ÿWPCè& ‡°Œ¼[Lÿ¥6ˆþèí™,œ¥ SÝ:ùSov‹qÒÀ‹¢ y¤œÏ‹—gÑ™~Áµª d°/ø³dXФé:¡è¥G 0혱R*ßíK™Éðv·SA€GU’ú_×ío÷ñŸÊú$‘B’{~r’”UŠÀ†¥àÜŠ˜†t%u,¥Ñ$䯫¡úÂ&=í1W‹?]þ¨¸;bn*›,>Éß]È䨯 20ÁßöOÿ¨zÑáZ}ëî[ÔÞ¡“Ý ËŸvR‘˜ ­ù58‘.½´öáóÃÊ|gÒoNjNåö@<±ƒ%Š`$/'Í×°OØ…Cn+~_x‘‰RúïÚeïÖQZœ–ø¼IÓ/ñ0ÒV;±#°JÚÍšOI<•’ªñØxíH… ôR<Ü\ó£ûÜÙ™oŠvr«4Ý<ƒ2ÜFîwÓIxÁAsè¢ ÂÄ…Á §ô g‹£ƒtwgÃÖš 3ò‘Ç¥U颓(7ˆ•8;BBªÌ+$ËPÕdÄ@QÈZšî†j×Õ¶Ö…'§UÀ,XÒ±YB.¹´Š'ÃyMW-5„ý, –~9ZLÞH¦%³õêšf$ÄFt°J J¨”¬R<¸¾ï¤ù¸8ßj#ÉÌ %• ^ › 0ˆ§ UN/ w} 4 z• Ò á ð mò f ÆoÆ5ÆûÆÁ 0D‡NË&ÍçóEÚ˜Ü[tU@ÏVÐeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeb5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5!5! 0ë=!=!=!=! B("(" 0¤E" D5é" D-# 0KK#K# AS–#Æé# 0¤¯$ 0DS% A«—%—%—%—%—%—%—%—%¦B&˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¯®•1î (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularINŽ1ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ \Ý ƒRÊÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€was€the€defendantððs€second€trial€for€these€offenses.€€The€first€trial€occurred€in€1991€and€resulted€in€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€conviction€of€first„degree€murder,€aggravated€assault,€and€arson.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€death€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€first„degree€murder.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€defendantððs€convictions€because€the€trial€court€hadÐ 8ˆ Ðexcluded€expert€testimony€regarding€the€defendantððs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ricky€Thompsonóó,Ð üL Ð1996€WL€30252,€No.€03C01„9406„CR„00198€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€24,€1996),€òòapp.€denied€c.r.o.óó,€(Tenn.,Ð À ÐJuly€1,€1996).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRÊÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€that€the€defendant€knowingly€created€a€great€risk€of€deathÐ ° Ðto€two€or€more€persons,€other€than€the€victim€murdered,€during€the€act€of€murder;€and€(2)€that€the€murder€was€especiallyÐ tÄ Ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(1)(3),€(5)Ð 8ˆ Ð(Supp.€1988).€€It€is€unclear€in€the€record€whether€the€defendant€was€ever€sentenced€for€the€aggravated€assault€and€arsonÐ üL Ðconvictions.€€The€trial€courtððs€subsequent€ruling€on€the€Motion€for€New€Trial€would€have€abrogated€those€sentences. ÝÝ ƒRÊÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€since€the€trial€of€this€case,€the€trial€judge,€John€K.€Byers,€has€passed€away.€€Accordingly,Ð ° Ðconsideration€as€thirteenth€juror€and€of€the€remaining€issues€in€the€Motion€for€New€Trial€will€be€conducted€by€a€successorÐ tÄ Ðjudge.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€25(b);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€53€S.W.3d€264,€275€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).€€If€such€successorÐ 8ˆ Ðjudge€concludes€that€he€or€she€cannot€perform€the€duty€of€a€thirteenth€juror€from€reading€the€record,€the€successor€judgeÐ üL Ðmay€grant€a€new€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€25(b). ŽÝ ƒRÊÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€over€two€years€lapsed€between€the€return€of€the€jury€verdict€and€the€hearing€on€the€Motion€for€NewÐ ° ÐTrial,€there€is€no€record€that€a€sentencing€hearing€was€held€or€judgment€entered€on€the€aggravated€assault€or€arsonÐ tÄ Ðcharges. QÝ ƒRÊÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€less€than€clear€from€this€language€whether€the€court€was€acting€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29€(judgment€ofÐ ° Ðacquittal)€or€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(f)(thirteenth€juror€rule).€€Since€the€trial€court€overturned€the€juryððs€verdict€and€declaredÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded,€and€we€agree,€that€the€rulingÐ 8ˆ Ðfits€more€readily€under€the€purview€of€Rule€29.(ÈhH  Z‹(Times New Roman  LÝ ƒRÊÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRule€29€governs€disposition€of€Motions€for€Judgment€of€Acquittal€where€ð ðthe€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustainÐ ° Ða€conviction€of€such€offense€or€offenses.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29(a). RICKYNelmsTramontanaMultiphasicMcMinn Crimc.r.o.DrowotaAdolphoMehlerAngeleEstesVickie n]oOverbaySheppeardCommn Evid TranCauthern Odom H]adRomingerschizoBernet- ù-(|G2ÊÖ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»Ô d(|3ˆ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ˆ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G±»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK œÝ ƒRÊÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéÁò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€494.Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G±»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼G±»»»ÔÑ8€õXXdì»»d8ÑÓ=€G±»Ð»dÐd=Óà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î_¨î»¼G±ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼G±»îî_¨I#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€2004€Session€Ð üL ÐHeard€at€NashvilleÐ ^ ÐÔ‡XõX»¼G±ÔÌò òÔ#†¼G±»XXõP#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€RICKY€THOMPSONÔ‡XõX»¼G±Ôó óÐ  \ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€McMinn€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€89„705,€89„706,€89„707€€€€€€John€K.€Byers,€JudgeÐ ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„02631„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€November€24,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼G±»XXõº#ÔÔ€XõX»¼G±ÔThe€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€for€the€1989€first„degree€premeditated€murder€of€his€wife,€theÐ ŠÚ Ðaggravated€assault€of€his€wifeððs€niece,€and€the€arson€of€his€home.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Following€a€bifurcated€sentencingÐ vÆ Ðhearing,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death.׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€a€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€Motion€forÐ b² ÐNew€Trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€State€had€failed€to€prove€the€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€aÐ Nž Ðreasonable€doubt€and€modified€the€juryððs€verdict€to€ð ðnot€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.ðð€€On€appeal€byÐ :Š Ðthe€State,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed,€finding€that€under€the€standard€of€review€ofÐ &v ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€29,×ƒÄ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdictsÐ b Ðof€guilt.€€The€court€reinstated€the€juryððs€verdicts€and€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€forÐ þN Ðconsideration€of€the€remaining€issues€in€the€defendantððs€Motion€for€New€Trial€and€for€sentencingÐ ê: Ðon€the€aggravated€assault€and€arson€convictions.€€The€defendant€filed€an€application€for€permissionÐ Ö& Ðto€appeal€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€11,€seeking€review€in€this€Court.€€WeÐ Â Ðgranted€the€application€to€determine€(1)€whether€the€evidence€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€support€theÐ ®þ Ðjuryððs€verdict,€including€its€determination€that€the€defendant€was€sane€at€the€time€of€these€offenses,Ð šê Ðand€(2)€whether€the€provision€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„501(c)(effective€as€of€JulyÐ †Ö Ð1,€1995),€which€prohibits€experts€from€testifying€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€whether€a€defendant€isÐ r Âý ÐÔ_Ôlegally€insane,€applied€in€this€trial€for€offenses€committed€in€1989.€€After€due€consideration€of€theÐ ° Ðrelevant€authority,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guiltÐ œì Ðand€that€the€prohibition€of€expert€testimony€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€sanity€was€a€substantive€changeÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€law€that€should€not€apply€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ tÄ ÐAppeals€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€consideration€of€theÐ `° ÐMotion€for€New€Trial€and€for€sentencing€in€the€aggravated€assault€and€arson€convictions.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð L œ ÐÓîÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmedó óÐ $ t ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€M.€Barker,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.J.,óóÐ ü L  Ðand€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€Adolpho€A.€Birch,€óóand€òòJanice€M.€Holder,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð è 8  ÐÌCharles€Corn,€Athens,€Tennessee,€and€Brock€Mehler,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€RickyÐ À  ÐThompson.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Angele€M.Ð „Ô  ÐGregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Jerry€N.€Estes,€District€Attorney€General;€and€William€W.Ð pÀ ÐReedy€and€Amy€Reedy,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð \¬ ÐÌÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ  p ÐÌòòFactual€Backgroundó óóóÐ øH ÐÌòòThe€Events€of€October€25„26,€1989.Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àóóIn€the€days€before€the€events€in€question,€victim€Nina€Thompson€confided€to€Vickie€LynnÐ ¨ø ÐEstelle,€her€supervisor€at€the€Jiffy€convenience€store€in€Athens,€Tennessee,€that€she€and€her€husband,Ð ”ä Ðthe€defendant,€were€having€marital€problems.€€The€victim€said€that€she€was€considering€leaving€him.€Ð €Ð ÐOn€the€evening€of€October€25,€1989,€the€victim€asked€Bryan€Kevin€Helms,€a€co„worker€arriving€toÐ l¼ Ðrelieve€her€at€the€end€of€her€shift,€to€cover€for€her€if€the€defendant€called€or€came€looking€for€her.€Ð X ¨ ÐHelms€agreed€and€did€not€ask€any€questions.€€The€victim€left€with€her€niece,€Dana€ChristineÐ D!” ÐRominger,€and€did€not€come€home€after€work€that€night.€€Rominger€testified€at€trial€that€after€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictim€had€spoken€to€her€earlier€that€day€about€the€problems€she€was€having€with€the€defendant€andÐ #l! Ðexpressed€fear€for€her€own€safety,€Rominger€told€her€she€could€spend€the€night€with€her.€€RomingerÐ $X" Ðpicked€up€the€victim€after€work€and€the€women€went€to€Romingerððs€fatherððs€house€where€they€spentÐ ô$D # Ðthe€night.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àThe€defendant€spent€the€evening€and€early€morning€hours€looking€for€the€victim.€€DuringÐ ° Ðvisits€to€the€convenience€store€where€the€victim€worked€and€to€the€victimððs€motherððs€home,€the€angryÐ œì Ðdefendant€stated€that€ð ðhe€was€ready€to€kill€someone,ðð€that€he€was€going€ð ðto€kill€that€damn€bitchÐ ˆØ ÐNinaðð€and€ð ðkill€the€cops€if€they€came€to€his€trailer.ðð€€He€also€threatened€to€ð ðblow€outðð€the€brains€ofÐ tÄ Ðhis€eight„month„old€son,€Ricky,€who€was€with€him€during€his€search€for€the€victim.€€At€one€point,Ð `° Ðhe€purchased€two€gallons€of€kerosene€or€gasoline€at€the€convenience€store€and€showed€Helms€anÐ L œ Ðassault€rifle€with€a€bayonet€attached.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAt€11:00€a.m.€the€following€morning,€the€victim,€Rominger,€and€the€victimððs€five„year„oldÐ  ` Ðdaughter€drove€to€the€coupleððs€trailer€and€went€inside.€€The€defendant€and€Nina€argued,€and€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€threatened€to€hurt€the€victim€if€she€did€not€do€what€he€said.€€The€victim,€her€daughter,€andÐ è 8  ÐRominger€then€ran€out€of€the€trailer€and€got€into€Romingerððs€car,€taking€the€eight„month„old€RickyÐ Ô$  Ðwith€them.€€The€defendant€followed,€carrying€an€assault€rifle.€€The€victim,€still€carrying€baby€Ricky,Ð À  Ðgot€out€of€the€car€at€the€defendantððs€direction.€€When€Rominger€began€blowing€the€car€horn€andÐ ¬ü  Ðscreaming€for€help,€the€defendant€told€her€to€ð ðshut€.€.€.€upðð€and€shot€her€in€the€leg.€€Rominger€andÐ ˜è  Ðthe€victimððs€daughter€fled€across€the€street€to€a€neighborððs€trailer.€€As€the€victim€turned€to€run,€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€shot€her€in€the€back.€€She€fell€to€the€ground€on€top€of€baby€Ricky.€€As€the€baby€crawledÐ pÀ Ðout€from€under€his€motherððs€body,€the€defendant€stood€over€the€victim€and€fired€several€more€shotsÐ \¬ Ðas€she€lay€on€the€ground.€€He€also€fired€several€shots€into€the€air€and€into€cars€parked€nearby.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€then€picked€up€baby€Ricky,€went€into€his€trailer,€and€set€it€afire.€€When€he€left€the€trailer,Ð 4„ Ðhe€was€overheard€as€he€walked€next€to€the€victimððs€body€stating,€ð ðSee€you€later,ðð€as€though€nothingÐ  p Ðhad€happened.€€He€then€carried€the€baby€to€a€store€across€the€street,€bought€a€soft€drink,€took€someÐ  \ Ðunidentified€ð ðpowder,ðð€and€waited€for€the€police.Ð øH ÐÌÓ  ÓòòEvidence€of€the€Defendantððs€Mental€State.óóÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€presented€the€expert€testimony€of€two€witnesses€in€support€of€his€insanityÐ ¨ø Ðdefense.€€Dr.€Tramontana,€a€clinical€psychologist,€opined€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€mild€toÐ ”ä Ðmoderate€impairment€of€the€frontal€lobe€of€his€brain.€€On€the€day€of€the€crime,€this€impairmentÐ €Ð Ðwould€have€affected€the€defendantððs€reasoning,€his€judgment,€and€his€ability€to€inhibit€impulsiveÐ l¼ Ðreactions.€€It€would€also€have€affected€the€defendantððs€ability€to€focus,€concentrate,€plan,€andÐ X ¨ Ðorganize.€€Such€condition€could€be€aggravated€by€stress€or€intoxication.€€Dr.€Tramontana€opined€thatÐ D!” Ðthe€defendantððs€mental€impairment€could€have€interfered€with€the€defendantððs€exercise€of€properÐ 0"€  Ðdelay€in€judgment€when€provoked€by€circumstances€such€as€were€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€theÐ #l! Ðday€of€the€crime.€€During€cross„examination,€Dr.€Tramontana€admitted€that€the€MinnesotaÐ $X" ÐMultiphasic€Personality€Inventory€test€administered€to€the€defendant€in€1991€was€invalid,€possiblyÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€the€defendant€had€fabricated€or€exaggerated€his€symptoms.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àDr.€Bernet,€a€psychiatrist,€recounted€the€defendantððs€history€of€mental€health€problems,€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðincluded€numerous€hospitalizations€from€1968€to€1984.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€the€defendant€hadÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€impairment€to€the€frontal€lobe€of€his€brain€as€a€result€of€chronic€alcohol€abuse.€€This€impairmentÐ )à$( Ðaffected€his€ability€to€exercise€self„control€and€curb€impulsive€behavior.€€Furthermore,€the€defendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðsuffered€from€a€chronic€psychiatric€disorder€called€schizo„affective€schizophrenia,€which€caused€aÐ h+¸&* Ðloss€of€touch€with€reality,€delusions,€hallucinations,€and€drastic€mood€swings.€€These€two€conditionsÐ ° Ð(the€frontal€lobe€defect€and€the€schizophrenia),€could€aggravate€one€another.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€thatÐ œì Ðthe€defendantððs€mental€defects€could€diminish€his€ability€to€appreciate€right€and€wrong€and€conformÐ ˆØ Ðhis€actions€to€the€law.€€He€admitted,€however,€that€the€defendantððs€condition€would€come€and€go€andÐ tÄ Ðthat€he€would€have€ð ðgood€periodsðð€during€which€he€could€function€normally.€€Dr.€Bernet€alsoÐ `° Ðadmitted€that€the€report€he€had€prepared€after€evaluating€the€defendant€stated€that€the€defendantððsÐ L œ Ðmental€deficiencies€were€not€serious€enough€to€support€an€insanity€defense.€€This€latter€testimonyÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€later€stricken€from€the€record€and€the€jury€was€instructed€to€disregard€it,€after€the€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðdecided€that€such€testimony€was€barred€by€the€passage,€in€1995,€of€an€amendment€to€the€insanityÐ  ` Ðstatute€that€provided€that€ð ð[n]o€expert€witness€may€testify€as€to€whether€the€defendant€was€or€wasÐ ü L  Ðnot€insane€as€set€forth€in€subsection€(a)€[of€that€statute].ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defense€also€presented€the€testimony€of€Nancy€Smith,€the€defendantððs€first€cousin,€whoÐ À  Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€had€been€strange€and€out€of€touch€with€reality€at€times€since€he€was€aÐ ¬ü  Ðchild.€€She€also€testified€about€the€defendantððs€history€of€mental€health€problems,€which€includedÐ ˜è  Ðsuicide€attempts€and€repeated€hospitalization€over€the€years.€€On€cross„examination,€the€defendantððsÐ „Ô  Ðcousin€admitted€that€the€defendant€had€not€had€any€mental€health€problems€requiring€treatment€fromÐ pÀ Ð1985€until€the€date€of€the€shooting,€although€he€continued€to€abuse€drugs.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€State€relied€on€the€testimony€of€lay€witnesses€and€cross„examination€of€the€defendantððsÐ 4„ Ðexperts€to€rebut€the€claim€of€insanity.€€The€defendantððs€physician,€who€had€been€treating€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€for€six€months€before€the€homicide,€testified€that€on€October€25,€1989,€the€day€before€theÐ  \ Ðshooting,€the€defendant€came€to€his€office€and€appeared€to€be€ð ðstable.ðð€€Family€members,€co„workersÐ øH Ðof€the€victim,€neighbors,€and€others€in€contact€with€the€defendant€testified€that€although€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€appeared€somewhat€withdrawn€or€different,€they€never€saw€anything€bizarre€or€unusualÐ Ð  Ðabout€his€behavior€and€that€he€was€a€good€father.€€There€was€testimony€that€the€defendant€appearedÐ ¼  Ðagitated€and€angry€the€night€before€the€killing,€exhibiting€an€assault€rifle€and€stating€that€he€was€madÐ ¨ø Ðenough€to€kill€someone.€€He€was€also€reported€to€have€instructed€his€brother„in„law€on€how€to€feignÐ ”ä Ðmental€illness.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAfter€the€killing,€the€defendant€gave€the€police€a€detailed€account€of€the€shooting€and€showedÐ X ¨ Ðno€emotion.€€He€did€not€appear€to€be€under€the€influence€of€drugs€or€alcohol.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilt€of€the€first„degreeÐ #l! Ð(premeditated)€murder€of€Nina€Thompson,€the€aggravated€assault€of€Rominger,€and€arson.€Ð $X" ÐFollowing€a€bifurcated€sentencing€hearing,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Upon€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€judgment€of€acquittal,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€modifyingÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€juryððs€verdicts€to€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€The€court€found€as€follows:Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAt€trial,€the€defendant€presented€expert€testimony€that€heÐ ° Ðsuffered€from€a€mental€disease€or€defect€at€the€time€of€the€offenseÐ œì Ðwhich€would€have€affected€his€ability€to€both€appreciate€theÐ ˆØ Ðwrongfulness€of€his€conduct€and€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÐ tÄ Ðrequirements€of€the€law.€The€defense€also€presented€lay€evidenceÐ `° Ðconcerning€the€defendantððs€strange€behavior€during€the€time€leadingÐ L œ Ðup€to€and€after€the€offense€as€well€as€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðpossible€consumption€of€both€drugs€and€alcohol.€€The€defendant,Ð $ t Ðtherefore,€satisfied€his€burden€of€proof€in€raising€a€reasonable€doubtÐ  ` Ðas€to€his€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€and€shifted€the€burden€to€theÐ ü L  Ðstate€to€prove€his€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€as€an€element€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€offense.ÐÔ$ ` x` x Ðà  àà ` àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€stateððs€evidence€on€sanity€consisted€entirely€of€cross„Ð ¬ü  Ðexamination€of€the€defendantððs€expert€witnesses€and€of€some€layÐ ˜è  Ðtestimony€concerning€the€defendantððs€behavior€leading€up€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðevent.€€The€state€presented€no€expert€witnesses.€€Although€severalÐ pÀ Ðwitnesses€testified€for€the€state€that€the€defendant€was€actingÐ \¬ Ðð ðnormal,ðð€many€of€these€same€witnesses€also€testified€that€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€was€ð ðodd,ðð€ð ðnutty,ðð€ð ðstrange,ðð€or€different.ðð€€FamilyÐ 4„ Ðmembers€of€the€victim€testified€that€when€the€defendant€was€lookingÐ  p Ðfor€the€victim€at€4:00€A.M.€the€morning€before€the€murder,€that€heÐ  \ Ðhad€threatened€anyone€who€tried€to€take€his€child€and€had€said€heÐ øH Ðwould€kill€them€all€and€be€out€of€the€Moccasin€Bend€[Mental€HealthÐ ä4 ÐInstitute]€in€time€to€piss€on€their€graves.€€There€was€a€discrepancyÐ Ð  Ðabout€when€the€statement€was€actually€made€and€the€person€whoÐ ¼  Ðtestified€that€he€heard€these€comments€never€told€anyone€about€themÐ ¨ø Ðuntil€the€time€for€retrial,€about€10€years€after€the€offense.€€They€alsoÐ ”ä Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€threatened€to€harm€the€children.€€EvenÐ €Ð Ðthese€family€members€indicated€that€the€defendant€was€not€acting€inÐ l¼ Ða€rational€manner.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAfter€carefully€considering€all€the€evidence,€this€court€findsÐ 0"€  Ðthat€while€the€record€may€contain€some€evidence€on€the€issue€of€theÐ #l! Ðdefendantððs€possible€sane€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€theÐ $X" Ðdefendantððs€sanity€was€not€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€asÐ ô$D # Ðrequired€by€the€law.€€Accordingly,€this€court€finds€that€the€juryððsÐ à%0!$ Ðverdict€should€be€modified€to€NOT€GUILTY€BY€REASON€OFÐ Ì&"% ÐINSANITY.и'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAdditionally,€this€court€finds€that€the€jury€may€have€beenÐ )à$( Ðconfused€on€the€issue€of€sanity€by€this€courtððs€instructions€to€the€juryÐ |*Ì%) Ðabout€how€they€were€to€consider€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Bernet.€€AfterÐ h+¸&* Ðcarefully€considering€this€in€conjunction€with€the€evidence€presented,Ð ° Ðthis€court€pursuant€to€Rule€33(f)€would€also€modify€the€verdict€asÐ œì Ðindicated€above.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€State€appealed.€€In€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€State€raised€only€one€issue:Ð `° Ðwhether€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€concluding€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€theÐ L œ Ðdefendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€agreed€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€had€raised€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€his€sanity,€thus€shifting€the€burden€of€proving€sanityÐ $ t Ðto€the€State.€€However,€after€carefully€reviewing€the€expert€and€lay€testimony€regarding€theÐ  ` Ðdefendantððs€actions€and€behavior€on€the€day€preceding€and€the€day€of€the€offenses,€the€court€foundÐ ü L  Ðthe€evidence€legally€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict,€including€the€finding€of€sanity€beyondÐ è 8  Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€In€doing€so,€the€court€found€it€significant€that€no€expert€testified€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendantððs€behavior€was€consistent€with€insanity;€to€the€contrary,€the€descriptions€of€his€behaviorÐ À  Ðconflicted€with€the€diagnosis.€€While€the€experts€testified€that€his€diagnosed€illness€would€cause€anÐ ¬ü  Ðinability€to€focus,€organize,€or€premeditate,€the€description€of€his€actions€during€this€time€periodÐ ˜è  Ðreflected€a€concentrated€focus€on€finding€the€victim,€a€methodical€search€for€her,€and€repeatedÐ „Ô  Ðexpressions€of€his€intent€to€kill€anyone€whom€he€perceived€would€be€a€threat€to€removing€his€child.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€order€and€reinstated€the€juryððsÐ H˜ Ðverdicts,€remanding€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€consideration€of€the€remaining€issues€raised€in€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendantððs€Motion€for€New€Trial,€and€for€sentencing€on€the€aggravated€assault€and€arsonÐ  p Ðconvictions.€€In€reaching€this€conclusion,€the€court€held€that€a€1995€amendment€to€the€insanity€lawÐ  \ Ðprohibiting€experts€from€testifying€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€sanity€did€not€apply€retroactively€to€theÐ øH Ðdefendantððs€case.€€Thus,€Dr.€Bernetððs€original€testimony€that€the€defendant€was€not€legally€insaneÐ ä4 Ðwould€have€been€admissible.€€The€defendant€appeals,€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€ofÐ Ð  Ðsanity,€and€raising€the€question€whether€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€failing€toÐ ¼  Ðretroactively€apply€the€1995€amendment.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òDiscussionó óóóÐ €Ð ÐÌòòSufficiency€of€the€evidence€of€sanity.óóÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAt€the€time€this€offense€was€committed€in€October€1989,€insanity€was€a€defense€toÐ 0"€  Ðprosecution€if,€at€the€time€of€such€conduct,€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€the€person€lackedÐ #l! Ðsubstantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€personððs€conduct€or€to€conform€thatÐ $X" Ðconduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€543€(Tenn.€1977).€€SanityÐ ô$D # Ðwas€presumed.€€òòState€v.€Flakeóó,€88€S.W.3d€540,€550€(Tenn.€2002);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436,Ð à%0!$ Ð440€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó€489€S.W.2d€70,€72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972);€òòState€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐClaytonóó,€656€S.W.2d€344,€345€(Tenn.€1983).€€If,€however,€the€evidence€raised€a€reasonable€doubtÐ ° Ðas€to€the€defendantððs€sanity,€the€presumption€failed,€and€the€State€was€required€to€establish€beyondÐ œì Ða€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€both€appreciated€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€and€wasÐ ˆØ Ðcapable€of€conforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòFlakeóó,€88€S.W.3d€at€550;Ð tÄ ÐòòJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440;€òòClaytonóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€345.€€The€jury€could€consider€both€lay€andÐ `° Ðexpert€testimony€on€this€issue€and€discount€expert€testimony€which€it€found€conflicted€with€the€factsÐ L œ Ðof€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pattonóó,€593€S.W.2d€913,€916€(Tenn.€1979);€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð641,€647€(Tenn.€1976).€€The€burden€of€proving€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€could€also€be€metÐ $ t Ðby€showing€acts€or€statements€of€the€petitioner,€at€or€very€near€the€time€of€the€commission€of€theÐ  ` Ðcrime,€that€were€consistent€with€sanity€and€inconsistent€€with€insanity.€€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€891€S.W.2dÐ ü L  Ð607,€616„17€(Tenn.€1995);€òòJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440;€òòEdwardsóó,€540€S.W.2d€at€646;€òòState€v.Ð è 8  ÐOverbayóó,€874€S.W.2d€645,€651€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€presented€compelling€testimony€from€both€Dr.€Tramontana€and€Dr.€Bernet€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðhe€suffered€from€an€impairment€of€the€frontal€lobe€of€his€brain.€€This€impairment€would€haveÐ ˜è  Ðaffected€his€ability€to€reason,€his€judgment,€and€his€ability€to€inhibit€impulsive€reactions.€€He€alsoÐ „Ô  Ðsuffered€from€a€chronic€psychiatric€disorder,€schizo„affective€schizophrenia,€which€caused€a€loss€ofÐ pÀ Ðtouch€with€reality,€delusions,€€hallucinations,€and€drastic€mood€swings.€€Dr.€Bernet€opined€that€thisÐ \¬ Ðdisorder€could€have€affected€the€defendantððs€ability€to€appreciate€the€difference€between€right€andÐ H˜ Ðwrong€and€prevented€his€ability€to€conform€his€actions€to€the€law.€€The€defendant€also€presented€layÐ 4„ Ðtestimony€from€his€cousin€concerning€his€history€of€mental€health€problems€from€childhood.€€Thus,Ð  p Ðit€appears€that€the€defendant€successfully€rebutted€the€presumption€of€sanity€and€shifted€the€burdenÐ  \ Ðto€the€State€to€prove€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð øH ÐÌà  àOn€the€other€hand,€the€State€effectively€established,€through€cross„examination€of€theseÐ Ð  Ðexperts,€that€the€defendantððs€illness€was€intermittent,€and€he€had€ð ðgood€periodsðð€when€he€was€ableÐ ¼  Ðto€understand€the€concepts€of€right€and€wrong€and€conform€his€actions€to€the€law.€€We€find€itÐ ¨ø Ðsignificant€that€neither€of€the€expert€witnesses€in€this€case€testified€unequivocally€that€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðwas€insane€at€the€time€of€these€offenses.€€€There€was€also€evidence€that€some€of€the€psychologicalÐ €Ð Ðtest€results€were€invalid€because€the€defendant€had€fabricated€or€exaggerated€his€symptoms.€€InÐ l¼ Ðaddition,€the€State€offered€lay€testimony€which€established€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€mentalÐ X ¨ Ðhealth€problems€requiring€treatment€for€the€four€years€preceding€the€shooting.€€His€treating€physician,Ð D!” Ðin€fact,€stated€that€on€the€day€before€the€shooting,€the€defendant€appeared€to€be€ð ðstable.ðð€€SeveralÐ 0"€  Ðwitnesses€testified€that€the€defendant€appeared€agitated€the€night€before€the€shooting€and€madeÐ #l! Ðthreats€to€kill€his€son€or€to€kill€anyone€who€might€try€to€take€Ricky€from€him.€€Shortly€after€theÐ $X" Ðshooting,€the€defendant€showed€no€emotion€as€he€recounted€the€details€of€the€shooting€during€aÐ ô$D # Ðpolice€interview.€€All€in€all,€we€find€that€the€cross„examination€of€experts€and€lay€testimony€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðsufficient€to€meet€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proving€the€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€jury€was€justified€in€finding€that€at€the€time€of€these€crimes,€the€defendant€was€in€a€ð ðgoodÐ ¸'#& Ðperiodðð€and€was€not€affected€by€his€disorder€to€the€extent€that€he€was€unable€to€distinguish€right€fromÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwrong€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€theÐ )à$( ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€juryððs€verdict€should€be€reinstated.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ  ÓòòApplicability€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(c)óóÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àA€question€arose€at€trial€as€to€the€applicability€of€the€1995€amendment€to€the€insanity€statute,Ð ˆØ Ðwhich€bars€opinion€testimony€by€expert€witnesses€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€sanity.€€Prior€to€theÐ tÄ Ðamendment,€expert€witnesses€were€permitted€to€testify€whether,€in€their€opinion,€a€particularÐ `° Ðdefendant€was€or€was€not€legally€insane€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€an€offense.€€Cohen,Ð L œ ÐSheppeard€&€Paine,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€7.04[4]€n.€400€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000).€€òòóóHowever,€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðamended,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„501(c)€now€provides:€ð ðNo€expert€witness€mayÐ $ t Ðtestify€as€to€whether€the€defendant€was€or€was€not€insane€as€set€forth€in€subsection€(a).€€Such€ultimateÐ  ` Ðissue€is€a€matter€for€the€trier€of€fact€alone.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Advisory€Commððn€Comments€(1996),€Tenn.€R.Ð ü L  ÐEvid.€704;€òòFlakeóó,€88€S.W.3d€at€551;€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€13€S.W.3d€724,€740€(Tenn€Crim.€App.€1999)òòóó.€Ð è 8  Ѐ€Ìà  àDuring€cross„examination,€the€State€asked€Dr.€Bernet€about€a€statement€contained€in€hisÐ À  Ðinitial€report€to€the€effect€that€the€defendantððs€mental€defects€were€not€serious€enough€to€rise€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðlevel€of€an€insanity€defense.€€The€trial€court€permitted€the€question,€but€after€further€study€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðapplicability€of€the€1995€amendment,€later€determined€that€the€amendment€should€apply€to€bar€suchÐ „Ô  Ðopinion€testimony.€€Accordingly,€the€court€came€back€the€following€day€and€instructed€the€jury€toÐ pÀ Ðdisregard€Dr.€Bernetððs€testimony€on€this€issue.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€the€trial€courtððs€initial€ruling€that€Dr.€BernetððsÐ 4„ Ðcross„examination€testimony€was€admissible€was€correct,€and€that€the€1995€amendment€did€notÐ  p Ðapply.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€change€to€the€law€was€ð ðproceduralðð€in€nature€and€should€beÐ  \ Ðapplied€even€to€cases€tried€under€the€old€insanity€law.€€The€State€responds€that€the€change€isÐ øH Ðsubstantive€in€nature€and€therefore€should€not€be€applied€retroactively€to€cases€tried€under€the€oldÐ ä4 Ðlaw.€€Because€the€trial€court€judge€who€tried€this€case€is€now€deceased,€and€because€there€is€theÐ Ð  Ðpossibility€of€re„trial€on€our€order€of€remand,€we€choose€to€address€this€issue.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àÔ‡XõXXXõÔGÔ#†XõXXXõu#ÔÔ‡XõXXXõÔenerally,€statutes€are€presumed€to€apply€prospectively€in€the€absence€of€clear€legislativeÐ ”ä Ðintent€to€the€contrary.€€òòVan€Tran€v.€Stateóó,€66€S.W.3d€790,€797„98€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,Ð €Ð Ð967€S.W.2d€726,€735€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ô#†XõXXXõbu#ÔÔ‡XõXXXõÔòòóóIn€this€case,€the€Legislature€specifically€provided€in€Section€2Ð l¼ Ðof€the€Act׃i×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€the€amendments€to€the€Act€applied€to€all€offenses€committed€on€or€after€July€1,€1995.€Ð X ¨ ÐThere€is€nothing€in€the€text€of€the€Act€or€in€its€legislative€history€to€indicate€that€the€LegislatureÐ D!” Ðintended€it€be€applied€retrospectively.€€As€we€recently€stated€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó:€€ð ð[H]ad€the€legislatureÐ 0"€  Ðintended€to€depart€from€the€long„established€rule€that€statutes€are€presumed€to€apply€prospectively,Ð #l! Ðit€could€have€so€indicated.ðð€€òòOdomóó,€137€S.W.3d€572,€582€(Tenn.€2004).€€Furthermore,€TennesseeÐ $X" ÐCode€Annotated€section€39-11-112€states€specifically:€Ð ô$D # ÐÌÓ=€G±»Ð»d»Ð»d=Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àRepealed€or€amended€laws--Application€in€prosecution€forÐ Ì&"% Ðoffense.--Whenever€any€penal€statute€or€penal€legislative€act€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðstate€is€repealed€or€amended€by€a€subsequent€legislative€act,€anyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoffense,€as€defined€by€the€statute€or€act€being€repealed€or€amended,Ð )à$( Ðcommitted€while€such€statute€or€act€was€in€full€force€and€effect€shallÐ ° Ðbe€prosecuted€under€the€act€or€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€theÐ œì Ðcommission€of€the€offense.€òòЈØ` x` x ÐÌóó€€€€€€€€€€€€Therefore,€based€on€clear€legislative€intent,€we€hold€that€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€theÐ `° Ðdefendant€committed€these€crimes€controls€whether€expert€testimony€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€sanityÐ L œ Ðis€admissible.€€Since€the€law€at€the€time€the€defendant€committed€these€crimes€permitted€expertÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestimony€on€the€ultimate€issue,€such€testimony€was€properly€admitted€and€would€be€admissible€onÐ $ t Ðre„trial.òòÐ  ` ÐóóÌà  àWe€also€recognize€that€applying€a€statute€retroactively€in€a€criminal€case€may€implicateÐ è 8  Ðconstitutional€prohibitions€against€ex€post€facto€laws.€€€U.S.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€9,€cl.€3;òò€óóTenn.€Const.€art.Ð Ô$  ÐI,€ðð€11;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòOdomóó,€137€S.W.3d€at€582.€€However,€we€have€previously€held€that€ð ðcourts€do€notÐ À  Ðdecide€constitutional€questions€unless€resolution€is€absolutely€necessary€for€determination€of€the€caseÐ ¬ü  Ðand€the€rights€of€the€parties.ðð€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€€ð ðIf€issues€in€aÐ ˜è  Ðcase€can€be€resolved€on€non„constitutional€grounds,€courts€should€avoid€deciding€constitutionalÐ „Ô  Ðissues.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€Accordingly,€as€we€have€resolved€the€case€before€us€on€non„constitutional€grounds,€weÐ pÀ Ðneed€not€address€the€constitutional€issue.Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòConclusionóóó óÐ 4„ ÐÓ©‚ÓÌà X à€Ô#†XõXXXõ¹v#ÔÔ‡XõXXXõÔà0 ° à€€€€€€€€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€expert€and€lay€testimony€presented€at€trial,€we€conclude€that€theÐ  \ Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€includingÐ øH Ðits€determination€that€the€defendant€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€Furthermore,€as€to€theÐ ä4 Ðadmissibility€of€expert€testimony€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€sanity,€we€conclude€that€the€amendmentÐ Ð  Ðof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„501(c)€in€1995,€which€operated€to€prohibit€expertÐ ¼  Ðtestimony€on€the€ultimate€issue€of€sanity,€did€not€apply€to€offenses€committed€before€theÐ ¨ø Ðamendmentððs€effective€date€of€July€1,€1995.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ”ä ÐAppeals€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€consideration€of€theÐ €Ð ÐMotion€for€New€Trial€and€sentencing€for€the€aggravated€assault€and€arson€convictions.Ðl¼°(#°(# ÐÌà  àIt€appearing€that€the€defendant€is€indigent,€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State€ofÐ D!” ÐTennessee.Ð 0"€  Ðà X àà ° àòòÌà X àÔ#†XõXXXõ!ƒ#Ôà ° àòòóóóóÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à_______________________________€Ðô$D #(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICE