ÿWPC¡+ =Kì0o’flÔÜçÜ—1m„\¤:ÂÄsEúüñº³Õ{ÿoÕ 9P¬Q­ÿ a¥•˜Q£¾mà/Qš~¸]¼ ŸÆsuêšmSD÷åÑ,•ìcJÔMÐŒ µÒùÿ1õoQ+RiÖ»{½ŽWI&À7bOãhŽ{Õy±ÆnË÷ñÎÛzr„r€)œæ¼daæX•—CoLåbõ¨{õ(ÚAʱ$ºq ÃSiiae6ž$F){) üÁëXPöFW»ë)ïùFk«ÒR+Q8ÍÔ&©:¶zÓ^\޽…­krWfY«ÄF¼ã3¹t×o£ƒ!çd]‘§+O'5Äê3IHÄ_[^T´ž¯ýÁï ËíYŸ¯}HÆ`˜ô÷í»tΉ«>훈P,ò$Ê9Yò$Ë¢&OãíþbjãQ¾Þ2£Ff ŠzžÌé.S©1šìàœ‚Êçe"ãAD®V8AÊA2²@‚;© Ú È|óÈݳ¿Wµ ‰³=ib(0íR/æË%"¢y`ÂÄ_µ[ºH’-y¨>™¸¥ÎÏfáU \û)kÁcìütôÞ!ÔÉr(3:–I”FjÜCs# YbgÝbÀ+´¯›Ë½­WïÔ)EafxÈ/ëäáb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ «‘ Æ< ÆÆÈÆŽ 0DTN˜{šUNEc¶e»»Ö`‘Añ2¿9røüjU@f!¦!®!p"ù~#^w$¿Õ%Õ%Õ%Õ%Õ%Õ%Õ%Õ%b”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”&”& 0ëœ&œ&œ&œ& B‡'‡' 0¤¤' D5H( D-}( 0Kª(ª( ASõ(ÆH) 0¤* 0D²* A«ö*»l-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9‚±,8°Ÿ œTX£3|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˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ¡Ý ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€inquired:€ð ð(1)€Where€was€the€second€bullet€casing€found?€(2)€Was€the€defendant€on€medication€atÐ ° Ðthe€time€of€the€crime?€and€(3)€Did€Chris€Flake€say€anything€to€Turner€Carpenter€at€the€time€of€the€act€besides,€Turner,Ð tÄ ÐTurner€Carpenter?ðð€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó qÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee,€e.g.óó,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)(ð ðThe€Supreme€Court,€Court€of€Appeals,€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€shallÐ ° Ðgrant€the€relief€on€the€law€and€facts€to€which€the€party€is€entitled€or€the€proceeding€otherwise€requires€and€may€grant€anyÐ tÄ Ðrelief,€including€the€giving€of€any€judgment€and€making€of€any€order;€òòprovided,€however,€relief€may€not€be€granted€inÐ 8ˆ Ðcontravention€of€the€province€of€the€trier€of€factóó.ðð)(emphasis€added).(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ¬Ý ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDr.€Johnson€was€deceased€at€the€time€of€trial. ±Ý ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant€was€found€incompetent€to€stand€trial€on€several€occasions.€€After€receiving€treatment,€includingÐ ° Ðanti„psychotic€medication,€the€defendant€was€finally€determined€to€be€competent€to€stand€trial€in€February€of€1999,€andÐ tÄ Ðhis€trial€began€November€15,€1999.€€ ±Ý ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAccording€to€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔZagerÔ_Ô,€schizoid€personality€disorder€is€not€schizophrenia€and€persons€withÐ ° Ðschizoid€personality€disorder€tend€to€stay€to€themselves,€have€few€social€relationships,€and€manifest€odd€or€unusualÐ tÄ Ðbehavior. VÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔGambillÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€675€N.E.2d€668,€673€(Ind.€1996);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔHurstÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€699€N.E.2d€651,€654€n.3€(Ind.Ð ° Ð1998).€ 7Ý ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€1995€amendment€eliminated€€the€volitional€prong€of€the€insanity€defense€i.e.,€ð ðlacked€the€capacity€toÐ ° Ðconform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.ðð ýÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.€S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€€2781,€€61€L.€Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€441. µÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòPeople€v.€Johnsonóó,€585€N.E.2d€78,€86€(Ill.€1991). hÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔMerazÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€785€S.W.2d€146,€155€(Tex.€Ct.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1990);€òòóóòòJackson€v.€Stateóó,€941€S.W.2d€351,€352Ð ° Ð(Tex.€Ct.€App.€,€13òòthóó€Dist.€Corpus€Christi€1997);€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€869€S.W.2d€388,€389€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€12òòthóó€Dist.€TylerÐ tÄ Ð1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔSangalangÔ_Ôóó,€2001€Guam€18,€2001€WL€950161,€*8€€(Guam€€2001). òÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€statute€was€patterned€upon€and€is€very€similar€to€the€Federal€Insanity€Defense€Reform€Act€of€1984Ð ° Ðcodified€at€18€U.S.C.€ðð€17.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Holderóó,€€15€S.W.3d€905,€911€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1999),€perm.€app.€denied€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð2000).€€The€changes€to€the€insanity€defense€in€federal€courts€resulting€from€the€Insanity€Defense€Ô_ÔRefromÔ_Ô€Act€of€1984Ð 8ˆ Ðare€described€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Eleventh€Circuit€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Freemanóó,€804€F.2d€1574€(11th€Cir.Ð üL Ð1986).(nN¡ Z‹(Times New Roman   ¸Ý ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòChristian€v.€Stateóó,€351€So.2d€623,€624€(Ala.€1977). Ý ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔAlvisÔ_Ô€v.€Alabamaóó,€434€So.2d€859,€862€(Ala.€Ct.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App€1983). ïÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòHaynes€v.€Stateóó,€58€S.W.3d€336,€341€(Ark.€2001);€òòPhillips€v.€Stateóó,€863€S.W.2d€309,€311€(Ark.€1993). TÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJustice€Anderson€and€Justice€Birch€concur€in€the€adoption€of€this€standard€of€review€but€disagree€with€theÐ ° Ðmajorityððs€application€of€this€standard€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case. µÝ ƒRGÒ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€proof€indicated€that€the€victim€was€not€homosexual.- ù-(|G2GÒ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯1ò»»Ô d(|3¿~$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿~$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ù»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ù»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ù»»»ÔÑ8€O‘XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÓ=€ù»Ð»dÐd=Óà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î (ùÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ù»îî (I#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€2,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XO‘X»¼ùÔÌò òÔ#†¼ù»XXO‘*#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€CHRISTOPHER€M.€FLAKEÔ‡XO‘X»¼ùÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ÐCriminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„09256€€€€€€Bernie€Ô_ÔWeinmanÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01131„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€August€29,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԀР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ù»XXO‘ #ÔÔ€XO‘X»¼ùÔThe€defendant€was€charged€with€attempted€first€degree€murder€for€shooting€the€victim,€a€pastoralÐ d´ Ðcounselor,€at€a€church€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€At€trial,€the€facts€surrounding€the€shooting€and€theÐ P  Ðdefendantððs€guilt€were€not€contested.€€Instead,€the€defense€sought€to€establish€the€affirmative€defenseÐ <Œ Ðof€insanity.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€attemptedÐ (x Ðvoluntary€manslaughter,€and€by€this€verdict,€implicitly€rejected€the€insanity€defense.€€The€trial€courtÐ d Ðentered€a€judgment€in€accordance€with€the€juryððs€verdict,€and€the€defendant€appealed,€asserting,Ð P Ðamong€other€things,€that€the€insanity€defense€€was€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€andÐ ì< Ðthat€the€jury€had€erred€in€rejecting€it.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€agreed,€modified€the€verdictÐ Ø( Ðto€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity,€and€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsÐ Ä Ðin€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„7„303.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€the€Stateððs€application€forÐ ° Ðpermission€to€appeal€to€determine€whether€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€insanity€affects€theÐ œì Ðstandard€of€appellate€review€of€a€juryððs€rejection€of€the€insanity€defense.€€After€exhaustivelyÐ ˆØ Ðreviewing€the€record€and€the€applicable€authorities,€we€unanimously€hold€that€an€appellate€courtÐ tÄ Ðshould€reverse€a€jury€verdict€rejecting€the€insanity€defense€only€if,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€theÐ `° Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€appellate€court€concludes€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€couldÐ L œ Ðhave€failed€to€find€that€the€defendantððs€insanity€at€the€time€of€committing€the€offense€was€establishedÐ 8!ˆ  Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Applying€this€standard€to€the€record€in€this€case,€a€majority€of€thisÐ $"t! ÐCourt€isò òó ó€of€the€opinion€that€the€jury€did€not€err€in€rejecting€the€insanity€defense.€€Accordingly,ò òó ó€theÐ #`" Ðjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€reversed€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÐ ü#L# Ðreinstated.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Reversed;€Judgment€ofÐ À&"& Ðthe€Trial€Court€Reinstatedó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,óó€C.J.,,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Janice€M.€Holderóó€andÐ „)Ô$) ÐòòWilliam€M.€Barker,óó€JJ.,€joined.Ð p*À%* ÐÌòòE.€Riley€Andersonóó€filed€a€concurring„dissenting€opinion,€in€which€òòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.óó,€J.,Ð H,˜', Ðjoined.€Ð 4-„(-ý ЇòòóóPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kim€R.Ð ° ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General,€Thomas€D.Ð œì ÐHenderson€and€John€W.€Campbell,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellant,€State€ofÐ ˆØ ÐTennessee.€€Ð tÄ ÐÓNÓÌò òó óÓ  ÓDavid€L.€Ô_ÔRaybinÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee;€Leslie€I.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€Steven€E.Ð L œ ÐÔ_ÔFareseÔ_Ô,€Ashland,€Mississippi,€for€the€appellee,€Christopher€M.€Flake.ò òÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÌÌÓÓà@ëë'ìàÔ‡¼ù»XXO‘ÔOPINIONó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÔ#†XO‘X»¼ùè#ÔòòóóÓ  ÓÓÓà@  (ìàò òòòFactsóóó óˆÐ `  Ðà  àAs€stated,€the€facts€surrounding€the€shooting€are€not€disputed.€€However,€the€issue€in€thisÐ üL  Ðappeal€is€whether€the€jury€erroneously€rejected€the€insanity€defense.€€Because€a€jury€may€inÐ è8  Ðdetermining€a€defendantððs€sanity€consider€the€facts€surrounding€the€crime€as€well€as€the€testimonyÐ Ô$ Ðof€lay€and€expert€witnesses,€the€proof€offered€at€trial€is€summarized€in€detail€hereafter.Ð À ÐÌà  àOn€March€19,€1997,€the€defendant,€twenty„five„year„old€Christopher€Flake,€applied€toÐ ˜è Ðpurchase€a€Jennings€.25€automatic€pistol€at€Guns€and€Ammo€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€He€completedÐ „Ô Ða€form,€providing€background€information€that€indicated€he€was€not€addicted€to€drugs€or€alcohol€andÐ pÀ Ðhad€never€been€hospitalized€or€treated€for€mental€illness.€€The€application€was€processed;€the€retailerÐ \¬ Ðreceived€the€Sheriffððs€Department€clearance€for€the€defendant€to€purchase€the€gun;€and€on€April€4,Ð H˜ Ð1997,€the€defendant€picked€up€the€weapon.€€At€this€time,€the€defendant€completed€a€second€form,Ð 4„ Ðagain€indicating€in€response€to€specific€questions€that€he€had€not€used€drugs€or€been€committed€toÐ  p Ða€mental€institution.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€victim,€€Turner€Carpenter,€was€a€pastoral€counselor€at€Central€Church€in€Memphis,Ð ä4 ÐTennessee.€€Carpenter€was€introduced€to€the€defendant€about€six€weeks€prior€to€the€shooting€by€theÐ Ð  Ðsenior€pastor€of€Central€Church.€€At€that€time,€Carpenter€was€told€that€the€defendant€was€anÐ ¼  Ðalcoholic,€who€despite€three€years€of€sobriety,€was€unable€to€ð ðget€any€peace.ðð€€The€defendantÐ ¨ ø Ðscheduled€three€individual€counseling€sessions€with€Carpenter,€but€the€defendant,€who€was€workingÐ ”!ä Ðand€was€enrolled€in€a€criminal€justice€program€at€the€University€of€Memphis,€cancelled€on€eachÐ €"Ð  Ðoccasion€because€of€scheduling€conflicts.€€After€the€third€cancellation,€Carpenter€recommended€thatÐ l#¼! Ðthe€defendant€participate€in€supervised€group€sessions€at€Central€Church€until€his€college€and€workÐ X$¨" Ðschedule€improved.€The€defendant€agreed.Ð D%” # ÐÌà  àCarpenter€next€saw€the€defendant€at€approximately€6€p.m.,€on€Sunday€evening,€April€6,€1997.€Ð 'l"% ÐCarpenter€was€meeting€with€a€parishioner,€Patricia€Ann€Hoffman,€in€his€office€at€the€church€whenÐ (X#& Ðthe€defendant€"stuck€his€head€in"€the€door€and€inquired€if€he€could€meet€with€Carpenter.€€WhenÐ ô(D$' ÐCarpenter€responded€that€he€would€meet€with€the€defendant€in€fifteen€minutes,€the€defendant€shookÐ à)0%( Ðhis€head€in€disapproval€but€exited€the€office.€€Several€minutes€later,€upon€hearing€a€door€open€in€theÐ Ì*&) Ðwaiting€area€outside€his€office,€Carpenter€exited€his€office€and€saw€the€defendant€in€the€waiting€area.€Ð ¸+'* ÐAfter€nodding€to€the€defendant,€Carpenter€turned€and€walked€back€toward€his€office,€intending€toÐ ° Ðconclude€his€meeting€with€Hoffman.€€The€defendant€followed€Carpenter€down€the€hallway,€however,Ð œì Ðyelling€Carpenterððs€name€and€brandishing€a€gun.€€Obviously€bewildered€by€the€defendantððs€behavior,Ð ˆØ ÐCarpenter€asked,€ð ðAre€you€kidding?ðð€€The€defendant€€responded€that€he€was€not€kidding€and€shotÐ tÄ ÐCarpenter.€€The€bullet€struck€Carpenterððs€outstretched€hand,€traveled€between€his€index€and€ringÐ `° Ðfingers,€through€his€arm,€diaphragm,€and€liver,€and€lodged€in€his€back,€where€it€remained€at€the€timeÐ L œ Ðof€trial.€€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWhen€he€was€shot,€Carpenter€fell€to€the€floor,€and€in€doing€so,€turned€toward€Hoffman,€whoÐ  ` Ðwas€seated€on€a€sofa€not€readily€apparent€from€the€defendantððs€position€in€the€doorway.€€WhenÐ ü L  ÐHoffman€began€to€scream,€the€defendant€turned€toward€her€and€held€the€gun€to€her€head€for€someÐ è 8  Ðmoments.€€The€defendant€did€not€shoot€Hoffman,€and€after€the€defendant€fled,€Hoffman€quicklyÐ Ô$  Ðsummoned€assistance,€and€Carpenter€survived€the€shooting.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Carpenter€characterized€the€shooting€as€€"totally€off€the€wall,€weird,€and€crazy.ðð€Ð ˜è  ÐCarpenter€stated€that€there€was€no€ill€will€between€him€and€the€defendant,€€and€Carpenter€could€notÐ „Ô  Ðprovide€a€rational€explanation€for€the€defendantððs€behavior.€Carpenter€further€testified€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€appeared€normal€and€spoke€in€a€soft€voice€when€he€first€arrived€at€the€church€office.€€JustÐ \¬ Ðbefore€the€shooting,€however,€Carpenter€described€the€defendant€as€€ð ðhorrible€looking,ðð€ð ðcrazed,ððÐ H˜ Ðlike€€"the€devil€himself,ðð€yelling€the€victimððs€name€in€an€ð ðabnormalðð€voice.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àShortly€after€the€shooting,€Officer€Robert€Brandon€Lampley€was€directed€to€the€defendantððsÐ  \ Ðresidence€in€Germantown€to€await€the€defendantððs€arrival.€€Officer€Lampley€parked€so€he€couldÐ øH Ðobserve€the€defendantððs€driveway.€€About€thirty€to€forty„five€minutes€later,€a€vehicle€pulled€into€theÐ ä4 Ðdriveway,€and€the€defendant€exited€this€vehicle.€€Officer€Lampley€and€another€officer€walked€up€theÐ Ð  Ðdriveway€with€guns€drawn,€and€yelled,€ð ðChristopher.ðð€€€The€defendant€stopped,€and€a€man,€whoÐ ¼  ÐOfficer€Lampley€later€learned€was€the€defendant's€father,€walked€out€of€the€house€and€instructed€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€to€cooperate.€€After€conducting€a€pat„down€search,€the€officers€handcuffed€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðand€placed€him€in€the€patrol€car.€€Officer€Ô_ÔLampleyÔ_Ô€said€the€defendant€showed€no€emotion€when€heÐ €Ð Ðwas€arrested.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àA€short€time€later€Detective€Johnny€Brown€verbally€advised€the€defendant€of€his€òòMirandaóóÐ D!” Ðrights€and€asked€the€defendant€if€he€knew€why€the€officers€were€there.€€The€defendant€responded,Ð 0"€  Ðð ðyes.ðð€€When€Detective€Brown€told€the€defendant€he€needed€the€weapon,€the€defendant€advised€thatÐ #l! Ðit€was€located€in€the€vehicle's€glove€compartment.€€€Detective€Brown€read€a€consent€to€search€formÐ $X" Ðto€the€defendant,€and€the€defendant€executed€the€form,€which€was€witnessed€by€two€officers.€€Ð ô$D # ÐDetective€Brown€then€opened€the€glove€compartment€and€seized€the€pistol.€€Detective€Brown€saidÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€defendant€looked€ð ðtiredðð€and€ððkind€of€distraught,ðð€at€this€time,€but€he€was€otherwise€behavingÐ Ì&"% Ðnormally.€€Ð ¸'#& Ðâ âÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àIn€support€of€the€affirmative€defense€of€insanity,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€defendant€offered€the€testimony€ofÐ ° Ðâ âseveral€mental€health€professionals,€including,€Dr.€Lynne€Zager,€Dr.€Hilary€Linder,€Rebecca€Smith,Ð œì Ða€psychiatric€social€worker,€Dr.€Rokeya€Farooque,€Dr.€Sam€Craddock,€and€Dr.€John€Hutson.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDr.€Lynne€Ô_ÔZagerÔ_Ô€is€a€clinical€psychologist€and€Director€of€the€Forensic€Services€Program€atÐ `° ÐMidtown€Mental€Health€Center,€a€private€not„for„profit€mental€health€center.€€ò òó óDr.€Ô_ÔZagerÔ_Ô€evaluatedÐ L œ Ðthe€defendant€pursuant€to€a€court€order€from€October€17,€1997€to€January€28,€1998,€to€determine€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðcompetency€to€stand€trial€and€his€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔZagerÔ_Ô€was€certifiedÐ $ t Ðas€a€forensic€evaluator€in€1983€and€had€conducted€such€evaluations€since€that€time,€often€testifyingÐ  ` Ðas€an€expert€witness,€including€a€prior€hearing€to€determine€the€defendantððs€competency€to€stand€trialÐ ü L  Ðwhere€she€testified€for€the€prosecution.€€In€conducting€the€competency€evaluations,€Dr.€Ô_ÔZagerÔ_ÔÐ è 8  Ðpersonally€interviewed€the€defendant€and€reviewed€the€results€of€psychological€tests€previouslyÐ Ô$  Ðadministered.€Dr.€Zager€opined€that€on€April€6,€1997,€the€defendant€suffered€from€paranoidÐ À  Ðschizophrenia,€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect.€€She€also€opined€that€the€defendant€had€been€unableÐ ¬ü  Ðto€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€in€shooting€Turner€Carpenter.€€In€forming€theseÐ ˜è  Ðopinions,€Dr.€Zager€relied€in€part€upon€Dr.€Janet€Johnsonððs€medical€records,€×ƒÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€€indicated€thatÐ „Ô  ÐDr.€Johnson€saw€the€defendant€twice€during€the€week€prior€to€the€shooting,€once€for€a€regularÐ pÀ Ðappointment€on€April€1,€1997€and€again€on€April€3,€1997,€òòóóthree€days€prior€to€the€shooting,€at€theÐ \¬ Ðrequest€of€the€defendantððs€father€ð ðbecause€of€[the€defendantððs]€bizarre€behavior.