ÿWPCŸ9 \vÿÙTÛuÉÙ€Š$¡—F;y´%ï—[’ßw¤áPÙ!Ì+pa‚ê¯Ö‚YÚg9$Îé¿,ï…v‰o‰¬ƒâGúä°[ØÝ~øç˜e±ñqþBï& @²(Åžës½ü{)N @Bí š)ÌþwÙÏE<;½É¶ÈÆÏò‚ºõw…åè3Ž3ì)«qÍùžx'Œ>èm*aš©¦l/‘­ ý0<[Ä×Mvºè*ÚcskuL­dsCZ¹’ex8þ!U†,€jíJðŸ’R«9ÕO«ƒÐÎhâ €×ØÀê'¥?r9ÅDž“†©(¸: 3÷q Ï&0yF©oØM_•w‚2`*—哌€•;«“™Î`¨u¨7^ÜûïgS ä﬚+}/‰î€ P•õ"ì§²eÙJÉU}Û›;ÙaÆŒ›XµË·Ðw®¤öIøÌ±6F‹J1±­Ù?mÁB’i7Aᚬ3@Õ:Ù3ßÔªx(_èÿ¹ñ‰¿èÀÐÀ%*L~÷SÎu ~à0ÛB¹Me€ic•0[,äNL ¥¡LáÀ‘ÞX%3Áù*ЃÑÀ¬°|ÕõJ–”»˜òỏœnq-ñ¾×¸Ë‡sÝAñîÇóú w8#  %n­! 04ÎUBUNDÌ’^ U°:f w@  0cà 4C 0ÒW ) Æ8 /þ -D=U:U>»rùákU:LÖ†*\U:†QÀábòU:úUz:4 Bn AQ‹ÆÜ 0P¢ 0Pò 0DB h† î$%h' D/l( B›(6¸( D3î)U:!*N[*U*©,UJÓ,H-;e. 0N 3î3}5Ž7˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎX«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÂÝ ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€the€verdict€form,€the€jury€specifically€found€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€heinous,Ð ,  Ðatrocious€and€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€ò òandó ó€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÐ ê ¾ Ðproduce€death.ðð€€(Emphasis€supplied.)€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular g6[h6Di6j6Dk6Dl6Dm6Ó€y6{6V|6î(" $Ô€X·XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóAq$%ÂH ´ \H ô(‚(2Ê$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|x|6 ¼Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOral€arguments€were€heard€in€this€case€on€March€4,€1998,€in€Dyersburg,€Dyer€County,Ð ,  ÐTennessee,€as€part€of€this€Courtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourt€ò òAó ódvancing€ò òLó óegal€ò òEó óducation€forÐ ê ¾ Ðò òSó ótudents)€project.€ %Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€time€of€the€trial€in€1995,€the€ages€of€the€victimððs€children€ranged€from€three€to€sevenÐ ,  Ðyears. Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôC­ ôôôIÕÔ"Whenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgmentÐ ,  Ðhas€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.ðð :Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôC­ ôôôIÕÔTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€ð ðPrior€to€theÐ ,  Ðsetting€of€oral€argument,€the€Court€shall€review€the€record€and€briefs€and€consider€òòallóó€errorsÐ ô È Ðassigned.€€The€Court€may€enter€an€order€designating€those€issues€it€wishes€addressed€at€oralÏargument.ððÔ#†ôIÕô ôôC­©#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<è\( 9Z &Courier Regular hÝ ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý"If€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€to€death€butÐ ,  Ðdoes€not€appeal€the€conviction€of€first€degree€murder,€then€the€trial€court€shall€certify,€within€ninetyÏ(90)€days€after€the€judgment€has€become€final,€the€record€relating€to€punishment€and€the€sameÏshall€be€transmitted€by€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„206€(1997€Repl.) ×Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝHowever,€left€undisturbed€by€òòPayneóó€was€the€rule€of€òòBoothóó€holding€that€admission€of€aÐ ,  Ðvictimððs€family€membersðð€characterizations€and€opinions€about€the€crime,€the€defendant,€and€theÏappropriate€sentence€violates€the€Eighth€Amendment.€€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€830,€n.€2,€111€S.Ct.€atÐ ¨ | Ð2611,€n.€2.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€832,€111€S.Ct.€at€2612€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring);€òòPayneóó,Ð f : Ð501€U.S.€at€835,€n.€1,€111€S.Ct.€at€2614,€n.1€(Souter,€J.,€concurring).+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular ÌÝ ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€Footnote€6,€òòsupraóó.€ Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victimððs€youngest€child€had€been€living€with€his€paternal€grandmother€at€the€time€ofÐ ,  Ðtrial.+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular GÑ À ÑÑ , ÑÑ#€Pÿÿd#ÑÑ ` Ñ ×Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Smithòòóó,óó868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.Ð ,  Ð1993);€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10€(Tenn.€1990);Ð ì À ÐòòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989).€- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d"#$%*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3­¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý((3­¸$££Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ^Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€405(a)€provides€as€follows:Ð ,  ÐÌà8 Ø àIn€all€cases€in€which€evidence€of€character€or€a€trait€of€character€of€a€person€isÏadmissible,€proof€may€be€by€testimony€as€to€reputation€or€by€testimony€in€the€formÏof€an€opinion.€€After€application€to€the€court,€inquiry€on€cross„examination€isÏallowable€into€relevant€specific€instances€of€conduct.€€The€conditions€which€mustÏbe€satisfied€before€allowing€inquiry€on€cross„examination€about€specific€instancesÏof€conduct€are:Ð Ø À!Ø À! Ðà8 Ø à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence,Ð Ø À!Ø À! Ðà8 Ø à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€reasonable€factual€basis€exists€for€the€inquiry,Ïand,Ð Ø À!Ø À! Ðà8 Ø à(3)€The€court€must€determine€that€the€probative€value€of€a€specific€instance€ofÏconduct€on€the€character€witnessððs€credibility€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect€onÏsubstantive€issues. Ñ °7 Ñ öÝ ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€403€provides€that€ð ð[a]lthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probativeÐ ,  Ðvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€orÏmisleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€ofÏcumulative€evidence.ðð ^Ý ƒ Ê$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X6ŸXXXÔÔ€ôIÕôXX6ŸÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€reiterate€that€victim€impact€evidence€of€another€homicide,€even€one€committed€by€theÐ ,  Ðdefendant€on€trial,€is€not€admissible.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€812.++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ,Ý ƒ#­¸"ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€.X6ŸXXXÔÔ€.Æ~ X.X6ŸÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€.X6ŸX .Æ~ÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€28,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôIÕôX.X6ŸÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó 'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularGivhanaggravator t]heMarableBordisLaFavePensingerc]almnessSneed Odomrehg 6thPritchettCaughronfalanga SimsTenn.R.EvidLeathZirkle appPaytonHarringtonCokerTysonKirkendoll I]tBeckhamStrouth Tenn.R.Crim.P.Brimmer%ä2¼A`Arial³˜kIA`2WP TypographicSymbols >Ò°ÒÝ ƒ  0ÿÝÔ‡ XX XXXÔÔ‡ ô&î ôX XX Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€bench€conference€on€this€issue,€the€State€advised€the€court€that€a€photographÐ ° Ðdepicting€the€victim€alone€was€preferred,€however,€none€was€available. 1Ò°ÒÝ ƒ  0ÿÝÔ‡ XX XXXÔÔ‡ ô&î ôX XX Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝUnder€the€pre„1989€criminal€code,€murder€was€defined€as€the€unlawful€killing€of€ð ðanyÐ ° Ðreasonable€creature€in€being.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„201€(repealed€1989).€€Thus,€in€theÐ n¾ Ðprosecution€of€any€homicide,€proof€that€the€deceased€was€a€ð ðreasonable€creature€in€being,ðð€thatÏis,€to€say€a€child€that€was€born€alive,€was€a€material€element€of€the€offense€of€murder.€€òòSeeóóÐ ê: ÐòòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€256€S.W.433,€434€(Tenn.€1923).€€The€phrase€ð ðreasonable€creature€in€beingðð€hasÐ ¨ø Ðno€application€to€our€current€criminal€code.€€The€1989€criminal€code€defines€the€killing€of€ð ðanotherððÏto€include€a€viable€fetus€of€a€human€being.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„214€(1989).€€As€such,€proofÏof€a€reasonable€creature€in€being€is€no€longer€necessary.€€The€deceasedððs€identity,€however,Ïremains€a€material€element.€€Indeed,€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€must€be€proved€beyond€a€reasonableÐ   ð Ðdoubt€and€the€defendantððs€statements€alone€are€not€sufficient€to€establish€this€element.€€òòState€v.Ð ` °  ÐShepherdóó,€862€S.W.2d€557,€564€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à …Ò°ÒÝ ƒ  0ÿÝÔ‡ XX XXXÔÔ‡ ô&î ôX XX Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€recognize€that€proof€of€identity€is€also€governed€by€evidentiary€rules,€and,€where€theÐ ° Ðvictim's€identity€has€already€been€proven,€further€proof€may€be€cumulative€and,€therefore,Ïinadmissible.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403. Ò°ÒÝ ƒ  0ÿÝÔ‡ XX XXXÔÔ‡ ô&î ôX XX Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ò&íò ô ô&îÔNo€execution€date€is€set€in€this€opinion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann..€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€provides€forÐ ° Ðautomatic€review€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€upon€affirmance€of€the€death€penalty.€€If€theÏdeath€sentence€is€upheld€by€the€higher€court€on€review,€the€supreme€court€will€set€the€executionÏdate.Ô#‡ ô&î ôò ò&í#Ô Ò°ÒÝ ƒ  0ÿÝÔ‡ XhìXXXÔÔ‡ ôf‡ôX XhìÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ òf„òô ôf‡ÔNo€execution€date€is€set€in€this€opinion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann..€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€provides€forÐ ° Ðautomatic€review€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€upon€affirmance€of€the€death€penalty.€€If€theÏdeath€sentence€is€upheld€by€the€higher€court€on€review,€the€supreme€court€will€set€the€executionÏdate.Ô#‡ ôf‡ôò òf„#ÔÝ ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ݛѰÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÔ€X]XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ X6ŸXXX]ÔÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€ 6Ÿ XXdædÈ7ÑÑ€'¤ÑÑ€¯&ÑÓ=€Ö=X°XdÐd=Óà@ž ž Ìàò òÔ‡ ¼H ¼X X6ŸÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@áá)ÌàAT€JACKSONÔ#† X6ŸX¼ ¼H Ã#Ôó óˆÐ  Ðà@úú$Ìà(HEARD€AT€œDYERSBURG)›ˆÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÐ È À ÐÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àœò òFiled:ó ó€ñg6ñò òñg6ñSeptember€28,€1998›ñg6ñó óñg6ñÐ ”Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àSHELBY€COUNTYÐ f^  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€Arthur€T.€Bennett,Ð 2*  Ðñy6ñœßt€!,->.*jxÒB` `€€@EŠZ` ttx$Âê  tß›ñy6ñà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àJudgeÐ   ÐCLARENCE€C.€NESBIT,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð þö  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellant,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àSupreme€CourtÐ Ê Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€02„S01„9705„CR„00043Ð °¨ Ðñy6ñßr€!,-<,(j 8` `€€@E»—` ttx$ó–ð Õrßñm6ñœñm6ññy6ñÌÌòòÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àòòà è àFOR€APPELLEE:óóÐ H@ ÐÌA.C.€Whartonà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ   ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ úò Ð201€Poplar€Ave.,€Suite€201à 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àÐ àØ ÐMemphis,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àMichael€E.€MooreРƾ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àSolicitor€GeneralÌà Ø àà 0 àÌW.€Mark€Wardà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJohn€P.€CauleyÐ x!p ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ^"V Ð147€Jefferson,€Suite€900à à àà 8 àà  àà è à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ð D#< ÐMemphis,€Tennessee€à à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€Tennessee€€Ð *$"  Ð(Appeal€Only)à ˆ àÐ %! Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àWilliam€GibbonsÌRonald€S.€Johnsonà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ Ü&Ô# ÐBetty€J.€Thomasà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à30th€Judicial€Districtà H! àÐ Â'º $ ÐAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ147€Jefferson,€Suite€900à à àà 8 àà  àà è àThomas€D.€Henderson€Ð Ž)†"& ÐMemphis,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJennifer€NicholsÐ t*l#' Ð(Trial€Only)à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÐ Z+R$( Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌà@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌÌÔ‡ „20„X X6ŸÔà@VV(Ìàò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ#† X6ŸX„ „20Ã#ԈР¤1œ*/ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€ANDÌâ âCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à @ àà ˜ àDROWOTA,€J.€Ð 8:038  Ðѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ññ|6ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ññ|6ññy6ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ññy6ññm6ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€Ö=XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ññm6ññg6ñѯ&ÑÑ ÀXÑÑ, ÑÑ7€–UXdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ` °ÑÑ  Ññg6ñÓÓà Ø àIn€this€capital€case,€the€defendant,€Clarence€C.€Nesbit,€was€convicted€ofÏâ âpremeditated€first€degree€murder.€€œÔ#†X]XX X6ŸÝ#ÔÔ€X6ŸXXX]ÔAt›€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€jury€found€oneÐ ø Ì Ðaggravating€circumstance:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelÏin€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÏdeath.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€(1991€Repl.).€€Finding€that€theÏaggravating€circumstance€outweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà Ø àOn€direct€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendant€challengedÏboth€his€conviction€and€sentence,€raising€eleven€claims€of€error,€some€with€numerousÏsubparts.€€After€fully€considering€the€defendantððs€claims,€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1997€Repl.),׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X6ŸXXX6ŸÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€case€was€docketed€in€this€Court.€Ð ¼ ÐÌÓ'€ÐŽXê$ø%X°œX'Óà Ø àThe€defendant€raised€numerous€issues€in€this€Court,€but€after€carefullyÏexamining€the€entire€record€and€the€law,€including€the€thorough€opinion€of€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€and€the€briefs€of€the€defendant€and€the€State,€this€Court,€onÏâ âSeptember€30,€1997,€entered€an€Order€limiting€oral€argument€to€five€issues,€andÐ ¸(Œ" Ðsetting€the€cause€for€oral€argument€at€the€April€term€of€Court€in€Jackson.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X6ŸXXX6ŸÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ,  ÐS.€Ct.€R.€12.׃Ú×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X6ŸXXX6ŸÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ø Ì Ðâ âÌÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔà Ø àAfter€hearing€oral€argument€and€carefully€reviewing€the€record,€weÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿî'#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€haveÐ d Ðdetermined€that€none€of€the€assignments€of€error€require€reversal.€€Moreover,€theÏevidence€supports€the€juryððs€findings€as€to€the€aggravating€and€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€and€the€sentence€of€death€is€not€arbitrary€or€disproportionate€to€theÏsentence€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€theÏdefendant.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upholding€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€and€sentence€of€death€by€electrocutionÏis€affirmed.Ìà@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌà@%Ìàòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóˆÐ ¼ Ðò òà Ø àó óIt€is€undisputed€that€the€nineteen„year„old€defendant,€Clarence€Nesbit,€killedÐ ”!h Ðthe€œtwenty„year„old›€victim,€Miriam€Cannon,€by€shooting€her€once€in€the€head€on€theÏafternoon€of€May€20,€1993.€€While€Nesbit€admitted€that€he€shot€the€victim,€he€claimedÏthat€the€shooting€had€been€an€accident.Ìâ âÐ Ä(˜" Ðà Ø àThe€proof€introduced€at€the€guilt€phase€of€this€trial€established€that€the€œvictim›Ïlived€with€her€five€young€children׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€at€the€Pershing€Apartments€in€Memphis,Ð ø Ì Ðâ âTennessee.€€She€had€known€the€defendant€for€approximately€one€month€prior€to€herÏkilling.€€The€victimððs€sister,€Constance€Cannon,€testified€that€around€1:00€p.m.€on€theÏday€of€the€murder,€she€and€a€friend€stopped€by€the€victimððs€apartment€to€drive€theÏvictim€to€the€grocery€store.€€Although€Cannon€knocked€at€the€door€for€severalÏminutes,€no€one€answered.€€As€they€were€leaving,€Cannonððs€friend€noticed€one€of€theÏvictimððs€children€looking€out€€the€window.€€By€the€time€Cannon€returned€to€the€door,Ïthe€victim€had€opened€it.€€The€victim€told€Cannon€that€she€was€not€ready€to€go€andÏasked€Cannon€to€return€at€3:00€p.m.€€Contrary€to€her€usual€practice,€the€victim€did€notÏask€Cannon€to€come€inside.€€Nonetheless,€from€the€back€door,€Cannon€saw€theÏdefendant€sitting€on€the€living€room€couch€with€one€of€the€victimððs€children.€€CannonÏhad€seen€the€defendant€once€before€the€day€of€the€murder,€but€knew€him€only€by€hisÏnickname€ð ðRed.ðð€€Cannon€recalled€that€the€victim€had€been€barefoot€on€the€day€of€theÏmurder,€although€otherwise€fully€clothed.€€Cannon€also€recalled€seeing€a€horizontalÏmark€on€the€victimððs€neck€that€she€had€not€seen€the€day€before€the€murder.€€Cannon€Ïleft,€as€the€victim€requested,€but€later€telephoned€the€victim€around€3:00€p.m.€toÏconfirm€their€plans.€€Upon€receiving€no€answer,€Cannon€assumed€the€victim€hadÏmade€other€arrangements€and€did€not€return€to€her€œsisterððs€apartment.›ÌÌà Ø àJames€Shaw,€a€boyfriend€of€the€defendantððs€aunt,€lived€in€the€victimððsÏapartment€complex.€€Shaw€testified€that€he€had€been€sitting€outside€his€apartment€onÏthe€afternoon€of€the€murder€when€he€heard€a€gunshot€in€a€nearby€apartment€unit.€Ð ´1ˆ', ÐShortly€afterward,€Shaw€saw€the€defendant€leave€the€area€from€which€the€gunshotÏhad€sounded,€casually€walk€to€his€car,€a€blue€Oldsmobile,€and€drive€away€from€theÏapartment€complex€at€a€normal€rate€of€speed.€€Shaw€described€the€defendantððsÏbehavior€as€normal,€except€for€the€ð ðfunny€lookðð€Shaw€had€observed€in€theÏdefendantððs€eyes.€€Shortly€after€the€defendant€departed,€Shaw€saw€the€victimððs€Ïchildren€crying€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€complex.€€When€Shaw€inquired€about€theirÏmother,€one€of€the€children€responded,€ð ðSheððs€dead.ððÌÌà Ø àTracy€Davis,€the€victimððs€close€friend€and€neighbor,€testified€that€on€the€day€ofÏthe€murder€she€had€heard€children€crying€in€the€victimððs€apartment€and€had€seenÏthree€of€the€victimððs€children€walking€toward€her€apartment.€€The€children€told€DavisÏthat€their€mother€was€asleep€and€could€not€be€woken.€€As€a€result,€Davis€went€to€theÏvictimððs€apartment€and€found€the€victim€lying€in€a€pool€of€blood€in€front€of€the€kitchenÏdoor.€€The€victimððs€youngest€child€was€on€the€floor€beside€her€mother€trying€to€wakeÏher.€€Davis€returned€to€her€apartment€and€called€the€police.ÌÌà Ø àWhen€the€police€arrived,€they€first€spoke€with€the€victimððs€children€who€toldÏthem€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ~(#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔthat€ð ðRedðð€had€shot€their€mother.€€ð ðRedðð€was€one€of€the€defendantððs€nicknames.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿz9#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€Ð ¸(Œ" ÐWhen€the€police€entered€the€victimððs€apartment,€they€found€her€body€lying€face€up,Ïfully€clothed,€with€sandals€on€her€feet.€€Next€to€her€body€police€found€a€cigarette€butt,Ïa€match,€a€book€of€matches,€and€a€hair€barrette.€€Four€cartridges€were€found€on€topÏof€the€refrigerator€and€a€lead€bullet€fragment€on€the€kitchen€floor€at€the€door€to€theÏliving€room.€€A€hot€curling€iron€lay€on€the€kitchen€counter.€€A€ricochet€mark€made€byÏa€bullet€was€found€approximately€4'8"€above€the€ground€on€the€wall€behind€the€stove.ÌÐ L5 +0 Ðà Ø àDr.€O.€C.€Smith,€assistant€medical€examiner€for€Shelby€County,€performed€theÏautopsy€on€the€victim.€€€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€the€victim€had€died€from€a€singleÏgunshot€wound€to€her€head.€€€€Dr.€Smith€opined€that€the€gun€inflicting€the€wound€hadÏbeen€approximately€twelve€to€thirty„six€inches€from€the€victimððs€head€when€it€wasÏfired.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ:#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€The€bullet€entered€the€victimððs€body€through€her€left€ear,€about€5'0"€above€theÐ \0 Ðfloor,€traveled€in€a€downward€trajectory€through€the€victimððs€skull€and€brain,€andÏexited€behind€her€right€ear€at€a€height€of€4'11"€above€the€floor.€€According€to€Dr.ÏSmith,€the€gunshot€wound€would€have€instantly€incapacitated€the€victim.ÌÌà Ø àDr.€Smith€also€had€observed€burns€on€the€victimððs€chin,€neck,€abdomen,€andÏforearm.€€The€burns€had€been€inflicted€at€various€points€in€time€from€six€hours€toÏmere€minutes€before€the€victim€had€died.€€Dr.€Smith€described€the€burn€on€the€leftÏside€of€the€victimððs€neck€as€in€the€shape€of€the€numeral€one€(ð ðÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿé=#ÔÔ‡XÖ=XXX6ŸÔ1Ô#†X6ŸXXXÖ=Ì@#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ")Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸA#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ.€€Upon€viewingÐ ¼ Ðphotographs€of€the€victimððs€body,€Constance€Cannon€testified€that€the€horizontal€barÏat€the€base€of€that€burn€appeared€to€be€the€mark€she€had€seen€on€her€sisterððs€neckÏthe€afternoon€of€the€murder.€€€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€soot€and€blistering€onÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸSA#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€œanother›Ð 0% Ðtriangular€burn€under€the€victimððs€chin€indicated€that€œit›€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸµB#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔhad€been€caused€by€an€openÐ ü&Ð  Ðflame.€€Although€the€other€burns€had€also€been€thermal€in€origin,€Dr.€Smith€could€notÏidentify€the€precise€cause€of€those€burns.ÌÌà Ø àDr.€Smith€also€found€bruising€and€scraping€on€the€soles€of€the€victimððs€feetÏduring€the€autopsy.€€He€opined€that€these€injuries€had€been€caused€by€striking€theÏvictimððs€feet€with€a€long,€hard,€thin€object€such€as€a€rod€or€a€coat€hanger.€€Dr.€SmithÏfound€no€defensive€wounds€on€the€victimððs€body.€€ÌÐ \50+0 Ðà Ø àWith€respect€to€the€defendantððs€actions€on€the€day€of€the€murder,€the€proofÏshowed€that,€after€the€shooting,€Nesbit€left€the€Pershing€Apartments€and€drove€to€theÏRoyal€Oaks€Motel,€where€his€uncle€Ashley€Nesbit,€had€a€room.€€Once€there,€he€spokeÏprivately€with€his€uncle,€and€hid€the€murder€weapon,€a€.357€Magnum€revolver,€in€theÏbathroom€of€the€motel€room.€€œAfter€the€victimððs€body€had€been€foundÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸUC#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ›€the€defendantÐ \0 Ðreturned€to€the€Pershing€Apartments€in€his€cousinððs€green€pickup€œtruck.›€€TheÏdefendant€encountered€James€Shaw€and€told€him€that€the€victim€had€shot€herselfÏwhile€playing€Russian€Roulette.€€Upon€Shawððs€advice€to€tell€the€truth,€Nesbit€admittedÏto€Shaw€that€he€shot€the€victim,€but€claimed€it€was€an€accident.€€The€defendant€alsoÏtold€Shaw€that€he€had€left€the€gun€at€the€motel.€€Shaw€and€the€defendant€wereÏpreparing€to€drive€out€of€the€apartment€complex€to€retrieve€the€gun€when€policeÏstopped€their€vehicle€and€apprehended€the€defendant.€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ;G#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔA€search€of€the€defendantððsÐ ðÄ Ðperson€revealed€a€beeper€and€$602€in€cash.€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÅI#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔWith€police€permission€œShaw›Ð ¼ Ðproceeded€to€the€motel,€retrieved€the€gun,€and€surrendered€it€to€police.€ÌÌà Ø àIn€the€meantime,€the€defendant€was€interrogated€by€police€and€stated€that€heÏspent€the€night€before€the€killing€at€the€victimððs€apartment.€€At€first,€Nesbit€told€policeÏthat€the€victim€had€been€ð ðplayingðð€with€the€gun€when€it€discharged€and€killed€her.€ÏLater,€the€defendant€related€that€he€accidentally€shot€the€victim,€claiming€that€he€hadÏpulled€the€trigger€believing€the€gun€to€be€unloaded.ÌÌà Ø àAt€trial€Nesbit€testified€that€he€had€been€visiting€his€uncleððs€motel€room€on€theÏnight€before€the€killing€when€police€officers€arrived€at€the€motel€and€began€a€searchÏof€the€premises.€€Observing€a€gun€on€the€dresser,€Nesbit€removed€it€from€the€€roomÏbefore€the€search€and€placed€it€under€the€seat€of€his€car.€€After€receiving€a€messageÐ L5 +0 Ðfrom€the€victim€on€his€beeper,€Nesbit€went€to€her€apartment,€arriving€at€approximatelyÏ3:00€a.m.€€Nesbit€carried€the€gun€inside,€removed€the€bullets,€and€placed€them€on€topÏof€the€refrigerator.€€He€and€the€victim€talked€for€awhile€before€he€fell€asleep€on€theÏliving€room€sofa.€€Nesbit€awoke€at€10:00€a.m.€on€the€day€of€the€murder€and€talked€toÏthe€victim€until€her€sister€arrived€at€1:00€p.m.€€Nesbit€heard€the€victim€tell€her€sisterÏto€come€back€at€3:00€p.m.€and€was€preparing€to€leave€in€anticipation€of€CannonððsÏarrival€when€the€shooting€occurred.ÌÌà Ø àAccording€to€Nesbit,€he€had€retrieved€the€gun€from€the€refrigerator€and€wasÏholding€€it€as€he€looked€outside€through€the€blinds€covering€the€window€next€to€theÏkitchen€door.€€As€he€turned€away€from€the€window,€he€held€the€gun€in€both€hands€andÏpointed€it€sideways€to€his€left.€€€As€he€ð ðfumbledðð€with€the€gun,€it€discharged.€ÏAccording€to€œNesbit,›€the€victim,€who€was€standing€to€his€left,€was€hit€by€the€bulletÏwhen€the€pistol€accidentally€discharged.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€panicked€andÏleft€the€apartment.€€Nesbit€admitted€that€his€route€of€departure€through€the€front€doorÏhad€taken€him€past€the€victimððs€dead€body€and€allowed€him€to€retrieve€his€cap€fromÏthe€sofa.€€Nesbit€did€not€call€for€emergency€assistance€even€though€he€knew€that€heÏwas€leaving€four€young€children€in€an€apartment€with€their€motherððs€dead€body.€€TheÏdefendant€denied€inflicting€the€burn€and€bruise€injuries€upon€the€victim.ÌÌà Ø àOn€cross„examination,€the€State€attempted€to€emphasize€the€inconsistenciesÏbetween€Nesbitððs€several€pretrial€statements€and€his€trial€testimony.€€The€State€alsoÏelicited€an€admission€from€Nesbit€that€he€had€been€alone€with€the€victim€and€herÏâ âchildren€on€the€day€of€the€œmurder.€€Based›€upon€the€proof€summarized€above,€the€juryÐ €3T). Ðfound€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditated€first€œdegree€murder.›€€The€trial€proceededÏto€the€sentencing€phase.Ìâ âÌÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸfJ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔà Ø àThe€State€relied€upon€the€evidence€presented€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€œtrial›Ð d Мand,›€in€addition,€recalled€Dr.€Smith€to€testify€about€the€burns€and€the€bruises€foundÏon€the€victimððs€body.€€Dr.€Smith€again€stated€that€these€injuries€were€inflicted€as€longÏas€six€hours,€or€as€little€as€mere€minutes€before€the€victimððs€death.€€€He€said€theÏburns€on€the€victimððs€body€ranged€from€severe€first€degree€to€moderate€secondÏdegree€burns€and€were€comparable€to€a€severe€sunburn€or€scald€burns€caused€byÏtouching€something€hot.€€Dr.€Smith€opined€that€the€victim€would€have€sufferedÏð ðmoderateðð€pain€from€the€individual€burns.ÌÌà Ø àAccording€to€Dr.€Smith,€the€scrapes€and€bruises€found€on€the€victimððs€feetÏwere€consistent€with€a€relatively€rare€type€of€torture€called€ð ðfalanga,ðð€which€involvesÏforcefully€striking€the€soles€of€a€personððs€feet€with€a€rod€or€some€similar€instrument,Ïand€which€typically€is€inflicted€in€a€military€context,€and,€to€a€lesser€extent,€in€childÏabuse€cases.€€While€none€of€these€injuries€were€severe€enough€to€requireÏhospitalization,€Dr.€Smith€said€the€amount€of€force€necessary€to€cause€bruising€on€theÏsoles€of€a€personððs€feet€would€cause€ð ðgreat€pain,ð ð€and€if€applied€to€any€other€part€ofÏthe€body,€such€force€would€be€sufficient€to€break€the€skin.€€With€respect€to€both€theÏburns€and€the€bruises,€Dr.€Smith€testified€that€the€victim€would€have€suffered€a€greatÏdeal€of€distress€anticipating€the€injuries€since€they€had€been€inflicted€over€anÏextended€period€of€time.€€Although€Dr.€Smith€found€no€marks€on€the€victimððs€bodyÏindicating€that€she€had€been€restrained,€he€opined€that€soft€ligatures€would€have€leftÏno€marks.€€Additionally,€he€stated€that€the€victim€might€have€been€restrained€byÐ L5 +0 Ðmental€intimidation.€€€Dr.€Smith€found€no€defensive€wounds€on€the€victimððs€body€andÏno€signs€of€sexual€assault€or€activity.€€Finally,€the€doctor€opined€that€torture€is€notÏordinarily€inflicted€to€produce€death.ÌÌà Ø àThe€only€other€witness€for€the€State€was€the€victimððs€mother€who€described€theÏimpact€of€the€victimððs€death€on€her€family,€including€her€parents€and€siblings€andÏparticularly€the€victimððs€children.ÌÌà Ø àIn€mitigation,€the€defendant€presented€proof€that€he€had€participated€in€theÏShelby€County€Jail€choir.€€Nesbitððs€brother€and€sister€asked€the€jury€to€spare€theÏdefendantððs€life€and€testified€that€he€is€a€nice,€kind€brother€who€previously€had€givenÏthem€good€advice€and€helped€them€to€correct€mistakes€they€had€made.€TheÏdefendantððs€mother€and€grandmother€testified€Nesbit€had€been€a€good,€kind,€andÏwell„behaved€person.€€They€described€him€as€an€honest€and€sincere€young€man€whoÏhad€always€told€the€truth€and€followed€the€right€path.€€Nesbit€had€dropped€out€ofÏschool€in€the€tenth€grade€and€moved€to€Nashville€to€care€for€his€grandmother€whoÏhad€been€experiencing€health€œproblems.€€While›€there,€he€had€obtained€several€jobsÏto€assist€his€grandmother€in€meeting€her€financial€obligations.€€Both€the€defendantððsÏmother€and€grandmother€asked€the€jury€to€spare€the€defendantððs€life.ÌÌà Ø àTestifying€in€his€own€behalf,€Nesbit,€nineteen„years€old€when€the€offense€hadÏbeen€committed,€told€the€jury€€of€his€plans€to€improve€himself€and€expressed€remorseÏfor€what€had€happened.€€While€the€defendant€admitted€to€having€a€juvenile€record€forÏtrespass,€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€assault,€he€€explained€the€circumstancesÏof€those€convictions€and€minimized€his€criminal€culpability€for€each€one.€€TheÐ L5 +0 Ðdefendant€had€no€adult€criminal€record.€€Nesbit€also€related€that€he€had€dropped€outÏof€school€in€the€tenth€grade€to€care€for€his€grandmother€who€lived€in€Nashville.€€NesbitÏhad€not€been€steadily€employed€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€but€he€explained€that€theÏ$602€cash€found€on€his€person€when€he€had€been€arrested€consisted€of€money€heÏhad€saved€or€had€been€given.€€ÌÌÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸùU#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€à Ø àBased€upon€the€proof,€the€jury€found€that€the€State€had€proven€the€existenceÐ ôÈ  Ðof€the€aggravating€circumstance€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€(1)€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÀe#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔð ð[t]he€murder€wasÐ À”  Ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ððÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ¯f#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)Ð X, Ð(1991€Repl.).€€Finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighed€mitigatingÏcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€deathÏby€electrocution.€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ£g#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔThe€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€in€accordance€with€the€juryððsÐ ¼ Ðverdict€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.€€After€reviewing€the€record€andÏconsidering€the€errors€assigned€by€the€defendant,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€œand€the€judgment€of€the›€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÔh#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ  %ô ÐÌà@>>+Ìàòòò òWAIVERóóó óˆÐ ¸(Œ" Ðà Ø àAs€in€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€State€in€this€Court€first€argues€that€theÏdefendantððs€failure€to€timely€file€his€motion€for€new€trial€precludes€appellate€review€ofÏall€issues€except€those€related€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€or€sentencing.€€WeÏdisagree.ÌÌà Ø àThe€State€is€correct€that€in€this€case€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed€beyondÏthe€thirty„day€period€provided€by€Rule€33(b),€Tenn.R.Crim.P.€€The€motion€was€indeedÐ X5,+0 Ðlate€and,€in€a€non„capital€case,€appellate€review€would€be€limited.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð ,  ÐP.€3(e);€òòState€v.€Givhanóó,€616€S.W.2d€612,€613„614€(Tenn.€Crim.App.€1980).€Ð ø Ì ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸRj#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔHowever,€both€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€this€Court€have€a€statutoryÐ Ä ˜ Ðobligation€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206€(1997€Repl.)€to€review€the€defendantððsÏconviction€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentence€of€death.€€Moreover,€our€statutory€dutyÏto€review€the€sentence€of€death€exists€even€in€the€absence€of€an€appeal€by€theÏdefendant.׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€light€of€this€clear€statutory€directive,€it€would€be€anomalous,€in€ourÐ ôÈ  Ðview,€to€hold€that€review€is€precluded€because€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€not€timelyÏfiled.€€By€so€holding,€we€do€not€by€any€means€approve€or€suggest€that€attorneys€inÏcapital€cases€make€a€practice€of€late€filing€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€ToÏthe€contrary,€attorneys€representing€capital€defendants€should€diligently€comply€withÏall€filing€deadlines.€€Indeed,€the€failure€to€do€so€in€some€circumstances€could€supportÏa€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€simply€hold€that€in€light€of€ourÏstatutory€duty€to€review€capital€cases,€this€Court€has€jurisdiction€to€review€the€issuesÏraised€in€this€appeal€despite€the€defendantððs€failure€to€timely€file€his€motion€for€newÏtrial.€òòCfóó.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€805€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€702Ð  %ô ÐS.W.2d€560,€564€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67„68€(Tenn.€1985);Ð ì&À  ÐòòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467,€471€(Tenn.€1981).Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿœm#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ ¸(Œ" ÐÌà@    Ìàòòò òIMPEACHMENT€OF€CHARACTER€WITNESS€„€RULE€405óóó óˆÐ P,$"& ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿt#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔà Ø àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€permitted€theÐ (.ü#( ÐState€to€examine€a€character€witness€about€his€knowledge€of€the€defendantððs€allegedÐ ô/È%* Ðsatanic€beliefs€and€practices.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€asserts€œthat€€no›€reasonableÏfactual€basis€for€the€specific€instance€of€conduct€œexisted€because€the›€alleged€rumorÏsurfaced€after€the€killing,€the€questioning€did€not€properly€address€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnessððs€testimony,€œand€the›€probative€value€of€the€inquiry€did€not€outweigh€itsÏprejudicial€effect.€€The€State€responds€that€the€inquiry€was€proper€under€applicableÏevidentiary€standards.Ì€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÊt#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ ôÈ  Ðà Ø àPursuant€to€Rule€405(a),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€a€witness€offering€testimony€about€theÏdefendantððs€character€may€be€impeached€by€questions€which€test€the€characterÏwitnessððs€knowledge€of€ð ðrelevant€specific€instances€of€conduct.ðð׃&×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ³w#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€The€purposesÐ X, Ðserved€by€such€inquiries€has€been€explained€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 Ø àSpecific€instances€of€conduct€are€permissible€on€cross„examination€forÏseveral€reasons.€€First,€they€test€the€credibility€of€the€character€witnessÏby€providing€information€on€the€underlying€data€upon€which€the€opinionÏor€reputation€was€formed.€€If€an€opinion€witness,€who€testifies€that€theÏdefendant€was€an€honest€person€at€the€critical€time,€did€not€know€thatÏthe€defendant€had€a€prior€embezzlement€conviction,€the€opinion€mayÏhave€been€formed€on€the€basis€of€inadequate€information€or€a€carelessÏ(and€therefore€suspect)€approach€to€assessing€a€personððs€reputation.€ÏSecond,€the€specific€acts€help€the€trier€of€fact€assess€the€standardsÏused€by€the€character€witness.€€For€example,€if€a€witness€who€gave€theÏopinion€that€the€defendant€is€an€honest€person€also€knew€that€theÏâ âdefendant€had€ten€shoplifting€convictions,€the€trier€of€fact€may€chooseÐ ¸(Œ" Ðto€discount€the€opinion€evidence€because€of€the€character€witnessððsÏlow€standards€for€measuring€honesty.Ð Ø À!Ø À! Ðâ âÌÓ zÓCohen,€Sheppeard,€Paine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€405.3,€p.€195€(3rd€ed.Ð Þ ² Ð1995€&€Supp.€1997)€(hereinafter€ð ðòòEvidenceóó,€ðð€__,€p.€__.ðð).Ð ª~ ÐÌà Ø àThough€inquiries€into€specific€instances€of€conduct€serve€valid€impeachmentÏpurposes,€to€prevent€the€jury€from€hearing€inadmissible€and€potentially€prejudicialÏallegations€about€the€defendantððs€character,€Rule€405€includes€certain€proceduralÏprerequisites€which€must€be€satisfied€before€such€inquiries€are€permissible.€€First,€anÏattorney€must€make€application€to€the€court€before€utilizing€a€specific€instance€ofÏconduct€to€impeach€a€character€witness.€€Since€the€rule€provides€no€time€limit,Ïapplication€may€be€made€immediately€before€the€question€is€asked,€but€if€opposingÏcounsel€is€unable€to€respond€because€of€surprise,€a€recess€may€be€appropriate.ÏòòEvidenceóó,€ðð€405.3,€p.€197.Ð ¢ v ÐÌà Ø àœSecond,›€Rule€405€mandates€that€the€trial€court,€upon€request,€conduct€aÏhearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence€to€determine€whether€œinquiries›€into€specificÏinstances€of€conduct€are€permissible.€€During€this€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€mustÏdetermine€whether€€the€specific€instance€of€€conduct€about€which€inquiry€is€proposedÏis€relevant€to€the€character€trait€about€which€the€witness€has€testified.€€For€example,Ïthis€Court€held€in€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€746€S.W.2d€191€(Tenn.€1988),€that€questionsÐ 6- #' Ðregarding€the€defendantððs€prior€arrests€for€bad€checks€and€shoplifting€wereÏpermissible€to€impeach€the€character€witness€who€had€testified€that€the€defendantÏhad€a€good€reputation€for€truthfulness€in€the€community.€€However,€we€heldÏimpermissible€questions€regarding€the€defendantððs€prior€arrests€for€assault€andÐ f4:*/ Ðbattery€because€they€were€not€relevant€to€the€character€trait€about€which€the€witnessÏhad€testified€„„€the€defendantððs€truthfulness.€€Though€the€decision€in€òòSimsóó€wasÐ ø Ì Ðrendered€before€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€in€1990,€it€is€anÏaccurate€interpretation€of€the€language€of€Rule€405€which€permits€inquiries€intoÏð ðòòrelevantóó€specific€instances€of€conduct.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)Ð \0 ÐÌà Ø àIf€the€relevancy€standard€is€satisfied,€the€trial€court€must€next€determineÏwhether€a€ð ðreasonable€factual€basisðð€exists€for€the€specific€instance€of€conduct.€€RuleÏ405€provides€no€specific€guidance€with€respect€to€the€nature€of€evidence€or€theÏshowing€required€to€establish€the€existence€of€a€ð ðreasonable€factual€basis.ððÏNonetheless,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€whenever€possible,Ïextrinsic€proof€should€be€offered€at€the€jury„out€hearing€to€establish€the€ð ðreasonableÏfactual€basis.ðð€€If€the€realities€of€trial€make€it€impossible€to€do€so,€the€attorneyÏproposing€to€ask€the€question€should,€at€a€minimum,€clearly€state€on€the€record€theÏsource€and€origin€of€the€information€underlying€the€specific€instance€of€conduct€aboutÏwhich€inquiry€is€proposed.€€òòEvidenceóó,€ðð€405.3€at€p.€197.€Ð $%ø ÐÌà Ø àIn€evaluating€whether€a€ð ðreasonable€factual€basisðð€has€been€established,€theÏtrial€court€should€be€œmindful›€œthat›€the€purpose€of€this€requirement,€as€noted€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case,€is€to€ensure€that€such€questions€are€€proposedÏin€good€faith,€rather€than€in€an€effort€to€place€before€the€jury€unfairly€prejudicialÏinformation€supported€only€by€unreliable€rumors.€€Though€we€have€not€previouslyÏaddressed€the€ð ðreasonable€factual€basisðð€requirement€of€Rule€405,€this€Court,€longÏago,€decided€that€reports€of€œa€defendantððs›€bad€character€which€do€not€arise€until€afterÏthe€crime€for€which€he€or€she€is€being€tried€are€inherently€suspect.Ð P5$+0 Їà Ø àFor€example,€inÓÓÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿy#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€ÓMÓòòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn.€363,€97€S.W.€815,€817€(1906),Ð ,  Ðduring€the€defendantððs€trial€for€first€degree€murder€for€stabbing€his€school€teacher€toÏdeath,€a€witness€for€the€prosecution€testified€on€cross„examination€as€to€the€goodÏcharacter€of€the€defendant.€€Purporting€to€test€the€witnessððs€credibility,€theÏprosecution,€on€redirect,€asked€the€witness€if€he€had€heard€that€the€defendant€hadÏð ðrun€his€stepfather€from€home€with€a€knife,€and€had€threatened€to€kill€another€school„¼teacher,€and€had€lain€in€weight€[sic]€for€him€with€a€shotgun.ðð€€€The€witness€respondedÏthat€he€had€heard€these€reports€after€the€killing€had€occurred.€€Powers€was€convicted,Ïand€before€this€Court€argued€that€reports€of€a€defendantððs€alleged€misconduct€whichÏarise€after€the€commission€of€the€crime€should€not€be€used€by€the€prosecution€toÏimpeach€a€character€witness.€€This€Court€agreed€with€the€defendant,€stating:ÌÓÓÌà8 Ø àThe€reputation€which€a€defendant€has€made€upon€the€subject€ofÏquietness€and€good€citizenship€available€for€or€against€him€in€a€criminalÏcause€when€he€puts€his€character€in€issue€is€that€which€he€bore€at€andÏbefore€the€taking€place€of€the€act€for€which€he€is€upon€trial,€not€aÏreputation€subsequently€acquired€or€created€for€or€against€him.€€AÏdifferent€view€would€put€a€premium€on€the€manufacturing€of€evidence.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ‚#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€òòÐT#(Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌPowersóó,€97€S.W.€at€817.€€Ó^‘ÓThis€Court€reversed€the€conviction€because€the€ð ðmatterÐ  %ô Ðtestified€to€came€to€the€knowledge€of€the€witnesses€after€the€commission€of€theÏhomicide€which€was€the€subject€of€investigation,ðð€and,€therefore€was€not€a€subjectÏupon€which€the€character€witness€could€be€impeached.€€òòIdóó;€œòòseeóó›€òòalsoóó€òòTucker€v.€Stateóó,Ð „*X $ Ð149€Tenn.€98,€257€S.W.€850,€856€œ(1924);€Wanda›€E.€Wakefield,€òòAnnotationóó,€ð ðCross„Ð P,$"& ÐExamination€of€Character€Witness,ðð€13€A.L.R.4th€796,€€ðð€8€œ(1982€&›€Supp.€1997)Ï(citing€cases€limiting€cross„examination€to€specific€instances€of€conduct€whichÏoccurred€before€commission€of€the€crime€on€trial).€Ìâ âÐ €3T). Ðà Ø àWhile€our€decisions€in€òòPowersóó€and€òòTuckeróó€prÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ;“#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔedate€the€adoption€of€theÐ ,  Ðâ âTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€the€logic€and€rationale€of€those€decisions€areÏconsistent€with,€and€reflected€by,€the€œð ðreasonable›€factual€basisðð€requirement€of€RuleÏ405.€€Because€of€the€potential€for€evidence€manufacturing,€and€because€a€personÏaccused€of€a€crime€is€more€likely€to€be€the€subject€of€rumor€and€innuendo,€reports€ofÏspecific€instances€of€conduct€which€do€not€arise€until€after€a€crime€has€beenÏcommitted€are€inherently€suspect€and€may€notÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿô–#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€form€the€basis€for€inquiry€under€RuleÐ ôÈ  Ð405.€€In€addition,€a€trial€court€should€exercise€caution€in€permitting€inquiry€under€RuleÏ405€if€the€character€witness€subject€to€impeachment€first€heard€reports€of€the€specificÏinstance€of€conduct€after€the€crime€occurred.€€Under€those€circumstances,€toÏestablish€a€reasonable€factual€basis,€the€prosecutionÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ8™#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€must€offer€some€proof€at€theÐ $ø Ðjury„out€hearing€that€the€specific€instance€of€conduct€had€been€reported€before€theÏcrime€occurred.€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿéš#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ ¼ ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÁ›#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÌà Ø àIf€a€specific€instance€of€conduct€is€relevant€and€supported€by€a€reasonableÏfactual€basis,€the€trial€court€must€next€determine€whether€the€probative€valueÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿœ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€of€aÐ  %ô Ðð ðspecific€instance€of€conduct€on€the€character€witnessððs€credibility€outweighs€itsÏprejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.ðð€€In€recognition€of€the€uniquely€prejudicialÏimpact€of€allegations€of€instances€of€bad€conduct,€the€evidentiary€rules€place€a€tighterÏrestraint€on€the€permissibility€of€€œinquiries›€about€relevant€specific€instances€of€conductÏthan€is€placed€on€the€admissibility€of€other€relevant€evidence.€€Indeed,€Rule€403,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.,€provides€that€relevant€evidence€is€excluded€only€if€its€probative€valueÏis€ð ðsubstantially€outweighedðð€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€€In€contrast,€inquiries€intoÏspecific€instances€of€conductÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€under€Rule€405€are€precluded€if€probative€value€andÐ €3T). Ðprejudicial€effect€are€of€equal€weight,€or€if€the€prejudicial€effect€of€the€specific€instanceÐ L5 +0 Ðof€conduct€on€substantive€issues€merely€ð ðoutweighsðð€its€probative€impeachmentÏvalue.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€(same€weighing€standard€governs€admissionÐ ø Ì Ðof€proof€of€prior€bad€acts)Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸîŸ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ.Ð Ä ˜ ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸË¡#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÌà Ø àEven€when€a€trial€court€determines€that€an€inquiry€is€permissible€under€theÏpreviously€delineated€procedural€safeguards€of€€Rule€405,€Tennessee€law€requiresÏthe€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€that€the€specific€acts€of€conduct€were€admitted€forÏthe€limited€purpose€of€evaluating€the€credibility€of€the€character€witnessÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ#¢#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ.€€òòSimsóó,€òòsupraóó.Ð À”  ÐÌÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ²£#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔà Ø àHaving€set€out€the€governing€legal€principles,€we€must€now€apply€these€rulesÐ X, Ðto€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Here,€the€alleged€error€arose€during€the€guilt€phase€of€theÏtrial€when€defense€counsel,€at€the€end€of€his€cross„examination€of€James€Shaw,€aÏwitness€for€the€State,€asked€Shaw€if€he€was€familiar€with€the€defendantððs€reputationÏin€the€community€for€peacefulness€and€violence.€€Shaw,€who€had€dated€theÏdefendantððs€aunt€and€known€the€defendant€for€twelve€œyears,›€responded,€ð ðYeah.€€HeÏdidnððt€bother€nobody.€€You€know,€heððd€help€you€if€he€could,€but€he€never€did€„€heÏnever€did€bother€nobody.€€He€seemed€like€to€me€he€always€tried€to€stay€away€from,Ïyou€know,€trouble.ððÌÌà Ø àAt€the€beginning€of€redirect,€the€prosecutor,€during€a€bench€conference,Ïadvised€the€trial€court€that€to€test€Shawððs€basis€of€knowledge€the€State€proposed€toÏask€Shaw€whether€he€had€heard€that€the€defendant€claimed€he€worshiped€Satan€andÏhad€to€kill€two€people€to€get€power.€€The€defense€requested€a€jury„out€hearing,€atÏwhich€Shaw€admitted€that€he€had€heard€these€allegations€after€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€from€the€defendantððs€ð ðauntie€and€them,ðð€and€again€before€trial€from€theÐ L5 +0 Ðprosecuting€attorney.€€The€prosecutor€then€remarked€that€he€had€heard€thisÏinformation€ð ðfrom€two€or€three€people€as€wellðð€and€argued€that,€with€Shawððs€havingÏalso€heard€it,€a€ð ðfactual€basisðð€existed€for€asking€the€question.€€The€prosecutorÏexplained€to€the€trial€court€that€ð ðMs.€Cannon€[the€victim]€is€the€one€who€told€severalÏof€them€that€the€defendant€told€her€that.ðð€€Shaw€then€indicated€that€the€defendantððsÏaunt€had€heard€the€allegations€of€satanic€worship€from€the€victimððs€family€after€theÏmurder.€€No€other€evidence€concerning€this€allegation€of€satanic€worship€was€offered.€ÏBased€upon€this€information,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€inquiry.€€The€followingÏexchange€occurred€in€the€presence€of€the€jury:ÌÓÓÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àIn€forming€your€opinion€of€his€reputation€in€theÐ > Ðcommunity€in€which€he€works€and€lives€forÏpeacefulness€and€quietude,€had€you€heard€thatÏthe€defendant€had€told€others€that€he€worshipedÏSatan€and€needed€to€kill€two€people€in€order€to€getÏsome€power?Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àNo,€I€had€not€heard€that.Ј!\ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à ˆ àYou€had€not€heard€that?ÐT#(Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àI€had€not€heard€that.Ð %ôˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àDidnððt€you€testify€just€a€few€moments€ago€out€ofÐ ì&À  Ðthe€hearing€of€the€jury€that€you€had€heard€thatÏfrom€Cynthia€Nesbit?Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àOh,€yeah,€but€I€thought€you€was€talking€about€hadÐ „*X $ ÐI€heard€it€from€him.Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àNo,€no.€€Iððm€not€talking€about€that.€€Let€me€beÐ 6- #' Ðcareful.€€Youððve€heard€it€from€„€„€at€least€fromÏCynthia€Nesbit;€is€that€correct?Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àRight.ÐÎ0¢&+ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àThatððs€what€he€said;€is€that€correct?К2n(-ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àNo,€I€heard€œthat€that›ððs€what€she€had€heard.Ðf4:*/ˆhˆh ÐÐ L5 +0 Ðà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àAnd€did€you€take€that€into€account€in€forming€yourÐ ,  Ðopinion€of€his€reputation€for€peacefulness€andÏquietude?Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àWhat€do€you€mean€by€that?ÐÄ ˜ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àDoes€that€sound€peaceful€and€quiet€to€you?Ðdˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àWell,€I€still€donððtðð€understand€what€you€are€saying.Ð\0ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àIf€somebody€said€that€they€needed€to€kill€twoÐ (ü  Ðpeople€to€get€power,€would€that€sound€peacefulÏand€quiet€to€you?Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àNo,€it€wouldnððt,€but€I€œainððt›€heard€nothing€from€himÐ À”  Ðlike€that.Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àProsecutor:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àI€understand.€€Thank€you.€€No€further€questions,Ð rF ÐYour€Honor.Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àJUDGE:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àLadies€and€gentlemen,€the€Court€charges€the€juryÐ $ø Ðthat€if€you€find€that€specific€instances€of€badÏcharacter€of€the€defendant€have€been€brought€outÏin€the€trial,€then€you€can€consider€it€only€for€theÏpurpose€of€testing€the€accuracy€and€credibility€ofÏthe€character€witness,€and€that€evidence€thusÏdeveloped€is€not€substantive€evidence€of€theÏdefendantððs€good€or€bad€character.€€All€right.€€YouÏmay,€if€you€have€recross„examination.Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àDefense:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àWhat€is€your€opinion€of€his€peacefulness€andÐ  %ô Ðquietude€now?€€What€is€your€opinion€of€him?Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àWell,€in€my€opinion,€heððs€a€nice€young€man.€€LikeÐ Ò'¦! ÐI€said,€you€know,€in€my€opinion,€you€know,€heÏdidnððt€bother€nobody.€€Like€I€said,€he€alwaysÏhelped€me.€€I€go€to€him,€tell€him€I€need€him€to€doÏsome€work€for€me;€he€do€it,€you€know.€€He€just€theÏtype€he€didnððt,€you€know,€he€respected€his€auntiesÏand€things€and€everybody€else,€you€know,€hisÏelders.Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àDefense:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àSo€you€never€heard€this€opinion€directly€fromÐ è/¼%* Ðanybody?€€I€mean,€you€donððt€know€of€yourÏpersonal€knowledge€about€anything€of€that;€is€thatÏcorrect?Ð ˆhˆh ÐÌà8 Ø àShaw:à8ˆØ À!Ø À!àNo,€I€donððt.€€No,€I€donððt.€Ðf4:*/ˆhˆh ÐÐ L5 +0 Ðà8 Ø àÐ Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ¬ÓThe€final€charge€to€the€jury€in€this€case€repeated€the€admonition€that€ð ðspecificÏinstances€of€bad€character€of€the€defendantðð€are€only€to€be€used€to€test€the€accuracyÏand€credibility€of€the€character€witness€and€not€as€substantive€evidence€of€theÏdefendantððs€good€or€bad€character.ÌÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ%¤#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÌà Ø àIn€our€view,€the€record€in€this€case€indicates€that€the€requirements€of€Rule€405Ïwere€satisfied.€€The€prosecutor€sought€the€trial€courtððs€permission€before€questioningÏthe€character€witness€about€the€defendantððs€alleged€satanic€worship.€€At€defenseÏcounselððs€request,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence€toÏconsider€the€issue.€€The€specific€instance€of€conduct€about€which€inquiry€wasÏproposed€was€relevant€to€the€issue€about€which€the€witness€had€testified€„„€theÏdefendantððs€reputation€in€the€community€€for€peacefulness€and€quietude.€€€AÏreasonable€factual€basis€was€established.€€The€prosecutor€identified€the€source€andÏorigin€of€the€specific€instance€of€conduct€on€the€record€at€the€jury„out€hearing.€ÏThough€the€character€witness€said€he€had€not€heard€the€allegations€of€satanicÏworship€until€after€the€murder,€the€prosecutorððs€statement€identifying€the€victim€of€theÏmurder€as€the€source€of€the€report€obviously€is€some€proof€that€the€incident€had€beenÏreported€before€the€murder€occurred.€€A€review€of€the€record€does€not€demonstrateÏthat€the€prejudicial€effect€of€the€specific€instance€of€conduct€on€the€substantive€issuesÏoutweighed€its€probative€impeachment€value.€€The€inquiry€was€directly€relevant€to€theÏcharacter€traits€of€peacefulness€and€quietude€about€which€the€witness€had€testified.€ÏImmediately€following€the€inquiry€and€again€in€its€final€charge,€the€trial€court€properlyÏinstructed€the€jury€as€to€the€permissible€limited€use€of€the€evidence.€€The€jury€isÏpresumed€to€have€followed€those€instructions.€€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€397Ð f4:*/ Ð(Tenn.€1995);€€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€1985).€€The€defendantððsÐ ,  Ðclaim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€inquiry€is€without€merit.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸL½#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ ø Ì ÐÌÌà@°°Ìàòòò òAGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€(i)(5)óóó óˆÐ \0 Ðà@  Ìàòòò òA.€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence€óóó óˆÐ 4  Ðà Ø àÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ³Ä#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔIn€this€case,€the€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty€upon€its€findingœ×ƒ×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€X'ÏXXX'ÏÔÔ€X'ÏXXX'ÏÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€that€ð ð[t]heÐ  à  Ðmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼204(i)(5)€(1991).€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€to€support€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏheld€thatÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ¾Å#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€because€the€victim€died€instantaneously€from€a€single€gunshot€wound€to€theÐ Ü Ðhead,€the€proof€was€not€sufficient€to€show€that€the€murder€involved€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€Relying€upon€decisions€of€this€CourtÏdefining€torture€as€ð ðthe€infliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victimÏwhile€he€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious,ðð€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,Ð 8%  Ð529€(Tenn.€1985),Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ‘È#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€also€held€that€the€proof€in€case€wasÐ 'Ø  Ðnot€sufficient€to€establish€physical€torture€because€Dr.€Smith€had€testified€that€theÏindividual€burns€caused€the€victim€only€ð ðmoderate,ðð€rather€than€ð ðsevere,ðð€physicalÏpain.€€Nonetheless,€the€intermediate€court€found€the€proof€showed€mental€torture,Ïsufficient€to€support€the€aggravating€circumstance€because€Dr.€Smith€testified€thatÏthe€victim€had€suffered€a€ð ðgreat€degree€of€distressðð€anticipating€the€infliction€of€theÏrepeated€burns€and€bruises.Ð Ì1 ', Їà Ø àIn€this€court,€the€defendant€agrees€with€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€as€to€physical€torture€and€serious€physical€abuse,€but€asserts€that€theÏintermediate€court€erred€in€upholding€the€aggravating€circumstance€on€the€basis€ofÏmental€torture€because€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony€that€the€victim€suffered€a€ð ðgreat€degreeÏof€distressðð€is€speculative.ÌÌà Ø àIn€contrast,€the€State€agrees€with€the€intermediate€courtððs€decision€with€respectÏto€mental€torture,€but€avers€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€finding€theÏevidence€insufficient€to€establish€physical€torture€and€serious€physical€abuse€sinceÏthe€evidence€of€numerous€ð ðmoderatelyðð€painful€injuries€considered€cumulatively€isÏsufficient€to€support€€findings€of€physical€torture€and€serious€physical€abuse.ÌÌà Ø àAs€previously€stated,€torture€has€been€defined€as€ð ðthe€infliction€of€severeÏphysical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious.ðð€ÏòòWilliamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€at€529.€€The€proof€in€this€case€clearly€is€sufficient€to€show€thatÐ T#( Ðthe€victim€was€alive€and€conscious€when€the€injuries€were€inflicted.€€Dr.€Smith€testifiedÏthat€examination€of€the€burns€and€bruises€revealed€that€they€had€been€inflicted€beforeÏthe€victimððs€death.€€The€victimððs€sister€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€victim€alive€andÏconscious€at€1:00€p.m.€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€The€defendant€confirmed€thatÏtestimony.€€The€victimððs€sister€said€that€she€had€observed€a€burn€mark€on€the€victimððsÏneck€at€that€time€which€had€not€been€there€the€previous€day.€€Obviously,€thisÏtestimony€reveals€that€the€victim€was€conscious€at€least€when€some€of€the€injuriesÏwere€inflicted.€€The€defendant€consistently€maintained€that€the€victim€had€beenÏconscious€until€he€shot€her.€€Considered€in€conjunction€with€Dr.€Smithððs€testimonyÏthat€the€burns€and€bruises€were€inflicted€before€death,€the€defendantððs€testimonyÐ L5 +0 Ðindicates€that€the€victim€was€alive€and€conscious€during€the€infliction€of€each€andÏevery€burn€and€bruise.€€In€our€view,€the€proof€in€this€record€is€sufficient€to€support€aÏfinding€that€the€victim€was€alive€and€conscious€when€the€injuries€were€inflicted.ÌÌà Ø àWe€must€next€consider€whether€the€proof€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€thatÏthe€infliction€of€these€injuries€caused€the€alive€and€conscious€victim€ð ðsevere€physicalÏor€mental€pain.ðð€€In€evaluating€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€on€this€issue,€we€areÏmindful€of€two€longstanding€rules€in€this€State.€€First,ÌÓÓà8 Ø à[t]he€jury€may€use€their€common€knowledge€and€experience€in€decidingÏwhether€a€fact€is€logically€deducible€from€the€circumstances€inÏevidence,€or€in€making€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence,€andÏmay€test€the€truth€and€weight€of€the€evidence€by€their€own€generalÏknowledge€and€judgment€derived€from€experience,€observation,€andÏreflection.€.€.€.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌòòÓÓTrousdale€v.€Stateóó,€168€Tenn.€210,€76€S.W.2d€646€(1934);€òòFairbanks€v.€Stateóó,€508Ð Öª ÐS.W.2d€67,€69€(Tenn.€1974);€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121,€131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¢ v Ð1993).€€Second,€while€expert€testimony€may€embrace€an€ultimate€issue€to€be€decidedÏby€the€trier€of€fact,€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€1997);€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€704,Ð :$ Ðthe€jury€is€not€bound€to€accept€the€testimony€of€an€expert.€€Indeed,€ð ðthe€weight€andÏvalue€of€expert€testimony€is€for€the€juryðð€to€determine.€€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€891€S.W.2dÐ Ò'¦! Ð607,€616€(Tenn.€1995).€ÌÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸµÊ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÌÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸlÛ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔà Ø àThere€is€no€exception€to€this€rule€for€capital€cases.€€The€prosecution€is€notÐ 6- #' Ðrequired€to€offer€expert€testimony€as€to€the€precise€level€of€pain€inflicted€upon€aÏvictim.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ¯Û#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€Even€if€such€testimony€is€offered,€as€previously€stated,€jurors€are€not€boundÐ Î0¢&+ Ðto€accept€the€testimony€of€expert€witnesses.€€Indeed,€jurors€are€free€to€use€theirÏcommon€knowledge€and€judgment€derived€from€experience,€observation,€andÐ f4:*/ Ðreflection€to€decide€whether€a€fact€is€logically€deducible€or€reasonably€inferred€fromÏthe€evidence.€ÌÌà Ø àIn€finding€the€proof€in€this€record€insufficient€to€support€a€€finding€that€ð ðsevereÏphysical€painðð€had€been€inflicted€upon€the€alive€and€conscious€victim,€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€cited€only€that€portion€of€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony€indicating€that€theÏvictim€had€suffered€ð ðmoderateðð€pain€from€the€individual€burns.€€The€intermediate€courtÏapparently€considered€the€jury€bound€by€that€testimony.€€In€evaluating€the€sufficiencyÏof€the€proof,€an€appellate€court€must€consider€the€entire€body€of€evidence€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€State.€€Applying€that€standard€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€weÏconclude€that€the€prÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸºÜ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔoof€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€physical€tortureÐ $ø Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà Ø àBÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿüà#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔeginning€six€hours€before€the€victimððs€death€and€lasting€up€until€minutesÐ ˆ!\ Ðbefore€she€actually€died,€the€defendant€inflicted€first€and€second€degree€burns€on€herÏbody€in€six€places.€€Dr.€Smith€compared€these€burns€to€a€severe€sunburn€or€a€scaldÏburn.€€One€burn€had€resulted€when€the€defendant€held€an€open€flame€under€theÏvictimððs€chin.€€On€the€left€side€of€the€victimððs€neck,€the€defendant€carefully€burned€theÏnumeral€one€(€ð ðÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÂá#ÔÔ‡XÖ=XXX6ŸÔ1Ô#†X6ŸXXXÖ=Îã#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ").€€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿä#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔThe€defendant€also€beat€the€soles€of€the€victimððs€feet€withÐ „*X $ Ðsufficient€force€to€cause€bruising,€and€according€to€Dr.€Smith,€ð ðgreat€pain.ðð€€Given€theÏdetailed€œdescription,›€both€of€these€injuries€and€the€methods€by€which€they€wereÏinflicted,€certainly€€the€jurors,€using€their€common€knowledge€and€experience,€couldÏhave€assessed€the€degree€of€pain€resulting€from€these€injuries.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸYä#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ3æ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿvæ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ Ä1˜', Ðâ âÐ 3d). Ðà Ø àÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ»æ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔMoreover,€while€we€agree€with€the€intermediate€courtððs€conclusion€with€regardÏâ âto€the€sufficiency€of€the€proof€to€support€a€jury€finding€that€severe€mental€pain€wasÏinflicted€upon€the€victim,€we€again€do€not€base€our€conclusion€solely€upon€Dr.€SmithððsÏtestimony€that€the€victim€would€have€suffered€ð ða€great€degree€of€distressðð€anticipatingÏthe€infliction€of€the€various€injuries.€€Utilizing€their€common€knowledge€and€experienceÏas€members€of€the€human€race,€the€jurors€were€capable€of€evaluating€the€proof€andÏdetermining€whether€the€victim€suffered€severe€mental€pain€when,€over€the€courseÏof€a€six€hour€time€period,€her€body€was€burned€and€beaten€in€her€own€home,€with€fourÏof€her€young€children€present.€€The€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€a€juryððsÏfinding€of€torture€does€not€depend€upon€whether€an€expert€witness€utters€the€magicalÏwords€ð ðsevere€physical€or€mental€pain.ðð€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ=ç#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔThe€relevant€question€for€an€appellate€courtÐ $ø Ðis€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€existence€of€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏbeyond€a€reasonable€œdoubt.€€òòState›€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð ˆ!\ ÐApplying€this€standard,Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿë#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€we€conclude€that€the€proof€is€sufficient€to€support€a€juryÐ T#( Ðfinding€that€both€severe€physical€and€œmental€pain›€was€inflicted€upon€the€victim€whileÏshe€remained€alive€and€conscious.€€€ÌÌà Ø àMoreover,€in€our€view,€the€evidence€is€also€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€€ofÏð ðserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€deathðð€even€though€theÏcause€of€the€victimððs€death€was€a€single€gunshot€wound€to€the€head.€€There€is€noÏrequirement€that€the€cause€or€mode€of€death€also€be€the€cause€or€mode€of€theÏð ðserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€In€this€case,€burnsÏand€bruises€were€inflicted€upon€the€victim€over€a€period€of€six€hours.€€ð ð[S]eriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€deathðð€means€just€what€it€says;Ð L5 +0 Ðthere€must€be€serious€physical,€not€mental,€abuse,€i.e.,€ð ðan€act€that€is€ððexcessiveðð€orÏwhich€makes€ððimproper€use€of€a€thing,ðð€or€which€uses€a€thing€ððin€a€manner€contraryÏto€the€natural€or€legal€rules€for€its€use.ðð€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€26€(Tenn.Ð Ä ˜ Ð1996).€€Certainly,€the€abuse€of€the€victim€in€this€case€qualifies.€€The€defendant€burnedÏthe€victimððs€body€in€various€places€and€beat€the€soles€of€her€feet€before€he€shot€herÏin€the€head.€€Considering€this€proof,€we€conclude€that€a€œrational›€jury€could€have€foundÏthat€this€murder€involved€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produceÏdeath.Ìà@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌÌà@ZZ%Ìàòòò òB.€Jury€Instructionó óóóˆÐ $ø Ðà Ø àThe€defendant€also€attacks€as€confusing€the€language€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€„„€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ð ð€ÏWithout€a€clarifying€instruction,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€fails€to€sufficiently€channel€the€juryððs€discretion€and€meaningfully€narrowÏthe€class€of€death€eligible€defendants.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€contends€that€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÁì#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€theÐ ø&Ì  Ðphrase€ð ðin€thatðð€misleads€the€jury€to€believe€that€any€act€of€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death€is€€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel,ðð€and€he€contends€that€without€an€instruction€setting€out€the€two„step€analysis,Ïa€jury€may€inappropriately€find€the€circumstance€based€only€on€proof€of€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse.ÌÌà Ø àWe€disagree.€€The€jury€in€this€case€was€properly€instructed€in€accordance€withÏthe€language€of€the€statute€and€the€definitions€provided€in€òòWilliamsóó,€òòsupraóó.€€We€haveÐ X5,+0 Ðrepeatedly€and€recently€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€this€aggravating€circumstance.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€18.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ.õ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ ø Ì ÐÌÌà@"Ìàòòò òVICTIM€IMPACT€EVIDENCEóóó óà@@””-Ìà€€ˆÐ \0 ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸŒø#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔà Ø àThe€State€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€in€its€case€in€chief,€through€the€victimððsÐ 4  Ðmother,€presented€evidence€of€the€victimððs€character€and€the€ð ðvery€devastatingððÏimpact€the€victimððs€death€had€imposed€upon€her€family.€€The€defendant€objected€toÏthis€testimony€as€irrelevant€and€highly€inflammatory.€€On€appeal,€the€defendantÏargues€that€admission€of€the€victim€impact€evidence€violates€the€Eighth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€16Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€argues€that€victim€impactÏevidence€is€immaterial€and€irrelevant€under€Tennesseeððs€capital€sentencing€statute,Ïand€even€if€relevant,€the€prejudicial€effect€of€this€evidence€substantially€outweighs€itsÏprobative€value.ÌÌà Ø àOn€the€other€hand,€the€State€argues€that€both€this€Court€and€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€have€recognized€that€victim€impact€evidence€is€relevant€toÏpunishment€and€admissible€under€both€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€BecauseÏit€is€relevant€to€punishment,€the€State€argues€that€victim€impact€evidence€isÏadmissible€under€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸCù#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔthe€Tennessee€statutory€schemeÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿþ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€which€provides€that€evidence€mayÐ (.ü#( Ðbe€presented€ð ðas€to€any€matter€the€court€deems€relevant€to€punishment.ðð€€The€StateÏalso€argues€that€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€in€this€case€was€not€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.ÌÐ X5,+0 Ðà Ø àThe€constitutional€standards€governing€victim€impact€evidence€and€argumentÏat€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding€have€varied€greatly€over€the€past€eleven€years.€ÏIn€òòBooth€v.€Marylandóó,€482€U.S.€496,€504,€107€S.Ct.€2529,€2534,€96€L.Ed.2d€440Ð Ä ˜ Ð(1987),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€introduction€of€victim€impact€evidence€at€theÏpenalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial€violates€a€defendantððs€Eighth€Amendment€rightsÏbecause€the€evidence€ð ðmay€be€wholly€unrelated€to€blameworthiness€of€a€particularÏdefendant,ðð€and€may€divert€the€capital€sentencerððs€attention€from€relevant€informationÏabout€the€crime€and€the€defendantððs€background€and€record.€€In€òòSouth€Carolina€v.Ð À”  ÐGathersóó,€490€U.S.€805,€811„12,€109€S.Ct.€2207,€2211,€104€L.Ed.2d€876€(1989),€theÐ Œ` ÐSupreme€Court€reaffirmed€òòBoothóó€and€extended€it€to€preclude€comments€by€theÐ X, Ðprosecution,€in€final€argument,€about€the€victim€and€victim€impact.€€As€in€òòBoothóó,€theÐ $ø Ðmajority€in€òòGathersóó€held€that€the€prosecution€had€focused€upon€considerations€whichÐ ðÄ Ðwere€not€relevant€to€the€defendantððs€ð ðpersonal€responsibility€and€moral€guilt.ððÌÌà Ø àAgainst€this€jurisprudential€background,€this€Court€rendered€our€decision€inÏòòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€that€case,€the€defendant€had€beenÐ  %ô Ðconvicted€of€the€stabbing€murder€of€a€œtwenty„eight„year„old›€mother€and€her€œtwo„and„›Ïone„half€year€old€daughter.€€The€victimððs€œthree„and„one„half›€œyear›€œold€son›€also€hadÏbeen€severely€injured€in€the€assault,€but€managed€to€survive.€€At€the€sentencingÏphase€of€Payneððs€trial€the€mother€and€grandmother€of€the€deceased€victims€brieflyÏtestified€about€the€impact€of€the€murders€on€her€surviving€grandson.€€The€prosecutorÏutilized€the€victim€impact€evidence€in€his€closing€argument.€€In€this€Court,€theÏdefendant€argued€that€the€evidence€and€argument€regarding€victim€impact€violatedÐ ´1ˆ', ÐòòBoothóó€and€òòGathersóó.€€While€acknowledging€the€technical€irrelevance€of€victim€impact€Ð €3T). Ðevidence€under€òòBoothóó,€this€Court€held€that€the€evidence€and€argument€in€òòPayneóó€ð ðdidÐ L5 +0 ÐÑ'¤ÑÑ °7ÀÑÑ  Ññ|6ñÑ'¤ÑÑ °7ÀÑÑ  Ññ|6ññy6ñÑ'¤ÑÑ °7ÀÑÑ  Ññy6ñnot€create€a€constitutionally€unacceptable€risk€of€an€arbitrary€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty,€and€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€791€S.W.2d€at€18.€€WithÐ ø Ì Ðrespect€to€the€prosecutorððs€arguments€in€òòPayneóó,€this€Court€held,€ð ð[w]e€are€of€theÐ Ä ˜ Ðopinion€that€the€prosecutorððs€argument€is€relevant€to€this€defendantððs€personalÏresponsibility€and€moral€guilt.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€791€S.W.2d€at€19.€€In€so€concluding,€we€stated,€Ð \0 ÐÓÓÌà8 Ø àIt€is€an€affront€to€the€civilized€members€of€the€human€race€to€say€thatÏat€sentencing€in€a€capital€case,€a€parade€of€witnesses€may€praise€the€Ïbackground,€character€and€good€deeds€of€Defendant€(as€was€done€inÏthis€case),€without€limitation€as€to€relevancy,€but€nothing€may€be€saidÏthat€bears€upon€the€character€of,€or€the€harm€imposed,€upon€theÏvictims.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿbþ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÓ% ÓÌòòIdóó.Ð > ÐÌà Ø àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€granted€the€defendantððs€appeal€from€ourÏdecision€in€òòPayneóó,€and€overruled€òòBoothóó€and€òòGathersóó€to€the€extent€that€thoseÐ ¢ v Ðdecisions€had€held€the€Eight€Amendment€precludes€admission€of€victim€impactÏevidence€and€prosecutorial€argument€on€the€evidence.׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòPayne€v.€Tennesseeóó,€501Ð :$ ÐU.S.€808,€111€S.Ct.€2597,€115€L.Ed.2d€720€(1991).€€First,€the€Court,€explained€that,Ïð ðit€was€never€held€or€even€suggested€in€any€of€our€cases€preceding€òòBoothóó€that€theÐ Ò'¦! Ðdefendant,€entitled€as€he€was€to€individualized€consideration,€was€to€receive€thatÏconsideration€wholly€apart€from€the€crime€which€he€had€committed.ðð€€òòPayneóó,€œ501›€U.S.Ð j+>!% Ðat€822,€111€S.Ct.€at€2607.€€According€to€the€Court€in€òòPayneóó,€the€rule€announced€byÐ 6- #' ÐòòBoothóó€and€òòGathersóó,€ð ðunfairly€weighted€the€scales€in€a€capital€trialðð€by€placing€virtuallyÐ /Ö$) Ðno€limits€on€the€relevant€mitigating€evidence€a€capital€defendant€may€introduce,€whileÏbarring€the€State€from€ð ðeither€offering€a€glimpse€of€the€life€which€a€defendant€choseÏto€extinguish€or€demonstrating€the€loss€to€the€victimððs€family€and€to€society€whichÏhave€resulted€from€the€defendantððs€homicide.ðð€€òòPayneóó,€œ501›€U.S.€at€822,€111€S.Ct.€atÐ d Ð2607€(internal€citations€and€quotations€omitted).€€The€òòPayneóó€Court€reiterated€that,Ð \0 Ðð ðjustice,€though€due€to€the€accused,€is€due€to€the€accuser€also.€€The€concept€ofÏfairness€must€not€be€strained€till€it€is€narrowed€to€a€filament.€€We€are€to€keep€theÏbalance€true.ðð€€òòPayneóó,€œ501›€U.S.€at€827,€111€S.Ct.€at€2609,€(quoting€òòSnyder€v.Ð À”  ÐMassachusettsóó,€291€U.S.€97,€122,€54€S.Ct.€330,€338,€78€L.Ed.€674€(1934)).€€Ð Œ` ÐÌà Ø àTherefore,€in€overruling€the€decisions€of€òòBoothóó€and€òòGathersóó,€the€Court€inÐ $ø ÐòòPayneóó€stated:Ð ðÄ ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àWe€are€now€of€the€view€that€a€State€may€properly€conclude€thatÏfor€the€jury€to€assess€meaningfully€the€defendantððs€moral€culpability€andÏblameworthiness,€it€should€have€before€it€at€the€sentencing€phaseÏevidence€of€the€specific€harm€caused€by€the€defendant.€€The€State€hasÏa€legitimate€interest€in€counteracting€the€mitigating€evidence€which€theÏdefendant€is€entitled€to€put€in,€by€reminding€the€sentencer€that€just€asÏthe€murderer€should€be€considered€as€an€individual,€so€too€the€victimÏis€an€individual€whose€death€represents€a€unique€loss€to€society€and€inÏparticular€to€his€family.€€By€turning€the€victim€into€a€faceless€stranger€atÏthe€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial,€òòBoothóó€deprives€the€State€of€the€fullÐ Ò'¦! Ðmoral€force€of€its€evidence€and€may€prevent€the€jury€from€having€beforeÏit€all€the€information€necessary€to€determine€the€proper€punishment€forÏa€first„degree€murder.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ¿ÓÌòòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€825,€111€S.Ct.€at€2608€(internal€citations€and€quotations€omitted).Ð 6- #' ÐTherefore,€the€Court€held€that€if€a€State€chooses€to€permit€the€admission€of€victimÏimpact€evidence€and€prosecutorial€argument,€ð ðthe€Eighth€Amendment€€erects€no€òòperóóÐ Î0¢&+ Ðòòseóó€bar.ðð€€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€U.S.€at€827,€111€S.Ct.€at€2609.Ð ž2r(- ÐÐ n4B*/ Ðà Ø àHowever,€òòPayneóó€did€not€authorize€admission€of€any€and€all€victim€impactÐ ,  Ðevidence€and€argument.€€Indeed,€the€Court€noted€that€in€the€event€victim€impactÏevidence€is€introduced€ð ðthat€is€so€unduly€prejudicial€that€it€renders€the€trialÏfundamentally€unfair,€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€AmendmentÏprovides€a€mechanism€for€relief.ðð€€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€825,€111€S.Ct.€at€2608.Ð \0 ÐÌà Ø àTherefore,€òòPayneóó€stands€for€the€proposition€that€the€Eighth€Amendment€doesÐ ôÈ  Ðnot€preclude€the€admission€of€victim€impact€evidence€or€prosecutorial€argument€aboutÏthe€evidence.€€€Moreover,€decisions€of€this€Court€rendered€subsequent€to€òòPayneóó,Ð Œ` Ðhave€also€held€that€€victim€impact€evidence€and€prosecutorial€argument€is€notÏprecluded€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€907Ð $ø Ð(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€86€(Tenn.€1994).€€Accordingly,€theÐ ðÄ Ðdefendantððs€contention€that€victim€impact€evidence€and€argument€is€barred€by€theÏfederal€and€state€constitutions€is€without€merit.ÌÌà Ø àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿß #ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔvictim€impact€evidence€is€inadmissible€underÐ  %ô ÐTennesseeððs€capital€sentencing€statute.€€The€State€responds€that€the€statute€permitsÏall€evidence€relevant€to€punishment€and€victim€impact€evidence€is€admissibleÏbecause€it€is€relevant€to€punishment.€€ÌÌà Ø àWe€begin€our€consideration€of€this€issue€with€the€language€of€the€statute.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€(1997€Repl.)€provides€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 Ø àIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,€evidence€may€be€presented€as€to€anyÏmatter€that€the€court€deems€relevant€to€the€punishment€and€mayÏinclude,€but€not€be€limited€to,€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÏcrime;€the€defendantððs€character,€background€history,€and€physicalÏcondition;€any€evidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€the€aggravatingÐ L5 +0 Ðcircumstances€enumerated€in€subsection€(i);€and€any€evidence€tendingÏto€establish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors.€€Any€such€evidence€whichÏthe€court€deems€to€have€probative€value€on€the€issue€of€punishmentÏmay€be€received€regardless€of€its€admissibility€under€the€rules€ofÏevidence;€provided€that€the€defendant€is€accorded€a€fair€opportunity€toÏrebut€any€hearsay€statements€so€admitted.€€However,€this€subsectionÏshall€not€be€construed€to€authorize€the€introduction€of€any€evidenceÏsecured€in€violation€of€the€constitution€of€the€United€States€or€theÏconstitution€of€Tennessee.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ "ÓÌThe€language€of€the€statute€is€broad.€€On€its€face€the€statute€appears€to€authorize€theÏadmission€of€any€reliable€evidence€that€is€relevant€to€punishment,€with€the€onlyÏrequirement€being€that€the€defendant€be€accorded€a€fair€opportunity€to€rebut€hearsayÏstatements.€The€statute,€consistent€with€constitutional€mandate,€permits€admissionÏof€all€relevant€mitigating€evidence,€whether€or€not€the€category€of€mitigation€is€listedÏin€the€statutory€scheme.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€266€(Tenn.€1994)Ð  Þ Ð(discussing€òòMcKoy€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€494€U.S.€433,€442,€110€S.Ct.€1227,€1233,€108Ð Öª ÐL.Ed.2d€369€(1990)€and€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486€U.S.€367,€375,€108€S.Ct.€1860,€1865„Ð ¢ v Ð66,€100€L.Ed.2d€384€(1988)).€€However,€this€Court€repeatedly€has€held€that€the€StateÏmay€not€rely€upon€nonstatutory€aggravating€circumstances€to€support€imposition€ofÏthe€death€penalty,€but€is€limited€to€those€aggravating€circumstances€listed€in€theÏstatute.€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€251€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Cozzolinoóó,Ð Ò'¦! Ð584€S.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.€1979).€€Indeed,€we€stated€in€òòCozzolinoóó€that€ð ðevidenceÐ ž)r# Ðis€relevant€to€the€punishment,€and€thus€admissible,€only€if€it€is€relevant€to€anÏaggravating€circumstance,€or€to€a€mitigating€factor€raised€by€the€defendant.ðð€€œòòIdóó.€atÐ 6- #' Ð768.ÌÌà Ø àNonetheless,€that€general€statement,€upon€which€the€defendant€in€this€caseÏrelies€to€support€his€contention€that€victim€impact€evidence€is€not€admissible,€has€notÐ f4:*/ Ðbeen€literally€applied€to€limit€admission€of€evidence€at€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.€ÏEven€in€òòCozzolinoóó,€the€case€in€which€the€rule€was€announced,€the€jurors€heard€proofÐ ø Ì Ðat€the€sentencing€hearing€about€how€the€crime€had€been€committed€which€was€notÏnecessarily€relevant€to€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€Moreover,€in€severalÏsubsequent€decisions€we€have€expressly€recognized€that€a€sentencing€jury€must€beÏpermitted€to€hear€evidence€about€the€òònature€and€circumstances€of€the€crimeóó€evenÐ (ü  Ðthough€the€proof€is€not€necessarily€related€to€a€statutory€aggravating€circumstance.€ÏòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€323,€331€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Teagueóó,€897€S.W.2dРĘ  Ð248,€251€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€731€(Tenn.€1994);€òòStateÐ d Ðv.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€813€(Tenn.€1994)(citing€cases).€€Indeed,€we€haveÐ \0 Ðrecognized€that€evidence€carefully€limited€to€allow€an€ð ðindividualized€sentencingÏdeterminationðð€based€upon€the€defendantððs€character€and€the€circumstances€of€theÏcrime€is€constitutionally€required.€€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€731.€€We€have€also€opinedÐ À” Ðthat€once€a€capital€sentencing€jury€finds€that€a€defendant€falls€within€the€legislativelyÏdefined€category€of€persons€eligible€for€the€death€penalty,€the€jury€is€free€to€considerÏa€myriad€of€factors€to€determine€whether€death€is€the€appropriate€punishment€to€theÏoffense€and€the€individual€defendant.€€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€731€(citing€cases).€€InÐ ð&Ä  Ðour€view,€the€impact€of€the€crime€on€the€victimððs€immediate€family€is€one€of€thoseÏmyriad€factors€encompassed€within€the€statutory€language€òònature€and€circumstancesÐ ˆ*\ $ Ðof€the€crime.óó€€To€conclude€otherwise€would€be€equivalent€to€divorcing€the€defendantÐ X,,"& Ðfrom€the€crime€he€or€she€has€committed.€€As€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏrecognized,€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€individualized€consideration,€but€thatÏconsideration€is€not€to€occur€€ð ðwholly€apartðð€from€the€crime€for€which€he€or€she€hasÏbeen€convicted.€€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€822,€111€S.Ct.€at€2607.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ> #ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€Ð Œ3`). ÐÐ X5,+0 Ðà Ø àThe€Tennessee€statute€delineates€a€procedure€which€enables€the€sentencingÏjury€to€be€informed€about€the€presence€of€statutory€aggravating€circumstances,€theÏpresence€of€mitigating€circumstances,€and€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÏcrime.€€The€statute€allows€the€sentencing€jury€to€be€reminded€ð ðthat€just€as€theÏmurderer€should€be€considered€as€an€individual,€so€too€the€victim€is€an€individualÏwhose€death€represents€a€unique€loss€to€society€and€in€particular€to€his€family.ððÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ5#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€Ð (ü  ÐòòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€825,€111€S.Ct.€at€2608€(internal€citations€and€quotations€omitted).€Ð ôÈ  ÐAs€this€Court€emphasized€in€its€decision€in€òòPayneóó,€it€would€be€ð ðan€affront€to€theÐ À”  Ðcivilized€members€of€the€human€raceðð€to€allow€unlimited€mitigation€proof€atÏsentencing€in€a€capital€case,€but€completely€preclude€proof€of€the€specific€harmÏresulting€from€the€homicide.€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿt7#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔAccordingly,€the€defendantððs€claim€that€victim€impactÐ $ø Ðevidence€is€not€admissible€under€the€Tennessee€capital€sentencing€statute€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà Ø àWe€emphasize,€however,€that€not€any€and€all€victim€impact€evidence€theÏprosecution€wishes€to€offer€at€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€is€admissible.€€AlthoughÏsuch€evidence€is€not€entirely€precluded€by€the€Eighth€Amendment,׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€victim€impactÐ ì&À  Ðevidence€may€be€introduced€ð ðthat€is€so€unduly€prejudicial€that€it€renders€the€trialÏfundamentally€unfair,ðð€thus€implicating€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€825,€111€S.Ct.€at€2608.€€€Moreover,€as€with€anyÐ P,$"& Ðother€evidence€sought€to€be€admitted,€the€trial€court€may€exclude€victim€impact€proofÏâ âif€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€Tenn.€R.Ð è/¼%* ÐEvid.€403.׃(×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿk9#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔTherefore,€victim€impact€evidence€which€threatens€to€render€the€trialÐ ,  Ðâ âfundamentally€unfair€or€which€poses€a€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€is€not€appropriateÏand€should€be€excluded€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€836,€111€S.Ct.€at€2614Ð Ä ˜ Ð(Souter,€J.,€concurring).€€To€enable€the€trial€court€to€adequately€supervise€theÏadmission€of€victim€impact€proof,€we€conclude€that€the€State€must€notify€the€trial€courtÏof€its€intent€to€produce€victim€impact€evidence.€€Upon€receiving€notification,€the€trialÏcourt€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€to€determine€theÏadmissibility€of€the€evidence.€€The€victim€impact€evidence€should€not€be€admitted€untilÏthe€trial€court€determines€that€evidence€of€one€or€more€aggravating€circumstances€isÏalready€present€in€the€record.€€òòWindom€v.€Stateóó,€656€So.2d€432,€438€(Fla.€1995);Ð X, ÐòòCargle€v.€Stateóó,€909€P.2d€806,€826€(Ok.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð $ø ÐÌà Ø àGenerally,€victim€impact€evidence€should€be€limited€to€information€designedÏto€show€those€unique€characteristics€which€provide€a€brief€glimpse€into€the€life€of€theÏindividual€who€has€been€killed,׃)ˆ×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€contemporaneous€and€prospectiveÐ T#( Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€individualððs€death,€and€how€those€circumstancesÏfinancially,€emotionally,€psychologically€or€physically€impacted€upon€members€of€theÏvictimððs€immediate€family.€€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€822,€111€S.Ct.€at€2607;€òòPayneóó,€501Ð ¸(Œ" ÐU.S.€at€830,€111€S.Ct.€at€2611€(OððConnor,€J.€,€concurring);€òòCargle€v.€Stateóó,€909€P.2dÐ „*X $ Ð806,€826€(Ok.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Of€these€types€of€proof,€evidence€regarding€theÏemotional€impact€of€the€murder€on€the€victimððs€family€should€be€most€closelyÐ .ð#( Ðscrutinized€because€it€poses€the€greatest€threat€to€due€process€and€risk€of€undueÏprejudice,€particularly€if€no€proof€is€offered€on€the€other€types€of€victim€impact.€ÏòòCargleóó,€909€P.2d€at€830;€òòcfóó.€òòSaffle€v.€Parksóó,€494€U.S.€484,€493,€110€S.Ct.€1257,€108Ð Ä ˜ ÐL.Ed.2d€415€(1990)€(ð ðIt€would€be€very€difficult€to€reconcile€a€rule€allowing€the€fate€ofÏa€defendant€to€turn€on€the€vagaries€of€particular€jurorsðð€emotional€sensitivities€with€ourÏlongstanding€recognition€that,€above€all,€capital€sentencing€must€be€reliable,Ïaccurate,€and€nonarbitrary.ðð)€€However,€there€is€no€bright„line€test,€and€theÏadmissibility€of€specific€types€of€victim€impact€evidence€must€be€determined€on€aÏcase„by„case€basis.ÌÌà Ø àSimilarly,€while€victim€impact€argument€by€the€prosecution€about€the€evidenceÏis€permissible,€restraint€should€be€exercised.€€This€Court€has€consistently€cautionedÏthe€State€against€engaging€in€victim€impact€argument€which€is€little€more€than€anÏappeal€to€the€emotions€of€the€jurors€as€such€argument€may€be€unduly€prejudicial.€ÏòòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€907€(Tenn.€1995)€(ð ðWe€caution€the€State€toÐ T#( Ðutilize€such€arguments€advisedly.ðð);€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€808€(Tenn.Ð  %ô Ð1994)€(ð ð[T]he€State€may€risk€reversal€by€engaging€in€argument€which€appeals€to€theÏemotions€and€sympathies€of€the€jury.ðð)€€Indeed,€prosecuting€attorneys€mustÏremember€that€jurors€are€to€base€their€decision€upon€a€reasoned€moral€response€toÏthe€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€542„43,€107€S.Ct.€837,€839„40,Ð P,$"& Ð93€L.Ed.2d€934€(1987).€€The€jury€should€not€be€given€the€impression€that€emotionÏmay€reign€over€reason.€€In€each€case,€the€trial€court€must€strike€a€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿp>#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔcareful€balance.€€Ð è/¼%* ÐArgument€on€relevant,€though€emotional,€considerations€is€permissible,€butÏâ âinflammatory€rhetoric€that€diverts€the€juryððs€attention€from€its€proper€role€or€invites€anÐ €3T). Ðirrational,€purely€emotional€response€to€the€evidence€is€not€permissible€and€shouldÏnot€be€tolerated€by€the€trial€court.€Ìâ âÌà Ø àFinally,€to€assist€the€jury€in€properly€utilizing€victim€impact€evidence,€we€herebyÏsuggest€the€following€instruction,€to€be€used€in€all€future€capital€murder€cases€inÏwhich€victim€impact€evidence€is€admitted:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àThe€prosecution€has€introduced€what€is€known€as€victim€impactÏevidence.€€This€evidence€has€been€introduced€to€show€the€financial,Ïemotional,€psychological,€or€physical€effects€of€the€victimððs€death€on€theÏmembers€of€the€victimððs€immediate€family.€€You€may€consider€thisÏevidence€in€determining€an€appropriate€punishment.€€However,€yourÏconsideration€must€be€limited€to€a€rational€inquiry€into€the€culpability€ofÏthe€defendant,€not€an€emotional€response€to€the€evidence.€€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àVictim€impact€evidence€is€not€the€same€as€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€Proof€of€an€adverse€impact€on€the€victimððs€family€is€notÏproof€of€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€Introduction€of€this€victim€impactÏevidence€in€no€way€relieves€the€State€of€its€burden€to€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€at€least€one€aggravating€circumstance€which€hasÏbeen€alleged.€€You€may€consider€this€victim€impact€evidence€inÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€the€death€penalty€only€if€you€firstÏfind€that€the€existence€of€one€or€more€aggravating€circumstances€hasÏbeen€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€by€evidence€independent€fromÏthe€victim€impact€evidence,€and€find€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance(s)€found€outweigh€the€finding€of€one€or€more€mitigatingÏcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓûOÓÌThis€instruction€should€be€used€in€substance€in€all€future€capital€murder€trials€whereÏvictim€impact€evidence€has€been€introduced€and€is€effective€from€the€date€thisÏdecision€is€released.€€òòSeeóó€òòCargleóó,€909€P.2d€at€828;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€486Ð P,$"& ÐS.E.2d€839,€843€(Ga.€1997)(citing€other€cases).€€Having€concluded€that€victim€impactÏis€admissible€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial€in€accordance€with€dueÏprocess€and€evidentiary€constraints,€we€must€next€determine€whether€the€evidenceÏadmitted€in€this€case€exceeded€either€of€those€restrictionsÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ‹M#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ.Ð €3T). ÐÐ L5 +0 Ðà Ø àAt€sentencing,€the€prosecution€called€the€victimððs€mother,€Laura€May€Cannon,Ïto€testify€about€the€impact€of€her€daughterððs€death€on€her€family,€particularly€theÏvictimððs€children.€€Cannon€related€that€her€daughter€had€been€a€kind,€warmheartedÏperson.€€Cannon€said€that€the€family€had€been€very€depressed€as€a€result€of€theÏvictimððs€death€and€missed€her€very€much.€€Cannon€had€obtained€legal€custody€of€fourÏof€the€victimððs€children.׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X'ÏXX X6ŸÔÔ€ X6ŸXXX'ÏÔòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Cannon€had€resigned€her€employment€to€care€for€theÐ (ü  Ðchildren.€€Cannon€said€that€the€four€children€in€her€custody€had€been€receivingÏpsychological€therapy€designed€to€help€them€cope€with€their€loss.€€She€also€testifiedÏthat€the€children€had€experienced€nightmares€and€talked€in€their€sleep€since€theÏmurder,€and€often€did€not€play€well€together.€€€The€children€also€had€reenacted€theÏmurder€while€at€play.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÑW#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€Ð $ø ÐÌà Ø àIn€approximately€five€pages€of€transcript,€Cannon€clearly€and€concisely€relatedÏthe€financial,€psychological,€emotional,€and€physical€impact€of€this€murder€on€theÏvictimððs€family.€€Although€she€mentioned€the€emotional€impact€of€the€murder,€CannonÏfocused€upon€the€financial,€psychological,€and€physical€impact€of€the€crime.€€BecauseÏthe€defendant€in€this€case€had€been€acquainted€with€the€victim€for€about€a€month,€heÏknew€that€she€was€a€single€mother€of€five€young€children.€€The€defendant€also€knewÏthat€four€of€the€victimððs€children€were€in€the€apartment€at€the€time€of€the€murder.ÌÌâ âÐ .ð#( Ðà Ø àThe€State€is€not€required€to€prove€that€a€defendant€has€specific€knowledgeÏabout€a€victimððs€family€to€secure€admissibility€of€victim€impact€evidence.€€As€statedÏby€Justice€Souter€in€a›€concurring€œopinion€in›€òòPayneóóÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸC\#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ:Ð Ä ˜ Ðâ âÓÓà8 Ø àMurder€has€foreseeable€consequences.€€When€it€happens,€it€is€always€Ïto€distinct€individuals,€and€after€it€happens€other€victims€are€left€behind.€ÏEvery€defendant€knows,€if€endowed€with€the€mental€competence€forÏcriminal€responsibility,€that€the€life€he€will€take€by€his€homicidal€behaviorÏis€that€of€a€unique€person,€like€himself,€and€that€the€person€to€be€killedÏprobably€has€close€associates,€ð ðsurvivors,ðð€who€will€suffer€harms€andÏdeprivations€from€the€victimððs€death.€€Just€as€defendants€know€that€theyÏare€not€faceless€human€ciphers,€they€know€that€their€victims€are€notÏvalueless€fungibles€and€just€as€defendants€appreciate€the€web€ofÏrelationships€and€dependencies€in€which€they€live,€they€know€that€theirÏvictims€are€not€human€islands,€but€individuals€with€parents€or€children,Ïspouses€or€friends€or€dependents.€€Thus,€when€a€defendant€choosesÏto€kill,€or€to€raise€the€risk€of€a€victimððs€death,€this€choice€necessarilyÏrelates€to€a€whole€human€being€and€threatens€an€association€of€others,Ïwho€may€be€distinctly€hurt.€€The€fact€that€the€defendant€may€not€knowÏthe€details€of€a€victimððs€life€and€characteristics,€or€the€exact€identitiesÏand€needs€of€those€who€may€survive€should€not€in€any€way€obscure€theÏfurther€facts€that€death€is€always€to€a€ððuniqueðð€individual,€and€harm€toÏsome€group€of€survivors€is€a€consequence€of€a€successful€homicidalÏact€so€foreseeable€as€to€be€virtually€inevitable.€€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌòòÓÓœPayneóó,€501›€U.S.€at€œ838,›€111€S.Ct.€at€œ3615.›Ð n"B М̛à Ø àWhile€we€are€in€complete€agreement€with€that€analysis,€we€are€also€of€theÏopinion€that€a€trial€court€may€consider€the€defendantððs€specific€knowledge€about€theÏvictimððs€family€when€evaluating€the€probative€value€of€victim€impact€proof€on€theÏœappropriateness›€of€the€death€penalty€and€when€determining€if€probative€value€isÏsubstantially€outweighed€by€prejudicial€effect.€€In€our€view,€probative€value€isÏparticularly€great,€where€the€proof€shows,€as€it€did€in€this€case,€that€a€defendant€hadÏspecific€knowledge€about€the€victimððs€family€when€the€crime€was€committed.€ÏAccordingly,€we€have€no€hesitation€in€holding€that€the€probative€value€of€the€victimÏimpact€proof€in€this€case€was€not€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÐ f4:*/ Ðprejudice.€€To€the€contrary,€the€probative€value€of€the€proof€in€this€case€farÏoutweighed€the€danger€of€its€unfair€prejudice.€€The€victim€impact€evidence€admittedÏin€this€case€violated€neither€the€constraints€of€due€process,€nor€the€evidentiaryÏstrictures€of€Rule€403,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.ÌÌà Ø àHowever,€the€prosecutorððs€argument€about€the€purpose€and€function€of€theÏvictim€impact€evidence€was€erroneous.€€In€pertinent€part€the€argument€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àThereððs€no€proof€he€did€it€in€front€of€them.€€He€just€left€her€thereÏbleeding,€knowing€those€four€young€babies€were€in€the€house€with€aÏdead€mother.€€He€didnððt€know,€I€guess,€that€they€were€going€to€try€toÏwake€mommy€and€try€to€shake€her€out€of€the€blood€and€the€brains.€€No,Ïmaybe€he€didnððt€know.€€But€you€saw€his€testimony.€€He€didnððt€careÏeither.€€He€didnððt€care.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àòòHow€do€you€weigh€this?€€Well,€you€have€to€look€at€the€impact€ofÐ  Þ Ðthe€crime.€€Thatððs€why€the€people€are€here€to€testify€about€her€life,ÏMiriam€Cannon,€because€[w]e€sometimes€forget€in€these€trials€that,Ïwhile€weððre€here€to€take€care€of€the€defendant€and€provide€justice€forÏhim,€there€is€someone€else€in€this€case,€and€it€is€not€just€MiriamÏCannon.€€There€are€those€babies,€those€orphan€children.€€There€are€theÏrest€of€her€family.€€There€is€the€rest€of€society€that€has€been€deprivedÏof€Miriam€Cannon.€€There€are€lots€of€victims€in€this€particular€case.óóÐb#6Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àNow€the€defendantððs€family€would€like€to€see€him.€€All€right.€ÏòòBalance€that€against,€doesnððt€everybody€understand€that€little€TerricaÐ &ê Ðand€the€rest€of€the€children€would€like€to€see€their€mother,€too?€€SureÏthat€balances.óó€€Everybody€knows€that.€€They€would€like€to€be€able€toÐ æ'º! Ðsee€them€as€well.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àAnd€the€relatives€of€the€person€who€is€facing€death€byÏelectrocution€will€tell€you€to€please€spare€his€life.€€Wouldnððt€it€have€beenÏnice€if€Ms.€Cannon€and€the€rest€[of€the]€family€could€have€been€thereÏto€beg€for€Miriamððs€life?€€They€could€have€looked€at€him€and€said,Ïð ðPlease,€donððt€kill€my€daughter.€€Go€ahead€and€torture€her,€but€donððt€killÏher.ððÐ Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àBut€they€didnððt€get€the€chance€to.€€We€give€him€that€chance,€butÏshe€doesnððt€get€that€chance.€€òòSo€when€you€go€to€balance€theÐ Ê1ž', Ðaggravating€circumstances€against€that€mitigation,€remember€if€it€hadÏbeen€possible€they€would€have€been€there€begging€for€their€daughterððsÏâ âlife.€€Those€children€would€have€begged€for€their€motherððs€life€had€theyÐ ‚4V*/ Ðbeen€given€that€opportunity.€€So€you€balance€that€against€theÏmitigation.óóÐ èØ À!Ø À! Ðâ âÌà8 Ø àà 0 àDefense€counsel€says€he€shows€remorse.€.€.€.€€He€has€noÏremorse.€€There€is€no€mitigating€circumstance€of€remorse.€€òòThere€isÐ È œ Ðonly€the€aggravating€factor€of€ours,€of€torture€and€pain€and€agony€andÏthe€effect€that€this€had€on€the€family.óóИlØ À!Ø À! ÐÌÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ`#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÓÓ(Emphasis€added).Ð f: ÐÌà Ø àDissenting€in€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€Judge€Wade€recognized€that€thisÏargument€crossed€the€line€beyond€the€permissible€latitude€afforded€counsel€in€closingÏwhen€the€prosecutor€characterized€the€victim€impact€evidence€as€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€and€urged€the€jury€to€weigh€and€balance€the€victim€impact€evidenceÏagainst€the€mitigating€proof.€€œAlthough€victim€impact€evidence€is,€as€we€haveÏpreviously€said,€one€of€those€myriad€factors€which›€the€jury€may€œconsider€inÏdetermining€whether€death€is€the€appropriate€punishment,€it€does€not€carry€the€forceÏand€effect€of€an€aggravating€circumstance€in€the€sentencing€calculation.€€TheÏprosecutorððs€argument€in€this€case€erroneously€characterized€the€victim€impactÏevidence€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€to€weigh€against€mitigation€proof.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ#v#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ *%þ ÐÌà Ø àTo€determine€whether€this€erroneous€argument€constitutes€grounds€forÏreversal,€we€must€consider€whether€the€impropriety€ð ðaffected€the€verdict€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809€(quoting€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,Ð Z,."& Ð215€Tenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965)).€€Factors€relevant€to€that€determinationÏinclude:ÌÓÓà8 Ø à(1)€the€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case;Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓw{Óà8 Ø à(2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution;Ðp4D*/Ø À!Ø À! Ðà8 Ø à(3)the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€arguments;Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓÓà8 Ø à(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errorsÏin€the€record;€andÐ Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓñ|Óà8 Ø à(5)€the€relative€strength€and€weakness€of€the€case.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà Ø àThough€the€prosecutorððs€argument€mischaracterized€the€function€of€victimÏimpact€evidence,€the€argument€was€based€upon€proof€properly€admitted€intoÏevidence,€and€there€is€no€indication€that€the€prosecutor€acted€in€bad€faith.€€Moreover,Ïthe€jurors€were›€instructed€by€the€trial€court€in€the€final€charge€at€the€sentencingÏhearing€œto€apply€the€law€as€provided€by€the€court.€€The€trial€court€also€instructed€theÏjurors€that€they›€could€not€impose€a€death€penalty€without€a€unanimous€finding€thatÏthe€statutory€aggravating€circumstance€had€been€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏand€outweighed€the€mitigating€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Again,€the€jury€isÏpresumed€to€follow€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€€òòWalkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€at€397.Ð ¢ v ÐConsidering€the€error€complained€of€in€light€of€the€entire€case,€including,€asÏpreviously€discussed,€€the€strength€of€the€proof€to€establish€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€improper€prosecutorial€argument€doesÏnot€appear€to€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€defendantððs€prejudice.€€Therefore,€theÏerror€does€not€require€reversal.ÌÌÌà@ff#Ìàòòò òPROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWóóó óˆÐ /Ö$) Ðà Ø àWe€must€next€consider€whether€the€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€isÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€the€nature€ofÏthe€crime€and€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(4)€(1997€œRepl.).€€If›Ð r4F*/ Ðthis€case€is€ð ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€inÏwhich€the€death€penalty€has€previously€been€imposed,ðð€the€sentence€of€death€isÏdisproportionate.€€œòòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€665€(Tenn.€1997).Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÈy#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ›€€However,€aÐ Ä ˜ Ðsentence€of€death€is€not€disproportionate€merely€because€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense€are€similar€to€those€of€another€offense€for€which€the€defendant€has€receivedÏa€life€sentence.€€òòIdóó.€at€665.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿç„#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€Our€role,€in€conducting€proportionality€review€is€not€toÐ (ü  Ðassure€that€a€sentence€ð ðless€than€death€was€never€imposed€in€a€case€with€similarÏcharacteristics.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ†#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€Instead,€our€duty€€ð ðis€to€assure€that€no€aberrant€death€sentenceÐ À”  Ðis€affirmed.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð Œ` ÐÌà Ø àIn€choosing€and€comparing€similar€cases,€we€consider€many€variables,€someÏof€which€include,€(1)€the€means€of€death;€(2)€the€manner€of€death;€(3)€the€motivationÏfor€the€killing;€(4)€the€place€of€death;€(5)€the€similarity€of€the€victimððs€circumstances,Ïincluding€age,€physical€and€mental€conditions,€and€the€victimsðð€treatment€during€theÏkilling;€(6)€the€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€nondecedent€victims.€€òòIdóó.€at€667.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ‡#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€When€reviewing€the€characteristics€ofÐ ì&À  Ðthe€defendant,€we€consider:€(1)€the€defendantððs€prior€record€or€prior€criminal€activity;Ï(2)€the€defendantððs€age,€race,€and€gender;€(3)€the€defendantððs€mental,€emotional€orÏphysical€condition;€(4)€the€defendantððs€involvement€or€role€in€the€murder;€(5)€theÏdefendantððs€cooperation€with€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantððs€remorse;€(7)€theÏdefendantððs€knowledge€of€the€helplessness€of€the€victim;€and€(8)€the€defendantððsÏcapacity€for€rehabilitation.€€òòIdóó.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ%Š#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ‚Œ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔComparative€proportionality€review€is€not€a€rigid,Ð ´1ˆ', Ðobjective€test.€€òòIdóó.€at€668.€€We€do€not€employ€mathematical€or€scientific€techniques.€Ð €3T). ÐIn€evaluating€the€comparative€proportionality€of€the€sentence€in€light€of€the€factorsÐ L5 +0 Ðdelineated€above,€we€rely€also€upon€the€experienced€judgment€and€intuition€of€theÏmembers€of€this€Court.€€òòIdóó.Ð ø Ì ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÆŒ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔò òÌó óÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ²Ž#Ôà Ø àApplying€these€factors,€we€note€that€the€proof€in€this€case€reflects€that€theÐ œp Ðvictim€died€from€a€single€gunshot€wound€to€her€head.€€She€was€killed€in€her€ownÏhome€after€undergoing€a€six€hour€œtorturous›€ordeal€during€which€she€was€burned€andÏbeaten€€by€the€defendant.€€Four€of€the€victimððs€five€young€children€were€present€in€theÏapartment€during€the€time€she€was€tortured€and€also€when€she€was€shot.€€There€wasÏno€apparent€motive€for€this€premeditated€murder.€€The€defendantððs€claim€that€theÏshooting€was€accidental€obviously€was€not€believed€by€the€jury.€€There€is€alsoÏcertainly€no€proof€of€provocation€or€justification€for€the€offense.€€Having€known€theÏvictim€for€a€month€and€having€spent€a€portion€of€the€œnight›€and€day€with€her,€theÏdefendant€obviously€had€knowledge€that€the€victim€was€helpless.€€Though€notÏextensive,€the€nineteen„year„old€defendant€had€a€prior€juvenile€criminal€record.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€the€defendant€cooperated€with€police€after€his€apprehension,€andÏexpressed€remorse€for€the€murder€at€trial.€€With€respect€to€his€capacity€forÏrehabilitation,€the€defendant€told€the€jury€that€he€planned€to€complete€his€high€schoolÏeducation€if€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€Considering€the€nature€of€the€crime€andÏthe€defendant,€we€conclude€that€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€the€senseless,Ïtorturous,€and€cruel€murder€of€this€twenty„year„old€woman€is€not€disproportionate€toÏthe€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€and€that€this€murder€places€Nesbit€into€theÏclass€of€defendants€for€whom€the€death€penalty€is€an€appropriate€punishment.€€ÏBased€upon€our€review,€we€conclude€that€the€following€cases€in€which€the€deathÏpenalty€has€been€imposed€have€many€similarities€with€this€case.ÌÐ X5,+0 Ðà Ø àIn€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651€(Tenn.€1997),€the€nineteen„year„oldÐ ,  Ðdefendant,€without€provocation€or€explanation,€shot€an€unresisting,€retreating€victim,Ïchased€him€some€91€yards€or€more,€and€shot€the€helpless€victim€several€times€moreÏafter€he€had€taken€refuge€underneath€a€pickup€truck.€€Like€Nesbit,€Bland€was€onlyÏnineteen€years€old€when€the€crime€was€committed€and€had€no€adult€criminal€record.€ÏThe€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€upon€finding€as€in€this€case€that€theÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼204(i)(5)€(1991€Repl.).ÌÌà Ø àIn€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993),€this€Court€affirmed€theÐ $ø Ðdeath€sentence€of€a€œnineteen„year„old›€defendant€who€killed€a€œseventy„four„year„old›Ïwoman€during€the€course€of€a€robbery.€€The€victim€had€already€been€shot€once€andÏwas€lying€on€the€floor,€when€without€provocation€or€explanation,€Van€Tran,€like€theÏdefendant€in€this€case,€shot€the€victim€in€the€head.€€As€did€the€defendant€in€this€case,ÏVan€Tran€cooperated€with€the€authorities€and€expressed€remorse€for€the€killing.€€AsÏin€this€case,€the€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty€upon€finding€a€single€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982).ÌÌà Ø àIn€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57€(Tenn.€1993),€the€defendant€killed€the€victimÐ .ð#( Ðby€shooting€him€once€in€the€head.€€Thereafter,€he€robbed€the€victim€and€burned€hisÏbody.€€As€in€this€case,€the€assault€was€entirely€unprovoked€and€unexplained.€€TheÏâ âjury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditated€murder€and€imposed€the€sentence€ofÐ €3T). Ðdeath€upon€finding€that€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engagedÏin€committing€a€felony€„„€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)€(1982).Ìâ âÌà Ø àIn€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659€(Tenn.€1988),€the€defendant€withoutÐ d Ðprovocation,€struck€the€elderly€victim€five€times€in€the€head€with€a€crescent€wrench.€ÏAs€mitigation,€Barber,€as€did€Nesbit,€relied€upon€his€capacity€for€rehabilitation€and€inÏhis€youth.€€As€in€this€case,€the€jury€found€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982).€€In€addition,€the€jury€determined€that€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€during€the€course€of€a€felony.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185€,€189„Ð X, Ð90€(Tenn.€1994)€(concluding€that€the€juryððs€consideration€of€the€felony„murderÏaggravating€circumstance€was€harmless€error).€€ÌÌà Ø àIn€òòState€v.€McNishóó,€727€S.W.2d€490€(Tenn.€1987),€the€defendant€beat€theÐ ˆ!\ Ðvictim€about€her€face€and€head€with€a€glass€flower€vase.€€The€victim€was€alive€whenÏfound,€but€died€a€short€time€later,€so€she€suffered€after€the€attack€by€McNish€muchÏas€the€victim€in€this€case€suffered€before€she€was€shot€by€Nesbit.€€Unlike€theÏdefendant€in€this€case,€McNish€had€no€prior€criminal€record€even€though€he€wasÏtwenty„nine€years€old.€€As€in€this€case,€the€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty€uponÏfinding€a€single€aggravating€circumstance€„„€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982).ÌÌà Ø àIn€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€718€S.W.2d€256€(Tenn.€1986),€the€œthirty„three„year„old›Ð €3T). Ðdefendant€shot€his€estranged€wife€four€times€while€she€was€trapped€inside€a€glassÐ L5 +0 Ðand€brick€cashierððs€booth.€€As€did€Nesbit,€Cooper€shot€an€unarmed,€helpless€victimÏwithout€provocation.€€Cooper€did€not€shoot€his€wife€four€times€in€rapid€succession.€ÏCooper€shot€once,€walked€away,€then€turned€back€and€resumed€firing€at€her.€€TheÏvictim€in€òòCooperóó€had€time€to€contemplate€her€fate€and€experience€severe€mentalÐ d Ðpain,€as€did€the€victim€in€this€case€during€the€six€hours€she€was€tortured.€€The€juryÏimposed€the€death€penalty,€as€in€this€case,€upon€finding€that€the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„2„3(i)(5)€(1982).ÌÌà Ø àNo€two€cases€are€identical,€but€the€above€cases€have€many€similarities€withÏNesbit.€€In€all€six€cases,€the€murders€were€without€explanation€or€provocation.€FourÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ $ø Ðof€the€five€cases,Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿø§#Ô€involved€the€infliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€theÐ ðÄ Ðvictim€while€he€or€she€remained€alive€and€conscious.€€In€four€of€the€cases,€death€wasÏcaused€by€a€gunshot€wound.€€In€Ô‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔfour€of€the€cases,€the€victims€were€murdered€eitherÐ ˆ!\ Ðin€their€home€or€at€their€place€of€employment.€€Like€Nesbit,€two€of€the€defendantsÏwere€nineteen€years€old€when€the€murders€were€committed.€€Also,€three€of€theÏdefendants,€like€Nesbit,€had€no€substantial€prior€criminal€record.€€At€least€one€of€theÏdefendants€relied€upon€his€capacity€for€rehabilitation,€as€did€Nesbit.€€In€five€of€the€sixÏcases,€the€jury€returned€a€sentence€of€death€upon€the€basis€of€a€single€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€After€reviewing€the€cases€discussed€herein,€and€other€cases€notÏherein€detailed,׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X6ŸXX X6ŸÔòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€penalty€imposed€by€the€jury€in€thisÐ .ð#( Ðcase€is€not€excessive€or€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€for€similar€crimes.ÌÐ ´1ˆ', МÔ#†X6ŸXXX6Ÿ.©#Ôà@,,)Ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó ó›ˆÐ ,  Ðà Ø àIn€accordance€with€the€mandate€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)€(1997ÏRepl.),€and€the€principles€adopted€in€prior€decisions€of€this€Court,€we€have€consideredÏthe€entire€record€in€this€cause€and€find€that€the€sentence€of€death€was€not€imposedÏin€any€arbitrary€fashion,€that€the€evidence€supports,€as€previously€discussed,€theÏjuryððs€finding€of€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstance,€and€the€juryððs€finding€that€theÏaggravating€circumstance€outweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(A)€„€(C)€œ(199ñh6ñ1ñh6ññy6ñ›ñy6ññj6ññi6ñ€ñi6ññj6ññi6ñ7ñi6ñ›€œRepl.ñl6ñ€ñl6ññy6ñ›ñy6ññk6ñ&›€1996›€Supñk6ññl6ñp.ñl6ñ).›€We€haveÏconsidered€the€defendantððs€assignments€of€error€and€determined€that€none€haveÏmerit.€€With€respect€to€issues€not€specifically€addressed€herein,€we€affirm€theÏdecision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€authored€by€Judge€David€G.€Hayes,€andÏjoined€in€fully€by€Judge€William€M.€Barker€and€joined€in€partially€€by€Judge€Gary€R.ÏWade€€€Relevant€portions€of€that€opinion€are€published€hereafter€as€an€appendix.€ÏÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔThe€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€is€affirmed.€€The€sentence€shallÐ ”!h Ðbe€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€œthe€29th€day›€œof€January,€1999€unless›€otherwiseÏordered€by€this€Court€or€other€proper€œauthorities.›Ìà Ø àÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,›Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœJUSTICE›ÌÌÌœò òÌCONCUR:ó ó›Ð ú/Î%* ÐAnderson,€C.€J.,ÌœHolder,›€œJ.›ÌÌœBirch,€J.€„€See€Separate€Dissenting€Opinion›ÌœÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ’±#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔñ{6ñÐ  ~4R*/ Ðñ{6ññ|6ñ›ñ|6ññ|6ñÒ€ÒÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ`´#ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€ 6Ÿ XXdæXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@@èè,ÚàÔ‡ è«TèX X6ŸÔAppendixÔ#† X6ŸXè è«TÁ¶#ÔÐ d8  Ðà@@b b Úà(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)€Ìó óÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ†¶#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ  Ô¨  Лà@@6 6 àò òIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÐ ,  ÐÓw¶ÓÓ  Óà@@ŽŽ(àAT€JACKSONÌÓ1¸Óà@xx$àNOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)Ð ´ˆ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àó óAppellee,ò òà  àà h àà À à)€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9510„CR„00293Ð Œ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìó óV.ò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€SHELBY€COUNTYÐ d8  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌCLARENCE€C.€NESBIT,à h àà À à)€€€€ó óHonorableò ò€ARTHUR€T.€BENNETT,€ó óJudgeò òÐ <  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àó óAppellant.ò òà  àà h àà À à)€€€€ó ó(Capital€First€Degree€Murder)ò òÐ è  Ðó óÌòòÌFor€the€Appellantóóà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòòFor€the€AppelleeóóÐ Ì  ÐÌA.€C.€Whartonà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ˜l ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ ~R Ð201€Poplar€Ave.,€Suite€201à À àà  àà p àÐ d8 ÐMemphis,€TN€38103„1947à h àà À àà  àà p àÐ J ÐÌW.€Mark€Wardà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€P.€CauleyÐ  ê ÐRonald€S.€Johnsonà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ ü Ð ÐBetty€J.€Thomasà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ð â!¶ ÐAssistant€Public€Defendersà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð È"œ Ð147€Jefferson,€Suite€900à h àà À àà  àà p àÐ ®#‚ ÐMemphis,€TN€38103à h àà À àà  àà p àWilliam€GibbonsÐ ”$h Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àThomas€D.€HendersonÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJennifer€NicholsÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à201€Poplar€Ave.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌò òÌÌÌÌÌó óOPINION€œFILED:€April€22,€1997ò ò›Ð F1'+ ÐÌÌFIRST€DEGREE€MURDER€CONVICTION€AND€DEATH€SENTENCE€AFFIRMEDÌÐ ð4Ä*/ ЇDavid€G.€HayesÌó óJudgeò òÐ  ì ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ€ÓÌÌÌÓ€Óà@éé+àòòOPINIONóóˆÐ ˜l  Ðà@*àòòANALYSISó óóóˆÐ pD Ðò òà@’’!àœòòòòsufficiency›€of€the€evidenceóóó óóóˆÐ H Ðà ` àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€isÏinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustain€the€jury€verdicts€returned€in€both€the€guilt€andÏpenalty€phases€of€his€trial.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€evidenceÏpresented€failed€to€establish,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€requisite€elements€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€singleÏgunshot€wound€to€the€victimððs€head€does€not€support€the€application€of€the€ð ðheinous,Ïatrocious,€and€cruelðð€aggravating€factor.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5).ÌÌà ` àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏcourt€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution€andÏdetermine€whether€"any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elementsÏof€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99Ð ä/¸%+ ÐS.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.Ð °1„'- Ðdeniedóó,€„„€U.S.€„„,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€We€do€not€reweighÐ |3P)/ Ðor€reevaluate€the€evidence;€these€are€issues€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð H5+1 ÐCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Furthermore,€a€guilty€verdict€accreditsÐ ,  Ðthe€testimony€of€witnesses€for€the€State,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€theÏpresumption€of€innocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€OnÐ Ä ˜ Ðappeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,Ð \0 Ð75€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€the€jury€verdict€in€his€case.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð ôÈ  Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà ` àThese€rules€are€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence,€or€a€combination€of€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€Ï€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ðÄ ÐBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1992)€(ð ðÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ”·#ÔÔ‡0XZÎXXX6ŸÔthe€cases€have€long€recognized€that€theÐ ¼ Ðnecessary€elements€of€first-degree€murder€may€be€shown€by€circumstantial€evidenceÔ#†X6ŸXX0XZÎÎ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÞÎ#ÔÔ‡1X?ÀXXX6ŸÔ@Ô#†X6ŸXX1X?À Ï#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸcÏ#ÔÔ‡0XZÎXXX6ŸÔ).€Ð  !t ÐThe€weight€to€be€given€circumstantial€evidence€and€Ô#†X6ŸXX0XZÎ¥Ï#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ2Ð#ÔÔ‡1X?ÀXXX6ŸÔAÔ#†X6ŸXX1X?ÀtÐ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ·Ð#ÔÔ‡0XZÎXXX6ŸÔðð[t]he€inferences€to€be€drawn€fromÐ €#T Ðsuch€evidence,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€circumstances€are€consistent€with€guilt€andÏinconsistent€with€innocence,€are€questions€primarily€for€the€jury.ððÔ#†X6ŸXX0XZÎùÐ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6ŸÒ#ÔÔ‡1X?ÀXXX6ŸÔ@Ô#†X6ŸXX1X?ÀTÒ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ—Ò#ÔÔ‡0XZÎXXX6ŸÔ€òòMarable€v.€Stateóó,€313Ð @'  ÐS.W.2d€451,€457€(Tenn.€1958)(citation€omitted).€€In€this€case,€both€direct€andÏcircumstantial€evidence€was€available€for€the€jury's€consideration.ÌÌò òà@}})àœòòòòguilt›€phaseóóó óóóˆÐ À.”$( Ðà ` àOnce€a€homicide€has€been€proven,€it€is€presumed€to€be€second€degree€murder,Ïand€the€State€has€the€burden€of€establishing€first€degree€murder.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2dÐ €2T(, Ðat€543.€€First€degree€murder€not€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€a€statutorilyÐ `44*. Ðdesignated€crime€requires€the€"intentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€ofÏanother."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991).€€Thus,€the€State€must€proveÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€to€raise€the€offense€to€first€degree€murder.€€òòBrownóó,€836Ð ì À ÐS.W.2d€at€543.€€Ô#†X6ŸXX0XZÎÙÒ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ{Ö#ÔÔ‡0XZÎXXX6ŸÔPremeditation€necessitates€"a€previously€formed€design€or€intent€toÐ Ì  Ðkill,"€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992),€and€"the€exercise€of€reflectionÐ ¬€ Ðand€judgment,"€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-201(b)(2)€(1991).€€Deliberation€requires€aÏ"cool€purpose€.€.€.€formed€in€the€absence€of€passion€or€provocation."€€òòBrownóó,€836Ð l@  ÐS.W.2d€at€538€(citations€and€internal€quotations€omitted);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39-13-201(b)(1);€Sentencing€Commission€Comments,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201.€ÏDeliberation€also€requires€"some€period€of€reflection€during€which€the€mind€is€free€fromÏthe€influence€of€excitement.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€538;€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ìÀ Ð39„13„201(b)(2).òòÐ Ì  Ѐ€Ìóóà ` àAgain,€although€the€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation,€òòState€v.€Bordisóó,€905Ð Ì!  ÐS.W.2d€214,€222€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995),€the€juryÐ ¬#€ Ðmay€infer€premeditation€and€deliberation€from€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÏkilling.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ l'@  Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€175,€178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€Ð L) " ÐOur€supreme€court€has€delineated€several€circumstances€that€may€be€indicative€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€including€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€anÏunarmed€victim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,€declarations€by€theÏdefendant€of€his€intent€to€kill€the€victim,€and€the€making€of€preparations€before€theÏkilling€for€the€purpose€of€concealing€the€crime.€€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541-542.€€ThisÐ ¬2€(, Ðcourt€has€also€recently€noted€several€factors€from€which€the€jury€may€infer€the€twoÐ Œ4`*. Ðelements,€including€planning€activity€by€the€defendant€before€the€killing,€evidenceÏconcerning€the€defendantððs€motive,€and€the€nature€of€the€killing.€€€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2dÐ  à Ðat€222€(quoting€2€W.€LaFave€and€A.€Scott,€Jr.,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€7.7€(1986)).Ô#†X6ŸXX0XZνÖ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ†ß#ÔÔ‡0XZÎXXX6ŸÔÐ ì À ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX0XZÎÈß#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÌà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€only€significant€evidence€of€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€presented,€i.e.,€circumstantial€evidence€relating€to€the€alleged€torture€ofÏthe€victim,€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€those€elements.€€He€asserts€that,€evenÏassuming€that€evidence€of€torture€establishes€a€motive€for€the€murder,€motive€standingÏalone€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€either€premeditation€or€deliberation.€Moreover,Ïapplying€the€òòBordisóó€factors,€he€contends€that€the€injuries€to€the€victim€inflicted€byÐ ”h Ðtorture€are€not€relevant€to€the€nature€of€the€killing.€€The€torture€clearly€occurred€beforeÏthe€death€of€the€victim.€The€appellant€also€relies€upon€expert€testimony€suggesting€thatÏtorture€is€usually€not€inflicted€in€order€to€cause€death.€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿà#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€Additionally,€the€appellantÐ øÌ Ðcontends€that€the€evidence€clearly€reflects€a€lack€of€planning€by€the€appellant,Ïbecause,€although€the€appellant€brought€a€gun€with€him€to€the€victimððs€apartment,Ïimmediately€following€his€arrival,€he€unloaded€the€gun€and€placed€it€and€the€bullets€onÏtop€of€the€refrigerator.€€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿrã#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ ('ü  ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€cites€California€case€law€to€support€his€argument€that€theÏevidence,€which€could€arguably€establish€a€motive,€i.e.,€the€torture,€is€insufficient€byÏitself€to€sustain€a€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿýä#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔPeople€v.€Pensingeróó,€805€P.2dÐ X.,$( Ð899€(Cal.€1991)Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸEæ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ;€òòPeople€v.€Andersonóó,€447€P.2d€942€(Cal.€1968).€€The€factors€set€forthÐ $0ø%* Ðin€òòBordisóó,€however,€merely€provide€guidelines€for€the€reviewing€court.€€The€ultimateÐ ð1Ä', Ðquestion€remains€whether€the€evidence,€circumstantial€or€direct,€can€support€a€rationalÏjuryððs€finding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ˆ5\+0 Їà ` àIn€response€to€the€appellantððs€argument,€the€State€asserts€that€the€evidenceÏdoes€in€fact€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€appellant€planned€the€murderÏand€killed€the€victim€in€accordance€with€his€plan.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸËæ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€The€State€argues,€contrary€to€theÐ Ä ˜ Ðappellantððs€claim,€that€the€killing€was€part€of€a€ð ðtorture€sequence€that€occurred€over€aÏlong€period€of€time.ðð€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸXé#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€The€evidence€before€the€jury,€when€viewed€in€the€light€mostÐ \0 Ðfavorable€to€the€State,€supports€the€guilty€verdict€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€TheÏproof€establishes€that€the€appellant€obtained€a€gun€immediately€prior€to€his€visit€to€theÏvictimððs€apartment.€€The€appellant€inflicted€separate€and€distinct€injuries€upon€anÏunarmed€victim€over€a€six€hour€period€preceding€her€death.€€The€appellantððs€demeanorÏwas€one€of€calmness€following€the€murder.€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6ŸIê#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔCalmness€immediately€after€a€killing€mayÐ X, Ðbe€evidence€of€a€cool,€dispassionate,€premeditated€murder.€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148Ð $ø Ð(citing€òòState€v.€Browningóó,€666€S.W.2d€80,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,Ð ðÄ Ð546€S.W.2d€254,€258€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976)).€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿcì#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿôí#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔ€€Moreover,€the€evidence€shows€thatÐ ¼ Ðthe€appellant€hid€the€murder€weapon€and€returned€to€the€scene€in€a€different€vehicle.€ÏThe€fact€that€the€concealment€occurred€immediately€after€the€killing€"supports€theÏtheory€that€the€appellant€committed€the€killing€[in€the€absence€of€passion]."€€òòIdóó.Ð  %ô ÐÌà ` àHaving€reviewed€the€entire€record,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÏhave€found€the€Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ6î#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ6ð#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔessential€elements€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€beyond€aÐ „*X $ Ðreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€This€issue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.Ô#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿxð#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿbñ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔÐ P,$"& ÐÌò òà@ââ'àòòòò€penalty€phaseóóóóˆÐ è/¼%* ÐÔ#†X6ŸXX X6Ÿ¤ñ#ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔà@ô ô àòòòò€introduction€of€appellantððs€beeper€and€moneyóóóóˆÐ À1”', Ðó óà ` àNext,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€permitted€theÐ ˜3l). Ðintroduction€into€evidence€of€his€beeper€and€$602.00€in€cash,€which€were€found€on€hisÐ d58+0 Ðperson€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€admissionÏof€these€items€was€irrelevant€and€unduly€prejudicial,€because€it€suggested€to€theÏjury€that€the€appellant€was€involved€in€illegal€drug€activity.€€Ô‡ XX XX XX Ô€Tenn.R.Evid.€403;Ð (x Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978).Ô#‡ XX XXXX ~<#ÔÐ ôD ÐÌà ` àThe€State€initially€sought€to€introduce€the€contested€evidence€ð ðsimply€toÏshow€what€was€found€on€[the€appellant]€and€discount€any€robbery€motive.ðð€€Ô‡ XX XX XX ÔTheÐ X¨ Ðappellant€made€a€contemporaneous€objection,€which€was€overruled,€claimingÏthat€the€evidence€was€irrelevant€to€the€issue€of€premeditation.€€Ô#‡ XX XXXX ê=#ÔUnder€Rule€402,Ð ð@ Ðð ðall€relevant€evidence€is€admissible€except€as€provided€.€.€.€Evidence€which€is€notÏrelevant€is€not€admissible.ðð€€Rule€401€defines€relevant€evidence€as€ð ðevidenceÏhaving€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€toÏthe€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÏwithout€the€evidence.ðð€ÌÌà ` àÔ‡ XX XX XX ÔThe€State€also€argues€on€appeal€that€the€appellantððs€testimony€adequatelyÐ „*Ô%* Ðjustified€his€possession€of€the€beeper€and€currency.Ô#‡ XX XXXX f@#Ô€€Both€items€in€question€wereÐ P, ', Ðintroduced€by€the€State€during€its€case„in„€chief.€€The€appellant€subsequentlyÏtestified€that€he€went€to€the€victimððs€apartment€the€night€before€the€murder€inÏresponse€to€a€ð ðbeepðð€he€received€from€the€victim.€€Regarding€the€$602.00€inÏcash,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€had€been€saving€money€he€had€earned€fromÏseveral€odd€jobs.€ÌÌà ` àWe€agree€that€the€introduction€of€the€beeper€and€$602.00€in€cash€was€notÐ ä844: Ðrelevant€to€the€existence€of€any€issue€that€the€jury€was€required€to€decide€and,Ïthus,€was€improperly€admitted.€€We€conclude,€however,€that€the€appellant€wasÏnot€unfairly€prejudiced€by€their€admission.€€Nothing€in€the€record€before€usÏsuggests€that€the€appellant€was€involved€in€illegal€drug€activity.€€The€appellantððsÏtestimony€sufficiently€explained€his€possession€of€the€contested€evidence.€€ÌAccordingly,€we€find€that€any€error€in€admitting€the€beeper€and€currency€wasÏharmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà@þþ"àò ò€ññœññòòòò€instruction€on€flightóóó óóóˆÐ ` Ðà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€provided€the€juryÏwith€an€instruction€on€flight.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€his€ultimate€return€to€theÏcrime€scene€negated€any€inference€that€he€intended€to€flee.€€The€State€assertsÏthat€the€instruction€was€properly€given,€noting€that€the€instruction€provides€thatÏflight,€in€and€of€itself,€is€not€evidence€of€oneððs€guilt.€€Ô‡ XX XX XX ÔThe€trial€courtððs€instructionÐ h Ðon€flight€mirrors€the€instruction€found€in€T.P.I.€„„€Crim.€ðð€37.16.€€The€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€that€whether€the€appellant€fled€was€a€question€solely€for€theirÏdecision€that€they€need€not€infer€flight,€and€that€flight€alone€was€insufficient€toÏprove€guilt.Ô#‡ XX XXXX 2G#Ô€€In€this€case,€the€evidence€demonstrated€that€the€appellant€didÐ H#˜" Ðindeed€leave€the€scene€of€the€murder€and€hide€the€weapon.€€He€returned€in€aÏdifferent€vehicle€and€œwas›€about€to€leave€the€scene€again€when€he€wasÏapprehended.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€submission€of€this€instruction€to€the€jury.ÌÌà@66àññœññò òòòññòòññ€closing€argument€during€guilt€phaseóóó óññóóññˆÐ D,”', Ðà ` àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€committed€reversibleÏerror€by€interjecting€personal€opinions€during€his€closing€argument.€€The€StateÏcontends€that€the€argument€was€proper,€or,€in€the€alternative,€merely€harmlessÏerror.ÌÌÔ‡ XX XX XX Ôà ` àClosing€arguments€are€an€important€tool€for€both€parties€during€the€trialÐ 7h28 Ðprocess.€€Consequently,€attorneys€are€usually€given€wide€latitude€in€the€scope€ofÐ ä844: Ðtheir€arguments,€òòseeóó€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809,€and€trial€courts,€in€turn,€areÐ ° Ðaccorded€wide€discretion€in€their€control€of€those€arguments.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,Ð |Ì Ð910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð H˜ ÐMoreover,€a€trial€court's€finding€will€not€be€reversed,€absent€an€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Paytonóó,€782€S.W.2d€490,€496€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)Ð à 0 Ð(citations€omitted).€€Such€scope€and€discretion,€however,€is€not€completelyÏunfettered.€€To€determine€whether€the€prosecutor€committed€reversibleÏmisconduct€during€closing€argument,€the€reviewing€court€must€ascertain€ð ðwhetherÏthe€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÏdefendant.ðð€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965);€òòsee€alsoóó€Ð Ü, ÐòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€343€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Five€factorsÐ ¨ø Ðshould€be€considered€in€making€this€determination:€1)€the€conduct€complainedÏof,€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€2)€the€curativeÏmeasures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecutor;€3)€the€intent€of€theÏprosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;€4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÏimproper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€5)€the€relative€strengthÏor€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984);Ð p!À  ÐòòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.Ð <#Œ" ÐÔ#‡ XX XXXX _K#ÔÌÔ‡ XX XX XX ÔÓÓà ` àDuring€the€Stateððs€closing€argument,€the€following€colloquy€occurred:Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà8 ` àMR.€HENDERSON:€€I€hope€at€the€end€of€all€of€this€trial€and€myÏother€trials,€I€guess,€I€can€say€that,€as€the€Apostle€Paul€wrote€„„Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà0 ` àà  àà8` ` (#` (#àMR.€JOHNSON:€€Your€Honor,€he€is€putting€his€personalÏobservation€into€closing€argument.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àMR.€HENDERSON:€€Itððs€not€my€personal€feelings,€Your€Honor.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€€Overruled.€€This€it€[sic]€argument.€€You€mayÏproceed,€Mr.€Henderson.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àMR.€HENDERSON:€€Iððve€done€what€I€can€to€present€the€truth€toÏyou,€as€much€of€it€as€is€possible€this€long€after€the€offense€andÏgiven€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€evidence.€€I€submit€to€you€thatÏI€can€say€that€I€have€fought€the€good€fight,€I€have€run€my€course,€IÏhave€kept€the€faith.€€I€want€you€12€to€be€able€to€say€the€same€whenÏit€is€over.€€Thank€you.Ô#‡ XX XXXX —R#ÔÐ7P28` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÌÐ ²95; ÐÓÓà ` àÔ‡ XX XX XX ÔClosing€arguments€must€be€temperate,€must€be€based€upon€evidenceÐ ° Ðintroduced€during€trial,€and€must€be€pertinent€to€the€issues€being€tried.€€òòCoker€v.Ð |Ì ÐStateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð H˜ Ð1995);€òòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€TheÐ  d Ðprosecutor€must€not€express€a€personal€belief€or€opinion,€but€whether€thatÏqualifies€as€a€misconduct€often€depends€upon€the€specific€terminology€used.€ÏòòCokeróó,€911€S.W.2d€at€368.€€The€appellant€claims€the€prosecutor€expressed€hisÐ xÈ  Ðpersonal€opinion€by€stating€he€had€presented€the€ð ðtruthðð€to€the€jury.€Ô#‡ XX XXXX 2W#ÔÔ‡ XX XX XX Ô€However,Ð D”  Ðthe€jury€was€instructed€that€it€possessed€the€ultimate€duty€of€deciding€the€ð ðtruth.ðð€ÏMoreover,€as€noted€by€the€court€in€òòCokeróó,€if€the€argument€contains€phrases€suchÐ Ü, Ðas€ð ðI€thinkðð€or€ð ðI€submit,ðð€it€is€unlikely€to€be€adjudged€a€personal€opinion.€€òòIdóó.Ô#‡ XX XXXX KZ#ÔÔ‡ XX XX XX ÔÐ ¨ø ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€further€contends€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€comparedÏhimself€to€the€Apostle€Paul.Ô#‡ XX XXXX Õ[#ÔÔ‡ XX XX XX Ô€€It€is€settled€law€in€this€state€that€references€toÐ  \ Ðbiblical€passages€or€religious€law€during€a€criminal€trial€are€inappropriate.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ø( ÐòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1994);€òòKirkendoll€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¤ô Ð281€S.W.2d€243,€254€(Tenn.€1955).€€Such€references,€however,€do€not€constituteÏreversible€error€unless€the€appellant€can€clearly€establish€that€they€had€someÏeffect€on€the€verdict.€€òòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€541;€òòKirkendollóó,€281€S.W.2d€atÐ %X $ Ð254.Ô#‡ XX XXXX œ\#ÔÔ‡ XX XX XX Ô€€In€this€case,€no€reference€to€religious€law€was€made.€€We€conclude€thisÐ Ô&$"& Ðisolated€remark€had€no€affect€upon€the€verdict€in€this€case.Ô#‡ XX XXXX _#Ô€€Moreover,€we€find€noÐ  (ð#( Ðcomparison€by€the€prosecutor€of€himself€to€the€Apostle€Paul.€€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌò òà@ÇÇ àññœññòòòò€introduction€of€photographó óóóóóˆÐ Ð/ +0 ÐÔ‡ XX XX XX Ôà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€introduction€of€a€family€photograph€of€theÐ ¨1ø,2 Ðvictim€with€two€of€her€children€during€the€guilt€phase€of€trial€was€irrelevant€andÏwas€introduced€solely€for€the€purpose€of€inflaming€the€jury.€€Additionally,€heÏcontends€that€the€photograph€had€a€prejudicial€effect€on€the€jury's€determinationÏduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.Ð Ø8(4: Їà ` àTennessee€courts€have€followed€a€policy€of€liberality€in€the€admission€ofÏphotographs€in€both€civil€and€criminal€cases.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,Ð |Ì Ð949€(Tenn.€1978)€(citations€omitted).€€This€policy€translates€into€the€rule€that€"theÏadmissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court."€€òòIdóó.€€TheÐ  d Ðtrial€court's€"ruling,€in€this€respect,€will€not€be€overturned€on€appeal€except€uponÏa€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion."€€òòIdóó.€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ¬ ü  ÐòòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€542;€òòBordisóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€226.€€However,€before€aÐ xÈ  Ðphotograph€may€be€admitted€into€evidence,€it€must€be€relevant€to€an€issue€thatÏthe€jury€must€decide€and€the€probative€value€of€the€photograph€must€outweighÏany€prejudicial€effect€that€it€may€have€upon€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867Ð Ü, ÐS.W.2d€750,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993)Ð ¨ø Ð(citation€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401€and€403.Ð tÄ ÐÌà ` àAt€trial,€the€challenged€photograph€was€introduced€through€the€testimonyÏof€the€victim's€sister.׃2×Ý ƒ ¥‡ÝÔ‡ XX XXXX ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€record€indicates€that€the€photograph€was€offered€byÐ Ø( Ðthe€State€to€establish€the€victim's€identity€as€a€"creature€in€being."Ô#‡ XX XX XX ×`#ÔÔ‡ XX XX XX Ô׃3 ×Ý ƒ ¥‡ÝÔ‡ XX XXXX ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#‡ XX XX XX ¤h#ÔÔ‡ XX XX XX Ô€€In€òòBolden€v.Ð ¤ô ÐStateóó,€203€S.W.€755€(Tenn.€1918),€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€evidenceÐ p!À  Ðnecessary€"to€establish€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€in€[a€homicide€case]€must€show€that€theÐ <#Œ" Ðlife€of€a€human€being€has€been€taken,€which€question€involves€the€subordinateÏinquiry€as€to€the€òòidentityóó€of€the€person€charged€to€have€been€killed.€.€.€."€€€Thus,Ð Ø&("& Ðthe€State,€in€the€present€case,€was€required€to€prove,€in€its€case„in„chief,€that€theÏperson€killed€was€the€same€person€named€in€the€indictment.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€40€C.J.S.Ð p*À%* ÐòòHomicideóó€ðð€170€(1991);€€Annotation,€òòHomicide:€identification€of€victim€as€personÐ <,Œ', Ðnamed€in€indictment€or€informationóó,€86€A.L.R.2d€722,€725€(1962).€€Thus,Ð  .\). Ðemploying€the€test€espoused€in€òòBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€949,€we€find€no€error€inÐ ° Ðthe€admission€of€the€photograph€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.׃5×Ý ƒ ¥‡ÝÔ‡ XX XXXX ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð |Ì ÐòòState€v.€Scottóó,€626€S.W.2d€25,€28€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981);€òòBut€seeóó€€òòState€v.Ð H˜ ÐDicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126,€128€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€933,€102€S.Ct.€431Ð  d Ð(1981)€(pictures€of€homicide€victim€while€alive€should€not€be€admitted€at€trialÏunless€relevant€to€a€material€issue,€although€such€an€error€may€not€be€prejudicialÏto€the€outcome).€€Finally,€the€appellant€asks€this€court€to€speculate€about€theÏeffect€of€the€photograph€upon€the€jury€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€ÏHaving€concluded€that€the€photograph€was€admissible€during€the€guilt€phase€of€Ìtrial,€we€find€no€prejudicial€impact€during€the€sentencing€phase.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌññœññœÔ#‡ XX XX XX Xi#ÔññÔ‡ XX XX XX ÔÔ#‡ XhìXXXhìÇ#Ôññò òÔ‡ XX XX XX Ô›Ìà@ššàœòòòòinstructions›€on€mitigating€evidenceó óóóóóˆÐ Lœ ÐÔ#‡ XX XXXX Kq#ÔÔ‡ XX XX XX Ôà ` àNext,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€judge€committed€reversible€errorÐ $t Ðby€charging€all€of€the€statutory€mitigating€factors,€even€though€the€appellant€wasÏnot€relying€upon€all€of€them€in€his€defense.€€Only€those€mitigating€circumstancesÏraised€by€the€evidence€should€be€charged.€€€òòBuckóó,€670€S.W.2d€at€608.€€Absent€aÐ ˆ!Ø  Ðshowing€of€prejudice,€this€error€generally€benefits€the€defendant€and€does€notÏrequire€reversal.€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€267;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€15.€€Ð  %p $ ÐAlthough€the€appellant€concedes€that€this€issue€has€been€held€harmless,€heÏdisagrees€with€our€supreme€court€that€this€error€is€one€"beneficial"€to€him.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€claims€this€ð ðserves€to€undermine€[his]€actual€mitigation,Ïemphasizes€for€the€jury€the€number€of€mitigating€circumstances€missing€from€theÏcase,€and€further€highlights€the€distinction€between€statutory€and€non„statutoryÏmitigating€factors.ðð€ÌÌà ` àIn€view€of€our€supreme€courtððs€previous€rulings,€and€absent€any€showingÏof€prejudice,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð L5œ06 Ðò òà ` àó óÌññœññò òà@n n àœòòòòconstitutionality›€of€the€death€penalty€statuteó óóóóóˆÐ |Ì Ðà ` àœThe›€appellant€acknowledges€that€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penaltyÏhas€been€upheld€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€but€raises€the€followingÏissues€in€order€to€preserve€them€for€subsequent€proceedings.ÌÌà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€(1)€the€death€penalty€statute€fails€toÏmeaningfully€narrow€the€class€of€eligible€defendants;€(2)€the€prosecution€hasÏunlimited€discretion€in€seeking€the€death€penalty;€(3)€the€death€penalty€isÏimposed€in€a€discriminatory€manner€based€upon€economics,€race,€geography,Ïand€sex;€(4)€there€are€no€uniform€standards€for€jury€selection;€(5)€juries€tend€toÏbe€prone€to€returning€guilty€verdicts;€(6)€the€defendant€is€denied€the€opportunityÏto€address€the€jury's€popular€misconceptions€about€parole€eligibility,€cost€ofÏincarceration,€deterrence,€and€method€of€execution;€(7)€the€jury€is€instructed€itÏmust€unanimously€agree€to€a€life€sentence,€and€is€prevented€from€being€told€theÏeffect€of€a€non„unanimous€verdict;€(8)€courts€fail€to€instruct€the€juries€on€theÏmeaning€and€function€of€mitigating€circumstances;€(9)€the€jury€is€deprived€ofÏmaking€the€final€decision€about€the€death€penalty;€(10)€the€defendant€is€deniedÏthe€final€argument€during€the€sentencing€phase;€(11)€electrocution€is€cruel€andÏunusual€punishment;€and€(12)€the€appellate€review€process€in€death€penaltyÏcases€is€constitutionally€inadequate.ÌÌà ` àThese€issues€have€repeatedly€been€rejected€by€the€Tennessee€courts.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€908;€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€75;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2dÐ .`). Ðat€253;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€1;€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€166;€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797Ð Ü/,+0 ÐS.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Tealóó,€793€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.Ð ¨1ø,2 ÐThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989).Ð t3Ä.4 МÌÌÐ Ø8(4: Ðò ò›à@xx(àòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ° МññÌññ›à ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€issues€and€the€record€before€us,€asÏmandated€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„206(b),€and€(c),€and€for€the€reasonsÏstated€herein,€we€affirm€the€appellant's€conviction€and€sentence€of€death.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€sentence€of€death€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion,€theÏevidence€supports€the€jury's€finding€of€the€aggravating€circumstance,€and€theÏevidence€supports€the€jury's€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighsÏany€mitigating€circumstances.€€Moreover,€a€comparative€proportionality€review,Ïconsidering€both€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€the€nature€of€the€appellant,€Ìconvinces€us€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€neither€excessive€nor€disproportionateÏto€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.ññ׃6×ññññ׃7×ññÝ ƒ ¥‡ÝÔ‡XeXXXX ÔÔ‡ XX XXXeÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô#‡ XX XXXX ëq#ÔÓÓÐ ´ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌœññ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð þN Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judgeññ›œÔ†ÿÿÔÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ‡ X6ŸXXX6ŸÔñ|6ñ›