ÿWPC˜  k0Ó弿_õ 1Ø9¯‰Fx¿`k½TèÙpœ|ŒÊ(I÷´†åõ³ih‰q¹N.Æä5q¦Xc€E¢òÚ­mÖsP{€±4òšl€äÓ¿°I'…8Ê·œÉ ×`r8ÛýŸƒëƒ°ðÕמË ß:Dž7¿;Gÿe^›‡¢Åh‚§=V]·ÏÔk÷R›EM™„ü·Ðð 2¨·ÿC20%i~Ôƒ^xÿ•UˆÀ ÚK8©,ßNOjˆ•a§Y­û[!РLÙ˜Q›:e eÆ®0H1’T)â”ÀÍßù$Ímf¤zUoäK˜‚ˆpMG¶â¡·f@{„Îöì%€:¼„ƒG+€²ª EPÅ i*# LU:W %‘ 0©—w@@4€”£ 0í« 0D˜ Ü U:ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß B AQ6 Ƈ 0DM 0D‘ 0DÕ Õ D/  BH D3e ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(aë$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ LegalY 3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ Legal 3Ø' LetterTÑÔ€XئXXXÔÒ°Ò [D\b]D^_e`DabEcdÓ€BQ‡&J?K* 3|xm((3Ó$¤¤Ý ƒaë!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XJÛXXXÔÒ°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XJÛXXXÔÔ€ ´X XJÛÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XJÛX ´ÔÐ  ÐÌApril€12,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒaë!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€XJÛXXXÔÒ°ÒÝ  Ýñ_ñ›ñ_ññ\ñÑX°Ññ\ñò òÑ7€JÛXdæXXdð7Ññ_ñ›ñ_ñÑ  Ññdñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rß›ñdñà@$ $ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””(àAT€JACKSONˆÌà@-àˆÌñ_ñœñ_ññ[ñÌñ[ññ_ñ›ñ_ñÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÐ `° ÐÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà  à)Ð 8 ˆ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àFiled:Ð $ t Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð  ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Julian€P.€GuinnÐ ü L  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àJudgeÐ è 8  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ Ô$  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHENRY€COUNTYÐ À  ÐTERESA€DEION€SMITH€HARRIS,à  à)à p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ¬ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àSupreme€CourtÐ ˜è  Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€02„S01„9806„CC„00053Ð „Ô  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àÌó óÌÌà@nn àò òòòSEPARATE€CONCURRING€OPINIONóóˆÐ d Ðó óÌÓÓÌà ` àThe€majority€concludes€that€the€juryððs€finding€of€an€incomplete€aggravatingÏcircumstance€permits€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a),€harmless€error€review,€holding€theÏerror€statutory€rather€than€constitutional.€€I€agree€that€the€error€is€statutory€andÏthat€harmless€error€analysis€applies.€€Accordingly,€I€join€with€the€majority€inÏaffirming€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€I€write€separately,Ïhowever,€because€I€find€that,€in€conducting€harmless€error€review,€€the€majorityÏfails€to€perform€a€sufficient€analysis€to€support€its€finding€that€the€invalidÏaggravating€circumstance€did€not€ð ðaffirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€resultÏof€the€trial€on€the€merits.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).Ð )b$( ÐÌà ` àThe€test€for€determining€whether€error€is€harmless€is€whether€the€courtÏcan€say€with€fair€assurance€after€pondering€all€that€happened,€without€strippingÏthe€erroneous€action€from€the€whole,€that€the€judgment€was€not€substantiallyÏswayed€by€the€error.€€òòSeeóó€€òòSullivan€v.€Louisianaóó,€508€U.S.€275,€279,€113€S.Ct.Ð 2^-2 Ð2078,€2081€(1993);€òòKotteakos€v.€United€Statesóó,€328€U.S.€750,€764,€66€S.Ct.Ð Ú3*/4 Ð1239,€1248€(1946).€€In€conducting€a€harmless€error€review,€the€appellate€courtÏò òð ðmust€identify€and€evaluate€all€of€the€evidence€considered€by€the€juryó ó€inÐ r7Â28 Ðaddition€to€ascertaining€the€probable€effect€of€the€alleged€error€itself;ðð€the€courtÏmust€then€consider€the€error€in€relation€to€all€else€that€happened.€€òòSeeóó€€òòYates€v.Ð ;f6< ÐEvattóó,€500€U.S.€391,€405,€111€S.Ct.€1884,€1894€(1991)€(emphasis€added).€€If€theÐ â<28> Ðreviewing€court€can€conclude€that€the€error€was€unimportant€in€relation€toÏeverything€else€the€jury€considered€in€reaching€its€ultimate€result,€the€error€canÏbe€deemed€harmless.€€Thus,€the€question€is€not€whether€the€result€reached€byÏthe€jury€is€correct€absent€the€error,€but€rather,€whether€the€error€contributed€toÏthe€juryððs€result.ÌÌà ` à€€In€finding€that€the€juryððs€error€was€harmless,€the€majority€summarilyÏconcludes€that€ð ðone€valid€aggravating€circumstance€remains€to€support€theÏdefendantððs€sentence€.€.€.€€[and]€that€[t]he€defendant€offers€no€specific€argumentÏwhich€demonstrates€that€the€jury€grossly€abused€its€discretion€.€.€.€.ðð€€€I€find€thisÏharmless€error€analysis€deficient€in€that€the€majority,€regardless€of€any€argumentÏby€the€defendant,€has€failed€to€undertake€any€examination€of€whether€theÏsentence€constitutes€a€ð ðgross€abuse€of€the€juryððs€discretionðð€as€statutorilyÏrequired€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„207(g).€€For€this€reason,€the€majority€hasÏfailed€to€conduct€a€true€harmless€error€analysis.€€Rather,€the€majority,€as€notedÏabove,€in€effect,€perfunctorily€finds€the€sentence€appropriate€based€solely€uponÏthe€existence€of€one€valid€aggravating€circumstance.€€This€finding€suggests€thatÏas€long€as€one€valid€aggravating€circumstance€exists,€harmless€error€will€alwaysÏbe€found€and€no€further€review€is€necessary.€€This€position€ignores€the€fact€thatÏour€legislature€requires€the€jury€to€ð ðweigh€and€considerðð€aggravating€andÏmitigating€circumstances€and€ð ðin€their€considered€discretion€impose€a€sentenceÏof€either€life€or€life€without€parole.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(f).€€BecauseÏthe€jury€is€given€such€discretion€in€imposing€the€appropriate€sentence,€anÏappellate€court€which€relies€solely€on€the€basis€of€a€remaining€valid€aggravatingÏcircumstance€resorts€to€unguided€speculation€in€determining€the€œñ_ñœñ_ññ]ñproprietyñ]ññ`ññ^ñappropriatenessñ^ññ`ññbññañapñaññbññcñproprietyñcññ_ñ›ñ_ñ›€of€theÏsentence€imposed.€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àA€sentence€of€imprisonment€for€life€without€possibility€of€paroleÏshall€be€considered€appropriate€if€the€state€proved€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€at€least€one€(1)€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance€contained€in€ðð€39„13„204(I),€and€the€sentence€wasÏnot€otherwise€imposed€ò òarbitrarily,€so€as€to€constitute€a€grossÐ 7P28 Ðabuse€of€the€juryððs€discretion.ó óÐì7<39` Ð ` Ð  Ѐ€ÌÓ?ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„207(g)€(emphasis€added).€€As€mandated€by€statute,Ïour€obligation€under€harmless€error€review,€after€finding€the€existence€of€at€leastÐ Š;Ú6= Ðone€valid€aggravating€circumstance,€is€to€determine,€in€the€final€analysis,€whetherÏviewing€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€jury€would€have€imposed€the€same€sentenceÏin€the€absence€of€the€improper€or€incomplete€aggravating€circumstance.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€question€is€whether€the€juryððs€sentence€constitutes€a€ð ðgross€abuse€ofÏdiscretionðð€absent€consideration€of€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.€€ThisÏanalysis€would€necessarily€require€consideration€of€(1)€the€source€and€nature€ofÏthe€invalid€aggravating€circumstance(s),€(2)€the€number€and€strength€of€theÏremaining€valid€aggravating€circumstance(s),€and€(3)€the€nature,€quality,€andÏstrength€of€the€mitigating€evidence.€€The€performance€of€any€review€short€of€thisÏanalysis€would€require€conjecture€as€to€which€of€the€two€sentencing€options€theÏjury€would€have€chosen€absent€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà ` àIn€the€present€case,€I€agree€with€the€majorityððs€conclusion€that€the€proofÏsupports€the€juryððs€finding€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€ofÏevading,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€theÏdefendant€or€another[.]ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(6).€€However,€in€orderÏto€complete€harmless€error€review,€I€additionally€find€from€a€review€of€the€recordÏthat,€notwithstanding€the€nature€and€circumstances€establishing€the€invalidÏaggravator,€the€jury€would€have€nevertheless€returned€a€verdict€of€life€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole€considering€the€overwhelming€proof€supporting€the€remainingÏvalid€aggravating€circumstance€and€the€unpersuasive€argument€by€the€appellantÏof€mitigating€circumstances,€òòi.e.óó,€that€she€was€a€victim€of€drug€addiction,€sexualÐ l*¼%* Ðand€physical€abuse€and€male€dominance.€€I€conclude€that€the€sentenceÏultimately€imposed€was€not€the€result€of€a€gross€abuse€of€the€juryððs€discretionÏand€that,€under€the€circumstances€of€the€present€case,€a€sentence€of€life€withoutÏthe€possibility€of€parole€was€appropriate.€€Accordingly,€the€juryððs€consideration€ofÏthe€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€amounts€to€harmless€error.ÌÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Special€Justice