WPC ?0,hJ omW:;,&ves "l"s-"D'TORDjdzqS q`=yI"}U5yךՕIs:o&̤ }+X{O^~gr"SL{p6*!xt UP$Oևx_d~+53s"<܆;)cn+Z;m yQ?b@@ABtCj[DE 0UF 0F 0G 0H 0>I 0I 0J6 WK 0T 04U 0U 0V 0kW 0X 0X 0rY 0Z 0Z 0C[ 0[ 0\ 0`]|^ 0a 06b 0b 0xc 0d 0d 0G,e 0f 0f 0g BEh 0>bh 0h D3Di D-wi 0Ki 0i ASj:k 0l 0Dl Al 0m 0un 0Wo 09p 0q 0q 0r 02s 0s 0:t 0Yt 0_Ju 0 u 0v 05x B*;z D/ez 0z D/| 0| 06} 0} 0:~ 0^ 0<m 1e 0NU6\U>U*ЀMɄ׆ B- 0 0cbň 1u\ 72ъnqRR+ ^ZE;;ŭŭH|?įVKYS90C"aRegkx6\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0iF1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJE1:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Hobbs P.J.MacLeanRedickReeversQuentonRickyDevallerehgNonlivestockpancuroniumPavulongurney UAPASundquistIrick CasMemlMunfordCommnMcCaskilleuthanizingpentobarbitalpentobaritalTanaxembutramidemebenzoniumeuthanizeagent[sRosemanLavinJordonLumbermensLimbaughLensCraftersTidwellServomationWilloughbyMerrimackTelecommsBlankenship BainCommrSneed FitzFlemmingRasarKradelGleavesMcKnightMyintagenc[ylicensureDeBerryAdburRahmant]hate]xcessive TranLasaterBrinkley S.W.were wereCozzolinopenologicalDaughtreySolemFurmanMayhewAdkinsWeemsdispositiveCokerPenryLynaughKemmlerResweberFierroTerhuneMantanez RptrHincheyRimmerDenno L.J.LaGrandLockhartReadoptionpentothalF.SuppSuhrheinrichBoerckelappealabilityultrashortbarbituatecadiovascular"nondepolarizing Coes]odium AVMAJAVMA n]ocolorableChaneyAssn Opnetcptl.htmThorburnd]ispensedeliver[ingp]ractitioneru]ltimateRiverbendRamseur E.DAbdurRahman,www.nursingworld.orgreadroom VandLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 R$      2  7  _Statev.Jones,789S.W.2d545(Tenn.1990).(#$  0   R$      3  7  _Jonesv.Tennessee,498U.S.908,111S.Ct.280(1990). R$      4  7  _Jonesv.State,No.01C019402CR00079,1995WL75427(Tenn.Crim.App.Feb.23,1995). % R$      5  7  _Jonesv.State,No.01C019402CR00079,1995WL75427(Tenn.Aug.28,1995);Jonesv.Tennessee,516 8 U.S.1122,116S.Ct.933(1996). R$      6  7  _TheDistrictCourtlaterappointedcounselforMr._AbdurRahman._ R$      7  7  __AbdurRahman_Ԁv.Bell,999F.Supp.1073(M.D.Tenn.1998).  R$      8  7  __AbdurRahman_Ԁv.Bell,226F.3d696(6thCir.2000).ThecourtalsodeniedMr._AbdurRahmans_Ԁpetition 8 forrehearingandsuggestionforrehearingenbancbutstayeditsmandatetopermithimtofileapetitionforwritof  certiorariintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt. R$      9  7  _AbdurRahmanv.Bell,534U.S.970,122S.Ct.386,rehgdenied,534U.S.1063,122S.Ct.661(2001). R$      15  7  __AbdurRahman_Ԁv.Bell,535U.S.981,122S.Ct.1463(2002). R$      16  7  __AbdurRahman_Ԁv.Bell,535U.S.1016,122S.Ct.1605(2002).  R$      11  7  _AbdurRahmanv.Bell,No.3:960380,2001WL1782874(M.D.Tenn.Nov.27,2001).TheDistrictCourt 8 alsodeniedMr.AbdurRahmansapplicationforacertificateofappealability.AbdurRahmanv.Bell,No.3:960380,  2001WL1782875(M.D.Tenn.Dec.4,2001). X R$      19  7  __AbdurRahman_Ԁv.Bell,537U.S.88,123S.Ct.594(2002),pet._rehg_Ԁdenied,537U.S.1227,123S.Ct.1780 8 (2003). R$      17  7  _Mr.AbdurRahmanlatervoluntarilydismissedhisopenmeetingslawclaim. ' R$      56  7  _HangingwastheoriginalmethodofexecutioninTennessee.In1913,electrocutionreplacedhangingasthe 8 solemethodofexecution.ActofSept.27,1913,ch.36,1913Tenn.Pub.Acts515.In2000,lethalinjectionreplaced  electrocutionastheprimarymethodofexecutioninTennesseeexceptforcertainprisonerswhoremaineligibletoopt  forelectrocution. R$      13  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.4023114(a),(b)(2003). R$      12  7  _TheexecutiondatewaslaterresetforJune18,2004. R$      10  7  _OSullivanv.Boerckel,526U.S.838,119S.Ct.1728(1999). R$      1  7  _ThegrandjuryissuedasupercedingindictmentonMarch27,1987. R$      26  7  _TheversionofthemanualunderscrutinyinthiscaseisdatedJuly25,2002.  R$      21  7  _ActofApr.29,1998,ch.982,1998Tenn.Pub.Acts757(codifiedasamendedatTenn.CodeAnn.4023 8 114(2003)).TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyamendedthisacttwoyearslater,ActofMar.29,2000,ch.614,2000  Tenn.Pub.Acts1854,buttheseamendmentshavenodirectbearingontheissuesraisedinthisappeal.  R$      22  7  _SodiumPentothal,alsoknownassodiumthiopental,isanultrashortactingbarbituate.Itisanonspecific 8 centralnervoussystemdepressantthatiscustomarilyusedtoinducegeneralanesthesiawhenadministeredintravenously.  Itworksquickly,butitseffectsarerelativelyshortacting.Aclinicaldosewillinducegeneralanesthesiaforaround10  to30minutes.Inadditiontoitseffectsonthecentralnervoussystem,itcausescadiovascularandrespiratorydepression. o R$      24  7  _Potassiumchlorideisasaltthatinhighdosesinterruptstheelectricalsignalingessentialtonormalheart 8 function.Ahighdoseofpotassiumchlorideadministeredintravenouslycausescardiacarrestandrapiddeath. * R$      27  7  _Toinsureitspotency,theSodiumPentothalismixedshortlybeforetheexecutionandisplacedinayellow 8 syringemarkedwiththenumber 1. o R$      23  7  _Pavulonisanondepolarizing,neuromuscularblockingagentthatproducesparalysis.Itdoesnothavesedative 8 oranalgesiceffects.AlethaldoseofPavulonparalyzesthediaphragmandlungscausingbreathingtocease.- - R$      28  7  _Thissyringeiscoloredblackandismarkedwiththenumber 2. R$      29  7  _Thesetwosyringesarecoloredblueandaremarkedwiththenumbers 3"and 4"respectively. R$      30  7  _Thissyringe,likesyringenumber2,iscoloredblackandismarkedwiththenumber 5. R$      32  7  _Oneofthecathetersisusedasabackupincasesomethinggoeswrongwiththefirstcatheter. ` R$      33  7  _InRobertGlenCoesexecutionbylethalinjectiononApril19,2000,theinjectionofthedrugsbeganat1:32 8 a.m.Mr.Coewasexaminedbyaphysicianat1:36a.m.andwaspronounceddeadat1:37a.m. R$      18  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.4417301to303(Supp.2003).*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h  , R$      14  7  _Inadditiontothisadministrativeproceeding,Mr.AbdurRahmaninitiatedajudicialchallengetothelethal 8 injectionprotocol.OnApril4,2002,hefiledapetitionintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyseekingtoreopenhis  postconvictioncasetoraise,amongotherissues,theconstitutionalityoflethalinjection.AbdurRahmanv.State,No.  87W417.OnApril25,2002,thecircuitcourtdismissedthepetitionwithregardtoallissuesexceptthe L constitutionalityoflethalinjection.OnJune18,2002,aftertheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsdeclinedto H considerMr.AbdurRahmansapplicationforpermissiontoappealbecausethecircuitcourthadnotdisposedofallthe   issuesraisedinhispetition,thecircuitcourtenteredanorderdenyingMr.AbdurRahmanspetitioninitsentirety.The  TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtinallrespects.Withregardtotheconstitutionalchallenge  \ tothelethalinjectionprotocol,thecourtreasonedthat thepostconvictionstatutedoesnotauthorizereopeningthe X  Defendantspetitiononthisground.AbdurRahmanv.State,No.M200201561CCAR28PD(Tenn.CrimApp.    OrderSept.18,2002).OnDecember12,2002,thecircuitcourtenteredanorderdismissingMr.AbdurRahmans    constitutionalchallengetothelethalinjectionprotocolandrecognizingthathisTenn.CodeAnn.45223petitionfor  l  adeclaratoryorderwouldprovideavehicleforjudicialreviewoftheconstitutionalissue.TheTennesseeSupremeCourt h 0  declinedtoreviewtheCourtofCriminalAppealsorder.AbdurRahmanv.State,No.M200201561SCR11PD ,  (OrdersJan.27&Feb.19,2003).TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtlaterdismissedMr.AbdurRahmanscertiorari   petitionpursuanttoSup.Ct.R.46.2.AbdurRahmanv.Bell,538U.S.973,123S.Ct.1780(2003).*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,   r R$      20  7  _ThecircuitcourtdismissedthepetitiononMarch31,2003.TheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals 8 affirmedthedismissalinaccordancewithTenn._Crim_.App.R.20.Statev._AbdurRahman,_ԀNo.M200300968CCAR3  CO(Tenn._Crim_.App.OrderJune6,2003).TheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeclinedtoreviewthecaseonOctober6,  2003,andtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtlikewisedeniedMr._AbdurRahmans_Ԁcertioraripetition._AbdurRahman_ L v.Tennessee,___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2066(2004).(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   (|G2$ !.8dXXd8         0  70AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5 d86Definition(|3w$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK}<6X9`(Courier NewKS~\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K}<6X9`(Courier NewKS~\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K}<6X9`(Courier NewKS~\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7r(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S~\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dq)1dxd<:zTop of For7t(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S~\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  q)2dxd0KS.SampleK}<6X9`(Courier NewKS~\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK}<6X9`(Courier NewKS~\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ?@ABCDEF 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  R$      34  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.3914201(3)definesa nonlivestockanimalas apetnormallymaintainedinornear 8 thehouseholdorhouseholdsofitsownerorowners,otherdomesticatedanimal,previouslycapturedwildlife,anexotic  animal,oranyotherpet,includingbutnotlimitedto,petrabbits,apetchick,duck,orpotbelliedpigthatisnotclassified  aslivestockpursuanttothispart.Specifically,Mr.AbdurRahmaninsiststhatheisa domesticatedanimal.  R$      35  7  _ActofFeb.4,1980,ch.482,1980Tenn.Pub.Acts87(formerlycodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.4417301 8 to305(2000)). C R$      36  7  _T61isanothernameforTanax,asolutionwiththreecomponents(embutramide,mebenzoniumiodide,and 8 tetracainehydrochloride)usedtoeuthanizepetsandlaboratoryanimals. R$      37  7  _ActofApril5,2001,ch.194,2001Tenn.Pub.Acts114. R$      41  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.3917401to451(2003).)Hairline d({2r$ !.8dXXd8     (;3$2#  0  .3  0    R$      39  7  _WestVa.Univ._Hosps_.,Inc.v.Casey,499U.S.83,101,111S.Ct.1138,1148(1991);McClellanv.Board 8 ofRegents,921S.W.2d684,689(Tenn.1996);Mercyv.Olsen,672S.W.2d196,200(Tenn.1984).3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) d R$      38  7  _Thestatutedoesnotstateclearlywhethertheprohibitionregardingneuromuscularblockingagentsislimited 8 totheuseoftheseagentsasthesoleagentsforeuthanasia.Whilea1993reportbytheAmericanVeterinaryMedical  AssociationsPanelonEuthanasiastatedthatcombininganeuromuscularblockingagentwithanotherapprovedagent  suchassodiumpentobarbitalisnotacceptable,1993ReportoftheAVMAPanelonEuthanasia,202JAVMA229(Jan. L 15,1993),availableathttp://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/noawicpubs/avmaeuth93.htm,thesamepanelconcludedin H 2000thattheuseofneuromuscularblockingagentswasunacceptableonlywhenusedasthesoleagentforeuthanasia.   2000ReportoftheAVMAPanelonEuthanasia,218JAVMA669,681,696(Mar.1,2001),availableat  http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf.  R$      40  7  _Thecommonmeaningof euthanasiawhenappliedtohumanbeingsis theintentionalputtingtodeathof 8 apersonwithanincurableorpainfuldiseaseintendedasanactofmercy._PDR_ԀMedicalDictionary606(1995);see  also_Stedmans_ԀIllustratedMedicalDictionary494(5thUnabridged_Lawyers_ԀEd.1982);_Websters_ԀThirdNew_Intl_  Dictionary786(1971).  R$      25  7  _Thehistoryofhowthesethreedrugsbecamethedrugsofchoiceisrecountedin:DeborahW.Denno,When 8 LegislaturesDelegateDeath:TheTroublingParadoxBehindStateUsesofElectrocutionandLethalInjectionandWhat  itSaysAboutUs,63OhioSt.L.J.63,90100(2002)( Denno). R$      42  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.6310401to412(1997&Supp.2003). R$      45  7  _Asearlyas1980,theAmericanMedicalAssociationsCouncilonEthicalandJudicialAffairshadconcluded 8 thataphysicianshouldnotbeaparticipantinalegallyauthorizedexecution.CouncilonEthicalandJudicialAffairs,  Am.Med.Assn,Opn.2.06,availableathttp://www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/category/print/8419.html(lastmodifiedJuly  22,2002).Likewise,theAmericanNursesAssociationhasconcludedthatparticipationincapitalpunishmentis L inconsistentwiththeethicaltraditionsofnursingandtheANACodeforNurses.SeeAm.NursesAssn.,Position H Statements:NursesParticipationinCapitalPunishment(December8,2994),availableat   http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/ethics/etcptl.htm.TheAmericanAcademyofPhysicianAssistantshas  likewisedeterminedthatparticipatinginexecutionsviolatestheethicalprincipleofbeneficence.Am.Acad.ofPhys.  \ Assistants,GuidelinesforEthicalConductforthePhysicianAssistantProfession(May2000),availableat X  http://www.aapa.org/images/GECINSERTATION.pdf.InanOctober25,1999lettertotheCommissionerofCorrection,    theTennesseeMedicalAssociationpointedoutthatphysicianscouldnotethicallyactinanywaythatwould assist,    supervise,orcontributetotheabilityofanotherindividualtodirectlycausethedeathofthecondemnedandthat  l  participationincluded(1)consultingwithorsupervisingthepersonnelinvolvedinthelethalinjectionprotocol,(2) h 0  selectinginjectionsites,(3)startingintravenouslines,(4)inspecting,testing,ormaintainingtheinjectiondevices,or(5) ,  prescribing,preparing,administering,orsupervisingtheinjectionofthedrugs.Despitetheseethicaladmonitions,one   statecourthasdeclinedtofindthataphysicianwhoparticipatedinanexecutioncouldbedisciplinedforengagingin |  unethicalconductbecausethelegislaturehadclearlyauthorizedphysicianstoparticipateintheprocess.Thorburnv. x@  DepartmentofCorrections,78Cal.Rptr.2d584,590(Ct.App.1998). T R$      44  7  _TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyschiefreasonforselectinglethalinjectionasTennesseesmethodof 8 executionwasitsconcernthatthefederalcourtsmightconcludethatelectrocutionwascruelandunusualpunishment.  TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthadagreedtohearanEighthAmendmentchallengetoexecutionbyelectrocution.  Bryanv.Moore,528U.S.960,120S.Ct.394(1999).However,in2000,theCourtdismissedthewritasbeing L improvidentlygrantedafterFloridachangeditsmethodofexecutionfromelectrocutiontolethalinjection.Bryanv. H Moore,528U.S.1133,120S.Ct.1003(2000). R$      46  7  _SodiumPentothalisaScheduleIIcontrolledsubstance.Tenn.CodeAnn.3917408(e)(2003).  R$      55  7  _TheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealshasupheldtheconstitutionalityofexecutionsbylethalinjection 8 ontwooccasionswithoutmuchanalysis.Statev.Robinson,No.W200101299CCAR3DD,2003WL21946735,at  *49(Tenn._Crim_.App.Aug.13,2003),perm.app.granted(Tenn.Jan.26,2004);Statev._Suttles_,No.03C019801CR  00036,1999WL817205,at*14(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.29,1999),_affd_30S.W.3d252(Tenn.2000).However,the L TennesseeSupremeCourthasspecificallydeclinedtoaddressthequestion.Statev._Suttles_,30S.W.3dat264;Statev. H Morris,24S.W.3d788,797n.8(Tenn.2000).  R$      48  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.3917402(7)defines [d]ispenseas deliver[ing]acontrolledsubstancetoanultimate 8 userorresearchsubjectbyorpursuanttothelawfulorderofapractitioner,includingtheprescribing,administering,  packaging,labeling,orcompoundingnecessarytopreparethesubstanceforthatdelivery.  R$      49  7  _Thedefinitionof [p]ractitionerinTenn.CodeAnn.3917402(22)isbroadenoughtoincludephysicians, 8 pharmacies,orotherpersons licensed,registeredorotherwisepermittedto...dispense...ortoadministeracontrolled  substanceinthecourseofprofessionalpractice.  R$      50  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.3917402(25)definesan [u]ltimateuseras apersonwholawfullypossessesa 8 controlledsubstanceforthepersonsownuseorfortheuseofamemberofthepersonshouseholdorforthe  administeringtoananimalownedbythepersonorbyamemberofthepersonshousehold. R$      51  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.5311302(a)(1999). R$      47  7  _Tenn.CodeAnn.3917407(1),(3)(2003). > R$      62  7  _Cooperv.Rimmer,358F.3d655,659,amendedby379F.3d1029(9thCir.2004)(addsconcurrenceofJudge 8 JamesR.Browning);Denno,63OhioSt.L.J.at14245. 5 R$      60  7  _ThecourtsuseofJusticeKennedysstandardspromptedoneofthejusticeswhohaddissentedinStatev. 8 BlacktochidethecourtforrelyingonEighthAmendmentprinciples whenfederallawonthissubjectappearstobe  unsettled.Statev.Harris,844S.W.2dat604(Daughtrey,J.,dissenting).Thechiefjusticedidnotparticipateinthe  decision. L R$      57  7  _JohnL.Bowers,Jr.&J.L.Boren,Jr.,Note,TheConstitutionalProhibitionAgainstCruelandUnusual 8 Punishment!ItsPresentSignificance,4Vand.L.Rev.680,682(1951). A R$      52  7  _Thewardentestifiedthatthedrugsarekeptinasecurelockerin_Riverbends_Ԁarmorycomplexandthathehas 8 theonlykeystothislocker. I R$      53  7  _ԀThewardentestifiedthathepersonallymixedtheSodiumPentothalanddrewitupintothepropersyringe 8 inpreparationfortheonlylethalinjectionevercarriedoutinTennessee. / R$      58  7  _TheEighthAmendmentprovidesthat [e]xcessivebailshallnotberequired,norexcessivefinesimposed, 8 norcruelandunusualpunishmentsinflicted.  R$      61  7  _VanTranv.StatemaybethefirstcaseinwhichtheTennesseeSupremeCourtactuallyfoundthatTennessees 8 constitutionalprohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentprovidedbroaderprotectionthantheEighthAmendment.  Thecourtheldthatexecutingmentallyretardedpersonswascruelandunusualpunishment,eventhoughtheUnitedStates  SupremeCourthadnotatthattimeheldthatitviolatedtheEighthAmendment.However,thatveryquestionwasbefore L theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtwhenVanTranv.Statewasdecided,andsixmonthsaftertheVanTranv.Stateopinion H wasfiled,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtreachedthesameconclusionundertheEighthAmendment.Atkinsv.   Virginia,536U.S.304,350,122S.Ct.2242,2252(2002).  