### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 21 , 200 7

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. STEV EN ALL EN JONES

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Car terCounty No. S17140 Lyn n W. Brow n, Pr esidin g Judge

No. E2006-01952-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Dece m ber 3, 2007

Following a jury

trial Def endant, Steven A llen J ones, wa s found g uilty of first deg ree murder. T he trial court se ntenced De fe n d an t to life imprisonment with t he possibility of par ole. On appe al Def endant a rg ues that (1) the evidenc e was insufficient to suppor t a conviction of f

irst deg ree murder and (2) the trial cour

t erre d by instructing the jury as t o the punishment for fir st deg ree murder. A fter a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in whic h D AVI D G. H AYES and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , joined.

Gene Scott, J unior, J ohnson City , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Steven Allen Jones

Robert E . C oo per, J r., At to rney Gen eral andRe po rt er; Benj ami n A. Ball , As si stan t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Anthony Clark, District Attorney

Gene ral; Ken Ba ldwin, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appellee , the State of Te nnessee

OP IN ION I. Bac kgr ound

De fe nd ant’ s c on vic tio n a

ro se o ut o f a d o m e s t i c a l t e r c a

t i o n b e t w e e n D e fe nd ant a

nd the vic tim
, Carla Scott. The a ltercation occurr ed in the par king lot of a McDona ld’s restaur ant in Eliz abethton on April 12, 2004.

On that date Ca

rla Scott took her two da

ug hters, ag es three and one, to Mc Donald’s f or an earl y l u nch. The re the victim met with Defenda nt at approximately

10:30 a.m. The victim and De fe nd ant h a d b e e n invo lve d with e a c h o the r s inc e 20 00 , h a d li ve d to g e the r, and ha d o ne c hil d toge ther. The victim a lso ha d another child that Def endant treated as his ow n. The victim ende d the relationship on March 19, 2004.-2-

Ac c or din g to D an Ro bb ins , a patr on in t he re sta ur ant, De fe nd ant w a s “ ho un din g ” the vic tim while she was on the telephone. Mr. Robbins testified that the vic tim tol d Def endant to “ba ck off

” bu t th a t D e fe nd ant d id n ot do so

. Mr. Robbi ns a lso te sti fi e d th a t D e fe nd ant w a s b e ing“ pr e tty

a g g re ssi ve tow ard

[the vic tim ]” w hil e the y

we re in M c Do na ld’ s.

Def e n d an t an d th e v ic ti m w e n t o u ts id e o f th e r e s ta u r an t ju s t b e f

o r e 1 1 :0 0 a

. m. Eug ene Young , a McD onald’s employ ee, te stified that he wa s in the parking lot on a smoke bre ak and sa w the victim and Def

endant a rg uing in the pa

rking lot near the ir vehicle s. The victim drove a Jeep and Def endant dr ove a va

n. Mr. Youngtestified that the victim ran a way from De fenda

nt when he tr ied to hold her. He said that Def endant took a

fewsteps towards the vic tim but t hen turne d around a nd g ot into his van. Mr. Young testified that he sawthe victim wait a fe w moments and then proc eed back to he r Jeep and ente r on the drive r’s side. At that point Defenda nt “stepped out of his va

n . . . and just fired f

ive shots rig ht throug h the window, passeng er side w indow of the Jeep.” Mr. Y oung testified it was “two or

three minutes” betwee n the time D efe ndant enter ed his va n and when he g ot out and shot the victim. After f iring five shots into the J eep, D efe ndant g ot back into his van and qu ic kly e xite d th e pa

rk inglot

.
Trac y Dickens te stifi ed that she and two other witnesse s, L arr y Stout and J ennife r Ei se nh ow e r, we re e a tin g lun c h in Mr . St ou t’ s c ar i n th e pa

rk ing lot of

Mc Do na ld’ s a

bo ut 1 1:0 5 a .m. on April 12. Ms. D ickens testified that she saw the victim in the parking lot and then observe d an

arm come down and a gun. She told her friends, “oh my God, he’s goingto shoot her.” She then hear d g un fire. Ms. Eisenhower te stified that she saw the victim and stated that the victim was fi g hti ngwi th s ome bo dy

. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Ms. Ei se nh ow e r a lso te sti fi e d th a t a bo ut a min ute elapse d betwee n the first time she sawthe victim and when the victim got into he r car

. Mr. Stout testified that af

ter he hear d g unshots, he saw a man g et into the van parke d next t o the victim’s J eep and drive awa

y quickly . Mr. Stout testi fied that the van pulled out so quickly that it almost hi t Mr. Stout’s car.

Offic er Mi ch ae l P eter s testified that he wa s a cr iminal investigator w ith the Cit y of Eliz abethton Police Department on April 12, 2004, and that he a rrived at the McDona ld’s about ten minutes after

the shooting. H is job in t he investig ation was to pr ocess the crime sc ene. H e desc ribed to the jury

what wa s depicted in nume rous photogr aphs from the cr ime scene . The photos wer e of the victim’s J eep and t he par king lot at Mc Donald’s. The photos showed the broke n g lass from the

s h o t s b ei n g fi re d

th ro u gh t h e wi n d o w, t h e v i ct i m ’s b l o o d o n t h e dri v er ’s s ea t , v ar i o u s s h el l ca s i n gs found in and a

round the J eep, a

nd bullet holes in the J eep. O ffice r Peters a lso testified that he sent a bullet that was rec overe d from the victim’s body to the Tenne ssee B urea u of Investig ation (TB I ).

J ohn B u r le s o n , a p ar a me d ic f o r th e Ca rte r Co u n ty E me r g e n c y an d Re s c u e Squa d and a

rese rve de puty

sheriff , testified that he wa s asked by Captain Peters to g o to the Bristol Bridg e and look f or the g un used in the shooting of the victim. Mr. Bur leson did not find the g un but he did find two live rounds about four to six inches off

the white line on the br idge

.-3-

Gilbert Presne ll testified that Defe ndant had worke d two day s for him. On the F riday befor e the shooting, D efe ndant aske d Mr. Presnell to bor row a vehicle license plate from Mr. Presnell. Mr. Presnell to l d Def

endant he would need to think about it. On Monday , the day of the shooting , an office r ca me to see Mr . Presnell and Mr. Pre snell told the officer t h at the license plate wa s taken from him without permission.

Offic er Jas o n McCall testified that af ter the D efe ndant was a rre sted in Whi te Pine, Te nn e sse e , h e se arc he d D e fe nd ant’ s h ote l r oo m and va n. He te sti fi e d that he fo un d De fe nd ant’ s c e ll phone in the room. Of

fice r McCall fur

ther testified that Mr. Presnell’s license plate matched the one fo un d o n D e fe nd ant’ s v an at th e tim e of his arr e st.
Ms. Shelly

Bet t s of the Te nnessee Bur eau of I nvestig ation (TB I ), a f irea rms examiner, testified as a

n expert witness. Ms. Be tts stated that she rec eived f ive fire d car

tridg e ca ses from the parkinglot at McDonald’s, one bullet jacket f rom the driver ’s seat of the Jeep, a bullet jacke t from the driver ’s floorboa

rd of the J eep, one bul let jacke t from the victim at t he hospital, sever al bullet fra g ments from the autopsy , and the unfired rounds that wer e collecte d by Mr. Bur leson on t he Br istol Bridg e. Ms. B etts’ ana ly sis led her to dete rmine that all five c artridg e ca ses from McDona ld’s h a d b e e n f

ir e d f r o m th e s a me w e a

p o n an d th e tw o u n f

ir e d r o u n d s h a d o n c e bee n
c hambe re d in

and the n e je c te d f ro m th e same we a

po n th a t f ir e d the fi ve c a se s f

ound a t Mc Do na ld’ s. Ms. B etts further testified that the bullets ext rac ted from the vic tim’s body , those found at the B ristol Br idge , and the c artridg e ca ses wer e all .9 millimeter ca liber.

Wil ma Tay

lor testified that she a

nd the victim we re close friends. She was a lso acqua inted with De fe n d an t . She and the victim worke d toge ther at Wendy ’s and a lso spent time togethe r outside of work. Ms. Taylor testified t hat s he knew Def endant called the victim s ix or seve n times a day to c heck up on her, a

nd those ca lls often upset the victim. Ms. Taylor also stated that she a sked Def endant a bout acquiringa handgun and t h at De fenda nt said he had one he wa s thinking about selling. D efe ndant then showe d her a .9 milli meter ha

ndg un. Ms. Taylor testified that this was sometime in early

2004.
Missy Clark and he r husband, David Clark, wer e friends with the victim and Def endant a nd spent time with them on severa l social occ asions. Ms. Clark testified that Def endant took his g un out one eve ning and s howed it to her husband and that she asked him to put it away beca use she wa s
scar ed of guns. She also stated that De fenda nt t h re at en ed t h e li fe of

the victim on “quite a f

ew
occa sions.” She said that he would “ just up and say , ‘if y ou ever leave me, I ’ll f_ing kill y ou.’” O n
cross-e x amination, Ms. Clark testified that the last time she hear d Def endant threaten the victim was six or se ve n mo nth s p ri or

to h e r d e a th. Mr . Cl ark

a lso te sti fi e d th a t th e De fe nd ant t old him that if the vic time ve r l e ft

him that he wo uld

kil l he r. Mr . Clark fu

rt he r ad de d tha t the De fe nd ant t old him he had a handg un.

Th e vic tim ’s fi anc é , Ro be rt Jone s, te sti fi e d th a t D e fe nd ant h a d thre a te ne d to sh oo t hi m duri ngthe thr e e we e ks pr ior to t he vic tim ’s de a th. Mr . J on e s als o te sti fi e d th a t D e fe nd ant o ft e n to ld him that “if he c ouldn’t have her [t he victim]
, then no one could.” Mr. J ones stated that Def endant-4-

would call him two or three times a day

. The victim c alled Mr. J ones while she and De fenda nt were arguing in Mc Donald’s on the mor ning of her de ath. During this call, Mr. Jones testified that he hear d the victim sa

y “don’t pull that f_ing g un” and De fenda nt said “I won’t.” Mr . J ones hung up the ph on e and

c a ll e d 9 11 and

tol d th e op e ra

tor that hi s f ianc é wa s at Mc Do na ld’ s a nd the re wa s a
man w itha

g un wh o w a s g oin g to hur

t her

. Af te r ca lli ng 91 1, Mr . J on e s con tin uo us ly tr ie d to c a ll the victim and she did not answe r, so h e d ro v e to M cDona ld’s. When Mr. J ones ar rived at McDona ld’s, the vi ctim was alre ady in the ambulance . Mr. J ones then c alled De fenda nt. Mr. J ones

“ a sk e d [D e fe nd ant] w hy

he did it
, and he said he wa

nte d my bit c h a ss, and

sh e wo uld

n’ t te ll h im wher e I [Mr. J ones] was. So, he shot her . . . a nd he told me, I

hope that bitch dies.”

Th e la st w itn e ss f

or the state wa s Dr . Gr e te l Step he ns . Dr . St e ph e ns te sti fi e d th a t th e vic tim died as a result of two gunshot wounds to the head, with a total of five gunshot w ounds. She conclude d the manner

of death was homicide.

Defen d an t testified in his own behalf a t trial. Defe ndant testified that, on the da y of her death, the vic tim tol d him to m eet he r at McD onald’s and she would let him see the c hildren. Def endant testified that he and the vic tim arg ued about the c hildren. When they we nt outside, he

and the vic timtoo k th e c hil dr e n to the Jee p a nd e a c h s e c ur e d o ne of

the c hil dr e n in

the a pp ro pr ia te

c ar s e a t

. D e f

e n d an tb e g ant o g e tan g r

y a tt h e v i c t i m b e c a

u s e s h e w a s r

u s h i n g h i m t o s ay g o o d

b ye to the children. The victim told Def endant that he was never g oing to see the g irls ag ain and that she

s h o v e d a p i c t u r e o f

M r

. J o n e s i nh i s f

a c e an d t o l d h i m t h a tM r

. J o n e s w a s t h e g i r l s ’ n e w d a d dy. Def endant testified that he wadde d the picture up and thre w it on the floorboar d of the Jeep and then the vic timsla

pp e d h im. De fe nd ant t e sti fi e d th a t he we nt t o his van, g ot his g un , a nd sh ot t he vic tim

. Def endant a dmitted on cross-e x amination that he put the license plate he took f rom Mr. Presne ll on the van he was driving. Def endant also admitted on cross-e x amination that he dis posed of the gun at the B ristol Bridg e and ejec ted the unfired rounds from the wea pon. Def endant also testified that Mr . Jon e s c a lle d h im o ft e n a nd thr e a te ne d h im a

nd tha t he ne ve r t

hr e a te ne d M r. Jone s.

Jame s F or d te sti fi e d f

or the de fe ns e that D e fe nd ant t old him he wa s n ot s tay inga t hi s h ome beca use he was scar ed of Mr. Jones. Mr. Ford a lso testified that he hea rd De fenda

nt and Mr. Jones “hollering ” at e ach othe r on the phone about meeting somewher e. Mr. F ord testified he overhe ard this conversation sometim e duringthe three wee ks befor e the victim was killed.

II. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence

Def endant a rg ues that the e vidence was insuffic ient to support his conviction of first deg ree murder be cause the State fa iled to prove pre meditation bey ond a re asonable doubt.

At the time of the off

ense, Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39-13-202 pr ovided that
(a ) F ir st d e g re e mur de r i s:
(1) A pr emeditated a

nd intentional killi ng of anothe r-5- * * *
(d) As use d in subdivisi on (a) (1), “pre meditation” is a n act done af

ter the exercise of ref

lection and judg ment. “Preme ditation” means that the i nt ent to kill mu st h a ve be e n f or me d p ri or to t he a c t it se lf

. I t is not nece ssary

that the purpose to kill p re -e x ist in t he mind of the

acc used for

any definite pe riod of time. Th e m en t al state of the

acc used at the time the a ccuse d al l egedly decide d to kill m ust be

car efully considere d in order to de ter m i n e whe ther the a ccuse d was sufficie n t l y

fre e fr om excitement and passion as to be c apable of preme ditation.

I n r e vie wi ng De fe nd ant’ s cha lle ng e to the su ff ic ie nc y of the c on vic tin g e vid e nc e , w e mus t revie w the evide nce in a

light most favor able to the prosec ution in deter mining whether a rational tr ie r o f f a c t c ou ld h ave fo un d a ll the ess ent ial e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 2789, 61 L . Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979). O nce a jury finds a def

endant guilty , his or her pr esu m p t i o n o f i n n ocenc e is remove d and re place d on appea l with a presumption o f gu i lt. State v. Black , 815 S.W .2d 166, 175 (Tenn. 1991) . The de fe nd ant h a s th e burd e n o f o ve rc omi ng thi s pre su mpt ion , an d the State is en tit le d to th e str on g e st leg itimate view of the e vidence along with all rea sonable infe renc es which ma y be dra wn from that

e v id e n ce. Id .; St at e v . Tu gg le , 639 S.W .2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982) . The jury is presumed to have resolved a ll conflicts and dra wn any rea sonable infe renc es in favor of t he S tate. Sta te v . S he ffi e ld
, 676 S.W .2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984). Questions conce rning the credibility of wit nesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven the evidence, and all fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e re solved by the trier of fac t and not this court. State v. Bland
, 958 S.W .2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997) . These r ules are applicable to f

i n d i n gs o f g uilt predicate d upon direc t evidence , circ umstantial evidence , or a combination of both direc t and circ umstantial evidence

. Sta te v . M att he ws , 805 S.W .2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)

.
Gre at weig ht is given to the jury verdic t in a criminal t rial; it accr edits the state’s witnesse s and re solves all conflicts in favor of the state. State v. Bigbee , 885 S.W .2d 797, 803 (Tenn. 1994) ; Sta te v . H arris , 839 S.W .2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992) . “The infere nces to be draw n from such e vidence
, and the e x tent to which the cir cumstance s are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocenc e
are questions . . . for the jury .” Ma ra blev . S tat e , 313 S

. W

. 2 d 451, 457 (Tenn. 1958) (citation omi tte d) ; se e als o Sta te v . G re go ry , 862 S.W .2d 574, 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

.
The e lement of pre meditation is a question of fac t to b e d etermined by the jury

. State v. Davidson , 1 21 S.W. 3d

60 0, 61 4 (T e nn .2 00 3) . A lth ou g h th e jur y may no t e ng a g e in s pe c ulatio n, it may infer pr emeditation from the ma nner a nd ci rc u m s t an ces of

the killing. State v. Bland , 958 S.W. 2d 65 1, 66 0 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Sta te v . B or dis , 905 S.W .2d 214, 222 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Our Supreme co u rt h as delineated seve ral c ircumstance s that may be indicative of

preme ditation, including the u s e o f a d eadly wea pon upon an unar

med victim, the fac t that the killing was particula rly crue l, declar ations of the int en t to kill the victim by the def endant, the making of-6-

pr e pa ratio ns be fo re the kil lin g fo r t he purp os e of c on c e a lin g the c ri me , and c a lmn e ss i mme diate ly afte r the killing. Sta te v . Ni c ho ls , 24 S.W .3d 297, 302 (Tenn. 2000)

.
De fe nd ant argue s that he wa s a c tin g in the he a t of pa ssi on wh e n he sh ot the v ict im. De fe nd ant c la ims tha

t wh e n the vic tim sh ow e d him the pic tur e of Mr

. Jone s and state d that th is i s the childre n’s new da ddy

and then slappe d him, that he responde d in the heat of passion and shot her

. Ho we ve r, the e vid e nc e sh ow e d that De fe nd ant ha d thr e a te ne d to kil l th e vic timnume ro us tim e s if sh e e ve r l e ft

him . F ur the r, De fe nd ant s ta te d th is int e nt to thr e e dif fe re nt pe op le on

va ri ou s o c c a sio ns

. The only evidenc e contr adicting this testim ony came from De fenda

nt who decla

red that ever

y one
e lse wa s ly

ing . T he e vid e nc e fu

rt he r s ho we d, a

nd De fend ant adm it te d, to p la c inga lic e ns e plate from someone else’s ve hicle on his van thre e day s befor e the shooting. Def endant had time to r efle ct up on the c ir c ums tanc e s wh e n he e nte re d his va n pr ior to a g a in g e tti ngou t and

sh oo tin g the vic tim befor e she c ould drive aw ay . Moments a fter shooting the vic tim five times, Defe ndant stated to Mr. Jone s th a t th e vi cti m wou ld not te ll D e fe nd ant M r. Jone s’ loc a tio n, so De fe nd ant s ho t th e vic tim

. Def endant a dded that he hope d “that [the victim] dies.”

Ba sed on our r ev i ew of the e vidence , the jury was we ll within i ts prerog ative to convict De fe nd ant o f f

ir st de g re e mur de r. Af

te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f t

he e vid e nc e we fi nd

the e vid e nc e to b e s u f f i c i e n tb e yo n d

a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b tt o s u p p o rta c o n v i c t i o no f

f i r s td e g r e e m u r d e r

. A c c o r d i n g l y, Def endant is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

III . J ur y I nst r uc ti ons

Def endant ne x t argues that the trial court erre d in instructing the jur y as to the pena lties for a first de g ree murder c onviction. The trial judg e cha rg ed the jury

with the following instruction:
The punishm ent for this offe nse i s life imprisonment, life imprisonment without the possibili ty

of par ole, or death by

elec trocution. The State, howe ver, is not see king the death penalty

or life imprisonment without t h e p ossibili ty of par ole and, there fore , should y ou return a verdic t of g uilty
, the court will impos e a life sentenc e.
During its deliberations, the jury sent a que stion to t he cour t as k i ng , “How muc h time for 2nd deg ree ? ” The trial court responde d with a n oral and written statement informing the jury , “[t] he law do e s n ot p e rm it m e to inf

or m y ou re g ard ing the punis hme nt f or se c on d d e g re e mur de r. Yo u s ho uld

rea ch a ve rdict base d upon the fa cts and the la w without consideringthe ra ng e of punishment. The rang e of punishment should not be consider ed by y ou at all in decidingthis case.”

I n criminal cases, a defe ndant has a right t o a cor rec t and complete c harg e of the law. Sta te v. Garrison , 4 0 S. W.3 d 42 6, 43 2 (T e nn . 2 00 0) . “ An ins tr uc tio n s ho uld

be c on sid e re d e rr on e ou s o nly if the j ury char g e, when rea d as a whole, fails to submit the l eg al i ssues or m isleads the jury as to the appli cable law.” State v. Faulkne r , 1 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 8 , 5 8 (T en n

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Vann , 9 76 S.W. 2d 93 , 10 1 (T e nn

. 19 98 ))

. Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 40 -3 5- 20 1 p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p a rt :-7-

(b) In all contested criminal case s, except for c apital cr imes which ar e g overne d by the pr oc e dure s c on ta ine d in § § 29 -1 3- 20 4 and 39 -1 3- 20 5, and a s n e c e ssa

ry to comply with the Constit ution of Tennesse e, ar ticl e VI, § 1 4 , and § 40-35- 301, the judge shall not instruct the jury , nor shall the attorne y s be per mitted to comment at any time to the j u ry , on possible penalties for the offe nse cha

rg ed nor a ll lesser inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s.

A. J ur yIn str uc tio n R e

ga rd ing theIn ap pli c ab ili ty

of t he De ath Pe na lty

I n State v. Billy Ge ne De

Bow, Sr ., No. M1999-02678-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL1137465 at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug . 2, 2000) perm. app. denied (T e nn . M arc h 1 2, 20 01 ), thi s Court he ld t hat it wa s p ro pe r f

or a tr ia l court

to i nf or m a jur y that th e state wa s n ot s e e kin g the de a th penalty . This Court held, “B y prohibiting the c ourts from informingjuries that death is not an option, the leg islature would in e ssence be cre ating the same problem it ha d befor e: J u ri es m i g ht decide the ca ses base d on the potential punishment r ather than the def

endant’ s g uilt or innocence of the cr ime char g ed.” Id . at *8 There fore
, in the instant case, the trial court wa s corr ect in informing the jur y that th e de a th p e na lty

wa s n ot a

po ssi ble pe na lty

fa c ingthe de fe nd ant.

B. J ur yIn str uc tio n R e

ga rd ing LifeIm pr iso nm e nt W

ith ou t th e Po ssi bil ity

of P ar ole

This Court also addresse d the l ang uag e of T.C.A. § 40-35-201 in DeBow . This Court stated, “the statute provides that the judg e and attorney s may not comment on po ssi blepenalties.” Id . at *8. I n Def endant’ s case , the State was not see king life without the possibil ity of par ole; there fo re, by instructing the jury

that life wit hout the pos sibili ty of parole was not an option, the trial cour t did not violate the statute.
C. Jury Instruction Regarding Life Imprisonment

State v. Edward Pinchon , N o. M1 99 9- 00 94 -C CA -R 3- CD , 2 00 0 WL 28 40 71 (T e nn . Cr im. App., at Nashville, Mar ch 17, 2000) perm. app. de nied (Tenn. May 10, 2004) and State v. Charles Ray Allen , No. M199 9 -0 0 8 1 8-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1649507 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, N o v

. 3 , 2 0 0 0 ) p er m. a

p p

. denied (Tenn. A pril 9, 2001), ar e two ca ses dec ided by this Court t hat addre ss the issue of a trial judge including in the j ury instructions all the pos sible punishments for first deg ree murder. I

n Pinchon , the trial judg e instructed the jury that if the def

endant wa s convicted of

first deg ree mur d er , h e wo u l d rec eive a sentenc e of life imprisonment with the possibili ty of parole. Pinchon
, 2000 WL 284071 at *1. This Court held that when the tria l court

so e rr s “ the de fe nd ant m

us t de mon str a te that, b ut fo r the e rr on e ou s in str uc tio n, the re is a

re a so na ble probabilit y th e ju

r y w o u ld h a v e a c qu itte d h im o f f ir s t d e g r e e mu

r d e r an d f o u n d h im g u il ty o f

the lesser of fense . . .” Id . at *4. I n Allen , th e tr ia l c ourt ins tr uc te d th e jur

y po ol at vo ir

dir e that th e state was not seeking the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole, the ref ore should the jury

find the def endant guilty

of first deg ree murder the “automatic sentence

. . . would be an a utomatic life sentenc e.” Allen
, 2000 WL 1649507 at *7. The trial court also repeated this in the jury char g e. Id

. at *7. I n that case , this Court held that the “trial court’s err or in instruc ting the jur y ab o u t the-8-

penalties for

first deg ree murder doe s not ‘aff irmatively

appea r to have affe cted the result of the trial on the merits.’” Id . at *8.

I n th e ins tant c a se , D e fe nd ant c on te nd s th a t bec a us e the jur

y qu e sti on e d the tr ia l cou

rt a s to the puni shment for second degr ee murder there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have found the Appe llant not guilty of first degr ee m u rder

absent the imprope r instruction. Def endant

asser ts that he has thus shown that, but for the trial court’s errone ous instruction, he would have been acquitted of

first deg ree murder a

nd been convicted of the lesser inc luded offe nse of se cond deg ree murder. H e base s this arg ument on the fa ct that, during its d el i b er at i o n s , the jury sent a wr itten question to the trial judge which states, “ what is the maxium [si c] sentence of sec ond deg ree murder. [si c] That the judg e ca

n set. [si c] if any

[si c].”

The trial c ourt g ave the jury the following response , orally and in writing : “The la

w does not permit me to inform y ou reg ardingthe punishment for sec ond deg ree murder. Y ou should reach a verdic t based upon the facts and the law wi thout considering the range of punishment

. T h e r an ge of punishment should not be considere d by y ou at all in decidingthis case.” (empha sis added) The jur y ha d b e g un

its de lib e ratio ns a t 5: 40 p. m. T he jur y se nt ou t the qu e sti on

a fe w m inute s p ri or

to 7:20 p.m. The question was answer ed and the jury retire d to continue deliber ations a fe w minutes later. It was announc ed t h at t h e jury had a ve rdict at 7:42 p.m. Fr om these proc eeding s and the chronolog ical orde r and time pe riods, D e f e n d a nt a sserts that the jury

was “ consideringsecond de g ree murder;” otherwise, Def

endant argues, there would have been no rea son for the jury “to know the punishment.”

I f t he jur y wa s, a s imp lie d by De fe nd ant, makin g a g uil t de te rm inatio n ba se d u po n p os sib le punishment, the trial court’s a nswer to the question clea rly stated the jury

could not do such. A jury is presumed to f

o l l o w t h e trial c ourt’s instructions. See Sta te v . S mi th , 893 S.W .2d 908, 914 (Tenn.1994 )

. Wi th th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s an s w e r to th e ju r y ’ s qu e s ti o n , an d th e o v e r w h e lm in g p r o o f

of fi rs t de g re e mur de r, we c on c lud e that e rr or , if any , w a s h arm le ss.

De fe nd ant’ s f

ina l argume nt i s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s ins tr uc tio n a s to the punis hme nt f or fi rs t de g re e mur de r an d fa ilure to c ha rg e the punis hme nt f

or se c on d d e g re e mur de r v iol a te d h is r ig ht t o a trial by jury under the Six th A mendment to the United States constitution and Article I , Section VI of the Tennessee constitution. Def endant does conce de that not all err oneous jury instructions rise to the leve l o f constitutional error. State v. Faulkne r , 154 S.W .3d 48, 60 (Tenn. 2005)

. Although D efe ndant has c ouched his a rg ument as a c onstitut ional violation of the rig ht to a trial by jury
, it is essentially a request for this Court to overrule Allen and Pinchon to the e xten t th a t w e he ld that jury instruction error s reg ardingpunishment are not c onstitut ional err ors. We do not fee l compelled to re -examine Allen and Pinchon

. Ac c or din g ly
, De fe nd ant is n ot e nti tle d to re lie f o n th is issue.

The State c ontends in its brief that Def endant waived his rig ht to object to the jury instruction

a t is su e be c a

us e it w a s no t ra ise d a t tr ia l and the re fo re thi s Court sh ou ld re vie w De fe nd ant’ s c la ims only under pla in error analy sis. Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure 30( b) addr esses the State’ s-9-

argument and states in per tinent part, “. . . Counsel’s failure to object does not prejudice the rig ht of

a pa rt y to a ssi g n th e ba sis of the ob je c tio n as er

ro r in a moti on fo r ne w tri a l.” De fe nd ant p ro pe rl y raised the objection in his moti on for ne w tri al
, an d there fore , the issue was not wa ived, and wa s thus available f

or plena ry appellate revie w.

CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f t

he re c or d, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE