ÿWPCs1 Ÿ§ã5g=øl°Ÿ‘vò b©+ú~Y–ïK5ÌÉà?«©aÿ¢5`8ÌSˆõ\P_Ö9X¤œ5U‰(Š*hú#@•®ÿ1sñ:×ãÂ->HÝ@¥ËùŒèÀ ÆÂòg·‘[EñB«ùBU[%Å,È$«SÇ|ÊFVI¡Ydªª)øèXÈô–ˆt•D§Öjÿ c, 2ã¸ÛÈ ® AgbG¦e,Yî²EÖ]—âKΚÊGpš|„\׿´²VxÊzûç]²¢¦TG½ño<¶ÚùV*nÐŽ[V%9=Ä'U;~Çó_ô›4W´Œ€MÕ±fsvº;C’AP|Ørë³ãÕ)‹]ÆÃ§üA«¶ï÷ÞR6Ø®§ нLéÝ ±ëªâÍ7¦f/÷ùÄb*Ò¤Õî+,ĤsÛ êXQñÕµM€ÿ£c~€çÝi¦x/;ôLø^bt«.s´I§“¯æˆN“¤€u½t-ø˜« w7öÓæè£ìÖgºÄ‡]y¹°P0Ǽ¸¬¤ÉúX2VÛD\!oÈõŽô…û¾_iEfÂ]«qZp–ä]8ÛËýêîËââÄ®JÊ<cµ+¶,U:ô-ô-ô-ô-ô-ô-ô-ô-“.................................................................................................................................... AQÁ/Æ00 0DØ0U:1 BV1˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X°þXXXÔÔ€ôOÍôXX°þÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝZackery€Pallay€testified€at€trial€that€appellant€Quintero€had€a€younger€brother€named€Bryan.Ö…#%ovembe3|x-c Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡X°þXXXÔÔ‡òOÎ òXX°þÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant€Hall€merely€copied€appellant€Quinteroððs€argument€on€this€issue€and€does€not€challenge€theÐ ° Ðphoto€array€as€to€himself.€€Accordingly€this€issue€has€been€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27;Ô#†X°þX òòOÎ;#ÔÔ‡ôOÍôXX°þÔ€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.Ð n¾ ÐApp.€R.€10(b).Ô#†X°þXôôOͪ#ÔÔ‡òOÎ òXX°þÔÔ#†òù÷ò òòOÎ#ÔÔ‡òOÎ òòòù÷Ô€€Regardless,€a€review€of€the€record€does€not€reveal€that€the€photographic€line„up€wasÐ ,| Ðimpermissibly€suggestive€as€to€appellant€Hall.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ûÝ ƒ,¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X èXXXÔÔ€F6XX èÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X èXF6ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular%ä2¼A`ArialTT, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€/X°þXXXÔÔ€/ôOÍôX/X°þÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòSmithóó,€the€appellant€was€granted€an€extraordinary€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X°þXXXÔÔ€ôOÍôXX°þÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOne€of€the€victimððs€bodies€can€also€be€seen€in€the€background€ofÔ‡ôOÍôôôOÍÔ€a€photograph€of€the€Vestersðð€livingÐ ° Ðroom,€which€was€taken€to€show€the€heating/air€conditioning€unit€leaning€against€the€televisionÔ#†ôOÍôôôOÍì#Ô.€€However,€ItÐ n¾ Ðcould€not€be€considered€gruesome€in€any€way.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular„„'÷ÿ dxd TÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡X°þXXXÔÔ‡òOÎ òXX°þÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€does€not€include€the€transcript€of€the€jury€instructions€as€actually€given;€instead,€theÐ ° Ðtypewritten€instructions€are€included€in€the€technical€record. NÔ€òù÷òXXÔÔ€òOÎ òòòù÷ÔÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Kentucky€circuit€court's€findings€are€included€in€the€appendix€to€the€appellant's€brief;€however,Ð ° Ðthe€document€does€not€appear€in€the€record.-kû¤AZ‹"Arial Regular ÕÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X°þXXXÔÔ€ôOÍôXX°þÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôOÍôôôOÍÔòòOdomóó€was€decided€under€the€current€statute€which€requires€that€the€murder€involve€torture€orÐ ° Ðserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death€in€order€to€be€found€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel.€€Ô#†ôOÍôôôOͪ#Ô ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡Xà¬XXXÔÔ‡ô_æôXXà¬ÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€appellant€Hall€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€dismiss€the€charges€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€Ð ° Ðthis€issue€has€been€waived€by€his€failure€to€cite€any€authority€in€support€of€his€arguments€as€required€by€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€27(a)(7)€and€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€))))'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular cVc DcUcDcU cV!c"c U#cÓ€-c ÈÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€&X°þXXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€&ôOÍôX&X°þÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€following€jurors€were€challenged€and€excused:€Patricia€Matthews,€Juanita€Cannon,€Mickie€Miller,Ð ° ÐClyde€E.€Capps,€Gerald€Bowker,€Wayne€Purcell,€Gladys€Hooper,€J.€B.€Bradberry,€Martha€Beasley,€CharlesÏDaniel,€Barry€Bronson,€Carol€Cochran,€David€E.€Buchanan,€Herschel€Ross,€Clarence€Humphrey,€and€CarlÏBrazzle.€€The€record€reflects€that€while€some€of€the€excluded€jurors€indicated€there€were€other€considerationsÏin€refusing€to€impose€the€death€penalty,€all€admitted€that€religious€beliefs€played€a€part€in€their€decision. ¾Ô‡X°þXXXÔÔ‡ôOÍôXX°þÔÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€present€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5),€effective€November€1,€1989,€states€that€the€murderÐ ° Ðwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€produce€death.€€Because€the€murder€of€Mrs.€Vester€took€place€in€1988,€the€ð ðtorture€or€depravityÏof€mindðð€standard€found€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)(1982)€was€properly€applied.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875Ð ê: ÐS.W.2d€253,€267;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€920€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€116€S.Ct.Ð ¨ø Ð99,€133€L.€Ed.€2d€53€(1995).Ô#†X°þXôôOÍ#ÔÔ‡ôOÍôXX°þÔÔ#†ôùôôôôOÍ#ÔÔ‡ôOÍôôôùôÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d GÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÔ‡òù÷òXXÔÔ‡òOÎ òòòù÷ÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€issue€was€waived€by€the€appellantsðð€failure€to€raise€it€at€trial€or€in€their€motions€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐòòState€v.€Bakeróó,€785€S.W.2d€132,€135€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€However,€€because€of€the€qualitativeÐ n¾ Ðdifference€between€death€and€other€sentences€and€because€of€the€seriousness€of€the€issue,€we€have€chosenÏto€address€the€merits€of€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bigbee›óó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€805€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€œStrouth›óó,Ð ê: Ð620€S.W.2d€467,€471€(Tenn.€1981),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€455€U.S.€983,€102€S.Ct.€1491,€71€œL.€Ed.€2d€692€(1982).Ô#†X°þX òòOÎ(#Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular »Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÔ‡X@¢XXXÔÔ‡ôïŽôXX@¢ÔÝ ƒ V^ÿÝà ` àÔ€ôïŽôôôïŽÔòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€detainer€is€ð ða€request€filed€by€a€criminal€justice€agency€with€the€institution€in€which€a€prisoner€isÐ ° Ðincarcerated,€asking€that€the€prisoner€be€held€for€the€agency,€or€that€the€agency€be€advised€when€theÏprisonerððs€release€is€imminent.ðð€€òòFex€v.€Michiganóó,€507€U.S.€43,€113€S.Ct.€1085,€1087,€122€L.€Ed.€2d€406Ð ,| Ð(1993).€€The€purpose€of€the€Interstate€Agreement€on€Detainers€Act€is€to€ð ðencourage€the€expeditious€andÏorderly€disposition€of€such€charges€and€determination€of€the€proper€status€of€any€and€all€detainers€based€onÏuntried€indictments,€information€or€complaints.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„31„101,€Art.€I.€€The€purpose€stems€from€the€needÏto€alleviate€the€uncertainties€created€by€untried€charges€and€detainers€which€interfere€with€programs€of€inmateÏtreatment€and€rehabilitation.€€Edward€G.€Hild,€òòThe€Death€Penalty€and€the€Interstate€Agreement€on€DetainersÐ â 2 ÐAct:€A€Proposal€for€Changeóó,€29€J.€MARSHALL€L.€REV.€499,€504€(1996).€ 4Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€5X°þXXXÔÔ€5ôOÍôX5X°þÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOur€holding€should€in€no€way€be€interpreted€by€the€state€as€condoning€its€disregard€for€the€rulingsÐ ° Ðof€the€trial€court., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ‰Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡X°þXXXÔÔ‡ôOÍôXX°þÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€one€photograph€of€Mr.€Vesterððs€body€was€admitted€to€show€that€his€murder€was€alsoÐ ° Ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€the€jury€did€not€sentence€the€appellants€to€death€for€the€murder€of€Mr.€Vester.€,-‚Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÂ"Arial RegularüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X èXXXÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÑ7€ƒFƒƒXXdðdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ!cñ›ñ!cññ!cñò òñ!cññ#cññ#cññ!cññ!cññ-cññ#cñßr€ <,(j 8` `€€@E ±` 8ttxPX°ð  rßñ#cññ-cññ-cññ-cññ!cññ!cññ-cññ-cññ!cññ!cññ-cñßt€ >.*jxTôÿ` `€€@Et°` 8ttxP¬°ð tßñ-cññ!cñÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌñ!cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ"cñÌñ"cññ!cñÌà@RR+DàÔ‡èZqèXX èÔAppendixÔ#†X èXèèZq #ԈРøH Ðà@Ì Ì Dà(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)€ˆÌó óñ!cññ cñÐ  h¸ Ðñ cñ›à@Ä Ä Dàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@rr)DàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌà@oo'DàJULY€1996€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÓ'X‡XDp“X°œX'ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà D à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9311„CC„00409Ð $ t Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)ó óÐ  ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àà D àò ò)ó óà p àò òœHUMPHREYS›€COUNTYÐ ü L  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)à p à(Nos.€10526„10527,€10544„10547,Ð è 8  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)à p à€10556„10559€Below)ó óÐ Ô$  МVS›.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àò ò)Ð À  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)à p àThe€Honorable€Allen€W.€WallaceÐ ¬ü  ÐWILLIAM€EUGENE€HALL,€JR.,à À àà D à)Ð ˜è  Ða/k/a€BILLY€HALL,€ANDà h àà À àà D à)à p à(First„Degree€Murder,€Grand€Larceny,Ð „Ô  ÐDERRICK€DESMOND€QUINTERO,à D à)à p àPetit€Larceny,€and€First„Degree€œBurglaryÐ pÀ Ðà ` à›à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)Ìó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àò ò)ó óÐ H˜ Ðà ` àAppellants.à  àà h àà À àà D àò ò)Ð 4„ Ðó óÌÌFOR€APPELLANT€HALL:à h àà À àà D àà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð ì< ÐÌN.€Reese€Bagwellà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ¸ ÐThe€Bagwell€Law€Firm€€€à h àà À àà D àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ žî Ð116€S.€Second€StreetÌClarksville,€TN€37040à h àà À àà D àà p àœDarian›€B.€Taylor€(oral€argument)Ð jº Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌJennifer€Robertsà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àÐ 6† МLittleton›,€Smith€&€Robertsà h àà À àà D àà p àKimberly€A.€Chance€(appellate€brief)Ð  l ÐP.O.€Box€396€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àà D àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ !R МDickson›,€TN€37056à  àà h àà À àà D àà p àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÐ è!8  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0485€Ð ´#" ÐFOR€APPELLANT€QUINTERO:Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àDan€M.€œAlsobrooks›ÌœShipp›€R.€œWeems›à  àà h àà À àà D àà p àDistrict€Attorney€General€€€€€€€€Ð f&¶!% ÐDistrict€Public€DefenderÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àJ.€Kenneth€AtkinsÌSteve€Stack€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à h àà À àà D àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€Pro€TemÐ )h$( ÐAssistant€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà D àà p àÐ þ)N%) Ð23rd€Judicial€Districtà h àà À àà D àà p àJames€W.€œKirby›Ð ä*4&* ÐP.O.€Box€160à  àà h àà À àà D àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ Ê+'+ ÐCharlotte,€TN€37036à h àà À àà D àà p à23rd€Judicial€DistrictÐ °,(, Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àP.O.€Box€580Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àCharlotte,€TN€37036ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:à  àœMarch€5,€1997›Ð .1~,1 ÐÌò òBOTH€APPELLANTSðð€FIRST„DEGREE€MURDER€CONVICTIONS€AND€DEATHÐ ú2J.3 МSENTENCES›€AFFIRMED;€œBOTH›€APPELLANTSðð€FIRST„DEGREE€BURGLARY€ANDÏGRAND€LARCENY€CONVICTIONS€AFFIRMED;€BOTH€APPELLANTSðð€PETIT€LARCENYÏCONVICTIONS€MERGEDó óÐ ¾516 ÐÌÌò òWILLIAM€M.€BARKERó óÐ v8Æ39 ÐJudgeÐ  b9²4: Ðà@õõ)Dàò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÓÓÌÌò òà@ââ!DàSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCE׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ó óˆÐ  j М̛à ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€evidence€did€not€support€any€of€the€multipleÏconvictions.€€They€argue€that€had€they€been€tried€on€each€charge€individually,€they€wouldÏhave€been€acquitted€of€all€charges.€€The€state€submits€that€while€the€evidence€presentedÏin€this€case€was€entirely€circumstantial,€given€the€remote€location€of€the€victimizedÏcommunity€and€the€manner€in€which€the€appellants€acted,€it€proved€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€the€commission€of€each€crime.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€theÏverdicts.̛̜à ` àA€guilty€verdict,€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnessesÏfor€the€state€and€resolves€any€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state's€theory.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560Ð ê: ÐS.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€to€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€ÏòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ N#ž" Ðevidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€a€consideration€of€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€theÏessential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.Ð ²($( Ð307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€œL.€Ed.€2d›€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410Ð ~*Î%* Ð(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.Ct.€1429,€79€œL.€Ed.€2d›€753€(1984);€Tenn.Ð J,š', ÐR.€App.€P.€13(e).̛̜à ` àA€crime€may€be€established€by€direct€evidence,€circumstantial€evidence,€or€aÏcombination€of€the€two.€€òòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€899„900€(Tenn.€1987).€€BeforeÐ z3Ê.4 Ðan€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence,Ð F5–06 Ðthe€facts€and€the€circumstances€"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€every€otherÏreasonable€œhypothesis›€save€the€guilt€of€the€defendant,€and€that€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt."€€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.€(3€Pack)€478,€482,€470€S.W.2d€610,€612€(1971).€€"AÐ H˜ Ðweb€of€guilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€and€fromÏwhich€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inference€save€theÏguilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€òòIdóó.€at€484,€470€S.W.2d€at€613.Ð ¬ ü  М̛à ` àWhile€the€appellants€were€charged€as€principals€on€all€counts,€the€jury€was€chargedÏon€aiding€and€abetting.€€òòState€v.€Hensleyóó,€656€S.W.2d€410,€413€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€Ð ` ÐUnder€the€pre„1989€Code,€one€could€be€considered€an€aider€and€abettor€if€one€advised,Ïcounseled,€procured,€or€engaged€another€to€commit€a€crime.€€òòFlippen€v.€Stateóó,€211€Tenn.Ð ¨ø Ð(15€McCanless)€507,€514,€365€S.W.2d€895,€899€(1963).€€A€particular€act€or€even€€physicalÏparticipation€in€the€commission€of€the€crime€is€not€necessary.€€The€appellant€need€only€toÏhave€been€"constructively"€present.€€òòState€v.€McBeeóó,€644€S.W.2d€425,€428„30€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  \ ÐApp.€1982);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608,€613€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€Ð Ø( М̛à ` àEven€if€the€evidence€is€circumstantial,€there€must€be€proof€that€the€aider€and€abettorÏassociated€himself€with€the€venture,€acted€with€the€knowledge€that€an€offense€was€to€beÏcommitted,€and€shared€the€principal's€criminal€intent.€€òòHembree€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€235,Ð %X $ Ð239€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Intent€may€be€inferred€from€the€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€crime.€€òòPresley€v.€Stateóó,€161€Tenn.€(8€Smith)€310,€315„17,€30€S.W.2d€231,€233€(1930).€Ð  (ð#( ÐWhile€mere€presence€is€not€sufficient€to€conclude€that€a€defendant€aided€and€abetted€inÏa€crime,€presence,€companionship,€and€conduct€before€and€after€the€criminal€event€are€allÏproper€considerations.€€òòState€v.€McBeeóó,€644€S.W.2d€425,€428.Ð .T). М̛à ` àIn€short,€the€state's€theory€in€this€case€was€that€these€crimes€were€inextricablyÏintertwined.€€The€evidence€showed€that€all€of€the€burglaries€occurred€within€a€2„mile€radiusÏand€were€committed€between€June€16€and€June€21,€1988.€€Two€knives€taken€from€theÏCherry€residence€were€found€at€the€Foster€residence.€€Three€knives€from€the€CherryÏresidence€were€never€recovered.€€At€the€Harris€residence€(next€door€to€the€œCherrysðð),›Ð Ì84: Ðphone€calls€were€made€within€that€time€period€to€appellant€Hallððs€former€girlfriend€inÏPennsylvania€and€to€a€Bryan€Quintero€in€Texas.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€Crawford€residence,€appellantÐ |Ì ÐHallððs€fingerprint€was€found€on€a€ham€can€that€was€sitting€on€the€table.€€Other€items€fromÏthe€Crawfordsðð€house€were€connected€to€the€appellants€at€the€Vester€crime€scene.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àMoreover,€at€the€Foster€residence,€appellant€Quinteroððs€fingerprints€were€found€onÏa€Federal€12€gauge€shotgun€shell€box,€and€his€palm€print€was€found€on€the€barrel€of€a€12Ïgauge€sawed„off€shotgun.€€Appellant€Hallððs€fingerprint€was€found€on€a€Diet€Pepsi€can€atÏMr.€Fosterððs€house.€€At€the€Vester€residence,€ammunition€similar€to€that€taken€from€theÏFoster€residence€was€found,€including€œthree›€live€Federal€20€gauge€shotgun€shells€and€oneÏcasing.€€Pellets€and€shot€wads€removed€from€the€residence€and€the€victims'€bodies€wereÏalso€consistent€with€the€ammunition€stolen€from€the€Foster€residence.€€Although€notÏrecovered,€Mr.€Foster€testified€that€a€.30„30€caliber€rifle€was€stolen€from€his€house.€€ThereÏwas€testimony€that€one€of€Mrs.€Vesterððs€gunshot€wounds€was€consistent€with€having€comeÏfrom€such€a€weapon.€€Also,€a€glove,€belonging€to€(and€positively€identified€by)€Mrs.ÏCrawford,€was€found€outside€the€Vestersðð€front€window.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àThe€proof€also€connected€the€appellants€to€the€Vesters'€1985€maroon€PontiacÏBonneville€which€was€later€recovered€in€Memphis.€€In€the€car,€the€police€found€a€sawed„offÏ20€gauge€shotgun,€which€was€positively€identified€by€Mr.€Foster.€€T.B.I.€Agent€Don€CarmonÏidentified€this€shotgun€as€having€fired€the€spent€20€gauge€shotgun€shell€found€outside€Mr.ÏVesterððs€bedroom€window.€€The€Crawfords€also€testified€that€the€flashlight€found€in€theÏvehicle€was€exactly€like€the€one€taken€from€their€home.€€Finally,€three€eyewitnesses€sawÏsimilar€looking€men€get€out€of€the€Vestersðð€vehicle€at€the€Memphis€Funeral€Home.€€Then,Ïan€eyewitness€placed€appellant€Quintero€in€Memphis€at€the€time€the€Vesters'€vehicle€wasÏabandoned.€€Two€eyewitnesses€also€placed€appellant€Hall€in€Memphis€at€that€time.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àBased€on€the€evidence€in€the€record,€albeit€circumstantial,€we€find€that€a€rational€juryÏcould€have€found€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€appellantsðð€multiple€convictions€withÐ 7P28 Ðone€exception.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€dual€convictions€dealing€withÏthe€larcenies€of€personal€property€belonging€to€the€Vesters.€€The€record€does€not€indicateÏthat€the€larcenies€occurred€at€separate€times,€and,€thus,€the€appellantsðð€petit€larceny€countsÏfor€property€taken€from€the€Vesters€must€be€merged€with€the€grand€larceny€counts€for€theÏvehicle€taken€from€the€Vesters.€€òòSeeóó€òòGreer€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€855,€858€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à 0 ÐApp.€1976).ÌÌœò òòòÌ›à@˜˜&DàEXCLUSION€OF€JURORSóóó óˆÐ l М̛à ` àThe€appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€excused€potential€jurors€becauseÏof€their€inability€to€impose€the€death€penalty€based€on€their€religious€beliefs.׃#×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,Ð ŒÜ Ðthe€appellants€claim€that€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€these€potential€jurors€constituted€aÏreligious€test€in€violation€of€Article€I,€ðð€4€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€which€states€that€Ïð ðno€political€or€religious€test,€other€than€an€oath€to€support€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÏStates€and€this€State,€shall€ever€be€required€as€a€qualification€to€any€officer€or€public€trustÏunder€this€State.ðð€€The€appellants€also€claim€that€the€excusing€of€these€jurors€violated€theÏjurorððs€right€to€serve€on€a€jury€as€guaranteed€by€Article€I,€ðð€3€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,Ïwhich€states€that€ð ðno€human€authority€can,€in€any€case€whatever,€control€or€interfere€withÏthe€rights€of€conscience.ðð€€ÌœÌ›à ` àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€on€this€issue€are€to€be€given€a€presumption€of€correctness.€ÏòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€64€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.Ð P, ', Ð1368,€122€œL.€Ed.€2d›€746€(1993).€€Therefore,€the€burden€rests€on€the€appellants€to€establishÏby€convincing€evidence€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€was€erroneous.€€òòIdóó.€€Here,€weÐ è/8+0 Ðâ âfind€that€the€trial€court€properly€excluded€those€jurors€who€indicated€they€would€be€unableÐ ´1-2 Ðto€follow€the€law€during€the€sentencing€phase.€€The€appellants€have€not€shown,€nor€doesÏthe€record€reflect,€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€these€jurors.€€Ìâ âœÌ›à ` àIn€determining€whether€to€exclude€a€juror,€the€trial€court€must€decide€whether€aÏprospective€juror€may€be€excluded€for€cause€because€of€his€or€her€views€on€capitalÏpunishment€when€those€views€would€ð ðprevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€ofÏhis€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€his€instructions€and€his€oath.ðð€€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,Ð xÈ  Ð469€U.S.€412,€424,€105€S.Ct.€844,€852,€83€œL.€Ed.€2d›€841€(1985)€(quoting€òòAdams€v.€Texasóó,Ð D”  Ð448€U.S.€38,€45,€100€S.Ct.€2521,€2526,€65€œL.€Ed.€2d›€581€(1980)).€€The€trial€court€mayÏpermissively€excuse€jurors€in€capital€cases€ð ðbecause€their€views€on€capital€punishmentÏrender[ed}€them€unable€to€follow€the€law€as€given€to€them€by€the€court€and€to€perform€theirÏduties€as€jurors€in€accord€with€their€oaths.ðð€€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€949€(Tenn.),Ð tÄ Ðòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€484€U.S.€872,€108€S.Ct.€204,€98€œL.€Ed.€2d›€155€(1987).€Ð @ М̛à ` àIn€òòBoboóó,€our€Supreme€Court€specifically€held€that€just€because€a€prospective€jurorððsÐ Ø( Ðð ðviews€on€capital€punishment€may€have€had€a€religious€foundation€does€not€necessarilyÏtransform€the€tests€mandated€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòWitherspoon€v.Ð p!À  ÐIllinoisóó,€391€U.S.€510,€88€S.Ct.€1770,€20€œL.€Ed.€2d›€776€(1968),€and€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,Ð <#Œ" Ðòòsupraóó,€into€religious€tests€for€the€purposes€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€727€S.W.2dÐ %X $ Ðat€949.€€Similarly,€in€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€908,Ð Ô&$"& Ð111€S.Ct.€280,€112€œL.€Ed.€2d›€234€(1990),€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€dismissal€ofÏprospective€jurors€who€could€not€impose€the€death€penalty€because€of€their€religious€beliefsÏdoes€not€constitute€an€impermissible€religious€test€because€their€views€on€capitalÏpunishment€rendered€them€unable€to€follow€the€law€as€given€to€them€by€the€court€and€toÏperform€their€duties€as€jurors€in€accord€with€their€oath.€€òòIdóó.€at€547.€€Finally,€in€òòState€v.Ð Ð/ +0 ÐJohnsonóó,€762€S.W.2d€110€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1091,€109€S.Ct.€1559,€103Ð œ1ì,2 МL.€Ed.€2d›€862€(1989),€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€potential€jurors€who€admitted€they€couldÏnot€impose€the€death€penalty€could€be€permissively€excused€because€their€views€wouldÏprevent€them€from€applying€the€law€concerning€the€death€penalty.€€òòIdóó.€at€114.€€Ð 7P28 МÐ Ì84: Лà ` àBecause€it€is€undisputed€that€the€challenged€jurors€each€stated€that€they€could€neverÏimpose€the€death€penalty,€these€potential€jurors€would€not€have€been€able€to€render€anÏunbiased€decision.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€correctly€excused€these€jurors.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌœò òÌ›à@› › DàADMINISTRATION€OF€OATH€TO€LESS€THAN€TWELVE€JURORSó óˆÐ „Ô  М̛à ` àThe€appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€removing€a€œÌjuror›€who€refused€to€take€the€oath€when€it€was€administered€and€by€replacing€that€juror€withÏthe€first€alternate.€€The€appellants€contend€that€the€swearing„in€of€eleven€rather€than€twelveÏjurors€violated€T.C.A.€ðð€40„18„106€and€that€the€trial€courtððs€removal€of€the€juror€becauseÏshe€did€not€say€the€oath€nor€wanted€to€serve€on€the€jury€was€an€arbitrary€discharge€of€aÏduly€selected€juror.€€In€addition,€appellant€Quintero€claims€that€the€seating€of€the€firstÏalternate€by€the€trial€court€denied€him€the€right€to€exercise€his€remaining€peremptoryÏchallenges.€€We€disagree.̛̜à ` àOn€November€7,€1991,€after€voir€dire€examination,€a€jury€of€twelve€individuals€andÏtwo€alternates€was€selected€by€the€parties.€€At€the€conclusion€of€this€process,€defenseÏcounsel€requested€that€the€twelve€jurors€be€sworn€in,€but€the€trial€court€refused€to€do€so.€ÏThe€next€day,€a€third€alternate€was€selected,€and€the€twelve€jurors€and€three€alternatesÏwere€sworn€in.€€The€trial€court€then€questioned€one€of€the€jurors€because€she€did€notÏacknowledge€the€oath€when€it€was€administered.€€The€juror€stated€that€she€would€be€moreÏsympathetic€to€the€witnesses€who€had€ð ðlost€somebody€at€the€hand€of€someone€elseðð€ratherÏthan€towards€the€appellants.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€concluded€that€the€juror€did€notÏwant€to€serve.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àWhen€the€trial€court€asked€counsel€for€suggestions,€counsel€for€appellant€QuinteroÏrequested€that€jury€selection€be€reopened€since€he€had€three€preemptory€challenges€left.€ÏCounsel€for€appellant€Hall€and€the€state€recommended€that€the€first€alternate€be€placed€onÐ ä844: Ðthe€jury.€€Counsel€for€appellant€Quintero€again€objected,€and€counsel€for€appellant€HallÏjoined€in€the€objection.€€€The€trial€court€removed€the€juror€and€replaced€her€with€the€firstÏalternate.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àAlthough€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit,€we€first€note€that€any€complaint€asÏto€the€trial€courtððs€actions€in€this€matter€has€been€waived€by€appellant€Hall,€who€initiallyÏrecommended€the€taken€course€of€action.€€A€party€responsible€for€an€error€cannot€seekÏrelief€from€the€recommended€course€of€action€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).Ð D”  М̛à ` àT.C.A.€ðð€40„18„106€states€that€ð ð[i]n€impaneling€a€jury€for€the€trial€of€any€felony,€theÏcourt€shall€not€swear€any€of€the€jurors€until€the€whole€number€are€selected€for€a€jury.ðð€ÏUnder€the€statute,€all€twelve€jurors€must€be€selected€at€the€time€that€the€jurors€are€swornÏin.€€Here,€twelve€jurors€were€selected€and€sworn€in,€however,€one€juror€refused€to€take€theÏoath.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àIn€Tennessee,€the€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€examining€prospective€jurors€andÏruling€on€their€qualifications.€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€248€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.Ð p!À  Ðòòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€1215,€114€S.Ct.€1339,€127€œL.€Ed.€2d›€687€(1994).€€It€is€also€within€theÐ <#Œ" Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge€to€seat€an€alternate€who€had€been€selected€by€the€parties€whenÏa€regular€juror€must€be€removed.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(e)(1);€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819Ð Ô&$"& ÐS.W.2d€441,€445€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€findÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€removing€the€juror€and€filling€the€openingÏwith€the€first€alternate,€especially€since€the€juror€was€excused€in€part€because€of€herÏadmitted€bias€against€the€appellants.€€Moreover,€the€appellants€have€failed€to€show€thatÏthe€actual€jury€was€impartial,€making€any€potential€error€harmless.ÌÌò òà@ëë-DàVENUEó óˆÐ h3¸.4 М̛à ` àAppellant€Quintero€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€changing€venue€the€secondÏtime,€from€Cheatham€County€to€Humphreys€County,€was€in€violation€of€Article€I,€œðð9›€of€theÐ Ø8(4: ÐTennessee€Constitution€and€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€21.€€Specifically,€appellant€QuinteroÏargues€that€he€did€not€consent€to€the€change€of€venue,€and€even€if€this€Court€determinesÏthat€he€acquiesced€in€the€change,€there€was€no€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€there€existedÏundue€excitement€within€Cheatham€County€to€justify€the€removal€of€this€case.€€Moreover,Ïappellant€Quintero€submits€that€Humphreys€County€is€not€the€nearest€county€in€the€judicialÏdistrict€in€which€the€prosecution€was€pending,€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€21(c).̛̜à ` àAll€of€the€alleged€crimes€occurred€in€Stewart€County€where€presentments€wereÏbrought€against€the€appellants€and€co„defendant€Blanton.€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï21,€motions,€supported€by€affidavits,€were€filed€by€the€appellants,€and€the€trial€courtÏchanged€venue€to€Cheatham€County.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€court€severed€co„defendantÏBlantonððs€trial€from€that€of€the€appellants.€€After€co„defendant€Blanton€was€tried€inÏCheatham€County,€the€appellants€filed€motions€for€change€of€venue,€however,€the€motionsÏwere€not€supported€by€affidavits.€€At€a€hearing€on€the€motions,€the€state€opposed€theÏmotions€because€there€were€no€supporting€affidavits€as€required€by€Rule€21(b).€€AlthoughÏAppellant€Quintero€withdrew€his€motion€at€that€time,€appellant€Hall€did€not.€€There€wasÏsome€discussion€of€the€issue,€and€counsel€for€appellant€Quintero€made€the€followingÏstatement€concerning€Cheatham€County:ÌÓÓà8 ` àYour€Honor,€I€concur€with€that.€€If€the€General€wants€to€try€it€here,€we€canÏspend€a€month€trying€to€get€a€jury€here.€€The€General€knows,€as€well€asÏeverybody€else€knows,€we€canððt€get€a€jury€here.€€But€if€the€General€wants€toÏtry€it,€thatððs€fine€with€œus.›Ói[ÓÐ ` (#` (# ÐAfter€further€discussion,€the€issue€was€reserved€until€the€end€of€the€hearing.€€Under€theÏimpression€that€he€had€withdrawn€his€motion€for€change€of€venue,€counsel€for€appellantÏQuintero€left€the€courtroom€as€counsel€for€appellant€Hall€argued€his€motion€for€change€ofÏvenue.€€Counsel€was€called€back€into€the€courtroom,€and€the€issue€was€again€discussed.€ÏAbruptly€during€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€changed€venue€to€Humphreys€County.€€The€trialÏcourt€stated€ð ðIððm€just€going€to€do€it.€€If€Iððm€in€error,€Iððm€in€error.ðð€€Appellant€Quintero€did€notÏmake€any€objections€at€that€time.̛̜à ` àSubsequently,€an€order€was€entered€by€the€trial€court€allowing€appellant€QuinteroÏto€withdraw€his€motion€for€a€change€of€venue€and€finding€that€the€motion€was€of€no€effect.€Ð ²95; ÐThat€same€day,€appellant€Quintero€filed€a€motion€requesting€that€the€trial€be€prosecutedÏin€Stewart€County,€where€the€alleged€offenses€were€committed.€€Appellant€Quintero€alsoÏfiled€a€motion€objecting€to€the€change€of€venue€to€Humphreys€County.€€A€motion€hearingÏwas€held€that€day,€and€the€trial€court€upheld€its€earlier€decision€to€change€venue€toÏHumphreys€County.€ÌœÌ›à ` àAfter€the€trial€was€completed,€the€court€entered€an€order€denying€appellantÏQuinteroððs€motions.€€The€order€stated€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 ` àœà ¸ àUpon›€consideration€of€all€matters€presented€and€argument€of€counselÏfor€the€defendant€and€the€State,€the€Court€finds€that€the€defendantððs€MotionÏis€not€well€taken.€€The€Court€finds€that€this€defendant€filed€for€and€wasÏgranted€a€change€of€venue€on€or€about€January€14,€1991,€that€venue€wasÏmoved€to€Cheatham€County,€Tennessee,€and€that€the€defendant€filed€anÏadditional€request€objecting€to€that€venue€and€that€the€Court€considering€allÏmatters€presented€moved€the€venue€of€this€case€to€Humphreys€County,ÏTennessee,€on€August€30,€1991.€€The€Court€would€further€note€and€find€thatÏcounsel€for€the€defendant€has€attempted€to€withdraw€the€defendantððs€requestÏfor€a€change€of€venue€which€was€denied€by€the€Court€on€August€30,€1991.€ÏAn€order€was€previously€entered€in€this€Court€on€the€7th€day€of€Oct.,€1991,Ïwhich€was€signed€by€the€Court€in€error.€€That€Order€as€it€appears€in€MinuteÏBook€92,€page€304,€is€void.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÛaӜ̛à ` àRule€21(a)€provides€that€"[i]n€all€criminal€prosecutions€the€venue€may€be€changedÏupon€motion€of€the€defendant,€or€upon€the€court's€own€motion€with€the€consent€of€theÏdefendant,€if€it€appears€to€the€court€that,€due€to€undue€excitement€against€the€defendantÏin€the€county€where€the€offense€was€committed€or€any€other€cause,€a€fair€trial€probablyÏcould€not€be€had."€€Venue€is€jurisdictional€in€Tennessee.€€An€accused€has€the€right€to€beÏtried€in€the€county€in€which€the€crime€has€been€committed.€€òòSeeóó€Article€1,€ðð€9€of€theÐ l*¼%* ÐTennessee€œConstitution.›ÌœÌ›à ` àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€find€that€appellant€Quintero€waived€any€constitutionalÏor€procedural€complaint€as€to€venue.€€Initially,€appellant€Quintero€failed€toÏcontemporaneously€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€Ð h3¸.4 ÐMoreover,€while€appellant€Quintero€withdrew,€or€attempted€to€withdraw€his€motion€forÏchange€of€venue€from€Cheatham€County,€he€did€not€make€any€objection€to€the€trial€courtððsÏruling€until€he€subsequently€filed€a€motion€approximately€one€month€later.€€It€also€appearsÐ Ì84: Ðthat€appellant€Quintero€waived€any€constitutional€argument€on€this€issue€when€he€madeÏhis€initial€request€that€venue€be€changed€from€Stewart€County.̛̜à ` àIn€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722€œ(Tenn.€1994),›€the€appellant€filed€a€pretrialÐ  d Ðmotion€for€change€of€venue.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€and€moved€the€trial€toÏanother€county,€over€the€appellantððs€objection,€for€the€limited€purpose€of€selecting€anÏunbiased€jury.€€Once€the€jury€was€selected,€the€trial€was€transferred€back€to€the€originalÏcounty.€€The€appellant€then€raised€this€issue€on€appeal,€characterizing€it€as€ð ðtwo€changesÏof€venue.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€727.€€In€reviewing€the€appellantððs€claim,€the€Supreme€Court€held:Ð ` ÐÓÓà8 ` àOur€Tennessee€Constitution€obviously€reflects€similar€concerns€and€values.€ÏThe€dispositive€question€here€is€whether€the€defendant€waived€his€rightsÏunder€Article€I,€ðð€9,€as€to€both€venue€and€vicinage€when€he€moved€for€aÏchange€of€venue.€€We€conclude€that€the€change€of€venue€motion€constitutesÏa€waiver€of€Article€I,€ðð€9,€rights.€€Accordingly,€unless€the€defendant€isÏprejudiced,€the€administration€of€justice€harmed,€or€the€trial€court€abuses€itsÏdiscretion,€no€reversible€error€occurs€when€a€trial€court€judge€employs€theÏunorthodox€procedure€used€in€this€case€in€response€to€a€defendant's€motionÏfor€a€change€of€œvenue.ÓLmÓÐ ` (#` (# ÐòòIdóó.›€at€728.Ð Ø( М̛à ` àBased€on€this€holding,€appellant€Quintero€waived€any€constitutional€complaint€to€theÏsecond€change€of€venue.€€Moreover,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€appellant€QuinteroÏwas€prejudiced,€that€the€administration€of€justice€was€harmed,€or€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion.€€Here,€both€appellants€admitted€at€the€hearing€on€the€change€of€venue€fromÏCheatham€County€that€they€would€not€be€able€to€pick€an€unbiased€jury€after€co„defendantÏBlanton€had€been€tried€in€that€county.̛̜à ` àFinally,€appellant€Quintero€does€not€have€a€claim€under€Rule€21,€which€only€confersÏprocedural€rights€upon€a€defendant.€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€906€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ð/ +0 Ð1995),œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€this€Court€held€that€when€venue€was€changed€to€a€different€county,€the€appellantÐ œ1ì,2 Ðwas€entitled€to€protections€similar€to€those€he€had€in€the€original€county€under€Rule€21.€€òòIdóó.Ð h3¸.4 Ðâ âat€10.€€The€Court€determined€that€on€remand€for€resentencing,€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ 45„06 Ðgranting€a€motion€for€change€of€venue€over€the€objection€of€the€appellant.€€Basing€itsÏdecision€on€Rule€21,€the€Court€stated:Ìâ âÓÓà8 ` à[R]egardless€of€whether€the€defendant€or€the€trial€court,€with€the€defendant'sÏconsent,€moves€for€a€change€of€venue,€the€threshold€determination€to€beÏmade€is€whether,€in€fact,€cause€exists€to€conclude€that€a€fair€trial€probablyÏcannot€be€had.€€Rule€21€contemplates€that€such€a€showing€be€made€ofÏrecord.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€Rule€21(a)€and€(b).Ðà 0` (#` (# ÐÌÓ1uÓœòòIdóó.›€Ð ¬ ü  М̛à ` àUnlike€in€òòSmithóó,€appellant€Quintero€waived€any€rights€under€Rule€21€by€waiting€toÐ D”  Ðraise€this€issue€now.€€Accordingly,€while€appellant€Quintero€may€have€been€able€to€raiseÏa€claim€under€Rule€21€if€he€had€pursued€an€interlocutory€or€extraordinary€appeal€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€or€10,€such€is€not€available€to€appellant€Quintero€at€this€juncture.€ÏMoreover,€by€statements€made€to€the€trial€court€by€appellant€Quinteroððs€counsel,€it€wasÏclear€that€a€fair€trial€could€not€have€been€had€in€Cheatham€County.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€906Ð @ ÐS.W.2d€at€10.€€Finding€that€any€constitutional€or€procedural€claim€has€been€waived,€weÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€remove€the€case€from€Cheatham€County.ÌÌœò òÌ›à@!DàCONSOLIDATION€OF€PRESENTMENTSˆÌœó óÌ›à ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€stateððs€pre„trialÏmotion€to€consolidate€the€presentments€in€this€case€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(b).€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellants€assert€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€finding€of€aÏcommon€scheme€or€plan€and,€furthermore,€that€the€evidence€of€all€of€the€cases€on€trialÏwould€not€have€been€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€all€the€others.̛̜à ` àUnder€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€13(a),€a€ð ðcourt€may€order€consolidation€of€two€or€moreÏindictments,€presentments,€or€informations€for€trial€if€the€offenses€and€all€appellants€couldÏhave€been€joined€in€a€single€indictment,€presentment,€or€information€pursuant€to€Rule€8.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(b)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 ` àTwo€or€more€offenses€may€be€joined€in€the€same€indictment,€presentment,Ïor€information,€with€each€offense€stated€in€a€separate€count,€or€consolidatedÐ Ê95; Ðpursuant€to€Rule€13€if€the€offenses€constitute€parts€of€a€common€scheme€orÏplan€or€if€they€are€of€the€same€or€similar€œcharacter.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ&}ÓÌ›à ` àBased€on€the€facts€and€on€argument€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€granted€the€stateððsÏmotion€to€consolidate€the€presentments€in€this€case.€€Subsequently,€several€motions€toÏsever€were€filed€by€the€appellants€and€denied€by€the€trial€court.€ÌœÌ›à ` àThe€decision€to€consolidate€separate€indictments€is€a€procedural€matter€which€isÏwithin€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòMcCook€v.€Stateóó,€555€S.W.2d€411,€412€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð *z  ÐApp.1977).€€Having€consolidated€the€offenses€pursuant€to€Rule€8(b),€the€appropriateÏstandard€for€evaluating€whether€a€severance€should€be€granted€is€Rule€14(b)(1).€€TheÏappellants€have€a€right€to€severance€"unless€the€offenses€are€part€of€a€common€schemeÏor€plan€and€the€evidence€of€one€would€be€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others."€€€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€14(b)(1).€€Both€portions€of€the€rule€must€be€satisfied€to€avoid€severance:€€thereÏmust€be€a€common€scheme€or€plan€and€the€evidence€of€one€offense€must€be€admissibleÏat€œthe€trial›€of€the€others.̛̜à ` àIn€determining€whether€or€not€to€grant€a€severance,€the€trial€court€must€look€at€"theÏfacts€and€circumstances€involved€in€the€various€crimes€that€are€charged."€€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,Ð "$r# Ð788€S.W.2d€820,€822€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€decision€to€grant€a€severance€is€leftÏto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€642€(Tenn.Ð º' #' ÐCrim.€App.€1990),€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€defendant€is€unfairly€or€undulyÏprejudiced.€€òòSeeóó€€òòWoodruff€v.€Stateóó,€164€Tenn.€(11€Smith)€530,€539,€51€S.W.2d€843,€845Ð R+¢&+ Ð(1932);€òòState€v.€Wisemanóó,€643€S.W.2d€354,€362€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€It€is€theÐ -n(- Ðresponsibility€of€the€defendant€to€show€that€he€was€clearly€prejudiced€by€the€trial€court'sÏrefusal€to€sever€the€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hodgkinsonóó,€778€S.W.2d€54,€61€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¶0,1 ÐApp.€1989).̛̜à ` àCommon€scheme€or€plan€encompasses€groups€or€sequences€of€crimes€committedÏin€order€to€achieve€a€common€ultimate€goal€or€purpose€as€well€as€crimes€which€occurÏwithin€a€single€criminal€action.€€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€290€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ²95; Ð1993).€€In€the€present€case,€the€various€crimes€and€the€sequence€of€their€occurrence€wereÏpart€of€a€greater€plan€to€leave€the€country€and€to€avoid€capture€by€the€Kentucky€authorities;Ïthus,€establishing€the€first€prong€under€Rule€14(b).€€All€of€the€crimes€for€which€theÏappellants€were€charged€occurred€in€the€Leatherwood€community€of€Stewart€County€withinÏless€than€a€week.€€Key€pieces€of€evidence€found€at€the€murder€scene€and€in€the€Vesters'Ïstolen€car€linked€the€appellants€to€the€burglaries€and€thefts€from€the€Cherry,€Foster,€andÏVester€residences;€and€evidence€of€the€burglaries€and€thefts€from€the€Foster,€Cherry,€andÏVester€residences€aided€in€establishing€the€appellantsðð€opportunity,€motive,€and€intent€toÏkill€the€Vesters.€€Further,€evidence€of€the€uncharged€crimes€at€the€McMinn,€Harris,€andÏCrawford€residences€helped€to€establish€the€appellantsðð€common€scheme€to€escape€fromÏthe€Kentucky€authorities.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¨ø Ð1983).̛̜à ` àMoreover,€we€find€that€the€second€prong€has€been€met.€€In€making€thisÏdetermination,€we€have€looked€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence;€specifically,€RuleÏ404(b).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€290„92.€€The€"admission€of€evidence€of€otherÐ ¤ô Ðcrimes€which€tends€to€show€a€common€scheme€or€plan€is€proper€to€show€identity,€guiltyÏknowledge,€intent,€motive,€to€rebut€a€defense€of€mistake€or€accident,€or€to€establish€someÏother€relevant€issue."€€òòIdóó.€at€92.€€There€is€no€doubt€that€in€this€case,€the€proof€of€eachÐ %X $ Ðoffense€was€inextricably€connected€with€the€evidence€of€the€other€offenses.€€In€such€cases,Ïthe€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€sever€the€offenses€is€not€error.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€903„904€(Tenn.€1995).€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ l*¼%* Ðmerit.ÌÌò òà@DàINTRODUCTION€OF€TELEPHONE€RECORDSó óˆÐ Ð/ +0 Ðà ` àAt€trial,€an€AT&T€telephone€bill€was€introduced€into€evidence€through€ThomasÏHarris.€€He€testified€that€the€bill€reflected€phone€calls€made€from€his€trailer€in€theÏLeatherwood€area€on€June€19,€1988.€€The€bill€itself€showed€that€three€long€distance€callsÏwere€made€to€a€phone€number€in€Springtown,€Texas.€€Mr.€Harris€testified€that€he€did€notÏplace€the€calls.€€Later,€Jerry€Henderson,€the€records€custodian€for€GTE€telephone€companyÐ Ø8(4: Ðin€Dallas,€Texas,€testified€that€the€phone€number€had€been€listed€in€the€name€of€BryanÏœQuintero›€at€the€time€of€the€calls.€ÌœÌ›à ` àAppellant€Quintero€argues€that€the€initial€recitation€from€Mr.€Harrisðð€AT&T€telephoneÏbill€was€hearsay€and€constituted€a€violation€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€confrontÏwitnesses.€€He€further€argues€that€the€evidence€did€not€bear€its€own€indicia€of€reliability,Ïand€therefore€the€state€was€required€to€secure€the€presence€of€the€custodian€of€recordsÏfor€AT&T.€€We€disagree.̛̜à ` àIn€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€this€Court€held€thatÐ Ü, Ðcomputer€generated€records€are€not€hearsay:ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€role€that€the€hearsay€rule€plays€in€limiting€the€fact€finder's€considerationÏto€reliable€evidence€received€from€witnesses€who€are€under€oath€and€subjectÏto€cross-examination€has€no€application€to€the€computer€generated€recordÏin€this€case.€€Instead,€the€admissibility€of€the€computer€tracing€system€recordÏshould€be€measured€by€the€reliability€of€the€system,€itself,€relative€to€itsÏproper€functioning€and€accuracy.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòPenny€v.€Commonwealthóó,€6Ð òB ÐVa.App.€494,€370€S.E.2d€314,€316-317€(1988);€€òòPeople€v.€Holowkoóó,€109€Ill.2dÐ Ø( Ð187,€93€Ill.Dec.€344,€346,€486€N.E.2d€877,€879€(1985).€€In€this€case,€theÏrecord€reflects€that€persons€with€special€knowledge€about€the€operation€ofÏthe€computer€system€gave€evidence€about€the€accuracy€and€reliability€of€theÏcomputer€tracing€so€as€to€justify€the€admission€of€the€computer€printouts.€ÏThe€rule€against€hearsay€is€not€implicated.€Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓēӜòòIdóó.›€at€376.€€€In€òòMeeksóó,€persons€with€special€knowledge€about€the€operation€of€the€computerÐ "$r# Ðsystem€testified€as€to€the€systemððs€accuracy€and€reliability.€€Here,€the€state€did€not€presentÏthe€testimony€of€an€AT&T€records€custodian,€but€there€was€testimony€from€Mr.€Henderson,Ïan€employee€from€the€Texas€phone€company.€€He€testified€that€AT&Tððs€billing€system€isÏhighly€reliable€and€that€all€local€phone€companies€doing€business€with€AT&T€have€theÏexact€same€billing€system.€€Mr.€Henderson€testified€extensively,€and€we€find€that€hisÏtestimony€was€sufficient€to€confirm€the€reliability€of€the€telephone€bill€under€òòMeeksóó.Ð ê.:*/ ÐÌò òà@\\#DàTESTIMONY€OF€PRIOR€CRIMESó óˆÐ ‚2Ò-3 М̛à ` àAppellant€Quintero€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€a€mistrial€afterÏZackery€Pallay€testified€that€he€and€Quintero€had€ð ðdone€the€armed€robbery€together.ðð€€HeÏcontends€that€due€to€the€similarities€of€the€crime€of€armed€robbery€and€the€charges€in€thisÐ ¾95; Ðcase,€the€mention€of€the€armed€robbery€was€devastating.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€denied€appellant€Quinteroððs€request€for€a€mistrial.̛̜à ` àAt€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€ruling€concerning€theÏtestimony€of€Mr.€Pallay,€a€witness€for€the€œprosecution:›ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àAll€right.€€Gentlemen,€Iððm€going€to€rule€that€this€witness€is€not€to€testifyÏabout€the€armed€robbery€conviction€and€the€reason€being€is€this,€let€me€goÏback€a€little€bit.€€He€has€known€Mr.€Quintero€since€they€were€youngsters.€€HeÏwill€testify€that€he€was€„„€Iððm€sure€the€reason€of€this€evidence€that€him€and€hisÏfather€used€to€set€up€trailers€in€the€Leatherwood€area,€Mr.€Quintero€and€hisÏfather,€so€that€puts€Mr.€Quintero€familiar€with€the€Leatherwood€area,€so€thatÏcuts€down€on€the€probative€value€of€what€else€youððre€trying€to€get€to.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àThat€is,€that€you€can€prove€by€this€testimony€that€Mr.€Quintero€wasÏfamiliar€with€the€Leatherwood€area,€so€that€cuts€down€on€that€probative€valueÏof€what€was€even€said€later€on€when€they€were€in€prison,€number€one.€€AndÏnumber€two,€is€the€prejudicial€effect€certainly€in€that€case€then€wouldÏoutweigh€the€probative€value,€so€do€not€state€that€they€were€in€prison,€œperiod.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÓ“ŸÓÓÓÌÓÓÌ›à ` àShortly€into€his€testimony,€Mr.€Pallay€stated€that€he€and€appellant€Quintero€had€beenÏclose€friends€ð ð[u]p€until€the€time€we€done€the€armed€robbery€together.ðð€€The€trial€court,€òòsuaóóÐ Ø( Ðòòsponteóó,€instructed€the€jury€to€ð ðstrike€that€last€statement,€disregard€that€completely.ðð€€A€jury„Ð ¤ô Ðout€hearing€was€then€held€where€appellant€Quintero€requested€a€mistrial,€which€the€trialÏcourt€denied.̛̜à ` àWhether€to€grant€a€mistrial€lies€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,Ð Ô&$"& Ð786€S.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990).€€A€mistrial€should€be€declared€in€a€criminal€case€onlyÏin€the€event€of€a€"manifest€necessity"€that€requires€such€action.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819Ð l*¼%* ÐS.W.2d€441,€443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€trial€court's€determination€will€not€beÏoverturned€on€appeal€unless€it€is€shown€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòState€v.Ð .T). ÐAdkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€644;€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Mounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€319,€322€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð Ð/ +0 М̛à ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€jury€was€already€aware€that€appellant€Quintero€was€anÏescaped€convict.€€Moreover,€Sheriff€Hicks€had€already€testified€that€appellant€Quintero€andÏMr.€Pallay€had€served€time€together€at€Eddyville.€€While€this€testimony€came€out€whenÏcounsel€for€appellant€Hall€was€cross„examining€Sheriff€Hicks,€there€was€no€objection€byÐ Ì84: Ðappellant€Quintero.€€More€importantly,€the€trial€court€gave€a€curative€instruction€which€theÏjury€is€presumed€to€have€followed.€€òòFrazier€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€545,€551€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð |Ì ÐApp.€1977).€€While€Mr.€Pallay€should€not€have€testified€that€he€and€appellant€Quintero€hadÏpreviously€committed€an€armed€robbery€together,€we€do€not€find€that€the€statement,€byÏitself,€required€€the€trial€court€to€grant€a€mistrial.̛̜à@ÓÓ$Dàò òIMPEACHMENT€OF€œWITNESSó ó›ˆÐ xÈ  М̛à ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€allowing€them€to€impeachÏthe€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witness,€Mr.€Pallay,€after€they€learned€that€he€had€committedÏperjury€during€the€jury„out€hearing.€€Specifically,€they€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏnot€allowing€them€to€present€testimony€and€certified€copies€of€warrants€issued€against€theÏwitness.€€The€appellants€further€argue€that€it€was€prosecutorial€misconduct€for€theÏprosecutor€to€neglect€to€bring€it€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court€when€he€was€aware€of€theÏmisrepresentation.€€Accordingly,€the€appellants€request€a€new€trial.Ìà ` àà ¸ àThe€questioned€jury„out€testimony€was€as€follows:Ìà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àMr.€Pallay,€do€you€have€any€convictions€other€than€armed€robbery?Ð|!Ì ¸ (#¸ (# МÓÓà ` àA.à8 ¸ àOther€than€an€armed€robbery,€bad€check€law,€that€would€be€about€it,Ð H#˜" Ðthatððs€all€I€can€recall.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àWould€that€be€felonies€or€misdemeanors?Ðú%J!%¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌ›à ` àA.à8 ¸ àIt€was€all€settled€out€of€œcourt.ÐÆ'#'¸ (#¸ (# Л̜à ` àQ.›à ¸ àWhen€did€those€œoccur?Ð ’)â$) ЛÌà ` àA.à8 ¸ àBack€when€I€was€eighteen€years€old,€eighteen€and€nineteen€years€œold.Ð^+®&+¸ (#¸ (# Л̜THE›€COURT:à8  àNo,€Iððm€not€going€to€let€you€do€that€now.€€That€wasnððt€in.€Ð *-z(- ÐAnything€since€the€armed€robbery€œconviction?Ð (#(# ЛÌà ` àA.à8 ¸ àNo,€sir,€not€to€my€œrecall.ÐÜ/,+0¸ (#¸ (# Л̜THE›€COURT:à8  àAll€œright.Ш1ø,2(#(# ЛÌà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àHave€you€had€any€arrests€since€you€were€œreleased?Ðt3Ä.4¸ (#¸ (# ЛÌà ` àA.à ¸ àI€canððt€recall€if€I€have€or€not.€€I€canððt€recall.€€Iððm€sorry,€you€œknow.Ð @506 ЛÌà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àThatððs€fair€enough,€I€suppose.€€One€thing€let€me€clarify€a€little€bit,€wereÐ  7\28 Ðyou€ever€violated€for€parole€or€anything,€had€to€go€back€in€and€doÏmore€time,€then€paroled€œagain?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ЛÐ ¾95; Ðà ` àA.à8 ¸ àNo,€sir.€€The€day€I€was€released€from€parole,€I€have€been€clean€sinceÐ ° Ðexcept€for€one€time€I€was€over€at€a€personððs€house€which€he€wasÏbusted€for€marijuana.€€I€was€not€charged€in€anything€on€that€chargeÏin€Jackson,€Tennessee.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌœÓÓWhen›€the€jury€returned,€Mr.€Pallay€testified€on€direct€that€he€had€previously€been€convictedÏof€armed€œrobbery.›ÌœÌ›à ` àLater€in€the€proceedings,€Sheriff€Ronnie€Toungette€testified€at€a€jury„out€hearing€thatÏhe€was€in€the€courtroom€when€Mr.€Pallay€testified.€€Sheriff€Toungette€testified€that€whenÏhe€heard€Mr.€Pallayððs€testimony,€he€realized€that€he€had€previously€arrested€Mr.€Pallay,€soÏhe€checked€some€records€at€his€office.€€The€appellants€sought€to€introduce€three€certifiedÏcopies€of€arrest€warrants,€including€one€for€perjury.€€During€argument€on€this€matter,€theÏprosecutor€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àI€was€aware€of€this€circumstance€and€would€have€„„€and€if€Counsel€had€goneÏinto€it,€we€would€have€„„€and€the€Court€had€allowed€him,€we€would€have€givenÏthe€opportunity€to€explain.€€The€witness€told€me€about€some€run„in€that€heÏhad€on€misdemeanor€charges€here€in€Humphreysðð€County€Court.€€But,€whenÏ„„€he€wasnððt€questioned€about€it€and€there€wasnððt€no€requirement€for€me€toÏdo€that.€€But€itððs€just€improper,€itððs€collateral.€€The€witness€was€never€givenÏan€opportunity€„„€he€was€never€asked€about€it.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌœÓÓThe›€trial€court€did€not€allow€the€appellants€to€present€the€warrants€or€the€testimony€ofÏSheriff€Toungette€to€the€jury.€€The€appellants€were€given€the€opportunity€to€subpoena€Mr.ÏPallay,€but€he€was€never€recalled.̛̜à ` àWhen€Mr.€Pallay€testified€that€ð ðI€have€been€cleanðð€since€the€day€he€was€releasedÏfrom€parole,€he€clearly€testified€falsely.€€Moreover,€the€prosecutor€stated€during€theÏdiscussion€of€this€matter€that€Mr.€Pallay€had€told€him€about€some€œprior›€ð ðrun„ins,ðð€indicatingÏthat€Mr.€Pallay€did€in€fact€recall€the€subsequent€arrest€warrants.̛̜à ` àTenn.€R.€Evid.€608(b)€states:ÌÓÓà8 ` àSpecific€instances€of€conduct€of€a€witness€for€the€purpose€of€attacking€orÏsupporting€the€witnessððs€credibility,€other€than€convictions€of€crime€asÏprovided€in€Rule€609,€may€not€be€proved€by€extrinsic€evidence.€€They€may,Ïhowever,€if€probative€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€and€under€the€followingÏconditions,€be€inquired€into€on€cross„examination€of€the€witness€concerningÏthe€witnessððs€character€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€or€concerning€theÏcharacter€for€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness€of€another€witness€as€to€whichÏthe€character€witness€being€cross„examined€has€testified.€€Ð ` (#` (# ÐÐ ²95; ÐÓӜ̛à ` àUnder€Rule€608(b),€extrinsic€proof€of€Mr.€Pallayððs€prior€arrests€would€not€beÏadmissible€in€court.€€The€appropriate€avenue€was€to€issue€a€subpoena€for€Mr.€Pallay,Ïrequest€a€jury„out€hearing€pursuant€to€Rule€608(b)(1),€and€attempt€to€cross„examine€himÏabout€his€prior€arrest€for€perjury.€€Because€the€appellants€failed€to€avail€themselves€of€thisÏremedy,€as€offered€by€the€trial€court,€any€error€was€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).̛̜à ` àFinally,€the€prosecutorððs€failure€to€reveal€that€the€stateððs€witness€was€beingÏuntruthful,€regardless€of€whether€the€questioning€was€proper,€is€troubling.€€A€prosecutorÏhas€both€a€legal€and€ethical€duty€to€correct€the€false€testimony€of€a€prosecution€witness.€ÏòòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€612€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Nevertheless,€theÐ ¨ø Ðappellants€had€an€opportunity€to€correct€any€error€and€waived€the€issue€by€failing€to€do€so.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).ÌÌœò òÌ›à@©©"DàRIGHT€TO€CONFRONT€WITNESSESó óˆÐ ° М̛à ` àAppellant€Quintero€argues€that€his€right€to€confront€witnesses,€guaranteed€by€theÏSixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€by€Article€1,€ðð€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€was€violated€when€the€trial€court€allowed€the€reading€of€Mr.€Pallayððs€unswornÏstatement€to€the€jury.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àAs€part€of€appellant€Hallððs€proof,€the€trial€court€allowed€appellant€Hall€and€the€stateÏto€enter€into€a€stipulation€that€Pallayððs€unsworn,€òòexóó€òòparteóó€statement€was€taken€by€T.B.I.Ð .l). ÐSpecial€Agent€Mike€Breedlove€during€the€investigation€of€the€case.€€Over€the€objection€ofÏappellant€Quintero,€counsel€for€appellant€Hall€was€allowed€to€read€Mr.€Pallayððs€statement,Ïas€recorded€by€Special€Agent€Breedlove,€to€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 ` àI€have€known€Quintero€since€I€was€eight€years€old.€€The€last€contact€I€hadÏwith€him€was€a€year€ago.€€I€would€correspond€with€him€through€letters.€€IÏcalled€the€Sheriffððs€Department€the€day€after€the€escape€and€told€the€womanÏthat€answered€the€phone€that€Quintero€wasnððt€dumb;€that€Quintero€wouldÏâ âbacktrack€himself;€and€that€he€would€probably€stay€along€the€lake;€he€couldÐ ä844: Ðbe€going€to€Jessieville,€Arkansas;€heððs€got€cousins,€uncles€and€aunts€there.€ÏHeððs€been€over€to€our€house.Ð ` (#` (# Ðâ âÌà8 ` àI€know€that€he€will€be€looking€for€me,€but€he€hasnððt€contacted€me.€€I€workedÏat€Mr.€Garrettððs€house€building€a€roof€on€his€trailer.€€I€am€a€carpenter€andÏheavy€equipment€operator.€€I€worked€on€his€roof€until€Saturday.€€I€guess€IÏstarted€around€six€a.m.,€and€quit€seven„thirty€or€eight€p.m.€€It€took€us€four€andÏa€half€days.€€At€night€I€would€be€over€at€Jack€Bowersðð€house.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àIððve€known€the€Vestersðð€since€I€was€six€or€seven€years€old.€€Iððm€not€taking€upÏfor€no€killer.€€I€talked€to€Mrs.€Vester€at€ten„thirty€a.m.,€Monday€morning.€€SheÏcalled€the€house.€€She€said€they€were€going€to€town€that€morning.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ*ÄӜ̛à ` àIn€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€œthat€the›€portion€of€Pallayððs€statement,€€ð ðIððmÏnot€taking€up€for€no€killer,ðð€would€not€be€redacted.€€In€so€ruling,€the€trial€court€said:ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€part€up€there€that,€œððIððm›€not€taking€up€for€no€œkiller,›€I€think€we€have€got€toÏlook€at€the€whole€circumstance.€€At€the€time€this€statement€is€made,€twoÏpeople,€neighbors€of€Mr.€Zach€Pelay€[sic],€had€been€killed.€€The€evidence€inÏthat€case,€at€least€whether€it€is€true€or€not,€everybody€was€looking€forÏBlanton,€Hall€and€Quintero.€€TBI€was€going€to€Mr.€Pelay€[sic]€questioning€him.€ÏHe€told€about€„„€the€other€day€in€here€about€his€fear€he€had€of€the€defendant,Ïone€or€more€of€the€defendants.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àGentlemen,€all€this€goes€to€the€state€of€mind.€€It€donððt€identify€anybody.€ÏAnother€neighbor€down€there€could€have€said€the€same€thing,€whether€theyÏdone€it€or€not.€€Itððs€not€offered€for€the€truth€of€the€matter.€€Itððs€not€saying€theyÏare€killers.€€Iððm€not€going€to€redact€the€last€statement€„„Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àAfter€reviewing€the€issue€further,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àThere€is€nothing€in€this€statement€about€Mr.€Quintero€by€Mr.€PelayÏ[sic]€that€hadnððt€already€been€testified€to€and€the€record€will€reflect€that.€ÏThere€is€no€prejudice€in€this€statement.€€I€am€going€to€go€ahead€and€let€Mr.ÏBagwell€introduce€the€statement€out€of€a€„„€between€he€and€the€State€areÏgoing€to€stipulate€that€if€Mr.€Stout€[sic]€was€called€his€statement€would€be€„„Ïhe€would€testify€that€this€is€what€Mr.€Pelay€[sic]€told€him.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àI€have€again€reviewed€the€statement,€and€reviewed€it€carefully,€andÏreviewed€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Pelay€[sic],€there€is€nothing.€€Heððs€talking€aboutÏJessieville,€Arkansas.€€He€mentioned€that€from€the€witness€stand.€€TalkedÏabout€him€calling€the€Sheriffððs€Department,€he€mentioned€that€from€theÏwitness€stand.€€Talked€about€working€on€the€house,€Mr.€Bagwell€said€that€isÏthe€reason€he€wants€it€in€because€he€thinks€he€can€get€him€where€thereððsÏsome€inconsistency€there.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àAnything€that€has€to€do€with€Mr.€Quintero€is€not€„„€he€says€heððs€knownÏhim€for€eight€years,€he€testified€that€from€the€witness€stand.€€He€did€deny€thatÏhe€has€had€contact€with€him.€€Here€he€says€heððs€corresponded€with€him.€€IÏdonððt€think€thatððs€such€a€prejudicial€nature.€€I€can€instruct€the€jury€otherwise.€ÏIððm€going€to€admit€the€statement€Mr.€Bagwell€and€Mr.€Alsobrooks€submittedÏand€I€will€so€instruct€the€jury.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌâ âÓӜР7P28 Лà ` àBefore€the€statement€was€read€to€the€jury,€the€trial€court€gave€the€following€juryÏâ âinstruction:ÌÓÓà8 ` àLadies€and€Gentlemen,€a€stipulation€has€been€entered€into€between€Mr.ÏHallððs€attorneys,€Mr.€Bagwell€and€Ms.€Roberts,€and€the€District€Attorney,€thatÏif€Mike€Breedlove€was€called,€an€agent€„„€special€agent€with€TennesseeÏBureau€of€Investigation,€was€called€he€would€testify€as€to€parts€of€aÏstatement€thatððs€now€going€to€be€stated€to€you.€€This€stipulation€is€notÏentered€into€by€Mr.€Quintero.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àYou€cannot€consider€this€statement€in€any€way€against€Mr.€Quintero,€for€orÏagainst€him,€you€canððt€even€consider€it.€€Mr.€Quintero€„„€if€thereððs€anything€inÏthere€for€him,€you€canððt€consider€it.€€If€there€is€anything€in€there€against€him,Ïyou€canððt€consider€it.€€It€donððt€exist€as€far€as€Mr.€Quintero€is€concerned.€€AllÏright.Ó‰ÔÓÐ ` (#` (# М̛à ` àUnder€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613(b),€ð ð[e]xtrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statementÏby€a€witness€is€not€admissible€unless€the€witness€is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€explain€orÏdeny€the€same€and€the€opposite€party€is€afforded€an€opportunity€to€interrogate€the€witnessÏthereon,€or€the€interests€of€justice€otherwise€œrequire.ðð›ÌœÌà@ee%Dàò ò[Paragraph€Deleted]ó ó*ˆÐ ¾ Лà ` àœÌà ` àHere,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€Mr.€Pallay€was€unavailable€as€a€witness€toÏrespond€to€his€earlier€statement€to€Special€Agent€Breedlove.€€According€to€òòMartinóó,€it€wasÐ .$~# Ðnot€procedural€error€to€allow€appellant€Hall€to€introduce€Mr€Pallayððs€prior€inconsistentÏstatement€in€order€to€impeach€his€credibility.ÌÌ›à ` àHowever,€the€portion€of€Mr.€Pallayððs€statement€to€Special€Agent€Breedlove€whereinÏPallay€said,€ð ðIððm€not€taking€up€for€no€killer,ðð€was€not€inconsistent€with€Mr.€Pallayððs€testimonyÏat€trial.€€While€a€direct€contradiction€is€not€necessary€for€a€statement€to€be€inconsistent,€andÏit€is€sufficient€if€the€inconsistency€has€a€reasonable€tendency€to€discredit€the€witnessððÏtestimony,€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€613.2,€at€407€(3d€ed.1995),€œÐ Ž2Þ-3 ÐÌ›€œà ` à*ÓÓÔ‡ôOÍôXX°þÔOne€paragraph€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€decision€has€been€deleted€because€it€discussed€theÐ &6v17 Ðintermediate€appellate€court€decision€in€òòState€v.€Henry€Martinóó,€No.€01C01„9411„CR„00397€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð  7\28 Ðat€Nashville,€May€24,€1996),€which€was€later€affirmed€as€modified€by€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€964€S.W.2dÐ Ê739 Ð564€(Tenn.€1998).Ð  ˆ8Ø3: ÐÓýÜÓÔ#†X°þXôôOÍÝ#Ôhere,€the€statement€cannot€be€said€to€have€had€a€reasonable€tendency€to€discredit€Mr.Ð ° ÐPallayððs›€testimony.€€While€Pallayððs€statement€that€he€was€not€taking€up€for€a€killer€may€have€œÌexplained›€Pallayððs€state€of€mind€at€the€time€he€made€the€statement,€it€does€not€explain€whyÏMr.€Pallay€gave€inconsistent€œstatements›€and€accordingly€was€irrelevant€in€attempting€toÏimpeach€Mr.€Pallayððs€credibility.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àAlthough€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€fail€to€redact€that€portion€of€PallayððsÏstatement€wherein€he€said,€ð ðIððm€not€taking€up€for€no€killer,ðð€under€the€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€we€find€that€this€evidentiary€error€was€harmless.€€Given€the€relative€strength€of€the€ÏStateððs€evidence€of€the€guilt€of€appellant€Quintero,€we€do€not€find€that€the€objected„toÏportion€of€Mr.€Pallayððs€statement€effected€the€judgment€or€resulted€in€prejudice€to€theÏjudicial€process.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b)€and€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€As€ourÐ tÄ ÐSupreme€Court€said€in€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€at€248€(Tenn.€1986):Ð @ ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€line€between€harmless€error€and€prejudicial€error€is€in€direct€proportionÏto€the€degree€of€the€margin€by€which€the€proof€exceeds€the€standard€toÏconvict€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Suttlesóó,€767€S.W.2d€403€(Tenn.€1989).Ð ¤ô М̛à ` àGiven€the€fact€that€the€trial€judge€advised€the€jury€that€no€portion€of€the€PallayÏstatement€could€be€considered€against€appellant€Quintero,€and€given€the€fact€that€the€proofÏof€guilt,€although€circumstantial,€was€overwhelming,€we€conclude€that€the€error€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìœò òÓÓñcñÌÌñcñ›à@+ + DàADMISSION€OF€COLOR€VIDEOTAPES€AND€PHOTOGRAPHSˆÌà@#DàAT€GUILT„INNOCENCE€PHASEó óÔ‡XV•XXX°þԈР0-€(- ÐÌÓӜ̛à ` àThe€appellants€argue€that€they€were€denied€a€fair€trial€by€the€introduction€of€the€colorÏvideos€and€photographs€of€the€crime€scene€and€of€the€victims'€bodies.€€In€particular,€theÏappellants€complain€that€the€display€of€bodies€and€blood€splatterings€to€the€jury€wasÏâ âespecially€prejudicial€in€this€case€of€circumstantial€evidence.€€Further,€the€appellants€submitÐ Œ6Ü17 Ðthat€the€video€tapes€and€photographs€were€needlessly€cumulative€€when€compared€to€theÏphysical€evidence€and€the€testimony€of€the€crime€scene€investigators.€Ìâ âÌà ` àAt€trial,€a€color€video€of€the€crime€scene€taken€by€the€Sheriffððs€Department€wasÏinitially€shown€to€the€jury.€€On€the€video€tape,€the€victimsðð€bodies€could€be€seen€as€theyÏwere€found€at€the€crime€scene.€€Also,€in€conjunction€with€the€testimony€of€various€lawÏenforcement€officials€investigating€this€case,€numerous€photographs€of€the€exterior€andÏinterior€of€the€Vestersðð€house,€as€well€as€physical€evidence€and€drawings€of€the€house,Ïwere€introduced€into€evidence.€€A€second€video€of€the€crime€scene€was€also€presented€toÏthe€jury,€but€only€that€portion€of€the€video€showing€the€exterior€of€the€Vestersðð€house.ÌÌò òà@88%DàA.€€Color€Video€Tapesó óˆÐ P  М̛à ` àThe€first€color€video€tape,€which€was€taken€when€officers€from€the€Stewart€CountyÏSheriff's€Department€first€arrived€on€the€scene,€shows€the€exterior€and€the€interior€of€theÏVesters'€home,€including€the€victims'€bodies€as€they€were€œfound.›ÌœÌ›à ` àThe€admissibility€of€video€tapes€of€a€crime€scene€is€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court,€and€its€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€such€evidence€will€not€be€overturnedÏwithout€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€807Ð P( #& Ð(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___Ð 0*€%( ÐS.Ct.€___,€114€S.Ct.€1577,€128€œL.€Ed.€2d›€220€(1994).ÌœÌà ` à›à ¸ àIn€finding€that€this€video€tape€was€probative,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àœà8¸ ` (#` (#àIððve›€reviewed€this€film.€€The€bottom€line,€itððs€a€picture€of€a€crimeÏscene.€€Itððs€a€good€picture.€€I€think€itððs€much€better€than€a€stillÏphoto€because€a€still€photo€you€have€all€kinds€of€interpretationÏabout€angles€and€everything€else.€€This€is€not.€€So€this€is€veryÏprobative.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌœà8 ` à›à8¸ ` (#` (#àNow,€every€crime€scene,€especially€if€it€involves€the€loss€of€aÏlife€of€someone,€certainly€is€going€to€have€some€gruesomeÏeffect€to€it.€€If€anybody€cares€anything€about€human€life,€itððsÏgoing€to€have€a€gruesome€effect€to€it.Ð :p59¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Їœà8 ` à›à8¸ ` (#` (#àBut€in€this€case,€the€officer€has€done,€I€think,€an€excellent€jobÏin€avoiding€making€the€picture€gruesome.€€It€shows€them,€twoÏbodies.€€Didnððt€dwell€on€them.€€It€does€show€some€blood€onÏMrs.€Vesterððs€leg.€€However,€it€also€shows€holes€in€the€screen,Ïone€screen€missing.€€It€shows€a€hole€in€another€screen.€€ItÏshows€the€angle€these€had€to€have€come€from,€the€shots.€ÏAssuming€that€they€prove€the€shots€is€what€made€the€holes€inÏthe€screens.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌœà8 ` à›à8¸ ` (#` (#àI€donððt€think€itððs€gruesome.€€No€more€gruesome€than€any€deathÏof€a€human€being.€€So€Iððm€going€to€overrule€your€objection€andÏallow€the€film€to€be€admitted.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àœÌ›à ` àAs€in€òòBigbeeóó,€"the€challenged€portion€of€the€tape€is€unpleasant€because€it€showsÐ À Ðpostmortem€lividity€and€some€rigor€mortis,"€but€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÏin€allowing€the€video€tape€to€be€played€for€the€jury.€€885€S.W.2d€at€807.€€It€should€also€beÏnoted€that€no€photographs€of€the€victimsðð€bodies€were€introduced€at€the€guilt/innocenceÏphase.̛̜à ` àLater€in€the€trial,€a€second€video€tape,€which€was€taken€by€the€T.B.I.,€was€shown€toÏthe€jury.€€However,€the€video€only€showed€the€exterior€of€the€house€and€the€areaÏsurrounding€the€house.€€While€somewhat€cumulative€of€the€first€video,€it€was€short€andÏprovided€a€more€concise€view€of€the€window€screens€and€evidence€found€around€theÏoutside€of€the€house.€€Moreover,€the€appellants€made€no€contemporaneous€objection€toÏthe€introduction€of€this€portion€of€the€video.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).Ð `'°"% Мò òÌ›à@??(DàB.€€œPhotographsó ó›ˆÐ  +p&) М̛à ` àAs€with€the€admissibility€of€the€video€tapes,€"the€admissibility€of€photographs€is€aÏmatter€to€be€determined€by€the€trial€court€in€the€exercise€of€its€sound€discretion."€€òòCagle€v.Ð À0,/ ÐStateóó,€507€S.W.2d€121,€132€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€Absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuseÐ  2ð-1 Ðof€discretion,€the€trial€court's€ruling€will€not€be€overturned.€€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,Ð €4Ð/3 Ð949€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ìâ âœÐ @837 Лà ` àUnder€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401,€relevant€evidence€is€defined€as€that€ð ðhaving€any€tendencyÏâ âto€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionÏmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€€Relevant€evidenceÏmay€be€excluded€ð ðif€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undueÏdelay,€waste€of€time,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï403.Ô#†X°þXXXV•–æ#ÔÔ‡XV•XXX°þÔÐ ð@  М̛à ` àWhile€the€appellants€do€not€specify€or€discuss€the€individual€photographs€they€areÏchallenging,€they€cite€to€the€record€where€various€photographs€were€introduced€intoÏevidence.€€Most€of€the€photographs€were€of€the€exterior€of€the€house,€the€different€bedroomÏwindows,€the€window€screens,€and€the€damaged€wires€in€the€telephone€box€outside€theÏhouse.€€Only€a€few€of€the€photographs,€specifically€four,€involved€blood€splatterings,€andÏnone€of€the€photographs€were€of€the€victimsðð€bodies.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ` М̛à ` àThe€first€photograph€shows€blood€on€Mr.€Vester's€bed€and€pillow.€€After€a€lengthyÏdiscussion€from€both€sides,€the€trial€court€admitted€the€photograph€to€show€premeditationÏand€to€show€the€angle€of€the€shot.€€The€second€photograph€shows€the€spray€of€blood€inÏthe€bathroom.€€The€trial€court€stated€"I€donððt€think€this€picture€is€gruesome€and€it€does€haveÏprobative€value€so€Iððll€overrule€the€objection€on€that."Ô#†X°þXXXV•îü#ÔÔ‡XV•XXX°þÔÐ P( #& М̛à ` àThe€third€photograph€shows€Mrs.€Vester's€bed€with€a€small€amount€of€blood.€€TheÏtrial€court€stated€ð ðI€donððt€think€that€picture€is€overly€gruesome.€€And€itððs€been€revealed€hereÏto€the€Court,€itððs€been€stated€here€to€the€Court€that€theyððre€going€to€show€that€Mrs.€VesterÏwas€mortally€wounded€several€times€by€different€instruments€and€I€think€that€kind€of€„„Ïâ âunless€it€gets€completely€out€of€bounds,€it€makes€it€all€probative.€€Unless,€as€I€say,€it€getsÐ 3à.2 Ðcompletely€out€of€bounds,€Iððm€going€to€keep€„„€this€right€here€is€not€that€gruesome€and€IððmÏgoing€to€overrule€the€objection€and€enter€œ#€120.ðð›Ìâ âœÌ›à ` àThe€fourth€photograph€shows€the€closet€next€to€the€bathroom€where€there€is€aÏsubstantial€amount€of€blood.€€In€admitting€the€photograph,€the€trial€court€stated€ð ð[t]he€factÏthat€it€shows€location,€it€shows€where€[Mrs.€Vester]€was€in€the€house.€€Weððve€got€picturesÏhere€now€that€show€she€was€wounded€in€different€places€in€the€house.€€Itððs€probative€andÏitððs€not€that€gruesome€either.€€This€picture€is€not€gruesome.ðð€€The€trial€court€went€on€to€stateÏthat€ð ðthere€were€some€real€gruesome€pictures€that€have€been€excluded€previously.€€Not€inÏthis€trial€but€in€the€other€trial.€€That€I€excluded.€€These€I€didnððt€think€it€was€gruesome€thenÏand€I€donððt€think€itððs€gruesome€now.€€I€think€it€does€have€probative€value.€€So€the€probativeÏvalue€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect.€€Or€prejudicial€effect€does€not€outweigh€its€probativeÏvalue.ððÌœÔ#†X°þXXXV•S#ÔÔ‡XV•XXX°þÔÌ›à ` àWe€find€that€none€of€the€photographs€were€inflammatory,€especially€considering€theÏfacts€of€this€case.€€Even€though€the€jury€convicted€the€appellants€of€felony„murder,€theÏappellants€were€charged€with€both€felony„murder€and€premeditated€murder.€€Thus,€theÏphotographs€were€relevant€in€the€stateððs€attempt€to€prove€that€the€murders€were€committedÏduring€the€perpetration€of€a€felony€or€were€done€with€premeditation€and€œdeliberation;›€œi.e.,›Ïthe€circumstances€and€manner€of€death€and€the€location€and€proximity€of€the€shootings.€ÏIn€addition,€the€facts€of€this€seven„week€trial€were€complex,€and€the€photographs€and€theÏvideos€were€necessary€to€inform€the€jury€and€to€help€it€keep€each€aspect€of€the€case€inÏorder.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€allowing€the€state€to€introduce€theseÏphotographs€at€the€guilt€phase.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€542€(Tenn.Ð Ð/ +. Ð1994);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477.Ð °1-0 МÔ#†X°þXXXV•¹#ÔñcñÌñcñò òñcñÌñcññcñÐ  3à.2 Ðñcñ›à@(DàPHOTO€LINE„UPó ó׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׈Ð ° ÐñcñœñcñÌà ` àAppellant€Quintero€argues€that€the€photo€array€shown€to€the€witnesses€in€MemphisÏcreated€a€substantial€likelihood€of€misidentification€due€to€the€suggestiveness€of€the€array.€ÏSpecifically,€appellant€Quintero€argues€that€based€upon€the€facts€of€this€case,€theÏphotographic€array€was€impermissibly€suggestive€because€he€was€the€only€darkÏcomplected€individual€in€the€array,€and€this€fact€was€emphasized€because€the€backgroundÏof€his€photograph€was€noticeably€darker.€€This,€appellant€Quintero€argues,€would€tend€toÏdraw€the€eye€of€anyone€looking€for€a€ð ðdark€skinnedðð€individual.€€He€further€argues€that€theÏphoto€array€was€so€suggestive€that€the€admission€of€Shirley€Morrowððs€in„court€identificationÏdenied€him€the€right€to€due€process€of€law.€€We€agree€that€the€photographic€line„up€wasÏsuggestive€as€to€appellant€Quintero.€€We€also€agree€that€Ms.€Christof€should€not€haveÏbeen€allowed€to€testify€concerning€her€identification€of€appellant€Quintero€from€the€photoÏline„up;€however,€after€reviewing€the€record€we€do€not€find€that€Ms.€Morrowððs€identificationÏwas€unduly€tainted€by€the€suggestive€photo„line€up.€ÌœÌ›à ` àPhotographs€contained€in€a€photographic€array€do€not€have€to€mirror€the€accused.€ÏInstead,€the€law€simply€requires€that€the€police€refrain€from€"suggestive€identificationÏprocedures."€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€93€S.Ct.€375,€34€œL.€Ed.€2d›€401€(1972).€€Thus,Ð %d $ Ða€photographic€identification€is€admissible€unless,€based€upon€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€"the€confrontation€œconducted€.€.€.€was›€so€unnecessarily€suggestive€andÏconducive€to€irreparable€mistaken€identification€that€[the€accused]€was€denied€due€processÏof€law."€€òòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€301„302,€87€S.Ct.€1967,€1972,€18€œL.€Ed.€2d›€1199,Ð D,”', Ð1206€(1967).€€In€òòBiggersóó,€the€Court€set€forth€a€five„factor€analysis€for€determining€whetherÐ .`). Ðan€identification€tainted€by€suggestion€may€nonetheless€be€admitted€into€evidence:ÌÓӜ̛à ` à1.à8 ¸ àthe€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€theÐ Ž2Þ-3 Ðcrime.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à2.à8 ¸ àthe€witness's€degree€of€attention€at€the€time€of€the€crime.Ð@506¸ (#¸ (# Їà ` à3.à8 ¸ àthe€accuracy€of€the€witness's€prior€description€of€the€criminal.а¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à4.à8 ¸ àthe€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€at€the€confrontation.Ð|̸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à5.à8 ¸ àthe€length€of€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.ÐH˜¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓÓœòòÌBiggersóó,›€409€U.S.€at€199,€93€S.Ct.€at€382;€òòState€v.€Philpottóó,€882€S.W.2d€394,€400€(Tenn.Ð à 0 ÐCrim.€App.€œ1994).›ÌœÌ›à ` àThe€photographic€array€shown€to€identification€witnesses€Darlene€Christof,€ShirleyÏDenise€Morrow,€and€Curtis€Jones€included€pictures€of€the€eight€escapees€from€Eddyville,ÏKentucky.€€Co„defendant€Blanton€was€the€first€picture€in€the€first€row€of€four€photographs,Ïappellant€Quintero's€photograph€was€number€five€directly€underneath€co„defendantÏBlantonððs€photograph,€and€appellant€Hall's€photograph€was€number€six,€next€to€appellantÏQuinteroððs€photograph.€€Appellant€Quintero€is€the€only€Hispanic€in€the€line„up€and€hisÏpicture€is€a€shade€darker€than€the€others.€€There€was€no€attempt€to€choose€photographsÏof€men€with€similar€physical€characteristics.̛̜à ` àA€jury„out€hearing€was€held€on€the€admissibility€of€testimony€from€Darlene€Christof,ÏShirley€Morrow,€and€Curtis€Jones.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€held€thatÏthe€testimony€was€admissible€with€the€exception€that€Mr.€Jones€was€instructed€not€to€testifyÏthat€he€had€identified€appellant€Quintero€from€the€photo€line„up.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àAt€the€hearing,€Ms.€Christof€testified€that€she€was€working€as€a€dancer€at€BlueÏMovies€West€on€June€21,€1988.€€Three€scruffy„looking€men€came€into€her€booth.€€BecauseÏonly€one€person€was€permitted€in€the€booth€at€a€time,€two€of€the€men€left.€€The€third€manÏstayed€a€few€minutes,€then€left.€€The€third€man€returned€to€the€booth€in€a€few€minutes€withÏsilver€dollars.€€He€wanted€Ms.€Christof€to€dance,€but€he€did€not€have€enough€money,€so€heÏagain€left.€ÌœÌ›à ` àMs.€Christof€had€read€about€the€escapees€in€the€newspaper€and€wanted€the€threeÏmen€to€leave.€€She€walked€to€the€front€of€the€store€like€she€was€going€to€make€a€phone€callÐ Ì84: Ðand€asked€the€people€working€if€they€had€heard€about€the€escapees€from€the€KentuckyÏprison.€€The€three€men€immediately€left.€€Ms.€Christof€testified€that€the€three€men€were€onlyÏten€feet€away€when€she€made€this€statement.̛̜à ` àMs.€Christof€testified€that€she€could€not€remember€how€many€of€the€pictures€she€hadÏpicked€out€for€Agent€Richard€Stout,€who€showed€her€the€photo€line„up,€however,€sheÏremembered€picking€out€number€five€(Quintero)€because€he€was€the€only€MexicanÏindividual€in€the€line„up.€€She€could€not€pick€out€the€three€pictures€at€the€time€of€herÏtestimony,€nor€could€she€identify€the€men€as€being€in€the€courtroom.€The€following€colloquyÏoccurred€during€cross„examination:̛̜à8 ` àQ.à ¸ àDo€you€remember€if€you€picked€out€anybody?ÐtÄ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àA.à ¸ àI€think€„„€Iððm€pretty€sure€I€picked€out€a€Mexican€looking€guy.Ð@` (#` (# ÐÓÓà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àAnd€the€reason€that€you€picked€him€out,€would€I€be€safe€in€assumingÐ  \ Ðor€asking€you€this€question,€the€reason€you€picked€him€out€wasÏbecause€he€was€Mexican€looking?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓ"Óà ` àA.à ¸ àYes.Ð ¤ô ÐÓÓà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àAnd€was€that€the€only€Mexican€looking€photograph€that€was€shown€toÐ p!À  Ðyou,€that€there€was€only€one€Mexican€looking€person€in€the€array,Ïwasnððt€there?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓV#Óà ` àA.à ¸ àYes.Ð %X $ М̛à ` àAt€the€end€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€photographic€array€wasÏnot€suggestive€and€that€Ms.€Christof€could€testify.̛̜à ` àSubsequently,€Ms.€Christof€testified€at€trial€that€she€had€identified€number€fiveÏ(Quintero)€for€Agent€Stout€as€one€of€the€three€men€that€came€into€her€booth.€€She€wasÏunable€to€identify€appellant€Quintero€in€the€courtroom,€stating€that€she€did€not€see€anyÏHispanics.̛̜à ` àMs.€Morrow€testified€at€the€hearing€that€in€June€of€1988,€she€worked€as€cashier€atÏthe€Blue€Movies€West€near€the€bus€station.€€On€the€morning€of€Tuesday,€June€21,€threeÐ Ì84: Ðmen€came€into€the€bookstore€and€traded€silver€dollars€and€half€dollars€in€order€to€purchaseÏtokens€to€watch€the€ð ðlive€girlðð€shows.€€Ms.€Morrow€also€purchased€some€silver€dollars€forÏherself.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àFifteen€or€twenty€minutes€later,€the€three€men€returned€to€the€cash€register.€€Ms.ÏMorrow€carried€on€a€conversation€with€appellant€Quintero.€€He€tried€to€sell€her€a€class€ringÏfor€$50.€€She€told€him€to€take€it€to€a€pawn€shop,€but€he€said€he€didnððt€have€anyÏidentification.€€The€three€men€were€standing€right€around€the€cash€register,€and€she€wasÏable€to€get€a€good€look€at€them.€€Ms.€Morrow€testified€that€at€about€this€time,€ð ð[Ms.€Christof]Ïcame€out€of€the€back€and€she€said,€did€you€all€hear€about€those€prisoners€that€broke€outÏup€in€Tennessee.€€And€she€said,€you€all€look€just€like€them.€€And€then€they€left.ðð€€€ÌœÌ›à ` àTwo€days€later,€Agent€Stout€interviewed€Ms.€Morrow€and€showed€her€the€sameÏphotographic€array.€€Ms.€Morrow€picked€out€appellant€Quintero,€appellant€Hall,€and€co„¼defendant€Blanton.€€She€testified€that€appellant€Quintero€was€heavier€and€shorter€than€theÏother€two€men.€€She€also€testified€that€appellant€Quintero€had€a€beard.€€She€thought€theÏother€two€were€clean€shaven.€œÌÌ›à ` àAt€trial,€Ms.€Morrow€testified€that€she€picked€out€photograph€numbers€one€(Blanton),Ïfive€(Quintero),€and€six€(Hall)€from€the€line„up.€€She€was€the€only€witness€who€was€able€toÏidentify€both€appellants€in€the€courtroom.€€She€pointed€out€that€appellant€Quintero€did€notÏhave€glasses€when€he€came€in€the€store€and€that€he€looked€like€he€had€lost€weight.€€OddlyÏenough,€Ms.€Morrow€identified€number€one€(Blanton)€as€being€of€mixed€descent.€ÌœÌ›à ` àFinally,€Curtis€Jones€testified€at€the€hearing€that€he€had€been€a€security€guard€at€theÏMemphis€Greyhound€bus€station€in€1988.€€As€part€of€his€job,€he€observed€people€that€cameÏinto€the€bus€station€to€ensure€that€they€either€had€a€bus€ticket€or€were€waiting€for€someoneÏto€arrive.€€On€June€21,€Mr.€Jones€saw€three€white€men€come€into€the€bus€station.€€All€of€theÏmen€had€long€hair,€one€was€dark€skinned€and€looked€Spanish,€and€the€other€two€men€wereÏwhite€and€had€mustaches.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€two€of€the€men€sat€down€and€beganÐ Ì84: Ðwatching€television€while€the€Hispanic„looking€man€used€the€telephone.€€One€of€the€menÏwatching€television,€whom€he€identified€as€appellant€Hall,€was€talking€to€a€black€manÏwaiting€on€someone€to€arrive.€€When€the€men€did€not€buy€tickets,€Mr.€Jones€approachedÏthe€two€seated€men€and€asked€if€they€had€tickets.€€The€man,€whom€Mr.€Jones€identifiedÏas€co„defendant€Blanton,€told€him€that€they€would€leave€as€soon€as€their€friend€finishedÏusing€the€phone,€which€they€did.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€the€three€men€were€in€the€busÏstation€approximately€five€to€ten€minutes.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àThat€same€day,€officers€from€the€Memphis€police€department€came€to€the€busÏstation€and€showed€Mr.€Jones€the€photo„line€up.€€He€selected€the€photographs€of€co„¼defendant€Blanton,€appellant€Quintero,€and€appellant€Hall.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€theÏpolice€never€indicated€to€him€which€ones€were€the€suspects€or€what€they€had€done.€€TwoÏdays€later,€T.B.I.€Agent€Stout€interviewed€Mr.€Jones€and€showed€him€the€sameÏphotographic€array.€€Again,€Mr.€Jones€selected€the€same€three€photographs.€€Mr.€JonesÏwas€able€to€identify€appellant€Hall€in€the€courtroom€but€was€unable€to€identify€appellantÏQuintero.€€During€cross„examination,€the€following€colloquy€occurred:ÌÓӜ̛à ` àQ.à8 ¸ àNow€on€the€photo€lineup,€and€let€me€hand€this€back€to€you,€just€oneÐ V"¦! Ðmore€question€or€two,€on€that€particular€lineup,€how€many€people€ofÏSpanish€descent€do€you€see€on€there?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓ¯4Óà ` àA.à ¸ àOne€looks€like€Spanish€to€me.Ð î%>!% Ðà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àAnd€which€one€is€that?к' #'¸ (#¸ (# Ðà ` àA.à ¸ àThatððs€number€five.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÓÓà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àAnd€for€number€five€then,€you€couldnððt€positively€identify€him€otherÐ R+¢&+ Ðthan€the€fact€that€he€is€Spanish?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` àA.à8 ¸ àThatððs€the€only€way€I€could€identify€him€with€his€„„€the€size€and€the€wayÐ .T). Ðhe€looked,€the€neck,€thatððs€the€only€way,€but€just€looking€him€straightÏin€the€face,€I€didnððt€get€a€chance€to€see€him.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àWell,€then€youððre€assuming€because€that€was€a€Spanish€one,€that€heÐ œ1ì,2 Ðmust€be€the€one€you€saw?Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓ¬6Óà ` àA.à8 ¸ àIððm€pretty€sure€thatððs€him.ÐN4ž/5¸ (#¸ (# Ðà ` àQ.à ¸ àAnd€you€havenððt€seen€him€since?Ð 6j17 Ðà ` àA.à ¸ àNo,€I€havenððt.Ð æ7639 МÐ ²95; Лà ` àBased€on€the€testimony€and€the€argument€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€allowed€all€threeÏwitnesses€to€testify,€however,€Mr.€Jones€was€instructed€not€to€testify€about€identifyingÏappellant€Quintero€from€the€line„up€since€he€was€not€actually€able€to€see€appellantÏQuinteroððs€face€at€the€bus€station.€€At€trial,€when€asked€which€photographs€he€was€able€toÏpick€out,€Mr.€Jones€inadvertently€testified€that€he€had€picked€out€number€one,€number€five,Ïand€number€six.€€The€trial€court€immediately€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€Mr.€JonesððÏstatement€concerning€number€five€(Quintero)€because€the€court€had€previously€ruled€thatÏMr.€Jones€could€not€identify€number€five€(Quintero)€from€the€line„up.̛̜à ` àOur€Court€has€held€on€several€occasions€that€a€pre„trial€identification€wasÏadmissible€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€the€photograph€of€the€accused€contained€peculiarÏcharacteristics€not€contained€in€the€remaining€photographs.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòYoung€v.€Stateóó,€566Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€895,€898€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)€(accused€was€only€person€depicted€with€"shortÏhairs€growing€from€his€chin");€òòCross€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2d€289,€290€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  \ Ð1976)€(accused€only€person€depicted€with€having€an€unusual€hairstyle);€òòShye€v.€Stateóó,€506Ð Ø( ÐS.W.2d€169,€173€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973)(accused€had€lighter€skin€and€was€heavier€thanÏothers€depicted€in€the€remaining€photographs€displayed).̛̜à ` àÔ‡XV•XXX°þÔInitially,€we€note€that€under€the€test€set€forth€in€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€the€array€was€notÐ %X $ Ðimpermissibly€suggestive€as€to€taint€Mr.€Jonesðð€and€Ms.€Morrowððs€identifications€ofÏappellant€Hall.€€Mr.€Jones€was€able€to€view€appellant€Hall€for€five€to€ten€minutes.€ÏMoreover,€it€was€his€job€to€monitor€who€came€and€went€at€the€bus€station.€€BecauseÏappellant€Hall€and€co„defendant€Blanton€did€not€have€tickets,€Mr.€Jones€talked€with€the€twoÏmen€about€their€business€there,€giving€him€an€even€better€opportunity€to€view€appellantÏHall.€€Mr.€Jones€gave€an€accurate€description€of€appellant€Hall,€and€he€was€shown€theÏphoto€line„up€the€same€day€as€the€men€had€been€to€the€bus€station.€€Accordingly,€Mr.ÏJonesðð€identification€testimony€was€properly€admitted€under€the€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBiggersóó.Ð 4X/4 М̛à ` àThe€same€is€true€as€to€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Morrow,€who€conversed€with€the€threeÏmen€while€they€stood€right€around€the€cash€register.€€Ms.€Morrow€testified€that€she€thoughtÐ ¨9ø4: Ðappellant€was€the€one€that€did€most€of€the€talking,€and€she€was€able€to€get€a€good€look€atÏthe€men.€€When€Ms.€Morrow€was€shown€the€photo€line„up€within€the€next€few€days,€sheÏhad€no€trouble€in€identifying€appellant€Hall.€€Moreover,€when€identifying€appellant€Hall€inÏthe€courtroom,€Ms.€Morrow€noted€that€his€face€looked€the€same.€€Accordingly,€we€find€thatÏany€suggestiveness€in€the€photo€line„up€did€not€taint€the€witnessesðð€identification€ofÏappellant€Hall.̛̜à ` àThe€same€is€not€true€concerning€the€identification€of€appellant€Quintero.€€Both€Mr.ÏJones,€although€he€was€not€allowed€to€testify€that€he€identified€appellant€Quintero,€and€Ms.ÏChristof€testified€that€one€of€the€men€was€Hispanic€and€that€they€picked€number€fiveÏ(Quintero)€because€he€was€the€only€Hispanic€in€the€line„up.€€While€Ms.€Christof€was€ableÏto€view€appellant€Quintero€for€a€few€minutes,€her€only€description€of€him€was€that€he€lookedÏMexican€because€of€his€darker€skin.€€Moreover,€Ms.€Christof€testified€that€she€recognizedÏthe€three€men€from€the€newspaper€she€had€read€earlier€that€morning.€€Further,€from€aÏreview€of€the€testimony,€Ms.€Christofððs€certainty€as€to€her€identification€of€appellantÏQuintero€at€the€time€of€the€confrontation€appeared€to€be€based€on€his€Hispanic€descent.€ÏAt€the€jury„out€hearing,€Ms.€Christof€was€unable€to€identify€appellant€Quintero€in€theÏcourtroom,€in€fact,€she€did€not€see€any€Hispanics€in€the€courtroom.€€Under€òòBiggersóó,€we€findÐ $à" Ðthat€Ms.€Christofððs€identification€of€appellant€Quintero€in€the€photo€line„up€was€undulyÏtainted€by€the€suggestiveness€of€the€photo€line„up.€€However,€given€the€identification€ofÏQuintero€by€Mrs.€Morrow€and€the€other€evidence€of€guilt,€the€error€of€allowing€Ms.€ChristofððsÏidentification€testimony€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.̛̜à ` àFinally,€we€review€Ms.€Morrowððs€testimony€concerning€her€identification€of€appellantÏQuintero.€€Ms.€Morrow€had€a€good€opportunity€to€view€appellant€Quintero.€€As€discussedÏearlier,€she€testified€that€the€three€men€were€standing€around€her€at€the€cash€register.€€Ms.ÏMorrow€testified€that€appellant€Quintero€sold€her€six€silver€dollars€and€that€he€tried€to€sellÏher€a€class€ring.€€She€also€testified€that€he€tried€to€convince€her€to€let€them€stay€until€11Ïp.m.€when€their€ride€would€be€there.€€In€court,€Ms.€Morrow€identified€appellant€Quintero,Ð 09€48 Ðnoting€that€he€looked€like€he€had€lost€weight€and€that€he€had€not€been€wearing€glassesÏwhen€she€saw€him€at€the€adult€bookstore.€€Agent€Stout€testified€that€Ms.€Morrow€gave€aÏdescription€of€the€men€when€he€interviewed€her€the€next€day.€€Agent€Stout€then€showedÏher€the€photo€line„up,€and€she€immediately€picked€out€the€three€men.€€Under€òòBiggersóó,€weÐ P   Ðfind€that€Ms.€Morrowððs€identification€from€the€photo€line„up€and€her€in„court€identificationÏof€appellant€Quintero€were€not€unduly€tainted€by€the€otherwise€suggestive€photo€line„up.€ÌÌœÔ#†X°þXXXV• @#Ôò òÌ›à@  DàCLOSING€ARGUMENTS€AT€GUILT/INNOCENCE€PHASEó óˆÐ ¨ø М̛à ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€prosecution€made€several€improper€remarks€duringÏclosing€arguments€at€the€guilt/innocence€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€standard€of€review€inÏdetermining€whether€counsel€was€allowed€too€much€latitude€during€closing€argument€isÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€1978).€€ClosingÐ ° Ðargument€must€be€temperate,€must€be€predicated€on€evidence€introduced€during€the€trialÏof€a€case,€and€must€be€pertinent€to€the€issues€being€tried.€€òòIdóó.€€The€prosecutor€may€stateÐ H ˜ Ðan€ultimate€conclusion€which€would€necessarily€follow€if€the€testimony€of€the€prosecutionÏwitnesses€was€believed€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€552€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð à#0" ÐMoreover,€both€parties€must€be€given€the€opportunity€to€argue€not€only€the€facts€in€theÏrecord€but€any€reasonable€inferences€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Coneóó,€665€S.W.2d€87,€94Ð x'È"& Ð(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1210,€104€S.Ct.€2400,€81€œL.€Ed.€2d›€357€(1984).€€HavingÐ D)”$( Ðreviewed€the€entire€record,€we€find€that€any€improper€comments€during€closing€argumentsÏby€the€prosecution€were€either€harmless€error€or€cured€by€the€trial€courtððs€curativeÏinstructions€to€the€jury.̛̜à ` àThe€appellants€first€argue€that€the€prosecutorsðð€comments€about€the€ð ðslaughteredððÏvictims,€although€objected€to€and€sustained€at€trial,€were€intemperate€commentaries€aboutÏthe€nature€of€the€crime€which€induced€prejudice.̛̜à ` àDuring€closing€argument,€General€Atkins€made€the€following€comments:Ð p9À4: ÐÓӜ̛à ` àAnd€during€that€process,€they€slaughtered€these€two€people.ÌÌà ` à[Objection€sustained]ÌÌà ` à*€*€*€*€ÌÌà8 ` àYou€think,€well€they€could€have€tied€them€up,€but€they€shot€Mr.€VesterÏthrough€the€window€before€he€ever€had€a€chance€to€get€out€of€bed,Ïslaughtered€him€there€in€his€bed.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà ` à[Objection€sustained,€and€jury€instructed€to€disregard]ÌÌÓӜ̛à ` àAlthough€counsel€for€appellant€Quintero€did€not€refer€to€the€ð ðslaughteredðð€languageÏduring€his€closing€argument,€counsel€for€appellant€Hall€repeatedly€commented€on€theÏoffensiveness€of€the€prosecutorððs€terminology.€€Subsequently,€during€General€AlsobrooksððÏclosing€argument,€he€made€the€following€comments:ÌÓӜ̛à8 ` àLadies€and€gentlemen,€he€objected€to€my€co„counsel€when€he€referred€to€theÏdeaths€there€as€slaughter€and€comes€right€back€and€„„Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à[Objection€sustained.€€Jury€instructed€to€disregard€because€the€issue€hasÏalready€been€ruled€on]Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà ` à*€*€*€*ÌÌà8 ` àAgain,€there€have€been€certain€objections€made€to€the€language€to€describeÏthose€incidents.€€You€can€put€your€own€adjectives€to€what€happened€thatÏnight.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà ` à[No€objection.]ÌÌÓӜ̛à ` àThe€trial€court€gave€a€curative€instruction€the€first€time€the€prosecution€referred€toÏthe€ð ðslaughterðð€of€the€victims.€€The€appellants€did€not€request€a€mistrial€be€declared€basedÏon€the€prosecutorsðð€comments€and€thus,€waived€any€further€action€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóóÐ 8,ˆ', ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Moreover,€appellant€Hall€waived€any€objection€by€repeatedlyÏreferring€to€the€prosecutorððs€comments€during€his€own€closing€argument.€€Regardless,Ïconsidering€the€nature€of€this€case,€the€prosecutionððs€minimal€comments€during€closingÏarguments€were€not€reversible€error.€€The€trial€court€sustained€the€objections€and€gaveÏcurative€instructions.€€It€is€presumed€that€the€jury€followed€these€instructions€andÏdisregarded€the€prosectionððs€improper€argument.€€òòFrazier€v.€Stateóó,€566€S.W.2d€545,€551.׃4×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 7P28 Ðñcñœñcñ‡à ` àThe€appellants€next€contend€that€General€Atkinsðð€closing€argument€went€beyond€theÏscope€of€opening€argument€and€of€the€appellantsðð€intervening€argument€in€violation€ofÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29.1(b).€€Specifically,€the€appellants€point€to€the€continuousÏcharacterization€of€the€defensesðð€theories€and€perceived€theories€as€ð ðsmoke€screensðð€andÏto€the€description€of€the€appellants€as€ð ðthese€escapees,€these€desperate€men.ðð€€While€theÏtrial€court€overruled€the€appellantsðð€objections€to€the€stateððs€characterizations€of€theirÏdefense€theories,€the€appellants€concede€that€they€did€not€contemporaneously€object€toÏthe€ð ðdesperate€escapeesðð€references.€€Instead,€the€appellants€argue€that€these€statementsÏwere€made€under€the€objections€to€improper€argument€and€therefore,€should€not€beÏconsidered€waived.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àAs€stated€earlier,€the€standard€of€review€in€determining€whether€counsel€wasÏallowed€too€much€latitude€during€closing€argument€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,Ð @ Ð562€S.W.2d€820,€823.€€Closing€argument€must€be€temperate,€must€be€predicated€onÏevidence€introduced€during€the€trial€of€a€case,€and€must€be€pertinent€to€the€issues€beingÏtried.€€òòIdóó.€€In€addition,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29.1(b)€provides€in€part€that€ð ðthe€Stateððs€closingÐ ¤ô Ðargument€shall€be€limited€to€the€subject€matter€covered€in€the€Stateððs€opening€argumentÏand€the€defendantððs€intervening€argument.ðð̛̜à ` àBased€in€great€measure€upon€the€role€of€the€prosecutor€in€the€criminal€justiceÏsystem,€the€most€restrictions€are€placed€on€the€state.€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368Ð  (ð#( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Accordingly,€ð ðthe€state€must€refrain€from€argument€designed€toÏinflame€the€jury€and€should€restrict€its€commentary€to€matters€in€evidence€or€issues€at€trial.ððÏòòIdóó.€€Moreover,€comments€should€not€reflect€unfavorably€upon€defense€counsel€or€the€trialÐ .T). Ðtactics€employed€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòDupree€v.€Stateóó,€219€Tenn.€(23Ð Ð/ +0 ÐMcCanless)€492,€496„97,€410€S.W.2d€890,€892€(1967);€òòMcCracken€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2dÐ œ1ì,2 Ð48,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).̛̜à ` àDuring€his€closing€argument,€General€Atkins€made€several€comments€about€theÏstrength€and€believability€of€the€defense€theories€in€this€case.€€Throughout€the€argument,Ð Ì84: ÐGeneral€Atkins€used€phrases€such€as€ð ðthatððs€not€a€reasonable€alternative,ðð€ð ðsuch€aÏridiculous€position,ðð€ð ðsmoke€screens,ðð€and€ð ðphantom€dog.ðð€€Through€their€own€witnessesÏand€through€cross„examination,€the€appellants€offered€various€explanations,€implied€andÏexpressed,€as€to€the€stateððs€proof.€€The€state€was€entitled€to€argue€in€response€that€theÏproof€did€not€support€these€alternative€theories.€€It€cannot€be€said€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€in€overruling€the€appellantsðð€objections.̛̜à ` àThe€appellants€also€assert€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€referred€to€them€asÏð ðdesperate€escapees.ðð€€At€the€beginning€of€his€argument,€General€Atkins€stated€thatÏð ð[t]hroughout€the€history€of€the€world€in€this€country€and€everywhere€else,€some€of€the€mostÏdesperate€people€are€escaped€convicts.€€Thatððs€what€weððre€dealing€with,€thatððs€what€we€hadÏon€our€hands,€that€was€what€was€in€the€Leatherwood€community.ðð̛̜à ` àEpithets€characterizing€a€defendant€himself€are€generally€improper,€especially€whereÏthey€are€made€to€prejudice€the€jury€against€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,Ð Ø( Ð622€S.W.2d€62,€71€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€€òòLeMay€v.€Tennesseeóó,€454€U.S.Ð ¤ô Ð1096,€102€S.Ct.€667,€70€œL.€Ed.€2d›€636€(1981)(references€to€defendants€as€pill„headedÏpimps€and€prostitutes);€òòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)Ð <#Œ" Ð(comparing€defendant€to€rats€in€the€barn).€€Here,€however,€there€was€proof€in€the€recordÏthat€the€appellants€had€escaped€from€prison,€and€this€status€was€used€to€show€motivationÏfor€the€crimes€committed.€€Given€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€characterization€of€theÏappellants€as€ð ðdesperate€escapeesðð€was€not€improper.€ÌœñcñÌñcñà@DD/Dàò òˆÌà@DàREASONABLE›€DOUBT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONœ×ƒ*×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›ó óˆÐ .`). М̛à ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€jury€instruction€on€reasonable€doubt€did€not€lendÏcontent€to€the€moral€certainty€phraseology€used€by€the€trial€court.€€Thus,€the€appellantsÐ €3Ð.4 Ðargue€that€there€was€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€jury€understood€it€to€allow€convictionÏbased€on€insufficient€proof€in€violation€of€the€standard€set€forth€in€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€498Ð |Ì ÐU.S.€39,€41,€111€S.Ct.€328,€329„30,€112€œL.€Ed.€2d€339€(1990)€and€òòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó,€511Ð H˜ ÐU.S.€1,€__,€114€S.Ct.€1239,€1247„48,€127€L.€Ed.€2d€583€(1994).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€case,€following€the€language€of€T.P.I.›€„„œCrim›.€ðð€2.03,€the€trial€courtÏgave€this€instruction€to€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€an€investigation€of€allÏthe€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability€after€such€investigation€to€let€the€mindÏrest€easily€as€to€the€certainty€of€guilt.€€Reasonable€doubt€does€not€mean€theÏcapricious,€possible,€or€imaginary€doubt.€€Absolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€notÏdemanded€by€law€to€convict€of€any€criminal€charge€but€morale€[sic]€certaintyÏis€required,€and€this€certainty€is€required€as€to€every€proposition€of€proofÏrequisite€to€constitute€the€offense.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€State€must€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€all€the€elements€ofÏthe€crimes€charged;€that€the€crimes€if€in€fact€committed€were€committed€byÏthe€defendants€in€Stewart€County,€Tennessee;€and€they€were€committed€œÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àbefore›€the€finding€and€returning€of€the€presentments€of€this€case.Ð ` (#` (# М̛ÌÓotÓà ` àœLater›€in€the€charge,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury:ÌÓÓœÌà8 ` à›à ¸ àBefore€a€verdict€of€guilty€is€justified,€the€circumstances€taken€togetherÏmust€be€of€a€conclusive€nature€and€tendency€leading€the€whole€to€aÏsatisfactory€conclusion€and€produce€in€effect€a€morale€[sic]€certainty€that€theÏdefendants€and€no€one€else€committed€the€offense.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓkxӜ̛à ` àIn€òòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€phrase€"moralÐ Ô&$"& Ðcertainty"€may€have€lost€its€historical€meaning€and€that€modern€juries,€unaware€of€theÏhistorical€meaning,€might€understand€"moral€certainty,"€in€the€abstract,€to€mean€somethingÏless€than€the€high€level€of€determination€constitutionally€required€in€criminal€cases.€€WhileÏthe€Court€expressed€criticism€of€the€continued€use€of€the€"moral€certainty"€phrase,€theÏCourt€did€not€actually€hold€that€it€was€constitutionally€invalid.€€Instead,€the€Court€looked€toÏthe€full€jury€charge€to€determine€if€the€phrase€was€placed€in€such€a€context€that€a€juryÏwould€understand€that€it€meant€certainty€with€respect€to€human€affairs.€€òòIdóó.€at€___,€114Ð h3¸.4 ÐS.Ct.€at€1247„48.€€In€particular,€the€Supreme€Court€was€concerned€with€the€terms€"graveÏuncertainty"€and€"actual€substantial€doubt."€€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€498€U.S.€39,€41,€111€S.Ct.Ð 7P28 Ð328,€329„30,€112€œL.€Ed.€2d›€œ339.Ð Ì84: Ї›à ` àIn€this€case,€the€terms€of€particular€concern€to€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏwere€not€included€in€the€jury€charge.€€In€several€cases,€this€Court€has€upheld€similarÏinstructions€as€consistent€with€constitutional€principles.€€òòSeeóó€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€364,€365„66€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€294.€Ð  d ÐMoreover,€our€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€"the€use€of€the€phrase€'moral€certainty'€by€itselfÏis€insufficient€to€invalidate€an€instruction€on€the€meaning€of€reasonable€doubt."€€òòState€v.Ð ¬ ü  ÐNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722.Ð xÈ  М̛à ` àThus,€the€full€charge€given€by€the€trial€court,€although€containing€the€phrase€"moralÏcertainty,"€did€not€violate€the€appellantsðð€rights€under€the€United€States€or€TennesseeÏConstitutions.ÌÌò òÓӜ̛à@DàARREST€AND€EXTRADITION€FROM€MEXICOó óˆÐ ,| М̛ÌÓYÓñcñœñcñà ` àAppellant€Quintero€argues€that€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€violates€his€dueÏprocess€rights€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€because€he€wasÏunlawfully€seized€without€a€warrant€or€other€process€in€Juarez,€Mexico,€and€transported€toÏEl€Paso,€Texas,€by€Mexican€officials€acting€in€concert€with€F.B.I.€agents€in€Texas.€ÏConsequently,€appellant€Quintero€asserts€that€his€death€sentence€is€the€fruit€of€an€illegalÏaction€by€agents€of€the€United€States€government.€€Although€his€habeas€corpus€petitionsÏfiled€in€Texas€and€in€Kentucky€were€denied,€he€claims€that€the€findings€of€these€courtsÏsupport€his€claim€that€his€seizure€in€Mexico€and€transport€to€the€United€States€violated€hisÏrights€to€judicial€process€and€the€appointment€of€counsel€under€the€Mexican€ConstitutionÏand€under€Mexico's€obligation€under€the€American€Convention€on€Human€Rights.€ÏMoreover,€appellant€Quintero€argues€that€the€means€by€which€his€presence€was€acquiredÏso€that€he€could€be€sentenced€to€death€"shocks€the€conscience"€in€violation€of€dueÏprocess.€€We€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.̛̜à ` àIn€order€to€determine€whether€due€process€requires€that€an€extradited€defendantÏmust€be€returned,€a€two„prong€test€must€be€applied:€€(1)€was€the€extradition€procedureÐ Ø8(4: Ðchallenged€in€advance€of€trial,€and€(2)€did€an€evidentiary€hearing€establish€that€the€conductÏof€governmental€authorities€was€so€illegal€and€outrageous€as€to€shock€the€conscience€ofÏthe€court.€€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,€872€S.W.2d€930,€937€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€œÐ H˜ Ðñcñ›ñcñÌ›à ` àIn€affirming€the€denial€of€appellant€Quinteroððs€habeas€corpus€petition,€the€TexasÏCourt€of€Appeals€acknowledged€the€illegality€of€the€action€taken€by€Mexican€and€F.B.I.Ïagents:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€case€law€proffered€by€the€State€and€relied€upon€by€this€Court€inÏpreviously€upholding€these€denials€of€habeas€corpus€relief€stand€only€for€theÏproposition€that€òòisolatedòòóó,€óóòòspontaneousóó€illegal€seizures€of€the€person,€absentÐ ` Ðabusive€treatment€shocking€to€the€conscience,€will€not€support€a€challengeÏto€the€Court's€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€fugitive,€òòFrisbie€v.€Collinsóó,€342Ð Þ. ÐU.S.€519,€72€S.Ct.€509,€96€L.Ed.€541€(1952);€òòKer€v.€Illinoisóó,€119€U.S.€436,€7Ð Ä ÐS.Ct.€225,€30€L.Ed.€421€(1886);€òòUnited€States€v.€Toscaninoóó,€500€F.2d€267Ð ªú Ð(2nd€Cir.€1974).€€We€do€not€construe€these€cases€and€others€cited€in€òòDayóóÐ à Ðand€òòQuinteroóó€as€affirmative,€prospective€sanctions€for€the€F.B.I.€or€any€otherÐ vÆ Ðstate€or€federal€law€enforcement€agency,€either€directly€or€throughÏsurrogates,€to€establish€a€regular€policy€and€practice€of€engaging€in€suchÏactivity€of€illegally€seizing€United€States€citizens€in€a€foreign€country.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àWe€uphold€the€denial€of€relief€in€this€case€because€the€four€seizuresÏwhich€we€have€been€presented,€in€fact,€reflect€but€two€transactions.€€A€thirdÏoccurrence€will€in€all€probability€necessitate€consideration€of€whether€we€areÏnot,€in€fact,€seeing€the€results€of€an€organized,€coordinated€program€ofÏinternational€kidnapping€which€has€become€a€policy€of€at€least€this€regionalÏbranch€of€the€F.B.I.€€That€agency€and€any€other€law€enforcement€agencyÏacting€in€concert€in€such€activity€would€be€well„advised€not€to€rely€upon€thisÏCourt's€resolutions€of€the€òòDay„Dayóó€and€òòQuintero„Blantonóó€cases.€€This€caveatÐ >#Ž" Ðapplies€to€any€such€seizure€occurring€after€the€date€of€this€opinion.€ÏOtherwise,€Appellant's€four€points€of€error€are€overruled.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ܈ÓœòòDay›€v.€Stateóó,€763€S.W.2d€535,€536€(Tex.€App.„„El€Paso€1988).€€òòSeeóó€òòQuintero€v.€Stateóó,€761Ð Ö&&"& ÐS.W.2d€438€(Tex.€App.„„El€Paso€1988),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€826,€110€S.Ct.€90,€107€œL.Ð ¢(ò#( ÐEd.€2d›€55€(1989);€òòBlanton€v.€Stateóó,€753€S.W.2d€504€(Tex.€App.€„„€Beaumont€1988).Ð n*¾%* Ðñcñœñcñà ` àOnce€extradited€to€Kentucky,€appellant€Quintero€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€habeasÏcorpus€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Lyons€County,€Kentucky,€€which€was€denied€and€thenÏaffirmed€on€appeal.€€The€trial€court's€factual€findings€were,€in€part,€as€follows:׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ò/"+0 ÐÓÓà ` à1.à8 ¸ àPetitioners,€James€Blanton,€William€Hall,€and€Derrick€QuinteroÐ ž1î,2 Ðescaped€from€the€Kentucky€State€Penitentiary€on€June€16,€1988.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à2.à8¸ ` (#` (#àPetitioner€Hall€was€apprehended€in€the€United€States€andÐ P4 /5 Ðreturned€to€Kentucky€State€Penitentiary€on€July€9,€1988.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðâ âÐ 6l17 Ðà8 ` à3.à8¸ ` (#` (#àOn€July€10,€1988,€Eric€Benson€and€other€FBI€agents€went€toÐ ° Ðâ âJuarez,€Chihuahua,€Mexico,€and€arrested€James€Blanton€andÏDerrick€Quintero€in€a€room€at€the€Santa€Fe€Hotel.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à4.à8¸ ` (#` (#àThere€were€no€arrest€warrants€issued€in€Mexico€authorizing€theÐ H˜ Ðarrest€of€Petitioners€Blanton€and€Quintero.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à5.à8¸ ` (#` (#àThere€was€no€formal€extradition€request€made€by€authorities€ofÐ ú J Ðthe€United€States€to€apprehend€and€arrest€the€Petitioners€andÏhave€the€Petitioners€extradited€from€Mexico€to€the€UntiedÏStates€for€trial.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à6.à8¸ ` (#` (#àPetitioners€Blanton€and€Quintero€were€brought€from€Juarez,Ð xÈ  ÐMexico,€to€El€Paso,€Texas,€by€FBI€agents€acting€in€joint€concertÏwith€Mexican€Federal€Judicial€Police,€without€benefit€of€havingÏany€judicial€process€in€Mexico€used€to€aid€in€theirÏapprehension.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à7.à8¸ ` (#` (#àPetitioners€Blanton€and€Quintero€were€not€brought€before€anyÐ Ü, ÐJudge€in€Mexico€for€purposes€of€having€any€hearing€regardingÏtheir€arrest.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à8.à8¸ ` (#` (#àPetitioners€Blanton€and€Quintero€were€neither€formallyÐ tÄ Ðdeported€from€Mexico€nor€afforded€any€deportation€hearing€inÏMexico.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à9.à8¸ ` (#` (#àOn€January,€25,€1980,€Mexico€and€the€United€States€enteredÐ  \ Ðinto€a€Treaty€regarding€extradition.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à10.à8¸ ` (#` (#àOfficials€of€the€United€States€did€not€go€through€diplomaticÐ ¾ Ðchannels€to€extradite€Petitioners€Blanton€and€Quintero.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à11.à8¸ ` (#` (#àOfficials€of€the€United€States€did€not€send€the€followingÐ p!À  Ðdocuments€to€Mexico:€€a€description€of€the€offense;€aÏstatement€of€facts;€text€of€legal€provisions€describing€essentialÏelements€of€the€offense;€text€of€legal€provisions€describing€theÏpunishment€for€the€offenses;€time€limitations€on€prosecution€orÏexecution€of€sentence;€identification€information;€certifiedÏcopies€of€arrest€warrants;€and€evidence€justifyingÏapprehension.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à12.à8¸ ` (#` (#àMexico€does€not€have€a€death€penalty.І)Ö$)¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à13.à8¸ ` (#` (#àAll€three€of€the€Petitioners€were€arrested€pursuant€to€fugitiveÐ R+¢&+ Ðwarrants€issued€by€the€U.S.€District€Court,€Western€District€ofÏœKentucky.›Óh“ÓÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  М̛à ` àWhile€the€order€of€the€Kentucky€court€is€not€contained€in€the€record,€it€is€implicit€thatÏit€did€not€find€these€facts€to€be€sufficiently€"shocking"€so€as€to€grant€the€appellant's€writ€ofÏhabeas€corpus.̛̜à ` àBefore€trial€in€this€case,€appellant€Quintero€filed€a€Motion€to€Bar€the€State€FromÏSeeking€the€Death€Penalty,€alleging€that€his€illegal€seizure€by€government€agentsÐ ²95; Ðprevented€the€Mexican€government€from€receiving€assurances€that€he€would€not€beÏsubjected€to€the€death€penalty,€and€that€kidnapping€him€from€Mexico€violated€his€state€andÏfederal€constitutional€rights,€including€those€guaranteed€by€Article€I,€ðð€8€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€This€motion€was€summarily€denied€by€the€trial€court.̛̜à ` àIn€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,€this€Court€stated:Ð ¬ ü  ÐÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€our€view,€òòSwaw€[v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€92,€457€S.W.2d€875Ð xÈ  Ð(1970)]€stands€for€the€proposition€that€after€a€fair€trial€and€conviction,€thereÏis€simply€no€remedy€available€irrespective€of€the€nature€of€the€governmentalÏaction€bringing€the€defendant€into€this€jurisdiction.€€The€òòKer„Frisbieóó€doctrineÐ *z  Ðwould€prevail.€€The€failure€to€assert€any€due€process€violation€before€trialÏwould€serve€as€a€waiver€of€personal€jurisdiction.€€If,€however,€the€procedureÏis€challenged€in€advance€of€trial€and€an€evidentiary€hearing€establishes€thatÏthe€conduct€of€governmental€authorities,€as€opposed€to€that€of€any€privateÏindividual,€is€so€illegal€and€outrageous€as€to€shock€the€conscience€of€theÏcourt,€the€law€of€the€land€clause€provides€a€measure€of€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ŽÞ ÐConst.€art.€I,€ðð€8.€€The€accused€must€be€returned€to€the€asylum€state€pendingÏthe€initiation€of€the€extradition€œprocedure.›Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÔ¢Ó872€S.W.2d€at€937.̛̜à ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€issue€of€whether€appellant€Quinteroððs€extradition€violatedÏhis€due€process€rights€has€been€reviewed€by€the€courts€in€Texas€and€Kentucky.€€The€courtsÏhave€agreed€that€the€actions€of€the€F.B.I.€were€illegal,€yet€neither€court€found€that€suchÏaction€shocked€the€conscience.€€Appellant€Quintero€argues€that€this€Court€should€find€thatÏ"extradition€to€execute"€shocks€the€conscience.€€However,€in€this€state,€our€Supreme€CourtÏhas€determined€that€the€death€penalty€is€not€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð º' #' ÐBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€179€(Tenn.€1991).€€Thus,€the€fact€that€appellant€Quintero€receivedÐ †)Ö$) Ða€death€sentence€does€not€suggest€that€the€Texas€and€Kentucky€courts€incorrectly€heldÏthat€the€illegal€actions€of€the€F.B.I.€were€not€so€outrageous€as€to€demand€relief.ÌÔ‡XV•XXX°þÔÌÔ#†X°þXXXV•hª#Ôò òÓӜ̛à@„ „ DàADMISSION€OF€PHOTOGRAPHS€AT€SENTENCING€PHASEˆÌœó óÌ›ÌÓ®ªÓñcñœñcñà ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€photographs€of€Mrs.€Vesterððs€body,€which€wereÏintroduced€at€the€sentencing€phase,€even€if€relevant,€should€have€been€excluded€becauseÏtheir€value€was€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€or€an€undueÏtendency€to€suggest€to€the€jury€that€it€reach€a€decision€based€on€emotion.€€We€find€that€theÐ Ò9"5; Ðtrial€court€properly€allowed€the€state€to€introduce€these€photographs€to€show€that€theÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€œcruel.›ÌœÔ‡XV•XXX°þÔÌ›à ` àAt€a€jury„out€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€three€photographs€of€whichÏthe€appellants€complain€were€admissible.€€The€first€photograph€shows€the€bathroom€whereÏMrs.€Vesterððs€body€was€found€just€outside€the€door.€€There€is€a€substantial€amount€of€bloodÏon€the€floor€and€some€splatterings€of€blood€on€the€bathtub€and€commode.€€The€secondÏphotograph€shows€a€full€length€view€of€Mrs.€Vester€as€she€was€found€at€the€crime€scene.€ÏIn€admitting€these€two€photographs,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àGentlemen,€Iððm€going€to€admit€Exhibit€#288,€and€286.€€286€and€288€will€showÏeverything€that€you€can€expect€to€see€as€far€as€the€State€is€concerned€inÏExhibit€#287€and€285.€€In€addition€to€that,€the€one,€the€Exhibit€#288€showsÏmore€of€an€evidence€of€a€struggle€on€the€bed,€the€floor,€the€wall,€theÏbathroom.€€And€also€286€shows€extreme€struggling,€so€Iððm€going€to€admitÏthose.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÔ#†X°þXXXV•6­#ÔÓY¯Ӝ̛à ` àœThe›€third€photograph€shows€Mrs.€Vesterððs€feet€with€blood€on€them.€€In€admitting€thisÏphotograph,€the€trial€court€held:ÌÓÓà8 ` àExhibit€#290€shows€the€feet€of€Mrs.€Vester.€€The€Court€is€of€the€opinion€œthatÏthat›€picture€does€go€and€is€admissible€to€show€that€the€torture€and€the€„„€thatÏMrs.€Vester€run€around€in€her€own€blood,€somebodyððs€blood.€€Itððs€obvious€onÏher€feet.€€I€think€œthat€that›€picture€certainly€has€probative€value€and€itððs€not€thatÏprejudicial.€€Itððs€a€horrible€scene€but€this€is€a€horrible€crime,€so€Iððm€going€toÏoverrule€your€objection€as€to€#290€and€admit€that.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓбÓà ` àœThe›€introduction€of€photographs€of€the€victim's€body€at€the€sentencing€phase€inÏorder€to€prove€that€a€murder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€has€been€repeatedly€upheld.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McNishóó,€727€S.W.2d€490,€494„95€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€484€U.S.€873,€108Ð >+Ž&* ÐS.Ct.€210,€98€œL.€Ed.€2d›€161€(1987);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€579€(Tenn.€1993),Ð  -Z(, Ðòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€417,€130€œL.€Ed.€2d›€333€(1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875Ð Ö.&*. ÐS.W.2d€253,€263€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€743,€130€œL.€Ed.€2d›Ð ¢0ò+0 Ð644€(1995).€€In€comparison,€the€photographs€introduced€in€the€present€case€were€notÏshockingly€gruesome.€€Moreover,€the€photographs€were€not€shockingly€gruesome€inÏâ âcomparison€to€the€photographs€excluded€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case.€€Thus,€under€theÐ 6V16 Ðstandard€of€abuse€of€discretion,€the€photographs€were€properly€admitted€into€evidence€toÏshow€that€the€murder€of€Mrs.€Vester€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.׃=×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð |Ì Ðâ âÌœò òÌ›à@* * DàHEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS,€AND€CRUEL€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCEó óˆÐ ì < М̛à ` àœPointing›€to€the€language€of€the€jury€instruction€given€by€the€trial€court,€the€appellantsÏargue€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982),€(thatÏthe€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravityÏof€mind)€is€constitutionally€vague.œ×ƒ$ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€The€appellants€contend€that€this€aggravatingÐ ôD Ðcircumstance€is€undefined€and€is€not€cured€by€defining€ð ðdepravity€of€mindðð€as€moralÏcorruption€or€a€wicked€or€perverse€act,€thus,€making€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏunconstitutional.̛̜à ` àœOur›€Supreme€Court€has€repeatedly€held€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€is€notÏunconstitutionally€vague€or€overbroad.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€526„30Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€1985).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181;€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2dÐ ˆ!Ø  Ð659,€670€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€488€U.S.€900,€109€S.Ct.€248,€102€œL.€Ed.€2d›€236€(1988).Ð T#¤" М̛à ` àThe€appellants€also€argue€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€was€not€anÏappropriate€basis€for€a€death€sentence€in€this€case€because€the€evidence€does€not€supportÏa€finding€that€the€murder€of€Mrs.€Vester€involved€"torture€or€depravity€of€mind."€€TheÏappellants€argue€that€the€murder€did€not€involve€torture€because€there€were€no€defensiveÏwounds,€with€the€possible€exception€of€the€shotgun€wound€to€the€victimððs€right€forearm,€andÏbecause€there€were€no€torture€wounds.€€Moreover,€the€appellants€argue€that€there€is€noÏproof€of€depravity€of€mind,€citing€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€479„80.€€TheÐ ´1-2 Ðappellants€also€assert€that€there€is€no€physical€evidence€placing€them€at€the€scene€of€theÏmurder€or€showing€that€either€of€them€were€the€ones€who€actually€shot€or€stabbed€theÏvictim.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€overwhelmingly€supports€application€of€this€aggravatingÏœfactor.›ÌœÌ›à ` àHere,€the€proof€showed€that€Mrs.€Vester€was€initially€shot€from€her€bedroom€window.€ÏShe€was€then€shot€two€more€times.€€One€of€the€wounds€was€from€a€shotgun€blast€andÏnearly€severed€her€forearm.€€As€she€struggled€to€save€herself,€stepping€in€her€own€blood,Ïshe€was€stabbed€13€times,€resulting€in€the€two€fatal€wounds.€€The€medical€testimonyÏindicated€that€Mrs.€Vester€could€have€lived€up€to€fifteen€minutes€after€receiving€theseÏwounds.€€The€medical€examiner€testified€that€there€were€no€torture€wounds,€woundsÏinflicted€for€the€purpose€of€torturing€the€victim,€or€defensive€wounds,€with€the€potentialÏexception€of€the€wound€to€Mrs.€Vesterððs€forearm.€€Because€the€medical€examiner€could€notÏdetermine€the€position€of€the€arm€when€Mrs.€Vester€was€shot,€he€could€not€rule€out€theÏpossibility€that€this€was€a€defensive€wound.€€Moreover,€the€presence€of€blood€in€Mrs.ÏVesterððs€bed,€bedroom,€and€bathroom€clearly€indicates€a€struggle€was€involved.̛̜à ` àAs€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€the€evidence€supports€a€finding€of€eitherÐ <#Œ" Ðtorture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€òòIdóó.€at€920.€€Moreover,€this€case€is€easily€distinguished€fromÐ %X $ Ðthe€facts€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996),׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€which€the€Supreme€CourtÐ Ô&$"& Ðheld€that€ð ðrape€(penile€penetration)€does€not€ordinarily€constitute€ððtortureðð€or€ððseriousÏphysical€abuseðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€statute.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€26.€€The€Court€also€found€ð ð[i]n€aÐ l*¼%* Ðsimilar€vein,€and€with€the€same€disclaimer€above„appearing,€we€must€reject€the€conclusionÏthat€the€three€stab€wounds€evidenced€in€this€case€constituted€ððtortureðð€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð Ð/ +0 М̛à ` àBased€on€the€facts€in€the€present€case,€as€set€out€above,€the€proof€of€torture€andÏdepravity€of€mind€is€overwhelming.€€òòCfóó.€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€579„80;€òòState€v.Ð 45„06 ÐMcNishóó,€727€S.W.2d€490,€494€(victim€beaten€several€times€and€remained€alive€and€at€leastÐ ° Ðpartially€conscious€throughout€her€ordeal);€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€814€(Tenn.Ð |Ì Ð1985),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€478€U.S.€1010,€106€S.Ct.€3309,€92€œL.€Ed.€2d›€722€(1986)(infliction€ofÐ H˜ Ðgratuitous€violence€and€needless€mutilation€of€victims€who€were€already€helpless€from€fatalÏwounds).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.̛̜Ìò òà@” ” DàFELONY„MURDER€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCEó óˆÐ D”  М̛à ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€it€was€error€to€allow€the€state€to€use€felony„murder€asÏan€aggravating€circumstance€at€the€sentencing€hearing€after€they€had€been€convicted€ofÏmurder€in€the€perpetration€of€first„degree€burglary.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð317,€346€(Tenn.€1992).€€We€agree,€however,€under€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€259„Ð Lœ Ð62,€we€find€that€this€error€was€harmless.€€€€ÌœÌ›à ` àThe€felony„murder€aggravating€circumstance€is€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„2„Ì203(i)(7)(1982):›ÌÓÓñcñœñcñà ` àThe€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing,€or€wasÏan€accomplice€in€the€commission€of,€or€was€attempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€afterÏcommitting€or€attempting€to€commit,€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,Ïburglary,€larceny,€kidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€unlawful€throwing,€placing€or€dischargingÏof€a€destructive€device€or€bomb;ÌÌÓÎӜ̛à ` àÔ€X°þXXX°þÔIn€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€state€is€precludedÐ x*È%* Ðfrom€using€felony„murder€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€when€the€underlying€convictionÏis€felony„murder.€€òòIdóó.€at€346.€€However,€in€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.€1995),Ð .`). Ðòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€65€U.S.L.W.€3259€(1996),€the€Supreme€Court€held:Ð Ü/,+0 ÐÓÓà8 ` àWhere,€as€in€the€instant€case,€a€felony€not€underlying€the€felony€murderÏconviction€is€used€to€support€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance,Ïthere€is€no€duplication.€€Furthermore,€under€these€facts€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€as€applied€restricts€the€sentencerððs€discretion€to€those€who€killÏwhile€in€the€perpetration€of€multiple€felonies,€a€class€of€murderersÏdemonstrably€smaller€and€more€blameworthy€than€the€general€class€ofÏmurderers€eligible€for€the€death€penalty€.€.€.€Under€these€circumstances,Ïwhere€a€felony€other€than€that€used€to€prove€the€substantive€offense€is€usedÏâ âto€establish€the€aggravating€circumstance,€there€is€no€constitutionalÐ Ø8(4: Ðprohibition€against€the€use€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€in€ðð€39„2„¼203(i)(7)€to€support€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€felony€murder.Ð ` (#` (# Ðâ âÌÓŒÑÓœòòIdóó.›€at€583.€€The€Court€also€stated€that€ð ðthe€felony€underlying€the€conviction€in€this€case€isÐ b² Ðclear,€as€is€the€use€of€the€two€different€and€additional€felonies€to€establish€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€found€by€the€jury.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ú J М̛à ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€appellants€were€convicted€for€the€murder€of€Mrs.€VesterÏduring€the€perpetration€of€first„degree€burglary.€€Also€in€relation€to€the€Vesters,€theÏappellants€were€convicted€of€first„degree€burglary,€grand€larceny,€and€petit€larceny.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€because€the€jury€could€have€relied€on€one€of€these€other€felonies€inÏapplying€the€felony„murder€aggravating€circumstance,€there€is€no€òòMiddlebrooksóó€violation.€Ð  ÐWe€find€that€the€holding€in€òòHinesóó€requires€something€more.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌñcñœñcñà ` àDuring€its€opening€statement€at€the€sentencing€phase,€the€state€read€the€felony„¼murder€aggravating€circumstance€to€the€jury€and€then€stated€ð ð[i]n€our€circumstances,€weððllÏbe€talking€about€burglary.€€Thatððs€felony€murder,€the€aggravated€circumstance.ðð€€Moreover,Ïduring€closing€argument,€the€state€told€the€jury€ð ðI€believe€the€Judge€will€charge€you,€theÏmurder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€or€was€attemptingÏto€commit€or€was€an€accomplice€in€the€commission€of€several€crimes.€€And€that€has€beenÏfound€by€your€verdict€that€these€defendants€committed€murder€while€perpetrating€the€crimeÏof€first€degree€burglary.ðð€€Later€the€state€argued€to€the€jury€that€ð ð[t]hereððs€no€question€andÏyou€found€it€in€your€first€verdict,€that€these€murders€were€committed€while€the€defendant,Ïthese€defendants€and€their€cohort€in€this€case€were€burglarizing,€and€robbing€€the€VestersÏand€taking€their€car.€€No€one€would€question€that,€and€thereððs€no€doubt€about€it€by€yourÏoriginal€verdict.ðð€€When€the€jury€returned€its€verdict,€it€did€not€specify€which€felony€orÏfelonies€it€was€relying€on€in€applying€this€aggravating€circumstance,€thus,€we€are€left€toÏspeculate€as€to€the€basis€of€the€juryððs€decision.̛̜à ` àòòMiddlebrooksóó€was€released€after€this€case€was€tried,€but€before€the€motions€for€newÐ 6j17 Ðâ âtrial€were€heard.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motions€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€ruled:Ð æ7639 ÐÓÓà8 ` àIððm€going€to€rule€that€if€„„€that€the€felony€murder€was€harmless€error€in€thisÏâ âcase€„„€I€donððt€think€the€jury€even€considered€it,€I€think€weððve€got€somethingÏto€look€at€to€show€they€didnððt€.€.€.€What€Iððm€saying€is,€in€this€case€weððve€gotÏhere,€itððs€different.€€Iððm€not€going€to€grant€a€new€trial.€€Iððve€thought€about€thisÏand€thought€about€it€and€read€the€Middlebrooks€case€two€or€three€times,€IÏjust€feel€like€this€case€is€different.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àBecause€of€the€way€they€found€in€Mr.€Vesterððs€case€as€opposed€toÏMs.€Vesterððs€case,€every€aggravating€circumstance€that€could€have€beenÏused€in€both€cases€except€„„€itððs€no€different,€they€escaped,€felony€murder,Ïeverything€used€in€Mr.€Vesterððs€case€was€used€in€Ms.€Vesterððs€case.€€AndÏthey€ruled€that€it€was€not€a€death€penalty€case€in€Mr.€Vesterððs€case,€ruled€itÏwas€in€hers.€€You€could€only€come€down€to€the€final€conclusion€that€theÏatrocious€and€cruel€part€of€the€charge€was€what€they€considered€and€IððmÏgoing€rule€it€like€that€and€thatððs€it.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓdÞӜ̛à ` àOn€the€record€before€us,€the€Court€cannot€determine€which€felony€or€felonies€theÏjury€relied€on€in€applying€the€felony„murder€aggravating€circumstance.€€€The€trial€court€didÏnot€limit€its€jury€instruction€on€this€aggravating€circumstance€to€the€felonies€involved€in€thisÏcase.€€As€with€the€charge,€the€juryððs€verdict€included€all€the€felonies€listed€in€the€statute.€ÏThis€Court€cannot€assume€that€the€jury€relied€on€a€felony€other€than€first„degree€burglary,Ïespecially€in€light€of€the€prosecutionððs€argument€to€the€jury.€€Thus,€use€of€this€aggravatingÏcircumstance€is€invalid€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó€and€òòHinesóó.€€However,€as€stated€earlier,€we€findÐ ¤ô Ðthat€application€of€this€circumstance€was€harmless€error€under€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ p!À  Ð238,€259„62.ÌÔ‡X°þXXX°þÔÌò òà@‚‚$DàHARMLESS€ERROR€ANALYSISˆÐ Ô&$"& Ðñcñœñcñó óà ` àThe€appellants€argue€that€under€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€the€invalidationÐ ¬(ü#( Ðof€one€or€more€aggravating€circumstances€requires€that€this€matter€be€remanded€forÏresentencing.€€Although€we€find€two€of€the€applied€aggravating€factors€are€invalid€in€thisÏcase,€we€have€determined€that€their€erroneous€application€was€harmless€error.ÌÔ#†X°þXXX°þ-æ#ÔÔ‡X°þXXX°þÔà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€œHowell›óóÔ#†X°þXXX°þ4è#Ô,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that:Ð Ü/,+0 ÐÓÓà8 ` àIn€order€to€guarantee€the€precision€that€individualized€sentencingÏconsiderations€demand€and€provide€a€principled€explanation€for€ourÏconclusion€in€each€case,€it€is€important,€when€conducting€harmless€errorÏreview,€to€completely€examine€the€record€for€the€presence€of€factors€whichÏpotentially€influence€the€sentence€ultimately€imposed.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÛèÓœòòÌIdóó.›€at€260„61.€€These€factors€include,€without€limitation,€the€following:Ð Ø8(4: ÐÓÓà ` à(1)à8 ¸ àThe€number€and€strength€of€remaining€valid€aggravatingÐ ° Ðcircumstances.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à(2)à8 ¸ àThe€prosecutor's€argument€at€sentencing.Ðb²¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à(3)à8 ¸ àThe€evidence€admitted€to€establish€the€invalid€aggravator.Ð. ~¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à(4)à8 ¸ àThe€nature,€quality,€and€strength€of€the€mitigating€evidence.Ðú J¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓÓœòòÌIdóó.›€at€261.Ð ’â  М̛à ` àIn€òòHowellóó,€the€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€€(1)€that€the€defendant€hadÐ *z  Ðbeen€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies€involving€the€use€or€threat€of€violence,Ïand€(2)€that€the€murder€had€been€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€inÏcommitting€a€felony.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39-2-203(i)(2)€and€(7)€(1982).€€Howell,€charged€withÏfirst-degree€felony€murder€of€a€quick€shop€employee,€had€been€previously€convicted€ofÏfirst„degree€murder,€attempted€murder,€and€two€armed€robberies.̛̜à ` àIn€the€case€under€review,€the€jury€was€instructed€to€consider€five€possible€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances:€€(1)€that€the€appellants€had€been€previously€convicted€of€oneÏor€more€felonies€involving€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person,€(2)€€that€the€murderÏwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind,Ï(3)€that€the€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€orÏpreventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€appellants€or€another,€(4)€that€the€murderÏwas€committed€while€the€appellants€were€engaged€in€committing€or€were€accomplices€inÏthe€commission€of,€or€were€attempting€to€commit,€or€were€fleeing€after€committing€orÏattempting€to€commit,€any€first„degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€larceny,Ïkidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€unlawful€throwing,€placing,€or€discharging€of€a€destructiveÏdevice€or€bomb,€and€(5)€that€the€murder€was€committed€by€the€appellants€while€they€wereÏin€lawful€custody€or€in€a€place€of€lawful€confinement€or€during€their€escape€from€lawfulÏcustody€or€from€a€place€of€lawful€confinement.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),€(5),€(6),€(7),€and€(8)Ï(1982).€€In€returning€its€verdict,€the€jury€found€all€five€aggravating€circumstances.Ìâ âœÐ æ7639 Лà ` àInitially,€several€factors€support€a€finding€of€harmless€error€under€òòHowellóó.€€First,€noÐ ° Ðâ âadditional€evidence,€nor€any€evidence€that€was€not€already€properly€before€the€jury,€wasÏintroduced€in€support€of€the€invalid€aggravators.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€state€onlyÏintroduced€proof€of€the€prior€convictions€and€proof€that€the€murders€were€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel.€€Second,€while€the€prosecutors€did€talk€about€all€five€aggravatingÏcircumstances€during€opening€and€closing€argument,€their€main€focus€was€on€the€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€aggravator.€€òòCompareóó€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185,€189„90€(Tenn.Ð xÈ  Ð1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€1177,€130€œL.€Ed.€2d›€1129€(1995).€€TheÐ D”  Ðprosecutionððs€other€emphasis€was€on€the€appellantsðð€escapee€status,€especially€during€theÏguilt€phase.€€In€contrast,€the€mitigating€proof€was€minimal.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àTo€determine€whether€application€of€the€felony„murder€and€avoidance€of€arrest€orÏprosecution€aggravating€circumstances€was€harmless€error,€it€is€necessary€to€review€theÏweight€of€the€remaining€three€aggravating€circumstances€(previous€convictions€of€feloniesÏinvolving€the€use€or€threat€of€violence,€the€murder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€and€theÏmurder€was€committed€during€escape€from€lawful€custody).̛̜à ` àFirst,€the€state€presented€proof€that€appellant€Quintero€had€been€previouslyÏconvicted€twice€in€Kentucky€of€escape€in€the€first€degree€and€once€of€first„degree€robbery.€ÏThe€state€also€presented€proof€that€appellant€Hall€had€been€previously€convicted€of€twoÏseparate€assault€in€the€second€degree€charges,€wanton€endangerment€in€the€first€degree,Ïand€aiding€and€abetting€in€threatening€the€life€of€the€President€and€Vice„President€of€theÏUnited€States.€€As€stated€in€òòHowellóó,€ð ðmore€crucial€than€the€sum€of€the€remainingÐ 8,ˆ', Ðaggravating€circumstances€is€the€qualitative€nature€of€each€circumstance,€its€substanceÏand€persuasiveness,€as€well€as€the€quantum€of€proof€supporting€it.ðð€€868€S.W.2d€at€261.€ÏThis€is€particularly€true€of€this€aggravating€factor,€and€its€effect€and€qualitativeÏpersuasiveness€increases€where€there€is€proof,€as€in€this€case,€of€more€than€one€priorÏviolent€felony€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€738.Ð 45„06 Ðâ âœÐ 7P28 Лà ` àFurthermore,€as€discussed€earlier,€the€proof€that€the€murder€of€Mrs.€Vester€wasÏâ âheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind€was€strong.€€OurÏSupreme€Court€has€upheld€a€death€sentence€where€this€was€the€only€valid€aggravatingÏcircumstance€remaining.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185,€190.€€Finally,€proof€thatÐ  d Ðthe€murders€were€committed€during€the€appellantsðð€escape€from€lawful€custody€to€MexicoÏis€also€supported€by€the€proof.̛̜à ` àAccordingly,€although€we€find€that€two€of€the€five€aggravating€circumstances€appliedÏby€the€jury€are€invalid,€it€is€clear€that€any€error€was€harmless€under€òòHowellóó.€€Therefore,€bothÐ ` Мappellantsðð›€sentences€of€death€are€affirmed.€€Ì̛̜à@) ) Dàò òCONSTITUTIONALITY€OF€THE€DEATH€PENALTY€STATUTESó óˆÐ @ М̛à ` àThe€appellants€argue,€without€raising€any€specific€challenges,€that€under€T.C.A.€ððððÏ39„2„203€and€„205€(1982),€there€is€no€meaningful€narrowing€of€death€eligible€defendants.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellants€assert€that€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statutes€have€resultedÏin€the€arbitrary€and€capricious€infliction€of€the€death€penalty€in€violation€of€Ô‡X°þXXX°þÔthe€Fifth,€Sixth,Ð H#˜" ÐEighth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðððð€8,Ï9,€16,€and€17,€and€Article€II,€ðð€2€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÔ#†X°þXXX°þ«#Ô.Ð à&0"& МñcñœñcññcñÌñcñ›à ` àThis€argument€has€been€rejected€by€our€Supreme€Court€on€numerous€occasions.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€335;€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€258„Ð D,”', Ð59.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€held€repeatedly€that€the€death€sentence€under€the€TennesseeÏstatutory€scheme€is€not€imposed€capriciously€and€arbitrarily.€€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902Ð Ü/,+0 ÐS.W.2d€895,€907;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€926.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¨1ø,2 МñcñÌñcñò òÔ‡X°þXXX°þÔñcñÌñcññcñÌÌÌÐ ü8L4: Ðñcñ›à@ä ä DàCLOSING€ARGUMENTS€AT€PENALTY€PHASEó óˆÐ ° ÐñcñœñcñÌà ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€prosecution€made€several€improper€remarks€duringÏclosing€arguments.€€The€standard€of€review€in€determining€whether€counsel€was€allowedÏtoo€much€latitude€during€closing€argument€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€562Ð ì < ÐS.W.2d€820,€823.€€Closing€argument€must€be€temperate,€must€be€predicated€on€evidenceÏintroduced€during€the€trial€of€a€case,€and€must€be€pertinent€to€the€issues€being€tried.€€òòIdóó.€Ð „Ô  ÐThe€prosecutor€may€state€an€ultimate€conclusion€which€would€necessarily€follow€if€theÏtestimony€of€the€prosecution€witnesses€were€believed€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836Ð l ÐS.W.2d€530,€552.€€As€compared€to€the€comments€made€during€the€prosecutorsðð€closingÏarguments€in€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€01C01„9307„CC„00218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€April€30,€1996),Ð ´ Ðit€is€clear€that€the€prosecutorsðð€closing€arguments€in€this€case€did€not€violate€the€appellantsððÏconstitutional€rights.€€Slip€Op.€at€53„60.̛̜à ` àThe€appellants€first€contend€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€urged€the€jury€to€imposeÏthe€death€penalty€because€the€appellants€represented€a€future€danger.€€At€the€beginningÏof€closing€arguments,€the€prosecution€misrepresented€the€proof€concerning€the€appellantsððÏprior€convictions€and€stated€ð ð[t]he€society€wonððt€be€safe€from€these€individuals€until€they€areÏremoved€from„„.ðð€€The€appellantsðð€objections€were€sustained,€and€a€bench€conferenceÏfollowed.€€At€the€end€of€the€bench€conference,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€prosecution€notÏto€talk€about€the€safety€of€society€and€to€stay€within€the€proof.€€Immediately,€theÏprosecution€made€the€following€remarks:ÌÓÓà8 ` àLadies€and€gentlemen,€the€facts€in€this€case,€under€the€law€that€JudgeÏWallace€will€give€you,€under€the€facts€that€you€have€heard€requires€that€theseÏdefendants,€both€of€them€individually€„„€you€consider€their€cases€individuallyÏ„„€it€requires€that€they€be€put€on€death€row,€where€they€wonððt€pose€this€typeÏof€threat€to€the€community€again.€€Thatððs€what€the€law€and€the€evidence€inÏthis€case€requires.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà ` à*€*€*€*ÌÌà8 ` àAnd€you€as€the€jury,€I€believe€you€have€the€right€to€protect€your€communityÏagainst€these€people.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à[Objection€sustained,€and€jury€told€to€disregard€that€statement.]Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌœIn›€its€final€closing€argument,€the€prosecution€made€the€following€comment:ÌÐ ¾95; Ðà8 ` àCan€you€risk€that€kind€of€individual€[defendant€Hall]€in€a€life€sentence?€€AndÏitððs€also€presuming€that€heððs€going€to€stay€in€the€penitentiary.€€Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à[Objection€overruled€because€defendant€Hall€opened€the€door€by€arguingÏthat€he€could€become€a€productive€citizen€with€life€sentence]Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓӜ̛à ` àA€capital€sentencing€jury€is€not€precluded€from€consideration€of€the€futureÏdangerousness€of€a€particular€defendant€where€such€is€a€relevant€factor€under€a€state'sÏcapital€sentencing€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòJurek€v.€Texasóó,€428€U.S.€262,€96€S.Ct.€2950,€49€œL.€Ed.€2d›€929Ð xÈ  Ð(1976);€òòCalifornia€v.€Ramosóó,€463€U.S.€992,€1001,€103€S.Ct.€3446,€3453,€77€œL.€Ed.€2d›€1171Ð D”  Ð(1983);€òòSpaziano€v.€Floridaóó,€468€U.S.€447,€461„62,€104€S.Ct.€3154,€3163,€82€œL.€Ed.€2d›€340Ð ` Ð(1984).€€ÌœÌ›à ` àGenerally,€however,€our€Courts€have€held€that€the€issue€of€specific€or€generalÏdeterrence€should€be€avoided€by€the€prosecution€in€closing€argument€at€a€capitalÏsentencing€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€881„82€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ð  \ Ð502€U.S.€841,€112€S.Ct.€131,€116€œL.€Ed.€2d›€98€(1991);€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€131Ð Ø( Ð(Tenn.€1988),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072,€109€S.Ct.€1357,€103€œL.€Ed.€2d›€825€(1989).€Ð ¤ô ÐSpecifically,€the€deterrence€argument€is€usually€irrelevant€to€the€aggravating€circumstancesÏlisted€in€Tennessee's€statute.€€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€at€882.€€Thus,€ð ðunless€relevantÐ <#Œ" Ðto€some€theory€raised€by€the€State[']s€proof,€or€the€defense,€it€interjects€an€element€into€theÏjury's€considerations€not€provided€for€by€the€law.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòBatesóó,€the€defendant's€mitigatingÐ Ô&$"& Ðtheory€was€that€the€defendant€was€mentally€disturbed€to€such€a€degree€that€it€lessened€hisÏculpability,€that€he€would€be€confined€for€the€rest€of€his€natural€life,€and€that€he€would€beÏamenable€to€treatment€and€rehabilitation.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€state'sÏargument€concerning€specific€deterrence€was€in€direct€response€to€the€defendant's€theoryÏand€was€not€improper€under€the€circumstances.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð Ð/ +0 М̛à ` àIn€the€present€case,€as€found€by€the€trial€court,€appellant€Hall€opened€the€door€toÏsuch€argument€by€presenting€proof€that€if€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment,€he€could€becomeÏa€productive€citizen,€leaving€the€impression€to€the€jury€that€he€was€going€to€stay€in€prison.€Ï€Although€appellant€Quintero€waived€closing€argument,€his€proof€implied€that€he€could€beÐ Ì84: Ðrehabilitated€if€given€a€life€sentence.€€Regardless,€as€pointed€out€in€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€762Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€121,€in€reviewing€the€propriety€of€argument€in€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding,€theÏreviewing€court€must€determine€whether€the€prosecutor's€comments€affected€theÏsentencing€decision.€€òòIdóó.€at€131.€€"If€the€Court€cannot€say€the€comments€had€no€effect€onÐ  d Ðthe€sentencing,€then€the€jury's€decision€does€not€meet€the€standard€of€reliability€requiredÏby€the€Eighth€Amendment."€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòCaldwell€v.€Mississippióó,€472€U.S.€320,€105€S.Ct.Ð ¬ ü  Ð2633,€2646,€86€œL.€Ed.€2d›€231€(1985)).€€Based€on€the€proof€presented,€it€is€clear€that€theseÏfew€comments€did€not€affect€the€juryððs€sentencing€decision.ÌœÔ#†X°þXXX°þü#ÔÔ‡X°þXXX°þÔÌ›à ` àThe€appellants€next€assert€that€the€prosecutor€diminished€the€jury's€sense€ofÏresponsibility€in€determining€the€sentence€in€violation€of€òòCaldwell€v.€Mississippióó,€472€U.S.Ð ¨ø Ð320,€105€S.Ct.€2633,€86€œL.€Ed.€2d›€231.€ÌœÌ›à ` àIn€òòCaldwellóó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€"it€is€constitutionally€impermissible€to€restÐ  \ Ða€death€sentence€on€a€determination€made€by€a€sentencer€who€has€been€led€to€believeÏthat€the€responsibility€for€determining€the€appropriateness€of€the€defendant's€death€restsÏelsewhere."€€òòIdóó.€at€328„29,€105€S.Ct.€at€2639.€€In€reviewing€an€alleged€violation€underÐ p!À  ÐòòCaldwellóó,€the€Court€must€ð ðfirst€determine€whether€the€prosecutor's€comments€to€the€juryÐ <#Œ" Ðwere€such€that€they€would€minimize€the€jury's€role€and€sense€of€responsibility€forÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€death€as€a€sentence€and,€if€so,€whether€the€trial€judgeÏsufficiently€corrected€the€impression€left€by€the€prosecutor.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2dÐ  (ð#( Ð253,€263;€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387,€399€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1010,Ð l*¼%* Ð110€S.Ct.€3254,€111€œL.€Ed.€2d›€764€(1990).̛̜à ` àThe€prosecution€made€comments€during€closing€argument€such€as€ð ðit€requires€thatÏthey€be€put€on€death€row,€where€they€wonððt€pose€this€type€of€threat€to€the€community€again.€ÏThatððs€what€the€law€and€the€evidence€in€this€case€requires.€€There€is€no€other€way€you€canÏlook€at€it.ðð€€And,€ð ðyou€as€the€jury,€I€believe€you€have€the€right€to€protect€your€communityÏagainst€these€people.ðð€€The€appellants€objected,€the€objection€was€sustained,€and€the€trialÏcourt€gave€a€curative€instruction.€€Without€objection,€the€prosecution€went€on€to€state:Ð Ì84: ÐÓӜ̛à8 ` àAnd€if€we€donððt€impose€it,€it€canððt€be€imposed.€€It€has€to€be€done€by€ourÏConstitution€just€like€we€have€done€it€in€this€case.€It€has€to€be€done€byÏfollowing€the€procedure.€€We€have€followed€that€procedure.€€And€we€canÏeither€follow€the€law€or€we€can€ignore€the€law,€and€Iððm€asking€you€not€toÏignore€the€law€and€the€facts€in€this€case€and€do€what€is€appropriate€under€theÏfacts€and€under€the€law.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ»%Ӝ̛à ` àWhile€the€last€comment€possibly€could€be€construed€as€violating€the€dictates€ofÏòòCaldwellóó,€it€was€not€necessarily€meant€to€nor€gave€the€impression€that€the€jury€was€notÐ xÈ  Ðresponsible€for€deciding€the€verdict.€€Regardless,€the€trial€court€gave€the€followingÏinstruction€at€the€end€of€the€sentencing€hearing:ÌÓӜ̛à8 ` àIt€is€now€your€duty€to€determine,€within€the€limits€prescribed€by€law,€theÏpenalty€which€shall€be€imposed€as€punishment€for€each€defendant€for€eachÏoffense.€.€.€.€In€arriving€at€this€determination,€you€are€authorized€to€weigh€andÏconsider€any€mitigating€circumstances€and€any€of€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstances€which€may€have€been€raised€by€the€evidence€throughout€theÏentire€course€of€this€trial,€including€the€guilt€finding€phase€or€the€sentencingÏphase€or€both.€€You€the€Jury,€are€the€sole€judges€of€the€facts,€and€of€the€lawÏas€it€applies€to€the€facts€in€these€cases.€€œÐ ` (#` (# ЛÌÓӜ̛à ` àUnder€òòCazesóó€and€òòWestóó,€the€error,€if€any,€in€the€prosecution's€argument€wasÐ ¤ô Ðrendered€harmless.€€The€trial€court€did€not€endorse€the€state's€argument,€and€it€correctlyÏinstructed€the€jury€before€deliberation.€ÌœÌ›à ` àNext,€the€appellants€submit€that€it€was€improper€for€the€prosecution€in€its€closingÏargument€to€state:ÌÓÓà8 ` àMurder€of€an€innocent€couple,€they€didnððt€have€anything€to€do€with€the€prisonÏin€Eddyville.€€They€didnððt€have€anything€to€do€with€law€enforcement.€€TheyÏwere€just€an€elderly€couple€that€were€semi„helpless€almost.€€They€had€retiredÏover€there€on€Kentucky€Lake.€€Had€a€right€to€live€in€that€little€house€thatÏoverlooked€the€lake€and€go€fishing€and€have€their€grandson€come€down€toÏvisit€with€them.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÿ,Óà ` à[Objection€overruled]Ìà ` à*€*€*€*ÌÓÓà8 ` à[B]ut€I€believe€that€under€the€law€of€our€land,€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Vester,€theyÏhad€a€right€to€go€on€living.€€They€had€the€right€to€have€been€alive€thisÏThanksgiving€and€had€their€children.€€They€had€rights.€€They€had€rights.€ÏEven€though€they€are€not€alive€on€the€face€of€this€earth,€these€rights€„„€andÏour€law€was€designed€to€make€sure€they€have€rights.€€So€donððt€get€lost€in€thisÏcase€on€what€the€defendantsðð€rights€are€„„Ð ` (#` (# ÐÐ ²95; ÐÓ/Óà ` à[Objection€overruled]Ìà ` à*€*€*€*ÌÓÓà8 ` àBut€I€will€tell€you€what,€these€two€people€that€are€buried€over€thereÏsomewhere€in€Stewart€County€have€a€right,€too.€€They€have€a€right€to€theÏprotection€of€the€law.€€Itððs€too€late€to€do€them€any€good€.€.€.€.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓW1Ӝ̛à ` àIn€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€the€Supreme€Court€€held€that€it€was€reversibleÐ ¬ ü  Ðerror€where€the€prosecutor€reminded€the€jury€that€there€had€been€no€one€there€to€ask€forÏmercy€for€the€victims€and€encouraged€the€jury€to€give€the€defendant€the€sameÏconsideration€that€he€had€given€his€victims.€€òòIdóó.€at€812.€€In€finding€the€prosecutor'sÐ ` Ðargument€to€be€improper,€the€Court€stated€that€the€argument€"encouraged€the€jury€to€makeÏa€retaliatory€sentencing€decision,€rather€than€a€decision€based€on€a€reasoned€moralÏresponse€to€the€evidence."€€òòIdóó.Ð tÄ ÐÌñcñœñcñà ` àThe€prosecutorððs€remarks€cannot€be€said€to€rise€to€the€level€of€error€found€in€òòBigbeeóó,Ð  \ Ðnor€did€they€affect€the€juryððs€sentencing€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2dÐ Ø( Ð908,€913€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.€3291,€111€œL.€Ed.€2d›€800Ð ¤ô Ð(1990).̛̜à ` àNext,€the€appellants€contend€that€the€prosecutor€wrongly€expressed€his€personalÏopinion€of€the€appellantsðð€proof€of€mitigating€circumstances.̛̜à ` àDuring€closing€arguments,€the€prosecution€made€the€following€comments:ÌÓÓà8 ` àIn€fact€I€submit€to€you,€we€havenððt€heard€any€[mitigating€circumstances].€€IÏthink€the€definition€of€mitigation€goes€something€like€to€moderate€in€force€orÏintensity,€to€alleviate€or€to€become€milder.€€I€havenððt€heard€anything.€€WhatÏhas€been€shown€in€mitigation€in€this€case?€€How€many€children€in€this€worldÏhave€been€raised€by€parents€that€drink,€maybe€wore€clothes€too€big€for€themÏto€school?€€Does€that€mitigate€what€happened€to€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Vester?€€YouÏknow€we€asked€the€Defendant€Quinteroððs€uncle;€well,€you€were€brought€upÏin€a€good€home.€€One€turned€out€to€be€what€he€described€as€not€so€good,Ïand€the€others€were€good.€€Thatððs€not€an€excuse,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€forÏthis€type€of€murder.€€If€my€father€died€the€week€before€I€was€born€and€I€didnððtÏhave€a€father€around,€does€that€mitigate€if€I€go€out€and€slaughter€somebodyÏin€their€bed?Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà ` à*€*€*€*Ìâ âÐ Ì84: Ðà8 ` àYou€know€what€you€heard€in€mitigation,€if€there€was€any€mitigation€there.€Ïâ âFirst€of€all,€I€donððt€really€know€„„€I€have€yet€to€hear€anything€that€sounded€toÏme€like€it€would€mitigate€against€what€happened€to€the€Vesters.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà ` à[Objection]ÌÌà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Yes,€ladies€and€gentlemen€„„€I€sustain€that.€€ladies€andÏgentlemen,€an€attorney€cannot€give€his€personal€opinions€to€you,€disregardÏit.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓӜ̛à ` àIn€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10€(Tenn.€1990),€òòaffððdóó,€501€U.S.€808,€111€S.Ct.€2597,Ð xÈ  Ð115€œL.€Ed.€2d›€720€(1991),€our€Supreme€Court€addressed€this€issue:ÌÓÓà8 ` àIt€is€a€violation€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility,€DR€7„106(C)(4)€forÏlawyers€engaged€in€trial€to€express€their€personal€opinion€about€any€issueÏinvolved€in€the€justice€of€the€cause€they€represent.€€This€Court€hasÏrepeatedly€condemned€such€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€743Ð Â ÐS.W.2d€154,€159€(Tenn.€1987)€and€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618€S.W.2d€510,€516,€517Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€However,€insofar€as€its€effect€upon€DefendantððsÏrights,€it€is€ineffective,€as€well€as€unprofessional,€and€in€this€case€wasÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓõ=ÓœòòIdóó.›€at€20.€€The€same€is€true€here.€€Such€error€was€harmless.Ð &v ÐÌñcñœñcñà ` àMoreover,€it€should€be€noted€that€our€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€it€is€proper€forÏthe€state€to€argue€to€the€jury€that€it€should€not€return€a€life€sentence€based€on€the€mitigatingÏcircumstances€presented€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€258.€Ð V"¦! ÐIn€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€the€Supreme€Court€found€that€"the€State's€argumentÐ "$r# Ð'that€there€were€no€mitigating€circumstances€in€this€case€and€that€Dr.€Engum's€testimonyÏconcerning€the€defendant€should€be€entitled€little€weight'€.€.€.€did€no€more€than€set€out€theÏState's€interpretation€of€the€proof."€€òòIdóó.€at€85.€€The€state€is€entitled€to€argue€to€the€jury€thatÐ †)Ö$) Ðit€should€not€give€much€weight€to€the€mitigating€evidence€presented.ÌœÔ#†X°þXXX°þi#ÔÌ›à ` àFinally,€the€appellants€contend€that€the€prosecutionððs€characterizations€of€them€andÏof€the€murders€were€highly€improper€and€resulted€in€an€arbitrary€and€unreliable€sentence.€ÏSpecifically,€the€prosecution€made€the€remark€that€it€was€ð ð[k]ind€of€like€killing€hogs€andÏbleeding€all€over€the€bathroom.ðð€€Appellant€Quinteroððs€objection€was€overruled.€€Later,€theÏprosecution€stated€ð ð[i]f€my€father€died€the€week€before€I€was€born€and€I€didnððt€have€a€fatherÏaround,€does€that€mitigate€if€I€go€out€and€slaughter€somebody€in€their€bed?ðð€€TheÏappellantsðð€objections€were€overruled€even€though€two€such€objections€had€been€sustainedÐ ²95; Ðduring€closing€argument€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€Finally,€the€appellants€submit€thatÏit€was€improper€for€the€prosecution€to€have€stated€ð ð[i]f€you€found€cancer€in€your€body€youÏwould€remove€it,ðð€in€reference€to€the€appellants.̛̜à ` àFirst,€we€note€that€the€appellants€failed€to€object€to€this€last€comment.€€Moreover,Ïwhile€the€stateððs€comments€do€not€appear€to€be€proper€argument,€we€find€that€any€errorÏwas€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡X°þXXX°þÔState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€20.Ð xÈ  ÐÌœÔ#†X°þXXX°þÈH#Ôò òÌ›à@2 2 DàJURY€INSTRUCTIONS€AT€SENTENCING€PHASEó ó׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׈Ð è8 М̛à ` àThe€appellants€contend€that€the€jury€instruction€on€reasonable€doubt€at€theÏsentencing€phase€did€not€lend€content€to€the€moral€certainty€phraseology€used€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€Thus,€they€argue€that€there€was€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€jury€understood€itÏto€allow€conviction€based€on€insufficient€proof€in€violation€of€the€standard€set€forth€in€òòCageÐ ð@ Ðv.€Louisianaóó,€498€U.S.€39,€41,€111€S.Ct.€328,€329„30,€112€œL.€Ed.€2d›€339,€and€òòVictor€v.Ð ¼  ÐNebraskaóó,€511€U.S.€1,€114€S.Ct.€1239,€1247„48,€127€œL.€Ed.€2d›€583.€€Specifically,€theÐ ˆ!Ø  Ðappellants€assert€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€moral€certainty€failed€to€provide€aÏminimum€burden€of€proof€that€it€purports€to€define.̛̜à ` àà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€State€to€prove€any€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€andÏto€a€moral€certainty.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€an€investigation€of€allÏthe€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,€after€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mindÏrest€easily€as€to€the€certainty€of€your€verdicts.€€Reasonable€doubt€does€notÏmean€a€doubt€that€may€arise€from€possibility.€€Absolute€certainty€is€notÏdemanded€by€the€law,€but€moral€certainty€is€required€and€this€certainty€isÏrequired€as€to€every€proposition€of€proof€requisite€to€constitute€the€verdicts.€ÏThe€law€makes€you,€the€Jury,€the€sole€and€exclusive€judges€of€the€credibilityÏof€the€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€given€to€the€evidence.Ð ` (#` (# М̛ÓDMÓÐ 26‚17 Ðñcñœñcñà ` àLike€the€charge€at€the€guilt„innocence€phase,€the€terms€of€particular€concern€to€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€were€not€included€in€the€trial€courtððs€charge€to€the€jury€at€theÏsentencing€phase.€€As€cited€earlier,€in€several€cases,€this€Court€has€upheld€similarÏinstructions€as€consistent€with€constitutional€principles.€€òòSeeóó€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885Ð  d ÐS.W.2d€364,€365„66;€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€294.€€Moreover,€our€SupremeÐ à 0 ÐCourt€has€held€that€"the€use€of€the€phrase€'moral€certainty'€by€itself€is€insufficient€toÏinvalidate€an€instruction€on€the€meaning€of€reasonable€doubt."€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877Ð xÈ  ÐS.W.2d€722,€734.€€Thus,€the€full€charge€given€by€the€trial€court€at€the€sentencing€phase,Ïalthough€containing€the€phrase€"moral€certainty,"€did€not€violate€the€appellantsðð€rights€underÏthe€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions.ÌÌò òÓӜ̛à@  DàDOUBLE€JEOPARDY€CLAIM€BASED€ON€CONVICTIONS€FORˆÌà@& & DàFELONY„MURDER€AND€UNDERLYING€FELONIESó óˆÐ Lœ М̛ÌÓTÓñcñœñcñà ` àThe€appellants€argue€that€their€multiple€convictions€for€felony„murder,€as€well€as€forÏthe€underlying€felonies,€violated€the€double€jeopardy€provisions€of€both€the€FifthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€10€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€The€appellants€cite€òòBriggs€v.€Stateóó,€573€S.W.2d€157€(Tenn.€1978),€and€òòStateÐ h"¸! Ðv.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€1981),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€455€U.S.€983,€102€S.Ct.€1491,€71Ð 4$„# МL.€Ed.€2d›€692€(1982).̛̜à ` àœIn›€òòState€v.€Blackburnóó,€694€S.W.2d€934€(Tenn.€1985),€the€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ ˜)è$) Ðthe€imposition€in€a€single€trial€of€dual€convictions€for€both€felony„murder€and€the€underlyingÏfelony€does€not€violate€the€constitutional€prohibitions€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòIdóó.€at€936„Ð 0-€(- Ð37.€€Our€appellate€courts€have€continued€to€hold€that€dual€convictions€for€felony„murderÏand€the€underlying€felony€does€not€violate€double€jeopardy€provisions.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.Ð È0,1 ÐBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€671;Ô‡X°þXXX°þÔ€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€890€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ”2ä-3 Ð1995);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€781€S.W.2d€873,€884„85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)Ô#†X°þXXX°þ·Y#Ô.€€This€issue€isÐ `4°/5 Ðwithout€merit.ÌœÌñcñ›ñcñÐ Ä95; Лà@´´ Dàò òINTERSTATE€COMPACT€ON€œDETAINERSó ó›ˆÐ ° ÐñcñœñcñœÌ›à ` àœAppellant›€Hall€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€theÏInterstate€Compact€on€Detainers,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„31„101,€et€seq.,Ô‡X@¢XXX@¢Ôœ×ƒ1×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›Ô#†X@¢XXX@¢_#Ô€by€not€granting€him€aÐ  p Ðspeedy€trial.€€Specifically,€appellant€Hall€argues€that€once€the€state€requested€that€he€beÏreturned€from€Kentucky€pursuant€to€the€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers,€it€was€obligatedÏto€comply€with€all€of€its€requirements.€€Therefore,€appellant€Hall€submits€that€the€state€wasÏnot€entitled€to€withdraw€its€request€under€the€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers€and€proceedÏunder€the€Uniform€Criminal€Extradition€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„9„101,€et€seq.€€Because€appellantÏHall€was€not€tried€within€180€days,€as€required€by€the€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers,€Art.ÏIII,€he€argues€that€the€charges€should€have€been€dismissed.€€We€find€no€support€forÏappellant€Hallððs€position.̜ԇX@¢XXX@¢ÔÌ›à ` àœWhen›€an€accused€is€sought€in€another€state€for€crimes€committed€in€Tennessee,Ïthe€state€may€initiate€proceedings€pursuant€to€the€Interstate€Compact€on€DetainersÔ#†X@¢XXX@¢sb#ÔÔ‡X@¢XXX@¢Ô€orÐ ä4 Ðunder€the€Uniform€Criminal€Extradition€ActÔ#†X@¢XXX@¢ec#Ô.€€If€a€defendant€is€returned€to€Tennessee€underÐ ° Ðthe€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers,€the€state€must€try€the€defendant€within€180€days€ofÏhis€return€to€the€state€in€which€the€crimes€were€committed.€€T.C.A.€€ðð€40„31„101,€Art.€III.€ÏThe€receiving€state€only€receives€temporary€custody€of€the€prisoner€for€the€sole€purposeÏof€prosecuting€any€untried€charges.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„31„101,€Art.€V.€€ÌœÌ›à ` àœThe›€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers€and€the€Uniform€Criminal€Extradition€Act€doÏnot€indicate€that€the€initiation€of€proceedings€under€one€automatically€precludesÏproceedings€under€the€other.€€The€two€Acts€were€adopted€in€Tennessee€ð ð[t]o€facilitate€theÏimportant€duties€of€transferring€individuals€into€and€out€of€this€state€for€trial€on€criminalÏcharges,€and€to€bring€uniformity€to€the€procedures€among€the€several€states.ðð€€òòState€ex€rel.Ð ¨1ø,2 ÐYoung€v.€Roseóó,€670€S.W.2d€238,€239€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€The€main€differenceÐ ° Ðbetween€the€two€Acts€is€that€the€procedures€under€the€Interstate€Compact€on€DetainersÏresult€in€merely€a€temporary€transfer€to€the€receiving€state.€€òòIdóó.Ð H˜ М̛à ` àœWhile›€the€specific€issue€in€the€present€case€has€not€been€addressed€by€TennesseeÏcourts,€we€are€persuaded€by€the€holding€in€òòPeople€v.€Quakenbushóó,€687€P.2d€448€(Colo.Ð ¬ ü  Ð1984),€where€the€court€held€that€an€agreement€under€the€Interstate€Compact€on€DetainersÏis€not€an€exclusive€method€by€which€officials€in€one€state€may€obtain€custody€of€aÏdefendant€incarcerated€in€another€state.€€òòIdóó.€at€450.€€The€Colorado€court€went€on€to€findÐ ` Ðthat€a€state€retains€its€constitutional€and€statutory€rights€to€extradite€a€fugitive€from€anotherÏstate.€€€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€error€in€the€stateððs€decision€to€withdraw€its€requestÐ ¨ø Ðunder€the€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers€and€bring€appellant€Hall€into€Tennessee€via€theÏextradition€process.€€Accordingly,€appellant€Hallððs€claim€is€without€merit.€œÌÐ   \ Лà@¤¤*Dàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ° Ðà ` àœWe›€have€carefully€considered€the€appellantsðð€contentions€as€to€alleged€errorsÏoccurring€during€the€guilt€phase€and€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€Ô‡X@¢XXX@¢ÔWe€find€that€bothÐ T¤ Ðof€the€appellantsðð€contentions€as€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€and€as€to€errorsÏoccurring€during€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phases€are€without€merit.€€Accordingly,€we€affirmÏappellant€Hallððs€convictions€and€death€sentence€with€one€modification:€€Count€2€of€No.Ï10557€is€merged€with€Count€1€of€No.€10547.̛̜à ` àœLikewise›€we€affirm€appellant€Quinteroððs€convictions€and€his€death€sentence€with€oneÏmodification:€€Count€2€of€No.€10544€is€merged€with€Count€1€of€No.€10527.€Ô#†X@¢XXX@¢òl#ÔÐ è8 ÐÓÓ