ÿWPCZ 5th°õ·Y"G}üá|´¥°KѨ_6‹N+7[&fk`Mø»S"E}I6‚:[ƒ¸.[2Ý6À#å]ólò"{cÅ¿Ê4¶žù[£îöâ:5AÍb:ÑžñsI/o1¹„Ù›ÇZ&?3±Å»¤Â!ݵ¼(묔™¡¦Eœ¾=aWퟔ}MN²NU—ID)F=#=øB ïé I>vʉ¯·¼ ïS—¢›åºÖ'8¨ßѤ4 ÅñÒ×\%Üj’vämï¯ ;–ßÖÑ¡˜„uYaQ¥3¯Ž£—4kþ[¬±~Q‚Cu$7ê2º’äCŽ…¹t¾á}“ѦòGD™]§EP¶¦Eù¨ÅÌæD…çgW£ üú„ÃÉÛ­2Ù5ÔW=)F’%ÕHu¹ìÉÔr| Wqhë8qÄ„fýÖ>̽]X§’Î"¤×ºˆô¬Ü玸ÐÐãôn¹×ÛÆtw†”"R_wi´~iK³S1a‡íÞ ’!&èºw\F£¦öûžÙª%Í¥èîœDÅOõɰ(¦^¡£ ¿ ™CÛ!ÈñK“Ù|eÁ 'Æ–_d·(‰ú`¨,®{•¢)mÓSHe*µ~ŒI-±1Éݵß×éÌb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ #ÉÐ Æ™ Æ_ Æ%Æës±N$ 0D&&EjjUNlllllllllllll 1uº 72/ 0caaaaºÄ~~bŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽÁ––– 0ëWWWW BBB 0¤_ D3 D-6 0Kcc AS®Æ 0¤Ç 0Dk A«¯»ÂT/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularo=/ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 iÝ ƒR=$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô­•òòô­•Ô€I€also€note€that€there€was€no€showing€as€to€how€Harveyððs€lay€opinions€were€helpful€to€the€determination€ofÐ ° Ða€fact€in€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€701.€Ô#†ô­•òòô­•~#Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)%i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à °Ý ƒR=$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€the€defendant€argues€that€the€admission€of€Harveyððs€testimony€violated€his€federal€and€state€rightsÐ ° Ðto€due€process,€I€do€not€believe€it€is€necessary€to€address€these€constitutional€issues.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€XIV;€Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐConst.€art.€I.,€ðð€8. DicksonDrowotaAdolphoMehlerGoodlettLustreAlsobrooksGodsey C]onsiderationkidnappedkidnappingiHines TeelMcKinneyChalmersCribbsCheatham"sensationalizedDellingerWainright WittZwingleBondurantDarlaUpshawMelinda EadsLakeviewRubbermaidTarpleyPeretti TBI S.CtCazes P]remeditationPennell Kan VannNicholsDugger premeditatedly L.Ed Secs Evide]videnceyou youHumphreysLabCorpKeoughremain[ed- ù- ·Ý ƒR=$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€defenseððs€objection€to€this€remark€was€sustained.(|G2=$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­•ò»»Ô d(|3A9$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A9$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼%»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î $%ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼%»îî $#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€4,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XIX»¼%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼%»XXI#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JERRY€RAY€DAVIDSONÔ‡XIX»¼%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAutomatic€Appeal€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ÐCriminal€Court€for€Dickson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CR2232€€€€€€Allen€Wallace,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00105„SC„DDT„DD€„€Filed€October€20,€2003ó óÔ#†¼%»XXIp#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼%Ôò òÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÔ#†¼%»XXI[#ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XIX»¼%Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌÓÓÔ#†¼%»XXI#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XIX»¼%ÔòòÔ‡XIXàXIÔE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€with€whom€òòAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joinsÔ#†XIXXXIÁ#Ô€in€part,€dissenting.Ð P  ÐÌÌÓ  Óà  àI€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€decision€affirming€the€defendantððs€conviction€and€sentence€forÐ d Ðpremeditated€first€degree€murder.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€I€am€convinced€that€the€evidence€wasÐ P Ðinsufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€element€of€premeditation€beyond€aÐ ì< Ðreasonable€doubt€and€that€the€admission€of€Darla€Harveyððs€testimony€was€reversible€error.€€I€wouldÐ Ø( Ðtherefore€reverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€Ð Ä ÐÌÔ‡XIXXXIÔà  àÔ#†XIXXXIÜ#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔò òó óà@ŒŒ$ìàò òòòPremeditationó óóóˆÐ œì ÐÌà  àThe€majority€concludes€that€the€circumstantial€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððsÐ tÄ Ðverdict€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€the€premeditated€first€degree€murder€of€Virginia€Jackson.€Ð `° ÐIn€my€view,€Ô#†XIXXXI* #Ôthe€evidence€was€insufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€becauseÐ L œ Ðthere€was€no€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€planning,€the€defendantððs€prior€relationship€with€the€victim,Ð 8!ˆ  Ðthe€cause€or€manner€of€the€victimððs€death,€or€any€other€evidence€from€which€a€rational€trier€of€factÐ $"t! Ðcould€have€inferred€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€crime€was€premeditated,€òòi.e.óó,€committedÐ #`" Ðð ðafter€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(d)€(1997).€Ð ü#L# ÐÌà  àWhen€evaluating€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€Court€must€determine€whether€ð ðanyÐ Ô%$!% Ðrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonableÐ À&"& Ðdoubt.ðð€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€€We€are€required€to€afford€the€prosecutionÐ ¬'ü"' Ðthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€the€record,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÐ ˜(è#( Ðinferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€659€(Tenn.1997).€Ð „)Ô$) ÐQuestions€regarding€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€the€evidence,€and€any€factualÐ p*À%* Ðissues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ð \+¬&+ Ð259€(Tenn.1994).€€Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€first€degree€murder€included€a€ð ðpremeditated€and€intentionalÐ ° Ðkilling€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.1995).€€The€element€of€premeditationÐ œì Ðwas€defined€as€follows:€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ð[P]remeditationðð€is€an€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÐ `° Ðjudgment.€€ð ðPremeditationðð€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€haveÐ L œ Ðbeen€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€purposeÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definite€period€ofÐ $ t Ðtime.€The€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€the€accused€allegedlyÐ  ` Ðdecided€to€kill€must€be€carefully€considered€in€order€to€determineÐ ü L  Ðwhether€the€accused€was€sufficiently€free€from€excitement€andÐ è 8  Ðpassion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.€ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d)€(Supp.1995).€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€traditionally€òòóócited€several€circumstances€that€may€warrant€the€trier€of€fact€toÐ „Ô  Ðfind€premeditation:€€the€defendantððs€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim;€the€particularÐ pÀ Ðcruelty€of€a€killing;€the€defendantððs€threats€or€declarations€of€intent€to€kill;€the€defendantððsÐ \¬ Ðprocurement€of€a€weapon;€the€defendantððs€preparations€to€conceal€the€crime€that€are€undertakenÐ H˜ Ðbefore€the€crime€is€committed;€and€a€defendantððs€calmness€immediately€after€a€killing.€€òòState€v.Ð 4„ ÐBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€660;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Keoughóó,€18€S.W.3d€175,€180€(Tenn.€2000).€€TheseÐ  p Ðfactors,€while€not€exhaustive,€demonstrate€that€premeditation€may€be€established€by€any€evidenceÐ  \ Ðfrom€which€a€rational€trier€of€fact€may€infer€that€the€killing€was€done€after€the€ð ðexercise€of€reflectionÐ øH Ðand€judgment.ðð€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€They€also€illustrate,€however,€that€a€jury€mayÐ ä4 Ðnot€speculate€as€to€the€events€of€a€crime€or€the€defendantððs€mental€state.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Westóó,€844Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.€1992)€(holding€that€evidence€did€not€support€juryððs€finding€of€premeditationÐ ¼  Ðand€deliberation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€circumstantial€evidence€established€that€the€victim€accepted€a€ride€from€the€defendant,Ð €Ð Ðthat€the€victimððs€belongings€were€later€found€strewn€along€a€road€near€her€house,€that€the€defendantÐ l¼ Ðwas€driving€slowly€with€an€object€wrapped€in€a€white€sheet€in€the€passenger€seat€of€his€truck,€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€victimððs€mutilated€and€decomposed€body€was€found€not€far€from€where€the€defendant€had€beenÐ D!” Ðdriving,€and€that€items€found€near€the€victimððs€body€and€a€nearby€campsite€were€linked€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€and€the€victim.€€Although€there€is€no€doubt€that€this€evidence€was€sufficient€to€establishÐ #l! Ðthat€the€defendant€killed€the€victim,€that€does€not€end€the€analysis.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àIn€my€view,€there€was€no€evidence€from€which€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€inferredÐ à%0!$ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendantððs€actions€in€killing€the€victim€were€premeditated,€òòi.e.óó,Ð Ì&"% Ðð ðafter€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment,ðð€either€before,€during€or€after€the€offense.€€There€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðno€evidence€in€this€unusual€case,€for€example,€establishing€the€manner€in€which€the€victim€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðkilled,€the€cause€of€her€death,€or€even€the€time€or€location€of€the€killing.€€There€was€no€evidence€thatÐ )à$( Ðthe€defendant€had€declared€his€intent€to€kill€the€victim€or€that€he€had€any€stated€intent€or€motive€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðkilling€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€òòKeoughóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€181.€€There€was€likewise€no€evidence€that€theÐ h+¸&* Ðdefendant€procured€a€weapon€in€advance€for€the€purpose€of€killing€the€victim,€made€preparations€toÐ ° Ðconceal€the€killing€before€it€was€committed,€or€exhibited€a€calm€or€cool€demeanor€immediately€afterÐ œì Ðthe€killing.€€òòSeeóó€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.€€In€short,€evidence€supporting€the€factors€we€haveÐ ˆØ Ðtraditionally€relied€upon€in€analyzing€premeditation€was€absent€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóóòòid.óóÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àDespite€the€absence€of€proof,€the€majority€concludes€that€there€was€sufficient€circumstantialÐ L œ Ðevidence€to€show€that€the€killing€was€premeditated.€€I€disagree.€€Given€that€there€was€no€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablishing€when,€where,€or€even€how€the€victim€was€killed,€any€inference€that€the€killing€involvedÐ $ t Ða€struggle,€the€use€of€restraints,€or€any€other€premeditated€act€by€the€defendant€while€the€victim€wasÐ  ` Ðalive€is€pure€conjecture.€€Moreover,€given€that€there€was€no€evidence€establishing€the€manner€of€theÐ ü L  Ðkilling€or€the€cause€of€death,€any€reasonable€inference€that€the€mutilation€of€the€victim€after€her€deathÐ è 8  Ðwas€probative€of€the€defendantððs€premeditation€before€the€killing€is€likewise€not€supported€by€theÐ Ô$  Ðrecord.€€In€sum,€there€was€simply€no€evidence€of€exactly€what€transpired€from€the€time€the€victimÐ À  Ðaccepted€a€ride€from€the€defendant€to€the€time€she€was€killed€and€no€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÐ ¬ü  Ðpremeditated€mental€state€before€the€killing.€€Although€the€prosecutionððs€theory€regarding€the€eventsÐ ˜è  Ðmay€have€been€correct,€ð ðit€remain[ed]€only€a€theory,€because€the€prosecution€[had]€no€evidence€toÐ „Ô  Ðsupport€it.ðð€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€I€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€conclusion€as€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÐ H˜ Ðand€I€would€hold€that€the€Stateððs€evidence€in€this€unusual€case€was€not€sufficient€for€a€rational€trierÐ 4„ Ðof€fact€to€have€found€the€element€of€premeditation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð  p ÐÌà@9 9 ìàòòò òAdmission€of€Darla€Harveyððs€TestimonyóóˆÐ øH Ðó óÌà  àMy€review€of€the€record€also€indicates€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€inÐ Ð  Ðallowing€Darla€Harvey€to€testify€that€the€defendant€made€her€afraid€and€nervous€by€staring€at€herÐ ¼  Ðthree€weeks€after€the€victimððs€disappearance.€€The€testimony€was€irrelevant,€unfairly€prejudicial,€andÐ ¨ø Ðan€improper€lay€opinion€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€401,€403,€and€701.׃+×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAs€the€majority€summarizes,€Darla€Harvey€testified€that€when€Davidson€was€in€LakeviewÐ l¼ ÐTavern€on€October€12,€1995,€òòi.e.óó,€three€weeks€after€the€victimððs€disappearance,€he€sat€and€silentlyÐ X ¨ Ðstared€at€her€for€over€an€hour€while€sipping€his€beer.€€Harvey€stated€that€the€defendant€made€her€feelÐ D!” Ðð ðuncomfortableðð€and€that€ð ðsomething€was€wrong.ðð€€She€further€stated€that€as€the€defendantððs€staringÐ 0"€  Ðcontinued,€she€got€a€ð ðgut€feelingðð€that€she€should€go€outside€and€look€at€his€truck.€€After€examiningÐ #l! Ðhis€truck,€she€said€to€herself,€ð ðGood€I€got€me€a€nut.ðð׃OÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€re„entering€the€bar,€her€unease€increasedÐ $X" Ðas€the€defendant€continued€to€stare€at€her,€went€to€the€restroom,€and€looked€out€the€back€door.€Ð ô$D # ÐHarvey€testified€that€it€was€ð ðoddðð€for€the€defendant€to€leave€the€bar€at€one€point€to€get€a€cigaretteÐ à%0!$ Ðbecause€he€had€just€opened€a€pack€of€cigarettes.€€She€believed€that€ð ðsomething€wasnððt€rightðð€whenÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant€returned€because€he€did€not€speak€to€her€when€she€addressed€him€and€he€kept€his€handÐ ° Ðin€his€pocket.€€Harvey€said€that€by€this€time,€her€feeling€about€the€defendant€was€so€ð ðbadðð€that€sheÐ œì Ðplaced€her€gun€close€at€hand€and€was€ready€to€shoot€the€defendant€if€he€came€any€closer.€€Finally,Ð ˆØ ÐHarvey€testified€that€she€felt€so€anxious€that€she€urged€some€customers€to€ask€the€defendant€to€leaveÐ tÄ Ðand€he€did€so.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àPrior€to€Harveyððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€jury„out€hearing€and€determined€thatÐ 8 ˆ ÐHarveyððs€testimony€was€indicative€of€the€defendantððs€ð ðcommon€schemeðð€and€was€admissible€asÐ $ t Ðevidence€of€motive.€€The€trial€court€said:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€probative€value€outweighs€the€prejudicial€effect.€€I€said€itððs€highlyÐ è 8  Ðprejudicial,€but€I€think€itððs€probative€value€.€.€.€and€the€reason€IððmÐ Ô$  Ðletting€it€be€entered€is€to€prove€a€circumstantial€evidence€of€motive,Ð À  Ðand€thatððs€the€only€reason€Iððm€entering€it€now.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that€Harveyððs€statements€about€the€defendant€wereÐ „Ô  Ðrelevant€to€show€ð ðintent€and€planningðð€but€that€the€admission€of€her€testimony€regarding€her€feelingsÐ pÀ Ðwas€error.€€The€court€found€the€error€to€be€harmless,€however,€given€that€other€witnesses€conveyedÐ \¬ Ðsimilar€stories€about€the€defendantððs€behavior.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€Ð H˜ ЀÌà  àRule€401€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€defines€relevant€evidence€as€that€ð ðhaving€anyÐ  p Ðtendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÐ  \ Ðmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€Ð øH ÐEvidence€that€is€relevant€under€Rule€401€may€be€excluded,€however,€when€ð ðits€probative€value€isÐ ä4 Ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMuch€of€Darla€Harveyððs€testimony,€particularly€her€gut€feelings,€retrieval€of€her€gun,€andÐ ¨ø Ðnegative€characterization€of€the€defendant,€was€irrelevant€under€Rule€401€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ ”ä ÐEvidence.€€Although€the€majority€reasons€that€the€evidence€was€helpful€to€understanding€why€HarveyÐ €Ð Ðacted€as€she€did,€there€was€no€showing€that€this€witnessððs€state€of€mind,€gut€feelings,€or€opinionsÐ l¼ Ðdescribing€the€defendantððs€behavior€some€three€weeks€after€the€victimððs€disappearance€had€anyÐ X ¨ Ðprobative€value€in€determining€what€events€occurred€òòwith€respect€to€the€victimððs€deathóó.€€Moreover,Ð D!” Ðthere€was€no€explanation€of€how€Darla€Harveyððs€testimony€had€any€probative€value€with€regard€toÐ 0"€  Ðthe€defendantððs€mental€state€on€September€26,€1995.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Accordingly,€theÐ #l! Ðprobative€value€of€this€testimony€was€substantially€outweighed€by€its€risk€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Tenn.Ð $X" ÐR.€Evid.€403.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€I€fail€to€see€how€Darla€Harveyððs€testimony€would€be€admissible€as€evidence€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðother€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts€to€establish€ð ðplanning€and€intentðð€as€asserted€by€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ¸'#& ÐAppeals.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€As€stated€in€Rule€404(b),€ð ð[e]vidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðor€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€in€conformity€withÐ ° Ðthe€character€trait.ðð€€Although€such€evidence€may€be€admissible€for€other€purposes,€there€was€noÐ œì Ðshowing€that€Davidsonððs€conduct€as€described€by€Darla€Harvey€was€so€unique€or€distinctive€that€itÐ ˆØ Ðfit€a€ð ðcommon€scheme€or€planðð€as€found€by€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€òòSeeóóÐ tÄ ÐòòState€v.€Mooreóó,€6€S.W.3d€235€(Tenn.€1999).€€Nor€was€there€a€showing€that€the€evidence€wasÐ `° Ðadmissible€for€any€other€purpose€under€Rule€404(b).€€Instead,€the€prosecution€used€this€testimonyÐ L œ Ðto€establish€the€defendantððs€alleged€anti„social€behavior€by€drinking€alone€in€bars,€remaining€quiet,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€staring€at€women.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àFinally,€I€disagree€that€the€admission€of€this€evidence€was€harmless€on€the€basis€that€it€wasÐ ü L  Ðcumulative€to€similar€testimony€from€other€witnesses.€€No€other€witness€testified€with€the€same€levelÐ è 8  Ðof€unfairly€prejudicial€detail€and€characterization€as€did€Darla€Harvey.€€Indeed,€it€was€Darla€HarveyððsÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony€that€the€prosecution€placed€great€emphasis€upon€in€its€closing€arguments:€Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àYou€all€remember€Darla€Harvey€....€€You€recall€what€she€said€...Ð ˜è  Ð[the€defendant€was]€staring€at€her,€blatantly€I€believe€her€words€were.€Ð „Ô  ÐòòIt€made€her€feel€uncomfortable€.€.€.€because€Jerry€Davidson€wasÐ pÀ Ðsitting€there€staring€at€heróó€....€€Well€Darla€Harvey€at€that€time€knewÐ \¬ Ðsomething€was€up€because€she€sat€there€and€said€I€knew€he€hadÐ H˜ Ðopened€up€a€new€pack€of€cigarettes€and€I€knew€that€he€didnððt€need€anyÐ 4„ Ðnew€pack€of€cigarettes.€€òòAnd€she€goes€to€the€end€of€that€bar€and€sheÐ  p Ðreaches€up€underneath€there€and€she€gets€that€gun€and€she€flips€it€offÐ  \ Ðsafety€and€she€is€ready€for€Jerry€Davidsonóó€....€€And€she€got€that€gunÐ øH Ðand€what€did€she€say€to€you€all?€€òòShe€sat€there€and€said,€ð ðif€heððd€comeÐ ä4 Ðjust€a€little€bit€further,€Iððd€have€shot€himóó.ððÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€Although€the€majority€concludes€that€the€testimony€was€ð ðunlikely€to€result€in€anyÐ ¨ø Ðunfair€prejudice,ðð€the€prosecutor€emphasized€Darla€Harveyððs€testimony€as€additional€evidence€onÐ ”ä Ðthe€close€question€of€the€defendantððs€mental€state€and€alleged€premeditation€in€killing€the€victim:€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Davidson]€...€was€a€guy€that€scared€[Darla€Harvey]€out€of€her€wits.€Ð X ¨ Ð...€€òòItððs€.€..€important€because€coupled€with€the€other€evidence€in€thisÐ D!” Ðcase,€listen€to€me€when€I€say€this,€coupled€with€the€other€evidence€inÐ 0"€  Ðthe€case,€it€gives€you€a€glimpse€of€the€defendant€Jerry€DavidsonððsÐ #l! Ðmind.€€Just€a€glimpseóó.€€Does€it€mean€anything?€€òòDoes€it€meanÐ $X" Ðanything€about€motive€in€this€caseóó?€€I€told€you€in€the€beginning€of€thisÐ ô$D # Ðcase€thereððs€some€things€we€werenððt€going€to€be€able€to€prove,€butÐ à%0!$ Ðmaybe,€maybe€we€have€.€...€€[Y]ou€know€the€instruction€the€CourtððsÐ Ì&"% Ðgoing€to€give€you,€when€youððre€considering€the€case€of€premeditatedÐ ¸'#& Ðmurder,€listen€to€...€what€the€judge€is€going€to€tell€you.€€òòIt€tells€youÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhen€youððre€considering€whether€he€premeditatedly€killed€thisÐ )à$( Ðwoman,€it€tells€you€you€kind€of€have€to€look€in€his€mindóó.Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ð(Emphasis€added).€€à ¸ àÐ ° ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€given€the€insufficient€evidence€of€premeditation€in€this€case€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðprosecutorððs€emphasis€on€Darla€Harveyððs€improper€testimony€for€attempting€to€establish€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€mental€state,€I€would€hold€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€reversible€error.Ð `° ÐÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionó óóóˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€I€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€decision€affirming€the€defendantððs€conviction€andÐ  ` Ðsentence€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€I€am€convinced€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€asÐ ü L  Ðto€the€element€of€premeditation€and€that€the€admission€of€Darla€Harveyððs€testimony€was€reversibleÐ è 8  Ðerror.€€I€would€therefore€reverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àI€am€authorized€to€state€that€Justice€Birch€joins€in€this€dissent€with€respect€to€the€admissionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€Darla€Harveyððs€testimony.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÐ H˜ Ð