ÿWPCù+ …# VUNa %¯ 0 Nµ 0 Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , ; C 0DE m‰ †  0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ B 0d  D3„ 0@·U">÷B)5DC^ AM¡U*î.ÝF#4lDþ°9®(çô v~#vÓ$ AOT*Æ£* 0Di+ D/­+ BÜ+˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2gþ$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xe!X¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ˆ‰DŠ‹DŒDaŽUÓ€šDÒ ddddd83|xš(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀwolf v. state Í 3 ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !" ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÔ€2ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌApril€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€¢Dugger£€was€found€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€received€a€life€sentence.òò€€StateÏv.€¢Dugger£,óó€App.€No.€¢01C01£„9102„CR„00034,€1991€WL€165822,€at€*1€(Tenn.€¢Crim£.€App.ÏAug.€30,€1991),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Feb.€3,€1992).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMessrs.€Hall€and€¢Quintero£€were€found€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€They€receivedÏthe€death€penalty€for€the€murder€of€Ms.€¢Vester£€and€a€life€sentence€for€the€murder€of€Mr.€¢Vester£.€ÏòòState€v.€Hall,óó€App.€No.€¢01C01£„9311„CC„00409,€1997€WL€92080,€at€*1€(Tenn.€¢Crim£.€App.€ÏMar.€5,€1997).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMs.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€also€rely€on€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€4€which€prohibits€usingÏpolitical€or€religious€tests€for€ð ðany€office€or€public€trust€under€this€State.ðð€€We€do€not€find€thisÏsection€to€be€applicable€because€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6€governs€the€qualifications€of€jurors.€Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAriz.€Const.€art.€2,€ðð€12;€Cal.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€4;€Md.€Const.€Declaration€of€Rights€art.Ï36;€Mo.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€5;€N.M.€Const.€art.€VII,€ðð€3;€N.C.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€26;€N.D.€Const.Ïart.€I,€ðð€3;€Or.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6;€Utah€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€4;€Wash.ÏConst.€art.€I,€ðð€11;€W.€Va.€Const.€art.€3,€ðð€11;€Wyo.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€18.Ì ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý2€Story,€at€617„18.€€Ì /Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýòò¢Torcaso£€v.€Watkins,óó€367€U.S.€at€409,€81€S.€Ct.€at€1681;€2€Story,€at€617.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýòò¢Torcaso£€v.€Watkins,€óó367€U.S.€at€489,€81€S.€Ct.€at€1680.Ì êÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€.XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝConstitution€or€Form€of€Government€ðð€3,€Proposed€òòConstitution€of€State€ofÏFrankland,óó€1€Am.€Hist.€Mag.€48,€55€(1896).€€In€the€process€of€invalidating€the€FranchiseÏLaws€as€an€unconstitutional€political€test€for€jury€service,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€notedÏthat€ð ð[¢i]f£€a€Legislature€may€restrict€the€qualification€to€a€political€test,€it€may€to€a€religious€one,Ïand€declare€that€none€save€members€of€a€particular€denomination€shall€be€competent.ðð€€òòGibbsÏv.€State,óó€50€Tenn.€(3€¢Heisk£.)€72,€77€(1871).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÔ€.¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ „ ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€+¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€.„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌ̜ـ€ÙÔ€.¼ÔßR€130A1-j|Qþ[` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÓ` °‡XœÈ“XÓó óJANET€L.€WOLF€andà àà àà à)ÌGERALD€S.€¢BOWKER£,à àà àà à)Ìindividually€and€as€representativesà à)Ìof€all€similarly€situated€individuals,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌDON€¢SUNDQUIST£,€in€€his€officialà à)à àNo.€¢94C£„4094Ìcapacity€as€Governor€of€the€State€ofà à)ÌTennessee;€JOHN€KNOX€¢WALKUP£,à à)Ìin€his€official€capacity€as€Attorneyà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌGeneral€of€the€State€of€Tennessee;à à)à à01A01„9505„CV„00209ÌVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€III,€in€hisà à)Ìofficial€capacity€as€District€Attorneyà à)ÌGeneral€for€the€20th€Judicial€Districtà à)Ìfor€the€State€of€Tennessee,€andà àà à)ÌDAN€M.€¢ALSOBROOKS£,€in€his€officialà à)Ìcapacity€as€District€Attorney€General€à à)Ìfor€the€23rd€Judicial€District€of€the€Stateà à)Ìof€Tennessee,€and€as€representatives€à à)Ìof€all€District€Attorneys€General€in€the€à à)ÌState€of€Tennessee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€HAMILTON€V.€¢GAYDEN£,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏDefendants/Appelleesóó:ÌÌIrwin€¢Venick£à àà àà àà àà àà àJerry€L.€SmithÌDOBBINS€&€¢VENICK£à àà àà àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌà@ àÔ€.„Ôò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌÔ€.¼ÔÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÑ Ü ÑÑ ° ÑÓ€ÓÔ€.„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€.¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€the€right€of€persons€unalterably€opposed€to€theÏdeath€penalty€to€serve€as€jurors€in€capital€murder€cases.€€Two€persons€who€hadÏbeen€excused€for€cause€in€separate€capital€cases€œfiled›€suit€in€the€Circuit€CourtÏfor€Davidson€County,€seeking€a€declaration€that€excusing€prospective€jurorsÏwho,€as€a€matter€of€religious€conscience,€could€not€consider€imposing€theÏdeath€penalty€violated€the€prospective€jurorsðð€constitutional€rights.€€The€trialÏcourt€dismissed€the€complaint,€and€the€jurors€appealed.€€We€have€determinedÏthat€the€practice€of€excluding€jurors€whose€religious€principles€prevent€themÏfrom€considering€the€death€penalty€regardless€of€the€law€and€the€evidence€isÏnot€an€unconstitutional€religious€test,€does€not€violate€the€jurorsððÏconstitutionally€protected€freedom€of€religion,€and€does€not€unconstitutionallyÏdiscriminate€against€these€jurors.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àJanet€L.€Wolf€is€an€ordained€Methodist€minister€œwho€resides›€inÏNashville.€€She€was€summoned€for€jury€duty€in€1990€and€was€among€the€panelÏof€prospective€jurors€in€the€first€degree€murder€trial€of€William€C.€¢Dugger£Ïfor€the€1989€murder€of€Robin€Boswell€in€Percy€Warner€Park.¢× ƒ4 ××  ×£€€œDuring€the›Ïvoir€dire,€the€assistant€district€attorneys€general€questioned€the€prospectiveÏjurors€about€their€ability€to€consider€imposing€the€death€penalty€because€theÏState€had€announced€its€intention€to€seek€the€death€penalty€against€Mr.€¢Dugger£.€ÍIn€response€to€these€questions,€Ms.€Wolf€stated€that€she€was€philosophically,Ïmorally,€and€religiously€opposed€to€the€death€penalty€and€that€she€could€not€setÏaside€her€personal€opposition€to€the€death€penalty,€even€if€the€law€required€herÏto,€because€she€believed€that€ð ðitððs€always€wrong.ðð€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏStateððs€challenge€for€cause€because€ð ðher€views€would€prevent€or€substantiallyÏimpair€the€performance€of€her€duties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€the€juryÏinstructions€and€oath.ðð€€ÌÌà àGerald€S.€¢Bowker£€resides€in€New€¢Johnsonville£€and€is€a€member€of€theÏSouthern€Baptist€Church.€€In€October€1991,€he€was€summoned€for€jury€dutyÏby€the€Circuit€Court€for€¢Humphreys£€County€and€was€one€of€the€prospectiveÏjurors€in€the€trial€of€William€Eugene€Hall€and€Derrick€Desmond€¢Quintero£,Ïtwo€escaped€inmates€charged€with€the€first€degree€murder€of€¢Buford£€andÏMyrtle€¢Vester£.¢× ƒ5 ××  ×£€€The€trial€court€and€the€lawyers€questioned€Mr.€¢Bowker£€andÏthe€other€jurors€about€their€attitudes€concerning€the€death€penalty€because€theÏState€was€seeking€the€death€penalty€in€the€case.€€During€voir€dire,€Mr.€¢Bowker£Ïstated€that€he€was€a€Christian€and€that€he€had€been€brought€up€to€believe€thatÏthe€death€penalty€was€wrong.€€He€also€stated€that€he€could€not€set€aside€hisÏpersonal€opinions€about€the€death€penalty€and€that€he€could€never€impose€theÏdeath€penalty€regardless€of€the€law€or€the€evidence.€€Based€on€these€responses,Ïthe€trial€court€excused€Mr.€¢Bowker£€from€the€jury.€€Mr.€¢Bowker£€was€one€ofÏsixteen€jurors€who€were€excused€because€their€religious€beliefs€played€a€roleÍin€their€refusal€to€consider€imposing€the€death€penalty.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€òòsupraóóÏnote€2,€1997€WL€92080,€at€*18€n.7.€ÌÌà à€In€December€1994,€Ms.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€filed€a€class€action€suitÏin€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County€seeking€declaratory€relief€thatÏexcluding€persons€from€serving€on€juries€in€capital€cases€because€of€theirÏreligious€opposition€to€the€death€penalty€violated€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðððð€3,€4,Ï6,€and€8€and€Tenn.€Const.€art.€XI,€ðð€8.€€They€also€sought€to€enjoin€usingÏchallenges€for€cause€to€exclude€prospective€jurors€in€capital€cases€whoseÏreligious€beliefs€prevent€them€from€considering€the€death€penalty.€€In€supportÏof€their€request€for€injunctive€relief,€Ms.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€presentedÏaffidavits€from€Protestant,€Roman€Catholic,€and€Jewish€leaders€stating€thatÏpersonal€opposition€to€the€death€penalty€was€a€valid€exercise€of€religiousÏconscience.€€Several€of€these€¢affiants£€also€¢expressed£€their€belief€that€excludingÏpersons€who€oppose€the€death€penalty€on€religious€grounds€from€juries€inÏcapital€cases€penalized€them€for€expressing€their€individual€consciences.€€TheÏtrial€court€denied€the€application€for€declaratory€and€injunctive€relief€becauseÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€had€already€determined€in€òòState€v.€Jones,óó€789Ï¢S.W.2d£€545,€547€(Tenn.€1990)€and€òòState€v.€Bobo,óó€727€¢S.W.2d£€945,€949€(Tenn.Ï1987)€that€excluding€jurors€who€opposed€the€death€penalty€on€religiousÏgrounds€did€not€violate€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6.€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€ó óÌÌà àThe€right€to€trial€by€jury€secured€by€our€state€and€federal€constitutionsÏnecessarily€contemplates€that€the€jury€will€be€unbiased€and€impartial.€€òò¢Thiel£€v.ÍSouthern€Pacific€Co.,óó€328€U.S.€217,€220,€66€S.€Ct.€984,€985€(1946);€òò¢Ricketts£Ïv.€Carter,óó€918€¢S.W.2d£€419,€421€(Tenn.€1996);€òòDurham€v.€State,óó€182€Tenn.Ï577,€584,€188€¢S.W.2d£€555,€558€(1945).€€In€its€constitutional€sense,€impartialityÏenvisions€not€only€freedom€from€jury€bias€against€the€defendant€but€alsoÏfreedom€from€jury€bias€in€the€defendantððs€favor.€€òòSwain€v.€Alabama,óó€380€U.S.Ï202,€219„20,€85€S.€Ct.€824,€835€(1965);€òòHayes€v.€Missouri,óó€120€U.S.€68,€70„71,€7€S.€Ct.€350,€351€(1887);€òòHouston€v.€State,óó€593€¢S.W.2d£€267,€272€(Tenn.Ï1980),€òòrevððd€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.Ï1992);€òò¢Toombs£€v.€State,óó€197€Tenn.€229,€231„32,€270€¢S.W.2d£€649,€650€(1954).€ÌÌà àAn€impartial€jury€consists€of€jurors€who€will€find€the€facts€andÏconscientiously€apply€the€law.€€òòBuchanan€v.€Kentucky,óó€483€U.S.€402,€417,€107ÏS.€Ct.€2906,€2914€(1987);€òòWainwright€v.€¢Witt£,óó€469€U.S.€412,€423,€105€S.€Ct.Ï844,€851„52€(1985).€€To€be€considered€impartial,€a€juror€must€be€free€ofÏpersonal€bias€and€must€be€indifferent€and€disinterested€between€the€parties.€Ïòò¢Eason£€v.€State,óó€65€Tenn.€466,€469€(1873).€€Unbiased€jurors€do€not€give€freeÏrein€to€their€own€biases€or€prejudices,òò€€¢J.E.B.£€v.€Alabama€ex€rel.€T.B.,óó€511ÏU.S.€127,€œ153,›€114€S.€Ct.€1419,€1434€(1994)€(Kennedy,€J.,€concurring),€andÏare€able€to€follow€the€trial€courtððs€instructions.€€òò¢Lockett£€v.€Ohio,óó€438€U.S.Ï586,€596„97,€98€S.€Ct.€2954,€2960€(1978).̛̜à àThe€courts€are€not€strangers€to€issues€involving€the€exclusion€ofÏprospective€jurors€whose€opposition€to€the€death€penalty€affects€their€ability€toÏfollow€the€law€and€the€instructions€of€the€trial€court.€Up€to€this€point,€theÏlitigation€focused€exclusively€on€the€defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€be€triedÏby€an€impartial€jury€selected€from€a€cross€section€of€the€community.€€It€is€nowÍsettled€that€a€criminal€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€are€not€violated€byÏexcusing€prospective€jurors€for€cause€when€their€personal€beliefs€concerningÏthe€death€penalty€would€prevent€or€substantially€impair€their€performance€as€aÏjuror€in€accordance€with€their€instructions€and€their€oath.€€òòWainwright€v.Ï¢Witt£,óó€469€U.S.€at€424,€105€S.€Ct.€at€852;€òòAdams€v.€Texas,óó€448€U.S.€38,€45,Ï100€S.€Ct.€2521,€2526€(1980);€òòState€v.€¢Hutchison£,óó€898€¢S.W.2d£€161,€167€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòState€v.€Alley,óó€776€¢S.W.2d£€506,€518€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àThis€appeal€implicates€different€constitutional€rights.€€Instead€ofÏfocusing€on€a€criminal€defendantððs€rights,€it€focuses€on€the€constitutional€rightsÏof€persons€whose€religious€beliefs€prevent€or€substantially€impair€their€abilityÏto€consider€imposing€the€death€penalty.€€This€right€is€of€constitutionalÏsignificance€because€providing€all€citizens€with€an€opportunity€to€participate€inÏthe€fair€administration€of€justice€is€fundamental€to€our€democratic€system.€Ïòò¢J.E.B.£€v.€Alabama€ex€rel.€T.B.,óó€511€U.S.€at€œ146,›€114€S.€Ct.€at€œ1430;€òòPowers€v.ÏOhioóó,€499€U.S.€400,€407,€111€S.€Ct.€1364,€1368„69€(1991);›€òò¢Lockhart£€v.Ï¢McCree£,óó€476€U.S.€162,€175,€106€S.€Ct.€1758,€1765„66€(1986);€òòWoodson€v.ÏPorter€Brown€Limestone€Co.,óó€916€¢S.W.2d£€896,€903€(Tenn.€1996).€ÌÌà àWe€must€construe€our€constitution€as€a€whole€and€must€harmonize€andÏgive€effect€to€each€of€its€provisions,€òòPatterson€v.€Washington€County,óó€136ÏTenn.€60,€66,€188€¢S.W.£€613,€614€(1916);€òòState€ex€rel.€¢Witcher£€v.€¢Bilbrey£,óó€878Ï¢S.W.2d£€567,€575€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994),€and€we€should€not€permit€theÏlanguage€of€one€provision€to€render€another€provision€ineffective.€€òò¢Vollmer£€v.ÏCity€of€Memphis,óó€792€¢S.W.2d£€446,€448€(Tenn.€1990).€€Accordingly,€theÏcontours€of€a€prospective€jurorððs€right€to€serve€on€a€jury€should€be€consistentÍwith€those€of€a€criminal€defendantððs€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€These€rights,€afterÏall,€share€a€common€purpose€„€to€assure€that€juries€are€fairly€chosen€andÏimpartial.òò€óóÌÌœÌÌ›Ìà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àMs.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€first€assert€that€excluding€them€from€juryÏservice€in€capital€cases€because€of€their€religiously€motivated€opposition€to€theÏdeath€penalty€violates€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€3.€€They€insist€that€the€trial€judgesÏinterfered€with€their€right€of€conscience€by€excluding€them€from€serving€onÏthe€juries€¢empaneled£€to€try€Mr.€¢Dugger£€and€Messrs.€Hall€and€¢Quintero£.€€WeÏrespectfully€disagree.€€Excluding€them€from€service€on€these€juries€did€notÏunconstitutionally€infringe€on€their€constitutionally€protected€freedom€ofÏconscience.ÌÌà àBoth€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€3€and€the€First€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€protect€individual€religious€freedom.€€They€guarantee€to€allÏthe€right€ð ðto€entertain€such€notions€respecting€his€[or€her]€relations€to€his€[orÏher]€Maker€and€the€duties€they€impose€as€may€be€approved€by€his€[or€her]Ïjudgment€and€conscience.ðð€€òòDavis€v.€¢Beason£,óó€133€U.S.€333,€342,€10€S.€Ct.€299,Ï300€œ(1890),€òòrevððd€on€other€groundsóó,€òòRomer€v.€Evansóó,€___€U.S.€___,€___,€116ÏS.€Ct.€1620,€1628€(1996).›€€While€religious€beliefs€are€constitutionallyÏprotected,€they€are€not€superior€to€all€other€fundamental€principles€that€bindÍsociety€together.€€òòWisconsin€v.€¢Yoder£,óó€406€U.S.€205,€215„16,€92€S.€Ct.€1526,Ï1533€(1972);€òòReynolds€v.€United€States,óó€98€U.S.€145,€166„67€(1879).€ÌÌà àWhile€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€3€is€similar€to€the€First€Amendment,Ï¢òòCarden£€v.€Blandóó,€199€Tenn.€665,€672,€288€¢S.W.2d£€718,€721€(1956),€it€containsÏsubstantially€stronger€protections€of€religious€freedom.€€òòState€ex€rel.€¢Swann£€v.ÏPack,óó€527€¢S.W.2d£€99,€107€(Tenn.€1975).€€Notwithstanding€the€breadth€of€thisÏprovision,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€like€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt,€has€recognized€that€ð ð[t]he€law€of€intellectual€and€spiritual€life€is€not€theÏhigher€law,€but€must€yield€to€the€law€of€the€land.ðð€€òò¢Landrith£€v.€¢Hudgins£,óó€121ÏTenn.€556,€658,€120€¢S.W.£€783,€809€(1908)€(quoting€òòIn€re€¢Schnorr£ððs€Appeal,óóÏ67€Pa.€138,€146„47€(1870)).ÌÌà àThe€struggle€for€religious€liberty€through€the€centuries€has€been€anÏeffort€to€accommodate€the€demands€of€the€State€to€the€conscience€of€theÏindividual.€€òò¢Girouard£€v.€United€States,óó€328€U.S.€61,€68,€66€S.€Ct.€826,€829Ï(1946).€€€Both€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€3€and€the€First€Amendment€embody€ourÏfounding€fathersðð€efforts€to€balance€individual€religious€freedom,€the€rights€ofÏothers,€and€all€citizensðð€shared€societal€responsibilities.€€The€courts€maintainÏthis€equilibrium€by€recognizing€that€religious€freedom€embodies€twoÏcomplementary€concepts€„€the€freedom€to€believe€and€the€freedom€to€act.€€TheÏfreedom€to€believe€is€absolute;€while€the€freedom€to€act€is€subject€toÏreasonable€control€for€the€protection€of€others.€€òò¢Cantwell£€v.€Connecticut,óó€310ÏU.S.€296,€303„04,€60€S.€Ct.€900,€903€(1940);€òòState€ex€rel.€¢Swann£€v.€Pack,óó€527Ï¢S.W.2d£€at€111;€òò¢Harden£€v.€State,óó€188€Tenn.€17,€25,€216€¢S.W.2d£€708,€711Í(1948);€òòGoodwin€v.€Metropolitan€Bd.€of€Health,óó€656€¢S.W.2d£€383,€389„90Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àBeing€excluded€from€service€on€a€jury€in€a€capital€case€does€not€infringeÏupon€a€personððs€religiously€motivated€opposition€to€the€death€penalty.€€TheseÏpersons€remain€free€to€follow€and€to€assert€their€beliefs.€€While€excludingÏthese€persons€from€juries€in€capital€cases€affects€their€ability€to€translate€theirÏreligious€beliefs€into€action,€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€3€does€not€prevent€the€StateÏfrom€controlling€religiously€motivated€actions€for€the€good€of€society.€€InÏlight€of€the€affirmative€constitutional€mandate€to€provide€impartial€juries€inÏcriminal€cases,€the€State€has€an€important€interest€in€obtaining€juries€that€doÏnot€contain€members€who,€because€of€their€religious€beliefs,€are€unable€toÏfollow€the€law€or€the€trial€courtððs€instructions.€€Thus,€excluding€prospectiveÏjurors€who€oppose€the€death€penalty€on€religious€grounds€is€not€contrary€toÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€3.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àMs.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€also€assert€that€questioning€them€concerningÏtheir€religious€beliefs€with€regard€to€the€death€penalty€amounted€to€a€religiousÏtest€prohibited€by€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6.¢× ƒ6 ××  ×£€€We€disagree.€€All€parties,Ïincluding€the€State,€are€entitled€to€question€prospective€jurors€to€satisfyÏthemselves€that€they€will€be€impartial€and€unbiased.€€Ms.€Wolf€and€Mr.Í¢Bowker£€were€not€excluded€because€of€their€religious€beliefs€but€because€theyÏstated,€in€effect,€that€they€could€not€be€impartial€and€unbiased.€€ÌÌà àMany€of€the€early€colonists€came€to€America€to€escape€religiousÏpersecution€and€discrimination.€€They€understood€ð ðthe€extreme€dangers€asÏwell€as€difficulties€of€connecting€the€civil€power€with€religious€opinions.ðð€€1ÏJoseph€Story,€òòCommentaries€on€the€Constitution€of€the€United€Statesóó€459Ï(Boston,€Little,€Brown€&€Co.€1891)€(ð ð1€Storyðð).€€Two€of€the€commonÏmanifestations€of€the€entanglement€of€church€and€state€were€state„establishedÏchurches€and€the€use€of€religious€tests€to€exclude€religious€minorities€fromÏpublic€and€political€life.ÌÌà àIronically,€the€same€persons€who€had€fled€from€religious€persecution€inÏEngland€and€Europe€soon€began€engaging€in€the€same€conduct€in€the€colonies.€ÏState„sponsored€religion€was€commonplace€by€the€time€of€the€RevolutionaryÏWar,€òòMartin€v.€Beer€Bd.€for€¢Dickson£,óó€908€¢S.W.2d£€941,€948€n.9€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995),€and€many€colonies€were€using€religious€tests€to€impose€burdensÏand€disabilities€of€various€kinds€upon€other€religions€depending€largely€uponÏwhat€group€happened€to€be€politically€strong€enough€to€legislate€in€favor€ofÏtheir€own€beliefs.€€òò¢Torcaso£€v.€Watkins,óó€367€U.S.€488,€489„91,€81€S.€Ct.€1680,Ï1680„82€(1961);€2€James€Kent,€òòCommentaries€on€American€Lawóó€*35„37;€œ2›ÏJoseph€Story,€òòCommentaries€on€the€€Constitution€of€the€United€Statesóó€615„16Ï(Boston,€Little,€Brown€&€Co.€1891)€œ(ð ð2›€Storyðð).€€The€colonists€responded€toÏthese€new€threats€to€individual€religious€liberty€by€including€strong€safeguardsÏin€their€early€state€constitutions€and€bills€of€rights.€€Thirteen€state€constitutionsÍcurrently€contain€proscriptions€against€the€use€of€religious€tests€to€qualify€forÏjury€service.× ƒ7 ××  ×ÌÌà àReligious€tests€probe€religious€beliefs.€€òò¢Torcaso£€v.€Watkins,óó€367€U.S.€atÏ494,€81€S.€Ct.€1683;€òò¢Paty£€v.€¢McDaniel£,óó€547€¢S.W.2d£€897,€907€(Tenn.€1977),Ïòò¢revððd£€on€other€grounds,óó€435€U.S.€618,€98€S.€Ct.€1322€(1978).€€Their€purposeÏœwas›€to€define€qualifications€to€hold€public€office€or€to€participate€in€otherÏimportant€civic€activities€such€as€testifying€as€a€witness€or€serving€as€a€juror.€ÏThese€tests€œtook›€many€forms,€including€statutes€restricting€the€right€to€holdÏpublic€office€to€persons€who€had€received€Holy€Communion€during€theÏpreceding€year,× ƒ8 ××  ×€statutes€requiring€public€officials€to€take€the€Oath€ofÏSupremacy€or€to€disavow€the€Doctrine€of€Transubstantiation,¢× ƒ9 ××  ×£€constitutionalÏprovisions€requiring€holders€of€public€office€to€declare€their€belief€in€theÏexistence€of€God,¢× ƒ: ××  ×£€or€constitutional€disqualifications€for€public€office€ofÏpersons€who€broke€the€Sabbath€or€who€have€disavowed€the€¢tenets£€of€a€specificÍreligious€denomination.¢× ƒ; ××  ×£€€ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€constitutional€prohibitions€against€using€politicalÏtests,€the€courts€have€repeatedly€approved€excluding€from€jury€service€personsÏwhose€religious€beliefs€affect€their€ability€to€be€impartial.€€In€an€early€decisionÏupholding€the€exclusion€of€a€Quaker€from€a€capital€case€jury,€Justice€StoryÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àTo€insist€on€a€jurorððs€sitting€in€a€cause€when€heÏacknowledges€himself€to€be€under€influences,€noÏmatter€whether€they€arise€from€interest,€fromÏprejudices,€or€from€religious€opinions,€which€willÏprevent€him€from€giving€a€true€verdict€according€toÏlaw€and€evidence,€would€be€to€subvert€the€objects€ofÏa€trial€by€jury,€and€to€bring€into€disgrace€andÏcontempt,€the€proceedings€of€courts€of€justice.ÌÌÓ€ÓòòUnited€States€v.€Cornell,óó€25€¢Cas£.€650,€655„56€(¢C.C.D.£€R.I.€1820)€(No.Ï14,868).€€Our€courts€have€consistently€reached€the€same€result,€òòState€v.€Smith,óóÏ893€¢S.W.2d£€908,€915„16€(Tenn.€1994);€òòGreen€v.€State,óó€147€Tenn.€299,€310„12,€247€¢S.W.£€84,€87„88€(1922);€òòRay€v.€State,óó€108€Tenn.€282,€289„90,€67€¢S.W.£Ï553,€555€(1902),€as€have€the€other€state€courts.€€òòState€v.€¢Willoughby£,óó€892€P.2dÏ1319,€1335€(Ariz.€1995);€òòSmith€v.€Smith,óó€46€P.2d€232,€233€(Cal.€Dist.€Ct.ÏApp.€1935);€òòState€v.€¢Sandles£,óó€740€¢S.W.2d£€169,€178€(Mo.€1987);€òòState€v.Ï¢Leuch£,óó€88€P.2d€440,€442€(Wash.€1939).€€€€ÌÌà àTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6€does€not€provide€that€potential€jurors€will€beÏqualified€to€sit€on€a€jury€despite€religious€beliefs€that€prevent€them€from€beingÏimpartial€in€a€particular€case.€€Accordingly,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏconcluded€that€examining€a€juror€to€ascertain€possible€religiously€motivatedÏbias€is€not€an€impermissible€religious€test€under€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6.€€òòStateÏv.€Jones,óó€789€¢S.W.2d£€at€547;€òòState€v.€Bobo,óó€727€¢S.W.2d£€at€949.€€MoreÏproperly,€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6€is€intended€to€prevent€the€State€fromÏexcluding€otherwise€qualified€persons€from€service€on€a€jury€solely€because€ofÏtheir€religious€beliefs€or€lack€of€religious€beliefs.€€€ÌÌà àBoth€Ms.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€stated€that€their€religious€beliefs€wouldÏnot€permit€them€to€find€the€facts€and€to€apply€the€law€in€a€capital€case.€€Thus,Ïthe€trial€courts€excluded€them,€not€because€of€their€religious€beliefs€butÏbecause€their€religious€beliefs€prevented€or€substantially€impaired€their€ability,Ïas€jurors,€to€abide€by€their€oaths€and€to€follow€the€law€and€the€trial€courtððsÏinstructions.€€Probing€these€jurorsðð€religious€beliefs€to€test€their€ability€to€beÏimpartial€did€not€violate€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6.€€ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àAs€a€final€matter,€Ms.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€assert€that€the€trial€courtsÏviolated€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€and€Tenn.€Const.€art.€XI,€ðð€8€by€excludingÏthem€from€the€jury€œbased€on€their›€religiously€motivated€opposition€to€theÏdeath€penalty.€€We€do€not€agree€that€the€trial€courts€unconstitutionallyÏdiscriminated€against€Ms.€Wolf€and€Mr.€¢Bowker£€solely€œbecause›€of€theirÏreligious€beliefs.€€The€manner€in€which€the€trial€courts€granted€the€challengesÍfor€cause€furthered€the€Stateððs€œobligation›€to€provide€the€parties€with€anÏimpartial,€unbiased€jury.ÌÌà àActive€discrimination€during€the€selection€process€invites€cynicismÏabout€the€juryððs€impartiality.€€òòPowers€v.€Ohio,óó€499€U.S.€œat›€412,€111€S.€Ct.€œat›Ïœ1371.›€Accordingly,€individual€jurors€have€a€right€to€be€subjected€toÏnondiscriminatory€jury€selection€procedures.òò€€Georgia€v.€¢McCollum£,óó€505€U.S.Ï42,€48„50,€112€S.€Ct.€2348,€2353„54€(1992);€òò¢Edmonson£€v.€¢Leesville£€ConcreteÏCo.óó,€500€U.S.€614,€618,€111€S.€Ct.€2077,€2081€(1991);€òòWoodson€v.€PorterÏBrown€Limestone€Co.,€óó916€¢S.W.2d£€at€903.€€All€persons€chosen€for€juryÏservice€have€the€right€not€to€be€excluded€because€of€presumed€disqualificationsÏbased€on€discriminatory€or€stereotypical€presumptions€unrelated€to€theirÏability€to€serve€as€impartial€jurors.òò€€¢J.E.B.£€v.€Alabama€ex€rel.€T.B.,óó€511€U.S.Ïat€œ143„44,›€114€S.€Ct.€at€1428.ÌÌà à€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€persons€whose€religiousÏbeliefs€prevent€them€from€considering€the€death€penalty€are€not€a€distinctiveÏgroup€for€the€purpose€of€determining€whether€a€jury€was€chosen€from€aÏrepresentative€cross€section€of€the€community.€€òòBuchanan€v.€Kentucky,óó€483ÏU.S.€402,€415,€107€S.€Ct.€2906,€2913€(1987);€òò¢Lockhart£€v.€¢McCree£,óó€476€U.S.€atÏ175„76,€106€S.€Ct.€at€1765„66.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€reached€aÏsimilar€result,€òòState€v.€¢Harbison£,€óó704€¢S.W.2d£€314,€318€(Tenn.€1986),€as€haveÏother€state€courts.€€òòEx€Parte€Ford,óó€515€So.€2d€48,€52„53€(Ala.€1987);€òòPeopleÏv.€Howard,óó€824€P.2d€1315,€1327€(Cal.€1992);€òòPope€v.€Stateóó,€345€¢S.E.2d£€831,Ï839€(Ga.€1986);€òòStanford€v.€Commonwealth,óó€734€¢S.W.2d£€781,€785€(Ky.Í1987);€òòState€v.€Young,óó€853€P.2d€327,€343€(Utah€1993);€òòState€v.€Hughes,óó€721ÏP.2d€902,€906„07€(Wash.€1986).ÌÌà àThe€public€has€a€right€to€expect€that€juries€in€capital€cases€will€notÏcontain€jurors€who€are€unable€or€unwilling€to€follow€the€law.€€òòBuchanan€v.ÏKentucky,óó€483€U.S.€at€416,€107€S.€Ct.€at€2914.€€Rather€than€excluding€personsÏfor€reasons€unrelated€to€their€ability€to€serve€as€jurors,€a€trial€court€isÏfollowing€its€constitutional€obligation€to€provide€all€parties€with€a€fair€andÏimpartial€jury€when€it€excludes€jurors€who€state€that€their€religious€beliefsÏwill€prevent€or€substantially€impair€their€ability€to€apply€the€law€to€the€facts€ofÏa€particular€case.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courts€that€excluded€Ms.€Wolf€andÏMr.€¢Bowker£€from€the€capital€case€juries€did€not€unconstitutionallyÏdiscriminate€against€them€because€of€their€religious€beliefs.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÌà àIn€summary,€we€find€that€the€practice€of€excluding€from€capital€caseÏjuries€persons€whose€religious€beliefs€prevent€or€substantially€impair€theirÏability€to€be€impartial€does€not€violate€the€jurors€freedom€of€conscience€underÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€3.€€We€also€find€that€questioning€a€prospective€juror€toÏdetermine€whether€their€religious€beliefs€will€prevent€them€from€beingÏimpartial€is€not€a€religious€test€prohibited€by€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6.€€Finally,Ïwe€find€that€excluding€prospective€jurors€who€oppose€the€death€penalty€onÏreligious€grounds€from€capital€case€juries€€does€not€violate€the€prospectiveÏjurorððs€equal€protection€rights€under€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€and€Tenn.€Const.Ïart.€XI,€ðð€8.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€forÏwhatever€other€proceedings€may€be€required.€€We€also€tax€the€costs€of€thisÏ¢appeal£€to€Janet€L.€Wolf€and€Gerald€S.€¢Bowker£€and€their€surety€for€whichÏexecution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€¢P.J.£,€M.S.€ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€œ›Ñ7€Vë¼¼d¼¼d7Ñœ›