R$      43  7  _TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasalsofoundsimilarregulatoryargumentstobewithoutmerit.Agroup 8 ofprisonerssentencedtodeathbylethalinjectioninOklahomaandTexassoughttorequiretheFDAtocommence  enforcementactionstopreventtheuseofthedrugsinviolationoftheFederalFood,Drug,andCosmeticAct.In  upholdingtheFDAsrefusaltotakeactionagainstthestatesusingthedrugs,theCourtnotedthat [n]ocolorableclaim L ismadeinthiscasethattheagencysrefusaltoinstituteproceedingsviolatedanyconstitutionalrightsofrespondents, H andwedonotaddresstheissuethatwouldberaisedinsuchacase.Hecklerv.Chaney,470U.S.821,838,105S.Ct.   1649,1659(1985).  R$      63  7  _See,e.g.,Cooperv.Rimmer,358F.3dat357;LaGrandv.Stewart,133F.3d1253,1265(9thCir.1998);Hill 8 v.Lockhart,791F.Supp.1388,1394_(E.D._ԀAla.1992);Statev.Webb,750A.2dat45758;Simsv.State,754So.2d657,  668n.20(Fla.2000);Moorev.State,771N.E.2dat56n.4;Wheelerv.Commonwealth,121S.W.3dat186;Spencer  v.Commonwealth,385S.E.2d850,853(Va.1989).  R$      64  7  _Denno,63OhioSt.L.J.at146.Twentysevenstatesusethesamethreedrugsthatareincludedin_Tennessees_ 8 protocol.TheStateofNorthCarolinausesatwodrugprotocolthatincludesSodiumPentothalandPavulon.  R$      65  7  _Denno,63OhioSt.L.J.at146.TheStateofNewJerseyusesatwodrugprotocolthatincludesSodium 8 Pentothalandpotassiumchloride.WhiletheAppellateDivisionoftheSuperiorCourtofNewJerseyrecentlyordered  theDepartmentofCorrectiontoreconsideritsprotocol,itdeclinedtobaseitsdecisionontheDepartmentschoiceof  drugs.InreReadoptionWithAmendmentsofDeathPenaltyRegulations,842A.2d207,21213(N.J.Super.Ct.App. L Div.2004). H R$      67  7  _ThispathologisthadperformedtheautopsyontheonlyTennesseeprisonerexecutedusingthesamethree 8 drugprotocolatissueinthiscase.Hefoundthat thelevelsofpentothalandpentobarbitalinMr._Coes_Ԁbodyatthetime  ofhisdeathwerestillwellwithinthenormaltherapeuticrangeyouwouldexpectinsomeonewhoisundergeneral  anesthesia. [ R$      69  7  _Mr._AbdurRahman_Ԁreststhisargument,inpart,onhisclaimthatneither_Pavulon_Ԁnorpotassiumchlorideserve 8 ausefulpurposeintheexecutionprocess.The_States_Ԁmedicalevidencedisprovesthisassertion.Theprotocolcallsfor  theinjectionofindependentlylethaldosesofboth_Pavulon_Ԁandpotassiumchloride.The_Pavulon_Ԁcausesbreathingto  cease,andthepotassiumchloridestopstheheart.Accordingtothestatemedicalexaminer,thedeathofaperson L receivingthelethalinjectionsrequiredbythe_Departments_Ԁprotocolisthe combinationofthethreemedications H administeredaspartofthelethalinjectionprotocol.Redundancyisnotconstitutionallyimpermissible.Thus,the   DepartmentdidnotviolateeitherTenn.Const.art.I,16ortheEighthAmendmentbycombiningthreeindependently  lethaldrugstoassurethatanexecutionisswiftlyandreliablyaccomplished.  R$      70  7  _Atleastonefederaljudgehassuggestedthatthecourtsshouldpermitcondemnedprisonerstooverridea 8 stateslethalinjectionprotocolandtoselectthedrugsthatwillbeusedtoexecutethem.InreWilliams,359F.3dat814  (Suhrheinrich,J.,concurring).Wedonotconcurwiththisapproach. a R$      68  7  _Mr._AbdurRahmans_Ԁmedicalexperttestifiedthatifsomeonewereinextremediscomfort, wewouldexpect 8 theirwholebodytoobjectandrisetothediscomfort. R$      31  7  _Thesetwosyringesarecoloredredandaremarkedwiththenumbers 6and 7respectively. n R$      66  7  _Inhisopeningstatement,Mr.AbdurRahmanslawyerconcededthat ifeverythinggoesexactlythewayits 8 supposedtogo,Idontthinktheproofisnecessarilygoingtoshowthatitstortuous.  R$      54  7  _Likeitspredecessor,theTennesseeDrugControlActof1971,theTennesseeDrugControlActof1989 8 establishesa comprehensivesystemofdruganddrugabusecontrol.SeeActofMay3,1971,ch.163,caption,1971  Tenn.Pub.Acts366,366.  R$      59  7  _ThecourtsdecisiontoadoptGreggv.Georgiasanalyticalstandardspromptedtwodissentingjusticesto 8 complainthatthecourtwascontinuing toaffirmsentencesofdeathbyascertainingwhether[Tennessees]procedural  andsubstantivelawsatisfiesthelatestnationalminimumstandard.Statev.Black,815S.W.2dat19293(Reid,C.J.,  dissentinginpart).Thechiefjusticealsoadmonishedhiscolleaguesthatthecourtshould assertitsfullandindependent L authorityundertheStateConstitutiontoassurethattheprocesswherebyadefendantissentencedtodeathisessentially H freeoferror.Statev.Black,815S.W.2dat194(Reid,C.J.,dissentinginpart). !.8dd8     _8  8 XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE 8 @kk$ATNASHVILLE#(#Ԉ ^&   AssignedonBriefsFebruary23,2004 L X X #XX #ABUALIABDURRAHMANv.PHILBREDESEN,etal.X X  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.022236IIIEllenHobbsLyle,Chancellor n 6 @@*AV) ` dE<E ` A F   @@TTNo.M200301767_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober6,_2004_Ԁ A  AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesachallengetotheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionsthreedruglethal   injectionprotocol.AprisonerawaitingexecutionfiledsuitintheChanceryCourtforDavidson   Countyassertingthattheprocedureusedtoadopttheprotocolwaslegallyflawed,thattheprotocol  violatedvariouslicensingandregulatoryrequirements,andthattheprotocolitselfviolatesthe  prohibitionsagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentsinTenn.Const.art.I,16andU.S.Const.  amend.VIII.ThetrialcourtgrantedtheStatesmotiontodismissthechallengestotheadoptionof x theprotocolandtheprotocolscompliancewithregulatoryrequirements.Followingahearing,the d trialcourtfiledamemorandumandorderconcludingthattheDepartmentslethalinjectionprotocol P doesnotresultincruelandunusualpunishment.Theprisonerhasappealed.Weaffirmthetrial t< courtsconclusionthattheadoptionoftheprotocolwasconsistentwithstatelawandthatthe `( protocolsmethodoflethalinjectiondoesnotviolateeitherTenn.Const.art.I,16orU.S.Const. L amend.VIII. 8  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed     #X #X X.WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  FrankG.Clement,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  BradleyA.MacLean,Nashville,Tennessee,andWilliamP.Redick,Jr.,WhitesCreek,Tennessee, !t! fortheappellant,AbuAliAbdurRahman. "`" PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;and p$8 $ StephanieR.Reevers,AssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellees,PhilBredesen,Quenton \%$!% White,RickyBell,VirginiaLewis,andTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection. H&"&   OPINION #XX #X X  (#(  I.  )%*     AbuAliAbdurRahman(formerlyJamesLeeJones)hasalonghistoryofviolent,antisocial +', behavior.InFebruary1986,whilehewasonparole,Mr.AbdurRahmanandDevalleMillerentered ,(- theduplexofPatrickDanielsandNormaNormanunderthepretextofmakingadrugpurchase. -p). Theyboundtheirvictimswithducttapeabouttheirhands,feet,eyes,andmouths.AftertakingMr. .\*/ Danielssbankcard,$300ofMs.Normansmoney,andsomemarijuanafoundinasofa,Mr. 8 AbdurRahmantoldMr.Danielsthathewasgoingtoteachhimalessonandthenstabbedhimsix $ timesinthechestwithabutcherknifewhileMr.Danielspleadedforhislife.Mr.AbdurRahman  alsostabbedMs.Normanseveraltimesintheback,andthenheandMr.Millerfled,leavingthe  knifeinMs.Normansback.Mr.Danielsdiedasaresultofhiswounds,butMs.Normansurvived.    InJuly1986,aDavidsonCountygrandjuryindictedMr.AbdurRahmanforfirstdegree   murder,assaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder,andarmedrobbery.' #  1      ׀In1987,ajuryfound  t Mr.AbdurRahmanguiltyofallthreeoffensesandsentencedhimtodeathforthemurderconviction  ` andconsecutivelifesentencesforthetworemainingconvictions.TheTennesseeSupremeCourt  L  affirmedtheconvictions,T #  2      ׀andtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdeniedMr.AbdurRahmans p 8  petitionforwritofcertiorari. #  3      ׀TheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCountythereafterdeniedMr. \$  AbdurRahmanspetitionforpostconvictionrelief.TheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals H  affirmedthedecision,l #  4      ׀andboththeTennesseeSupremeCourtandtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt 4  declinedtoreviewthecase. #  5            TheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCountysetMr.AbdurRahmansexecutiondateforJune  10,1996.OnApril23,1996,Mr.AbdurRahmantriggeredwhathasprovedtobeprotracted  proceedingsinfederalcourtbyfilingaprosepetitionforwritofhabeascorpusintheUnitedStates  DistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennessee.H  #  6      ׀InApril1998,theDistrictCourtconcludedthat  Mr.AbdurRahmanhadreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselatthesentencingphaseofhis p 1987trialandvacatedMr.AbdurRahmansdeathsentence.  #  7      ׀AdividedpaneloftheUnitedStates \ CourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitreversedthisdecisiontwoyearslater,`  #  8      ׀andtheUnitedStates H SupremeCourtdeclinedtoreviewthecase.t #  9       l4   ImmediatelyaftertheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdeclinedtoconsiderhiscase,Mr. D  AbdurRahmanreturnedtotheSixthCircuitandtheDistrictCourtseekingreliefonthegroundof 0 prosecutorialmisconduct.BasedonaninterveningUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecision& #  10      ׀andthe 8 TennesseeSupremeCourtsadoptionofTenn.S.Ct.R.39,herequestedtheSixthCircuittovacate $ itsjudgmentandremandthecasetotheDistrictCourt.HealsofiledaFed.R.Civ.P.60(b)motion  intheDistrictCourtseekingrelieffromthejudgment.Inlate2001,theDistrictCourtdeclinedto  considerthemotionandtransferredittotheSixthCircuit.T #  11          OnJanuary15,2002,theTennesseeSupremeCourtsetApril10,2002asthedateforMr.   AbdurRahmansexecution.%h #  12      #XX #X XԀOnMarch26,2002,Mr.AbdurRahmanwaspresentedwiththe  t statutorilymandatedchoicebetweenmethodsofexecutionanddeclinedtomakeachoice.By  ` operationoflaw,lethalinjectionbecamethemethodforcarryingoutMr.AbdurRahmans  L  execution.$ #  13      ׀OnApril3,2002,Mr.AbdurRahmanrequestedtheCommissionerofCorrectionto p 8  issueadeclaratoryorderpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.45223(1998)regardingthe \$   constitutionality,legalityandapplicabilityoftheDepartmentofCorrectionslethalinjection H  protocol.< #  14       4    Thereafter,theSixthCircuitissuedtwosummaryordersdecliningtogranttherequested    reliefanddenyingallofMr.AbdurRahmanspendingmotionsbecausehisFed.R.Civ.P.60(b)  motionamountedtoasecondorsuccessivepetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.Mr.AbdurRahman   filedanotherpetitionforwritofcertiorariintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.OnApril8,2002,  theCourtstayedMr.AbdurRahmansexecution, #  15      ׀andonApril22,2002,grantedcertiorarito 8  considertwoissuesregardingtheconsiderationoffederalhabeascorpuspetitions.T #  16       $   OnMay28,2002,theCommissionerofCorrectiondeniedMr.AbdurRahmansrequestfor  adeclaratoryorderregardingthelethalinjectionprotocol.OnJuly26,2002,Mr.AbdurRahman  filedaTenn.CodeAnn.45225(1998)petitionintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  challengingtheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionslethalinjectionprotocol.Heassertedthatthe   procedureusedtoadopttheprotocolviolatedtheUniformAdministrativeProceduresActandthe  t openmeetingslaw.! #  17      ׀Healsoassertedthattheprotocolinvolvedtheunlawfulpracticeofmedicine  ` andthatitwascontrarytotheNonlivestockAnimalHumanDeathAct.4l #  18      ׀Finally,heassertedthat  L  theprotocolviolatedpublicpolicyandtheprohibitionsagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentsin p 8  Tenn.Const.art.I,16andU.S.Const.amend.VIII.TheStatefiledananswerdenyingMr. \$  AbdurRahmansconstitutionalclaimsandmovedtodismisshisremainingclaimsontheground H  thattheyfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted. 4    Therewasahiatusinthestateproceedingwhilethepartiesturnedtheirattentiontothe    proceedingsintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.TheCourtheardoralargumentsonNovember6,  2002.However,onDecember10,2002,theCourtfiledapercuriamorderdismissingthewritof  certiorariasimprovidentlygranted.  #  19      ׀AfterthecasewasreturnedtotheSixthCircuit,amajorityof  thecourtdecidedtorehearthecaseenbanc.Accordingly,thecourtvacateditsearlierjudgmentand  grantedMr.AbdurRahmananotherstayofexecutionpendingitsconsiderationofthecase.Thecase p remainspendingintheSixthCircuit. \   OnMarch28,2003,Mr.AbdurRahmanfiledwhatprovedtobeanunsuccessfulpetitionfor l4 writofhabeascorpusintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty.KH  #  20      ׀OnMay6,2003,thechancery X  courtgrantedtheStatesmotiontodismissallthecountsofMr.AbdurRahmansTenn.CodeAnn. D  45225petitionexceptforhisconstitutionalclaims.FollowingabenchtrialonMay29,2003, 0 thechancerycourtfiledamemorandumandorderonJune2,2003concludingthatthelethal  injectionprotocoldidnotviolateArticleI,16oftheTennesseeConstitutionandtheEighth  AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.Mr.AbdurRahmanappealsbothfromtheorder  grantingtheStatesmotiontodismissandfromthememorandumandorderupholdingthe 8 constitutionalityofthelethalinjectionprotocol. $ @) II.   @ TheDepartmentofCorrectionsLethalInjectionProtocol   #XX !#X X  TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblyauthorizedexecutionsbylethalinjectionbeginninginMay   1998.) #  21      ׀Unlikeotherstatelegislaturesthatprovidedspecificdirectionsregardingthelethalinjection  t procedure,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyleftitentirelytotheDepartmentofCorrection to  ` promulgatenecessaryrulesandregulationstofacilitatetheimplementationofexecutionbylethal  L  injection.Tenn.CodeAnn.4023114(c).InJune1998,theCommissionerofCorrection p 8  assembledaLethalInjectionProjectTeam.TheteamconsistedofsixemployeesoftheDepartment, \$  includingthewardenofthefacilityinwhichexecutionsarecarriedout.Noneofthesepersonshad H  medicaltraining.Theteamobtainedinformationfromotherstatesthathadauthorizedandcarried 4  outexecutionsbylethalinjectionandconductedonsitevisitsinTexasandIndiana.      Theteamidentifiedthedrugsmostcommonlyusedbyotherstatestocarryoutexecutions  bylethalinjections.InJuly1998,theteamsoughtrecommendationsfromtheDepartmentsDirector  ofHealthServicesregardingthecombinationofdrugsthatshouldbeusedinTennessee.The  directorrespondedthatSodiumPentothal,* #  22      ׀pancuroniumbromide( Pavulon),- #  23      ׀andpotassium  chloride+  #  24      ׀ areapparentlythedrugsofchoiceforlethalinjectionsandshouldbeadequateforusein p Tennesseeaswell.T  #  25      ׀Healsoadvisedthatallthesedrugs,aswellasthesuppliesandotherfluids, \ wereavailablethroughtheDepartmentscentralpharmacy.Later,afteroneoftheDepartments H physiciansreviewedthesuggesteddrugswithananesthesiologist,thedirectorreportedtotheteam l4 thatthephysician confirmsthatthedrugsanddosageslistedarecorrectforalethalinjection.He X  [thephysician]advisedthattheSodiumPentothalshouldbeadministeredfirst,thenthePavulon,and D  thenthepotassiumchloride.Thelinesshouldbeflushedwithsalinebeforeeachnewdrugis 0 injected.  Ї  Basedonitsresearch,theteamdecidedtopatternTennesseesthreedrugprotocolafter 8 TexassprotocolbecauseTexashadthemostexperiencewithcarryingoutexecutionsbylethal $ injection.TheteamsprotocoladoptedtheDirectorofHealthServicesrecommendationsregarding  thethreedrugsandtheorderoftheiradministrationbutincreasedthedosagesofthedrugsoverthe  dosagesthattheDepartmentsphysicianandtheconsultinganesthesiologisthadalreadydetermined  wouldbefatal.TheteamcompletedmostofitsworkbyDecember1998andupdatedthe  Departments ExecutionManualtoincludethelethalinjectionprotocol.Aftertheexecutionof   RobertGlenCoebylethalinjectiononApril19,2000,theDepartmentconductedanotherreview  t oftheseproceduresbasedonitsexperiencewithCoesexecution.  `   ThethreedruglethalinjectionprotocolintheDepartmentsExecutionManual( #  26      ׀callsforthe p 8  intravenousinjectionofthreedrugsinthefollowingorderanddosagesusingseven60ccsyringes. \$  ThefirstsyringecontainsfivegramsofSodiumPentothalmixedinsolutionwith50ccofsterile H  water.,T #  27      ׀Thesecondsyringecontains50ccofsalinesolution./ #  28      ׀Thethirdandfourthsyringeseach 4  contain50ccofPavulonat1mg/ml.00 #  29      ׀Thefifthsyringecontains50ccofsalinesolution.1 #  30      ׀Thesixth    andseventhsyringeseachcontain50ccofpotassiumchloride.H  #  31      ׀      Shortlybeforetheexecution,theprisonerissecuredtoagurney,andthegurneyisrolledinto  thedeathchamber.Onceinthedeathchamber,armextensionsareattachedtothegurney,andthe  prisonersarmsaresecuredtothearmextensions.AnIVteamconsistingoftwocertified  paramedicsandonecorrectionalofficertheninsertsacatheterintotheveinsofbothoftheprisoners p innerarmsjustabovetheelbow.2  #  32      ׀Thesecathetersareconnectedbysurgicaltubingtoabagofsaline \ solutionhungfromastandmountedontheceilingofanadjacentroomwheretheexecutioneris H located.Theexecutionerisabletoviewtheprisonerthroughawindowandwithaclosedcircuit l4 televisioncamerafocusedontheareawherethecathetershavebeeninserted. X    Atthewardenssignal,theexecutionerinsertsthefirstsyringecontainingtheSodium 0 Pentothalintoa Yconnectorinthesurgicaltubingand pushestheentirecontentsofthesyringe  intothesalinesolutionflowingintotheprisonersvein.Oncethefirstsyringeisemptied,the  executionerproceedswiththeremainingsyringesuntilallsevensyringeshavebeenemptiedin  sequence.Followingtheinjectionofthecontentsofthefinalsyringe,theblindsonthewindow  betweenthedeathchamberandtheroomwherethewitnessesareseatedareclosed,andthestate   medicalexaminerthenexaminestheprisonertodeterminewhetherheorsheisdead.Iftheprisoner 8 isdead,thephysicianpronounceshimorherdead.3 #  33      ׀Thebodyisthenremovedfromthedeath $ chamberandtransportedtotheofficeofthestatemedicalexaminerwhereanautopsyisperformed.  @^^( III.   @  TheApplicationoftheRulemakingProvisionsofthe  @  UniformAdministrativeProceduresActtothe   @ AdoptionoftheLethalInjectionProtocol   t   Mr.AbdurRahmanfirsttakesissuewiththeprocessthattheDepartmentusedtoprepareand  L  adoptitslethalinjectionprotocol.HeinsiststhattheDepartmentshouldhavepromulgatedthis p 8  protocolusingtherulemakingproceduresfoundintheUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct. \$  HealsocriticizestheDepartmentfordevelopingthelethalinjectionprotocol entirelyoutsidethe H  publicseye.Mr.AbdurRahmansargumentslacklegalfoundation. 4    In1998,theTennesseeSupremeCourtdeterminedthattheDepartmentofCorrectionwas    notrequiredtofollowtheUniformAdministrativeProceduresActsrulemakingprocedurestoadopt  itsUniformDisciplinaryPolicy.NotingthatTenn.CodeAnn.46102(1998)vestedbroad  managementpowerintheDepartment,thecourtheld(1)thatformalrulemakingproceedingswere  illsuitedtothemanagementofprisonsand(2)thattheUniformDisciplinaryPolicydidnotfit  withintheUniformAdministrativeProceduresActsdefinitionof rulebecauseitconcernedthe p internalmanagementofstategovernmentanddidnotaffecttheprivaterights,privileges,or \ proceduresavailabletothepublic.Mandelav.Campbell,978S.W.2d531,53335(Tenn.1998). H   TheMandelav.CampbelldecisiondealtonlywiththeDepartmentsUniformDisciplinary X  Policy.However,ontheeveoftheexecutionofRobertGlenCoe,theTennesseeSupremeCourt D  extendedthereachofitsMandelav.CampbelldecisiontotheDepartmentofCorrectionslethal 0 injectionprotocol.DespitethespecificlanguageinTenn.CodeAnn.4023114(c)directingthe  Department topromulgatenecessaryrulesandregulationstofacilitateexecutionsbylethal  injection,thecourtheldthattheDepartmentslethalinjectionprotocolisnota ruleunderthe  UAPAbecauseit fitssquarelywithintheexceptionstotheUniformAdministrativeProcedures  ActinTenn.CodeAnn.45102(10)(A),(D)(1998).Coev.Sundquist,No.M200000897SCR9   CV(Tenn.OrderApr.19,2000). !    OncetheTennesseeSupremeCourthasaddressedanissue,itsdecisionregardingthatissue #X" isbindingonthelowercourts.Statev.Irick,906S.W.2d440,443(Tenn.1995);Paynev.Johnson, |$D # 2Tenn.Cas.(Shannon)542,543(1877).Thus,thiscourtisboundtoadheretothedecisionsofthe h%0!$ TennesseeSupremeCourt.Bingv.BaptistMemlHosp.,937S.W.2d922,925(Tenn.Ct.App. T&"% 1996);EstateofSchultzv.Munford,Inc.,650S.W.2d37,39(Tenn.Ct.App.1982).Thecourthas @'#& evenadmonishedusthatwearenotfreetodisregarditsobiterdictumwhenthecourtisspeaking ,(#' directlyonthematterbeforeitanditisseekingtogiveguidancetothebenchandbar.Holderv. )$( TennesseeJudicialSelectionCommn,937S.W.2d877,88182(Tenn.1996). *%) Ї#XX 6#X X  TheTennesseeSupremeCourtsconclusionthattheDepartmentslethalinjectionprotocol 8 neednotbepromulgatedasaruleinaccordancewiththeUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct $ iscontainedinanunpublishedorder.Whilesomemayquestiontheprecedentialvalueofan  unpublishedorder,evenanunpublishedTennesseeSupremeCourtorder,wedonot.Applyingthe  twincriteriainHolderv.TennesseeSelectionCommn,weconcludethattheCoev.Sundquistorder  directlyaddressedtheissueoftheapplicationoftheUniformAdministrativeProceduresActsrule  makingrequirementstotheDepartmentslethalinjectionprotocolandthatthecourtintendedits   decisiontogiveguidancetothebenchandbar.Accordingly,basedontheCourtsorderinCoev.  t Sundquist,weconcurwiththetrialcourtsconclusionthattheDepartmentwasnotrequiredto  ` promulgateitslethalinjectionprotocolasaruleundertheUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct.  L    TheconclusionthattheprotocolneednotbepromulgatedasarulealsodisposesofMr. \$  AbdurRahmanscomplaintthattheDepartmentdevelopedtheprotocoloutsideofthepublicseye. H  BecausetheUniformAdministrativeProceduresActisinapplicable,nonoticeandpubliccomment 4  isrequired.TotheextentthatthisargumentisanattempttoresurrectMr.AbdurRahmansclaim    thattheDepartmentviolatedTenn.CodeAnn.844102(2002),wenotethathevoluntarily    dismissedthatclaiminthetrialcourtonDecember2,2002.Partiescannotadvanceclaimsor  defensesonappealthattheydidnotpursueattrial.Nortonv.McCaskill,12S.W.3d789,795(Tenn.  2000);Burtonv.WarrenFarmersCoop.,129S.W.3d513,522(Tenn.Ct.App.2002).  @dd) IV.  p @  TheApplicationoftheNonlivestockAnimalHumaneDeathAct  \   Mr.AbdurRahmanassertsnextthattheinclusionofPavulonintheDepartmentsthreedrug l4 lethalinjectionprotocolviolatestheNonlivestockAnimalHumaneDeathAct,Tenn.CodeAnn. X  4417301to303(Supp.2003).Heassertsthatheisa nonlivestockanimalasdefinedinTenn. D  CodeAnn.3914201(3)(2003), #  34      ׀and,therefore,thatPavuloncannotbeincludedinthelethal 0 injectionprotocolbecauseTenn.CodeAnn.4417303(c)prohibitstheuseof aneuromuscular  blockingagentforthepurposeofeuthanizingnonlivestockanimals.Likethetrialcourt,wehave  concludedthattheNonlivestockAnimalHumaneDeathActdoesnotapplytotheexecutionofa  humanbeingbylethalinjectionpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4023114.  @) A.  !    In1980,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyenactedtheDogandCatHumaneDeathAct. #  35      ׀ #X" ThepurposeoftheActwastofacilitatehumaneeuthanasiaofdogsandcatsbypermittinganimal |$D # sheltersandpoundstoobtainandusesodiumpentobarbital.Inadditiontosodiumpentobarital,the h%0!$ Actexpresslypermittedeuthanasiaofdogsandcatsusingcarbonmonoxide,chloroform,nitrogen 8 chambers,otherbarbiturates,andadrugreferredtoasT61. #  36      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.4417303 $ (repealed).    In2001,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyreplacedtheDogandCatHumaneDeathActwith  thepresentNonlivestockAnimalHumaneDeathAct. #  37      ׀Byitsplainterms,theActappliesonlyto   publicandprivateagencies...operatedforthecollection,careand/oreuthanasiaofstray,   neglected,abandonedorunwantednonlivestockanimals.Tenn.CodeAnn.4417302.TheAct  t permitseuthanasiausing [s]odiumpentobarbitalandsuchotheragentsasmaybespecifically  ` approvedbytherulesoftheboardofveterinarymedicine,Tenn.CodeAnn.4417303(a),and  L  specificallyprohibitstheuseofseveralsubstances,including neuromuscularblockingagent[s]. p 8  Tenn.CodeAnn.4417303(c). #  38       \$  @) B.  4  #XX b#X X  Theresponsibilityfordeterminingwhatastatutemeansrestswiththecourts.Rosemanv.    Roseman,890S.W.2d27,29(Tenn.1994);RealtyShop,Inc.v.R.R.WestminsterHolding,Inc.,7  S.W.3d581,601(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Wemustascertainandthengivethefullestpossibleeffect  totheGeneralAssemblyspurposeinenactingthestatuteasreflectedinthestatuteslanguage.  Stewartv.State,33S.W.3d785,79091(Tenn.2000);Lavinv.Jordon,16S.W.3d362,365(Tenn.  2000).Indoingso,wemustavoidconstructionsthatundulyexpandorrestrictthestatutes p application.Wattv.LumbermensMut.Cas.Ins.Co.,62S.W.3d123,12728(Tenn.2001); \ Pattersonv.TennesseeDeptofLabor&WorkforceDev.,60S.W.3d60,64(Tenn.2001);Limbaugh H v.CoffeeMed.Ctr.,59S.W.3d73,83(Tenn.2001).Ourgoalistoconstrueastatuteinawaythat l4 avoidsconflictandfacilitatestheharmoniousoperationofthelaw.Frazierv.EastTenn.Baptist X  Hosp.,55S.W.3d925,928(Tenn.2001);LensCrafters,Inc.v.Sundquist,33S.W.3d772,777 D  (Tenn.2000). 0   OurconstructionofastatuteismorelikelytoconformwiththeGeneralAssemblyspurpose  ifweapproachthestatutepresumingthattheGeneralAssemblychoseitswordspurposelyand  deliberately,Tidwellv.ServomationWilloughbyCo.,483S.W.2d98,100(Tenn.1972);Merrimack  Mut.FireIns.Co.v.Batts,59S.W.3d142,151(Tenn.Ct.App.2001),andthatthewordschosen   bytheGeneralAssemblyconveythemeaningtheGeneralAssemblyintendedthemtoconvey. 8 Limbaughv.CoffeeMed.Ctr.,59S.W.3dat83;BellSouthTelecomms.,Inc.v.Greer,972S.W.2d $ 663,673(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Thus,wemustconstruestatutesaswefindthem,Jacksonv.  Jackson,186Tenn.337,342,210S.W.2d332,334(1948);PacificEasternCorp.v.GulfLife  HoldingCo.,902S.W.2d946,954(Tenn.Ct.App.1995),andoursearchforastatutespurpose  mustbeginwiththewordsofthestatuteitself.Blankenshipv.EstateofBain,5S.W.3d647,651  (Tenn.1999);Stateexrel.CommrofTransp.v.MedicineBirdBlackBearWhiteEagle,63S.W.3d   734,754(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).  t   Wemustgiveastatuteswordstheirnaturalandordinarymeaningunlessthecontextin  L  whichtheyareusedrequiresotherwise.Frazierv.EastTenn.BaptistHosp.,55S.W.3dat928; p 8  Mooneyv.Sneed,30S.W.3d304,306(Tenn.2000);Statev.Fitz,19S.W.3d213,216(Tenn.2000). \$  Becausewordsareknownbythecompanytheykeep,Stateexrel.CommrofTransp.v.Medicine H  BirdBlackBearWhiteEagle,63S.W.3dat75455,weshouldconstruethewordsinastatuteinthe 4  contextoftheentirestatuteandinlightofthestatutesgeneralpurpose.Statev.Flemming,19    S.W.3d195,197(Tenn.2000);Lyonsv.Rasar,872S.W.2d895,897(Tenn.1994);WachoviaBank    ofN.C.v.Johnson,26S.W.3d621,624(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Whenthemeaningofstatutory  languageisclear,wemustinterpretitaswritten,Kradelv.PiperIndus.,Inc.,60S.W.3d744,749  (Tenn.2001);ATSSoutheast,Inc.v.CarrierCorp.,18S.W.3d626,62930(Tenn.2000),ratherthan  usingthetoolsofconstructiontogivethestatuteanothermeaning.Limbaughv.CoffeeMed.Ctr.,  59S.W.3dat83;Gleavesv.CheckerCabTransitCorp.,15S.W.3d799,803(Tenn.2000). p   Thetasksofstatutoryconstructionandapplyingastatutetoaparticularsetoffactsinvolve H questionsoflawratherthanquestionsoffact.Pattersonv.TennesseeDeptofLaborandWorkforce l4 Dev.,60S.W.3dat62;Statev.McKnight,51S.W.3d559,562(Tenn.2001);Myintv.AllstateIns. X  Co.,970S.W.2d920,924(Tenn.1998).Accordingly,appellatecourtsmustreviewatrialcourts D  constructionofastatuteorapplicationofastatutetoaparticularsetoffactsdenovowithouta 0 presumptionofcorrectness.Statev.Walls,62S.W.3d119,121(Tenn.2001);Hillv.Cityof  Germantown,31S.W.3d234,237(Tenn.2000);Mooneyv.Sneed,30S.W.3dat306.  @) C.     ThelogicofMr.AbdurRahmansinterpretationoftheNonlivestockAnimalHumaneDeath !  Actleadstoabsurdresults.IfheisanonlivestockanimalforthepurposeoftheNonlivestock "l! AnimalHumaneDeathAct,thenhisexecutionmayonlybecarriedoutbyalicensedveterinarian, #X" aveterinariantechnician,orashelteremployeewhohassuccessfullycompletedaeuthanasia |$D # techniciancertificationcourse.Tenn.CodeAnn.4417303(d).Becauseourtaskistoemploythe h%0!$ canonsofconstructiontomakesenseratherthannonsenseoutofstatutes, #  39      ׀werejectMr. T&"% AbdurRahmansinterpretationoftheNonlivestockAnimalHumaneDeathAct. @'#&   BoththeplainlanguageandthelegislativehistoryoftheNonlivestockAnimalHumane )$( DeathActdemonstratethattheGeneralAssemblydidnotintendtheActtoapplytohumanbeings. *%) TheActwasamendedin2001fortworeasons!torespondtothedeathofaChattanoogaanimal 8 shelterworkerwhodiedinagaschamberaccidentandtoreviseandmodernizetheformerstatute $ inlightoftheacceptanceofsodiumpentobarbitaltoeuthanizeanimals.Wefindnoindicationin  theActslegislativehistorythattheGeneralAssemblyentertainedanynotionthatthisActwould  applytohumanbeings.    ThisconclusionisborneoutbytheActsplainlanguage.First,theDepartmentofCorrection   isplainlynota public...agenc[y]...operatedforthecollection,careand/oreuthanasiaofstray,  t neglected,abandonedorunwantednonlivestockanimals.Second,humanbeingsarenot  `  domesticatedanimalsand,therefore,arenotnonlivestockanimalsasdefinedinTenn.CodeAnn.  L  3914201(3).Third,executionbylethalinjectionisnotbydefinitionequivalentto euthanasia p 8  asthatwordiscommonlyappliedtohumanbeings. #  40      ׀ \$  @) V. 4  @TheApplicationofLicensingandRegulatoryRequirements       Mr.AbdurRahmanalsochallengestheDepartmentslethalinjectionprotocolbecauseit  envisionsthatpersonsotherthanlicensedphysiciansandnurseswillperformproceduresthat,ina  clinicalsetting,wouldnormallybeperformedonlybyphysiciansandnurses.Healsoarguesthat  theprotocolsproceduresforobtaining,mixing,andadministeringtheSodiumPentothalviolatethe  TennesseeDrugControlActof1989 #  41      ׀andtheTennesseePharmacyPracticeActof1996., #  42      ׀These p technicallicensureandregulatoryargumentsoverlooktwofundamentalpoints. #  43      ׀First,carryingout \ anexecutionbylethalinjectionisnotatherapeuticprocedureassociatedwiththehealingarts. H Second,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblysgrantofauthoritytotheDepartmentinTenn.CodeAnn. l4 4023114(c)isbroadenoughtoenablethedepartmenttocarryoutanexecutionbylethalinjection X  withouttheuseoftrainedmedicalprofessionalsandwithoutcomplyingstrictlywiththeregulatory D  constraintsnormallyapplicabletotheuseofdrugsinaclinicalsetting. 0 ̀  @) A.  8 @b b  TheUseofLicensedMedicalPersonnel  $   NothinginTenn.CodeAnn.4023114explicitlyrequirestheDepartmenttouselicensed  physiciansornursestoperformtheproceduresnecessarilyincidenttoanexecutionbylethal  injection.Inaddition,nothinginthelegislativehistoryofthe1998or2000legislationenabling  executionsbylethalinjectionindicatesthattheGeneralAssemblyenvisionedthatmedical   professionalswouldbedirectlyinvolvedinthelethalinjectionprocess. #  44      ׀Ifanything,theGeneral  t Assemblymayverywellhaveanticipatedthatlicensedmedicalprofessionalswouldnotbeinvolved  ` directlyinexecutionsbylethalinjectionbecauseoftheirprofessionalassociationslongstanding  L  positionthatitisunethicalforphysicians,physiciansassistants,andnursestoparticipatein p 8  executions.( #  45       \$    Extendingthelicensingrequirementstoexecutionsbylethalinjectionwouldhavethe 4  practicaleffectoffrustratingtheTennesseeGeneralAssemblysconsidereddecisiontoadopt    executionbylethalinjectionastheprimarymethodforcarryingoutcapitalpunishmentinTennessee.    Weretheserequirementsapplicabletoexecutionsbylethalinjection,theDepartmentsabilityto  carryoutitsstatutorymandateswouldbeunderminedbecausemanylicensedmedicalprofessionals  woulddeclinetoparticipateintheprocedure.ItwasforthisreasonthattheTennesseeSupreme  Courtnotedthat nopublicpolicyisviolatedbyallowingphysiciansoranyoneelsetoparticipate  incarryingoutalawfulsentence.Coev.Sundquist,No.M200000897SCR9CV(Tenn.Order p Apr.19,2000). \ Ї  InlightoftheDepartmentsbroadauthorityinTenn.CodeAnn.4023114to facilitate 8 theimplementationofexecutionsbylethalinjection,wehavedeterminedthattheDepartments $ lethalinjectionprotocolsareexceptionstoandfalloutsideoflicensingstatutesprovidingthatcertain  proceduresmustbeperformedbylicensedhealthcareprofessionals.TheDepartmentdoesnothave  astatutoryobligationtouselicensedmedicalpersonneltocarryoutanexecutionbylethalinjection.  However,thelicensingquestionaside,theexperienceandtrainingofthepersonsparticipatinginan  executionbylethalinjectionisarelevantconsiderationwhendeterminingwhethertheprotocol   violatestheprohibitionsagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentsinArticleI,16oftheTennessee  t ConstitutionandtheEighthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.  ` @) B.  p 8  @  TheApplicationoftheTennesseeDrugControlActof1989andthe \$  @ TennesseePharmacyPracticeActof1996  H  #XX w#X X#XX X#X X  BoththeTennesseeDrugControlActof1989andtheTennesseePharmacyPracticeActof    1996governthemannerinwhichcontrolledsubstances,includingSodiumPentothal,maybe    dispensedinaclinicalsetting. #  46      ׀BecauseofSodiumPentothalshighpotentialforabusewhichcan  leadtoseveredependence,T #  47      ׀itmaynotbe#XX #X Xdispensed #  48      ׀withoutawrittenprescriptionexceptwhen  apractitioner, #  49      ׀otherthanapharmacy,isdispensingitdirectlytoanultimateuser.  #  50      ׀Tenn.Code  Ann.5311308(A)(1999).Allpersonswhodistributeordispensecontrolledsubstancesmust  obtainanannualregistrationfromtheappropriatelicensingboard#XX #X X.  #  51      ׀#XX ¯#X X p   ExecutionsinTennesseearecarriedoutattheRiverbendMaximumSecurityInstitutionin H Nashville.Accordingtothewardenofthatfacility,thethreedrugsrequiredbytheprotocolare l4  obtainedthroughthecentralpharmacyattheLoisM.DeBerrySpecialNeedsFacilityinNashville. X  Thewardenispersonallyresponsibleforobtainingthedrugsfromthepharmacypriortoan 8 execution,andthedrugsremainunderthewardenspersonalcontrolatalltimesuntiltheyareused. #  52       $    TheSodiumPentothalistheonlydrugthatrequirespreparationpriortoanexecution.Itis  deliveredasakitcontainingthedruginpowderformandavialofsterilewaterformixing.  Immediatelypriortoanexecution,thewardenreviewstheexpirationdateoftheSodiumPentothal  toassurethatthedrughasnotexpired.Afterdeterminingthatthedrugisnotoutofdate,eitherthe   warden,theexecutioner,oranothertrainedpersonmixes50ccofthesterilewaterwiththepowdered  t drugaccordingtothedirectionsandthendrawsupthesolutionintotheyellowsyringe,whichis  ` labeledwiththenumber onebecauseitwillbethefirstsyringeusedwhentheexecutionbegins.  L  ThisprocesstakesplaceinthepresenceofotherofficialsoftheDepartmentwhoarealsofamiliar p 8  withtheprotocol. #  53      ׀ \$  #XX Z#X X  Thisproceduredoesnotadheretothegenerallyapplicablerequirementsforprescribingand 4  dispensingcontrolledsubstances.ForthepurposesoftheseActs,Riverbendswardenisneithera    practitionernoranultimateuser,andtheSodiumPentothalisdispensedwithoutawritten    prescriptionsignedbyapractitioner.However,aswiththelicensurerequirementsdiscussedinthe  precedingsection,theexecutionsbylethalinjectionauthorizedbyTenn.CodeAnn.4023114are  exceptionstoprescriptionanddispensingrequirementsofboththeTennesseeDrugControlActof  1989andtheTennesseePharmacyPracticeActof1996.    ThechiefpurposeoftheseActsistopreventtheillegalsaleanduseofcontrolled \ substances.h #  54      ׀ThereisnoindicationinthelanguageorlegislativehistoryofeitherActthattheywere H intendedtoapplytotheStatewhenitiscarryingoutalawfullyimposeddeathsentence.Infact, l4 executionsbylethalinjectionwerenotauthorizedinTennesseewheneitherActwaspassed. X  Therefore,theGeneralAssemblycouldnothaveenvisionedthattherestrictionsintheActwould D  governtheStatesuseofcontrolledsubstancesinthecontextofexecutionsbylethalinjection. 0   WhileboththeTennesseeDrugControlActof1989andtheTennesseePharmacyPractice  Actof1996applytothemanufacture,distribution,anddispensingofcontrolledsubstances,theydo  notpurporttocontrolorregulatehowthesedrugsshouldbeusedbypersonswhohavealawfulright  tousethem.Unlikeotherstateswhosestatutescontaininstructionsforcarryingoutanexecution   bylethalinjection,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyleftthesedetailsentirelytotheDepartment. !  Therefore,whileevidenceregardingthemannerinwhichtheDepartmentobtainsandpreparesthe "l! SodiumPentothalisrelevantwithregardtoMr.AbdurRahmansassertionthattheDepartments #X" lethalinjectionprotocolviolatesTenn.Const.art.I,16andU.S.Const.amend.VIII,thefactthat |$D # theprotocoldoesnotcomplywitheithertheTennesseeDrugControlActof1989andtheTennessee 8 PharmacyPracticeActof1996doesnotprovidelegalgroundsforinvalidatingtheprotocol. $ @dd) VI.   @  TheCruelandUnusualPunishmentClaims     Mr.AbdurRahmansprincipalargumentonthisappealisthattheDepartmentslethal   injectionprotocolviolatestheprohibitionsagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentsinbothTenn.  t Const.art.I,16andU.S.Const.amend.VIII.Whilehedoesnotarguethatexecutionbylethal  ` injectionispersecruelandunusual,hedoesarguethattheDepartmentsprotocolisunconstitutional  L  foressentiallytwootherreasons.First,heassertsthattheuseofbothPavulonandpotassium p 8  chlorideposesaseriousriskofunreasonableandunnecessaryphysicalpainandpsychological \$  suffering.Second,heassertsthattheprotocol,viewedinitsentirely,doesnotcontaintheminimum H  safeguardsrequiredtoensurethatmistakesanderrorswillnotcauseaninhumanedeath.Wehave 4  determinedthatMr.AbdurRahmanhasfailedtoprovethatexecutionsinTennesseecarriedoutin    accordancewiththeDepartmentsprotocolconstitutecruelandunusualpunishments.    @) A.     NeithertheTennesseeSupremeCourtnortheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasaddressed  thequestionofwhetherexecutionbylethalinjectioningeneral,orTennesseesprotocolforcarrying p outanexecutionbylethalinjectioninparticular,amountstocruelandunusualpunishment. #  55      ׀ \ Accordingly,webeginbyidentifyingthestandardsusedtodeterminewhetheraparticular H punishmentviolatesTenn.Const.art.I,16orU.S.Const.amend.VIII. l4   TheConstitutionofTennesseehasalwaysrecognizedthatthedeathpenalty,insomeform, D  isanappropriatepunishmentincertaincircumstances."( #  56      #XX #X XԀStatev.Black,815S.W.2d166,168(Tenn. 0 1991).However,likeitsfederalandstatecounterparts,theConstitutionofTennesseehasalso  placedlimitsonthelegislaturespowertopunishpersonswhocommitcrimes.Statev.Black,815  S.W.2dat192(Reid,C.J.,dissentinginpart).TheselimitsarefoundinTenn.Const.art.I,16,  whichstates, excessivebailshallnotberequired,norexcessivefinesimposed,norcrueland  unusualpunishmentsinflicted.     !    Theprohibitionagainst cruelandunusualpunishmentsintheConstitutionofTennessee 8  sharesacommonoriginwithsimilarprohibitionsintheUnitedStatesConstitutionandotherstate $ constitutions,whichcanbetracedbacktoMagnaCartaandtheDeclarationofRightsof1688. #  57      ׀As  theTennesseeSupremeCourthasnoted,thewordingofTenn.Const.art.I,16is nearlyidentical  totheprohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentinU.S.Const.amendVIII. #  58      ׀VanTranv.  State,66S.W.3d790,799(Tenn.2001).    TheTennesseeSupremeCourtwasinitiallyhesitanttosubjecttheGeneralAssemblys  t choiceofpunishmentforcommittingcriminalactstojudicialscrutinyunderTenn.Const.art.I,  ` 16.Statev.Lasater,68Tenn.584,587(1877).Finally,overonecenturyafterstatehood,thecourt  L  confirmedthatithadnotonlytheauthoritybuttheduty,inpropercases,toreviewstatutorycriminal p 8  penaltiestodeterminewhethertheyimposedcruelandunusualpunishments.Brinkleyv.State,125 \$  Tenn.371,38283,143S.W.1120,1122(1911).Thecourtdidnot,however,definetheparameters H  oftheprotectionaffordedbyTenn.Const.art.I,16orexplaintheanalysistobeusedin 4  determiningwhetheraparticularpunishmentiscruelandunusual.      Forthenextseventyyears,fewcasesraisingissuesunderTenn.Const.art.I,16were  broughttothecourt,andthosethatthecourtdidconsiderweredisposedofsummarilywithout  discussion.In1962,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtextendedtheapplicationoftheEighth  AmendmenttothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment.Robinsonv.California,370U.S.660,  667,82S.Ct.1417,142021(1962).Thisdecisionprovidedajurisprudentialbridgebetweenthe p caselawconstruingtheEighthAmendmentandArticleI,16oftheTennesseeConstitution. \ Accordingly,seventeenyearslater,theTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthattheparametersofthe H TennesseeConstitutionsprohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentswerepreciselythesame l4 astheEighthAmendment.Cozzolinov.State,584S.W.2d765,767(Tenn.1979). X    ThisviewofthescopeofTenn.Const.art.I,16begantocrumbleassoonastheinkonthe 0 Cozzolinoopinionwasdry.In1981,ChiefJusticeBrockconcededthathehaderredbyconcurring  intheportionoftheCozzolinoopinionequatingTenn.Const.art.I,16withtheEighth  Amendment.Statev.Dicks,615S.W.2d126,13233(Tenn.1981).By1991,everymemberofthe  TennesseeSupremeCourthaseschewedCozzolino.Whilerecognizingthatthewordingofthetwo  provisionswassimilar,thecourtassertedthatthissimilaritydidnotforecloseaninterpretationor   applicationofTenn.Const.art.I,16thatwasmoreexpansivethantheUnitedStatesSupreme !  CourtsinterpretationoftheEighthAmendment.Statev.Black,815S.W.2dat188,193(Reid,C.J., "l! dissentinginpart)(statingthat Tennesseeconstitutionalstandardsarenotdestinedtowalkinlock #X" stepwiththeuncertainandfluctuatingfederalstandards). |$D #   AfterdeclaringtheoreticalindependencefromthefederalEighthAmendmentstandards,the T&"% courtadoptedtheNewJerseySupremeCourtsthreepartanalysisbasedontheUnitedStates @'#& SupremeCourtsEighthAmendmentanalysisinGreggv.Georgia,428U.S.153,173,96S.Ct. 8 2909,2925(1976).Statev.Black,815S.W.2dat189(citingStatev.Ramseur,106N.J.123,524 $ A.2d188(1987)).Thisanalysisestablishedthatdeterminingwhetheraparticularpunishmentwas  cruelandunusualrequiredthefollowingthreeinquiries:#XX #X XԀ  8  8`   First,doesthepunishmentforthecrimeconformwithcontemporary  standardsofdecency?Second,isthepunishmentgrossly   disproportionatetotheoffense?Third,doesthepunishmentgo  t beyondwhatisnecessarytoaccomplishanylegitimatepenological  ` objective? L ` x` x Statev.Ramseur,524A.2dat210. #  59      ׀Oneyearlater,thecourtagainlookedtotheUnitedStates \$  SupremeCourtandborrowedtheanalyticalprinciplesthattheCourthadfashionedtoreview H  proportionalityclaims.Statev.Harris,844S.W.2d601,603(Tenn.1992).( #  60       4    Mostrecently,theTennesseeSupremeCourthascharacterizedthethreeparttestinStatev.    Blackas wellestablished.VanTranv.State,66S.W.3dat800n.12.  #  61      ׀Accordingly,forthe  purposeofouranalysisinthiscase,wewillusethethreeparttestinStatev.Black#XX #X Xasourstarting  point.Inaddition,likethemajorityoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt,wewillusetheUnitedStates  SupremeCourtsinterpretationsandapplicationsoftheEighthAmendmenttoprovidehelpful  guidanceintheabsenceofmoreauthoritativedirectionfromtheTennesseeSupremeCourt. p   OurinterpretationandapplicationofTenn.Const.art.I,16mustalsobeguidedbyan H awarenessoftheconstitutionallimitationsonthecourtsroleincasesofthissort.Greggv.Georgia, l4 428U.S.at174,96S.Ct.at2925.WemustdefertotheGeneralAssemblysbroadauthorityto X  determinethetypesandlimitsofpunishmentofcriminaloffenses.Stanfordv.Kentucky,492U.S. D  361,36970,109S.Ct.2969,2975(1989);Statev.Harris,844S.W.2dat603(Daughtrey,J., 0 dissenting)(quotingSolemv.Helm,463U.S.277,290,103S.Ct.3001,3009(1983)).Wemaynot 8 actaslegislators,Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.at175,96S.Ct.at2926,andwemustnotallowour $ personalpreferencesregardingthewisdomofthelegislationorourpersonaldistasteforitssubject  mattertoguideourjudicialdecisions.Furmanv.Georgia,408U.S.238,411,92S.Ct.2726,2815  (Blackmun,J.,dissenting);Baldwinv.Knight,569S.W.2d450,452(Tenn.1978);Mayhewv.  Wilder,46S.W.3d760,785(Tenn.Ct.App.2001)(Koch,J.,concurring).TheConstitutionof  TennesseeandtheUnitedStatesConstitutionarethesolesourcesoftheprinciplesofconstitutional   adjudication.Thus,acourtsprerogativetoreviewtheGeneralAssemblysdecisionsregardingthe  t natureandextentofpunishmentforcrimeendswithanadjudicationthatthestatutepasses  ` constitutionalmuster.Statev.Adkins,725S.W.2d660,664(Tenn.1987).  L  @) B.  \$    ThethreeparttestinStatev.Blackisparticularlyapplicablewhencourtsarecalleduponto 4  decidewhetherthelegislatureschosenpunishmentfitsaparticularcriminaloffenseorwhethera    punishmentmetedoutbyajudgeorjuryfitsthecriminaloffenseofaparticulardefendant.    Accordingly,thecourtshavemodifiedtheanalysisslightlyincasesfocusingonaparticularmethod  ofexecution.TheSupremeCourtofConnecticut,relyingonWeemsv.UnitedStates,217U.S.349,  30S.Ct.544(1910),fashionedaframeworkforaddressingtheconstitutionalityofaparticular  methodofexecutionthatincludestheconsiderationofthefollowingfourfactors:  8  8`   (1)whetherthemethodofexecutioncomportedwiththe \ contemporarynormsandstandardsofsociety;(2)whetheritoffends H thedignityoftheprisonerandsociety;(3)whetheritinflicted l4 unnecessaryphysicalpain;and(4)whetheritinflictedunnecessary X  psychologicalsuffering.D ` x` x Statev.Webb,750A.2d448,454(Conn.2000).    Determiningwhetherthemodeofpunishmentconformswithcontemporarynormsand  standardsofdecencyisarguablythemostcriticalfactoroftheanalysis.VanTranv.State,66  S.W.3dat801.Thebreadthandgeneralityoftheconstitutionallanguageindicatethattheframers   ofboththeConstitutionofTennesseeandtheUnitedStatesConstitutionanticipatedthatthecourts !  woulddefinethescopeoftheprohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishment.Statev.Black,815 "l! S.W.2dat18889.Accordingly,thecourtshaveinterpretedtheprovisionsinaflexibleanddynamic #X" manner.Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.at171,96S.Ct.at2924;VanTranv.State,66S.W.3dat801. |$D # Theprohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentisnotlimitedtothepracticescondemnedat h%0!$ theendoftheEighteenthCentury,Stanfordv.Kentucky,492U.S.at36970,109S.Ct.at2975;Van T&"% Tranv.State,66S.W.3dat801,andhistoricalacceptanceofaparticularmodeofpunishmentisnot @'#& necessarilydispositive.Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.at174n.19,96S.Ct.at2925n.19;Statev. ,(#' Black,815S.W.2dat188. )$(   Despitethegeneralityoftheconstitutionaltext,thecourtsarenotwithoutsomeguidance *&* whenapplyingtheconstitutionalprohibitionsagainstcruelandunusualpunishmentsinamodern +'+ context.Theapplicationhasbeenlimitedtothosepracticesthatarecontrarytothe evolving ,(, standardsofdecencythatmarktheprogressofamaturingsociety.Tropv.Dulles,356U.S.86, 8 101,78S.Ct.590,598(1958);VanTranv.State,66S.W.3dat800.Thesestandardsshouldreflect $ thecontemporaryvaluesandstandardsofdecencyoftheAmericansocietyasawhole.Greggv.  Georgia,428U.S.at173,96S.Ct.at2925.Itisthecourtsjobtoidentifythesestandards,notto  determinewhattheyoughttobe.Stanfordv.Kentucky,492U.S.at378,109S.Ct.at2980.    Ascertainingcontemporarycommunitystandardsdoesnotinviteindividualjudgestobase   theirconstitutionaldecisionsontheirpersonalpreferencesorconceptionsofdecency.Thejudgment  t shouldbeinfluencedbyobjectiveevidencetothegreatestextentpossible.Cokerv.Georgia,433  ` U.S.584,592,97S.Ct.2861,2866(1977);VanTranv.State,66S.W.3dat801.Themostcommon  L  sortofobjectiveevidencerelieduponbythecourtsarethestatutespassedbysocietyselected p 8  representatives.Penryv.Lynaugh,492U.S.302,334,109S.Ct.2934,1955(1989);Greggv. \$  Georgia,428U.S.at173;96S.Ct.at2925;#XX #X XVanTranv.State,66S.W.3dat801.Thecourtswill H  declinetoresttheirdecisionsregardingaparticularpunishmenton uncertainfoundationssuchas 4  opinionpolls,theviewsofinterestgroups,orpositionsadoptedbyprofessionalassociations.    Stanfordv.Kentucky,492U.S.at377,109S.Ct.at2979.      Thestateandfederalconstitutionalprohibitionsagainstcruelandunusualpunishments  proscribemorethanphysicallybarbarouspunishment.Theyembodybroadandidealisticconcepts  ofdignity,civilizedstandards,humanity,anddecency.Estellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,102,97S.  Ct.285,290(1978).Thebasicconceptunderlyingtheseprohibitionsisnothinglessthanhuman p dignity.Whilethestatesandthefederalgovernmenthavethepowertopunish,ArticleI,16ofthe \ TennesseeConstitutionandtheEighthAmendmentstandtoassurethatthispowerwillbeexercised H withinthelimitsofcivilizedstandards.Tropv.Dulles,356U.S.at100,78S.Ct.at598.Rejection l4 bysocietyisastrongindicationthataparticularpunishmentdoesnotcomportwithhumandignity. X  Furmanv.Georgia,408U.S.at277,92S.Ct.at2746. D    Cruelandunusualpunishmentsimplysomethinginhumanandbarbarous!morethanthe  extinguishmentofhumanlife.InreKemmler,136U.S.436,447,10S.Ct.930,933(1890).To  passconstitutionalmuster,aparticularpunishmentmustnotinvolvetheunnecessaryandwanton  inflictionofpain.Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.at173,96S.Ct.at2927;Butlerv.MadisonCounty  Jail,109S.W.3d360,366(Tenn.Ct.App.2002).Thus,punishmentsinvolvingtortureand   lingeringdeathviolatebothTenn.Const.art.I,16andtheEighthAmendment.SeeEstellev. !  Gamble,429U.S.at102,97S.Ct.at290;Campbellv.Wood,18F.3d662,683(9thCir.1994); "l! Moorev.State,771N.E.2d46,55(Ind.2002). #X"   ThesortofcrueltyatwhichbothTenn.Const.art.I,16andtheEighthAmendmentare h%0!$ aimedisthecrueltyinherentinthemethodofpunishment,notthesufferingnecessarilyinvolvedin T&"% anyprocedureemployedtoextinguishahumanlife.Louisianaexrel.Francisv.Resweber,329 @'#& U.S.459,46364,67S.Ct.374,376(1947);Statev.Webb,750A.2dat454.Thesestateandfederal ,(#' constitutionalprovisionsdonotrequirestatestoselecttheleastseveremethodofpunishment )$( availableaslongasthemethodchosenisnotcruellyinhuman.Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.at175, *%) 96S.Ct.at2926.Argumentsthatmorehumanemethodsexistdonotimplicateconstitutional *&* concernsandaremoreproperlyaddressedtotheotherbranchesofgovernment.Statev.Black,815 +'+ S.W.2dat178;Statev.Adkins#XX T#X X,725S.W.2dat664. ,(, Ї  Whetheraparticularlethalinjectionprotocolconstitutescruelandinhumanpunishmentis 8 amixedquestionoflawandfact.Castillov.CameronCounty,238F.3d339,347(5thCir.2001); $ Campbellv.Wood,18F.3dat68182;Peoplev.Mantanez,119Cal.Rptr.2d756,758(Ct.App.  2002);Statev.Webb,750A.2dat453.Accordingly,wewillreviewthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact  inaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.13(d).However,wereachourownindependentconclusion  regardingwhethertheDepartmentsthreedrugprotocolisconsistentwithTenn.Const.art.I,16  andtheEighthAmendment.   @) C.   ` #XX #X X  Mr.AbdurRahmanhastheheavyburdenofprovingthatasocietalconsensusagainst p 8  executionsbylethalinjectioningeneral,orexecutionsbylethalinjectionincorporatingPavulonor \$  potassiumchlorideinparticular,hasemerged.Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.at175,96S.Ct.at2926; H  VanTranv.State,66S.W.3dat832(Barker,J.,dissenting).Eithersocietyhassetitsfaceagainst 4  lethalinjections,ortheuseofPavulonandpotassiumchloride,orithasnot.SeeStanfordv.    Kentucky,492U.S.at378,109S.Ct.at2979.WehavedeterminedthatMr.AbdurRahmanhas    failedtoprovethatexecutionsbylethalinjectionusingeitherPavulonorpotassiumchlorideorboth  donotconformtocontemporarynormsorstandardsofdecency.    Forseveraldecadesnow,medicalexpertshaveextolledlethalinjectionasthemosthumane  methodofexecution.Statev.Hinchey,890P.2d602,610(Ariz.1995);Wheelerv.Commonwealth, p 121S.W.3d173,186(Ky.2003);Peoplev.Stewart,520N.E.2d348,358(Ill.1988).Asaresult, \ legislaturesinthirtysevenofthethirtyeightstateswhoselawsauthorizecapitalpunishmentandthe H CongressoftheUnitedStateshaveselectedlethalinjectionasthesoleorprimarymethodof l4 execution. #  62      ׀Inaddition,stateandfederalcourtshaveconsistentlyrejectedargumentsthatexecution X  bylethalinjectioniscruelandinhuman. #  63      ׀Theselegislativeandjudicialdeterminationsprovide D  compellingevidenceofsocietysacceptanceofexecutionsbylethalinjection.Theydonotreflect 0 thesortofsocietalconsensusagainstlethalinjectionthatwouldsupportajudicialdeterminationthat  thismethodofexecutioniscruelandunusual.    Bythesametoken,twentyeightofthestatesforwhichinformationisavailableaswellas  theUnitedStatesBureauofPrisonsusePavulonasoneofthedrugsintheirlethalinjection    protocol. #  64      ׀Likewise,twentyeightofthestatesandthefederalBureauofPrisonsusepotassium !  chloride. #  65      ׀InlightofthewidespreaduseofbothPavulonandpotassiumchlorideinlethalinjection 8  protocols,andintheabsenceofevidenceshowingthatelectedofficialshaverejectedthesedrugs, $ wehavenofactualbasisforconcludingthatalethalinjectionprotocolincorporatingeitherPavulon  orpotassiumchloride,orboth,doesnotcomportwithcontemporarynormsandstandardsofsociety.  ItalsonecessarilyfollowsthatMr.AbdurRahmanhasfailedtopresentsufficientevidenceto  warrantaconclusionthatTennesseesthreedrugprotocoloffendsthedignityoftheprisoneror  society.   @) D.   `   Mr.AbdurRahmanalsoassertsthatTennesseeslethalinjectionprotocolcreatesan p 8  unreasonableandmedicallyunacceptableriskofsubjectingprisonerstoexcruciatingpainand \$  sufferingandaprotracteddeath.Hebasesthisclaimon(1)thepainresultingfromtheinjections H  ofPavulonandpotassiumchloride,(2)theriskofinadequatesedation,(3)theprotocolslackof 4  detailedprocedures,and(4)theriskoferrorinherentintheprotocol.Liketheothercourtsthathave    addressedtheseclaims,wehavedeterminedthatMr.AbdurRahmansclaimsare,atbest,    speculativeandthathehasfailedtoprovethatprisonersexecutedinaccordancewithTennessees  threedruglethalinjectionprotocolwillexperienceunnecessaryphysicalpainorpsychological  suffering.d #  66      ׀#XX #X X    Theevidenceisessentiallyuncontradictedthattheinjectionofeither