ÿWPCÍz ù‡ZÉ)[ âJf‰î¡ ²ÊEû‡U¦–5 TçÄÎ*™À~¨I)cXÜÿ aj¢.Çlçö·,„°ÿoζÒÁìØlT”ûè¡Ô{@KÈ«ªÒ2U‘VÆÒµ9lÓœ·ºæ°`˜yw8háörÌJT¤ ÷Xó9"üŽÑša&ú¤E °]¬¨eøÉøª˺³Òž©HZ ÈÍÑ$¶c1¯$ºø|Õ¡6§ïü¶ÚFÚ‡“ÂÕšÖ¹ìsÉ_ÞÛ©”xcCnGÊ…wR T ”\: –Þ€L O5RÂ{ǹy‡2™p¤É"‡²àcù ñm+!.t)à|ÇÜtLþ}Ìû†¶äÖa)‘:·h2ˆ™©0Và¾P÷¡®,ð]×|Nÿ-æÔÚ@ºôÄòÔ¾è¢ÉÚýÐGÐZ ×rãº|’sDõ¨´¿= ó×ÿ¤ú¨ˆwhµ·ÐË ¯oþÁbA˜‚——èË:è ÄE]Œ‡V7ÓÝå|XÝ"›æ.{ÞRû2ž»ÓǬ„»¾ï‚TŽbÝÖ‘saª´šzüp§Vk|Ã- 6«8`ÎptùIpB÷- (¦cdê‰RÃÔE·½ë)>sÏ*l«ï ßErJi’#Áü %½ ^ à 0ˆÏ U5NW w¥ 4© z½ Ò7   mÆ1Æ÷ƽƃƒNIIKKKK 1S 72à 1u 72‡ 0c¹U N 0Uj 0é¿ 0æ¨ 0㎠0àq 0ÝQ 0Ú. 0× 0Ôß 0D³ 0C÷ 0×:b 0Ô 0Ñí 0ξ 0ËŒ 0ÈW 0Å 0Àä 0@¤! 0Ôä! 0Ѹ" 0Ή# 0ËW$ 0È"% 0Åê% 0¯& 0½q' 00.( 0<^( 0¾š( 0>X) 0v–) 0` * 0`l* 0`Ì* 0`,+ 0`Œ+ 08ì+ 0Ò$, 02ö, 0ü(- 0:$. 0Y^. 0_·. 0 / 0j 0 0íŠ1 0„w2 B*û3 D/%4 B T4 0„q4 0¤õ5 D5™6 D-Î6 0Kû6 D/F7 ASu7ÆÈ7 0¤Ž8 0D29 A«v9 0Î!: 06ï: 0%; 0:-< 0^g< 0<Å<U6=U>7=U*u=u=u=u= 0NŸ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Ÿ=Eí=í=¡ï=ï=H?ÒØAªBÂCjÅFf/H°•J¼ELÑPÌÒQkžVý _%ee*+j]Uo¾²t²t²t]pw˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»úrþ,s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9‚±,ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x"ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡h<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡iô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡h<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡iô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡h<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡iô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó(|I2àP$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€U(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡j%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡iô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dT)1dxd d<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€\(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡j%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡iô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó(|3‰e$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óT)2dxd^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰e$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡h<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡iô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡h<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡iô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ —Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔIt€is€undisputed€that€Ô_ÔMillikenÔ_Ô€killed€the€victims.€€He€pleaded€guilty€to€first€degree€murder€shortly€before€hisÐ ° Ðtrial€was€set€to€begin€and€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô >Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔOn€the€day€of€his€arrest,€the€defendant€consented€to€a€taped€interrogation€during€which€he€stated€that€theyÐ ° Ðdrove€to€New€Ô_ÔJohnsonvilleÔ_Ô€the€morning€of€December€22.€€However,€Shawn€Austin€testified€that€they€drove€to€WhiteÐ tÄ ÐBluff.€€In€either€case,€both€individuals€consistently€stated€that€it€took€approximately€an€hour€and€a€half€to€reach€theirÐ 8ˆ Ðdestination. ÈÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€evidence€is€undisputed€that€Mrs.€Stevens€normally€slept€in€the€nude. Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔSerology€tests€determined€that€the€blood€on€Ô_ÔSandiÔ_Ô€Stevensððs€body€was€consistent€with€that€of€Myrtle€Wilson. ùÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔSeveral€law€enforcement€officers€testified€that€it€is€standard€procedure€that€when€female€homicide€victimsÐ ° Ðare€found€nude€with€genitals€ð ðdisplayed,ðð€the€crimes€are€to€be€initially€investigated€as€possible€sex„related€crimes.€Ð tÄ ÐConsequently,€oral,€anal,€and€vaginal€swabs€were€taken€from€each€victim,€and€a€rape€suspect€kit€was€performed€on€CoreyÐ 8ˆ ÐMilliken.€€Serology€tests€disclosed€no€sperm€on€any€of€the€swabs€taken€from€Ms.€Wilson.€€However,€sperm€consistentÐ üL Ðwith€the€DNA€of€the€defendant€was€detected€on€the€vaginal€swab€taken€from€Mrs.€Stevens. `Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔOn€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,€the€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€life€imprisonment€Ð ° Ðwithout€parole€as€a€repeat€violent€offender,€with€the€sentence€consecutive€to€both€death€sentences. \Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1997)€(ð ðWhenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degreeÐ ° Ðmurder€and€when€the€judgment€has€become€final€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€of€direct€appeal€fromÐ tÄ Ðthe€trial€court€to€the€court€of€criminal€appeals.€€The€affirmance€of€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€death€shall€beÐ 8ˆ Ðautomatically€reviewed€by€the€Tennessee€supreme€court.ðð). ¦Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€McCrary€distinguished€the€use€of€behavioral€analysis,€which€determines€the€probable€motive€of€a€knownÐ ° Ðsuspect,€from€the€use€of€profiling,€which€determines€theÔf  ÔÔg Ô€physical€characteristics€and€personality€traits€of€an€unknownÐ tÄ Ðsuspect. ²Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔf  ÔAccording€to€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔMr.€Ô_ÔMcCraryÔ_ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôò òÔg Ô,Ôf  Ôó óÔg Ô€a€ð ðblitz€attackðð€is€ð ðan€immediate€application€of€an€injurious€physicalÐ ° Ðforce....[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€attack€is€sudden.€€There€is€no€leading€up€to€the€attack.ðð€€He€compared€this€to€those€situations€in€whichÐ vÆ Ðan€argument€arises€between€the€victim€and€the€offender€that€starts€with€pushing,€shoving,€slapping,€and€hitting,€and€mayÐ :Š Ðescalate€to€a€homicide.€€In€a€blitz€attack,€however,€ð ðthere€is€none€of€that€antecedent€behavior.€€It€starts€with€the€immediateÐ þN Ðattack€on€the€victim€without€anyð!ðany€€build€up€or€any€of€that€antecedent€behavior.ðð ÇÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Ô_ÔMcCraryÔ_Ô€defined€ð ðstagingðð€as€ð ðthe€purposeful€alteration€of€the€crime€or€crime€scene€by€the€offender€toÐ ° Ðprovide€a€false€motive€for€investigators,€which€will€take€the€focus€off€that€particular€killer€and€onto€.€.€.€a€non„existentÐ tÄ Ðoffender.ðð ÂÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€702€provides:Ð ° Ðà8  àIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€toÐ tÄ Ðunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,Ð 8ˆ Ðskill,€experience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ÐüLÐ Ð  ÐÌTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€703€provides:Ð „Ô Ðà8  àThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€bases€an€opinion€or€inference€may€beÐ H ˜ Ðthose€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€the€hearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€reliedÐ  \ Ðupon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€orÐ Ð  Ðdata€need€not€be€admissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinionÐ ” ä  Ðor€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness. aÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€following€well„known€hypothetical€demonstrates€our€point:Ð ° ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔI]fÔ_Ô€one€wanted€to€prove€that€bumblebees€always€take€off€into€the€wind,€a€beekeeper€with€no€scientificÐ 8ˆ Ðtraining€at€all€would€be€an€acceptable€expert€witness€òòifóó€a€proper€foundation€were€laid€for€hisÐ üL Ðconclusions.€€The€foundation€would€not€relate€to€his€formal€training,€but€to€his€firsthand€observations.€Ð À ÐIn€other€words,€the€beekeeper€does€not€know€any€more€about€flight€principles€than€the€jurors,€but€heÐ „Ô Ðhas€seen€a€lot€more€bumblebees€than€they€have.ÐH ˜Ð Ð  ÐÌòòBerry€v.€City€of€Detroitóó,€25€F.3d€1342,€1350€(6th€Cir.€1994)€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€basis€for€the€beekeeperððsÐ Ð  Ðopinion€is€his€experience€observing€bees.€€In€determining€whether€this€expertððs€testimony€is€reliable,€the€trial€court€canÐ ” ä   Ðlook€at€the€connection€between€the€beekeeperððs€observations€and€his€conclusions€extrapolated€from€these€observations.€Ð ° ÐThe€conclusions€should€be€sufficiently€straightforward€to€assist€the€juryððs€understanding€of€the€take„off€habits€of€bees.€Ð tÄ Ðð ðThe€straightforward€character€of€the€testimony€is€essential€to€its€reliability€because€it€permits€the€jury€to€understand,€andÐ 8ˆ Ðthus€weigh,€the€beekeeperððs€conclusion€without€the€necessity€of€an€explanation€of€the€scientific€principles€that€accountÐ üL Ðfor€bees€always€taking€off€into€the€wind.ðð€€J.€Brook€Ô_ÔLathramÔ_Ô,€òòThe€ð ðSame€Intellectual€Rigorðð€Test€Provides€an€EffectiveÐ À ÐMethod€for€Determining€the€Reliability€of€All€Expert€Testimony,€Without€Regard€to€Whether€the€Testimony€ComprisesÐ „Ô Ðð ðScientific€Knowledgeðð€or€ð ðTechnical€or€Other€Specialized€Knowledgeððóó,€28€U.€Mem.€L.€Rev.€1053,€1066„67€(1998).€ óÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔSimilarly,€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔRoquemoreÔ_Ôóó,€620€N.E.2d€110,€113„14€(Ohio€Ct.€App.€1993),€the€expert€witness,€alsoÐ ° Ða€crime€scene€analyst,€classified€crime€scene€assessment€as€part€of€a€larger€ð ðprofilingðð€review.€€He€described€ð ðprofilingððÐ tÄ ÐasÐ 8ˆ Ðà8  àòòbasically€a€method€of€examination€which€looks€at€the€issue€of€motiveóó.€€It€ties€to€crime€sceneÐ üL Ðassessment,€which€basically€examines€the€evidence€set€forth€or€the€evidence€known,€which€mayÐ À Ðinclude€the€photographs,€the€autopsy€reports,€the€police€reports,€available€information,€and€then€oneÐ „Ô Ðanalyzes€that€based€on€probability€for€pattern€in€terms€of€development.€€Is€there€a€sequence,€is€thereÐ H ˜ Ðan€order,€is€that€consistent€with€what€has€generally€been€established€as€recognized€patterns€in€crimeÐ  \ Ðbehavior?€€ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€114€(emphasis€added).€€The€court€held€that€the€testimony€should€have€been€excluded€because,€among€other€reasons,Ð X ¨  Ðð ðthere€is€little€indication€in€the€record€that€[profiles]€can€be€said€to€be€reliable€for€the€purposes€for€which€they€were€usedÐ  l  Ðby€the€state€in€the€instant€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted). Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔRule€404(b)€provides:Ð ° Ðà8  àEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€orderÐ tÄ Ðto€show€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€otherÐ 8ˆ Ðpurposes.€€The€conditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:ÐüLÐ Ð  ÐÓ€ (¦Ù83Óà8  àà ` à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððs€presence;ÐÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conduct€conforming€withÐ „Ô Ða€character€trait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€theÐ H ˜  Ðreasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€andаРР Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€The€court€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€dangerÐ tÄ Ðof€unfair€prejudice.à8Ð Ð à Ý ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€State€contends€that€this€issue€is€waived€because€the€defendant€did€not€include€this€claim€in€his€motionÐ ° Ðfor€a€new€trial.€€Ôg ÔAlthough€we€agree€with€the€StateÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€in€the€interest€of€ð ðÔ_Ôenhanc[ingÔ_Ô]€.€.€.€the€search€for€justice,ðð€òòJohnson€v.Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔHardinÔ_Ôóó,€926€S.W.2d€236,€239€(Tenn.€1996),€we€elect€to€decide€this€issue€on€the€merits€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ 8ˆ ÐAppellate€Procedure€2:Ð üL Ðà8  àFor€good€cause,€including€the€interest€of€expediting€decision€upon€any€matter,€the€SupremeÐ À ÐCourt...may€suspend€the€requirements€or€provisions€of€any€of€these€rules€in€a€particular€case€onÐ „Ô Ðmotion€of€a€party€or€on€its€motion€and€may€order€proceedings€in€accordance€with€its€discretion,€exceptÐ H ˜ Ðthat€this€rule€shall€not€permit€the€extension€of€time€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€prescribed€in€Rule€4,Ð  \ Ðan€application€for€permission€to€appeal€prescribed€in€Rule€11,€or€a€petition€for€review€prescribed€inÐ Ð  ÐRule€12. SÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWe€reiterate€the€well„established€rule€that€a€trial€court€ruling€excluding€evidence€may€not€be€challenged€onÐ ° Ðappeal€ð ðunless€a€substantial€right€of€the€party€is€affectedðð€and€an€offer€of€proof€is€contained€in€the€record.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð tÄ Ð103(a)(2).×ÃŽX×× C ×€€The€purpose€of€an€offer€is€two„fold:€€First,€the€proof€must€demonstrate€the€substance,€purpose,€and€relevanceÐ 8ˆ Ðof€the€excluded€evidence€to€ð ðinform[]€the€trial€court€what€the€party€intends€to€prove€so€that€the€court€may€ruleÐ üL Ðintelligently.ðð€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,€815€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Ô_Ô1994).Ô_Ô€€Second,€an€offer€ð ðcreates€a€record€so€thatÐ À Ðan€appellate€court€can€determine€whether€there€was€reversible€error€in€excluding€the€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð „Ô ÐGoadóó,€707€S.W.2d€846,€852„53€(Tenn.€1986)€(ð ðWhen€[excluded€evidence]€consists€of€oral€testimony,€it€is€essential€thatÐ H ˜ Ða€proper€offer€of€proof€be€made€in€order€that€the€appellate€court€can€determine€whether€or€not€exclusion€was€reversible.ðð). ´Ý ƒRŸº$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ‡ôtò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔRule€103(a)€provides:€€Ð ° Ðà8  àError€may€not€be€predicated€upon€a€ruling€which€admits€or€excludes€evidence€unless€a€substantialÐ xÈ Ðright€of€the€party€is€affected,€andÐ@Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð X Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€In€case€the€ruling€is€one€excluding€evidence,€the€substance€of€the€evidence€and€theÐ Ð  Ðspecific€evidentiary€basis€supporting€admission€were€made€known€to€the€court€by€offer€or€wereÐ ˜è Ðapparent€from€the€context. SÝ ƒRàP$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó]ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThis€Court€affirmed€the€convictions,€but€remanded€for€resentencing€due€to€a€fundamental€instructional€errorÐ ° Ðthat€occurred€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€556.€€On€remand,€the€parties€reached€an€agreement€on€whichÐ tÄ Ðthe€sentence€was€reduced€to€life€without€parole.€€Recently,€this€Court€reversed€the€dismissal€of€the€defendantððs€petitionÐ 8ˆ Ðfor€habeas€corpus€relief€and€remanded€the€case,€finding€the€ð ðlife€without€paroleðð€sentence€illegal€and€void€because€it€wasÐ üL Ðnot€a€legal€sentencing€option€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòStephenson€v.€Carltonóó,€28€S.W.3d€910,€912€(Tenn.€2000).Ð À ÐÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔf @ ÔÔg ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡¼^¥»»»ÔÑ8€ÙXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ#†»^¥»»¼^¥¸#ÔÔ‡îMÄî»»^¥ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†»^¥»îîMÄD#ÔÔ‡¼^¥»»»^¥ÔˆÐ Ö& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€5,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†»^¥»»¼^¥Û#ÔÔ‡XÙX»»^¥ÔÌÔ#†»^¥»XXÙl#ÔÔ‡¼^¥»»»^¥Ôò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€v.€€WILLIAM€R.€STEVENS€ó óÔ#†»^¥»»¼^¥¯#ÔÔ‡XÙX»»^¥ÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†»^¥»XXÙ"#ÔÔ‡XÙX»»^¥ÔÌò òAutomatic€Appeal€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ЀÔ#†»^¥»XXÙy#ÔÔ‡XÙX»»^¥ÔCriminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„A„825€€€€€€Hon.€Steve€Dozier,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€Vz) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„02067„SC„DDT„DD€„€Filed€May€14,€Ô_Ô2002Ô#†»^¥»XXÙ#ÔÔ‡XÙX»»^¥ÔÔ_Ô€Ô#†»^¥»XXÙ#ÔÔ‡XÙX»»^¥ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€Vz) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€was€found€guilty€by€a€Davidson€County€jury€of€hiring€eighteen€year„old€Ô_ÔCoreyÔ_ÔÐ P  ÐÔ_ÔMillikenÔ_Ô€to€murder€his€wife,€Sandra€Jean€Stevens,€and€his€mother„in„law,€Myrtle€Wilson.€€He€wasÐ <Œ Ðalso€convicted€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€Ð (x Ð(1)€The€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,Ð d Ðwhose€statutory€elements€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð P Ð204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(2);€and€(2)€the€defendant€employed€another€to€commit€the€murders€for€the€promise€ofÐ ì< Ðremuneration,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(4).€€Finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstancesÐ Ø( Ðoutweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€jury€sentenced€theÐ Ä Ðdefendant€to€death€for€the€murder€of€each€victim.€€On€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction,Ð ° Ðthe€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€life€without€parole€as€a€repeat€violent€offender€with€the€sentenceÐ œì Ðto€run€consecutively€to€both€death€sentences.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendantððs€convictions€and€sentences€of€death.€€On€automatic€appeal€to€this€Court,€we€affirm€andÐ tÄ Ðhold€as€follows:€€(1)€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€limiting€the€testimony€ofÐ `° Ðdefendantððs€crime€scene€expert€to€his€analysis€of€the€evidence€at€the€crime€scene;€(2)€the€trial€courtððsÐ L œ Ðexclusion€of€the€testimony€of€Ô_ÔCoreyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMillikenÔ_Ôððs€foster€father€regarding€Ô_ÔMillikenÔ_Ôððs€prior€bad€actsÐ 8!ˆ  Ðconstituted€harmless€error;€(3)€the€trial€court€applied€hearsay€and€other€evidentiary€rulings€in€anÐ $"t! Ðunbiased€and€even„handed€manner;€and€(4)€the€sentence€of€death€is€not€disproportionate€to€theÐ #`" Ðsentence€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€For€all€other€issues€not€specifically€discussed€in€this€opinion,€weÐ ü#L# Ðagree€with€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓpÓÌÔ#†»^¥»XXÙà#ÔÔ‡XÙX»»^¥Ôò òTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€Automatic€Appeal;€Ð À&"& ÐJudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmedó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,óó€C.J.,Ð „)Ô$) Ðandòò€E.€Riley€Andersonóó€and€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€JJ.,€joined.€€òòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birchóó,€òòJróó.,€J.,€filed€aÐ p*À%* Ðconcurring€and€dissenting€opinion.Ô#†»^¥»XXÙ0#ÔÐ \+¬&+ ÐÌÔ€XÙX»»^¥ÔBrock€Ô_ÔMehlerÔ_Ô€and€F.€Ô_ÔMichieÔ_Ô€Gibson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€William€R.€Stevens.Ð Z-ª(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡Paul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€JenniferÐ ° ÐL.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð œì ÐÌÓìÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ `° ÐÌFACTSÐ 8 ˆ ÐGuilt€Phaseó óÐ $ t ÐÌÓ  Óà  àOn€December€22,€1997,€police€were€dispatched€to€the€defendantððs,€William€RichardÐ ü L  ÐStevensððs,€mobile€home€in€Nashville€in€response€to€a€911€call€made€by€the€defendant€and€eighteenÐ è 8  Ðyear„old€Corey€Milliken.€€When€the€police€arrived,€they€found€the€murdered€bodies€of€forty„fiveÐ Ô$  Ðyear„old€Sandra€(Sandi)€Jean€Stevens,€the€defendantððs€wife,€and€seventy„five€year„old€Myrtle€Wilson,Ð À  Ðthe€defendantððs€mother„in„law.€€After€further€investigation,€the€police€concluded€that€Corey€MillikenÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€hired€by€the€defendant€to€kill€the€women€and€to€make€the€murders€look€like€they€wereÐ ˜è  Ðcommitted€in€furtherance€of€a€burglary.Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô׃|×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð „Ô  ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÌà  àThe€record€reveals€that€the€defendant€and€Milliken€had€known€each€other€for€approximatelyÐ \¬ Ðone€year.€€Milliken€and€his€then€fifteen€year„old€brother,€Shawn€Austin,€lived€with€their€mother€andÐ H˜ Ðstep„father€three€trailers€down€from€the€defendant.€€Both€boys€often€worked€for€the€defendant,Ð 4„ Ðassisting€him€in€his€job€of€putting€underskirting€on€mobile€homes.€€Austin€testified€at€trial€that€hisÐ  p Ðbrother€had€a€close€relationship€with€the€defendant€and€that€he€and€his€brother€spent€a€lot€of€their€freeÐ  \ Ðtime€at€the€defendantððs€trailer.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAustin€testified€that€in€the€fall€of€1997,€the€defendant€approached€both€brothers€and€askedÐ Ð  Ðthem€if€they€would€kill€the€defendantððs€ex„wife,€Vickie€Stevens.€€The€defendant€instructed€them€toÐ ¼  Ðð ðget€a€rifleðð€and€shoot€her€when€she€came€out€of€her€trailer.€€He€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔtoÔf  ÔldÔf  ÔÔg Ô€them€that€if€she€were€dead,€heÐ ¨ø Ðwould€get€full€custody€of€his€then€nine€year„old€son,€John.€€He€would€also€get€ð ðher€car,€her€trailer€andÐ ”ä Ðher€land.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àHowever,€around€Thanksgiving,€the€defendant€changed€his€mind€and€offered€to€pay€MillikenÐ X ¨ Ðand€Austin€$2,500€apiece€if€they€would€instead€kill€his€current€wife,€Sandi€Stevens,€and€his€mother„Ð D!” Ðin„law,€Myrtle€Wilson.€€The€defendant€and€his€wife€were€having€marital€problems,€and€he€knew€thatÐ 0"€  Ðanother€divorce€would€ð ðwipe€him€out.ðð€€He€told€the€boys€that€he€would€get€the€money€either€fromÐ #l! Ðthe€proceeds€of€Ms.€Wilsonððs€life€insurance€policy€or€from€the€proceeds€of€a€yard€sale.€€Austin€wouldÐ $X" Ðact€as€a€ð ðlookout,ðð€while€Milliken€killed€the€victims€in€their€trailer.€€The€defendant€preferred€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðvictims€be€shot;€however,€if€the€boys€could€not€find€a€gun€with€a€silencer,€Milliken€was€to€kill€themÐ à%0!$ Ðusing€a€knife.€€Austin€eventually€decided€that€he€did€not€want€to€be€the€ð ðlookout,ðð€but€agreed€toÐ Ì&"% Ðprovide€an€alibi€for€the€defendant.€€He€would€not€be€paid€for€this€participation,€and€therefore€theÐ ¸'#& Ðentire€$5,000€would€be€paid€to€Milliken.€€Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àAlthough€the€defendant€had€not€yet€set€a€date€for€these€murders,€he€took€great€pains€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔinÐ ° ÐplanningÔf  ÔÔg Ô€and€Ôg ÔinstructingÔf  ÔÔg Ô€Milliken€on€exactly€how€the€murders€were€to€take€place.€€For€instance,€heÐ œì Ðtold€Milliken€to€kill€his€mother„in„law€first€because€his€wife€would€not€hear€anything:€€she€kept€herÐ ˆØ Ðdoor€shut€and€the€fan€running€in€her€bedroom.€€He€also€told€Milliken€that€on€the€eve€of€the€murders,Ð tÄ Ðthe€trailer€would€be€unlocked,€and€the€burglar€alarm€would€not€be€set;€as€an€extra€precaution,Ð `° ÐMilliken€would€be€given€a€key€to€the€trailer.Ð L œ ÐÌà  à€The€defendant€further€instructed€that€after€Milliken€killed€the€victims,€he€was€to€steal€certainÐ $ t Ðitems,€including€some€of€Mrs.€Stevensððs€jewelry,€and€then€ð ðdestroyðð€the€trailer€to€make€it€look€likeÐ  ` Ða€robbery€had€occurred.€€In€fact,€he€took€Milliken€on€a€walk„through€of€the€trailer,€and€he€specifiedÐ ü L  Ðwhich€items€were€to€be€stolen,€which€items€were€to€be€ð ðtrashed,ðð€and€which€items€were€to€remainÐ è 8  Ðuntouched,€such€as€ð ðthe€TV€and€the€dishes€and€[his]€Star€Trek€collection.ððÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€instructed€Milliken€on€how€he€was€to€get€rid€of€the€evidence.€€ForÐ ¬ü  Ðinstance,€Milliken€was€to€take€the€stolen€jewelry€and€put€it€in€a€bag.€€He€would€then€throw€the€murderÐ ˜è  Ðweapon€on€top€of€a€nearby€school€building€and€throw€the€bag€of€stolen€items€into€the€river.€€OnceÐ „Ô  Ðall€the€evidence€was€disposed€of,€he€would€go€to€his€girlfriendððs€house€to€establish€an€alibi.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€defendantððs€plan,€on€the€morning€of€the€murders,€he€and€Austin€would€leaveÐ H˜ Ðtogether€to€go€to€work.€€Milliken€would€commit€the€crimes€while€they€were€gone.€€The€defendantÐ 4„ Ðtold€Austin€that€if€he€was€questioned€by€the€police,€he€was€to€tell€them€that€he€saw€Mrs.€StevensÐ  p Ðwave€to€them€that€morning€as€they€left€for€work.€€The€defendant€also€told€the€brothers€that€if€anybodyÐ  \ Ðgot€caught,€ð ðeverybody€was€on€their€own.ðð€€Furthermore,€he€instructed€them€not€to€take€lie€detectorÐ øH Ðtests€or€ð ðsnitch€on€the€other€person.ððÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àFinally,€a€few€days€before€December€22,€1997,€the€defendant€Ôg ÔtoldÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€brothersÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€theÐ ¼  Ðmurders€needed€to€be€committed€on€the€twenty„second.€€He€explained€that€his€ex„wife€was€going€toÐ ¨ø Ðhave€back€surgery€at€that€time,€and€he€would€have€his€nine€year„old€son,€John,€staying€with€him.€Ð ”ä ÐJohn€would€act€as€another€alibi.€€Milliken€agreed€to€commit€the€murders€on€that€date.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAt€approximately€4:45€on€the€morning€of€Monday,€December€22,€Austin€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔwentÔf  ÔÔg Ô€over€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendantððs€trailer€where€the€defendant€and€his€young€son€were€waiting€for€him.€€Milliken€was€stillÐ D!” Ðasleep€because€he€had€stayed€up€late€the€night€before€after€having€had€an€argument€with€his€motherÐ 0"€  Ðand€step„father.€€Mrs.€Stevens€and€Ms.€Wilson€were€also€still€asleep€in€their€rooms€and€did€not€seeÐ #l! Ðthe€defendant€and€the€two€boys€leave€for€work.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€threesome€drove€approximately€ninety€miles€to€their€jobsite€at€New€Johnsonville,׃~×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à%0!$ Ðstopping€for€breakfast€along€the€way.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔAfterÔf  ÔÔg Ô€they€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔarrivedÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€the€defendant€decided€that€it€was€tooÐ Ì&"% Ðmuddy€to€work€on€the€trailer,€so€they€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔreturnedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€home,€arriving€back€at€the€trailer€park€at€around€8:30Ð ° Ða.m.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€a€taped€statement€given€on€the€day€of€his€arrest,€the€defendant€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔsaidÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€when€he€walkedÐ tÄ Ðup€to€the€front€door€of€his€trailer,€he€observed€that€the€door€was€ajar.€€When€he€stepped€inside,€heÐ `° Ðnoticed€that€the€Christmas€tree€was€lying€on€its€side€and€that€ð ðstuff€was€laying€all€over,ðð€and€heÐ L œ Ðð ðknew€something€was€wrong.ðð€€He€looked€towards€his€bedroom,€saw€his€wifeððs€leg€ð ðlaying€acrossÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€bed,ðð€and€immediately€assumed€that€both€his€wife€and€his€mother„in„law€were€dead.€€TheÐ $ t Ðdefendant€Ôf  Ôsaid€that€he€Ôf  ÔÔg Ônever€went€into€either€bedroom€to€actually€check€on€the€women,€nor€did€heÐ  ` Ðever€see€his€mother„in„lawððs€body.€€Instead,€he€just€ð ðran€outðð€with€his€son€and€Austin€Ôf  Ôand€went€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔtoÐ ü L  ÐAustinððs€trailer€to€call€the€police.€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÐ è 8  ÐÌÔf  ÔÔg Ôà  àOfficers€Gary€Clements€and€John€Donnelly€of€the€Metro€Police€Department€were€the€firstÐ À  Ðofficers€to€arrive€at€the€crime€scene.€€After€entering€the€trailer€and€finding€the€two€bodies,€the€officersÐ ¬ü  Ðsealed€off€the€crime€sceneÔf  ÔÔg Ô€and€theÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔnÔf  ÔÔg Ô€began€canvassing€the€area€for€witnesses€and€searching€theÐ ˜è  Ðgrounds€for€physical€evidence.€€Officer€Clements€soon€met€Corey€Milliken€in€his€trailer€and€startedÐ „Ô  Ðtalking€to€him.€€During€their€conversation,€he€noticed€blood€spots€on€Millikenððs€t„shirt,€blood€underÐ pÀ Ðhis€nails,€and€fresh€gouge€marks€on€his€cheek€and€wrist.€€Officer€Clements€eventually€turnedÐ \¬ ÐMilliken€over€to€detectives€for€further€questioningÔg Ô.€Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€Milliken€confessed€to€committing€the€murdersÐ H˜ Ðby€himself€and€provided€a€detailed€description€of€the€murders€and€the€crime€scene.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àContinuing€his€search€for€evidence,€Officer€Clements€soon€discovered€that€the€underpinningÐ  \ Ðon€a€nearby€trailer€had€been€pulled€loose.€€When€he€looked€under€that€trailer,€he€found€a€green€canvasÐ øH Ðbag.€€The€contents€of€the€bag€included€the€following:€€a€white,€blood„stained€Miami€Dolphins€t„shirt;Ð ä4 Ðseveral€pieces€of€jewelry;€an€eight„inch€long€butcher€knife€or€kitchen€knife;€prescription€medicationÐ Ð  Ðlying€loosely€in€the€bag;€a€thirty„five€millimeter€camera;€and€a€black€camera€bag.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àDetectives€Pat€Postiglione€and€Al€Gray,€members€of€the€Metro€Police€DepartmentÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô€assignedÐ ”ä Ðto€investigate€the€homicidesÔg Ô,€foundÔf  ÔÔg Ô€no€sign€of€forced€entry.€€In€fact,€aside€from€the€appearance€of€aÐ €Ð Ðstruggle€ð ðin€and€about€the€bed€areaðð€in€Ms.€Wilsonððs€room,€the€crime€scene€looked,€for€the€most€part,Ð l¼ Ðð ðstaged.ðð€€For€instance,€Detective€Gray€explained€that€dresser€drawers€were€pulled€open,€but€nothingÐ X ¨ Ðin€them€appeared€to€be€disturbed;€clothes€were€taken€out€of€the€closet€and€dumped€onto€the€floorÐ D!” Ðwhile€still€on€their€hangers;€and€the€Christmas€presents€were€unwrapped,€but€nothing€Ôg ÔappearedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€toÐ 0"€  Ðhave€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔbeÔg ÔenÔf  ÔÔg Ô€stolen.€€Even€the€Christmas€tree€looked€as€if€it€were€ð ðgently€pushed€over,ðð€because€noneÐ #l! Ðof€the€glass€ornaments€were€broken€or€scattered€on€the€floor,€which€would€most€likely€have€happenedÐ $X" Ðhad€there€been€a€struggle.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔHe€alsoÔf  ÔÔg Ô€testified€that€certain€rooms,€which€ð ðlooked€like€.€.€.€very€valuableÐ ô$D # Ðarea[s]€of€the€trailer,ðð€remained€undisturbed.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àBoth€victims€were€found€lying€in€their€beds.€€Ms.€Wilson€was€wearing€a€nightgown,€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðhad€been€pulled€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôabove€her€waistÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€HÔg Ôer€underwear€was€on€the€floor.€€There€was€a€substantial€amountÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€blood€on€her€body,€on€the€bed,€and€on€several€items€in€the€room.€€Dr.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€EmilyÔg Ô€Ward,€a€pathologistÐ )à$( Ðwith€the€Davidson€County€Medical€Examinerððs€Office,€performed€autopsies€on€the€victims.€€HerÐ |*Ì%) Ðexamination€of€Ms.€Wilson€revealed€that€she€died€from€stab€wounds€and€manual€strangulation.€Ð h+¸&* ÐAlthough€her€stab€wounds€were€relatively€superficial€and€did€not€pierce€any€vital€organs,€theyÐ ° Ðresulted€in€a€considerable€amount€of€lost€blood.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àMrs.€Stevens€was€completely€nude׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€left€in€a€ð ðdisplayedðð€position,€that€is,€lying€on€herÐ tÄ Ðback€with€her€legs€spread€apart.€€She€died€as€a€result€of€ligature€strangulation.€€However,€there€wasÐ `° Ðblood€on€her€knees,€indicating€that€the€murderer€had€killed€Ms.€Wilson€first€and€then€transferredÐ L œ Ðsome€blood€onto€Mrs.€Stevens.׃€T×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€There€were€also€pornographic€magazines€placed€around€her€body,Ð 8 ˆ Ðas€well€as€a€photo€album€containing€nude€photos€of€the€victim,€presumably€taken€by€the€defendantÐ $ t Ðduring€their€marriage.€€There€was€no€evidence€of€blood€on€these€items.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àDr.€Wardððs€examination€of€Mrs.€Stevens€revealed€a€small,€superficial€tear€in€her€vagina.€€Dr.Ð è 8  ÐWard€testified€that€she€thought€it€was€a€post„mortem€change€in€the€skin,€which€likely€occurred€whileÐ Ô$  Ðthe€body€was€being€moved€for€examination.€€Although€she€conceded€on€cross„examination€that€theÐ À  Ðdecedent€could€have€been€sexually€assaulted€after€death,€she€did€not€believe€this€to€be€the€caseÐ ¬ü  Ðbecause€there€was€no€bruising,€swelling,€or€hemorrhaging€around€the€tear.׃à×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€State€introduced€the€testimony€of€Chris€Holman,€a€friend€of€Millikenððs,€as€additionalÐ pÀ Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€hired€Milliken€to€commit€these€crimes.€€Mr.€Holman€testified€that€aroundÐ \¬ Ðthe€end€of€October,€Milliken€approached€him€and€asked€him€if€he€knew€where€Milliken€could€getÐ H˜ Ða€gun€with€a€silencer.€€Mr.€Holman€told€him€that€he€ð ðwasnððt€into€that€anymore.ðð€€Three€weeks€priorÐ 4„ Ðto€the€murder,€Milliken€approached€Mr.€Holman€again€and€asked€if€he€would€help€murder€theÐ  p Ðdefendantððs€wife€and€mother„in„law.€€He€told€Mr.€Holman€that€they€would€go€into€the€house€andÐ  \ Ðð ðmake€it€look€like€it€was€a€burglary,ðð€and€that€he€would€ð ðsplit€evenðð€the€$5,000€he€was€supposed€toÐ øH Ðbe€paid.€€Mr.€Holman€refused.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àLane€Locke,€an€inmate€at€the€West€Tennessee€State€Penitentiary,€testified€that€he€was€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendantððs€cellmate€at€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Justice€Center€for€approximately€three€weeks.€Ð ¨ø ÐDuring€that€time,€the€defendant,€who€knew€that€Locke€was€formerly€a€police€officer€and€a€certifiedÐ ”ä Ðparalegal,€discussed€his€case€at€great€length€because€the€defendant€wanted€to€benefit€from€LockeððsÐ €Ð Ðð ðlegal€knowledge.ðð€€The€defendant€described€his€marital€problems€and€told€Locke€that€he€did€notÐ l¼ Ðwant€to€go€through€another€divorce€because€he€had€ð ðhis€life€in€order€and€felt€like€.€.€.€a€divorce€wouldÐ X ¨ Ðwipe€him€out.ðð€€The€defendant€also€discussed€his€relationship€with€Milliken,€describing€him€as€aÐ D!” Ðð ðbig,€dumb€kidðð€who€was€a€source€of€conflict€between€him€and€his€wife.€€Based€on€what€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€told€him,€Locke€stated€that€it€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôappeared€thatÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€defendant€ð ðled€Corey€around€quite€a€bit.ðð€Ð #l! Їà  àLocke€also€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€want€to€attend€his€wifeððs€funeral€and€that€heÐ ° Ðnever€showed€any€remorse€or€emotion€over€his€wifeððs€death.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€€However,€Locke€Ôg ÔtestifiedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€was€very€upset€when€he€returned€from€his€preliminary€hearing.€€He€quoted€the€defendantÐ ˆØ Ðas€saying,€ð ðShawn€[Austin]€is€just€as€guilty€as€the€rest€of€us,€and€heððs€the€only€one€thatððs€gonna€getÐ tÄ Ðaway€with€it.€€I€canððt€believe€those€idiots€thought€I€was€gonna€pay€them.ðð€Ð `° ÐÌà  àMichael€Street,€another€inmate€at€the€Criminal€Justice€Center,€testified€that€the€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðasked€him€if€he€would€ð ðintimidate€Corey€Milliken€or€have€him€killed€in€one€form€or€fashion,ððÐ $ t Ðbecause,€as€the€defendant€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔsaidÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€ð ðCorey€was€the€only€person€that€could€put€[him]€in€prison€for€the€restÐ  ` Ðof€[his]€life.ðð€€The€defendant€told€Street€that€he€had€hired€another€inmate€to€ð ðtry€to€do€it,ðð€but€the€planÐ ü L  Ðfell€through.€€Street€refused€the€defendantððs€request.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€State€also€introduced€letters€between€the€defendant€and€Charles€Randle,€another€inmate,Ð À  Ðin€which€the€defendant€offered€Randle€money€to€harm€or€intimidate€Milliken€in€jail.€€Evidence€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðintroduced€that€the€defendant€had€obtained€several€hundred€dollars€in€money€orders€made€payableÐ ˜è  Ðto€Charles€Randle.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€State€also€presented€evidence€indicating€that€the€defendant€was€taking€money€from€hisÐ \¬ Ðmother„in„law,€Myrtle€Wilson.€€Ms.€Wilsonððs€son,€Larry€Wilson,€testified€that€for€over€three€yearsÐ H˜ Ðbefore€the€murders€were€committed,€he€had€been€investing€and€otherwise€monitoring€her€financesÐ 4„ Ðtotaling€$83,000.€€A€month€before€she€was€killed,€his€mother€expressed€concern€that€she€ð ðdidnððt€haveÐ  p Ðthe€funds€that€she€thought€she€should.ðð€€Shortly€after€the€murders,€Mr.€Wilson€was€examining€hisÐ  \ Ðmotherððs€financial€information,€and€he€discovered€a€check€written€on€June€10,€1997,€made€payableÐ øH Ðto€the€defendant€for€four€thousand€dollars.€€He€explained€that€the€check€was€questionable€for€severalÐ ä4 Ðreasons:€€first,€the€check€was€printed€rather€than€handwritten,€and€his€mother€never€printed€herÐ Ð  Ðchecks;€second,€the€printing€was€ð ðway€too€clearðð€to€be€his€motherððs€because€she€had€grown€ð ðfeebleððÐ ¼  Ðand€her€hand€was€ð ðrather€shakyðð€when€she€wrote;€and€finally,€Ms.€Wilson€had€recorded€the€amountÐ ¨ø Ðfor€that€check€as€òòfortyóó€dollars,€not€four€thousand.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€Doris€Trott,€the€victimsðð€hairdresser€since€1992,€testified€to€severalÐ l¼ Ðconversations€she€had€with€Ms.€Wilson€early€in€the€fall€of€1997,€during€which€Ms.€WilsonÐ X ¨ Ðcomplained€that€the€defendant€never€repaid€her€any€of€the€money€that€he€often€borrowed.€€Later€thatÐ D!” Ðfall,€Ms.€Wilson€told€Ms.€Trott€that€the€defendant€had€asked€her€to€sign€a€ten„thousand€dollar€lifeÐ 0"€  Ðinsurance€policy,€which€she€refused€to€do.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àEvidence€was€also€presented€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔregardingÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€marital€problems€that€the€defendant€and€Mrs.Ð ô$D # ÐStevens€were€having.€€In€Mrs.€Stevensððs€diary,€she€described€her€unhappiness€in€Ôg ÔtheÔf  ÔÔg Ô€marriage€andÐ à%0!$ Ðher€increasing€distrust€of€her€husbandððs€fidelity.€€Although€she€still€loved€the€defendant,€she€wantedÐ Ì&"% Ðto€ð ðget€outðð€of€the€marriage.€Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€William€Byers,€Sandi€Stevensððs€ex„husband,€testified€that€he€talked€toÐ ¸'#& Ðher€shortly€before€she€died,€and€she€told€him€that€the€defendant€explicitly€refused€to€give€her€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdivorce.€She€also€expressed€her€dislike€for€Corey€Milliken€and€described€him€as€the€source€of€manyÐ )à$( Ðheated€arguments€between€the€defendant€and€herself.€€She€wrote€that€he€was€the€ð ðwedgeðð€driving€herÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€the€defendant€apart.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔTÔf  Ôhe€defense€presented€evidence€of€Corey€Millikenððs€sexual€infatuation€with€Sandi€Stevens.€Ð ° ÐShawn€Austin€testified€that€his€brother€told€him€that€the€defendant€had€shown€him€pictures€of€hisÐ œì Ðwife€in€lingerie€and€in€the€nude,€and€that€the€defendant€told€Milliken€that€she€wanted€to€have€sexÐ ˆØ Ðwith€both€of€them€at€the€same€time.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€defense€theory€was€that€Milliken€committed€sexual€murder€as€an€act€of€aggressionÐ L œ Ðprecipitated€by€an€argument€with€his€mother€and€step„father€the€night€before€the€crimes.€€MillikenððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðstep„father,€Billy€Stevens€(unrelated€to€the€defendant),€testified€that€he€and€Milliken€did€argue€theÐ $ t Ðnight€before€the€crimes,€and€that€at€one€point€he€ð ðgrabbedðð€Milliken€after€Milliken€ð ðgot€smart€withÐ  ` Ðhis€mother.ðð€€Milliken€ran€out€of€the€house,€but€had€returned€home€by€the€time€Mr.€Stevens€left€forÐ ü L  Ðwork€early€the€next€morning.€€Mr.€Stevens€also€testified€that€he€and€Milliken€had€argued€in€the€past,Ð è 8  Ðand€that€on€several€occasions€Milliken€had€run€out€of€the€house€following€an€argument.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAs€evidence€that€these€murders€involved€a€sexual€component,€the€defense€introduced€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtestimony€of€crime€scene€expert,€Gregg€McCrary.€€Mr.€McCrary€testified€that€the€display€ofÐ ˜è  Ðpornographic€magazines€around€Mrs.€Stevens€could€ð ðbest€be€interpreted€as€an€attempt€to€furtherÐ „Ô  Ðhumiliate€or€degradeðð€the€victim,€which€ð ðgoes€to€the€motive€of€a€sex€crime.ðð€€He€defined€a€sex€crimeÐ pÀ Ðas€primarily€a€crime€of€violence€in€which€the€perpetrator€uses€sex€to€punish,€humiliate,€and€degradeÐ \¬ Ðthe€victim.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€proof€as€summarized€above,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€two€countsÐ  p Ðof€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô׃‚×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  \ ÐÌà@™™$ìàÓÓà@@¾¾$ìàò òPenalty€Phaseó óˆÐ ä4 ÐÓÓà  àThe€State€first€presented€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€conviction€in€1977€for€second€degreeÐ ¼  Ðmurder.€€The€State€also€presented€as€victim€impact€evidence€the€testimonies€of€the€victimsðð€familyÐ ¨ø Ðmembers,€who€each€discussed€the€devastating€effect€of€the€murders€of€Myrtle€Wilson€and€SandiÐ ”ä ÐStevens€on€their€lives.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€mitigation€of€the€sentence,€the€defense€presented€testimony€from€the€defendantððs€familyÐ X ¨ Ðmembers,€co„workers,€and€neighbors.€€The€defendant€was€adopted€into€a€family€of€five€children.€Ð D!” ÐChris€Baumann,€the€defendantððs€sister,€testified€that€the€defendant€had€a€good€childhood€and€was€partÐ 0"€  Ðof€a€ð ðnormal€family.ðð€€She€also€testified€to€the€defendantððs€close€relationship€with€his€son,€JohnÔf  ÔÔg Ô.Ôf  ÔÔg ԀР#l! ÐRobert€Rasmus,€the€defendantððs€foster€brother,€also€testified€to€the€ð ðgreat€family€upbringingðð€thatÐ $X" Ðall€five€children€enjoyed.€€He€further€stated€that€the€defendant€had€done€a€wonderful€job€raising€hisÐ ô$D # Ðson€John,€and€that€he€was€proud€of€how€the€defendant€had€turned€his€life€around€after€his€firstÐ à%0!$ Ðconviction€in€1977.€€On€cross„examination,€Mr.€Rasmus€admitted€that€the€defendant€had€also€beenÐ Ì&"% Ðconvicted€of€felony€escape€during€his€incarceration€for€second€degree€murder.Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àVickie€Stevens,€the€defendantððs€ex„wife,€testified€that€the€defendant€was€a€good€husband€andÐ ° Ðfather€during€most€of€their€marriage.€€After€the€divorce,€he€made€all€of€his€child€support€paymentsÐ œì Ðand€remained€a€loving€and€supportive€father.€€She€also€expressed€her€wish€that€the€defendant€beÐ ˆØ Ðspared€the€death€penalty€for€the€sake€of€their€son.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àRoger€Cooper,€the€sales€manager€of€a€mobile€home€company,€testified€that€he€employed€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€in€1989€for€approximately€one€year.€€During€that€time,€he€knew€the€defendant€to€be€a€hard„Ð 8 ˆ Ðworking€and€dedicated€employee,€and€he€trusted€the€defendant€enough€to€give€him€a€key€to€his€ownÐ $ t Ðhome.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àSeveral€of€the€defendantððs€neighbors€testified€to€how€helpful€the€defendant€was€to€others€inÐ è 8  Ðthe€community.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€loaned€money€to€his€neighbors,€checked€in€on€neighborsÐ Ô$  Ðwho€were€elderly,€sick,€or€alone,€and€voluntarily€fixed€their€trailers€without€requiring€payment.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€proof,€the€jury€was€instructed€on€the€following€statutory€aggravatingÐ ˜è  Ðcircumstances€for€each€of€the€two€counts€of€murder:€€(1)€€the€defendant€was€previously€convicted€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€felony€of€second€degree€murder;€and€(2)€the€defendant€employed€another€to€commit€the€murdersÐ pÀ Ðof€his€wife€and€mother„in„law€for€the€promise€of€remuneration.€€The€jury€was€also€instructed€toÐ \¬ Ðconsider€all€mitigating€evidence,€including€the€defendantððs€work€history,€the€defendantððs€familyÐ H˜ Ðhistory€and€close€familial€relationships,€his€positive€role€in€the€community,€any€other€aspect€of€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendantððs€background,€character,€or€record,€and€any€aspect€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offenseÐ  p Ðfavorable€to€the€defendant€and€supported€by€the€evidence.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€jury€found€that€the€State€had€proven€the€two€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€beyondÐ ä4 Ða€reasonable€doubt€and€that€these€two€aggravating€circumstances€outweighed€the€mitigatingÐ Ð  Ðcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Consequently,€on€July€23,€1999,€the€defendant€wasÐ ¼  Ðsentenced€to€death€for€each€of€the€two€murder€convictions.€€The€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€inÐ ¨ø Ðaccordance€with€the€juryððs€verdict,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€defendantððsÐ ”ä Ðconvictions€and€his€sentences€of€death.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€case€was€automatically€docketed€in€this€Court€for€review€of€the€death€sentences.׃ƒ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔWÔf  ÔÔg ÔeÐ X ¨ Ðrequested€additional€briefing€and€argument€on€the€following€issues:€€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ D!” Ðin€limiting€the€testimony€of€defendantððs€crime€scene€expert,€Gregg€McCrary,€to€his€analysis€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðevidence€found€at€the€crime€scene;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€theÐ #l! Ðtestimony€of€Barry€Morris,€Corey€Millikenððs€former€foster€parent,€regarding€Millikenððs€prior€badÐ $X" Ðacts;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€violated€the€defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€present€a€defense€byÐ ô$D # Ðâ âfailing€to€apply€the€hearsay€and€other€evidentiary€rules€in€an€even„handed€manner;€and€(4)€whetherÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€death€sentence€is€an€excessive€and€disproportionate€punishment€given€the€nature€of€the€defendantÐ ° Ðand€the€circumstances€of€this€case.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€considering€the€issues€raised€by€the€defendant,€we€find€noÐ tÄ Ðreversible€error€and€affirmÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.Ð `° ÐÌà@ ìàò òI.€€NON„SCIENTIFIC€EXPERT€TESTIMONYó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€allow€crime€sceneÐ  ` Ðinvestigator,€Gregg€McCrary,€to€testify€to€the€behavior€and€motivation€of€the€offender€based€on€hisÐ ü L  Ðanalysis€of€the€physical€evidence€found€at€the€crime€scene.€€The€defense€offered€Mr.€McCraryððsÐ è 8  Ðtestimony€to€prove€that€Milliken€committed€sexually€motivated€murder€as€a€violent€response€to€aÐ Ô$  Ðfight€with€his€mother€and€step„father€just€hours€before€the€crime.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€a€jury„out€hearing,€Mr.€McCrary€testified€that€he€had€worked€as€a€special€agent€for€theÐ ˜è  ÐFederal€Bureau€of€Investigation€(FBI)€for€approximately€twenty„five€years.€€During€that€time,€he€tookÐ „Ô  Ðseveral€graduate€courses€in€criminal€justice,€and€he€received€a€Masterððs€degree€in€PsychologicalÐ pÀ ÐServices.€€He€served€his€last€ten€years€with€the€FBI€in€the€Behavioral€Science€Unit,€investigatingÐ \¬ Ðcases€and€conducting€research€on€violent€criminal€behavior€to€improve€the€operational€effectivenessÐ H˜ Ðof€the€law€enforcement€community.€€He€received€basic€and€advanced€training€in€crime€analysis,€andÐ 4„ Ðhe€also€received€training€in€sex€crimes€investigations,€becoming€an€FBI€expert€in€this€field€of€lawÐ  p Ðenforcement.€€Moreover,€Mr.€McCrary€testified€that€as€an€FBI€agent,€he€participated€in€theÐ  \ Ðinvestigation€of€over€a€thousand€cases,€most€of€which€were€ð ðsexually€violentðð€homicides.€€At€theÐ øH Ðtime€of€the€trial,€he€had€retired€from€the€FBI€and€was€currently€managing€his€own€consulting€businessÐ ä4 Ðin€behavioral€criminology.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€McCrary€had€been€contacted€by€the€defense€to€conduct€a€criminal€investigation€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðcrime€scene€in€this€case.€€He€explained€that€the€FBI€used€criminal€investigative€analysis€to€discernÐ ”ä Ðthe€probable€motive€of€the€criminal€by€analyzing€the€evidence€found€at€the€crime€scene€ð ðprimarilyÐ €Ð Ðfrom€a€behavioral€perspective,€looking€at€what€the€offender€has€done€in€the€commission€of€the€crimeÐ l¼ Ðto€understand€the€potential€motive€for€the€crime€as€well.ðð׃„×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€Mr.€McCrary€reviewed€the€crime€scene€photos,€the€medical€examinerððs€report,Ð 0"€  ÐMrs.€Stevensððs€diary,€and€a€video€tape€of€the€crime€scene.€€However,€he€specifically€asked€not€to€beÐ #l! Ðgiven€any€information€on€the€suspect€so€as€to€be€able€to€provide€an€objective€analysis.€€Based€on€hisÐ $X" Ðreview€of€this€evidence,€Mr.€McCrary€categorized€the€crime€scene€in€this€case€as€a€ð ðdisorganizedÐ ô$D # Ðsexual€homicide€scene.ðð€€He€explained€that€in€a€disorganized€scene,€Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% Ðà8  àthe€victim€and€location€are€known€to€the€offender;€€.€.€.€there€is€minimal€conversation,Ð ° Ðâ âa€minimal€interpersonal€conflictð!ðcontact€between€the€victim€and€the€offender€duringÐ œì Ðthe€course€of€the€crime.€€Itððs€usually€a€blitz€attack׃…×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€or€a€sudden€violence€thatððs€used.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€crime€scene€is€quite€sloppy€and€in€great€disarray.€€There€is€minimal€useÐ tÄ Ðof€restraints.€€The€sexual€acts€tend€to€occur€after€death;€so,€there€is€post„mortemÐ `° Ðinjury€to€the€victim€.€.€.€indication€of€post„mortem€sexual€activity.ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€body€is€left€at€the€death€scene€.€.€.€and€is€typically€left€in€view.€€ThereððsÐ 8 ˆ Ða€good€deal€of€physical€evidence€thatððsð!ðthatððs€left€at€the€scene.€€And,€anytime€just€aÐ $ t Ðweapon€of€opportunity€that€the€offender€uses,€and€by€that,€I€mean€a€weapon€that€isÐ  ` Ðcontained€at€the€scene,€uses€it€and,€then,€itððs€not€uncommon€for€the€offender€to€leaveÐ ü L  Ðthat€weapon€either€at€or€nearð!ðnear€the€scene.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌMr.€McCrary€testified€that€criminals€usually€commit€disorganized€violent€crimes€as€a€result€of€someÐ À  Ðð ðprecipitating€stresser,€[or]€stressful€eventðð€in€the€criminalððs€life.€€Such€an€event€invokes€a€lot€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðanger€in€the€offender,€and€that€angerð!ðtransferred€onto€the€victimð!ðtriggers€this€violent€behavior.€Ð ˜è  ÐMoreover,€he€stated€that€it€was€common€in€disorganized€scenes€to€find€evidence€of€post„mortemÐ „Ô  Ðsexual€activity,€including€insertion€of€a€foreign€object.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€contrast€to€his€description€of€a€disorganized€crime€scene,€Mr.€McCrary€testified€to€theÐ H˜ Ðcharacteristics€of€a€typical€contract€murder€crime€scene.€€Usually,€the€offender€spends€very€little€timeÐ 4„ Ðat€the€crime€scene.€€A€firearm€is€normally€the€weapon€of€choice,€and€the€ð ðkills€are€quick€[and€theÐ  p Ðoffender€is]€out€of€there...right€after€the€murders€are€committed.ðð€€However,€Ôg Ôhe€testified€that€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔtheÐ  \ Ðperpetrator€in€this€case€spent€a€fair€amount€of€time€at€the€crime€scene€€ð ðtrashingðð€the€place€to€makeÐ øH Ðit€look€like€a€burglary€or€a€ð ðfor€profitðð€motive.׃†f×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€McCrary€also€testified€to€the€possibility€thatÐ ä4 Ðmore€than€one€perpetrator€committed€these€murders€based€on€the€use€of€different€murder€weaponsÐ Ð  Ðand€the€lack€of€blood€transference€on€several€items€throughout€the€trailer.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€McCrary€testified€that€the€FBI€had€conducted€a€study€to€determineÐ ”ä Ðthe€accuracy€rate€of€Ôg Ôits€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôcrime€scene€analysis.€€The€results€of€that€study€yielded€a€seventy„five€toÐ €Ð Ðeighty€percent€accuracy€rate.€€He€presented€as€further€evidence€of€the€reliability€of€crime€sceneÐ l¼ Ðanalysis€the€FBIððs€increased€number€of€trained€agents€in€this€field€from€seven€to€forty.€€Although€Mr.Ð X ¨ ÐMcCrary€acknowledged€that€crime€scene€analysis€ð ðis€not€hard€science€where€you€can€do€controlledÐ D!” Ðâ âexperiments€and€come€up€with€ratios€in€all€this,ðð€he€Ôg ÔsaidÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€ð ðthe€proof€[that]€there€is€validation€andÐ 0"€  Ðreliability€in€the€process€is€that€itððs€being€accepted.€€Itððs€being€used€and€the€demand€is€justÐ ° Ðoutstripping€our€resources€to€provide€it.ððÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€jury„out€offer€of€proof,€the€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€McCrary€hadÐ tÄ Ðdemonstrated€expertise€in€his€ability€to€analyze€the€evidence€found€at€the€crime€scene,€and€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔthereforeÐ `° ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôhe€was€permittedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€testify€to€the€staging€of€the€crime€scene,€to€any€omissions€in€the€policeÐ L œ Ðinvestigation,€and€to€the€possibility€that€the€homicides€were€committed€by€more€than€one€offender.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHowever,€the€court€refused€to€admit€any€testimony€indicating€an€interpretation€of€criminal€behavior,Ð $ t Ðincluding€Mr.€McCraryððs€description€of€the€characteristics€of€a€typical€contract€murder€crime€sceneÐ  ` Ðand€his€opinion€regarding€what€motivated€the€killer€in€this€case.€€Although€the€court€deemed€suchÐ ü L  Ðevidence€to€be€ð ðspecialized€knowledgeðð€and€a€ð ðtremendous€asset€as€an€investigation€tool€in€lawÐ è 8  Ðenforcement,ðð€the€court€determined€that€such€evidence€did€not€comply€with€Rule€702€ð ðin€terms€ofÐ Ô$  Ðsubstantially€assisting€the€[trier]€of€fact€because€there€is€no€trustworthiness€or€reliability.ðð€€In€its€orderÐ À  Ðdenying€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€was€not€ð ðconvinced€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthis€type€of€analysis€has€been€subject€to€adequate€objective€testing,€or€that€it€is€based€uponÐ ˜è  Ðlongstanding,€reliable,€scientific€principles.ðð€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision€and€held€that€the€factorsÐ \¬ Ðset€forth€in€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€264„65€(Tenn.€1997),€areÐ H˜ Ðapplicable€not€only€to€scientific€evidence,€but€also€to€ð ðtechnicalðð€or€ð ðspecializedðð€knowledge€as€well.€Ð 4„ ÐCiting€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòKumho€Tire€Co.€v.€Carmichaelóó,€526€U.S.€137,Ð  p Ð150€(1999)€(holding€that€trial€courts€may€consider€the€òòDaubertóó€factors€to€determine€the€reliability€ofÐ  \ Ðnonscientific€expert€testimony),€the€intermediate€court€concluded€that€despite€the€nonscientificÐ øH Ðevidence€at€issue,€the€trial€court€did€not€apply€an€incorrect€legal€standard€by€looking€to€òòMcDanielóó€toÐ ä4 Ðdetermine€the€reliability€of€this€expert€testimony.€€The€issues€now€before€us€are€whether€nonscientificÐ Ð  Ðexpert€testimony€must€not€only€meet€the€fundamental€requirement€of€relevance,€but€also€theÐ ¼  Ðrequirement€of€reliability,€and,€if€so,€whether€or€how€òòMcDanielóó€applies€when€making€an€assessmentÐ ¨ø Ðof€reliability.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àQuestions€regarding€the€qualifications,€admissibility,€relevancy,€and€competency€of€expertÐ l¼ Ðtestimony€are€matters€left€within€the€broad€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ðat€263„64;€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€appellate€review,€the€trial€courtððsÐ D!” Ðruling€shall€not€be€overturned€absent€a€finding€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admittingÐ 0"€  Ðor€excluding€the€expert€testimony.€€òòBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€562.€€ð ð[A]n€appellate€court€should€findÐ #l! Ðan€abuse€of€discretion€when€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€applied€an€incorrect€legal€standard,€orÐ $X" Ðreached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€an€injustice€to€the€partyÐ ô$D # Ðcomplaining.ðð€€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.2d€662,€669€(Tenn.€1997).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà@Õ Õ ìàòòReliability€Determination€of€Nonscientific€EvidenceóóˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔòòDaubert€v.€Merrell€Dow€Pharmaceuticals,€Inc.óó,€509€U.S.€579€(1993),€Ôg Ôthe€United€StatesÐ )à$( ÐSupreme€court€heldÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€Federal€Rule€of€Evidence€702€imposes€a€ð ðgatekeepingðð€obligation€on€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðtrial€court€to€ð ðensure€that€any€and€all€scientific€testimony€.€.€.€is€not€only€relevant,€but€reliable.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ h+¸&* Ðat€589.€€Several€years€later€in€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€1997),Ð ° Ðthis€Court€addressed€the€admissibility€of€scientific€evidence€under€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702Ð œì Ðand€703׃‡×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and,€citing€òòDaubertóó,€similarly€held€that€evidence€and€expert€testimony€regarding€scientificÐ ˆØ Ðtheory€must€be€both€relevant€and€reliable€before€it€could€be€admitted.€€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.€Ð tÄ ÐWe€also€listed€several€nonexclusive€factors€that€courts€could€consider€in€determining€the€reliabilityÐ `° Ðof€scientific€expert€testimony,€including€(1)€whether€the€scientific€evidence€has€been€tested€and€theÐ L œ Ðmethodology€with€which€it€has€been€tested;€(2)€whether€the€evidence€has€been€subjected€to€peerÐ 8 ˆ Ðreview€or€publication;€(3)€whether€a€potential€rate€of€error€is€known;€(4)€whether€the€evidence€isÐ $ t Ðgenerally€accepted€in€the€scientific€community;€and€(5)€whether€the€expertððs€research€in€the€field€hasÐ  ` Ðbeen€conducted€independent€of€litigation.€€òòId.óó€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€testimony€at€issue€in€this€case,€however,€is€not€based€on€scientific€theory€andÐ Ô$  Ðmethodology,€but€rather,€is€based€on€nonscientific€ð ðspecialized€knowledge,ðð€that€is,€the€expertððsÐ À  Ðexperience.€€òòSeeóó€òòSimmons€v.€Stateóó,€797€So.€2d€1134,€1151€(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(ð ðCrime„sceneÐ ¬ü  Ðanalysis,€which€involves€the€gathering€and€analysis€of€physical€evidence,€is€generally€recognized€asÐ ˜è  Ða€body€of€specialized€knowledge.ðð);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Meeksóó,€35€M.J.€64,€68€(C.A.A.F.Ð „Ô  Ð1992).€€The€trial€court€correctly€reasoned€that€such€nonscientific€testimony€must€still€meet€theÐ pÀ Ðfundamental€requirements€of€relevance€and€reliability.€€Indeed,€nothing€in€the€language€of€Rules€702Ð \¬ Ðand€703€suggests€that€scientific€testimony€should€be€treated€any€differently€than€expert€opinionsÐ H˜ Ðbased€on€technical€or€nonscientific€specialized€knowledge.€€ð ðIf€the€mention€of€scientific€knowledgeÐ 4„ Ðsuffices€to€mandate€reliability€standards€for€scientific€testimony,€a€fortiori€the€mention€ofÐ  p Ðnonscientific€expert€knowledge€should€compel€the€courts€to€seek€to€formulate€reliability€standardsÐ  \ Ðfor€that€type€of€expert€evidence€as€well.ðð€€Edward€J.€Imwinkelreid,€òòThe€Next€Step€After€òòDaubertóó:€Ð øH ÐDeveloping€a€Similarly€Epistemological€Approach€to€Ensuring€the€Reliability€of€NonscientificÐ ä4 ÐExpert€Testimonyóó,€15€Cardozo€L.€Rev.€2271,€2281€(1994).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€McCraryððs€testimony€failed€to€pass€the€òòMcDanielóóÐ ¨ø Ðtest€of€scientific€reliability.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔTÔf  ÔÔg Ôhe€defendantÔf  ÔÔg Ô€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€applying€òòMcDanielóó€Ôg ÔinÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ ”ä Ðthis€Ôg ÔcaseÔf  ÔÔg Ô€because€òòMcDanielóó€applies€only€to€òòscientificóó€testimony.€€Mr.€McCraryððs€testimony,€on€theÐ €Ð Ðother€hand,€was€based€on€his€extensive€experience€as€a€former€agent€with€the€FBI,€his€training€inÐ l¼ Ðcrime€scene€analysis,€and€his€personal€investigation€of€over€a€thousand€violent€crimes.€Ð X ¨ Ðâ âConsequently,€the€defendant€argues,€such€testimony,€which€would€have€substantially€assisted€theÐ D!” Ðtrier€of€fact€to€understand€what€motivated€Milliken€to€commit€these€crimes,€should€have€beenÐ ° Ðadmitted€under€Rule€702€simply€by€virtue€of€the€witnessððs€experience,€training,€and€education.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€not€all€disciplines€are€amenable€to€empiricalÐ tÄ Ðverification€but€may€nevertheless€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact.€€Consequently,€we€are€reluctantÐ `° Ðto€measure€the€reliability€of€expert€testimony€that€is€not€based€on€scientific€methodology€under€aÐ L œ Ðrigid€application€of€the€òòMcDanielóó€factors.€€However,€we€are€equally€reluctant€to€admit€nonscientificÐ 8 ˆ Ðexpert€testimony€based€on€an€unchallenged€acceptance€of€the€expertððs€qualifications€and€anÐ $ t Ðunquestioned€reliance€on€the€accuracy€of€the€data€supporting€the€expertððs€conclusions.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àIn€resolving€the€evidentiary€issue€before€us,Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€recentÐ è 8  Ðdecision€in€òòKumho€Tire€Co.€v.€Carmichaelóó,€526€U.S.€137,€147€(1999)Ôf  Ô,€provides€useful€guidanceÔf  ÔÔg Ô.Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôò òÔg Ô€€Ôf  Ôó óÔg ÔInÐ Ô$  Ðthat€case,€the€Supreme€Court€was€asked€to€determine€whether€a€trial€court€ð ðmayðð€consider€òòDaubertóóððsÐ Ä  Ðfactors€when€determining€the€admissibility€of€an€engineering€expertððs€testimonyÔf  Ô€based€on€specializedÐ °  ÐknowledgeÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€The€Court€first€held€that€òòDaubertóóððs€ð ðgatekeeping€obligation,ðð€requiring€an€inquiry€intoÐ œì  Ðboth€the€relevance€and€the€reliability€of€the€evidence,€applies€not€only€to€expert€testimonyÐ ˆØ  Ðcharacterized€as€scientific,€but€to€all€expert€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòKumho€Tire€Co.óó,€526€U.S.€at€147.€Ð tÄ ÐMoreover,€the€Court€concluded€that€when€assessing€the€reliability€of€nonscientific€expert€testimony,Ð `° Ðthe€trial€court€may€consider€the€òòDaubertóó€factors€ð ðwhere€they€are€reasonable€measures€of€the€reliabilityÐ Lœ Ðof€expert€testimony.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€152.€€However,€the€Court€cautioned€that€the€Ð 8ˆ ÐÌà8  àð ðfactors€identified€in€òòDaubertóó€may€or€may€not€be€pertinent€in€assessing€reliability,Ð ` Ðdepending€on€the€nature€of€the€issue,€the€expertððs€particular€expertise,€and€the€subjectÐ üL Ðof€his€testimony.ðð€€The€conclusion,€in€our€view,€is€that€we€can€neither€rule€out,€norÐ è8 Ðrule€in,€for€all€cases€and€for€all€time€the€applicability€of€the€factors€mentioned€inÐ Ô$ ÐòòDaubertóó,€nor€can€we€now€do€so€for€subsets€of€cases€categorized€by€category€of€expertÐ À Ðor€by€kind€of€evidence.€€Too€much€depends€upon€the€particular€circumstances€of€theÐ ¬ü Ðparticular€case€at€issue.ИèÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€150€(citations€omitted).€€The€Court€concluded€that€the€trial€court€maintains€ð ðconsiderableÐ pÀ Ðleewayðð€in€deciding€whether€to€consider€the€specific€factors€in€òòDaubertóó€ð ðas€reasonable€measures€ofÐ \ ¬ Ðthe€reliability€of€expert€testimony.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€152.Ð H!˜ ÐÌà  àWe€find€this€analysis€reasonable,€and€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔconsequentlyÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€we€reject€the€defendantððs€argument€thatÐ  #p! ÐòòMcDanielóó€applies€only€to€scientific€testimony.€€Distinguishing€scientific€evidence€from€other€areasÐ  $\" Ðof€expert€testimony€is€too€difficult€a€determination€in€many€instances.€€Consequently,€to€restrictÐ ø$H # ÐòòMcDanielóó€to€scientific€evidence€would€be€to€impose€upon€the€trial€court€the€undue€burden€ofÐ ä%4!$ Ðclassifying€the€legions€of€expert€witnesses€as€scientific€or€nonscientific.€€We€do€not€believe€that€RuleÐ Ð& "% Ð702€ð ðcreates€a€schematism€that€segregates€expertise€by€type€while€mapping€certain€kinds€of€questionsÐ ¼' #& Ðto€certain€kinds€of€experts.ðð€€òòKumho€Tire€Co.óó,€526€U.S.€at€151.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€theÐ ¨(ø#' ÐòòMcDanielóó€factors€òòmayóó€apply,€subject€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€ð ðas€reasonable€measures€ofÐ ”)ä$( Ðthe€reliabilityðð€of€all€expert€testimony€described€in€Rule€702.Ð €*Ð%) ÐÐ l+¼&* Ðà  àÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔIn€properly€exercising€its€discretion,€the€trial€court€must€first€makeÔf  ÔÔg Ô€a€determination€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôthat€theÐ ° ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôwitness€is€qualified€byÔf  ÔÔg Ô€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€educationÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô€to€express€an€opinionÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ œì Ðwithin€the€limits€of€the€expertððs€expertise.Ôf  Ô€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€€The€determinative€factor€is€whetherÐ ˆØ Ðthe€witnessððs€qualifications€authorize€him€or€her€to€give€an€informed€opinion€òòon€the€subject€at€issueóó.€Ð tÄ ÐòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Starzecpyzelóó,€880€F.€Supp.€1027,€1043€(S.D.N.Y.€1995)€(presenting€as€anÐ `° Ðexample€of€unreliable€and€inadmissible€evidence€the€testimony€of€a€weekend€recreational€sailorÐ L œ Ðprofessing€expertise€as€a€harbor€pilot);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWilson€v.€Woodsóó,€163€F.3d€935,€937„38€(5th€Cir.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1999)€(finding€an€expert€in€fire€reconstruction€unqualified€as€an€expert€in€auto€accidentÐ $ t Ðreconstruction).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àÔg ÔTÔf  ÔÔg Ôhe€trial€court€must€Ôf  Ônext€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôensure€that€the€basis€for€the€witnessððs€opinion,€òòi.e.óó,€testing,€research,Ð è 8  Ðstudies,€or€experience„based€observations,€adequately€supports€that€expertððs€conclusions.€€ForÐ Ô$  Ðexample,€in€òòGeneral€Electric€Co.€v.€Joineróó,€522€U.S.€136€(1997),€Joiner,€an€electrician€diagnosedÐ À  Ðwith€small„cell€lung€cancer,€introduced€expert€testimony€to€demonstrate€that€his€workplace€exposureÐ ¬ü  Ðto€certain€chemicals€and€other€toxins€contributed€to€his€disease.€€The€experts,€in€giving€theirÐ ˜è  Ðopinions,€cited€to€several€studies€that€were€either€so€dissimilar€to€the€facts€of€the€case€or€failed€toÐ „Ô  Ðmake€the€requisite€link€between€cancer€and€chemical€exposure.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€theÐ pÀ Ðstudies€relied€on€were€an€insufficient€basis€for€the€expert€opinions€and,€therefore,€the€testimony€wasÐ \¬ Ðinadmissible.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔIn€so€holding,€the€Court€said,Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  à[N]othingÔf  ÔÔg Ô€in€either€òòDaubertóó€or€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence€requires€a€district€courtÐ  p Ðto€admit€opinion€evidence€which€is€connected€to€existing€data€only€by€the€òòipse€dixitóóÐ  \ Ðof€the€expert.€€A€court€may€conclude€that€there€is€simply€too€great€an€analytical€gapÐ øH Ðbetween€the€data€and€the€opinion€proffered.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔatÔf  Ô€Ôf  ÔÔg Ô146.Ôf  ÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àThis€ð ðconnectionðð€between€the€expertððs€conclusion€and€the€underlying€data€supporting€thatÐ ”ä Ðconclusion€is€of€especial€importance€when€determining€the€reliability€of€experience„based€testimony,Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÐ €Ð ÐbecauseÔf  ÔÔg Ô€observations€and€experiences€are€not€easily€verifiable€by€the€court.€€However,€the€court€mayÐ l¼ ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ômake€a€findingÔf  ÔÔg Ô€of€reliability€if€the€expertððs€conclusions€are€sufficiently€straightforward€and€supportedÐ X ¨ Ðby€a€ð ðrational€explanation€which€reasonable€[persons]€could€accept€as€more€correct€than€not€correct.ðð€Ð D!” ÐòòWood€v.€Stihlóó,€705€F.2d€1101,€1107„08€(9th€Cir.€1983).׃ˆ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р0"€  Їà  àÔf  ÔÔg ÔConsequently,€when€the€expertððs€reliability€is€challengedÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€the€court€may€consider€theÐ ° Ðfollowing€nondefinitive€factors:€€(1)€the€òòMcDanielóó€factors,€when€they€are€reasonable€measures€of€theÐ œì Ðreliability€of€expert€testimony;€(2)€the€expertððs€qualifications€for€testifying€on€the€subject€at€issue;Ð ˆØ Ðand€(3)€the€straightforward€connection€between€the€expertððs€knowledge€and€the€basis€for€the€opinionÐ tÄ Ðsuch€that€no€ð ðanalytical€gapðð€exists€between€the€data€and€the€opinion€offered.€€Subject€to€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourtððs€discretion,€once€the€evidence€is€admitted,€ð ðit€will€thereafter€be€tested€with€the€crucible€ofÐ L œ Ðvigorous€cross„examination€and€countervailing€proof.ðð€€òòMcDanielóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@Ý Ý ìàòòInadmissibility€of€Behavioral€Crime€Scene€AnalysisóóˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àTurning€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôtrial€court€erred€in€refusing€toÐ è 8  Ðadmit€Mr.€McCraryððs€expert€opinion€regarding€the€behavior€of€the€perpetrator€of€these€crimes.€€ThisÐ Ô$  Ðtype€of€crime€sceneÔf  ÔÔg Ô€analysis,€developed€by€the€FBI€as€a€means€of€criminal€investigation,€relies€onÐ À  Ðthe€expertððs€subjective€judgment€to€draw€conclusions€as€to€the€òòtype€of€individualóó€who€committed€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðcrime€based€on€the€physical€evidence€found€at€the€crime€scene.€€Although€we€do€not€doubt€theÐ ˜è  Ðusefulness€of€behavioral€analysis€to€assist€law€enforcement€officials€in€their€criminal€investigations,Ð „Ô  Ðwe€cannot€allow€an€individualððs€guilt€or€innocence€to€be€determined€by€such€ð ðopinion€evidenceÐ pÀ Ðconnected€to€existing€data€only€by€the€òòipse€dixitóóðð€of€the€expert.׃‰°×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Essentially,€the€jury€is€encouragedÐ \¬ Ðto€conclude€that€because€this€crime€scene€has€been€identified€by€an€expert€to€exhibit€certain€patternsÐ H˜ Ðor€telltale€clues€consistent€with€Ôf  Ôprevious€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôsexual€homicides€triggered€by€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôð ðprecipitating€stressorÔg ÔsÔf  ÔÔg Ô,ðð€thenÐ 4„ Ðit€is€more€than€likely€that€this€crime€was€similarly€motivated.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,Ð  p Ð561€(Tenn.€1993)€(rejecting€as€unreliable€expert€testimony€concerning€personality€profiles€ofÐ  \ Ðsexually€abused€children).€€Indeed,€Mr.€McCrary€himself€acknowledged€that€his€analysis€involvesÐ øH Ðsome€degree€of€speculation,€and€he€further€negated€the€sufficiency€of€his€own€analysis€when€heÐ ° Ðconceded€that€each€case€is€ð ðuniqueðð€and€that€criminals€are€often€driven€by€any€number€of€motives.€Ð œì ÐÌÔf  ÔÔg Ôà  àMoreover,€we€find€that€the€FBIððs€study€revealing€a€seventy„five€to€eighty€percent€accuracyÐ tÄ Ðrate€for€crime€scene€analysis€lacks€sufficient€trustworthiness€to€constitute€evidence€of€thisÐ `° Ðtechniqueððs€reliability.€Although€the€frequency€with€which€a€technique€leads€to€accurate€or€erroneousÐ L œ Ðresults€is€certainly€one€important€factor€to€determine€reliability,€equally€important€is€the€method€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðdetermining€that€rate€of€accuracy€or€error.€€In€this€case,€there€is€no€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôtestimony€regarding€how€theÔf  ÔÔg Ô€FBIÐ $ t Ðdetermined€the€accuracy€rate€of€this€analysis.Ôf  Ô€€For€example,€was€accuracy€determined€by€confessionsÐ  ` Ðor€convictions,€or€both?€€Even€then,€the€absence€of€a€confession€does€not€indicate€the€offenderððsÐ ü L  Ðinnocence€and€thus€an€inaccuracy€in€the€technique.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€€Clearly,€the€accuracy€rate€alone,€without€anyÐ è 8  Ðexplanation€of€the€methodologies€used€in€the€study,€is€insufficient€to€serve€as€the€foundation€for€theÐ Ô$  Ðadmission€of€this€testimony.Ð À  ÐÌà  àTherefore,€because€the€behavioral€analysis€portion€of€Mr.€McCraryððs€testimony€does€not€bearÐ ˜è  Ðsufficient€indicia€of€reliability€to€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact,€we€conclude€that€this€testimonyÐ „Ô  Ðwas€properly€excluded.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@ááìàò òII.€€EVIDENCE€OF€PRIOR€BAD€ACTS€OF€A€NON„PARTY€WITNESSó óˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€improperlyÐ  p Ðexcluded€the€testimony€of€Barry€Morris,€Millikenððs€former€foster€parent.€€The€defense€sought€toÐ  \ Ðintroduce€this€testimony€to€corroborate€the€defendantððs€theory€that€Milliken€committed€the€murdersÐ øH Ðas€a€violent€reaction€to€an€argument€that€Milliken€had€with€his€mother€and€step„father€the€nightÐ ä4 Ðbefore€the€crimes.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€Morris€testified€in€a€jury„out€offer€of€proof€that€Ôg Ôin€1996€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôhe€Ôg Ôhad€beenÔf  ÔÔg Ô€Millikenððs€fosterÐ ¨ø ÐparentÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€On€several€occasions€during€the€course€of€that€year,€Milliken€would€argue€with€his€motherÐ ”ä Ðover€the€telephone€and€then€vent€his€frustration€by€throwing€things€and€damaging€furniture.€Ð €Ð ÐAlthough€Milliken€never€physically€assaulted€anyone,€Mr.€Morris€stated€that€Milliken€had€warnedÐ l¼ Ðhim€once€or€twice€to€be€careful€when€he€went€to€sleep.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€rejected€the€proposed€testimony,€finding€such€testimony€inadmissible€underÐ 0"€  ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b)Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô€because€it€showed€Millikenððs€propensity€for€violenceÔf  ÔÔg Ô€afterÐ #l! Ðarguments€with€his€parentsÔg Ô.׃Š×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔThe€intermediate€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€decision,Ôf  Ô€holding€thatÐ $X" Ðsuch€evidence€was€propensity€evidence€prohibited€by€Rule€404(b)€and€furtherÔf  ÔÔg Ô€concluding€that€anyÐ ° Ðconnection€between€Millikenððs€violent€behavior€in€1995„1996€and€the€murders€in€1997€ð ðis€simplyÐ œì Ðtoo€tenuousðð€and€therefore,€irrelevant€to€Millikenððs€motive€for€murdering€Mrs.€Stevens€and€Ms.Ð ˆØ ÐWilson.€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€established€that€in€a€criminal€trial,€evidence€of€a€òòdefendantððsóó€prior€misconduct€isÐ L œ Ðinadmissible€to€establish€the€accusedððs€bad€character€or€criminal€propensity.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mallardóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð40€S.W.3d€473,€480€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Partonóó,€694€S.W.2d€299,€302€(Tenn.€1985);€òòMays€v.Ð $ t ÐStateóó,€145€Tenn.€118,€140„41,€238€S.W.€1096,€1102€(1921);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€TheÐ  ` Ðfrequently€enunciated€rationale€for€this€rule€is€that€evidence€of€other€crimes€ð ðmay€tend€to€confuseÐ ü L  Ðthe€jurors,€predispose€them€to€a€belief€in€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€prejudice€their€minds€against€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant.ðð€€òòSessoms€v.€Stateóó,€744€A.2d€9,€15€(Md.€2000)€(citations€omitted).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àHowever,€in€this€case,€the€evidence€at€issue€involves€previous€ð ðcrimes,€wrongs,€or€bad€actsððÐ ¬ü  Ðcommitted€by€one€other€than€the€defendant.€€Such€evidence€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôclearly€wasÔf  ÔÔg Ô€not€being€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔofferedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€showÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€defendant€haÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔdÔf  ÔÔg Ô€a€criminal€disposition€and€that€he€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔcouldÔf  ÔÔg Ô€be€expected€to€act€in€conformityÐ „Ô  Ðtherewith,€but€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔwasÔf  ÔÔg Ô€insteadÔf  ÔÔg Ô€offered€by€the€defendant€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôto€show€that€Milliken€committed€the€murdersÐ pÀ Ðout€of€anger,€and€not€because€he€had€been€hired€to€do€so€by€the€defendant.€€Because€there€is€noÔf  ÔÔg Ô€riskÐ \¬ Ðof€prejudice€to€the€defendantÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô,€Rule€404(b)€is€inapplicable€in€this€situation.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔIndeed,€this€CourtÐ H˜ ÐrecentlyÔf  ÔÔg Ô€held€in€òòState€v.€DuBoseóó,€ð ðEvidence€of€crimes,€wrongs€or€acts,€if€relevant,€[is]€not€excludedÐ 4„ Ðby€Rule€404(b)€if€[the€acts]€were€committed€by€a€person€other€than€the€accused.ðð€€953€S.W.2d€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô649,Ð  p Ð653€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àNevertheless,€while€the€court€erred€in€excluding€this€testimony,€we€look€at€the€effect€of€thatÐ ä4 Ðerror€on€the€trial€by€evaluating€that€error€in€light€of€all€of€the€other€proof€introduced€at€trial.€€òòStateÐ Ð  Ðv.€Gillilandóó,€22€S.W.3d€266,€274€(Tenn.€2000).€€ð ðThe€more€the€proof€exceeds€that€which€is€necessaryÐ ¼  Ðto€support€a€finding€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€less€likely€it€becomes€that€an€errorÐ ¨ø Ðaffirmatively€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial€on€its€merits.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€record€in€this€case€contains€substantial,€indeed€overwhelming,€evidence€of€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendantððs€guilt.€€According€to€the€Stateððs€theory,€the€defendant€hired€his€eighteen€year„oldÐ X ¨ Ðneighbor,€Corey€Milliken,€to€murder€his€wife€and€mother„in„law.€€The€evidence€clearly€showed€thatÐ D!” Ðthe€defendant€was€having€marital€problems€but€refused€to€go€through€another€divorce.€€He€had€alsoÐ 0"€  Ðbeen€taking€substantial€sums€of€money€from€his€mother„in„law,€and€he€believed€that€he€would€inheritÐ #l! Ða€portion€of€the€proceeds€from€her€life€insurance€policy.€€Several€witnesses€testified€about€theÐ $X" Ðdefendantððs€extensive€planning€for€the€commission€of€the€murders.€€Shawn€Austin,€MillikenððsÐ ô$D # Ðbrother,€who€had€also€been€asked€to€assist€in€the€murders€but€refused,€testified€that€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðtook€Milliken€on€a€tour€of€the€trailer€to€show€him€what€to€do€to€make€the€crimes€look€like€they€wereÐ Ì&"% Ðcommitted€in€furtherance€of€a€burglary.€€The€defendant€instructed€Milliken€to€shoot€the€victims,€butÐ ° Ðif€he€could€not€acquire€a€gun,€he€was€to€use€a€knife€from€the€defendantððs€trailer.€€Chris€Holman,€oneÐ œì Ðof€Millikenððs€friends€testified€that€Milliken€asked€him€if€he€could€find€a€gun€with€a€silencer;€whenÐ ˆØ Ðhe€refused€to€do€so,€Milliken€explained€his€purpose€for€the€request€and€offered€to€ð ðsplit€evenðð€theÐ tÄ Ðmoney€if€he€helped€murder€the€victims.€€Millikenððs€girlfriend€also€testified€that€the€defendant€offeredÐ `° Ðto€pay€Milliken€five€thousand€dollars,€and€she€stated€that€she€was€supposed€to€provide€MillikenððsÐ L œ Ðalibi€once€the€murders€were€completed.€€Finally,€Lane€Locke,€the€defendantððs€former€cellmate,Ð 8 ˆ Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€frequently€discussed€his€case€with€him,€and€he€quoted€the€defendant€asÐ $ t Ðsaying,€ð ðI€canððt€believe€those€idiots€thought€I€was€going€to€pay€them.ðð€€The€defendant€presented€noÐ  ` Ðevidence€refuting€these€allegations.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€have€long€recognized€that€ð ðððthe€line€between€harmless€and€prejudicial€error€is€in€directÐ Ô$  Ðproportion€to€the€degree€.€.€.€by€which€proof€exceeds€the€standard€required€to€convict....ðððð€€òòSpicerÐ À  Ðv.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€438,€447„48€(Tenn.€2000)€(citation€omitted).€€After€considering€theÐ ¬ü  Ðoverwhelming€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€participation€in€these€murders,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðexclusion€of€Barry€Morrisððs€testimony€regarding€Millikenððs€tendency€to€become€violent€after€arguingÐ „Ô  Ðwith€his€mother€did€not€affirmatively€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial€on€its€merits.€€Accordingly,€theÐ pÀ Ðerror€is€harmless.Ð \¬ ÐÌà@ˆ ˆ ìàò òIII.€€APPLICATION€OF€EVIDENTIARY€RULESó óˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€applied€hearsay€and€other€evidentiary€rules€inÐ  \ Ðan€unfair€and€biased€manner,€which€thereby€denied€the€defendant€his€due€process€right€to€present€aÐ øH Ðcomplete€defense€at€trial.׃Œ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôpoints€toÔf  ÔÔg Ô€six€specific€instances€of€alleged€judicial€misconduct.€€WeÐ ä4 Ðshall€consider€each€incident€separatelyÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€Ôf  ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌà@  ìàòòTestimony€of€Doris€TrottóóˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€first€Ôg ÔperceivedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€trial€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔcourtÔf  ÔÔg Ô€bias€in€favor€of€the€State€involves€the€testimonyÐ €Ð Ðof€the€Stateððs€witness€Doris€Trott,€Ms.€Wilsonððs€hairdresser.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€State€wasÐ l¼ Ðâ âallowed€to€elicit€ð ðstate€of€mindðð€hearsay€testimony,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(3),€over€the€defendantððsÐ X ¨ Ðobjection,€but€when€the€defendant€sought€to€elicit€similar€testimony€on€cross„examination,€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€unfairly€sustained€the€Stateððs€hearsay€objection.Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àTheÔf  ÔÔg Ô€defendant€sought€to€elicit€testimonyÔg Ô€from€this€witnessÔf  ÔÔg Ô€regarding€whether€Ms.€Wilson€hadÐ tÄ Ðever€expressed€concern€about€Corey€Milliken€making€sexual€comments€and€gestures€in€the€presenceÐ `° Ðof€Ms.€Wilson€and€her€daughter,€Mrs.€Stevens.€€The€State€raised€a€hearsay€objection.€€During€a€benchÐ L œ Ðconference,€the€defendant€argued€that€such€testimony€should€be€allowed€to€show€Millikenððs€intentÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€commit€rape.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€with€the€defendantððs€argument€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€improper€or€one„Ð ü L  Ðsided.€€After€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€gave€defense€counsel€numerousÐ è 8  Ðopportunities€during€his€offer€of€proof€to€demonstrate€the€admissibility€of€the€excluded€evidence.€Ð Ô$  ÐFor€instance,€when€counsel€argued€that€Ms.€Wilsonððs€statement€went€ð ðto€the€theory€of€theÐ À  Ðcrime...Millikenððs€intent€to€rape€these€two€women,ðð€the€trial€court€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔsaidÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€ð ð[T]he€hearsay€exceptionÐ ¬ü  Ðis€the€declarantððs€intent,€or€motive,€[Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(3)],€not€Corey€Millikenððs.€€Iððm€trying€toÐ ˜è  Ðfollow€your€reasoning€for€it€coming€in.ðð€€Defense€counsel€concluded€the€conference€by€insisting€thatÐ „Ô  Ðð ðitððs€a€hearsay€exception€cause€it€shows€the€intent€of€Corey€Milliken€when€he€went€in€there€.€.€.wasÐ pÀ Ðto€rape€these€women.ðð€€Clearly,€the€defendant€sought€to€introduce€this€evidence€not€to€prove€MyrtleÐ \¬ ÐWilsonððs€state€of€mind,€but€Corey€Millikenððs€state€of€mind.€€This€testimony€does€not€fit€within€aÐ H˜ Ðhearsay€exception€and€was€properly€excluded€at€trial.€€Consequently,€the€hearsay€objection€wasÐ 4„ Ðcorrectly€sustained.€Ð  p ÐÌà@WWìàòòExcluded€Testimony€Indicating€Millikenððs€Independent€Motive€for€MurderóóˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€trial€court€acted€unfairly€in€prohibiting€the€defendantÐ Ð  Ðfrom€eliciting€statements€on€cross„examination€that€tended€to€show€Millikenððs€independent€motiveÐ ¼  Ðfor€committing€murder.€€First,€the€defendant€suggests€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€allowÐ ¨ø Ðthe€cross„examination€of€Shawn€Austin€regarding€Ôf  ÔMillikenððs€alleged€sexual€comments€thatÐ ”ä Ðpurportedly€resulted€in€his€being€requested€to€leaveÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€defendantððs€trailerÔf  Ô.€€The€trial€court€sustainedÐ €Ð Ðthe€Stateððs€hearsay€objection€after€the€defendant€simply€argued€that€this€testimony€should€be€admittedÐ l¼ Ðto€show€Millikenððs€sexual€infatuation€with€Sandi€Stevens.€€We€can€discern€no€appropriate€hearsayÐ X ¨ Ðexception€supporting€the€admission€of€this€testimony.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€had€previously€beenÐ D!” Ðallowed€to€elicit€Austinððs€knowledge€of€his€brotherððs€sexual€infatuation€with€Mrs.€Stevens€over€theÐ 0"€  Ðâ âStateððs€objection.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Therefore,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€show€how€the€refusalÐ #l! Ðto€permit€Shawn€Austin€to€answer€this€question€constituted€unfair€prejudice,€and€therefore,€we€findÐ ° Ðthis€claim€to€be€without€merit.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àSecond,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperly€prohibited€Ms.€Suttle,€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€girlfriend,€from€testifying€that€Milliken€did€not€tell€her€whether€he€sexually€assaultedÐ `° Ðthe€victims€when€he€described€how€he€killed€them.€€However,€our€review€of€the€record€indicatesÐ L œ Ðotherwise.€€Indeed,€the€defendant€was€able€to€elicit,€without€objection,€Ms.€Suttleððs€testimony€thatÐ 8 ˆ ÐMilliken€had€neither€expressed€a€desire€to€rape€the€victims€in€this€case€nor€described€any€acts€ofÐ $ t Ðsexual€assault€after€the€murders€had€been€committed.€€The€State€objected€only€after€the€defendantÐ  ` Ðinsisted€that€Milliken€ð ðleft€[the€sexual€assaults]€out,€didnððt€he?ðð€€The€question€clearly€required€theÐ ü L  Ðwitness€to€assume€facts€not€in€evidence.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€òòBearden€v.€Memphis€Dinettes,€Inc.óó,€690€S.W.2d€862,€868€(Tenn.€1984),€this€Court€statedÐ À  Ðthat€ð ðhypothetical€questions€are€improper€and€of€no€value€when€they€assume€facts€not€supported€byÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€evidence€at€trial.ðð€€Here,€the€defendant€has€failed€to€point€out€any€evidence€from€the€record€thatÐ ˜è  Ðwould€support€the€assumption€that€Milliken€either€raped€the€victims€or€sexually€assaulted€them,€andÐ „Ô  Ðwe€have€found€none.€€Accordingly,€the€objection€was€correctly€sustained.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThird,€the€defendant€complains€that€Shawn€Austin€should€have€been€allowed€to€testify,€overÐ H˜ Ðthe€Stateððs€hearsay€objection,€that€Milliken€ð ðlied€to€make€himself€a€bigger€man.ðð€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔTÔf  ÔÔg Ôhere€is€noÐ 4„ Ðevidence€that€Austin€had€personal€knowledge€of€his€brotherððs€reasons€for€lying.€€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔA€review€of€theÐ  p Ðrecord€fails€to€revealÔf  ÔÔg Ô€whether€Austinððs€Ôg ÔÔf  Ôknowledge€on€the€subject,€if€any,€wasÔf  ÔÔg Ô€based€on€his€personalÐ  \ Ðknowledge€orÔf  Ô€speculation.€€Accordingly,€his€testimony€was€properly€excluded€under€Tennessee€RuleÐ øH Ðof€Evidence€602.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€was€improperly€precluded€from€questioning€DetectiveÐ ¼  ÐPostiglione€regarding€his€knowledge€of€whether€Sandi€Stevens€had€ð ðany€disputes,€or€argumentsððÐ ¨ø Ðwith€Milliken.€€The€State€objected€to€this€evidence€as€hearsay.€€The€defendant€presented€no€offer€ofÐ ”ä Ðproof€demonstrating€that€the€answer€to€this€question€would€lead€to€relevant€or€admissible€evidence.€Ôf  Ôò òÔg ÔÐ €Ð ÐÔf  Ôó óÔg ÔFurthermore,€throughout€the€trial,€overwhelming€evidence€was€presented€to€prove€Mrs.€StevensððsÐ l¼ Ðdislike€for€Corey€Milliken,€including€excerpts€from€her€own€diary,€and€this€evidence€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôwould€haveÐ X ¨ ÐbeenÔf  ÔÔg Ô€cumulative.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€Consequently,€the€defendant€has€not€demonstrated€how€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€courtððs€ruling€constituted€unfair€prejudice,€and€thus,€this€claim€is€without€merit.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà@Û Û ìàòòDetective€Grayððs€Reliance€on€Millikenððs€StatementsóóˆÐ $X" ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€the€defendant€questioned€the€officer€about€why€he€failed€to€pursueÐ à%0!$ Ðcertain€investigative€procedures.€€Detective€Gray€stated€that€he€conducted€his€investigation€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcrimes€based€on€Millikenððs€description€of€how€the€murders€were€committed.€€He€Ôg ÔtestifiedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€he€didÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€need€to€pursue€certain€investigative€procedures€because€Milliken€told€him€about€ð ðthings€in€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtrailer€only€the€person€that€did€it€could€know.ðð€€To€rebut€the€inference€of€Millikenððs€credibility€andÐ )à$( Ðtruthfulness,€defense€counsel€argues€before€this€Court€that€Stevens€should€have€been€allowed€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðintroduce€Millikenððs€inconsistent€confessions.€€During€his€investigation,€Detective€Gray€obtained€twoÐ h+¸&* Ðconfessions€from€Milliken€regarding€the€crimes.€€In€his€first€confession,€Milliken€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔstatedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€he€hadÐ ° Ðkilled€the€victims€because€he€was€angry€after€arguing€with€his€mother€and€step„father.€€Later,€he€Ôg ÔsaidÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ œì Ðthat€the€defendant€had€hired€him€to€kill€Ms.€Wilson€and€Mrs.€Stevens,€an€act€for€which€he€was€toÐ ˆØ Ðreceive€five€thousand€dollars.€Ô‡¼^¥»XXÙÔÐ tÄ ÐÌÔ#†XÙX»¼^¥Ô;#Ôà  àA€close€reading€of€the€record,€however,€fails€to€reflect€that€Stevens€actually€attempted€toÐ r  Ðintroduce€the€inconsistent€confessions.€€The€trial€court,€therefore,€was€never€given€the€opportunityÐ ^ ® Ðto€rule€on€their€admissibility.€€Although€we€have€elected€to€consider€issues€not€included€in€theÐ J š Ðdefendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€this€specific€complaint€of€an€unfair€and€biased€trial€courtÐ 6 † Ðevidentiary€ruling€is€clearly€not€properly€before€this€Court€because€it€was€never€raised€in€the€trialÐ " r  Ðcourt.€€Ð ^  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€WHETHER€THE€CUMULATIVE€EFFECT€OF€ALL€ERRORS€VIOLATES€THEÐ æ6  ÐDEFENDANT'S€CONSTITUTIONAL€RIGHT€TO€PRESENT€A€DEFENSEó óÐ Ò"  ÐÓ¦>ÓÌà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€errors€alleged€both€at€trial€and€atÐ ªú  Ðsentencing€violates€his€constitutional€rights.€€However,€all€errors€with€respect€to€the€defendantððs€priorÐ –æ Ðissues€have€been€deemed€harmless,€and,€after€careful€consideration,€we€hold€that,€separately€or€inÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€aggregate,€these€errors€did€not€prejudice€the€defendant.€€Consequently,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€Ð n¾ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCE€SUPPORTING€AGGRAVATINGÐ F– ÐAND€MITIGATING€CIRCUMSTANCESó óÐ 2‚ ÐÓYAÓÌà  àPursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„206(c)(1),€we€now€determine€whetherÐ  Z Ðthe€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€two€aggravating€circumstances€found€by€the€jury€andÐ öF Ðwhether€these€aggravating€circumstances€outweigh€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€aÐ â2 Ðreasonable€doubt.€€In€determining€whether€the€evidence€supports€the€application€of€the€aggravatingÐ Î Ðcircumstances,€the€proper€standard€to€consider€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€a€lightÐ º  Ðmost€favorable€to€the€State,€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€existence€of€the€aggravatingÐ ¦ö Ðcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€24€S.W.3d€307,€313€(Tenn.Ð ’â Ð2000).€Ð ~ Î ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€proof€supports€application€of€the€(i)(2)€aggravating€circumstance,€that€the€defendantÐ V"¦  Ðhad€previously€been€convicted€of€second€degree€murder,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2).€€DuringÐ B#’! Ðthe€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€Lieutenant€William€M.€Bowers€of€the€Montgomery€County€sheriffððsÐ .$~" Ðoffice€testified€that€in€1977,€he€worked€as€an€agent€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€andÐ %j # Ðwas€the€prosecuting€witness€and€investigator€in€the€trial€against€the€defendant.€€He€further€testifiedÐ &V!$ Ðthat€on€May€16,€1977,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder.€€A€copy€of€theÐ ò&B"% Ðjudgment€in€that€case€was€then€placed€into€evidence.€€As€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€formerÐ Þ'.#& Ðconviction€is€undisputed,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€existence€ofÐ Ê($' Ðthis€aggravating€circumstance€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ¶)%( Ðâ âÐ ¢*ò%) Ðà  àThe€jury€also€found€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âdefendant€hired€Corey€Milliken€to€murder€Sandi€Stevens€and€Myrtle€Wilson€for€the€promise€ofÐ œì Ðremuneration,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(4).€€The€evidence€in€this€case€is€that€the€defendantÐ ˆØ Ðwas€having€marital€problems,€but€did€not€want€to€endure€the€financial€hardship€of€another€divorce.€Ð tÄ ÐMillikenððs€girlfriend€and€brother€testified€that€the€defendant€promised€to€pay€Milliken€five€thousandÐ `° Ðdollars€to€kill€the€defendantððs€wife€and€mother„in„law.€€To€corroborate€the€proof€that€this€was€aÐ L œ Ðmurder€for€hire,€the€State€also€introduced€evidence€that€the€defendant€offered€to€pay€several€prisonÐ 8 ˆ Ðinmates€to€kill€Corey€Milliken,€and€did€arrange€to€have€money€sent€to€a€fellow€prison€inmate€for€thisÐ $ t Ðpurpose.€€Viewed€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€we€conclude€that€a€rational€trier€of€fact€couldÐ  ` Ðhave€concluded€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€was€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€statutoryÐ Ô$  Ðaggravating€circumstances€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€InÐ À  Ðmitigation€of€his€offense,€the€defendant€presented€evidence€of€his€good€relationship€with€his€youngÐ ¬ü  Ðson,€his€reputation€as€a€hard„working€individual,€his€concern€for€the€welfare€of€his€neighbors€andÐ ˜è  Ðfriends,€and€his€charity€on€behalf€of€those€less€fortunate€than€himself.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€suffered€from€a€mental€defect€or€suffered€abuse€as€a€child.€€Based€on€our€extensive€reviewÐ pÀ Ðof€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€the€aggravatingÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€outweighed€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@— — ìàò òVI.€€PROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€conduct€statutory€comparative€proportionality€review€as€a€final€safeguard€toÐ øH Ðdetermine€whether€the€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€for€first€degree€murder€is€ð ðdisproportionate€toÐ ä4 Ðthe€sentences€imposed€for€similar€crimes€and€similar€defendants.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,Ð Ð  Ð664€(Tenn.€1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D).€€Our€function€in€performing€thisÐ ¼  Ðreview€is€to€ensure€that€the€death€penalty€is€not€applied€arbitrarily€or€capriciously,€but€is€insteadÐ ¨ø Ðapplied€consistently€with€other€cases€in€which€capitally„sentenced€defendants€were€convicted€of€theÐ ”ä Ðsame€or€similar€crimes.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€664.€€In€conducting€this€analysis,€we€look€at€the€factsÐ €Ð Ðand€circumstances€of€the€crime,€the€characteristics€of€the€defendant,€and€the€aggravating€andÐ l¼ Ðmitigating€circumstances€involved,€and€we€compare€this€case€with€other€cases€in€which€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendants€were€convicted€of€the€same€or€similar€crimes.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Godseyóó,€60€S.W.3d€759,€782Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€Included€in€this€pool€of€similar€cases€are€only€those€first€degree€murder€cases€in€whichÐ 0"€  Ðð ðthe€State€seeks€the€death€penalty,€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€is€held,€and€the€sentencing€juryÐ #l! Ðdetermines€whether€the€sentence€should€be€life€imprisonment,€life€imprisonment€without€theÐ $X" Ðpossibility€of€parole,€or€death,€regardless€of€the€sentence€actually€imposed.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€783.€€Because€noÐ ô$D # Ðtwo€cases€involve€identical€circumstances,€our€objective€is€not€to€ð ðsearch€for€proof€that€a€defendantððsÐ à%0!$ Ðdeath€sentence€is€perfectly€symmetrical,€but€to€identify€and€to€invalidate€the€aberrant€death€sentence.ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòBlandóó,€€958€S.W.2d€at€665.€€If€the€case€is€ð ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€those€inÐ ¸'#& Ðcases€where€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed,ðð€the€sentence€of€death€is€disproportionate.€€òòId.óó€atÐ ¤(ô#' Ð665.€€Recently,€in€òòState€v.Ôf  Ôò òÔg Ô€Ôf  Ôó óÔg ÔGodseyóó,€this€Court€found€the€sentence€of€death€disproportionate€to€theÐ )à$( Ðpenalty€imposed€in€similar€cases€and€thus€modified€the€sentence€to€life€imprisonment€without€theÐ €*Ð%) Ðpossibility€of€parole.€€60€S.W.3d€at€793.Ð l+¼&* Їà  àIn€conducting€our€review,€we€look€to€numerous€factors€relevant€to€the€process€of€identifyingÐ ° Ðand€comparing€similar€cases,€which€include€the€following:€€(1)€€the€means€of€death;€(2)€the€mannerÐ œì Ðof€death€(òòe.g.óó,€violent€or€torturous);€(3)€the€motivation€for€the€killing;€(4)€the€place€of€death;€(5)€theÐ ˆØ Ðsimilarity€of€the€victimððs€circumstances€including€age,€race,€and€physical€and€mental€conditions;€andÐ tÄ Ðthe€victimððs€treatment€during€the€killing;€(6)€the€absence€or€presence€of€premeditation;€(7)€theÐ `° Ðabsence€or€presence€of€provocation;€(8)€the€absence€or€presence€of€justification;€and€(9)€the€injuryÐ L œ Ðto€and€effects€on€nondecedent€victims.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€667.€€Moreover,€we€have€identifiedÐ 8 ˆ Ðseveral€nonexclusive€factors€relevant€to€the€comparison€of€the€characteristics€of€defendants:€€(1)€theÐ $ t Ðdefendantððs€prior€criminal€record€or€prior€criminal€activity;€(2)€the€defendantððs€age,€race,€and€gender;Ð  ` Ð(3)€the€defendantððs€mental,€emotional,€or€physical€condition;€(4)€the€defendantððs€involvement€or€roleÐ ü L  Ðin€the€murder;€(5)€the€defendantððs€cooperation€with€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantððs€remorse€or€lackÐ è 8  Ðthereof;€(7)€the€defendantððs€knowledge€of€the€helplessness€of€the€victim(s);€and€(8)€the€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðcapacity€for€rehabilitation.€€òòId.óó€Ð À  ÐÌà  àApplying€these€factors,€we€note€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€Ôg ÔestablishesÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€seventy„fiveÐ ˜è  Ðyear„old€Myrtle€Wilson€was€stabbed€repeatedly€and€manually€strangled.€€Sandi€Stevens,€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendantððs€wife,€was€strangled€with€an€electric€cord.€€There€is€no€evidence€of€provocation;€indeed,Ð pÀ Ðthe€evidence€indicates€that€both€women€were€asleep€in€their€beds€at€the€time€Corey€MillikenÐ \¬ Ðmurdered€them.€€The€evidence€indicates€that€the€defendant€was€motivated,€at€least€in€part,€to€kill€hisÐ H˜ Ðwife€in€order€to€get€out€of€a€troubled€marriage€without€having€to€undergo€the€trouble€and€expenseÐ 4„ Ðof€a€divorce.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€defendant€believed€that€he€would€inherit€theÐ  p Ðproceeds€of€his€mother„in„lawððs€life€insurance€policy.€€For€several€weeks,€the€defendant€planned€howÐ  \ Ðthe€victims€would€be€killed,€how€to€dispose€of€the€evidence,€and€what€alibis€each€participant€wouldÐ øH Ðhave.€€For€instance,€he€took€Milliken€on€a€walk„through€of€the€trailer€to€show€him€what€items€toÐ ä4 Ðð ðtrash,ðð€what€items€to€ð ðsteal,ðð€and€what€items€to€leave€untouched.€€He€also€told€him€where€to€disposeÐ Ð  Ðof€the€murder€weapon,€where€to€get€rid€of€the€stolen€jewelry,€and€where€to€go€after€the€murders€wereÐ ¼  Ðcompleted.€€Finally,€he€established€an€alibi€for€himself€by€ensuring€that€he€would€be€miles€away€atÐ ¨ø Ða€jobsite€with€his€young€son€and€Shawn€Austin.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€a€middle„aged,€high€school€educated€Caucasian€male,€has€previousÐ l¼ Ðconvictions€for€second€degree€murder€and€felony€escape.€€After€being€released€from€prison,€heÐ X ¨ Ðworked€primarily€as€an€independent€contractor€to€repair€mobile€homes.€€When€he€was€taken€in€forÐ D!” Ðquestioning,€he€cooperated€with€authorities€by€giving€a€taped€statement,€but€he€has€consistentlyÐ 0"€  Ðrefused€to€admit€any€involvement€in€the€murders€of€his€wife€and€mother„in„law.€€Furthermore,€theÐ #l! Ðrecord€indicates€that€he€showed€little€sign€of€remorse,€and€he€never€requested€to€be€allowed€to€attendÐ $X" Ðhis€own€wifeððs€funeral.€€However,€he€sent€many€letters€to€his€ex„wife€asking€if€they€could€get€backÐ ô$D # Ðtogether€as€a€couple.€€The€proof€also€demonstrates€that€the€defendant€tried€to€hire€several€otherÐ à%0!$ Ðinmates€whom€he€befriended€to€kill€Corey€Milliken,€thereby€indicating€very€little€potential€forÐ Ì&"% Ðrehabilitation.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€upheld€the€death€penalty€in€several€first€degree€murder€cases€involvingÐ )à$( Ðð ðmurders€for€hire.ðð€€In€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441€(Tenn.€1988),€the€Ôg Ôdefendants,€GailÐ |*Ì%) ÐOwensð!ðthe€victimððs€wifeð!ðand€Sidney€Porterfield€were€each€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€andÐ h+¸&* Ðsentenced€to€death.€€Mrs.€Owens€had€hired€PorterfieldÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€kill€the€victim€because€she,€like€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€in€this€case,€wanted€to€get€out€of€a€bad€marriage.€€She€had€previously€offered€between€fiveÐ œì Ðand€ten€thousand€dollars€to€three€other€men€to€kill€her€husband,€but€she€ultimately€hired€Ôg ÔPorterfieldÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ ˆØ Ðand€promised€to€pay€him€seventeen€thousand€dollars.€€Consequently,€one€Sunday,€while€the€victimÐ tÄ Ðwas€alone€in€his€house,€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔPorterfieldÔf  ÔÔg Ô€entered€the€house€through€the€back€door,€which€he€found€partiallyÐ `° Ðopen,€and€he€bludgeoned€the€victim€to€death€with€a€tire€iron.€€The€jury€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôfound€thatÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€(i)(Ôg Ô4)Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€and€(i)(5)Ð L œ Ðaggravating€circumstances€Ôf  Ôhad€been€proven€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôbeyond€a€reasonable€doubtÔf  Ô€with€respect€to€bothÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendants,€as€well€as€the€(i)(2)€aggravating€circumstance€with€respect€to€PorterfieldÔf  ÔÔg Ô.Ôf  Ôò òÔg Ô€€Ôf  Ôó óÔg ÔOn€appeal,€thisÐ $ t ÐCourt€affirmed€the€convictions€and€the€sentences.€€òòId.óó€at€452.Ð  d ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1994),€the€defendant,€who€had€been€havingÐ ì <  Ðan€affair,€had€on€several€occasions€offered€to€some€of€his€acquaintances€five€thousand€dollars€fromÐ Ø(  Ðthe€proceeds€of€a€life€insurance€policy€on€his€wife€if€they€would€kill€her.€€He€was€afraid€that€she€wasÐ Ä  Ðgoing€to€divorce€him€and€ð ðtake€everything.ðð€€Ralph€Thompson€agreed€to€do€so€and€shot€the€victimÐ °  Ðthrough€the€windshield€of€her€car€with€a€high€powered€rifle€at€close€range.€€The€defendant€wasÐ œì  Ðconvicted€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commit€murder.€€The€jury€foundÐ ˆØ  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€the€(i)(4)€aggravating€circumstance€and,€finding€that€itÐ tÄ Ðoutweighed€any€mitigating€circumstances,€subsequently€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death.׃‘×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`° ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161€(Tenn.€1994),€the€defendant€bought€a€large€insuranceÐ 8ˆ Ðpolicy€on€the€victimððs€life,€intending€to€hire€others€to€kill€Ôg Ôthe€victimÔf  ÔÔg Ô€in€order€to€collect€the€proceeds.€Ð $t ÐThe€defendant€eventually€hired€someone€to€lure€the€victim€on€a€fishing€trip€and€then€drown€him.€€TheÐ ` Ðjury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€and€it€sentenced€the€defendantÐ üL Ðto€death€after€finding€the€(i)(4)€aggravating€circumstance€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€On€appeal,€thisÐ è8 ÐCourt€affirmed€the€conviction€and€the€sentence.€€òòId.óó€at€175.Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Cokeróó,€746€S.W.2d€167€(Tenn.€1987),€the€defendant€had€been€having€an€affair€withÐ ¬ü Ðhis€former€mother„in„law.€€For€several€months,€he€had€suggested€several€possible€methods€for€howÐ ˜è Ðto€ð ðget[]€rid€of€her€husband.ðð€€Finally,€he€requested€five€thousand€dollars€to€hire€someone€to€shootÐ „Ô Ðher€blind€husband,€and€she€agreed.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€andÐ pÀ Ðsentenced€him€to€death€after€finding€the€(i)(2)€and€(i)(4)€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€aÐ \ ¬ Ðreasonable€doubt.€€The€defendant€subsequently€petitioned€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÐ H!˜ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Post„conviction€relief€was€granted€as€to€his€sentence,€and€in€aÐ 4"„  Ðresentencing€hearing,€he€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€òòSeeóó€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9804„Ð  #p! ÐCC„00152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).Ð  $\" Ðâ âÐ ø$H # Ðà  àIn€òòState€v.€Austinóó,€618€S.W.2d€738€(Tenn.€1981),€the€defendant€and€several€of€his€employeesÐ ° Ðâ âwere€served€with€arrest€warrants€for€conducting€illegal€gambling€at€the€defendantððs€place€of€business.€Ð œì ÐThe€victim,€a€reserve€deputy€sheriff€working€undercover€for€the€police€department,€recordedÐ ˆØ Ðnumerous€incidents€of€illegal€gambling€activity€and,€as€a€result€of€his€testimony,€the€indictments€andÐ tÄ Ðarrest€warrants€were€obtained.€€After€this€incident,€the€defendant€had€been€heard€on€several€occasionsÐ `° Ðto€express€his€desire€to€see€the€victim€dead.€€Soon€thereafter,€he€hired€an€escaped€convict€to€shootÐ L œ Ðthe€victim€at€the€auto€repair€shop€where€he€worked.€€The€jury€found€that€the€evidence€established€theÐ 8 ˆ Ð(i)(4)€aggravating€circumstance€and€that€this€aggravator€outweighed€any€mitigating€circumstances.€Ð $ t ÐConsequently,€the€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty.€€However,€the€defendantððs€sentence€was€vacatedÐ  ` Ðin€a€habeas€corpus€proceeding,€òòseeóó€òòAustin€v.€Bellóó,€938€F.€Supp.€1308€(M.D.€Tenn.€1996