ÿWPCñ  üHܺŸ@‹ø"bãAMBRXÞVZw~ÚF\ñ£ò~ô“Ñ9Wb®=&©ÁmŸºhz”ôn ëï'ÓæìbCh!y¢ÖyŸ}–Г+mlŠÊªÛbÐG¢/£Ú<ùƪ®Ö(.9Ãôß…©62œ¤‘ ,®+?I¸ìÐ6Ó–ïxkñ^õzYà*œé÷B`6 wû÷uQ§¼jMþŸ' ßóŠ’Ö÷‰º?ˆ[çí`G'2Åt‹(ÄŽ_ ÕÚa3Ùo£Jd¹SüÍî[(‰vèÜ̽g®I=â?iѦ /R¥Ç)ÞÄý›æ‘K¡4ÌìcÐG2‡#½æ‰v“+5u6ï~‘+IJÑþ—±·oy`\b{ ·zîæËÄÓîÞÀ1Ù‰Lsn Gõ<kIwCB¯ 䥽×jAuUmïiùÆG­t ”o!.Té„™ °h.1ëX±’N~°¯¢\¨" šÅ>û2±ýP»"0/Â0`géßÎï+;K ”OÉòTÆôt:V¡{”ïVôð‚.2‹ýÐ)#Á>UNÿ %M 0(SU:{ 0cµU: 0ÆRU:wR4VjjÆyyyyyN? ^ A M mO Æf f f f f f f f AS,  0D‡ 0DË 0D BS D/p p BŸ D5¼ ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - EnhancedÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular("÷„$Ô€XÁ-XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular(v(21À$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ XT‹XXXÔÔ€ ôI0òX XT‹Ôà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularëXÜ(3|xƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*©+)â ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5!"#(Eþÿ<<Cÿÿ(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$)ÿÿ!dxdxÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òà@èè&ìàAPPENDIXˆÐ ° ÐÌ(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)Ð |Ì Ðó óÌÌà@‡ ‡ ìàIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSˆÐ . ~ ÐÌà@ŒŒ%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ ú J ÐÌà@;; ìàDECEMBER€1998€SESSIONˆÐ Æ   Ðò òÌÌÌó óSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€Appellee,€Ð ^®  ÐÌv.Ð *z  ÐÌTYRONE€Ô_ÔCHALMERSÔ_Ô,€Appellant.Ð öF ÐÌC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9711„CC„00449Ð Â ÐSHELBY€COUNTY€(No.€____€Below)€The€Honorable€Carolyn€Wade€Ô_ÔBlackettÔ_Ô€(ESPECIALLY€Ð ¨ø ÐAGGRAVATED€ROBBERY€and€FELONY€MURDER€„€DEATH€PENALTY€)Ð ŽÞ ÐÌOPINION€FILED:€March€15,€1999.Ð Zª ÐÌAFFIRMEDÐ &v ÐÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€Judge.Ð òB ÐÌà@55'ìàò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ ¾ Ðà  àÌò ò[Sections€on€Background€and€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence€Deleted]Ð Š Ú Ѐó óÐ p!À  ÐÌÓ  ÓIIÐ <#Œ" ÐÓ_Óà  àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€a€photograph€of€theÐ "$r# Ðvictim€as€he€was€found€on€the€street.€€The€photo€depicts€the€victim€lying€face€down.€€His€pantsÐ %X $ Ðhad€been€lowered€to€ankle€level.€€The€defendant€insists€that€"the€photo€in€question€was€void€ofÐ î%>!% Ðprobative€weight€and€packed€full€of€impermissible€and€inflammatory€content."€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€"any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÐ †)Ö$) Ðwithout€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Rule€403,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€however,€provides€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðrelevant€evidence€may€be€excluded€in€certain€situations:Ð R+¢&+ ÐÒ°ÒÒä °ÒExclusion€of€Relevant€Evidence€on€Grounds€of€Prejudice,Ð 8,ˆ', ÐConfusion,€or€Waste€of€Time.€€Although€relevant,€evidenceÐ -n(- Ðmay€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantiallyÐ ° Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€theÐ –æ Ðissues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undueÐ |Ì Ðdelay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulativeÐ b² Ðevidence.Ð H˜ ÐÌÒ°ä ÒÒ°ÒSimply€because€evidence€is€prejudicial€does€not€mean€the€evidence€must€be€excluded€as€a€matterÐ  d Ðof€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Courts€must€stillÐ ú J Ðdetermine€the€relevance€of€the€photograph€and€weigh€its€probative€value€against€any€undueÐ à 0 Ðprejudice.Ô‡XT‹XXXÔÐ Æ   ÐÌà  àÔ#†XLýXXXT‹¤ #ÔIn€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.€1978),€our€supreme€court€recognized€"theÐ ’â  Ðinherently€prejudicial€character€of€photographic€depictions€of€a€murder€victim...."€€In€adoptingÐ xÈ  ÐFederal€Rule€of€Evidence€403€as€its€test€for€admissibility,€the€court€suggested€a€variety€of€factorsÐ ^®  Ðfor€consideration€by€the€trial€judge.€€The€"value€of€photographs€as€evidence,€...€their€accuracy€andÐ D”  Ðclarity€...€whether€they€were€taken€before€the€corpse€was€moved€...€[and]€the€inadequacy€of€theÐ *z  Ðtestimonial€evidence€in€relating€the€facts€to€the€jury"€are€appropriate€factors.€€òòIdóó.Ð ` ÐÌà  àThe€admissibility€of€relevant€photographs€of€the€victim€is€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÐ Ü, Ðthe€trial€judge,€and€his€or€her€ruling€on€admissibility€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€aÐ Â Ðclear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ¨ø ÐBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.Ð ŽÞ Ð1993).€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€photograph€at€issue€is€clearly€relevant.€€The€state€had€to€prove,€notwithstanding€theÐ @ Ðdefendant's€confession,€that€the€defendant€killed€the€victim€during€an€attempt€to€commit€anÐ &v Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€photograph€suggests€that€the€victim€was€shot€in€the€backÐ  \ Ðcausing€him€to€fall€face€down.€€As€the€state€argued€at€trial,€the€victim's€pants€could€have€beenÐ òB Ðdropped€to€his€ankles€to€prevent€him€from€fleeing€or€otherwise€resisting€during€the€robbery.€Ð Ø( ÐAlthough€a€portion€of€the€body€is€nude,€neither€the€wounds€nor€blood€are€highlighted€in€theÐ ¾ Ðphoto€at€issue.€€The€photograph€is€particularly€relevant€as€corroborative€of€the€details€of€theÐ ¤ô Ðincriminating€statement€made€by€the€defendant.€€In€our€assessment,€the€probative€valueÐ Š Ú Ðoutweighs€any€undue€prejudicial€effect.€€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àAs€a€collateral€claim,€the€defendant€also€contends€that€the€admission€of€the€photographÐ <#Œ" Ðinto€evidence€violated€his€right€to€due€process€and€his€right€to€be€free€from€cruel€and€unusualÐ "$r# Ðpunishment.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VIII,€XIV.€€We€do€not€agree.€€The€photograph€is€not€soÐ %X $ Ðinflammatory€as€to€cause€the€jury€to€convict€out€of€passion€or€caprice.€€The€facts,€in€this€context,Ð î%>!% Ðdo€not€form€any€basis€for€a€claim€of€cruel€or€unusual€punishment.€€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌÓ  ÓIIIÐ  (ð#( ÐÓÉÓà  àThe€defendant€also€claims€the€statement€he€gave€to€the€police€was€the€result€of€coercionÐ †)Ö$) Ðand€force€and€should€not€have€been€admitted€at€trial.€€We€disagree.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€Lt.€James€L.€Nichols€of€the€Memphis€PoliceÐ 8,ˆ', ÐDepartment€testified€that€he€assisted€Sergeant€D.€E.€Woods€in€the€August€20,€1994,€interrogationÐ -n(- Ðof€the€defendant.€€Lt.€Nichols€recalled€that€the€defendant€was€informed€of€his€Miranda€rightsÐ ° Ðbefore€any€questions€were€submitted.€€According€to€Lt.€Nichols,€the€defendant€understood€hisÐ –æ Ðrights€and€wished€to€make€a€statement€to€the€police.€€Lt.€Nichols€stated€that€neither€he€norÐ |Ì ÐSergeant€Woods€coerced€or€threatened€the€defendant€in€any€way€and€never€promised€himÐ b² Ðanything€in€exchange€for€his€statement.€€He€described€the€statement€as€freely€and€voluntarilyÐ H˜ Ðgiven.€€The€statement,€which€was€made€during€a€forty„five€minute€interview,€was€reduced€toÐ . ~ Ðwriting€and€signed€by€the€defendant.€€Lt.€Nichols,€who€described€the€defendant€as€reasonablyÐ  d Ðintelligent,€did€not€remember€whether€the€defendant€signed€a€separate€"advice€of€rights"Ð ú J Ðdocument.€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àElise€Flowers,€who€transcribed€the€statement€as€Lt.€Nichols€and€Sgt.€Woods€conductedÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€interview,€testified€that€the€defendant€was€advised€of€his€rights€before€the€interrogation.€€SheÐ ’â  Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€acknowledged€his€rights,€agreed€to€talk,€and€was€not€threatened,Ð xÈ  Ðcoerced,€or€promised€anything€in€return€for€his€answers.€€Ms.€Flowers€did€not€remember€whetherÐ ^®  Ðthe€defendant€had€singed€a€separate€"advice€of€rights"€form€or€whether€he€had€read€the€transcriptÐ D”  Ðof€the€interview€in€her€presence.Ð *z  ÐÌà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€had€been€questioned€previouslyÐ öF Ðby€the€officers€and€had€informed€them€that€he€did€not€want€to€give€a€statement.€€He€asserted€thatÐ Ü, Ðhe€had€not€been€advised€of€his€rights€and€did€not€understand€why€he€was€being€forced€to€give€aÐ Â Ðstatement.€€The€defendant€testified€that€Sgt.€Woods€and€two€other€officers€struck€him€on€the€headÐ ¨ø Ðseveral€times€with€a€telephone€book.€€The€defendant€alleged€that€the€officers€forced€theÐ ŽÞ Ðconfession€and€written€transcript.€€He€insists€that€Ms.€Flowers€gave€false€testimony.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€was€in€custody€at€that€time€on€anÐ @ Ðattempted€robbery€and€attempted€murder€charge€stemming€from€the€separate€incident€which€hadÐ &v Ðoccurred€earlier€on€the€same€night€as€the€murder.€€The€defendant,€who€had€pled€guilty€to€thoseÐ  \ Ðcharges€prior€to€this€hearing,€stated€that€he€gave€a€statement€relating€to€the€earlier€incident€atÐ òB Ðabout€the€same€time€he€gave€the€statement€in€this€case.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€wasÐ Ø( Ðbeaten€and€forced€to€talk€during€both€interviews.€€He€conceded,€however,€that€he€failed€to€bringÐ ¾ Ðthese€claims€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€judge€who€accepted€the€guilty€pleas€to€attempted€murderÐ ¤ô Ðand€attempted€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€When€asked€during€the€submission€hearing,€theÐ Š Ú Ðdefendant€asserted€that€he€had€voluntarily€given€the€statement€without€being€coerced€orÐ p!À  Ðthreatened.€€He€explained€this€omission€on€his€being€"stressed€out"€because€his€mother€wasÐ V"¦! Ðhaving€health€problems.€€Interestingly,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€had€been€advised€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðhis€rights€before€he€gave€a€statement€on€the€prior€charges€and€that€he€understood€and€voluntarilyÐ "$r# Ðwaived€those€rights.Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àSgt.€Woods€denied€having€physically€or€verbally€abused€the€defendant€at€any€time€beforeÐ Ô&$"& Ðor€during€the€interview€on€the€felony€murder.€€Sgt.€Woods€testified€that€he€advised€the€defendantÐ º' #' Ðof€his€rights,€did€not€coerce€the€defendant,€and€did€not€suggest€what€answers€the€defendantÐ  (ð#( Ðshould€provide.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àTo€support€his€argument€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion,€the€defendantÐ R+¢&+ Ðplaces€primary€emphasis€on€his€testimony€that€he€was€beaten€with€a€telephone€book€and€that€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðinitial€"advice€of€rights"€document€has€been€lost€or€misplaced.€€Ð -n(- Їà  àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€judge€to€determine€the€voluntariness€and€the€admissibility€of€theÐ ° Ðdefendant's€pretrial€statement.€€òòState€v.€Pursleyóó,€550€S.W.2d€949,€952€(Tenn.€1977).€€The€trialÐ –æ Ðcourt's€determination€that€a€confession€was€given€knowingly€and€voluntarily€is€binding€on€theÐ |Ì Ðappellate€courts€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23Ð b² Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€"Questions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,Ð H˜ Ðand€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€ofÐ . ~ Ðfact."€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.€€In€addition,€"the€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€toÐ  d Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€allÐ ú J Ðreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence."€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€judgeÐ à 0 Ðdid€not€make€explicit€findings€of€fact€in€this€case,€simply€stating,€"At€this€time,€based€on€theÐ Æ   Ðtestimony€and€based€on€the€Court's€review€of€the€statements€and€other€evidence,€the€Motion€toÐ ¬ ü  ÐSuppress€by€the€defendant€will€be€denied€at€this€time."€€Nevertheless,€the€denial€of€the€motionÐ ’â  Ðimplies€a€determination€that€the€defendant€did€voluntarily€and€knowingly€waive€his€rights.€€òòSeeóóÐ xÈ  ÐòòState€v.€Houseóó,€592€S.W.2d€902,€904€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àIn€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€479€(1966),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruledÐ *z  Ðthat€before€a€custodial€interrogation,€police€officers€must€advise€defendants€of€the€right€to€remainÐ ` Ðsilent€and€the€right€to€counsel.€€If€these€warnings€are€not€given,€any€statement€elicited€from€aÐ öF Ðdefendant€is€not€admissible€in€trial.€€òòStansbury€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€318,€322€(1994).€€AÐ Ü, Ðdefendant's€rights€to€counsel€and€against€self„incrimination€may€be€waived€as€long€as€the€waiverÐ Â Ðis€made€"voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently."€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€326Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€The€Fifth€Amendment€right€against€self„incrimination€may€be€waived€only€if€doneÐ ŽÞ Ðso€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently.€€òòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€479.€€In€order€for€an€accusedÐ tÄ Ðto€effect€a€waiver,€he€must€be€adequately€apprised€of€his€right€to€remain€silent€and€theÐ Zª Ðconsequence€of€deciding€to€abandon€it.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð @ ÐIn€determining€whether€the€confession€was€voluntary€and€knowing,€the€totality€of€theÐ &v Ðcircumstances€must€be€examined.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€500€(Tenn.€1997).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motion.€€Implicit€in€the€conclusion€reachedÐ Ø( Ðby€the€trial€court€is€that€the€testimony€of€the€three€witnesses€for€the€state€was€more€credible€thanÐ ¾ Ðthat€of€the€defendant.€€While€there€is€no€separate€"advice€of€rights"€form,€both€the€writtenÐ ¤ô Ðstatement€and€the€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€specifically€demonstrate€that€theÐ Š Ú Ðdefendant€was€advised€of€and€waived€his€rights€before€talking€to€police.€€"The€law€does€notÐ p!À  Ðrequire€a€written€waiver,"€as€long€as€the€record€demonstrates€the€defendant€was€advised€of€hisÐ V"¦! Ðrights€and€did,€in€fact,€waive€them.€€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€530€(Tenn.€1997).€€òòSee€alsoóóÐ <#Œ" ÐòòState€v.€Elrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(absence€of€written€waiver€doesÐ "$r# Ðnot€per€se€require€suppression€if€waiver€can€be€found€from€the€surrounding€circumstances).€€TheÐ %X $ Ðevidence€simply€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€òòSeeóó€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€atÐ î%>!% Ð23.€€Thus,€the€issue€is€without€merit.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌò ò[Section€IV.€Sufficiency€of€the€aggravating€evidence€against€mitigating€evidence,€review€€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðdeath€sentence€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)€and€proportionality€review€ð!ðDeleted]Ð †)Ö$) Ðó óAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Ô‡XT‹XXXLýÔ€€Ð l*¼%* ÐCONCUR:Ð R+¢&+ ÐTHOMAS€€T.€€Ô_ÔWOODALLÔ_Ô,€JUDGEÐ 8,ˆ', ÐJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€Ô_ÔJUDGEÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ#†XLýXXXT‹Ë;#ÔÔ_Ô