ÿWPC“ qÒÎSe®uÅÞó¹¨êצzÆr Ýì¶`¾¬¦ìDGôÅÑã^Ͱ9’0öÜfûšð+ã5¯d d*j²Ëÿ ¿ q·,×/MÅõ àE0Dß^¬m~Kè£;B& z¸Ð ýȪ.è„¢öõ¬ú³¥«#ª¾t_/éÅÙŽQT›ªBÚbr%Û6q­€ª¼Ö0k®Í¶ü®pÇ`säf…·,;Ë«zWÞ@—aºÅzÈ–Û”6 q*¤§­Þ¿þTó³âžÝÓ‹£xÁ*loô24‹}¼{‘EÐðkúmqg[ñðUCtcãS¾2ÆJ.%feŠñ©úGäÂé 4Z½§r çh^þ2€Ö9Ú¼T°ÈR-(,¤mÂÐj{Y) <ó÷P»Ï3°’zBHÁ ‘]Œñ„žfÆf0^§J³¢bµçÞš †¸Á½õ[Á1»/|Œ±Š˜= ÝlY«œy!­LUÝÁ!Qãìçù«o´kçJÖœ­Ìê:šÏòËœQ2B;Lª&úíi¾z ž·€ePºƒjÏ?àò€/;£ëVi`D?PLÐu’fÝ$céz‚aQ?Wܘú`8Xé:QýêâS{†ü¾íÊVoëÖ­- b %\U@b 0ˆ¢U%N*x^ €wŒ zÒ 4Ü ð ÿ m Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj UN0 N~ U:€ 0Dº Eþ þ c¯cccct#Ɇ†††††âOW111111111bˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆˆ 0ë B{{ 0¤˜ D3< D-o 0Kœœ ASçÆ: 0¤ 0D¤ A«è»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ‚~‚1Þ  ˜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.wpt)†N1ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó YÝ ƒR4Ì$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔAppellantÔ_Ô€had€been€hospitalized€for€two€days€at€Vanderbilt€Hospital€for€anemia€as€a€result€of€a€spider€biteÐ ° Ðapproximately€ten€days€prior€to€his€arrest. ¥Ý ƒR4Ì$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThis€Court€had€previously€adopted€the€voluntariness€test€by€adopting€the€òòÔ_ÔCiprianoÔ_Ôóó€test€inòò€State€v.€Ô_ÔReadusÔ_Ôóó,€764Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€770,€774€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1988). jÝ ƒR4Ì$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€Officer€Merrill€had€previously€testified€that€he€retrieved€the€bullets€that€were€recovered€during€the€autopsyÐ ° Ðof€Ô_ÔDððAngeloÔ_Ô€Lee€from€the€medical€examinerððs€office.˜HP LaserJet 4300 PSØÚÈØØÈØÚ0 ØÝ ƒR4Ì$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€The€Appellantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€was€consolidated€with€theÐ ° Ðapplication€of€Paul€Dennis€Reid€on€the€same€issue.€€The€opinion€of€the€court€was€filed€and€published€as€€òòState€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Reidóó,Ð tÄ Ð981€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1998). MÝ ƒR4Ì$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€€Sergeant€Hunter€had€previously€testified€that€he€retrieved€bullets€that€were€recovered€from€Mr.€EwingððsÐ ° Ðautopsy€from€the€Davidson€County€Medical€Examinerððs€office.- ù-(|G24Ì$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K±»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëò»»Ô d(|3A\$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K±»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A\$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K±»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZI»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡»ôÁ»»»ÔÔ‡¼ôÁ»»»ôÁÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†¼ZI»»¼ôÁ‹#ÔÔ‡¼ð »»¼ZIÔà@ää&ìàòòò òÔ#†»ð »»¼ð ª#ÔÔ‡„ „»»ð ÔAPPENDIXó óóóˆÐ žî ÐÌà@xxìà(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)Ô#†»ð »„„ W#ÔÔ‡¼ð »»»ð Ôò òó óÔ#†¼ZI»»¼ð ý#ÔÔ‡¼ôÁ»»¼ZIԈР^® ÐÌÌÌÔ#†¼ZI»»¼ôÁR#ÔÔ#†»ZI»»¼ZI #ÔÐ  è8ý ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ZI»»»ZIÔÑ8€ÕXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îN¸î»¼ZIÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ZI»îîN¸z#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àNovember€19,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÕX»¼ZIÔÌò òÔ#†¼ZI»XXÕ…#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€CHRISTOPHER€A.€DAVISÔ‡XÕX»¼ZIÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„B„866€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01866„CCA„R3„DD€„€Filed€March€25,€2003Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Appellant,€Christopher€A.€Davis,€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€two€counts€of€first€degreeÐ xÈ  Ðmurder,€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€two€counts€of€especially€aggravatedÐ d´ Ðkidnapping.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€Appellant€to€death€for€each€of€the€first€degree€murderÐ P  Ðconvictions.€€The€Appellant€presents€the€following€issues€in€this€appeal€as€of€right:€(1)€The€trial€courtÐ <Œ Ðerred€by€not€granting€the€Appellantððs€motion€to€disqualify€the€Davidson€County€District€AttorneyÐ (x ÐGeneralððs€office€from€prosecuting€the€case;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€granting€the€AppellantððsÐ d Ðmotion€to€prohibit€the€State€from€relying€upon€the€Appellantððs€prior€murder€conviction€as€anÐ P Ðaggravating€circumstance,€because€the€conviction€was€for€a€crime€committed€while€the€AppellantÐ ì< Ðwas€a€juvenile;€(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€suppressing€the€statement€the€Appellant€made€toÐ Ø( Ðpolice;€(4)€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€defense€counselððs€motion€to€be€allowed€to€withdraw€fromÐ Ä Ðrepresenting€the€Appellant;€(5)€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€the€Stateððs€motion€to€require€theÐ ° ÐAppellant€to€supply€the€State€information€concerning€mental€health€expert€testimony€to€be€presentedÐ œì Ðduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€€trial;€(6)€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€a€physician€who€did€notÐ ˆØ Ðperform€the€autopsy€to€testify€concerning€the€autopsy€and€evidence€obtained€in€connection€therewith;Ð tÄ Ð(7)€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€victim€impact€evidence€to€be€introduced;€(8)€that€the€evidenceÐ `° Ðpresented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€(9)€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€evidence€presented€was€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravatingÐ 8!ˆ  Ðcircumstances€outweighed€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€(10)€that€theÐ $"t! Ðevidence€presented€was€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€the€aggravating€factors€were€establishedÐ #`" Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€(11)€that€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statutory€scheme€is€unconstitutionalÐ ü#L# Ðin€several€instances;€(12)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€certain€cross„examination€of€defenseÐ è$8 $ Ðwitnesses;€and€(13)€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€errors€made€at€trial€denied€the€Appellant€a€fair€trialÐ Ô%$!% Ðin€violation€of€his€due€process€rights.€€Based€on€our€review€of€the€record€on€appeal,€we€affirm€bothÐ À&"& Ðthe€Appellantððs€convictions€and€the€sentences€imposed.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓ÷ÓÌò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206€Death€Penalty€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€CourtÐ „)Ô$) ÐAffirmedó óÐ p*À%* ÐÐ \+¬&+ ÐòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ZI»àXÕõ#ÔÔ‡XÕX.¼ZIÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð ° ÐGlenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌHerschell€D.€Koger,€Pulaski,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Christopher€A.€Davis.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Gill€R.€Geldreich,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð L œ ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Tom€Thurman€and€Katrin€Miller,€Assistant€DistrictÐ 8 ˆ ÐAttorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $ t ÐÌÓÍÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ZI»XXÕü#ÔòòóóÔ‡XÕX»¼ZIÔÐ è 8  ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ZI»XXÕ»#ÔÔ€XÕX»¼ZIÔòòÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔóóÌÔ#†XÕX XX»'@#ÔÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔò òà@u u ìà[Deleted:€€Summary€of€Facts€and€Testimony]ó óˆÐ À  ÐÔ#†XÕX XX»'†#ÔÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔÌÔ#†XÕX XX»' #ÔÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔÌà@ÜÜ!ìàò òòòANALYSIS€OF€ISSUESóóó óˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌò òÌà@¬¬)ìàIòò.ˆÐ H˜ Ðóóà@¦ ¦ ìà[Deleted:€€Disqualification€District€Attorney€Generalððs€Office]ó óˆÐ 4„ ÐÌÔ#†XÕX XX»'c#ÔÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔò òÓ  ÓÌII.Ð øH Ð[Deleted:€€The€Juvenile€Status€of€Appellant€at€the€Time€of€Appellantððs€Prior€FelonyÐ ä4 ÐConviction]Ð Ð  ÐÓ±ÓÌó óÌò òà@^^(ìàIII.ˆÐ ”ä Ðà@²²ìàAppellantððs€Statement€to€PoliceˆÐ €Ð ÐÌó óà  àAppellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€his€statements€made€to€police.€€Appellant€was€firstÐ X ¨ Ðquestioned€at€the€criminal€justice€center€after€being€detained€outside€his€residence.€€At€the€timeÐ D!” ÐAppellant€was€apprehended,€the€police€were€unaware€of€his€alleged€involvement€in€the€murders€atÐ 0"€  Ðissue.€€Mr.€Davis€was€taken€in€a€police€car€in€handcuffs€from€his€residence€on€Herman€Street€inÐ #l! ÐNashville€to€the€criminal€justice€center.€€Appellant€arrived€at€the€criminal€justice€center€atÐ $X" Ðapproximately€noon€on€February€28,€1996.€€Appellant€was€first€questioned€by€Detective€Al€GrayÐ ô$D # Ðregarding€his€knowledge€of€the€murder€of€a€cab€driver€near€the€TSU€campus€in€Nashville.€€DetectiveÐ à%0!$ ÐGray€advised€Appellant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€prior€to€questioning€him.€€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  à€Detective€Mike€Roland€testified€that€he€first€learned€of€Appellantððs€potential€involvementÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€the€murders€of€Lee€and€Ewing€between€5:00€and€7:00€p.m.€€Detective€Roland€testified€that€heÐ )à$( Ðcalled€Davis€in€to€question€him€regarding€the€murders€of€Ewing€and€Lee€and€confirmed€thatÐ |*Ì%) ÐDetective€Gray€had€read€Davis€his€rights€and€that€he€understood€the€same.€€He€asked€if€Davis€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðstill€willing€to€talk€to€him,€and€Davis€responded€yes.€Appellant€denied€any€involvement.€€TheÐ ° Ðinterview€with€Detective€Roland€began€at€approximately€9:00€p.m.€€Detective€Roland€testified€thatÐ œì Ðat€about€9:45€p.m.,€Mr.€Davis€requested€an€attorney.€€No€further€questions€were€asked€at€that€point.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThereafter,€Detective€Roland€obtained€additional€information€linking€Appellant€to€theÐ `° Ðmurders€of€Lee€and€Ewing.€€Approximately€one€hour€later,€while€Detective€Roland€was€typing€anÐ L œ Ðarrest€warrant,€Appellant€approached€him€and€asked€what€he€was€doing.€€Detective€Roland€advisedÐ 8 ˆ ÐAppellant€that€he€was€typing€a€criminal€homicide€warrant€for€him,€and€Appellant€stated€that€heÐ $ t Ðwanted€to€talk.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAfter€Appellant€advised€Detective€Roland€that€he€wanted€to€talk€to€him,€Appellant€was€takenÐ è 8  Ðto€an€interview€room,€where€he€was€read€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Appellant€then€signed€a€written€waiver.€Ð Ô$  ÐThe€interview,€including€the€reading€of€Appellantððs€rights,€was€videotaped.€During€the€videotapedÐ À  Ðinterview,€Appellant€stated€that€he€wanted€to€cooperate.€€He€advised€that€he€did€not€commit€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmurders,€but€he€had€information€about€what€occurred.€€He€first€stated€that€he€was€not€present€at€theÐ ˜è  Ðcrime€scene,€but€later€recanted€and€stated€he€was€present.€€He€continued€to€deny,€however,€that€heÐ „Ô  Ðhad€played€any€role€in€the€murders.€€He€gave€information€regarding€the€weapons€used,€the€scene€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€crime,€the€time€of€the€crimes,€the€manner€in€which€the€victims€were€murdered,€and€other€peopleÐ \¬ Ðpresent€at€the€murders.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€shows€that€during€the€time€Appellant€was€detained€at€the€criminal€justiceÐ  p Ðcenter,€he€was€provided€with€food€and€drink€by€the€detectives.€€Detectives€also€admitted€thatÐ  \ ÐAppellant€complained€of€his€stomach€being€upset.€€Detectives€further€admitted€that€AppellantÐ øH Ðadvised€that€he€was€cold,€and€they€provided€him€with€a€jacket.€€While€at€the€criminal€justice€center,Ð ä4 ÐAppellant€appeared€tired€at€times€and€lay€down€to€rest.€€€Appellant€asserts€that€as€the€detectives€wereÐ Ð  Ðgathering€evidence€linking€him€to€the€crime,€detectives€made€statements€within€his€hearing€rangeÐ ¼  Ðregarding€the€evidence.€€Further,€Appellant€asserts€that€he€was€also€specifically€questioned€regardingÐ ¨ø Ðsome€of€the€evidence€after€he€had€requested€an€attorney.€€The€detectives€involved€in€the€investigationÐ ”ä Ðdenied€his€assertion.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAppellantððs€attorneys€argue€thatò ò€ó óAppellantððs€statements€to€police€should€be€suppressedÐ X ¨ Ðbecause€all€questioning€should€have€ceased€when€Appellant€first€requested€an€attorney.€€AppellantÐ H!˜ Ðfurther€argues€that€he€was€in€a€weakened€physical€condition€because€he€was€still€experiencing€theÐ 4"„  Ðaftereffects€from€a€spider€bite€that€he€received€a€couple€of€weeks€prior€to€his€arrest.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€AppellantÐ  #p! Ðasserts€that€his€weakened€physical€condition€from€the€spider€bite,€coupled€with€a€lack€of€sleep€andÐ  $\" Ðeating,€rendered€his€statements€involuntary.€€Appellant€further€argues€that€there€was€undue€delay€inÐ ø$H # Ðtaking€him€before€the€magistrate€on€the€weapons€charge,€the€charge€for€which€he€was€transported€toÐ ä%4!$ Ðthe€criminal€justice€center.€€Appellant€also€asserts€that€a€rapidly€intensifying€homicide€investigationÐ Ð& "% Ðwas€being€conducted€near€his€vicinity,€and€that€the€subtle€remarks€made€by€detectives€amounted€toÐ ¼' #& Ða€tacit€form€of€questioning.€€Essentially,€Appellantððs€attorneys€argue€that€the€detectivesððs€actionsÐ ¨(ø#' Ðamounted€to€an€interrogation.€€As€a€result€of€the€foregoing,€Appellant€advances€the€argument€thatÐ ° Ðhis€statement€to€the€police€was€involuntary.€€The€trial€court,€however,€found€that€considering€theÐ œì Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances,€Appellantððs€statement€was€voluntary.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€succinctly€enunciated€the€proper€standard€of€review€in€motion€to€suppressÐ `° Ðcases€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àBecause€issues€of€whether€a€defendant€was€placed€into€custody,€interrogated,€orÐ $ t Ðvoluntarily€gave€a€confession€are€primarily€issues€of€fact,€we€review€these€factualÐ  ` Ðdeterminations€by€the€trial€court€according€to€the€standard€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,Ð ü L  Ð928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996).€€Under€this€standard,€ð ða€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€inÐ è 8  Ða€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ðð€Ð Ô$  ÐQuestions€about€witness€credibility€and€ð ðresolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€areÐ À  Ðmatters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge,ðð€and€the€ð ðtestimony€presented€at€trial€may€beÐ ¬ü  Ðconsidered€by€an€appellate€court€in€deciding€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÐ ˜è  Ðon€a€motion€to€suppress.ðð€€Our€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€law€to€the€facts,Ð „Ô  Ðhowever,€is€conducted€under€a€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€(Tenn.€2001)€(citations€and€footnote€omitted),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€534Ð H˜ ÐU.S.€948,€122€S.€Ct.€341,€151€L.€Ed.€2d€258€(2001).€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWe€will€first€address€whether€Appellantððs€statement€should€be€suppressed€pursuant€toÐ  \ ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€5(a)€as€advanced€by€Appellant.€Tennessee€Rule€of€CriminalÐ øH ÐProcedure€5(a)€provides:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àAny€person€arrested€except€upon€a€capias€pursuant€to€an€indictment€or€presentmentÐ ¼  Ðshall€be€taken€without€unnecessary€delay€before€the€nearest€appropriate€magistrateÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€county€from€which€the€warrant€for€arrest€was€issued,€or€the€county€in€whichÐ ”ä Ðthe€alleged€offense€occurred€if€the€arrest€was€made€without€a€warrant€unless€a€citationÐ €Ð Ðis€issued€pursuant€to€Rule€3.5.€€If€a€person€arrested€without€a€warrant€is€broughtÐ l¼ Ðbefore€a€magistrate,€an€affidavit€of€complaint€shall€be€filed€forthwith.€€When€anÐ X ¨ Ðarrested€person€appears€initially€before€a€magistrate,€the€magistrate€shall€proceed€inÐ D!” Ðaccordance€with€this€rule.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIt€is€without€dispute€that€Appellant€was€arrested€and€taken€into€custody€between€11:00€a.m.Ð $X" Ðand€12:00€p.m.€€It€is€further€without€dispute€that€Appellant€gave€a€statement€to€the€police€atÐ ô$D # Ðapproximately€12:00€a.m.€and€was€then€taken€before€a€magistrate.€€Appellant€asserts€that€this€twelveÐ à%0!$ Ðto€thirteen€hour€delay€in€taking€Appellant€before€a€magistrate€constituted€unnecessary€delay€pursuantÐ Ì&"% Ðto€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€5(a).€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€670€(Tenn.€1996),€our€supreme€court€held€that€if€anÐ )à$( Ðindividual€is€not€brought€before€a€magistrate€within€72€hours,€there€has€been€ð ðunnecessary€delay.ðð€Ð |*Ì%) ÐWe€cannot€find€that€because€Appellant€was€not€taken€before€a€magistrate€for€twelve€to€thirteen€hoursÐ h+¸&* Ðthere€was€an€unnecessary€delay.€€Moreover,€a€confession€obtained€during€a€period€of€unnecessaryÐ ° Ðdelay€is€not€automatically€suppressed.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€16€S.W.3d€762,€769€(Tenn.