ÿWPCHj …# V %an­g 0 4 UBH Š U:’ w@Ì 0c 4o 0Òƒ U 0Jd 0T® 0^ 0h` 0rÈ 1m: b§ U:¯ U:é B# D3@ 0cs 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 0@h 1u¨nX% 0d}U6áUE*U.AB)oDC˜ AMÛ(‹CÎÖÀÜ„œ "l #oŒ%Æû'øÁ+f¹/å1'3ð+4b7 }:'<VÄ=U?ýoA¦lF€H¢’Lˆ4N%¼QîáTëÏX²ºZv~l\vÓê] 0w½c 0Š4d 0 ¾d 0´^e 0Çf 0ÛÙf 0ï´g AO£hÆòh 0D¸i D/üi B+j˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎX«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÌTDÍTÎTDÏTDÐTÑTDÒTÓTÓ€ßTUàTî(" $Ô€X·XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÚƒç"H ´ \H ô(‚(2 $¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X1îXXXÔÔ€ôœÿôXX1îÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|xàT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d 'ÿÿdxd(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò%&, ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@<þ6X9`(*Courier 10pt12cpiøødþ6X@É?BQø@P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 dDDDD7Border 1dd€-ECþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÔ€BÔÔ€BÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€BXÔÌÌò òDecember€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€BôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€not€raised€as€an€issue€in€this€appeal,€the€trial€judge€imposed€a€twenty„five€yearÏsentence€on€the€conviction€for€aggravated€arson,€consecutive€to€the€death€penalty.Ì þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"Whenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgmentÏhas€become€final€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€of€direct€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourt€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€The€affirmance€of€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€deathÏshall€be€automatically€reviewed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€the€affirmance€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€clerk€shall€docket€the€case€in€the€Supreme€Court€and€the€case€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ððÌ üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€ð ðPrior€to€theÏsetting€of€oral€argument,€the€Court€shall€review€the€record€and€briefs€and€consider€òòallóó€errorsÏassigned.€€The€Court€may€enter€an€order€designating€those€issues€it€wishes€addressed€at€oralÏargument.ðð€Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€addition€to€the€fire€on€April€6,€1991,€the€victimððs€car€was€burned€on€April€1,€1991.€€TheÏdefendant€was€indicted€for€arson€related€to€these€fires,€but€the€trial€court€severed€these€counts,€andÏthey€were€later€dismissed.€Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defendant€went€to€trial€on€three€charges:€(1)€first€degree€murder€by€an€unlawful,Ïintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing,€(2)€first€degree€murder€by€a€reckless€killingÏcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€arson€(felony€murder),€and€(3)€aggravated€arson.€€He€enteredÏguilty€pleas€before€the€jury€to€arson€and€felony€murder.€€After€the€trial€court€refused€to€accept€theÏguilty€pleas,€the€defendant€persisted€in€admitting€guilt€to€those€crimes€before€the€jury,€contestingÏonly€the€charge€that€the€killing€was€premeditated€and€deliberated.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,Ïthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€could€return€a€guilty€verdict€for€either€felony€murder€orÏpremeditated€murder,€but€not€for€both.€€Acting€in€accordance€with€the€instructions,€the€jury€foundÏthe€defendant€guilty€of€aggravated€assault€and€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€The€jury€did€notÏreport€a€verdict€on€the€charge€of€felony€murder.€€€Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€Footnote€4,€òòsupraóó.Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€evidence€was€admitted€during€the€sentencing€phase€as€part€of€the€prosecutionððsÏattempt€to€establish€the€aggravating€circumstance€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(6),€whichÏprovides€that€ð ð[t]he›€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€orÏpreventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another.ðð€€The€jury,€however,€rejectedÏthis€factor.€€Ì eÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€time€this€offense€was€committed,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991)Ïprovided€that€the€ð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€anotherðð€constitutes€firstÏdegree€murder.€€The€definition€was€amended€in€1995€and€first€degree€murder€is€now€defined€asÏð ðthe€intentional€and€premeditated€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991€&ÏSupp›.€1996).Ì ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOur€holding€closely€resembles€the€American€Law€Instituteððs€Model€Penal€Code€which€doesÏnot€mention€the€term€ð ðdiminished€capacity,ðð€but€nevertheless€provides€that€ð ð[e]vidence›€that€theÏdefendant€suffered€from€a€mental€disease€or€defect€shall€be€admissible€whenever€it€is€relevant€toÏprove€that€the€defendant€did€or€did€not€have€the€state€of€mind€which€is€an€element€of€the€offense.ðð€ÏœA.L.I.›€Model€Penal€Code€ðð€4.02€(1)€(Official€Draft€1962).€€The€Comment€to€that€Section€explains:€ð ð[œi]f›Ïstates€of€mind€such€as€deliberation€or€premeditation€are€accorded€legal€significance,€psychiatricÏevidence€should€be€admissible€when€relevant€to€prove€or€disprove€their€existence€to€the€sameÏextent€as€any€other€relevant€evidence.ððÌ îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€not€clear€from€the€record€why€defense€counsel€chose€not€to€make€a€testimonial€offerÏof€proof.€€Whenever€counsel€sought€to€do€so€during€this€trial,€the€trial€court€appropriately€grantedÏthe€request.€€We€have€repeatedly€stressed€the€importance€of€an€offer€of€proof.€€Not€only€does€itÏensure€effective€and€meaningful€appellate€review,€it€provides€the€trial€court€with€the€necessaryÏinformation€before€an€evidentiary€ruling€is€made.€€Indeed,€generally,€if€an€offer€of€proof€is€not€made,Ïthe€issue€is€deemed€waived€and€appellate€review€is€precluded.€€òòState€v.€Coker›óó,€746€œS.W.2d›€167,Ï171€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€707€œS.W.2d›€846,€853€(Tenn.€1986).€However,€in€this€case,€weÏcan€review€the€issue€based€upon€the€substance€of€Dr.€Meyerððs€testimony€at€the€sentencingÏhearing.Ì \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€in€this€case€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€òòShelton›óó,€òòœPhipps›óó,€or€òòAbramsóó,€whenÏœthis€ruling€was›€œmade.›Ì ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThough€not€pertinent€to€admissibility,€we€note€that€Dr.€Meyerððs€testimony€was€greatlyÏweakened€by€his€admission€that€his€conclusions€were€partially€based€upon€inaccurate€andÏincomplete€information,€and€his€refusal,€despite€that€fact,€to€revise€his€conclusions.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòProvence€v.€Stateóó,€337€So.2d›€783€(Fla.€1976).Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"Where€the€intent€with€which,€the€mode€in,€or€the€means€by€which,€an€act€is€done,€areÏessential€to€the€commission€of€the€offense,€and€such€offense€may€be€committed€with€differentÏintents,€in€different€modes,€or€by€different€means,€if€the€jury€is€satisfied€that€the€act€was€committedÏwith€one€(1)€of€the€intents,€in€one€(1)€of€the€modes,€or€by€either€of€the€means€charged,€it€shallÏconvict,€although€uncertain€as€to€which€of€the€intents€charged€existed,€or€which€mode,€or€by€whichÏof€the€means€charged,€such€act€was€committed.ðð€Ì XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBecause€of€our€conclusion€that€the€error€was€harmless€in€this€case,€we€do€not€address€theÏseparation€of€powers€question€which€arises€from€the€Stateððs€assertion€that€Public€Chapter€139Ïdivests€reviewing€courts€of€authority€to€grant€relief€in€a€case€regardless€of€a€conclusion€thatÏprejudicial€error€has€resulted€from€the€failure€to€give€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€In€reserving€this€issue€for€another€day,€we€are€mindful€of€our€duty€to€resolveÏconstitutional€conflicts€only€when€absolutely€necessary€for€a€determination€of€the€case€and€theÏrights€of€the€parties.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€1995).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€judge€granted€Special€Request€No.€4,€Decision€To€Be€Made€By€Individual€Jurors;ÏSpecial€Request€No.€12,€Presumption€Regarding€Aggravating€Circumstances;€Special€Request€No.Ï57,€Mitigation„Definition,€Weight,€Unanimity;€Special€Request€No.€58,€Mitigation„Definition;€SpecialÏRequest€No.€59,€Mitigation„Definition.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"The€youth€or€advanced€age€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€crime.ððÌ LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýð ðThe€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extremeÏmental€or€emotional€disturbance.ððÌ KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýð ðThe€capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€defendantððsÏconduct€or€to€conform€the€defendantððs€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantiallyÏimpaired€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€aÏdefense€to€the€crime€but€which€substantially€affected€the€defendantððs€judgment.ðð€Ì óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDefense€counsel€argued€the€following€factors€should€be€considered€as€mitigation.€€HallÏexpressed€remorse;€Hall€was€young€when€the€offense€was€committed;€Hall€had€a€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance€because€of€the€failed€relationship€with€the€victim;€Hall€had€a€mental€disease€orÏdefect;€Hall€was€intoxicated;€Hall€was€unusually€immature€for€his€age;€Hall€lacked€normal€emotionalÏdevelopment;€Hall€is€a€follower€and€not€a€leader;€Hall,€at€an€early€age,€exhibited€signs€of€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance€that€went€untreated;€At€the€time€of€the€murder€Hallððs€mental€or€emotionalÏdevelopment€was€significantly€below€that€of€persons€of€his€chronological€age;€Hall€is€an€insecureÏman€with€low€intelligence;€Hall€has€low€self„esteem€and€self„worth;€Hallððs€basic€personalityÏinadequacy€created€stress€and€erosion€of€his€self„confidence;€Hall€has€a€history€of€alcohol,€drugÏand/or€narcotic€abuse€and€addiction;€Hall€expressed€sorrow€for€the€murder€and€was€willing€to€pleadÏguilty;€Hallððs€capacity€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€was€impaired.Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€least€44€of€the€persons€sentenced€to€death€in€Tennessee€since€1977€were€betweenÏthe€ages€of€19€and€25€when€they€committed€the€murder€and€at€least€ten€were€18€or€19€when€theÏoffense€was€committed.€€Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€defendant€went€to€trial€on€three€charges:€(1)€first€degree€murder€by€an€unlawful,Ïintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing,€(2)€first€degree€murder€by€a€reckless€killingÏcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€arson€(felony€murder),€and€(3)€aggravated€arson.€€However,€heÏentered€guilty€pleas€before€the€jury€to€arson€and€felony€murder.€€After€the€trial€court€refused€toÏ"accept"€the€guilty€pleas,€the€defendant€persisted€in€such€pleas€before€the€jury,€contesting€only€theÏcharges€that€the€killing€was€premeditated€and€deliberate.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€trialÏcourt€instructed€the€jury€that€it€could€return€a€guilty€verdict€for€either€felony€murder€or€for€aÏpremeditated€and€deliberated€murder,€but€not€for€both.€€Under€this€instruction,€the€jury€reportedÏthat€the€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€aggravated€arson€and€premeditated€and€deliberate€murder.€ÏNo€finding€regarding€a€felony€murder€was€reported.€€Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€€Although€not€relevant€to€our€inquiry,€we€note€that€the€definition€of€first€degree€murderÏcontained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202€was€amended€in€1995.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„202€(Supp.€1996).€€Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€>Ô€Ô€BÔThe€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€McGallóó,€698€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),€inÏwhich€the€victim€had€been€shot€in€the€chest€and€later€run€over€and€dragged€by€a€car.€€This€court€heldÏthat€it€was€error€to€admit€photographs€of€the€victim€because,€with€the€exception€of€the€gunshotÏwound,€all€of€the€harm€to€the€victim€was€caused€by€the€subsequent€passing€of€a€vehicle.€ÏConversely,€in€the€present€case,€the€photograph€that€was€admitted,€although€altered,€was€limited€inÏnature€and€depicted€injuries€the€victim€received€as€a€result€of€the€defendant's€conduct.€€Thus,€weÏdo€not€consider€òòMcGallóó€to€be€dispositive€of€this€issue.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€730€(Tenn.€1994),€the€supreme€court€concludedÏthat€"when€a€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€does€not€prepare€a€summary€report,€but€instead€relies€onÏextensive€memoranda€to€record€not€only€observations€and€hypotheses€but€also€evaluations,€suchÏrecords€are€discoverable€under€Rule€16(b)(1)(B)."€€In€this€case,€Dr.€Meyer€prepared€an€evaluation€Ïreport€in€advance€of€trial€and€therefore,€the€investigator's€report€is€considered€an€internalÏmemorandum€and€is€generally€nondiscoverable,€as€the€state€concedes,€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.ÏRule€16(b)(2).Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€the€defendant€also€relies€on€òòSmith€v.€McCormickóó,€914€F.2d€1153,€163„65Ï(9th€Cir.€1990),€which€we€conclude€is€distinguishable.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€€reversed€the€denial€ofÏhabeas€corpus€relief€in€part€because€Montana's€death€penalty€structure€interfered€with€theÏconsideration€of€mitigating€evidence.€€The€defendant€is€correct€that€Montana€statutes€containedÏsimilar€mitigation€factors€modified€by€"extreme"€and€"substantial."€€However,€Montana€statutes€alsoÏprovided€that€the€death€penalty€was€required€if€the€sentencer€found€one€or€more€aggravatingÏcircumstance€and€no€mitigating€circumstances€"sufficiently€substantial"€to€call€for€leniency.€òòIdóó.€atÏ1163.€€Tennessee€provisions€do€not€contain€such€a€limitation.€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(f)€and€(g).ÌÌ€Ì áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€support€of€his€contentions,€the€defendant€cites€to€numerous€studies,€newspaperÏarticles,€law€review€articles,€and€journals.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record,€however,€with€respectÏto€any€of€his€contentions.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€23.Ì ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€BÔÔ€BôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note,€however,€that€in€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563€(Tenn.€1993),€the€supremeÏcourt€found€the€death€penalty€to€be€disproportionate€and€reduced€the€defendant's€sentence€to€life.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€570„71.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€>ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€BԛрÑÑ7€ 1î XXdædÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€CCXÐd&Ӝـ€ÙßR€FGEA1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òÔ€B¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€BXÔó óÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó ó€ò òDecember€œ15,›€1997ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àHamilton€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Stephen€M.€œBevil›,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌLEROY€HALL,€JR.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)à àSupreme€CourtÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„œS01›„9701„CR„00010ÌÌÌòòÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòà àFOR€APPELLEE:óóÌÌBrock€œMehler›à àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ(Appeal€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌWilliam€R.€Heckà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌ212€James€BuildingÌChattanooga,€TennesseeÌ(Trial€and€Appeal)à àà àà àà àà àAmy€L.€œTarkington›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌœKarla›€G.€œGothard›à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌ701€Cherry€StreetÌChattanooga,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌ(Trial€Only)à àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEleventh€Judicial€DistrictÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€J.€EvansÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€Tennessee€ÌÌÌà@ àÌÌÔ€B„Ôà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€BXÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àœDROWOTA›,€J.€ÌÓÓÌÌÑ , ÑÑ7€¦7XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ ` Ñà àIn€this€capital€case,€the€defendant,€œLeRoy›€Hall,€Jr.,€was€convicted€ofÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder€and€aggravated€arson.× ƒH ××  ×€€In€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€ð ð[œt]he›€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[œt]he›€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€or€was€attempting€toÍcommit,€arson.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(5)›€and€(7)€(1991).€€Finding€thatÏthe€two€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà àOn€direct€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendantÏchallenged€both€his€conviction€and€sentence,€raising€thirteen€claims€of€error,Ïsome€with€numerous€œsubparts›.€€After€fully€considering€the€defendantððs€claims,€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,Ïpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1996€Supp.),× ƒI ××  ×€the€case€wasÏdocketed€in€this€Court.€ÌÌÓ` °ŽXÊ&Ø'XÓà àThe€defendant€raised€numerous€issues€in€this€Court,€but€after€carefullyÏexamining€the€entire€record€and€the€law,€including€the€thorough€opinion€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€the€briefs€of€the€defendant€and€the€State,€thisÍCourt,€on€August,€27,€1997,€entered€an€Order,€limiting€review€at€oral€argument€toÏfour€issues€and€setting€the€cause€for€the€September,€1997,€term€of€this€Court€inÏKnoxville.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€12.× ƒJ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€none€of€the€allegedÏerrors€require€reversal.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€findings€as€toÏthe€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances,€and€the€sentence€of€death€is€notÏarbitrary€or€disproportionate€to€the€sentence€imposed€in€similar€cases,Ïconsidering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€Accordingly,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upholding€the€defendantððs€convictionÏfor€first€degree€murder€and€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóà àÌà àThe€evidence€presented€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€demonstrated€thatÏaround€midnight€on€April€16,€1991,€the€defendant€threw€gasoline€on€the€victim,ÏœTraci›€Crozier,€his€ex„girlfriend,€as€she€was€lying€in€the€front€seat€of€her€car.€€TheÏvictim€received€third€degree€burns€to€more€than€ninety€percent€of€her€body€andÏdied€several€hours€later€in€the€hospital.€€When€questioned€by€police,€theÏdefendant€initially€denied€involvement€in€the€offense.€€Eventually,€however,€HallÏadmitted€responsibility,€but€claimed€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim;€heÏintended€to€burn€her€car.ÌÌà àThe€victim€met€the€defendant€in€December€of€1984.€€They€began€livingÏtogether€in€January€of€1986,€and€continuously€resided€together€until,€three€weeksÏprior€to€her€œmurder.€€On›€March€26,€1991,€the€victim€left€and€moved€into€the€houseÏwith€her€grandmother,€Gloria€œMathis›,€and€her€uncle,€Chris€œMathis›.€€After€theÏseparation,€the€defendant€would€frequently,€and€often€late€at€night,€call€the€œMathis›Ïhome€in€search€of€the€victim.€€In€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€6,€1991,€theÏœMathis›€household€was€awakened€by€a€dog€barking€and€looked€outside€to€see€theÏvictimððs€car,€a€two„door€œNissan›€Pulsar,€burning.€€The€victimððs€uncle€saw€theÍdefendant€running€away€from€the€burning€car€and€fired€a€gunshot€into€the€air.€ÏThe€fire€department€was€called€to€extinguish€the€fire€and€investigate€the€arson.€ÏWhen€the€defendant€called€the€œMathis›€house€thereafter,€the€victimððs€uncleÏthreatened€Hall€in€the€event€he€did€not€leave€the€victim€alone.€The€defendantÏresponded:€ð ðIf€I€canððt€have€her,€nobody€canððt.ðð€[sic]€ÌÌà àOn€the€night€of€April€16,€1991,€shortly€before€midnight,€Viola€œWylene›€PriceÏwas€sitting€in€her€car€outside€her€home€when€she€saw€ð ða€ball€of€fireðð€in€the€middleÏof€the€street.€€As€she€started€to€get€out€of€her€car,€a€black€car,€later€identified€asÏbeing€similar€to€the€defendantððs,€sped€away€from€the€scene.€€After€the€car€passed,ÏPrice€ran€into€her€house€and€called€911.€€Her€son,€Billy€Ray€Wilson,€was€insideÏand€when€he€heard€his€mother€call€for€emergency€assistance,€he€ran€outside€toÏsee€what€was€happening.€€When€he€saw€the€burning€car€and€heard€someoneÏinside€it€screaming€for€help,€Wilson€ran€to€the€driverððs€side€of€the€car.€€Though€theÏdoor€was€open,€he€could€not€see€anyone€through€the€flames.€€Wilson€ran€aroundÏto€the€passenger€side€of€the€car€where€he€saw€the€victim€attempting€to€get€outÏthrough€the€window.€€Wilson€pulled€the€victim€from€the€car,€removed€her€burningÍshoes€and€clothes,€helped€her€extinguish€the€flames€on€her€body,€and€assistedÏher€to€a€safe€distance€from€the€burning€car€in€the€event€of€an€explosion.ÌÌà àPrice€returned€to€the€scene€after€calling€for€emergency€assistance.€ÏThough€the€victim€had€been€so€badly€burned€that€her€hair€was€melted€and€skinÏwas€hanging€from€her€arms,€she€remained€coherent€and€alert.€€The€victimÏexpressed€concern€about€her€appearance€and€the€likelihood€of€permanentÏscarring€from€the€burns.€€She€gave€Price€her€name€and€telephone€number.€ÏWhen€Price€asked€the€victim€for€the€identity€of€the€perpetrator,€the€victimÏresponded,€ð ðLee€Hall.ðð€€The€victim€also€told€Price€that€Hall€twice€previously€hadÏset€fire€to€her€car.€€The€victim€told€Wilson€that€the€defendant€ð ðthrew€gas€on€me,Ïgas€bomb.ðð€€She€repeated,ððit€was€gas,€gas€bomb.€€He€set€me€on€fire.ðð€ÌÌà àEarl€œAtchley›,€Commander€of€the€Chattanooga€Fire€Department,€receivedÏthe€€911€call€at€12:06€a.m.€on€April€17,€1991.€€When€he€arrived€at€the€scene€theÏvictimððs€car€was€ð ðfully€involvedðð€in€fire€and€the€victim€was€badly€burned.€€ThoughÏCommander€œAtchley›€did€not€recognize€her,€the€victim€remembered€him€as€theÍperson€who€had€investigated€the€burning€of€her€car€on€April€6,€œ1991.× ƒK ××  ×›€The€victimÏtold€Commander€œAtchley›€that€the€same€person€was€responsible€for€bothÏincidents.€€Commander€œAtchley›€recovered€a€melted€plastic€container€next€to€theÏdriverððs€side€of€the€victimððs€car,€and€a€œtupperware›€lid,€which€was€not€as€badlyÏmelted,€near€the€car.ÌÌà àThe€victim€was€taken€to€œErlanger›€Hospital€where€she€was€treated€by€Dr.ÏSonya€œMerriman›,€a€plastic€surgeon€and€burn€specialist.€€Describing€the€victimððsÏcondition,€Dr.€œMerriman›€stated,€ð ðShe€had€a€95€percent,€what€we€call€a€total€bodyÏsurface€area€burn,€95€percent€of€her€body€was€burned,€and€all€but€about€two€toÏthree€percent€of€that€was€third€degree€burns.ðð€€The€victimððs€teeth€were€charred,Ïand€the€hair€was€burned€off€her€body.€€Based€upon€the€consistency€andÏuniformity€of€the€burns€over€the€victimððs€entire€body,€except€the€soles€of€her€feet,ÏDr.€œMerriman›€opined€that€the€victimððs€body€had€been€doused€with€gasoline,Ïrather€than€splattered€or€splashed.€€Although€Dr.€œMerriman›€had€treated€nearlyÍone€hundred€burn€cases,€she€had€never€seen€a€worse€or€more€uniform€pattern€ofÏburning€on€an€individual.ÌÌà àThe€victim€was€treated€with€intravenous€fluids€and€incisions€in€her€bodyÏdesigned€to€allow€tissue€expansion.€€Nonetheless,€the€victimððs€conditionÏdeteriorated.€€Her€tongue€swelled€until€it€protruded€from€her€mouth,€and€herÏeyelids€became€inverted€from€the€swelling.€€€Despite€the€gravity€and€extent€of€herÏinjuries,€however,€Dr.€œMerriman›€testified€that€the€victim€remained€conscious.€€SheÏwas€also€in€constant€pain.€€According€to€Dr.€œMerriman›,€the€medicationÏadministered€to€the€victim€would€not€have€been€strong€enough€to€alleviate€herÏpain,€and€the€victim€did€not€sleep€for€long€periods€of€time€or€lose€consciousnessÏuntil€just€before€her€death.€€The€victim,€according€to€Dr.€€œMerriman›,€sustained€anÏœunsurvivable›€burn€from€which€there€was€never€any€chance€of€recovery.ÌÌà àEd€Forester,€an€investigator€with€the€Arson€Division€of€the€ChattanoogaÏPolice€Department,€examined€the€victimððs€car€after€both€the€April€6€and€April€œ16›Ïfires.€€His€investigation€of€the€April€6€fire€revealed€that€an€accelerant€had€beenÍpoured€around€the€exterior€edges€of€the€car€which€melted€the€fenders€andÏbumpers.€€A€yellow€plastic€jug€found€at€the€scene€tested€positive€for€gasoline.€ÏForester€obtained€an€arrest€warrant€for€the€defendant€based,€in€part,€upon€theÏstatements€of€the€victimððs€€uncle.€ÌÌà àForester€testified€that€the€vehicle€burned€on€April€6€was€the€sameÏautomobile€involved€in€the€fire€on€April€16,€1991.€€The€most€extensive€damageÏresulting€from€the€fire€on€April€16€was€to€the€driverððs€side€of€the€car.€€The€metalÏwas€discolored;€the€roof€sagged;€and€the€seat€springs€were€weakened.€€TheÏglass€on€the€passenger€side€was€fire€and€carbon€stained;€however,€glass€foundÏon€the€driverððs€side€had€no€such€markings.€€The€lack€of€fire€or€carbon€stainingÏindicated€that€the€glass€on€the€driverððs€side€had€been€broken€out€before€the€fireÏwas€started.€€A€melted€plastic€container€was€found€near€the€open€driverððs€door€ofÏthe€victimððs€vehicle.€€The€victimððs€socks,€shoes,€and€clothing€remains€wereÏrecovered€and€later€tested€positive€for€the€presence€of€gasoline.€€Car€keys€wereÏfound€some€thirty€feet€away€from€the€victimððs€car.€€€ÌÌà àMike€œDonnelly›,€an€arson€investigator€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€FireÏMarshallððs€Office,€also€examined€the€victimððs€car.€€He€found€evidence€of€threeÏseparate€fires€to€the€car.€€Based€upon€the€extent€of€damage,€œDonnelly›€opined€thatÏthe€April€16€fire€had€been€started€on€the€driverððs€side€of€the€vehicle.€Based€uponÏhis€examination€of€the€car€and€his€review€of€photographs€of€the€victim,€œDonnelly›Ïtestified€that€gasoline€had€been€poured€directly€onto€the€victim.ÌÌà àTestifying€for€the€defense€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€were€MorrisÏForester€and€Jeffery€Scott€Green.€€Forester€and€Green€had€been€drinking€with€theÏdefendant€in€the€early€evening€of€April€16,€1991.€€The€trio€consumed€about€twoÏand€one„half€cases€of€beer€and€were€intoxicated.€€Forester€went€to€bed€aroundÏ10:30€p.m.€and€did€not€see€the€defendant€thereafter.€€Green€recalled€seeing€theÏdefendant€between€10:30€and€11:00€p.m.€€Because€he€knew€the€defendant€wasÏintoxicated€and€unable€to€drive,€Green€tried€to€persuade€the€defendant€to€spendÏthe€night€at€Foresterððs€home.€€Eventually,€however,€the€defendant€left,€and€neitherÏGreen€nor€Forester€saw€him€again€until€after€the€murder.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€testified€in€his€own€behalf.€€According€to€his€testimony,Ïhe€and€the€victim€began€living€together€in€January€of€1986,€when€he€wasÏeighteen€and€she€was€sixteen€years€old.€€Even€though€the€victim€moved€out€inÏMarch€of€1991,€they€continued€to€see€one€another€after€the€separation.€€TheÏdefendant€said€he€was€upset€by€the€separation,€and€as€a€result,€had€beenÏdrinking€and€smoking€crack€cocaine.€€On€the€day€of€the€murder,€Hall€and€GreenÏwent€directly€to€Foresterððs€house€and€began€drinking€beer.€€At€one€point,€Hall€leftÏand€obtained€a€hammer€at€a€pawn€shop.€€After€attempting€to€call€the€victimÏseveral€times,€without€success,€Hall€returned€to€Foresterððs€home€about€6:30€p.m.Ïor€7:00€p.m.€and€continued€drinking.ÌÌà àHall€consumed€approximately€one€case€of€beer,€then€left€€Foresterððs€home,Ïtaking€with€him€five€more€cans€of€beer.€€After€purchasing€another€six€cans€of€beer,ÏHall€drove€to€the€mobile€home€he€had€shared€with€the€victim€and€destroyed€someÏof€her€possessions€because€he€was€angry€with€her€for€not€coming€home.€€Hall€leftÏthe€trailer€after€a€short€time€and€took€with€him€a€two„quart€tea€jug€which€heÏintended€to€use€to€burn€the€victimððs€car.€€Searching€for€the€victim€and€her€car,€HallÍdrove€by€her€work€place,€her€grandmotherððs€house,€and€several€bars,€but€he€didÏnot€find€her.€€Hall€was€threatened€by€the€victimððs€uncle€and€a€second€man€whomÏhe€did€not€know€when€he€drove€by€the€victimððs€grandmotherððs€house.€€Thereafter,ÏHall€stopped€at€a€service€station,€filled€the€tea€jug€with€gasoline,€and€purchased€aÏcigarette€lighter.€€Hall€removed€paper€towels€from€a€dispenser€near€the€gasÏpumps,€placed€them€in€the€opening€of€the€tea€jug,€put€the€container€in€his€car,Ïand€returned€to€the€area€near€the€victimððs€grandmotherððs€house.ÌÌà àAs€Hall€€was€preparing€to€leave€the€neighborhood,€he€encountered€theÏvictim€as€she€drove€up€in€her€car.€€According€to€Hall,€he€left€his€car€and€enteredÏthe€victimððs€car€on€the€driverððs€side€to€talk.€€Hall€asked€her€to€move€back€in€withÏhim€and€told€her€that€he€was€drunk€and€needed€her.€€He€asked€the€victim€if€sheÏwas€pregnant€and€told€her€that€she€could€not€have€another€abortion.€€Finally,€HallÏquestioned€why€he€had€been€blamed€for€the€earlier€burnings€of€her€car.€€AnÏargument€ensued.€€The€victim€called€the€defendant€a€ð ðcrazy€œS.O.B.›,ðð€and€told€himÏto€turn€himself€into€the€authorities.ÌÌà àAt€that€point,€Hall€got€out€of€her€car€and€told€the€victim€to€do€likewiseÏbecause€he€was€going€to€burn€it.€€When€the€victim€tried€to€lock€the€door,€HallÏreached€inside€the€car,€grabbed€the€keys,€threw€them€towards€his€car,€andÏordered€the€victim€to€get€out€of€her€car.€€Hall€then€ran€to€his€car€and€grabbed€theÏjug€of€gasoline.€€He€ignited€the€paper€towels€and€threw€the€jug€into€the€driverððsÏside€of€the€victimððs€car.€€The€defendant€knew€the€victim€was€lying€in€the€front€seatÏcrying€when€he€threw€the€gas€bomb€into€the€car.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€defendant,€after€he€threw€the€gasoline€jug,€the€victimÏcame€running€toward€him,€out€of€the€burning€car,€and€caught€him€on€fire.€€TheÏdefendant€extinguished€the€flame€on€himself€and€then€just€looked€at€the€victim,Ïwho€according€to€the€defendant,€ran€to€the€passengerððs€side€of€the€car,€and€rolledÏon€the€ground.€€Unsure€of€what€to€do€and€believing€that€the€fire€on€the€victim€wasÏalmost€extinguished,€the€defendant€drove€away€from€the€scene.€€Although€heÏclaimed€to€have€returned€two€or€three€minutes€later,€he€did€not€see€the€victim,€andÏhe€fled€again€when€a€black€shadowy€figure€ran€toward€him.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€denied€pouring€gasoline€onto€theÏvictim,€claiming€that€it€splattered€on€her€when€he€threw€the€jug€into€the€car.€€HeÏalso€denied€breaking€the€glass€on€the€driverððs€window,€insisting€that€the€door€wasÏopen.€€He€proclaimed€that€he€loved€the€victim€and€intended€only€to€burn€her€car.€ÏThe€defendant€admitted€that€he€initially€denied€the€offense€when€questioned€byÏpolice.€€He€also€claimed€to€the€police€that€he€never€meant€to€hurt€the€victim€andÏhad€the€gas€bomb€for€protection€from€the€victimððs€uncle,€but€he€threw€it€at€theÏvictim€after€she€laughed€at€him.ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€proof€summarized€above,€the€jury€found€the€defendantÏguilty€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€and€aggravated€arson.× ƒL ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€trial€proceeded€to€the€sentencing€phase€on€the€conviction€for€firstÏdegree€murder.€€The€State€presented€only€one€witness,€Detective€Ed€ForesterÏwho€had€investigated€and€obtained€warrants€for€Hallððs€arrest€for€the€burning€ofÏthe€victimððs€car€on€April€1€and€6,€1991.× ƒM ××  ×€€According€to€Forester,€at€the€time€of€theÏvictimððs€murder,€the€defendant€was€aware€that€he€was€a€suspect€in€the€April€1Ïand€6€incidents.€€Forester€also€testified€that€the€victim€had€given€a€statementÏfollowing€the€April€6€fire€in€which€she€said€that€Hall€previously€had€threatened€toÏkill€her€and€to€ð ðtotalðð€her€car,€and,€on€one€prior€occasion,€actually€had€tried€toÏforce€her€off€the€road.œ× ƒN ××  ×›ÌÌà àThe€proof€for€the€defense€at€sentencing€included€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏRoger€Meyer,€a€clinical€psychologist,€who€evaluated€the€defendant€after€his€arrestÍfor€this€murder.€€Dr.€Meyer€interviewed€Hall€for€three€hours€and€reviewed€theÏresults€of€tests€administered€to€Hall€by€one€of€Dr€Meyerððs€associates.ÌÌà àDr.€Meyer€testified€that€a€mental€status€examination€revealed€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€insane€or€psychotic.€€A€œSlosson›€Intelligence€test€indicated€thatÏthe€defendantððs€IQ€was€eighty„seven,€and€that€his€mental€age€was€thirteen€years,Ïeleven€months.€€The€defendantððs€basic€skills,€as€measured€by€a€Wide€RangeÏAchievement€test,€showed€€a€grade€level€6€to€9€education€in€the€general€areas€ofÏreading,€spelling,€and€arithmetic.€€A€neuropsychological€examination€did€notÏreveal€any€evidence€of€significant€neurological€trauma€to€Hallððs€brain.€€A€sixteen„factor€personality€test€revealed€that€Hall€is€introverted,€emotionally€unstable,Ïeasily€œinfluenced,›€and€has€low€self„esteem.€€According€to€Dr.€Meyer,€the€testÏreflects€that€the€defendant€has€little€self„control€and€is€not€rule€abiding€orÏmoralistic.€€Though€the€defendant€is€not€a€psychopath€or€sociopath,€Dr.€MeyerÏopined€that€Hall€has€problems€controlling€rage€and€anger.ÌÌà àA€Rorschach€ð ðInk€Blotðð€test€showed€that€Hall€has€a€great€deal€of€difficultyÏreacting€appropriately€to€stressful€situations.€€Dr.€Meyer€described€Hall€and€theÏvictimððs€relationship€as€an€ð ðemotional€tug€of€war,ðð€and€said€that€it€would€haveÏcreated€a€great€deal€of€tension€and€frustration€in€a€person€with€the€defendantððsÏpsychological€makeup.€Though€some€of€the€test€results€indicated€that€theÏdefendant€was€ð ðfaking€badðð€or€malingering,€Dr.€Meyer€explained€that€such€resultsÏdo€not€necessarily€mean€that€a€patient€is€faking,€but€can€also€reflect€that€a€patientÏis€simply€overemphasizing€the€stress€and€emotional€problems€he€or€she€isÏexperiencing.ÌÌà à€€Dr.€Meyer€diagnosed€the€defendant€as€suffering€from€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder.€€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that€persons€with€this€disorderÏcharacteristically€have€severe€emotional€problems€and€problems€with€thinkingÏand€judgment.€Dr.€Meyer€also€concluded€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€post„traumatic€stress€disorder,€but€admitted€that€it€may€have€resulted€from€theÏcircumstances€of€the€victimððs€death.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that€the€defendant€is€notÏmentally€retarded.€€He€also€conceded€that€his€conclusions€about€the€defendantððsÏmental€condition€were€based,€at€least€in€part,€upon€a€typographical€errorÏindicating€that€the€defendantððs€IQ€was€seventy„eight€(78),€rather€than€eighty„seven€(87).€€Despite€his€reliance€upon€this€erroneous€information,€Dr.€Meyer€didÏnot€revise€his€conclusions€about€the€defendant.€€He€restated€his€diagnosis€thatÏthe€defendant€exhibited€signs€often€associated€with€borderline€personalityÏdisorder€and€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€and€said€that€the€defendant€wasÏunder€extreme€emotional€distress€when€he€committed€the€murder€in€this€case.ÌÌà àDr.€Meyer€admitted,€however,€that€he€did€not€discuss€the€facts€of€theÏmurder€with€the€defendant,€but€considered€only€the€events€which€occurred€beforeÏand€after€the€killing€in€making€his€diagnosis.€€Dr.€Meyer€also€did€not€reconsiderÏhis€€diagnosis€after€receiving€an€investigatorððs€report€which€chronicled€theÏdefendantððs€behavior€since€childhood.€€Dr.€Meyer€admitted€that€the€behaviorÏdescribed€in€the€report€would€support€a€diagnosis€of€antisocial€personalityÏdisorder.€€The€behavior€included€the€defendantððs€burning€of€his€own€bed€in€1972,Ísetting€fire€to€his€motherððs€boyfriendððs€car€seat€in€1973,€setting€€fire€to€a€woodedÏarea€in€1975,€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€fighting,€sneaking€upÏon€his€motherððs€boyfriend€with€a€knife,€and€truancy.ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€Dr.€Meyerððs€testimony,€the€defense€also€presented€proofÏabout€the€relationship€between€Hall€and€the€victim€and€about€the€defendantððsÏabuse€of€drugs€and€alcohol.€€For€example,€Green€testified€that€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant€had€a€ð ðrockyðð€relationship€and€that€the€defendant€abused€alcohol,Ïmarijuana,€and€crack€cocaine.€€The€defendantððs€cousin€testified€that€Hall€came€toÏlive€with€him€in€Oklahoma€€in€December€of€1990€seeking€employment€andÏrecovery€from€drug€abuse,€but€the€victim€telephoned,€and€shortly€thereafter,€HallÏreturned€to€Tennessee.Ì€€Ìà àChristie€Griffin,€the€defendantððs€step„sister,€testified€that€Hall€was€very€sadÏwhen€he€and€the€victim€were€at€odds,€but€always€believed€they€could€workÏthrough€their€problems.€€According€to€Griffin,€Hall€and€the€victim€had€been€outÏtogether€several€times€following€their€separation€in€the€weeks€prior€to€the€murder.€ÍGriffin€stated€on€cross„examination€that€she€observed€the€defendant€hiding€hisÏshirt€when€he€returned€to€his€motherððs€home€on€the€night€of€the€victimððs€murder.€ÏIn€fact,€Griffin€had€told€the€police€where€the€shirt€œhad€been›€hidden.ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€brother,€David€Hall,€said€that€the€defendant€and€the€victimÏargued€once€a€week,€and€the€victim€would€address€the€defendant€in€abusive€andÏvulgar€language.€€According€to€his€brother,€the€defendant€was€abusing€crackÏcocaine€during€the€time€period€of€the€murder,€and€had€been€for€sometime€prior€toÏthe€murder.€To€support€that€drug€habit,€Hall€would€borrow€money€and€pawnÏproperty.ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€mother,€Sarah€Griffin,€testified€that€her€family€had€movedÏseveral€times€when€Hall€was€young.€€When€Hallððs€family€moved€to€Alabama,€heÏwas€only€fourteen€years€old,€but€he€remained€in€the€Chattanooga€area,€residingÏwith€another€family€for€three€years€until€his€own€family€returned.€€According€toÏHallððs€mother,€the€victim€and€her€son€began€having€problems€two€years€beforeÏthe€murder.€€The€couple€had€separated€and€reconciled€on€several€occasions.€ÍShe€recalled€that€in€December€of€1990,€the€defendant€moved€to€Oklahoma,Ïwhere€he€planned€to€find€employment€and€help€for€his€drug€problem,€butÏreturned€in€early€January€of€1991€to€reconcile€with€the€victim.€€During€theÏseparation€preceding€the€murder,€Griffin€testified€that€Hall€was€very€upset€andÏwould€often€cry€and€drink€alcohol€in€excess.€€Although€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant€were€separated,€they€had€been€out€together€several€times€in€theÏweeks€before€the€murder.€€According€to€Griffin,€Hall€was€a€ð ðbasket€caseðð€when€heÏwas€unable€to€see€the€victim.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€defense€introduced€medical€records€and€insurance€forms€toÏestablish€that€the€victim€had€€undergone€two€abortions€in€1985€and€one€abortionÏin€1990.€€The€prosecution,€in€rebuttal,€presented€the€testimony€of€a€friend€of€theÏvictim€who€related€that€Hall€was€aware€of€one€of€the€abortions€in€1985€and€hadÏencouraged€the€victim€to€undergo€the€procedure.ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€proof,€the€jury€determined€that€the€State€had€proven€theÏexistence€of€two€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€(1)€ð ð[œt]he›Ímurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[œt]he›Ïmurder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€or€wasÏattempting€to€commit,€arson.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(5)›€and€(7)€(1991).€ÏIn€addition,€the€jury€found€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€theÏmitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€as€a€result,€sentencedÏthe€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.€€The€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€inÏaccordance€with€the€juryððs€verdict€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.€ÏAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€considering€the€errors€assigned€by€the€defendant,Ïwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌà@ àòòò òEXPERT€TESTIMONYÌà àóóó óIn€this€Court,€the€defendant€first€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€Ïbecause€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€refused€to€admit€theÏexpert€proof€regarding€his€mental€state€at€the€time€the€offense€was€committed.€ÏThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Roger€Meyer€was€relevant€toÍnegate€intent,€an€essential€element€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder,œ× ƒO ××  ×›€theÏoffense€for€which€the€defendant€was€convicted.€€Exclusion€of€the€relevantÏevidence€constitutes€prejudicial€error,€€the€defendant€argues,€and€entitles€him€toÏa€new€trial.€€The€State€responds€that€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€Dr.€MeyerððsÏtestimony€at€the€guilt€phase€because€the€defendantððs€proffer€failed€to€inform€theÏtrial€court€that€the€testimony€was€being€offered€to€negate€intent.€€The€State€alsoÏasserts€that€the€substance€of€Dr.€Meyerððs€testimony€was€not€relevant€to€show€thatÏthe€defendant€lacked€the€capacity€to€form€the€requisite€intent€to€commitÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder.ÌÌà àIn€resolving€this€issue€we€must€revisit€a€principle€recently€endorsed€by€thisÏCourt€in€òòState€v.€Abramsóó,€935€œS.W.2d›€399€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€that€case,€weÏapproved€the€ð ðgeneral€holdingðð€of€òòState€v.€œPhipps›óó,€883€œS.W.2d›€138,€149€(Tenn.ÏœCrim›.€œApp›.€1994),€that€€ð ðevidence€of€a€defendantððs€mental€condition€can€beÍrelevant€and€admissible€in€certain€cases€to€rebut€the€mens€œrea›€element€of€anÏoffense.ðð€òòAbramsóó,€935€œS.W.2d›€at€402.€€We€deferred€until€ð ðanother€dayðð€furtherÏdevelopment€of€the€rule€of€ð ðððdiminished€capacity.ðððð€€€òòIdóó.€€Another€day€has€arrived.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€brief€historical€review.€€The€rule€of€diminished€capacityÏoriginated€in€Scotland€more€than€a€century€ago€and€was€designed€ð ðto€reduce€theÏpunishment€of€the€ððpartially€insaneðð€from€murder€to€culpable€homicide,€a€non„capital€offense.ðð€€òòState€v.€œWilcox›óó,€436€œN.E.2d›€523,€525€(Ohio€1982).€€The€doctrineÏwas€widely€accepted€in€other€countries€before€it€gained€acceptance€in€AmericanÏjurisdictions.€€òòIdóó.€€In€modern€application,€diminished€capacity€is€not€considered€aÏjustification€or€excuse€for€a€crime,€but€rather€an€attempt€to€prove€that€theÏdefendant,€incapable€of€the€requisite€intent€of€the€crime€charged,€is€innocent€ofÏthat€crime€but€most€likely€guilty€of€a€lesser€included€offense.€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏCameronóó,€907€F.œ2d›€1051,€1067€(œ11th›€Cir.€1990).€€Thus,€a€defendant€claimingÏdiminished€capacity€contemplates€full€responsibility,€but€only€for€the€crimeÏactually€committed.€€òòState€v.€œPadilla›óó,€347€P.2€312€(N.M.€1959).€€In€other€words,Ïð ðdiminished€capacityðð€€is€actually€a€defendantððs€presentation€of€expert,€psychiatricÍevidence€aimed€at€negating€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state.€ð ðProperlyÏunderstood,€it€is€.€.€.€not€a€defense€at€all€but€merely€a€rule€of€evidence.ðð€€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€œPohlot›óó,€827€F.œ2d›€889,€897€(œ3rd›€Cir.€1987).ÌÌà àIt€was€that€proper€description€of€ð ðdiminished€capacityðð€that€was€adopted€byÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€òòœPhipps›óó.€€Indeed,€while€recognizing€thatÏdiminished€capacity€is€not€an€enumerated€defense€under€the€1989€revision€of€theÏcriminal€code.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„11„501„„621€(1991€œRepl›.€&€œSupp›.Ï1996),€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€òòœPhipps›óó€concluded€that€a€defendantððsÏcapacity€to€form€the€requisite€mental€state€to€commit€an€offense€is€an€issue€inÏcriminal€prosecutions€because€the€general€criminal€law€in€Tennessee€providesÏthat€ð ð[œn]o›€person€may€be€convicted€of€an€offense€unless€.€.€.€[œt]he›€culpable€mentalÏstate€required€is€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„201(a)(2)€(1991€œRepl›.).€€We€agree€with€that€conclusion,€and€in€addition€observeÏthat€the€negation€of€an€element€of€a€criminal€offense€is€recognized€as€a€defenseÏin€Tennessee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„203(e)(2)€(1991€œRepl›€&€œSupp›.€1996)€(ð ðAÍground€of€defense,€òòother€than€one€(1)€negating€an€element€of€the€offenseóó.€.€.€ðð)Ï(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àUnder€Tennessee€law,€evidence€is€deemed€relevant€if€it€tends€to€ð ðmakeÏthe€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÏmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.ÏœEvid›.€401€€Moreover,€relevant€evidence€is€generally€admissible€in€Tennessee,Ïunless€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€ÏTenn.€R.€œEvid.›€402€and€403.€€Since€the€general€criminal€law€requires€that€mentalÏstate€be€proven€by€the€State€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€it€is€certainly€a€ð ðfact€ofÏconsequenceðð€to€the€outcome€of€a€criminal€prosecution.€€Therefore,€evidenceÏwhich€tends€to€prove€or€disprove€the€required€mental€state€is€relevant€andÏgenerally€admissible€under€Tennessee€law.ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€general€relevance€rules,€expert€testimony€in€TennesseeÏis€governed€by€Rule€702,€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€which€provides:ÌÓÓÌà8 àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€willÏsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€toÏdetermine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€byÏknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€inÏthe€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ÌÓÓÌUnder€this€evidentiary€rule,€expert€testimony€regarding€the€defendantððs€incapacityÏto€form€the€required€mental€state€must€ð ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€toÏunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€€__ÏœS.W.2d›€__€(Tenn.€1997).€€Though€the€facts€or€data€upon€which€the€expertÏtestimony€is€based€need€not€be€admissible€in€evidence,€they€must€be€madeÏknown€to€the€expert€at€or€before€the€hearing€and€must€be€of€a€type€reasonablyÏrelied€upon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field.€€Rule€703,€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€€In€fact,Ïunder€Tennessee€law,€ð ð[œt]he›€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€anÏopinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€ofÏtrustworthiness.ðð€€Rule€703,€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€€Of€course,€as€with€most€otherÏevidentiary€questions,€the€admissibility€of€expert€opinion€testimony€is€a€matterÏwhich€largely€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€œBallard›óó,Ï855€œS.W.2d›€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àTherefore,€to€gain€admissibility,€expert€testimony€regarding€a€defendantððsÏincapacity€to€form€the€required€mental€state€must€satisfy€the€general€relevancyÏstandards€as€well€as€the€evidentiary€rules€which€specifically€govern€expertÏtestimony.€€Assuming€that€those€standards€are€satisfied,€psychiatric€evidence€thatÏthe€defendant€lacks€the€capacity,€because€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€to€form€theÏrequisite€culpable€mental€state€to€commit€the€offense€charged€is€admissibleÏunder€Tennessee€law.€€As€the€intermediate€court€recognizedÌÓÓà8 àà à[œt]o›€find€otherwise€would€deprive€a€criminal€defendant€of€theÏright€to€defend€against€one€of€the€essential€elements€of€everyÏcriminal€case.€€In€effect,€then,€such€a€finding€would€deprive€theÏdefendant€of€the€means€to€challenge€an€aspect€of€the€prosecutionððsÏcase€and€remove€the€burden€of€proof€on€that€element€inÏcontravention€of€constitutional€and€statutory€law.€€While€the€lawÏpresumes€sanity€it€does€not€presume€mens€œrea›.€€Due€processÏrequires€that€the€government€prove€every€element€of€an€offenseÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÓÓÌòòœPhipps›óó,€883€œS.W.2d›€at€149.€€€€To€avoid€confusion,€however,€we€caution€that€suchÏevidence€should€not€be€proffered€as€proof€of€€ð ðdiminished€capacity.ðð€€Instead,Ïsuch€evidence€should€be€presented€to€the€trial€court€as€relevant€to€negate€theÍexistence€of€the€culpable€mental€state€required€to€establish€the€criminal€offenseÏfor€which€the€defendant€is€being€tried.œ× ƒP ××  ×›Ìà àÌà àAs€did€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case,€we€emphasize€that€theÏpsychiatric€testimony€must€demonstrate€that€the€defendantððs€inability€to€form€theÏrequisite€culpable€mental€state€was€the€product€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€notÏjust€a€particular€emotional€state€or€mental€condition.€€It€is€the€showing€of€a€lack€ofÏòòcapacityóó€to€form€the€requisite€culpable€mental€intent€that€is€central€to€evaluatingÏthe€admissibility€of€expert€psychiatric€testimony€on€the€issue.€€òòState€v.€œShelton›óó,Ï854€œS.W.2d›€116,€122€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1992),€perm.€app.€denied€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÏApplying€the€above€stated€principles€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€excluding€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Meyer.€ÌÌà àAfter€the€State€rested€its€case„in„chief€in€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,Ïdefense€counsel€requested€the€trial€court€to€rule€on€whether€or€not€Dr.€MeyerððsÏtestimony€could€be€admitted.€€The€trial€court€inquired€about€the€nature€of€theÏtestimony€and€the€purpose€for€which€it€was€being€offered.€€The€followingÏdiscussion€ensued.ÌÓÓà8 à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€Talking€about€the€type€of€individual€that€„„Ïwhat€his€testing€revealed€about€the€defendant€in€this€case,€and€thenÏtake€him€to€the€situation€where€„„€I€mean€thereððs€going€to€be€proof€„„Ïthereððs€already€been€proof€put€on€about€alcohol€consumption,€andÏwhat€that€consumption€„„€what€effect€that€consumption€would€haveÏhad€on€him€with€his€type€of€personality,€in€addition€to€exploring€hisÏstate€of€mind,€given€his€personality€makeup,€posing€facts€that€haveÏbeen€presented€here€in€court€about€the€incident€and€how€itÏoccurred,€what€his€expert€opinion€would€be€about€how€he€wouldÏreact€under€those€circumstances.ÌÌà8 à[THE€COURT]:€òòI€donððt€understand€„„€of€course,€state€of€mind€isÏimportant€if€it€goes€to€a€defense.€€If€it€goes€to€negating€key€elementsÏin€the€case€„„óóÌÌà8 à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€Intent,€Your€Honor.ÌÌà8 à[THE€COURT]:€But€just€general€state€of€mind,€what€his€feelings€are,Ïwhat€his€attitude€was€toward€the€victim€in€general,€I€donððt€see€howÏthat€particular€state€of€mind€contributes€toward€a€defense.€€I€assumeÏat€this€time,€based€on€what€Iððve€heard€up€to€this€point,€his€defense€isÏintoxication,€and€he€could€not€form€the€requisite€intent€toÍpremeditate€and€deliberate€and€commit€an€intentional€murder.€€IsÏthat€correct?ÌÌà8 à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€Well,€itððs€not€only€with€reference€toÏintoxication,€but€itððs€also€with€reference€to€emotional€distress€andÏstress€that€was€produced€by€the€relationship€between€the€parties.€€€ÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added.)ÌAfter€further€discussions,€the€trial€court€ruled€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àòòAnything€going€towards€state€of€mind€that€would€create€a€defense€orÏan€excuse€for€this€killing,€the€Court€will€allow.óó€€But€just€a€generalÏstate€of€mind€of€the€defendant€about€attitudes€toward€the€deceased,ÏI€donððt€think€itððs€relevant€at€this€time.€€I€donððt€think€itððs€admissible.€€IððmÏnot€going€to€allow€that€testimony€about€drugs€and€whateverÏbetween€the€two€people€just€to€show€generally€what€the€defendantÏwas€thinking,€unless€it€goes€specifically€toward€a€defense.€€And,€as€IÏunderstand€what€you€said,€it€does€not.ÌÌà8 àà àAlso,€the€law€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€does€not€recognizeÏdiminished€capacity€in€this€state.€€And€the€only€relevancy€I€see€as€farÏas€the€doctorððs€testimony€would€be€going€toward€insanity€as€aÏdefense€in€this€case€and€not€as€to€diminished€capacity.ÌÌà8 àà àNow,€as€far€as€the€defense€of€intoxication,€if€there€is€credibleÏtestimony€from€the€doctor€and€he€can€give€an€opinion€as€to€theÏextent€of€the€state€of€intoxication€of€Mr.€Hall€at€the€time€ofÏcommission€of€the€offense,€then€that€would€be€relevant,€but€justÏgeneral€stress€or€general€attitude€toward€life€would€not€be€aÏdefense€in€this€case.€€òòAny€testimony€going€toward€the€defense€ofÏintoxication,€I€will€allow.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓóó(Emphasis€added.)ÌÌà àFollowing€this€ruling,€the€defense€did€not€attempt€to€present€Dr.€MeyerððsÏtestimony€as€an€offer€of€proof,€nor€did€the€defense€make€any€further€statementÏabout€the€nature€and€purpose€of€the€testimony.œ× ƒQ ××  ×›€€It€is€clear€from€this€ruling€thatÏthe€trial€court€did€not€bar€Dr.€Meyer€from€testifying,€but€actually€stated€that€heÏwould€allow€€testimony€probative€either€to€negate€intent€or€to€establishÏintoxication.€€In€fact,€the€trial€court€recognized,€without€the€benefit€of€appellateÏcourt€decisions,€that€expert€testimony€relevant€to€negating€intent€is€admissible€inÏTennessee€even€though€diminished€capacity€is€not€a€defense.œ× ƒR ××  ×›€€Moreover,€theÍtrial€court€correctly€applied€that€legal€principle€to€the€testimony€in€this€case.€€FromÏthe€description€of€the€expert€testimony€offered€by€the€defense,€as€well€as€a€reviewÏof€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Meyer€at€the€penalty€phase,€it€is€clear€that€Dr.€MeyerððsÏtestimony€was€not€relevant€to€show€that€the€defendant€lacked€the€capacity€to€formÏthe€requisite€intent€because€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication.ÌÌà àInstead,€Dr.€Meyer€testified€generally€about€the€defendantððs€personalityÏtype€and€character€traits€which€he€gleaned€from€tests€results€and€a€single€threeÏhour€interview.€€At€no€point€in€his€testimony€did€Dr.€Meyer€state€that€the€defendantÏlacked€the€capacity€to€premeditate€and€deliberate€the€killing€because€of€a€mentalÏdisease€or€defect.€€Though€Dr.€Meyer€testified€at€the€penalty€phase€that€heÏbelieved€the€defendant€to€have€a€borderline€personality€disorder€and€that€suchÏpeople€could€have€brief€episodes€of€rage€during€ð ðtemporary€states€of€mentalÏillness,ðð€he€did€not€state€that€the€defendant€was€experiencing€such€an€episodeÏwhen€he€committed€the€murder€for€which€he€was€on€trial.€€In€fact,€had€Dr.€MeyerÏmade€such€a€statement€it€would€have€been€suspect€since€he€acknowledged€thatÍhe€never€discussed€the€facts€of€the€murder€with€the€defendant.× ƒS ××  ×€€While€evidenceÏthat€a€particular€defendant,€because€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€lacks€theÏcapacity€to€form€the€requisite€intent€is€admissible€in€Tennessee,€expert€opinionÏtestimony€about€the€typical€reactions€of€certain€personality€types€is€not€relevant€toÏthe€capacity€of€the€particular€defendant€on€trial.€€òòCompareóó€òòœBallard›óó,€855€œS.W.2d›€atÏ561€(expert€testimony€describing€the€typical€behavior€of€œa›€sexually€abused€childÏdoes€not€substantially€assist€a€jury€in€an€inquiry€of€whether€the€specific€crimeÏcharged€has€actually€taken€place).€€Moreover,€proof€of€personality€type€is€notÏrelevant€to€a€defendantððs€òòcapacityóó€to€form€the€mental€intent.€€As€Judge€œTipton›Ïcorrectly€stated€in€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case:ÌÓÓà8 àà àSociety€is€comprised€of€myriad€individuals€with€diverseÏpersonalities€and€temperaments€who€are€jointly€and€severallyÏbound€by€societyððs€common€codes€of€conduct€and€responsibility.€ÏThe€mere€fact€that€one€is€more€apt,€by€personality€type,€to€becomeÏemotional€in€response€to€a€particular€stimulus€does€not€provide€aÏmeans€for€that€person€to€be€absolved€from€the€same€responsibilityÏto€which€the€law€holds€another€who€might€be€less€apt€to€respond€asÏpassionately€to€the€same€stimulus.€€If€it€did,€then€each€person€wouldÍbe€the€law€unto€him€or€herself€based€solely€upon€his€or€herÏparticular€personality€makeup.ÌÌÌÓÓThough€expert€œtestimony€is€admissible›€to€œshow›€that€because€of€a€mental€diseaseÏor€œdefect,›€a€defendant€lacked€the€capacity€to€form€the€mental€state€required€toÏconstitute€the€offense€for€which€he€or€she€is€being€tried,€the€testimony€in€this€caseÏdid€not€meet€that€standard.€€The€trial€court€appropriately€excluded€the€evidence.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òAGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCESóóó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€challenges€the€validity€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€found€by€the€jury.€€First,€he€argues€that€unconstitutional€doubleÏcounting€exists€in€this€case€because€the€separate€aggravating€circumstancesÏwere€proven€by€the€same€underlying€facts,€the€burning€of€the€victimððs€car.€ÏSecondly,€he€asserts€that€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€murder€occurred€in€theÏperpetration€of€a€felony€is€inconsistent€with€its€verdict€of€premeditated€first€degreeÏmurder,€and€he€urges€that€there€was€not€a€sufficient€nexus€between€the€felonyÏand€the€homicide.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€œMiddlebrooks›óó,€840€œS.W.2d›€317,€346€(Tenn.€1992)€(œDrowota›€andÏOððBrien,€JJ.,€dissenting),€a€majority€of€this€Court€concluded€that€when€a€defendantÏis€ð ðconvicted€of€first„degree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder,€theÏaggravating€circumstance€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€œ39„2„203(i)(7)›€(1982)Ïand€œ39„13„204(i)(7)›€(1991)€does€not€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€murderersÏsufficiently€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€andÏArticle€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€òòbecause€it€duplicates€the€elements€ofÏthe€offenseóó.ðð€€€The€decision€in€òòœMiddlebrooks›óó€was€based€upon€the€narrowÏprinciple€that€an€aggravating€circumstance€may€not€duplicate€the€elements€of€theÏunderlying€death„eligible€offense.€€Contrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertion,ÏòòœMiddlebrooks›óó€did€not€embrace€the€broad€principle€of€double€counting,€which€hasÏbeen€adopted€by€the€Florida€courts,œ× ƒT ××  ×›€and€which€precludes€the€use€of€the€sameÏevidence€to€establish€more€than€one€aggravating€œcircumstance.›€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBushóó,€942€œS.W.2d›€489,€505€(Tenn.€1997)€(holding€that€use€of€murder€to€preventÏarrest€aggravating€circumstance€was€appropriate€because€it€did€not€duplicate€theÍstatutory€elements€of€the€underlying€offense);€òòState€v.€œStephenson›óó,€878€œS.W.2d›Ï530,€556„57€(Tenn.€1994)€(holding€that€use€of€the€murder€for€œrenumeration›Ïaggravating€circumstance€was€appropriate€because€it€did€not€duplicate€theÏstatutory€elements€of€the€underlying€offense).€€In€any€event,€we€observe€that€theÏjuryððs€finding€of€the€two€aggravating€circumstances,€(1)€ð ð[œt]he›€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[œt]he›€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€or€was€attempting€toÏcommit,€arson,ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(5)›€and€(7)€(1991),€were€notÏbased€upon€the€same€evidence.€€The€juryððs€finding€of€the€œ(i)(5)›€circumstance€wasÏbased€upon€the€torturous€means€by€which€the€defendant€chose€to€kill€the€victim,Ïand€the€suffering€she€endured€prior€to€her€death.€€The€juryððs€finding€of€the€œ(i)(7)›Ïcircumstance€was€based€upon€the€defendantððs€commission€of€the€murder€duringÏthe€perpetration€of€a€separate€felony,€the€destruction€of€the€victimððs€car€by€arson.ÌÌà àAs€to€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€finding€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance€is€inconsistent€with€its€verdict€of€premeditated€murder,Íwe€€disagree.€€As€previously€explained,€in€òòœMiddlebrooks›óó€œa€majority€of€this€Court›Ïheld€that€application€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€isÏinappropriate€only€if€the€defendant€is€convicted€òòsolelyóó€on€the€basis€of€felonyÏmurder.€€Implicit€in€that€statement€is€the€recognition€that€the€circumstanceÏproperly€may€be€applied€if€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€premeditated€first€degreeÏmurder.€€In€fact,€we€recognized€in€òòState€v.€œHurley›óó,€876€œS.W.2d›€57,€70€(Tenn.Ï1993),€that€premeditated€and€felony€murder€are€simply€alternative€means€byÏwhich€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder€may€be€committed.€€While€a€defendantÏwho€murders€one€victim€may€only€be€convicted€of€one€offense€of€first€degreeÏmurder,€€the€circumstances€of€a€particular€case€may€support€a€jury€finding€that€theÏòòoffenseóó€of€first€degree€murder€was€committed€both€with€premeditation€and€duringÏthe€course€of€perpetrating€another€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„112€(1990ÏœRepl›.).× ƒU ××  ×€Indeed,€that€was€the€situation€in€òòœHurley›óó€where€we€affirmed€theÍdefendantððs€conviction€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€his€deathÏsentence€based€upon€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà à€In€this€case,€the€defendant€admitted€that€he€intended€to€burn€the€victimððsÏcar,€while€at€the€same€time€denying€that€he€intentionally,€with€premeditation€andÏdeliberation,€killed€the€victim.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€bothÏaggravated€arson€and€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€obviously€disbelievingÏhis€assertions€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victim.€€The€fact€that€the€victimððsÏmurder€was€accomplished€by€pouring€gasoline€onto€her€body€at€the€same€timeÏas€gasoline€was€applied€to€the€car€to€accomplish€the€underlying€felony€does€notÏvitiate€the€applicability€of€the€aggravating€circumstance.€€In€fact,€application€of€theÏfelony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€is€particularly€appropriate€in€this€case.€ÏThe€defendant€relentlessly€searched€for€the€victimððs€car€intending€to€burn€it.€ÏWhen€he€found€the€object€of€his€search€with€the€victim€inside,€the€defendantÏachieved€his€original€purpose,€arson€of€the€victimððs€car.€€When€the€victim€wouldÏnot€heed€his€warning€to€leave€the€car,€the€defendant€refused€to€be€deterred€fromÏhis€original€purpose€and€then€proceeded,€with€premeditation€and€deliberation,€toÍmurder€the€victim€by€pouring€gasoline€directly€onto€her€body€and€igniting€theÏaccelerant.€€The€defendantððs€relentless€determination€to€commit€the€arson€of€theÏvictimððs€car€ultimately€culminated€in€his€decision€to€kill€her.€Accordingly,€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€premeditated€murder€inÏthis€case€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€also€engaged€in€committingÏarson.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€claim€that€there€is€an€insufficient€nexus€between€theÏarson€and€the€murder€is€without€merit.€€In€òòState€v.€Terryóó,€813€œS.W.2d›€420€(Tenn.Ï1991),€the€defendant,€a€church€pastor,€embezzled€substantial€sums€of€moneyÏfrom€his€congregation€over€a€period€of€time.€€He€began€taking€the€money€inÏMarch€of€1987,€In€June€of€1987,€he€killed€the€church€handyman,€placed€the€bodyÏinside€the€church€building,€and€torched€the€building.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïthe€jury€found€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€on€the€basis€of€theÏunderlying€larceny.€€The€trial€judge€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,Ïfinding€that€the€State€had€failed€to€prove€that€the€murder€was€committed€while€theÏdefendant€was€engaged€in€the€perpetration€of€larceny.€€This€Court€agreed€withÍthe€trial€judge€that€there€was€an€insufficient€nexus€between€the€murder€and€theÏlarceny.€€In€so€holding,€we€stated€that€application€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance€depends€upon€the€temporal,€spatial€and€motivationalÏrelationships€between€the€capital€murder€and€the€collateral€felony.€€òòIdóó.€at€423.ÌÌà àApplying€those€factors€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€theÏdefendantððs€argument€is€without€merit.€€Here,€the€capital€murder€and€collateralÏfelony€occurred€at€the€same€time€and€in€the€same€place.€€The€defendantððsÏmotivation€for€killing€the€victim€in€this€case€and€burning€her€car€were€likewise€theÏsame,€anger€over€her€decision€to€discontinue€their€relationship.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€findings€asÏto€aggravating€circumstances.€€We€also€conclude€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€were€constitutionally€applied€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àòòò òNONSTATUTORY€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESóóó óÌà àIn€1989,€the€General€Assembly€amended€the€capital€sentencing€statute€toÏprovide,€with€respect€to€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances,€as€follows:ÌÓÓ€€à8 àAfter€closing€arguments€in€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judgeÏshall€include€in€the€instructions€for€the€jury€to€weigh€and€considerÏany€of€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€set€forth€inÏsubsection€œ(i)›€which€may€be€raised€by€the€evidence€at€either€theÏguilt€or€sentencing€hearing,€or€both.€€The€trial€judge€shall€alsoÏinclude€in€the€instructions€for€the€jury€€to€weigh€and€consider€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€raised€by€the€evidence€at€either€the€guilt€orÏsentencing€hearing€or€both€which€shall€include,€but€not€be€limitedÏto,€those€circumstances€set€forth€in€subsection€(j).€€No€distinctionÏshall€be€made€between€mitigating€circumstances€as€set€forth€inÏsubsection€(j)€and€those€otherwise€raised€by€the€evidence€whichÏare€specifically€requested€by€either€the€state€or€the€defense€to€beÏinstructed€to€the€jury.€€These€instructions€and€the€manner€of€arrivingÏat€a€sentence€shall€be€given€in€the€oral€charge€and€in€writing€to€theÏjury€for€its€deliberations.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(1991€œRepl›.€&€1996€œSupp›.).€€ÌÌà àIn€this€Court,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€violated€that€statuteÏby€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€with€respect€to€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€The€offense€for€which€the€defendant€was€tried€and€convicted€wasÏcommitted€after€November€1,€1989,€so€the€above€statute€is€without€questionÏapplicable€to€his€case.€€However,€the€case€was€tried€before€this€Courtððs€decisionÍin€òòState€v.€œOdom›óó,€928€œS.W.2d›€18€(Tenn.€1996),€in€which€we€first€interpreted€theÏamended€statute€to€require€jury€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€raised€by€the€evidence€and€proffered€by€a€defendant€as€havingÏmitigating€value.€€€There,€we€stated€that€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€must€not€be€fact€specific€and€imply€to€the€jury€that€the€judge€hasÏmade€a€finding€of€fact.€€Instead,€such€instructions€must€be€drafted€so€that€they€areÏindistinguishable€from€the€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€when€considered€byÏa€jury.€€òòIdóó.€at€32.€€Finally,€we€interpreted€the€ð ðno€distinctionðð€portion€of€the€statuteÏto€preclude€the€trial€judge€from€revealing€to€the€jury€that€a€request€for€instructionÏon€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€has€been€made,€and€from€revealing€theÏidentity€of€the€party€making€the€request.€€òòIdóó.€€More€recently,€in€òòState€v.€œHodges›óó,Ï944€S.W.2d€346€(Tenn.€1997),€we€stated€that€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€must€be€phrased€in€general€categories€similar€to€the€statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances,€and€we€emphasized€that€a€trial€judge€has€no€duty€toÏgive€such€instructions€absent€a€timely€and€proper€request€from€the€defense.€€If€theÏdefense€proffers€a€timely,€but€overly€specific€requested€instruction,€the€trial€courtÍmust€revise€and€generalize€the€instruction€to€conform€to€the€evidence€and€theÏlaw.€€òòIdóó€at€356.ÌÌà àOf€course,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€ruled€without€the€benefit€of€ourÏdecisions€in€òòOdomóó€and€òòHodgesóó.€€In€denying€the€defendantððs€requests,€the€trialÏcourt€relied€upon€decisions€of€this€Court€interpreting€pre„1989€law€which€foundÏno€constitutional€or€statutory€provision€mandating€instruction€on€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989);ÏòòState€v.€Wrightóó,€756€S.W.2d€669€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€defendant€argues€that€he€isÏentitled€to€a€new€sentencing€hearing€because€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€hisÏrequest€constitutes€prejudicial€error.€ÌÌà àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€charge€the€jury€onÏnonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€does€not€require€reversal.€€The€State€firstÏpoints€to€a€statute€enacted€while€this€case€has€been€pending€on€appeal€andÏeffective€April€29,€1997,€which€amends€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1),Ïquoted€above,€by€deleting€the€sentence€ð ðNo€distinction€shall€be€made€betweenÍmitigating€circumstances€as€set€forth€in€subsection€(j)€and€those€otherwise€raisedÏby€the€evidence€which€are€specifically€requested€by€either€the€state€or€theÏdefense€to€be€instructed€to€the€juryðð€and€substituting€instead€the€followingÏlanguage€at€the€end€of€subsection€(e)(1):€ð ðHowever,€a€reviewing€court€shall€notÏset€aside€a€sentence€of€death€or€of€imprisonment€for€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole€on€the€ground€that€the€trial€court€did€not€specifically€instruct€the€jury€as€to€aÏrequested€mitigating€factor€that€is€not€enumerated€in€subsection€(j).ðð€€1997€Tenn.ÏPub.€Acts,€Chapter€139.€€While€conceding€that€the€statute€was€not€applicable€atÏthe€trial€of€this€cause,€the€State€nonetheless€argues€that€the€provision€precludingÏa€reviewing€court€from€setting€aside€a€sentence€of€death€on€the€ground€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€isÏbinding€in€this€appeal€and€prevents€this€Court€from€granting€relief€to€theÏdefendant,€even€if€it€concludes€that€the€failure€to€charge€nonstatutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€constitutes€error€which€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€theÏverdict.€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€352;€Tenn.€R.€œCrim›.€P.€52(a).€€Even€if€this€Court€Ïdetermines€that€Public€Chapter€139€does€not€apply€to€the€appeal€of€this€case,€theÏState€argues€that€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€because€the€trial€courtððsÍrefusal€to€give€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€wasÏharmless€error.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€conclude€that€the€error€wasÏharmless€and€does€not€require€reversal.× ƒV ××  ×ÌÌ€à àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€submitted€seventy„one€special€requests€for€juryÏinstructions€at€trial,€many€of€which€purported€to€explain€the€role€and€purpose€ofÏmitigating€circumstances€to€the€jury.€€Though€the€trial€court€refused€to€grant€any€ofÏthe€defendantððs€requested€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances,Ïhe€granted€five× ƒW ××  ×€of€the€other€requested€instructions,€one€which€stressed€that€theÏsentencing€decision€was€to€be€made€by€each€individual€juror;€one€whichÏemphasized€that€the€defendant€was€entering€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€withÍthe€presumption€that€there€were€no€aggravating€circumstances€warranting€aÏsentence€of€death;€and€three€other€instructions€which€broadly€defined€andÏexplained€the€nature€and€function€of€mitigating€circumstances.€€With€respect€€toÏthe€remaining€sixty„six€special€requests€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðI€found€that€many€ofÏthem€are€already€included€in€the€charge€that€the€Court€is€giving€.€.€.€or€some€ofÏthem€are€what€I€felt€like€are€.€.€.€repetitious€.€.€.€.€€And€Iððve€also€found€that€many€ofÏthem€are€not€appropriate€as€far€as€accurate€statements€of€the€law.ðð€€ÌÌà àImplicitly€conceding€the€accuracy€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€with€respect€toÏduplicity,€in€this€Court€the€defendant€points€to€only€seven€requested€instructionsÏon€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€which€he€says€the€trial€courtÏerroneously€refused€to€charge.€They€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àòòSpecial€Request€No.€20óó.€€In€determining€the€sentence€for€LeroyÏHall,€Jr.€you€shall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€thatÏLeroy€Hall,€Jr.,€was€immature€for€his€age,€and€lacked€the€normalÏemotional€development€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€crime.€ÏThis€may€be€sufficient€by€itself€to€impose€the€punishment€of€lifeÏimprisonment€and€reject€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌòòà8 àSpecial€Request€No.€21óó.€€In€determining€the€sentence€for€LeroyÏHall,€Jr.€you€shall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€thatÍLeroy€Hall,€Jr.ððs€criminal€activity€was€caused€by€variousÏpsychological€factors€and€alcohol„related€problems€that€can€beÏtreated€and€will€diminish€with€age.€€This€may€be€sufficient€by€itself€toÏimpose€the€punishment€of€life€imprisonment€and€reject€death€byÏelectrocution.Ìòòà8 àÌà8 àSpecial€Request€No.€26óó.€In€determining€the€sentence€for€Leroy€Hall,ÏJr.€you€shall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€thatÏLeroy€Hall,€Jr.€suffers€from€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€evenÏthough€it€did€not€cause€the€crime.€€This€may€be€sufficient€by€itself€toÏimpose€the€punishment€of€life€imprisonment€and€reject€death€byÏelectrocution.ÌÌòòà8 àSpecial€Request€No.€27óó.€€In€determining€the€sentence€for€LeroyÏHall,€Jr.€you€shall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€thatÏLeroy€Hall,€Jr.€at€a€very€early€age,€exhibited€signs€of€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance€that€went€untreated.€€This€may€be€sufficientÏby€itself€to€impose€the€punishment€of€life€imprisonment€and€rejectÏdeath€by€electrocution.ÌÌòòà8 àSpecial€Request€No.€30óó.€€In€determining€the€sentence€for€LeroyÏHall,€Jr.€you€shall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€that€Ï.€.€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.€never€developed€the€ability€to€cope€with€dailyÏtensions€or€to€become€self„dependent.€€This€may€be€sufficient€byÏitself€to€impose€the€punishment€of€life€imprisonment€and€rejectÏdeath€by€electrocution.òòÌà8 àÌà8 àSpecial€Request€No.€37óó.€€In€determining€the€sentence€for€LeroyÏHall,€Jr.€you€shall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€thatÏ.€.€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.€has€for€a€long€time€had€serious€personalityÏdisorders€that€are,€to€a€large€extent,€caused€by€the€problems€thatÏdeveloped€in€his€childhood€with€his€family.€€This€may€be€sufficientÍby€itself€to€impose€the€punishment€of€life€imprisonment€and€rejectÏdeath€by€electrocution.ÌÌòòà8 àSpecial€Request€No.€45óó.€€In€determining€the€sentence€for€LeroyÏHall,€Jr.€you€shall€consider€as€a€mitigating€circumstance€the€fact€thatÏLeroy€Hall,€Jr.€has€a€history€of€family€instability.ÌÓÓÌà àAssuming€the€refusal€to€give€these€instructions,€in€some€form,€was€errorÏpursuant€to€our€pronouncements€in€òòOdomóó€and€òòHodgesóó,€we€must€determineÏwhether€the€error€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€verdict.€€A€chargeÏshould€be€considered€prejudicially€erroneous€if€it€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legalÏissues€or€if€it€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€atÏ352.€€In€evaluating€claims€of€error€in€jury€instructions,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€has€cautioned€reviewing€courts€to€remember€that€ÌÓÓà8 à[œj]urors›€do€not€sit€in€solitary€isolation€booths€parsing€instructions€forÏsubtle€shades€of€meaning€in€the€same€way€that€lawyers€might.€ÏDifferences€among€them€in€interpretation€of€instructions€may€beÏthrashed€out€in€the€deliberative€process,€with€œcommonsense›Ïunderstanding€of€the€instructions€in€the€light€of€all€that€has€takenÏplace€at€the€trial€likely€to€prevail€over€technical€hairsplitting.ÌÓÓÌòòœBoyde›€v.€Californiaóó,€494€U.S.€370,€380„81,€110€œS.Ct›.€1190,€1198,€108€œL.Ed›.œ2d›Ï316€(1990);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Van€œTran›óó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€479€(Tenn.€1993).€WeÍreview€the€following€jury€charge€regarding€mitigating€circumstances€to€determineÏif€it€fairly€submitted€the€legal€issues€to€the€jury€in€this€case.ÌÌÓÓà0 àà0 àòòMitigating€CircumstancesóóÌà8 àà àTennessee€law€provides€that€in€arriving€at€the€punishment,Ïthe€jury€shall€consider€as€heretofore€indicated,€any€mitigatingÏcircumstances€which€shall€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€theÏfollowing:ÌÌà8 àà à(1)€The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€wasÏunder€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance.ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€The€youth€or€advanced€age€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€ofÏthe€crime.ÌÌà8 àà à(3)€The€capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€theÏwrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€ofÏmental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€toÏestablish€a€defense€to€the€crime€but€which€substantially€affected€hisÏjudgment.ÌÌà8 àà à(4)€any€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidenceÏproduced€by€either€the€œprosecution›€or€defense€at€either€the€guilt€orÏsentencing€hearing;€that€is,€you€shall€consider€any€aspect€of€theÏdefendantððs€character€or€record,€or€any€aspect€of€the€circumstancesÏof€the€offense€favorable€to€the€defendant€which€is€supported€by€theÏevidence.ÌÌà8 àà àNo€distinction€shall€be€made€between€mitigatingÏcircumstances€one€(1)€through€four€(4)€and€those€otherwise€raisedÏby€the€evidence.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€defendant€does€not€have€a€burden€of€proving€aÏmitigating€circumstance.€€If€there€is€some€evidence€that€a€mitigatingÏcircumstance€exists,€then€the€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€state€toÏprove,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€mitigating€circumstanceÏdoes€not€exist.Ìà8 àÌà8 àà àThere€is€no€requirement€of€jury€unanimity€as€to€any€particularÏmitigating€circumstance,€or€that€you€agree€on€the€same€mitigatingÏcircumstance.Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà àòòSpecial€Request€No.€4:€Decision€to€be€Made€by€IndividualÏà àà àJurorsóó:Ìà8 àà àBoth€the€prosecution€and€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.,€are€entitled€to€theÏindividual€opinion€of€each€juror.€Each€of€you€must€consider€theÏevidence€for€the€purpose€of€reaching€a€verdict€if€you€can€do€so.€ÏEach€of€you€must€decide€the€case€for€yourself,€but€should€do€so€onlyÏafter€discussing€the€evidence€and€instructions€with€the€other€jurors.€ÏDo€not€decide€any€question€in€a€particular€way€simply€because€aÏmajority€of€the€jurors,€or€any€one€of€them,€favors€such€a€decision.€ÏDo€not€decide€any€issues€in€this€case€by€chance,€such€as€theÏdrawing€of€lots€or€by€any€other€chance€determination.Ìà8 àà àòòÌà8 àà àSpecial€Request€No.€12:€Presumption€RegardingÏAggravating€à àà àà àà àCircumstancesóó:Ìà8 àà àThe€defendant€enters€this€phase€of€the€trial€with€theÏpresumption€that€there€are€no€aggravating€circumstances€thatÏwould€warrant€a€sentence€of€death.€€This€presumption€may€beÏovercome€only€if€the€prosecution€convinces€you€beyond€aÍreasonable€doubt€that€one€or€more€of€the€specified€aggravatingÏcircumstances€exists€and€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€orÏcircumstances€outweigh€any€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àà àòòSpecial€Request€No.€57:€Mitigation„Definition,€Weight,€Unanimityóó:Ìà8 àà àWhen€you€deliberate€on€the€punishment€for€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.,Ïlife€imprisonment€or€death€by€electrocution,€you€must€consider€anyÏmitigating€circumstance€supported€by€any€evidence€presented€byÏeither€party€at€either€the€œguilt„innocence›€or€sentencing€phase,€orÏboth,€of€the€trial.€€A€mitigating€circumstance€is€any€aspect€of€LeroyÏHall,€Jrððs.,€character,€background€history,€or€physical€condition€orÏthe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime€which€in€fairness€orÏmercy,€calls€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.€If€you€find€that€there€areÏany€mitigating€circumstances,€you€must€decide€how€much€weightÏthey€deserve.€€The€law€does€not€identify€or€limit€what€you€canÏconsider€concerning€Leroy€Hall,€Jrððs.,€character,€backgroundÏhistory,€and€physical€condition€or€the€nature€and€circumstances€ofÏthe€crime€that€are€mitigating.€€The€law€does€not€impose€a€formula€forÏdetermining€how€much€weight€a€mitigating€circumstance€deserves.€ÏEach€of€you€is€the€sole€judge€of€whether€mitigating€circumstancesÏexist€and€if€so,€how€much€weight€they€deserve.ÌÌà8 àà àYou€may€deliberate€as€a€body€about€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€but€you€are€not€required€to€reach€a€unanimousÏverdict€as€to€their€existence€or€weight.€When€you€vote€on€whetherÏany€aggravating€circumstances€have€been€proven€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€to€outweigh€mitigating,€each€of€you€must€decideÏfor€yourself€whether€any€mitigating€circumstances€exist€and,€if€so,Ïhow€much€weight€they€deserve.Ìà8 àÌà0 àà àà8 àà àòòSpecial€Request€No.€58:€Mitigation„Definitionóó:Ìà8 àà àMitigating€circumstances€are€factors€put€forth€to€show€that€theÏappropriate€sentence€is€life€imprisonment.€€Mitigating€circumstancesÏare€not€a€justification€or€excuse€for€the€offense,€but€are€factors€that,Ïin€fairness€and€mercy,€may€extenuate€or€mitigate€the€degree€ofÏmoral€culpability€as€far€as€punishment€is€concerned.€€MitigatingÏcircumstances€are€not€limited€by€the€law;€they€may€be€unlimited€inÏnumber,€as€long€as€they€are€based€upon€the€evidence€introducedÏby€either€the€prosecution€or€the€defense€at€the€trial€or€sentencing.Ìà8 àà8 àÌà àà àòòSpecial€Request€No.€59:€Mitigation„Definitionóó:Ìà8 àà àA€mitigating€circumstance€is€not€a€justification€or€excuse€forÏthe€offense.€€A€mitigating€circumstance€is€a€fact€about€the€offense,€orÏabout€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.,€which€in€fairness,€sympathy,€compassion,€orÏmercy€may€be€considered€in€extenuating€or€reducing€the€degree€ofÏmoral€culpability,€or€which€justifies€a€sentence€of€less€than€death,Ïalthough€it€does€not€justify€or€excuse€the€offense.ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà àClearly,€the€instructions€on€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€given€theÏjury€in€this€case€directly€relate,€and€encompass€generally€the€specific€subjectÏmatter€that€is€contained€within€the€defendantððs€special€requests.€€For€example,Ïcircumstance€(j)(7),× ƒX ××  ×€the€youth€of€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€the€crime€directlyÏrelates€to€special€requests€twenty„one€and€twenty„two.€€Circumstance€(j)(2),× ƒY ××  ×Íand€circumstance€(j)(8),× ƒZ ××  ×€relate€to€all€of€the€requested€instructions.€€Finally,€theÏgeneral€instructions€given€by€the€trial€court€broadly€informed€the€jury€of€itsÏunlimited€ability€to€consider€all€types€of€factors€by€defining€mitigatingÏcircumstance€as€ÌÓÓà8 àany€aspect€of€Leroy€Hall,€Jr.ððs,€character,€background€history,€orÏphysical€condition€or€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crimeÏwhich€in€fairness€or€mercy,€calls€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.€.€.€.€ÏThe€law€does€not€identify€or€limit€what€you€can€consider€concerningÏLeroy€Hall,€Jr.ððs€character,€background€history,€and€physicalÏcondition€or€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime€[as]Ïmitigating.ððÌÓÓÌà àThough€neither€the€statutory€mitigating€factors€charged,€nor€the€generalÏinstruction€on€mitigating€circumstances€were€as€specific€as€the€defendantððsÏspecial€requests,€the€instructions€generally€encompassed€the€subjects€containedÏwithin€the€special€requests€and€fairly€conveyed€to€the€jury€its€ability€to€consider€aÏwide€range€of€proof€as€mitigating€circumstances.€€In€addition,€the€trial€courtÏpermitted€the€defendant€to€introduce€substantial€proof€of€nonstatutory€mitigatingÍcircumstances.€Moreover,€during€closing€argument€at€the€sentencing€phase,€theÏtrial€court€allowed€defense€counsel€broad€latitude€to€argue€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€circumstances€to€the€jury.€€In€fact,€counsel€made€detailed€argumentsÏregarding€virtually€every€point€of€the€mitigation€on€which€he€sought€to€haveÏinstructions€given€to€the€jury.× ƒ[ ××  ×€€Therefore,€considering€the€instructions€actuallyÏgiven€the€jury€on€mitigating€circumstances,€in€conjunction€with€the€broad€latitudeÏappropriately€afforded€the€defendant€to€introduce€evidence€and€presentÏargument€about€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€refusal€to€charge€the€jury€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€doesÏnot€constitute€prejudicial€error€requiring€a€reversal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€œCrim›.€P.€52(a).ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCOMPARATIVE€PROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWóóó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€claims€that€his€sentence€is€disproportionate€to€theÏpenalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€andÏthe€defendant.€€The€defendant€is€asserting€that€his€sentence€is€comparativelyÏdisproportionate€because€ð ð[œc]urrently›€there€is€no€one€under€a€death€sentence€inÏTennessee€who€him„€or€herself€murdered€a€girlfriend€or€spouse.ðð€€The€StateÏresponds€that€Hall€is€not€the€only€person€in€Tennessee€under€a€death€sentenceÏfor€the€killing€of€a€spouse€or€a€girlfriend.€€We€agree.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€743ÏS.W.2d€154€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€674€S.W.2d€279€(Tenn.€1984)€and€771ÏS.W.2d€401€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993).€ÌÌà àOur€comparative€proportionality€review€does€not€end€with€that€finding,Ïhowever.€€Recently,€in€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1997),€weÏanalyzed€in€detail€the€precedent„seeking€method€this€Court€has€employed€overÏthe€past€eighteen€years€in€determining€whether€the€death€sentence€imposed€in€aÏparticular€case€is€òòdisproportionateóó€to€the€sentence€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€InÍconducting€comparative€proportionality€review,€we€begin€with€the€presumptionÏthat€the€sentence€of€death€is€proportional€to€the€crime€of€first€degree€murder.€ÏHowever,€if€a€capital€case,€taken€as€a€whole,€is€plainly€lacking€in€circumstancesÏconsistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€beenÏimposed,€the€sentence€of€death€in€the€case€being€reviewed€is€disproportionate.€ÏòòState€v.€œRamsey›óó,€864€S.W.2d€320,€328€(Mo.€œbanc›€1993).€€Even€if€a€defendantÏreceives€a€death€sentence€when€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€similar€toÏthose€of€an€offense€for€which€another€€defendant€has€received€a€life€sentence,€theÏdeath€sentence€is€not€disproportionate€if€this€Court€can€discern€some€basis€forÏthe€lesser€sentence€given€in€the€similar€case.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2dÏ241,€251€(Tenn.€1986).€€Moreover,€where€there€is€no€discernable€basis€for€theÏdifference€in€sentencing,€the€death€sentence€is€not€necessarily€disproportionate.€ÏThis€Court€is€not€required€to€determine€that€a€sentence€less€than€death€has€neverÏbeen€imposed€in€a€case€with€similar€characteristics.€€To€the€contrary,€our€dutyÏunder€the€similarity€standard€is€to€assure€that€no€aberrant€death€sentence€isÏaffirmed.€€òòWebbóó,€680€A.œ2d›€at€203.€€ð ðSince€the€proportionality€requirement€onÏreview€is€intended€to€prevent€caprice€in€the€decision€to€inflict€the€[death]€penalty,Íthe€isolated€decision€of€a€jury€to€afford€mercy€does€not€render€unconstitutionalÏdeath€sentences€imposed€on€defendants€who€were€sentenced€under€a€systemÏthat€does€not€create€a€substantial€risk€of€arbitrariness€or€caprice.ðð€€€òòœCf›óó.€òòGregg€v.ÏGeorgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€203,€96€œS.Ct›.€2909,€2939,€49€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€859€(1976).€€ÌÌà àAs€we€had€previously€explained,€and€reaffirmed€in€òòBlandóó,€comparativeÏproportionality€review€is€not€a€rigid,€objective€test.€òòIdóó.,€__€S.W.2d€at€__;€òòState€v.ÏœCazes›óó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€do€not€employ€a€mathematicalÏformula€or€scientific€grid,€nor€are€we€bound€to€consider€only€those€cases€in€whichÏexactly€the€same€aggravating€circumstances€have€been€found€by€the€jury.€€òòStateÏv.€œBrimmer›óó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€84€(Tenn.€1994).€€After€identifying€a€pool€of€similarÏcases,€we€consider€a€multitude€of€variables,€some€of€which€were€listed€in€òòBlandóó,Ïin€light€of€the€experienced€judgment€and€intuition€of€the€members€of€the€Court.€ÏòòBlandóó,€__€S.W.2d€at€___.€€With€respect€to€the€circumstances€of€the€offensesÏrelevant€factors€enumerated€in€òòBlandóó€include:€(1)€the€means€of€death;€(2)€theÏmanner€of€death€(e.g.,€violent,€torturous,€etc.);€(3)€the€motivation€for€the€killing;€(4)Ïthe€place€of€death;€(5)€the€similarity€of€the€victimsðð€circumstances€including€age,Íphysical€and€mental€conditions,€and€the€victimsðð€treatment€during€the€killing;€(6)Ïthe€absence€or€presence€of€premeditation;€(7)€the€absence€or€presence€ofÏprovocation;€(8)€the€absence€or€presence€of€justification;€and€(9)€the€injury€to€andÏeffects€on€œnondecedent›€victims.€€With€respect€to€comparing€the€character€of€theÏdefendants,€the€following€factors€were€listed€in€òòBlandóó€as€relevant:€(1)€theÏdefendantððs€prior€criminal€record€or€prior€criminal€activity;€(2)€the€defendantððs€age,Ïrace,€and€gender;€(3)€the€defendantððs€mental,€emotional€or€physical€condition;€(4)Ïthe€defendantððs€involvement€€or€role€in€the€murder;€(5)€the€defendantððsÏcooperation€with€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantððs€remorse;€(7)€the€defendantððsÏknowledge€of€helplessness€of€victim(s);€(8)€the€defendantððs€capacity€forÏrehabilitation.€€ÌÌà àConsidering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant,€we€conclude€thatÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€the€torturous€and€cruel€premeditated€killing€ofÏthis€young€woman€is€not€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.€ÏNot€only€did€Hall€show€a€total€disregard€for€human€life,€he€exhibited€completeÏindifference€€to€human€suffering.€€The€twenty„two„year„old€victim€had€œcohabitated›Íwith€the€defendant€since€she€was€sixteen€years€old.€€In€fact,€it€was€her€decision€toÏend€the€relationship€which€proved€fatal.€€For€the€three€weeks€following€theÏseparation€and€€prior€to€her€murder,€the€victim€was€consistently€pursued€by€theÏdefendant.€€He€telephoned€her€residence€at€all€hours€of€the€day€and€night.€€HeÏthreatened€her,€stating€at€one€point,€ð ð[œi]f›€I€canððt€have€her,€nobody€canððt.ðð€[sic]€€HisÏmother€described€him€as€a€ð ðbasket€caseðð€when€he€was€unable€to€see€her.€ÏAttempting€to€gain€control€over€her,€the€defendant€decided€to€destroy€her€meansÏof€transportation.€€While€in€the€process€of€accomplishing€that€objective,€HallÏdecided€that€destroying€her€life€would€more€effectively€and€efficiently€accomplishÏhis€purpose€of€preventing€her€from€seeking€a€life€apart€from€him.€€HeÏdemonstrated€uncommon€cruelty€by€choosing€to€murder€his€ex„girlfriend€byÏigniting€her€gasoline€soaked€body.€€Hall€by€his€own€admission€never€offeredÏassistance€to€the€victim.€€The€pain€and€suffering€which€the€victim€endured€in€theÏhours€preceding€her€death€is€unimaginable.€She€was€alive,€conscious,€coherent,Ïand€alert€as€her€tongue€swelled€to€the€extent€that€it€protruded€from€her€mouth€andÏher€eyelids€became€inverted.€€She€experienced€not€only€the€initial€pain€of€theÏburn€injuries,€but€also€the€pain€from€the€incisions€that€were€part€of€the€medicalÍtreatment€for€the€burns.€€The€only€provocation€or€motive€for€this€horrendous€killingÏwas€the€defendantððs€anger€with€the€victim€for€leaving€him€and€refusing€to€return.€ÏFollowing€the€murder,€Hall€did€not€turn€himself€into€the€authorities€and€report€theÏcrime.€€Instead,€he€went€to€his€motherððs€house€and€attempted€to€hide€the€shirt€heÏhad€been€wearing.€Fortunately,€his€step„sister€witnessed€his€attempt€and€laterÏreported€the€location€of€the€shirt€to€the€police.€€When€Hall€initially€spoke€with€theÏpolice,€he€denied€involvement€in€the€murder.€€Later,€he€admitted€his€involvement,Ïbut€denied€that€he€killed€the€victim€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€In€fact€heÏattempted€to€plead€guilty€to€felony€murder€in€front€of€the€jury.€€The€jury€disbelievedÏhis€testimony€and€found€the€existence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€ThereÏis€no€evidence€in€this€record€to€indicate€that€Hall€had€a€prior€criminal€record;Ïhowever,€he€admitted€to€abusing€alcohol€and€drugs,€and€warrants€had€beenÏissued€for€the€defendantððs€arrest€for€the€prior€arson€of€the€victimððs€car.€€WithÏrespect€to€his€mental€state,€the€evidence€shows€that€he€is€a€person€prone€to€rageÏwho€has€little€self€control.€€Though€the€precise€psychological€diagnosis€may€vary,Ïthe€defendant€clearly€displayed€symptoms€of€both€borderline€personality€disorderÏand€antisocial€personality€disorder.€€He€was€not€insane€at€the€time€this€crime€wasÍcommitted.€€Though€Hall€was€young€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€only€twenty„fourÏyears€old,€he€is€not,€by€any€means,€the€youngest€person€on€death€row.× ƒ\ ××  ×€ÏMoreover,€contrary€to€his€assertion,€he€is€not€the€only€person€in€Tennessee€toÏreceive€a€death€penalty€for€the€killing€of€a€spouse€or€a€girlfriend.€€Considering€theÏnature€of€this€crime€and€the€character€of€this€defendant,€this€murder€places€HallÏinto€the€class€of€defendants€for€whom€the€death€penalty€is€an€appropriateÏpunishment.€€Based€upon€our€review,€we€conclude€that€the€following€cases€inÏwhich€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed€have€many€similarities€with€this€case.€€ÌÌ€€à àIn€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€743€S.W.2d€154€(Tenn.€1987),€the€thirty„three€year€oldÏdefendant€murdered€his€wife€by€forcing€a€large€plastic€garbage€bag€into€herÏmouth€which€resulted€in€strangulation€and€asphyxiation.€€She€bled€from€the€noseÏand€ears€and€traces€of€blood€were€found€on€a€couch€in€the€office€where€her€deathÏoccurred.€€There€was€testimony€that€she€would€have€been€conscious€during€theÏterrifying€ordeal€and€that€from€one€to€four€minutes€would€have€elapsed€beforeÍshe€died.€€This€Court€€stated€that€she€suffered€ð ða€most€terrible€death,ðð€andÏdeclined€to€state€all€the€ð ðhorrible€detailsðð€of€it.€€As€in€this€case,€the€jury€in€òòJohnsonóóÏfound€that€the€murder€was€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(5)(1982).›€ÏAs€in€this€case,€the€jury€also€found€a€second,€but€different,€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€that€the€defendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€violent€felonyÏoffenses,€armed€robbery€and€aggravated€assault.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)(1982).›€€The€only€possible€motive€for€the€unprovoked€killing€was€theÏdefendantððs€desire€to€prevent€his€wife,€who€had€previously€threatened€to€leaveÏhim,€from€learning€that€he€had€been€found€in€a€compromising€position€with€aÏwoman€a€few€weeks€before€the€murder.€€As€did€the€relationship€of€the€victim€andÏHall€in€this€case,€the€relationship€between€Johnson€and€his€wife€had€a€history€ofÏdifficulties.€€Though€Johnson€denied€the€murder€and€attempted€to€place€blame€forÏthe€killing€upon€a€prisoner€who€was€on€work€release,€the€jury€disbelievedÏJohnson€and€sentenced€him€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€674€S.W.2d€279€(Tenn.€1984)€and€771€S.W.2d€401Ï(Tenn.€1989),€the€twenty„four„year„old€defendant€was€sentenced€to€death€forÏmurdering€the€twenty„three„year„old€victim€he€had€been€dating.€€The€victim€hadÏbeen€born€with€brain€damage€and€was€mildly€retarded.€€The€defendant€killed€theÏvictim€by€beating€and€repeatedly€stabbing€her.€€Some€of€the€wounds€wereÏinflicted€before€death€and€some€after€death.€€Some€of€the€stab€wounds€extendedÏso€deep€into€the€bone€that€the€forensics€testimony€indicated€that€a€hammer€hadÏbeen€used€to€drive€the€knife€as€if€it€were€a€nail.€€The€victim€had€also€been€raped.€ÏAs€in€this€case,€the€issue€of€intoxication€from€drugs€and€alcohol€and€whether€itsÏdegree€was€sufficient€to€negate€premeditation€was€a€contested€issue€in€the€trial.€ÏThe€jury€rejected€Millerððs€proof€and€found€him€guilty€of€premeditated€murder.€€TheÏjury€imposed€the€death€penalty€upon€finding€that€the€murder€ð ðwas€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€œ39„2„203(i)(5)›€(1982)(repealed).€€The€sentence€was€reversed€onÏdirect€appeal€by€this€Court€because€irrelevant€and€prejudicial€evidence€wasÏadmitted€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€However,€at€the€œresentencing›€hearing€the€juryÍagain€imposed€the€death€penalty€upon€€the€basis€of€the€œ(i)(5)›€aggravatingÏcircumstance€and€the€sentence€was€affirmed€upon€appeal.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993),€the€forty„year„oldÏdefendant€was€found€guilty€of€the€triple€premeditated€murders€of€his€estrangedÏwife,€age€thirty„five€and€her€two€sons€by€a€previous€marriage,€age€sixteen€andÏthirteen.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€on€the€murder€counts€as€toÏall€three€victims.€€With€respect€to€the€killing€of€his€estranged€wife,€the€jury€foundÏtwo€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€œ39„2„203(i)(5)›€(1982),€and€(2)€the€defendant€committed€ð ðmass€murderðð€which€isÏdefined€as€the€murder€of€three€or€more€persons€within€the€state€of€TennesseeÏwithin€a€period€of€forty„eight€(48)€months,€and€perpetrated€in€a€similar€fashion€in€aÏcommon€scheme€or€plan,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(12)›€(1982).€€Like€theÏdefendant€in€this€case,€Smith€harassed€his€estranged€wife€in€the€weeks€prior€toÏthe€murder.€€€In€fact,€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€warrants€had€been€issued€chargingÏthe€defendant€with€aggravated€assault€of€the€victim.€€Smith€killed€his€wife€byÍshooting€her€in€the€left€arm€and€the€neck.€€The€gunshot€to€her€neck€had€severedÏher€spinal€cord,€producing€paralysis€and€death€within€two€to€six€minutes.€€ThoughÏshe€would€have€been€able€to€hear€during€some€portion€of€this€time,€Smithððs€victimÏwould€have€been€unable€to€move.€€€Therefore,€she€may€have€been€able€to€hearÏthe€sounds€of€her€children€being€murdered.€€After€her€death,€the€defendantÏslashed€her€neck€and€stabbed€her€with€a€knife€and€an€awl.€€In€mitigation,€theÏdefendant€offered€proof€to€show€that€he€had€been€a€good€prisoner,€and€inÏaddition,€several€of€his€co„workers€testified€that€he€was€a€good€employee.€€HisÏmother€and€daughter€said€that€he€had€a€severely€retarded€teenage€son€whoÏdepended€upon€the€defendant€emotionally.€€As€in€this€case,€the€defendantÏpresented€expert€psychological€proof€that€he€had€personality€disorders.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€œOððGuinn›óó,€709€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1986),€the€thirty„two„year„oldÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€the€rape€and€strangulation€death€of€a€seventeen„year„old€woman.€€The€defendant€and€the€victim€met€at€a€nightclub€in€Jackson,ÏTennessee.€Both€were€intoxicated€from€alcohol€and€drugs.€€They€left€the€barÏtogether€and€rode€around€in€the€defendantððs€car.€€At€some€point,€the€defendantÍbecame€angry€with€the€victim€and€assaulted€and€murdered€her.€€€The€victimÏsuffered€a€horrible€ordeal.€€She€had€offensive€and€defensive€wounds€to€herÏchest,€arms,€and€head,€indicating€that€she€had€been€severely€and€brutallyÏbeaten.€€The€cause€of€her€death€was€ligature€strangulation.€€She€was€choked€toÏdeath€with€her€halter€top.€€A€contusion€with€parallel€bruises€on€either€side€of€theÏnipple€of€her€left€breast€might€have€been€made€by€pliers€or€a€similar€object.€€AÏmetal€tire€tool€had€been€forcefully€inserted€into€her€vagina.€€€Semen€was€alsoÏfound€in€her€vagina.€€Abrasions€on€her€buttocks€indicated€that€her€body€had€beenÏdragged€across€the€ground.€€The€injuries€to€her€head,€neck,€breast,€and€vaginaÏhad€occurred€prior€to€her€death.€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€first€degreeÏmurder.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€introduced€the€photographs€of€theÏvictim.€€The€defendantððs€mother€testified€on€her€sonððs€behalf€and€told€how€hisÏfather,€from€whom€she€had€been€divorced,€had€run€the€defendant€from€homeÏwhen€he€was€thirteen€or€fourteen€years€old.€€The€defendant€was€divorced€andÏhad€three€children,€and€his€former€wife€had€engaged€in€an€affair€with€his€father.€ÏUpon€finding€one€aggravating€circumstance,€that€the€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind,€Tenn.ÍCode€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(5)›€(1982),€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€byÏelectrocution.€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1989),€the€jury€imposed€theÏdeath€penalty€after€finding,€as€in€this€case,€that€the€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(5)›€(1982).€€Thirty„one„year„old€Henley€had€beenÏdrinking€and€taking€drugs€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€He€forced€the€victims,€aÏmarried€couple€with€whom€he€was€acquainted,€from€the€road€to€their€house€atÏgunpoint,€demanding€money.€€When€the€victims€attempted€to€comply,€HenleyÏrefused€to€take€the€money,€and€without€provocation,€shot€the€husband€and€thenÏthe€wife.€€When€the€helpless,€unresisting€wife€began€moaning,€Henley€shot€herÏtwo€more€times,€poured€gasoline€on€her€body,€and€set€the€house€on€fire.€€ThoughÏthe€husband€died€from€the€gunshot€wound,€the€wife€died€from€burns€and€smokeÏinhalation.Ìòòò òÌóóó óà àAs€we€have€repeatedly€emphasized,€no€two€cases€are€identical,€but€theÏabove€cases€have€many€similarities€with€Hall.€€In€all€five€cases,€the€victimsÏsuffered€particularly€cruel€and€painful€deaths.€€Though€all€murders€are€totallyÏreprehensible,€€the€means€of€death€in€this€case€was€extremely€heartless.€€In€fact,Ïit€is€difficult€to€conceive€of€a€death€more€painful€or€torturous€than€that€suffered€byÏthe€victim€in€this€case.€€In€all€of€the€cases,€the€defendants€were€acquainted€withÏthe€victims,€and€in€three€of€the€five€cases,€like€this€case,€the€defendants€receivedÏthe€death€penalty€for€murdering€their€girlfriend€or€spouse.€€Like€this€case,€in€all€ofÏthe€five€cases€the€victims€remained€conscious€for€some€time€after€they€wereÏassaulted€and€experienced€the€pain€from€the€injuries€inflicted€by€the€defendants.€ÏA€motive€for€the€murder€in€at€least€two€of€the€cases€was€the€defendantððs€desire€toÏcontrol€his€estranged€wife.€€Likewise,€one€motive€for€the€murder€in€this€case€wasÏthe€defendantððs€desire€to€control€the€victimððs€life.€€In€all€five€of€the€cases,€the€juryÏfound€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€œdepravity€of€mind.›€€Similarly,€in€this€case,€the€jury€found€thatÏthe€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€Like€Hall,€manyÍof€the€defendants€relied€upon€their€youth€and€mental€disabilities€as€mitigation€ofÏthe€punishment.€€In€at€least€one€other€case,€€the€issue€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€was€strongly€disputed,€and€in€three€of€the€five€cases,€the€defendantsÏclaimed€to€have€been€intoxicated€at€the€time€of€the€murders.€€After€reviewing€theÏcases€discussed€above€and€many€other€cases€not€herein€detailed,€we€are€of€theÏopinion€that€the€penalty€imposed€by€the€jury€in€this€case€is€not€disproportionate€toÏthe€penalty€imposed€for€similar€crimes.ÌÌà@ àà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€mandate€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)Ï(1991€œRepl›.),€and€the€principles€adopted€in€prior€decisions€of€this€Court,€we€haveÏconsidered€the€entire€record€in€this€cause€and€find€that€the€sentence€of€death€wasÏnot€imposed€in€any€arbitrary€fashion,€that€the€evidence€supports,€as€previouslyÏdiscussed,€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstances,€and€theÏjuryððs€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€mitigatingÏcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(A)€„€(C)€(1991€œRepl›.€&€1996€œSupp›.).€We€have€considered€theÍdefendantððs€assignments€of€error€and€determined€that€none€require€reversal.€ÏWith€respect€to€issues€not€specifically€addressed€herein,€we€affirm€the€decision€ofÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€authored€by€Judge€Joseph€M.€œTipton›,€and€joinedÏin€by€Judge€Gary€R.€Wade€and€Judge€John€H.€œPeay›.€€€Relevant€portions€of€thatÏopinion€are€published€hereafter€as€an€appendix.€€The€defendantððs€sentence€ofÏdeath€by€electrocution€is€affirmed.€€The€sentence€shall€be€carried€out€as€providedÏby€law€on€the€œ22nd›€day€of€April,€1998,€unless€otherwise€ordered€by€this€Court€orÏother€proper€authorities.Ìà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFrank€F.€œDrowota›,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àJusticeÌÌÌò òConcur:ó óÌAnderson,€C.J.,ÌBirch,€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌœReid›,€J.€„€separate€concurring€opinionÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓ›Ñ7€ 1î XXdæXdÈ7Ñœò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€B„Ôà@ àÔ€BèÔAppendixÔ€BXÔÌà@ à(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óÇÑ  Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€SESSION,€1993ÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9303„CR„00065Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà à)à àHamilton€CountyÌà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌLEROY€HALL,€JR.,à àà àà à)à à(First€degree€murder€and€aggravatedÏarson)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)à à€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€appelleeóó:ÌÌKarla€G.€Gothardà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ701€Cherry€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌSuite€300à àà àà àà àà àà àand€ÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àJoel€W.€PerryÌ(At€trial€only)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌWilliam€R.€Heckà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì212€James€BuildingÌChattanooga,€TN€€37402à àà àà àWilliam€H.€CoxÌ(At€trial€and€on€appeal)à àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌBrock€Mehlerà àà àà àà àThomas€J.€Evansà àÌCapital€Case€Resource€Centerà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ704€18th€Avenue€Southà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310ÌNashville,€TN€37920à àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402Ì(On€appeal€only)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:òò€€€€€€œDec€30€1996›€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌò òòòÌÌØØÙ  ÙÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÓÓà@ àò òGUILT€PHASE€ISSUESó óà àà àÌœà@ àò òI.ó ó›à@ àÌà àThe€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidenceÏrelative€to€first€degree€murder€and€argues€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€heÏacted€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€He€asserts€that€the€proof€shows€aÏcrime€committed€by€an€emotionally€and€mentally€disturbed€man€in€the€midst€of€aÍtumultuous€personal€relationship.€€The€state€responds€that€there€was€sufficientÏevidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.× ƒ] ××  ×ÌÌà àWhen€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€challenged,€the€standard€forÏreview€is€whether,€after€considering€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elementsÏof€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99ÏS.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€œ1985).›€€AÏconviction€that€is€approved€by€the€trial€court€accredits€the€testimony€which€favorsÏthe€state€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state's€theory.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ï657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€œ1983).›ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€the€offenses,€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991)›Ïprovided€that€the€"intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another"€isÍfirst€degree€murder.œ× ƒ^ ××  ×›€€A€premeditated€act€is€"one€done€after€the€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment."€€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991).›€€A€deliberate€act€isÏ"one€performed€with€a€cool€purpose."€T.C.A.€€ðð€œ39„13„201(b)(1)€(1991).›€€As€isÏusually€the€case,€a€determination€of€culpable€mental€states,€such€asÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€must€be€inferentially€made€from€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€òòBass€v.€Stateóó,€191€Tenn.€259,€231€S.W.2dÏœ707,€711›€(1950);€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€175,€178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€discussed€the€then€existing€elements€of€firstÏdegree€murder€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992)€and€òòState€v.ÏWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€144€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòBrownóó,€the€supreme€court€acknowledgedÏthat€the€Tennessee€courts€had€often€commingled€the€elements€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation.€€The€court€relied€upon€the€following€historical€definitions:ÌÓÓà8 à"Premeditation"€is€the€process€simply€of€thinking€aboutÏa€proposed€killing€before€engaging€in€the€homicidalÏconduct;€and€òòòò"óódeliberation"€is€the€process€of€carefullyÏweighing€such€matters€as€the€wisdom€of€going€aheadÏwith€the€proposed€killing,€the€manner€in€which€theÏkilling€will€be€accomplished,€and€the€consequencesÏwhich€may€be€visited€upon€the€killer€if€and€whenÏapprehended.€€"Deliberation"€is€present€if€the€thinking,Íi.e.,€the€"premeditation,"€is€being€done€in€such€a€coolÏmental€state,€under€such€circumstances,€and€for€suchÏa€period€of€time€as€to€permit€a€"careful€weighing"€of€theÏproposedòò€óódecision.óóÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€540„41€(quoting€C.€Torcia,€òòWharton's€Criminal€œLawóó€ðð140›Ï(14th€ed.€1979)€(emphasis€in€œoriginal));›€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ì€Ìà àAccordingly,€premeditation€requires€evidence€of€a€"previouslyÏformed€design€or€intent€to€kill,"€and€deliberation€requires€"some€period€ofÏreflection,€during€which€the€mind€is€free€from€the€influence€of€excitement€orÏpassion."€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.€€Moreover,€to€insure€that€the€elements€wouldÏbe€considered€separately,€the€court€in€òòBrownóó€deemed€it€prudent€to€abandon€aÏcommonly€given€instruction€that€premeditation€could€be€"formed€in€an€instant."€ÏòòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€543.€€In€this€regard,€our€court,€in€òòGentryóó,€considered€theÏnature€of€proof€from€which€a€jury€might€rationally€infer€the€elements€of€first€degreeÏmurder:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendant€did€prior€toÏthe€actual€killing€which€show€he€was€engaged€inÏactivity€directed€toward€the€killing,€that€is,€òòplanningÏactivityóó;ÌÌà8 à(2)€facts€about€the€defendant's€prior€relationship€andÏconduct€with€the€victim€from€which€òòmotiveóó€may€beÏinferred;€andÌÌà8 à(3)€facts€about€the€òònature€of€the€killingóó€from€which€itÏmay€be€inferred€that€the€manner€of€killing€was€soÏparticular€and€exacting€that€the€defendant€must€haveÏintentionally€œkilled€according€to€a›€preconceivedÏdesign.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ881€S.W.2d€at€4„5€œ(òòquotingóó›€2€W.€LaFave€and€A.€Scott,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó,Ïðð€7.7€(1986)€(emphasis€in€œoriginal).›ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that,€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€theÏevidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€a€premeditated€andÏdeliberated€first€degree€murder.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€defendant€and€theÏvictim€had€a€troubled€relationship€and€were€in€the€midst€of€a€separation.€€TheÏdefendant,€according€to€one€witness,€had€made€threats€toward€the€victim,Ïincluding€telling€Chris€Mathis€to€the€effect€that€no€one€could€have€her€if€he€couldÏnot.€€The€defendant€admitted€that,€on€the€night€of€the€killing,€he€was€angryÏbecause€he€felt€that€the€victim€had€lied€to€him.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€testimony€included€his€procurement€of€materialsÏused€to€commit€the€offense.€€He€located€a€tea€jug€to€fill€with€gasoline€in€order€toÏburn€the€victim's€car€and€he€set€out€to€find€the€victim.€€He€related€how€he€went€to€aÏgas€station,€filled€the€jug€with€gasoline,€purchased€a€cigarette€lighter€and€putÏpaper€towels€in€the€opening€of€€the€jug.€€Also,€the€defendant's€testimony€clearlyÏrecounted€his€actions€in€searching€for€the€victim.€€He€went€to€the€victim's€place€ofÏemployment€and€to€her€grandmother's€house.€€He€drove€through€the€parking€lotsÏof€numerous€bars€and€nightclubs€in€his€effort€to€find€the€victim.€€His€testimonyÏincluded€the€names€of€each€establishment,€the€roads€he€traveled€and€his€actions.€ÏNotwithstanding€the€defendant's€testimony€that€he€only€intended€to€burn€theÏvictim's€car,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€infer€planning€activity€from€such€evidence.ÌÌà àWhen€finally€locating€the€victim,€he€told€her€that€he€was€going€toÏburn€her€car,€but€he€prevented€her€from€leaving€the€scene€or€locking€herselfÏinside€the€car€by€taking€her€car€keys.€€According€to€the€defendant's€ownÏtestimony,€an€argument€ensued€and€he€returned€to€his€car€to€retrieve€theÏgasoline€jug.€€The€defendant€further€admitted€that€he€was€aware€the€victim€wasÏlying€prone€on€the€front€seat€when€he€lit€the€gasoline€jug€and€threw€it€into€the€car.€ÍThe€defendant€fled€the€scene€and€later€denied€to€police€that€he€committed€theÏoffense.€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€this€evidence€was€sufficient€for€a€rational€trier€ofÏfact€to€find€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€The€defendant's€contentions€that€his€actions€were€indicative€of€anger,Ïpassion€and€an€intent€to€burn€the€victim's€car€are€unavailing.€€The€jury€heard€theÏdefendant's€testimony€in€this€regard€and€could€rationally€conclude€that€hisÏactions€were€consistent€with€an€intent€to€kill€and€deliberation.€€Moreover,Ïalthough€the€defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€drinking€on€the€night€inÏquestion,€he€recounted€his€actions€and€whereabouts€with€clarity€and€detail.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€attacks€certain€aspects€of€the€state's€proof€thatÏpurportedly€demonstrate€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€andÏoffers€other€inferences€that€could€have€been€drawn.€€For€instance,€he€argues€thatÏthe€evidence€regarding€the€extent€of€the€victim's€injuries€did€not€by€itself€establishÏpremeditation.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€546.€€He€contends€that€theÏopinion€testimony€relative€to€the€"pouring"€of€gasoline€on€the€victim€wasÏspeculative€and€inadmissible,€and,€in€any€event,€not€probative€of€the€elements€ofÍthe€offense.€€He€contends€that€the€inference€that€he€broke€the€driver's€sideÏwindow€of€the€victim's€car€before€setting€it€ablaze€conflicted€with€testimony€thatÏthe€driver's€door€was€open€and€that,€in€any€event,€such€evidence€would€indicateÏanger,€not€deliberation.€€The€defendant€further€argues€that€evidence€relative€toÏhis€prior€threats€against€the€victim€must€be€viewed€in€contrast€to€the€evidence€thatÏhe€and€the€victim€continued€to€have€contact€with€one€another€after€theirÏseparation.€€Finally,€he€argues€that€evidence€that€he€procured€the€materials€withÏwhich€to€make€the€bomb€was€not€probative€of€premeditation,€but€rather€couldÏhave€been€done€in€a€state€of€passion.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.ÌÌà àEssentially,€the€defendant's€contentions€require€a€reweighing€of€theÏevidence,€something€this€court€may€not€do.€€That€is,€it€is€of€no€consequence€that€Ïalternative€inferences€might€exist€depending€upon€what€view€of€the€evidence€isÏmade,€because€our€review€is€limited€to€whether€or€not€the€jury's€guilty€verdict€isÏrationally€supported€by€the€evidence€when€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏthe€state.€€Under€such€a€review,€we€conclude€that€the€circumstances€of€the€killingÏand€the€inferences€that€can€be€rationally€drawn€from€the€evidence€by€the€jury€areÏsufficient€to€sustain€the€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€T.R.A.P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€at€318,€99€S.€Ct.€at€2789.€€ÌÌœà@ àò òII.ó ó›à@ àò òÌà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏevidence€about€the€previous€fires€set€to€the€victim's€car€on€April€1,€1991€and€AprilÏ6,€1991.ò ò€€ó óHe€argues€that€said€evidence€was€not€relevant€to€a€material€trial€issueÏand€it€was€improperly€used€to€prove€that€he€committed€the€offensesò ò€ó óon€April€17,Ï1991.€€The€state€insists€that€the€trial€court's€rulings€with€respect€to€evidence€of€theÏearlier€fires€were€correct.ÌÌà àTestimony€regarding€fires€to€the€victim's€car€on€April€1st€and€AprilÏœ6th›€1991€was€elicited€through€several€witnesses.€€Gloria€Mathis,€the€victim'sÏgrandmother,€testified€that€the€defendant€had€burned€the€victim's€car€twice€beforeÏthe€offenses€in€question.€€The€defendant€objected€based€upon€a€lack€of€proof€thatÏthe€defendant€committed€either€fire.€€The€defendant€requested€that€Ms.€MathisððÏstatement€be€stricken€from€the€record€and€that€a€curative€instruction€be€issued€orÏthat€the€trial€court€grant€a€mistrial.€€The€prosecution€contended€that€the€evidenceÏof€the€earlier€fires€was€intended€to€show€the€victim's€state€of€mind€and€to€show€aÏ"pattern€of€conduct€by€the€defendant"€through€the€similarity€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€it€would€allow€testimony€only€about€priorÏburnings€that€related€to€the€defendant.€€The€state€assured€the€court€that€it€wouldÏpresent€a€witness€who€would€testify€that€the€defendant€had€set€the€April€6th€fire.€ÏThe€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððs€objection€relative€to€any€evidence€ofÏprior€fires€ð ðon€the€stipulation€that€if€[the€defendantððs€involvement€is]€disproven,€[itÏwould]€sustain€the€motion€for€a€mistrial.ðð€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€defendantððsÏobjection€to€Ms.€Mathisðð€statement€and€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€theÏwitness'€statement€that€the€car€had€been€burned€"twice€before."€ÌÌà à€Ms.€Mathis€was€then€questioned€about€the€April€6th€fire€but€did€notÏimplicate€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€had€caused€the€fire.€€The€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€that€Ms.€Mathisðð€testimony€relative€to€the€April€6th€fire€wasÏbeing€admitted€contingent€upon€it€being€made€relevant€at€a€later€time.€€Her€son,ÏChris€Mathis,€was€later€permitted€to€relate€facts€regarding€the€April€6th€incident.€ÏIn€fact,€it€was€Chris€Mathis,€an€eyewitness,€who€connected€the€defendant€to€theÏApril€6th€fire.€€The€defense,€who€had€earlier€noted€an€"ongoing€objection,"€did€notÏcontemporaneously€object€to€Chris€Mathis'€testimony.Ì€Ìà àBefore€the€testimony€of€Viola€Wylene€Price,€the€prosecution€advisedÏthe€court€that€Price€and€Commander€Earl€Atchley€of€the€Chattanooga€FireÏDepartment€would€relate€statements€made€by€the€victim€on€the€scene€to€the€effectÏthat€the€defendant€had€burned€her€car€on€two€previous€occasions.€€TheÏprosecutor€argued€that€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€victim's€state€of€mind,Ïinsofar€as€she€knew€the€defendant's€prior€acts€and€therefore€would€not€haveÏassociated€with€him€voluntarily.€€The€defense€again€noted€that€such€evidence€ofÏprior€acts€would€lead€the€jury€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€had€committed€theÏacts€for€which€he€was€being€tried.€€ÌThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€victim's€statements€were€admissible€as€"excitedÏutterances."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(2).€€The€court€further€ruled€that€it€wouldÏinstruct€the€jury€that€the€statements€were€admitted€to€show€the€victim's€existingÏstate€of€mind€but€not€"as€to€whether€there€were€in€fact€two€prior€fires€or€whetherÏthere€weren't€two€prior€fires."€€ÌÌà à€Price€was€allowed€to€testify€that€the€victim€told€her€that€theÏdefendant€had€tried€to€set€fire€"to€her€twice€before."€€Likewise,€Atchley€testifiedÏthat€the€victim€said€that€the€defendant€had€committed€the€offense€and€that€he€wasÏthe€"same€guy€that€set€the€automobile€on€fire€on€the€6th."€€The€trial€court,€on€eachÍoccasion,€instructed€the€jury€that€the€statements€were€"excited€utterances,"€andÏnot€offered€to€prove€the€defendant€committed€the€prior€fires.ÌÌà àEd€Forester€and€Mike€Donnelly€testified€relative€to€the€prior€fires€inÏthe€course€of€their€testimony€about€their€investigations.€€Before€Forester'sÏtestimony,€the€prosecution€informed€the€trial€court€that€the€witness€would€relateÏhis€findings€with€regard€to€his€April€1st€and€April€6th€investigations.€€The€stateÏargued€that€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€show€the€victim's€state€of€mind€withÏregard€to€her€relationship€with€the€defendant€and€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€theoryÏthat€the€victim€was€with€the€defendant€willingly€on€the€night€of€her€death.€€TheÏdefense€objected€on€the€grounds€that€Foresterððs€statement€that€the€victimÏsuspected€the€defendant€of€the€April€1st€fire€had€nothing€to€do€with€her€state€ofÏmind€and€that€there€had€been€no€evidence€connecting€the€defendant€to€the€AprilÏ1st€fire.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€defendantððs€objection€relative€to€evidence€ofÏthe€April€1st€fire,€stating€that€it€was€too€remote€and€that€the€victimððs€mereÏsuspicion€of€the€defendant€for€the€April€1st€fire€was€not€enough€to€allow€itsÏintroduction.€€The€trial€court€also€ruled€that€Forester€could€testify€to€the€April€6thÏfire€because€there€had€been€proof€of€the€defendant's€involvement.€€The€courtÏfurther€noted€that€evidence€of€the€April€6th€fire€had€been€admitted€because€"it€wasÍrelevant€and€probative€to€the€issue€of€premeditation€and€intent€of€the€defendantÏwhen€he€.€.€.€set€the€fire€on€April€the€17th,€.€.€.€since€there€was€proof€that€he€himselfÏactually€set€the€fire."ÌÌà àForester€then€testified€that€he€had€met€the€victim€on€April€1,€1991,Ïand€that€he€had€investigated€a€fire€to€the€victim's€car€on€April€6,€1991.€€He€relatedÏthe€details€of€the€April€6th€fire.€€At€one€point€in€this€testimony,€he€refers€to€"bothÏprevious€fires."€€The€defendant€later€objected€out€of€the€presence€of€the€jury€butÏstated€no€basis€for€the€objection.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€it€did€not€hear€theÏreference€to€more€than€one€previous€fire€and€never€ruled€on€the€defendantððsÏobjection.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€.€€ÌÌà àDonnelly€testified€that€the€investigation€of€the€victim's€car€revealedÏevidence€of€"three€separate€and€distinct€fires."€€He€added€that€he€learned€firesÏhad€been€set€to€the€car€on€April€1st€and€April€6th,€in€addition€to€the€day€of€theÏoffenses€being€tried.€€The€defense€objected€to€his€testimony€and€moved€for€aÏmistrial€on€the€basis€of€the€cumulative€references€that€had€been€made€to€theÏearlier€fires.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€mistrial€motion€because€it€did€not€think€thatÏthe€defendant€had€suffered€any€prejudice.€€However,€the€trial€court€offered€aÍcurative€instruction€for€the€jury€to€disregard€the€reference€to€the€April€1st€fire,€butÏthe€defendant€declined€the€instruction.ÌÌà àAs€the€defendant€correctly€notes,€evidence€that€an€accused€hasÏcommitted€some€other€crime€or€bad€act€independent€of€that€for€which€he€isÏcharged€is€generally€inadmissible,€even€though€it€may€be€a€crime€or€act€of€theÏsame€character€as€that€on€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€238,€254€(Tenn.€œ1993);›€œòòBunch›€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€229€(Tenn.Ï1980).€€However,€if€evidence€that€a€defendant€has€committed€a€crime€separateÏand€apart€from€the€one€on€trial€is€relevant€to€some€matter€actually€in€issue€in€theÏcase€on€trial€and€if€its€probative€value€is€not€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€itsÏprejudicial€effect,€the€evidence€may€be€admitted.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b);€òòHowellóó,Ï868€S.W.2d€at€254.€€Issues€to€which€such€evidence€may€be€relevant€includeÏidentity,€motive,€common€scheme€or€plan,€intent€or€the€rebuttal€of€accident€orÏmistake€defenses.€€In€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€301€(Tenn.€1985),€theÏsupreme€court€stated€that€admissibility€was€also€contingent€upon€the€trial€courtÏfinding€clear€and€convincing€€evidence€that€the€prior€crime,€wrong€or€act€wasÏcommitted€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Holmanóó,€611€S.W.2d€411,€412„13€(Tenn.€1981).€€ÌÌà àAs€our€previous€recital€of€the€facts€indicates,€the€record€does€notÏprovide€a€pattern€of€clear€cut€testimony,€objections€and€rulings€regarding€theÏprevious€fires.€€Sometimes€the€defendant€objected€without€specifying€the€basis€ofÏthe€objections,€one€time€he€claimed€a€continuing€objection,€while€other€timesÏthere€was€no€specific€objection€made.€€The€trial€court's€rulings€were,€similarly,Ïoften€not€specific.€€In€this€respect,€we€note€that€at€no€time€did€either€of€the€partiesÏrefer€to€Rule€404(b)€or€request€a€jury„out€hearing€as€provided€by€Rule€404(b)€atÏwhich€specific€rulings€upon€each€questioned€proffer€of€evidence€could€be€made.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€806€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€the€ruleÏindicates,€the€trial€court€was€not€obligated€to€conduct€such€a€hearing€absent€aÏrequest.€€In€any€event,€the€ultimate€result€is€that€there€is€no€record€of€a€trial€courtÏanalysis€and€determination€regarding€issue€relevance€and€potential€prejudice.€€ÌÌà àNevertheless,€as€the€state€contends,€the€record€indicates€that€theÏevidence€of€the€previous€fires€is€relevant€to€the€defendant's€motive€and€intentÏregarding€his€conduct€for€which€he€is€now€being€tried.€€In€this€respect,€we€noteÏthat€the€trial€court€stated€at€one€point€that€the€April€6th€fire€was€relevant€to€intentÏand€premeditation.€€We€agree.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€œ1993),›Íthe€defendant€objected€to€the€introduction€of€evidence€that€he€committedÏprevious€assaults€against€his€estranged€wife,€one€of€the€murder€victims.€€TheÏdefendant€claimed€that€the€evidence€violated€Rule€404(b).€€The€supreme€courtÏstated:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àIn€response€to€the€Defendant's€assertions€that€theÏevidence€of€the€two€episodes€was€irrelevant€andÏinadmissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b),€the€StateÏcites€a€line€of€cases,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Turnbillóó,€640ÏS.W.2d€40,€46„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€and€òòState€v.ÏGlebockóó,€616€S.W.2d€897,€905„906€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1981),€which€hold€that€òòviolent€acts€indicating€theÏrelationship€between€the€victim€of€a€violent€crime€andÏthe€defendant€prior€to€the€commission€of€the€offenseÏare€relevant€to€œshow€›€defendant's€hostility€toward€theÏvictim,€malice,€intent,€and€a€settled€purpose€to€harmÏthe€victim.óó€€Also,€in€the€present€case,€the€victims,Ïdespite€the€Defendant's€threats€to€kill€them€if€they€didÏso,€had€filed€charges€against€the€Defendant€based€onÏthese€prior€assaults.€€The€evidence€of€these€violentÏepisodes€was€admitted€not€to€prove€the€DefendantÏacted€in€accord€with€his€character€but€as€part€of€theÏproof€establishing€his€motive€for€the€killings.€€TheÏprobative€value€of€this€evidence€is€not€outweighed€byÏthe€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòSmithóó€at€574€(emphasis€œadded)€(citations€omitted).›€€We€believe€the€facts€in€theÏpresent€case€are€similar€to€those€in€òòSmithóó.€€The€defendant€committed€prior€acts€ofÏarson€toward€the€victim€and€charges€were€brought.€€The€defendant€was€aware€ofÏthe€charges.€€As€in€òòSmithóó,€these€facts€were€highly€probative€of€the€defendant'sÍmotive€and€intent.€€We€conclude€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€is€notÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€and€was,€therefore,€admissible.€€ÌÌœà@ àò òIII.ó óà@ à›à@ àò òÌà àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€a€€€Ïphotograph€taken€of€the€victim€at€an€autopsy.€€He€argues€that€the€victim'sÏappearance€in€the€photograph€had€been€altered€by€medical€procedures€and€thatÏthe€prosecution's€expert€witness,€as€well€as€lay€witnesses,€were€able€to€describeÏthe€victim's€condition€without€the€use€of€photographs.€€The€state€contends€that€theÏphotograph€was€relevant€to€show€the€nature€of€the€victim's€injuries€and€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àThe€record€indicates€that€the€prosecution€sought€to€introduce€aÏseries€of€four€photographs,€contending€that€they€accurately€depicted€theÏconsistency€of€the€burns€received€by€the€victim.€€Dr.€Merriman€testified€that€theÏphotographs€would€best€illustrate€her€testimony,€although€she€conceded€that€sheÏcould€describe€the€victim's€condition,€including€her€charred,€hardened€andÏdiscolored€skin,€without€them.€€Dr.€Merriman€also€admitted€that€the€photographs,Ïtaken€at€the€autopsy,€did€not€reflect€the€victim's€condition€at€the€time€of€herÍadmittance€to€the€hospital.€€In€this€regard,€she€acknowledged€that€incisions€hadÏbeen€made€in€the€victim's€skin€and€that€fluids€provided€to€the€victim€produced€aÏswelling€to€her€body,€eyes,€lips€and€tongue.ÌÌà àNonetheless,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€one€of€the€photographs,€whichÏdepicted€the€victim's€back€as€she€lay€on€her€side,€was€admissible,€stating€that€itÏwas€representative€of€all€the€burns€and€was€relevant€to€assist€the€jury€inÏunderstanding€the€seriousness€and€degree€of€the€burns.€€The€trial€court€ruled€thatÏthe€other€photographs,€which€more€graphically€depicted€the€victim's€head,€torso,Ïface€and€extremities,€were€inadmissible€because€their€probative€value€wasÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà àThe€leading€case€regarding€the€admissibility€of€photographs€ofÏmurder€victims€is€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978),€in€which€theÏsupreme€court€indicated€that€the€determination€of€admissibility€is€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€after€considering€the€relevance,€probative€value€andÏpotential€unfair€prejudicial€effect€of€such€evidence.€€The€general€rule,€as€stated€inÏòòBanksóó,€is€that€"photographs€of€the€corpse€are€admissible€in€murder€prosecutionsÏif€they€are€relevant€to€the€issues€on€trial,€notwithstanding€their€gruesome€andÍhorrifying€character."€€òòIdóó.€at€œ950„951›€(citing€òòPeople€v.€Jenkoóó,€410€Ill.€478,€102ÏN.E.2d€783€(1951)).€€On€the€other€hand,€"if€they€are€not€relevant€to€prove€someÏpart€of€the€prosecution's€case,€they€may€not€be€admitted€solely€to€inflame€the€juryÏand€prejudice€them€against€the€defendant."€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951€(citingÏòòMilam€v.€Commonwealthóó,€275€S.W.2d€921€(Ky.€1955)).ÌÌà àThus,€even€relevant€evidence€should€be€excluded€if€its€probativeÏvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€theÏdefendant.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€In€òòBanksóó,€theÏcourt€stated€that€"[t]he€more€gruesome€the€photographs,€the€more€difficult€it€is€toÏestablish€that€their€probative€value€and€relevance€outweigh€their€prejudicialÏeffect."€€564€S.W.2d€at€œ951€(citation€omitted).›€€Also,€it€noted€that€autopsyÏphotographs€are€often€condemned€"because€they€present€an€even€moreÏhorrifying€sight€and€show€the€body€in€an€altered€condition.€.€.€."€€òòIdóó.× ƒ_ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€admitted€photograph€did€depict€the€victim€inÏa€different€condition€due€to€the€treatment€procedures€that€had€been€administered.€ÏThis€factor€weighs€against€admissibility.€€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€Likewise,Ïthe€testimony€of€Dr.€Merriman€and€several€lay€witnesses€conveyed€the€graphicÏand€extensive€nature€of€the€victim's€burns€and€the€extent€of€her€injuries,€furtherÏweighing€against€the€admission€of€the€photograph.€€òòIdóó.€€On€the€other€hand,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€the€photograph€was€relevant€to€"the€seriousness€and€theÏdegree€of€the€burns."€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€photograph€showed€the€natureÏof€the€injury€and€the€consistency€of€the€burns€received€by€the€victim.€€This,€in€turn,Ïwas€relevant€to€an€assessment€of€how€the€offense€was€committed€by€theÏdefendant.€€We€note€that€part€of€the€prosecution's€theory,€as€related€by€Dr.ÏMerriman€and€Mike€Donnelly,€was€that€the€victim's€injuries€were€consistent€with€aÏdousing€of€flammable€material,€and€not€just€a€splashing€or€splattering.€€In€thisÏregard,€the€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€manner€in€which€the€offense€occurredÏand€to€clarify€testimony€on€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€951.€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€576€(trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowingÏautopsy€photograph€of€victim€during€guilt€phase€in€part€to€illustrate€testimony);ÏòòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€536€(Tenn.€œ1993).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€excluded€several€other€photographs€that€were€moreÏgraphic€in€nature€on€the€ground€that€their€probative€value€was€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€risk€of€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€By€contrast,€the€photographÏthat€was€admitted€was€more€limited€in€nature,€revealing€the€victim's€back€as€sheÏlay€on€her€side.€€Given€the€trial€court's€full€consideration€of€this€issue,€asÏevidenced€by€its€admission€of€one€photograph€and€exclusion€of€several€others,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€this€regard.€€òòBanksóó,Ï564€S.W.2d€at€951.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€576;€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993);€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€536;€òòCazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€253,€263€(Tenn.€1994).€€It€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€admit€thisÏphotograph.Ì€€Ìò òà@ àIV.à@ àÌà àó óThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowingÏ"misleading€and€speculative"€opinion€testimony€about€how€gasoline€was€used€inÏthe€homicide.€€In€essence,€Mike€Donnelly,€a€Tennessee€Fire€Marshall€arsonÏinvestigator,€gave€his€opinion€that€the€gasoline€had€been€"poured€rather€thanÏthrown"€onto€the€victim.€€The€defendant€contends€that€Donnelly's€testimony€doesÏnot€meet€the€four„part€test€for€admission€of€scientific€expert€testimony€provided€inÍòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€412€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€our€supremeÏcourt€recognized€the€following€requirements€for€expert€testimony:€(1)€the€witnessÏmust€be€an€expert,€(2)€the€subject€matter€of€the€witness'€testimony€must€beÏproper,€(3)€the€subject€matter€must€conform€to€a€generally€accepted€explanatoryÏtheory,€and€(4)€the€probative€value€of€the€witness'€testimony€must€outweigh€itsÏprejudicial€effect.€€òòIdóó.€at€412.€€In€fact,€the€defendant€now€claims€that€Donnelly'sÏtestimony€met€none€of€these€factors.€€ÌÌà àUnfortunately,€the€defendant's€objections€at€trial€were€not€so€plainlyÏstated.€€Donnelly€testified€in€detail€to€substantial€training€and€experience€relativeÏto€fire€and€explosion€investigations.€€Without€objection,€the€trial€court€acceptedÏhim€as€an€expert€witness€in€the€field€of€arson€investigation.€€Donnelly€testified€thatÏhe€believed€that€the€fire€had€been€started€on€the€driver's€side€of€the€car,€both€frontÏand€rear€seat€areas.€€He€indicated€that€these€areas€had€suffered€the€greatestÏamount€of€damage€and€were€where€the€greatest€amount€of€combustibles€hadÏbeen€consumed.€€Donnelly€said€that€gasoline€had€been€applied€to€the€driver'sÏside€of€the€car€as€an€accelerant.€€He€also€testified€that€based€on€his€examinationÏof€the€car€and€his€viewing€of€the€photographs€of€the€victim's€burns,€he€believedÏthat€the€gasoline€had€been€poured€directly€onto€the€victim.€€He€said€that€his€beliefÍwas€based€upon€the€fact€that€damage€was€limited€to€the€interior€of€the€car,€beingÏconfined€to€the€driver's€side€of€the€car,€both€front€and€rear.€€Likewise,€he€reliedÏupon€the€fact€that€both€the€front€and€back€of€the€victim's€body€was€burned,€anÏindication€that€accelerant€was€not€just€splashed€onto€her€while€she€was€in€theÏcar.€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€course€of€this€testimony,€the€defendant's€objectionÏprimarily€related€to€the€fact€that€Donnelly€was€not€a€doctor,€in€terms€of€hisÏattempting€to€interpret€how€an€accelerant€was€applied€to€the€victim's€body.€€TheÏtrial€court€concluded€that€Donnelly€was€entitled€to€give€his€opinion€based€uponÏhis€expertise,€his€review€of€the€autopsy€photographs,€the€lab€and€investigativeÏreports,€and€his€personal€inspection€of€the€materials€and€car.€€In€this€respect,€theÏtrial€court's€ruling€was€within€its€discretion€and€was€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àThe€more€specific€attacks€upon€Donnelly's€testimony€that€theÏdefendant€now€raises€under€òòWilliamsóó€cannot€be€pursued€because€they€were€notÏpreviously€raised.€€Obviously,€if€any€question€had€been€raised€in€the€trial€courtÏabout€the€reliability€of€the€scientific€principles€involving€fire€accelerants€and€pathsÍof€burning,€full€explanation€may€have€been€forthcoming€from€Donnelly€or€otherÏexperts.€€Without€proper€objection,€we€will€not€fault€the€trial€court€or€the€state€forÏnot€presenting€a€greater€foundation€for€the€opinions€Donnelly€gave.€€Otherwise,Ïwe€note€that€expert€testimony€regarding€the€nature€of€accelerants€or€the€pathsÏthat€fires€take€is€not€uncommon.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mutual€FireÏInsurance€Companyóó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€443„444€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€this€respect,Ïgiven€the€record€of€Donnelly's€expertise,€the€items€he€reviewed,€and€the€nature€ofÏthe€conclusions€he€reached,€we€are€unable€to€hold€that€his€testimony€wasÏimproperly€speculative€or€otherwise€inadmissible.€à àò òÌÌà@ àV.ó óà@ àÌò ò€€€€€€€€€ó óà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€gave€incorrect€instructionsÏto€the€jury€on€the€first€degree€murder€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€ÏAs€we€noted,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€an€instruction€to€the€jury€thatÏpremeditation€may€be€formed€"in€an€instant"€should€be€abandoned.€€òòBrownóó,€836ÏS.W.€2d€at€546.€€The€court€concluded€that€such€an€instruction€improperly€blurs€theÏdistinction€between€premeditation€and€deliberation€and€does€not€properly€allowÏthe€jury€to€consider€whether€a€defendant's€actions€were€done€with€reflection€andÏa€cool€purpose.€€òòIdóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.Ìà àà àÌà àIn€the€present€case€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€theÏseparate€elements€of€intent,€premeditation,€and€deliberation.€€However,€theÏinstructions€also€charged€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àPremeditation€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€haveÏbeen€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.€€Such€intent€to€killÏmay€be€conceived€and€deliberately€formed€in€anÏinstant.€€It€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€killÏpreexist€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€any€definiteÏperiod€of€time.€€It€is€sufficient€that€it€preceded€the€act,Ïhowever€short€the€interval,€as€long€as€it€was€the€resultÏof€reflection€and€judgment.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€instruction€contained€the€language€the€court€in€òòBrownóó€held€should€beÏabandoned.€€The€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€instruction€at€trial€in€March€ofÏ1992€nor€did€he€raise€the€erroneous€instruction€as€an€issue€in€his€initial€motionÏfor€a€new€trial.€€òòBrownóó€was€decided€in€June€1992€and€the€defendant€included€theÏissue€in€his€amended€motion€for€a€new€trial€filed€in€August€1992.€€In€denying€reliefÏon€this€ground€during€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€hearing,€the€trial€court€noted€thatÏòòBrownóó€was€not€to€be€applied€retroactively€and€that,€in€any€event,€there€wasÏsufficient€evidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€in€this€case€to€render€anyÏerror€harmless.€€The€state€on€appeal€argues€these€identical€grounds€and€claimsÏthat€the€issue€is€without€merit.€€We€agree.€ÌÌ€€€€€à àIn€òòState€v.€Meadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€1993),€ourÏsupreme€court€reaffirmed€its€position€regarding€retroactivity€when€it€stated€thatÏ"newly€announced€state€constitutional€rules€will€be€given€retroactive€applicationÏto€cases€which€are€still€in€the€trial€or€appellate€process€at€the€time€such€rules€areÏannounced,€unless€some€compelling€reason€exists€for€not€so€doing."€€The€firstÏstep€in€determining€whether€a€case€will€be€given€retroactive€application€isÏwhether€it€announces€a€new€constitutional€rule.€€"[A]€case€announces€a€newÏconstitutional€rule€when€it€breaks€new€ground€or€imposes€a€new€obligation€on€theÏStates€or€the€Federal€Government."€€òòTeague€v.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€301,€109€S.ÏCt.€1060,€1970€(1989).€€ÌÌà àThis€court€has€held€on€numerous€occasions€that€the€òòBrownóó€decisionÏdid€not€create€a€new€constitutional€rule.€€òòSeeóó,€òòeg.óó,€òòState€v.€Loftonóó,€898€S.W.2dÏ246€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€Feb.€27,€1995);€òòState€v.€JimmyÏSillsóó,€No.€03C01„9410„CR„00370,€Hamilton€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€10,Ï1995),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€Sept.€11,€1995);€€òòState€v.€Joe€Nathan€Personóó,€No.Ï02C01„9205„CC„00106,€Madison€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€29,€1993);€òòState€v.ÏWillie€Bacon,€Jr.óó,€No.€1164,€Hamilton€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€4,€1992),€òòapp.óóÍòòdeniedóó.€€Also,€as€stated€in€òòLoftonóó,€the€supreme€court€did€not€hold€in€òòBrownóó€thatÏthe€instruction€on€premeditation€violated€a€constitutional€right.€€òòLoftonóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€at€249„250.€€It€only€stated€that€it€would€be€prudent€to€abandon€theÏinstruction€because€of€the€potential€for€confusion.€€òòIdóó.€€We€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€its€instructions€relative€to€the€elements€of€premeditated€andÏdeliberated€first€degree€murder.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÌó óÌà@ àò òSENTENCING€PHASEÌó ó›à@ àœò òI.›Ìà àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€requiring€theÏdefense€to€disclose€a€report€that€had€been€prepared€by€his€court„appointedÏinvestigator,€Colin€Mitchell,€through€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Meyer.€€The€defendantÏargues€that€the€report€was€attorney€work€product€and€was€privileged.€€He€arguesÏthat€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€disclosure€because€the€prosecution€was€thenÏpermitted€to€cross„examine€Dr.€Meyer€regarding€numerous€acts€committed€by€theÏdefendant€as€a€child,€and€then€argue€these€acts€to€the€jury€during€summation.€ÏThe€state€concedes€that€the€report€was€undiscoverable€work€product€under€RuleÍ16(b)(2),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,× ƒ` ××  ×€€but€argues€that€because€the€defendant€allowed€Dr.ÏMeyer€to€review€the€report€before€testifying,€the€report€is€discoverable€as€a€basisÏof€his€evaluation.€€They€also€argue€that€the€specific€instances€of€conduct€wereÏproperly€admitted€as€an€impeachment€of€Dr.€Meyer's€evaluation€that€theÏdefendant€exhibited€various€character€traits€consistent€with€both€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder€and€a€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€by€showing,€instead,Ïthat€the€defendant€also€exhibited€several€character€traits€of€an€antisocialÏpersonality€disorder.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àRule€703,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€that€an€expert€may€base€his€orÏher€opinion€on€facts€or€data€"perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€orÏbefore€the€hearing."€€Furthermore,€Rule€705,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€that€theÏcourt€may€require€disclosure€of€the€underlying€facts€or€data€relied€upon€by€theÏexpert€in€formulating€his€opinion.€€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that€he€completed€hisÏevaluation€and€report€of€the€defendant€in€December€1991.€€On€cross„examination,€he€testified€that€he€relied€upon€the€defendant's€statements€and€theÏinvestigator's€report€to€develop€facts€surrounding€the€defendant's€background.€€InÏa€jury„out€hearing,€Dr.€Meyer€testified€that€he€received€the€investigator's€reportÏabout€one€week€prior€to€trial,€used€it€to€verify€various€aspects€of€the€defendant'sÏchildhood€and€educational€background,€and€considered€it€before€testifying€atÏtrial.€€When€cross„examination€resumed,€Dr.€Meyer€admitted€that€he€altered€hisÏopinion€of€the€defendant's€evaluation€somewhat€after€reviewing€the€investigator'sÏreport€relative€to€the€defendant's€childhood€background€and€behavior.€€Thus,Ïinformation€in€the€investigator's€report€helped€form€a€basis€for€Dr.€Meyer'sÏopinions€and€it€was€then€subject€to€disclosure€to€the€state.Ìà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àRelative€to€the€defendant's€claim€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÏcross„examination€of€Dr.€Meyer€about€several€instances€of€the€defendant'sÏsetting€fire€to€things€as€a€child,€the€state€argues€that€the€specific€instances€ofÏconduct€were€used€as€a€basis€to€impeach€Dr.€Meyer's€evaluation€and€to€showÏthat€the€defendant€exhibited€character€traits€associated€with€an€antisocialÏpersonality€disorder.€€As€discussed€earlier,€Rule€404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€deals€withÏthe€admission€of€prior€bad€acts€of€the€defendant.€€A€jury„out€hearing€was€held€inÏwhich€the€trial€court€ruled€that€specific€instances€of€conduct€could€be€discussedÍrelative€to€the€reliability€of€Dr.€Meyer's€diagnosis.€€We€conclude€that€the€prior€badÏacts€contained€in€the€investigator's€report€upon€which€Dr.€Meyer,€in€part,€basedÏhis€evaluation€of€the€defendant€were€admissible€to€impeach€the€doctor'sÏdiagnosis€and€that€the€danger€of€their€prejudicial€effect€did€not€outweigh€theirÏprobative€value.€€€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÓ  ÓÓÓœà@ àò òII.ó ó›à@ àÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€with€regard€to€itsÏinstructions€to€the€jury€on€the€mitigating€circumstances€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2)Ïand€(j)(8).€€The€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2)€circumstance€is€that€the€ð ðmurder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance."€€The€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8)€circumstance€is€that€theÏð ðcapacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€[his]€conduct€or€toÏconform€[his]€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impairedÏas€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€toÏestablish€a€defense€to€the€crime€but€which€substantially€affected€the€defendant'sÏjudgment."€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€use€of€"extreme"€in€the€formerÏprovision€and€"substantially"€in€the€latter,€deprived€the€jury€of€potential€mitigationÏevidence€that€falls€short€of€these€standards.ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€argument€was€rejected€by€our€supreme€court€inÏaddressing€the€identically€worded€provisions€under€the€previous€death€penaltyÏstatute.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17€(Tenn.€1993).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(j)(2)and€(j)(8).€€The€defendant€in€òòSmithóó€argued€that€"the€use€of€the€modifierÏin€(j)(2)€and€(j)(8),€œmisled›€the€jury€in€its€consideration€of€evidence€of€his€mentalÏand€emotional€impairments€and€intoxication€at€the€time€of€the€offense."€€TheÏsupreme€court,€however,€concluded€that€there€was€no€likelihood€of€the€jury€beingÏmisled€by€these€provisions.€€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17.€ÌÌà àAlso,€the€defendant's€contention€that€the€jury€is€not€provided€a€basisÏupon€which€to€consider€mitigating€evidence€that€falls€short€of€being€"extreme"€orÏ"substantial"€is€unavailing.€€As€the€state€notes,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€T.C.A.€ððÏ39„13„204(j)(9),€which€provides€that€the€jury€may€consider€"òò[a]nyóó€other€mitigatingÏfactor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidence€produced€by€either€the€prosecution€orÏdefense€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencing€hearings."€€(Emphasis€added).€€We€noteÏas€well€that€a€considerable€portion€of€the€defense€argument€to€the€jury€related€toÏthe€various€aspects€of€the€defendantððs€mental€and€emotional€states,€from€hisÏyouth€to€the€time€of€trial.€€Thus,€the€qualifiers€in€the€statutory€provisions€inÍquestion€did€not€unconstitutionally€limit€the€jury's€consideration€of€mitigatingÏevidence.€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268.€€We€conclude€that€the€defendant€is€notÏentitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.œ× ƒa ××  ×›ÌÌœà@ àò òIII.Ìó óÌ›à àAs€a€corollary€to€the€preceding€issue,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allow€certain€evidence€that€the€defense€claimedÏwas€mitigating€in€nature.€€We€note,€of€course,€that€under€the€Eighth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€a€capital€sentencerÏmust€not€be€precluded€from€considering€as€a€mitigating€factor€any€aspect€of€aÏdefendant's€character€or€record€and€any€circumstances€of€the€offense€offered€byÏthe€defendant€as€a€basis€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.€€òòSkipperóó,€€476€U.S.€at€8,Í106€S.€Ct.€at€1671;€òòLockettóó,€438€U.S.€at€604,€€98€S.€Ct.€at€2964.€€In€addition,€T.C.A.Ïðð€39„13„204(c)€provides:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,€evidence€may€beÏpresented€as€to€any€matter€that€the€court€deemsÏrelevant€to€the€punishment€and€may€include,€but€notÏbe€limited€to,€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÏcrime;€the€defendant's€character,€background€history,Ïand€physical€condition;€and€evidence€tending€toÏestablish€or€rebut€the€aggravating€circumstancesÏenumerated€in€subsection€(i);€and€any€evidenceÏtending€to€establish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors.€ÏòòAny€such€evidence€which€the€court€deems€to€haveÏprobative€value€on€the€issue€of€punishment€may€beÏreceived€regardless€of€its€admissibility€under€the€rulesÏof€evidenceóó;€provided,€that€the€defendant€is€accordedÏa€fair€opportunity€to€rebut€any€hearsay€statements€soÏœadmitted.›€.€.€.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓœ(emphasis›€added).€€The€trial€court€therefore€maintains€its€authority€to€determineÏthe€admissibility€of€evidence€offered€in€the€sentencing€phase€and€to€exclude€anyÏevidence€not€relevant€to€the€above€factors.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17;ÏòòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€632€S.W.2d€542,€548€(Tenn.€œ1982);›€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòLockettóó,€438€U.S.Ïat€604,€98€S.€Ct.€at€2964,€n.12.€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€effect€of€an€error€excluding€relevant€mitigatingÏevidence,€we€look€to€the€standard€set€forth€in€òòSkipperóó.€€There,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€held€that€an€error€in€excluding€evidence€is€not€harmless€if€theÍexclusion€of€the€evidence€"may€have€affected€the€jury's€decision€to€impose€theÏdeath€sentence."€€òòIdóó.€at€8,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1673.€€In€òòSkipperóó,€the€trial€court€hadÏexcluded€the€testimony€offered€relative€to€the€defendant's€good€behavior€andÏadjustments€since€his€incarceration€for€the€offense.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏconcluded€that€the€"exclusion€by€the€state€trial€court€of€relevant€mitigatingÏevidence€impeded€the€sentencing€jury's€ability€to€carry€out€its€task€of€consideringÏall€relevant€facets€of€the€character€and€record€of€the€individual€offender."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€sought€to€elicit€testimony€from€theÏdefendant's€mother€relative€to€the€nature€of€the€defendant's€relationship€with€theÏvictim.€€The€witness€related€that€the€couple€was€very€happy€for€the€first€few€yearsÏof€their€relationship€but€started€having€problems€the€œpast›€two€years.€€The€coupleÏseparated€and€reconciled€several€times.€€The€trial€court€sustained€an€objection€asÏto€what€the€victim€told€the€witness€about€the€relationship€in€œNovember›€1990;Ïœhowever,›€the€defendant€made€no€proffer€of€evidence€in€this€œregard.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.›€R.ÏEvid.€103.€€We,€therefore,€cannot€conclude€that€the€ruling€was€improper.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(2).€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€further€elicited€from€the€defendant's€motherÏstatements€made€by€the€defendant€regarding€his€feelings€toward€the€victim.€€TheÏprosecution€objected€because€the€defense€had€not€specified€a€time€period€withÏregard€to€the€question.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection,€but€limited€theÏdefense€to€questions€"within€the€approximate€period€of€time€when€the€murderÏtook€place."€€The€witness€was€then€permitted€to€testify€as€to€the€nature€of€theÏrelationship€from€œDecember›€1990€to€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Again,€the€defenseÏmade€no€proffer€of€any€additional€testimony€it€sought€to€admit.€€The€nature€of€theÏrelationship€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant,€insofar€as€it€was€a€troubledÏone€and€had€a€potential€effect€on€the€defendant's€mental€state,€was€clearlyÏconveyed€to€the€jury€through€the€testimony€of€this€witness€and€others.€€We€cannotÏconclude€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€excluded€additional€mitigating€evidenceÏin€this€regard.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17„18.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowedÏadmission€of€certain€photographs€as€mitigating€evidence.€€The€photographsÏincluded€one€of€the€defendant€at€thirteen€years€of€age,€and€several€of€the€victim.€ÏThe€defendant€argued€that€the€jury€should€consider€the€photos€because€theyÏdepicted€how€he€looked€at€his€mental€age€of€thirteen,€and€how,€according€to€theÍdefense,€the€victim€"really€did€look€in€reality"€and€not€how€the€state€hadÏ"represented€her€to€be."€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€photographs€were€notÏrelevant€to€any€factors€in€mitigation€and€excluded€them€on€that€basis.€€ÌÌà àThe€testimony€of€Dr.€Meyer€established€clearly€his€opinion€relativeÏto€the€defendant's€emotional€and€intellectual€levels,€as€well€as€his€mental€age.€ÏIntroduction€of€the€defendant's€photo€in€this€regard€would€arguably€have€beenÏcumulative.€€Thus,€exclusion€of€the€defendant's€photograph,€we€conclude,€did€notÏaffect€the€jury's€decision€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€€òòSeeóó,€òòSkipperóó,€476€U.S.€atÏ8,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1669.€€The€defendant's€claim€with€regard€to€the€victim'sÏphotographs€are€also€without€merit.€€First,€he€failed€to€show€how€such€evidence,Ïpurporting€to€show€what€the€victim€"really"€looked€like,€would€have€been€relevantÏin€mitigation.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€Second,€we€cannot,€on€this€record,Ïconclude€that€the€exclusion€of€such€photographs€affected€the€jury's€decision€toÏimpose€the€death€penalty.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÏin€excluding€this€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17„18.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€jury€should€have€beenÏallowed€to€consider€the€medical€histories€of€the€victim's€past€abortions€asÏmitigation€evidence.€€In€ruling€on€this€issue,€the€trial€court€said:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThere's€proof€before€this€jury,€the€defendant€testifiedÏabout€[the€victim]€having€an€abortion,€that€it€wasÏweighing€on€his€mind,€and€that€.€.€.€he€was€concernedÏabout€the€fact€that€she€might€be€pregnant€and€haveÏanother€abortion.€€That€testimony€was€introducedÏwithout€objection€from€the€state€and€it€is€before€thisÏjury.€€Whether€he€was€or€was€not€suffering€under€theÏfact€that€she€œhad€had›€abortions€.€.€.€is€a€question€theÏjury€will€have€to€decide€.€.€.€.€It's€something€that€the€juryÏcan€consider€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThus,€the€trial€court€allowed€evidence€that€the€victim€had€abortions€in€the€past.€ÏThe€prosecution€objected€to€admitting€the€entire€records€of€the€procedures€andÏthe€trial€court€sustained€the€objection:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThere€are€some€pages€that€I€don't€think€are€relevant,Ïand€I€don't€think€it's€necessary€for€the€jury€to€.€.€.€knowÏthe€exact€procedure€used.€€The€gross€description€IÏdon't€think€is€necessary€to€prove€at€this€point€what€theÏdefense€is€trying€to€prove€in€this€case,€which€is€the€factÏthat€the€defendant€knew€that€she'd€had€an€abortion.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓOn€appeal€the€defendant€has€advanced€no€basis€upon€which€to€hold€that€the€trialÏcourt's€ruling€in€this€regard€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€The€trial€court's€rulingÏthat€the€particulars€of€the€abortion€procedures€were€not€relevant€mitigating€factorsÏis€supported€by€the€œrecord.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.›€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€The€evidence€in€theÍrecord,€in€particular€the€defendant's€testimony€in€the€guilt€phase,€reveals€that€theÏòòfactóó€of€the€victim's€abortions€may€have€affected€the€defendant's€mental€state,€butÏnot€the€particulars€of€such€procedures.€€Accordingly,€the€defendant€is€not€entitledÏto€relief€on€the€ground€that€the€trial€court€unconstitutionally€deprived€the€jury€ofÏmitigating€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€17„18.€€ÌÌœÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌ›à àThe€defendant's€final€issue€consists€of€numerous€constitutionalÏattacks€against€the€Tennessee€Death€Penalty€statute,€T.C.A.€ðððð€39„13„204€and€„206,€under€the€Fifth,€Sixth,€Eighth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution;€Article€I,€Sections€8,€9,€16,€and€17€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution;€and€Article€II,€Section€2€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€HisÏcontentions,€generally,€are:€(A)€that€the€statute€fails€to€narrow€in€a€meaningfulÏmanner€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants,€(B)€that€the€death€sentence€inÏTennessee€is€imposed€arbitrarily€and€capriciously,€(C)€that€death€by€electrocutionÏis€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€and€(D)€that€the€manner€of€conducting€aÏproportionality€review€of€death€sentences€in€Tennessee€is€constitutionallyÏinadequate.€€ÌÌà@ àò ò(a)ó óÌÑ Ü Ñà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€death€penalty€provisions€fail€toÏnarrow€in€a€meaningful€manner€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants€inÏTennessee.€€He€asserts€three€arguments€in€support€of€this€position.€€First,€heÏcontends€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(6),›€that€theÏmurder€was€committed€"for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventingÏa€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another,"€duplicates€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€factor€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(7)€(1991).›€€His€claim€is€withoutÏmerit.€€Although€the€state€attempted€to€prove€factor€(6)€in€this€case,€and€the€juryÏwas€so€instructed,€the€jury€rejected€it.€€Moreover,€the€jury's€finding€of€factor€(7)€hasÏbeen€held€to€be€proper€for€a€conviction€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€346.€ÌÌà àSecond,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏin€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5),€that€the€murder€was€"especially€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessaryÏto€produce€death,"€is€unconstitutionally€vague€and€overbroad.€€Our€supreme€courtÏrejected€similar€contentions,€however,€in€analyzing€the€former€version€of€thisÏfactor,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5),€which€read:€"[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÍBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181„82€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,Ï670€(Tenn.€œ1988);›€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€526„30€(Tenn.€1985).€ÏLikewise,€this€court€has€rejected€this€contention€with€respect€to€its€current€version.€ÏòòState€v.€Richard€Odom,€a/k/a€Otis€Smithóó,€No.€02C01„9305„CR„00080,€ShelbyÏCo.,€slip€op.€at€35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€19,€1994),€òòapp.€granted€on€otherÏœgroundsó󛀜(Tenn.›€Feb.€6,€1995).€€ÌÌà àThird,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€aggravating€factors€in€T.C.A.Ïðð€39„13„204(i)(2),€(i)(5),€(i)(6),€and€(i)(7)€fail€to€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligibleÏdefendants€because€they€combine€to€encompass€the€majority€of€the€homicides€inÏthis€jurisdiction.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€support€the€defendant'sÏargument.€€Moreover,€(i)(2)€and€(i)(6)€do€not€pertain€to€this€case.€€Factor€(i)(2)€wasÏnot€relied€upon€by€the€state€and€factor€(i)(6)€was€rejected€by€the€jury.€€Thus€theÏclaim€with€respect€to€these€factors€is€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€œòòState›€v.€Brimmeróó,Ï876€S.W.2d€75,€87€œ(Tenn.€1994);›€òòState€v.€œCauthernóó,›€778€S.W.2d€39,€47€(Tenn.Ïœ1989).€›ÌÌà@ àò ò(b)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€death€penalty€in€Tennessee€isÏimposed€capriciously€and€arbitrarily.× ƒb ××  ×€€He€asserts€ten€arguments€in€support€ofÏthis€contention.€€First,€he€complains€that€the€prosecutors€in€this€state€haveÏunlimited€discretion€as€to€whether€to€seek€the€death€penalty€in€a€given€case.€ÏSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€prosecutor's€unfettered€discretion€toÏsubject€any€defendant€charged€with€first€degree€murder€to€a€capital€sentencingÏhearing€constitutes€an€improper€delegation€of€judicial€power€and€of€legislativeÏpower€in€violation€of€Article€II,€Section€2€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Third,€heÏargues€that€such€discretion€violates€state€and€federal€guarantees€of€equalÏprotection€and€results€in€the€wanton€and€freakish€imposition€of€the€death€penaltyÏthat€was€condemned€in€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.€238,€92€S.€Ct.€2726€(1972).€ÏFourth,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€failure€to€create€a€uniform€system€of€juryÏselection€results€in€unequal€treatment€for€capital€defendants€that€necessarilyÏresults€in€the€arbitrary€and€capricious€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Fifth,€heÏargues€that€the€manner€of€selecting€ð ðdeath€qualifiedðð€jurors€results€in€juries€thatÏare€prone€to€conviction.€€Sixth,€the€defendant€argues€that€capital€defendantsÏshould€be€allowed€to€address€œjurorsðð›€popular€ð ðmisconceptionsðð€regarding€paroleÏeligibility,€the€cost€of€incarceration€versus€the€cost€of€execution,€generalÏdeterrence€and€the€method€of€execution.€€Seventh,€he€argues€that€it€isÍconstitutional€error€to€instruct€juries€that€they€must€agree€unanimously€in€order€toÏimpose€a€life€sentence€without€telling€juries€the€effect€of€a€nonunanimous€verdict.€ÏEighth,€he€argues€that€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€create€aÏreasonable€likelihood€that€jurors€believe€that€they€must€unanimously€agree€onÏthe€existence€of€any€mitigating€factors.€€Ninth,€the€defendant€argues€that€theÏTennessee€death€penalty€statute€fails€to€require€that€the€jury€make€the€ultimateÏdetermination€of€whether€death€is€appropriate€in€a€specific€case.€€And€tenth,€theÏdefendant€submits€that€it€is€constitutional€error€to€deny€the€defendant€the€right€toÏgive€final€closing€argument€in€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial€based€upon€hisÏcontention€that€once€an€aggravating€circumstance€is€proven,€the€burden€of€proofÏshifts€to€the€defendant€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€€€€ÌÌà àRelative€to€the€defendantððs€first€argument€that€prosecutors€haveÏunlimited€discretion€as€to€whether€to€seek€the€death€penalty€in€a€given€case,€ourÏsupreme€court€has€held€that€opportunities€for€discretionary€action€that€inhere€inÏthe€processing€of€a€murder€case,€including€the€authority€of€the€prosecutor€toÏselect€those€persons€whom€he€or€she€wishes€to€prosecute€for€a€capital€offense,Ïdo€"not€render€the€death€penalty€unconstitutional€on€the€theory€that€theÏopportunities€for€discretionary€action€render€imposition€of€the€death€penaltyÏfreakish€or€arbitrary."€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€86€œ(quoting›€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428ÏU.S.€153,€96€S.€Ct.€2909,€2937€(1976)).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2dÍ521,€536„38€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(rejecting€similar€claim€in€post„convictionÏcontext).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€discretion€accorded€theÏprosecution€is€an€improper€delegation€of€legislative€and€judicial€power€inÏviolation€Ñ ° ÑÑ ° Ñof€Article€II,€Section€2€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€defendantÏmakes€reference€to€costs€and€expenditures€that€result€from€a€prosecutor'sÏdecision€to€seek€the€death€penalty€and€argues€that€such€appropriations€must€beÏmade€by€the€legislature.€€He€does€not,€however,€offer€support€for€his€contention€inÏthe€record.€€The€state€does€not€address€this€issue€in€its€brief.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Brackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€936€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€theÏdefendant€argued€that€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a),€which€allows€the€prosecution€toÏobject€to€the€defendant's€waiver€of€a€grand€jury€investigation€and€jury€trial€so€asÏto€submit€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€general€sessions€court,€violated€Article€II,ÏSections€1€and€2.€€This€court€noted:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àArticle€II,€ðð1€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€providesÏthat€the€powers€of€government€are€to€be€divided€intoÏthe€Legislative,€Executive,€and€Judicial€Departments.€ÏIn€general,€the€"legislative€power"€is€the€authority€toÏmake,€order,€and€repeal€law;€the€"executive€power"€isÏthe€authority€to€interpret€and€apply€law;€and€theÏ"judicial€power"€is€the€authority€to€interpret€and€applyÏlaw.€€The€Tennessee€Constitution€provision€prohibitsÏan€encroachment€by€any€of€the€departments€upon€theÏpowers,€functions€and€prerogatives€of€the€others€.€.€.€.ÏThe€branches€of€government,€however,€are€guided€byÏthe€doctrine€of€checks€and€balances;€the€doctrine€ofÏseparation€of€powers€is€not€absolute....ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòBrackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€939€(citations€omitted).€€The€court€also€noted€that€ArticleÏII,€Section€2€states,€"No€person€or€persons€belonging€to€one€of€these€departmentsÏshall€exercise€any€of€the€powers€properly€belonging€to€either€of€the€others,€exceptÏin€the€cases€herein€directed€or€permitted."€€òòBrackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€œ940›€n.3.€€InÏaddressing€the€defendant's€claim,€the€court€noted€that€the€supreme€court€has€theÏauthority€to€enact€rules€for€our€courts,€T.C.A.€ðð€16„3„402,€and€that€the€rules€areÏapproved€by€resolution€of€the€General€Assembly.€€T.C.A.€ðð€16„3„404.€Thus,€theÏcourt€concluded:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThe€rule€to€which€the€defendant€objects€in€thisÏinstance€was,€of€course,€initiated€by€the€supreme€courtÏas€a€means€of€improving€the€criminal€procedure€in€thisÏstate.€€Because€the€judiciary€promulgated€and€theÏLegislature€approved€the€rule€granting€the€prosecutionÏthe€right€to€reject€a€non„jury€proceeding€in€the€generalÏsessions€court,€we€find€no€intrusion€by€either€of€theÏother€branches€of€government.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòBrackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€at€939„40.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€reasoning€of€òòBrackettóó€applies€here€as€well.€ÏThe€district€attorney€general€is€given€statutory€authority€to€prosecute€criminalÏcases€in€his€or€her€jurisdiction.€€T.C.A.€ðð€8„7„103(1).€€When€the€death€penalty€willÏbe€sought€in€a€first€degree€murder€case,€the€prosecutor€must€afford€notice€to€theÏdefendant€of€the€intent€to€seek€the€death€penalty,€as€well€as€notice€regarding€theÏaggravating€factors€that€will€be€relied€upon.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(b).€ÏThereafter,€the€proceedings€are€governed€by€the€provisions€passed€by€theÏLegislature€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204.€€The€defendant€in€this€case€has€not€shown,€norÍhas€he€cited€authority€to€show,€that€this€functioning€violates€the€separation€ofÏpowers€doctrine€under€Tennessee€law.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThird,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€death€penalty€statute€has€beenÏimposed€discriminatorily€on€the€basis€of€economics,€race,€gender€andÏgeographic€region€in€the€state.€€This€argument€has€been€rejected€by€the€supremeÏcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87€n.5;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòSmithóó,Ï857€S.W.2d€at€23;€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€196€(Tenn.€œ1992).€€Moreover,›Ïthe€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€indicative€of€an€individualized€showing€ofÏimproper€discrimination€with€regard€to€the€sentencing€of€the€defendant€in€thisÏcase.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€œòòMcCleskey›€v.€Kempóó,€481€U.S.€279,€292„93,€107€S.€Ct.€1756,Ï1767€(1987);€òòCooperóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€531.ÌÌà àFourth,€the€defendant€submits€that€the€failure€to€create€a€uniformÏsystem€of€jury€selection€results€in€unequal€treatment€for€capital€defendants€andÏnecessarily€results€in€arbitrary€and€capricious€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€ÏSpecifically,€the€defendant€contends€that€all€capital€defendants€should€beÏguaranteed€individual€sequestered€voir€dire€and€a€questioning€process€whichÏwould€maximize€the€prospective€jurors'€candor.€ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€rejected€the€argument€that€the€lack€ofÏuniform€procedures€mandating€individual€sequestered€voir€dire€during€juryÏselection€renders€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€InÍòòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€269,€the€court€concluded,€without€discussion,€that€thisÏargument€had€been€previously€rejected€in€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€542.€ÏFurther,€the€court€has€said€that€the€"ultimate€goal€of€voir€dire€is€to€insure€thatÏjurors€are€competent,€unbiased€and€impartial,€and€the€decision€of€how€to€conductÏvoir€dire€of€prospective€jurors€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court."€ÏòòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€269.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€180.€€In€this€case,€theÏdefendant€has€not€challenged€any€of€the€jurors€selected€or€the€manner€in€whichÏthe€trial€court€conducted€voir€dire.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àFifth,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€manner€of€selecting€"deathÏqualified"€jurors€results€in€juries€that€are€prone€to€conviction.€€In€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793ÏS.W.2d€236,€246€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1007€(1990),€however,€ourÏsupreme€court€€€€€€stated€that€"[t]his€argument€has€been€rejected€by€both€theÏTennessee€and€United€States€Supreme€Court."€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704ÏS.W.2d€314,€318€(Tenn.€œ1986).€€The€defendant€has€not€offered€any€evidence€inÏwhich€to€substantiate€his€claim,€nor€has€he€presented€a€principled€basis€withÏwhich€to€distinguish€the€supreme€court€holdings€in€this€area.ÌÌà àSixth,€the€defendant€contends€that€capital€defendants€should€beÏallowed€to€address€jurors'€popular€"misconceptions"€concerning€parole€eligibility,Ïthe€cost€of€incarceration€versus€the€cost€of€execution,€general€deterrence,€and€theÏmethod€of€execution€in€order€to€avoid€arbitrary€decision€making.€€This€argument,Ïhowever,€has€been€rejected€on€several€occasions€by€our€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóóÍòòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179;€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€86„87;€òòCazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€at€268.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€did€not€present€any€evidence€withÏrespect€to€his€contentions.ÌÌà àAs€his€seventh€argument,€the€defendant€submits€that€it€isÏconstitutional€error€to€instruct€juries€that€they€must€agree€unanimously€in€order€toÏimpose€a€life€sentence€and€to€prohibit€juries€from€being€told€the€effect€of€aÏnonunanimous€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(h).€€However,€this€contentionÏalso€has€been€repeatedly€rejected€by€the€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876ÏS.W.2d€at€87;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€22„23;€òòBarberóó,Ï753€S.W.2d€at€670„71.€ÌÌà àRelative€to€this€issue,€the€defendant€contends€that€requiring€the€juryÏto€agree€unanimously€to€a€life€verdict€violates€the€holding€in€òòMcKoy€v.€NorthÏCarolinaóó,€494€U.S.€433,€110€S.€Ct.€1227€(1990),€and€in€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486ÏU.S.€367,€108€S.€Ct.€1860€(1988).€€The€claim€has€been€held€to€be€without€meritÏunder€Tennessee€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2dÏat€250;€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€249€(Tenn.€1986).€€In€òòBrimmeróó,€the€courtÏnoted€that€òòMcKoyóó€and€òòMillsóó€stand€for€the€principle€that€any€requirement€that€theÏjury€must€unanimously€find€a€mitigating€circumstance€before€it€can€be€consideredÏviolates€the€Eighth€Amendment.€€The€court€went€on€to€state€that€the€unanimousÏòòverdictóó€instruction€does€not€violate€these€principles.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€at€252.€€In€any€event,€the€trial€court€in€the€presentÍcase€instructed€the€jury€that€there€was€no€requirement€for€jury€unanimity€orÏagreement€as€to€any€particular€mitigator.€€Also,€it€followed€with€instructions€forÏeach€juror€to€decide€the€case€individually€and€for€each€to€know€that€they€were€òònotóóÏrequired€to€reach€a€unanimous€verdict€regarding€mitigators€or€their€weight.€€Thus,Ïthe€concerns€expressed€in€òòMcKoyóó€and€òòMillsóó€are€not€present€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àEighth,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€Tennessee€Pattern€JuryÏInstructions€create€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€jurors€are€led€to€believe€they€mustÏunanimously€agree€on€the€existence€of€any€mitigating€factors.€€The€supreme€courtÏhas€repeatedly€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòCazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€at€268.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€"[t]here€is€noÏrequirement€of€jury€unanimity€as€to€any€particular€mitigating€circumstance,€or€thatÏyou€agree€on€the€same€mitigating€circumstance."€€It€is€a€well„established€rule€inÏTennessee€that€a€jury€is€presumed€to€have€followed€the€instructions€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€1985).ÌÌà àNinth,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€statute€fails€to€require€that€theÏjury€make€the€ultimate€determination€of€whether€death€is€the€appropriate€penaltyÏin€a€specific€case.€€This€argument€has€likewise€been€rejected€by€the€supremeÏcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€22.€€TheÏdefendant's€claim€that€there€is€no€weighing€process€for€aggravating€andÏmitigating€factors€is€also€without€merit.€€In€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€853€S.W.2d€483,€488Ï(Tenn.€1993),€the€supreme€court€said€that€"a€specific€method€for€balancingÍmitigating€and€aggravating€factors€in€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding€is€notÏconstitutionally€required."ÌÌà àAs€his€tenth€and€final€argument€in€support€of€his€contention€that€theÏdeath€penalty€is€imposed€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€in€Tennessee,€theÏdefendant€contends€that€once€an€aggravating€circumstance€is€proven,€the€burdenÏof€proof€shifts€to€the€defendant€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€Therefore,€theÏdefendant€argues,€it€is€constitutional€error€to€deny€the€defense€the€right€to€giveÏthe€final€closing€argument€in€the€penalty€phase.€€This€issue€has€been€rejected€byÏthe€supreme€court€on€numerous€occasions.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87€n.5;ÏòòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€269;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€24;€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€atÏ542.€€In€òòSmithóó,€the€court€said€that€the€"order€[of€argument]€is€not€inherentlyÏprejudicial€to€the€defendant€or€favorable€to€the€state€in€its€use€at€the€sentencingÏstage€of€a€death€penalty€proceeding."€€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€24.ÌÌ›à@ àò ò(c)ó óÌà àIn€another€challenge€to€the€death€penalty€statute,€the€defendantÏargues€that€electrocution€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€therefore,€violatingÏthe€Eighth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€16Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Our€supreme€court€rejected€this€argument€inÏòòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179,€and€has€since€reaffirmed€its€holding€on€severalÏoccasions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€737€(Tenn.€œ1994);›€òòCazesóó,€875ÍS.W.2d€at€268;€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€258;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€23;€òòBaneóó,€853ÏS.W.2d€at€489.̛̜à@ àò ò(d)ó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€appellate€review€process€in€deathÏpenalty€cases€is€constitutionally€inadequate€in€its€application.€€He€contends€thatÏthe€appellate€review€process€is€not€constitutionally€meaningful€because€theÏappellate€courts€cannot€reweigh€proof€due€to€the€absence€of€written€findingsÏconcerning€mitigating€circumstances,€because€the€information€relied€upon€by€theÏappellate€courts€for€comparative€review€is€inadequate€and€incomplete€andÏbecause€the€appellate€courts'€methodology€of€review€is€flawed.€€This€argumentÏhas€been€specifically€rejected€by€our€supreme€court€on€numerous€occasions.€ÏòòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€œ270„71;›€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€77€(Tenn.Ïœ1992);€òòBarberóó,›€753€S.W.2d€at€664.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€statutorily€mandatedÏproportionality€review€is€conducted€in€violation€of€due€process€and€the€law€of€theÏland.€€He€argues€that€there€is€no€comprehensive€procedure€for€gatheringÏinformation€in€capital€cases€and€no€published€set€of€criteria€for€the€review.€€InÏsupport€of€his€claim,€the€defendant€argues€that€since€the€promulgation€of€theÍcurrent€statute€in€1977,€the€supreme€court€has€found€no€death€sentence€to€beÏimposed€in€a€disproportionate€manner.× ƒc ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAs€previously€noted,€the€appellate€review€provided€for€in€the€statuteÏhas€been€held€to€afford€a€meaningful€proportionality€review.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876ÏS.W.2d€at€87„88;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270„71.€€Moreover,€our€supreme€courtÏhas€relied€upon€and€upheld€the€use€of€trial€court€reports€in€capital€cases€pursuantÏto€Rule€12,€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rules.€€In€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€77,€theÏcourt€noted€that€it€has€considered€the€information€in€such€reports€and€that,Ïbecause€no€two€cases€or€defendants€are€exactly€alike,€each€review€forÏproportionality€must€be€based€on€the€individual€defendant€and€the€nature€of€theÏcrime.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270„71€(Rule€12€report€not€prepared;Ïsupreme€court's€review€for€proportionality€based€on€its€thorough€review€of€theÏrecord€and€Rule€12€reports€in€other€cases).€€Accordingly,€the€defendant€is€notÏentitled€to€relief€on€this€œbasis.›ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONÌà àó óIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏdefendant's€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€and€sentence€of€death€areÏaffirmed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àòòà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌ€€ò òÌÌó ó