ÿWPCô à¹$Ç2«w¾ü¹¨ŒZÌ“A時Q•yãXí²ÏÂ#C˜ãˆ%ÉÁÆÿ€ø¸jkñ…±êò—ùCÊ{ýDzýÃŒ†¼±Nžñ”Íê*€ïly´Ìµë¹³S«õ•­ÑÁ²è°*ÉüD裻­KtÊÃÎ:2ÑÎx8§ã¶EDl•°B¢–qäHÍgü +æ÷ßS ,")R£„ 'uõÔ5VxoÚw!w’`iþʧ€8ãÄ\×µÚˆ*Áâ,Mš~¯Œ øÇ„¾1Ä­¸˜âŒ;Ñd;úôÒl[zd­mêΨ2"… K–<Åfø¤ÏÅÖ-‘ÿ4Çýý¬ª®C‡ÓµìnõûW /PÐPÓÆŸîæ"$€åϽ'¼zF>_h7’sé‘£3^ý¸¡#è%)Ör‹ô¦?`6ßü³–‚5Èä¾%*·y\ Òªæ|ËA°í®å°ž}>èÄ×pµ}ïaY\‡©O_4É<6ôº2õÔE,uÉé|ꎕU`‰r¿Ò"õ‚MFHÆÝ8ó å£[Iã˜&ºL%Ä!ˆ¹´ñ6½y]ÇBèæ>Ýê~†WrÖgëG©@-A‡¹7««æ,!J6 yo*# L %W 0(]w@…U:Å4ÿ""^D 0D¢UNæU:4UnÃÙbáméU:V AQáU:ååååååååååå 0§ÆÆ 0DŒ 0DÐ 0D BX D/uu B¤ D3Á˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ X($¡¡ aDbcPdPeUfgPhiÓ€s,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regularìu[%@Ä„3|xs Ñ ` ÑÑ , Ñ TÝ ƒ U|$ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ ôNÀôX XÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝBy€so€stating,€we€do€not€intend€to€imply€that€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€never€applies€in€a€capitalÐ ,  Ðsentencing€hearing.€€As€the€State€points€out,€we€have€previously€applied€Rule€16€to€issues€arising€inÏthe€context€of€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.€€For€example,€in€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€729Ð ¨ | Ð(Tenn.€1994),€we€affirmed€a€trial€judge€who€ordered€a€defense€psychologist€to€provide€to€theÏprosecution€any€interview€notes€which€would€relate€to€his€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€WeÏstated,€ð ðwhen€a€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€does€not€prepare€a€summary€report,€but€instead€reliesÏon€extensive€memoranda€to€record€not€only€observations€and€hypotheses€but€also€evaluations,Ïsuch€records€are€discoverable€under€Rule€16(b)(1)(B).ðð€€€òòIdóó.€at€730.€€Likewise,€in€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670Ð ^2 ÐS.W.2d€600€(Tenn.€1984),€the€State€had€failed€to€provide€certain€materials€and€the€names€of€certainÏwitnesses€to€the€defendant.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€trial€court€should€not€haveÏallowed€the€witnesses€to€testify€because€of€the€nondisclosure€of€the€State.€€Although€we€based€ourÏdecision€on€the€content€of€the€witnessesðð€testimony,€we€further€observed€that€ð ðthe€trial€judge€was€...Ïalso€in€error€in€implicitly€sustaining€the€prosecution€in€its€claim€that€Rule€16€and€discovery€rulesÏwere€not€applicable€in€the€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€606.€€Accordingly,€when€an€existing€rule€ofÐ Ò¦  Ðcriminal€procedure€òòpreciselyóó€addresses€an€issue,€we€apply€the€rule€even€though€the€issue€arises€inÐ d  Ðthe€context€of€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€1€(listing€severalÐ N"  Ðproceedings€to€which€the€Rules€apply€and€stating€in€subsection€(i)€that€the€Rules€apply€ð ð[i]n€anyÏother€situation€where€the€context€clearly€indicates€applicability).€€However,€no€existing€rule€ofÏcriminal€procedure€precisely€addresses€the€issues€in€this€appeal.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular KÝ ƒ U|$ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ ôNÀôX XÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€emphasize€that€our€holding€in€this€appeal€relates€only€to€expert€proof€of€mentalÐ ,  Ðcondition.€€The€notice,€evaluation,€and€disclosure€requirements€do€not€apply€to€lay€personÏtestimony. Ñ  Ñ- ù- cÝ ƒ U|$ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ôNÀôX XÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝBy€so€stating,€we€do€not€intend€to€imply€that€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16›€never€applies€in€a€capitalÐ ,  Ðsentencing€hearing.€€As€the€State€points€out,€we€have€previously€applied€Rule€16€to€issues€arising€inÏthe€context€of€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.€€For€example,€in€òòState€v.€œNichols›óó,€877€œS.W.2d›€722,€729Ð ¨ | Ð(Tenn.€1994),€we€affirmed€a€trial€judge€who€ordered€a€defense€psychologist€to€provide€to€theÏprosecution€any€interview€notes€which€would€relate€to€his€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€WeÏstated,€ð ðwhen€a€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€does€not€prepare€a€summary€report,€but€instead€reliesÏon€extensive€memoranda€to€record€not€only€observations€and€hypotheses€but€also€evaluations,Ïsuch€records€are€discoverable€under€Rule€16(b)(1)(B).ðð€€€òòIdóó.€at€730.€€Likewise,€in€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670Ð ^2 МS.W.2d›€600€(Tenn.€1984),€the€State€had€failed€to€provide€certain€materials€and€the€names€of€certainÏwitnesses€to€the€defendant.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€trial€court€should€not€haveÏallowed€the€witnesses€to€testify€because€of€the€nondisclosure€of€the€State.€€Although€we€based€ourÏdecision€on€the€content€of€the€witnessesðð€testimony,€we€further€observed€that€ð ðthe€trial€judge€was€œ.›œ..›Ïalso€in€error€in€implicitly€sustaining€the€prosecution€in€its€claim€that€Rule€16€and€discovery€rulesÏwere€not€applicable€in€the€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€606.€€Accordingly,€when€an€existing€rule€ofÐ Ò¦  Ðcriminal€procedure€òòpreciselyóó€addresses€an€issue,€we€apply€the€rule€even€though€the€issue€arises€inÐ d  Ðthe€context€of€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€œTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.›€œ1€(listing›€severalÐ N"  Ðproceedings€to€which€the€Rules€apply€and€stating€in€subsection€(i)€that€the€Rules€apply€ð ð[i]n€anyÏother€situation€where€the€context€clearly€indicates€applicability).€€However,€no€existing€rule€ofÏcriminal€procedure€precisely€addresses€the€issues€in€this€appeal., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ úÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÁñXX XÔÔ€íuXXÁñÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÁñXíuÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€23,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(W(2-Ü$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ ô¾ôX XÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd%%%%'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ‡XÁñXX XÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€©>ÑÑ€ïÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÁñXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ=€ÁñXÐXdÐd=Óœñsññsññsññiñœñiñßr€)<,(j 8` `€€@E»±` 8ttxPó°ð  rßñsññiññiññsññsñ›à@Ø Ø Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðñsññsñà@úú(Ìàò òAT€NASHVILLEó óˆÐ œì Ðñsñœßt€)>.*jxèó ` `€€@E ¨` 8ttxPØ ˆð tß›ñsñÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÐ T¤ ÐÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àò òFiled:ó ó€ò òNovember€23,€1998ó óÐ & v Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìà Ø àAppellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àÔ#† XÁñXXXÁñ8#ÔSupreme€Court€Ô‡XÁñXX XÁñÔÐ ø H Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àÔ#† XÁñXXXÁñT#ÔNo.€01S01„9809„CC„00175Ô‡XÁñXX XÁñÔ€Ð Þ .  ÐVs.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àÐ Ä   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àHon.€John€H.€Gasaway,€III,Ð ªú  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àJudgeÐ à  ÐPAUL€DENNIS€REID,à à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àMontgomery€CountyÐ vÆ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àNo.€38887Ð \¬  Ðà Ø àAppellant,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ B’  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àHon.€Cheryl€Blackburn,Ð (x Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àJudgeÐ ^ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àDavidson€CountyÐ ôD Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àNo.€97„C„1834Ð Ú* ÐANDà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àHon.€J.€Randall€Wyatt,à  # àÐ r Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àJudgeÐ X¨ Ðà Ø àAppellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àDavidson€CountyÐ >Ž Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àNo.€96„B„866Ð $t ÐVs.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ð  Z Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)ÌCHRISTOPHER€DAVIS,à à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àÐ Ö& Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)Ìà Ø àAppellant.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à)à @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ¢ ò Ðà Ø à€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àÌÌòòÔ#† XÁñXXXÁñ##Ôò òFOR€APPELLANT€REIDóó:à à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFOR€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE:óóó óÐ :$Š# ÐÔ‡ &%8&X XÁñÔJ.€Michael€Engleà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ &%v $ ÐAssistant€Metro€Public€Defenderà 8 àà  àà è àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ö%F!% ÐNashville,€TennesseeÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àMichael€E.€MooreÌMichael€R.€Jonesà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àSolicitor€GeneralÐ f(¶#( ÐPublic€Defenderà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àÐ 6)†$) Ð19th€Judicial€Districtà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àKathy€MoranteÐ *V%* ÐClarksville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ Ö*&&+ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€TennesseeÌòòÔ#† XÁñX& &%8š#Ôò òFOR€APPELLANT€DAVIS:óóó óÐ v,Æ'- ÐÔ‡ &%8&X XÁñÔœHershell›€œKoger›à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àVictor€S.€Johnson,€III€Ð b-²(. МPulaski›,€Tennesseeà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð 2.‚)/ ÐÔ#† XÁñX& &%8´#ÔÔ‡ &%8&X XÁñÔà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à20th€Judicial€DistrictÐ /R*0 МNiles€Nimmo›ÌœNashville,€TennesseeñañNiles›€Nimmo›à ˆ àñañ›à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJohn€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.à H! àÐ ¢0ò+2 Мñcñà Ø àñcññcñà 0 àñcññbñNashville,€Tennesseeà ˆ àñbññdñà ˆ àñdñ›à à àà 8 àà  àà è àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà H! àà  # àÐ r1Â,3 Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à19th€Judicial€DistrictÔ#† XÁñX& &%8ï#ÔÐ B2’-4 Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àÌòòò òFOR€AMICUS€CURIAE:ó óÐ ø3H/6 ÐóóÔ‡ &%8&X XÁñÔTennessee€Association€Criminal€Defense€LawyersÐ ä4407 ÐJefferson€T.€DorseyÌNashville,€TennesseeÌà Ø àÔ#† XÁñX& &%8†#Ôà 0 àÔ‡ „â„X XÁñÔÌÔ#† XÁñX„ „âL#ÔÔ‡ „â„X XÁñÔà@VV(Ìàò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ#† XÁñX„ „â#ԈР®8þ3; ÐÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€œAPPEALSñfñ€AFFIRMED.ñfññgñà  àñgñ›à è àà @ àDROWOTA,€J.€œÔ‡XÁñXX XÁñÔñeñÐ ø:H6= ÐñeññiññeñÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑÑ©>ÑÑ ` ÑÑ , ÑÑ  ÑñeññiññhñAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED.ñhñ›Ð Þ;.7>w ÐÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑñiñÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑñiññañÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑñañÓÓà Ø àWe€granted€and€consolidated€the€applications€for€permission€to€appeal€filedÏñeñÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑñeññdñÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑñdññcñÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑñcññbñÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  ÑñbññañÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, °ÑÑ  Ññañon€behalf€of€Paul€Dennis€Reid€and€Christopher€Davis€to€consider€the€followingÏthree€important€questions€of€criminal€procedure.ÌÔ#† XÁñXXXÁñÎ#ÔÓÓÌà8 Ø à1.€Whether€a€defendant€must€give€pre„trial€notice€of€the€intent€toÏintroduce€expert€testimony€of€his€or€her€mental€condition€asÏmitigation€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial?Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à2.€If€so,€whether,€at€the€request€of€the€State,€the€trial€court€may€orderÏa€mental€examination€of€the€defendant€by€a€mental€health€expertÏselected€by€the€State?Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à3.€€If€so,€what€procedures€should€be€followed€in€connection€with€thisÏnotice€and€examination?€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓÓÌà Ø àFor€the€reasons€herein€explained,€we€hold€that€a€capital€defendant€must€fileÏpretrial€notice€of€intent€to€present€expert€testimony€regarding€mental€condition€asÏmitigation€evidence€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€Once€such€a€notice€isÏfiled,€the€trial€court,€upon€request€of€the€State,€may€order€the€defendant€toÏundergo€a€psychiatric€evaluation€by€a€mental€health€expert€selected€by€the€State.€ÏThe€defense€will€be€afforded€access€to€any€expert€reports€prior€to€trial.€€The€StateÏwill€be€afforded€access€to€the€reports€only€after€a€jury€returns€a€verdict€of€œguilty›Ïand€the€capital€defendant€confirms€his€or€her€intent€to€offer€expert€mentalÏcondition€evidence€in€mitigation€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Accordingly,€theÏdecisions€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€are€affirmed€as€modified.ÌÌÌà@óó)Ìàòòò òBACKGROUNDó óóóˆÐ ´1ˆ', Ðà Ø àBecause€this€appeal€involves€questions€of€law,€the€relevant€facts€areÏundisputed.€€The€defendant,€Paul€Dennis€Reid€is€charged€in€Davidson€County€withÐ X5,+0 Ðtwo€counts€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€two€alternate€counts€of€firstÏdegree€felony€murder.€€Reid€is€also€charged€in€Montgomery€County€with€twoÏcounts€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€and€two€alternate€counts€of€firstÏdegree€felony€murder€for€two€separate€killings.€€The€defendant€Christopher€DavisÏis€charged€in€Davidson€County€with€two€counts€of€premeditated€first€degreeÏmurder€and€two€alternate€counts€of€felony€first€degree€murder.€€These€three€casesÏhave€been€assigned€to€three€different€trial€judges.ÌÌà Ø àIn€each€of€these€cases,€the€State€has€given€notice€of€its€intention€to€seekÏthe€death€penalty,€and€in€each€of€these€cases,€the€trial€judge€has€ruled€that€theÏdefense€must€provide€pretrial€notice€to€the€State€of€intent€to€introduce€evidenceÏrelating€to€mental€condition€as€mitigation€proof€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÏcapital€trial.€€In€addition,€all€three€trial€courts€ruled€that€Reid€and€Davis€mustÏundergo€a€psychiatric€evaluation€by€a€mental€health€expert€selected€by€the€StateÏonce€the€notice€is€filed.€€Each€trial€judge€entered€an€order€delineating€theÏprocedure€to€govern€the€evaluation€once€the€notice€is€filed.€€The€orders€differed€inÏone€primary€respect:€the€procedure€to€be€followed€after€completion€of€the€mentalÏevaluation.ÌÌà Ø àThe€orders€entered€in€the€Davidson€County€cases€provide€for€the€report€ofÏthe€mental€health€expert€to€be€delivered€to€the€court€once€the€evaluation€isÏcomplete.€€The€trial€judge€will€then€provide€the€report€to€defense€counsel€to€allowÏeach€of€the€defendants€to€decide,€with€the€assistance€of€counsel,€whether€or€notÏto€proceed€with€the€introduction€of€evidence€of€mental€condition€at€the€sentencingÏphase.€€If€the€defense€elects€to€proceed€with€the€introduction€of€mental€conditionÐ L5 +0 Ðevidence,€the€expertððs€report€is€given€to€the€prosecution€òòprioróó€to€trial.€€If,€however,Ð ,  Ðthe€defense€elects€to€forego€introduction€of€mental€condition€evidence,€the€State€isÏnot€permitted€to€review€the€expertððs€report€at€all.ÌÌà Ø àIn€contrast,€the€order€entered€by€Judge€Gasaway€in€Montgomery€CountyÏprovides€for€the€report€of€the€State€selected€expert,€and€the€report€of€any€defenseÏmental€health€expert,€to€be€filed€under€seal€with€the€trial€court€beforeÏcommencement€of€jury€selection.€€The€reports€will€be€released€only€in€the€eventÏthe€jury€returns€a€verdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€òòandóó€the€defendantÐ Œ` Ðconfirms€his€intent€to€offer€mental€condition€evidence€at€sentencing.€€If€theÏdefendant€withdraws€his€previously€filed€notice€of€intent€to€offer€such€evidence,€theÏreports€will€not€be€released.Ìà Ø àÌà Ø àFollowing€entry€of€the€orders,€both€the€Davidson€and€Montgomery€CountyÏtrial€courts€allowed€the€defendants€to€seek€interlocutory€appeals.€€The€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€accepted€review€and,€in€separate€decisions,€upheld€the€validityÏof€the€pretrial€notice€requirement€and€expert€mental€evaluation€imposed€upon€ReidÏand€Davis.€€The€intermediate€court€adopted€the€procedural€guidelines€delineatedÏby€the€Montgomery€County€Circuit€Court€which€ñ\ñœñ\ñlimits€access€to€any€expert€reportsÏuntil€the€jury€returns€a€verdict€of€guilty€and€the€capital€defendant€confirmsñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€his€intentÏto€introduce€expert€mitigation€proof€of€mental€condition€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà Ø àFrom€those€decisions,€ñ\ñœñ\ññ\ñœñ\ñReidñ\ñ›ñ\ññ\ñ›ñ\ñ€and€Davis€filed€separate€applications€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€this€Court,€and€on€September€30,€1998,€we€granted€theÏapplications,€consolidated€the€appeals,€and€set€the€cause€for€hearing€on€OctoberÐ L5 +0 ÐÑïÑÑ XÑÑ  Ññ]ñÑïÑÑ XÑÑ  Ññ]ññ\ñÑïÑÑ XÑÑ  ÑÑïÑÑ XÑÑ  Ññ\ññ[ñÑïÑÑ XÑÑ  Ññ[ñ15,€1998.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€affirm€as€modified€the€decisions€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌÌà@ÙÙ*Ìàòòò òà@@ÙÙ*ÌàANALYSISˆÐ \0 Ðóóó óà@˜˜Ìàò òA.€Authority€To€Impose€Requirements€ó ó€ˆÐ 4  Ðà Ø àIn€this€Court,€the€defendants€first€argue€that€the€trial€courts€had€no€legalÏauthority€to€require€a€capital€defendant€either€to€provide€pretrial€notice€of€intent€toÏoffer€mental€condition€evidence€or€to€submit€to€an€evaluation€by€a€State€selectedÏmental€health€expert.€€According€to€the€ñ\ñœñ\ñdefendants€Tenn.€R.€ñ\ñœñ\ñCrimñ\ñ›ñ\ñ.€Pñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€Rule€ñ\ñœñ\ñ12.2ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€ñ\ñœñ\ñisñ\ñ›ñ\ñÏlimited€in€application€to€expert€mental€condition€evidence€relevant€to€theÏdetermination€of€guilt€or€innocence.€€The€defendants€likewise€argue€that€ñ\ñœñ\ñÌTenn.€R.€ñ\ñœñ\ñCrimñ\ñ›ñ\ñ.€P.ñ[ñ›ñ[ñ€16ñ[ñ››ñ[ññ\ñ›ñ\ñ€requires€disclosure€of€an€expertððs€report€only€if€the€report€willÏbe€introduced€by€the€defendant€as€evidence€in€chief€at€trial€or€if€the€report€wasÏprepared€by€a€witness€the€defendant€intends€to€call€at€trial€and€the€report€relatesÏto€the€testimony€of€the€witness.ÌÌà Ø àWhile€conceding€that€neither€Rule€ñ\ñœñ\ñ12.2ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€nor€Rule€ñ\ñœñ\ñ16ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€specifically€refers€to€theÏsentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial,€the€State€emphasizes€that€appropriateÏprovisions€of€those€Rules€previously€have€been€applied€in€the€context€of€a€capitalÏsentencing€proceeding.€€Where,€as€here,€no€rule€precisely€addresses€the€situation,Ïthe€State€argues€that€the€trial€courts€have€inherent€power€to€adopt€a€procedureÏwhich€is€consistent€in€principle€and€spirit€with€existing€rules€of€criminal€procedureÏand€with€the€statutory€scheme€governing€capital€sentencing€proceedings.ÌÐ d58+0 Ðà Ø àClearly€no€existing€rule€of€criminal€procedure€precisely€governs€the€issuesÏin€this€appeal.€€While€Rule€12.2€certainly€is€analogous,€it€specifically€governs€theÏnotice€and€evaluation€required€when€a€defendant€intends€to€introduce€expertÏtestimony€of€mental€condition€at€the€guilt€phase€of€a€trial.€€It€does€not€specificallyÏrequire€the€defendant€in€a€capital€case€to€give€notice€of€his€or€her€intent€toÏintroduce€expert€mental€condition€testimony€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€Likewise,ÏRule€16€is€designed€to€govern€reciprocal€discovery€prior€to€trial€and€does€notÏaddress€the€various€interests€implicated€by€the€issues€in€this€appeal.ñ\ñœñ\ññ\ñ׃ ×ñ\ññ\ñ׃×ñ\ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€€TheÐ À”  Ðinapplicability€of€these€rules€does€not€mandate€the€conclusion€that€the€trial€courtsÏhad€no€legal€authority€to€impose€notice,€evaluation,€and€disclosure€requirements.ÌÌà Ø àIt€is€well€settled€that€Tennessee€courts€have€inherent€power€to€make€andÏenforce€reasonable€rules€of€procedure.€€òòShettles€v.€Stateóó,€209€Tenn.€157,€161„62,Ð ¼ Ð352€S.W.2d€1,€3€(1961);€òòBrewer€v.€Stateóó,€187€Tenn.€396,€400,€215€S.W.2d€798,Ð ˆ!\ Ð800€(1948);€òòDenton€v.€Woodsóó,€86€Tenn.€37,€5€S.W.€489€(1887);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,Ð T#( Ð673€S.W.2d€877,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòHaynes€v.€McKenzie€MemorialÐ  %ô ÐHosp.óó,€667€S.W.2d€497,€498€(Tenn.€App.€1984);€òòHull€v.€Stateóó,€543€S.W.2d€611,Ð ,  Ð612€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Indeed,€the€General€Assembly€has€explicitlyÏrecognized€this€inherent€power.€€For€example,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð€16„3„407€(1994ÏRepl.),€provides€that€ð ð[e]ach€of€the€other€courts€of€this€state€may€adopt€additionalÏor€supplementary€rules€of€practice€and€procedure€not€inconsistent€with€or€inÏconflict€with€the€rules€prescribed€by€the€supreme€court.ðð€€Moreover,€ñ\ñœñ\ñTenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€ñ\ñœñ\ñ57ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€recognizes€that€issues€will€arise€during€criminal€trials€for€which€ð ðnoÏprocedure€is€specifically€prescribed€by€ruleðð€and€provides€that€trial€courts€have€theÏinherent€power€to€ð ðproceed€in€any€lawful€manner€not€inconsistent€with€these€rulesÏor€with€any€applicable€statute.ððÌÌà Ø àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€when€issues€arise€for€which€no€procedure€isÏotherwise€specifically€prescribed,€trial€courts€in€Tennessee€have€inherent€power€toÏadopt€appropriate€rules€of€procedure€to€address€the€issues.€€Rules€adoptedÏpursuant€to€this€inherent€power€must€be€consistent€with€constitutional€principles,€Ïstatutory€laws,€and€generally€applicable€rules€of€procedure.€€Indeed,€whenÏcircumstances€mandate€the€adoption€of€supplemental€rules,€trial€courts€should€Ïpattern€such€rules€upon€analogous€generally€applicable€rules€of€procedure.€€TrialÏcourts€must€also€bear€in€mind€that€all€procedural€rules€should€be€designed€toÏprovide€for€the€just€determination€of€every€criminal€proceeding,€and€to€secureÏsimplicity€in€procedure,€fairness€in€administration€and€the€elimination€ofÏunjustifiable€expense€and€delay.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€2.€€Applying€theseÐ è/¼%* Ðguiding€principles,€we€affirm€and€adopt€the€notice€and€evaluation€requirementsÏfashioned€by€the€trial€courts€in€these€capital€cases.ÌÐ L5 +0 Їà@GGÌàò òB.€€Notice€and€Evaluation€Requirements€ó óˆÐ ,  Ðà Ø àA€capital€defendant€has€a€federal€constitutional€right€to€present€mitigationÏevidence.€€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604„05,€98€S.Ct.€2954,€2964„65,€57Ð Ð ¤ ÐL.Ed.2d€973€(1978);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€266€(Tenn.€1994).€€InÐ œp Ðaccordance€with€that€constitutional€mandate,€the€Tennessee€statute€whichÏgoverns€capital€sentencing€proceedings€provides€that€evidence€may€be€offeredÏduring€the€sentencing€phase€which€tends€to€ð ðestablish€or€rebut€any€mitigatingÏfactors.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€(1997€ñ\ñœñ\ñRepl.).ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€€Among€those€mitigatingÏfactors€specifically€enumerated€in€the€statute€are€three€which€directly€relate€to€aÏdefendantððs€mental€condition:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendantÏwas€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance;ðð€(2)€ð ð[t]heÏdefendant€acted€under€extreme€duress€or€under€the€substantial€domination€ofÏanother€person;ðð€(3)€ð ð[t]he€capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€theÏwrongfulness€of€the€defendantððs€conduct€or€to€conform€the€defendantððs€conduct€toÏthe€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mentalÏdisease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€a€defense€toÏthe€crime€but€which€substantially€affected€the€defendantððs€judgment.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2),€(6)€&€(8)€(1997€ñ\ñœñ\ñRepl.).ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€€In€addition,€the€statute€directs€theÏjury€to€consider€ð ð[a]ny€other€mitigating€factor€which€is€raised€by€the€evidenceÏproduced€by€either€the€prosecution€or€defense€at€either€the€guilt€or€sentencingÏhearing.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(9)€(1997€ñ\ñœñ\ñRepl.).ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€€Clearly,€a€capitalÏdefendant€has€a€constitutional€and€statutory€right€to€present€mitigation€proofÏrelating€to€his€or€her€mental€condition.ÌÌà Ø àJuxtaposed€against€a€capital€defendantððs€right€to€introduce€a€broad€range€of€Ð X5,+0 Ðproof€in€mitigation€is€the€Stateððs€right€to€offer€evidence€to€rebut€the€mitigatingÏfactors.€€Critical€to€any€effective€rebuttal€of€expert€mitigation€proof€regardingÏmental€condition€is€the€Stateððs€ability€to€conduct€an€independent€psychiatricÏevaluation€of€the€defendant.€€As€was€aptly€explained€by€a€United€States€DistrictÏCourt:ÌÓÓÌà8 Ø àPsychiatry€is€far€from€an€exact€science€because€it€does€not€relyÏprimarily€on€the€analysis€of€raw€data.€€Instead,€the€basic€tool€ofÏpsychiatric€study€remains€the€personal€interview,€which€requiresÏrapport€between€the€interviewer€and€the€subject.€€The€GovernmentððsÏexpert€cannot€meaningfully€address€the€defense€expertððsÏconclusions€unless€the€Governmentððs€expert€is€given€similar€accessÏto€the€basic€tool€of€his€or€her€area€of€expertise:€an€independentÏreview€with€and€examination€of€the€defendant.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÌÓûQÓòòUnited€States€v.€Haworthóó,€942€F.Supp.€1406,€1407„08€(D.N.M.€1996)€(internalÐ  Þ Ðcitations€and€quotations€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Beckfordóó,€962€F.Supp.Ð Öª Ð748,€758€ñ\ñœñ\ñ(E.D.€Va.ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€1997).€€ð ðIf€a€defendant€elects€to€present€evidence€of€his€mentalÏcondition€as€a€reason€why€he€should€not€be€sentenced€to€death,€the€GovernmentÏmust€be€able€to€follow€where€he€has€led€and€introduce€its€own€countervailingÏevidence.ðð€€òòHaworthóó,€942€F.Supp.€at€1408.€€Unless€the€State€is€allowed€to€conductÐ &Ú Ðits€own€mental€health€examination,€it€may€be€deprived€ð ðof€the€only€effective€meansÏit€has€of€controverting€[defense]€proof€on€an€issue€that€[the€defendant]€hasÏinterjected€into€the€caseðð.€€òòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€451€U.S.€454,€465,€101€S.Ct.€1866,Ð j+>!% Ð1874,€68€L.Ed.2d€359€(1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Huskeyóó,€964€S.W.2d€892,€897Ð 6- #' Ð(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòEstelleóó€and€holding€that€a€defendant€who€intends€to€offerÐ /Ö$) Ðexpert€proof€of€insanity€may€be€ordered€to€undergo€an€evaluation€by€a€StateÏselected€psychiatric€expert).€€Clearly,€the€Stateððs€ability€to€rebut€a€defendantððsÏexpert€mitigation€evidence€relating€to€mental€condition€would€be€effectivelyÐ f4:*/ Ðprecluded€if€the€State€is€not€afforded€the€opportunity€to€have€the€defendantÏevaluated€by€an€independent€mental€health€expert.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€agree€with€a€statementÐ ø Ì Ðmade€by€the€Florida€Supreme€Court€when€it€addressed€this€issue:€ð ð[n]o€trulyÏobjective€tribunal€can€compel€one€side€in€a€legal€bout€to€abide€by€the€Marquis€ofÏQueensberryððs€rules,€while€the€other€fights€ungloved.ðð€€òòDillbeck€v.€Stateóó,€643€So.2dÐ \0 Ð1027,€1030€(Fla.€1994);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Fla.€R.€Crim.€P.€3.202€(delineating€notice,Ð (ü  Ðexamination,€and€procedure€governing€expert€testimony€of€mental€mitigationÏduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€anÏindependent€psychiatric€examination€is€essential€to€afford€the€State€its€right€toÏrebut€expert€defense€proof€of€mental€condition.ÌÌà Ø àIn€light€of€our€conclusion,€the€necessity€of€requiring€a€capital€defendant€toÏprovide€pretrial€notice€of€intent€to€offer€expert€mitigation€proof€of€mental€conditionÏbecomes€apparent.€€Our€death€penalty€statute€provides€that€the€sentencingÏhearing€ð ðshall€be€conducted€as€soon€as€practicable€before€the€òòsameóó€jury€thatÐ T#( Ðdetermined€guilt.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(a)€(1997€ñ\ñœñ\ñRepl.)€(emphasisñ\ñ›ñ\ñÏadded).€€Serious€difficulties€for€the€defendant,€the€prosecution,€and€the€judicialÏsystem€would€result€if€notice€of€a€capital€defendantððs€intent€to€present€expertÏmitigation€proof€is€deferred€until€the€conclusion€of€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€NoÏdoubt€there€would€be€a€lengthy€delay€before€commencement€of€the€sentencingÏphase€while€the€Stateððs€expert€examined€the€defendant.€€During€this€time€the€juryÏwould€likely€remain€idly€sequestered.€€Particularly€troublesome€is€the€very€realÏpossibility€that€evidence€presented€at€the€guilt€phase,€which€usually€is€also€reliedÐ ´1ˆ', Ðupon€at€sentencing,€would€fade€from€the€minds€of€the€jurors.€€òòSeeóó€òòBeckfordóó,€962Ð ,  ÐF.Supp.€at€762„63€(discussing€the€difficulties€arising€if€a€defendant€is€not€requiredÏto€provide€pretrial€notice€of€intent€to€introduce€expert€mitigation€evidence€of€mentalÏcondition).€€Requiring€a€capital€defendant€to€provide€pretrial€notice€of€intent€toÏintroduce€expert€mitigation€proof€relating€to€mental€condition€protects€the€StateððsÏright€of€rebuttal€and€eliminates€unjustifiable€delay.ÌÌà Ø àIn€addition,€there€are€no€constitutional€principles€which€preclude€the€noticeÏand€evaluation€conditions€imposed€by€the€trial€courts€in€these€cases.€€With€respectÏto€the€constitutionality€of€pretrial€notice€requirements,€òòWilliams€v.€Floridaóó,€399€U.S.Ð X, Ð78,€90€S.Ct.€1893,€26€L.Ed.2d€446€(1970),€is€instructive.€€In€that€case,€theÏSupreme€Court€rejected€the€contention€that€requiring€a€criminal€defendant€to€giveÏpretrial€notice€of€intent€to€rely€upon€an€alibi€defense€violated€the€Fifth€Amendment.€ÏIn€so€holding,€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòWilliamsóó€stated:Ð ˆ!\ ÐÓÓÌà8 Ø àNothing€in€the€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€entitles€a€defendant€as€aÏmatter€of€constitutional€right€to€await€the€end€of€the€Stateððs€caseÏbefore€announcing€the€nature€of€his€defense,€any€more€than€itÏentitles€him€to€await€the€juryððs€verdict€on€the€Stateððs€case„in„chiefÏbefore€deciding€whether€or€not€to€take€the€stand€himself.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ·eÓòòÌIdóó.€at€85,€90€S.Ct.€at€1898;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJohnsonóó,€673€S.W.2d€at€882€(approving€a€ruleÐ „*X $ Ðwhich€required€the€defendant€to€provide€notice€of€intent€to€present€an€alibiÏdefense).€€We€likewise€conclude€that€requiring€capital€defendants€to€provideÏpretrial€notice€of€intent€to€present€expert€mitigation€proof€relating€to€mentalÏcondition€does€not€violate€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€òòBeckfordóó,€962€F.Supp.€at€761.Ð ´1ˆ', ÐÌà Ø àIn€two€recent€cases,€we€discussed€the€constitutionality€of€the€psychiatricÐ L5 +0 Ðexamination€prescribed€by€ñ\ñœñ\ñTenn.ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€R.€Crim.€ñ\ñœñ\ñP.€12.2.€€òòSeeóóñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€òòHuskeyóó,€964€S.W.2d€atÐ ,  Ð900;€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€950€S.W.2d€20,€24€(Tenn.€1997).€€With€respect€to€the€FifthÐ ø Ì ÐAmendment€right€against€self„incrimination€we€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 Ø àthe€court„ordered€examination€and€the€disclosure€of€examinationÏmaterial€does€not€violate€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„¼incrimination,€provided€the€admissibility€of€any€statements€made€byÏthe€defendant€during€the€examination,€and€any€ððfruitsðð€derivedÏtherefrom,€is€only€for€impeachment€or€rebuttal€of€evidence€of€mentalÏcondition€introduced€at€trial€by€the€defendant.€€Moreover,€disclosureÏof€the€information€from€the€examination€is€not€limited€by€Rule€16€andÏdoes€not€depend€on€whether€the€defendant€intends€to€use€theÏinformation€or€witness€involved€in€the€Rule€12.2(c)€examination.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓÉjÓÌòòHuskeyóó,€964€at€900.€€We€also€held€that€an€independent€examination€does€notÐ X, Ðviolate€a€defendantððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€so€long€as€the€defendantÏis€provided€the€assistance€of€counsel€when€the€decision€of€whether€or€not€to€raiseÏan€insanity€defense€is€made.€€òòMartinóó,€950€S.W.2d€at€26.Ð ¼ ÐÌà Ø àThough€the€evaluation€and€notice€issues€in€this€appeal€relate€to€theÏsentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial€rather€than€to€the€guilt„innocence€determination,Ïthe€controlling€constitutional€precepts€remain€the€same.€€òòBeckfordóó,€962€F.Supp.€atÐ ì&À  Ð760.€€The€Sixth€Amendment€is€satisfied€so€long€as€a€capital€defendant€is€providedÏthe€assistance€of€counsel€when€he€or€she€decides€whether€to€introduce€expertÏmitigation€proof€relating€to€mental€condition€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€Once€theÏdecision€is€made€to€proceed€with€the€introduction€of€such€proof,€the€FifthÏAmendment€right€against€self„incrimination€does€not€preclude€a€court„orderedÏexamination€by€a€State€selected€mental€health€expert.€€òòIdóó.€€Disclosure€of€theÐ ´1ˆ', Ðexamination€material€does€not€violate€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„¼incrimination,€provided€the€admissibility€of€any€statements€made€by€the€defendantÐ L5 +0 Ðduring€the€examination,€and€any€ððfruitsðð€derived€therefrom,€is€admitted€only€forÏimpeachment€or€rebuttal€of€evidence€of€mental€condition€introduced€by€theÏdefense€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Hallóó,€152€F.3d€381,Ð Ä ˜ Ð398€(5th€Cir.€1998);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrown€v.€Butleróó,€876€F.2d€427,€430€(5th€Cir.€1989)Ð d Ð(holding€that€the€State€could€not€introduce€expert€testimony€based€upon€aÏprevious€psychological€examination€of€the€defendant€where€the€defendantÏannounced€an€intention€to€offer€expert€psychological€evidence€but€never€actuallyÏintroduced€the€evidence);€òòBeckfordóó,€962€F.€Supp.€at€761.€€Accordingly,€weÐ À”  Ðconclude€that€requiring€a€capital€defendant€to€submit€to€a€psychiatric€examinationÏby€a€State€selected€mental€health€expert€is€constitutionally€permissible.ÌÌÌà@"Ìàò òC.€Procedural€Safeguardsó óˆÐ ¼ Ðà Ø àAs€a€final€issue,€we€must€set€forth€a€procedural€framework€which€bothÏaccommodates€the€Stateððs€right€of€rebuttal€and€safeguards€a€capital€defendantððsÏconstitutional€right€against€self„incrimination.€€The€procedures€adopted€by€the€trialÏcourts€in€these€three€capital€cases€are€similar.€€The€primary€difference€is€the€timeÏat€which€the€defense€and€State€are€provided€access€to€the€expert€reports.€€UnderÏthe€Davidson€County€orders,€the€reports€are€given€to€the€State€prior€to€trial.€€UnderÏthe€Montgomery€County€order,€which€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€ñ\ñœñ\ñadopted,ñ\ñ›ñ\ñÏaccess€to€any€expert€reports€ñ\ñœñ\ñis€deferred€untilñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€after€the€jury€returns€a€verdict€ofÏguilty€òòandóó€the€capital€defendant€confirms€his€intent€to€introduce€expert€mitigationÐ ô/È%* Ðproof€at€the€sentencing€ñ\ñœñ\ñhearing.ÌÌà Ø àTheñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€State€contends€that€it€should€be€given€access€to€the€results€of€anyÐ X5,+0 Ðindependent€psychiatric€examination€prior€to€ñ\ñœñ\ñtrial.€€Inñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€our€view,€there€are€validÏjustifications€for€providing€the€State€access€to€the€report€only€after€the€jury€hasÏreturned€a€verdict€of€guilty€òòandóó€a€capital€defendant€confirms€his€or€her€intent€toÐ Ä ˜ Ðoffer€expert€mitigation€evidence€relating€to€mental€condition€at€the€sentencingÏhearing.€€First,€delaying€access€to€the€report€advances€interests€of€judicialÏeconomy€by€avoiding€litigation€as€to€whether€particular€pieces€of€evidence€theÏState€seeks€to€admit€prior€to€the€defense€offering€psychiatric€evidence€wereÏderived€from€the€Stateððs€psychiatric€evaluation.€€Delaying€access€also€foreclosesÏthe€risk€that€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„incrimination€will€be€abridged€by€theÏStateððs€inadvertent€or€intentional€introduction€of€the€examination€results€or€its€fruitsÏfor€purposes€other€than€impeachment€or€rebuttal€of€expert€mitigation€evidence€ofÏmental€condition€introduced€by€the€defense.€€òòHallóó,€152€F.3d€at€399.€€Ð ðÄ ÐÌà Ø àOn€the€other€hand,€these€same€concerns€do€not€apply€to€the€defense.€€InÏfact,€providing€the€defense€with€access€to€any€expert€reports€prior€to€trial€wouldÏserve€interests€of€judicial€economy.€€For€example,€the€defense€will€have€sufficientÏtime€to€review€the€reports,€make€an€informed€decision€as€to€whether€to€introduceÏexpert€mental€condition€mitigation€proof,€and€be€prepared€at€the€conclusion€of€theÏguilt€phase€of€the€trial€to€either€confirm€or€withdraw€the€previously€filed€notice.€€IfÏthe€defense€confirms€its€previously€filed€notice,€the€State€will€then€be€given€theÏreports€and€should€have€sufficient€time€to€study€the€reports€and€prepare€itsÏrebuttal€proof.ÌÌà Ø àWe€therefore€modify€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€insofarÏas€it€foreclosed€both€the€State€and€the€defense€from€having€access€to€expertÐ L5 +0 Ðreports€until€the€jury€ñ\ñœñ\ñhañ\ñ›œñ\ñsñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty.€€We€hold€that€the€defense€isÏentitled€to€have€access€to€any€expert€reports€prior€to€trial.€€The€State€will€beÏafforded€access€to€the€reports€only€after€a€jury€returns€a€verdict€of€ñ\ñœñ\ñguiltyñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€and€theÏcapital€defendant€confirms€his€or€her€intent€to€offer€expert€mental€conditionÏevidence€in€mitigation.€€In€our€view,€this€procedure€both€protects€the€Stateððs€rightÏof€rebuttal€and€safeguards€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„incrimination.€ÌÌÌà@,,)Ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ Œ` Ðà Ø àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€where,€as€here,€issues€arise€for€which€noÏprocedure€is€otherwise€specifically€prescribed,€courts€in€Tennessee€have€inherentÏpower€to€adopt€appropriate€rules€of€procedure.€€€We€approve€the€notice€andÏexamination€requirements€imposed€by€the€trial€courts€in€these€cases.€€AsÏpreviously€stated,€they€are€consistent€with€constitutional€principles,€statutory€laws,Ïand€generally€applicable€rules€of€criminal€procedure.€€In€addition€the€notice€andÏexamination€requirements,€which€closely€parallel€the€analogous€provisions€of€RuleÏ12.2,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€ensure€fairness€and€eliminate€unjustifiable€delay.€€WithÏrespect€to€the€disclosure€procedures,€we€affirm€as€modified€the€decisions€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌà Ø àMoreover,€we€adopt€the€notice,€examination,€and€disclosure€requirementsÏapproved€in€this€appeal€as€the€governing€procedure€in€this€State€in€every€deathÏpenalty€trial€in€which€the€capital€defendant€intends€to€introduce€expert€mitigationÏevidence€relating€to€mental€condition€at€the€sentencing€hearing€of€his€or€her€trial.€ÏThe€specific€procedure€is€set€out€below.Ð X5,+0 ЇÔ‡ XÌXX Xq˜ÔÓÓà8 Ø àÔ#† Xq˜XX XÌkˆ#Ô1.€€If€a€capital€defendant€intends€to€introduce€ñ\ñœñ\ñexpert€mentalñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€conditionÐ ,  Ðtestimony€as€mitigation€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€he€or€she€must€fileÏpretrial€written€notice€of€intent€no€later€than€an€appropriate€date€setÏforth€by€the€trial€court.€€The€notice€shall€include€the€name€andÏprofessional€qualifications€of€any€mental€condition€professional€whoÏwill€testify€and€a€brief,€general€summary€of€the€topics€to€beÏaddressed€that€is€sufficient€to€permit€the€State€to€determine€if€anÏevaluation€is€necessary€and,€if€so,€the€area€in€which€its€expert€mustÏbe€knowledgeable.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à2.€€If€a€capital€defendant€files€notice€that€he€or€she€intends€toÏintroduce€expert€mental€condition€testimony€at€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€defendant€shall,€if€requested€by€the€State,€be€examinedÏby€a€psychiatrist€or€other€mental€health€professional€selected€by€theÏState.€€The€examination€shall€take€place€within€a€reasonable€timeÏframe€set€forth€by€the€trial€ñ\ñœñ\ñcourt.ñ\ñ›ñ\ññ\ñœñ\ñ€€Theñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€State€and€defense€willÏcooperate€to€provide€the€court„ordered€professional€with€allÏnecessary€and€relevant€information.€€Said€examination€may€beÏvideotaped€in€accordance€with€the€guidelines€adopted€in€òòState€v.Ð X, ÐMartinóó,€950€S.W.2d€20€(Tenn.€ñ\ñœñ\ñ1997).€€Theñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€report€of€that€examinationÐ > Ðand€the€report€of€any€psychiatric€examination€initiated€by€theÏñ\ñœñ\ñdefendantñTñ,€if›€same›€ñTññ\ñ›œñ\ññTñexist,ñTññ\ñ›ñ\ñ€shall€be€filed€under€seal€with€the€Court€before€theÏcommencement€of€jury€selection.€€The€Court„appointed€professionalÏconducting€the€examination€for€the€State€shall€not€discuss€his/herÏexamination€with€anyone€unless€and€until€the€results€of€theÏexamination€are€released€by€the€Court€to€counsel€for€the€StateÏfollowing€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à3.€€The€results€of€any€examination€by€the€State€expert€and€theÏdefense€ñ\ñœñ\ñexpertñUñ,€if›€same›€ñUññ\ñ›ñ\ññ\ñœñ\ññUñexist,ñUñ€shallñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€be€released€to€the€defense€prior€to€trial€toÏenable€the€defendant,€with€the€assistance€of€ñ\ñœñ\ñcounsel,ñVñ›€ñVññWñ€ñWñtoñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€determineÏwhether€or€not€to€introduce€expert€mental€condition€testimony€asÏmitigation€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€results€of€any€examinationÏshall€be€released€to€the€State€only€in€the€event€the€jury€returns€aÏverdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€only€after€the€capitalÏdefendant€confirms€his€or€her€intent€to€offer€expert€mental€conditionÏevidence€in€mitigation€at€the€penalty€phase.€€After€the€return€of€aÏguilty€verdict,€the€defendant€shall€file€a€pleading€confirming€orÏdisavowing€his€or€her€intent€to€introduce€expert€mental€conditionÏtestimony€at€a€penalty€phase.€€If€the€defendant€withdraws€theÏpreviously„tendered€notice,€the€results€of€any€mental€conditionÏexaminations€concerning€the€defendant€will€not€be€released€to€theÏState.€€The€reports€of€any€ñ\ñœñ\ñexaminations,€whetherñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€by€the€State€orÏdefense€ñ\ñœñ\ñexperts,ñ\ñ›ñ\ñ€concerning€the€defendant€shall€be€released€to€theÏState€immediately€after€the€filing€of€a€pleading€confirming€the€earlierÏnotice.€€Even€if€the€defendant€confirms€his€or€her€intent€to€offerÏmental€condition€evidence,€the€defendant€may€withdraw€the€notice€ofÏintent€to€introduce€expert€mental€condition€proof€at€any€time€beforeÏactually€presenting€such€evidence,€and,€in€that€event,€neither€the€factÐ L5 +0 Ðof€notice,€nor€the€results€or€reports€of€any€mental€examination,€norÏany€facts€disclosed€only€therein,€will€be€admissible€against€theÏdefendant.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àJUSTICEÌò òÌÌñ\ñœñ\ñÌÌñXñConcurñXññYñPanelñYñ:ó óñ\ñ›ñ\ñРج  ÐAnderson,€C.J.,ÌBirch,€Holder,€Barker,€JJ.ÌÌ