Ð œì Ð2000).€€Instead,€a€statement€is€to€be€excluded€ð ðonly€if€an€examination€of€the€totality€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðcircumstances€reveals€that€the€statement€is€not€voluntarily€given.ðð€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€670.€Ð tÄ ÐTo€determine€if€a€statement€was€voluntarily€given,€we€must€consider:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àthe€age€of€the€accused;€his€lack€of€education€or€his€intelligence€level;€the€extent€of€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðprevious€experience€with€the€police;€the€repeated€and€prolonged€nature€of€theÐ $ t Ðquestioning;€the€length€of€the€detention€of€the€accused€before€he€gave€the€statement€Ð  ` Ðin€question;€the€lack€of€any€advice€to€the€accused€of€his€constitutional€rights;€whetherÐ ü L  Ðthere€was€an€unnecessary€delay€in€bringing€him€before€a€magistrate€before€he€gaveÐ è 8  Ðthe€confession;€whether€the€accused€was€injured€[or]€intoxicated€or€drugged,€or€in€illÐ Ô$  Ðhealth€when€he€gave€the€statement;€whether€the€accused€was€deprived€of€food,€sleepÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àor€medical€attention;€whether€the€accused€was€physically€abused;€and€whether€theÐ ¬ü  Ðsuspect€was€threatened€with€abuse.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€671€(quoting€òòPeople€v.€Ciprianoóó,€429€N.W.2d€781,€790€(Mich.€1988)).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€specifically€cited€the€above€referenced€factors€in€its€order.€€Based€on€theÐ H˜ Ðevidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€found:€the€detectives€were€accommodating€toÐ 4„ ÐAppellantððs€needs;€the€Appellant€was€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights€on€two€occasions;Ð  p ÐAppellant€waived€his€constitutional€rights€in€an€effort€to€exculpate€himself€from€involvement€in€theÐ  \ Ðmurders;€Appellantððs€demeanor€indicated€he€was€lucid€and€in€full€control€of€his€mental€and€physicalÐ øH Ðfaculties;€no€evidence€regarding€Appellantððs€intelligence€or€educational€level€that€would€raiseÐ ä4 Ðquestions€regarding€the€voluntariness€of€the€statement;€no€indication€that€Appellantððs€injury€from€theÐ Ð  Ðspider€bite€affected€his€decision€making;€and€Appellantððs€statement€lasted€approximately€one€hourÐ ¼  Ðand€was€not€conducted€in€an€abusive€or€coercive€manner.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€underÐ ¨ø Ðthe€totality€of€the€circumstances,€Appellantððs€statement€was€voluntary.€Ð ”ä Ðà  à€Ð €Ð Ðà  àWith€regard€to€this€issue,€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€violation€of€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ l¼ ÐCriminal€Procedure€5(a).€€Moreover,€we€find€that€even€if€there€was€a€violation,€Appellantððs€statementÐ X ¨ Ðshould€not€be€excluded€because€it€was€voluntary€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àNext€we€must€consider€whether€there€was€a€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€that€requiresÐ #l! Ðthe€suppression€of€Appellantððs€statement.€€The€Fourth€Amendment€requires€a€prompt€judicialÐ $X" Ðdetermination€of€probable€cause€as€a€prerequisite€to€the€extended€detention€of€an€individual€after€aÐ ô$D # Ðwarrantless€arrest.€€òòGerstein€v.€Pughóó,€420€U.S.€103,€114,€125,€95€S.€Ct.€854,€863,€869,€43€L.€Ed.€2dÐ à%0!$ Ð54,€65,€72€(1975).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€determined€that€absent€a€bona€fideÐ Ì&"% Ðemergency€or€extraordinary€circumstance,€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€is€ð ðpromptðð€ifÐ ¸'#& Ðit€occurs€within€48€hours.€€òòCounty€of€Riverside€v.€McLaughlinóó,€500€U.S.€44,€56„57,€111€S.€Ct.€1661,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð1670,€114€L.€Ed.€2d€49,€63€(1991).€€The€Supreme€Court€has€explained€that€the€probable€causeÐ ° Ðdetermination€does€not€pass€constitutional€muster€simply€because€it€occurs€within€48€hours.€òòIdóó.€€IfÐ œì Ða€hearing€is€delayed€unreasonably€for€the€purpose€of€gathering€evidence€to€justify€an€arrest,€a€delayÐ ˆØ Ðis€simply€for€delayððs€sake€or€a€delay€is€motivated€by€ill€will€against€the€arrested€individual,€then€itÐ tÄ Ðmay€not€pass€constitutional€muster.€€òòIdóó.€€We€find€that€here,€Appellant€was€taken€before€a€magistrateÐ `° Ðwithin€48€hours,€and€the€determination€of€probable€cause€was€not€delayed€unreasonably.€€Therefore,Ð L œ Ðthere€was€no€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€and,€therefore,€no€reason€to€suppress€AppellantððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatement€pursuant€thereto.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAppellant€also€argues€that€his€statement€was€not€voluntarily€given€because€after€he€assertedÐ ü L  Ðhis€right€to€counsel,€the€police€began€a€tacit€form€of€interrogation€by€bringing€incriminating€evidenceÐ è 8  Ðin€front€of€him€and€conversing€amongst€themselves€within€his€hearing€range.€€CustodialÐ Ô$  Ðinterrogations€must€be€preceded€by€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó,€468€U.S.€420,€434,€Ð À  Ð104€S.€Ct.€3138,€82€L.€Ed.€2d€317€(1984);€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€444,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,Ð ¬ü  Ð16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966).€€Once€the€right€to€counsel€has€been€invoked,€the€interrogation€must€stop,Ð ˜è  Ðunless€the€person€re„initiates€the€conversation€and€expresses€a€desire€to€talk€to€the€police.€€òòState€v.Ð „Ô  ÐOððGuinnóó,€786€S.W.2d€243,€246€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€ð ðInterrogationðð€encompasses€anyÐ pÀ Ðð ðpractice€that€the€police€should€know€is€reasonably€likely€to€evoke€an€incriminating€response€fromÐ \¬ Ða€suspect.ðð€€òòRhode€Island€v.€Innisóó,€446€U.S.€291,€301,€100€S.€Ct.€1682,€1690,€64€L.€Ed.€2d€297,€308Ð H˜ Ð(1980).€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Appellant€testified€that€as€the€detectives€were€gathering€evidenceÐ  \ Ðlinking€him€to€the€crime,€they€made€statements€within€his€hearing€range€regarding€the€evidence€andÐ øH Ðspecifically€questioned€him€regarding€some€of€the€evidence€after€he€had€requested€an€attorney.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðdetectives€involved€in€the€investigation€denied€these€allegations.€€According€to€the€record,Ð Ð  Ðapproximately€one€hour€passed€between€the€time€Appellant€asserted€his€right€to€counsel€and€nextÐ ¼  Ðrequested€to€speak€with€Detective€Roland.€€This€Court€has€previously€noted€that€ð ð[t]he€disclosureÐ ¨ø Ðof€incriminating€evidence€to€a€suspect€.€.€.€does€not€necessarily€constitute€interrogation€within€theÐ ”ä Ðmeaning€of€òòInnisóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Maraschielloóó,€88€S.W.3d€586,€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)€(citingÐ €Ð ÐòòShedelbower€v.€Estelleóó,€885€F.2d€570,€573€(9thòòóó€Cir.€1989);€òòUnited€States€v.€Vazquezóó,€857€F.2d€857,Ð l¼ Ð861€(1st€Cir.€1988)).€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€there€is€noÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€that€the€Appellant€was€coerced€by€any€of€the€detectives€into€making€€the€statement€at€issue.€Ð D!” ÐWe€find€that€the€actions€of€the€police€do€not€constitute€an€interrogation€under€òòInnisóó.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€re„initiation€of€conversation€by€Appellant,€the€trial€court€specificallyÐ $X" Ðfound€that€Appellant€approached€Detective€Roland€and€initiated€further€conversation.€€The€courtÐ ô$D # Ðnoted€that€it€accredited€the€testimony€of€Detective€Roland€on€this€issue.€€The€court€next€found€thatÐ à%0!$ ÐDetective€Roland€twice€advised€Appellant€of€his€constitutional€rights,€and€Appellant€executed€aÐ Ì&"% Ðwritten€waiver€of€his€rights€before€resuming€the€interview.€€The€court€found€no€evidence€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐAppellant€was€coerced€by€any€of€the€detectives€into€initiating€the€subsequent€communication€or€thatÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAppellant€was€otherwise€engaged€in€any€discussions€about€the€case€prior€to€the€Appellantððs€requestÐ )à$( Ðto€resume€the€interview.€€Thus,€the€court€resolved€the€conflicting€testimony€in€favor€of€the€detectives,Ð |*Ì%) Ðrather€than€Appellant.€€We€agree.€€Absent€coercive€activity€by€the€police,€we€must€conclude€that€theÐ h+¸&* ÐAppellant€voluntarily€initiated€a€dialogue€with€Detective€Roland€and€made€the€statement€at€issue.€Ð ° ÐòòSeeóó€òòMaraschielloóó,€88€S.W.3d€at€604.€€Moreover,€Detective€Roland€twice€advised€Appellant€of€hisÐ œì ÐòòMirandaóó€rights€once€questioning€resumed.€€Thereafter,€Appellant€made€a€knowing€and€intelligentÐ ˆØ Ðwaiver€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFurther,€we€are€not€persuaded€by€Appellantððs€argument€that€his€weakened€physical€conditionÐ L œ Ðfrom€the€spider€bite,€coupled€with€a€lack€of€sleep€and€eating,€rendered€his€statements€involuntary.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€trial€court€found€otherwise.€€As€previously€set€forth,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€theÐ $ t Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Appellantððs€statement€wasÐ  ` Ðvoluntarily€made.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€in€denying€the€motionÐ Ô$  Ðto€suppress€the€Appellantððs€statement.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð À  ÐÌòòóóò òà@dd)ìàIV.ˆÐ ˜è  Ðà@: : ìà[Deleted:€€Counselððs€Request€to€Withdraw€from€Representation]ó óˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌÌò òà@‹‹)ìàV.ˆÐ H˜ Ðà@ìàNotice€of€Intent€to€Present€Expert€Testimony€of€Mental€Condition€at€Penalty€PhaseˆÐ 4„ Ðó óÌà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€Stateððs€motion€requiringÐ  \ ÐAppellant€to€supply€information€to€the€State€regarding€mental€health€issues€that€would€be€presentedÐ øH Ðat€the€sentencing€phase€of€trial.ò ò€€ó óPretrial,€the€State€filed€a€Motion€to€Compel€Discovery€of€ExpertÐ ä4 ÐTestimony,€pursuant€to€Rules€12.2€and€16€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€In€itsÐ Ô$ Ðmotion,€the€State€requested€the€court€require€the€defense€to€file€a€written€notice€of€its€intent€toÐ À Ðintroduce€expert€testimony€relating€to€mental€disease€or€defect,€or€any€other€mental€condition€at€theÐ ¬ü Ðguilt€or€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion,€and€Appellant€sought€anÐ ˜è Ðextraordinary€appeal€on€the€issue,€which€was€granted.€€Ultimately,€the€issue€was€decided€by€theÐ „Ô Ðsupreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€981€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1998).׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РpÀ ÐÌà  àThe€supreme€court€heldò ò€ó óthat€a€defendant€is€required€to€file€a€pre„trial€notice€of€his€intent€toÐ H!˜ Ðpresent€expert€testimony€regarding€mental€health€condition€as€mitigation€evidence€at€the€sentencingÐ 8"ˆ  Ðphase€of€a€capital€trial.€€On€appeal,€Appellant€asserts€that€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòReidóóò òÐ $#t! Ðó ócontravenes€Rules€12.2€and€16€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€Ð $`" ÐÌà  àThis€Court€is€without€the€authority€to€overrule€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòReidóó.€€òòSeeóóÐ è%8!$ ÐòòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€173€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€Supreme€Court€has€Ð Ô&$"% Ðinherent€power€to€make€and€enforce€reasonable€rules€of€procedure.€€òòReidóó,€981€S.W.2d€at€170.€€TheÐ À'#& ÐòòReidóó€decision€set€forth€the€controlling€law€on€this€issue.€€Moreover,€as€Appellant€was€one€of€theÐ ° Ðparties€who€litigated€this€issue€in€òòReidóó,€he€is€bound€by€the€law€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,Ð œì Ð31€S.W.3d€558,€560„62€(Tenn.€2000).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òà@dd)ìàVI.ˆÐ `° Ðà@,, ìàTestimony€of€Dr.€Levyó óˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àAppellant€filed€a€pretrial€motion€requesting€that€the€court€determine€the€proper€scope€of€Dr.Ð $ t ÐBruce€Levyððs€testimony€at€trial.€€Specifically,€Appellant€requested€that€Dr.€Levy€be€prohibited€fromÐ  ` Ðtestifying€regarding€the€autopsies€of€the€victims,€as€Dr.€Levy€did€not€perform€the€autopsies.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðautopsies€were€performed€by€assistant€medical€examiners€who€were€no€longer€employed€in€theÐ è 8  ÐDavidson€County€Medical€Examinerððs€Office.€€DððAngelo€Leeððs€autopsy€was€performed€by€Dr.€AnnÐ Ô$  ÐBucholtz,€and€Gregory€Ewingððs€autopsy€was€performed€by€Dr.€George€Mizell.€€The€court€ruled€thatÐ À  Ðif€the€State€laid€the€proper€foundation€at€trial,€the€autopsy€reports€would€be€admissible€as€substantiveÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€803(6)€as€a€business€record,€under€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ ˜è  ÐEvidence€803(8)€as€a€public€record,€and€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€38„7„110.€€Further,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€court€ruled€that€if€the€State€laid€the€proper€foundation€for€Dr.€Levyððs€testimony€as€an€expert,€Dr.Ð pÀ ÐLevy€would€be€permitted€to€express€his€opinions€in€his€field€and€to€communicate€to€the€jury€that€heÐ \¬ Ðrelied€upon€the€autopsy€reports€in€forming€his€opinion.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€Dr.€Levyððs€testimony,€Appellant€objected,€stating€that€because€Dr.€Levy€did€notÐ  p Ðpersonally€retrieve€any€bullets€from€the€bodies€of€the€victims€or€see€the€same€performed,€the€StateÐ  \ Ðcould€not€establish€the€proper€chain€of€custody€of€the€bullets.€€Appellant€argued€that€there€was,Ð øH Ðtherefore,€a€break€in€the€chain€of€custody€of€the€bullets,€and€the€court€should€not€permit€testimonyÐ ä4 Ðregarding€the€bullets.€€The€State€countered€that€the€absence€of€one€personððs€testimony€in€the€chainÐ Ð  Ðof€custody€does€not€invalidate€the€chain.€€Furthermore,€the€State€argued€that€the€court€had€previouslyÐ ¼  Ðruled€that€Dr.€Levy€would€be€permitted€to€testify€based€on€the€business€records€and€public€recordsÐ ¨ø Ðexceptions€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€The€court€allowed€the€bullets€into€evidence€and€stated€again€that€itÐ ”ä Ðwould€allow€Dr.€Levy€to€testify.€€The€court€cautioned€the€State,€however,€that€it€must€establish€theÐ €Ð Ðchain€of€custody.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àDr.€Levy€testified€that€he€did€not€perform€the€autopsies€on€the€victims,€but€the€office€followedÐ D!” Ða€definite€procedure€for€recovering€bullets€from€a€body.€€He€testified€that€when€they€recover€a€bullet,Ð 0"€  Ðthey€secure€it,€place€it€in€a€marked€container,€and€lock€it€in€an€evidence€locker.€€Later,€they€turn€theÐ #l! Ðevidence€over€to€the€police.€€He€testified€that€the€bullets€recovered€from€Gregory€Ewing€were€markedÐ $X" Ðwith€the€appropriate€case€identification€number€and€had€the€initials€G.M.€on€the€envelope.€€He€couldÐ ô$D # Ðnot€testify€as€to€the€handwriting€of€the€initials,€but€he€noted€that€Dr.€George€Mizell€performed€Mr.Ð à%0!$ ÐEwingððs€autopsy.€€He€further€noted€that€the€bullets€recovered€from€Gregory€Ewing€were€turned€overÐ Ì&"% Ðto€Sergeant€Hunter€of€the€Metro€Police€Department.׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Similarly,€Dr.€Levy€testified€that€the€bulletsÐ ¸'#& Ðrecovered€from€DððAngelo€Lee€were€placed€in€a€container€with€the€appropriate€case€number€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðturned€over€to€the€Metro€Police€Department.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Dr.€Levy€admitted€that€he€did€not€watch€the€autopsiesÐ ° Ðas€they€were€performed;€therefore,€he€could€not€testify€based€on€his€personal€knowledge€that€theÐ œì Ðbullets€that€had€been€placed€into€evidence€were€in€fact€bullets€recovered€from€the€victims.€€He€statedÐ ˆØ Ðthat€his€testimony€was€based€upon€procedures€followed€in€the€medical€examinerððs€office.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  à€Following€Dr.€Levyððs€testimony,€Appellant€renewed€his€previous€objection.€€€€The€courtÐ L œ Ðruled€that€based€on€the€testimony€from€the€police€officers€regarding€retrieval€of€the€bullets€from€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðmedical€examinerððs€office€and€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Levy€that€the€proper€procedure€for€securing€andÐ $ t Ðidentifying€the€bullets€had€been€followed,€the€proper€chain€of€custody€had€been€established€by€theÐ  ` ÐState.ò ò€€ó óThe€court€further€ruled€there€was€no€suspicion€surrounding€the€authenticity€of€the€bullets.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€autopsy€reports€are€admissible€hearsay€under€Rules€803(6)€and€803(8)€of€the€TennesseeÐ Ø(  ÐRules€of€Evidence.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mario€Hawkinsóó,€No.€01C01„9701„CR„00014,€1998€WLÐ Ä  Ð352095,€at€*6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€2,€1998).€€Further€the€autopsy€reports€areÐ °  Ðadmissible€as€a€public€document€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€38„7„110.€€The€courtÐ œì  Ðdid€not€err€in€allowing€Dr.€Levy€to€testify€in€this€regard.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà  àIt€is€a€fundamental€rule€of€law€that€the€State€must€establish€an€unbroken€chain€of€custody€inÐ `° Ðorder€to€present€physical€proof€into€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€33€S.W.3d€746,€760€(Tenn.€2000);€òòStateÐ Lœ Ðv.€Holbrooksóó,€983€S.W.2d€697,€701€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€However,€every€witness€that€handledÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€evidence€in€the€chain€is€not€required€to€testify€in€order€to€establish€a€lack€of€tampering€with€theÐ $t Ðevidence.€€Rather,€the€State€is€required€to€reasonably€establish€the€identity€of€the€evidence€and€itsÐ ` Ðintegrity.€€òòScottóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€760;€òòHolbrooksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€701.€€This€Court€reviews€the€trialÐ üL Ðcourtððs€decision€on€whether€the€State€has€established€the€proper€chain€of€custody€of€physicalÐ è8 Ðevidence€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€evidence€in€the€record€and€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€same,€we€concludeÐ ¬ü Ðthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€determining€that€the€State€had€met€its€burden€ofÐ ˜è Ðestablishing€the€proper€chain€of€custody.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð „Ô ÐÌò òà@==(ìàVII.ˆÐ \ ¬ Ðà@ææìàVictim€Impact€Evidenceó óˆÐ H!˜ ÐÌà  àAppellant€next€argues€on€appeal€that€the€court€erred€in€allowing€victim€impact€testimony€toÐ  #p! Ðbe€admitted€at€the€sentencing€hearing€through€the€testimony€of€the€victimððs€mothers.€€Specifically,Ð  $\" ÐAppellant€argues€that€victim€impact€evidence€is€irrelevant€at€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€andÐ ø$H # Ðtherefore€unconstitutional.€€Appellant€further€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€confront€theÐ ä%4!$ Ðvictimsðð€children,€as€the€mothers€of€the€victims€testified€concerning€the€victimsðð€children.Ð Ð& "% Ðâ âÐ ¼' #& Ðà  àVictim€impact€evidence€has€been€declared€constitutional€by€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ ° Ðâ âand€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòPayne€v.€Tennesseeóó,€501€U.S.€808,€827,€111€S.€Ct.€2597,€115€L.Ð œì ÐEd.€2d€720€(1991);€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€889€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€526€U.S.€1052,Ð ˆØ Ð119€S.€Ct.€1359,€143€L.€Ed.€2d€520€(1999).€€Moreover,€Appellantððs€argument€that€he€was€denied€theÐ tÄ Ðright€to€confront€the€victimsðð€young€children€is€similarly€without€merit.€€First,€Appellant€made€noÐ `° Ðobjection€to€the€testimony€of€the€victimsðð€mothers€that€their€grandchildren€were€confused€andÐ L œ Ðdisturbed€by€their€fathersðð€respective€deaths.€€€Appellant€had€the€opportunity€to€rebut€any€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€this€regard,€but€he€chose€not€to€do€so.€€His€decision€not€to€challenge€the€testimony€of€the€victimsððÐ $ t Ðmothers€on€this€issue€does€not€constitute€a€denial€of€confrontation.€€òòSeeóó€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€889„Ð  ` Ð90€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€(1997)€and€explaining€that€the€prosecution€is€allowedÐ ü L  Ðto€introduce€any€evidence€that€is€relevant€to€the€issue€of€punishment,€as€long€as€the€defendant€isÐ è 8  Ðallowed€a€fair€opportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsay€statements€so€admitted).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€isÐ Ô$  Ðwithout€merit.Ð À  Ðò òÌà@(ìàVIII.ˆÐ ˜è  Ðà@ ìà[Deleted:€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence}ó óˆÐ „Ô  ÐÌò òà@ýý$ìàIX.€and€X.€€ˆÐ \¬ Ðà@  ìà[Deleted:€€Sufficiency€of€Aggravating€Evidence]ˆÐ H˜ ÐÌó óÌò òà@dd)ìàXI.ˆÐ  \ Ðà@Þ Þ ìàConstitutionality€of€Tennesseeððs€Death€Penalty€StatuteˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àó óAppellant€contends€that€Tennesseeððs€Death€Penalty€statute€is€unconstitutional€in€nineteenÐ Ð  Ðrespects.€€He€admits,€however,€that€under€current€case€law,€the€statute€meets€constitutional€standards.€Ð ¼  ÐAppellant€fails€to€cite€to€any€case€law€or€other€authority€to€support€his€contention€that€TennesseeððsÐ ¨ø Ðdeath€penalty€statute€is€unconstitutional.€€In€fact,€he€makes€no€argument€whatsoever.€€Under€RuleÐ ”ä Ð10(b)€of€the€Rules€of€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€Appellant€has€waived€this€issue.€€Moreover,€asÐ €Ð ÐAppellant€admits,€the€death€penalty€statute€has€repeatedly€been€held€constitutional.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòStateÐ l¼ Ðv.€Keenóó,€31€S.W.3d€196,€233€(Tenn.€2000),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€532€U.S.€907,€121€S.€Ct.€1233,€149€L.€Ed.Ð X ¨ Ð2d€142€(2001);€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€902€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€526€U.S.€1052,€119Ð D!” ÐS.€Ct.€1359,€143€L.€Ed.€2d€520€(1999);€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€117€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð 0"€  Ð526€U.S.€1071,€119€S.€Ct.€1467,€143€L.€Ed.€2d€551€(1999).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAppellant€contends€also€that€the€aggravating€factors€applied€in€this€case€are€unconstitutional.€Ð ô$D # ÐHe€concedes,€however,€that€the€relevant€factors€are€facially€constitutional€under€current€law.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  à€Further,€Appellant€contends€that€aggravating€factor€(i)(2)€is€not€applicable€to€AppellantÐ ¸'#& Ðbecause€Appellantððs€prior€felony€conviction€was€imposed€after€he€was€arrested€on€the€charges€in€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcase.€€Our€supreme€court€reaffirmed€in€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€357€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.Ð )à$( Ðdeniedóó,€522€U.S.€999,€118€S.€Ct.€567,€139€L.€Ed.€2d€407€(1997),€that€if€a€prior€conviction€is€receivedÐ |*Ì%) Ðbefore€the€sentencing€hearing,€then€factor€(i)(2)€is€applicable.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€Ô_Ômerit.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àNext,€Appellant€contends€that€factors€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(6)€and€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(7)€overlap€and€therefore€do€notÐ ° Ðsufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€defendants€in€murder€cases.€€Basically,€AppellantÐ œì Ðargues€that€the€factors€have€a€similar€purpose,€to€prevent€killings€that€are€exceedingly€reprehensible,Ð ˆØ Ðand€therefore€fail€to€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€defendants€in€murder€cases.€€However,€theÐ tÄ ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€the€proper€question€is€whether€the€factors€ð ðgenuinelyÐ `° Ðnarrow€the€class€of€persons€eligible€for€the€death€penalty.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔAraveÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCreechÔ_Ôóó,€507€U.S.€463,€474,€113Ð L œ ÐS.€Ct.€1534,€1542,€123€L.€Ed.€2d€188,€200€(1993)€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔZantÔ_Ô€v.€Stephensóó,€462€U.S.€862,€877,€103Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.€Ct.€2733,€77€L.€Ed.€2d€235€(1983)).€€Only€if€the€aggravating€circumstance€applies€to€everyÐ $ t Ðdefendant€who€has€committed€the€particular€crime€does€the€aggravating€factor€fail€to€narrow€the€classÐ  ` Ðof€death„eligible€defendants.€òòÔ_ÔAraveÔ_Ôóó,€507€U.S.€at€474.€€In€this€case,€the€proof€at€trial€showed€thatÐ ü L  ÐAppellant€planned€to€kidnap€and€rob€the€victims€and€that€he€planned€to€kill€them€because€they€knewÐ è 8  Ðhim€and€could€identify€him.€€Both€factors€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(6)€and€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(7)€are€applicable€in€this€instance.€€The€factÐ Ô$  Ðthat€two€aggravating€factors€are€applicable€to€the€same€situation€does€not€render€themÐ À  Ðunconstitutional.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌò òÌà@$$(ìàXII.€ˆÐ pÀ Ðà@  ìàReferences€to€Other€Witnessesðð€Testimony€by€the€Prosecution€During€Cross„Examinationó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àAppellant€argues€that€it€was€error€for€the€court€to€allow€the€Stateððs€attorney€to€cross„examineÐ 4„ Ðdefense€witnesses€by€referring€to€the€testimony€of€other€witnesses€and€to€contrast€their€testimoniesÐ  p Ðin€an€argumentative€fashion.€€Appellant€concedes€that€he€did€not€raise€this€issue€in€his€motion€forÐ  \ Ðnew€trial,€but€he€asserts€that€this€Court€should€review€this€issue€under€the€plain€error€doctrine.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àTo€review€an€issue€under€the€plain€error€doctrine,€five€factors€must€be€present:€the€recordÐ Ð  Ðmust€clearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€haveÐ ¼  Ðbeen€breached;€a€substantial€right€of€the€defendant€must€have€been€adversely€affected;€the€accusedÐ ¨ø Ðdid€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€and€consideration€of€the€error€is€necessary€to€doÐ ”ä Ðsubstantial€justice.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAdkissonÔ_Ôóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€641€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐR.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€52(b).€€This€Court€does€not€find€that€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€was€breached.€Ð l¼ ÐFurther,€the€examples€advanced€by€Appellant€in€his€brief€demonstrate€that€the€prosecution€wasÐ X ¨ Ðattempting€to€test€the€veracity€of€the€witnessesðð€testimony.€€These€matters€are€within€the€soundÐ D!” Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€we€find€no€error.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 0"€  ÐÌò òà@(ìàXIII.ˆÐ $X" Ðà@::ìàCumulative€Effect€of€ErrorsˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àó óFinally,€Appellant€alleges€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€errors€in€the€trial€court€effectivelyÐ Ì&"% Ðdenied€him€a€fair€trial.€€Again,€Appellant€failed€to€raise€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€IssuesÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€presented€to€the€trial€court€in€a€motion€for€new€trial€are€waived€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐNotwithstanding,€this€Court€has€found€no€merit€in€Appellantððs€issues€on€appeal;€therefore,€there€canÐ )à$( Ðbe€no€cumulative€effect.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€ò òÐ |*Ì%) Ðó óà  àà ` àÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ#†XÕX XX»'#ÔÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔò òà@ÚÚ'ìà[XIV].ó óˆÐ ° ÐÓ  Óò ò[Deleted:€€Proportionality€Review]ó óÐ œì ÐÓl¯Óà  àÌÔ#†XÕX XX»'¯#Ôò òà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@FF%ìàòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àIn€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c),€we€have€considered€the€entire€recordÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€conclude€that€the€sentence€of€death€has€not€been€imposed€arbitrarily,€that€the€evidence€supportsÐ $ t Ðthe€juryððs€finding€of€the€statutory€circumstances,€that€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€finding€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€aggravating€circumstances€outweigh€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ð ü L  Ðand€that€the€sentence€is€not€disproportionate.€€We€have€also€reviewed€all€issues€raised€by€theÐ è 8  Ðappellant.€€We€find€no€error.€€As€a€result,€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€the€sentence€of€deathÐ Ô$  Ðimposed€by€the€jury€are€AFFIRMED.€€òòò òóóÐ À  ÐÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔÌó óÔ#†XÕX XX»'^³#ÔÔ‡X»' XXXÕÔÌÔ#†XÕX XX»'¤³#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE