### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE N ove m be r 18, 2008 S e s s i on

S T AT E OF T E NNE S S E E v . ANI T A KAY B ROUGHT ON

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Claiborne County

No. 12937 E. Sh ayne Sexton, Jud ge

No. E2007-02533-CC A-R3- CD 

### - F il e d M ar c h 13 , 200 9

A Claiborne County

jury convicted the De fenda nt, Anita Kay

Br oug hton, of one c ount of preme ditated first deg ree murder. T he trial c ourt sentenc ed her to life in prison. The De fenda nt appea ls, contending that: (1) the State pr esente d insufficient e vidence of pre m edit ation; (2) the
tr ia l c o u rt a

b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o n w h e n it d id n o t a d mi t a D V D v id e o o f th e c r ime scene ; (3) the tri al court e rre d when it did not admit prior inconsistent statements of witnesses; and ( 4) the prosec ut i n g attorney

improperly

argued that the De fenda nt had pre viously

rape d one of the witnesses. Afte r a thoroug h revie w o f t h e re co rd and the a pplicable law , we a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R O B E R T W. W ED EMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Be njamin S. P resne ll, Tazewell, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Anita Kay Br oug hton.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., At tor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Mic hael E. Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; Re ne e W. T ur

ne r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Gen eral ; Will iam Pa ul P hil lip s, Di str ic t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J are d Effle r, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. F acts

This c ase arises from a stabbing death that occur red on Dec ember 21, 200 5

. T he Def endant wa s char g ed with premeditate d first deg ree murder f or the de ath. At trial, the followi ng evidenc e wa s prese nted: Melvina Suttles, a friend of the Def endant a nd L inda-2-

Robertson, testified that on De cembe r 21, 2005, the De fendan t invited her “ to party . . . for a lit tl e w h il e ” a t t

h e tr a il e r h o me th e D e f

e n d a n t s h a r e d

w it h Ri c k E ll is o n , th e v ic ti m. Su tt le s

re po rt e d th a t th e y

dr a nk a nd did dr ug s in the liv ingro om. Sut tle s th e n s a id, “ An d th a t’ s p re tty much the last thing Ireme mber, sitting on t h e s o fa i n h er livi ng room. And whe n Icame to, I

was naked in their be droom.” She said she was a wake ned by

some o n e fondling her . At that point, she “we nt ballisti c . . . and tr ied to leave .” Suttles testified the Def endant b eca

me ang ry wh en S u t t l es t ri edt o l ea v e, an d
, s u b s eq u en t l y , t h e D ef

en d an tan d

t h e v i c t i m b ega n ar gu i n g. Suttl es sa i d
, “[ T h e De fendant] t old me Idid not have to leave and she didn’t wa nt me to leave, and [the victi m] told [ the Def endant] just to l eave me alone a nd let me g o.” Settles testified that
t h e Defenda

nt then stabbed the vic tim mul tiple times with a knife with a four - to six -inch blade

. Suttl es said she did not se e a h am mer or a scre wdriver . The victim pushed the De fenda nt away fr om h ims e lf

, a nd the n th e De fe nd a nt p us he d Su ttl es in to the ha llw a y . Su ttl e s, wh o w a s st ill naked, r an to Robertson’s house a nd told Robertson to call 9-1-1.

Suttl es stated that she did not see the victim stab the De fenda nt. S h e al s o had neve r witnessed the victim assault, thre aten, or “pull a we apon on” the Def endant. She did not

re me mbe r a

ny on e tou c hin g the c ur

ta ins in t he be dr oo m. S utt le s said the D e fe nd a nt r e fe rr e d to the victim as “Nig g er,” but she thoug ht it mi g ht have be en his nickname . Suttl es re co u n t ed that the Def endant “ was a lway s saying thing s ab o u t [ t h e victim], l ike she – she ne eded to g et rid of him or g e t awa y fr om h im or so met hin g lik e that.” Sut tle s a c kn ow le dg e d th a t sh e or ig ina lly tol d the p o li c e s h e w a s n o t in th e b a c k b e dr o o m w h e n th e s ta b b in g to o k p la c e

. Re f

e r r in g to the stab b i ng , Suttl es stated the D efe ndant stabbed the victim two to three times, even w hile he wa s

“ tr y ingto t ur n a wa y fr om h e r .

. . .” S utt le s a dmi tte d to be ingun de r t he inf lue nc e of a lc oh ol,

mari jua na , a nd xan a x on th e nig ht o f D e c e mber 21, 20 05 , a nd sh e ha d a

c ut o n h e r f

ing e r b ut d id not know how it happene d.

Suttl es said that, whe n she ra n to Robertson’s door, Robertson let he r in and wa shed the blood off of Suttles’s fa ce and hands. Robertson g ave Suttles some clothes to we ar. The n, the Def enda n t “j ust stomped on the door and c ame throug h the door” wanting “someone to help haul the body awa y .” Roberts o n t o l d t h e Defenda nt she would not help, and then Rober tson called 9- 1-1. Suttles said the Defe ndant then tried to run a way , but Sutt les “tac kled her and bro u gh t her back in the house .” Suttles reca lled that the Def endant’s h ai r, s h irt, and shoelac es we re c overe d in blood.

On cr oss-examination, S uttles said she, Robertson, and the Defe ndant went Christmas shopping in Ta zewell and Middlesboro the da y of the kil l i n g. T h ey

went to the Walmart and the Dol l ar S t o re, but they

did not buy

any thing. Suttles did not remember stopping at a bar , but she thought it was “ probable ” that they stopped at a p h arma cy . Suttl es explained that any inconsistencies be tween he r pre vious statements to the poli ce an d h er te stimony was be cause she was unde r th e in f

lu e n c e o f dr

u g s w h e n s h e ta lk e d to th e p o li c e

. Sh e d id n o t r e me mbe r how many x anax she took the day

of the killing.

Suttl es said that she r emember ed the De fendan t an d victim “talking a nd stuff and walking back a

nd forth throug h the house.” They then “shove d[d] eac h other b ac k and forth.” Suttl es also said she did not reme mber taking off her clothes in the bedroom at the De fe ndant’s-3-

trailer; she believed that someone took her c lothes off a g ainst her will. S u t t l es denie d ever having sexual relations with the Defe ndant, and she did not remember a sex toy being in the bed. Suttl es said that the De fenda nt had a knife with her in the be droom.

L inda Robertson, the De fenda nt’s neig hbor, testified th at she ha d known the De fenda nt for f ive to seven y ear s and h ad k n o wn t h e victim for six teen to eig hteen y ear s. The victim lived with the Def

endant in the tra iler below Rober tson. Robertson said the victim worked on car s and was in construc tion; the Defe ndant did not work.

Robertson said she w as aslee p on her c ouch on De cembe r 21, 2005, whe n she wa s

awak e n e d b y s o me o n e kn o c k in g o n h e r d o o r a n d y e ll in g f

o r h e lp

. Sh e o p e n e d h e r door a nd saw Suttl es standing there naked w ith blood sm ear ed on her hands and f

ace . Suttl es told Robertson that the Def

endant wa s stabbing the victim

. Robertson washe d Suttl es and put c lean c lothes on her. Ten to f

if te e n mi n u te s la

te r , th e D e f

e n d a n t “ f e ll thr o u g h th e d o o r

. ” T a lk in g a b o u t t he Def endant, Rober

tson s aid, “She was cove red in blood and she fell on the floor , and she sa id, ‘He ’s dea d. Yo u ’v e go t t a help me g et rid of the body .’” Rober tson said that the Def

endant wa s not calm. While Robertson called 9-1- 1, the Def endant lef t the house.

