó,€849€S.W.2d€334,Ï337€(Tenn.€1993).€€Moreover,€a€statute€is€generally€presumed€to€operateÏprospectively,€unless€the€legislature€indicates€a€specific€intention€otherwise.€€òòÏBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€82.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€specific€enabling€provision€of€the€1993€act,€whichÏclearly€states€that€the€amendment€applies€to€all€offenses€committed€òòon€or€afteróó€JulyÏ1,€1993,€controls,€as€a€matter€of€statutory€construction,€over€the€more€generalÏprovisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(k)€or€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„112.€ÏThe€defendantððs€crime€occurred€well€before€July€1,€1993.€€The€statute€in€effect€atÏthat€time,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(k),€provided€that€upon€the€grant€of€a€newÏtrial,€the€available€sentencing€options€were€life€imprisonment€and€death.€€There€isÏno€indication€that€the€legislature€intended€that€the€option€of€life€without€parole€applyÏretrospectively€to€offenses€occurring€before€July€1,€1993.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWhite€v.€Stateóó,Ï589€A.2d€969,€974€(Md.€Ct.€App.€1991)(trial€judge€lacked€authority€to€charge€theÏjury€on€life€without€parole€because€the€offense€was€committed€prior€to€the€effectiveÏdate€of€the€statute€adding€the€sentencing€option).€€Accordingly,€even€had€theÏdefendant€not€waived€this€issue,€the€trial€court€lacked€the€statutory€authority€toÏinstruct€the€jury€that€life€without€possibility€of€parole€was€a€sentencing€option€in€thisÏcase.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òPROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€prosecutorial€argument€led€to€arbitrary€andÏunreliable€sentencing€in€violation€of€the€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðððð€8€and€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏContending€that€the€prosecutorððs€references€to€him€as€ð ðthe€evil€one,ðð€comparingÍhim€to€other€notorious€murderers,€and€calling€for€general€deterrence€prejudiced€theÏjury,€the€defendant€asserts€that€these€errors€required€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€ToÏplace€the€issue€in€context,€we€recite€the€relevant€portion€of€the€closing€argument:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àYes,€we€are€asking€for€the€death€penalty.€€Why?€WhyÏshould€Ronnie€Cauthern€die?€€€I€once€heard€anÏinterpretation€of€the€Lord's€Prayer.€€"Deliver€us€from€evil,"Ïoriginally€translated€and€actually€read,€"Deliver€us€fromÏthe€evil€one"„„far€more€personally€[sic],€far€more€graphic,Ïand€far€more€intense„„the€evil€one.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àIn€the€1960's,€the€Rolling€Stones€came€out€with€a€song.€ÏThe€refrain€after€each€chorus€was,€"Pleased€to€meet€you.€ÏHope€you€guess€my€name."€€€And,€I€suggest€to€you€it€wasÏa€song€about€the€evil€one€appearing€in€personÏthroughout€the€ages€in€many€different€guises.€€Mr.ÏPoland€says€civilized€society„„in€civilized€society,€weÏdon't€kill.€€But€in€civilized€society,€we€must€address„„weÏmust€stand€up€to,€we€must€confront€the€realities€of€ourÏdaily€existence€and€our€daily€survival€not€only€ofÏourselves€but€of€our€children€and€their€children.Ì€€Ìà8 àà8 àIt€came€to€dawn€on€me€after€I€thought€about,€"Pleased€toÏmeet€you,€hope€you€guess€my€name"„„that€on€JanuaryÏ8th€and€January€9th,€1987,€the€evil€one€descended€uponÏPatrick€and€Rosemary€Smith,€and€the€evil€one€is€smart,Ïthe€evil€one€is€skilled,€the€evil€one€is€wily,€and€the€evilÏone€is€manipulative.€€A€simple€little€demonstration€ofÏthat,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€is€this.€€The€evil€oneÏappeared€today€and€produced€greeting€cards„„"MerryÏChristmas,"€"Happy€Holidays."€Ì€Ìà8 àà8 àBut€on€January€the€8th,€1987,€the€evil€one€appeared€atÏthe€door€of€351€Hampshire€Drive,€a€home€not€unlikeÏyours€in€a€neighborhood€not€unlike€yours„„the€evil€oneÏappeared€there€in€disguise„„a€mask,€a€black€jacket,€aÏpistol,€strangling€rope,€and€the€evil€one€is€capable€ofÍtaking€advantage€of€what€was€available€inside€theirÏhouse.€Ì€Ìà8 àà8 àYes,€whether€you€like€it€or€not„„whether€you€volunteeredÏor€not,€you€are€engaged€in€the€ultimate€battle€inÏeveryday€combat€with€the€evil€one,€and€he's€not€going€toÏgo€away.€€He€appeared€in€Minnesota€in€the€form€ofÏJeffrey€Dahlmer€[sic].€€He€appeared€in€Union,€SouthÏCarolina,€and€on€January€the€9th,€he€appeared€in€theÏdoor€of€Patrick€and€Rosemary€Smith.€€You€cannotÏnegotiate€with€the€evil€one,€ladies€and€gentlemen.€€YouÏcannot€deal€in€good€faith€with€the€evil€one.€€You€have€gotÏto€destroy€and€destroy,€or€he€and€his€benefactors€willÏdestroy€you.€€He'll€destroy€us.€€He'll€destroy€our€children.Ì€€Ìà8 àà8 àThe€evil€one€took€the€name€of€Ronnie€Cauthern€on€thatÏday.€€That€was€his€name,€and€he's€beyond€redemption.€ÏHe's€beyond€rehabilitation.€€There€is€no€treatment€for€thisÏindividual€posing€in€a€mask€and€taking€human€form.€ÏThere€is€no€treatment€for€this€person.€€This€person€hasÏbeen€around€through€the€ages€and€will€appear€again.€ÏYou€cannot€cure€him.€€Don't€try€to€save€him.€€Engage€himÏin€combat€and€destroy€him.€€Do€your€duty.€€When€youÏopen€that€paper€and€you€find€that€the€State€has€carriedÏout€your€instruction,€you€will€have€scaled€the€ramparts€atÏleast€one€time,€and€you€will€have€been€a€part€of€bringingÏback€peace€and€tranquility€in€your€community€and€in€ourÏcommunity,€and€you€will€send€a€message€to€the€evil€one.€ÏYou€will€send€a€message€that€we€stand€ready„„armed,Ïand€ready€to€fight€for€all€in€the€world,€for€everything€thatÏyou€believe€in,€for€the€sanctity€of€your€home,€the€blessingÏof€seeing€your€children€reach€adulthood€and€have€yourÏgrandchildren,€and€you€will€take€that€step€and€leave€aÏlegacy€to€your€children€that€they€someday€will€not€haveÏto€grapple€with€what€the€Smiths€had€to€deal€with€andÏwhat€Karen€Rivetna€and€her€mother€have€to€deal€with.Ì€€Ìà8 àà8 à"Holiday€Greetings"„„a€time€for€loved€ones€to€getÏtogether.€€Horrible€chaos€has€been€reaped€and€rackedÏon€this€family.€€I'm€asking€you€to€do€your€duty.€€Stand€tall.€ÏThank€you.ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€have€recognized€that€closing€argument€is€a€valuable€privilege€for€bothÏthe€State€and€the€defense€and€have€allowed€wide€latitude€to€counsel€in€arguingÏtheir€cases€to€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏNonetheless,€closing€argument€is€subject€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€andÏmust€be€temperate,€predicated€on€evidence€introduced€during€the€trial,€andÏrelevant€to€the€issues€being€tried.€€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727,€736€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€ÌÌà àHere,€it€is€evident€that€the€prosecutorððs€argument,€in€several€respects,Ïviolated€these€well„established€standards.€€First,€the€prosecutionððs€reference€to€theÏLordððs€Prayer€and€its€requests€for€the€jury€to€ð ðcombat€and€destroyðð€the€ð ðevil€one,ððÏamounted€to€the€use€of€biblical€passages€that€the€Court€repeatedly€has€held€to€beÏimproper€and€inflammatory.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€881€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€502€U.S.€841,€112ÏS.Ct.€131,€116€L.Ed.2d€98€(1990).€€Second,€the€frequent€references€to€theÏdefendant€as€the€ð ðevil€one,ðð€used€as€epithets€to€characterize€the€defendant,€wereÏalso€improper€and€potentially€appealed€to€the€bias€and€passion€of€the€jury.€òòDardenÏv.€Wainwrightóó,€477€U.S.€168,€179,€106€S.Ct.€2464,€91€L.Ed.2d€144€(1986)(ð ðanimalðð);ÏòòBatesóó,€804€S.W.2d€at€881€(ð ðrabid€dogðð).€€Third,€the€statements€that€the€jury€shouldÏð ðdo€its€dutyðð€and€that€its€verdict€should€send€a€message€to€the€communityÍconstituted€a€plea€for€general€deterrence,€which€we€have€held€has€no€application€toÏeither€aggravating€or€mitigating€factors.€€òòKeenóó,€926€S.W.2d€at€737;€òòState€v.€Irickóó,Ï762€S.W.2d€121,€131€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072,€109€S.Ct.€1357,Ï103€L.Ed.2d€825€(1989).€€Finally,€the€argument€impermissibly€suggested€to€the€juryÏthat€the€defendant,€as€an€incarnation€of€"the€evil€one,"€should€be€sentenced€toÏdeath€not€only€for€the€offense€charged€but€also€for€other€heinous€offensesÏcommitted€by€"the€evil€one"€in€the€form€of€other€notorious€murderers.€€òòCfóó.€òòBigbeeóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€at€812€(argument€that€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€casesÏbefore€the€jury€would€be€an€appropriate€way€to€punish€defendant€for€other€crimesÏhe€had€committed€is€improper).€€In€summary,€we€find€that€the€State's€argument€wasÏhighly€improper.ÌÌà àWhere€argument€is€found€to€be€improper€the€established€test€for€determiningÏwhether€there€is€reversible€error€is€"whether€the€improper€conduct€could€haveÏaffected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215ÏTenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965).€€We€must€consider:€€1)€the€conductÏcomplained€of,€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€€2)€theÏcurative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;€€3)€the€intent€of€theÏprosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;€€4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏimproper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€€and€5)€the€relative€strength€orÏweakness€of€the€case.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809;€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,Ï609€(Tenn.€1984).ÌÌà àApplication€of€these€factors€indicates€that€the€argument,€while€highlyÏimproper,€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€The€remarksÏin€question€were€only€a€portion€of€the€prosecutorððs€summation.€€Although€noÏcurative€measures€were€taken€by€the€trial€court€or€the€prosecution,€this€wasÏprimarily€because€the€defense€failed€to€object.× ƒD ××  ×€€€We€suggest,€however,€that€this€is€aÏcase€in€which€the€òòsua€sponteóó€intervention€by€the€trial€court€would€have€beenÏappropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòSparks€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€564,€567€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€ItÏappears€that€the€prosecutionððs€motivation€in€making€the€argument€was€to€respondÏto€defense€counselððs€assertion€that€the€defendant€should€not€receive€a€deathÏpenalty€in€a€civilized€society€and€also€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€evidence€of€hisÏrehabilitative€potential.€€Finally,€the€misconduct€must€be€viewed€together€with€theÏoverall€record€and€the€overwhelming€strength€of€the€Stateððs€case.€€€The€evidenceÏsupported€the€aggravating€factor€relied€on€by€the€State,€as€well€as€a€finding€that€thisÏfactor€outweighed€the€evidence€of€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€while€we€find€that€the€prosecution's€argument€was€patentlyÏimproper€and€caution€prosecutors€against€similar€argument€in€the€future,€weÍnevertheless€hold€that€in€this€case,€the€argument€did€not€affect€the€sentence€orÏrender€the€jury's€decision€arbitrary€or€unreliable€under€the€Eighth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€or€Article€I,€ðððð€8€and€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòEXCLUSION€OF€MITIGATION€EVIDENCEó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€byÏexcluding€evidence€offered€in€mitigation,€specifically,€a€note€written€to€theÏdefendant€by€his€son,€which€read:à àÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àDear€Dad,ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àI€Love€you€Dad.€€I€hope€I€come€again€gen€[sic].€ÏSome€time.€€we€went€to€Chuck€[sic]€Cheese.€€We€went€toÏWall€[sic]€Mart€and€we€had€fun.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àà àà àà àà àLove€always,€RyanÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€excluded€the€letter,€finding€that€it€was€of€negligible€probative€valueÏand€was€cumulative€to€the€other€evidence€presented.€€The€State€contends€that€theÏruling€was€not€an€abuse€of€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€repeatedly€held€that€the€Eighth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€require€states€to€allowÏthe€sentencer€in€a€death€penalty€case€to€consider€mitigating€evidence.€€òòMcKoy€v.ÍNorth€Carolinaóó,€494€U.S.€433,€442,€110€S.Ct.€1227,€1233,€108€L.Ed.2d€369€(1990).€ÏMitigating€evidence€includes€ð ðany€aspect€of€a€defendantððs€character€or€record€andÏany€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€that€the€defendant€proffers€as€a€basis€for€aÏsentence€less€than€death.ðð€€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604,€98€S.Ct.€2954,Ï2964,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978).€€Accordingly,€ð ðstates€cannot€limit€the€sentencerððsÏconsideration€of€any€relevant€circumstance€that€could€cause€it€to€decline€to€imposeÏthe€[death]€penalty.ðð€€òòMcCleskey€v.€Kempóó,€481€U.S.€279,€306,€107€S.Ct.€1756,€1761,Ï95€L.Ed.2d€262€(1987).ÌÌà àWe€have€also€stressed€that€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏrequires€that€the€jury€not€be€precluded€from€hearing€evidence€about€theÏdefendantððs€background,€record,€and€character,€and€any€circumstances€about€theÏoffense€that€may€mitigate€against€the€death€penalty.€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€30;ÏòòState€v.€Teagueóó,€897€S.W.2d€248,€255€(Tenn.€1995).€€Similarly,€the€statutoryÏscheme€in€effect€at€the€time€of€this€offense€provided:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,€evidence€may€beÏpresented€as€to€òòany€matter€that€the€court€deems€relevantÏto€the€punishment€and€may€include,€but€not€be€limited€toóó,Ïthe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime;€theÏdefendantððs€character,€background€history,€and€physicalÏcondition;€any€evidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€theÏaggravating€circumstances€enumerated€in€subsection€(i)Ïbelow;€and€any€evidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebutÏany€mitigating€factors.€€Any€such€evidence€which€theÏcourt€deems€to€have€probative€value€on€the€issue€ofÏpunishment€may€be€received.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2„203(c)(1982)[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(c)(Supp.Ï1996)].€€The€statute€also€contained€specific€statutory€mitigating€factors€including,Ïð ðany€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidence€produced€by€either€theÏprosecution€or€defense€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð39„2„203(j)(1982)[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(j)(Supp.€1996)].ÌÌà àIn€light€of€these€controlling€principles,€it€is€our€view€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏexcluding€the€letter€written€to€the€defendant€by€his€son.€€The€defendantððs€family€andÏyoung€son€who€have€expressed€love€and€support€are€arguably€relevant€to€theÏdefendantððs€background€and€character,€and€a€potential€basis€upon€which€a€jurorÏcould€decline€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€€€Although€constitutional€andÏnonconstitutional€error€is€a€line€frequently€blurred,€the€exclusion€of€mitigatingÏevidence€potentially€undermines€the€reliability€of€the€sentencing€determination,€andÏis€an€error€of€constitutional€magnitude.€€òòSeeóó€òòSkipper€v.€South€Carolinaóó,€476€U.S.€1,Ï4,€106€S.Ct.€1669,€1671,€90€L.Ed.2d€1€(1986).€€Thus,€the€burden€is€on€the€State€toÏprove€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€verdict€and,€therefore,€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€òòSatterwhite€v.€Texasóó,€486€U.S.€249,€258,€108€S.Ct.€1792,€1798„1799,€100€L.Ed.2d€284€(1988);€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24,€87€S.Ct.Ï824,€828,€17€L.Ed.2d€705€(1967).ÌÌà àA€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€essence€of€the€excluded€evidenceÏwas€presented€to€the€jury€in€other€forms.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€had€anÏeight€year€old€son€who€visited€him€every€three€to€five€months.€€A€photograph€of€theÏdefendant€with€his€son€was€introduced€into€evidence€in€mitigation.€€Based€on€thisÏevidence,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€could€consider€the€fact€that€theÏdefendant€has€a€minor€son€as€a€non„statutory€mitigating€factor.× ƒF ××  ×€€€Accordingly,€weÑ€GÑÇconclude€that€the€error€in€excluding€this€evidence€did€not€affect€the€juryððs€verdictÏand€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òPROPORTIONALITY€ANALYSISó óóóÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€his€sentence€is€disproportionate€to€the€penaltyÏimposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€AÏstatutory€comparative€proportionality€review,€which€we€must€undertake€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2„205(c)(4)(1982)€[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„206(c)(4)(Supp.€1996)],€ð ðpresupposes€that€the€death€penalty€is€not€disproportionateÏto€the€crime€in€the€traditional€sense€[and]€purports€to€inquire€instead€whether€theÏpenalty€is€nonetheless€unacceptable€in€a€particular€case€because€disproportionateÏto€the€punishment€imposed€on€others€convicted€of€the€same€crime.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,Ï___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1997)(quoting,€òòPulley€v.€Harrisóó,€465€U.S.€37,€42,€104€S.Ct.Ï871,€875,€79€L.Ed.2d€29€(1984)).€€Although€not€constitutionally€required,Ïcomparative€proportionality€review€ð ðserves€as€an€additional€safeguard€againstÏarbitrary€or€capricious€sentencing.ðð€€òòBlandóó,€___€S.W.2d€at€___;€òòseeóó€òòGregg€v.ÏGeorgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€96€S.Ct.€2909,€49€L.Ed.2d€859€(1976).ÌÌà àIn€òòBlandóó,€we€identified€two€approaches€to€statutory€comparativeÏproportionality€review:€the€frequency€method,€which€employs€a€statistical€analysisÏto€identify€the€various€factors€leading€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€and€theÏfrequency€with€which€the€punishment€is€imposed€in€similar€circumstances;€and€theÍprecedent€seeking€method,€which€compares€the€case€at€issue€with€other€cases€inÏwhich€defendants€were€convicted€of€the€same€or€similar€crimes.€€We€haveÏconsistently€employed€the€precedent€method€under€our€statutory€scheme,€and€theÏmethod,€while€not€rigid€or€objective,€serves€the€essential€purpose€of€ð ðidentifyingÏaberrant€sentences.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€___.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€no€crimes€are€precisely€alike€in€the€applicable€pool€of€cases,€i.e.,Ïthose€in€which€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€is€held,€we€have€identified€numerousÏfactors€for€consideration€regarding€an€offense:€€ð ð(1)€the€means€of€death;€(2)€theÏmanner€of€death€(e.g.,€violent,€tortuous,€etc.);€(3)€the€motivation€for€the€killing;€(4)€theÏplace€of€death;€(5)€the€similarity€of€the€victimsðð€circumstances€including€age,Ïphysical€and€mental€conditions,€and€the€victimsðð€treatment€during€the€killing;€(6)€theÏabsence€or€presence€of€premeditation;€(7)€the€absence€or€presence€of€provocation;Ï(8)€the€absence€or€presence€of€justification;€and€(9)€the€injury€to€and€effects€onÏnondecedent€victims.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€___.€€We€have€also€identified€factors€to€considerÏregarding€a€particular€defendant:€€ð ð(1)€the€defendantððs€prior€criminal€record€or€priorÏcriminal€activity;€(2)€the€defendantððs€age,€race,€and€gender;€(3)€the€defendantððsÏmental,€emotional,€or€physical€condition;€(4)€the€defendantððs€involvement€or€role€inÏthe€murder;€(5)€the€defendantððs€cooperation€with€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantððsÏremorse;€(7)€the€defendantððs€knowledge€of€helplessness€of€victim(s);€and€(8)€theÏdefendantððs€capacity€for€rehabilitation.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€__.€€ÌÌà àHere,€the€means€of€death€was€ligature€strangulation€and€the€manner€ofÏdeath,€as€we€have€held,€was€tortuous€under€the€aggravating€circumstance€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð39„2„203(i)(5).€€The€motivation€for€the€killings€was€to€rob€the€victimsÏand€to€burglarize€their€home.€€The€victim€was€awakened€in€the€middle€of€the€night,Ïplaced€in€a€closet€while€her€husband€was€strangled€to€death,€raped€twice€by€twoÏperpetrators,€and€then€herself€strangled€to€death.€€€There€was€extensive€evidenceÏthat€the€crimes€had€been€planned€in€advance,€and€there€was€no€provocation€orÏjustification€for€the€offenses.€€Although€the€defendant,€who€was€19€at€the€time€of€theÏcrimes,€had€no€criminal€record,€there€was€little€evidence€as€to€his€mental,€emotionalÏor€physical€condition€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€There€is€no€question€that€theÏdefendant€played€the€major€role€in€the€planning€and€executing€of€the€offenses.€ÌÌà àAnalysis€of€precedent€in€cases€involving€similar€murders€and€defendantsÏreveals€that€the€death€penalty€is€not€arbitrary€or€disproportionate.€€In€òòState€v.ÏHodgesóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€defendant,€having€decided€to€rob€the€victim,€bound€andÏhandcuffed€the€victim€to€a€bed€while€he€ransacked€his€apartment.€€After€discussingÏwhether€to€kill€the€victim,€the€defendant€then€strangled€the€victim€to€death.€€As€in€thisÏcase,€one€aggravating€factor€found€by€the€jury€was€that€the€killing€had€beenÏð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€because€it€involved€torture.€€Although€there€were€twoÏother€aggravating€factors,€there€was€also€extensive€psychological€proof€offered€inÏmitigation:€the€defendant€had€an€antisocial€personality€disorder€and€he€had€beenÍraped€as€a€child.€€We€held€that€the€penalty€was€not€disproportionate.€€944€S.W.2d€atÏ358„59.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€òòsupraóó,€the€defendant€handcuffed€the€victim€to€a€tree€andÏstrangled€him€to€death€with€a€wire€slipknot.€€He€was€sentenced€to€death€solelyÏbecause€the€killing€occurred€in€the€course€of€a€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2„203Ï(i)(7)(1982)€[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(i)(7)(1991)].€€There€was€substantialÏmitigating€evidence€indicating€that€the€defendant€had€a€borderline€personalityÏdisorder,€which€resulted€in€impulsive€and€unpredictable€behavior.€€We€held,Ïhowever,€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€find€that€the€single€aggravating€factorÏoutweighed€evidence€of€mitigating€factors€and€that€the€penalty,€as€applied€to€theÏdefendant€under€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€was€not€disproportionate.€Ï876€S.W.2d€at€88.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€defendant€received€the€death€penalty€for€rapingÏthe€eight„year„old€victim€and€then€strangling€her€to€death€with€a€shoelace.€€TheÏevidence€indicated€that€the€victim€may€have€been€unconscious€in€a€few€secondsÏbut€died€in€a€few€minutes.€€The€jury€found€three€aggravating€factors:€the€victim€wasÏless€than€twelve€years€old,€the€killing€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€and€theÏkilling€occurred€during€a€felony.€€The€defendant€introduced€evidence€of€his€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€and€dependant€personality€disorder,€as€well€as€evidenceÏof€his€good€behavior€in€prison.€€Although€the€case€was€remanded€for€resentencingÍon€an€unrelated€issue,€we€stated€that€the€penalty€was€not€disproportionate€asÏapplied€to€the€defendant.€€926€S.W.2d€at€743.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€526€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€979,€114€S.Ct.€475,€126€L.Ed.2d€426Ï(1993)(death€penalty€not€disproportionate€applied€to€defendant€who€severely€beatÏand€strangled€the€victim);€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498ÏU.S.€1007,€111€S.Ct.€571,€112€L.Ed.2d€577€(1990)(death€penalty€notÏdisproportionate€where€victim€suffered€ð ðneck€trauma,ðð€including€possibleÏstrangulation);€òòState€v.€Coeóó,€655€S.W.2d€903€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€464€U.S.Ï1063,€104€S.Ct.€745,€79€L.Ed.2d€203€(1984)(death€penalty€not€disproportionateÏwhere€defendant€raped,€stabbed€and€strangled€the€victim).ÌÌà àOur€precedent€also€reveals€that€the€punishment€in€this€case€is€not€arbitraryÏor€disproportionate€merely€because€the€defendant€was€19€years€of€age€at€the€timeÏof€the€offenses.€€In€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï511€U.S.€1046,€114€S.Ct.€1577,€128€L.Ed.2d€220€(1994),€a€19„year„old€defendantÏshot€and€killed€a€74„year„old€victim€during€a€robbery.€€The€defendant€offeredÏevidence€of€his€good€employment€record€and€lack€of€a€prior€criminal€record.€€As€inÏthe€present€case,€the€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty,€finding€that€the€murder€wasÏheinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5).€€In€òòStateÏv.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.Ï3291,€111€L.Ed.2d€799€(1990),€a€21€year€old€defendant€assaulted€the€victim€with€aÏknife€and€the€victim€died€from€internal€bleeding.€€The€jury€imposed€the€deathÍpenalty€based€on€three€factors,€including€that€the€murder€was€heinous,€atrocious€orÏcruel€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5).€€In€òòBlandóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€19„year„old€defendant€chased,€shot€and€killed€the€victim.€€The€jury€imposed€the€deathÏsentence€on€the€basis€that€the€murder€had€been€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€thatÏit€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÏdeath.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5).€€In€each€of€these€cases,€we€held€that€theÏdeath€sentence€was€neither€arbitrary€nor€disproportionate,€notwithstanding€theÏyouth€of€the€offenders.ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€main€contention€is€that€his€punishment€wasÏdisproportionate€because€his€co„defendant€received€a€life€sentence€for€the€offense.€ÏA€disparity€in€sentencing€may€exist€if€there€is€a€rational€basis€for€the€decision€of€theÏjury€to€impose€the€death€penalty€on€one€perpetrator€and€not€another.€€òòState€v.ÏHenleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,€918€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.Ï3291,€111€L.Ed.2d€800€(1990);€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€755€S.W.2d€41,€49€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€490€U.S.€1085,€109€S.Ct.€2111,€104€L.Ed.2d€671€(1989);€òòState€v.€Carteróó,Ï714€S.W.2d€241,€251€(Tenn.€1986),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€479€U.S.€1046,€107€S.Ct.€910,€93ÏL.Ed.2d€860€(1987).€€€Here,€we€said€in€the€initial€appeal€of€this€case:ÌÓÓÌà8 à[t]here€was€sufficient€evidence€of€other€factors€in€support€of€the€juryððsÏverdict€to€give€Cauthern€the€death€penalty€and€Patterson€lifeÏimprisonment€that€would€enable€this€Court€to€find€that€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€was€not€imposed€on€Cauthern€in€any€arbitrary€fashion,€or€wasÏexcessive€or€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.ÌÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€48€n.1.€€The€defendant€clearly€was€the€leader€inÏthe€perpetration€of€this€crime;€he€knew€the€victims€and€planned€the€offenses.€ÏPattersonððs€testimony€at€the€sentencing€proceeding€expressed€remorse,€and,Ïunlike€Cauthernððs,€was€consistent€with€the€version€of€the€offenses€that€he€gave€toÏinvestigating€officers.€€Patterson€presented€extensive€evidence€of€mitigationÏregarding€his€military€service,€background,€and€family€support.€€In€sum,€there€was€aÏbasis€for€the€different€sentences€imposed€by€the€jury.€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€there€was€a€discernible€basis€for€imposing€a€lesser€sentence€in€theÏfactually€similar€case€of€òòState€v.€James€Lloyd€Julian,€IIóó,€No.€03C01„9511„CV„00371Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€July€24,€1997,€Knoxville).€€There,€the€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏfelony€murder€for€strangling€the€victim€in€the€course€of€a€œkidnapping€and€rape.€€TheÏjury,€after€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding,€imposed€a€sentence€of€life€withoutÏparole.€€The€defendant,€unlike€Cauthern€in€the€present€case,€offered€substantialÏmitigating€proof€in€his€defense.€€A€clinical€psychologist€related€the€defendantððsÏhistory€of€substance€abuse,€depressive€disorder,€and€mixed€personality€disorderÏwith€borderline€features.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€beenÏsexually€abused€as€a€child€and€that€he€had€a€history€of€violence€when€under€theÏinfluence€of€alcohol€and€hallucinogens.€€This€proof€of€mitigation€evidence,€as€wellÏas€the€factual€proof€of€the€offense,€distinguishes€òòJulianóó€from€the€present€case.€€€€ÌÌà àAlthough€no€two€cases€are€identical,€our€review€of€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€this€case,€as€well€as€relevant€precedent,€indicates€that€the€deathÏpenalty€has€been€imposed€in€similar€cases€involving€rapes€and€strangulation€of€theÏvictim.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€death€penalty€is€neither€arbitrary€norÏdisproportionate€as€applied€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„206(c)(1)(1982)[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(1991€&€Supp.€1996)].ÌÌÓ  Óà ààH@ààH@ààH@hh àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àWe€have€considered€the€errors€claimed€by€the€defendant€and€haveÏdetermined€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€none€affirmatively€appear€to€haveÏaffected€the€sentencing€proceeding.€€With€respect€to€issues€not€specificallyÏaddressed€herein,€we€affirm€the€thorough€and€well„reasoned€decision€of€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals,€authored€by€Judge€David€H.€Welles€and€joined€in€by€JudgeÏDavid€G.€Hayes€and€Judge€Cornelia€A.€Clark.€€Relevant€portions€of€that€opinion€areÏpublished€hereafter€as€an€appendix.€€The€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€byÏelectrocution€is€affirmed.€€The€sentence€of€death€will€be€carried€out€as€provided€byÏlaw€on€the€23rd€day€of€June,€1998,€unless€otherwise€ordered€by€this€Court,€or€otherÏproper€authorities.€€ÌÌà àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant€for€which€execution€mayÏissue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌDrowota,€Birch,€and€Holder,€JJ.ÌReid,€J.€„€see€separate€Concurring€OpinionÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÇÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€)ŠÔÑ7€ 4 XXdð XXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ€EÑÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòÔ€)„Ôà@ àA€P€P€E€N€D€I€Xóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€)¼ÔÇÔ€)ŠÔ›à@ àò òIN€THE€TENNESSEE€œCOURT›€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àJULY€1996€SESSIONÌÌœSTATE›€OF€œTENNESSEE,›à àà àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellee,ò òà àà àà àà àœ)à àC.C.A.›€NO.€02C01„9506„CC„00164Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óVS.ò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àGIBSON€COUNTYÏ(TRANSFERREDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àFROM€MONTGOMERY€COUNTY)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRONNIE€MICHAEL€CAUTHERN,à à)à àHONORABLE€DICK€JERMAN,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà àà àœ)à àó ó(Sentencing„Death€Penalty)ò ò›ÌÌó óÌòòœFor›€the€Appellantóóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌHugh€Reid€Poland,€Jr.à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ408€Franklin€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌRobert€T.€Batemanà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌ221€South€Third€Streetà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClayburn€PeeplesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à109€E.€First€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TN€38382ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€CarneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€Street,€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSteve€GarrettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€Street,€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌœOPINION€FILED:€à àòòDecember€2,€1996óóÌÌDEATH€PENALTY€AFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLESÌJUDGEÇÔ€)„Ô›à@ àœòòOPINION›óóÌÌò òÔ€)¼Ôœà@ àCONSTITUTIONALITY›€OF€THE€ESPECIALLY€œHEINOUS,ÏATROCIOUS,€€à@ àOR›€CRUEL€œAGGRAVATORó ó›ÌÌÓÓà 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,€theÏappellant€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€theÏaggravating€circumstance€under€constitutional€attacks.€€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€at€25„26.€€Accordingly,€the€appellantððs€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àADMISSION€OF€THE€VIDEOTAPEó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€byÏallowing€into€evidence€a€videotape€depicting€the€crime€scene.€€Specifically,Íthe€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€view€duringÏthe€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€those€scenes€depicting€the€moving€of€the€bodies.€ÏIn€response,€the€State€argues€that€the€video€was€relevant€to€show€theÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€nature€of€the€crime.ÌÌà àThe€admissibility€of€relevant€videotapes€of€the€crime€scene€andÏvictims€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,€949Ï(Tenn.€1978).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994);ÏòòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993).€€Moreover,€the€recentÏtrend€is€to€vest€more€discretion€in€the€trial€judge's€rulings€on€admissibility.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949;€òòState€v.€Baileyóó,€No.€01C01„9403„CC„00105,ÏDickson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€20,€1995);€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.,€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà 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€video€depictsÏthe€body€as€it€was€found;€the€adequacy€of€testimonial€evidence€in€relatingÏthe€facts€to€the€jury;€and€the€need€for€the€evidence€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóóÏcase€of€guilt€or€to€rebut€the€defendant's€contentions.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€atÏ951.ÌÌà 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€theÍcomments€of€the€officers.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477Ï(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.€€ÌÌà 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€theÍheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravator,€the€nature€of€the€various€wounds€toÏthe€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€attempted€toÏfree€the€pressure€from€around€their€necks.€€Because€of€the€position€in€whichÏthe€victims€were€found,€it€was€necessary€for€the€officers€to€turn€the€bodiesÏover€to€examine€the€wounds€to€the€neck.€€As€the€forensic€pathologist€stated,Ïthe€bluish€color€of€the€skin,€i.e.€cyanosis,€is€a€natural€consequence€of€thisÏtype€of€killing.€€The€stiffness€of€the€bodies€resulting€from€the€rigor€mortis€isÏalso€common€after€death,€and€not€in€and€of€itself€so€inflammatory.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€the€trial€court€noted,Ïthough€the€condition€of€the€bodies€is€not€pleasant€by€any€means,€it€is€ð ðnot€soÏgruesome€as€to€.€.€.€shock€the€conscience€of€the€Court€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.€ÍContrary€to€the€appellantððs€argument,€the€fact€that€the€judge€on€remandÏallowed€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@ àEVIDENCE€OF€UNRELATED€CRIMESó óÌà 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€of€theÏevidence€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€appellantððsÍmotion€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€thisÏstatement€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€officer€readÏit€aloud€on€the€stand.€€The€following€question€and€answer€appear€in€thisÏstatement:€ð ðQuestion€„€Do€you€know€who€committed€the€armed€robbery€atÏthe€Hornbuckle€66?€€Answer€„€No.ðð€€This€reference€was€to€one€of€the€threeÏcharges€on€which€the€appellant€was€acquitted.€€After€this€portion€of€theÏstatement€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€and€couldÍsee€the€next€question:€ð ðQuestion€„€Do€you€know€if€Joe€commit€[sic]€theÏburglary€„€robbery€with€Pat?€€Answer€„€I€think€so.ðð€€The€court€overruled€theÏmotion€for€mistrial,€and€the€following€exchange€occurred:€ð ðCourt€„€WhatÏinstruction€do€you€suggest€I€give?€.€.€.€[Appellantððs€counsel]€„€Weððll€just€standÏon€the€Motion€for€Mistrial.ððÌÌà àThis€situation€is€quite€similar€to€that€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòSmithóó,€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€made€reference€to€theÏdefendantððs€prior€jail€time.€€The€defendant€moved€for€a€mistrial,€which€theÏcourt€denied.€€The€court,€however,€gave€the€jury€a€curative€instruction€toÏdisregard€the€statement€and€not€to€consider€it€for€any€purpose.€€òòId.óó€at€923.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€it€must€assume€the€jury€followed€the€trialÏcourtððs€instruction.€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€the€Court€noted€that€given€the€record€as€aÏwhole€in€that€capital€case,€the€statement,€though€improper,€could€not€haveÏprejudicially€affected€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€(citing€T.R.A.P.€36(b)).€€Likewise,€in€òòState€v.ÏHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€T.R.A.P.€36(b)),€the€SupremeÏCourt,€in€considering€the€effect€of€statements€concerning€prior€criminalÏactivity€on€the€juryððs€verdict€in€a€capital€case,€stated€that€the€admission€ofÏthe€evidence€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€when€viewed€inÍcontext€of€the€entire€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€751€S.W.2d€154,€164Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1985).ÌÌà 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,€theÏtrial€court€gave€no€curative€instruction.€€However,€as€the€State€notes,€theÏappellant€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€responsibleÏfor€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.× ƒH ××  ×€€We€believe€Rule€36(a)€controls€our€decision€here.€€Moreover,Ïconsidering€the€whole€record€as€mandated€by€36(b),€we€find€the€error€to€beÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€improper€statements€were€brief,Ïand€given€the€context€in€which€they€were€made,€added€no€ð ðððnew€dimensionÏto€the€jurorsðð€view€of€[the€appellant]ðððð.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€72Ï(Tenn.€1992)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€247„48€(Tenn.Ï1986)).€€The€statements€do€not€associate€the€appellant€with€any€otherÏcriminal€activity€or€legal€proceedings.€€Furthermore,€before€the€hearing,€theÏtrial€judge€stated€that€a€mistrial€could€be€warranted€if€any€improper€evidenceÏconcerning€the€prior€acquittals€were€introduced.€€Since€he€overruled€theÏappellantððs€motion,€the€judge€must€have€been€satisfied€that€no€prejudiceÍresulted€from€these€improper€statements.€€We€agree.€€This€issue,€therefore,Ïis€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àADMISSION€OF€TRANSCRIPT€OF€RECORDED€STATEMENT€ó óÌà 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„recordedÏinterview€between€the€appellant€and€Detectives€Denton€and€Griffy.€€On€theÏinitial€direct€appeal€of€this€case,€the€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€deathÏpenalty€based€upon€the€improper€introduction€of€a€portion€of€the€interview.€ÏIn€accordance€with€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion,€that€portion€of€theÏstatement€was€not€introduced€during€the€hearing€on€remand.€€On€remand,€aÏredacted€transcript€was€read€into€evidence€which€omitted€any€mention€ofÏBrett€Patterson.€€As€part€of€his€complaint,€the€appellant€argues€that€he€wasÏð ðforced€into€the€untenable€positionðð€of€subsequently€having€to€introduce€theÍunredacted€portions€of€the€statement€which€referred€to€PattersonððsÏinvolvement.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€prior€proceedings.€ÏThe€trial€judge€made€the€following€ruling:ÌÓÓÌà8 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€going€toÏallow€its€admission€.€.€.€€Itððs€just€that€the€tape€is€now€gone€and€hasÏbeen€lost€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€.€.€.€and€IððmÏassuming€that€this€transcript€.€.€.€is€proper.ÌÌÌÓÓà 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.Ï1989).€€During€that€trial,€the€trial€judge€ordered€the€State€to€redact€œthoseÍportions€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€caused€byÏthe€redacted€statement,€therefore,€was€cured€by€the€additional€evidence.€ÏAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àNONSTATUTORY€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€the€trial€judge€should€have€instructed€the€jury€itÏcould€consider€as€mitigating€factors€the€fact€that€the€appellantððs€co„defendant€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€the€judgeÏto€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€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mentalÏdisease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€aÏdefense€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€the€followingÏnonstatutory€circumstances:€1)€the€appellant€was€an€enterprising€youngÏman€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€2)€the€appellant€has€a€minor€child;€and€3)€theÏappellant€is€married.€€The€trial€judge€refused,€however,€to€instruct€the€juryÍthat€Patterson€received€a€life€sentence,€the€appellant€has€been€a€modelÏprisoner,€and€the€appellant€has€helped€others€while€in€prison.ÌÌÑ , ÑÑ 5 ÑÑ  ÑÑ€+ §u` Ñà àIn€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€the€Supreme€Court€recently€addressed€the€issue€ofÏinstructions€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.€CodeÏAnn.€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€its€discussion,Ïhowever,€the€Court€also€acknowledged€that€under€the€law€as€it€previouslyÏexisted,€òòseeóó€ðð€39„13„203(e)€(1982),€there€was€no€statutory€provisionÏrequiring€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€specifically€on€nonstatutoryÏmitigators:ÌÓÓà8 àà à[T]he€only€mandatory€instructions€with€respect€toÏmitigating€circumstances€are€that€those€statutory€circumstancesÏwhich€are€raised€by€the€evidence€shall€be€expressly€charged,Ïand€the€jury€must€be€told€that€they€shall€weigh€and€consider€anyÏother€facts€or€circumstances€that€are€raised€by€the€evidenceÏthat€they€find€to€be€mitigating€circumstances,€in€making€theÍdetermination€of€which€circumstances,€aggravating€orÏmitigating,€outweigh€the€other.ÌÌÓÓòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€29€(quoting€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€118Ï(Tenn.€1985)).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€268€(Tenn.€1994);ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€15€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€756€S.W.2dÏ669,€674€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€249€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€in€this€case€instructed€the€jury€on€the€law€governingÏmitigating€circumstances€as€amended€in€1989.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(Supp.€1995).× ƒI ××  ×€€The€judge€also€instructed€the€jury€on€threeÏspecific€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.2d€908,Ï919€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€82€(Tenn.€1994).€€TheÍamendments€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,€becauseÏthe€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,€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌò òà@ àCOMPETENCY€OF€JUROR€FOREPERSONó óÌà 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€appellant€suggestsÏthat€since€the€foreperson€had€difficulty€reading€the€verdict€form€aloud€inÍopen€court,€she€probably€encountered€difficulty€understanding€the€legalÏinstructions€contained€in€the€written€charges.€€The€State€contends€thatÏalthough€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:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌà8 àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Iððm€going€to€ask€you€to€readÏthat€for€me€if€you€will.€€With€regard€to€the€first€count€ofÏthe€indictment€which€alleges€the€murder€of€PatrickÏSmith,€what€is€your€verdict?Ìà8 àMS.€VALERIE€CLARK:€Life€imprisonment.€€We,€theÏjury€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Will€you€read€it€„„€read€that€for€me?Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„€okay€„„€whatððs€that?Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Unanimously€determine€that€one€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Statutory.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Statutory.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Aggravating€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Circumstances.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Circumstances€has€been€proven€by€theÏState€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We,€the€jury,Ítherefore,€find€the€sentence€shall€be€imprisonmentÏfor€life.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€And,€youððve€each€affixed€your€name€toÏthat.€€Is€that€right?Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Right.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€With€regard€to€the€second€count€of€theÏindictment€which€alleges€the€death€of€RosemaryÏSmith,€what€is€your€verdict?Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Punishment€of€death.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Will€you€read€that€for€me,€please?Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Unanimously€find€that€the€following€list€„„€listing€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Statutory.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Statutory.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Aggravating.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Circumstances.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€Circumstances€of€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Do€you€want€to€list€this€for€me?€€CanÏyou€read€that,€please?ÌÒ  ÒÒ X Òà8 àMS.€CLARK:€The€murder€was€especially€human€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Heinous.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€heinous€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Atrocious.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€atrocious,€and€cruel,€in€that€is€involved€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Torture.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€torture€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Or€serious€„„Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€prove€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€€„„€produce€death.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€produce€death.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Will€you€continue€to€read?Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€We,€the€jury€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Unanimously.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€unanimously€find€that€the€State€has€been€provenÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€circumstances€are„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Statutory.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€statutory€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Aggravating.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€aggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€soÏto€list€above€outweigh€any€other€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Mitigating.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€mitigating€circumstances.€€Therefore,€we,€theÏjury,€unanimously€find€that€the€punishment€for€the€defendant,ÏRonnie€„„Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Cauthern.Ìà8 àMS.€CLARK:€€„„€Cauthern€shall€be€death.Ìà8 àTHE€COURT:€Be€seated€please.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€Supreme€Court€dealt€with€this€very€issue€in€òòKirkendoll€v.€Stateóó,Ï281€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.€€TheÏSupreme€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€is€inÏthe€jury€room€that€there€are€others€there€who€can€read€that€thisÍwould€satisfy€that€question.€€Consequently€this€assignment€mustÏbe€overruled.ÌÌòòId.óó€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€believe€that€the€holding€and€reasoning€in€òòKirkendollóó€is€dispositiveÏof€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€aÏresult€of€the€Ms.€Clarkððs€reading€skills.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àINDIVIDUAL€AND€SEQUESTERED€VOIR€DIREó óÌà àNext,€the€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€denied€theÏappellantððs€motion€for€individual€and€sequestered€voir€dire.€€Specifically,€theÏappellant€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?Ìà8 àÌà8 àHave€any€of€you€heard€anyone€express€an€opinion€about€whatÏought€to€happen€in€this€case?Ìà8 àÌà8 àThere€will€be€testimony€that€this€crime€occurred€in€Clarksville,ÏTennessee.€€This€is€a€case,€by€the€way,€about€two€Army€nurses,Ïa€husband,€Patrick€Smith,€and€his€wife,€Rosemary.€€This€crimeÏoccurred€either€on€the€night€of€January€the€8th,€1987€or€theÏearly€morning€hours€of€January€the€9th.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Smith€„„ÏCaptain€Smith€and€Captain€Smith€were€captains€in€the€Army€„„Ïwere€at€home€asleep€when€two€defendants,€Ronald€CauthernÏand€another€man,€broke€into€their€home,€attacking€both€of€them,Ïraped€Mrs.€Smith,€garroted€„„€thatððs€a€term€you€may€not€knowÏthe€meaning€of€right€now,€but€if€youððre€chosen€as€a€juror€you€willÏbefore€this€case€is€over€„„€and€left€them€both€dead.€€Now,€haveÏany€of€you€ever€heard€anything€about€this€fact€situation?Ìà8 àÌà8 àIs€there€anybody€here€who€doesnððt€think€they€can€give€theÏdefendant€a€fair€trial?ÌÌÓÓThe€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.2dÏ238,€247€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€65€(Tenn.€1992).€ÏThe€decision€of€whether€to€grant€individual€and€sequestered€voir€dire€ofÏprospective€jurors€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€thatÏdecision€will€not€be€overturned€absent€a€finding€of€ð ðmanifest€error.ðð€€òòHowellóó,Ï868€S.W.2d€at€247„48;€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€65.€€ÌÌà 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€wasÍunaware€of€the€prior€proceedings.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€appellantððs€motion.ÌÌò òà@ àMERCY€INSTRUCTIONó óÌà àThe€appellant€claims€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€juryÏthat€it€could€recommend€mercy€when€rendering€its€sentence.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€has€continually€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€this€respect.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€813„14€(Tenn€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€253,€269€n.6€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€703€S.W.2d€106,€119Ï(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€366€(Tenn.€1982).€ÏAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òà@ àEVIDENCE€OF€THE€UNDERLYING€FELONIESó óÌà 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€jury€isÏentitled€to€all€the€evidence€from€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€inÏmaking€their€determination€as€to€what€the€proper€punishment€is.€ÏI€think€thatððs€the€law.€€I€donððt€think€that€the€rape€itself€could€be€anÏaggravating€circumstance,€but€evidence€of€the€rape€could€go€toÏthe€proof€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€youððre€alleging,Ïand€for€that€reason€thatððs€why€Iððm€going€to€allow€the€introduction.Ìà àÌÓÓà àIn€his€argument€before€the€Court,€the€appellant€seems€to€suggest€thatÏthe€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317Ï(Tenn.€1992)€controls€this€issue.€€òòMiddlebrooksóó€stands€for€the€propositionÏthat€the€State€cannot€rely€upon€the€underlying€felony€in€support€of€theÏaggravating€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€theÏexistence€of€only€one€aggravating€circumstance,€that€the€murder€wasÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€Thus,€there€is€no€duplication€problem€like€thatÏencountered€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àMoreover,€in€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270€(Tenn.€1994),€theÏSupreme€Court,€while€conducting€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€harmless€error€analysis,Ïstated:€€ð ðA€sentencing€jury€may€properly€hear€evidence€regarding€theÏcircumstances€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,Ï925€(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.ÌÌò òà@ àEXCLUSION€OF€PROSPECTIVE€JURORó óÌà àThe€appellant€maintains€that€the€trial€judge€committed€reversible€errorÏby€excusing€a€prospective€juror€because€of€his€perceived€views€on€capitalÏpunishment.€€During€voir€dire,€a€prospective€juror€informed€the€prosecutorÏthat€he€did€not€think€he€could€ð ðlive€withðð€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€ÍSubsequently,€the€judge€asked€the€prospective€juror€if€he€could€follow€theÏlaw.€€He€responded€by€stating€that€ð ðthe€Lord€makes€the€decision€on€death,ððÏand€that€he€did€not€think€he€could€impose€the€penalty.€€The€judge€thereafterÏexcused€the€man€from€the€jury.ÌÌà àThe€applicable€standard€for€determining€whether€a€juror€was€properlyÏexcused€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,€83ÏL.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,€776ÏS.W.2d€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989)€(Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adoptsÏòòWainwrightóó€standard).€€Furthermore,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€heldÏthat€"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.€€TheÏCourt€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.ÌÌà àWe€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,€893ÏS.W.2d€908,€915„16€(Tenn.€1994).€€Although€this€determination€might€not€beÏ"unmistakably€clear,"€it€need€not€be.€€Moreover,€as€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€has€held,€great€deference€should€be€given€to€the€trial€judge,Ïwho€is€"left€with€the€definite€impression€that€a€prospective€juror€would€beÏunable€to€faithfully€and€impartially€apply€the€law."€€òòWainwrightóó,€469€U.S.€atÏ426,€105€S.Ct.€at€853.€€The€trial€judge's€findings€"shall€be€accorded€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€and€the€burden€shall€rest€upon€the€appellant€toÏestablish€by€convincing€evidence€that€[those€findings€were]€erroneous."€ÏòòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€appellant€has€failedÏto€meet€his€burden€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€excusing€the€prospective€jurorÏbecause€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€does€notÍnecessarily€transform€the€test€mandated€by€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€in€[òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó]€into€religious€tests€for€.€.€.€[constitutionalÏpurposes].'"€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545,€547€(Tenn.€1990)€(1990)Ï(quoting€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€949€(Tenn.€1987)).€€Accordingly,ÏMr.€Williamsðð€opposition€to€the€death€penalty,€though€possibly€based€onÏreligion,€appropriately€rendered€him€unfit€as€a€juror.€€The€trial€judge€actedÏproperly,€and€this€issue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òà@ àADMISSION€OF€APPELLANTððS€STATEMENTSó óÌà 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€thisÏcase€was€based€upon€the€Courtððs€determination€that€a€portion€of€theÏappellantððs€statement€was€erroneously€introduced.€€òòId.óó€at€47.€€During€theÏresentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€followed€the€Supreme€Courtððs€mandateÏand€excluded€the€objectionable€portions€of€the€statement.€€Accordingly,Íbecause€the€Supreme€Court€has€already€addressed€this€issue,€theÏappellantððs€argument€must€fail.ÌÌÓ  Óò òCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€THE€DEATH€PENALTYó óÌÓ  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,Ï778€S.W.2d€39,€47€(Tenn.€1989).€€Likewise,€the€Court€has€repeatedly€upheldÏthe€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€face€of€similar€challenges.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876ÏS.W.2d€75€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994);ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166Ï(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Teelóó,Ï793€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.Ï1989).€€Accordingly,€this€argument€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€issues€and€the€record€before€us€asÏmandated€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(b)€and€(c),Ïand€for€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€appellantððs€sentence€ofÏdeath.€€We€conclude€that€the€sentence€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitraryÏfashion,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€and€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€that€theÏaggravating€circumstance€outweighs€any€mitigating€circumstances.€ÏMoreover,€a€comparative€proportionality€review,€considering€both€theÏcircumstances€of€the€crime€and€the€nature€of€the€appellant,€convinces€usÏthat€the€sentence€of€death€is€neitherÌÌ€excessive€nor€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.× ƒJ ××  ×ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÔ€)XÔÇ