ðð€€One€example€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€defendantððs€bizarre€behavior€described€in€Dr.€Johnsonððs€records€was€an€incident€where€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendant,€upon€seeing€a€man€working€outside€on€a€farm,€placed€his€prescription€€Prozac€medicationÐ  p Ðin€the€manððs€mailbox€because€he€ð ðfelt€that€the€man€was€in€need€of€help.ðð€€According€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔZagerÔ_Ô,Ð  \ Ðthe€defendantððs€mental€problems€were€not€apparent€in€a€structured€interview€involving€forms€andÐ øH Ðquestions€about€basic€information.€€The€problems€became€apparent,€Dr.€Zager€explained,€when€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€was€asked€open„ended€questions€which€allowed€him€to€share€his€bizarre€and€false€beliefs.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Zager€admitted€that€the€defendant€describedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€victim€as€ð ðÔ_ÔhuggieÔ_Ô,€touchyðð€and€suspected€that€the€victim€was€homosexual.׃&h×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.€Zager€alsoÐ ”ä Ðacknowledged€that€the€defendantððs€score€on€the€Minnesota€Multi„Phasic€Personality€Inventory€„Ð €Ð ÐSecond€Edition€(ð ðMMPI„IIðð)€was€indicative€of€malingering.€€Furthermore,€according€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔZagerÔ_Ô,Ð l¼ Ðthe€defendant€first€mentioned€hearing€voices,€i.e.,€experiencing€auditory€hallucinations,€after€he€wasÐ X ¨ Ðarrested€for€this€crime.€€Despite€a€ten€year€history€of€mental€health€treatment€preceding€his€arrest,€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€had€neither€previously€mentioned€auditory€hallucinations€nor€previously€been€diagnosedÐ 0"€  Ðas€schizophrenic.€€The€defendant€had€been€previously€diagnosed€with€depression,€mixed€chemicalÐ #l! Ðâ âdependency,€Ô_ÔoppositionalÔ_Ô€disorder,€which€is€characterized€by€resisting€authority€and€refusing€toÐ $X" Ðfollow€rules,€and€major€affective€disorder,€which€is€characterized€by€severe€mood€problems€ratherÐ ° Ðthan€thought€psychosis.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àTestifying€next€for€the€defense€was€Dr.€Hilary€Linder,€a€psychiatrist€employed€since€1994€byÐ tÄ Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee€at€Western€Mental€Health€Institute€(ð ðWesternðð).€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€began€treatingÐ `° Ðand€evaluating€the€defendant€in€November€of€1998,€after€the€defendant€had€been€declaredÐ L œ Ðincompetent€to€stand€trial,€with€the€goal€of€assisting€the€defendant€attain€competency€to€stand€trial.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐTo€this€end,€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€prescribed€€medication€and€counseling€sessions.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€testified€as€anÐ $ t Ðexpert€witness€on€behalf€of€the€prosecution€at€prior€proceedings€to€determine€the€defendantððsÐ  ` Ðcompetency€to€stand€trial,€but€he€opined€at€trial€that€the€defendant€suffers€from€paranoidÐ ü L  Ðschizophrenia€and€has€suffered€from€this€severe€mental€illness€since€his€early€teen€years.€€In€addition,Ð è 8  ÐDr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€opined€that,€on€April€6,€1997,€the€defendant€could€not€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€hisÐ Ô$  Ðactions€in€shooting€the€victim.€€Based€on€thirty„three€years€experience€practicing€psychiatry,€Dr.Ð À  ÐÔ_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€opined€that€the€defendant€was€not€malingering€mental€illness.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Linder€conceded€that,€despite€ten€years€of€prior€mental€healthÐ „Ô  Ðtreatment,€the€defendant€had€not€been€diagnosed€as€schizophrenic€prior€to€his€arrest.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€alsoÐ pÀ Ðacknowledged€that€prior€to€his€arrest€the€defendant€had€not€reported€auditory€hallucinations,€aÐ \¬ Ðsymptom€critical€to€a€diagnosis€of€schizophrenia.€€Had€the€defendant€never€reported€auditoryÐ H˜ Ðhallucinations,€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€conceded€that€the€defendant€most€likely€would€have€been€diagnosed€withÐ 4„ Ðanti„social€personality€disorder,€a€non„psychotic€illness€manifested€by€an€inability€to€follow€the€law,Ð  p Ðwhich€generally€is€not€considered€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect€capable€of€supporting€an€insanityÐ  \ Ðdefense.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€also€acknowledged€that€the€defendantððs€medical€records€reflect€a€history€ofÐ øH ÐÔ_ÔpolysubstanceÔ_Ô€abuse,€including€alcohol,€marijuana,€inhalants,€LSD,€and€amphetamines.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_ÔÐ ä4 Ðdid€€not€believe€drug€abuse€was€a€factor€in€his€evaluation€since€the€defendant€did€not€have€access€toÐ Ð  Ðdrugs€while€incarcerated.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€acknowledged,€however,€that€the€defendant€€tested€positive€forÐ ¼  Ðamphetamines€upon€his€arrival€at€Western.€€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€dismissed€the€result€as€a€false€positive€evenÐ ¨ø Ðthough€no€second€test€was€performed€to€confirm€this€assumption.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€confirmed€that€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendantððs€records€indicate€three€years€of€college€course€work€in€criminal€justice€and€that,€when€heÐ €Ð Ðarrived€at€Western,€the€defendant€said€he€planned€to€plead€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€andÐ l¼ Ðbelieved€he€would€be€released€within€sixty€to€ninety€days€if€he€obtained€a€verdict€on€this€plea.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAlso€testifying€for€the€defense€was€Rebecca€Smith,€a€psychiatric€social€worker€employed€byÐ 0"€  Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€€(ð ðÔ_ÔMTMHIÔ_Ôðð)ò òó ó.€€Smith€€wasÐ #l! Ðresponsible€for€researching€and€gathering€the€defendantððs€medical€and€personal€history.€€TheÐ $X" Ðdefendant€told€Smith€that€he€was€drunk€for€the€first€time€at€age€twelve,€that€he€was€using€inhalantsÐ ô$D # Ðthree€times€per€week€by€age€fourteen,€and€had€used€LSD€twice€weekly€since€age€eighteen.€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendantððs€mental€health€records€indicated€that€he€had€often€lied€to€family€members€about€his€drugÐ Ì&"% Ðand€alcohol€abuse.€€Smith€testified€that€the€defendant€had€not€reported€auditory€hallucinations€priorÐ ¸'#& Ðto€his€arrest€for€this€crime,€nor€had€he€been€diagnosed€as€schizophrenic.€€The€defendant€told€SmithÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhe€originally€met€the€victim€while€seeking€help€for€alcohol€dependency€and€became€suspicious€afterÐ )à$( Ðthe€victim€related€his€own€history€of€alcohol€dependency€and€criminal€conduct.€€Because€the€victimÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€involved€in€a€chemical€dependency€group€at€the€church,€the€€defendant€€believed€the€victim€wasÐ h+¸&* Ða€terrorist€with€access€to€chemical€weapons.€€The€defendant€explained€that€ð ðvoicesðð€told€him€toÐ ° Ðshoot,€but€not€kill,€the€victim,€and€that€these€same€ð ðvoicesðð€instructed€him€not€to€kill€the€woman€whoÐ œì Ðwas€meeting€with€the€victim.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€shooting€was€intended€to€signal€theÐ ˆØ ÐFederal€Bureau€of€Investigation€to€come€to€the€church€and€take€care€of€the€terrorists€and€MafiaÐ tÄ Ðmembers€associated€with€the€church.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àDr.€Ô_ÔRokeyaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô,€employed€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€as€the€attending€psychiatrist€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€forensic€service€program€at€Ô_ÔMTMHIÔ_Ô,€also€testified€for€the€defense.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€evaluated€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€from€November€17€to€December€16,€1997,€to€determine€his€competency€to€stand€trial€andÐ  ` Ðhis€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€As€a€result€of€this€evaluation,€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€concludedÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€defendant€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€explained€that€patients€who€areÐ è 8  Ðevaluated€as€a€result€of€criminal€charges€are€closely€watched€by€all€Ô_ÔMTMHIÔ_Ô€staff€because€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðpotential€for€malingering.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€not€malingering.€€€€AfterÐ À  Ðthe€trial€court€found€the€defendant€incompetent€to€stand€trial,€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€treated€him€for€nine€orÐ ¬ü  Ðten€months€before€he€was€transferred€to€Western.€€As€part€of€her€evaluation€and€treatment,€Dr.Ð ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€reviewed€the€defendantððs€medical€records€which€indicated€that€he€had€experiencedÐ „Ô  Ðhallucinations€associated€with€drug€abuse,€blackouts,€major€depression,€an€anxiety€disorder,€and€anÐ pÀ Ðobsessive„compulsive€disorder€beginning€around€age€twelve€or€thirteen€and€that€he€had€receivedÐ \¬ Ðpsychiatric€treatment€and€hospitalization€as€a€result€of€these€conditions.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€diagnosed€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€as€paranoid€schizophrenic€and€opined€that€the€defendant€was€incapable€of€appreciating€theÐ 4„ Ðwrongfulness€of€his€conduct€in€shooting€Turner€Carpenter.€€While€the€defendant€had€not€beenÐ  p Ðdiagnosed€as€schizophrenic€prior€to€his€arrest,€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€explained€that€the€prior€diagnoses€wereÐ  \ Ðcompletely€consistent€with€undiagnosed€schizophrenia.€€On€cross„examination€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_ÔÐ øH Ðconceded€that€the€defendant€did€not€report€€auditory€hallucinations€until€after€his€arrest€and€that€thisÐ ä4 Ðreport€€was€crucial€to€her€diagnosis€of€schizophrenia.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔFarooqueÔ_Ô€also€admitted€that€no€means€areÐ Ð  Ðavailable€to€objectively€verify€that€the€defendant€actually€experiences€the€symptoms€he€reports,Ð ¼  Ðincluding€auditory€hallucinations.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAlso€testifying€for€the€defense€was€Dr.€Samuel€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô,€a€clinical€psychologist€employedÐ €Ð Ðby€the€state€at€Ô_ÔMTMHIÔ_Ô€to€conduct€forensic€evaluations.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€has€appeared€in€court€as€anÐ l¼ Ðexpert€witness€once€or€twice€per€month€since€1976,€and€previously€testified€for€the€prosecution€inÐ X ¨ Ða€prior€hearing€to€determine€the€defendantððs€competency€to€stand€trial.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€examined€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€in€November€and€December€of€1997,€pursuant€to€a€court€order,€and€during€this€time,Ð 0"€  Ðadministered€a€battery€of€tests€to€assess€the€defendantððs€intelligence,€personality,€reasoning,Ð #l! Ðjudgment,€visual,€and€processing€skills.€€While€conceding€that€some€of€these€test€scores€indicatedÐ $X" Ðmalingering,€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€explained€that€the€scores€are€not€conclusive€and€may€also€indicate€severeÐ ô$D # Ðmental€illness.€€Based€upon€his€clinical€evaluation,€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€opined€that€the€defendant€was€notÐ à%0!$ Ðmalingering.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€diagnosed€the€defendant€with€paranoid€schizophrenia€and€said€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€was€suffering€from€this€severe€mental€disease€or€defect€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Dr.Ð ¸'#& ÐÔ_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€also€opined€ð ðwith€qualificationsðð€that€the€defendant€could€not€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€his€actions.€€While€the€defendant€understood€that€shooting€a€person€is€wrong€and€can€result€in€anÐ )à$( Ðarrest,€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€explained€that€the€defendant€ð ðmorally€felt€justifiedðð€in€shooting€the€victimÐ |*Ì%) Ðbecause€the€defendant€believed€the€victim€was€a€terrorist€and€that€eliminating€such€a€terrorist€wouldÐ h+¸&* Ðmorally€benefit€society.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€admitted€that€the€defendant€is€quickÐ ° Ðto€believe€he€is€being€treated€inequitably€and€will€hold€a€grudge€against€others€even€if€the€perceivedÐ œì Ðwrong€is€unintentional.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€also€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€had€not€mentionedÐ ˆØ Ðexperiencing€auditory€hallucinations€prior€to€his€arrest€in€this€case€and€that€despite€many€years€ofÐ tÄ Ðmental€health€treatment,€the€defendant€had€not€been€diagnosed€as€schizophrenic€prior€to€his€arrest.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€final€expert€witness€was€Dr.€John€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô,€a€clinical€psychologist€who€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðhired€by€the€defendantððs€family€and€who€met€with€the€defendant€in€the€Shelby€County€Jail€on€AprilÐ $ t Ð8,€1997,€two€days€after€the€shooting.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€said€he€initially€was€struck€by€the€defendantððsÐ  ` Ðð ðimpeccable,ðð€ð ðmale€modelðð€appearance,€which€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€described€as€not€typical€of€incarcerated,Ð ü L  Ðmentally€ill€individuals.€€Nevertheless,€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€said€the€defendant€had€a€flat€affect,€complainedÐ è 8  Ðof€auditory€hallucinations,€and€was€reluctant€to€speak€with€him€because€of€instructions€from€defenseÐ Ô$  Ðcounsel€to€remain€silent.€€The€defendant€freely€spoke€with€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€only€after€his€attorneyÐ À  Ðinstructed€him€to€do€so,€but€according€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô,€the€defendant€was€not€on€the€same€ð ðlogic€lineððÐ ¬ü  Ðas€the€interview€questions.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€reviewed€the€records€of€the€defendantððs€ten€year€history€ofÐ ˜è  Ðpsychiatric€treatment,€including€in„patient€treatment,€and€talked€with€some€of€the€defendantððs€treatingÐ „Ô  Ðpsychologists€and€psychiatrists.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€also€administered€several€tests€including€the€MMPI„II.€Ð pÀ ÐAccording€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô,€the€results€of€this€test€indicated€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðfloridly€psychotic.ðð€Ð \¬ ÐDr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô,€who€had€evaluated€over€10,000€individuals,€described€the€defendant€as€ð ðone€of€[the]Ð H˜ Ðthree€most€disturbed€individuals€Iððve€ever€seen€in€my€career,ðð€and€opined€that€the€defendant€was€notÐ 4„ Ðmalingering.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€stated€that€the€defendant€suffers€from€schizophrenia,€undifferentiated„Ð  p Ðdisorganized€type,€ð ða€very€serious€incapacitating€psychiatric€illness.ðð€€Over€the€course€of€his€career,Ð  \ ÐDr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€had€opined€in€only€twenty„five€cases€that€the€patient€could€not€appreciate€theÐ øH Ðwrongfulness€of€his€or€her€conduct,€but€he€stated€that€the€defendant€falls€squarely€within€that€narrowÐ ä4 Ðcategory€of€patients.€€According€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô,€the€defendant€believed€he€was€working€for€theÐ Ð  Ðgovernment€as€an€agent€or€an€enforcer€when€he€shot€the€victim.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€admitted€that€the€defendant€exhibited€a€preoccupation€withÐ ”ä Ðhomosexuality.€€The€defendant€believed€the€victim€was€very€effeminate€and€hated€the€victim€for€theÐ €Ð Ðway€he€touched€him.€€The€defendant€was€so€overly€sensitive€to€homosexuality€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_ÔÐ l¼ Ðthought€ð ðit€might€have€had€fatal€consequences€if€somebody€physically€touched€him.ðð€€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_ԀРX ¨ Ðalso€was€questioned€about€the€defendantððs€activities€during€the€day€prior€to€the€shooting.€€Based€onÐ D!” Ðnotes€apparently€taken€during€an€interview€with€the€defendantððs€father,€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€said€the€defendantÐ 0"€  Ðawoke€about€9:00€a.m.,€was€in€a€good€mood,€helped€his€father€cook€breakfast,€worked€on€his€car€withÐ #l! Ðhis€father,€rode€his€trail€bike,€walked€his€dog€in€the€park,€watched€a€movie€about€a€criminal€trial,Ð $X" Ðchose€a€television€movie€to€watch€that€evening€with€his€parents,€helped€cook€dinner€on€an€outdoorÐ ô$D # Ðgrill,€ate€dinner,€and€then€left€for€a€meeting€at€Central€Church€about€5:40€p.m.,€assuring€his€parentsÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€he€would€return€right€after€the€meeting€so€they€could€watch€the€movie€together€as€planned.€€LikeÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€other€defense€experts,€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€admitted€that€the€defendant€reported€auditory€hallucinationsÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€the€first€time€on€the€day€after€his€arrest€and€acknowledged€that€this€report€was€not€spontaneousÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbut€was€in€response€to€questioning€by€the€defendantððs€mother€about€whether€he€had€ever€heardÐ )à$( Ðâ âvoices.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€also€conceded€that€if€the€defendant€had€not€reported€auditory€hallucinations€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðdiagnosis€would€not€have€been€schizophrenia€and€instead€probably€would€have€been€borderline,Ð ° Ðantisocial,€or€schizoid€personality€disorder.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€rebuttal,€the€prosecution€offered€three€witnesses.€€Dr.€John€McIntosh,€a€psychiatristÐ tÄ Ðemployed€by€Shelby€County€€to€render€psychiatric€care€to€inmates,€testified€that€he€had€conferredÐ `° Ðwith€the€defendant€for€approximately€one€hour€on€May€9,€1997,€at€the€Shelby€County€Jail.€€At€thatÐ L œ Ðtime,€Dr.€McIntosh€found€no€evidence€to€suggest€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€psychosis€butÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcluded€instead€that€the€defendant€was€suffering€from€depression€and€attention€deficit€disorder.€Ð $ t ÐThe€defendant€did€not€report€auditory€hallucinations.€€Dr.€McIntosh€acknowledged€that€hisÐ  ` Ðexamination€was€not€designed€to€determine€the€defendantððs€competency€to€stand€trial€or€his€mentalÐ ü L  Ðstate€at€the€time€the€offense€was€committed€and€conceded€that€mental€health€professionals€whoÐ è 8  Ðobserved€the€defendant€for€a€thirty„day€period€were€in€a€better€position€to€perform€a€comprehensiveÐ Ô$  Ðevaluation€and€render€an€opinion.€€Dr.€McIntosh€€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€review€theÐ À  Ðdefendantððs€prior€psychiatric€medical€records.€€While€agreeing€with€the€defense€experts€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€has€a€ð ðserious€mental€disease,ðð€Dr.€McIntosh€disagreed€with€the€diagnosis€ofÐ ˜è  Ðschizophrenia.€€Dr.€McIntosh€was€not€asked€to€opine€whether€or€not€the€defendant€was€able€toÐ „Ô  Ðappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€in€shooting€the€victim.€Ð pÀ ЀÌà  àAlso€testifying€for€the€prosecution€was€Dr.€Mark€Luttrell,€a€physician€who€provided€€medicalÐ H˜ Ðservices€at€the€Shelby€County€Jail.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLuttrellÔ_Ô€treated€the€defendant€in€July€of€1997,€for€a€urinaryÐ 4„ Ðtract€infection€and€noticed€no€apparent€mental€distress€or€signs€of€schizophrenia€on€that€occasion.€Ð  p ÐDr.€Ô_ÔLuttrellÔ_Ô€described€the€defendant€as€ð ðunremarkable,€.€.€.€just€like€everybody€else.ðð€€Although€heÐ  \ Ðdid€not€conduct€a€mental€evaluation€of€the€defendant,€Dr.€Ô_ÔLuttrellÔ_Ô,€who€had€completed€a€residencyÐ øH Ðin€psychiatry,€agreed€with€Dr.€McIntoshððs€diagnosis€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€serious€mentalÐ ä4 Ðdisorder.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLuttrellÔ_Ô€was€not€asked€to€opine€whether€or€not€the€€defendant€could€appreciate€theÐ Ð  Ðwrongfulness€of€his€conduct€in€shooting€the€victim.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€prosecutionððs€final€rebuttal€witness€was€John€Perry,€director€of€mental€health€for€theÐ ”ä ÐShelby€County€Jail.€€Perry€saw€the€defendant€when€he€first€arrived€at€the€jail€and€four€or€five€daysÐ €Ð Ðper€week€thereafter€while€he€was€incarcerated.€€According€to€Perry,€the€defendant€did€not€ð ðsit€andÐ l¼ Ðstareðð€during€that€time€as€he€was€doing€during€the€trial.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€this€proof,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€the€offense€of€attempted€firstÐ 0"€  Ðdegree€murder€and€the€lesser€offenses€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,€attempted€voluntaryÐ #l! Ðmanslaughter,€and€aggravated€assault.€€The€jury€also€was€instructed€on€the€insanity€defense.€€The€juryÐ $X" Ðreturned€a€verdict€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,€therebyÐ ô$D # Ðimplicitly€rejecting€the€insanity€defense.€€The€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€in€accordance€with€theÐ à%0!$ Ðjuryððs€verdict,€and€explicitly€refused€to€set€aside€the€verdict€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€The€defendantÐ Ì&"% Ðappealed,€arguing€in€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€he€had€met€his€burden€of€establishing€theÐ ¸'#& Ðinsanity€defense€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€and€that€the€jury€had€erred€in€rejecting€the€defense.€Ð ° ЀThe€intermediate€appellate€court€agreed,€concluding€that€ð ða€rational€trier€of€fact€could€only€find€thatÐ œì Ðthere€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€that€the€defendant,€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€was€unable€toÐ ˆØ Ðappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€act€as€a€result€of€a€severe€mental€disease.ðð€€In€so€holding,€theÐ tÄ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€stated,€ð ðour€review€of€this€record€does€not€reveal€sufficient€lay€testimony,Ð `° Ðor€expert€testimony,€concerning€the€defendantððs€mental€state€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€shooting€thatÐ L œ Ðwould€justify€rejection€of€the€insanity€defense.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ 8 ˆ Ðmodified€the€judgment€to€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€and€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€forÐ $ t Ðfurther€proceedings€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„7„303.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThereafter,€the€State€filed€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal,€arguing€that€the€Court€ofÐ è 8  ÐCriminal€Appeals€had€erred€both€in€reversing€the€juryððs€verdict€and€by€imposing€upon€the€State€aÐ Ô$  Ðburden€to€offer€proof€to€rebut€the€insanity€defense€when€the€statute€describing€the€defense,€Tenn.Ð À  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501,€does€not€impose€any€burden€upon€the€State.€€We€granted€the€StateððsÐ ¬ü  Ðapplication€to€determine€whether€the€burden€of€proof€on€the€insanity€defense€affects€the€standard€ofÐ ˜è  Ðappellate€review€of€a€juryððs€finding€on€insanity.€€We€unanimously€conclude€that€the€proper€standardÐ „Ô  Ðof€review€in€light€of€the€statute€requiring€the€defendant€to€prove€insanity€by€clear€and€convincingÐ pÀ Ðevidence€is€whether,€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€noÐ \¬ Ðreasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€failed€to€find€that€the€defendantððs€insanity€at€the€time€of€theÐ H˜ Ðoffense€was€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€This€essentially€is€the€standard€of€reviewÐ 4„ Ðadopted€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case;€however,€for€the€reasons€that€follow,€aÐ  p Ðmajority€of€this€Court€concludesò òó ó€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€not€afford€appropriateÐ  \ Ðdeference€to€the€juryððs€verdict€when€applying€this€standard.ò òó óÔ_Ô׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÐ øH Ðof€Criminal€Appeals€is€reversed€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reinstated.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@''"ìàòòò òInsanity€Defenseóóó óˆÐ ¼  Ðà  àUntil€1995,€the€standard€for€sustaining€an€insanity€defense€was€as€follows:Ð ¨ø Ðà8  àInsanity.€ð!ð(a)€Insanity€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€if,€at€the€time€of€such€conduct,€asÐ ”ä Ða€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€the€person€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€toÐ €Ð Ðappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€personððs€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€to€theÐ l¼ Ðrequirements€of€the€law.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€As€used€in€this€section,€ð ðmental€disease€or€defectðð€does€not€include€anyÐ D!” Ðabnormality€manifested€only€by€repeated€criminal€or€otherwise€antisocial€conduct.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(repealed€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531€(Tenn.Ð $X" Ð1977).€€Under€this€standard,€a€defendant€was€presumed€sane,€but€if€the€evidence€introduced€duringÐ ô$D # Ðthe€course€of€the€trial€raised€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€sanity,€the€State€then€had€theÐ à%0!$ Ðburden€of€proving€the€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòGrahamóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€544;Ð Ì&"% Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€607,€616€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436,€440Ð ¸'#& Ð(Tenn.€1994);€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€641,€646€(Tenn.€1976).€€Sanity€became€an€element€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€crime.€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616;€òòJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440;€òòState€v.€Claytonóó,€656€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð344,€346€(Tenn.€1983).Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€General€Assembly€adopted€a€statutory€amendment,€effective€July€1,€1995,€whichÐ tÄ Ðsubstantially€revised€the€insanity€defense.€€€Currently,€the€insanity€defense€is€as€follows:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àInsanity.€(a)€It€is€an€affirmative€defense€to€prosecution€that,€at€the€time€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommission€of€the€acts€constituting€the€offense,€the€defendant,€as€a€result€of€a€severeÐ $ t Ðmental€disease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€suchÐ  ` Ðdefendant's€acts.€€Mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€otherwise€constitute€a€defense.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€defense€of€insanity€by€clear€andÐ è 8  Ðconvincing€evidence.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(b)€As€used€in€this€section,€ð ðmental€disease€or€defectðð€does€not€include€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðabnormality€manifested€only€by€repeated€criminal€or€otherwise€antisocial€conduct.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(c)€No€expert€witness€may€testify€as€to€whether€the€defendant€was€or€was€not€insaneÐ pÀ Ðas€set€forth€in€subsection€(a).€€Such€ultimate€issue€is€a€matter€for€the€trier€of€factÐ \¬ Ðalone.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501€(1997€Repl.).€€€Passage€of€this€statute€resulted€in€three€principalÐ  p Ðchanges€to€the€insanity€defense.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€First,€the€definition€of€insanity€has€been€narrowed€so€that€theÐ  \ Ðdefense€now€applies€only€when€the€defendant€has€a€òòsevereóó€mental€disease€or€defect€which€results€inÐ øH Ðthe€defendantððs€being€ð ðunable€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€such€defendantððs€acts.