ÿWPC0# …# VUNa %¯ 0 Dµw@ù49 M 0ˆ\ 0Dä 0J( UHr bº 0T 0` 0^v 0hÔ 0r< 0|® 0†* 0° 1u@ 0dµ B! D3>U >qU 6¯ 0@å‘%U*¶B)àDC  AMLU*™&Ãéø:ø2òE7v~:vÓ¸ AO‹!ÆÚ! 0D " D/ä" B#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò ÃDÄÅÆÇeÈšÉDÊËÓ€ÕDÒ 3|xÕ(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular- ù-2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd€-1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌAprilÏ28,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I(5)€(Supp.€1996).Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c).Ì 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€744€(Tenn.€1994)€(Reid,ÏC.J.,€dissenting).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D)€(Supp.€1996).Ì èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€Washington,€Pennsylvania,€and€North€Carolina€statutes,€likeÏthe€Tennessee€statute,€require€a€review€of€whether€the€sentence€isÏð ðexcessiveðð€or€ð ðdisproportionateðð€considering€both€the€circumstances€ofÏð ðthe€crimeðð€and€the€character€of€ð ðthe€defendant.ððÌ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€¬ýXXdÈdÈ7ÑÖ€.ÖÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€//XÐd&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€Davidson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€Hon.€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà à(€S.€Ct.€No.€01S01„9505„CR„00080ÌÒ € ÒÒ À Ҝـ€ÙßR€241A1-j|›‚` à. `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà à(ÌHENRY€EUGENE€HODGES,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àAppellant.à àà à(ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà à€The€defendantððs€uncontested€plea€of€guiltyÏforecloses,€of€course,€consideration€on€appeal€of€any€issueÏexcept€those€relating€to€the€punishment€phase€of€the€case.ÌÌà àIn€my€view,€the€record€shows€three€errors€thatÏaffirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€judgment€imposing€aÏsentence€of€death.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36;€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52.€€€ÍThese€are:€€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€finding€that€theÏmurder€involved€ð ðtorture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€thatÏnecessary€to€produce€death;ðð× ƒ5 ××  ×€ð ðthe€nature€and€circumstances€ofÏthe€crime€[and]€the€defendantððs€character,€background€history,Ïand€physical€conditionðð× ƒ6 ××  ×€do€not€show€that€of€all€first€degreeÏmurderers€the€defendant€is€ð ðamong€the€worst€of€the€bad;ðð× ƒ7 ××  ×€andÏthe€proportionality€review€required€by€statute€does€notÏsupport€the€majorityððs€conclusion€that€the€sentence€is€notÏexcessive€or€disproportionate.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Since€these€issues€areÏdetermined€by€the€facts€of€the€case,€some€further€reference€toÏthe€record€seems€appropriate.€ÌÌà àThe€Stateððs€proof€regarding€the€commission€of€theÏoffense€was€based€primarily€upon€the€testimony€of€Trina€Brown,Ïa€minor,€with€whom€the€defendant€was€cohabiting€at€the€timeÍthe€defendant€killed€the€victim.€€Brown€was€abandoned€by€herÏfather€on€a€street€in€Nashville€when€she€was€about€14€yearsÏold.€€After€living€a€ð ðhomelessðð€existence€for€four€or€fiveÏmonths,€she€began€living€with€the€defendant,€who€was€23€yearsÏof€age€at€the€time.€€They€lived€together€for€more€than€a€yearÏbefore€the€crime€in€this€case€was€committed.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€had€been€essentially€without€adultÏsupervision€since€the€time€he€was€12€years€old.€€Prior€to€theÏcommission€of€the€crime€in€this€case,€he€had€been€convicted,Ïas€noted€in€the€majority€opinion,€of€major€crimes€involvingÏviolence€against€other€persons.€€He€seriously€abused€drugs€andÏother€substances.€€A€significant€factor€affecting€his€life,Ïand€a€factor€which€obviously€had€some€bearing€on€hisÏcommission€of€the€crime€in€this€case,€was€his€abduction€andÏrape€by€a€male€stranger€when€he€was€12€years€old.ÌÌà àDuring€the€time€Brown€and€the€defendant€were€livingÏtogether,€he€worked€as€a€ð ðstripperðð€in€a€gay€bar.€€He€also€wasÏa€prostitute€with,€according€to€Brown,€many€male€clients€whoÏpaid€him€well.€€Brown€strongly€objected€to€the€defendantððsÍbeing€engaged€in€this€activity,€and€her€objection€precipitatedÏthe€series€of€events€which€culminated€in€the€murder.€€TheÏdefendant€and€Brown€had€been€living€with€the€defendantððsÏbrother€until€a€short€time€before€the€murder.€€The€brotherððsÏwife€learned€from€Brown€that€the€defendant€was€a€prostitute.€ÏThe€defendant€was€greatly€agitated€by€the€revelation€to€hisÏfamily€of€his€homosexual€activities.€€The€result€was€that€theÏdefendant€and€Brown€had€to€find€another€place€to€live.€€BrownÏand€the€defendant€planned€to€move€to€Florida.€€According€toÏBrownððs€testimony,€the€defendant€said€he€would€get€the€moneyÏwith€which€to€make€the€move€by€robbing€a€ð ðcustomer.ðð€€SheÏfurther€testified€that€she€suggested€that€he€kill€the€customerÏalso.€€Brown€testified€she€made€the€suggestion€ð ðbecause€[she]Ïwas€jealous€[of]€...€anybody€who€was€gay€and€tried€to€pickÏhim€up,ðð€and€she€ð ðwanted€any€man€who€had€ever€touched€himÏdead.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€account€of€the€murder€stated€in€the€majorityððsÏopinion€omits,€and€perhaps€overstates,€some€of€the€proof.€€ÌBrown€testified€that€on€the€night€of€the€murder,€Brown€and€theÏdefendant€went€to€Centennial€Park€in€Nashville€where€theÍdefendant€sat€on€the€hood€of€his€car€while€Brown€sat€someÏdistance€away€in€a€swing.€€The€victim,€a€39„year„old€man,Ïapproached€the€defendant,€they€talked,€and€then€drove€off€inÏthe€victimððs€car.€€Ten€to€fifteen€minutes€later,€the€defendantÏwalked€back€to€the€park,€and€he€and€Brown€drove€to€theÏvictimððs€house.€€Brown€lay€hidden€on€the€back€seat€while€theyÏwere€en€route€to€the€victimððs€house.€€Even€though€the€distanceÏfrom€Centennial€Park€to€the€victimððs€house€does€not€appear€inÏthe€record,€it€seems€highly€unlikely€that€the€defendant€couldÏdrive€with€the€victim€to€his€house,€then€handcuff€the€victimððsÏhands€and€bind€his€legs€with€tape€and€walk€back€to€the€park€inÏ15€minutes.€€In€addition,€Brownððs€testimony€as€well€as€theÏother€evidence€presented,€shows€that€the€victim€was€at€no€timeÏsecured€to€the€bed,€nor€was€he€gagged.€€The€record€does€notÏshow€why€he€did€not€undertake€to€escape€or€at€least€call€forÏhelp,€even€if€his€feet€were€bound€together,€while€theÏdefendant€was€returning€to€the€park€for€Brown.€€The€reasonableÏconclusion€is€that€he€was€not€bound€at€this€time,€but€wasÏmerely€waiting€for€the€defendant€to€return€with€his€car.ÌÌà àWhen€the€defendant€and€Brown€arrived€at€the€victimððsÍhouse,€the€defendant€told€Brown€he€would€be€right€back,€andÏthat€she€must€continue€lying€down€in€the€back€seat.€€In€fact,ÏBrown€went€to€sleep€on€the€back€seat€of€the€car€while€theÏdefendant€was€in€the€victimððs€house.€€There€is€no€evidence€ofÏwhat€occurred€during€the€time€the€defendant€and€the€victimÏwere€alone€in€the€victimððs€house.€€The€record€does€not€revealÏwhen€or€for€what€purpose€the€victim€was€bound€and€handcuffed.€ÏThere€was€no€evidence€introduced€concerning€whether€theÏdefendant€and€the€victim€engaged€in€sexual€activity€during€theÏfirst€or€second€time€the€defendant€was€in€the€house.€€It€is,Ïof€course,€possible€that€the€victim€was€actually€bound€as€aÏpart€of€the€propositioned€homosexual€activity€rather€thanÏunder€coercion.€€In€any€event,€after€some€undetermined€lapseÏof€time,€the€defendant€returned€to€the€car€and€got€Brown.€ÏWhen€they€went€into€the€house,€Brown€saw€that€the€victimððsÏhands€were€handcuffed€behind€his€back,€his€legs€were€tapedÏtogether,€he€was€lying€face€down€on€the€bed€and€there€was€aÏpillow€over€his€head.ÌÌà àBrown€testified€that€after€they€had€finished€takingÏfrom€the€house€items€which€could€be€sold,€the€defendant€wasÍready€to€leave€with€the€victim€lying€on€the€bed,€and€it€wasÏshe€who€wanted€the€victim€to€be€killed.€€ÌÌà àThe€victim€suffered€no€pain€beyond€that€incident€toÏdeath€by€strangulation.€€Dr.€Harlan,€the€forensic€pathologistÏwho€examined€the€victim,€testified€that€in€death€byÏstrangulation,€victims€ð ðwould€feel€pressure€on€the€neck,ððÏð ðthey€would€probably€feel€a€shortage€of€oxygen€or€a€shortageÏof€breath,ðð€and€ð ðthey€would€lapse€into€unconsciousness€orÏsleep,€and€then€die.ðð€€He€testified€that€the€victim€ð ðwouldÏhave€[become]€unconscious€and€then€have€died€within€a€matterÏof€three€to€five€minutes.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€the€case€do€not€support€the€findingÏthat€the€killing€ð ðinvolved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuseÏbeyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death,ðð€one€of€theÏaggravating€circumstances€found€by€the€jury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„13„204(I)(5).€€Torture€involves€the€infliction€of€pain€byÏa€perpetrator€upon€a€victim.€€It€necessarily€involves€theÏintent€by€the€perpetrator€to€cause€the€victim€to€suffer.€ÏSuffering€alone,€regardless€of€its€severity,€does€notÍconstitute€torture.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€defendantÏhad€any€purpose€other€than€to€kill€the€œvictim.›€€There€is€noÏevidence€that€the€victim€suffered€any€ð ðphysical€abuse€beyondÏthat€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€The€words€of€the€medicalÏexaminer€belie€any€claim€of€torture€„€the€victim€would€feelÏpressure€on€the€neck,€experience€a€shortage€of€oxygen€orÏbreath,€and€lapse€into€unconsciousness€or€sleep,€and€then€die.€ÏThe€majority€finds€mental€suffering.€€The€only€evidence€ofÏmental€suffering€was€the€victimððs€plea€that€he€not€be€killed.€ÏIf€these€facts€support€a€finding€of€torture,€then€torture€isÏpresent€in€every€case€of€intentional€killing€except€where,€asÏthe€prosecutor€argued€to€the€trial€court€in€this€case,€theÏvictim€without€warning€is€killed€by€a€gunshot€to€the€back€ofÏthe€head.€€Unfortunately,€the€majorityððs€decision€will€createÏthat€precedent.€€ÌÌà àThe€facts€showing€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€theÏcharacter€and€history€of€the€defendant€do€not€establish€thisÏfirst€degree€murder€as€being€among€the€worst€of€the€bad,€orÏthis€defendant€as€being€one€of€those€for€whom€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€is€most€appropriate.€€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,Í187„95,€96€S.Ct.€2909,€2932„35€(1976).ÌÌà àThe€statute€requires€that€the€sentence€be€based€onÏthe€nature€of€the€crime€as€well€as€the€character€andÏbackground€of€the€defendant.€€The€record€establishes€that€theÏdefendant€is€capable€of€deadly€violence.€€However,€so€far€asÏthe€record€discloses,€only€those€persons€who€were€engaged€withÏthe€defendant€in€illegal€activity€were€in€danger€of€beingÏharmed€by€him.€€This€focused€violence,€which€apparently€hadÏits€genesis€in€acts€committed€against€the€defendant€during€hisÏchildhood,€does€not€constitute€the€public€danger€against€whichÏlaw€abiding€citizens€have€no€realistic€protection.€€ThisÏmurder,€though€bad,€as€all€murders€are,€is€not€among€the€worstÏof€the€bad.ÌÌà àThere€was€no€meaningful€proportionality€review€byÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€or€this€Court€in€this€case.€€TheÏcase€dramatically€demonstrates€that€in€the€absence€of€aÏstructured€review€process€there€can€be€no€meaningfulÏdetermination€whether€ð ðthe€sentence€of€death€is€excessive€orÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,Íconsidering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D).€€This€essential€andÏsignificant€part€of€capital€jurisprudence€was€accomplished€inÏthis€case€with€conclusory€statements€and€citations€to€sevenÏcases€in€which€the€Court€has€affirmed€the€death€sentence.€ÏThis€does€not€accomplish€the€plain€mandate€of€the€statute,Ïwhich€contemplates€a€comparison€with€a€universe€of€similarÏcases€ð ðconsidering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€theÏdefendant.ðð€€€ÌÌà àOther€states€with€statutes€similar€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„206,€notably€Pennsylvania€and€North€Carolina,Ïhave€developed€a€reasoned€process€for€determiningÏproportionality,€including€the€identification€of€a€universe€orÏpool€of€cases€for€the€purpose€of€comparison.€€The€statutes€andÏdecisions€of€the€Supreme€Courts€of€North€Carolina€andÏPennsylvania€were€reviewed€in€òòState€v.€Brettóó,€892€P.2d€29Ï(Wash.€1995):× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Pennsylvania,€for€example,€has€aÏproportionality€statute€which€resemblesÏour€own.€€42€Pa.€Cons.€Stat.€Ann.€ððÏ9711(h)(3)(iii)€(Supp.€1994).€€TheÏPennsylvania€Supreme€Court€examines€theÏrelative€frequency€of€death€sentences€inÏthe€pool€of€similar€cases€it€develops,Ïfinding€death€sentences€notÏdisproportionate€where€the€vast€majorityÏof€defendants€in€similar€cases€receivedÏthe€death€penalty.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòCommonwealth€v.€Smithóó,€511€Pa.€343,€513ÏA.2d€1371€(1986)€(finding€the€deathÏpenalty€not€disproportionate€where€it€wasÏimposed€in€eight€of€nine€similar€cases),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€480€U.S.€951,€107€S.Ct.Ï1617,€94€L.€Ed.€2d€801€(1987);ÏòòCommonwealth€v.€Whitneyóó,€511€Pa.€232,€249„50,€512€A.2d€1152€(1986)€(finding€theÏdeath€penalty€not€disproportionate€whereÏit€was€imposed€in€the€ð ðoverwhelmingÏmajorityðð€of€similar€cases);€òòCommonwealthÏv.€Pirelaóó,€510€Pa.€43,€507€A.2d€23€(1986)Ï(finding€the€death€penalty€notÏdisproportionate€where€it€was€imposed€inÏsix€of€eight€similar€cases);€òòCommonwealthÏv.€Moralesóó,€508€Pa.€51,€494€A.2d€367Ï(1985)€(finding€the€death€penalty€notÏdisproportionate€where€imposed€in€seven€ofÏseven€similar€cases).ÌÌà8 à€€€€€North€Carolina€too€has€a€statuteÏrequiring€proportionality€review.€€ItsÏstatute€contains€language€identical€to€ourÏown,€insofar€as€it€asks€whether€ð ðtheÏsentence€of€death€is€excessive€orÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€imÏsimilar€cases,€considering€both€the€crimeÏand€the€defendant.ðð€€N.C.€Gen.€Stat.€ððÏ15A„2000(d)(2)€(1994).€€In€thatÍjurisdiction,€the€penalty€of€death€isÏconsidered€disproportionate€if€it€has€beenÏimposed€in€less€than€half€the€similarÏcases.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Cummingsóó,€323ÏN.C.€181,€198,€372€S.E.2d€541€(1988)Ï(finding€the€death€penalty€notÏdisproportionate€where€it€was€imposed€inÏfour€of€five€other€cases€in€which€aÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€a€prior€violentÏfelony€resulting€in€the€victimððs€death),Ïòòcert.€granted€and€judgment€vacated€onÏother€groundsóó,€494€U.S.€1021,€110€S.Ct.Ï1464,€108€L.Ed.€2d€602€(1990);€òòState€v.ÏBensonóó,€323€N.C.€318,€328„29,€372€S.E.2dÏ517€(1988)€(finding€the€death€penaltyÏdisproportionate€where€it€was€imposed€inÏonly€4€of€51€robbery„murder€cases);€òòStateÏv.€Stokesóó,€319€N.C.€1,€22€n.€14,€352ÏS.E.2d€653€(1987)€(finding€the€deathÏpenalty€disproportionate€because€theÏcodefendant€received€a€life€sentence€andÏbecause€North€Carolina€juries€haveÏrecommended€life€imprisonment€inÏespecially€heinous€cases€in€20€casesÏinvolving€24€defendants,€whileÏrecommending€the€death€penalty€in€16€casesÏinvolving€17€defendants);€òòState€v.€Rogersóó,Ï316€N.C.€203,€235,€341€S.E.2d€713€(1986)Ï(finding€death€penalty€disproportionateÏfor€a€defendant€found€guilty€of€shootingÏone€person€and€attempting€to€shootÏanother,€where€in€the€pool€of€similarÏcases,€the€death€penalty€was€imposed€inÏ23,€and€life€sentences€in€76),€òòoverruledÏon€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Vandiveróó,€321ÏN.C.€570,€364€S.E.2d€373€(1988);€òòState€v.ÏYoungóó,€312€N.C.€669,€325€S.E.2d€181€(1985)Ï(finding€the€death€penaltyÏdisproportionate€where€it€was€imposed€in€5Ïof€28€robbery„murder€cases€in€the€pool€ofÏsimilar€cases);€òòState€v.€Bondurantóó,€309ÏN.C.€674,€693,€309€S.E.2d€170€(1983)Í(finding€the€death€penaltyÏdisproportionate€where€applied€in€13€of€78Ïsimilar€cases).ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€78„79€(Utter,€J.,€dissenting).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àA€plurality€in€òòBrettóó,€over€a€strenuous€and€well„reasoned€dissent,€reaffirmed€a€process€which,€though€obviouslyÏsuperior€to€the€procedure€followed€in€Tennessee,€a€federalÏcourt€found,€ð ðdid€not€fulfill€the€essential€function€ofÏensuring€the€ððevenðð€handed,€rational,€and€consistentÏimposition€of€death€sentences€under€Washington€law.ðð€€€€òòHarrisÏv.€Blodgettóó,€853€F.€Supp.€1239,€1291€(W.D.€Wash.€1994),€òòaffððdóó,Ï64€F.3d€1432€(9th€Cir.€1995).€€The€court€held€œthat€that›Ïfailure€was€a€violation€of€the€defendantððs€due€process€rightsÏunder€the€federal€constitution.ÌÌà àThe€only€acknowledgment€by€this€Court€that€aÏproportionality€review€is€a€part€of€the€law€in€capital€cases,Ïother€than€the€conclusory€recitations€at€the€end€of€theÏopinions,€is€the€adoption€of€Rule€12€of€the€Rules€of€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court,€which€requires€that€the€trial€judgeÍin€all€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€a€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment€or€death€is€imposed€complete€and€file€a€reportÏsetting€forth€extensive€information€regarding€the€defendant,Ïthe€offense,€the€victim,€the€defendantððs€representation,€andÏthe€case.€€However,€none€of€the€information€contained€in€theÏreport€is€used€in€making€the€proportionality€review.€€In€fact,Ïcontrary€to€the€statement€in€the€majority€opinion,€the€Rule€12Ïreport€is€never€even€filed€in€many€cases€in€which€the€deathÏpenalty€was€imposed.€€That€rule€obviously€contemplates€thatÏthe€universe€of€cases€to€be€used€for€comparison€purposesÏincludes€all€cases€in€which€the€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏfirst€degree€murder.€€Nevertheless,€the€ð ðuniverseðð€of€cases,Ïunder€the€majority€decision,€are€those€cases€in€which€theÏdeath€penalty€has€been€imposed.€ÌÌà àNow€that€capital€cases€are€reviewed€first€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,× ƒ: ××  ×€the€absence€of€a€structured€reviewÏprocess€developed€and€articulated€by€this€Court€will€allowÏpanels€of€three€judges,€assembled€on€a€rotating€basis€from€aÏcourt€of€12€judges,€to€perform€the€required€review€on€whateverÍbasis€each€of€the€various€panels€may€deem€appropriate.€ÏPredictably,€the€results€will€not€reflect€a€State€sentencingÏscheme€which€provides€a€ð ðmeaningful€basis€for€distinguishingÏthe€few€cases€in€which€[the€death€penalty]€is€imposed€from€theÏmany€cases€in€which€it€is€not.ðð€€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.Ï238,€313,€92€S.Ct.€2726,€2764€(White,€J.,€concurring).€€InÏthis€regard,€the€admonition€of€the€district€court€in€òòHarris€v.ÏBlodgettóó€is€noteworthy:€€ð ðIt€is€necessary€to€due€process€thatÏall€participants€in€the€sentence€review€operate€under€the€sameÏrules€so€that€the€noble€purpose€of€a€sentence€review€will€beÏreliably€and€constitutionally€carried€out.ðð€€853€F.€Supp.€atÏ1291.€ÌÌà àFor€these€reasons,€I€would€reverse€the€sentence.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.Ì