DROWOTA, J.

On cross-examination, Dr. Bernet admitted that he had spoken neither with the defendant nor any of the other witnesses. Dr. Bernet admitted that he did not have enough information to offer an expert opinion as to whether Pike acted with intent or premeditation in killing the victim.

Based on this evidence offered during the guilt phase of the trial, the jury found Pike, guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.

In the sentencing phase of the trial, the State relied on the evidence presented at the guilt phase and presented no further proof. The defense, in mitigation, called Carrie Ross, Pike's aunt as a witness. Ross testified that the defendant had experienced no maternal bonding because she was premature and was raised by her paternal grandmother until she died in 1988. Ross said that Pike's family has a history of substance abuse and that Pike's maternal grandmother was an alcoholic who was verbally abusive to Pike.

Following the death of Pike's paternal grandmother, Pike was shuffled between her mother and father. According to Ross, Pike's mother's home was very dirty. Pike's mother set no rules for her, and on the occasions that Pike had visited Ross, the defendant had behaved as a "little girl," playing Barbie and dress-up with her eleven-year-old cousin.

On cross-examination, Ross admitted that she had previously described Pike as a pathological liar and that she had been afraid to allow Pike to associate with her own children. Ross also admitted that Pike had been out of control since she was twelve years old.

Glenn Pike, the defendant's father, testified that he had kicked the defendant out of his house twice, the last time in 1989. He admitted that he had signed adoption papers for the defendant prior to her eighteenth birthday. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had forced Pike to leave his home in 1989 because there had been an allegation that the defendant had sexually abused his two-year-old daughter from his second marriage. According to her father, Pike had been disobedient, dishonest, and manipulative when she had lived with him.

The defendant's mother, Carissa Hansen, a licensed practical nurse, testified that Pike had lived with her 95 percent of the time since her paternal grandmother's death. Hansen admitted that she had smoked marijuana with the defendant in order to "establish a friendship." Hansen related that the defendant had attempted suicide by taking an overdose shortly after the death of her paternal grandmother. Hansen also testified that one of her boyfriends had whipped Pike with a belt. Hansen had the boyfriend arrested.

On cross-examination, Hansen admitted that Pike's behavior had been problematic for years. The defendant had begun growing marijuana in pots in her home at age nine. After threatening to run away from home and live on the street, Pike had been allowed to have a live-in boyfriend at age fourteen. Hansen admitted that Pike had wielded a "butcher-knife" against the boyfriend, who had been arrested for whipping her. Hansen also said Pike had lied to her and stolen from her on numerous occasions and had quit high school. Hansen conceded that Pike had been out of control since she was eight years old. Following Hansen's testimony, the defense rested its case.

In rebuttal, the State presented the testimony of Harold James Underwood, Jr., a University of Tennessee police officer who was assigned to secure the crime scene on January 13, 1995. Underwood testified that the defendant came to the scene with three to five other females between four and five p.m that day. Pike asked Underwood why the area had been marked off and questioned him concerning the identity of the victim and whether or not the police had any suspects. None of the other females spoke during the fifteen minutes the group was there. Underwood said Pike appeared amused and giggled and moved around. Underwood noticed that Pike was wearing an unusual necklace in the shape of a pentagram. After learning at roll call on January 14, 1995, that the victim of the murder had a pentagram carved on her chest, he reported Pike's strange behavior and unusual necklace to his superior officers.

Based on the proof submitted at the sentencing hearing, the jury found the existence of the following two aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) "[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death;" and (2) "[t]he murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (6) (1997 Repl.).

In addition, the jury found that the State had proven that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. The trial court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. After reviewing the record and considering the errors assigned by the defendant, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE: CONVICTIONS

The defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Specifically, with respect to the conviction for first degree murder, the defendant argues that the State did not offer any evidence to establish deliberation or to establish that the defendant had the opportunity to reflect upon her actions at a time when her mind "was free from the influence of excitement or passion." The defendant also maintains that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree murder.

In analyzing the defendant's assertions, we are guided by the following well-settled principles of law. A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial court, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of the prosecution's theory. State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tenn. 1973). A verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a presumption of guilt, and the defendant has the burden of illustrating why the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact. This Court does not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Nor may this Court substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact from circumstantial evidence. Liakas v. State, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1956). Therefore, on appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the trial evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. Consequently, in considering the defendant's claim that the evidence is not sufficient, we must determine, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of premeditated first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1994).

At the time this killing occurred, first-degree murder was defined as an "intentional, premeditated and deliberate killing of another." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (1991). "Intentional" was defined as the "conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(18) (1991 Repl.). "Premeditated act", on the other hand, meant an act "done after the exercise of reflection and judgment." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991 Repl.). Finally, "[d]eliberate act" was defined as "one performed with cool purpose." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-201(b)(1) (1991 Repl.).

The elements of premeditation and deliberation are questions for the jury which may be established by proof of the circumstances surrounding the killing. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 539 (Tenn. 1992). There are several factors which tend to support the existence of these elements which include: the use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim; the particular cruelty of the killing; declarations by the defendant of an intent to kill; evidence of procurement of a weapon; preparations before the killing for concealment of the crime, and calmness immediately after the killing. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 660; Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 541-42; State v. West, 844 S.W.2d 144, 148 (Tenn. 1992).

Considering the proof in this record in the light most favorable to the State, as we are required to do, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of premeditation and deliberation. Pike told a friend one day before the killing that she was going to kill the victim. The defendant procured weapons to accomplish the crime, arming herself with a box cutter and a minature meat cleaver, which she borrowed from another individual. Pike then lured the victim to an isolated area to commit the crime by telling the victim that she would share drugs with her.

Once they arrived at the isolated location, the defendant attacked the unarmed victim with not one, but two deadly weapons. The attack continued for thirty minutes to an hour. During this extended time, the defendant had ample opportunities in which to reflect upon her actions and choose a course of conduct. By her own admission, the defendant actually ceased the assault long enough to scout out the area and ensure that no one else was around. Certainly, this break in the chain of events provided the defendant time to reflect upon her actions. In fact, in her statement the defendant recounted how she carefully and repeatedly reflected upon her actions and chose to kill the victim to assure that the victim would not testify against her for "attempted murder."

Without question, this killing was particularly cruel; in fact, particular cruelty is a phrase which merely begins to describe the nature and circumstances of this killing. The defendant attempted to conceal the offense by dragging the victim's body to a secluded area and removing and disposing of the victim's identification cards. The defendant also washed the tops of her shoes at the Texaco service station and rubbed the mud from the bottom of her shoes onto her blue jeans to conceal the blood. Pike calmly disposed of the box cutter and returned the miniature meat cleaver to the person from whom it had been borrowed. Later that same evening, Pike displayed her "souvenir," a piece of the victim's skull, and she gleefully recounted the events of the assault and killing to Iloilo, the same friend to whom, only one day earlier, Pike had proclaimed her intent to kill Colleen Slemmer because "she just felt mean that day."

Clearly the evidence in this record is sufficient to support the elements of premeditation and deliberation and to support the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder.

The defendant next contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree murder because the State failed to prove the elements of the offense. Specifically, the defendant contends that there was no proof, other than her "uncorroborated statement" that a box cutter had been used on the victim, and there was no proof that Shadolla Peterson and Tadaryl Shipp attacked the victim.

At the time this killing occurred and at the present time, "[t]he offense of conspiracy is committed if two (2) or more people, each having the culpable mental state required for the offense which is the object of the conspiracy and each acting for the purpose of promoting or facilitating commission of an offense, agree that one (1) or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such offense." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-103(a) (1991 Repl.).

The offense of conspiracy is aimed at group criminality and is based upon the principle that group criminal activity poses a greater public threat than criminal offenses committed by a single individual. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-103 (1991 Repl.) (Sentencing Commission Comments). While the essence of the offense of conspiracy is an agreement to accomplish a criminal or unlawful act, Owens v. State, 84 Tenn. 1, 3 (1885); State v. Hodgkinson, 778 S.W.2d 54, 58 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989), the agreement need not be formal or expressed, and it may be proven by circumstantial evidence. State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634, 641 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993); Hodgkinson, 778 S.W.2d at 58. "The unlawful confederation may be established by circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the parties in the execution of the criminal enterprise. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution." Randolph v. State, 570 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978).

Viewing the evidence in this record in the light most favorable to the State, we have no difficulty concluding that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Iloilo testified that she observed the defendant, the victim, Peterson and Shipp leaving the Job Corps facility together on the night of the murder. Later that evening, Iloilo observed the defendant, Peterson, and Shipp return without the victim. After her return, Iloilo said that the defendant told her that she had killed the victim, using a meat cleaver to cut the victim's back and a box cutter to cut her throat.

Iloilo testified that Pike said the victim had begged "them" to stop cutting her throat and beating her. Iloilo's testimony was consistent with and corroborative of the confession in which Pike said that she and another person whom Pike referred to as "he," accompanied the victim to the isolated location where the killing occurred. Pike said that the other person participated in restraining the victim, cutting the victim, hitting the victim in the head with rocks and asphalt, and dragging the victim's body to a more isolated location.

DNA testing revealed that the blood stains found on both Pike and Shipp's clothing matched the victim's blood. Finally, both Pike and Shipp were wearing pentagram necklaces two days after the murder, and a pentagram had been carved onto the victim's chest. Accordingly, the defendant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree murder is without merit.

The defendant next asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to grant her motion to deny television coverage of the pretrial proceedings in this case. She asserts that media coverage in this case made jury selection difficult, "arguably affected the witness testimony and was generally disruptive of the proceedings." While recognizing that this Court has promulgated a rule which permits media coverage, Pike nonetheless contends that "the record of jury selection demonstrates intense media coverage made it impossible to get a fair trial."

This Court in December of 1995, adopted Supreme Court Rule 30 as a one-year pilot project to govern media coverage of judicial proceedings in Tennessee. The experimental rule was effective from January 1, 1996, until December 31, 1996. During this experimental period, this Court solicited and considered comments both from members of the general public and from participants in judicial proceedings which had been covered by the media pursuant to the terms of Rule 30. After considering the comments and adopting appropriate amendments, on December 30, 1996, this Court entered an order making Rule 30 permanent.

Section (A)(1) of Rule 30 authorizes "[m]edia coverage of public judicial proceedings in the appellate and trial courts of this State . . . ." However, the media coverage is "subject, at all times, to the authority of the presiding judge to (i) control the conduct of the proceedings before the court; (ii) maintain decorum and prevent distractions; (iii) guarantee the safety of any party, witness, or juror; and (iv) ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice in the pending cause." Further, Section (D)(2) of Rule 30 specifically grants to the presiding judge at a judicial proceeding the discretion to "refuse, limit, terminate or temporarily suspend" media coverage of all or part of a case if necessary to accommodate any of these important interests.

Although the defendant in this case contends that the media coverage "arguably affected the witness testimony and was generally disruptive of the proceedings," she does not cite to any specific portion of the record, nor offer specific reasons as to the ways in which the testimony was affected or the proceedings disrupted. Also, the defendant does not explain how media coverage of the crime would have been less intense had cameras been excluded from the courtroom during the proceedings.

Although jury selection was lengthy, in part, due to the media coverage of the crime, there is no assertion, nor proof, that any particular juror was biased because of the media coverage. In addition, there is no indication from reading the transcript that the media coverage itself was disruptive or that any disruptive event occurred during the proceedings. Clearly, a presiding judge's decision to deny a motion to preclude or limit media coverage is not error in the absence of proof that media coverage will compromise one of the important interests set forth in Sections (A)(1) and (D)(2) of Rule 30. The defendant in this case presented no such proof. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion under Rule 30 by denying the defendant's motion.

Moreover, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the media coverage of the pretrial and trial proceedings in this case impinged upon her right to a fair trial. In State v. Harries, 657 S.W.2d 414 (Tenn. 1983), the defendant alleged that the presence of cameras had deprived him of his right to a fair trial. In rejecting this claim, we first stated that Harries had agreed to the media coverage and could not object on appeal. However, we also stated that had a proper objection been interposed Harries claim would have failed because he had not demonstrated either that the presence of cameras impaired the jurors' ability to decide the case on the evidence alone, or that the trial was adversely affected by the impact of the media coverage on one or more of the participants. See also Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 581-82, 101 S.Ct. 802, 813, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981).

Likewise, the defendant in this case has failed to show either that media coverage of the pretrial and trial proceedings impaired the jurors' ability to decide the case on the evidence alone or adversely impacted one or more of the trial participants. To the contrary, the record is devoid of such proof. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.

In this case, the jury imposed the death penalty upon finding both that (1) "[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death," and that (2) "[t]he murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (6) (1997 Repl.). On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support these aggravating circumstances. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected this claim and found the evidence sufficient.

We first address the defendant's claim that the evidence is insufficient to support the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance. In State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1985), we defined "torture" as the infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains alive and conscious. Id. at 529. With respect to "serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death," we explained in State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996), that "serious" alludes to a matter of degree, and that the physical abuse must be "beyond that" or more than what is "necessary to produce death." Id. at 26.

In this case, the medical examiner testified that the wounds on the victim's body were too numerous to catalog. The victim's throat had been repeatedly slashed, defensive wounds were found on her right arm, bruises consistent with crawling were found on her knees, and she had sustained at least four heavy blows to her head. Her skull was fractured in several places. A pentagram had been carved onto her chest.

According to the medical proof, and the defendant's own statements to the police and to other witnesses, the victim was alive and conscious when these injuries were inflicted upon her. In fact, according to the defendant's statements, some of the wounds were inflicted because the victim would not stop begging for her life.

The defendant also admitted, and the crime scene revealed, that the victim repeatedly tried to run away and escape the attack. In fact, the victim was so terrified that she offered to walk to her home in Florida without returning to the Job Corps facility for her belongings in exchange for her life. The merciless assault upon the victim continued for a period of thirty minutes to an hour.

Considering this record, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the evidence is overwhelmingly sufficient to support the jury's finding that "[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) (1997 Repl.).

We also reject the defendant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding of the (i)(6) aggravating circumstance. This Court has previously held that to establish the applicability of this aggravating circumstance, the State must prove that avoidance of prosecution or arrest was one of the purposes motivating the killing. State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489, 504 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 581 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Carter, 714 S.W.2d 241, 250 (Tenn. 1986) (avoidance of arrest need not be sole motive for murder). In this case, Pike repeatedly told police that as she was assaulting the victim, she heard a voice telling her that she had to do something to keep the victim from reporting the assault and causing her to go to prison for attempted murder. When the victim begged for her life, Pike responded that she was not going to be "rotting in jail because of [the victim's] stupid ass." Based upon our consideration of the record, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that "[t]he murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(6) (1997 Repl.).

Finally, the defendant contends that the jury failed to properly consider and weigh the mitigating circumstances against the aggravating circumstances. The weight given aggravating and mitigating circumstances is entirely within the province of the jury. The jury determines whether or not mitigation exists and whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 661 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Barber, 753 S.W.2d 659, 669 (Tenn. 1988). As previously discussed, the State relied upon two aggravating circumstances. In mitigation, the defendant offered proof to show that she was young when the offense was committed, that she had no prior history of criminal activity, that she was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when the murder occurred, that her capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, that she had a difficult childhood, and that she had a personal and family history of substance abuse.

Through cross-examination, the State elicited testimony from the defendant's witnesses that she had been difficult, manipulative, and dishonest from an early age, that she previously had threatened an individual with a butcher knife, and that she had been accused of sexually molesting her half-sister.

The State also offered rebuttal proof to show that Pike had visited the crime scene with a group of other females on the day the victim's body was discovered and giggled as she asked questions about the murder. Considering the proof in this record, we are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.

We must next consider whether the defendant's sentence of death is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering the nature of the crime and the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (D) (1997 Repl.). If this case is "plainly lacking in circumstances consistent with those in similar cases in which the death penalty has previously been imposed," the sentence of death is disproportionate. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 665 (Tenn. 1997).

However, a sentence of death is not disproportionate merely because the circumstances of the offense are similar to those of another offense for which a defendant has received a life sentence. Id. at 665. Our role, in conducting proportionality review is not to assure that a sentence "less than death was never imposed in a case with similar characteristics." Id. Instead, our duty "is to assure that no aberrant death sentence is affirmed." Id.

In choosing and comparing similar cases, we consider many variables, some of which include: (1) the means of death; (2) the manner of death; (3) the motivation for the killing; (4) the place of death; (5) the similarity of the victim's circumstances, including age, physical and mental conditions, and the victims' treatment during the killing; (6) the absence or presence of premeditation; (7) the absence or presence of provocation; (8) the absence or presence of justification; and (9) the injury to and effects on nondecedent victims. Id. at 667. When choosing and comparing similar cases we consider the following characteristics of the defendant: (1) prior record or prior criminal activity; (2) age, race, and gender; (3) mental, emotional, and physical condition; (4) involvement or role in the murder; (5) cooperation with authorities; (6) presence or absence of remorse; (7) the defendant's knowledge of the helplessness of the victim; and (8) the defendant's capacity for rehabilitation. Id. Comparative proportionality review is not a rigid, objective test. Id. at 668. We do not employ mathematical or scientific techniques. In evaluating the comparative proportionality of the sentence in light of the factors delineated above, we rely also upon the experienced judgment and intuition of the members of this Court. Id.

As explained below, considering the nature of the crime and the defendant in light of these factors, we conclude that imposition of the death penalty for the torturous and cruel premeditated killing of this young woman is not disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. The proof in this case reflects that the eighteen-year-old defendant and the nineteen-year-old victim were acquaintances. Both were female students at the Job Corps facility in Knoxville. Because the victim allegedly had been making unfavorable comments about Pike and her boyfriend, Pike armed herself and lured the victim to an isolated area where she assaulted the victim. The victim died as a result of blunt force trauma to her head. In fact, her skull was virtually shattered. However, over the course of a thirty-minute to one-hour period before her death, Pike stabbed and slashed the victim with the box cutter and the meat cleaver. Pike kicked the victim, beat her with pieces of asphalt, and carved a pentagram onto her chest. The medical testimony and the defendant's statements establish that the victim was alive and conscious during this torturous ordeal.

In fact, according to Pike's own statement, the victim begged and bargained for her life. The victim tried to run away, but she was restrained by Pike and her co-conspirators. Pike showed no mercy; instead, she exhibited a total disregard for human life and human suffering when she committed this unprovoked and unjustified premeditated murder.

While Pike had no prior criminal record, her own relatives testified that Pike previously had been violent, manipulative, and dishonest. Although Pike was young at the time this offense was committed, only eighteen years old, she is certainly not the youngest person on death row. See State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, n. 5 (Tenn. 1997). While Pike is only the second woman to receive a death sentence in Tennessee, there is absolutely no indication that the jury's imposition of the death sentence was motivated by or based upon Pike's gender. Though the defense presented proof that Pike suffers from borderline personality disorder, the defense expert testified that Pike is not insane, but, in fact, is highly intelligent.

He admitted on cross-examination that many of Pike's actions relating to the killing were premeditated. Although others were present when the killing occurred and involved to some degree, the proof reveals that Pike was the leader. In fact, in her statement to police, Pike described in chilling detail her leading role in this murder. While Pike cooperated with the authorities by giving a statement and leading them to evidence, she displayed a stunning lack of remorse for committing this horrific crime.

In fact, Pike laughed and danced around as she boasted to her friends about the killing. Pike took a piece of the victim's skull with her as a "souvenir" and displayed this trophy to her friends when she recounted how the killing occurred. She returned to the crime scene the day after the murder with a number of other females and giggled as she asked the police officer questions about the killing. Pike's total lack of remorse is also evident from a letter she wrote to her boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp shortly after the jury had sentenced Pike to death on the first degree conviction. The letter was introduced at the sentencing hearing on Pike's conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and it is a part of the record in this appeal. In the letter, Pike complained to Shipp

There is also no evidence that Pike has a capacity for rehabilitation. The testimony of Pike's own relatives reveals that Pike has refused to abide by the applicable rules of society since a very young age. Considering the nature of the crime and the defendant, we conclude that the torturous and cruel murder of this nineteen-year-old woman places Pike into the class of defendants for whom the death penalty is an appropriate punishment. Based upon our review, we conclude that the following cases in which the death penalty has been imposed have many similarities with this case.

In State v. Owens, 746 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1988), the jury convicted the defendant Gaile K. Owens for procuring another to kill her husband. The victim was struck on the head twenty-one times with a tire iron. The blows had driven the victim's face into the floor of the den of his home. His skull was crushed and bone fragments were driven into his brain, as in this case. Also, as in this case, the victim was alive and conscious during the beating, as was evidenced by extensive injuries to his hands and strands of hair between his fingers which indicated that he had been attempting to cover his head with his hands during the beating. Much like this case, Owens offered proof in mitigation to show that she previously had been treated by a psychiatrist on one occasion several years earlier for severe behavioral problems.

She also offered testimony to show that she had been a "good prisoner who caused no problems, volunteered to work, and attended Bible study classes." Id. at 448. Also, as in this case, there was no evidence that Owens had a prior criminal record. As in this case, the jury sentenced Owens to death upon finding two aggravating circumstances: (1) that Owens committed the murder for remuneration, or the promise of remuneration, or employed another to commit the murder for remuneration, or the promise of remuneration and (2) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(4) and (5) (1982 Repl.).

In State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997), the twenty-four-year-old defendant murdered his twenty-two-year-old girlfriend by dousing her with gasoline and igniting her body as she sat trapped inside her car. As in this case, Hall exhibited a total disregard for human life and complete indifference to human suffering. Though Hall claimed, as did the defendant in this case, that he initially intended only to frighten the victim, Hall admitted that he never offered assistance to the victim after he realized that her body was completely engulfed by flames. As in this case, Hall's victim suffered excruciating pain and suffering. She was alive, conscious, coherent, and alert as her tongue swelled to the extent that it protruded from her mouth and her eyelids became inverted. She experienced not only the initial pain of the burn injuries, but also the pain from the incisions that were part of the medical treatment for the burns. As in this case, there was no evidence to indicate that Hall had a prior criminal record, though he admitted to abusing alcohol and drugs. Also like this case, a defense expert testified that Hall displayed symptoms of borderline personality disorder, but said Hall was not insane at the time the murder was committed.

The jury sentenced Hall to death upon finding, as in this case, two aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; and (2) the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in commiting or was attempting to commit arson. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (7) (1991 Repl.).

In State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. 1993), the forty-year-old defendant was found guilty of the triple premeditated murders of his estranged wife, age thirty-five and her two sons by a previous marriage, age sixteen and thirteen. With respect to the killing of his two step-sons, the jury found four aggravating circumstances, two of which were also found in this case: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind; and (2) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(i)(5) and (6) (1982).

As did the victim in this case, the two young men murdered by Smith suffered extremely torturous deaths. The sixteen-year-old victim was shot three times: in the right shoulder, the upper chest, and on the inside eyebrow. Though the last two gunshot wounds had been fatal, the evidence showed that prior to his death, the victim had been stabbed several times in his chest, back, and abdomen with a knife and an awl. His throat had been slashed, and he had defensive wounds on his hands.

The evidence indicated, as in this case, that the victim had been alive and conscious when the stab and slash wounds were inflicted. The thirteen-year-old victim had not been shot. Instead his neck had been slashed, and he had been stabbed in the chest and abdomen, much like the victim in this case. Two of the wounds to his abdomen had cut major veins, and his small bowel protruded from his body through these wounds. This victim also had numerous defensive wounds on his hands. The medical evidence indicated that all of these injuries were inflicted upon him while he was alive and that he bled to death over a period of several minutes. In mitigation, Smith, as did the defendant in this case, presented expert psychological proof that he had personality disorders. The jury sentenced the defendant to death for each of his three convictions for first degree murder.

In State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn. 1997), the eighteen-year-old defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of a seventy-nine-year-old widow. Bush used the victim's friendship with his grandmother to gain access to her home. Once inside, Bush, like the defendant in this case, brutally murdered the victim without any provocation by savagely beating her with a stick and by stabbing her forty-three times. Like the defendant in this case, Bush later boasted to acquaintances about the killing, recounting how he had practiced karate on the victim. Bush, like the defendant in this case, presented proof in mitigation relating to his youth, troubled childhood, mental disease or defect, and lack of a prior criminal record.

The jury imposed the death penalty upon finding the same two aggravating circumstances which were found by the jury in this case: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; and (2) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another. Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-204(i)(5) & (i)(6) (1991 Repl).

In State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1997), the twenty-two-year-old defendant was convicted of premeditated first degree murder for the brutal killing of the victim, a sixty-two year old widow, who lived near him and who had befriended Mann and his family. Mann chose to burglarize her home because he knew she was hearing-impaired. When the victim walked out of her bedroom and surprised Mann in the act of burglarizing her home, he brutally assaulted and murdered her, inflicting at least forty wounds upon the victim, including fifteen blows to the head, eleven stab wounds to the chest, and fourteen puncture wounds to her abdomen, all of which resulted in pain for the victim. In addition, the defendant digitally raped and manually strangled the victim. As in this case, Mann's victim was alive and conscious and calling out her attacker's name throughout the entire ordeal. The jury imposed the death penalty upon finding, as in this case, two aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; and (2) the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing a felony, burglary. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204 (i)(5) and (7) (1991 Repl.).

In State v. Barber, 753 S.W.2d 659 (Tenn. 1988), the twenty-nine-year-old defendant was convicted of first degree murder for killing a seventy-five-year-old woman who lived alone. Barber and his brother had broken into the victim's home to rob her. When the victim recognized Barber's brother, Barber attacked the victim, repeatedly striking her head with a crescent wrench. She was alive and conscious during the attack as was evidenced by the defensive wounds on her arms and hands. As mitigation, Barber, like Pike, relied upon his youth. The jury imposed the death penalty upon finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(5) (1982).

In State v. McNish, 727 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn. 1987), the twenty-nine-year-old defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of a seventy-year-old widow. As did the defendant in this case, McNish repeatedly struck the victim in the head fracturing her skull in several places. As in this case, the proof showed that the victim was alive and conscious during the attack. The jury imposed the death penalty upon finding one aggravating circumstance: the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203 (i) (5) (1982).

In State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342 (Tenn. 1982), the defendant, a farm foreman, was convicted of first degree murder for killing the farm owner's wife. As in this case, the victim's head was repeatedly beaten with such force that portions of her skull were embedded into her brain. Trauma to her arms and hands demonstrated that, like this case, the victim was conscious and attempting to defend herself during some portion of the ordeal. As in this case, Melson had no prior record of significant criminal activity. The jury imposed the death penalty upon finding the same two aggravating circumstances present in this case: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind; and (2) that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(5) and (6) (1977).

Though no two cases are precisely the same, the above cases have many similarities with the crime for which Pike has been convicted and sentenced. In all eight of these cases the victims were savagely beaten with a blunt instrument or repeatedly stabbed or both. Moreover, in all of these cases, as in the present case, the victims were conscious and experienced the pain and horror of the attacks. Likewise, all eight of the defendants were acquainted with the victims as was Pike in this case. Like Pike, many of these eight defendants relied upon their youth, troubled childhood, and mental difficulties as mitigation. Three of the eight defendants were under the age of twenty-five, and Bush, like Pike, was eighteen years old when the murder for which he was convicted occurred. In all eight cases, the jury found the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance. In three of the eight cases, the jury found both the (i)(5) and the (i)(6) aggravating circumstances. After reviewing the many cases discussed above and many other cases not herein discussed, we are of the opinion that the penalty imposed by the jury in this case is not excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed for similar crimes.

In accordance with the mandate of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (1997 Repl.), and the principles adopted in prior decisions of this Court, we have considered the entire record in this cause and find that the sentence of death was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory aggravating circumstances, and the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(A) - (C) (1997 Repl.).

We have considered the defendant's assignments of error and determined that none require reversal. With respect to issues not specifically addressed herein, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, authored by Judge David H. Welles, and joined in by Judge Thomas T. Woodall and Senior Judge John K. Byers. Relevant portions of that opinion are published hereafter as an appendix. The defendant's sentence of death by electrocution is affirmed. The sentence shall be carried out as provided by law on the 5th day of February, 1999, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or other proper authorities.

FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, JUSTICE

Concur: Anderson, C.J., Birch, Holder, Barker, JJ.