ÿWPC•@ <‡˜UõR”-«cGCÄ­Y_o¹m–M‰ý³Ò7çž–;:²LÇÄòëî"'5›VÅSùÆ´}²Ö_ÐÆ3€ÖçDÊèvW}·?ãá~©hEƒ,‹m3°b^ e[ƒ)7B¿×.á“û÷ËÞMõÃ_Už¨ŽLɇC„Z>y@(“¿Uˆ0%58)7Z9¸dá€h‚<Ü-2\‡›Ùî”1|õÛSý“]‡ª¿lP5Òö¢êdšgnÆÂ\û=siä¿>_Ñ©ðÇ¿IiÆmÑ­!–šKÑ!цx=´¸OrTÆxÆ;#TÐĆïÈÖÉ/Cƒ4„•k²@iÉäQÂxð+W¦*u&÷xCùÈ6è¯=LF´÷3}Þ˜:†%®öcK’”MFÍðCÈL]”†óó8¢€¶»—S×,¶„NÕ_݉tÖ¦qxÞ|.¼ÇªáKüÞrV¬5)hÕ±‰ª8§ylæ\íˆRÓN'7ƾ_¦^ô̚;ÅÝ‹ÕËóõ¿d« ëèÒyÆÔê`>þôþãײtST7ñ²rD°Õ¢w±Î Ûµ[oÄ$bm`òÛ;ÂÑUþtQÓ¥BªÄn¾÷­r‚…•%>¸–™bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 1u‘ Æ ÆÌ Æ’ ÆX 0 DNbXd¼EÄU >Æ 0î 0ëò>Ý[×v+MÜxU@T D” 0èØ! À" 0åÍ# 0â²$ 0ß”% 0Üs& 0ÙO' 0Ö(((( 0Üþ(þ(þ(þ(bÚ)Ú) 0Ùâ)â)UN»*7 + 0Ö@. 0Ó/ 0Ðé/ 0͹0 0ʆ1 0ÇP2 0Ä3 0ÛÛ3 0ض4 0ÕŽ5 0Òc6 0Ï57 0Ì8 0ÉÐ8 0Æ™9 0Ã_: 0n";";";";";";";";";";";";";"; 0 ë;;;; B{<{< 0¤˜< D5<= D-q= 0Kž=ž= ASé=Æ<> 0¤? 0D¦? A«ê?(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular2»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó¼‘z-s š‚,-ð4¤P„£3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0237=CIQYag­­1.A:i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó NÝ ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔLaw€enforcement€officers€executed€Ô_Ôseven€search€warrants,€and€the€defense€challenged€all€of€these€warrants€inÐ ° Ðpretrial€motions.€€The€State,€however,€gave€notice€prior€to€trial€that€it€did€not€intend€to€introduce€the€evidence€seizedÐ tÄ Ðpursuant€to€the€other€five€warrants.€€Thus,€on€appeal,€the€defendantÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€challenges€Ô_Ôthe€validity€of€Ô_ÔÔ_Ôonly€Warrants€146€and€149Ð 8ˆ Ðand€the€evidenceÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôthat€was€seized€under€the€authority€ofÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôthese€and€admitted€at€trialÔ_ÔÔ_Ô.€€Officers€executing€Warrant€146€seizedÐ üL Ðfour€jars€of€coins,€six€pairs€of€shoes,€one€duffle€bag,€one€brown€carry€bag,€assorted€photographs,€one€Bible,€three€knives,Ð À Ðand€three€hats.€€Officers€executing€Warrant€149€seized€a€box€of€photograph€albums,€a€bag€containing€photographs€andÐ „Ô Ðnegatives,€a€bag€of€assorted€letters€and€mail,€womenððs€toiletry€items,€keys,€teeth€molds,€and€assorted€magazines,€papers,Ð H ˜ Ðand€notes.Ô_Ô ô\  `‹&Times New Roman2G+J ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+J ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó 4Ý ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAntisocial€personality€disorder€is€characterized€by€the€failure€to€conform€to€social€norms,€deceitfulness,Ð ° Ðirritability€and€aggressiveness,€and€lack€of€remorse.€€ QÝ ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€previously€noted,€the€defendantððs€incarceration€in€the€Cheatham€County€Jail€stemmed€from€another€incidentÐ ° Ðwhere€he€allegedly€attempted€to€kidnap€the€manager€of€a€Shoneyððs€restaurant. ÍÝ ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔNesbitÔ_Ôóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€892€(citing€cases). !Ý ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBoth€the€defense€and€the€State€are€urged€to€submit€concerns€and€suggestions€regarding€this€instruction€to€the€Ð ° ÐCommittee€for€its€consideration. ÒÝ ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€dissent€asserts€that€the€majority€has€made€ð ðno€meaningful€effort€to€address€and€rectifyðð€the€concernsÐ ° Ðexpressed€in€his€dissenting€opinion€and€in€dissenting€opinions€filed€in€previous€cases.€€To€the€contrary,€a€majority€of€thisÐ tÄ ÐCourt€has€thoroughly€considered€and€repeatedly€rejected€the€dissentððs€challenges€to€the€proportionality€review€process,Ð 8ˆ Ðchoosing€instead€to€adhere€to€the€framework€carefully€explained€in€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651€(Tenn.€1997).€€òòSee,Ð üL Ðe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ôóó,€60€S.W.3d€759,€781„86€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€57€S.W.3d€411,€430€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.Ð À ÐStoutóó,€46€S.W.3d€689,€708€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€31€S.W.3d€196,€223„24€(Tenn.€2000);€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€atÐ „Ô Ð666„670.€€A€majority€of€this€Court€remains€convinced€that€the€proportionality€analysis€outlined€in€òòBlandóóis€more€thanÐ H ˜ Ðsufficient€to€ensure€that€no€aberrant€death€sentence€is€imposed.(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  :Ý ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€of€this€investigation,€the€defendant€was€also€under€investigation€for€the€murders,€robbery€andÐ ° Ðassault€of€employees€of€a€Nashville€McDonaldððs€restaurant.2A+J ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó Ý ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThis€incident€Ô_Ôoccurred€in€Texas€and€resulted€in€the€defendantððs€arrest€and€conviction€for€robbery.2>+J ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+J ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+J ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+J ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+J ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/+J ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2DJ ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular -Ý ƒRÆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPolice€discovered€Hamptonððs€personal€effects€because€of€information€provided€by€Mr.€Charles€Simpson,€who,Ð ° Ðwhile€looking€for€aluminum€cans€alongside€Ô_ÔEllingtonÔ_Ô€Parkway€on€the€afternoon€of€the€murder,€discovered€HamptonððsÐ tÄ Ðchildrenððs€identification€cards.€€Believing€that€the€owner€of€the€cards€had€been€robbed€but€unaware€of€the€murders,€Mr.Ð 8ˆ ÐSimpson€immediately€reported€his€discovery€to€police.€€The€next€day,€February€17,€1997,€officers€returned€to€the€sameÐ üL Ðarea€and€found€Hamptonððs€driverððs€license,€credit€card,€movie€rental€card,€and€birth€certificate€card.€2AJ ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó<ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡XXXÔ(|G2Æ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ç»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€2ôc@ò»2»Ô d(|3 Y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ç»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 Y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ç»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ç»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€2¼Ç»»2»ÔÑ8€oèXXdì»»d8ÑÓ=€ÇлdÐd=Óà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡2îÔ©î»2¼ÇÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†2¼Ç»î2îÔ©I#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àOctober€2,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡2XoèX»2¼ÇÔÌò òÔ#†2¼Ç»X2XoèF#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€PAUL€DENNIS€REID,€JR.òòóóÔ‡2XoèX»2¼ÇÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ÐCriminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„C„1834€€€€€€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00803„SC„DDT„DD€„€Filed€November€26,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†2¼Ç»X2XoèÃ#ÔÔ€2XoèX»2¼ÇÔIn€this€capital€case,€the€defendant,€Paul€Dennis€Reid,€Jr.,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€first€degreeÐ d´ Ðmurder€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€for€killing€two€Captain€Dððs€employees€andÐ P  Ðrobbing€one€of€the€employees.€€As€to€each€conviction€of€first€degree€murder,€the€jury€found€in€theÐ <Œ Ðsentencing€hearing€that€the€State€had€proven€three€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonableÐ (x Ðdoubt€ð!ð€(1)€that€the€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€theÐ d Ðpresent€charge,€the€statutory€elements€of€which€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person;€(2)€that€theÐ P Ðmurder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrestÐ ì< Ðor€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another;€and€(3)€that€the€murder€was€knowingly€committed,Ð Ø( Ðsolicited,€directed,€or€aided€by€the€defendant€while€the€defendant€had€a€substantial€role€in€committingÐ Ä Ðor€attempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€after€having€a€substantial€role€in€committing€or€attemptingÐ ° Ðto€commit€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Annòò.€ðð€óó39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(2),€(6),€and€(7)€(1997).€€Finding€that€theseÐ œì Ðaggravating€circumstances€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€theÐ ˆØ Ðjury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€on€each€murder€conviction.€€The€trial€court€subsequentlyÐ tÄ Ðimposed€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction€and€orderedÐ `° Ðthis€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€two€death€sentences.€€On€direct€appeal€to€the€CourtÐ L œ Ðof€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendant€mounted€numerous€challenges€to€both€his€convictions€andÐ 8!ˆ  Ðsentences.€€After€fully€considering€the€defendantððs€claims,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmedÐ $"t! Ðthe€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,€the€case€was€docketed€in€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð #`" Ððð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1997).€€€After€carefully€and€fully€reviewing€the€record€and€the€relevant€authority,Ð ü#L# Ðthe€defendantððs€convictions€and€sentences€are€affirmed.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌÓÓò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€Automatic€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ À&"& ÐAppeals€Affirmedó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòÓ  ÓFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,Ð „)Ô$) ÐJanice€M.€Holder,€óóand€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.,óó€joined.€€Ô‡XoèXX2XoèÔÔ_ÔAòòdolphoÔ_Ôóó€A.€Bòòirchóó,€Jòòróó.,€filed€aÐ p*À%* Ðconcurring€&€dissenting€opinion.€Ô#†2XoèXXXoèP#ÔÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ýÇ ÐÔ_ÔJeffrey€A.€DeVasher;€C.€Dawn€Deaner,€J;€Michael€Engle;€and€David€Baker;€Assistant€PublicÐ ° Ðâ âDefenders,€€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Paul€Dennis€Reid,€Jr.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€JenniferÐ tÄ ÐL.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€KathyÐ `° ÐMorante,€Tom€Thurman,€Roger€Moore,€Grady€Moore,€Assistant€District€Attorney€Generals,€for€theÐ L œ ÐAppellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓmÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ ü L  ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óò òà  àà@ii#ìàòòI.€€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà@ii#ìàò òA.€€Guilt€Phaseó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÓÓÌÓÓà  àThe€proof€offered€by€the€State€at€the€guilt€phase€of€this€trial€demonstrated€that€on€SundayÐ pÀ Ðmorning,€February€16,€1997,€sixteen„year„old€Sarah€Jackson€and€twenty„five„year„old€SteveÐ \¬ ÐHampton€were€shot€and€killed€as€they€prepared€to€open€the€Captain€Dððs€restaurant€on€Lebanon€RoadÐ H˜ Ðin€Donelson,€Tennessee.€€Hampton€was€the€manager€of€the€restaurant;€Jackson€was€a€high€schoolÐ 4„ Ðstudent€working€part„time€at€the€restaurant.€€Kevin€Blackwell,€area€director€for€Captain€Dððs,€spokeÐ  p Ðwith€Hampton€on€the€telephone€around€8:15€to€8:30€a.m.€that€morning.€€Over€an€hour€later,€aroundÐ  \ Ð9:45€to€10€a.m.,€Michael€Butterworth€arrived€for€work€but€was€unable€to€enter€the€restaurant€becauseÐ øH Ðthe€doors€were€locked.€€Butterworth€telephoned€the€Captain€Dððs€from€a€neighboring€restaurant€andÐ ä4 Ðgot€a€busy€signal.€€When€he€called€a€second€time€a€few€minutes€later,€no€one€answered.€€BelievingÐ Ð  Ðsomething€was€wrong,€Butterworth€contacted€another€Captain€Dððs€employee€whose€father€was€aÐ ¼  ÐMetro€police€officer.€€The€employeeððs€father,€Officer€Jeff€Wells,€arrived€at€the€scene€and,€after€theÐ ¨ø Ðassistant€manager€of€Captain€Dððs€unlocked€the€door,€entered€the€restaurant€between€11€a.m.€and€noonÐ ”ä Ðto€find€Hampton€and€Jackson€dead,€lying€face€down€on€the€floor€inside€the€restaurantððs€walk„inÐ €Ð Ðcooler.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€victims€had€been€shot€execution„style€while€lying€on€the€floor.€€Hampton€had€been€shotÐ D!” Ðtwice€in€the€back€of€the€head€and€once€in€the€back.€€Jackson€had€been€shot€four€times€in€the€head€andÐ 0"€  Ðonce€in€the€back.€€According€to€the€medical€examiner,€two€of€Jacksonððs€head€wounds€were€fatal,€butÐ #l! Ðthe€two€other€head€wounds€were€superficial,€and€the€shot€to€her€back€was€not€immediatelyÐ $X" Ðincapacitating.€€If€these€less€serious€wounds€had€been€inflicted€first,€the€medical€examiner€testifiedÐ ô$D # ÐJackson€may€have€been€able€to€move;€and,€in€fact,€a€blood€pattern€of€Jacksonððs€gloved€hand€onÐ à%0!$ Ðshelving€near,€but€above,€her€body€indicated€that€Jackson€had€attempted€to€pull€herself€up€from€theÐ Ì&"% Ðfloor€after€she€was€shot.€€The€victims€were€shot€with€a€.32€caliber€weapon,€probably€a€revolver.€Ð ¸'#& ÐSeven€thousand,€one€hundred€forty€dollars,€including€$250€in€coins,€was€taken€in€the€robbery.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHamptonððs€wallet,€which€contained€$600€that€he€intended€to€use€to€pay€rent,€also€was€missing.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€police€first€considered€the€defendant€a€suspect€in€this€crime€on€June€12,€1997,€after€hisÐ ° Ðâ âarrest€in€Cheatham€County€for€allegedly€attempting€to€kidnap€the€manager€of€a€Shoneyððs€restaurant.€Ð œì ÐFrom€this€arrest,€the€police€obtained€the€defendantððs€fingerprints€and€photograph.€€Although€noneÐ ˆØ Ðof€the€defendantððs€fingerprints€were€found€at€Captain€Dððs,€several€items€belonging€to€StevenÐ tÄ ÐHampton€were€discovered€one€day€after€the€murders€lying€alongside€Ellington€Parkway,€a€four„laneÐ `° Ðhighway€in€East€Nashville.׃3×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Among€the€items€found€was€a€movie€rental€card€belonging€to€Hampton.€Ð L œ ÐThe€defendantððs€right€thumbprint€was€found€on€this€card.€€The€area€where€Hamptonððs€belongingsÐ 8 ˆ Ðwere€found€was€11.5€miles€from€the€crime€scene€and€1.2€miles€from€the€defendantððs€home.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àPolice€also€found€several€shoe€prints€inside€Captain€Dððs€near€the€safe.€€Although€the€treadÐ ü L  Ðdesign€of€these€shoe€prints€did€not€match,€the€length€of€these€shoe€prints€was€consistent€with€shoesÐ è 8  Ðseized€from€the€defendantððs€residence.€€In€addition,€the€State€introduced€into€evidence€a€photograph,Ð Ô$  Ðdated€July€16,€1996,€which€showed€the€defendant€wearing€a€pair€of€dingy€white€tennis€shoes€thatÐ À  Ðpolice€had€not€found€in€his€residence.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àTwo€witnesses€identified€the€defendant€as€the€man€who€came€by€Captain€Dððs€the€night€beforeÐ „Ô  Ðthe€murders€inquiring€about€a€job.€€€Michael€Butterworth€and€Jason€Carter€testified€that€a€man€cameÐ pÀ Ðinto€the€restaurant€through€the€exit€door€around€10€p.m.,€shortly€before€closing€the€night€before€theÐ \¬ Ðmurders.€€This€man€said€he€was€interested€in€applying€for€a€part„time€job€and€that€he€worked€atÐ H˜ ÐShoneyððs€just€down€the€road.€€The€proof€showed€the€defendant€worked€as€a€cook€at€a€Shoneyððs€2.1Ð 4„ Ðmiles€from€these€murders.€€Butterworth€and€Carter€gave€the€man€an€employment€application€and€toldÐ  p Ðhim€that€the€manager,€Steve€Hampton,€would€be€working€the€next€day.€€When€the€man€asked€ifÐ  \ Ðanyone€would€be€at€the€restaurant€on€Sunday€morning,€Carter€told€him€that€Hampton€would€be€thereÐ øH Ðbut€would€be€busy€and€unable€to€talk€until€approximately€2:45€p.m.,€after€the€Sunday€lunch€rush.€Ð ä4 ÐButterworth€testified€that€the€man€left€in€a€dark„colored€car.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAbout€a€week€after€the€murders,€Butterworth,€Carter,€and€James€Cassidy,€another€employeeÐ ¨ø Ðwho€was€present€the€night€before€the€murders,€helped€police€€prepare€a€composite€sketch€of€the€manÐ ”ä Ðthey€had€seen.€€The€description€they€provided€was€consistent€with€the€defendant€in€some€respects,Ð €Ð Ðbut€the€sketch€did€not€include€a€mustache€and€it€indicated€that€the€man€may€have€had€long€hair€wornÐ l¼ Ðin€a€ponytail€that€was€ð ðpulled€straight€back.ðð€€The€defendant€wore€a€mustache€at€this€time€and€didÐ X ¨ Ðnot€have€a€ponytail,€although€there€was€testimony€that€his€hair€had€been€below€his€collar€at€that€timeÐ D!” Ðand€that€he€combed€his€hair€straight€back.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAfter€assisting€with€the€composite,€Carter€and€Butterworth€looked€at€hundreds€of€policeÐ $X" Ðphotographs€but€were€unable€to€make€an€identification.€€In€June€of€1997€the€police€showedÐ ô$D # ÐButterworth€and€Carter€a€photographic€lineup€of€six€individuals,€including€the€defendant.€€AlthoughÐ à%0!$ ÐButterworth€was€unable€to€make€a€positive€identification,€Carter€positively€identified€the€defendantÐ Ì&"% Ðas€the€man€who€had€inquired€about€a€job€the€night€before€the€murders.€€A€short€time€later,Ð ° ÐButterworth€saw€the€defendant€during€a€television€news€report€about€his€arrest.€€ButterworthÐ œì Ðimmediately€called€the€police€and€informed€them€that€the€defendant€was€the€man€who€came€intoÐ ˆØ ÐCaptain€Dððs€the€night€before€the€murders.€€At€trial,€Butterworth€explained€that€he€was€sure€of€thisÐ tÄ Ðidentification€because€the€news€report,€as€opposed€to€the€photographic€lineup,€enabled€him€to€hearÐ `° Ðthe€defendantððs€voice,€see€the€way€his€lips€moved€when€he€talked,€and€see€the€way€he€walked.€Ð L œ ÐDuring€trial,€both€Carter€and€Butterworth€identified€the€defendant€as€the€man€who€had€come€into€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrestaurant€the€Saturday€night€before€Hampton€and€Jackson€were€killed.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThree€other€people€who€had€been€driving€by€the€Captain€Dððs€restaurant€on€the€morning€ofÐ ü L  Ðthe€murders€testified,€linking€the€defendant€to€the€murders.€€Jerry€Marlin,€who€was€passing€by€theÐ è 8  Ðrestaurant€at€approximately€8:45€a.m.,€saw€a€blue€Ford€station€wagon€with€damage€to€the€left€front,Ð Ô$  Ðand€possibly€to€the€left€rear,€ð ðparked€at€a€funny€angle€toward€the€rear€of€the€building.ðð€€€The€proofÐ À  Ðshowed€that€prior€to€these€murders,€the€defendant€drove€a€light€blue€1988€Ford€Escort€station€wagonÐ ¬ü  Ðwhich€had€been€involved€in€an€auto€accident€in€January€of€1997.€€As€a€result,€the€car€was€appraisedÐ ˜è  Ðby€an€insurance€company€on€February€3,€1997,€and€was€found€to€have€damage€to€the€left€front€end.€Ð „Ô  ÐMarlin€testified€that€the€defendantððs€car€in€the€insurance€companyððs€photographs€was€similar€to€theÐ pÀ Ðcar€he€observed€in€the€Captain€Dððs€parking€lot€the€morning€of€the€murders.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAround€8:50€a.m.,€Debbie€Hines€was€driving€by€Captain€Dððs€on€her€way€to€church€when€sheÐ 4„ Ðsaw€a€man,€whom€she€later€identified€as€Steve€Hampton,€standing€inside€the€doorway€of€theÐ  p Ðrestaurant€talking€to€a€man€outside€who€was€holding€€white€paper€in€his€hand.€€Hines€described€theÐ  \ Ðunidentified€man€as€dark„haired€and€approximately€five€inches€taller€than€Hampton.€€This€descriptionÐ øH Ðwas€consistent€with€the€defendant€who€was€dark„haired€and€approximately€six€feet,€three€inches€tall,Ð ä4 Ðas€compared€to€Hampton€whose€height€was€five€feet,€eight€inches.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAround€9:30€a.m.,€another€passerby,€Mark€Farmer,€noticed€ð ða€car€that€sort€of€looked€out€ofÐ ¨ø Ðplace.ðð€€According€to€Farmer,€the€small€to€medium„sized€car€was€parked€about€a€car„length€awayÐ ”ä Ðfrom€the€front€of€the€building€headed€in€the€opposite€direction€of€the€drive„thru€arrows€painted€onÐ €Ð Ðthe€lot.€€Farmer€initially€remembered€it€was€a€light€blue€car,€but€at€trial€he€stated€it€also€may€haveÐ l¼ Ðbeen€painted€a€ð ðpinkish€plum€color.ðð€€Farmer€also€noticed€a€man€walking€hurriedly€away€from€theÐ X ¨ Ðrestaurant€toward€the€car.€€When€the€man€stopped€at€the€passenger€side€of€the€car€and€looked€up,Ð D!” ÐFarmer€testified€that€the€man€ð ðelevated€his€face€and€€.€.€.€it€seemed€like€our€eyes€sort€of€caught€oneÐ 0"€  Ðanother,€and€when€he€saw€that€I€was€watching€him,€he€dropped€his€head,€just€completely€down€inÐ #l! Ða€suspicious€way.ðð€€The€man€entered€the€passenger€side€of€the€car.€€Farmer€described€the€man€as€tall,Ð $X" Ðwith€a€muscular€build€and€large€neck,€dark€eyebrows€and€dark€eyes,€a€full€head€of€hair€which€wasÐ ô$D # Ðslicked€back.€€Farmer€said€the€man€was€wearing€a€white€shirt,€dark€pants,€and€white,€ð ðnot€new,ððÐ à%0!$ Ðtennis€shoes.€€Farmer€heard€about€the€murders€the€next€day€and€called€the€police€twice€to€report€whatÐ Ì&"% Ðhe€had€seen,€but€no€one€contacted€him.€€When€Farmer€saw€the€defendant€on€television€after€his€arrestÐ ¸'#& Ðin€June€of€1997,€Farmer€again€called€the€police€and€identified€the€defendant€as€the€man€he€had€seenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnear€the€Captain€Dððs€on€the€morning€of€the€murder.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÓ'°,X9°šX°œX'Óà  àThe€State€also€offered€proof€to€show€that€the€defendant€had€been€interested€in€obtaining€a€gunÐ ° Ðâ âduring€the€months€before€the€murders€and€had€discussed€the€profitability€of€robbing€fast€foodÐ œì Ðrestaurants.€€Jeffrey€Potter,€the€defendantððs€co„worker€at€Shoneyððs,€testified€that€the€defendant€wasÐ ˆØ Ðdissatisfied€with€the€money€he€made€at€Shoneyððs€and€told€Potter€there€were€other€ways€of€makingÐ tÄ Ðmoney,€and€one€way€to€do€so€was€robbery.€€The€defendant€also€had€asked€Potter€where€he€could€getÐ `° Ða€gun,€and€then€had€asked€Potter€to€get€the€gun€for€him.€€Potter€refused.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAnother€of€the€defendantððs€co„workers,€Danny€Wayne€Tackett,€testified€that€he€had€first€metÐ $ t Ðthe€defendant€in€1995,€while€working€at€Shoneyððs.€€The€defendant€had€moved€to€Texas€but€returnedÐ  ` Ðto€Tennessee€in€1996.€€Tackett€described€himself€as€the€defendantððs€best€friend€in€Nashville€and€saidÐ ü L  Ðthe€defendant€had€lived€with€him€a€few€weeks€after€the€defendant€returned€to€Tennessee,€near€the€endÐ è 8  Ðof€1996.€€Prior€to€these€murders,€the€€defendant€had€asked€both€Tackett€and€Tackettððs€wife€to€procureÐ Ô$  Ða€handgun€for€him.€€On€one€occasion,€Tackett€accompanied€the€defendant€to€a€pawn€shop€inÐ À  ÐNashville€where€the€defendant€selected€a€.32€caliber€revolver,€but€Tackett€refused€to€purchase€theÐ ¬ü  Ðweapon.€€Later,€the€defendant€asked€Tackettððs€wife€to€purchase€a€gun€for€him,€but€she€also€refusedÐ ˜è  Ðto€do€so.€€The€defendant€then€made€arrangements€for€another€Shoneyððs€employee€to€procure€a€gunÐ „Ô  Ðfor€him,€and€he€gave€Tackett€$200€or€$300€in€cash€to€hold€for€him€until€he€met€with€the€employeeÐ pÀ Ðto€pay€for€the€gun.€€Although€their€co„worker€successfully€procured€a€shotgun,€the€defendant€refusedÐ \¬ Ðto€purchase€the€weapon,€saying€that€it€was€too€large€and€that€he€needed€a€smaller€weapon.€€ShortlyÐ H˜ Ðbefore€these€murders,€however,€the€defendant€arrived€unexpectedly€at€Tackettððs€house€to€retrieve€theÐ 4„ Ðmoney€Tackett€was€holding€for€him.€The€defendant€left€with€the€money€but€returned€about€tenÐ  p Ðminutes€later€with€a€man€Tackett€did€not€know.€€The€defendant€asked€Tackett€to€ð ðvouchðð€for€him€toÐ  \ Ðthe€man.€€Tackett€advised€the€unidentified€man€that€he€and€the€defendant€were€acquaintances,€andÐ øH Ðthe€two€men€left€together.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  à€€The€defendant€told€Robert€Bolin,€from€whom€he€purchased€two€.25€automatic€pistols€afterÐ ¼  Ðthe€murders,€that€he€had€previously€had€a€.32€caliber€revolver€and€ð ðdidnððt€like€the€way€it€shotðð€andÐ ¨ø Ðwanted€something€with€a€clip€that€held€more€shells.€€According€to€expert€testimony,€.32€caliberÐ ”ä Ðrevolvers€generally€do€not€automatically€eject€bullet€casings€and€must€be€manually€opened€after€sixÐ €Ð Ðshots€to€remove€the€cartridges€and€reload€the€weapon.€€As€previously€stated,€the€victims€in€this€caseÐ l¼ Ðwere€shot€with€a€.32€caliber€revolver€eight€times;€therefore,€the€perpetrator€would€have€been€requiredÐ X ¨ Ðto€reload€the€weapon€during€the€shooting.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€State€also€offered€proof€to€show€that€the€defendant,€whose€net€pay€was€around€$120€perÐ #l! Ðweek,€was€in€financial€trouble€before€these€murders€but€had€large€sums€of€money,€mostly€cash,Ð $X" Ðafterwards.€€Tackett€described€the€defendantððs€financial€situation€before€the€murders€as€ð ðdesperate.ðð€Ð ô$D # ÐThe€defendant€and€Tackett€discussed€making€money€by€robbing€fast€food€restaurants€in€the€middleÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€night,€when€there€would€be€no€witnesses€but€plenty€of€cash.€€Tackett€testified€that€he€hadÐ Ì&"% Ðassumed€these€discussions€were€simply€hypothetical€and€did€not€believe€the€defendant€was€beingÐ ¸'#& Ðserious.€€The€defendant€was€scheduled€to€work€the€day€of€the€murders,€but€he€called€to€say€he€wouldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot€be€coming€in€because€of€car€trouble.€€A€short€time€after€these€murders,€the€defendant€quit€his€jobÐ )à$( Ðat€Shoneyððs.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€proof€showed€that€shortly€after€these€murders€the€defendant€had€large€amounts€of€cashÐ ° Ðand€purchased€items€and€paid€off€obligations€in€cash.€€For€example,€Tackett€observed€the€defendantÐ œì Ðwith€$100€to€$200€in€five„dollar€bills.€€When€Tackett€asked€why€he€had€so€many€five„dollar€bills,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€replied,€ð ðjust€to€be€different.ðð€€The€defendant€had€obtained€a€$200€loan€using€his€carÐ tÄ Ðtitle€as€collateral€on€February€4,€1997,€and€the€defendant€paid€this€loan€off€in€cash€on€February€21,Ð `° Ð1997.€€On€February€18,€1997,€the€defendant€paid€$2000€in€cash,€all€in€twenty„dollar€bills,€towardsÐ L œ Ða€prepaid€lease€on€a€new€red€Ford€Escort.€€Two€days€later,€he€returned€to€the€car€dealership€and€paidÐ 8 ˆ Ðoff€the€remaining€balance€of€the€lease€ð!ð€€$3,127.92.€€When€the€salesman€asked€where€he€hadÐ $ t Ðobtained€this€large€amount€of€cash,€the€defendant€replied,€ð ðWell,€Iððve€been€very€good€at€saving€andÐ  ` Ðmy€dad€is€going€to€be€helping€me.ðð€€However,€there€was€no€proof€that€the€defendant€had€a€savingsÐ ü L  Ðaccount.€€As€to€the€defendantððs€checking€account,€the€proof€showed€€a€balance€of€$742.61€onÐ è 8  ÐDecember€19,€1996,€a€balance€of€$134.45€on€January€22,€1997,€a€balance€of€$139.95€on€FebruaryÐ Ô$  Ð2,€1997,€and€a€balance€of€$803.67€on€February€27,€1997.Ð À  ÐÌà  àBernie€Billingsly€and€the€defendant€belonged€to€the€same€fitness€center,€and€during€either€theÐ ˜è  Ðlast€week€of€February€or€the€first€week€of€March€1997,€the€defendant€told€Billingsly€that€he€hadÐ „Ô  Ðabout€$3,000€that€he€would€like€to€invest€and€asked€Billingsly€for€tips€on€stock€market€investing.€Ð pÀ ÐTwo€to€three€weeks€later,€the€defendant€told€Billingsly€that€he€had€read€Barrons€Investment€GuideÐ \¬ Ðand€had€purchased€a€mutual€fund.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAfter€the€defendantððs€arrest€in€June€of€1997,€the€police€seized€four€one„gallon€jugs€containingÐ  p Ðover€$1000€in€coins€from€his€residence.€€The€coins€appeared€to€be€layered€according€to€theirÐ  \ Ðdenomination.€€Tackett€testified€that€he€had€not€seen€any€large€bottles€containing€coins€when€heÐ øH Ðhelped€the€defendant€move€or€when€the€defendant€lived€with€him.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€defense€presented€the€testimony€of€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€Agent€SameraÐ ¼  ÐZavaro,€who€said€that€the€DNA€found€on€cigarette€butts€discovered€inside€Captain€Dððs€did€not€matchÐ ¨ø ÐDNA€of€the€defendant€or€the€victims.€The€defense€also€attempted€to€undermine€the€prosecutionððsÐ ”ä Ðcase€through€cross„examination.€€The€defense€vigorously€cross„examined€the€identificationÐ €Ð Ðwitnesses,€pointing€out€discrepancies€between€the€defendantððs€appearance€and€the€descriptions€givenÐ l¼ Ðby€these€witnesses€and€emphasizing€that€these€identifications€were€suspect€because€these€witnessesÐ X ¨ Ðhad€only€a€brief€glimpse€of€the€man,€from€a€substantial€distance,€while€driving€a€car€at€thirty€to€fortyÐ D!” Ðmiles€per€hour.€€In€addition,€the€defense€asked€questions€to€show€that€the€murder€weapon€was€neverÐ 0"€  Ðlocated,€that€a€trash€can€missing€from€the€restaurant€was€never€located,€that€the€defendantððsÐ #l! Ðfingerprints€were€not€found€at€the€scene€of€the€crime,€that€the€police€failed€to€adequately€investigateÐ $X" Ðthe€items€found€at€the€scene,€such€as€paper,€cigarette€butts,€and€hairs€located€on€the€victimsðð€bodies,Ð ô$D # Ðand€€that€the€bloodhounds€used€by€the€police€on€Ellington€Parkway€stopped€near€a€residence€that€didÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€belong€to€the€defendant.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€this€proof€and€receiving€instructions€from€the€trial€court,€the€jury€deliberatedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditated€and€felony€first€degree€murder€as€to€both€victims€andÐ )à$( Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€In€accordance€with€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Cribbsóó,€967Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€773,€787€(Tenn.€1998),€the€trial€court€entered€one€judgment€of€conviction€as€to€each€victim.Ð h+¸&* Їà@’’!ìàò òB.€Sentencing€Phaseó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àThe€case€proceeded€to€the€sentencing€hearing€where€the€State€sought€the€death€penalty€forÐ œì Ðeach€first€degree€murder€conviction,€relying€upon€three€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€theÐ tÄ Ðstatutory€elements€of€which€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person;€(2)€that€the€murder€wasÐ `° Ðcommitted€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecutionÐ L œ Ðof€the€defendant€or€another;€and€(3)€that€the€murder€was€knowingly€committed,€solicited,€directed,Ð 8 ˆ Ðor€aided€by€the€defendant€while€the€defendant€had€a€substantial€role€in€committing€or€attempting€toÐ $ t Ðcommit,€or€was€fleeing€after€having€a€substantial€role€in€committing€or€attempting€to€commitÐ  ` Ðrobbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Annòò.€ðð€óó39„13„204(i)(2),€(6),€and€(7)€(1997).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€these€aggravating€circumstances,€the€prosecution€presented€the€testimony€ofÐ Ô$  ÐTexas€assistant€district€attorney€Brian€Johnson,€who€had€prosecuted€the€defendant€when€he€wasÐ À  Ðconvicted€of€aggravated€robbery€in€Harris€County,€Texas,€in€1984.€€The€parties€stipulated€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðoffense€of€aggravated€robbery€as€defined€in€the€Texas€Penal€Code€is€a€crime€whose€statutoryÐ ˜è  Ðelements€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person,€and€Johnson€testified€that€the€defendant€had€beenÐ „Ô  Ðprosecuted€and€convicted€of€this€crime.€€A€certified€copy€of€the€judgment€was€entered€into€evidence.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€State€relied€upon€the€evidence€presented€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€to€support€the€aggravatingÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€that€the€defendant€knowingly€committed€the€murder€during€a€robbery€and€that€theÐ H˜ Ðmurder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding€arrest€or€prosecution.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€prosecution€also€presented€victim€impact€evidence.€€The€first€witness€was€SteveÐ  \ ÐHamptonððs€wife,€Deanna€Hampton,€who€testified€that€Hampton€had€been€twenty„five€when€he€died,Ð øH Ðthat€they€had€three€children,€ages€three,€six€and€eight,€and€that€he€had€been€a€good€father.€€Ms.Ð ä4 ÐHampton€testified€that€her€husbandððs€death€had€devastated€her€and€led€to€her€withdrawal€fromÐ Ð  Ðeveryone,€even€her€children.€€Both€she€and€her€children€had€received€counseling,€but€Ms.€HamptonÐ ¼  Ðtestified€that€she€would€never€fully€recover.€€Steve€Hamptonððs€death€had€also€adversely€affected€theÐ ¨ø Ðcoupleððs€three€children.€€The€oldest€child€has€withdrawn€from€everyone.€€Their€youngest€childÐ ”ä Ðassociates€his€birthday€with€his€fatherððs€death€because€the€family€had€celebrated€his€birthday€theÐ €Ð Ðnight€before€the€murder.€€€The€middle€child,€a€daughter,€often€asks€who€will€walk€her€down€the€aisleÐ l¼ Ðat€her€wedding.€€Ms.€Hampton€testified€that€her€husbandððs€death€had€also€adversely€affected€herÐ X ¨ Ðfinancial€situation,€which€she€described€as€ð ðrough.ðð€€Paula€Sue€Guidry,€Steve€Hamptonððs€€mother,Ð D!” Ðtestified€about€how€the€death€of€her€son,€her€only€child,€had€devastated€her€psychologically.€€SheÐ 0"€  Ðdescribed€their€relationship€as€very€close€and€said€that€she€will€never€be€able€to€get€over€losing€him.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àSeveral€witnesses€described€the€impact€of€Sarah€Jacksonððs€death€on€her€family.€€JerryÐ ô$D # ÐJackson,€her€father,€testified€that€ð ðpart€of€me€has€died,ðð€that€it€is€hard€for€him€to€be€happy,€that€it€isÐ à%0!$ Ðdifficult€for€him€to€attend€weddings€and€see€other€fathers€walking€their€daughters€down€the€aisle,€andÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€his€familyððs€relationships€were€ð ðbrokenðð€as€a€result€of€his€daughterððs€death.€€Mr.€Jackson€feltÐ ¸'#& Ðguilty€because€he€had€allowed€his€daughter€to€work,€and€he€opined€that€his€family€would€neverÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecover.€€He€described€his€daughter€as€an€intelligent€girl,€who€had€loved€children.€€The€next€witness,Ð )à$( ÐWayne€Jackson,€Sarah€Jacksonððs€older€brother,€told€the€jury€that€his€sisterððs€death€had€made€himÐ |*Ì%) Ðextremely€angry€and€ð ðhardenedðð€his€heart,€that€he€knew€she€had€suffered€and€had€been€afraid€duringÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€crime,€and€that€her€suffering€was€senseless.€€He€further€testified€€that€he€had€a€close€relationshipÐ ° Ðwith€his€sister€during€childhood€and€said€he€would€miss€having€an€adult€relationship€with€her.€Ð œì ÐFinally,€he€described€how€difficult€her€death€had€been€on€his€parents€because€they€both€felt€a€greatÐ ˆØ Ðdeal€of€guilt€for€allowing€her€to€work.€€He€also€testified€that€his€sisterððs€murder€had€adverselyÐ tÄ Ðaffected€his€younger€brother,€who€had€withdrawn€and€would€not€talk€about€her€death.€€The€lastÐ `° Ðwitness€was€Gina€Jackson,€Sarah€Jacksonððs€mother.€€Ms.€Jackson€described€her€daughter€as€happyÐ L œ Ðand€fun„loving€and€testified€that€she€had€been€killed€just€two€days€before€her€seventeenth€birthday.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐMs.€Jackson€also€described€how€her€daughterððs€death€had€seriously€affected€her€younger€son.€€Ms.Ð $ t ÐJackson,€who€was€still€undergoing€counseling,€also€expressed€how€very€difficult€her€daughterððs€deathÐ  ` Ðhad€been€for€her.€€She€testified€that€she€had€believed€her€daughter€would€be€safe€working€at€theÐ ü L  Ðneighborhood€Captain€Dððs€and€said€she€often€thought€about€how€her€daughter€must€have€felt€duringÐ è 8  Ðthe€crime.€€Ms.€Jackson€explained€that€Sarah€ordinarily€was€not€allowed€to€work€on€Sunday€but€wasÐ Ô$  Ðallowed€to€work€on€the€Sunday€she€was€killed€to€earn€extra€money€to€buy€a€CD€player€for€her€car.€Ð À  ЀMs.€Jackson€related€the€deep€feeling€of€guilt€she€had€experienced€as€a€result€of€allowing€herÐ ¬ü  Ðdaughter€to€work€the€Sunday€morning€she€was€killed.€€Ms.€Jackson€described€Sarah€as€the€mostÐ ˜è  Ðoutgoing€member€of€the€family€and€testified€that€the€Jackson€family€remembered€her€at€familyÐ „Ô  Ðgatherings€by€setting€out€Sarahððs€picture,€a€candle,€and€a€place€setting.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€presented€several€witnesses€at€sentencing:€a€private€investigator€for€theÐ H˜ Ðdefense,€the€defendantððs€older€sister,€a€speech€pathologist,€a€€neuroradiologist€and€two€psychologists.€Ð 4„ ÐThis€testimony€revealed€that€the€defendant€was€born€in€Texas€on€November€12,€1957,€and€had€twoÐ  p Ðolder€sisters,€Linda€and€Janet.€€The€defendantððs€home€life€was€described€as€unstable.€€His€father,€PaulÐ  \ ÐReid,€Sr.,€a€private€investigator€who€repossessed€cars,€was€an€alcoholic€and€away€from€home€a€goodÐ øH Ðdeal€of€the€time.€€The€defendantððs€mother€and€father€divorced€when€he€was€three€years€old.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðdefendantððs€father€received€custody€of€the€defendant€and€his€sister€Janet€while€his€sister€Linda€livedÐ Ð  Ðwith€his€mother,€who€married€Danny€Morez,€by€whom€she€later€had€two€more€daughters.€€BecauseÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendantððs€father€was€away€from€home€so€much,€the€defendant€and€his€sister€Janet€lived€withÐ ¨ø Ðtheir€paternal€grandmother,€who€had€difficulty€disciplining€the€defendant.€€By€the€age€of€four€or€fiveÐ ”ä Ðthe€defendant€was€causing€problems€in€the€neighborhood€and€seriously€misbehaving€at€home.€€HeÐ €Ð Ðstole€mail€from€the€neighbors,€stole€clothes€from€the€neighborsðð€clotheslines,€put€tacks€in€hisÐ l¼ Ðgrandmotherððs€soup,€barricaded€his€grandmother€in€her€room,€set€fire€to€her€bed€while€she€was€in€it,Ð X ¨ Ðand€beat€her€dog€to€death€with€a€baseball€bat.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àBecause€of€his€fatherððs€neglect,€the€defendant€did€not€start€school€until€he€was€seven€yearsÐ #l! Ðold.€€His€sister€Janet€testified€that€the€defendant€had€a€ð ðhard€timeðð€in€school.€€Shortly€after€enteringÐ $X" Ðschool,€the€defendant€was€referred€to€the€school€psychologist€and€was€later€described€as€sufferingÐ ô$D # Ðfrom€ð ðminimal€cerebral€dysfunction.ðð€€At€the€age€of€eight,€he€was€sent€to€a€Catholic€school€for€boysÐ à%0!$ Ðin€Houston,€Texas,€that€later€became€the€county€school€for€neglected€and€dependent€children.€€HeÐ Ì&"% Ðwent€to€live€with€his€mother€when€she€learned€that€he€was€going€to€be€put€up€for€adoption.€€At€thisÐ ¸'#& Ðtime,€the€defendantððs€mother€ð ðrenamedðð€him€Paul€Leon€Morez€because€his€name€reminded€her€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðher€former€husband.€€When€the€defendant€was€thirteen,€his€mother€divorced€Morez.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€defendant€lived€with€his€mother€until€he€was€sixteen.€€He€was€asked€to€leave€after€heÐ ° Ðâ âattempted€to€sexually€assault€his€sisters€and€his€mother.€€After€this€he€lived€with€his€fatherÐ œì Ðsporadically€but€was€basically€on€his€own.€€In€the€early€1980s€he€married,€€but€he€was€divorced€inÐ ˆØ Ð1984.€€During€the€marriage,€he€had€stolen€city€equipment€to€start€a€business.€€One€of€the€defendantððsÐ tÄ Ðsisters€had€warned€his€ex„wife€not€to€marry€him.€€The€defendant€lived€with€another€woman€in€1994.€Ð `° ÐThis€woman€reportedly€said€that€the€defendant€had€a€temper,€had€thrown€her€kitten€across€the€room,Ð L œ Ðand€had€held€her€down€on€the€couch€and€put€a€pillow€on€her€face.€€His€sister€Linda€was€frightenedÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€him,€and€he€had€threatened€to€kill€her.€€Janet€testified€that€he€had€attempted€to€sexually€molest€herÐ $ t Ðwhen€she€was€a€teenager€and€had€threatened€her€with€a€knife€when€their€grandmother€died.€€JanetÐ  ` Ðtestified€that€her€brother€became€paranoid€after€he€was€imprisoned€in€Texas.€€She€also€described€howÐ ü L  Ðthe€defendant€had€been€ð ðjokingðð€and€acting€ð ðsilly,ðð€at€his€fatherððs€funeral€in€May€1997,€by€wearingÐ è 8  Ða€Burger€King€crown€on€his€head€and€calling€himself€ð ðKing€Paul.ðð€€He€had€also€worn€a€lime€greenÐ Ô$  Ðshirt,€shorts,€and€tennis€shoes€to€the€funeral€and€refused€to€change€despite€repeated€requests€from€hisÐ À  Ðsisters€to€do€so.€€Janet€further€testified€that€the€defendant€had€used€drugs€recreationally€but€otherwiseÐ ¬ü  Ðhated€drugs.€Ð ˜è  ЀÌà  àThe€defendant€had€a€juvenile€record€of€auto€theft€and€simple€assault.€€Another€charge€ofÐ pÀ Ðforging€checks€was€dismissed€when€he€paid€off€the€checks.€€In€1982,€he€was€arrested€and€chargedÐ \¬ Ðwith€several€armed€robberies€but€was€declared€incompetent€to€stand€trial€and€was€hospitalized€inÐ H˜ ÐTexas.€€Later,€in€1984,€he€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery€in€Texas.€€He€dropped€out€of€schoolÐ 4„ Ðbut€later€earned€his€GED€and€was€enrolled€in€Volunteer€State€Community€College€at€the€time€of€hisÐ  p Ðarrest.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àTestimony€showed€that€the€defendant€had€suffered€multiple€head€injuries€during€his€life.€Ð ä4 ÐWhen€he€was€five,€he€had€been€hit€in€the€head€with€a€brick.€€In€1971,€he€fractured€his€skull€in€a€mini„Ð Ð  Ðbike€accident€and€was€hospitalized€for€some€time.€€On€another€occasion,€his€head€hit€the€windshieldÐ ¼  Ðof€a€car€that€struck€him€while€he€was€riding€his€bike.€€At€a€later€indefinite€date€he€suffered€anotherÐ ¨ø Ðhead€injury€when€he€slipped€at€work.€€Finally,€in€1990,€he€suffered€a€concussion€and€loss€ofÐ ”ä Ðconsciousness€as€the€result€of€a€car€accident.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àPatsy€Casey€Allen,€a€licensed€speech€and€language€pathologist€who€evaluated€the€defendantÐ X ¨ Ðin€1998,€testified€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€speech€and€language€problems€characteristic€ofÐ D!” Ðpersons€with€traumatic€brain€injuries.€€Allen€hypothesized€that€these€injuries€were€acquired€ratherÐ 0"€  Ðthan€the€result€of€any€developmental€delay.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDr.€Pamela€Auble,€a€clinical€neuropsychologist€specializing€in€brain€abnormalities,€testifiedÐ ô$D # Ðthat€she€had€evaluated€the€defendant€and€found€evidence€of€brain€damage,€particularly€in€the€leftÐ à%0!$ Ðfrontal€lobe,€which€caused€ð ða€significant€mental€disorderðð€impairing€ð ðhis€behavior€in€a€pervasiveÐ Ì&"% Ðway.ðð€€Dr.€Aubleððs€evaluation€entailed€more€than€eight€hours€of€interviews€over€the€course€of€a€yearÐ ¸'#& Ðand€the€administration€of€eighteen€standardized€tests.€€She€also€reviewed€the€defendantððs€medicalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€school€records€and€interviewed€his€mother€and€two€of€his€sisters.€€Dr.€Auble€noted€that€there€hadÐ )à$( Ðbeen€a€malformation€of€the€defendantððs€left€ear€at€birth,€possibly€indicating€brain€damage€to€the€leftÐ |*Ì%) Ðtemporal€lobe,€that€the€defendantððs€hearing€was€impaired€in€his€left€ear,€and€that€he€had€beenÐ h+¸&* Ðhyperactive€since€birth.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€the€defendant€first€displayed€evidence€of€psychosisÐ ° Ðin€1978,€then€again€from€1982€to€1987.€€After€his€1984€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery,€hisÐ œì Ðsymptoms€continued,€but€he€responded€to€medication.€€In€1987,€the€defendant€reported€delusions€ofÐ ˆØ Ðbeing€monitored€by€the€Texas€Department€of€Correction.€€He€later€denied€any€problems€and€receivedÐ tÄ Ðno€treatment.€€In€1993,€the€defendant€wrote€letters€to€the€governor€of€Texas,€the€òòWashington€Postóó,Ð `° Ðand€the€citizens€of€Texas€informing€them€that€he€had€been€under€government€surveillance€since€1985Ð L œ Ðand€that€this€surveillance€was€very€costly€to€the€taxpayers.€€He€reported€similar€delusions€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðgovernment€surveillance€to€his€sister,€his€girlfriend,€and€the€police€after€his€arrest€in€this€case,€andÐ $ t Ðto€Dr.€€Auble€in€1998€and€1999.€€Dr.€Auble€related€a€history€of€mental€illness€in€the€defendantððsÐ  ` Ðfamily.€€She€reported€that€the€defendant€had€an€IQ€in€the€80s€and€opined€that€the€instability€of€hisÐ ü L  Ðchildhood€environment€was€devastating€for€someone€with€his€neurological€abnormalities.€€Dr.€AubleÐ è 8  Ðdiagnosed€the€defendant€as€psychotic,€secondary€to€temporal€lobe€damage€with€cognitive€disorderÐ Ô$  Ðand€personality€changes€from€brain€injuries.€€She€opined€that€he€was€not€malingering€and€testifiedÐ À  Ðthat€he€needed€a€structured€environment.€€Dr.€Auble€admitted€that€the€defendant€met€the€criteria€forÐ ¬ü  Ðanti„social€personality€disorder€but€felt€that€such€a€diagnosis€was€not€helpful.€€Dr.€Auble€also€agreedÐ ˜è  Ðthat€neither€the€Minnesota€Multiphasic€Personality€Inventory€€(ð ðMMPIðð)€nor€the€RorschachÐ „Ô  Ðpersonality€test€revealed€evidence€of€psychosis.€€Dr.€Auble€also€conceded€that€the€defendant€had€aÐ pÀ Ðhistory€of€malingering.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àDr.€Robert€M.€Kessler,€a€neuroradiologist,€testified€that€Magnetic€Resonance€ImagingÐ 4„ Ð(ð ðMRIðð)€and€Positron€Emission€Tomography€(ð ðPETðð)€scans€of€the€defendantððs€brain€taken€in€1998,€Ð  p Ðrevealed€that€the€left€side€of€his€brain€was€atrophied.€€Dr.€Kessler€opined€that€a€large€portion€of€theÐ  \ Ðdefendantððs€left€temporal€lobe€appeared€not€to€be€functioning€properly.€€According€to€Dr.€Kessler,Ð øH Ðthis€portion€of€the€brain€is€responsible€for€visual€and€auditory€processing,€as€well€as€emotionalÐ ä4 Ðprocessing€and€memory.€€Dr.€Kessler€diagnosed€the€defendant€as€suffering€abnormalities€in€his€brainÐ Ð  Ðfunctions,€likely€caused€by€trauma€to€his€head€after€the€age€of€six€or€seven.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àDr.€Xavier€Amador,€a€clinical€psychologist€employed€by€Columbia€University€and€the€NewÐ ”ä ÐYork€Pyschiatric€Institute,€conducted€more€than€twenty€hours€of€interviews€with€the€defendant,Ð €Ð Ðinterviewed€the€defendantððs€mother€and€sister,€and€reviewed€all€the€defendantððs€records€provided€byÐ l¼ Ðthe€defense.€€Dr.€Amador€concluded€that€the€defendant€had€suffered€from€paranoid€schizophrenia,Ð X ¨ Ðcontinuous€type,€for€twenty€years.€€Dr.€Amador€also€diagnosed€the€defendant€as€having€a€cognitiveÐ D!” Ðdisorder€and€personality€change€caused€by€head€trauma,€combined€type.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€based€his€diagnosis€upon€the€defendantððs€longstanding€delusions€aboutÐ $X" Ðgovernment€surveillance€and€the€defendantððs€medical€history€of€repeated€evaluations€and€treatmentsÐ ô$D # Ðfor€some€€type€of€brain€dysfunction€or€psychotic€disorder.€€Dr.€Amador€also€pointed€out€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€had€been€prescribed€at€least€eight€different€anti„psychotic€drugs€over€his€lifetime€which,Ð Ì&"% Ðin€general,€improved€his€behavior.€€According€to€Dr.€Amador,€these€drugs€would€have€rendered€aÐ ¸'#& Ðperson€without€mental€illness€comatose.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àDr.€Amador€opined€that€the€defendantððs€mental€illness,€his€ð ðbroken€brain,ðð€and€psychologicalÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€social€stressors€interfaced€to€render€him€ill„equipped€to€deal€with€reality.€When€asked€about€theÐ h+¸&* Ðresults€of€the€tests€administered€by€Dr.€Auble,€Dr.€Amador€testified€that€the€MMPI€and€RorschachÐ ° Ðtests€are€adjunct€tools€and€are€not€the€primary€diagnostic€tools€used€in€clinical€practice.€€Dr.€AmadorÐ œì Ðopined€that€during€the€commission€of€the€crimes,€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€hisÐ ˆØ Ðdelusions.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€last€witness€for€the€defense€was€Reverend€Joe€Ingle.€€As€a€result€of€his€pastoralÐ L œ Ðrelationship€with€the€defendant€and€his€conversations€with€members€of€the€defendantððs€family,Ð 8 ˆ ÐReverend€Ingle€realized€that€the€defendantððs€version€of€reality€was€ð ðutterly€contradictoryðð€to€theÐ $ t Ðreality€revealed€by€his€family.€€As€a€result,€he€contacted€Dr.€Amador€and€convinced€him€to€evaluateÐ  ` Ðthe€defendant.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€rebuttal,€the€State€presented€the€testimony€of€Raymond€Lackey,€Jr.,€the€attorney€who€hadÐ Ô$  Ðrepresented€the€driver€of€a€car€involved€in€a€minor€accident€with€the€defendantððs€car€in€early€1997.€Ð À  ÐLackey€testified€that€the€defendant€had€done€ð ða€really€fine€jobðð€representing€himself€in€April€of€1997Ð ¬ü  Ðin€the€Davidson€County€General€Sessions€Court.€€Lackey€testified€that€the€defendant€had€beenÐ ˜è  Ðfriendly€and€respectful€before,€during,€and€after€the€proceeding.€€Lackey€admitted€that€he€had€onlyÐ „Ô  Ðbrief€contact€with€the€defendant€before€and€during€the€relatively€short€trial€and€that€the€defendantððsÐ pÀ Ðclaim€was€unsuccessful.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€State€also€introduced€evidence€showing€that€in€early€1997€the€defendant€had€earned€AððsÐ 4„ Ðin€developmental€courses€in€English,€math€and€study€skills€at€Volunteer€State€Community€CollegeÐ  p Ðand€that€he€was€ð ðon€the€way€to€college€level€classes.ðð€€The€State€then€recalled€Brian€Johnson,€theÐ  \ Ðprosecutor€in€the€1984€aggravated€robbery€case€in€Texas,€who€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÐ øH Ðð ðperformed€anticsðð€whenever€the€jury€was€in€the€courtroom€during€his€competency€trial,€such€asÐ ä4 Ðfalling€over€backwards€in€his€chair,€shooting€paper€in€the€air€with€a€rubber€band,€and€making€a€paperÐ Ð  Ðhat€and€placing€it€on€his€attorneyððs€head.€€The€defendant€€had€stopped€ð ðputting€onðð€when€the€jury€wasÐ ¼  Ðnot€in€the€courtroom.€€Several€months€after€the€defendant€was€convicted,€he€wrote€a€letter€toÐ ¨ø ÐJohnson,€apologizing€for€his€behavior€in€the€courtroom,€stating€that€he€felt€threatened€in€prison,€andÐ ”ä Ðasking€Johnson€for€help€in€shortening€his€sentence.€€According€to€Johnson,€the€letter,€in€which€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€offered€to€pass€on€information€about€other€inmates,€was€logically€written€and€not€bizarreÐ l¼ Ðor€unreadable.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€Stateððs€next€witness€was€Dr.€Helen€Mayberg,€a€professor€of€psychiatry€and€neurologyÐ 0"€  Ðat€the€University€of€Toronto,€who€was€qualified€as€an€expert€in€neurology,€neuropsychology€andÐ #l! Ðfunctional€brain€imaging.€€Dr.€Mayberg€had€reviewed€Dr.€Kesslerððs€MRI€and€PET€scans€and€agreedÐ $X" Ðthat€they€showed€evidence€of€abnormality€restricted€to€the€left€side€of€the€temporal€lobe.€€Dr.Ð ô$D # ÐMayberg,€however,€opined€that€these€abnormalities€were€congenital€and€not€medically€known€to€beÐ à%0!$ Ðassociated€with€schizophrenia€or€the€commission€of€premeditated€murder.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€Stateððs€last€witness€was€Dr.€Daniel€Martell,€a€forensic€neuropsychologist.€€Dr.€MartellÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinterviewed€the€defendant€over€two€days€for€about€twelve€hours€and€also€reviewed€all€of€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendantððs€records€and€the€reports€from€the€other€experts€in€this€case.€€€Dr.€Martell€concluded€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€defendant€suffers€from€a€mild€neurocognitive€disorder,€antisocial€personality€disorder,€and€aÐ h+¸&* Ðdelusional€disorder.€€€Dr.€Martell€determined€that€the€defendant€was€born€with€an€abnormal€brainÐ ° Ðleading€to€hearing,€learning,€and€speech€disorders.€€Dr.€Martell€was€certain€that€the€defendant€metÐ œì Ðthe€criteria€for€antisocial€personality€disorder׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€said€that€he€was€also€probably€suffering€from€aÐ ˆØ Ðdelusional€disorder€with€grandiose€and€persecutory€features€that€was€in€substantial€remission.€€Dr.Ð tÄ ÐMartell€further€testified€that€these€disorders€had€not€substantially€impaired€the€defendantððs€judgmentÐ `° Ðor€his€capacity€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€or€to€know€right€from€wrong.€Ð L œ ÐTo€the€contrary,€Dr.€Martell€opined€that€the€facts€of€this€case€illustrate€that€the€defendant€had€beenÐ 8 ˆ Ðable€to€effectively€use€his€cognitive€abilities€to€plan,€execute,€and€cover„up€his€criminal€actions.€€€Dr.Ð $ t ÐMartell€had€found€the€defendantððs€IQ€to€be€between€80€and€90,€a€low€average€IQ,€and€said€that€theÐ  ` Ðvarious€tests€administered€to€the€defendant€did€not€reveal€any€evidence€of€psychosis.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€surrebuttal,€the€defendant€once€again€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Xavier€Amador,€whoÐ Ô$  Ðreiterated€his€diagnosis€of€schizophrenia€and€testified€that€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€ofÐ À  Ðhis€delusion€when€he€killed€the€victims.€à À àà  àÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€found€that€the€State€had€proven€the€aggravating€circumstancesÐ „Ô  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€mitigatingÐ pÀ Ðcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Therefore,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€onÐ \¬ Ðeach€conviction€of€first€degree€murder.€€€Ð H˜ Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌÌà@ìàòòII.€€Motion€to€SuppressóóˆÐ  \ Ðà@  ìàA.€€Admissibility€of€Identification€TestimonyˆÐ øH Ðó óà  àThe€defendant€filed€a€pre„trial€motion€to€suppress€the€identification€testimony€of€MichaelÐ ä4 ÐButterworth€and€Mark€Farmer,€arguing€that€the€procedures€leading€to€their€identifications€of€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€were€unduly€suggestive€and€violated€€his€due€process€rights.€€The€trial€court€denied€thisÐ ¼  Ðmotion.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€on€the€basis€that€no€state€action€was€involved€inÐ ¨ø Ðthe€witnessesðð€identification€of€the€defendant€from€the€television€coverage.€€In€this€Court,€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€argues€that€the€presence€or€absence€of€state€action€is€not€dispositive,€and€he€urges€thisÐ €Ð ÐCourt€to€review€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€witnessesðð€identification€when€determiningÐ l¼ Ðwhether€due€process€was€violated.€€A€brief€review€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€theseÐ X ¨ Ðidentifications€is€necessary€to€place€this€issue€in€context.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAs€previously€stated,€the€record€reflects€that€Butterworth€spoke€with€the€defendant€for€a€fewÐ #l! Ðminutes€on€February€15,€1997,€the€night€before€the€murders,€when€the€defendant€inquired€aboutÐ $X" Ðemployment€at€Captain€Dððs.€€Butterworth€also€worked€with€police€to€create€a€composite€drawing€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendant,€although€the€drawing€was€not€entirely€consistent€with€the€defendantððs€appearance.€Ð à%0!$ ÐAttempting€to€identify€the€perpetrator,€Butterworth€looked€at€many€police€photographs,€and€in€JuneÐ Ì&"% Ðof€1997,€Butterworth€was€shown€a€photographic€lineup€that€contained€a€photo€of€the€defendant€andÐ ¸'#& Ðfive€other€persons.€€While€not€positively€ruling€out€any€of€the€persons€shown,€Butterworth€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunable€to€identify€anyone€in€the€array€as€the€man€with€whom€he€had€spoken€on€February€15.€€TheÐ ° Ðnext€day,€while€watching€the€news€on€television,€Butterworth€saw€coverage€of€the€defendantððs€arrest,Ð œì Ðimmediately€recognized€the€defendant,€and€called€the€police€to€identify€him€as€the€man€heÐ ˆØ Ðencountered€at€Captain€Dððs€the€night€before€the€murders.€€Butterworth€explained€that€he€was€ableÐ tÄ Ðto€identify€the€defendant€because,€unlike€the€photographic€lineup,€the€news€report€enabled€him€toÐ `° Ðhear€the€defendantððs€voice,€see€the€way€his€lips€moved€when€he€talked,€and€see€the€way€he€walked.€Ð L œ ÐÌ€à  àAs€to€Farmer,€the€record€indicates€that€he€was€driving€by€Captain€Dððs€around€9:30€a.m.€onÐ $ t Ðthe€morning€of€the€murders€when€he€saw€a€man€leave€the€restaurant€and€approach€a€car€parked€in€anÐ  ` Ðunusual€manner€at€the€front€of€the€building.€€Farmer€and€the€man€made€direct€eye€contact€before€theÐ ü L  Ðman€looked€away€in€a€suspicious€manner.€€After€hearing€about€the€murders,€Farmer€phoned€theÐ è 8  Ðpolice€three€times€to€report€seeing€the€man€at€the€restaurant,€but€the€police€never€contacted€him€aboutÐ Ô$  Ðwhat€he€had€seen.€€Then,€in€June€of€1997,€Farmer€saw€€televised€news€coverage€of€the€defendantððsÐ À  Ðarrest,€instantly€recognized€the€defendant€as€the€man€he€had€seen€on€the€morning€of€the€murders,€andÐ ¬ü  Ðagain€called€the€police€with€this€information.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àSignificant€to€our€analysis€is€the€undisputed€fact€that€the€police€had€not€told€eitherÐ pÀ ÐButterworth€or€Farmer€to€watch€the€television€news€broadcasts€that€resulted€in€their€identifying€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant.€€Their€viewing€is€best€described€as€accidental,€inadvertent,€or€coincidental.€€It€was€notÐ H˜ Ðorchestrated€by€police.€€To€the€contrary,€the€record€reflects€that€police€officers€had€advised€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendant€after€his€arrest€that€he€could€avoid€media€coverage€by€covering€his€head€with€a€jacket€andÐ  p Ðby€facing€the€wall€during€court€proceedings€so€the€television€cameras€and€observers€would€be€unableÐ  \ Ðto€see€his€face.€€The€defendant€at€first€indicated€that€he€intended€to€follow€this€advice.€Just€beforeÐ øH Ðleaving€the€jail,€however,€the€defendant€apparently€changed€his€mind,€stating€ð ðThis€is€going€to€beÐ ä4 Ðthe€Paul€Reid€trial.ðð€€Therefore,€the€defendant€did€not€cover€his€head,€and€he€turned€around€and€facedÐ Ð  Ðeveryone€in€the€courtroom€during€the€arraignment.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€decision€to€make€it€a€ð ðPaulÐ ¼  ÐReid€trial,ðð€rather€than€state€action,€led€directly€to€Butterworthððs€and€Farmerððs€identificationÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWhile€this€Court€has€not€previously€addressed€this€issue,€it€is€well„settled€Tennessee€law€thatÐ l¼ Ðin€the€absence€of€state€action€in€the€identification€process,€constitutional€due€process€rights€are€notÐ X ¨ Ðimplicated;€therefore,€the€analysis€adopted€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,Ð D!” Ð409€U.S.€188,€93€S.€Ct.€375,€34€L.€Ed.€2d€401€(1972)€is€not€appropriate€in€this€case.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòStateÐ 0"€  Ðv.€Drinkardóó,€909€S.W.2d€13,€15„16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995)€(refusingÐ #l! Ðto€find€the€identification€unduly€suggestive€and€violative€of€due€process€because€€the€police€did€notÐ $X" Ðarrange€the€confrontation€between€the€defendant€and€the€witness)€(citing€cases);€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,Ð ô$D # Ð744€S.W.2d€911,€917€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987)€(refusing€to€find€theÐ à%0!$ Ðidentification€unduly€suggestive€and€violative€of€due€process€because€the€police€did€not€arrange€theÐ Ì&"% Ðencounter€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim);€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€656€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¸'#& ÐApp.),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983)(refusing€to€find€the€identification€unduly€suggestive€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðviolative€of€due€process€because€a€confrontation€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€was€not€aÐ )à$( Ðshowup€arranged€by€the€police);€òòState€v.€Mosbyóó,€639€S.W.2d€672,€673€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óóÐ |*Ì%) Ðòòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1982)(refusing€to€find€the€identification€unduly€suggestive€and€violative€of€dueÐ h+¸&* Ðprocess€because€there€was€no€state€action€where€the€victim€identified€the€defendant€after€a€neighborÐ ° Ðshowed€the€victim€a€single€photograph);€òòBishop€v.€Stateóó,€582€S.W.2d€86,€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð œì Ð1979)€(refusing€to€find€the€identification€unduly€suggestive€and€violative€of€due€process€becauseÐ ˆØ Ðthere€was€no€state€action€where€a€witness€first€identified€the€defendant€from€a€single€picture€in€a€localÐ tÄ Ðnewspaper).€€Moreover,€in€so€holding,€the€law€in€Tennessee€is€consistent€with€the€rule€adopted€byÐ `° Ða€majority€of€jurisdictions€that€have€considered€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Annotation,€ð ðAdmissibilityÐ L œ Ðof€In„Court€Identification€As€Affected€by€PreTrial€Encounter€That€Was€Not€Result€of€Action€byÐ 8 ˆ ÐPolice,€Prosecutors,€and€the€Like,ðð€86€A.L.R.€5th€463€(2001)€(citing€cases).€€In€a€scholarly€opinion,Ð $ t Ðthe€Rhode€Island€Supreme€Court€explained€why€a€broader€rule€is€unnecessary€:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  à[W]e€conclude€that€absent€state€action,€no€constitutional€violation€that€would€giveÐ è 8  Ðrise€to€the€creation€of€an€exclusionary€rule€has€been€committed.€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  Ðà@  'ìà*€*€*€ˆÐ À  Ðà8  àà ` àProbably€the€best€guarantee€of€due€process€in€such€a€situation€as€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðpresented€by€the€case€at€bar€would€be€the€opportunity€for€cross„examination€in€orderÐ ˜è  Ðto€expose€the€witnessððs€lack€of€credibility.€€This€opportunity€is€further€buttressed€andÐ „Ô  Ðenforced€by€the€requirement€that€the€state€prove€every€element€of€the€crime,€includingÐ pÀ Ðthe€identity€of€the€accused€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€guarantee€is€alsoÐ \¬ Ðsupported€not€only€by€the€requirement€of€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€but€also€by€theÐ H˜ Ðpower€of€the€trial€justice€to€review€the€evidence,€including€credibility,€on€a€motionÐ 4„ Ðfor€new€trial.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThus,€the€due„process€rights€of€defendant€in€this€case,€as€in€all€criminal€cases,Ð øH Ðare€adequately€protected€from€violations€of€due€process€without€the€fashioning€ofÐ ä4 Ðadditional€exclusionary€rules,€whether€pursuant€to€the€Federal€or€the€Rhode€IslandÐ Ð  ÐConstitution.€€Ð¼ Ð Ð  ÐòòÌState€v.€Pailonóó,€590€A.2d€858,€863€(R.I.€1991).€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThis€case€well€illustrates€the€soundness€of€the€Rhode€Island€Supreme€Courtððs€analysis.€€Here,Ð l¼ Ðthe€trial€court€scrupulously€applied€the€rules€of€evidence€which€admit€only€relevant€evidence€that€isÐ X ¨ Ðnot€unduly€prejudicial€or€misleading.€€The€defendantððs€attorneys€effectively€cross„examined€theseÐ D!” Ðwitnesses,€focusing€upon€€the€weaknesses€in€their€identifications.€€The€trial€court€properly€instructedÐ 0"€  Ðthe€jury€as€to€eyewitness€testimony,€in€accordance€with€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Dyleóó,€899Ð #l! ÐS.W.2d€607,€612€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€juryððs€verdicts€of€guilt€were€unanimous,€and€the€trial€courtÐ $X" Ðapproved€these€verdicts€as€the€thirteenth€juror.€€Like€the€Rhode€Island€Supreme€Court,€we€concludeÐ ô$D # Ðthat€the€due€process€rights€of€criminal€defendants€are€quite€adequately€protected€by€existing€rules€andÐ à%0!$ Ðprocedures.€€Absent€evidence€of€state€involvement€in€Butterworthððs€and€Farmerððs€identifications€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defendant,€constitutional€due€process€is€not€implicated,€and€the€analysis€adopted€by€the€UnitedÐ ¸'#& ÐStates€Supreme€Court€in€òòNeilóó€is€not€applicable.€€The€identification€testimony€was€properly€admitted.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð )à$( ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÐ h+¸&* ÐB.€€Validity€of€Search€WarrantsÐ ° ÐÓ  Óó óà  àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€byÐ œì Ðrefusing€to€suppress€certain€evidence€seized€from€his€residence€under€the€authority€of€two€searchÐ ˆØ Ðwarrants€ð!ð€Warrants€€146€and€149.€€The€defendant€argues€that€both€warrants€were€invalid€becauseÐ tÄ Ðthe€items€seized€were€not€particularly€described€in€the€warrants,€the€affidavits€to€each€warrant€do€notÐ `° Ðdemonstrate€a€nexus€between€the€criminal€activity€and€the€place€to€be€searched,€and€the€police€failedÐ L œ Ðto€personally€deliver€copies€of€the€warrants€to€the€defendant€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐCriminal€Procedure€€41(c).€€Additionally,€the€defendant€contends€that€Warrant€149€was€invalidÐ $ t Ðbecause€the€affidavit€was€not€expressly€incorporated€by€reference€into€the€warrant.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àUnder€both€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€sectionÐ è 8  Ð7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€a€search€warrant€must€contain€a€particular€description€of€the€itemsÐ Ô$  Ðto€be€seized.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€296€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€cases).€€ThisÐ À  Ðrequirement€serves€as€a€limitation,€both€upon€governmental€intrusion€into€a€citizenððs€privacy€andÐ ¬ü  Ðproperty€rights€and€upon€the€discretion€of€law€enforcement€officers€conducting€the€search.€€òòId.óó€€ToÐ ˜è  Ðsatisfy€the€particularity€requirement,€a€warrant€ð ðmust€enable€the€searcher€to€reasonably€ascertain€andÐ „Ô  Ðidentify€the€things€which€are€authorized€to€be€seized.ðð€€òòHenningóó,€975€S.W.2d€at€296€(internalÐ pÀ Ðquotations€and€citations€omitted).€€This€Court€has€stated:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àwhere€the€purpose€of€the€search€is€to€find€specific€property,€it€should€be€soÐ 4„ Ðparticularly€described€as€to€preclude€the€possibility€of€seizing€any€other.€€On€the€otherÐ  p Ðhand,€if€the€purpose€be€to€seize€not€specified€property,€but€any€property€of€a€specifiedÐ  \ Ðcharacter€which,€by€reason€of€its€character,€and€of€the€place€where€and€theÐ øH Ðcircumstances€under€which€it€may€be€found,€if€found€at€all,€would€be€illicit,€aÐ ä4 Ðdescription,€save€as€to€such€character,€place€and€circumstances,€would€beÐ Ð  Ðunnecessary,€and€ordinarily€impossible.м Ð Ð  ÐÌòòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€S.W.2d€351,€352„53€(1944);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHenningóó,€975€S.W.2d€at€296.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àApplying€these€well„settled€principles€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€we€note€that€€Warrants€146€andÐ l¼ Ð149€authorized€searches€of€the€defendantððs€residence€for€items€ð ðwhich€may€be€identifiedðð€as€propertyÐ X ¨ Ðbelonging€to€the€victims€or€the€restaurants,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€any€items€that€ð ðmay€€be€used€to€cause€the€death€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€victims.ðð€€Warrant€149€additionally€authorized€a€search€for€ð ðany€and€all€financial€records€toÐ 0"€  Ðâ âinclude€those€indicatingðð€money€paid€by€the€defendant€on€an€automobile€lease€around€the€time€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€murders.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€An€affidavit€was€attached€to€each€warrant,€setting€forth€the€nature€and€circumstancesÐ ° Ðof€the€crimes€and€noting€several€items€that€had€been€taken€from€the€restaurants,€including€bank€bags.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that,€as€in€òòLeaóó,€the€purposeÐ tÄ Ðof€the€search€was€not€to€find€specific€property,€but€to€find€property€of€a€specific€character,€i.e.,€itemsÐ `° Ðthat€may€have€been€taken€from€the€restaurants€and€the€victims,€murder€weapons,€and€financialÐ L œ Ðrecords.€€Providing€a€description€of€everything€which€may€have€been€taken€from€the€victims€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðrestaurants€was€not€possible.€€Nonetheless,€the€warrants€described€the€character€of€the€property€withÐ $ t Ðsufficient€particularity€€ð ðto€enable€the€searcher€to€reasonably€ascertain€and€identifyðð€the€items€subjectÐ  ` Ðto€seizure.€€òòHenningóó,€975€S.W.2d€at€296.€€Therefore,€these€descriptions€satisfy€the€particularityÐ ü L  Ðrequirement.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€plain€view€doctrine€authorizes€officers€conducting€a€lawful€search€to€seizeÐ À  Ðcontraband,€fruit€of€the€crime,€or€evidence€of€criminal€conduct€even€though€it€is€not€specified€in€aÐ ¬ü  Ðwarrant€when€these€items€are€in€plain€view.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€867€S.W.2d€361,€373€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  ÐCrim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€òòóóIn€this€case,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€properlyÐ „Ô  Ðheld€that€the€officers€were€entitled€to€seize€the€jars€of€coins,€shoes,€hats,€€knives,€photographs,€andÐ pÀ Ðother€items€under€the€plain€view€doctrine€because€these€items€were€in€plain€view€and€the€officersÐ \¬ Ðjustifiably€considered€these€items€to€be€contraband,€or€fruits€of€the€crime,€or€evidence€of€criminalÐ H˜ Ðconduct.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€further€argues€that,€because€the€crimes€had€been€committed€several€monthsÐ  \ Ðbefore€the€warrants€were€issued€in€June€of€1997,€the€information€in€the€affidavits€was€too€stale€toÐ øH Ðestablish€a€nexus€between€the€crime€and€the€place€to€be€searched.€€The€defendant€also€contends€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€affidavits€do€not€indicate€that€the€police€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€evidence€of€the€crimesÐ Ð  Ðwould€be€located€at€the€defendantððs€residence.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àTo€establish€probable€cause€an€affidavit€must€set€forth€facts€from€which€a€reasonableÐ ”ä Ðconclusion€may€be€drawn€that€the€evidence€will€be€found€in€the€place€for€which€the€warrantÐ €Ð Ðauthorizes€a€search.€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€105€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Longstreetóó,€619Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€97,€99€(Tenn.1981).€€In€addition,€the€affidavit€must€contain€information€which€will€allow€aÐ X ¨ Ðmagistrate€to€determine€whether€the€facts€are€too€stale€to€establish€probable€cause€at€the€timeÐ D!” Ðissuance€of€the€warrant€is€sought.€€òòVannóó,€976€S.W.2d€at€105.òòóó€€While€the€lapse€of€time€between€theÐ 0"€  Ðcommission€of€a€crime€and€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€may€affect€the€likelihood€thatÐ #l! Ðincriminating€evidence€will€be€found,€probable€cause€is€a€case„by„case€determination.€€òò€State€v.Ð $X" ÐMeeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121,€124€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€making€thisÐ ° Ðdetermination,€courts€should€consider€whether€the€criminal€activity€under€investigation€was€anÐ œì Ðisolated€event€or€a€protracted€pattern€of€conduct.€€Courts€also€should€consider€the€nature€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðproperty€sought,€the€normal€inferences€as€to€where€a€criminal€would€hide€the€evidence,€and€theÐ tÄ Ðperpetratorððs€opportunity€to€dispose€of€incriminating€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Dellingeróó,€2002€WL€927423,Ð `° Ð*8€(Tenn.€2002);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€572€(Tenn.€1993).Ð L œ ÐÌ€€à  àIn€this€case,€the€criminal€conduct€under€investigation€was€not€an€isolated€event.€As€indicatedÐ $ t Ðin€the€warrants,€the€crimes€occurred€almost€one€month€apart,€with€the€last€crime€committed€on€MarchÐ  ` Ð23,€1997,€less€than€three€months€prior€to€the€time€the€warrants€were€being€sought.€€€The€warrantsÐ ü L  Ðsought€any€items€that€had€been€taken€from€the€restaurants€or€the€victims€or€that€may€have€been€usedÐ è 8  Ðto€cause€the€death€of€the€victims.€€The€affidavits€set€out€the€circumstances€of€the€Captain€Dððs€andÐ Ô$  ÐMcDonaldððs€robberies,€including€the€fact€that€the€only€person€who€had€survived€the€crimes€had€beenÐ À  Ðrepeatedly€stabbed€and€left€for€dead.€€The€affidavits€further€noted€that€the€defendantððs€fingerprint€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðbeen€recovered€from€an€item€belonging€to€one€of€the€Captain€Dððs€victims,€that€the€murder€scenesÐ ˜è  Ðwere€extremely€bloody,€that€the€victimsðð€blood€could€be€on€the€defendantððs€clothing,€and€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€could€still€have€in€his€possession€or€on€his€premises€instruments€of€violence€used€toÐ pÀ Ðmurder€the€victims€or€personal€items€belonging€to€the€victims.€Clearly,€the€affidavits€provide€anÐ \¬ Ðexplanation€for€why€the€items€sought€by€the€warrants€are€capable€of,€and€are€in€fact,€likely€to€beÐ H˜ Ðhidden€in€the€defendantððs€residence.€€As€this€Court€explained€in€òòSmithóó,Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àwhere€the€object€of€the€search€is€a€weapon€used€in€the€crime€or€clothing€worn€at€theÐ  \ Ðtime€of€the€crime,€the€inference€that€the€items€are€at€the€offenderððs€residence€isÐ øH Ðespecially€compelling,€at€least€in€those€cases€where€the€perpetrator€is€unaware€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€victim€has€been€able€to€identify€him€to€the€police.€€Other€instrumentalities€are€alsoÐ Ð  Ðlikely€to€be€in€the€offenderððs€home,€especially€when€there€is€reason€to€believe€heÐ ¼  Ðwould€make€use€of€them€there.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌ868€S.W.2d€at€572.€€Where,€as€here,€a€perpetrator€believes€he€has€eliminated€or€incapacitated€allÐ €Ð Ðwitnesses€so€that€law€enforcement€officials€are€unlikely€to€discover€his€criminal€activity,€it€is€neitherÐ l¼ Ðunreasonable€nor€unlikely€that€the€perpetrator€would€keep€clothing,€or€the€murder€weapons,€or€itemsÐ X ¨ Ðtaken€during€the€crime€at€his€residence.€€òòSeeóóòò€óóòòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€572.€€€Therefore,€we€conclude€thatÐ D!” Ðthe€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€found€that€the€affidavits€set€forth€sufficientÐ 0"€  Ðfacts€from€which€the€magistrate€reasonably€could€have€concluded€that€a€nexus€existed€between€theÐ #l! Ðcrime€and€the€place€to€be€searched€and€that€the€facts€were€sufficiently€recent€to€establish€probableÐ $X" Ðcause.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌò òó óà  àThe€defendant€next€claims€that€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€should€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âheld€the€warrants€invalid€because€the€officers€executing€the€warrants€failed€to€personally€deliver€aÐ ¸'#& Ðcopy€of€the€warrants€to€him€at€the€Cheatham€County€Jail€as€required€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€CriminalÐ ° ÐProcedure€41(c).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€officers€executing€the€warrants€were€aware€of€the€defendantððsÐ tÄ Ðwhereabouts.€€It€is€also€undisputed€that€the€detectives€left€a€copy€of€the€search€warrant€locked€insideÐ `° Ðthe€defendantððs€residence,€from€which€the€property€was€taken.€€The€rule€requires€nothing€more.€€€InÐ L œ Ðpertinent€part,€Rule€41€provides:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  à[T]he€failure€of€the€serving€officer€òòwhere€possible€to€leave€a€copy€with€the€person€orÐ  ` Ðpersons€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€being€served,óó€shall€make€any€searchÐ ü L  Ðconducted€under€said€search€warrant€an€illegal€search€and€any€seizure€thereunder€anÐ è 8  Ðillegal€seizure.€€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added.)€€As€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€noted,€thereÔ‡XoèXX2XoèÔ€was€no€one€present€on€whom€theÐ ¬ü  Ðofficers€could€serve€the€warrant€at€the€time€it€was€executedÔ#†2XoèXXXoè#Ô;€therefore,€òòit€was€not€possibleóó€for€theÐ ˜è  Ðofficers€to€leave€a€copy€with€the€person€being€served.€€Rule€41(c)€does€not€require€officers€to€deliverÐ „Ô  Ða€copy€of€the€search€warrant€to€a€person€who€is€not€present.€€Instead,€subsection€(d)€of€Rule€41Ð pÀ Ðindicates€€that€an€officer€taking€property€under€a€warrant€shall€ð ðgive€to€the€person€from€whom€orÐ \¬ Ðfrom€whose€premises€the€property€was€taken€a€copy€of€the€warrant€and€a€receipt€for€the€propertyÐ H˜ Ðtaken€òòor€shall€leave€the€copy€and€receipt€at€a€place€from€which€the€property€was€takenóó.ðð€€(EmphasisÐ 4„ Ðadded.)€€In€this€case,€the€officers€left€the€warrant€at€the€defendantððs€residence,€the€place€from€whichÐ  p Ðthe€property€was€taken.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  \ ÐÌò òó óà  àLastly,€the€defendant€contends€that€Warrant€149€is€invalid€because,€unlike€Warrant€146,€itÐ ä4 Ðdoes€not€expressly€incorporate€by€reference€the€affidavit€of€probable€cause.€€Again,€we€areÐ Ð  Ðconstrained€to€disagree.€€While€an€affidavit€is€an€indispensable€prerequisite€to€the€issuance€of€aÐ ¼  Ðsearch€warrant,€an€affidavit€is€not€considered€part€of€the€warrant€in€this€State.€€òòHenningóó,€975€S.W.2dÐ ¨ø Ðat€296.€€There€is€no€statute€or€rule€requiring€that€a€warrant€expressly€incorporate€by€reference€theÐ ”ä Ðprobable„cause€affidavit.€€Ô‡XoèXX2XoèÔ€Therefore,€the€mere€failure€to€incorporate€the€affidavit€does€not€render€theÐ €Ð Ðwarrant€invalid.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ô#†2XoèXXXoè9%#ÔÐ l¼ ÐÌÌà@©©ìàòòò òÔ‡XoèXX2XoèÔIII.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceóóˆÐ 0"€  Ðó óà  àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€evidence€presented€is€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ #l! Ðconvictions€because€the€State€failed€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€his€identity€as€theÐ $X" Ðperpetrator€of€the€crimes.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌÔ#†2XoèXXXoè<&#ÔÔ‡XoèXX2XoèÔà  àThe€proper€inquiry€for€an€appellate€court€reviewing€a€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence€to€support€a€conviction€is€whether,€considering€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€toÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€prosecution,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€61€L.€Ed.2d€560€(1979);€Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593,€599€(Tenn.€1999);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e)Ô#†2XoèXXXoèÒ'#ÔÔ‡XoèXX2XoèÔ.€€"A€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,Ð œì Ðapproved€by€the€trial€court,€accredits€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€allÐ ˆØ Ðconflicts€in€favor€of€the€prosecution's€theory."€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€659€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð tÄ ÐQuestions€about€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€allÐ `° Ðfactual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€and€this€Court€does€not€re„Ð L œ Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€Nor€may€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€drawn€fromÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstantial€evidence€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€516,Ð $ t Ð557„58€(Tenn.€2000);€Ô#†2XoèXXXoèR*#ÔòòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€286€S.W.2d€856,€859€(1956).€€A€conviction€may€be€basedÐ  ` Ðentirely€on€circumstantial€evidence€where€the€facts€are€"so€clearly€interwoven€and€connected€that€theÐ ü L  Ðfinger€of€guilt€is€pointed€unerringly€at€the€Defendant€and€the€Defendant€alone."€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€561,€569€(Tenn.€1993),€quoting€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€63,€67€(Tenn.€1985).€€A€verdictÐ Ô$  Ðof€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€guilt,€and€onÐ À  Ðappeal€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€why€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÐ ¬ü  Ðverdict€rendered€by€the€jury.€€òòCarruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€at€557„58;€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914Ð ˜è  Ð(Tenn.€1982).€€In€contrast,€the€State€on€appeal€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðevidence€and€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ pÀ ÐòòCarruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€at€557„58;€òòHallóó,€8€S.W.3d€at€599;€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€659.€€The€standardÐ \¬ Ðof€appellate€review€is€the€same€whether€the€conviction€is€based€upon€direct€or€circumstantialÐ H˜ Ðevidence.€€òòCarruthersóó,€35€S.W.3d€at€557„58;€òòVannóó,€976€S.W.2d€at€111.€€Ð 4„ ÐÑ  ÑÌà  àBriefly€summarized,€the€record€reflects€that€prior€to€this€crime€the€defendant€had€discussedÐ  \ Ðrobbing€fast€food€restaurants€with€co„workers€as€a€way€to€obtain€more€money,€that€heÔ‡XoèXX2XoèÔ€had€workedÐ øH Ðat€a€Shoneyððs€near€the€scene€of€the€crime,€that€he€had€obtained€a€job€application€the€night€before€theÐ ä4 Ðmurders€from€a€Captain€Dððs€employee€who€informed€him€to€come€back€the€next€afternoon€to€speakÐ Ð  Ðwith€manager,€Steve€Hampton,€and€that€he€asked€this€employee€whether€anyone€would€be€at€theÐ ¼  Ðrestaurant€the€following€morning.€€Ô#†2XoèXXXoèJ4#ÔThe€defendant€also€had€asked€a€friend€to€help€him€obtain€a€.32Ð ¨ø Ðcaliber€revolver€prior€to€the€crimes.€€The€victims€were€shot€a€total€of€eight€times€with€a€.32€caliberÐ ”ä Ðweapon,€probably€a€revolver,€which€had€to€be€manually€reloaded€after€six€shots.€€After€these€crimes,Ð €Ð Ðthe€defendant€told€a€man€from€whom€he€was€purchasing€a€.25€automatic€pistol€that€he€previously€hadÐ l¼ Ða€.32€caliber€revolver€but€did€not€like€the€way€it€shot€and€wanted€something€that€had€a€clip€to€holdÐ X ¨ Ðmore€bullets.€€Two€witnesses€placed€the€defendant€and€his€vehicle€outside€Captain€Dððs€on€theÐ D!” Ðmorning€of€the€murders.€€Another€witness€saw€a€man€matching€the€defendantððs€appearance€standingÐ 0"€  Ðat€the€door€of€Captain€Dððs€talking€to€Steve€Hampton€on€the€morning€of€the€murders€and€said€thisÐ #l! Ðunidentified€man€had€white€paper€in€his€hand.€€Although€the€defendant€had€been€experiencingÐ $X" Ðserious€financial€trouble€prior€to€the€crime,€the€proof€showed€that€he€spent€over€$6,000€in€cash€withinÐ ô$D # Ðtwo€weeks€of€the€crime.€€Ô‡XoèXX2XoèÔPolice€found€$1,000€in€coins€at€the€defendantððs€residence€a€few€monthsÐ à%0!$ Ðafter€this€crime.€€Ô#†2XoèXXXoèÐ:#Ô€The€total€amount€of€cash€and€coins€taken€from€Captain€Dððs€during€the€robbery€wasÐ Ì&"% Ð$7,140.€€The€defendantððs€fingerprint€was€found€on€a€movie€rental€card€belonging€to€one€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðvictims,€which€was€discovered€the€day€after€the€murders€discarded€on€a€road€only€1.2€miles€from€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendantððs€home.€€Shoe€prints€found€inside€Captain€Dððs€were€consistent€in€length€with€shoes€seizedÐ )à$( Ðfrom€the€defendantððs€residence.€€Although€the€tread€patterns€did€not€match€shoes€seized€from€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefendantððs€home,€a€photograph€of€the€defendant€showed€him€wearing€a€pair€of€dingy€white€tennisÐ h+¸&* Ðshoes€that€police€did€not€find.€€One€witness€who€identified€the€defendant€as€the€man€leaving€CaptainÐ ° ÐDððs€on€the€morning€of€the€murders€said€he€was€wearing€ð ðnot€newðð€white€tennis€shoes.€€ConsideringÐ œì Ðthe€proof€in€the€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€conclude€that€theÔ‡XoèXX2XoèÔ€proof€points€theÐ ˆØ Ðfinger€of€guilt€unerringly€at€the€defendant€and€the€defendant€alone.€€Ô#†2XoèXXXoè“?#ÔÔ‡XoèXX2XoèÔTherefore,€the€defendantððsÐ tÄ Ðchallenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€without€merit.Ô#†2XoèXXXoèA@#ÔÐ `° ÐÌÌà@³ ³ ìàòòò òIV.€€Improper€Cross„Examination€of€Janet€Kirkpatrickó óóóˆÐ $ t Ðà  àPrior€to€trial,€the€defense€team€interviewed€the€defendantððs€sisters.€€A€summary€of€the€jointÐ  ` Ðinterview€was€provided€to€the€defense€experts,€the€Stateððs€experts,€and€the€prosecuting€attorneys.€Ð ü L  ÐDuring€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€one€of€the€defendantððs€sisters,€Janet€Kirkpatrick,€testified€onÐ è 8  Ðhis€behalf.€€On€direct,€Kirkpatrick€discussed€much€of€the€information€contained€in€the€summary€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€joint€interview,€and€she€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€had€been€previously€incarcerated.€Ð À  ÐBefore€cross„examining€Kirkpatrick,€the€prosecuting€attorneys€approached€the€bench€and€stated€theirÐ ¬ü  Ðintent€to€impeach€Kirkpatrickððs€testimony€by€questioning€her€about€information€in€the€interviewÐ ˜è  Ðsummary€detrimental€to€the€defense€that€was€not€brought€out€during€direct.€€Defense€counsel€did€notÐ „Ô  Ðobject€to€this€line€of€inquiry€at€the€bench€conference€even€though,€as€the€trial€court€found,€they€wereÐ pÀ Ðð ðfully€aware€of€the€contents€of€that€interview,€including€the€underlying€facts€of€the€previousÐ \¬ Ðrobbery.ððÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àAgainst€this€backdrop,€the€assistant€district€attorney€during€cross„examination€askedÐ  p ÐKirkpatrick€whether€she€ð ðwas€aware€that€during€an€attempt€to€rob€a€restaurant,€[the€defendant]€wasÐ  \ Ðputting€one€of€the€victims€in€the€freezer€when€the€victim€„„.ðð׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Defense€counsel€objected,€and€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourt€held€a€jury„out€hearing€at€which€Kirkpatrick€denied€making€this€statement€during€the€interview.€Ð ä4 ÐRather,€Kirkpatrick€indicated€that€her€sister€had€made€the€statement€based€upon€a€newspaper€articleÐ Ð  Ðher€sister€had€read.€€Although€she€agreed€that€the€interview€summary€suggested€that€both€sisters€hadÐ ¼  Ðknowledge€of€the€incident,€Kirkpatrick€maintained€that€she€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€the€factsÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€crime€and€had€merely€agreed€with€her€sister.€€Following€this€testimony,€defense€counsel€movedÐ ”ä Ðfor€a€mistrial.€The€trial€court€sustained€defense€counselððs€objection€to€the€question€but€denied€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendantððs€request€for€a€mistrial.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€when€the€jury€returned€to€the€courtroom,€the€trial€court€provided€the€followingÐ D!” Ðcurative€instruction:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àLadies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€before€you€went€upstairs€for€your€afternoon€break,Ð $X" ÐGeneral€Thurman€had€asked€a€question€of€this€witness.€€I€sustained€an€objection,€andÐ ô$D # Ðthat€information€is€now€stricken€from€the€record.€€You€may€not€consider€that€for€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðreason,€and€you€must€treat€it€as€if€you€had€never€known€it.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àAgain,€I€remind€you€that€you€may€not€consider€allegations€of€criminal€behavior€orÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprior€crimes€with€regard,€that€youððve€been€hearing€this€afternoon,€except€as€to€howÐ )à$( Ðit€relates€to€the€mental€health€of€the€defendant.€€The€State€is€relying€upon€the€priorÐ ° Ðconviction€for€its€aggravating€circumstance€involving€the€robbery€charge€that€wasÐ œì Ðcommitted€on€the€dates€on€the€certified€copy,€and€you€may€not€consider€other€crimesÐ ˆØ Ðor€other€criminal€behavior€for€any€reason,€other€than€the€mental€condition€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDespite€this€instruction,€the€defendant€submits€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grantÐ 8 ˆ Ða€mistrial.€€He€argues€that€the€prosecutorððs€question€informed€the€jury€that€the€defendant€hadÐ $ t Ðpreviously€attempted€to€commit€a€crime€under€circumstances€almost€identical€to€these€crimes,€andÐ  ` Ðtherefore,€was€so€prejudicial€that€the€trial€courtððs€curative€instruction€could€not€remove€its€effect.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€State€responds€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððs€request€for€a€mistrial.€€The€lawÐ è 8  Ðis€well„settled€that€the€decision€of€whether€or€not€to€enter€a€mistrial€rests€within€the€sound€discretionÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€trial€court.€€This€Court€will€not€interfere€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€absent€a€clear€abuse€ofÐ À  Ðdiscretion€on€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v€Adkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€642,€644€(Tenn.€1990);€€òòState€v.€Inlowóó,Ð ¬ü  Ð52€S.W.3d€101,€105€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€shows€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€The€question€about€which€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€complains€was€posed€during€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€jury€had€already€found€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€guilty€of€committing€these€murders;€therefore,€any€prejudice€associated€with€the€questionÐ H˜ Ðwas€minimized€by€its€timing.€€The€defense€team€did€not€object€to€this€line€of€questioning€at€the€benchÐ 4„ Ðconference.€€Once€an€objection€was€made,€the€trial€court€immediately€considered€the€issue€at€a€jury„Ð  p Ðout€hearing.€€Moreover,€before€the€prosecution€posed€this€question,€the€defense€team,€attempting€toÐ  \ Ðillustrate€the€defendantððs€mental€problems,€had€presented€extensive€evidence€regarding€theÐ øH Ðdefendantððs€involvement€in€other€crimes.€€In€addition,€the€State€had€presented€proof€of€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendantððs€previous€violent€felony€conviction€to€support€the€(i)(2)€aggravating€circumstance.€TheÐ Ð  Ðjury€therefore€had€been€informed€prior€to€this€question€by€both€prosecution€and€defense€proof€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€defendant€had€a€prior€criminal€record.€€The€question€provided€little€new€information€to€the€jury,Ð ¨ø Ðand€the€trial€court€immediately€sustained€the€objection€and€instructed€the€jury€not€to€consider€theÐ ”ä Ðquestion€ð ðfor€any€reasonðð€and€to€ð ðtreat€it€as€if€you€had€never€known€it.ðð€€In€addition,€the€trial€courtÐ €Ð Ðadvised€the€jury€not€to€ð ðconsider€other€crimes€or€other€criminal€behavior€for€any€reason,€other€thanÐ l¼ Ðthe€mental€condition€of€the€defendant.ðð€€Jurors€are€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€of€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourt.€€òòState€v.€Stoutóó,€46€S.W.3d€689,€715€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101,€106Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€denying€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendantððs€request€for€a€mistrial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð #l! ÐÌòòóóÌà@HH ìàòòò òV.€€Alleged€Errors€Relating€to€Victim€Impact€Evidence€and€Argumentó óóóˆÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€admission€of€victim€impact€evidence€under€the€guidelinesÐ Ì&"% Ðof€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872€(Tenn.€1998),€infringed€upon€his€right€to€be€free€from€ex€postÐ ¸'#& Ðfacto€laws€and€violated€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€903,€919€(Tenn.€1994),Ð ¤(ô#' Ðholding€that€capital€sentencing€proceedings€must€be€conducted€in€accordance€with€the€law€in€effectÐ )à$( Ðat€the€time€the€offense€is€committed.€€The€defendant€argues€that€under€the€law€in€effect€in€1997,Ð |*Ì%) Ðwhen€these€offenses€were€committed,€victim€impact€evidence€was€not€admissible€because€this€CourtÐ h+¸&* Ðhad€held€in€òòCozzolino€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.€1979),€that€evidence€was€admissible€atÐ ° Ða€capital€sentencing€hearing€only€if€it€was€relevant€to€an€aggravating€circumstance€or€to€a€mitigatingÐ œì Ðcircumstance€raised€by€the€defendant.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòóóÌà  àInitially€we€note€that€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause€does€not€by€its€own€terms€apply€to€judicialÐ `° Ðdecisions.€€òòSee€generallyóó€U.S.€Const.€Art.€1,€ðððð€9€and€10;€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€11òòóó;€òòRogers€v.Ð L œ ÐTennessee,óó€532€U.S.€451,€456,€121€S.€Ct.€1693,€1699,€149€L.€Ed.2d€697€(2001).€€To€the€extent€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðdue€process€protects€interests€similar€to€those€protected€by€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clauses€of€the€state€andÐ $ t Ðfederal€constitutions,€retroactive€application€of€an€alteration€of€a€common€law€doctrine€of€criminalÐ  ` Ðlaw€violates€due€process€only€where€the€alteration€is€ð ðunexpected€and€indefensible€by€reference€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€law€which€had€been€expressed€prior€to€the€conduct€in€issue.ðð€€òòRogersóó,€532€U.S.€at€461,€121€S.Ð è 8  ÐCt.€at€1700.€€A€review€of€òòNesbitóó€immediately€reveals€that€the€decision€did€not€alter€a€common€lawÐ Ô$  Ðdoctrine€of€criminal€law€or€apply€a€new€interpretation€to€the€capital€sentencing€statute.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€òòNesbitóó,€this€Court€held€that€victim€impact€evidence€and€argument€is€not€barred€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðfederal€or€state€constitution.€€978€S.W.2d€at€889;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòPayne€v.€Tennesseeóó,€501€U.S.€808,€827,Ð „Ô  Ð111€S.€Ct.€2597,€2609,€115€L.€Ed.2d€720€(1991)€(holding€that€the€Eighth€Amendment€erects€no€òòperÐ pÀ Ðseóó€bar€against€the€admission€of€victim€impact€evidence€and€prosecutorial€argument).€€This€CourtÐ \¬ Ðfurther€stated€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(c)(1997)Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àenables€the€sentencing€jury€to€be€informed€about€the€presence€of€statutoryÐ  p Ðaggravating€circumstances,€the€presence€of€mitigating€circumstances,€and€the€natureÐ  \ Ðand€circumstances€of€the€crime.€€The€statute€allows€the€sentencing€jury€to€beÐ øH Ðreminded€ð ðthat€just€as€the€murderer€should€be€considered€as€an€individual,€so€too€theÐ ä4 Ðvictim€is€an€individual€whose€death€represents€a€unique€loss€to€society€and€inÐ Ð  Ðparticular€to€his€family.ððм Ð Ð  ÐÌòòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€890€(quoting€òòPayneóó,€501€U.S.€at€825,€111€S.€Ct.€at€2608).€€In€so€stating,€thisÐ ”ä ÐCourt€expressly€rejected€the€interpretation€of€òòCozzolinoóó€now€advanced€by€the€defendant,€and€pointedÐ €Ð Ðto€many€prior€decisions€admitting€evidence€about€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime,€evenÐ l¼ Ðthough€such€proof€is€not€necessarily€related€to€a€statutory€aggravating€circumstance,€and€emphasizedÐ X ¨ Ðthat€victim€impact€evidence€is€encompassed€within€the€statutory€language€ð ðnature€and€circumstancesÐ D!” Ðof€the€crime.ðð€€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€890.€€While€the€decision€in€òòNesbitóó€expressly€clarified€existingÐ 0"€  Ðpractice€in€Tennessee€relating€to€victim€impact€evidence,€the€decision€did€not€change€existing€law.€Ð #l! ÐThe€defendantððs€sentencing€hearing€was€conducted€pursuant€to€the€statute€discussed€in€òòNesbitóó;Ð $X" Ðtherefore€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€admitting€victim€impact€evidenceòòóó€constituted€an€ex€post€factoÐ ô$D # Ðviolation€is€without€merit.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€victim€impact€testimony€in€this€case€exceeded€the€scopeÐ ¸'#& Ðof€permissible€victim€impact€testimony€established€by€òòNesbitóó.€€Although€victim€impact€evidence€isÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadmissible,€such€evidence€generally€should€be€ð ðlimited€to€information€designed€to€show€those€uniqueÐ )à$( Ðcharacteristics€which€provide€a€brief€glimpse€into€the€life€of€the€individual€who€has€been€killed,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðcontemporaneous€and€prospective€circumstances€surrounding€the€individualððs€death,€and€how€thoseÐ h+¸&* Ðcircumstances€financially,€emotionally,€psychologically€or€physically€impacted€upon€members€of€theÐ ° Ðvictimððs€immediate€family.ððò ò€€òòó óNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€891.€€Victim€impact€evidence€may€not€beÐ œì Ðintroduced€if€it€is€so€unduly€prejudicial€that€it€renders€the€trial€fundamentally€unfair€or€its€probativeÐ ŒÜ Ðvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€impact.€€òòSeeóó€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€891€(citationsÐ xÈ Ðomitted).€€To€enable€the€trial€court€to€adequately€supervise€the€admission€of€this€evidence€and€ensureÐ d´ Ðthat€it€is€properly€limited:€€(1)€the€State€must€notify€the€trial€court€of€its€intent€to€introduce€victimÐ P   Ðimpact€evidence;€(2)€the€trial€court€must€then€hold€a€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€the€admissibilityÐ < Œ Ðof€the€evidence;€and€(3)€the€evidence€should€not€be€admitted€until€the€trial€court€determines€thatÐ ( x Ðevidence€of€one€or€more€aggravating€circumstances€is€already€present€in€the€record.€€òòNesbitóó,€978Ð  d ÐS.W.2d€at€891.€Ð  P  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€meticulously€followed€these€procedural€safeguards€beforeÐ Ø(  Ðadmitting€the€testimony€of€Steve€Hamptonððs€wife€and€mother€and€the€testimony€of€Sarah€JacksonððsÐ Ä  Ðparents€and€older€brother.€€This€testimony€has€previously€been€thoroughly€recited€and€need€not€beÐ °  Ðreiterated€here.€€The€defendant€maintains€that€the€trial€court€should€have€excluded€certain€portionsÐ œì  Ðof€this€testimony,€including€the€testimony€of€Gina€and€Wayne€Jackson€regarding€Sarah€JacksonððsÐ ˆØ  Ðsuffering€and€fear€at€the€time€of€the€crimes;€the€testimony€of€Gina€Jackson€that€she€thought€that€herÐ tÄ Ðdaughter€was€safe€while€working€at€Captain€Dððs;€the€testimony€of€Deanna€Hampton€that€her€daughterÐ `° Ðasked€who€would€walk€her€down€the€aisle€at€her€wedding;€the€testimony€of€Jerry€Jackson€about€howÐ Lœ Ðdifficult€it€was€for€him€to€see€other€fathers€march€the€bride€down€the€aisle;€the€testimony€about€howÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€Jackson€family€set€out€Sarahððs€picture,€a€candle,€and€a€place€setting€for€her€at€family€gatherings;Ð $t Ðand€the€testimony€about€how€the€Jackson€family€felt€guilty€about€Sarahððs€death€and€ð ðallocated€faultððÐ ` Ðamong€themselves.Ð üL Ѐ€Ð è8 Ðà  àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€victim€impact€evidence€presented€was€different€fromÐ Ô$ Ðthe€evidence€approved€by€the€trial€court€at€the€jury„out€hearing.€€Specifically,€he€points€to€DeannaÐ À ÐHamptonððs€testimony€about€the€effect€of€her€husbandððs€death€on€her€sonððs€birthday€celebration€andÐ ¬ü Ðher€husbandððs€character€as€a€good€father,€Jerry€Jacksonððs€testimony€about€how€Sarah€and€her€familyÐ ˜è Ðwere€robbed€of€her€potential€and€ð ðmoney€is€moneyðð€but€ð ðyou€canððt€replaceðð€someoneððs€life,€andÐ „Ô ÐWayne€Jacksonððs€testimony€about€his€opinion€of€the€crime€and€his€sisterððs€fear€and€suffering.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€says€that€this€evidence€rendered€the€sentencing€hearing€fundamentally€unfair€and€that,€evenÐ \ ¬ Ðif€individual€portions€of€the€testimony€alone€do€not€warrant€reversal,€the€cumulative€prejudicial€effectÐ H!˜ Ðof€this€testimony€mandates€reversal.€€We€disagree.Ð 4"„  ÐÌà  àAs€stated,€ð ðvictim€impact€evidence€should€be€limited€to€information€designed€to€show€thoseÐ  $\" Ðunique€characteristics€which€provide€a€brief€glimpse€into€the€life€of€the€individual€who€has€beenÐ ø$H # Ðkilled,€the€contemporaneous€and€prospective€circumstances€surrounding€the€individualððs€death,€andÐ ä%4!$ Ðhow€those€circumstances€financially,€emotionally,€psychologically€or€physically€impacted€uponÐ Ð& "% Ðmembers€of€the€victimððs€immediate€family.ðð€€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€891€(citations€omitted).€€TheÐ ¼' #& Ðtestimony€about€which€the€defendant€complains€is€well€within€these€parameters.€€Most€of€thisÐ ¨(ø#' Ðtestimony€demonstrated€how€the€contemporaneous€circumstances€surrounding€the€victimsðð€deathsÐ ”)ä$( Ðhad€psychologically€affected€their€immediate€family€members.€€While€the€testimony€was€not€word„Ð €*Ð%) Ðfor„word€the€same,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€noted€that€the€testimony€offered€beforeÐ l+¼&* Ðthe€jury€did€not€differ€in€kind€or€scope€from€that€offered€at€the€jury„out€hearing.€€The€victim€impactÐ ° Ðevidence€complained€of€by€the€defendant€was€not€unduly€prejudicial€and€clearly€falls€within€theÐ œì Ðparameters€established€in€òòNesbitóó.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€Austinóó,€2002€WL€31103628€(Tenn.€2002);Ð ˆØ ÐòòState€v.€Stevensóó,€78€S.W.3d€817,€828€(Tenn.€2002);€òòState€v.€McKinneyóó,€74€S.W.3d€291,€309„10Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€2002);€òòSmithóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€17.Ð `° ÐÌà  àMoreover,€nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€admission€of€this€evidence€rendered€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentencing€hearing€fundamentally€unfair.€€As€previously€stated,€the€trial€court€scrupulously€followedÐ $ t Ðthe€dictates€of€òòNesbitóó€and,€with€respect€to€the€conduct€of€the€victimsðð€families€during€this€proceeding,Ð  ` Ðstated:€Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àThe€victimsðð€family€members€were€present€during€the€pretrial€hearings,€the€trial,€andÐ Ô$  Ðportions€of€jury€selection.€€€Despite€the€trauma€they€suffered€when€their€loved€onesÐ À  Ðwere€senselessly€murdered,€they€showed€the€utmost€respect€for€the€judicial€processÐ ¬ü  Ðat€all€times.€Ð˜è Ð Ð  ÐÌWhile€ð ða€few€of€the€jurors€shed€tears€during€portions€of€the€victim€impact€testimony,ðð€the€trial€courtÐ pÀ Ðnoted€ð ðnone€of€the€jurors€became€overly€emotional.€€They€simply€demonstrated€a€normal€reactionÐ \¬ Ðto€[such]€testimony.ðð€€After€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€and€theÐ H˜ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€victim€impact€evidence€was€not€unduly€prejudicial€and€did€notÐ 4„ Ðrender€the€sentencing€proceeding€fundamentally€unfair.à p àÐ  p ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€avers€that€a€contradiction€exists€between€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ øH Ðsection€39„13„204(g)(1)€and€the€jury€instruction€regarding€victim€impact€evidence€set€out€by€thisÐ ä4 ÐCourt€in€òòNesbitóó.€€The€defendant€maintains€that€this€contradiction€renders€victim€impact€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðirrelevant.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„204(g)(1)€provides€in€pertinent€part:€Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àIf€the€jury€unanimously€determines€thatДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(A)€At€least€one€(1)€statutory€aggravating€circumstance€or€severalÐ €Ð Ðstatutory€aggravating€circumstances€have€been€proven€by€the€stateÐ l¼ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt;€andÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(B)€Such€circumstance€or€circumstances€have€been€proven€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðstate€to€outweigh€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonableÐ #l! Ðdoubt;€then€the€sentence€shall€be€death.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌThe€jury€instruction€set€out€by€this€Court€in€òòNesbitóó€is€as€follows:Ð à%0!$ Ðà8  àThe€prosecution€has€introduced€what€is€known€as€victim€impact€evidence.€€ThisÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence€has€been€introduced€to€show€the€financial,€emotional,€psychological,€orÐ ¸'#& Ðphysical€effects€of€the€victimððs€death€on€the€members€of€the€victimððs€immediateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfamily.€€You€may€consider€this€evidence€in€determining€an€appropriate€punishment.€Ð )à$( ÐHowever,€your€consideration€must€be€limited€to€a€rational€inquiry€into€the€culpabilityÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€defendant,€not€an€emotional€response€to€the€evidence.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà8  àVictim€impact€evidence€is€not€the€same€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€Proof€of€anÐ ° Ðadverse€impact€on€the€victimððs€family€is€not€proof€of€an€aggravating€circumstance.€Ð œì ÐIntroduction€of€victim€impact€evidence€in€no€way€relieves€the€State€of€its€burden€toÐ ˆØ Ðprove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€at€least€one€aggravating€circumstance€which€hasÐ tÄ Ðbeen€alleged.€€òòYou€may€consider€this€victim€impact€evidence€in€determining€theÐ `° Ðappropriateness€of€the€death€penalty€only€if€you€first€find€that€the€existence€of€one€orÐ L œ Ðmore€aggravating€circumstances€has€been€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€independent€from€the€victim€impact€evidence,€and€find€that€the€aggravatingÐ $ t Ðcircumstances€found€outweigh€the€finding€of€one€or€more€mitigating€circumstancesÐ  ` Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.óóÐü L Ð Ð  ÐÌòòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€892€(emphasis€added).€€The€defendant€says€a€contradiction€exists€because€theÐ Ô$  Ðstatute€provides€that€the€jury€òòshallóó€return€a€verdict€of€death€upon€finding€the€existence€of€anÐ À  Ðaggravating€circumstance€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€outweighs€any€mitigating€circumstancesÐ ¬ü  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€while€the€òòNesbitóó€instruction€allows€the€jury€to€consider€victim€impactÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€only€after€it€has€found€that€at€least€one€aggravating€circumstance€exists,€and€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðaggravating€circumstance€outweighs€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€concludes€that€victim€impact€evidence€is€ð ðmootedðð€by€the€instruction€and€serves€noÐ \¬ Ðpurpose€in€the€sentencing€scheme.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAssuming,€for€the€sake€of€argument,€that€the€defendant€is€correct,€he€certainly€has€no€basisÐ  p Ðto€complain€because,€as€the€State€points€out,€any€contradiction€between€the€statute€and€the€instructionÐ  \ Ðinures€to€his€benefit.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòSmithóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€13,€n.7;€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€506,Ð øH Ðn.10€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241€(Tenn.€1986).€€€Therefore,€this€complaint€doesÐ ä4 Ðnot€entitle€the€defendant€to€relief.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDuring€oral€argument,€the€State€indicated€that€it€is€not€opposed€to€this€Court€reconsideringÐ ¨ø Ðthe€òòNesbitóó€instruction€and€stated€that€the€portion€of€the€instruction€challenged€by€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðunnecessarily€limits€the€juryððs€consideration€of€victim€impact€evidence.€€Although€the€Stateððs€briefÐ €Ð Ðincludes€no€discussion€of€the€instructions€used€by€other€jurisdictions,€at€oral€argument€the€StateÐ l¼ Ðindicated€that€some€jurisdictions€do€not€provide€a€jury€instruction€on€victim€impact€evidence€andÐ X ¨ Ðother€jurisdictions€take€a€ð ðminimalistðð€approach€by€simply€advising€the€jury€that€victim€impactÐ D!” Ðevidence€is€not€an€aggravating€circumstance.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIt€is€beyond€dispute€that€any€effective€instruction€on€this€subject€must€advise€the€jury€thatÐ $X" Ðvictim€impact€evidence€is€not€the€same€as€an€aggravating€circumstance.€€As€to€the€instructions€usedÐ ô$D # Ðby€other€jurisdictions,€we€note€that€the€òòNesbitóó€instruction€òòóówas€based€upon€precedent€from€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðjurisdictions,€in€particular€Oklahoma€and€Georgia.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Nevertheless,€we€wish€to€emphasize€that€theòòóóÐ Ì&"% ÐòòNesbitóó€instruction€was€simply€a€suggestion.€€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€892€(ð ð[W]e€hereby€suggest€theÐ ¸'#& Ðfollowing€instruction€.€.€.€.ðð).€€By€suggesting€this€language€we€did€not€intend€to€preclude€individualÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtrial€judges€or€the€Committee€on€Pattern€Jury€Instructions€(Criminal)€of€the€Tennessee€JudicialÐ )à$( ÐConference€(ð ðCommitteeðð)€from€making€necessary€and€appropriate€revisions€to€this€instruction.€Ð ° ÐIndeed,€trial€judges€and€the€Committee,€which€is€composed€of€trial€judges,€are€often€better€situatedÐ œì Ðto€assess€the€practical€effectiveness€or€ineffectiveness€of€this€particular€instruction€and€make€neededÐ ˆØ Ðlanguage€changes.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РtÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€complains€that€the€prosecutors€engaged€in€improper€closing€argumentÐ L œ Ðregarding€the€function€of€victim€impact€evidence€and€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðgrant€a€mistrial€based€upon€this€improper€argument.€€As€previously€stated,€the€decision€of€whetherÐ $ t Ðto€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€the€trial€courtððs€decision€willÐ  ` Ðnot€be€reversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòAdkinsóó,€786€S.W.2d€at€644;€òòInlowóó,Ð ü L  Ð52€S.W.3d€at€105.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€the€State€asserts,€the€defendant€failed€to€contemporaneously€object€to€the€prosecutorððsÐ À  Ðargument€that€the€jury€should€consider€what€the€victimððs€death€ð ðmeant€to€the€communityðð€and€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€jury€should€ð ðshow€[the€defendant]€the€same€mercy€that€he€showed€to€Steve€and€Sarah.ðð€€DespiteÐ ˜è  Ðdefense€counselððs€failure€to€object,€the€trial€court€provided€a€curative€instruction,€stating,€ð ðLadies€andÐ „Ô  ÐGentlemen€of€the€Jury,€you€are€to€do€an€individualized€sentencing€based€on€the€law€and€facts€withÐ pÀ Ðregard€to€the€case€and€Mr.€Reid.€€You€are€to€do€so€without€regard€to€the€effect€on€the€community.ðð€Ð \¬ ÐThe€defendantððs€failure€to€object€to€these€comments€constitutes€waiver€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð H˜ ÐGreenóó,€947€S.W.2d€186,€188€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€854€S.W.2d€643,€651€(Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCrim.€App.€1992)€(failure€to€object€to€prosecutorððs€alleged€misconduct€during€closing€argumentÐ  p Ðwaives€later€complaint);€òòState€v.€Thorntonóó,€10€S.W.3d€229,€234€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(citingÐ  \ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)).€€Moreover,€a€review€of€the€record€clearly€indicates€that€these€comments€doÐ øH Ðnot€amount€to€plain€error.€€In€light€of€the€limited€nature€of€the€comments€and€the€trial€courtððs€curativeÐ ä4 Ðinstruction,€any€error€was€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€979€S.W.2d€276,€283€(Tenn.€1998)€(findingÐ Ð  Ðmore€extensive€argument€harmless€error).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€during€rebuttal€argument€the€prosecutor€improperly€told€theÐ ”ä Ðjury€that€it€could€consider€the€victim€impact€evidence€during€the€weighing€process€and€engaged€inÐ €Ð Ðinflammatory€argument€designed€to€elicit€an€irrational€and€emotional€response€from€the€jury.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€contends€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€this€improper€argument€mandates€reversal.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðfollowing€is€an€excerpt€of€the€argument€to€which€the€defendant€objects:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àGENERAL€THURMAN:€Aggravating€circumstances.€€Weððve€talked€about€those.€Ð #l! ÐGeneral€Moore€talked€about€them,€and€they€are€really€not€an€issue.€€Mr.€Engle€admitsÐ $X" Ðthat€all€those€aggravating€circumstances€are€present€in€this€case,€so€that€is€not€theÐ ô$D # Ðissue€now.€€Now€you€have€the€weighing€issue,€and€if€you€weigh€what€weððve€talkedÐ à%0!$ Ðabout,€if€you€weigh€it,€any€mitigation€you€found€for€Mr.€Reid,€and€I€submit€it€is€veryÐ Ì&"% Ðslight,€I€think€there€is€but€one€verdict€under€the€law.€€You€weigh€it€in€your€mind.€Ð ¸'#& ÐWhat€is€the€verdict?€€When€you€weigh€it,€I€want€you€to€consider€the€facts€about€theseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaggravating€circumstances,€the€facts€that€this€is€a€robbery,€the€facts€that€they€wereÐ ° Ðkilled€in€cold€blood€because€they€were€witnesses.€€Youððve€seen€that€picture€a€lot,€butÐ œì Ðwhen€you€weigh€the€circumstances€of€this€crime,€you€have€to€think€what€was€in€SteveÐ ˆØ ÐHamptonððs€mind,€when€he€was€shot€and€when€he€was€still€alive€and€was€reaching€up?€Ð tÄ ÐWhat€was€he€thinking€in€the€last€few€seconds?€€And€you€weigh€that€against€theÐ `° Ðmitigation.€€Sarah€Jackson€„€„ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àMR.€ENGLE:€Objection,€Your€Honor,€you€cannot,€the€law€doesnððt€allow€theÐ $ t Ðweighing€of€the€facts€of€the€crimes€as€against€the€mitigating€evidence.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:€Sustained.€€Rephrase.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àGENERAL€THURMAN:€€They€can€consider€all€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÐ À  Ðcrime,€which€Iððm€asking.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àTHE€COURT:€They€can€consider.€€I€will€ð!ð€ladies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€I€willÐ „Ô  Ðinstruct€you€as€to€how€you€are€to€weigh€things.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àGENERAL€THURMAN:€But€you€can€consider€that.€€You€consider€what€SarahÐ H˜ ÐJackson€had€to€go€through€in€considering€these€aggravating€factors,€after€she€wasÐ 4„ Ðshot,€after€she€had€to€wait€knowing€Steve€Hampton€was€being€shot,€and€she€was€next,Ð  p Ðand€how€after€she€was€shot,€she€was€struggling€to€get€up,€thinking€maybe,€maybe€IððveÐ  \ Ðsurvived,€maybe€he€is€gone,€and€when€you€are€weighing€his€background,€hisÐ øH Ðchildhood,€weigh€what€kind€of€man€could€stand€there€and€calmly€reload,€one€shell€atÐ ä4 Ða€time,€in€that€pistol€while€she€is€struggling€there,€and€what€kind€of€man€cannot€haveÐ Ð  Ðpity,€and€what€kind€of€man€did€walk€in€there€and€execute€that€young€girl?м Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThis€kind€of€man,€and€he€canððt€blame€his€mother.€€He€canððt€blame€his€father.€€HeÐ ”ä Ðcanððt€blame€the€Texas€Department€of€Correction.€€He€is€responsible.€€This€man.€€ThatÐ €Ð Ðis€the€man€the€expert€witnesses€for€the€defense€didnððt€want€you€to€see.€€That€is€theÐ l¼ Ðman€that€suffered€from€this€psychosis€that€canððt€hardly€deal€with€the€world.€€That€isÐ X ¨ Ðthe€man.€€Paul€Reid€celebrating,€spending€his€money,€shopping.€€It€looks€like€he€isÐ D!” Ðfunctioning€pretty€well;€doesnððt€it?€€While€he€is€toasting€his€margarita€and€you€areÐ 0"€  Ðweighing€the€circumstances,€think€about€the€three€children€that€are€saying€where€isÐ #l! Ðmy€daddy?€€Think€about€t