ÿWPC6% :# <UNG %• 0 (› 0Æà 0D‰4Íá 0Jð 0T: 0^ŽbìU:ô.w@. 0Dn 0h² 0rÆŒ 0|R 0†Î AOT 0D£ 0ç 1uw U,ì 0d 0@| B¼ D3Ù D/ B; U,X U>„ U* U*ì B)DC? AM‚üÏ'˵òˆ§½/ùìv~åvÓc˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLüÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡(v(2^($¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XݬXXXÔÔ€òb€òXXݬÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó¨VU Ø'áF ‹V3|x¾ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ± ² U³ V´ µ a¶ b· D¸ a¹ º (3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd$0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÔ€-ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔó óÌò òÔ€-¼ÔSept.€5,€1995ó óÔ€-XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€,Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€,ÂÔÔ€-ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€,ÔÔ€,XÔ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€758€S.W.2d€515€(Tenn.€1988).Ì «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€is€not€to€say€that€the€State€must€receive€permission€from€the€trial€court€should€it€wish€toÏwithdraw€its€notice€of€intent€to€seek€the€death€penalty€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3€(b).€€The€soleÏdiscretion€as€to€whether€to€seek€a€sentence€of€death€under€the€appropriate€circumstances€is€vested€inÏthe€prosecutor.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€86€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€253,€268€(Tenn.€1994).Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€found€three€aggravating€circumstances:€€(1)€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)€(TheÏdefendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€whichÏinvolve€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person);€(2)€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(The€murderÏwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind);€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€32„2„203(i)(7)€(The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€orÏwas€an€accomplice€in€the€commission€of,€or€was€attempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€after€committingÏor€attempting€to€commit,€any€robbery,€larceny,€or€rape).€Ì ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€definition€of€felony€murder€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2„202(a)€was€amendedÏin€1989,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„202(a)(2)(1991).€€This€definition€in€turn€has€been€recentlyÏamended€by€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€Ch.€460.€€The€General€Assembly€has€also€recently€amended€theÏlanguage€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(i)(7)(1991)(previously€ðð39„2„203(i)(7)).€€òòSeeóó€1995€Pub.€Acts,€Ch.€377.Ì ïÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€-ÔÔ€-ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSee€òòState€v.€Sylvester€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1995);€€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2dÏ75€(Tenn.€1994)(murder€to€steal€vehicle);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Poeóó,€755€S.W.2d€41€(Tenn€1988)(similar€brutal€murder);ÏòòState€v€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241€(Tenn.€1986)(murder€to€steal€car);€òòState€v.€O'Guinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561Ï(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808€(Tenn.€1985)€(murder€to€steal€money).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€++X„d&ÓÑ#€++Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ P ÑÑ ` ÑÓÓÔ€-ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€6RXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€..XÐd&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ÙÓÓßL€120;+'h|eâ `€€Lßà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFORÏPUBLICATIONó óóóÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àCHEATHAM€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌANTHONY€DARRELL€DUGARD€à àà à)à àHon.€Robert€E.€Burch,€JudgeÌHINES,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€01„S„01„9303„CC„00052ÌÌÌÌÌòòò òFOR€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFOR€APPELLEE:óó€ó óÌBrock€Mehler€(Appeal€Only)à àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌCapital€Case€Resource€Centerà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌTom€Bloom€(Appeal€Only)à àà àà àà àAmy€L.€TarkingtonÌRothchild€&€Assoc.à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌSteve€Stack€(Trial€Only)ÌAshland€City,€Tennessee€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€-„Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€-XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àO'BRIEN,€Sp.€J.ÇÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€defendant€was€convicted€of€murder€in€the€perpetration€of€armed€robberyÏand€sentenced€to€death.€€On€direct€appeal€this€Court€affirmed€defendant'sÏconviction€and€remanded€the€case€for€resentencing€because€of€erroneous€juryÏinstructions.× ƒ3 ××  ×à àÌÌà àThe€resentencing€hearing€was€conducted€in€June,€1989.€€The€jury€returned€aÏdeath€verdict€based€upon€its€finding€of€three€(3)€aggravating€circumstances,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),€(5),€and€(7)€(1982).€€The€case€is€now€before€us€onÏappeal€from€that€judgment.ÌÌò òà àó óThe€proof€at€the€resentencing€hearing€showed€that€the€defendant,€who€wasÏstaying€at€the€Ce'Bon€Motel€in€Cheatham€County€on€the€morning€of€March€3,€1985,Ïstabbed€a€motel€maid€to€death.€€The€defendant€also€stole€money€the€motelÏmanager€had€left€with€the€victim€and€took€the€victim's€automobile.€€ò òÌÌà àó óThe€State€introduced€proof€that€the€defendant€had€previously€beenÏconvicted€of€assault€in€the€first€degree.€€A€detective€who€had€investigated€the€caseÏtestified€that€the€defendant€had€inflicted€serious€physical€harm€to€the€victim€in€thisÏprior€case.€€The€State€also€presented€proof€that€the€defendant€had€stabbed€theÏvictim€in€the€present€case€multiple€times€with€a€sharp€instrument,€probably€a€knife.€ÏThree€of€these€wounds€were€lethal€and€had€penetrated€the€victim's€chest€five€to€sixÏinches.€€The€pathologist€who€had€performed€the€autopsy€of€the€victim€testified€thatÏall€the€lethal€wounds€were€inflicted€at€about€the€same€time€and€that€death€wouldÏhave€occurred€within€four€to€six€minutes,€most€of€€which€time€the€victim€would€haveÏremained€conscious.€€Defensive€wounds€were€found€on€the€victim's€hands.€€HerÏclothing€had€been€pulled€up€and€her€panties€had€been€cut€in€half€and€removedÏfrom€her€body.€€About€the€time€of€death,€and€shortly€after€the€infliction€of€the€lethalÏwounds€to€the€chest,€the€defendant€had€inserted€a€flat€object€through€the€victim'sÏvaginal€orifice€into€the€vaginal€pouch€until€the€instrument€penetrated€the€vaginalÏdome€and€passed€into€the€abdominal€cavity.€€A€twenty€dollar€bill€had€been€placedÏunder€the€victim's€watchband.€ò ò€ó óNoò ò€ó ósemen€or€any€other€evidence€of€ejaculation€wasÏfound.ò òÌ€€Ìó óà àAt€the€time€of€her€death,€the€victim€had€in€her€possession€a€bank€bagÏcontaining€approximately€$100€in€proceeds€from€the€motel.€€The€empty€bag€wasÏdiscovered€in€the€room€where€the€victim's€body€was€found.€€The€victim's€automobileÏwas€also€missing.€€Around€12:40€p.m.€the€day€of€the€murder,€another€employee€ofÏthe€motel€saw€the€vehicle€being€driven€out€of€the€motel€parking€lot€by€someoneÏother€than€the€victim.ÌÌà àIn€mitigation,€the€defendant€presented€proof€that,€while€in€prison€on€thisÏconviction,€he€had€presented€no€serious€disciplinary€problems€and€posed€no€threatÏto€the€prison€population.€€The€defendant€also€presented€proof€of€a€troubledÏchildhood.€€His€father€had€abandoned€the€family€when€the€defendant€was€young.€ÏHis€mother€had€an€alcohol€problem.€€In€his€teens€the€defendant€became€involved€inÏsniffing€gasoline€and€glue€and€began€to€abuse€alcohol€and€drugs.€€He€alsoÏexhibited€self„destructive€behavior.€€€Dr.€Pamela€Auble,€a€clinical€psychologist,Ïtestified€that€the€defendant€was€suffering€from€a€paranoid€personality€disorder€andÏdysthymia,€or€chronic€depression.€€According€to€Dr.€Auble,€the€defendant€wouldÍsuppress€his€feelings€until€they€"boiled€up"€under€stress.€€In€her€opinion,€theÏdefendant,€who€had€returned€from€turbulent€visits€with€his€parents€and€girlfriendÏshortly€before€he€committed€the€murder,€was€under€stress€when€he€killed€the€victim.€ÏDr.€Ann€Marie€Charvat,€a€sociologist,€also€testified€about€the€damaging€effect€of€theÏcircumstances€of€his€childhood€on€the€defendant.Ìà àà àÌà àDuring€voir€dire€in€this€case,€the€defendant€and€a€member€of€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General's€office€reached€a€plea€agreement.€€Defendant€agreed€to€pleadÏguilty€to€a€new€offense€on€a€criminal€information€and€receive€a€life€sentence€to€beÏserved€consecutively€with€a€separate€life€sentence€in€this€case.€€The€trial€judgeÏrejected€the€plea€bargain€agreement€because€he€felt€that€the€case€should€beÏdecided€by€a€jury€and€that€it€was€not€in€the€interest€of€justice€to€allow€a€pleaÏbargain.€€Defendant€moved€the€trial€judge€to€recuse€himself€from€the€case€becauseÏhis€prior€knowledge€of€the€facts€might€preclude€impartiality.€€The€judge€denied€thisÏmotion€but€agreed€to€review€a€stipulation€of€mitigating€factors€in€the€case€andÏreconsider€his€decision€on€the€plea€bargain€agreement.€€After€review€of€thisÍmitigating€information,€the€trial€judge€refused€to€reverse€his€decision€and€refused€toÏaccept€the€plea€bargain€agreement.ÌÌà àDefendant€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€have€the€authority€to€reject€theÏplea€bargain€agreement€and€insist€the€parties€go€forward€with€a€resentencingÏproceeding.€€He€cites€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€12.3(b),€whichÏrequires€the€District€Attorney€to€give€written€notice€of€intent€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty,€arguing€that€the€trial€judge€has€no€authority€to€approve€or€disapprove€theÏState's€election.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€this€record€makes€plain€that€it€does€not€present€quite€theÏpicture€painted€in€defendant's€brief€in€regard€to€the€Court's€rejection€of€theÏsubmitted€negotiated€plea.€€It€appears€that€there€had€been€an€unrecordedÏdiscussion€of€the€issue€in€chambers€which€defense€counsel€wished€to€have€placedÏon€the€record.€€Counsel€stated€the€agreement€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 à"For€the€record,€in€plea€negotiations€with€the€State€weÏhad€worked€out€an€agreement€whereby€Mr.€Hines€wouldÏplead€to€a€new€offense€on€a€criminal€information€andÏreceive€a€consecutive€life€sentence€for€a€life€sentence€inÏthis€particular€case.€€The€district€attorney's€office€hadÏdiscussed€it€with€the€family,€and€they€were€satisfied€withÏthe€result.€€And€there€had€been€some€concern€over€whatÏthe€sentence€in€this€case€may€be,€and€they€were€happyÏwith€a€life€sentence,€for€parole€considerations€andÏeverything€else."ÌÌÌà àAfter€discussing€the€matter€with€the€Attorney€General,€the€trial€judge€ruled:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"Well€obviously,€I€presided€at€the€prior€trial,€and€I€knowÏwhat€the€facts€of€this€case€are,€and€I€reject€the€pleaÏbargain.€€I€think€that€this€is€a€case€that€ought€to€beÏdecided€by€a€jury,€and€I€do€not€think€it€is€in€the€interest€ofÍjustice€to€allow€the€plea€bargain€in€this€case,€and€I€rejectÏit."ÌÓÓÌà àImmediately€thereafter€a€defense€motion€for€recusal€was€made€on€theÏpremise€that€the€judge€might€not€be€impartial€because€he€had€presided€at€theÏoriginal€trial€and€knew€all€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(e)(2)€provides€that€a€trial€judge€may€accept€or€reject€aÏplea€agreement€in€the€exercise€of€his€discretion.€€One€valid€reason€for€rejecting€aÏplea€agreement€is€that€the€proposed€sentence€is€considered€too€lenient€under€theÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Toddóó,€654€S.W.2d€379,€382€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€this€case,€theÏtrial€judge€felt€that€the€facts€of€the€case,€even€when€mitigating€circumstances€wereÏconsidered,€should€be€decided€by€a€jury.€€He€expressed€the€view€that€the€interest€ofÏjustice€did€not€allow€a€plea€bargain€and€he€rejected€it.€€We€find€that€the€trial€judgeÏacted€within€his€authority€under€Rule€11€in€rejecting€the€plea€bargain.× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àIn€his€brief€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€recusedÏhimself€from€the€case,€or€at€least€from€determining€whether€the€plea€bargain€wasÏacceptable,€because€heò ò€ó ówas€not€a€disinterested€and€neutral€judge€since€he€did€notÏagree€with€the€prior€judgment€of€this€Court€in€this€case.€€He€implies€the€Court'sÏjudgment€was€warped€and€influenced€by€the€need€to€demonstrate€he€had€beenÏcorrect€in€the€first€case.€€He€says€the€judge€ignored€the€fact€that€the€victim's€familyÏaccepted€the€agreement,€and€dismissed€defendant's€mitigating€factors.€€TheÏargument€is€that€even€if€actual€partiality€is€not€shown,€there€is€an€appearance€ofÏpartiality€which€violates€Supreme€Court€Rule€10,€Canon€3(C)(1)€mandating€that€theÏtrial€judge€disqualify€himself€in€a€proceeding€in€which€his€impartiality€mightÏreasonably€be€questioned.ÌÌà àA€motion€for€recusal€based€upon€the€alleged€bias€or€prejudice€of€the€trialÏjudge€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€beÏreversed€on€appeal€unless€clear€abuse€appears€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòState€exÏrel.€Phillips€v.€Hendersonóó,€220€Tenn.€701,€423€S.W.2d€489,€492€(1968).€€TheÍgeneral€rule€is€that€a€trial€judge€should€recuse€himself€whenever€he€has€any€doubtÏas€to€his€ability€to€preside€impartially€in€a€criminal€case€or€whenever€his€impartialityÏcan€reasonably€be€questioned.€€òòState€v.€Cashóó,€867€S.W.2d€741,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993);€òòLackey€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€101,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€AÏjudge€is€in€no€way€disqualified€because€he€tried€and€made€certain€findings€inÏprevious€litigation.€€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€216€Tenn.€215,€391€S.W.2d€637,€642€(1965).€€TheÏtrial€judge€in€this€case€stated€that€he€was€not€prejudiced€against€the€defendant.€ÏThere€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€the€reversal€of€the€prior€sentencing€hearingÏin€any€way€biased€the€judge€against€the€defendant€or€was€the€reason€for€rejectionÏof€the€plea€agreement.€€Furthermore,€there€is€no€showing€that€the€judge€refused€theÏplea€bargain€in€order€to€vindicate€himself€in€reference€to€the€prior€proceedings.€ÏUnder€this€record,€it€cannot€reasonably€be€questioned€that€the€trial€judge€was€ableÏto€render€an€impartial€decision€regarding€the€plea€bargain€and€to€preside€over€thisÏcase€in€a€neutral€and€unbiased€manner.ÌÌà àDefendant€says€the€trial€judge€erred€by€declining€to€grant€a€defense€motionÏfor€continuance€when€the€State€failed€to€respond€to€motions€requesting€writtenÍnotice€of€aggravating€circumstances€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.3(b).€€The€ruleÏrequires,€when€a€capital€offense€is€charged€and€the€State€intends€to€ask€for€theÏdeath€penalty,€written€notice€shall€be€filed€not€less€than€30€days€prior€to€trial.€€TheÏnotice€must€specify€the€aggravating€circumstances€the€State€intends€to€rely€upon€atÏa€sentencing€hearing.€€If€the€notice€is€filed€later€than€30€days,€the€trial€judge€is€toÏgrant€the€defendant€upon€his€motion€a€reasonable€continuance€of€the€trial.€€TheÏrecord€shows€that€aò ò€ó ówritten€notice,€setting€forth€the€three€aggravatingÏcircumstances€found€by€the€jury€at€the€original€trial,€was€filed€approximately€a€weekÏbefore€resentencing€began.€€If€this€were€the€only€notice€provided€in€the€case,€weÏwould€be€constrained€to€find€that€the€State€had€failed€to€comply€with€the€clearÏlanguage€of€the€Rule€and€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€not€granting€aÏcontinuance.€€òòCfóó.€€òòState€v.€Loweóó,€811€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.€1991).€Ì€Ìà àIn€light€of€the€unique€posture€of€this€case,€howeverò ò,ó ó€as€a€continuation€of€anÏearlier€proceeding€and€not€a€new€proceeding€in€itself,€we€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€was€on€notice€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€requirements€of€Rule€12.3(b),€òòcfóó.ÏòòState€v.€Chaseóó,€873€S.W.2d€7,€9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€subject€to€theÍrequirement€that€absent€a€new€notice€the€State€was€limited€at€the€resentencingÏhearing€to€the€aggravating€circumstances€set€forth€in€the€initial€notice.òò€€ò òóó€ó óIn€the€ÌÑ ` ÑÑ ° Ñpresent€case,€the€State€had€filed€written€notice€of€intent€to€seek€the€death€penaltyÏand€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€on€which€it€intended€to€rely€in€October€1985,Ïprior€to€the€original€trial.€€All€three€of€the€aggravating€circumstances€relied€upon€byÏthe€State€on€resentencing€were€included€in€this€notice.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€find€that€the€requirements€of€Rule€12.3(b)€were€met€and€that€aÏcontinuance€was€not€mandated.€€Furthermore,€there€has€been€no€showing€that€theÏdefendant€has€suffered€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€Stateððs€failure€to€re„file€theÏnotice€before€the€resentencing€hearing.€€Absent€a€showing€of€prejudice,€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€grant€a€continuance.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.ÏStephensonóó,€752€S.W.2d€80,€81€(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà àà àIt€is€argued€that€the€Court€should€have€granted€the€continuanceÏbecause€of€defendantððs€difficulty€in€obtaining€the€cooperation€and€attendance€ofÏcertain€out„of„state€witnesses.€€€These€witnesses€were€persons€involved€in€theÏjuvenile€correction€system€in€the€State€of€Kentucky,€who,€defendant€claimed,€wouldÏbe€necessary€to€adequately€present€what€had€happened€to€him€in€that€jurisdiction.€ÏThe€Court€denied€a€continuance€on€this€basis;€however,€it€certified€the€materiality€ofÏthe€testimony€of€these€witnesses€and€allowed€the€defendant€time€to€bring€them€toÍcourt.€€€€A€motion€for€a€continuance€is€addressed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏjudge€and€his€ruling€on€the€motion€will€not€be€disturbed€in€the€absence€of€an€abuseÏof€discretion€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€€€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467,Ï472€(Tenn.€1981).€€€€An€abuse€of€discretion€is€demonstrated€by€showing€that€theÏfailure€to€grant€a€continuance€denied€defendant€a€fair€trial€or€that€it€could€beÏreasonably€concluded€that€a€different€result€would€have€followed€had€theÏcontinuance€been€granted.€€€€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,€658€S.W.2d€553,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1983).€€€€Our€review€of€this€record€discloses€noÌÇÑ P ÑÑ ` Ñ€such€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€present€case,€nor€has€the€defendant€establishedÏthat€he€was€prejudiced€by€denial€of€the€motion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643ÏS.W.2d€375,€378€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1982).ÌÌà àThe€record€is€clear€that€the€trial€judge€very€patiently€gave€counsel€everyÏopportunity€to€include€in€the€record€whatsoever€they€requested€as€far€as€possible€inÏorder€to€assure€defendant€a€fair€trial.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€show€that€heÏdismissed€defendant's€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àDefendant€says€the€prosecutorial€comment€on€the€assistance€provided€byÏthe€Capital€Case€Resource€Center€violated€his€rights€under€the€Sixth,€Eighth,€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€Sections€8,Ï9,€and€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€Capital€Case€Resource€CenterÏassisted€the€defendant€in€this€case.€€An€attorney€from€the€center€was€present€inÏcourt€during€the€trial.€€During€the€State€attorney's€cross„examination€of€a€defenseÏwitness,€Dr.€Pamela€Auble,€he€asked€the€witness,€over€objection,€about€her€presentÏand€prior€work€with€the€center,€which€the€prosecutor€described€as€"an€organizationÍthat€assists€in€the€defense€of€people€charged€with€capital€crimes,"€whose€"primaryÏmotivation€or€primary€reason€for€.€.€.€existence€is€to€keep€somebody€from€going€toÏthe€electric€chair."€€The€prosecutor€then€pointed€out€the€center's€counsel€andÏascertained€that€he€had€provided€the€witness€with€information.€€He€did€the€sameÏwith€Dr.€Anne€Marie€Charvat,€a€sociologist€who€was€engaged€to€testify€for€theÏdefense.€€Defense€counsel€did€not€object€to€the€questions€put€to€Dr.€Charvat.€€Also,Ïduring€closing€argument,€the€District€Attorney€argued€that€Dr.€Charvat€€"wasÏassisting€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Group€whose€sole€function€in€life€is€to€fightÏagainst€the€death€penalty€regardless€of€the€circumstances."€€Defendant€objectedÏthat€this€comment€was€not€based€on€any€evidence.€€The€court€sustained€theÏobjection€and€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€the€remark.ÌÌà àDefendant€asserts€the€prosecutor's€comments€had€no€basis€in€fact,Ïpenalized€his€exercise€of€his€right€to€counsel,€and€deprived€him€of€a€reliable€andÏindividualized€sentencing€determination.ÌÌà àà àWe€have€read€this€record€carefully,€and€we€observe€in€the€firstÏinstance€that€the€District€Attorney€General's€comments€did€not€have€the€portent€forÏthe€prejudicial€error€attributed€to€them€by€the€defendant.€€We€agree€that€his€remarksÏwere€expressions€of€his€own€opinion€and€as€such€should€not€have€been€interjectedÏinto€the€record.€€There€was€nothing€offered€in€evidence€to€warrant€suchÏinappropriate€comments€and€such€conduct€on€the€part€of€State's€counsel€cannot€beÏcondoned.€€Nonetheless,€the€trial€judge€carefully€monitored€the€cross„examination,Ïrecognized€the€appropriate€objections€when€they€were€made,€and€instructed€theÏjury€accordingly.€The€conduct€of€the€State's€attorney€in€his€attempt€to€transform€hisÏown€assessment€of€the€Resource€Center's€bias€into€evidence€and€his€subsequentÏstatements€during€argument,€relating€matters€that€were€not€supported€by€evidence,Ïcame€close€to€a€denial€of€due€process,€but€we€are€satisfied€the€diligence€of€the€trialÏjudge€properly€protected€the€defendant's€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€€ÌÌà àA€violation€of€defendant's€right€to€counsel€occurs€when€a€prosecutor'sÏexamination€of€a€witness€or€argument€seeks€to€penalize€the€defendant€forÏexercising€his€constitutional€right.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€McDonaldóó,€620€F.2dÍ559,€562„564€(5th€Cir.€1980).€€The€cross„examination€of€Drs.€Auble€and€Charvat€inÏthis€case€sought€to€impeach€the€two€witnesses€by€establishing€pro„defendant€biasÏon€their€part€because€they€had€worked€with€the€Resource€Center€in€the€past,€and€byÏattacking€the€reliability€of€the€information€on€which€they€had€based€their€opinionsÏbecause€some€of€it€had€been€obtained€from€the€Resource€Center.€€This€line€ofÏcross„examination€did€not€rise€to€the€level€of€penalizing€defendant's€right€toÏcounsel€by€asking€the€jury€to€make€a€negative€inference€from€the€defendant'sÏexercise€of€this€right.€€The€prosecutor€sought€to€attack,€not€the€defendant's€use€of€anÏattorney€or€the€facilities€of€the€Resource€Center,€but€in€his€view,€the€reliability€andÏimpartiality€of€the€witnesses€because€of€their€attitudes€toward€capital€punishmentÏand€the€bias€of€the€information€on€which€their€opinions€were,€at€least€in€some€part,Ïbased.ÌÌà àWe€also€find€no€merit€in€defendant's€separate€Eighth€Amendment€claimÏunder€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.€S.€586,€98€S.€Ct.€2954,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978),€thatÏhis€rights€to€a€reliable€sentencing€hearing€and€preservation€of€mitigating€evidenceÍhave€been€abridged.€€The€prosecutor's€cross„examination€and€argument€did€notÏprevent€the€presentation€of€any€mitigating€evidence.ÌÌà àWe€do€not€approve€of€the€District€Attorney's€choice€of€language€in€his€cross„examination€and€argument,€however,€in€any€event,€it€was€harmless.€€DefenseÏobjections€to€the€prosecutor's€argument€were€sustained€with€an€instruction€to€theÏjury€to€disregard€the€comment€regarding€the€Resource€Center.€€It€is€presumed€theÏjury€followed€that€instruction.€€òòState€v.€Bartonóó,€626€S.W.2d€296,€298€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.Ï1981).€€Any€improper€conduct€by€the€State€was€a€minor€part€of€the€witness'€cross„examination€and€only€collaterally€implicated€defendant's€right€to€counsel,€if€at€all.€ÏThe€evidence€of€aggravating€circumstances€was€overwhelming.€€It€does€not€appearÏthat€any€prosecutorial€misconduct€prejudiced€the€defendant€in€the€sense€thatÏaffected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Any€constitutional€errorÏwas€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€809Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24,€87€S.€Ct.€824,€17€L.Ed.2dÏ705€(1967).ÌÌà àDefendant€says€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€ofÏmind)€is€unconstitutionally€vague€and€was€unconstitutionally€applied€in€this€case.€ÏHe€concedes€that€the€Court€has€repeatedly€rejected€vagueness€challenges€to€thisÏsection€of€the€statute€and€asserts€the€issue€is€presented€for€purposes€of€preservingÏthe€issue€for€later€review.ÌÌà àCiting€òòShell€v.€Mississippióó,€498€U.S.€1,€111€S.Ct.€313,€112€L.Ed.2d€1€(1990),Ïhe€submits€that€the€definition€of€"depravity"€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,Ï529€(Tenn.€1985),€cannot€survive€constitutional€scrutiny€absent€proof€of€mutilation.€ÏThe€constitutionality€of€this€aggravating€circumstance€has€been€previously€upheldÏin€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€670€(Tenn.€1988).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€253,€267€(Tenn.€1994);ò ò€€ó ó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€171€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€we€wrote€that€à0 àò òÌÓÓó óà8 àà8 à'Torture'€means€the€infliction€of€severe€physical€orÏmental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remainsÏalive€and€conscious.€€In€proving€that€such€tortureÏoccurred,€the€State,€necessarily,€also€proves€that€theÏmurder€involved€depravity€of€mind€of€the€murderer,Íbecause€the€state€of€mind€of€one€who€willfully€inflictsÏsuch€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€on€the€victim€isÏdepraved.ÌÌò òà0 àà àà@ à*€€*€€*Ìó óÌà8 àà8 àIf€acts€occurring€after€the€death€of€the€victim€are€reliedÏupon€to€show€depravity€of€mind€of€the€murderer,€suchÏacts€must€be€shown€to€have€occurred€so€close€to€theÏtime€of€the€victim's€death,€and€must€have€been€of€such€aÏnature,€that€the€inference€can€be€fairly€drawn€that€theÏdepraved€state€of€mind€of€the€murderer€existed€at€theÏtime€the€fatal€blows€were€inflicted€upon€the€victim.ÌÌÌÓÓ690€S.W.2d€at€529.ò òÌÌó óà àWhen€this€case€was€originally€considered€on€direct€appeal,€this€CourtÏcommented€that€the€evidence,€equivalent€to€that€presented€at€this€sentencingÏhearing,€was€clearly€sufficient€to€demonstrate€that€the€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€758€S.W.2d€at€523.€€We€continue€toÏagree€with€this€finding.ò ò€€ó óAt€resentencing,€the€pathologist€testified€that€the€stabÏwound€to€the€victim's€vagina€was€made€around€the€time€of€death.€€The€willfulÏinsertion€of€a€sharp€instrument€into€the€vaginal€cavity€of€a€dying€woman€(or€aÍwoman€who€had€just€died)€satisfies€the€requirements€of€òòWilliamsóó,ò ò€ó óòòsupraóó.€ò ò€ó óIfÏcommitted€prior€to€death,€these€acts€constitute€torture€and€thereby€also€support€aÏfinding€of€depravity.€€If€they€occurred€close€in€time€to€the€victim's€death,€they€allowÏthe€drawing€of€an€inference€of€the€depraved€state€of€mind€of€the€murderer€at€theÏtime€the€fatal€blows€were€inflicted€on€the€victim.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€toÏfind€that€multiple€stab€wounds€and€defensive€wounds€constitute€torture,€there€mustÏbe€proof€that€the€defendant€specifically€intended€to€inflict€unnecessary€pain€andÏsuffering.€€The€evidence€of€the€stab€wound€to€the€vagina€was€sufficient€toò ò€ó ósupport€aÏfinding€that€the€wounds€were€intentionally€inflicted€and€that€the€murder€involvedÏtorture€under€òòWilliamsóó.ÌÌà àDefendant€says€the€acts€relied€upon€to€prove€depravity€of€mind€were€a€directÏconsequence€of€his€mental€disorders.€€The€jury€was€presented€proof€of€theÏrelationship€between€defendant's€mental€and€emotional€status€and€theÏcircumstances€of€the€murder.€€This€was€a€question€of€weighing€aggravating€andÏmitigating€circumstances,€which€was€totally€and€wholly€for€their€consideration.€€It€isÏnothing€more€than€conjecture€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€that€the€evidence€did€notÍsupport€the€jury's€determination€that€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstancesÏoutweighed€the€mitigating€circumstances.€ÌÌà àDefendant€raises€a€blanket€assertion€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔððððÔ€-ÔÔ€-XÔ€39„2„203€andÏ39„2„205€violate€the€Fifth,€Sixth,€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€Sections€8,€9,€16,€and€17,€and€Article€II,€Section€2Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€stating€his€recognition€that€this€Court€has€previouslyÏruled€on€most€of€the€issues€presented€and€his€purpose€for€preserving€them€is€forÏlater€review.€€Defendant's€argument€that€the€statute€fails€to€meaningfully€narrow€theÏclass€of€eligible€defendants€has€been€considered€many€times.€€òòState€v.ÏMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€The€issue€of€unlimited€discretion€vested€in€the€prosecutor€wasÏrepudiated€in€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€96€S.€Ct.€2909,€2937,€2949,€49ÏL.Ed.2d€859€(1976).€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993),€the€CourtÏconsidered€the€issues€of€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€a€discriminatoryÏmanner;€lack€of€uniform€standards€or€procedures€for€jury€selection;€prohibitionÏagainst€addressing€jurors'€"popular€misconceptions"€about€sentencing€and€parole;Íinstructions€regarding€unanimity€and€prohibition€against€telling€jurors€whatÏhappens€if€they€cannot€agree;€violations€of€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó€and€òòMcKay€v.€NorthÏCarolinaóó€by€requiring€jury€unanimity€on€life€sentence;€failure€to€require€the€jury€toÏmake€the€ultimate€determination€that€death€is€appropriate€(a€general€attack€on€theÏwhole€process,€anti„sympathy€instructions,€etc.).€€We€considered€the€issue€of€theÏdeath€qualification€process€making€the€jury€"prosecution€and€guilt€prone"€in€òòState€v.ÏTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€246€(Tenn.€1990).€€Failure€to€instruct€on€meaning€andÏfunctioning€of€mitigating€circumstances€in€violation€of€òòMillsóó€and€òòMcKayóó€was€dealtÏwith€in€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€74,€as€was€inadequacy€of€the€appellateÏreview€process.€€The€constitutionality€of€electrocution€as€a€method€of€inflicting€deathÏwas€dealt€with€in€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€178„179€(Tenn.€1991).€€Many€ofÏthese€issues€have€most€recently€been€discussed€in€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ253€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€David€Keenóó,€_____€S.W.2d€_____(Tenn.€1994);€andÏòòState€v.€Sylvester€Smithóó,€893ò ò€ó óS.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àDefendant€says€that€the€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔððÔ€-ÔÔ€-XÔ€39„2„203(i)(7)€aggravatingÏcircumstance€should€not€have€been€submitted€to€the€jury€and€the€error€in€doing€soÍcould€not€be€considered€harmless.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€The€defendant€says,€and€the€State€concedes,Ïthat€the€submission€of€that€aggravating€circumstance€violated€the€holding€in€òòStateÏv.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àWe€have€reserved€this€issue€for€last€because€at€the€oral€argument€of€thisÏcase€this€issue€was€raised€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€by€the€Court.€€The€Court€requested€that€theÏparties€file€supplemental€briefs.€€ÌÌà àBriefs€have€been€filed,€the€State€taking€the€position€that€the€Court€shouldÏreconsider€its€decision€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€The€defendant,€on€the€other€hand,€assertsÏthat€the€Court€should€neither€overturn€or€modify€the€decision.ÌÌà àA€sizeable€number€of€distinguished€members€of€the€Tennessee€Bar€haveÏjoined€as€signatories€on€a€motion€to€file€an€òòamicusóó€òòcuriaeóó€brief€in€the€case€in€theÏinterest€of€the€orderly€administration€of€justice€and€the€integrity€of€the€judicialÏprocess€in€Tennessee.€€This€brief€has€been€filed.ÌÌà àThe€Court€is€deeply€indebted€to€counsel€for€both€parties,€as€well€as€òòamicióó€forÏthe€scholarly,€penetrating,€and€thoughtful€briefs€submitted.€€They€have€been€ofÏgreat€assistance€to€the€Court€in€resolving€this€issue.€€However,€as€òòamicióó€have€notedÏin€their€brief,€"There€is€no€compelling€justification€for€this€Court€to€overruleÏòòMiddlebrooksóó."€€òòSeeóó€òòBigbee€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€815€(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌà àThe€resolution€of€the€continuing€validity€of€this€Court's€decision€inÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€does€not€end€the€matter,€however.€€We€observe,€first€of€all,€that,Ïalthough€both€the€State€and€the€defendant€are€in€accord€that€submission€of€theÏfelony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€to€the€jury€violates€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€this€isÏonly€partially€true.€€This€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€€felony€murder€solely€on€theÏbasis€of€armed€robbery.€€However,€two€€felonies,€larceny€and€rape,€in€addition€toÍrobbery,€were€used€to€support€the€felony€murder€circumstance.€€Furthermore,€theÏfelony€underlying€the€conviction€in€this€case€is€clear,€as€is€the€use€of€the€twoÏdifferent€andò ò€ó óadditional€felonies€to€establish€the€aggravating€circumstance€found€byÏthe€jury.€€òòCompareóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270,€n.€8.€€In€òòMiddlebrooksóó€theÏfelony€murder€conviction€was€based€on€the€same€felony€used€to€establish€theÏaggravating€circumstance€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2„203(i)(7).€€TheÏaggravating€circumstance€in€that€case€therefore€duplicated€the€offense,€as€broadlyÏdefined€in€ðð39„2„202(a),€and€thus€failed€to€perform€the€narrowing€function€requiredÏunder€Article€I,€Section€16,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€840€S.W.2d€at€341,Ï346;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€816.ÌÌà àIn€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€we€stated€that€a€proper€narrowing€deviceÌÓÓà8 àà8 àprovides€a€principled€way€to€distinguish€the€case€inÏwhich€the€death€penalty€was€imposed€from€the€manyÏcases€in€which€it€was€not€.€.€.€and€must€differentiate€aÏdeath€penalty€case€in€an€objective,€even„handed,€andÏsubstantially€rational€way€from€the€many€murder€casesÏin€which€the€death€penalty€may€not€be€imposed.€€As€aÏresult,€a€proper€narrowing€device€insures€that,€evenÏthough€some€defendants€who€fall€within€the€restrictedÏclass€of€death„eligible€defendants€manage€to€avoid€theÍdeath€penalty,€those€who€receive€it€will€be€among€theÏworst€murderers„„those€whose€crimes€are€particularlyÏserious,€or€for€which€the€death€penalty€is€peculiarlyÏappropriate.€(Citations€omitted.)ÌÌÓÓ840€S.W.2d€at€343.à à€Where,€as€in€the€instant€case,€a€felony€not€underlying€theÏfelony€murder€conviction€is€used€to€support€the€felony€murder€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€there€is€no€duplication.€€Furthermore,€under€these€facts€theÏaggravating€circumstance€as€applied€restricts€the€sentencer's€discretion€to€thoseÏwho€kill€while€in€the€perpetration€of€multiple€felonies,€a€class€of€murderersÏdemonstrably€smaller€and€more€blameworthy€than€the€general€class€of€murderersÏeligible€for€the€death€penalty€under€the€previous€felony€murder€statute€in€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð39„2„202(a)(1982).× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Under€these€circumstances,€where€a€felony€otherÏthan€that€used€to€prove€the€substantive€offense€is€used€to€establish€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€there€is€no€constitutional€prohibition€against€the€use€of€theÍaggravating€circumstance€in€ðð39„2„203(i)(7)€to€support€the€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty€for€felony€murder.òòÌóóÌà àOn€the€premise€that€error€existed€because€the€jury€based€its€findingÏregarding€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€in€part€on€the€robbery,€weÏconduct€a€harmless€error€analysis.òò€€óóIn€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€òòsupraóó€at€269,€the€Court€foundÏharmless€error€in€almost€identical€circumstances.€€Citing€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993)€as€authority,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€order€to€guarantee€the€precision€that€individualizedÏsentencing€considerations€demand€and€provide€aÏprincipled€explanation€for€our€conclusion€in€each€case,€itÏis€important€when€conducting€harmless€error€review€toÏcompletely€examine€the€record€for€the€presence€ofÏfactors€which€potentially€influence€the€sentenceÏultimately€imposed.€€These€include,€but€are€not€limited€toÏthe€number€and€strength€of€remaining€valid€aggravatingÏcircumstances,€the€prosecutor's€argument€at€sentencing,Ïthe€evidence€admitted€to€establish€the€invalidÏaggravator,€and€the€nature,€quality€and€strength€ofÏmitigating€evidence.ÌÓÓÌÌà àIn€òòHowellóó,€òòsupraóó€at€261,€the€Court€commented:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€evaluating€a€jury's€consideration€of€an€invalidÏaggravating€factor,€it€is€important€to€ask€whether€removalÏof€that€factor€from€the€sentencer's€consideration€alsoÏremoves€any€evidence€from€the€jury's€totalÏconsideration,€or€whether€the€State's€reliance€on€theÏinvalid€circumstance€allowed€the€jury€to€improperlyÏconsider€any€evidence.€€Even€though€the€jury€cannotÏweigh€the€invalid€aggravating€factor€against€anyÏmitigating€factors,€the€jury€can€properly€considerÏevidence€of€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€theÏcharacter€of€the€defendant€in€making€an€individualizedÏdetermination€of€whether€the€death€sentence€is€justified.€ÏòòIdóó.€€In€that€respect,€an€aggravating€factor€whichÏduplicates€the€elements€of€the€underlying€crime€has€lessÏrelative€tendency€to€prejudicially€affect€the€sentenceÏimposed€than€invalid€aggravating€factors€which€interjectÏinadmissible€evidence€into€the€sentencing€calculus,€orÏwhich€require€the€sentencing€jury€to€draw€additionalÏconclusions€from€the€guilt€phase€evidence.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àOur€examination€of€the€record€in€this€case€in€accordance€with€the€foregoingÏanalysis€demonstrates€that€submission€of€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravatingÏcircumstance€for€jury€consideration€was€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.ÌÌà àThe€remaining€two€aggravating€circumstances€are€fully€and€stronglyÏsupported€by€the€record.€€The€prosecutor's€argument€made€only€one€insignificantÏreference€to€the€felony€murder€aggravator.€€Defendant's€prior€conviction€of€assaultÏwas€not€disputed.€€The€key€aggravator€was€the€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruel€nature€of€the€offense.€€The€evidence€at€the€hearing,€while€showing€that€theÏdefendant€took€€the€victim's€money€bag€and€car,€and€raped€her,€concentrated€onÏthe€aggravating€elements€of€torture€and€depravity.€€The€mitigating€evidence,€whileÏextensive,€was€much€like€that€presented€in€òòHowellóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Under€this€record€it€canÏbe€concluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€sentence€would€have€been€theÏsame€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€aggravating€factor.€€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€òòsupraóó€at€262.ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€mandate€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔððÔ€-ÔÔ€-XÔ€39„2„205(c)(4)(d)Ï(1982),€we€find€that€the€sentence€of€death€was€not€imposed€in€any€arbitrary€fashion;Ïthat€the€evidence€supports€the€jury's€findings€of€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstances€found;€and€that€the€evidence€supports€the€jury's€finding€of€theÏabsence€of€any€mitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€theÍaggravating€circumstances.€€Our€comparative€proportionality€review€convinces€usÏthat€the€sentence€of€death€is€neither€excessive€nor€disproportionate€to€the€penaltyÏimposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.× ƒ7 ××  ×€ÏJudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€The€sentence€of€death€will€be€carried€out€asÏprovided€by€law€on€the€___€day€of€_____________,€1995,€unless€otherwiseÏordered€by€this€Court,€or€other€proper€authorities.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€areÏadjudged€against€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCHARLES€H.€O'BRIEN,€€Special€JusticeÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota€and€Birch,€JJ.ÌÌÌReid,€J.,€dissenting€„€see€separate€Dissenting€Opinion