ÿWPCÈ> Áíz†iW¸«U` ½D¸¿_$AË’8½—Üg*a2ÂJèŠ9p Ž ¸b©Í¹h\ýþ†Mhá®g³S&˜æØáÕ^Yb'ÖlXØy$¹´i­eÚ„Š7D#}x q×å¯1ìÕ¹$Ó2q£hÛd|ïŠ"PŽ.ü ,‚š.ô'¼ß2dŒºWÿÊ•|vÔ-w©+¼Ÿ:½ÖF;5~‰?Ù\Ã[Õ$+Ç·V³lðO'#Á8›÷‹\ôõ:l¹Q`^EÙOõâ° ¶$×;¨}rÓiB×^´…P޽—&¾šfÏ/«¶ØíxÅ3Ø4ô3>H/´åw 8‡ó+%7‹Qt1æ5%úþ#¥s¹mLn~g(ßGy@PLÄ bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 1u‘ Æ ÆÌ Æ’ ÆX 0DNbbdElU0>n¸¬ídU@QQ3‘ÄKÈX¢¢&ú$G 'Êg(31+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+bd.±l.’4Œ¯5UON;9U:‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9‰9 0ëÃ9Ã9Ã9Ã9 B®:®: 0¤Ë: D5o; D-¤; 0KÑ;Ñ; AS<Æo< 0¤5= 0DÙ= A«>(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular2»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó9«y-s rfl-ð4¤P„£3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M PostScriptÈØØÚÚØÈØ0237=CIQYag­­1.A:i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ô\  `‹&Times New Roman ®Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔLike€the€State,€we€are€Ô_ÔstrainedÔ_Ô€to€find€logic€behind€the€Appellantððs€assertion€that€the€only€appropriate€inquiryÐ ° Ðis€whether€a€religious€belief€is€ð ðsincerely€held.ðð€€Accordingly,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€address€this€complaint. ãÝ ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€Appellant€recognizes€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€in€òòWolf€v.€Sundquistóó€as€dispositive€of€this€issue.€Ð ° ÐNotwithstanding,€he€Ô_ÔassertÔ_ÔÔ_ÔsÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôthat€Ô_Ô€ð ðòòWolfóó€is€incorrectly€decided.ðð€€As€the€State€acknowledges,€the€Appellant€fails€to€offerÐ tÄ Ðany€argument€for€his€position.€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€rationale€in€òòWolfóó.€€€Accordingly,€we€reject€theÐ 8ˆ ÐAppellantððs€contention€that€the€courtððs€decision€is€flawed.(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  )Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔDr.€Martell€explained€that€ð ðforensic€neuropsychologyðð€is€ð ðthe€study€of€brain€damage,€and€how€it€affects€violentÐ ° Ðbehavior.ðð€ úÝ ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWithin€his€argument,€the€Appellant€additionally€alleges€that€the€courtððs€acceptance€of€Dr.€Martell€as€an€expertÐ ° Ðin€the€field€of€forensic€neuropsychology€undoubtedly€resulted€in€prejudice€to€his€case.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that,Ð tÄ Ðalthough€he€called€Dr.€Auble,€a€psychologist€with€similar€training€to€that€of€Dr.€Martell,€he€did€not€seek€to€qualify€herÐ 8ˆ Ðas€an€expert€in€forensic€neuropsychology.€€Accordingly,€he€argues€that€the€jury€likely€gave€Dr.€Martellððs€testimony€greaterÐ üL Ðweight€Ô_ÔthanÔ_Ô€Dr.€Aubleððs€testimony.€€Nothing€prevented€the€Appellant€from€seeking€to€qualify€Dr.€Auble€as€an€expert€inÐ À Ðforensic€neuropsychology.€€He€cannot€now€complain€about€an€action€which€he€failed€to€pursue.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).Ð „Ô Ð AÝ ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔMembers€of€the€National€Network€of€Capital€Defense€Attorneys€alleged€that,€in€the€case€of€òòUnited€States€v.Ð ° ÐSpiveyóó,€Dr.€Martell€signed€a€false€affidavit. …Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€Appellant€acknowledges€that€the€allegation€against€Dr.€Martell€was€by€defense€counsel€in€that€matter€andÐ ° Ðthat€there€Ô_Ôis€noÔ_Ô€evidence€that€the€allegation€by€defense€counsel€did,€in€fact,€occur. NÝ ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€The€venire€completed€an€extensive€questionnaire€prior€to€voir€dire.€€Pursuant€to€the€Appellantððs€request,€theÐ ° Ðquestionnaire€included€multiple€inquiries€regarding€mental€health€issues.€€Of€relevance€to€this€Ô_Ôissue:Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔÌà8  àQuestion€Number€Ô_Ô44€DoÔ_Ô€you€believe€that€diagnosis€or€treatment€provided€by€a€psychiatrist€orÐ üL Ðpsychologist€or€other€qualified€professional€might€be€Ô_Ôhelpful?Ô_ÔÐÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àQuestion€Number€45€Ô_Ô€HaveÔ_Ô€you,€anyone€in€your€family€or€close€personal€friend€ever€received€any€typeÐ „Ô Ðof€inpatient€or€out„patient€mental€health€counseling€or€treatment?ÐH ˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQuestion€Number€46€Ô_Ô€HaveÔ_Ô€you,€any€member€of€your€family€.€.€.€or€close€personal€friend€ever€takenÐ  \ Ðany€type€of€psychotropic€drug€or€other€medications€for€depression,€anxiety€or€any€other€psychologicalÐ Ð  Ðor€psychiatric€problem€or€disorder?Д ä Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQuestion€Number€47€Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔHaveÔ_Ô€you€ever€had€an€unpleasant€experience€or€confrontation€with€someone€whoÐ X ¨  Ðsuffered€from€any€type€of€mental€illness€or€emotional€disorder,€or€someone€who€has€lost€control€ofÐ  l  Ðtheir€behavior?Ðà 0 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àQuestion€Number€48€Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔDoÔ_Ô€you€hold€an€opinion€about€defendants€who€use€mental€health€as€an€excuseÐ ¤ô  Ðfor€their€Ô_Ôactions?Ô_ÔÐh¸ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€courtððs€restrictions€during€group€voir€dire€arose€from€the€courtððs€concern€over€the€recent€case€of€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐReidóó,€981€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1998)(notice€requirements€of€intent€to€use€mental€health€evidence€as€mitigation€and€abilityÐ tÄ Ðto€withdraw€notice€of€intent€at€any€time€prior€to€presenting€such€evidence),€and€unfair€disadvantage€to€the€State. =Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€247;€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€473-474€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€511€U.S.Ð ° Ð1046,€114€S.€Ct.€1577€(1994). ÀÝ ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€19-20€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€996,€114€S.€Ct.€561€(1993);€€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€125€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€489€U.S.€1072,€109€S.€Ct.€1357€(1989);€€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€755Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€41,€45€(Tenn.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€490€U.S.€1085,€109€S.€Ct.€2111€(1989);€€òòKennedy€v.€Stateóó,€186€Tenn.€310,Ð 8ˆ Ð319,€210€S.W.2d€132,€136€Ô_Ô(1947),Ô_Ô€€òòcert.€deniedóó,€333€U.S.€846,€68€S.€Ct.€659€(1948). )Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€Appellantððs€brief€makes€reference€to€Prospective€Juror€Gerald€Hodges€in€his€challenge€to€the€limitationÐ ° Ðof€questioning€into€mental€health€issues.€€Additionally,€within€his€challenge€to€the€trial€courtððs€questioning€the€jurorsÐ tÄ Ðregarding€their€opinion€of€the€death€penalty,€the€Appellant€makes€specific€reference€to€prospective€jurors€William€Nelson,Ð 8ˆ ÐGerald€Hodges,€Gary€Hixson,€Terry€McNabb,€Troy€Calloway,€Willie€King,€Patricia€Anderson,€Justin€Law€and€RobertÐ üL ÐBrown.€Ô_Ô€These€challenges€are€waived€for€failure€to€exhaust€all€peremptory€challenges.Ô_Ô- ù- §Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWe€note€that€both€the€State€and€the€Appellant€acknowledge€the€legislatureððs€response€to€òòMiddlebrooksóó€in€itsÐ ° Ð1995€amendment€to€the€(i)(7)€aggravator.€€The€amended€aggravator€is€applicable€where€the€murder€ð ðwas€òòknowinglyóóÐ tÄ Ðcommitted,€solicited,€directed,€or€aided€by€the€defendant,€while€the€defendant€had€a€òòsubstantialóó€role€in€committing€orÐ 8ˆ Ðattempting€to€commit€[a€specific€enumerated€felony].ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7)€(emphasis€added).€€This€courtÐ üL Ðhas€concluded€that€the€amended€aggravator,€even€applied€in€cases€where€the€sole€verdict€is€that€of€felony€murder,Ð À Ðsufficiently€narrows€the€class€of€death„eligible€defendants,€thereby€creating€no€òòMiddlebrooksóó€problem.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð „Ô ÐJames€P.€Stoutóó,€No.€02C01„9812„CR„00376€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Feb.€20,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,Ð H ˜ Ð(Tenn.).€€The€Appellant€disputes€this€courtððs€review€of€the€amended€statute,€arguing€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€analysis€isÐ  \ Ðstill€applicable€even€with€the€current€language.€€We€find€no€sound€reason€to€overrule€this€courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€JamesÐ Ð  ÐP.€Stoutóó. ˆÝ ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€Appellant€specifically€refers€to€prospective€jurors€Hodges€and€Fears.€€Again,€Ô_Ôbased€upon€his€failure€toÐ ° Ðexercise€all€available€peremptory€challenges,€the€Appellant€has€waived€any€challenge€to€individual€jurors. ‚Ý ƒRvª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔRecent€legislation€in€this€state€has€substituted€death€by€lethal€injection€for€death€by€electrocution.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ° ÐCode€Annòò.€ðð€óó40„23„114€(1998€Supp.)€(changes€method€of€execution€from€electrocution€to€lethal€injection€for€thoseÐ tÄ Ðpersons€sentenced€to€death€after€January€1,€1999).€€The€new€statute€also€provides€that€those€persons€sentenced€to€deathÐ 8ˆ Ðprior€to€January€1,€1999,€may€choose€to€be€executed€by€lethal€injection€by€signing€a€written€waiver.€€Hence,€theÐ üL ÐAppellantððs€argument€has€not€only€been€rejected€by€prior€decisions€but,€now,€also€is€irrelevant,€as€the€capital€defendantÐ À Ðis€no€longeròò€óósubjected€to€death€by€electrocution.(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular(|G2vª$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€x»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôw@ò»2»Ô d(|3Çü$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€x»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çü$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€x»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€x»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€2¼Ò”»»2»ÔÑ8€4DXXdì»»d8ÑÔ‡¼Ò”»»2¼Ò”ÔÓ=€Ò”»€,»dÐd=ÓÌÌÌà@&ìàÔ‡„‘¿„»¼Ò”ÔAPPENDIXÔ#†2„‘¿„„„‘¿ú#ÔÔ#†2¼Ò”»„2„‘¿k#ԈРæ6 ÐÌÌÔ‡¼Ò”»»2¼Ò”ÔÔ‡„‘¿„»¼Ò”Ôà@xxìà(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)Ô#†¼Ò”»„„‘¿#Ôò òó óÔ#†2¼Ò”»»¼Ò”ð#ԈР j ºý Ðà@ttìàÔ‡2îÖÁî»2¼Ò”ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†2¼Ò”»î2îÖÁò#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMarch€13,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡2XŒ X»2¼Ò”ÔÌò òÔ#†2¼Ò”»X2XŒ ú#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€PAUL€DENNIS€REID,€JR.òòóóÔ‡2XŒ X»2¼Ò”Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„C„1834€€€€€€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00803„CCA„R3„DD€„€Filed€May€31,€2001Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÔ#†2¼Ò”»X2XŒ w#ÔÔ‡3¼. »»2¼Ò”ÔÌÌÔ#†2¼Ò”» »3¼.  #Ôòòò òÔ‡¼Ò”»»2¼Ò”ÔÔ‡ Cë »¼Ò”ÔóóOPINIONó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌò òÔ#†¼Ò”»  Cë #ÔÔ€XŒ X»¼Ò”Ô[Deleted:€€Summary€of€Facts]ó óÐ l ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ ê#ÔÌò òà@{{ìàÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô[Deleted:€€I.€Motion€to€Suppress]Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ #ԈРà0 ÐÌó óà@xxìàò òII.€€Voir€Direó ó€ò òof€the€Venireó óˆÐ à Ðà@ÌÌìàòòò òA.€€Use€of€Religious€Testsóóó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÓÓà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€Appellant€filed€a€motion€requesting€that€the€court€prohibit€the€use€ofÐ @  Ðð ðreligious€testsðð€during€jury€selection.€€He€argued€that€the€removal€for€cause€of€prospective€jurorsÐ ,!| Ðwho€oppose€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€because€of€ð ðsincerely€heldðð€religious,€moral€orÐ "h  Ðphilosophical€beliefs€violates€Article€I,€section€€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€He€further€assertedÐ #T! Ðthat€the€question,€ð ðwhether€the€jurorððs€ððsincerely€heldðð€religious,€moral,€or€philosophical€beliefsÐ ð#@" Ðwould€preclude€them€from€following€their€oath€as€jurors,ðð€violates€Article€I,€sections€3,€4,€6,€8,€andÐ Ü$, # Ð17€and€Article€XI,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Indeed,€the€Appellant€argued€that€theÐ È%!$ Ðonly€inquiry€which€is€constitutionally€permissible€when€a€prospective€juror€expresses€an€oppositionÐ ´&"% Ðto€the€death€penalty€upon€religious,€moral€or€philosophical€grounds€is€that€of€determining€whetherÐ  'ð"& Ðthe€belief€is€sincerely€held.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€motion.€€The€Appellant€nowÐ Œ(Ü#' Ðcontends€that€this€denial€was€error.Ð x)È$( ÐÌà  àA€person€otherwise€competent€may€not€be€disqualified€as€a€juror€because€of€his€or€herÐ P+ &* Ðreligious€beliefs.€òòóó€€In€other€words,€no€religious€test€shall€be€put€forth€to€the€person.€€Religious€testsÐ <,Œ'+ Ðprobe€religious€beliefs.€€òòSeeóó€òòWolf€v.€Ô_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€626,€631€(Tenn.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ ° Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔTorcasoÔ_Ô€v.€Watkinsóó,€367€U.S.€488,€494,€81€S.€Ct.€1680,€1683€(1961);Ð œì ÐòòPatty€v.€Ô_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€547€S.W.2d€897,€908€(Tenn.€1977),€òòÔ_ÔrevððdÔ_Ô€on€other€groundsóó,€435€U.S.€618,€98€S.Ð ˆØ ÐCt.€1322€(1978)).€€For€example,€a€person€may€not€be€excluded€from€jury€service€because€of€their€lackÐ tÄ Ðof€belief€in€a€Supreme€Being€nor€may€a€judge€coerce€a€prospective€juror€to€take€an€oath€whichÐ `° Ðincludes€a€reference€to€God€where€the€prospective€juror€is€an€atheist.€€òòSee€generally€óó€47òòAm.€Ô_ÔJurÔ_Ôóó.òò€2óód,Ð L œ ÐòòJuryóó€ðð€177€(1995).€€However,€the€exclusion€by€a€trial€court€of€prospective€jurors€because€of€theirÐ 8 ˆ Ðmoral€or€religious„based€reluctance€to€impose€the€death€penalty€is€not€error.€€In€this€regard,€potentialÐ $ t Ðjurors€are€removed€for€cause€not€because€of€their€religious€opinion€or€affiliation€but€because€theÐ  ` Ðjurors€are€unable€to€view€the€proceedings€impartially€and€perform€their€duties€in€accordance€with€theÐ ü L  Ðjurorððs€oath.€€òòSee€generallyóó€€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545,€547€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€908,Ð è 8  Ð111€S.€Ct.€280€(1990);€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€949€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€484€U.S.€872,€108Ð Ô$  ÐS.€Ct.€204€(1987).€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€in€òòWolf€v.€Ô_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€reaffirmed€this€principle,€stating:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àIt€is€now€settled€that€a€criminal€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€are€not€violated€byÐ ˜è  Ðexcusing€prospective€jurors€for€cause€when€their€personal€beliefs€concerning€theÐ „Ô  Ðdeath€penalty€would€prevent€or€substantially€impair€their€performance€as€a€juror€inÐ pÀ Ðaccordance€with€their€instructions€and€their€oath.Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àÌòòWolf€v.€Ô_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€629€(citing€òòWainwright€v.€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ôóó,€469€U.S.€412,€424,€105€S.€Ct.€844,Ð 4„ Ð852€(1985);€òòAdams€v.€Texasóó,€448€U.S.€38,€45,€100€S.€Ct.€2521,€2526€(1980);€òòState€v.€Hutchinsonóó,Ð  p Ð898€S.W.2d€161,€167€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€516€U.S.€846,€116€S.€Ct.€137€(1995);€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,Ð  \ Ð776€S.W.2d€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€1036,€110€S.€Ct.€758€(1990)).€€The€courtÐ øH Ðfurther€held€that€questioning€jurors€concerning€their€religious€beliefs€with€regard€to€the€death€penaltyÐ ä4 Ðdoes€not€amount€to€a€religious€test.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòWolf€v.€Ô_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€631.€€In€sum,€the€court€heldÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€exclusion€of€jurors€who€because€of€their€religious€beliefs€cannot€apply€the€law€to€the€factsÐ ¼  Ðof€a€particular€case€is€not€error.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòWolf€v.€Ô_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€633.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌà@´ ´ ìàòòò òB.€€Other€Issues€Concerning€Voir€Direóóó óˆÐ l¼ Ðà  àThe€Appellant€raises€additional€issues€regarding€the€trial€courtððs€direction€of€voir€dire€withinÐ T ¤ Ðthe€jury€selection€process€in€his€case.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€court€improperlyÐ @! Ðlimited€the€Appellantððs€ability€to€learn€about€potential€jurorsðð€attitudes€toward€mental€healthÐ ,"|  Ðevidence,€improperly€questioned€jurors€concerning€opinions€about€the€death€penalty,€and€improperlyÐ #h! Ðcommented€that€the€court€expected€the€Appellant€to€be€found€guilty.€€The€State€asserts€that€theÐ $T" ÐAppellant€has€waived€any€challenge€related€to€jury€composition€based€upon€his€failure€to€exhaustÐ ð$@ # Ðall€peremptory€challenges.€€With€regard€to€challenges€to€specific€jurors,׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€agree€that€the€AppellantÐ ° Ðhas€waived€any€challenge€on€appeal.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€248€(Tenn.Ð œì Ð1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€1215,€114€S.€Ct.€1339€(1994);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,Ð ˆØ Ð329€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTeelÔ_Ôóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€247€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€1007,€111€S.Ð tÄ ÐCt.€571€(1990).€€It€is€only€where€a€defendant€exhausts€all€of€his€peremptory€challenges€and€isÐ `° Ðthereafter€forced€to€accept€an€incompetent€juror€can€a€complaint€about€the€jury€selection€process€haveÐ L œ Ðmerit.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCouryÔ_Ôóó,€697€S.W.2d€373,€379€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1985)€(citing€€òòHale€v.€Stateóó,€198Ð 8 ˆ ÐTenn.€461,€281€S.W.2d€51€(1955);€€òòÔ_ÔMcCookÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€555€S.W.2d€411,€413€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð $ t Ð1977)).€€Further,€the€record€shows€that€the€jury€that€heard€the€case€was€fair€and€impartial.€€There€isÐ  ` Ðnothing€in€the€record€to€show€that€any€prejudice€resulted€to€the€Appellant€by€the€manner€of€theÐ ü L  Ðselection€process€utilized.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€error.€€òòóóHowever,€because€of€the€manner€in€whichÐ è 8  Ðthe€remaining€challenges€are€phrased,€we€choose€to€address€the€challenges€on€their€merits.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌà@§§ìàò òòò1.€€Limitation€of€Inquiry€into€Mental€Health€Evidence€as€Mitigating€Circumstanceó óóóˆÐ ˜è  Ðà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€24(a),€in€pertinent€part,€states€that€the€trial€court€"shallÐ €Ð  Ðpermit€questioning€by€the€parties€for€the€purpose€of€discovering€bases€for€challenge€for€cause€andÐ l¼ Ðenabling€an€intelligent€exercise€of€peremptory€challenges."€€It€further€states€that€"[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€court€.€.€.€mayÐ X¨ Ðdirect€that€any€portion€of€the€questioning€of€a€prospective€juror€be€conducted€out€of€the€presence€ofÐ D” Ðthe€tentatively€selected€jurors€and€other€prospective€jurors."€€Although€the€rule€provides€no€test€forÐ 0€ Ðdetermining€whether€the€scope€of€questioning€is€adequate€to€fulfill€the€rule's€purpose,€TennesseeÐ l Ðcourts€have€held€that€"the€scope€and€extent€of€voir€dire€is€entrusted€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,Ð X Ðand€his€actions€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€clear€abuse€of€discretion€is€shown."€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839Ð ôD ÐS.W.2d€54,€65€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.€Ct.€1368€(1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð à0 ÐSmithóó,€993€S.W.2d€6,€28€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€528€U.S.€1023,€120€S.€Ct.€536€(1999).€€Thus,€theÐ Ì Ðmethod€of€voir€dire,òò€i.e.,óó€individual€or€group,׃$d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€questions€that€may€be€asked,€and€the€scope€ofÐ ¸ Ðinquiry€are€all€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.׃%´×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court,€prior€to€the€commencement€of€jury€selection,€instructedÐ |Ì Ðâ âcounsel€that€individual€voir€dire€would€be€limited€to€issues€surrounding€pretrial€publicity€and€deathÐ h¸ Ðqualification,€ð ðunless€there€has€been€something€on€that€questionnaire€that€we€need€to€deal€withÐ ° Ðindividually.ðð€€Defense€counsel€informed€the€court€that,€from€the€questionnaires,€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àan€amazingly€large€number€of€jurors€recorded€for€us€mental€health€issues€related€toÐ tÄ Ðthemselves€or€to€their€family.€€As€this€obviously€would€be€a€subject€of€voir€direÐ `° Ðwhere€they€have€indicated€something€which€is€innately€a€personal€topic,€I€wonder€ifÐ L œ Ðthe€Court€would€like€to€consider€those€questions.€[׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×]Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌThe€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€request€to€question€jurors€during€individual€voir€dire€regardingÐ  ` Ðmental€health€issues,€but€stated,€ð ðthat€is€something€that€you€can€deal€[with]€within€the€general€voirÐ ü L  Ðdire.ðð€€The€trial€court€additionally€informed€defense€counsel€that€during€the€individual€voir€dire€theyÐ è 8  Ðcould€ask€the€general€question,€ð ðWill€you€consider€all€mitigation?ðð€and€also€permitted€the€parties€toÐ Ô$  Ðquestion€the€potential€jurors€regarding€any€matters€that€the€jurors€had€designated€as€ð ðprivateðð€on€theirÐ À  Ðquestionnaires.€€Regarding€group€voir€dire,€the€trial€court€limited€inquiry€into€mental€health€issues,Ð ¬ü  Ðrequiring€any€question€to€be€an€attempt€to€clarify€a€position€stated€in€the€questionnaire€or€be€a€generalÐ ˜è  Ðinquiry€regarding€the€jurorððs€ability€to€consider€mental€health€testimony.׃#Ð ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Appellant€nowÐ „Ô  Ðcontends€that€the€limitations€placed€on€voir€dire€prevented€him€from€developing€possible€causeÐ pÀ Ðchallenges€against€jurors€who€had€already€expressed€negative€attitudes€about€mental€healthÐ \¬ Ðevidence,׃0ä×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€thereby€rendering€the€limitations€essentially€meaningless.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€Defense€counsel€had€access€toÐ  p Ðthe€questionnaires€of€the€prospective€jurors.€€The€questionnaires€combined€with€the€permissibleÐ  \ Ðinquiries€as€to€mental€health€issues€during€individual€and€group€voir€dire€provided€the€Appellant€withÐ øH Ðample€background€information€from€which€to€exercise€peremptory€challenges.€€Accordingly,€we€findÐ ° Ðthat€the€limited€restrictions€placed€upon€the€parties€by€the€trial€court€were€reasonable€and€were€wellÐ œì Ðwithin€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ˆØ Ðò òòòó óóóÌà@a a ìàò òòò2.€€Court€Implied€to€Venire€that€Appellant€was€Guiltyó óóóˆÐ `° Ðà  àThe€Appellant€cites€to€numerous€statements€by€the€trial€court€which€he€asserts€ð ðimplicitlyÐ H ˜ Ðconveyed€that€the€court€expected€the€[Appellant]€to€be€found€guilty€of€first„degree€murder,€so€thatÐ 4 „ Ða€penalty€phase€would€necessarily€occur€thereafter.ðð€€€The€Appellant€contends€that€the€inference€fromÐ  p Ðthe€trial€courtððs€directions€to€the€venire€implied€that€the€court€ð ðviewed€the€[Appellantððs]€convictionsÐ  \ Ðas€a€foregone€conclusion.ðð€€Accordingly,€he€avers€that€the€courtððs€comments€resulted€in€prejudiceÐ ø H  Ðto€the€judicial€process€requiring€reversal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð ä 4  ÐÌà  àWithout€reiterating€verbatim€the€challenged€language€of€the€trial€court€to€the€venire,€weÐ ¼  Ðacknowledge€that€the€court,€for€example,€used€the€term€ð ðò òuntiló ó€he€is€found€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ¨ø  Ðdoubt€of€murder€in€the€first„degreeðð€rather€than€the€term€ð ðò òunlessó ó€he€is€found€guilty€beyond€aÐ ˜è  Ðreasonable€doubt€of€murder€in€the€first„degree.ðð€€The€Appellant€argues€prejudice€without€consideringÐ ˆØ  Ðthe€context€in€which€the€courtððs€statements€were€provided.€€Indeed,€one€challenged€comment€of€theÐ tÄ Ðcourt,€placed€in€full€context€of€the€courtððs€instruction,€provided:€€Ð `° ÐÌà8  àMr.€Reid€hasnððt€been€found€guilty€of€anything.€€That€is€what€the€trial€is€about,€so€IÐ 8ˆ Ðwant€to€make€certain€that€you€understand€he€is€presumed€innocent€as€he€sits€in€frontÐ $t Ðof€you,€and€that€presumption€stays€with€him€until€he€is€found€guilty€after€you€hear€theÐ ` Ðproof€in€the€case,€so€just€because€we€are€asking€you€questions€with€regard€to€theÐ üL Ðpossible€punishments€in€this€case,€I€want€to€make€certain€you€keep€in€mind€that€heÐ è8 Ðhas€not€been€found€guilty€of€anything,€but€the€reason€we€have€to€ask€you€theseÐ Ô$ Ðquestions€is€that€we€must€have€jurors€who€can€consider€all€three€possibleÐ À Ðpunishments.ЬüÐ Ð  ÐÌWe€disagree€with€the€Appellantððs€argument€that€this€instruction€compels€the€finding€that€the€courtÐ „Ô Ðimplied€to€the€jury€the€Appellantððs€guilt.€€Given€the€entire€context€of€the€voir€dire,€we€conclude€thatÐ pÀ Ðno€reasonable€juror€could€have€believed€that€the€court€was€instructing€him€or€her€to€return€a€guiltyÐ \ ¬ Ðverdict.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð H!˜ ÐÌÌà@Ó Ó ìàò ò[Deleted:€€Ô‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€Evidence]ˆÐ  $\" Ðó óÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ ­E#ÔÌò òÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÌà@õ õ ìàIV.€€Evidentiary€Issues:€Guilt€Phaseó óˆÐ Ð& "% Ðò òà@Ú Ú ìàòòA.€€Admissibility€of€Testimony€of€Sergeant€HunteróóˆÐ ¼' #& Ðó óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€Sgt.€Johnny€Hunter€to€testify€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€expert€witness€in€the€field€of€blood€spatter€analysis.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€thisÐ )à$( Ðtestimony€violated€his€constitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial€because€the€defense€was€unfairly€surprised.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐWe€disagree€and€find€no€error.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ .F#ÔSgt.€Hunter€was€qualified€by€the€court€to€testify€as€an€expert€on€fingerprint€analysis€andÐ ° Ðcomparison,€as€well€as€blood€spatter€analysis.€€The€Appellant€complains€that€he€received€no€advanceÐ œì Ðnotice€that€the€State€was€intending€to€introduce€expert€testimony€in€the€field€of€blood€spatter€analysisÐ ˆØ Ðand€that€he€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€effectively€cross„examine€the€witness.€€Sgt.€HunterððsÐ tÄ Ðreport,€which€was€provided€to€the€defense€prior€to€trial,€mentioned€that€no€visible€blood€spatter€wasÐ `° Ðfound,€with€the€exception€of€a€small€amount€of€blood€on€the€floor€around€the€victims.€€At€trial,€Sgt.Ð L œ ÐHunter€testified€about€blood€patterns€found€on€the€floor€and€surrounding€area,€specifically€noting€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðabsence€of€blood€spattering.€€Sgt.€Hunter€further€testified€that€the€absence€of€blood€spatteringÐ $ t Ðindicated€that€the€victims€were€lying€on€the€ground€when€they€were€shot.€€He€further€stated€that€theÐ  ` Ðblood€pattern€on€a€shelf€to€the€right€of€one€of€the€victims,€Sarah€Jackson,€indicated€that€she€hadÐ ü L  Ðattempted€to€lift€herself€up€after€being€shot.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€is€not€contesting€Sgt.€Hunterððs€qualifications,€but€rather€insists€that€he€wasÐ À  Ðsurprised€by€his€testimony€in€this€respect.€Although€the€Appellant€argues€that€he€had€no€notice€thatÐ ¬ü  ÐSgt.€Hunter€would€testify€about€blood€spattering€at€trial,€the€Appellant€fails€to€explain€how€he€wasÐ ˜è  Ðprejudiced€by€this€testimony.€€Ô‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔOver€a€year€before€trial,€the€Appellant€was€provided€with€a€copy€ofÐ „Ô  ÐSgt.€Hunterððs€report,€which€stated€that€a€small€amount€of€blood€was€found€on€the€floor€near€theÐ pÀ Ðvictims.€€The€Appellant€cannot€complain€about€Sgt.€Hunterððs€testimony€simply€because€he€failed€toÐ \¬ Ðfind€any€significance€in€the€report€which€was€properly€and€timely€provided€to€him€by€the€State.€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ dO#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔThisÐ H˜ Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓòòB.€€Testimony€of€Ô_ÔTBIÔ_Ô€Agent€Linda€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€Regarding€Length€of€Shoes€SeizedóóÐ øH Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÐ à0 ÐAgent,€Linda€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô,€to€testify€that€the€length€of€the€shoes€seized€from€the€Appellantððs€apartment€Ð Ì Ðwere€within€the€range€of€the€unidentified€shoe€print€left€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€Specifically,€heÐ ¸ Ðcontends€that€the€technique€used€in€ð ðmeasuringðð€the€enlarged€photographic€negative€was€not€shownÐ ¤ô Ðto€meet€the€standards€of€admissibility€for€expert€testimony€set€forth€in€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCSXÔ_Ô€Transp.óó,Ð à Ð955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€1997).€€Additionally,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€admission€of€AgentÐ |Ì ÐÔ_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ôððs€testimony€violated€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€702€and€401.€€Ð h¸ ÐÌà  àDeterminations€of€the€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€are€made€within€the€sound€discretionÐ @! Ðof€the€trial€court.€€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBallardÔ_Ôóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€standard€of€review€onÐ ,"|  Ðappeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€expert€testimony.€€The€abuseÐ #h! Ðof€discretion€standard€contemplates€that,€before€reversal,€the€record€must€show€that€a€judge€"appliedÐ $T" Ðan€incorrect€legal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€anÐ ð$@ # Ðinjustice€to€the€party€complaining."€€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.Ð Ü%,!$ ÐShuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€669€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð È&"% ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ OQ#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔAgent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€testified€that€a€ruler€was€placed€near€the€shoe€print€foundÐ  (ð#' Ðat€the€crime€scene€before€the€photograph€was€taken.€€The€negatives€were€later€developed€and€ð ðoneÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðto€one€photographs€were€made,€and€that€would€be€where€the€negative€is€enlarged€to€where€the€rulerÐ x*È%) Ðin€the€photograph€is€actually€the€same€size€of€the€ruler€next€to€the€print€at€the€scene,€so€theÐ d+´&* Ðphotographs€.€.€.€would€be€exactly€the€same€size€as€the€print€at€the€crime€scene.ðð€€Both€tread€andÐ ° Ðlength€were€determined€using€this€same€technique.€€After€comparing€the€photograph€and€the€shoes,Ð œì ÐAgent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€testified€that€none€of€the€treads€on€the€shoes€recovered€from€the€AppellantððsÐ ˆØ Ðapartment€matched€the€print€left€at€the€crime€scene.€€Although€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€testified€that€sheÐ tÄ Ðcould€not€speculate€as€to€the€actual€size€of€the€shoe€worn€by€the€perpetrator€because€different€stylesÐ `° Ðand€brands€would€vary€slightly€in€length,Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ ßY#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€she€did€testify,€however,€that€the€length€of€the€shoe€printÐ L œ Ðfound€at€the€scene€fell€within€the€range€of€lengths€of€the€nine€pairs€of€shoes€seized€from€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐAppellantððs€apartment.€€Specifically,€she€testified€that€the€shoe€print€found€at€the€scene€measured€12Ð $ t Ðand€3/8€inches€in€length.€€The€shoes€taken€from€the€Appellantððs€apartment€ranged€from€11€13/16Ð  ` Ðinches€to€12€ðð€inches€in€length.€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ Ä^#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_ÔððsÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony€regarding€the€length€of€the€shoe€print€€because€it€did€not€comport€with€standards€for€expertÐ À  Ðtestimony€set€forth€in€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€257.Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ â`#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€€We€note€that€the€Appellant€does€not€contestÐ ¬ü  Ðthis€measurement€technique€with€respect€to€the€tread€identification€testimony,€which€was€favorableÐ ˜è  Ðto€him.€€Rather,€he€only€attacks€this€technique€with€respect€to€the€length€of€the€shoe€print.€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ ªb#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔTheÐ „Ô  ÐAppellant€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€violating€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€702,€which€reads,€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]fÔ_ÔÐ pÀ Ðscientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€toÐ \¬ Ðunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€byÐ H˜ Ðknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€orÐ 4„ Ðotherwise.ððÐ  p ЀÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€the€Tennesseeòòóó€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€trial€court€may€consider€the€followingÐ øH Ðfactors€when€determining€the€reliability€of€scientific€evidence:€€(1)€whether€scientific€evidence€hasÐ ä4 Ðbeen€tested€and€the€methodology€with€which€it€has€been€tested;€€(2)€whether€the€evidence€has€beenÐ Ð  Ðsubjected€to€peer€review€or€publication;€€(3)€whether€a€potential€rate€of€error€is€known;€€(4)€whether,Ð ¼  Ðas€formerly€required€by€òòFryeóó,€the€evidence€is€generally€accepted€in€the€scientific€community;€€andÐ ¨ø Ð(5)€whether€the€expert's€research€in€the€field€has€been€conducted€independent€of€litigation.€Ð ”ä ÐòòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.Ô‡ôw@òXXŒ Ô€€Ô#†XŒ Xòôw@Ài#ÔIn€this€instance,€the€following€dialogue€took€place€during€a€jury„outÐ €Ð Ðhearing:Ð l¼ ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à8 ¸ àWell,€let€me€ask€Ms.€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€a€couple€of€questions.Ð D!” ÐMs.€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô,€the€training€that€you€had€in€terms€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€conclusions€that€you€drew,€were€these€standardÐ #l! Ðprocedures€used€in€that€field?Ð$X"¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àYes,€I€mean€„€„€Ðà%0!$¸ ¸  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à8 ¸ àOkay,€and€it€is€the€blowing€up,€the€one„on„oneÐ ¸'#& Ðcomparison€„€„€Ð¤(ô#'¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àUh„huh.Ð|*Ì%)¸ ¸  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐTHE€COURT:€€à8 ¸ à„€„€and€is€that€what€your€training€indicates?а¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:à8 ¸ à€.€.€.yes,€maððam.Јظ ¸  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à8 ¸ àAnd€is€that€the€standard€used€in€your€field?Ð`°¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àYes,€it€is.Ð8 ˆ¸ ¸  ÐTHE€COURT:€à8 ¸ àAll€right,€and€is€there€scientific€literature€with€regardÐ $ t Ðto€this,€I€mean€„€„€Ð `¸ ¸  ÐÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àYes,€there€is.Ðü L ¸ ¸  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€€à8 ¸ à€„€„€and€is€this€subject€to€being€able€to€be€proven€orÐ Ô$  Ðdisproved?ÐÀ ¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àYes.Ð˜è ¸ ¸  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à8 ¸ àOkay,€so€there€are€scientific€principles€behind€this?ÐpÀ¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àYes.ÐH˜¸ ¸  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à8 ¸ àSo€you€blow€it€up€one„on„one,€which€is€the€exact€sizeÐ  p Ðof€the€print,€and€then€you€just€make€a€comparison€ofÐ  \ Ðboth€in€tread€and€otherwise,€and€apparently€you€didÐ øH Ðthat€in€this€case€that€[defense€counsel]€does€not€objectÐ ä4 Ðto?ÐÐ ¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àYes,€your€honor.Шø¸ ¸  ÐÌDEFENSE:à8 ` à€à8¸ ` x` xàCorrect.Ѐи ¸  ÐÌTHE€COURT:€à8 ¸ àOkay,€so€you€used€that€same€methodology€to€compareÐ X ¨ Ðthe€prints,€the€tread,€and€that,€that€you€used€to€makeÐ D!” Ðthe€size€comparison?Ð0"€ ¸ ¸  ÐÌÔ_ÔLITTLEJOHNÔ_Ô:€à8 ¸ àBasically.€.€.€.€Ð$X"¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€above€text,€along€with€other€testimony€presented€at€the€jury„out€hearing,Ð à%0!$ Ðmore€than€satisfies€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó.€€The€evidence€presented€at€both€the€jury„outÐ Ì&"% Ðhearing€and€trial€indicated€that€the€technique€used€by€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€was€standard€procedure€andÐ ¸'#& Ðwidely€accepted€in€the€field€of€shoe€and€footprint€comparison.€€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€properly€qualifiesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€an€expert€in€shoe€and€footprint€comparison€and€her€testimony€would€have€substantially€assistedÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€trier€of€fact€due€to€her€education,€experience,€and€training.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€702.€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ d#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€€Moreover,Ð |*Ì%) Ðthe€Appellant€was€able€to€solicit€testimony€during€cross„examination€that€the€length€of€the€printÐ ° Ðfound€would€be€fairly€common€among€the€general€population.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€Appellant€also€argues€that€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ôððs€testimony€concerning€range€of€length€wasÐ tÄ Ðirrelevant.€€òòSeeóóòò€óóTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€401€and€402.€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€401€defines€relevantÐ `° Ðevidence€as€ð ðevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequenceÐ L œ Ðto€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence.ðð€Clearly,€testimony€concerning€the€shoe€prints€found€at€the€crime€scene€as€compared€toÐ $ t Ðthe€shoes€seized€from€the€Appellantððs€apartment€is€relevant€evidence€that€was€properly€admitted.€Ð  ` ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓòòC.€€Admissibility€of€Cash€Register€Receipts€Seized€from€Appellantððs€ResidenceóóÐ Ô$  Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€into€evidence€cash€registerÐ ¼  Ðreceipts€seized€from€the€Appellantððs€residence€that€were€not€properly€authenticated€pursuant€to€Tenn.Ð ¨ø  ÐR.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€901.€€Specifically,€he€contests€the€authentication€of€the€receipts€because€the€prosecutionÐ ”ä  Ðfailed€to€call€as€witnesses€representatives€of€the€respective€businesses€to€testify€as€to€the€legitimacyÐ €Ð  Ðand€accuracy€of€the€receipts.€The€prosecution,€through€the€testimony€of€Detective€Ô_ÔPostiglioneÔ_Ô,Ð l¼ Ðintroduced€three€cash€register€receipts€seized€from€the€Appellantððs€residence:€(1)€a€Wal„Mart€receiptÐ X¨ Ðin€the€amount€of€$78.34,€dated€February€17,€1997;€(2)€a€Wal„Mart€receipt€dated€the€same€day€in€theÐ D” Ðamount€of€$69.29;€and€(3)€a€receipt€from€Jumbo€Sports€dated€February€18,€1997,€for€$97.41.€€TheÐ 0€ Ðpurpose€for€the€introduction€of€these€receipts€was€to€show€that€the€Appellant€had€spent€a€largeÐ l Ðamount€of€money€in€a€short€period€of€time€after€the€murders€despite€the€fact€that€he€was€in€direÐ X Ðfinancial€trouble€at€the€time.€€At€trial,€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€introduction€of€the€receipts,Ð ôD Ðarguing€that€the€receipts€had€not€been€properly€authenticated.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objectionÐ à0 Ðand€found€the€cash€register€receipts€admissible.€€Upon€reviewing€this€issue,€we€agree€that€the€receiptsÐ Ì Ðwere€admissible.Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ fx#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÐ ¸ ÐÌà  à€Rule€901(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€requirement€ofÐ à Ðauthentication€.€.€.€€is€satisfied€by€evidence€sufficient€to€the€court€to€support€a€finding€by€the€trier€ofÐ |Ì Ðfact€that€the€matter€in€question€is€what€its€proponent€claims.ðð€€Notwithstanding,Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ ÿƒ#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€Rule€902(7)€statesÐ h¸ Ðthat€extrinsic€evidence€of€authenticity€is€not€required€as€a€condition€precedent€to€admissibility€whenÐ T ¤ Ðthe€item€or€items€sought€to€be€admitted€are€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]nscriptionsÔ_Ô,€signs,€tags,€or€labels€purporting€to€haveÐ @! Ðbeen€affixed€in€the€course€of€business€and€indicating€ownership,€control€or€origin.ðð€€In€the€presentÐ ,"|  Ðcase,€two€of€the€receipts€were€from€Wal„Mart€and€one€receipt€was€from€Jumbo€Sports.€€All€threeÐ #h! Ðreceipts€were€in€printed€form,€bearing€the€retailerððs€name,€address,€and€other€relevant€information.€Ð $T" ÐThis€printed€material€constitutes€an€ð ðinscriptionðð€for€purposes€of€satisfying€Rule€902(7).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€Ð ð$@ # ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Hing€Ô_ÔShairÔ_Ô€Chanóó,€680€F.€Supp.€521,€526€(Ô_ÔE.D.N.Y.Ô_Ô€1988)(a€hotel€record€on€hotelÐ Ü%,!$ Ðstationary€was€held€to€be€self„authenticating);€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ Â…#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ôòò€óóòòState€v.€Ô_ÔDeleonÔ_Ôóó,€No.€CA€17574,€Ó SÓÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ #Š#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô2000€WL€646502Ð È&"% Ð(Ohio€App.€2d.€May€19,€2000)(bill€of€sale€for€automobile€bearing€dealerððs€name€and€address€heldÐ ´'#& Ðto€be€self„authenticating);€òòóóNeil€P.€Cohen,€et.€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðððð€9.02[9]€(4th€ed.Ð  (ð#' Ð2000).€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ ÇŠ#ÔÓ SÓÓÓÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔThus,€the€cash€register€receipts€were€self„authenticating€and€properly€admitted€at€trial.€€ThisÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðissue€is€without€merit.Ð x*È%) ÐÐ d+´&* ÐÔ_Ôà@Ó Ó ìàò òV.€€Closing€Argument€at€Guilt€Phaseó óˆÐ ° ÐÌò òÓ  ÓòòA.€€Prosecutorial€Comment€on€Appellantððs€Failure€to€TestifyóóÐ ˆØ Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€defense€counselððs€motion€for€aÐ pÀ Ðmistrial€when,€during€closing€arguments€of€the€guilt/innocence€phaseÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ YŒ#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô,€the€prosecution€commentedÐ \¬ Ðon€the€Appellantððs€failure€to€testify.€€A€prosecutor€is€strictly€prohibited€from€commenting€on€theÐ H ˜ Ðdefendant's€decision€not€to€testify.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCokerÔ_Ôóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995).€Ð 4 „ ÐHowever,€a€prosecutor's€statement€that€proof€is€Ô_ÔunrefutedÔ_Ô€or€uncontradicted€is€not€an€improperÐ  p Ðcomment€upon€a€defendant's€failure€to€testify.€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€818€S.W.2d€350,€364€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð  \ ÐApp.1991);€òòÔ_ÔCouryÔ_Ôóó,€697€S.W.2d€at€378.€Ð ø H  ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ êŽ#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ôthe€Appellant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€However,€a€videotaped€statementÐ Ð  Ðto€the€detectives€following€the€Appellantððs€arrest€was€played€before€the€jury.€€In€this€tape,€theÐ ¼  ÐAppellant€stated€that€he€did€not€know€how€his€fingerprint€got€on€Hamptonððs€Movie€Gallery€card.€Ð ¨ø  ÐNonetheless,€he€also€told€detectives€ð ðIððm€not€surprised€that€it€is€on€there.ðð€€During€closing€argumentsÐ ”ä  Ðof€the€guilt/innocence€phase,€defense€counsel€made€the€following€statements:Ð €Ð  ÐÌà8  àI€believe€the€evidence€showed€that€card€was€found€the€next€day,€over€24€hours€afterÐ X¨ Ðthe€robbery€happened.€€You€heard€that€it€was€found€on€Ô_ÔEllingtonÔ_Ô€Parkway,€about€aÐ D” Ðmile€from€[the€Appellantððs]€house.€€You€heard€that€[the€Appellant]€had€a€car€thatÐ 0€ Ðbroke€down€all€the€time.€€If€a€person€was€near€something€and€your€car€breaks€downÐ l Ðand€you€walk€by€something,€you€might€pick€that€up€and€throw€it€back€down.€€FourÐ X Ðmonths€after€the€fact,€you€may€not€even€remember€that.ÐôDÐ Ð  ÐÌAdditionally,€defense€counsel€questioned€the€prosecutionððs€reasoning€for€playing€the€videotapedÐ Ì Ðstatement€during€trial.€€In€its€closing€arguments,€the€prosecution€responded€to€defense€counselððsÐ ¸ Ðcomments€as€follows:Ð ¤ô ÐÌÔ_Ôà8  à[Defense€counsel]€talked€about€why€did€the€State€put€in€the€statement.€€Because€heÐ |Ì Ðgave€it,€and€you,€as€jurors,€have€a€right€to€hear€it.€€You€did€hear€it,€and€we€put€in€onÐ h¸ Ðfor€one€reason;€because€he€was€given€chance€after€chance€to€explain€how€hisÐ T ¤ Ðfingerprint€could€have€gotten€on€that€card.€€He€said€Iððm€not€surprised€it€is€on€there.€Ð @! ÐòòWould€he€ever€have€an€explanationóó?ò ò€ó ó[Defense€counsel]€grabbed€one€out€of€the€air,Ð ,"|  Ðand€there€is€no€basis€in€fact€or€evidence€for€anything€else,€and€said,€well€maybe€hisÐ #l! Ðcar€broke€down.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€The€Appellant€maintains€that€the€prosecutionððs€statement€of€€ð ðWhen€would€heÐ à%0!$ Ðever€have€an€explanation?ðð€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ D’#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ôclearly€commented€upon€the€fact€that€the€Appellant€failed€to€explainÐ Ì&"% Ðduring€his€statement€to€police€the€presence€of€his€fingerprint€on€property€that€had€been€in€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpossession€of€one€of€the€victims.€€Additionally,€he€contends€that€the€prosecutor€wrongfullyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcommented€on€the€Appellantððs€failure€to€take€the€witness€stand€and€offer€an€explanation€at€trial.€€WeÐ )à$( Ðdisagree.€€This€was€clearly€rebuttal€argument€directed€toward€defense€counsel's€earlier€argument€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€Appellant€could€have€picked€up€the€movie€card€while€walking€after€his€car€broke€down.€€We€Ô_ÔdoÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€find€that€the€statement€can€be€fairly€characterized€as€a€comment€on€the€Appellantððs€failure€toÐ ° Ðtestify.€€At€most,€the€comment€was€mere€argument€by€the€prosecution€that€its€proof€was€Ô_ÔunrefutedÔ_ÔÐ œì Ðor€uncontradicted.€€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ ¶›#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔòòSeeóóòò€óóòòÔ_ÔCouryÔ_Ôóó,€697€S.W.2d€at€378.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òÌÓ  ÓòòB.€€Prosecutorial€Comment€During€Closing€ArgumentsóóÐ L œ Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€defense€counselððs€objection€toÐ 4 „ Ðthe€prosecutionððs€statement€during€closing€argument€that€the€Appellantððs€foot€was€the€ð ðsame€sizeððÐ  p Ðas€shoe€prints€left€at€the€scene.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€comment€wasÐ  \ Ðprejudicial€ð ðbecause€the€prosecutorððs€comments€constituted€a€misstatement€of€the€evidence€on€aÐ ø H  Ðcrucial€matter.ððÐ ä 4  ÐÌà  àClosing€arguments€are€an€important€tool€for€the€parties€during€the€trial€process.€Ð ¼  ÐConsequently,€the€attorneys€are€usually€given€wide€latitude€in€the€scope€of€their€arguments,€òòseeóóòò€óó€òòStateÐ ¨ø  Ðv.€Ô_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ôóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809€(Tenn.€1994),€and€trial€judges,€in€turn,€are€accorded€wide€discretionÐ ”ä  Ðin€their€control€of€those€arguments,€òòseeóóòò€óóòòState€v.€Ô_ÔZirkleÔ_Ôóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð €Ð  Ð1995).€€Notwithstanding€such,€arguments€must€be€temperate,€based€upon€the€evidence€introducedÐ l¼ Ðat€trial,€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried,€and€not€otherwise€improper€under€the€facts€or€law.€€òòÔ_ÔCokerÔ_ÔÐ X¨ Ðv.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995).€€To€justify€a€reversal€on€the€ground€ofÐ D” Ðimproper€argument€of€counsel,€it€must€affirmatively€appear€that€the€improper€conduct€affected€theÐ 0€ Ðverdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965);Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ ÕŸ#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÐ l ÐÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ ¨#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔòòState€v.€Ô_ÔMcBeeÔ_Ôóó,€644€S.W.2d€425,€428€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1982).Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ X¨#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€€Furthermore,€the€following€factorsÐ X Ðmust€be€considered€by€this€court€in€making€such€a€determination:€1)€the€conduct€complained€of,Ð ôD Ðviewed€in€light€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€byÐ à0 Ðthe€court€and€the€prosecutor;€3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€statement;€4)€theÐ Ì Ðcumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;€and€5)€the€relativeÐ ¸ Ðstrength€or€weakness€of€the€case.€€òòÔ_ÔBigbeeÔ_Ôóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809;€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609Ð ¤ô Ð(Tenn.€1984).Ð à ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€testified€that€the€unidentified€shoe€print€found€at€theÐ h¸ Ðcrime€scene€was€within€the€range€of€the€length€of€shoes€seized€from€the€Appellantððs€residence.€€SheÐ T ¤ Ðalso€testified€that€it€is€common€for€the€same€ð ðshoe€sizesðð€to€vary€in€length€based€upon€the€brandÐ @! Ðname€€and€manufacturer€of€the€shoe.€€Accordingly,€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€declined€to€specifically€identifyÐ ,"|  Ðthe€shoe€print€as€being€a€particular€size.€€Because€the€shoes€taken€from€the€Appellantððs€apartmentÐ #h! Ðranged€in€length€from€11€and€13/16€inches€to€12€and€ðð€inches,€Agent€Ô_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ô€testified€that€she€hadÐ $T" Ðno€doubt€that€the€shoe€print€found€at€the€scene,€which€measured€12€and€3/8€inches€in€length,€fellÐ ð$@ # Ðwithin€theÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ ©#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€range€of€length€of€shoes€taken€from€the€Appellantððs€apartment.€€Thus,€the€Appellant€couldÐ Ü%,!$ Ðnot€be€excluded€from€having€left€the€print.Ð È&"% ÐÌà  àDuring€closing€arguments€of€the€guilt/innocence€phase,€the€prosecution€made€the€followingÐ  (ð#' Ðthree€comments€with€respect€to€the€Appellantððs€ð ðshoe€sizeðð:Ð Œ)Ü$( Ðâ âÐ x*È%) Ðà8  àMore€than€likely,€it€was€the€killer,€and€could€that€print€have€excluded€[the€Appellant]Ð ° Ðâ âif€it€[sic]€was€the€killer?€€Of€course,€if€it€was€a€size€7€or€a€size€8€or€a€size€9,€but€it€fitÐ œì Ðin€the€òòsize€of€the€shoeóó€[the€Appellant]€wears.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à***Ð `° Ðà8  àThe€footprint€could€have€excluded€him.€€The€òòsame€sizeóó€of€[the€Appellant].ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#à***Ð$ tÀ(#À(# Ðà8  àWho€has€a€footprint€the€òòsame€sizeóó€as€the€one€left€at€the€crime€scene?€[The€Appellant].Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€The€Appellant€argues€the€above€comments€made€by€the€prosecution€wereÐ è 8  Ðprejudicial€and€misrepresented€the€proof.€€We€disagree.€The€prosecutor€never€referred€to€theÐ Ô$  Ðunidentified€shoe€print€as€being€a€particular€size.€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ û¯#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔWhile€it€might€have€been€more€preferable€for€theÐ À  Ðprosecution€to€use€the€terminology€ð ðwithin€range€of€length€of€[€the€Appellantððs]€shoesðð€instead€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðsame€size,ðð€it€is€clear€from€the€record€before€us€that€the€prosecution€was€simply€referring€to€AgentÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔLittlejohnÔ_Ôððs€testimony€where€she€explained€that€the€crime€scene€shoe€print€fell€within€the€range€ofÐ „Ô  Ðshoes€seized€from€the€Appellant.€€As€the€trial€court€correctly€noted,€ð ðthe€State€did€nothing€more€thanÐ pÀ Ðargue€its€position€that,€because€the€length€of€the€unknown€print€was€not€inconsistent€with€the€lengthÐ \¬ Ðof€the€[Appellantððs]€shoes,€the€[Appellant]€could€not€be€excluded€as€the€perpetrator.ðð€€Moreover,€weÐ H˜ Ðnote€that€the€trial€court€also€cautioned€the€jury€that€ð ðStatements,€arguments,€and€remarks€of€counselÐ 4„ Ðare€intended€to€help€you€in€understanding€the€evidence€and€applying€the€law,€but€they€are€notÐ  p Ðevidence.€€If€any€statements€were€made€that€you€believe€are€not€supported€by€the€evidence,€youÐ  \ Ðshould€disregard€them.ðð€€As€such,€we€find€no€evidence€of€prosecutorial€misconduct,€nor€do€we€findÐ øH Ðerror€which€prejudiced€the€Appellant.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ä4 ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓVI.€€Instructions€on€Lesser„Included€Offensesó óÐ ¨ø ÐÓ  Óà  àÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ :¶#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔThe€Appellant€argues€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€deny€his€request€for€juryÐ ”ä Ðinstructions€as€to€the€lesser„included€offenses€of€facilitation€of€first„degree€murder€and€facilitationÐ €Ð Ðof€especially€aggravated€robbery.€With€respect€to€the€premeditated€first„degree€murder€charges,€theÐ l¼ Ðcourt€instructed€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€second„degree€murder.€€With€respect€toÐ X ¨ Ðthe€especially€aggravated€robbery€charges,€the€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€lesser„included€offenseÐ D!” Ðof€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€court,€however,€declined€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„includedÐ 0"€  Ðoffense€of€facilitation.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that,€in€Tennessee,€irrespective€of€a€partyððs€request€for€a€lesser„included€juryÐ ô$D # Ðinstruction,€ð ð[Ô_ÔI]tÔ_Ô€is€the€duty€of€all€judges€charging€juries€in€cases€of€criminal€prosecutions€for€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðfelony€.€.€.€to€charge€the€jury€as€to€all€of€the€law€of€each€offense€included€in€the€indictment.ðð€€Tenn.Ð Ì&"% ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a)€(1997).€€Moreover,€as€the€State€concedes,€facilitation€is€a€lesser„includedÐ ¸'#& Ðoffense€of€both€first„degree€€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999).€€€This€fact€alone,€however,€is€not€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€of€whether€error€occurred.€Ð )à$( ÐòòSee€generallyóóÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ z¼#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€463.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àDetermining€whether€a€lesser„included€offense€must€be€charged€in€the€jury€instructions€is€aÐ ° Ðtwo„part€inquiry.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€€First,€the€court€must€determine€whether€any€evidenceÐ œì Ðexists€that€reasonable€minds€could€accept€as€to€the€application€of€a€lesser„included€offense.€€òòId.óó€€InÐ ˆØ Ðmaking€this€determination,€the€trial€court€must€view€the€evidence€liberally€in€the€light€most€favorableÐ tÄ Ðto€the€existence€of€the€lesser„included€offense€without€making€any€judgments€on€the€credibility€ofÐ `° Ðsuch€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€Second,€the€trial€court€must€determine€if€the€evidence,€viewed€in€this€light,€isÐ L œ Ðlegally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser„included€offense.€€òòId.óó€at€467„469.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àCriminal€responsibility€for€facilitation€of€a€felony€is€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„403Ð  ` Ð(1997)€and€reads€as€follows:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  à(a)€A€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€facilitation€of€a€felony€if,€knowing€thatÐ Ô$  Ðanother€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,€but€without€the€intent€required€forÐ À  Ðcriminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„11„402(2),€the€person€knowingly€furnishesÐ ¬ü  Ðsubstantial€assistance€in€the€commission€of€the€felony.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€are€unable€to€conclude€under€the€test€announced€in€òòBurnsóó€that€reasonable€minds€couldÐ pÀ Ðfind€that€anyone€other€than€the€Appellant€was€involved€in€this€crime.€€Neither€the€prosecution€norÐ \¬ Ðthe€defense€advanced€the€theory€that€the€Appellant€was€criminally€responsible€for€facilitating€the€actsÐ H˜ Ðof€another€at€trial.€€To€the€contrary,€it€was€the€prosecutionððs€theory€that€the€Appellant€was€solelyÐ 4„ Ðresponsible€for€both€the€murders€and€the€robbery.€€At€trial,€the€Appellant,€in€his€defense,€asserted€theÐ  p Ðposition€that€the€prosecution€failed€to€establish€his€identity€as€the€perpetrator.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€gives€several€reasons€why€he€was€entitled€to€the€lesser„includedÐ ä4 Ðinstructions.€€First,€the€Appellant€points€to€his€statement€to€police€where€he€says,€ð ðI€am€not€theÐ Ð  Ðtriggerman.ðð€€This€statement,€however,€in€no€way€indicates€the€participation€of€another€person.€Ð ¼  ÐSecond,€the€Appellant€points€to€his€statement€where€he€says€he€did€not€know€the€victims€but€€wasÐ ¨ø Ðð ðnot€surprisedðð€his€fingerprint€was€on€the€victimððs€Movie€Gallery€card.€€He€also€insists€theÐ ”ä Ðbloodhoundsðð€tracking€of€a€scent€from€the€location€of€the€card€to€a€nearby€residence€implicates€theÐ €Ð Ðinvolvement€of€another€person.€€Once€again,€we€do€not€interpret€this€to€mean€another€person€wasÐ l¼ Ðinvolved.€€Moreover,€no€evidence€was€presented€at€trial€to€support€this€contention.€€Third,€theÐ X ¨ ÐAppellant€argues€that€another€person€could€have€been€involved€because€there€were€many€unidentifiedÐ D!” Ðfingerprints€left€at€the€crime€scene.€€The€crime€scene€was€a€public€restaurant€and€it€is€expected€thatÐ 0"€  Ðmany€unidentifiable€fingerprints€would€be€found€at€such€a€location.€€€Fourth,€the€Appellant€pointsÐ #l! Ðto€the€fact€that€one€shoe€print€was€never€identified.€€Once€again,€it€is€expected€in€a€public€restaurantÐ $X" Ðto€have€many€prints,€whether€fingerprints€or€shoe€prints,€that€belong€to€unidentified€persons.€€Fifth,Ð ô$D # Ðthe€Appellant€maintains€that€cigarettes€were€found€in€an€ashtray€in€the€restaurant.€€The€proof€at€trial,Ð à%0!$ Ðhowever,€indicated€that€the€cigarettes€were€found€at€the€employeesðð€break€station€and€had€not€beenÐ Ì&"% Ðremoved€the€night€before€when€the€employees€went€home.€€Sixth,€the€Appellant€argues€that€hisÐ ¸'#& Ðfriend,€Danny€Ô_ÔTackettÔ_Ô,€testified€that€he€and€the€Appellant€had€previously€discussed€committingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrobberies€against€fast€food€restaurants.€€Seventh,€the€Appellant€points€to€the€testimony€of€MarkÐ )à$( ÐFarmer,€who€testified€at€trial€that€it€was€ð ðpossibleðð€that€someone€else€could€have€been€in€the€driverððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðside€of€the€car.€€However,€he€did€not€testify€that€there€was,€or€that€he€thought€there€was€anotherÐ h+¸&* Ðperson€in€the€car.€€Instead,€he€only€acknowledged€that€it€would€have€been€possible.€€Finally,€theÐ ° ÐAppellant€argues€that€the€composite€drawings€do€not€resemble€him.€€The€evidence€at€trial,€however,Ð œì Ðindicates€that€the€drawings€were€similar€and€that€many€features€between€the€composite€drawings€andÐ ˆØ Ðthe€Appellant€match.Ð tÄ Ѐ€Ð `° Ðà  àWe€find€that€no€reasonable€juror€could€have€accepted€that€the€evidence€presented€in€anyÐ L œ Ðmanner€established€the€commission€of€the€lesser„included€offense€of€facilitation.€€To€the€contrary,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€entire€case€is€centered€around€the€Appellant€as€the€sole€perpetrator€and€the€Appellantððs€defenseÐ $ t Ðof€not€being€involved.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€declined€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser„Ð  ` Ðincluded€offenses€of€facilitation€of€first„degree€murder€and€facilitation€of€especially€aggravatedÐ ü L  ÐrobberyÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ Ã#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ ®Ù#ÔÐ è 8  ÐÌÌà@±±ìàò òÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔVII.€€Late€Night€Court€SessionsˆÐ ¬ü  Ðó óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€by€holding€numerousÐ ˜è  Ðð ðlate€nightðð€court€sessions.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€maintains€that€the€late€night€sessions€causedÐ „Ô  Ðhis€attorneys€to€be€tired€and€less€effective€than€they€normally€would€have€been€had€they€been€givenÐ pÀ Ðthe€opportunity€for€more€rest.€€In€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPartonÔ_Ôóó,€817€S.W.2d€28,€33€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1991),€thisÐ \¬ Ðcourt€addressed€the€issue€of€ð ðlate€nightðð€court€sessions€as€follows:à È àÐ H˜ ÐÌà8  àIt€is€clear€in€this€state€that€late€night€court€sessions€should€be€scheduled€"only€whenÐ  p Ðunusual€circumstances€require€it."€€òòÔ_ÔMcMullinÔ_Ôóó,€801€S.W.2d€at€832.€€€Regardless€ofÐ  \ Ðwhether€counsel€or€any€juror€objects,€the€late€night€sessions€should€be€avoided;€€andÐ øH Ðthey€must€be€justified€because€of€unusual€circumstances.€€If€the€requisite€unusualÐ ä4 Ðcircumstances€do€exist€and€late€night€sessions€are€scheduled€because€of€necessity,Ð Ð  Ðgood€practice€would€be€to€also€let€the€record€affirmatively€reflect€that€all€counsel€andÐ ¼  Ðall€jurors€expressly€agree.€€But€the€threshold€question€which€must€always€beÐ ¨ø Ðdetermined€by€the€court€is€whether€the€circumstances€justify€the€unusual€session.€Ð”äÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ ;Ú#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÌFirst,€we€note€that€this€issue€has€been€waived€for€failure€of€defense€counsel€to€object€to€the€late€hoursÐ l¼ Ðat€trial€and€for€defense€counselððs€failure€to€raise€this€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð X ¨ ÐApp.€P.€36(a).€€Notwithstanding€the€waiver,€however,€we€find€that€the€record€does€not€support€theÐ D!” ÐAppellantððs€argument€that€the€court€kept€excessively€late€hours€during€trial.€€During€the€two€and€one„Ð 0"€  Ðhalf€weeks€of€trial,€sessions€ran€ð ðlateðð€on€five€of€the€thirteen€nights.€€On€the€five€ð ðlate€nights,ðð€twoÐ #l! Ðof€which€were€jury€selection,€court€concluded€between€8:30€and€9:25€p.m.€€€We€also€note€that€duringÐ $X" Ðthis€period,€there€were€five€ð ðoff€daysðð€where€neither€counsel€nor€the€litigants€had€to€report€to€court.Ð ô$D # ÐFurther,€this€was€a€sequestered€jury€from€a€distant€county.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€heldÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€a€determination€of€how€long€into€the€evening€a€trial€should€last€is€a€matter€within€the€discretionÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóóòò€óóòòPoeóó,€755€S.W.2d€at€47.€€Although€these€five€days€may€exceed€the€ð ðnormalÐ ¸'#& Ðeight€hour€day,ðð€we€do€not€find€the€sessions€to€be€unreasonable€in€this€particular€case.€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ Ìà#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔThis€issue€isÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwithout€merit.€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ dæ#ÔÐ )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ù ù ìàò òVIII.€€Evidentiary€Issues€at€Penalty€Phaseó óˆÐ ° Ðà@ŽŽìàò òòòA.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€as€Expert€Witnessóóó óˆÐ œì Ðà  àDuring€the€penalty€phase€of€the€Appellantððs€trial,€the€State€called€Dr.€Daniel€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€as€aÐ „Ô Ðrebuttal€witness€and€sought€to€qualify€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€as€an€expert€in€ð ðforensic€neuropsychology.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð pÀ ÐDuring€voir€dire€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô,€the€State€elicited€testimony€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€obtained€both€hisÐ \¬ Ðmasterððs€degree€and€his€Ph.D.€at€the€University€of€Virginia€and€completed€a€forensic€internship€atÐ H ˜ ÐBellevue€Hospital€in€New€York€City.€€After€his€internship,€he€was€awarded€a€postdoctoral€fellowshipÐ 4 „ Ðto€do€advanced€study€and€research€in€forensic€neuropsychology.€€From€this€fellowship,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_ÔÐ  p Ðfounded€the€Forensic€Neuropsychology€Laboratory€at€Kirby€Forensic€Hospital€in€New€York€City,Ð  \ Ðwhere€he€remained€as€director€for€the€next€eight€years.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€then€joined€the€clinical€facultyÐ ø H  Ðat€the€Neuropsychiatric€Institute€at€Ô_ÔUCLAÔ_Ô€and€also€engaged€in€private€consultation€practice.€Ð ä 4  ÐThroughout€his€career,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€has€authored€numerous€papers€outlining€the€relationship€betweenÐ Ð  Ðneuropsychology€and€criminal€law€and€has€limited€his€professional€practice€to€forensicÐ ¼  Ðneuropsychology.€Ð ¨ø  ÐÌà  àDr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€testified€that€board€certification€was€currently€unavailable€in€the€field€of€ð ðforensicÐ €Ð  Ðneuropsychologyðð€and€there€is€no€professional€association€for€ð ðforensic€Ô_ÔneuropsychologistsÔ_Ô.ðð€€Dr.Ð l¼ ÐÔ_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€admitted€that,€although€there€is€Board€Certification€and€Recognition€in€the€field€ofÐ X¨ Ðneuropsychology,€he€has€never€applied€for€board€certification€in€the€field€of€neuropsychology.€€OnÐ D” Ðthis€basis,€the€Appellant,€while€conceding€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€qualifications€as€an€expert€witness€in€theÐ 0€ Ðfield€of€psychology,€objected€to€his€qualification€as€an€expert€in€the€field€of€ð ðforensicÐ l Ðneuropsychology.ðð€€€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€objection,€accepting€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€qualificationsÐ X Ðas€an€expert€in€the€field€of€forensic€neuropsychology.€€The€Appellant€now€challenges€this€ruling,Ð ôD Ðalleging€that€ð ðan€expert€is€competent€to€testify€ððonly€as€to€matters€within€the€limited€scope€of€his€orÐ à0 Ðher€expertise€and€Ô_ÔlicensureÔ_Ô.ðððð€Appellantððs€Brief€at€260€(citing€òòBolton€v.€CNA€Ins.€Co.óó,€821€S.W.2dÐ Ì Ð932,€935€(Tenn.€1991)).€€He€contends€that€the€ð ðState€never€sufficiently€established€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_ÔÐ ¸ Ðwas€an€expert€in€the€field€of€ððforensic€neuropsychology.ðððð€€Appellantððs€Brief€at€261.Ð ¤ô Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àThe€determination€of€the€qualifications€of€an€expert€witness€and€the€relevancy€andÐ |Ì Ðcompetency€of€expert€testimony€are€matters€generally€entrusted€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ h¸ Ðcourt.€€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€880€S.W.2d€720,€728€(Tenn.€€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð T ¤ Ð1994);€€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€104(a).€€€€This€court€will€not€overturn€the€trial€court's€decision€absentÐ @! Ða€clear€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòAndersonóó,€880€S.W.2d€at€728€(citing€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,Ð ,"|  Ð411€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.€Ct.€1429€(1984)).€€Ð #h! ÐÌà  àRule€702€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€provides€ð ðthat€in€order€to€testify€as€an€expertÐ ð$@ # Ðand€thus€be€permitted€to€give€conclusions€and€opinions€on€a€matter€involving€scientific,€technicalÐ Ü%,!$ Ðor€other€specialized€knowledge,€a€witness€must€possess€sufficient€ððknowledge,€skill,€experience,Ð È&"% Ðtraining,€òòoróó€education.ðððð€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€7.02[4]€at€7„21€(emphasisÐ ´'#& Ðadded).€€The€witness€may€acquire€the€necessary€expertise€through€formal€education€or€lifeÐ  (ð#' Ðexperiences.€€òòId.óó€€However,€the€witness€must€have€such€superior€skill,€experience,€training,Ð ° Ðeducation,€or€knowledge€within€the€particular€area€that€his€or€her€degree€of€expertise€is€beyond€theÐ œì Ðscope€of€common€knowledge€and€experience€of€the€average€person.€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€the€present€case€clearly€establishes€that€forensic€neuropsychology€is€aÐ `° Ðrecognized€sub„specialty€of€psychology€regardless€of€the€availability€of€board€certification€in€thisÐ L œ Ðarea.€It€is€equally€clear€that€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€is€more€than€qualified€to€testify€in€this€area€of€practice.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐMoreover,€the€issue€of€whether€the€courts€of€this€state€recognize€experts€in€the€area€of€forensicÐ $ t Ðneuropsychology€is€not€an€issue€of€first€impression.€The€courts€of€this€state€have€previouslyÐ  ` Ðpermitted€experts€to€testify€in€this€area.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòÔ_ÔCoeÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€17€S.W.3d€193,€205€(Tenn.),€òòcert.Ð ü L  Ðdeniedóó,€529€U.S.€1034,€120€S.€Ct.€1460€(2000)€(defense€presented€Dr.€Walker€as€expert€witness€inÐ è 8  Ðfield€of€forensic€neuropsychology);€òòVictor€James€Ô_ÔCazesÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9801„CR„00002€(Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€8,€1999)€(Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€testified€as€expert€in€field€of€forensicÐ À  Ðneuropsychology).€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ ¬ü  Ðqualifying€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€as€an€expert€in€forensic€neuropsychology.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà@Ý Ý ìàò òòòB.€€Cross„Examination€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôó óóóˆà  àÐ pÀ Ðà  àPrior€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€testimony,€the€Appellant€requested€that€he€be€permitted€to€question€Dr.Ð X¨ ÐÔ_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€regarding€€a€letter€written€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€in€1997€to€the€United€States€Department€of€Justice.Ð D” ÐRelying€upon€Rule€405€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€as€grounds€for€the€letterððs€admission,Ð 0€ Ðhe€argues€that€the€letter€was€relevant€to€the€witnessðð€credibility€and€bias.€€The€eight„page€letter€wasÐ l ÐDr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€request€for€a€Department€of€Justice€investigation€into€an€incident€that€had€led€to€rumorsÐ X Ðof€unprofessional€and€possibly€illegal€conduct€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€in€a€federal€death€penalty€case.׃ì×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€InÐ ôD Ðhis€letter,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€repeatedly€asserted€his€innocence€of€any€wrongdoing€and€sought€anÐ à0 Ðinvestigation€so€that€he€could€receive€a€letter€of€exoneration€from€the€Department€of€Justice.€Ð Ì ÐSpecifically,€he€emphasized€that€these€allegations€had€damaged€his€professional€reputation€andÐ ¸ Ðthreatened€his€ð ðfinancial€status.ðð€€The€allegations€concerned€an€affidavit€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€had€signed€inÐ ¤ô Ða€federal€case.€€This€affidavit€was€discussed€by€the€attorneys€and€the€judge€in€chambers.׃< ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.Ð à ÐÔ_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€hear€the€allegations€or€to€defend€himself€if€needed.€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àIn€denying€admission€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€letter,€the€trial€court€found,€in€relevant€part:Ð T ¤ Їà8  àIt€says€I€must€determine€that€the€questions€are€proposed€in€good€faith€rather€than€anÐ ° Ðeffort€to€place€before€the€jury€unfairly€prejudicial€information€supported€only€byÐ œì Ðunreliable€rumors.€€Iððm€going€to€determine€that€there€is€no€reasonable€factual€basisÐ ˆØ Ðfor€that€inquiry.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌThe€Appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€asserting€that€this€information€was€admissible€toÐ L œ Ðshow€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€credibility€and€ð ðgoes€to€the€prospect€of€bias.ðð€€€Like€other€evidentiary€rulings,€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðappellate€court€reviews€a€trial€court's€ruling€under€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€608(b)€using€an€abuse€of€discretionÐ $ t Ðstandard.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔIngramÔ_Ô€v.€Earthmanóó,€993€S.W.2d€611,€639€(Tenn.€App.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€528€U.S.Ð  ` Ð986,€120€S.€Ct.€445€(1999);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBlantonÔ_Ôóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€959-60€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àCharacter€evidence€may€be€used€in€limited€circumstances€to€impeach€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐR.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€404(a)(3)€(evidence€of€character€of€witness€admissible€as€provided€in€Rules€607,€608€andÐ À  Ð609).€€However,€extrinsic€evidence€of€conduct€other€than€criminal€conviction€òòmay€not€be€usedóó€toÐ ¬ü  Ðattack€the€character€of€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€608(b).€€Accordingly,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€letter€wasÐ ˜è  Ðproperly€excluded€as€extrinsic€evidence€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€character.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€certain€conditions€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€inquiry€on€cross„examinationÐ \¬ Ðof€the€witness€about€specific€instances€of€conduct€probative€solely€of€truthfulness€or€untruthfulness.€Ð H˜ ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€608(b).€€First,€upon€request,€the€court€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððsÐ 4„ Ðpresence€and€must€determine€that€the€alleged€conduct€has€probative€value€and€that€a€reasonableÐ  p Ðfactual€basis€exists€for€the€inquiry.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€608(b)(1).€€If€these€requirements€are€met,€theÐ  \ Ðcourt€must€then€determine€that€the€conduct,€within€limited€exceptions,€must€have€occurred€no€moreÐ øH Ðthan€ten€years€before€commencement€of€the€action€or€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€608(b)(2).€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€court€determined€that€no€ð ðreasonable€factual€basisðð€existed€for€theÐ ¼  ÐAppellantððs€inquiry.€€€We€agree.€€The€Appellant€offered€no€evidence€of€conduct€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_ÔÐ ¨ø Ðevidencing€untruthfulness.€€Rather,€the€only€proof€offered€was€a€letter€written€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_ÔÐ ”ä Ðrequesting€exoneration€because€of€false€rumors.€€The€letter€itself€is€not€proof€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_ÔððsÐ €Ð Ðuntruthfulness.€Where€there€is€no€factual€basis€for€an€inquiry€into€prior€conduct€of€a€witness,€theÐ l¼ Ðcourt€shall€bar€any€such€attempt€to€interrogate€a€witness€based€on€mere€speculation€or€rumor.€€òòSeeóó€Ð X ¨ ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔPhilpottÔ_Ôóó,€882€S.W.2d€394,€404€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994)(€ð ðAn€attempt€to€communicate€byÐ D!” Ðinnuendo€through€questions€which€are€answered€in€the€negative€is€impermissible€when€the€questionerÐ 0"€  Ðhas€no€evidence€to€support€the€question.ðð);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€649€S.W.2d€281,€283€(Tenn.Ð #l! ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1983);€Neil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€6.08[7][d].€€€Accordingly,€weÐ $X" Ðconclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€preventing€inquiry€into€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€letterÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€Department€of€Justice.€€Finally,€we€fail€to€see€how€the€letter€written€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€establishesÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€is€biased€in€favor€of€the€State€or€prejudiced€against€the€Appellant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð Ì&"% ÐÔ_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€616.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà@22ìàò òòòC.€€Courtððs€Refusal€to€Admit€Tape„Recording€to€Rebut€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€Testimonyó óóóˆÐ )à$( Ðà  àDuring€his€testimony,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€opined€that€the€Appellant€suffered€from€ð ðdelusionalÐ x*È%) Ðdisorder,€mixed€type€with€Ô_ÔpersecutoryÔ_Ô€and€grandiose€themes,€in€substantial€remission.ðð€€He€qualifiedÐ d+´&* Ðhis€diagnosis,€however,€noting€that€the€Appellant€has€a€lengthy€history€of€malingering€mental€illnessÐ ° Ðand€that,€in€his€opinion,€the€Appellantððs€delusional€disorder€was€in€remission.€€During€cross„Ð œì Ðexamination,€defense€counsel€requested€permission€to€introduce€an€audiotape€of€a€June€1997Ð ˆØ Ðinterview€by€Detective€Ô_ÔPostiglioneÔ_Ô€of€Ms.€Dorothy€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô,€the€Appellantððs€former€landlord.€€Dr.Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔMartellÔ_Ô,€in€forming€his€opinions€of€the€Appellant,€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€and€considered€theÐ `° Ðcontents€of€the€audio€taped€interview.€€The€trial€court€denied€defense€counselððs€request,€finding€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€contents€of€the€tape€constituted€hearsay€and€were€ð ðnot€appropriate.ðð€€Specifically,€the€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðstated:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àMr.€Ô_ÔEngleÔ_Ô,€Iððm€not€going€to€let€you€do€this.€€It€is€just€flat€out€not€appropriate.€€I€stillÐ ü L  Ðdonððt€understand€why€ð!ð€why€you€donððt€call€her€as€a€witness?€€You€could€have€calledÐ è 8  Ðher€as€a€witness,€or€you€could€call€Detective€Ô_ÔPostiglioneÔ_Ô,€if€you€had€reason,€in€orderÐ Ô$  Ðto€put€that,€in€order€to€authenticate€the€tape,€but€to€try€to€get€the€information€of€whatÐ À  Ðshe€has€to€say€in€through€[Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô],€who€is€testifying€as€an€expert€about€Mr.Ð ¬ü  ÐReidððs€mental€condition,€I€mean,€just€exactly€what€rule€of€evidence€do€you€think€thisÐ ˜è  Ðbelongs€to?Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€then€sought€to€introduce€a€transcript€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ôððs€testimony€providedÐ \¬ Ðby€the€State.€€The€State€objected,€noting€that€the€State€had€not€provided€defense€counsel€a€transcriptÐ H˜ Ðof€the€audio€taped€interview.€€At€this€point,€defense€counsel€conceded€that€the€transcript€was€suppliedÐ 4„ Ðby€the€District€Attorneyððs€Office€in€another€judicial€district.€€In€response€to€further€inquiry€by€theÐ  p Ðcourt,€defense€counsel€stated€that€he€intended€to€ask€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€about€the€tape,€whether€heÐ  \ Ðconsidered€the€tape€in€making€his€conclusions,€and€how€he€evaluated€the€tape.€€€Defense€counselÐ øH Ðfurther€added€that€he€did€not€call€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô€as€a€witness€because€she€is€sixty„eight€years€old€andÐ ä4 Ðinfirm.€€Although€defense€counsel€conceded€that€he€could€have€sought€a€deposition€from€Ms.Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô,€he€stated€that€he€would€rather€seek€admission€of€the€interview€through€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðcourt€again€refused€admission€of€the€tape.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€of€the€audiotape€during€the€cross„Ð €Ð Ðexamination€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€relies€upon€the€premise€that€the€rules€ofÐ l¼ Ðevidence€do€not€preclude,€at€a€capital€sentencing€hearing,€evidence€which€establishes€or€rebuts€anÐ X ¨ Ðaggravating€circumstance.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€is€correct€in€his€argument€that€evidence€is€not€excluded€at€a€capital€sentencingÐ #l! Ðhearing€merely€because€the€evidence€is€hearsay.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c).€€Thus,€as€longÐ $X" Ðas€evidence€or€testimony€is€relevant€to€the€circumstances€of€the€murder,€the€aggravatingÐ ô$D # Ðcircumstances€of€the€murder,€or€the€mitigating€circumstances€and€has€probative€value€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdetermination€of€punishment,€such€evidence€is€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTeagueÔ_Ôóó,€897€S.W.2d€248,Ð Ì&"% Ð250€(Tenn.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593,€602€(Tenn.€1999),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€ð!ð€U.S.€ð!ð,€121Ð ¸'#& ÐS.€Ct.€98€(2000).€€The€admission€of€evidence,€however,€is€not€without€constraints.€€Evidence€mayÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproperly€be€excluded€if€it€is€so€unduly€prejudicial€that€it€renders€the€trial€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòSeeóóÐ )à$( ÐòòState€v.€Vincent€C.€Simsóó,€No.€W1998„00634„CCA„R3„DD€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Jackson,€Mar.€14,Ð |*Ì%) Ð2000),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ô€byóó,€No.€W1998„00634„SC„DDT„DD€(Tenn.€at€Jackson,€Apr.€17,€2001)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð h+¸&* ÐBurnsóó,€979€S.W.2d€276,€282€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€527€U.S.€1039,€119€S.€Ct.€2402€(1999);€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Ô_ÔNesbitÔ_Ôóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€891€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€526€U.S.€1052,€119€S.€Ct.€1359€(1999)).€Ð œì ÐAdditionally,€the€admissibility€of€evidence€ultimately€is€entrusted€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt.€€òòState€v.€Vincent€C.€Simsóó,€No.€W1998„00634„CCA„R3„DD€(citing€òòHutchinsonóó,€898€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ðat€172).€€Absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion,€such€rulings€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.Ð `° ÐVincent€C.€Simsóó,€No.€W1998„00634„CCA„R3„DD€(citing€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCaughronÔ_Ôóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€541Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€979,€114€S.€Ct.€475(1993)).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€acknowledge€that€the€record€belies€the€Appellantððs€assertion€that€the€audiotapeððsÐ  ` Ðadmission€was€sought€to€rebut€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô.€€The€record€is€abundantly€clear€that€theÐ ü L  ÐAppellant€had€every€opportunity€to€question€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ô€regarding€his€consideration€of€the€audiotapeÐ è 8  Ðinterview€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô€in€making€his€diagnosis€of€the€Appellant,€yet€he€failed€to€avail€himself€ofÐ Ô$  Ðsuch€opportunity.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Additionally,€the€Appellant€fails€to€offerÐ À  Ðany€valid€reason€as€to€why€a€deposition€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô€was€not€requested€or€as€to€why€DetectiveÐ ¬ü  ÐÔ_ÔPostiglioneÔ_Ô€was€not€called€to€testify€regarding€his€interview€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.Ð ˜è  ÐR.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Finally,€we€fail€to€comprehend€the€Appellantððs€assertion€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_ÔððsÐ „Ô  Ðstatement€would€rebut€Dr.€Ô_ÔMartellÔ_Ôððs€conclusion€that€the€Appellantððs€delusional€disorder€was€inÐ pÀ Ðsubstantial€remission€in€the€late€1990's€when€the€incidents€discussed€by€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô€occurred€in€theÐ \¬ Ðearly€1990's.€€For€these€reasons,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ H˜ Ðexcluding€introduction€of€the€audiotape€interview€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔMeadlinÔ_Ô.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 4„ ÐÌò òà@þ þ ìà[Deleted:€VIIIó ó€ò òD.€€Cross„Examination€of€Janet€Kirkpatrickó ó]ˆÐ  \ ÐÌà@È È ìàò ò[Deleted:€IX.€€Introduction€of€Victim€Impact€Evidence]ó óˆÐ è8 ÐÌÌà@  ìàò òX.€€Use€of€Felony€Murder€Aggravating€Circumstanceó óˆÐ ¬ü Ðà  àThe€jury€returned€verdicts€finding€the€Appellant€guilty€of€both€premeditated€murder€andÐ ˜è Ðfelony€murder.€€The€trial€court€properly€merged€the€verdicts€into€one€count€of€first„degree€€murder.€Ð „Ô ÐAt€the€subsequent€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€proceeded€to€the€penalty€phase€intending€to€proveÐ pÀ Ðthe€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(7).€€The€AppellantððsÐ \ ¬ Ðobjection€was€overruled€and€the€State€was€permitted€to€use€the€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(7)€Ô_ÔaggravatorÔ_Ô.€€The€juryÐ H!˜ Ðsubsequently€found€the€aggravating€circumstance€applied€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð 4"„  ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€958€S.W.2d€620,€624€(Tenn.€1997),€our€supreme€court€approved€the€useÐ  $\" Ðof€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€to€a€general€verdict€of€first„degree€€murder.€€WhileÐ ø$H # Ðacknowledging€the€decision€in€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€958€S.W.2d€at€624,€the€Appellant€contends€that€theÐ ä%4!$ Ðcourt€erred€by€permitting€the€State€to€rely€on€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€to€seek€aÐ Ð& "% Ðâ âsentence€of€death€because€the€use€of€the€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(7)€factor€ð ðviolates€the€principles€of€death„sentencing€asÐ ¼' #& Ðoutlined€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó.ðð׃/×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Essentially,€the€Appellant€invitesÐ ° Ðâ âthis€court€to€overrule€our€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Carteróó€and€adopt€the€position€that€theÐ œì Ðuse€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€in€any€case€where€the€defendant€is€convicted€ofÐ ˆØ Ðfelony€murder€is€unconstitutional.€€We€decline€to€do€so.Ð tÄ ÐÌÌà@A A ìàò òXI.€€Failure€to€Instruct€on€Non„Statutory€Mitigatorsó óˆÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àDuring€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€and€acting€pursuant€to€statutory€authority,€the€AppellantÐ $ t Ðfiled€a€request€for€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€to€be€included€in€the€jury€charge.€Ð  ` ÐSpecifically,€the€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€asserted€in€the€request€were:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  à1.€Mr.€Reid€suffers€from€brain€damage.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à2.€Mr.€Reid€sustained€several€brain€injuries€as€a€child.ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€Mr.€Reid€never€received€adequate€treatment€for€his€brain€injuries€as€a€child.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4.€Mr.€Reid€has€not€received€adequate€treatment€for€his€brain€injuries€as€an€adult.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  à5.€Mr.€Reid€was€born€with€a€deformed€ear,€along€with€a€hearing€impairment.€Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  à6.€Mr.€Reid€never€received€adequate€medical€treatment€for€his€deformed€ear€andÐ pÀ Ðresulting€hearing€impairment.Ð\¬Ð Ð  Ðà8  à7.€€Mr.€Reid€suffers€from€the€specific€mental€illness€of€schizophrenia.ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  à8.€€Mr.€Reid€is€unaware€that€he€suffers€from€schizophrenia.Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  à9.€€Mr.€Reid€has€never€received€adequate€medical€treatment€for€his€schizophrenia.Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  à10.€€At€the€time€of€the€offenses,€Mr.€Reid€was€not€involved€in€any€course€of€treatmentÐ  \ Ðfor€his€schizophrenia.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  à11.€€At€the€time€of€the€offenses,€Mr.€Reid€was€not€taking€any€medication€to€controlÐ ä4 Ðhis€schizophrenia.ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à12.€€When€Mr.€Reid€was€released€from€prison€in€Texas,€he€was€not€placed€on€anyÐ ¼  Ðplan€of€follow„up€medical€care€for€his€schizophrenia.ШøÐ Ð  Ðà8  à13.€€As€a€child,€Mr.€Reid€lacked€substantial€guidance,€discipline,€and€love€from€hisÐ ”ä Ðparents.ЀÐÐ Ð  Ðà8  à14.€€Mr.€Reidððs€parents€were€divorced€when€he€was€still€very€young.Ðl¼Ð Ð  Ðà8  à15.€€Mr.€Reid€was€taken€from€his€motherððs€care€at€a€very€early€age.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  à16.€€Mr.€Reidððs€father€was€absent€a€great€deal€during€his€early€childhood€years.ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  à17.€€Mr.€Reid€did€not€start€school€until€he€was€almost€seven€years€old.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à18.€€Mr.€Reid€was€placed€in€a€boysðð€home€at€age€eight.аРР Ðà8  à19.€€Mr.€Reid€was€a€social€outcast€as€a€child.МìÐ Ð  Ðà8  à20.€€Throughout€his€childhood€years,€Mr.€Reid€had€only€sporadic€school€attendance.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  à21.€€As€a€child,€Mr.€Reid€was€aware€of€his€sisterððs€sexual€abuse€at€the€hands€of€oneÐ tÄ Ðof€his€stepfathers.Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  à22.€€Mr.€Reid€lacked€any€substantial€family€support€as€a€child,€and€he€continues€toÐ L œ Ðlack€that€support€as€an€adult.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  à23.€€In€spite€of€his€brain€damage,€mental€illness,€and€difficult€childhood,€Mr.€Reid€hasÐ $ t Ðtried€to€lead€a€normal€lifestyle.Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  à24.€€Mr.€Reid€has€made€efforts€to€better€himself.Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  à25.€€Mr.€Reid€obtained€his€GED,€and€he€then€attended€college€at€age€39.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  à26.€€In€his€daily€tasks,€Mr.€Reid€is€polite€and€courteous€to€others.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à27.€€STRICKENÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à28.€€Mr.€Reid€does€well€in€a€structured€environment,€such€as€prison.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  à29.€€Mr.€Reidððs€convictions€in€this€case€were€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€request€to€instruct€the€jury€verbatim€to€the€proposedÐ pÀ Ðinstruction.€€Instead,€the€trial€court,€relying€upon€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó€and€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€found€that€aÐ \¬ Ðverbatim€reading€of€the€Appellantððs€instruction€would€amount€to€an€unconstitutional€comment€uponÐ H˜ Ðthe€evidence.€€The€trial€court,€instead,€instructed€the€jury€on€the€requested€mitigators€in€generalÐ 4„ Ðcategories,€including:Ð  p ÐÌà8  à3.€€History€of€childhood.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  à4.€€Mental€illness€or€mental€or€emotional€disturbance.Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  à5.€€Brain€injury€or€damage.ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à6.€€Educational€history.м Ð Ð  Ðà8  à7.€€Performance€in€a€structured€environment.ШøÐ Ð  Ðà8  à8.€€Family€history€and€relationships.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐIn€addition€to€instructions€on€specific€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€and€the€above€mentionedÐ l¼ Ðnon„statutory€mitigating€circumstances,€the€court€provided€the€jury€the€following:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  à9.€€Any€aspect€of€the€defendantððs€background€or€character€which€[you]€believeÐ 0"€  Ðreduces€the€defendantððs€blameworthiness.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à10.€€Any€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidence€produced€by€eitherÐ ô$D # Ðthe€prosecution€or€defense€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencing€hearing;€that€is,€you€shallÐ à%0!$ Ðconsider€any€aspect€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€favorable€to€the€defendantÐ Ì&"% Ðwhich€is€supported€by€the€evidence.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€complains€that€the€court€committed€reversible€error€in€refusing€to€instruct€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âjury€on€the€specific€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€set€forth€in€his€request.€€He€additionallyÐ |*Ì%) Ðcontends€that€the€manner€in€which€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€regarding€non„statutoryÐ ° Ðmitigating€circumstances€did€not€adequately€define€for€the€jury€the€mitigating€evidence€presented.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€31,€the€supreme€court€determined€that:Ð tÄ Ðà8  àThe€jury€instructions€[on€mitigating€circumstances]€are€critical€in€enabling€the€juryÐ `° Ðto€make€a€sentencing€determination€that€is€demonstrably€reliable.€€To€ensure€thisÐ L œ Ðreliability,€the€jury€must€be€given€specific€instructions€on€those€circumstances€offeredÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€the€capital€defendant€as€justification€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌThe€court€then€recognized€the€importance€of€instruction€on€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstancesÐ ü L  Ðas€well€as€on€statutorily€enumerated€mitigating€circumstances.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€atÐ è 8  Ð31€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(1)€(no€distinction€shall€be€made€between€statutoryÐ Ô$  Ðmitigators€and€those€raised€by€the€evidence)).€However,€the€supreme€court€explained€that€instructionsÐ À  Ðon€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€must€not€be€fact€specific€and€imply€to€the€jury€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðjudge€had€made€a€finding€of€fact€in€contravention€of€Article€VI,€section€9€of€the€TennesseeÐ ˜è  ÐConstitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€32€(court€recognized€risk€of€instruction€amounting€toÐ „Ô  Ðunconstitutional€comment€upon€evidence);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€356€(Tenn.),Ð pÀ Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€522€U.S.€999,€118€S.€Ct.€567€(1997).€€Instead,€the€instructions€on€non„statutoryÐ \¬ Ðmitigating€circumstances€must€be€ð ðdrafted€so€that€when€they€are€considered€by€the€jury,€the€statutoryÐ H˜ Ðmitigating€circumstances€are€indistinguishable€from€the€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.ðð€Ð 4„ ÐòòÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€32.€€In€essence,€an€instruction€on€a€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstance€mustÐ  p Ðbe€phrased€in€general€categories€similar€to€the€statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHodgesóó,Ð  \ Ð944€S.W.2d€at€355„356;€€òòÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€33.Ð øH ÐÌà  àAgain,€the€Appellant€essentially€complains€that€the€trial€courtððs€lack€of€specificity€andÐ Ð  Ðinstruction€in€general€categories€defeated€the€purpose€of€the€instructions€and€did€not€convey€a€fairÐ ¼  Ðpicture€of€the€mitigation€proof.€€This€identical€argument€was€rejected€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòStateÐ ¨ø Ðv.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€356.€€In€òòHodgesóó,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denyingÐ ”ä Ðhis€requested€instructions€on€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€351.€Ð €Ð ÐInstead,€the€trial€court€had€instructed€the€jury€on€the€following€non„statutory€mitigatingÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances:€history€of€childhood;€victim€of€child€sex€abuse;€€mental€illness€or€mental€or€emotionalÐ X ¨ Ðdisturbance;€dominance€by€another€person€and/or€immaturity;€drug€abuse;€and€any€other€aspect€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€defendant's€background€or€character€or€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€which€would€reduce€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant's€blameworthiness.€€òòId.óó€at€355.€€In€reviewing€the€instructions€on€mitigating€circumstances,Ð #l! Ðthe€supreme€court€emphasized€that€a€jury€instruction€on€mitigating€circumstances€can€be€foundÐ $X" Ð"prejudicially€erroneous"€only€if€"it€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legal€issues€or€if€it€misleads€the€jury€asÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€applicable€law."€€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€352.€€€The€court€observed€that€"€'[Ô_Ôj]urorsÔ_Ô€do€not€sitÐ à%0!$ Ðin€solitary€isolation€booths€parsing€instructions€for€subtle€shades€of€meaning€in€the€same€way€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðlawyers€might.'€"€€òòId.óó€at€352€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔBoydeÔ_Ô€v.€Californiaóó,€494€U.S.€370,€380-81,€110€S.€Ct.€1190€Ð ¸'#& Ð(1990)).€€Our€supreme€court€explained:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àJurors€interpret€the€instructions€in€a€common€sense€manner€and€in€light€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence€presented€at€the€trial.€€The€defense€assertion€ignores€the€reality€that€theseÐ h+¸&* Ðjurors€had€heard€specific€evidence€during€the€sentencing€hearing€about€theÐ ° Ðdefendant's€childhood,€his€immaturity,€alleged€sexual€abuse,€drug€abuse,€mentalÐ œì Ðillness€and€emotional€disturbance,€as€well€as€the€dominance€by€Tina€Brown.€€By€theirÐ ˆØ Ðbreadth,€the€instructions€on€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€encompassed€allÐ tÄ Ðthe€evidence€presented€by€the€defense€at€the€sentencing€hearing€....€€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€defendant'sÐ `° Ðclaim€of€error€is€without€merit.€€ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌ€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€356€(citations€omitted).€€While€the€instructions€specifically€requested€by€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€were€not€given,€other€instructions,€as€enumerated€above,€were€provided€to€the€jury,€whichÐ  ` Ð"encompassed€all€the€evidence"€the€defendant€presented.€€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€29€S.W.3dÐ ü L  Ð497,€520„521€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998).€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€clearly€followed€the€directives€of€òòÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó€and€the€exampleÐ À  Ðprovided€in€òòHodgesóó.€€We€conclude€that€the€instructions€provided€by€the€trial€court€were€substantiallyÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€same€as€those€requested€by€the€Appellant€and€that€the€instructions€fairly€submitted€to€the€jury€theÐ ˜è  Ðlegal€issues.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€356;€òòState€v.€Rudolph€Ô_ÔMunnÔ_Ôóó,€No.€01C01„9801„CC„Ð „Ô  Ð00007€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Apr.€1,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€9,€1999).€Ð pÀ ÐAccordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€proffered€non„statutory€mitigatingÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€was€not€error.€€This€claim€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌÌà@• • ìàò òÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔXII.€€Sentence€for€Especially€Aggravated€RobberyˆÐ  \ Ðó óà  àFollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€Appellant,€as€a€Range€I€standardÐ øH Ðoffender,€to€twenty„five€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€The€trial€courtÐ ä4 Ðfurther€ordered€that€the€sentence€be€served€consecutively€to€the€death€sentences€imposed€in€this€caseÐ Ð  Ðand€consecutively€to€a€sentence€in€Texas€for€which€the€Appellant€was€on€parole€at€the€time€theÐ ¼  Ðoffense€was€committed.€€On€appeal,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€theÐ ¨ø Ðmaximum€sentence€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€and€erred€in€ordering€theÐ ”ä Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€to€run€consecutively€to€his€death€sentences.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ Wy#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔThe€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€courtÐ X ¨ Ðwas€erroneous.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€168€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,€932€S.W.2d€467,Ð D!” Ð473€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€786€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1991).Ð 0"€  ÐAppellate€review€of€a€sentence€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€theÐ #l! Ðcourt€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€òòóóðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997);€òòÔ_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,Ð $X" Ð823€S.W.2d€at€169.€€In€determining€whether€the€Appellant€has€carried€the€burden,€this€court€mustÐ ô$D # Ðconsider€the€evidence€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€pre„sentence€report,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðprinciples€of€sentencing,€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offenses,Ð Ì&"% Ðexisting€mitigating€and€enhancing€factors,€statements€made€by€the€offender,€and€the€potential€forÐ ¸'#& Ðrehabilitation.€€Tenn.€Code€Annòò.€óóðð€40„35„210€(Supp.€1998);Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ #}#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€€òòÔ_ÔAshbyÔ_Ôóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.òòóóÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ l‚#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌò òÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓòòA.€€Enhancement€Factorsó óóóÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àEspecially€aggravated€robbery€is€a€class€A€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403(b).€€As€aÐ ˜è ÐRange€I€standard€offender,€the€sentencing€range€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€is€fifteen€toÐ „Ô Ðtwenty„five€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(1)€(1997).€€€The€trial€court€sentenced€theÐ pÀ ÐAppellant€to€the€maximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€robberyÐ \¬ Ðconviction.€€€During€sentencing,€the€trial€court€applied€the€following€seven€enhancement€factors:Ð H ˜ ÐÌà8  à1.€€à8` Ð Ð àThe€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€orÐ  p Ðcriminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÐ  \ Ðappropriate€range.€Ðø H ` x` x ÐÌà8  à3.€€à8` Ð Ð àThe€offense€involved€more€than€one€victim.€ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  à5.€€à8` Ð Ð àThe€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€withÐ ¨ø  Ðexceptional€cruelty.Дä ` x` x ÐÌà8  à10.€€à8` Ð Ð àThe€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€theÐ l¼ Ðrisk€to€human€life€was€high.€ÐX¨` x` x ÐÌà8  à12.€€à8` Ð Ð àDuring€the€commission€of€the€felony,€the€defendant€willfully€inflictedÐ 0€ Ðbodily€injury€upon€another€person,€or€the€actions€of€the€defendantÐ l Ðresulted€in€the€death€of€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€or€personÐ X Ðother€than€the€intended€victim.€ÐôD` x` x ÐÌà8  à13(B).à8` Ð Ð àThe€felony€was€committed€while€on€any€of€the€following€forms€ofÐ Ì Ðrelease€if€such€release€is€from€a€prior€felony€conviction€.€.€.€parole.€€Ð¸` x` x ÐÌà8  à16.€€à8` Ð Ð àThe€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€theÐ à Ðpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€was€great.€Ð|Ì` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ õ‚#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô(1),€(3),€(5),€(10),€(12),€(13(b)),€(16)€(1997).€€€Additionally,€the€trialÐ T ¤ Ðcourt€applied€mitigating€factor€8€based€upon€the€Appellantððs€mental€condition,€and€appliedÐ @! Ðmitigating€factor€13€based€upon€ð ðthe€majority€of€the€testimonyðð€developed€during€the€capital€penaltyÐ ,"|  Ðphase,€including€the€Appellantððs€childhood€history€and€his€family€history.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð #h! Ð113(8),€(13)€(1997).€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ Œ#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔOn€appeal,€the€AppellantÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ 6Ž#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€only€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€ofÐ $T" Ðenhancement€factors€(3),€(5),€(10),€and€(16).Ð ð$@ # ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€Appellant€contests€the€application€of€enhancement€factor€(3),€ð ðthat€the€offenseÐ È&"% Ðinvolved€more€than€one€victim.ðð€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€because€only€one€victim,Ð ´'#& ÐSteve€Hampton,€was€named€in€the€indictment€upon€which€he€was€convicted€of€especially€aggravatedÐ  (ð#' Ðrobbery€that€the€other€victim,€Sarah€Jackson,€cannot€also€be€considered€a€victim€of€especiallyÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðaggravated€robbery.€€The€Appellant€further€argues€that€there€was€no€evidence€at€trial€to€prove€thatÐ x*È%) Ðthe€perpetrator€ever€robbed€or€attempted€to€rob€Sarah€Jackson.€€Thus,€the€Appellant€asserts,€the€trialÐ d+´&* Ðcourtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€3€was€erroneous.€€When€applying€this€factor,€however,€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€reasoned€that€Sarah€Jackson€was€also€a€victim€of€the€robbery.€€We€agree.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThis€court€has€defined€"victim,"€as€used€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-114(3),€as€being€Ð tÄ Ðlimited€in€scope€to€a€person€or€entity€that€is€injured,€killed,€had€property€stolen,€or€had€propertyÐ `° Ðdestroyed€by€the€perpetrator€of€the€crime.€€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ Ž#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔòòState€v.€Ô_ÔRainesÔ_Ôóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€384€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð L œ Ð1994).€€This€court€has€also€held€that€factor€(3)€may€not€be€applied€to€enhance€a€sentence€when€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐAppellant€is€separately€convicted€of€the€offenses€committed€against€each€victim.€€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ 5”#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔòòState€v.Ð $ t ÐWilliamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€82€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Lambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1987).€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ Ò•#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔAccordingly,€statutory€enhancement€factor€(3)€does€not€apply€when€thereÐ ü L  Ðare€separate€convictions€for€each€victim.€€òòState€v.€Freemanóó,€943€S.W.2d€25,€31€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð è 8  Ð1996).Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ  —#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€€Because€the€Appellant€was€not€convicted€of€separate€offenses€against€each€victim,€andÐ Ô$  Ðbecause€Sarah€Jackson€was€clearly€a€victim€as€defined€in€òòÔ_ÔRainesÔ_Ôóó,€the€trial€court€properly€appliedÐ À  Ðenhancement€factor€(3)€during€sentencing.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€Appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(5),€thatÐ „Ô  Ðð ðthe€defendant€treated€or€allowed€a€victim€to€be€treated€with€exceptional€cruelty€during€theÐ pÀ Ðcommission€of€the€offense.ðð€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€contends€that€ð ðthere€is€no€evidence€in€theÐ \¬ Ðrecord€suggesting€that€either€of€the€victims€were€subjected€to€the€type€of€torture€that€would€justifyÐ H˜ Ðthe€application€of€ðð€40„35„114(5).ðð€€At€sentencing,€the€trial€court€applied€factor€(5)€because€there€wasÐ 4„ Ðevidence€in€the€record€that€Sarah€Jackson€had€moved€after€she€was€shot.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40-35-114€provides€that€enhancement€factors€must€beÐ øH Ð"appropriate€for€the€offense"€and€"not€themselves€essential€elements€of€the€offense."€€Accordingly,Ð ä4 Ðenhancement€factors€based€on€facts€which€are€used€to€prove€the€offense€or€which€establish€theÐ Ð  Ðelements€of€the€offense€are€excluded.€€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€98€(Tenn.1997).Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ L˜#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô€€Moreover,Ð ¼  Ðbecause€"exceptional€cruelty"€is€inherent€in€some€offenses€such€as€aggravated€assault,€the€facts€mustÐ ¨ø Ðdemonstrate€a€culpability€distinct€from€and€greater€than€that€incident€to€the€offense.€€òòId.óó€€"ExceptionalÐ ”ä Ðcruelty,"€when€used€as€an€enhancement€factor,€denotes€the€infliction€of€pain€or€suffering€for€its€ownÐ €Ð Ðsake€or€from€the€gratification€derived€therefrom,€and€not€merely€pain€or€suffering€inflicted€as€theÐ l¼ Ðmeans€of€accomplishing€the€crime€charged.€€Thus,€cruelty€requires€more€than€the€physical€inflictionÐ X ¨ Ðof€serious€bodily€injury€upon€a€victim.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àWe€first€note€that€"exceptional€cruelty"€is€not€an€element€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€Ð #l! ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39-13-403(a)(2);€òòPooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€at€98.€Moreover,€proof€of€serious€bodilyÐ $X" Ðinjury,€which€is€an€element€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€does€not€necessarily€establish€theÐ ô$D # Ðenhancement€factor€of€"exceptional€cruelty."€€€òòPooleòòóó,€óóS.W.2d€at€98.€Exceptional€cruelty€is€usuallyÐ à%0!$ Ðfound€in€cases€of€abuse€or€torture.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€920€S.W.2d€247,€258€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995).Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ }ž#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ ¤#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÌÓ  Óà  àThis€court€has€recognized€that€"exceptional€cruelty"€is€a€matter€of€degree.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐNo.€02C01-9306-CC-00126€(Tenn€.Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Jackson,€Jun.€8,€1994).€€In€this€regard,€we€firstÐ )à$( Ðnote€that€the€taking€of€a€life€is€not€necessary€to€accomplish€the€offense€of€especially€aggravatedÐ |*Ì%) Ðrobbery.€€€Additionally,€the€proof€in€this€case€established€that€the€Appellant€forced€the€victims€ontoÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€floor€in€the€walk„in€cooler.€€The€anguish€experienced€by€the€victims€at€this€point€while€theyÐ ° Ðawaited€their€execution€is€unfathomable.€€Based€upon€the€manner€in€which€this€crime€wasÐ œì Ðcommitted,€and€its€consequences,€we€find€that€the€Appellant's€conduct€established€not€only€theÐ ˆØ Ðinfliction€of€serious€bodily€injury€but€also€a€calculated€indifference€toward€suffering.€€Thus,€we€findÐ tÄ Ðapplication€of€enhancement€factor€(5)€appropriate.€€Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ d¤#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Appellant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€enhancement€factor€(10),€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€defendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€highÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ À¨#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô,€andÐ $ t Ðenhancement€factor€(16),€that€the€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€theÐ  ` Ðpotential€for€bodily€injury€to€the€victim€was€greatÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ ù©#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ Ô.€€Specifically,€the€Appellant€argues€that€neitherÐ ü L  Ðenhancement€factor€can€apply€because€both€are€factors€inherent€to€the€offense€of€especiallyÐ è 8  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ öª#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔWith€respect€to€enhancement€factor€(10),€risk€to€human€life€is€an€essential€element€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcrime€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€cannot€be€used€to€enhance€sentencing€when€the€personÐ ˜è  Ðfacing€danger€is€the€named€victim.€€òòSeeóóòò€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114;€òòState€v.€Noxóó,€922€S.W.2dÐ „Ô  Ð894,€903€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998).€€However,€this€court€has€held€that€enhancement€factor€(10)€mayÐ pÀ Ðbe€applied€where€the€defendant€creates€a€high€risk€to€the€life€of€a€person€other€than€the€named€victim.€Ð \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€452„53€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995).€€We€conclude€that€the€presenceÐ H˜ Ðof€Sarah€Jackson,€who€was€not€named€in€the€indictment,€during€the€robbery€of€Steve€HamptonÐ 4„ Ðcreated€a€high€risk€to€her€life,€which€ultimately€and€unfortunately€resulted€in€her€death.€Accordingly,Ð  p Ðthe€trial€court€properly€applied€enhancement€factor€(10).€€Enhancement€factor€(16),€however,€isÐ  \ Ðinapplicable€to€the€offense€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€as€bodily€injury€is€an€element€of€theÐ øH Ðoffense.€€òòNixóó,€922€S.W.2d€at€903.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€factor€(16).€Ð ä4 ÐNotwithstanding€the€erroneous€application€of€enhancement€factor€(16),€we€believe€that€the€remainingÐ Ð  Ðsix€enhancement€factors€balanced€against€the€two€mitigating€factors,€fully€support€the€maximumÐ ¼  Ðtwenty„five€year€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.Ð ¨ø ÐÌò òÌÓ  ÓòòB.€€Consecutive€SentencingóóÐ l¼ Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€the€especially€aggravatedÐ T ¤ Ðrobbery€conviction€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€death€sentences€imposed€in€this€case.€Ð @! ÐSpecifically,€he€asserts€that€ð ða€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€a€sentence€of€death€is€not€theÐ ,"|  Ðleast€severe€sentence€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€the€sentence€is€imposed.ðð€€OurÐ #h! Ðsupreme€court€has€consistently€upheld€sentences€consecutive€to€a€death€sentence.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Ð $T" ÐòòMorrisóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€788;€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904,€928€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815Ð ð$@ # ÐS.W.2d€166,€170€(Tenn.€1991).€€Thus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ &¬#Ôò òó óòòóóÐ Ü%,!$ ÐÌÌà@¯ ¯ ìàò òXIII.€€Constitutionality€of€Tennesseeððs€Death€Penalty€Statutesó óˆÐ  (ð#' ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€raises€a€myriad€of€challenges€to€the€constitutionality€of€Tennesseeððs€deathÐ x*È%) Ðpenalty€provisions.€€The€challenges€raised€by€the€Appellant€have€been€previously€examined€andÐ d+´&* Ðrejected€by€case€law€decisions.€€The€body€of€law€upholding€the€constitutionality€of€Tennesseeððs€deathÐ ° Ðpenalty€provisions,€specifically€€that€rejecting€the€claims€currently€raised€by€the€Appellant,€are€recitedÐ œì Ðas€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  à1.€€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statutes€meaningfully€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligibleÐ `° Ðdefendants;€specifically,€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€set€forth€in€Tenn.Ð L œ ÐCode€Annòò.€óóðð€39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(2),€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(6),€and€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(7),€whether€viewed€singly€or€collectively,Ð 8 ˆ Ðprovide€a€ð ðmeaningful€basisðð€for€narrowing€the€population€of€those€convicted€of€first„Ð $ t Ðdegree€€murder€to€those€eligible€for€the€sentence€of€death.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔVannÔ_Ôóó,€976€S.W.2d€atÐ  ` Ð117„118€(Appendix);€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727,€742€(Tenn.€1994).Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.€€The€death€sentence€is€not€capriciously€and€arbitrarily€imposed€in€thatÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÒe°ÒÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(a)€The€prosecutor€is€not€vested€with€unlimited€discretion€as€toÐ ¬ü  Ðwhether€or€not€to€seek€the€death€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔHinesÔ_Ôóó,€919Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€573,€582€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€519€U.S.€847,€117€S.€Ct.Ð „Ô  Ð133€(1996).ÐpÀ x x ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(b)€The€death€penalty€is€not€imposed€in€a€discriminatory€manner€basedÐ H˜ Ðupon€economics,€race,€geography,€and€gender.€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔHinesÔ_Ôóó,€919€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ðat€582;€òòÔ_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòSmithóó,Ð  p Ð857€S.W.2d€at€23.Ð \ x x Ðà ½ àÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(c)€Standards€or€procedures€for€jury€selection€exist€to€insure€openÐ ä4 Ðinquiry€concerning€potentially€prejudicial€subject€matter.€€òòSeeóó€Ð Ð  ÐòòÔ_ÔCaughronÔ_Ôóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€542.м  x x ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(d)€€The€death€qualification€process€does€not€skew€the€make„up€of€theÐ ”ä Ðjury€and€does€not€result€in€a€relatively€prosecution€prone€guilty„proneÐ €Ð Ðjury.€€€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔTeelÔ_Ôóó,€793€S.W.2d€at€246;€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔHarbisonÔ_Ôóó,€704€S.W.2d€Ð l¼ Ð314,€318€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€470€U.S.€1153,€106€S.€Ct.€2261€(1986).ÐX ¨ x x ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(e)€€Defendants€are€not€unconstitutionally€prohibited€from€addressingÐ 0"€  Ðjurorsðð€popular€misconceptions€about€matters€relevant€to€sentencing,Ð #l! Ðòòi.e.óó,€the€cost€of€incarceration€versus€cost€of€execution,€deterrence,Ð $X" Ðmethod€of€execution.€€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€86„87;€€òòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,Ð ô$D # Ð875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179.Ðà%0!$ x x ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(f)€€The€jury€is€not€instructed€that€it€must€agree€unanimously€in€orderÐ ¸'#& Ðto€impose€a€life€sentence,€and€is€not€prohibited€from€being€told€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðeffect€of€a€non„unanimous€verdict.€€€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;Ð )à$( ÐòòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€22„23.Ð|*Ì%) x x Ðà ½ àà  àÐ h+¸&* Ðà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(g)€€Requiring€the€jury€to€agree€unanimously€to€a€life€verdict€does€notÐ ° Ðviolate€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó€and€òòÔ_ÔMcKoyÔ_Ô€v.€North€Carolinaóó.€€òòSeeóó€Ð œì ÐòòÔ_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€250;€òòState€v.Ð ˆØ ÐKingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€249€(Tenn.€1986),€òòsuperseded€by€statute€asÐ tÄ Ðrecognized€byóó,€òòHutchinsonóó,€898€S.W.2d€at161.Ð`° x x ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(h)€€The€jury€is€required€to€make€the€ultimate€determination€that€deathÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€the€appropriate€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòSmithóó,Ð $ t Ð857€S.W.2d€at€22.Ð ` x x ÐÌà ½ àà8  à(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€€The€failure€to€instruct€on€"the€meaning€and€function€of"€mitigatingÐ è 8  Ðcircumstances€was€considered€in€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,Ð Ô$  Ð251-52€(Tenn.€1989),€and€found€not€to€constitute€error.Ô#†2XŒ XXXŒ À¼#ÔÔ‡XŒ XX2XŒ ÔÐÀ  x x ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à(j)€€The€defendant€is€not€denied€closing€argument€in€the€penalty€phaseÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€trial.€òòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔBrimmerÔ_Ôóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€atÐ „Ô  Ð269;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€24;€òòÔ_ÔCaughronÔ_Ôóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€542.ÐpÀ x x ÐÌà8 ½ à3.€€The€appellate€review€process€in€death€penalty€cases€is€constitutionally€adequate.€Ð H˜ ÐòòSeeóó€€òòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270„71;€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€77.€€Moreover,€the€supremeÐ 4„ Ðcourt€has€recently€held€that,€ð ðwhile€important€as€an€additional€safeguard€againstÐ  p Ðarbitrary€or€capricious€sentencing,€comparative€proportionality€review€is€notÐ  \ Ðconstitutionally€required.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€663€(Tenn.€1997),Ð øH Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€523€U.S.€1083,€118€S.€Ct.€1536€(1998).Ðä4½Ð ½Ð  Ðà ½ àÔ#†2XŒ XXXŒ VÌ#ÔÌà8 ½ à4.€€Electrocution€is€a€constitutionally€permissible€method€of€execution.׃1×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòBlackóó,Ð ¼  Ð815€S.W.2d€at€179;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔHinesÔ_Ôóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€582.Шø½Ð ½Ð  ÐÌà@È È Æàò ò[Deleted:€XIV.€€Proportionality€of€Sentences€of€Death]ó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌÌà@çç%Æàò òConclusionó óˆÐ D!” Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àÌà ½ àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€issues€and€the€record€before€us,€as€mandated€by€Tenn.€CodeÐ #l! ÐAnn.€ðððð€39-13-206(b),€and€(c),€and€for€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€Appellant'sÐ $X" Ðconvictions€for€two€counts€of€first„degree€murder€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€andÐ ô$D # Ðaccompanying€sentences€of€death€plus€twenty„five€years.€In€accordance€with€the€mandate€of€€Tenn.Ð à%0!$ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39-13-206(c)(1)€and€the€principles€adopted€in€prior€decisions€of€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt,€we€have€considered€the€entire€record€in€this€cause€and€find€that€the€sentences€of€death€were€notÐ œì Ðimposed€in€any€arbitrary€fashion,€that€the€evidence€supports,€as€previously€discussed,€the€jury's€findingÐ ˆØ Ðof€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstances,€and€the€jury's€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstancesÐ tÄ Ðoutweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ `° Ð39-13-206(c)(1)(A),(C).€€A€comparative€proportionality€review,€considering€both€ð ðthe€nature€of€theÐ L œ Ðcrime€and€the€defendant,ðð€convinces€us€that€the€sentences€of€death€are€neither€excessive€norÐ 8 ˆ Ðdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€AppellantððsÐ $ t Ðconvictions€for€two€counts€of€first„degree€murder€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€andÐ  ` Ðthe€resulting€sentences€of€death€plus€twenty„five€years€imposed€by€the€trial€court.Ð ü L  ÐÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àà % àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÐ À  ÐÌò òCONCUR:ó óÐ ˜è  ÐJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JudgeÐ „Ô  ÐJAMES€Ô_ÔCURWOODÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWITTÔ_Ô,€JR.,€JudgeÐ pÀ Ð