ðð׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рä4 ÐSecond,€insanity€is€an€affirmative€defense.€€The€prosecution€no€longer€has€the€burden€of€provingÐ Ð  Ðsanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Instead,€the€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€the€defenseÐ ¼  Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€ð ðClear€and€convincing€evidence€means€evidence€in€which€thereÐ ¨ø Ðis€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.ððÐ ”ä ÐòòHolderóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€911(quoting€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Ô_ÔToofÔ_Ô€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.2€(Tenn.Ð €Ð Ð1992)).€€Third,€under€the€current€statute,€both€prosecution€and€defense€experts€are€prohibited€fromÐ l¼ Ðoffering€opinion€testimony€as€to€whether€or€not€the€defendant€was€sane€at€the€time€the€offense€wasÐ X ¨ Ðcommitted.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€13€S.W.3d€724€,€739„42€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.),€perm.€app€deniedÐ D!” Ð(Tenn.€1999);€òòsee€alsoóó€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€704€(explaining€thatÐ 0"€  Ðâ âinsanity€is€one€ultimate€issue€outside€the€scope€of€expert€testimony).€€The€ultimate€issue€of€theÐ #l! Ðdefendantððs€sanity€is€ð ða€matter€for€the€trier€of€fact€alone.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(c)€(1997Ð ° ÐRepl.).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAdmittedly,€the€1995€statute€does€not€by€its€terms€alter€the€standard€of€appellate€review€ofÐ tÄ Ða€juryððs€finding€on€the€insanity€defense.€€Nevertheless,€the€defense€has€been€fundamentally€alteredÐ `° Ðby€the€statute,€and€the€standard€of€review€must€be€revised€to€account€for€these€modifications.€€SanityÐ L œ Ðis€no€longer€an€element€of€the€offense.€€The€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€standard€previously€appliedÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€appellate€courts€reviewing€a€jury€finding€on€sanity€ð!ð€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€theÐ $ t Ðlight€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ð!ð€is€no€longer€appropriate.€€€This€Court€has€not€previouslyÐ ü L  Ðaddressed€the€current€insanity€defense€or€its€effect€on€the€standard€of€appellate€review.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€this€Court,€the€State€relies€upon€òòUnited€States€v.€Bartonóó,€992€F.2d€66,€68„69€(5th€Cir.Ð À  Ð1993),€and€argues€that€an€appellate€court€should€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðprosecution€and€reverse€a€jury€verdict€rejecting€an€insanity€defense€ð ðonly€if€no€reasonable€trier€of€factÐ ˜è  Ðcould€have€failed€to€find€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€wasÐ „Ô  Ðestablished€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€òòId.óó€€According€to€the€State,€such€a€standard€permitsÐ pÀ Ðreversal€on€appeal€only€when€the€juryððs€rejection€of€the€insanity€defense€is€contrary€to€the€evidenceÐ \¬ Ðas€a€matter€of€law.€€The€State€says€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€essentially€adopted€thisÐ H˜ Ðstandard€but€erred€in€applying€it€by€substituting€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€jury€and€by€imposing€aÐ 4„ Ðburden€of€proof€on€the€State€not€mandated€or€contemplated€by€the€statute.€€In€support€of€this€secondÐ  p Ðassertion,€the€State€€points€to€the€following€sentence€in€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ  \ ÐAppeals:€ð ðThe€testimony€of€state€witnesses€Dr.€John€McIntosh,€Dr.€Mark€Ô_ÔLuttrellÔ_Ô,€and€John€PerryÐ øH Ðdid€not€create€an€issue€for€the€jury.ðð€€The€defendant€responds€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ä4 Ðadopted€and€properly€applied€the€governing€€standard€of€review.€€According€to€the€defense,€theÐ Ð  Ðsentence€to€which€the€State€objects€indicates€that€the€intermediate€appellate€court€properlyÐ ¼  Ðconsidered€whether€the€prosecution€had€offered€substantial€evidence€to€counter€the€defense€proof€ofÐ ¨ø Ðinsanity€and€create€a€jury€question€on€the€issue.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àOur€research€indicates€that€appellate€courts€in€other€jurisdictions€apply€a€deferential€standardÐ l¼ Ðwhen€reviewing€a€juryððs€rejection€of€the€insanity€defense,€but€appellate€courts€do€not€use€uniformÐ X ¨ Ðlanguage€when€describing€the€applicable€standard.€€€The€ð ðreasonablenessðð€standard€adopted€by€theÐ D!” ÐFifth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòBartonóó€has€been€adopted€by€some€state€courts€considering€the€issue.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòSeeóó€òòFuss€v.€Stateóó,€519€S.E.2d€446,€448€(Ga.€1999)(ð ðwhether€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€lightÐ #l! Ðmost€favorable€to€the€state,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€that€the€defendant€failed€to€proveÐ $X" Ðby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€was€insane€at€the€time€of€the€crime.ðð);€òòState€v.€€Ô_ÔSilmanÔ_Ôóó,Ð ô$D # Ð663€So.2d€27,€32€(La.€1995);€òòState€v.€Princeóó,€688€So.2d€643,€649€(La.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(ð ðwhether,Ð à%0!$ Ðviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€juror€could€have€found€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant€had€not€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€was€insane€at€the€time€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âthe€offense.ðð).€€Other€state€appellate€courts€preclude€disturbing€the€fact„finderððs€resolution€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsanity€issue€ð ðunless€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€manifest€weight€of€the€evidence,ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€or€ð ðthe€proof€ofÐ ° Ðâ âinsanity€is€overwhelmingðð׃"T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€or€the€verdict€is€ð ðcontrary€to€the€great€preponderance€of€the€evidence,ðð׃#à×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðor€the€ð ðjudgment€is€so€against€the€great€weight€and€preponderance€of€the€evidence€so€as€to€beÐ ˆØ Ðmanifestly€unjust.ððÔ_Ô׃l×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Arkansas€appellate€courts€review€a€jury€verdict€rejecting€the€insanity€defenseÐ tÄ Ðto€determine€ð ðwhether€there€was€any€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.ðð׃$€×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€IndianaÐ `° ÐSupreme€Court€has€stated€that€a€defendant€whose€insanity€defense€fails€at€trial€ð ðhas€a€monumentalÐ L œ Ðburden€if€he€seeks€to€upset€the€finding€of€the€fact€trier€on€appeal,€for€he€is€appealing€from€a€negativeÐ 8 ˆ Ðfinding,€and€the€issue€is€not€whether€or€not€the€finding€was€sustained€by€the€evidence€but€ratherÐ $ t Ðwhether€it€was€contrary€to€all€the€evidence€and€hence€òòcontrary€to€lawóó.ðð€€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€428€N.E.2dÐ  ` Ð1244,€1246€(Ind.€1981)€(emphasis€in€original).€€Indiana€appellate€courts,€therefore,€reverse€a€factÐ ü L  Ðfinderððs€rejection€of€the€insanity€defense€ð ðonly€when€the€evidence€is€without€conflict€and€leads€to€butÐ è 8  Ðone€conclusion€which€the€trier€of€fact€did€not€reach.ððÔ_Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThis€lack€of€uniformity€on€the€proper€standard€of€appellate€review€is€also€reflected€in€federalÐ ¬ü  Ðappellate€court€decisions,€which€we€view€as€particularly€relevant€to€the€issue€in€this€appeal€since,€asÐ ˜è  Ðnoted,€the€federal€insanity€statute€is€the€model€upon€which€our€current€statute€is€based.€€Some€federalÐ „Ô  Ðcircuit€courts€apply€a€ð ðclearly€erroneousðð€standard€of€review,€reversing€a€juryððs€finding€on€theÐ pÀ Ðinsanity€issue€only€if€it€is€clearly€erroneous.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔHiebertÔ_Ôóó,€30€F.3d€1005,€1007€(8thÐ \¬ ÐCir.€1994);€òòUnited€States€v.€Reedóó,€997€F.2d€332,€334€(7th€Cir.€1993);€òòUnited€States€v.€Freemanóó,€804Ð H˜ ÐF.2d€1574,€1577€(11th€Cir.€1986).€€Other€federal€courts,€including€the€Fifth€Circuit,€apply€theÐ 4„ Ðð ðreasonablenessðð€standard,€derived€from€the€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€sufficiency€standard.€€òòBartonóó,€992Ð  p ÐF.2d€at€69;€òòUnited€States€v.€Martinóó,€56€Ô_ÔM.J.Ô_Ô€97,€106€(Ô_ÔC.A.A.F.Ô_Ô€2001).€€This€ð ðreasonablenessððÐ  \ Ðstandard€requires€an€appellate€court€to€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ øH Ðprosecution€and€reverse€a€jury€verdict€rejecting€the€insanity€defense€ð ðonly€if€no€reasonable€trier€ofÐ ä4 Ðfact€could€have€failed€to€find€that€the€defendantððs€criminal€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€wasÐ Ð  Ðestablished€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€òòBartonóó,€992€F.2d€at€69;€òòMartinóó,€56€Ô_ÔM.J.Ô_Ô€at€107.€€LikeÐ ¼  Ðthe€various€other€standards€applied€in€both€state€and€federal€courts,€the€reasonableness€standard€isÐ ¨ø Ðdeferential€in€nature,€as€the€Fifth€Circuit€aptly€explained€as€follows:Ð ”ä Ðâ âÐ €Ð Ðà8  àIt€is€not€sufficient€here€that€Bartonððs€evidence€might€appear€to€us,€were€we€the€finderÐ ° Ðâ âof€fact,€to€be€clear€and€convincing.€€We€are€not€fact€finders€and€do€not€assess€theÐ œì Ðcredibility€of€the€testimony€or€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€These€are€the€juryððsÐ ˆØ Ðresponsibilities.€This€deference€is€particularly€appropriate€where€the€jury€has€foundÐ tÄ Ðagainst€a€party€having€the€burden€of€proof€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€As€theÐ `° ÐD.C.€Circuit€said,€ð ðwhen€insanity€is€raised€as€a€defense€to€crime,€a€judgment€ofÐ L œ Ðacquittal€by€reason€thereof,€we€have€emphasized,€should€be€granted€only€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðexceptional€cases.€€And€in€view€of€the€complicated€nature€of€the€decision€to€be€madeÐ $ t Ðð!ð€intertwining€moral,€legal,€and€medical€judgments€ð!ð€it€will€require€an€unusuallyÐ  ` Ðstrong€showing€to€induce€us€to€reverse€a€conviction€because€the€judge€left€the€criticalÐ ü L  Ðissue€of€criminal€responsibility€with€the€jury.€€We€think€it€clear€in€this€case€that€theÐ è 8  Ðtrial€judge€left€it€where€it€belonged.ððÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòBartonóó,€992€F.2d€at€70€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔGaskinsÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€410€F.2d€987,€990„91€(D.C.€Cir.€1967))Ð ¬ü  Ð(internal€citations€omitted).€€In€so€holding,€the€court€rejected€Bartonððs€assertion€that€the€governmentÐ ˜è  Ðis€required€to€counter€the€defendantððs€proof€by€offering€rebuttal€evidence€or€contrary€expertÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony.€€€òòBartonóó,€992€F.2d€at€70.€€The€court€further€pointed€out€that€the€prosecution€can€counterÐ pÀ Ðdefense€proof€of€insanity€by€presenting€the€testimony€of€lay€witnesses€and€by€undermining€theÐ \¬ Ðdefense€expertððs€credibility€through€cross„examination.€€òòId.óó€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Armed€Forces€recently€adopted€the€Fifth€CircuitÐ  p Ðapproach€and,€in€a€comprehensive€and€thorough€opinion,€explained€the€rationale€underlying€itsÐ  \ Ðdecision:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àSuch€a€test€of€reasonableness€is€consistent€with€congressional€intent€thatÐ Ð  Ðdeterminations€of€mental€responsibility€are€for€the€trier€of€fact€to€make€alone,€and€notÐ ¼  Ðexperts€offering€ultimate€opinions.€€It€also€recognizes€that€the€trier€of€fact€is€betterÐ ¨ø Ðpositioned€than€are€appellate€courts€to€appraise€and€weigh€the€evidence€and€apply€theÐ ”ä Ðappropriate€burden€of€proof€to€the€party€that€bears€the€burden.€€This€may€beÐ €Ð Ðparticularly€true€of€an€insanity€defense,€such€as€that€presented€in€this€case,€whereÐ l¼ Ðthere€are€multiple€competitive€experts,€complex€facts,€and€numerous€witnessesÐ X ¨ Ðtestifying€to€the€accusedððs€demeanor€at€the€time€of€the€offense.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€reasonableness€standard€is€also€appropriate€because€appellate€courts€haveÐ #l! Ðonly€a€juryððs€conclusion,€implicit€in€an€ultimate€finding€of€guilt,€against€which€to€testÐ $X" Ðfor€error.€€In€contrast,€where€a€trial€judge€makes€a€finding€of€fact€on€mentalÐ ô$D # Ðresponsibility,€an€appellate€court€tests€for€clear€error€„€against€the€judgeððs€specificÐ à%0!$ Ðfindings€of€fact,€included€in€the€record,€underpinning€his€or€her€conclusion.€€Finally,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€reasonableness€standard€is€consistent€with€our€preference€for,€and€deferenceÐ ¸'#& Ðafforded€to,€juries€in€our€constitutional€system€of€justice.€Ð¤(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMartinóó,€56€Ô_ÔM.J.Ô_Ô€at€107.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ѐ€à  àAfter€considering€these€various€standards,€we€unanimously€conclude€that€appellate€courts€inÐ ° ÐTennessee€should€apply€the€reasonableness€standard€when€reviewing€a€juryððs€rejection€of€the€insanityÐ œì Ðdefense.€€Consistent€with€the€expressed€legislative€intent€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(c)€andÐ ˆØ Ðother€Tennessee€standards€governing€appellate€review€of€factual€findings,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€this€standard€is€properlyÐ tÄ Ðdeferential€to€the€finding€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€On€the€other€hand,€this€standard€does€not€totally€insulateÐ `° Ðthe€juryððs€finding€from€appellate€review;€rather,€it€enhances€appellate€review€by€virtue€of€itsÐ L œ Ðsimilarity€to€the€familiar€sufficiency€standard€which€appellate€courts€are€accustomed€to€applying.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐAccordingly,€appellate€courts€in€Tennessee€should€reverse€a€jury€verdict€rejecting€the€insanityÐ $ t Ðdefense€only€if,€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€no€reasonableÐ  ` Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€failed€to€find€that€the€defendantððs€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€wasÐ ü L  Ðestablished€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Although€phrased€differently,€this€essentially€is€theÐ è 8  Ðstandard€applied€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case.€€In€so€holding,€we€explicitly€rejectÐ Ô$  Ðthe€notion€that€the€State€must€rebut€defense€proof€of€insanity€with€substantial€evidence.€€The€currentÐ À  Ðstatute€clearly€does€not€impose€such€a€burden€of€proof€on€the€prosecution.€€The€statute€places€theÐ ¬ü  Ðburden€of€establishing€this€affirmative€defense€squarely€on€the€defendant.€€Once€this€defense€hasÐ ˜è  Ðbeen€interposed,€the€prosecution€likely€will€in€most€cases€attempt€in€some€manner€to€counter€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefense€proof.€€As€noted€by€the€Fifth€Circuit,€however,€defense€proof€can€be€countered€by€contraryÐ pÀ Ðexpert€testimony,€lay€witnesses,€or€vigorous€cross„examination€designed€to€undermine€the€credibilityÐ \¬ Ðof€the€defense€experts.€€€A€reviewing€court€applying€the€reasonableness€standard€should€consider€allÐ H˜ Ðthe€evidence€in€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state€in€determining€whether€the€juryÐ 4„ Ðappropriately€rejected€the€insanity€defense.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àAppellate€courts€also€should€be€mindful€of€several€other€well„settled€propositions€that€wereÐ øH Ðnot€affected€by€the€1995€statutory€revision€of€the€insanity€defense.€€For€example,€in€determining€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant's€mental€status€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€crime,€the€trier€of€fact€may€consider€evidence€ofÐ Ð  Ðhis€actions€and€words€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616.€€The€trier€of€factÐ ¼  Ðmay€also€consider€both€lay€and€expert€testimony.€€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616;€òòJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ðat€440;€òòEdwardsóó,€540€S.W.2d€at€647.€€The€weight€and€value€to€be€given€expert€testimony€is€aÐ ”ä Ðquestion€for€the€jury.€€òòId.óó€€Where€there€is€a€conflict€in€the€evidence,€the€trier€of€fact€is€not€requiredÐ €Ð Ðto€accept€expert€testimony€over€other€evidence€and€must€determine€the€weight€and€credibility€of€eachÐ l¼ Ðin€light€of€all€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.€€òòId.óó€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€ofÐ X ¨ Ðwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€disputes€raised€by€the€evidence,Ð D!” Ðare€for€the€trier€of€fact;€appellate€courts€do€not€Ô_ÔreweighÔ_Ô€the€evidence€or€reevaluate€credibilityÐ 0"€  Ðdeterminations.€€òòHolderóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€912.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àConsidering€the€evidence€in€this€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€aÐ ô$D # Ðmajority€of€this€Court€concludes€that€a€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€defendant€failedÐ à%0!$ Ðto€show€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€as€a€result€of€a€severe€mental€illness€or€defect€he€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðunable€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€acts.€€First,€the€record€contains€evidence€suggesting€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€was€not€suffering€from€a€severe€mental€illness€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€As€much€as€twoÐ œì Ðweeks€and€as€little€as€two€days€prior€to€this€shooting,€the€defendant€had€the€presence€of€mind€toÐ ˆØ Ðfalsely€answer€questions€regarding€prior€mental€health€treatment€and€drug€abuse€which,€had€heÐ tÄ Ðanswered€truthfully,€probably€would€have€prevented€him€from€obtaining€the€weapon€used€to€commitÐ `° Ðthis€crime.€€In€addition,€the€proof€showed€that,€while€the€defendant€behaved€strangely€during€theÐ L œ Ðweek€preceding€the€shooting,€his€behavior€on€the€day€of€the€shooting€had€been€perfectly€normal.€€AsÐ 8 ˆ Ðstated€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô,€the€defendant€awoke€about€9:00€a.m.,€was€in€a€good€mood,€helped€his€fatherÐ $ t Ðcook€breakfast,€worked€on€his€car€with€his€father,€rode€his€trail€bike,€walked€his€dog€in€the€park,Ð  ` Ðwatched€a€movie€about€a€criminal€trial,€chose€a€television€movie€to€watch€that€evening€with€hisÐ ü L  Ðparents,€helped€cook€dinner€on€an€outdoor€grill,€ate€dinner,€and€then€left€for€a€meeting€at€CentralÐ è 8  ÐChurch€about€5:40€p.m.,€assuring€his€parents€he€would€return€immediately€after€the€meeting€to€watchÐ Ô$  Ðthe€movie€together€as€planned.€€While€the€shooting€itself€was€certainly€unexpected,€there€is€proof€inÐ À  Ðthe€record€to€suggest€an€explanation,€albeit€far„fetched,€for€the€shooting.€€The€testimony€indicatedÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€defendant€was€preoccupied€with€homosexuality,€that€he€believed€the€victim€was€veryÐ ˜è  Ðeffeminate,€that€he€suspected€the€victim€was€homosexual,€and€that€he€hated€the€victim€for€the€wayÐ „Ô  Ðhe€touched€him.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ô€testified€that,€given€his€preoccupation€with€homosexuality,€physicallyÐ pÀ Ðtouching€the€defendant€could€have€fatal€consequences.€This€proof€suggests€a€motive€for€the€shooting,Ð \¬ Ðand€the€juryððs€verdict€of€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€indicates€that€perhaps€this€motive€wasÐ H˜ Ðcredited.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àSecond,€defense€proof€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€severe€mental€illness€was€counteredÐ  \ Ðby€testimony€elicited€on€cross„examination€of€the€defense€experts€suggesting€the€defendant€wasÐ øH Ðmalingering.€€Although€all€the€mental€health€experts€opined€that€the€defendant€suffers€fromÐ ä4 Ðschizophrenia,€the€proof€is€clear€that,€throughout€ten€years€of€prior€mental€health€treatment,€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€had€not€been€diagnosed€as€schizophrenic€and€had€never€complained€of€auditoryÐ ¼  Ðhallucinations.€In€fact,€the€defendantððs€report€of€auditory€hallucinations€following€his€arrest€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðspontaneous€but€was€in€response€to€a€question€from€his€mother.€€The€experts€admitted€that€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendantððs€report€of€auditory€hallucinations€was€a€critical€factor€in€the€diagnosis€of€schizophrenia,Ð €Ð Ðand€they€conceded€that€there€are€no€existing€objective€tests€to€verify€that€the€defendant€actuallyÐ l¼ Ðsuffers€from€auditory€hallucinations.€€Results€of€two€psychological€tests€indicated€that€the€defendantÐ X ¨ Ðwas€malingering€mental€illness,€but€the€expert€witnesses€discounted€these€results.€€Two€of€the€expertsÐ D!” Ðtestified€that€had€the€defendant€not€reported€auditory€hallucinations,€he€likely€would€have€beenÐ 0"€  Ðdiagnosed€as€suffering€from€various€personality€disorders,€which€generally€are€not€considered€to€beÐ #l! Ðsevere€mental€conditions€capable€of€supporting€an€insanity€defense.€€The€proof€also€showed€that,Ð $X" Ðbefore€his€arrest,€the€defendant€had€attended€the€University€of€Memphis€for€three€years€studyingÐ ô$D # Ðcriminal€justice€and€that€on€the€day€of€his€admission€to€Western,€he€had€advised€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€that€heÐ à%0!$ Ðintended€to€plead€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€and€believed€he€would€be€released€within€sixty€toÐ Ì&"% Ðninety€days€if€he€received€a€verdict€on€that€plea.€€According€to€psychological€records€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendantððs€mental€health€treatment€prior€to€his€arrest,€he€had€a€history€of€Ô_ÔpolysubstanceÔ_Ô€abuse€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhad€often€lied€to€his€parents€about€the€extent€to€which€he€abused€drugs€and€alcohol.€€Although€theÐ )à$( Ðexperts€testified€that€the€defendantððs€history€of€substance€abuse€had€no€impact€on€their€evaluationsÐ |*Ì%) Ðsince€he€had€been€incarcerated€and€had€no€access€to€drugs,€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€admitted€that€the€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðtested€positive€for€amphetamines€when€he€arrived€at€Western,€even€though€he€had€no€prescriptionÐ ° Ðfor€amphetamines.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€assumed€the€result€was€a€false€positive€but€admitted€that€he€did€notÐ œì Ðre„test€to€confirm€this€assumption.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àFinally,€notwithstanding€expert€proof€to€the€contrary,ò òó ó€the€facts€surrounding€the€offenseÐ `° Ðsuggest€the€defendant€realized€his€conduct€was€wrongful.€€With€the€exception€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô,€theÐ L œ Ðmental€health€professionals€testified€that€the€defendant€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€his€conduct€in€shooting€the€victim.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔCraddockÔ_Ô€opined€that€the€defendant€was€aware€thatÐ $ t Ðshooting€someone€was€wrongful,€but€he€felt€morally€justified€in€shooting€the€victim€whom€heÐ  ` Ðbelieved€to€be€a€terrorist.€€The€facts€show,€however,€that€the€defendant€did€not€shoot€the€parishionerÐ ü L  Ðwith€whom€the€victim€was€meeting,€and€he€fled€the€scene,€rather€than€waiting€for€the€arrival€of€theÐ è 8  ÐFBI.€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest,€the€defendant€appeared€to€realize€he€had€committed€a€crime.€€WhenÐ Ô$  Ðasked€if€he€knew€why€the€officers€were€at€his€house€he€responded€ð ðyesðð€and€told€the€officers€that€theÐ À  Ðweapon€was€in€the€glove€compartment.€€Although€the€officers€said€the€defendant€showed€littleÐ ¬ü  Ðemotion€and€appeared€ð ðdistraughtðð€or€ð ðtired,ðð€they€observed€no€bizarre€behavior.€€After€his€arrest,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€defendant€complied€with€his€attorneyððs€instruction€not€to€speak€with€anyone€alone,€as€isÐ „Ô  Ðevidenced€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔHutsonÔ_Ôððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€was€reluctant€to€speak€with€him€untilÐ pÀ Ðreceiving€permission€from€his€attorney.€€Dr.€McIntosh,€Dr.€Ô_ÔLuttrellÔ_Ô€and€John€Perry€said€the€defendantÐ \¬ Ðbehaved€normally€while€incarcerated€although€he€did€appear€depressed.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€a€majority€of€this€CourtÐ  p Ðisò òó ó€unable€to€conclude€that€no€reasonable€trier€of€fact€could€have€failed€to€find€that€the€defendantððsÐ  \ Ðcriminal€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€was€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€WhereÐ øH Ðthe€proof€is€contested,€appellate€courts€should€rarely€reverse€a€juryððs€rejection€of€the€insanity€defenseÐ ä4 Ðunder€this€deferential€standard€of€review.€€As€noted€by€the€Fifth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals,€appellateÐ Ð  Ðcourts€are€not€fact€finders,€and€reversal€is€not€appropriate€where€the€evidence€might€appear€to€usÐ ¼  Ðclear€and€convincing€were€we€fact€finders.€€Appellate€courts€do€not€Ô_ÔreweighÔ_Ô€the€evidence€or€reassessÐ ¨ø Ðcredibility€determinations.€€These€tasks€are€within€the€province€of€the€jury.€€While€the€proof€in€thisÐ ”ä Ðrecord€indicates€that€the€defendant€suffers€from€a€mental€disorder,€such€proof€does€not€mandate€aÐ €Ð Ðjury€finding€that€a€defendant€is€legally€insane.€€òòCf.óó€òòÔ_ÔCoeÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€17€S.W.3d€193,€221€(Tenn.€2000)€Ð l¼ Ð(ð ð[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€existence€of€a€mental€disorder€does€not€automatically€translate€into€a€finding€ofÐ X ¨ Ðincompetency€to€be€executed.ðð);€òòReedóó,€997€F.2d€at€334€(ð ðInsanity,€for€our€purposes,€is€a€legal€term.€Ð D!” ÐWe€do€not€ask€whether€Reed€is€insane€by€psychiatric€or€psychological€standards.ðð).€€In€determiningÐ 0"€  Ðwhether€a€defendant€is€insane,€a€jury€is€entitled€to€consider€all€the€evidence€offered,€including€theÐ #l! Ðfacts€surrounding€the€crime,€the€testimony€of€lay€witnesses,€and€expert€testimony.€€While€a€jury€mayÐ $X" Ðnot€arbitrarily€ignore€evidence,€a€jury€is€not€bound€to€accept€the€testimony€of€experts€where€theÐ ô$D # Ðevidence€is€contested.€€Indeed,€this€principle€is€explicitly€reflected€in€the€current€statute€whichÐ à%0!$ Ðprohibits€experts€from€testifying€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€the€defendantððs€sanity€and€reserves€thisÐ Ì&"% Ðissue€for€the€trier€of€fact€alone.€€There€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€suggest€that€the€jury€arbitrarilyÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âignored€the€expert€testimony.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€jury€deliberated€seventy„one€minutes,€thenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðposed€three€questions€two€of€which€appear€related€to€the€insanity€defense.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€the€trial€judgeÐ ° Ðâ âin€this€case€was€specifically€asked€by€defense€counsel€to€exercise€his€role€as€thirteenth€juror€and€enterÐ œì Ða€judgment€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€The€trial€court€declined,€stating,€ð ðthe€defense€ofÐ ˆØ Ðinsanity€was€appropriately€litigated€and€I€think€that€the€jury€appropriately€made€the€properÐ tÄ Ðdetermination.ðð€Ð `° ÐÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionóóó óˆÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àReviewing€this€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€a€majority€of€this€Courtò òÐ $ t Ðó óconcludes€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€reversing€the€juryððs€verdict.€€Accordingly,€theÐ  ` Ðjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€modifying€the€verdict€to€ð ðNot€Guilty€By€Reason€ofÐ ü L  ÐInsanityðð€is€reversed€€andò òó ó€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reinstated.€Ð è 8  ÐÌÔ‡ XO‘XXXO‘ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà0 ¸ àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à_________________________________________€Ð„Ô À(#À(# Ðà  àà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà h àà0À(#(#àFRANK€F.€Ô_ÔDROWOTAÔ_Ô,€III,ÐpÀÀ(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àCHIEF€JUSTICEÔ#†XO‘XX XO‘M#ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÐ \¬ Ð