Rob e rt so n s ta te d th a t th e De fe nd a nt d id n ot w a nt t he pa ra me dic s th e re be c a

us e sh e did not want to be ar

rested f or beingdrunk. Robertson had he ar d t h e Defendant pre viously say “she

c o u ld k il l a n y b o dy a n d g e t a w a y w it h it

. ” T he Defenda nt e xp la in e d th a t “ s h e dr [e w ] a

c r a zy check an d s h e m i ght pull si x or eig ht months i n a cr azy house and that would be it.” Robertson said the De fenda

nt alway s car

ried a knife t h at h ad a fi v e- to six-inch blade that folded into the handle.

Speaking of the De fenda nt and the victim’s re lationship, Robertson sa i d
, “T h ey g ot along , Itho ug ht gr eat.” She did not know of the victim ever striking or

threatening the Def endant. She a cknowledg ed t h at the couple f oug ht “but within five or ten minutes, eve ry thing was fine .” Robertson did say that the victim became “a rg umentative” w hen he dr ank.

On cr oss-examination, Robertson said that she, Suttl es, and the De fe n d ant went Christmas shopping ea

rlier in the day

. W h i l e out, they stopped at a ba

r to see Robe rtson’s friend, but he was not at the ba r. T h at night, whe n Suttl es ca me to her home , Robertson washe d the blood off Suttles with a ra g. R o b ertson described the D efe ndant’s deme anor a s “sca red,” which, Robertson said, wa s how the De fenda nt “alwa y s acte d.”

Special Ag ent J ames Whitson with t he TB Itestified that he investig ated the c rime sce ne. He state d that there wer e thre e sce nes: (1) the Def endant’ s home wher e the body was stabbe d; (2) the v an that was pa rked be tween the Def

endant’ s and Robertson’s homes; a nd (3) Robe rts o n ’ s h o me , w h e r e Su tt le s a n d th e D e f e n d a n t w e n t a f

te r th e s ta b b in g

. A g e n t Whitson state d th a t th e re wa s b loo d in the va n o n th e dr ive r’ s se a t and on the a rm of th e pas sen ger se a t. Ag ent Whits on spoke with the Def endant, who w as not handc uffe d, at the hospital, and she consente d to a sea

rch of her h o u s e an d t o give a blood sample. A g ent Whits on also took the Def endant’ s clothes as e vidence . The De fenda nt then went with Ag ent Whits o n t o t h e C riminal-4-

I nvestig ation Division (“CI D”) of the Sherif f’s De partment, whe re she wa ived her Miranda rig hts and g ave a

statement. Ag ent Whits on rea d that statement into evidenc e:

This is a statement of Anita B roug hton give n to TBI Ag ent J ames Whitson i n C l ai b o rne County

and De tective Rick Da

vis on . . . 12-22-05 at the Claiborne County CI D offic e.

On 1 2 -2 1 -0 5
, M el v i n a S u t t l e s , L i n d a [ R o b er t s o n ] an d Iwe n to u tp ar t y i n g. We sta rted out at Sam Owens’ [s] store. L inda drove Melvina and I

. . . ar ound. W e we re dri n k i n g l i qu o r an d b ee r. M el v i n a an d I s t ar t ed k i s s i n g ea ch o t h e r

. It made L inda a little mad. J ust after dark, L inda stopped at the Straig ht Bra nch B a r. L ind a

we nt i n a nd saw h e r b oy fr ie nd , T imo thy How ard. Wh ile L ind a wa s in the bar , Melvina and I

continued to kiss and make out. L i n d a wa s i n s i d e about 15 minutes. W hen L inda cam e out, she took me a nd Melvina to my

house at 351 B oo ne Ho llo w R oa d in

Spe e dw e ll.

When Melvina and I

g ot out of the ca

r, Melvina a sk ed m e if my boy friend, Rick Ellison, would l ike to have a three s o m e. R i ck lives with me at my house, and Rick had be en talking about having sex wi t h t wo wo m en . Itold Melvina we would fi nd out if he wa

nted to or not. We went in – we w ent in the trailer . Rick

wa s sit tin g on the lov e se a t by the do or

. Me lvi na a nd I a sk e d Ric k if he wanted to have a three some. Ibelieve he th o u gh t he we re kidding – Ibelieve w e – he th o u g h t w e w e r e jo k in g

. M e lv in a an d Is ta rted ki ssinga g a in

an d ma k in g o u t. We start ed t o wa rd the bac k bedroom, a nd Rick said, “Well, why the hell not.” He fo llo we d u s to the be dr oo m.

Me lvi na a nd Ig ot t o th e be dr oo m and we too k o ff o ur clo th e s. Ric k c a me in the room and watched us make out. R ick watc hed Melvina a nd me have sex for a littl e while. The n h e left and w ent and took a show er. Me lvina and I continued in th e b ed ro o m

. Rick come out of the show er a nd joined us. We were

a ll thr e e havin g se x tog e the r. Mel vina and Ig ot a vib ra tor ou t and sta rt e d u sin g it

on eac h other. Dur ing al l t h e fl o p ping a round, we tore down the curta in in the bedroom. Rick wa s sitti n g o n t he bed w ith his head in his hands. Rick was dri n k i n g s o m et h i n g.

I did n’ t wa nt the ne ig hb or s to se e us a ll havin g se x, so I g ot ou t a little

scre wdriver

and hammer

to put up the curtain – to put the cur tain back up. Rick started c ussing sa

y ing thing s like, “I ’m over this shi t

. ” He told me that he didn’t want me f

ucking any one else . Idon’t k now when Rick w ent to the kitchen a nd took a silver knife

. M el v i n a and I had our ba ck to the bed putting up the cur tains when a ll of a sudden Rick star ted slicing me o n t h e b ac k o f my rig ht lower leg . I tur ne d a ro un d a nd tr ie d to sto p h im, and

he sta bb e d me in m y

ri g ht h a nd

. He a lso

s l i ce d m e o n m y

u p p er ri gh tl eg. T h er e m ay

b e s o m e m ar k s o n m y

l ef tl eg.-5- Me lvi na s a w R ic k c utt ingme , a nd sh e hit him wi th t he hamme r. I t a ll happene d so fast that . . . I don’t k n o w h o w many

times Melvina hit Ri ck. I believe she was try

ing to g et Rick to stop cutting me.

T h er e w as b l o o d

ev ery wh er e. Id o n ’t re m em b er an y o n e s ay i n g an y

t h i n g. After Melvina stopped hitting Rick, she r an out of the r oom nake d. Ibelieve she

ran a ll the way

to L inda [Robertson’s] house nake d.

L in d a [R o b e rts o n ] l iv e s ju s t u

p th e r o a d

a li tt le w a y s

. A f

te r M e lv in a ran out, Ig rabbe d Rick by t h e s h o u l d er a nd shook him. He wasn’ t moving. I thought that he wa s dea d

. I g rabbe d some clothes and put them on a nd jumped in Rick’s

v an an d t ri e d t o d ri v e t o L i n d a’ s h o u s e. T h e v an s t o p p edan d wo u l dn ’t go

a ny mor e , s o I

jum pe d o ut a nd ra n u p to L ind a ’s . When I wen t in, Me lvi na wa s in th e f lo o r f lo p p in g a r o u n d a n d I f

e ll o n to th e f

lo o r

. I to ld L in d a th a t I th o u g ht Rick was d ea d

. L inda ca lled 911. Idon’t know what she said to them. A fe w minutes la te r, e ve ryon e sta

rt e d a rr ivi ng , a nd Iwa s ta ke n to the Cla ibo rn e County Ho sp ita l.

Ag ent Whit son testified that the Def endant was fre e to le ave at any time w hile she was at the Criminal I nvestig ation Division (“CI D”) and that he d i d n o t plan to char g e her . He sa id the Def endant stay ed aw hile longe r, and she then g ave a second state ment, which Ag ent Whits on also rea d into evidence :

This is the second stateme nt gi v en to TBIAg ent J ames Whitson and De te c tiv e Ha

rr iso n Co rn e tt at th e CI D o ff ic e on 12 -22-0 5 at 6: 35 a .m. , b y An ita Br oug hton.

Ireme mbere d a fe w more de tails conce rni ng Ricky Ellison’s death. When Ricky started c utting me, I

reme mber we foug ht for a f ew min u t es. I

g rabbe d the

sma ll s c r e w dr iv e r th a t w e w e r e p u tt in g th e c u rta in u p w it h

. I s ta b b e d Ri cky

at l ea s to n e t i m e. Ica n ’t re m em b er i f I st ab b edh i m an y

m o re o r n o t

. I’ m h av i n g a flash of me mory

that Imight have stabbed him more than that one time.

Ireme mber Sissy , who is Melvina, threwthe ha m m er that we we re working with and hit Rick with it . Sissy ran out of the ho u s e n ak ed scre aming . I g rabbe d the hammer

and hit Rick t h re e o r four more times. I told Ri ck, “Y ou

wo n’ t hu rt m e a n y

m o r e

. ” T h e n I n o t i c e d R i c k w a s n ’ t m o v i n g

. I d i dn ’ t m e a n to kill R i ck, it just happened. I g rabbe d his shoulder and tried to shake him, but he didn’t move.

My hand wa s still bleeding so Iwent to the b at h ro o m t o g et a towe l. I

wra pped my hand up. I

noticed blood in the floor a n d I tried to clea

n up – Itried to clean the floor up.

Iwas so sca

red, I ran out of t h e house and jumped into Rick’s van. I drove it a lit t l e wa y s toward L inda’s house a nd then stopped. I

ran to L inda’s and-6-

fell t hroug h the d o o r

. Is a w Si s s y in th e f lo o r , an d Ito ld th e m I th o u g h t R ic k

was dead. I told L inda I

thought I had stabbe d Rick. Itold her to ca ll 911.

All the other stuff in the f irst statement is true except for wher e I left out the par t where Istabbed a

nd hit Ri ck with the hammer

.

Iwent to Dr. D ay ’s offic e last month and saw D r. Ter es a. S h e t o l d me I neede d to g o b a c k o n

– s h e to ld me I n e e d e d to g o b a c k to Ch e r okee Me ntal Hea lth. She thought I neede d to be taking all my medication. I quit taking i t b ack around 2003. The pill s we re fo r my blackout spells. Sometimes Iblack out and don’t reme mber what happene d.

B a c k in 2 00 3, I wa s o rd e re d b y Ca mpb e ll Co un ty

Cou rt to b e – to g o to Che ro ke e Me nta l H e a lth

. Che ro ke e Me nta l H e a lthg a ve me me dic a tio n, bu t I stopped taking it. I thought I would be all ri gh t wi t h o ut it. Even though the do c tor tol d me to g o b a c k la st m on th, Idid n’ t.

Ba ck ar ound September of 2005, afte r Rick g ot out o f j ail, we ha d been liv ing tog e t h e r a

b o u t a m o n t h

. R i c k c h o k e d m e u n t i l I p a s s e d o u t

. H e w o k e me up a nd tol d me that he wa nte d to kil l me be c a

us e Iha d b e e n w ithso me on e e lse wh ile he wa s in

ja il.

A f e w w e e ks a g o w e we re a t my ho us e wi th Aub re y

Dr umm on ds

. Aubr e y ’s d a

u g h t e r Rh o n d a w a s t h e r e

. R i c k

a s k e d h e r t o s u c k h i s d i c k
, a n d

It o ld him not to do t hat. Rick jumped up and said, “ I f y ou ever talk t o m e that way ag ai n , I wi l l beat y our Goddamn brains out.” Aubr ey took Rhonda and I

out of the ho us e , a

nd we le ft un til Ric k p a sse d o ut.

L ind a he a rd Rho nd a , A ub re y , a

nd Ita lki nga

bo ut t his so sh e kn e w i t happene d. I have been with Rick on and off for about five y ear s. Id i d n o t mean to kill hi m, it jus t happene d.

After rea ding the Def

endant’ s sta t em ent i nto evidence , Ag ent Whits on said that he collecte d biologica l samples from ea ch of the De fe n d an t ’s fing ers a nd from Suttles. I n addition, he took a f

ake f inge rnail found in the hospital bathroom a fter t h e De fe ndant used it. Desc ribing what he sa

w when he went to the De fenda nt ’s t ra iler, Ag ent Whits on said he notice d that the curta ins were hung and that the victim’s b o d y wa s l y i ng in a fe tal defe nsive position. Age nt Whit son also saw blood on the c urtain side of the bed.

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Ag e nt Wh its on sa id h e wa s d isp a tc he d a ro un d 1 0:3 0 to 11 :00 p. m. on Dec ember

21, 2005. He sa id he ar

rived before the Violent Crime Response Te am (“ VCRT”). At the Def

endant’ s house, Ag ent Whits on rec overe d a fing erna il by the stove, a bloody

ru g , and

a rag

. He said that, when he spoke with Suttles, she told him she was intox i ca t ed
, an d h e s aid,

“ Ye a h, y ou

c ou ld t e ll s he wa s o n s om eth in g .” Ag e nt Wh its on sa id h e fo un d ma

ri jua na and pil ls, but he did not fin d an y s cr ewdrivers, nails, vibrators, or sy ring es. He also did not find a knife.-7-

He c lari fi e d h is p re vio us te sti mony that th e De fe nd a nt r e turn ed to t he CI D o f h e r o wn

fr e e wi ll to give her se cond stateme nt. Agen t Whi tson said he was “ sure” the Def endant ha d been drinking and taking medication on the d ay h e saw he r. Ag ent Whits on stated that Suttles made tw o o r t hr e e state me nts a nd

that Ro be rt so n ma de tw o s ta te me nts

.

On re d i rect, Ag ent Whits on rea d the tox icolog y repor t into evidence, w hich re flec ted that the Def endant ha d diazepam and nor adiazepam in her sy stem. The victim did not have any drug s in his sy stem.

Serg eant R o b er t Chadwell with the Claiborne County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment testified that he wa s o n d u t y o n De ce mber 21, 2005, a nd that he wa s dispatched to a dome stic situation involving a knif

e. He arr ived at Robertson’s home and spoke w ith the Defe n dant, who “se emed kind of hy sterica l.” Serg eant Chadw ell said the De fenda nt had cu t s o n h er h and and “blood throug hout her ha ir and fa ce a rea

. ” S u t t l es was also at the home, a nd she looked a s if she had jus t sh ow e re d. Se rg e a nt C ha dw e ll s a id t he De fe nd a nt t old

him sh e wa s a ssa

ult e d b y th e vic tim
, who the De fenda

n t said was “at his residence , possibly arme d and intox icated a nd may be eve n passed out.” Ser g eant Chadw ell then went to the victim’s home, whe re the front door w as open, but no on e re s p o n d ed to Serg eant Chadw ell’s y elling. H e sawblood throug hout the car peted

are as. He also saw a

larg e rottwe iler d o g, wh i ch ran to the kitche n when he enter ed the house

. Serg eant C h ad well s aid there was a lot of blood in the bathroom, and he spotted a “bloody hammer an d

. . . scre wdriver laying just bef

ore the [bedroom] door.” U pon opening the door, Serg eant Chadw ell saw the vic tim ly ing de ad o n t h e bed. Ser g eant Chadw ell said he ne ver sa w a knife.

On cr oss-examination, S erg eant Chadw ell said he saw the cuts on the Def

endant’ s rig ht ha nd . H e c lari fi e d th a t th e oth er po li ce off ice rs tol d h im that th e De fe nd a nt s a id t he vic tim

a ssa ult e d h e r. S ergeant Cha dw e ll s ta te d th a t th e re wa s b loo d th ro ug ho ut t he liv inga re a

a nd int o the hallway . He sa id it looked as if someone ha d tried to clea n up cer tain spots of blood.

Ag e nt D e nis e Mo rr iss e y

wi th t he TB ICr im e L ab test if

ie d th a t sh e le d th e VC RT t e a m in proce ssing the c rime sce ne. B eca use of t he coldne ss and the dar kness, they

beg an by videotaping and photog ra p h i ng the sce nes. They found the hammer and sc rew driver on the floor in t h e D e f e n d a n t’ s h o me ; th e y f

o u n d th e s c r e w dr iv e r in th e h a ll w a y

. A g e n t M o r r is s e y said that in the Def

endant’ s home, she found a blue Adidas jacke t on an armre st w ith Suttles’s wallet inside the pocke t. T h ey al s o fo und siz e a X Lblue sweatshirt with a white T-shirt tucked inside of it. Furthe rmore, V CRT found a smaller white T -shirt and a white sweatshirt with a pur ple bra
, size 38 C. Ind ivi du a l c lot hin g items inc lud e d a

me dium w hit e T- sh ir

t, a pa ir of size sma ll women’s unde rwe ar, a

pair of size 7 jea

ns with a rust brown stain on them, a nd a pile of c lothes on top of the wa sher a

nd dry er. The y

also found a f

ake fi n ger n ail by

a wood stove at the Def endant’ s house. Ag ent Morrissey descr ibed the bathr oom by saying, “ Upon looking inside the bathroom, ther e wa s a lot of – a g reat amount of reddish brow n stains that had the appe ara nce of beingswiped/wiped. T h er e wer e also some blood drops on the toilet seat, and the blood that

wa s in the bathr oo m f

loo r w a s p re tty

muc h a lmo st c ov e ri ngthe e nti re fl oo r a nd the re wa s a lso blo od dr op pin g s o n th e c a

bin et and near th e sin k. ” She a lso sa id t hat th e re wa s an “ e mpt

y cylindrical roll . . . completely void of whate ver w as rolled up on it and it was in the toil et. The-8-

toilet wa s al s o tinge d pink as if blood wer e in – also in there . . . .” Ag ent Morrissey saw blood smears on the s i n k’s rim, on doorknobs, and on the linoleum walkway in the house. She stated she also sawa ce llophane cig are tte wra pper w ith reddish brown stains on it. Ag ent Morrissey found fake fing erna ils by a che st of draw ers a

nd in the bedding . She said that one side of the bed did no t ha ve a ny blo od on it.

Ag ent Morrissey

stated that, whe n the VRCT proce ssed the van, the y found blood on the driver’ s and passe ng er’ s seats a n d b l o o d spatters be tween the console. The re w ere also “lig ht smears” of blood on seat ba cks.

On cr oss-examination, Age nt Morrissey t es t i fi ed that she kne w a doghad bee n in the trailer be fore they

proce ssed the sce ne. She ag ree d that the dog could have “lappe d up s o me of that blood.” They

also found a f

ake fi ng erna il at Robertson’s house and at the head of the vic tim ’s bo dy

in t he be dr oo m.
Tammy Reag an, a de puty

with the Claiborne County sheriff ' s office , testified that she met the Def

endant while w orking at the jail on Dec ember 22, 2005. S h e s ai d s he took picture s of both the De fenda

nt and Sutt l es i n o rder to document any injuries. The De fenda nt had bruising, a

nd her r ight ha

nd was al re ad y b an d aged. Deputy Reag an said the D efe ndant had a

sc ratc h o n h e r r ig ht c a lf

sim ila r t o " a br iar s c ratc h. " She de sc ri be d th e De fe nd a nt as " ne rv ou s" and " smoking a

cig are tte." D eputy R ea gan did not reme mber a ny deep w ounds or cuts on the De fe nd a nt. She sa id it wa s po ssi ble the De fe nd a nt ha d br uis ing a ro un d he r br e a sts. S he s a id th at S ut tl es "h ad j us t a f

ew l it tl e pl aces on her h and s. "

Dr. B arr y Stewart, the e merg ency

room doctor at Claiborne C o u n t y Hos pital who treated the Def endant, testified that the Def endant ha d “fa irly

mild” injuries on the inside of her right thumb. T h e De fe n d ant told him that she was home alone when she was attacked by a strang er, and she me ntioned that she eng ag ed in s exual activity with two other people . Dr. Stewa rt said he

cou l d n o t fi n d evidenc e that the De fenda nt was stabbed on he r upper rig ht leg , like she cla imed. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Dr . St e wa rt de sc ri be d th e De fe nd a nt a s “ e xcit e d” and po ssibl y dis tr a ug ht. L ater , he said she w as “upse t.”

Reg istered Nur se Ang ela Ly nn Taylo r from the Claiborne County Emerg ency

Room te s t i f i e d t h a ts h e t r e a t e d

t h e D e f e n d a n t

. S h e s a i d

t h e D e f e n d a n th a d

s m a l l s u p e r f i c i a l s c ra tc he s, which did not explain how the Defe ndant was c overe d i n b l o o d

. Nurse Taylor only clea ned the Def endant' s rig ht side, including he r t h u m b. She said that the thumb injury did not require a

ny stitches. Nurse T aylor said that she was i n i t i al l y told the Defe ndant had be en involved in a domestic assault, so her

notes orig inally

descr ibed the wounds a s defe nsive.

D r

. S a n dr a

E l k i n s , a

f o r e n s i c p a t h o l o g i s ta n d

t h e m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r

f o r K n o x c o u n t y, te sti fi e d th a t sh e rece ive d th e vic tim ’s bo dy fo r a n a uto ps y . Sh e fo un d tw o la c e ratio ns (t e a rs in the skin indicative of bl u n t fo rce ) on the victim’s for ehea d, one of w hich ca used an unde rly ing skull frac ture; one supe rficia l lacer ation in the rig ht ey ebroware a; one sup erficial lace ration

un de r t he le ft e y e ; on e la c e rati on on the le ft sid e of the he a d, wh ic h c a

us e d a n und e rl y ingsk

ull fra cture ; one lace ration in front of the lower pa rt of t h e lef

t ear ; three la cer ations on top of the-9-

he a d; a nd on e la c e ratio n o n th e ba c k o f t he he a d, wh ic h p e ne tr a te d th e sk in do wn to t he sk ull

. Dr. Elkins a lso f

ound superf

icial puncture wounds on the back of the victim’s hea d

. Di s cussing the victim’s five c h es t wo u nds, Dr. Elkins stated: wound “A ” ente red the front of the victim’s chest a nd completely

cut t h e ri ght internal jug ular ve in; wound “B ” ente red the upper c hest and pe rf or a ted th e left lunga nd

the he a rt , w hic h c a

us e d b le e din g int o th e sa c surr ound ingthe he a rt ;

wo un d “ C” wa s in

the fr on t of

the c he st g oin g do wnwa rd s, a nd it cu t th e pu lmo na

ry a rt e ry a t it s orig in from the hea

rt and the pulmonic va lve in the h ea rt ; wo u n d “D” enter ed the lef t of the

c he st, a nd

it e nd e d in

fat ti ssu e that c ov e rs the sa c a ro un d the heart; a nd wo un d “ E” wa s a lso in the fr on t le ft of th e c he st, a nd it h it the mus c ula

r t iss ue of

the le ft c he st w a ll. Dr . E lki ns a lso found a “l ar ge g aping cut wound of his lef t arm nea r the e lbow reg ion.” She also re cover ed a “pinkish red, f

ake f inge rnail . . . fr om the victim’s rig ht back of the ar mpit reg ion.”

Dr . E lki ns c on c lud e d th a t th e re we re a t le a st thr e e we a po ns us e d a

nd th a t th e vic tim would have die d in five to ten minutes. She stated that there was e vidence of a “ minimum of seven to e ight blows to the he ad” w ith the hammer a nd a “m i n i m um of five . . . Phillips pattern ty pe injuries to the sca lp.” The stab w ounds on t h e chest and the wound on the elbow we re consis t en t with knife wounds. “The cause of death was multiple, sharp for ce a nd blunt force injuries.”

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Dr . E lki ns said th a t th e wo un ds c ou ld h a ve be e n c omm itt e d w ith more th a n th r e e w e a

p o n s a n d th a t s h e c o u ld n o t d e te r mi n e th e n u mb e r o f p e o p le w ie ld ing the

wea pons or deter

mine the seque nce of

the wounds.

Michae l Turber

ville, a serologi s t with the TBI Nashville Crime L ab, testified that he deter mined the Def

endant’ s and the victim’s blood was on the claw hammer. The blood on the

scre wdriver

matched the victim. Turberville said that the unde rside of the fing ernai l found on the floor of

the bedro o m had DNAevidenc e, but no blood, that matched the Def endant a nd Suttl es. The sw abs take n from the bathroom matched the Def endant a nd the vi ct i m ’s DNA. The swab ta ken fr om the front door of the neig hbor’s house matched the D efe ndant, as we ll as the fing erna il found at Robertson’s house a nd the driver ’s seat in the van. S wa b s fr om the left hand of the De fenda

nt were a positive match for blood and DN A fr o m the Def endant, the vic tim, and Suttl es, while s wa b s from the De fenda nt’s rig ht hand only

matched the Def

endant. The fing erna il found on the emer g ency room bathroom floor ha d DNA f rom the De fe n d an t an d a pa rt ia l pr of ile of the vic tim ; th e fi ng erna il on th e bac k o f t he vic timha d th e vic tim ’s DN A o n it

. On cr oss-examinat i o n , T u rb eville ac knowledg ed that only some of the e vidence was tested f or DNA pr ofiling.

Hoy t Eug ene Phillips, a latent fing erpr int ex aminer w ith the TBI , testified that he analy zed the hammer a

nd t h e indoor door ha

ndle of the D efe ndant’s house. H e could not g et any prints “of va lue” f

rom either pie ce of

evidenc e.
Rhonda Drummonds, a ne ighbor of the De fenda

nt an d t he victim in 2005, testified that sh e saw the De fe nd a nt a

nd the vic timtog e the r. Dr

umm on ds sa id s he did

no t e ve r s e e the vic tim

a tta c k o r a ssa

ult the De fe nd a nt. S he als o de nie d th a t th e vic timha d e ve r a sk e d h e r t o " su c k h is dick" or threa

tened the D efe ndant for te lling him not to request such a n act.-10-

T h e D e f e n s e th e n p r e s e n te d B il l D a v id s o n , a me mb e r o f th e E ig h th Ju d ic ia l D istrict Drug Task F orce , who was the first officia l to arrive on the scene on Dec ember 21, 2005. Davidson said that h e fi rst saw the va n, which wa s pointed towards the de ad end of the roa d, wher e Robertson lived. After

making sure no one was in the va n, h e proc eede d to Robertson' s house, wher e Robertson, Suttles, and the De fenda nt waited on him. He i n t er viewed Robe rtson, who g ave him two off

icial statements. The first s t at em en t was g iven ar ound 11:13 p.m., and she g ave the sec ond statement at 6:30 a.m., whic h was af t er the police f

ound the victim's body . Robertson told Davidson that the victim an d t h e De fenda nt "f uss[ ed] and f[ou] g ht all the time." She descr ibed the victim as " viole n t " wh en he drinks. She ac knowledg ed that she ha d never seen

m a r k s o n e i t h e r

o f t h e m

. R o b e rt s o n r e c a l l e d t h a tt h e D e f

e n d a n ta n d t h e v i c t i m f

o u g h tt w o d a ys befor e the nig ht at issue.

Robertson then tol d Davidson t hat, on Dec ember 21, 2005, Suttl es ca

me to her house
, and they talked for

awhile. The n S u t t l es went to the De fenda nt and the victim’s trailer . When Suttl e s r e tu

r n e d to Ro b e rts o n ' s h o u s e , s h e w a s “ b e a ti n g a n d h o ll e r in g a t [h e r ] f r o n t door” a nd

“ [Sutt le s] had blo od

a ll o ve r h e r h a nd s and

arm s. ” Ric ha

rd so n s a id S utt le s to ld h e r, “ [G]e t so me help. [The victim] is stabbing [the Def endant].”

Davidson testified that in Robertson' s second stat em en t t o him, she said the victim’s “temper flar e[d] up sometimes over nothing .” She also said, the D efe ndant “c ame throug h [her] front door a

nd fell dow n o n t h e rug . [The Defe ndant] said, ‘I ' ve stabbe d [t he victim].’” The Def endant a lso claimed to Robertson that sh e wa s “blee ding to de ath.” Rober tson said that the Def endant e x plained the situation by saying, “ We were get t i n g re ady to have a

n org y and Rick shows his damned ass.”

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Da

vid so n s a id t

hat Ro be rt so n n e ve r s pe c if ic a lly sa id t he vict im h it the De fe nd a nt. She a lso did no t “ ind ic a te ” to D a vidson th at sh e ha d s e e n th e vic tim“ be c ome phy s ic a ll y

v io le n t t o w a r d

[t h e D e f

e n d a n t]

. ” D a v id s o n s a id th a t, w h e n h e ta lk e d

w it h the Def endant, he thought she was “ extremely intox icated” and that she ke pt say ing that “she wa s drowning in her own blood,” but he could not see any injury to her. Da

v i d s o n s aid t hat, when Rob e rt so n g a ve him

he r s e c on d s ta te me nt, sh e pr e fa c ed it wi th, “ Whe n I g a ve the state me nt t o y ou ear lier, I

may have le ft out a fe w things. I ' m telling y o u as I re m em b er , Iwas re ally scar ed.” Rob e rts o n a ls o r e c o u n te d in h e r s e c o n d s tate me n t th a t th e D e f e n d a n t “ s a id s h e h a d tr ie d to ge t

a w a y i n t h e v a n , b u ti t

qu i to n h e r

a n d w o u l dn ' tr

u n

. ” T h e D e f

e n d a n t“ k e p tw a n t i n g t o r u n a w a y” and aske d Robertson t o “h el p . . . g et rid of the body .” The Def endant a lso told R obertson that she “c ouldn't g o to jail.” Davidson then re lated that Robertson told hi m “I f [the Defe ndant] finds

ou t I t o l d y o u t h i s , she will kill m e or bur n me out. Ig et cold chills just thinki ng about it.” Davidson said whe n he wa s at th e C I D t h e n ext m orning , he sawthe Def endant with her

head resting on a desk w hile being interviewe d by the TB I

.

Au b re y Drummonds, the owner

of the mobile home the D efe ndant and the vic tim rented, testified that he f

ound a blue dildo on the bed in the mob i l e h o m e, h al f- way under a pillow. He said it was in plain view. He also found a strai gh t razor under the couc h in the living room whe n the De fe nd a nt' s b ro the r c a me to re mov e the fu rn iture . D rummo nd s r e mov e d th e blo od y sh e e ts

a nd ma ttr e ss a

nd burn e d th e m.-11-

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Dr

umm on ds sa id h e sa

w the De fe nd a nt a

nd vic timtog e the r a

lot
, and h e n ev er saw a

ny violent activity

betwee n the two. Drummonds testified that he disposed of the dil do . H e sa id t

hat he wa s c le a nin g up the tr a ile r so on aft er th e inc ide nt b e c a us e he ow ne d it and the c ourt put him in charg e of the Def endant' s dog , which wa s still at the tra iler.

The De fenda

nt th en showed the jury her r ight ha

nd to let them see the w ound to her thumb.

Charles Br o u g hton, the Def endant' s brother, te stified that he had know n the victim for fiftee n to twenty

y ear s. He lea

rned of the v i ct im's de ath via television. B roug hton testified that h is s is te r h a s a d is a b il it y

. Wh il e h e r e mo v e d

h e r f u r n it u r e f r o m t h e tr a il e r , h e f

ound a bolt of a

. 2 2 s i n g le shot rifle unde r a c ouch cushion in the living room and the r ifle itself in a small room of f t he liv ingro om.

The De fenda

nt chose not to test i fy . After hear ing the evidenc e pre sented, the jury

c on vic te d th e De fe nd a nt o f p re medi tat ed fir st d e g re e mur de r. Th e tr ia l c ourt se nte nc e d h e r t o lif e in p ri so n. I t is fr om t

his jud g me nt t

hat th e De fe nd a nt n owa

pp e a ls.

II. Ana lys is

On appe al, th e Def

endant c ontends that: (1) the State pr esente d insufficient e vidence of preme ditation; (2) the trial cour t abused i t s d i s cr etion when it did not admit a DVD video of the crime sc ene; ( 3) the trial c ourt er re d when it di d not admit prior inconsistent statements of wi tne sse s; a

nd (4 ) t he pr os e c uti nga tto rn e y

imp ro pe rl y

a rgue d that th e Def

e nd a nt h a d p re vio us ly rape d one of the witnesses.

A. Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

The Def endant claims that the evidenc e prese nted was not suf ficient t o p rove preme ditation. The State disag ree s.

When an ac cused c h al l eng es the suff iciency of the e vidence , this Court’s standard of review is whether , afte r consider ing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the State, “ any
ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble doubt.” J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07
, 31 9 (19 79 ) ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) ; see Tenn. R. App. P. 1 3( e ); Sta te v . G oo dwi n , 1 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 1
, 7 7 5 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Sta te v . R e id , 91 S.W .3d 247, 276 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 2 ) )

. T h is r u le a p p li e s to f

in d in g s o f

g u il t b a s e d

u p o n d ir e c t e v id e n ce, circ umstantial evidence , or a c ombination of both direct and circumstantial evide nce. State v. Pe nd e rg ra ss , 13 S.W .3d 389, 392-93 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1999).

I n deter mining the suff

iciency of the e vidence , this Court s h o u ld not re-we igh orreevaluate the evide nce. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2 d 7 7 6
, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) . Nor may thi s Co u rt s u

b s ti tute it s in f

e r e n c e s f o r th o s e dr a w n b y

th e tr ie r o f f a c t f r o m t h e e v id e n c e. State v. Buggs , 9 95 S.W. 2d 10 2, 10 5 (Te nn . 1 99 9) ; Lia k as v . S tat e , 286 S.W .2d 856, 859 (Tenn.-12-

1956). “Q uestions conce rning the cr edibility o f witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the evidenc e, as w ell as all fa ctual issu es raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of

fac t.” State v. Bland , 9 58 S.W. 2d 65 1, 65 9 (Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Liakas , 2 86 S.W. 2d a t 85 9. “ ‘Ag uil ty verdic t by

the jury , approve d by

the trial judg e, ac cre dits the testimo n y of the witnesse s for the St a te a n d r e s o lv e s a ll c o n f li c ts in f a v o r o f th e th e o r

y o f th e State.’” S t ate v. Cabbage , 571 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 2
, 835 (Tenn. 1978) ( State v. Grac e , 4 9 3 S. W. 2 d 4 7 4
, 4 7 6 ( T e n n

. 1 9 7 3 ) )

. T he Tenne ssee Supre me Court stated the ra tionale for this rule:

This well-settled rule rests on a sound f oundation. The trial judg e and the jury see the witnesses fa ce to f

ace , hear their testimony

and obser

ve their de meanor

on the sta nd. T hu s th e tr ia l ju dg e a nd jur y are the pr ima

ry ins tr ume nta lity

of jus tic e to d e t e r m i n e t h e w e i g h ta n d

c r e d i b i l i t y t o b e g i v e n t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s

. In the trial for

u m al o n e i s there human atmosphere and the totality of the e vidence cannot be repr oduced w ith a written re cord in this Court.

Bo lin v . S

tat e , 4 0 5 S

. W

. 2 d

7 6 8
, 7 7 1 (T en n

. 1 9 6 6 ) ( ci t i n g Car ro ll v . S tat e , 370 S.W .2d 523 (Tenn. 1963) ). This Court must af fo rd t h e S t ate of

Tenne ssee the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e contained in the rec ord, as well as all rea sonable infere nces which may be d raw n from the e vidence

. Go od win , 1 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d

at 7 7 5 (c i t i n g Sta te v . S mi th
, 2 4 S

. W

. 3d 274, 279 (Tenn. 20 0 0 ))

. Be cause a ver dict of g uilt aga inst a defe ndant re moves the pre sumption of innocenc e and r aises a p resumption of g uilt, the convicted cr iminal defenda nt bear s the burden of showing that the evidenc e w as l ega lly insufficient to sustain a g uilty verdic t. State v. Car ru the rs , 35 S.W .3d 516, 557-58 (Te nn. 2000).

First deg ree murder is the pr emeditated a nd inten t i o n al k illing of a nother. T.C.A. § 39- 13-202(a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. “ Pr e me d it a ti o n ” is d e f in e d a s “ a n a c t d o n e a f

te r th e e xe r c is e o f

r e f le c tion

a nd jud g me nt. ” T. C.A . § 39 -1 3- 20 2( d) (2 00 3) . Wh e the r a defend a nt a c te d w ithpr e me dit a tio n is a question of f

act f or the jury

to determine, a

nd it can be inf

er re d fr o m a number

of

c ir c ums tanc e s, inc lud ingthe fo llo wi ng : “ the us e of a dea dly we a po n u po n a n una rm e d v ic tim ; the par ticular c ruelty

of the killing; d ec larations by the def endant of an intent to kill; evidence of procur ement of a

wea pon; prepa

rations bef

ore the killing for c on ce al ment of the c rime; and calmness immediately

afte r the killing.” Bland , 9 58 S.W. 2d at 66 0. An “ int e nti on a l” kil lin g is one committed by

a per son “who a cts i n t en t i o n al l y with respec t . . . to a result of the c onduct when it i s th e p e r s o n ’ s c o n s c io u s o b je c ti v e o r d e s ir e to

. . . c a u s e th e r e s u lt

. ” T

. C. A

. § 39-11- 302(a) (2003).

I n this case, a ft er consi deringthe fa cts in the light most favor able to the State, we

c onclude the De fe nd a nt h a s n ot m e t he r b ur de n o f s ho wi ngtha t th e e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o prove the preme ditatio n el em en t o f first degr ee mur der. The Def endant use d a dea dly

wea pon ag ainst an unar

med v i cti m: she repe atedly stabbed the vic tim with a knife and a scre wdriver , and the victim was unar

med and f

ound in a def

ensive fe tal position. I n addition, the killing was pa rt ic ula r l y c r u e l

. T h e D e f

e n d a n t b e a t t h e v i c t i m w i t h a h a m m e r “ a m i n i m u m o f s e v e n t o e ig ht” times on his head, stabbed him at lea st five t i mes with a scr ewdr iver in his scalp, a nd stabbed him five t i m es i n h i s chest with a knife. The ha mmer wounds cr acke d his skull, and the knife wounds cut his jugula

r vein, pe rfor ated his lung s, and cut the pulmonar y arte ry in h i s h ear

t. The-13-

De fe nd a nt a lso e xpre sse d d e c laratio ns of ne e din g to “ g e t r id” of the vic tim
, while a lso procla iming tha t s h e co u ld kill any one and g et awa y with it because she “dr ew a cra zy chec k.” These f acts support the j ury ’s finding of pre meditation. The De fenda nt is not entit led to relief

on this iss ue.

B. A dm iss ion of V ide o Ta pe

The De fendan t argues that the trial c ourt err ed whe n it refuse d to admit the DVD of the crime sc ene be cause the DVD w as re levant an d p robative. The State argues that with the numerous photog raphs of the cr ime scene alre ady

admitted into evidence , the DVD wo u l d have been c umulative.

“‘Rele vant evidenc e’ me ans evide nce ha ving a ny tendanc y to make the e x i s t en ce of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the de terminati o n o f t h e ac tion more probable or less proba ble than it w ou ld b e wi tho ut t

he e vid e nc e .” Te nn . R. Ev id. 40 1. “ Ge ne ra lly a ll r e le va

nt e vid e nc e is admissible ex ce p t as p ro vided by . . . [t he] rules [of evidence ].” Tenn. R. Evid. 402. One such

e xce pti on t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f r e l e v a n te v i d e n c e i s i f

“ i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l ly outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, c o n fu s i o n of the issues, or misleadingthe jury , or by considerations of undue delay , waste of time, or nee dles s prese ntation of cumulative evidenc e.” T enn. R. Evid. 403. The ad m i s sibili ty , rele vancy , and compe tency of evide nce a

re matters entr

usted to t h e s o u n d discretion of the trial court. With that principle in mind, we revie w the trial c ourt’s evide ntiary ruling s for a

n abuse of

discretion. S

e e S t a t e v . D uB os e , 953 S.W. 2d 64 9, 65 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; State v. Gray , 960 S.W .2d 598, 606 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)

.

Th e pe rt ine nt t e sti mony

c on c e rn ingthe DV D o f t he c ri me sc e ne is a s f

oll ow s: A [Ag e nt Mo rr iss e y ]: A l ot of tim e s we wi ll d o a n in iti a l w a lk- thr ou g h, bu t in thi s particula r ca s e, the video wa s done bef ore our team did a walk-thoug h.

Q [D e f e n s e Co u n s e l] : And wer e y ou the ag ent on the video dur in g t h e walkthroug h?

A: Ia c tua lly did the vid e o, y e s.
Q: Yes, Oka y . Ithought that wa s y our name

. [Then to trial court]: I f I m ay , y o u r Honor, I ’d like to show the video to the J ury

. . . .
The Court: The video of the – of th e

– af t er all these photogr aphs have come in, y ou show the video? Denied.

Def ense Counsel: There ’s a substantial amount of sound on the vide o.

The Court: Denied.-14-

The De fenda

nt arg ues that the DV D cor roborated key

piece s of def

ense e vidence
, including a

barkingdog and a gu n l ea n ing a g ainst the wall. A re view of the testimony shows that the issues of a dog

being at the home a

nd a g un leaning ag ainst t h e wa l l we re not contested. Aubrey Dr u m m o n d s and Serg eant Chadw ell testified about the dogbeing prese nt. Charles Br oug hton test i fi ed about t he g un in the house. None of the witnesse s g ave c onflicting testimony about those fa cts. Also, evidence conc erningthe dog and the gun was not deter minative of g uilt or innocence in this case. As for any other e viden ce o n t h e DVD , we conclude it would have been cumulative considering the numerous photogr aphs o f a n d ex tensive te sti mony a bo ut t he c ri me sc e ne . A s su ch, the tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n w he n it did not admit the DVD into evidenc e. The Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

C. Adm ission of Prior Inconsis tent State m ents

T h e Defendant a

rg ues that the trial c ourt abused its discre tion when it denied the admission of prior inconsistent statements by Suttl es and Rober

tson. The State contends that: (1) the Def endant wa ived the issue on appe al for failure to cite to the re cord; (2) the Def endant waived the issue on appea l for fa ilure t o ra i s e it in her motion for ne w trial; and (3) the De fe nd a nt a c tua lly

int ro du c e d th e pr ior

inc on sis te nt s ta te me nts thr ou g h a de fe ns e wi tne ss.

I n Tenne ssee, “ no issue prese nted fo r re v i ew s hall be pre dicated upon e rror in the admission or exclusion of evidence . . . unless the same w as spec i fi ca lly stated in a motion for a new tr ia l; o th e r

w is e s u c h is s u e s w il l b e tr e a te d a s w a iv e d

. ” T e n n

. R. A p p

. P. 3 ( e). A fter a

car eful re view of the transcr ipt of the hea ring on the motion fo r newtrial, we a g ree with the State that the Def

en d an t d i d not raise this as an issue in he r motion for newtrial. As such, the Def endant ha s waived this issue for r eview, a nd she is not entitled to relief.

D. Cl os ing Ar gum e nt

The Def endant argues that the prosec uting attorney improperly arg ued that the D efendant had pre viously

rape d o n e of the witnesses. The State a rg ues that the De fenda

nt did not contempora

neously object and ha s not proven the f ive re quirements for

plain err or.

The stateme nt at issue occur red w hen the State, in its closing a rg ument, beg an discussing the fing erna il found at the foot of the bed that had the Def endant a n d S u t tles’s DNA, but not their blood, o n it

. T h e St a te s a id
, “ So me b o dy r a p e d M e lv in a Su tt le s o n th is b e d

. T h e r e ’s no blo od on thi s f ing e rn a il, bu t th e re is M e lvi na Sut tle s’ [s] g e ne tic mat eri a l. Wh a t do e s th a t te ll u s? That something happene d sexually to Melvina Suttl es, and it wa s the defe ndant that did it.”

The Def endant acknow ledg es that he did not contempora neously object to the s t at em en t

. Relief is not require d when “ a par ty responsible for

an er ror or who fa iled to take whatever

a c tio n w a s r e a so na

bly a va ila ble to p revent

or nu lli fy the ha rm fu l e ff e c t of a n e rr or .” Te nn . R. A p p

. P. 3 6 ( a )

. A s s u c h
, th e is s u e is w a iv e d
, a n d it ma y o n ly b e c o n s id e r e d f

o r p la in e r

r o r

. S ee Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).-15-

Whether an issue r is es t o t h e l ev el of plain error is a decision that lies within the sound dis c re tio n o f t

he a pp e ll ate c ourt

a nd may be c on sid e re d: ( 1) to p re ve nt n e e dle ss l iti g a tio n; ( 2) to pr e ve nt i nju

ry to t he int erests o f t

he pu bli c ; and (3 ) t o p re ve nt p re

jud ic e to t

he jud ic ia l pr oc e ss, preve nt ma

nifest injusti ce, or to do subs t an t i al j u s t i ce. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( b) ; T e nn . R. Cr im. P. 5 2( b) ; Sta te v . S mi th
, 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d

2 7 4
, 2 8 2

- 8 3 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ad o p t i n g Sta te v. Adk isson , 8 9 9 S.W .2d 626, 638-39 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1994)). In Adkisson , this Court st ated that the following fa ct o rs should be consider ed by an appe llate cour

t when dete rmining w hether an er ror constitutes “plain er

ror” : (a) the rec ord must clear ly estab l i s h wh at o ccur

red at the trial court; (b) a cle ar a nd unequivoca l rule of l aw m u s t have be en bre ache d; (c) a substantial rig ht of the

acc used must have be en adve rsely aff ecte d; (d) the accused did not waive the issue for ta ctical

rea sons; and (e) consideration of the issue i s “nec essar y to do substantial just ice.” Adkisson , 899 S.W .2d at 641-42 (c itations omi tted). Our Supre me Court char acte rized the Adkisson te st a s a “cle ar an d m ea ningf

ul standard” and empha siz ed that ea ch of the five fa ctors must be pre sent befor e an e rror

qualifies as pla in error

. Sm ith , 24 S.W .3d at 282-83.

“Courts have rec ognized that c losing argument is a valuable privilege a ffor ded to the State and the de fense and have aff orded w ide latitude to counsel in ar guing their ca ses to the jury.” State v. Cleve land , 959 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tenn. 1997) (citing State v. Bigb ee , 885 S.W.2d 797, 809 (Tenn. 1994) ). Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Proce dure 29.1( b) allows a c losing argume nt to address an y evidenc e introduce d at trial. In a ddition to argument based on the evidenc e pre sented, a ttor n ey s may also ar gue “r easona ble infer ence s.” State v. Chico McCrack en , No. W2001- 0 3176-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 1618082, a t *8 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Ma

r. 24, 2003), perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. Sept. 2, 200 3 ). When the re is improper argume nt, the court must test whether the inflammatory state ment negat ively impacted the Def endant. To me asure this im pact, f ive fa ctors should be c onsidered: “ (1) the f acts a nd circ umstances of

the ca se; (2) a ny cura tive measure s undertake n by the court and the prose cutor; (3) the intent of

the prosec ution; (4) the cumulative e ffe ct of the impro p er co n d u ct and any other

err ors in the re cord; a nd (5) the r elative stre ngth or wea kness of the c ase.” Sta te v . G olt z , 111 S.W.3d 1, 5-6 (Te nn. Crim. App. 2003).

Additionally, we have rec ognized f ive genera l ar eas of

prosec utorial misconduct: (1) intentionally mis stating the evidenc e or misleading of the jury on the infe renc es it can dr aw; (2) expre ssing personal belief s or opini o ns; (3) inflaming or a ttempting to i nflame the passions or prejudice s of the jury; (4) adding outside issues to the guilt or innocence issue; and (5) a rg u i ng

or re fer ring to outside fac ts. Id. Of c ourse, if the court t o o k cura tive measure s, such as prope r jury instructions, su ch m easures will likely render the misconduct har mless. McCrack en , 2003 W L 1 6 1 8 0 8 2
, a t * 8 ( citing Z a f i ro v. United States , 506 U.S. 534, 540-41 (1993) f or the pr op os it ion that “ [i ]n the abs e nc e of c omp e lli ng pr e

jud ic e , p ro pe r i ns truc tio ns wi ll g e ne ra lly suffi ce ‘t o cu re a ny risk of pre judice’ w hen one de fenda nt’s counsel a rgues that the c odefe ndent is the guilty party.”).

We acknowle d ge t h at t he State’s r efe renc e to a c rime that the De fenda nt was not cha

rg ed wi th n or on tr ia l f or was imp ro pe r. We, no ne the le ss, c on c lud e that th e re mark did no t r ise to plain err or. The State pr esente d a ver y strong case ag ainst the Def en d ant. I ts evidence included the De fe nd a nt’ s o wn

a dmi ssi on s to Of

fi c e r Wh its on

that sh e ha d s ta

bb e d a nd kil le d th e vic tim
,-16-

ey e witness testimony

by Suttl es that the De fenda nt stabbed the victim sever al times, and te sti mony fr om R ob e rt so n a

nd Sut tle s th a t th e De fe nd a nt a dmi tte d k il li ng the v ic tim . T he vic tim

was beate n with a hammer and stabbed repe atedly with both a scre wdriver and a knife in the home that he sha

red w ith the Defe ndant. The D efe ndant had expressed a de sire to “g et rid” of the victim. Considering the streng th of the evide nce a g ainst t h e De fe n d an t, she has not shown that th e state me nts ma de in t he Sta te ’s c los inga rgume nt a ff e c ted the v e rd ic t to he r d e tr ime nt. See g en er a l l

y State v. Farme r , 927 S.W .2d 582, 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) . Moreove r, the trial court instructe d the jury that “[s] tatements, ar g uments and remarks of c ounsel are intended
t o h e l p y o ui n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e e v i d e n c e a n d a p p l y i n g t h e l a w , b u tt h e y a r e n o te v i d e n c e

. If

a ny state me nts we re ma de that y ou be lie ve a re no t su

pp or te d b y the evid e nc e , y ou

sh ou ld disreg ard the m

. ” T h u s , t h e jury knew that the pr osecutor’ s comments wer e not evidenc e and

c ou ld b e dis re g a rd e d wh en consid e ri ngthe g uil t and inn oc e nc e of

the De fe nd a nt w ithre sp e c t to the fir s t d egr ee murder c harg e. See id. at 592. We conclude that the statement made during closing argument was not re versible er ror, and, there fore , no clea r and une quivocal rule of law

wa s b re a c he d. Th e De fe nd a nt h a s n ot p ro ve n p la in e rr or , a nd sh e is not e nti tle d to re lie f o n th is issue.

III. Conclusi on

After a ca ref ul reviewof the re cord a

nd the applica

ble law, we aff

irm the judg ment of the
tr ia l c ourt

.

______________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE