APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case is a consolidation of three breach of contract actions, each of which arose out of disputes regarding major renovations and additions to a commercial building in Harriman housing an automobile dealership owned by Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. (“Jerry Duncan Ford”). Jerry Duncan Ford filed an action against the general contractor in charge of the project, J. Roy Frost, doing business as Frost Construction Company (“Frost”), after terminating Frost’s services because of unsatisfactory performance. Frost in turn filed an action against Jerry Duncan Ford for breach of contract. The third action was filed by Customer Service Electric Supply, Inc. (“Customer Service”), against Jerry Duncan Ford, Frost, M. Jerry Duncan (“Mr. Duncan”), and Judy C. Duncan (“Judy Duncan”), seeking payment for certain exterior light fixtures that it had installed at the dealership. After a bench trial, the court awarded Jerry Duncan Ford damages reflecting the difference between the total cost of the construction and $313,200, a “ceiling” that -- as found by the trial court -- Frost had guaranteed. The trial court also awarded Customer Service damages against Frost, but denied the former’s request for a judgment against Jerry Duncan Ford and the Duncans. Frost appeals, raising the following issues for our consideration:

The appellan ts, James Montgomery and Tony Carruthers, were each indicted, along with their co-defendant, Jonathan Montgomery, on three counts of the premeditated first degree murders of Marcellos Anderson, his mother, Delois Anderson, and Frederick Tucker. Prior to trial, Jonathan Montgomery was found hanged in his jail cell. James Montgomery and Tony Carruthers were also indicted on three counts each of the esp ecially aggravated kidnapping of all three victims, and one count each of the especially aggravated robbery of Marcellos Anderson. The appellants were tried and convicted on each charge. The appellants were sentenced to death by electrocution for the three murder convictions and received forty year sentences for each of the other offenses. The jury found the existence of four aggravating circumstances as to each appellant for each murder conviction: 1) the murder was especially heino us, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture; 2) the appellants committed mass murder; 3) the appellants had previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies; and 4) the murders were committed during the perpetration of especially aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated robbery. T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (5), (7), and (12). On appeal, the appellants raise the following issues concerning alleged errors occurring before trial as well as during both phases of the trial: