WPCV Բ[@ }VJw'ӉEjXw[c4w(= ; Mb1l;NXSas\Vm/\]bKym =%Z(/Q@² ISJ0KʪADE0ǎu]jLoKGw M5O%g4IuW$= G-߯ájXE4ÍxEXxMjiNQP pDRȮj*'6 +w|碛/!oQ>xNTM}JO9g/<2c~˥$_#7ũ = j;4Z/~QHnqUPtì+d?T== |v.Y;guuHlvJ_䌖+].# AnE_N ܒ<( Yx|,^?@EABECEDEEFGHEIJEKLEMEN[OEPQER[STEUVWEXYEZ[E\]|}~E[EE [<e[[[[PDPDDDDD[D[[D[DDDD[D[D[[D[[D[DeӀs~&3|x #*e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;$2*e  0  .3  0  ,rAZ"Arial Regular  $X `   1    ݀sXX0sMoreover,themajorityappearstoconsideronlywhethertheevidencewaslegallysufficientto  establishanaggravatingcircumstance,andnotthestrength,substance,andpersuasivenessoftheproofestablishingthatcircumstance.(8(2$ !  X `   0  (#$  0  (3$ !  (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular- -,fAZ"Arial Regular  $X `   2    X,XXX XX,ԀTheversionof(i)(2)ineffectatthetimeofthiscaserequiresafindingthat thedefendantwas  convictedofoneormorefelonies...whichinvolvetheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(1982).Incontrast,thepresentformof(i)(2)requiresafindingthat thedefendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofone(1)ormorefelonies...whosestatutoryelementsinvolvetheuseof X violencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(2)(Supp..1998).#s _##XlXs~#,  AZ"Arial Regular  $X `   3    ݀XٴXXXjxXXٴAlthoughIagreewiththemajorityassertionthatHowelldoesnotrequireacomparativereviewof  cases,IwouldalsoobservethatHowelldoesnotprecludesuchacomparisontoothercasesforthe  purposeofillustrationinundertakingathoroughreview.Indeed,examiningourprecedentforthepurposeofmeasuringtheeffectofanerrorinacasebeingreviewedisabasiccomponentofappellatereview.# jxa##XD X #(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   3    ݀X,XXX XX,AlthoughIagreewiththemajorityassertionthatHowelldoesnotrequireacomparativereview  ofcases,IwouldalsoobservethatHowelldoesnotprecludesuchacomparisontoothercasesforthe  purposeofillustrationinundertakingathoroughreview.Indeed,examiningourprecedentforthepurposeofmeasuringtheeffectofanerrorinacasebeingreviewedisabasiccomponentofappellatereview.#s a##XlXs#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   4    ݀sXX0sCf.Hartmanv.State,896S.W.2dat103(Middlebrookserrorrequiredresentencingdespite  minimalevidenceofmitigatingfactors).#s 0##XlXs`#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular  $X `   1     !sXX$0sMoreover,themajorityappearstoconsideronlywhethertheevidencewaslegally  sufficienttoestablishanaggravatingcircumstancebutnotwhetherthestrength,substance,and r persuasivenessoftheproofestablishesthatcircumstance. d & $X `   2    XٴXXXjxXXٴԀTheversionof(i)(2)ineffectatthetimeofthiscaserequiresafindingthat [t]hedefendantwas  previouslyconvictedofoneormorefelonies...whichinvolvetheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(1982).Incontrast,thepresentformof(i)(2)requiresafindingthat [t]hedefendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofone(1)ormorefelonies...whosestatutoryelementsinvolvethe @ useofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(2)(1997&Supp.1998).# jx_##XD X ~#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   1    ݀ XX#jx Moreover,themajorityappearstoconsideronlywhethertheevidencewaslegallysufficientto  establishanaggravatingcircumstanceandnotthestrength,substance,andpersuasivenessoftheproofestablishingthatcircumstance.,fAZ"Arial Regular,fAZ"Arial Regular D $X `   2    &X,XXX& XX, Theversionof(i)(2)ineffectatthetimeofthiscaserequiresafindingthat [t]he  defendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofoneormorefelonies...whichinvolvetheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(1982).Incontrast,thepresentformof(i)(2)requiresafindingthat [t]hedefendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofone(1)ormorefelonies...whosestatutory X elementsinvolvetheuseofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(2)(1997&Supp.   1998).#'s _##'XlXs~#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   4    ݀ XX jx Cf.Hartman,896S.W.2dat103(Middlebrookserrorrequiredresentencingdespiteminimal  evidenceofmitigatingfactors).#  jx##XD X a#  $X `   3     *X,XXX* XX,AlthoughIagreewiththemajorityassertionthatHowelldoesnotrequireacomparative  reviewofcases,IwouldalsoobservethatHowelldoesnotprecludesuchacomparisontoothercasesfor x thepurposeofillustrationinundertakingathoroughreview.Indeed,examiningourprecedentforthepurposeofmeasuringtheeffectofanerrorinacasebeingreviewedisabasiccomponentofappellatereview.#+s k##+XlXs#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   4     -sXX.0sCf.Hartman,896S.W.2dat103(Middlebrookserrorrequiredresentencingdespite  minimalevidenceofmitigatingfactors).#-s 0##-XlXsk#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular  $X `   1     0sXX10sMoreover,themajorityappearstoconsideronlywhethertheevidencewaslegally  sufficienttoestablishanaggravatingcircumstancebutnotwhetherthestrength,substance,and r persuasivenessoftheproofestablishesthatcircumstance.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,fAZ"Arial Regular D $X `   2    3X,XXX3 XX, Theversionof(i)(2)ineffectatthetimeofthiscaserequiresafindingthat [t]he  defendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofoneormorefelonies...whichinvolvetheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(1982).Incontrast,thepresentformof(i)(2)requiresafindingthat [t]hedefendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofone(1)ormorefelonies...whosestatutory X elementsinvolvetheuseofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(2)(1997&Supp.   1998).#4s _##4XlXs~#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   3     6X,XXX6 XX,AlthoughIagreewiththemajorityassertionthatHowelldoesnotrequireacomparative  reviewofcases,IwouldalsoobservethatHowelldoesnotprecludesuchacomparisontoothercasesfor x thepurposeofillustrationinundertakingathoroughreview.Indeed,examiningourprecedentforthepurposeofmeasuringtheeffectofanerrorinacasebeingreviewedisabasiccomponentofappellatereview.#7s k##7XlXs#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   4     9sXX:0sCf.Hartman,896S.W.2dat103(Middlebrookserrorrequiredresentencingdespite  minimalevidenceofmitigatingfactors).#9s 0##9XlXsk#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular  $X `   1     <XX=JMoreover,themajorityappearstoconsideronlywhethertheevidencewaslegally  sufficienttoestablishanaggravatingcircumstancebutnotwhetherthestrength,substance,and n persuasivenessoftheproofestablishesthatcircumstance.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,fAZ"Arial Regular D $X `   2    ?X(XXX?JXX( Theversionof(i)(2)ineffectatthetimeofthiscaserequiresafindingthat [t]he  defendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofoneormorefelonies...whichinvolvetheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(1982).Incontrast,thepresentformof(i)(2)requiresafindingthat [t]hedefendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofone(1)ormorefelonies...whosestatutory : elementsinvolvetheuseofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(2)(1997&Supp.  1998).#@J_##@XX~#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   3     BX(XXXBJXX(AlthoughIagreewiththemajorityassertionthatHowelldoesnotrequireacomparative  reviewofcases,IwouldalsoobservethatHowelldoesnotprecludesuchacomparisontoothercasesfor n thepurposeofillustrationinundertakingathoroughreview.Indeed,examiningourprecedentforthepurposeofmeasuringtheeffectofanerrorinacasebeingreviewedisabasiccomponentofappellatereview.#CJk##CXX݊#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   4     EXXFJCf.Hartman,896S.W.2dat103(Middlebrookserrorrequiredresentencingdespite  minimalevidenceofmitigatingfactors).#E J##EXXk#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular  $X `   1    ݀HXXIJMoreover,themajorityappearstoconsideronlywhethertheevidencewaslegallysufficientto  establishanaggravatingcircumstanceandnotthestrength,substance,andpersuasivenessoftheproofestablishingthatcircumstance.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,fAZ"Arial Regular & $X `   2    KX(XXXKJXX(ԀTheversionof(i)(2)ineffectatthetimeofthiscaserequiresafindingthat [t]hedefendantwas  previouslyconvictedofoneormorefelonies...whichinvolvetheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(1982).Incontrast,thepresentformof(i)(2)requiresafindingthat [t]hedefendantwaspreviouslyconvictedofone(1)ormorefelonies...whosestatutoryelementsinvolvethe : useofviolencetotheperson.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(2)(1997&Supp.1998).#LJ_##LXX~#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   3    ݀NX(XXXNJXX(AlthoughIagreewiththemajorityassertionthatHowelldoesnotrequireacomparativereview  ofcases,IwouldalsoobservethatHowelldoesnotprecludesuchacomparisontoothercasesforthe  purposeofillustrationinundertakingathoroughreview.Indeed,examiningourprecedentforthepurposeofmeasuringtheeffectofanerrorinacasebeingreviewedisabasiccomponentofappellatereview.#OJa##OXX݀#,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $X `   4    ݀QXXRJCf.Hartman,896S.W.2dat103(Middlebrookserrorrequiredresentencingdespiteminimal  evidenceofmitigatingfactors).#Q J##QXXa#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,rAZ"Arial RegularTUVWXC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  YY' dxdP Pd U"  \X{XXX\|X\X{   Ad FILED\X{X\|  June7,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh 'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular !  XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXL6XXX  =lXdd=  7L6XXdd7 (REVISED5/26/99) =XXdd=ӜrSZ[<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rtSZ[>.*jx` `@EU` 8ttxP tߛ@PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@)DATNASHVILLETOMMYL.KING,   h     ) `   `     h     ) `  Appellant, h       ) p MauryCriminal @   `     h     )Vs. `     h     ) p No.01S019707CC00146    `     h     )STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     )   `     h     ) `  Appellee. h       )  @55 D CONCURRING/DISSENTINGOPINION 0   ` Iagreewiththemajoritythatthejurysrelianceonthefelonymurderaggravating ` circumstanceinthiscaseviolatedarticleI,16oftheTennesseeConstitutionandthataharmlesserroranalysismustbeappliedunderourdecisioninStatev.Howell,868   S.W.2d238(Tenn.1993).Idisagree,however,withboththemajoritysapplicationoftheHowellanalysisanditsconclusion. $"  ` InStatev.Howell,thisCourtsaidthataconstitutionalharmlesserroranalysisas P(#& appliedtoacapitalsentencingproceedingrequirestheappellatecourt tocompletelyexaminetherecordforthepresenceoffactorswhichpotentiallyinfluence[d]thesentenceultimatelyimposed,includingthesum,strength,qualitativenature,substanceandpersuasivenessofanyremainingaggravatingcircumstances.Id.at2621612.Inmy / +. view,themajorityfailstoproperlyapplythisthoroughanalysis.Moreover,resentencingisnecessarybecausetheStatehasfailedtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe 3.2 sentencewouldhavebeenthesamehadthejurygivennoconsiderationtotheunconstitutionalaggravatingcircumstance.Ithereforedissent. ;`6: Ї@ D CONSTITUTIONALHARMLESSERRORANALYSIS    ` TounderstandHowellsrationaleandunderpinnings,itishelpfultoreviewthe  historyofconstitutionalharmlesserroranalysisintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.InChapmanv.California,386U.S.18,87S.Ct.824,17L.Ed.2d705(1967),the P  SupremeCourtdeclinedtoadoptarulerequiringreversalforallconstitutionalerrorswhichoccurinatrial.TheCourtobservedthat theremaybesomeconstitutionalerrorswhichinthesettingofaparticularcasearesounimportantandinsignificantthattheymay,consistentwiththeFederalConstitution,bedeemedharmless....Id.at22,87   S.}}Ct.at827. ` TheCourtrecognizedthat harmlesserrorrulescanworkveryunfairandmischievousresultswhen,forexample,highlyimportantandpersuasiveevidence,orargument,thoughlegallyforbidden,findsitswayintoatrialinwhichthequestionofguiltorinnocenceisacloseone.Id.TheCourtthereforeheldthatbeforea ` constitutionalerrorcouldbedeemedharmless,thebeneficiaryoftheerror,i.e.,theprosecution,mustprove beyondareasonabledoubtthattheerrorcomplainedofdidnotcontributetotheverdictobtained.Id.at24,87S.Ct.at828(citingFahyv.񛜛 "  Connecticut,375U.S.85,84S.Ct.229,11L.Ed.2d171(1963)). $"  ` TheSupremeCourtfirstappliedChapmantoacapitalsentencingproceedingin P(#& Satterwhitev.Texas,486U.S.249,108S.Ct.1792,100L.Ed.2d284(1988),holding (#( thattheerrorwasnotharmlessunderChapman(holding 0*%( thattheadmissionofexperttestimonyaboutthedefendantsriskforfuturedangerousnessviolatedSixthAmendment).Inholdingthattheerrorwasnotharmless -@), underChapman,theCourtemphasizedthatthequestionis notwhetherthelegally / +. admittedevidencewassufficienttosupportthedeathsentence...butrather,whethertheStatehasprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheerrorcomplainedofdidnotcontributetotheverdictobtained.Id.at25859,108S.Ct.at1798(quoting p504 Chapman,386U.Sat24,87S.Ct.at828). P726  0948  ` Twoyearslaterinanothercapitalsentencingcase,Clemonsv.Mississippi,494  U.S.738,110S.Ct.1441,108L.Ed.2d725(1990),theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtremandedtotheMississippiSupremeCourt,holdingthatwhenacapitalsentencingjuryinaweighingstatehasreliedinpartonanunconstitutionalaggravatingcircumstance,anappellatecourtmayeitherreweightheremainingaggravatingcircumstances,ifthatisotherwisepermissibleunderstatelaw,orapplytheChapman  8  harmlesserroranalysis.Inperformingeitheranalysisattheappellatelevel,however,theCourtstressedthatthedefendantmustbeafforded anindividualizedandreliablesentencingdeterminationbasedonthedefendantscircumstances,hisbackground,andthecrimeasrequiredbytheEighthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.Id.at749,110S.Ct.at1449.  p  ` InStringerv.Black,503U.S.222,112S.Ct.1130,117L.Ed.2d367(1992),   theSupremeCourtagainstressedtheneedfor closeappellatescrutinyoftheimport  andeffectofinvalidaggravatingfactorstoimplementthewellestablishedEighth  Amendmentrequirementofindividualizedsentencingdeterminationsindeathpenaltycases.Id.at230,112S.Ct.1136(emphasisadded).Moreover,withregardtostates 0"  suchasTennesseewhichemployaweighingprocessinthecapitalsentencingdetermination,theCourtobserved:8 ` [W]henthesentencingbodyistoldtoweighaninvalidfactorinitsdecision,areviewingcourtmaynotassumeitwouldhavemadeno )$( differenceifthethumbhadbeenremovedfromdeathssideofthescale.Whentheweighingprocessitselfhasbeenskewed,onlyconstitutionalharmlesserroranalysisorreweighingatthetrialorappellatelevelsufficestoguaranteethatthedefendantreceivedanindividualizedsentence.Thisclearprincipleemergesnotfromanysinglecase...~,~but ,.|)- fromourlonglineofauthoritysettingforththedualconstitutionalcriteriaofpreciseandindividualizedsentencing. ` (#` (# Id.at232,112S.Ct.at1137(emphasisadded). 2.2  ` Finally,inSochorv.Florida,504U.S.527,112S.Ct.2114,119L.Ed.2d326 x616 (1992),amajorityoftheSupremeCourtvacatedadeathsentenceduetotheFloridaSupremeCourtsfailuretoconductasufficientharmlesserroranalysisunder (:x5: Chapman.Inparticular,theCourtobservedthattheFloridacourtdidnot explainor  evendeclarethatthetrialcourtsconsiderationofaninvalidaggravatingcircumstance washarmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtinthatit didnotcontributetothe[sentence]obtained.Id.at540,112S.Ct.at2123(quotingChapman,386U.S. 8  at24,87S.Ct.at828).Inaseparateconcurringopinion,JusticeOConnorsummarizedtheprinciplesinthisarea:8 ` InChapmanv.California,...weheldthatbeforeafederalconstitutional   errorcanbeheldharmless,thereviewingcourtmustfind beyondareasonabledoubtthattheerrorcomplainedofdidnotcontributetotheverdictobtained.Thisisjustifiablyahighstandard,andwhileitcanbe p metwithoututteringthemagicwords harmlesserror,thereverseisnottrue.Anappellatecourtsbaldassertionthatanerrorofconstitutional H dimensionswas harmlesscannotsubstituteforaprincipledexplanationofhowthecourtreachedthatconclusion.InClemonsv.Mississippi,...  p forexample,wedidnothesitatetoremandacasefor adetailedexplanationbasedontherecordwhenthelowercourtfailedtoundertakeanexplicitanalysissupportingits cryptic,onesentenceconclusionofharmlesserror.... ` (#` (# Id.at541,112S.Ct.at21232124(OConnor,J.,concurring)(citationsomitted;)(emphasisadded)(citations  omitted).@(D HOWELLANALYSIS #l!   ` TheprinciplesevidentintheseSupremeCourtcasesthataconstitutional %T # errormustbeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtandthatappellatereviewmustpreservetheconstitutionalrequirementofindividualizedsentencingwereofprimaryconcerninouropinioninStatev.Howell.Wethereforeheldthatwhenajuryhas *%) returnedadeathsentencebasedpartiallyontheinvalidfelonymurderaggravatingcircumstance,theverdictmaybeupheldonlyifareviewingcourtconcludesbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthesentencewouldhavebeenthesamehadthejurygivennoweighttotheinvalidfactor.ISeeid.at260;seeaalsoStringerv.Black,503U.S.at230231,112 1<-1 S.Ct.at113637.   505  ` Inordertoguaranteetheprecisionthatindividualizedsentencingconsiderationsdemandincapitalcasesandtoprovideaprincipledexplanationforourreviewineachcase,weestablishedthefollowingframeworkforappellatereview: 8 ` [I]tisimportant,whenconductingharmlesserrorreview,tocompletely $ t examinetherecordforthepresenceoffactorswhichpotentiallyinfluencethesentenceultimatelyimposed.Theseinclude,butarenotlimitedto,  L  thenumberandstrengthofremainingvalidaggravatingcircumstances,  8  theprosecutorsargumentatsentencing,theevidenceadmittedtoestablishtheinvalidaggravator,andthenature,qualityandstrengthofmitigatingevidence. ` (#` (# Id.at26061(emphasisadded). p  ` Asdiscussedabove,thefirstfactorinHowellrequiresconsiderationofanyvalid  p aggravatingcircumstancesfoundbythejury.Westressedthat evenmorecrucialthanthesumoftheremainingaggravatingcircumstancesisthequalitativenatureofeachcircumstance,itssubstanceandpersuasiveness,aswellasthequantumofproofsupportingit.Id.at261.Accordingly,Howellexpresslyrequiresindepthandcritical  analysisofallremainingaggravatingcircumstances. ` TheproperanalysisissetoutinHowellandlatercases.InHowell,wefound $X" thattheMiddlebrookserrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtinpartbecause %0!$ evidencesupportingtheremainingaggravatingcircumstanceofpriorviolentfelonyconvictionswas undisputedandoverwhelming.Id.at262.Althoughweobserved )$( thatthisaggravatingcircumstanceismore qualitativelypersuasiveandobjectivelyreliablethanotheraggravatingcircumstances,id.at261,westillanalyzedthe @-(, substanceandpersuasivenessoftheevidencethatsupportedthe(i)(2)aggravatingcircumstanceasitappliedtodefendantHowell.Wesaid:8 ` Inadditiontothecoldbloodedexecutionstylemurder...inMemphis,Tennessee,thedefendantcommittedanothersimilarcoldbloodedexecutionstylemurderinOklahomawithintwentyfourhours....Lessthanthirteen y dayslater,hecommittedanarmedrobberyinFloridaandlaterengagedinashootoutwithpoliceofficersbeforehiscapture,forwhichhewasconvictedofattemptedmurder.Afewyearsearlier,hehadbeenconvictedinWyomingforarmedrobbery. ` (#` (#  (:x5: ЇId  .  at262.   ` Similarly,inStatev.Nichols,877S.W.2d722(Tenn.1994),theMiddlebrooks ` errorwasfoundtobeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtinpartbecausethevalidremainingaggravatingcircumstance,priorviolentfelonies,wassupportedbyfivepriorconvictionsforaggravatedrape.InperformingtheharmlesserroranalysisasrequiredbyHowell,wereviewedeachofthefivepriorconvictionsindetailandconsideredthe   substanceandpersuasivenessoftheevidence:8 ` thedefendanthadcommittedfivesimilaraggravatedrapeswithin90daysof[thevictims]murder,andinthreeinstanceswasarmedwithweaponsincludingacord,apistol,andaknife.Themodusoperandioftheconvictionswassimilartothefelonyresultingin[thevictims]murder.Thedefendant,when energized,wentoutnightafternight,roamingthecity,selectingvulnerablevictims,eventuallybreakingintotheirhomesandviolentlycommittingrape.Theevidencesupportingtheremaining   validaggravatingcircumstanceisundisputedandoverwhelming. ` (#` (#  Nichols  Id.      ,877S.W.2d at738(emphasisadded).;sSeealsoBoydv.State,9579S.W.2d557(Tenn.1998) l (findingMiddlebrookserrorharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtinpartdueto D! seriousnessoftheseconddegreemurderusedtoestablishthepriorviolentfelonyaggravatingcircumstance). ` Likewise,thesubstanceandpersuasivenessoftheremainingvalidaggravatingcircumstanceswasscrutinizedincaseswheretheMiddlebrookserrorrequiredremand |*%) foraresentencing.InHartmanv.State,896S.W.2d94,103(Tenn.1995),thisCourt T,'+ stressed:8 `  InHowell,wenotedthatacriticalfactorinourharmlesserror 1,-1 analysiswasthequalitativenatureofeachaggravatingcircumstancethatremainedaftertheinvalidaggravatorwasremovedfromthesentencingequation.ThisCourtstatedanintentiontolooktothesubstanceofthe 4/4 remainingcircumstancesandtheirpersuasiveness,aswellastothequantumofproofsupportingthem.Theobjectivereliabilityofaremaining x616 aggravatingcircumstanceisofparticularimportanceinthisevaluation. :p59` (#` (# I ` (#` (# Id.at103(Eemphasisadded). (:x5: Ї ` InStatev.Walker,910S.W.2d381(Tenn.1995),thisCourtconductedthe  Howellharmlesserroranalysisandobservedthatthedefendantspriorviolentfelony  convictionforvoluntarymanslaughterwas notnearlyaspositiveastheevidencesupportingtheaggravatingcircumstanceinHowell.Moreover,weindicatedthatthe 8  Howellanalysisrequiresmorethanmerelydeterminingwhethertheevidencewas  ` sufficienttosupporttheremainingaggravatingcircumstance:8 ` [Walker]wasindictedforfirstdegreemurderandfoundguiltyofvoluntarymanslaughter.Whilethisis,asinstructedbythetrialjudge,convictionof   aviolentfelony , wehavenowayofknowingandcannotspeculatewhether p thejurywouldhaveimposedthedeathpenaltywithoneofthetwoaggravatingcircumstanceswithdrawnfromtheirconsiderationandwiththenecessityofweighingtheoneremainingaggravatingcircumstanceagainstthemitigatingcircumstances. ` (#` (# Walker,910S.W.2dat398(emphasisadded). 4  ` Incontrast,themajorityinthiscasedeclinesto reweightheevidenceofaggravatingcircumstances,statingonlythatithas consideredtherecordandfindsthevalidaggravatingcircumstances objectivelyreliableand amplysupportedbytheproof.Themajoritydoesnotdiscussthestrength,qualitativenature,substance,persuasiveness,orquantumoftheproofsupportingthevalidaggravatingcircumstancesdespitetheexpressrequirementinHowell.Thus,themajorityfailsto &"% properlyapplyHowellandalsofailstopreservetherequirementofindividualized (#' sentencing.]]]|"G;/|||]] ] #  1       |*%)  XٴXXXٴ@D RemainingAggravatingCircumstances  ,.|)- @>>$D PriorViolentFelonies  0d+/  ` WenowapplytheHowellharmlesserroranalysistothevalidaggravating 1L-1 circumstanceswhichwereconsideredbythejuryalongwiththeinvalidfelonymurderaggravatingcircumstance.Toestablishthefirstaggravatingcircumstance,thatthe 505 defendanthadapriorconvictionforafelonythatinvolvedviolenceorthethreatofviolence,seeTenn.CodeAnn.392203(i)(2)!!(1982)""#[#$($now%codifiedat%Tenn.Code  Ann.3913204(i)(2)(((1997&)]&'&Supp.1998))',theStaterelieduponthedefendantspriorconvictionsforkidnappingandattempttocommitafelony,towit,robbery.]]]| J>2||%|]]] #  2       8   ` Inanalyzingthestrength,substanceandpersuasivenessofthisaggravatingcircumstanceasrequiredbyHowell,weobservethatitwasdescribedas marginalby   thisCourtondirectappeal.Statev.King,694S.W.2d941,944(Tenn.1985).Thefact   thatKingreceivedonlyasuspendedsentenceandprobationforthekidnappingofhiswifeandninemonthsimprisonmentfortheattemptedrobberynecessarilyisrelevanttothestrength,seriousnessandpersuasivenessofthosecrimes.Moreover,thefactthatthecrimesdidnotinvolveactualharmtoavictimisalsorelevant. ` Aspointedoutinthe)C)*c*oncurring+O+,o,pinionbyJudgeWadeintheCourtofCriminalAppealsandbywayofillustration,]|PMFA5@||)@|]]@] #  3      thestrength,substance,andpersuasivenessof  Kingspriorconvictionsareweakerthaninanyofourpriorcasesinwhichtheerrorhasbeendeemedharmless.InHowell,thedefendanthadpriorconvictionsformurderand 0"  armedrobbery.868S.W.2dat26-1-/.3./020.InBoyd,thedefendanthadapriorconvictionfor $X" seconddegreemurder.95171]]292S.W.2dat561.InNichols,thedefendanthadmultiple %0!$ convictionsforaggravatedrape.877S.W.2dat738.InStatev.Smith,893S.W.2d '#& 908,926(Tenn.1994),thedefendanthadpriorconvictionsforrobbery,assaultwithintenttomurder,andaggravatedrape.#XٴXX XٴY# XٴXXXٴԀInStatev.Cazes,875S.W.2d253,270(Tenn. h+&* 1994),thedefendanthadpriorconvictionsforassaultwithintenttomurderand aggravatedrape.Incontrast,wherethisfactorwassupportedonlybyaconvictionfor /h*. voluntarymanslaughter,weconcludedthatresentencingwasnecessary.3Statev.344Walker,910  S.W.2dat398.  ` Accordingly,inapplyingHowell,IwouldconcludethatKingspriorconvictions 8  marginallyestablishedthisaggravatingcircumstance.Thepriorconvictions,however,lackedthestrength,substanceandpersuasivenessoftheegregiousconvictionssupportingthisfactorinothercases.55Inmyview,allofthesefactorsshouldbetakenintoconsiderationinconductingtheharmlesserroranalysisunderHowell.   @D RemainingAggravatingCircumstances #XٴXX Xٴg# XٴXXXٴ H @&D GreatRiskofDeath  0  ` WenowapplytheHowellharmlesserroranalysistothesecondremainingvalid h aggravatingcircumstancefoundbythejury.Itwasthatthedefendant knowinglycreatedagreatriskofdeathtotwo6(2)6ormorepersons,otherthanthevictimmurdered,during7the78his8actofmurder.Tenn.CodeAnn.392203(i)(3)99(1982):[:;(;now<codifiedat<=<<=Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(i)(3)>>(1997?&Supp.1998)?)@]@. ` ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatthisaggravatingcircumstance#XٴXX Xٴfl# XٴXXXٴ contemplates ($x" eithermultiplemurdersorthreatstoseveralpersonsatorshortlypriortoorshortlyafteranactofmurderuponwhichtheprosecutionisbased.#XٴXX Xٴ`p# XٴXXXٴԀAAStatev.Cone,665 '(#& S.W.2d87,95(Tenn.),cert.denied,467U.S.1210,104S.Ct.2400,81L.Ed.2d357 )%( (1984).Wehavemostcommonlyuphelditsapplicationincaseswherethedefendantfiresmultiplegunshotsinthecourseofarobberyorotherincidentatwhichseveralpersonsotherthanthemurdervictimarepresent.E.g.,Statev.McKay,680S.W.2d 8/*. 447(Tenn.1984),cert.denied,470U.S.1034,105S.Ct.1412,84L.Ed.2d795 1`,0 (1985)(defendantskilledtwovictimsduringrobberyB,Bandshotatandthreatenedtwootherpersonsinsidestore);#XٴXX Xٴ^q# XٴXXXٴStatev.Workman,667S.W.2d44(Tenn.),cert.denied, 404 469U.S.873,105S.Ct.226,83L.Ed.2d155(1984)(defendantengagedinshootoutwithpolice,killingoneofficer,woundingasecond,andmissingathird)#XٴXX Xٴt# XٴXXXٴ;#XٴXX Xٴv# XٴXXXٴStatev. p838 Johnson,632S.W.2d542(Tenn.),cert.denied,459U.S.882,103S.Ct.183,74L.Ed. H:5: 2d148(1982)(threepeopleshotandinjuredinstoreandtwopeopleshotandkilledintheparkinglotasdefendantfled).#XٴXX XٴOv# XٴXXXٴԀOntheotherhand,thisCourthasheldthatthis  factorwasnotapplicablewhere#XٴXX Xٴw# XٴXXXٴthedefendantshotandthreatenedthreepersonswhile ` fleeingfromarobberybutdidnotkillthetwovictimsuntilthefollowingday#XٴXX Xٴcx# XٴXXXٴ.CStatev.CDDCone,665 8  S.W.2dat95. ` Courtsinotherstateshaveanalyzedsimilaraggravatingfactorsbyconsideringamultitudeofcircumstances:themannerofthekilling,thetypeofweaponusedbythedefendant,thenumberofgunshotsfired,thesizeofthesceneinwhichthekillingoccurred,andtheproximityofotherindividuals.SeeE,EEEEEEEEe.g.EEEF,FEEStatev.Rose,398S.E.2d H 314(N.C.1990);ComH.H]]ImonwealthIv.Moser,549A.2d76(Pa.1988)G;Moranv.State,734P.2d712 @ (Nev.1987);Millerv.State,605S.W.2d430(Ark.1980),cert.denied,450U.S.1035,  \ 101S.Ct.1750,68L.Ed.2d232(1981)G.  p  ` Othercourtshaverestrictedtheapplicationofthisaggravatingfactor,holdingthat greatriskofdeathmeans highlyprobableandnotmerelypossible.See,e.g.,  Statev.Smith,707P.2d289(Ariz.1985)J,andJK;KKampffv.State,371So.2d1007(Fla.1979).   ` #XٴXX Xٴ>y# XٴXXXٴIagreewiththemajoritythatKingsactionswerelegallysufficienttosupportthis 0"  aggravatingfactor.Idisagree,however,withthemajoritysviewthatHowellrequires $X" onlyadeterminationofwhetherthefactorissupportedby objectivelyreliableproof.Instead,inreviewingthestrength,substanceandpersuasivenessoftheaggravator,Inotethat#XٴXX XٴE# XٴXXXٴthiscase#XٴXX Xٴ?#substantiallydiffersfromthemultiplegunshotsandrandomshoot )$( outsthatmarkedsuchcasesasJohnson,Workman,andMcKay.Moreover,although h+&* severalindividualswerepresent,therewasnorandomexchangeofgunfireandonlythevictimwasshotatandkilled.Ibelieve,therefore,thatallofthesecircumstancesmustbetakenintoconsiderationinapplyingtheconstitutionalharmlesserroranalysis.@DDD ProsecutorsArgumentatSentencing  x616  ` WenextturntothethirdHowellfactorintheharmlesserroranalysiswhether `838 andtheextenttowhichtheprosecutionreliedontheinvalidfelonymurderfactorin 8:5: arguingforthedeathpenaltyinthesentencingphaseofthetrial.TheStatesargumentisrepletewithreferencestothefelonymurderfactor,aswellastothefactthatthekillingoccurredduringarobbery.Areviewoftheprosecutorsopeningargumentrevealsthefollowingstatements:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#[W]henyoucarefullyanalyzeasyouhavedone,andfindthatonMay27th,1982,withoutjustificationofanysort,withoutclaimofanyright,thismanwillfully,deliberatelytookthelifeanotherwithmalicewithadeadlyweaponandtookthatinthecourseofcommittinganotherfelony,towit:Armedrobbery.    `     h     ...8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Thedayisgonewhenwecanjustpickoutacountyandgothereandpickoutamanandpickoutabusiness,robandkill,andthenwithimpunityseektoescapetheaccountabilityofourdeeds.    `     h     ...8 ` 8 ` (#` (#AndthemurderwascommittedwhiletheDefendantwasengagedincommitting,orwasanaccompliceinthecommissionof,orwasattemptingtocommit,orwasfleeingaftercommitting,orattemptingtocommitanyfirstdegreemurder,arson,rape,robbery,burglary,larceny,kidnapping,aircraftpiracy,orunlawfulthrowing,placing,ordischargingofadestructivedeviceorbomb.Hecommittedthismurderinthecourseofanarmedrobbery.L...L    `     h     ...8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Holdthismanaccountable,stophisreignofcriminalactivity,puthimunderthekindofsentencethatwillforbidhimtoonceagainroamthestreetsseekingcriminalactivity,thatwillforbidhimfromonceagainchoosingtocomeonatourofMauryCountytokillandtomurder.   Thefollowingadditionalreferencestothefelonymurderaggravatingfactorappearintheprosecutionsfinalclosingremarks:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#[Thedefendant]comestoMauryCountyfornogoodreasonotherthanhesayshehassomestolengoodsinhiscarthathewantstosell,andgoesintoaplaceofbusinessinMauryCountytoamanthathesayshedoesntevenknow,andwiththepurpose,withhisbigpistol,withthepurposetorobandthe,thepreconceivednotionthathewillkillifhehasto,androbandkillthedecentcitizensofthiscommunity.M...M    `     h     ...  <949 8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Wehavelistedforyourconsiderationnolessthanthree mitigating[sic]circumstances.Oneofwhichyouhavealreadydetermined,andthatisthatthismurderwascommittedduringthecourseofanarmedrobbery.    `     h     ...8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Thathas[been]determinedinordertofindthatthismanwasguiltyoffelonymurder,sothathasbeenfoundbyyoualreadybeyondareasonabledoubt.    `     h     ...8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Violence,crimesofviolence,riskofdeathtotwoormorepersons,andofcourse,theunderlyingfelonyinthisfelonymurderchargeofwhichhenowstandsconvictedwhichyouhavealreadyfoundbeyondareasonabledoubt.    `     h     ...8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Whenamantakesapistol,whetherhetakesalargepistolsuchasthis,oralittlebittypistol,whenhetakesaninstrumentofdeathandgoesintoanotherpersonsbusinesswiththepreconceivedpurposeofusingthatinstrumentofdeathforwhatever,orinwhatevermannerisnecessaryinordertostealandrobfromthepeoplethere,thenIcannotseeanymitigatingcircumstanceswhenhegoesinthereandkillsaman.    `  ` ItisevidentfromtheforegoingthattheStatesrelianceontheinvalidfelonymurderaggravatingfactorwassubstantialandstronglyemphasizedinseekingthedeathpenalty.Moreover,thejurywastoldonseveraloccasionsthat,byvirtueofitsguiltyverdict,ithadalreadyfoundthiscircumstancetohavebeenproven.Accordingly,Idisagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthattakenasawhole,theStatesargumentdidnotemphasizethefelonymurderaggravatingcircumstance. ` @&D MitigatingEvidence  ,.|)-  ` ThefourthenumeratedfactorinHowellrequiresthereviewingcourttolookat 0d+/ thenature,quality,andstrengthofmitigatingevidencethatwasbeforethejury.Mitigatingevidencemayincludeanyaspectofthedefendantsbackground,record,character,andanycircumstancesabouttheoffensethatmaymitigateagainstthedeathpenalty.Statev.Teague,897S.W.2d248,255(Tenn.1995);seeNNNNalsoLockettv.Ohio, t727 438U.S.586,604,98S.Ct.2954,2964,57L.Ed.2d973(1978). L949 Ї ` Thedefendantsmitigationevidenceconsistedofonlyhisowntestimonyandwasnotextensiveoroverwhelming.Nonetheless,Kingtestifiedthathewas32yearsoldatthetimeofsentencing;thathehadtwobrothersandtwosisters,andhisparentsweredeceased.Hehadbeenmarriedanddivorced,andhadonesonwhowas3yearsoldatthetimeofthesentencinghearing.KinghadworkedsellinginsuranceandasacookforarestaurantinChattanooga.Afterhavingsurgeryonhisstomach,heworkedparttimeforhisbrotherasabricklayer.Kingtestifiedthathehadneverintentionallyharmedanyone.]]]|(PD8||,|]]] #  4          XٴXXXٴ@*D CONCLUSION H  ` Themajorityhasfailedtoproperlyapplytheconstitutionalharmlesserror 0 analysisasrequiredbyHowellbyfailingtoconsiderthestrength,qualitativenature, X substance,andpersuasivenessoftheremainingvalidaggravatingcircumstancesand,asaresultofitsfailure,hasreachedaconclusionwithwhichIcannotagree. ` TheconstitutionalerrorinthesentencingphaseofacapitalcasemaybedeemedharmlessonlyifthereviewingcourtO OconcludesRRQP PQS SRRbeyondareasonabledoubt @"  thatthesentencewouldhavebeenthesamehadthejurygivennoweighttotheinvalidfelonymurderaggravatingfactor.Howell,868S.W.2dat26T1T]]U2U(emphasisadded).As %@!$ JusticeOConnoremphasizedinSochorv.Florida, thisisjustifiablyahighstandard.V '#& 504U.S.at541,112S.Ct.at212VWV4VWX3XYX9oXYZ(OConnZ[ZeZ[\o\Zr,J.,concurring).Z ` Havingthoroughlyreviewedtherelevantfactorswhichpotentiallyinfluencedthesentencereachedbythejury,#XٴXX Xٴe# XٴXXXٴԀIcannotconcludebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe (/x*. sentencewouldhavebeenthesamehadthejurygivennoweighttotheinvalidaggravatingcircumstance.Iwould,therefore,remandforresentencingfreefromtheconstitutionaldefectthatwaspresentinthiscase.IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticeBirchconcursinthisopinion. 616 Ї `     h     ___________________________________ `     h     RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE#XٴXX Xٴ#