WPC1 {҆$՚*eg¦H1^WkZ͸OxC0~A'\U>e@td7FFBke ʆhQsмS/g_' sa28Jit-"b+# yu@!}f[p|GknlKsYkK(LeqQW0|`9`!Ƅ/q8#^VCG)I"n|Aiek/q<MoQ6'% 2XÄ3[]Nyk{R?ź 1J0wȁ_`GF) 95jPB3}`Uc!ɥtkb3t$b/;=3A(d$\S$ұq42 1xȑbb x[DU8v8[<Owlqr*Ot J붮O,# hUNs % 0fw-4/>> 0|e  . 0L 0D Nb 1d UF 1m1 U%F = !v)^  m 0cUF'U2mvU>S AQPj B 0D 0D 0D3 D/w B D3U:HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(>1a$XXXXfXX'---D--e---D-e----D-U-D-E-D-D-U-D-D-D-U-D-U--U.U.D.D.D.U.D.U.&e. . .Ӏ.F&3|x. 4  )  =EXX .> .G:\IB011S19\WILLMSO.WPD>G:\IB011S19\WILLMSO.WPD/     h   DRAFTPAGE  1       x  August4,1998!  (Z3"$ 1a!XQXXX))XXQ     ,  $  $    1    AlthoughtheprovisionsoftheTwentyFourthJudicialDistrictarereferredtoas local  rules,wenotethattheyareactuallyprovisionscontainedinanOrderofthatcourtissuedApril18,1996.((2$ 1a!XQXXX))XXQ  X   `   0  (#$  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList11)1)1)1)1)1)1)1)4.Courier New Regular#:e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular 3  $XQXXX))XXQX   `   1    XQX))TennesseeConstitution,ArticleI,section8,provides:    [t]hatnomanshallbetakenorimprisoned,ordisseizedofhis b   freehold,libertiesorprivileges,oroutlawed,orexiled,orinanymannerdestroyedordeprivedofhislife,libertyorproperty,butbythejudgmentofhispeersorthelawoftheland. l  $XQXXX))XXQX   `   2    XQX))Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(c)(Supp.1998)statesthat:    [t]hecourtmaypermitamemberormembers,orarepresentativeorrepresentativesofthevictimsfamilytotestifyatthesentencinghearingaboutthevictimandabouttheimpactofthemurderonthefamilyofthevictimandotherrelevantpersons.Suchevidencemaybeconsideredbythejuryindeterminingwhichsentencetoimpose.Thecourtshallpermitmembersorrepresentativesofthevictimsfamilytoattendthetrial,andthosepersonsshallnotbeexcludedbecausethepersonorpersonsshalltestifyduringthesentencingproceedingastotheimpactoftheoffense.*&cU(;$2:e  0  .3  0  < 9Z .Courier New Regular<  p`+CourierTT l  $XQXXX))XXQX   `   3    XQX))ThisthoughtwasexpressedbyJohnDonneinDevotionsUpon   EmergentOccasions,MeditationXVII(1624).#))XXQ#C&Courier RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5$%&'C<< C F  $X%XXX2XX%X   `   5    X%X2UndertheNewJerseystatute,thedefendantmayintroduce   evidenceconcerningstatutorymitigatingfactors,includingwhatthecourtreferstoasa catchallfactorwhichis [a]nyotherfactorwhichisrelevanttothedefendantscharacterorrecordortothecircumstancesoftheoffense.N.J.Stat.Ann.2C:113(b)(5)(h)(Supp.1998).   $X%XXX2XX%X   `   4    X%X2AsareviewofTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(_i_)demonstrates,   thestatutoryaggravatingfactorsfocusonthedefendantscriminalhistoryaswellastheparticularcircumstancesofthecrimeatissue. d(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd $"  +X|1XXX+UX+X|1   Ad FILED+X|1X+U  May17,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ####'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular 1a!XQXXX))XXQ  ..--_ X'XX XX'  -=Xdd=-..  7QXXdd7XQX))TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  ќ... . .r )*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  r. . ...@DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)DATKNOXVILLE..@%D(HEARDATNASHVILLE).t )*>.*jxA` `@EO ` 8ttxP7 u A tߛ...--....STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) p       h     ) Appellee, h     ) p HamblenCounty <     h     )v.    h     ) p Hon.LynnW.Brown,Judge \      h     ) p  2  LEONARDEDWARDSMITH,    ) p SupremeCourt#))XXQ#XQX))       h     ) p No.03S019710CC00129#))XXQ#XQX)) j   Appellant.    ..)- @  -..--..-|-......--#))XXQ9#XQX))..@  &DDISSENTINGOPINION   ..----..--.--.--..-- Irespectfullydissentfromthatportionofthemajorityopinionwhichapprovesoftheadmissionofvictimimpact..evidence.--.-duringthesentencingphaseofthetrial-.--....AcknowledgingtheprecedentestablishedinPaynev.Tennessee,501U.S.808,827,111 !h _S.Ct_.2597,2609,115_L.Ed_.2d720(1991)thattheadmissionofvictimimpactevidencedoesnotperseviolatetheEighthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,IstatedindissentinStatev. &l" Nesbit,978S.W.2d872,903(Tenn.1998),cert.denied,___U.S. ($ ___,119S.Ct.1359(1999),that8 8 XQXXXQ h Paynev.Tennessee,501U.S. ,F") 808,111S.Ct.2597,115L.Ed.2d720(1991),controls,IagreewiththemajoritysstatementthatvictimimpactevidenceisadmissibleifadducedwithintheconstraintsofdueprocessandTenn.R.Evid.403.y #XQXXXQ #1J'/xx Forthereasonsstatedbelow,IwouldholdthatArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution #  1      ׀affordsagreatermeasureof 6N,5 protectionthantheEighthAmendmentinthisregard,andIamnowoftheopinionthattheadmissionofvictimimpactevidenceisunconstitutionalunlessitsadmissionisthoughtfullycontrolledandcarefullyrestricted.Accordingly,IwouldoverruleStatev.  Payne,791S.W.2d10(Tenn.1990),totheextentthatitpermits < theunlimited(orvaguelylimited)admissionofvictimimpactevidence.Initsplace,Iwouldimposenarrow,definitivecriteriasimilartothoseestablishedbyNewJerseyinStatev.Muhammad, @  678A.2d164(N.J.1996).Thus,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(c)(Supp.1998) #  2      ׀remainsconstitutionalsolongasappliedto   carefullycontrolandthoughtfullyrestricttheadmissionofvictimimpactevidenceashereinoutlined. Itisindisputableamongcivilizedsocietiesthateverydeathincludesthepotentialtodevastatethoseleftbehindbetheyrelatives,friends,oracquaintances.Thishasevenmoreemphasiswhenhumanlifeissnuffedoutbymeansofcriminal conduct.Andeverypersonhasvalue;everypersonsdeath &l" diminishesmankind. #  3      ׀Butasdevastatingasonesdeathisto    family,friends,andsociety,thateffectshouldnotbeconsideredinthedeterminationofthesentencetobeimposedupontheperpetrator.--Th-us,toplaceemphasis--isisbecausethefocus---onthemeritandcharacteristicsofthevictimandhisorherfriendsand--family-servesonlyto-----invert-s---thetraditionalstatutoryfunctionthatjurorsperforminthesentencingprocess,violatesevidentiaryrulesofrelevance,andrunscountertofundamentalgoalsofpunishment. TheGeneralAssembly,inenactingTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(_i_)(1997&Supp.1998),hasprovidedamplecriteriaforthedeterminationofpunishment.Acarefulreviewofthejurorsroleinthecapitalsentencingschemeunderscorestheuncertaintythatvictimimpactevidenceinsinuatesintothepreviouslyrefinedstatutorysentencingprocess. Absenttheadmissionofvictimimpacttestimony,thejuryssentencingdecisioniscontrolledbythestatutoryaggravatingandmitigatingfactors.IfthejurydeterminesthattheStatehasprovenbeyondareasonabledoubtthattherelevantaggravatingfactorsoutweighanymitigatingfactors,then thesentenceshallbedeath.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(g)(1)(Supp. T/$, 1998)(emphasisadded).ButifthejurydeterminesthattheStatehasnotproventhattherelevantaggravatingfactorsoutweighanymitigatingfactors,then thejuryshall,initsconsidered X4)2 discretion,sentencethedefendanteithertoimprisonmentforlifewithoutpossibilityofparoleorimprisonmentforlife.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913204(f)(2)(Supp.1998)(emphasisadded).Thus,thejurysroleincapitalsentencingisexpresslylimitedtoconsideringwhetherornottheaggravatingfactorsoutweighanymitigatingfactors.Thatiswhy evidenceisrelevanttothepunishment,andthusadmissible,onlyifitisrelevanttoanaggravatingcircumstance,ortoamitigatingfactorraisedbythedefendant.Cozzolinov.State_,584S.W.2d765,768(Tenn.1979). `   Theparticular valueofthevictimandtheamountofemotionaldamageandlosssufferedbysurvivingfamilyandfriendsarenotstatutoryaggravatingfactorsunderTenn.CodeAnn.3913204(_i_)." #  4      ׀Additionally,onecannotevensuggestthattheyare H  implicitlyincludedinthelist.Noneofthestatutoryaggravatingfactorsdifferentiatesbetweentheappropriatenessorinappropriatenessofthedeathpenaltybasedontheperceivedvalueofthevictimslifeasreflectedinthetestimonyofthesurvivingfriendsorrelatives.Thus,underourstatutoryscheme,howcanwesaythatvictimimpactevidenceisrelevanttotheissueofpunishment?Wecannot.Weshouldnot. Andyet,inapparentacknowledgmentthatvictimimpactevidencebearsnorelevancetoanyaggravatingfactor,themajorityhasheretoforecondoneditsadmissionasevidencingthe natureand 2 (0 circumstancesofthecrime.SeeStatev.Nesbit,978S.W.2dat   890.Themajorityattemptstolimitthevictimimpactevidencetoinformationwhichcouldfallwithinthischaracterization.MajorityOpinionat___[slip.op.at17];seealso,Statev.  Nesbit,978S.W.2dat891(discussingthoselimits).But,evenas < limitedbythemajority,thetypeofevidenceadmissibleremainswhollyundefined,amorphous,andundulyprejudicial,aresultprohibitedbyArticleI,section8oftheTennesseeConstitution. Ifullyunderstandthemotivationofthosewhoespousetheadmissionofvictimimpactevidenceincapitalsentencinghearingsandfeelmuchsensitivitytothepaincausedtothose..who-se--lose-lovedones-arelost-insenselesskillings.Butinmyview,becausevictimimpactevidenceisnotrelevanttoanyoftheaggravatingfactors,ortothenatureandcircumstancesofthecrime,itsuseduringthesentencinghearingcanonlyservetodivertthejurysattentionfromitsprimaryroletodeterminethedefendantspunishmentforthecrimecommittedconsideringfactorsofaggravationandmitigation.Suchdiversiondemeansourcapitalsentencingschemeandcausesittobeunreliable,inaccurate,andarbitrary,andtherebyunconstitutional.SeeSafflev.Parks,494 +p!( U.S.484,493,110S.Ct.1257,1263,108L.Ed.2d415(1990).AsIstatedinNesbit, T/$, X%XXX%8 8 Generally,victimimpactevidenceis 1J'/ unsettlingbecauseitsuseencouragesthejurytoquantifythevalueofthevictimslifeandurgesthefindingthatmurderismorereprehensibleifthevictimissurvivedbyabereavedfamilythanifthevictimhadnofamilyatall.#X%XXX%'#7$-6xx  8-7 ЇStatev.Nesbit,978S.W.2dat903.Thisshiftinfocusfromthe   crimeandthedefendanttothesurvivingfamilyandthevictimisthemaincriticismleveledatvictimimpactevidence. Bydisplayinggrievingfriendsorfamilymembers(ornotingtheirabsence)tojurors,victimimpactevidenceinvitesjurorstodeemitagreatercrime(andtherebydeservingofgreaterpunishment)tokillsomeonewhosefriendsorfamily,orboth,arewillingandabletotestifyduringthesentencingphaseabouttheirgrief.̀ Furthermore,theuseofvictimimpactevidencetemptsjurorstobecomemesmerizedbytheconceptof victimology.Throughthisconcept,theissueofthedeceasedvictims innocenceissilentlywovenintothesentencingequation.ProfessorLynneN.Hendersonsdescriptionof victimhoodisappropriate.8 8 [T]heword victimhascometomeanthosewhoarepreyeduponbystrangers: Victimsuggestsanonprovokingindividualhitwiththeviolenceof streetcrimebyastranger.Theimagecreatedisthatofanelderlypersonrobbedofherlifesavings,an innocentbystanderinjuredorkilledduringaholdup,orabrutallyravagedrapevictim. Victimsarenotprostitutesbeatensenselessbypimpsor johns,drugaddictsmuggedandrobbedoftheirfixes,gangmemberskilledduringafeud,ormisdemeanantsrapedbycellmates....Inshort,theimageofthe victimhasbecomeablameless,purestereotype,withwhomallcanidentify. xx O- 8-7  TheWrongsofVictimsRights,37Stan.L.Rev.937,951(1985). Thus,asanextralegalconsideration,jurorsareluredintodeterminingwhetherthevictimandhisorherfamilyfitthestereotypeof innocentvictims.Iftheydo,thisconceptenticesjurorstovarypunishmentaccordingtotheperceived innocenceofthevictim.Thus,ratherthanorientingpunishmenttotheperpetrator,punishmentisorientedtowardthevictim. Inthesamevein,victimimpactevidenceinformsthejurorsaboutcharacteristicsofthevictimwhicheasilytranslateinto valueoflifeassessments,drivenbyevidenceofthevictimsaccomplishments,supportoffamily,civicendeavors,andunfulfilleddreams.--Theseallusionsto..thevictimsfinancialconditionorsocialattainment.a. .re . .is .simplyinappropriateforthejurytoconsiderindeterminingthesentence. Andfinally,ithasbeensuggestedthattheadmissionofvictimimpactevidencerunscountertothetheoryunderlyingtheprinciplesofpunishment.Victimimpactevidenceprovidesjurorswiththeopportunitytovarypunishmentaccordingtothedegreeofvengeancesoughtbyfamilyorfriends.Andyetunderour..statute,..thepurposeofpunishmentis topreventcrimeandpromoterespectforthe..law.....Tenn...CodeAnn.4035102(3)(1997).Accordingly,vengeancehasnoplaceinthedeterminationoftheappropriatesentence.Indeed,vengeanceinthesentencingprocessbreedsdisparity,anddisparityisanunwelcomeintruderintothatmeticulousprocess. 7$-6 ..X%XXX%..#X%XXX%N7#.. TheSupremeCourtofNewJerseyhasdevisedaprotocol   intendedtoreducethepossibilitythatjurorswillmisusevictimimpactevidence.Statev.Muhammed,678A.2dat179.Underthis  X protocol,beforevictimimpactevidenceisdeemedadmissible,thefollowingmustbeaccomplished:X%XXX%8 8  h Thedefendantshouldbe 2  notifiedpriortothecommencementofthepenaltyphasethattheStateplanstointroducevictimimpactevidenceifthedefendantassertsthecatchallfactor.! #  5      ׀TheState `  shallalsoprovidethedefendantwiththenamesofthevictimimpactwitnessesthatitplanstocallsothatdefensecounselwillhaveanopportunitytointerviewthewitnessespriortotheirtestimony.Thegreaterthenumberofsurvivorswhoarepermittedtopresentvictimimpactevidence,thegreaterthepotentialforthevictimimpactevidencetoundulyprejudicethejuryagainstthedefendant.Thus,absentspecialcircumstances,weexpectthatthevictimimpacttestimonyofonesurvivorwillbeadequatetoprovidethejurywithaglimpseofeachvictim'suniquenessasahumanbeingandtohelpthejurorsmakeaninformedassessmentofthedefendant'smoralculpabilityandblameworthiness.Further,minorsshouldnotbepermittedtopresentvictimimpactevidenceexceptundercircumstanceswheretherearenosuitableadultsurvivorsandthusthechildistheclosestlivingrelative. xx 8 8  h Beforeafamilymemberisallowedtomakeavictimimpactstatement,thetrialcourtshould 1J'/ ordinarilyconductaRule104(formerlyRule8)hearing,outsidethepresenceofthejury,tomakeapreliminarydeterminationastotheadmissibilityoftheState'sprofferedvictimimpactevidence.Thewitness'stestimonyshouldbereducedtowritingtoenablethetrialcourttoreviewtheproposedstatementtoavoidanyprejudicialcontent.Thetestimonycanprovideageneralfactualprofileofthevictim,includinginformationaboutthevictim'sfamily,employment,education,andinterests.Thetestimonycandescribegenerallytheimpactofthevictim'sdeathonhisorherimmediatefamily.Thetestimonyshouldbefactual,notemotional,andshouldbefreeofinflammatorycommentsorreferences. xx 8 8  h ...Duringthepreliminaryhearing,thetrialcourtshouldinformthevictim'sfamilythatthecourtwillnotallowawitnesstotestifyifthepersonisunabletocontrolhisorheremotions.Thatconcernshouldbealleviatedbyourrequirementthatthewitnessbepermittedonlytoreadhisorherpreviouslyapprovedtestimony.Finally,thecourtshouldalsotaketheopportunitytoremindthevictim'sfamilythatthecourtwillnotpermitanytestimonyconcerningthevictim'sfamilymembers'characterizationsandopinionsaboutthedefendant,thecrime,ortheappropriatesentence.Finally,thetrialcourtshouldinformtheprosecutorthatanycommentsaboutvictimimpactevidenceinhisorhersummationshouldbestrictlylimitedtothepreviouslyapprovedtestimonyofthewitness. xx R9..#XpXXXpe9#XƁXXXp- 7$-6 ---Id.....at..180. 2(0 --#XpXXXƁE#- -.... Theseclearrulesstandinsharpcontrasttothe..thin 5$+4 limitationsonadmissibilityimposedinNesbit.InNesbit,the \7,6 Courtstatedasfollows: 9|.8 ..8 8  h Generally,victimimpactevidenceshouldbelimitedtoinformationdesignedtoshowthoseuniquecharacteristicswhichprovideabriefglimpseintothelifeoftheindividualwhohasbeenkilled,thecontemporaneousandprospectivecircumstances....surroundingtheindividual'sdeath,andhowthosecircumstancesfinancially,emotionally,psychologicallyorphysicallyimpacteduponmembersofthevictim'simmediatefamily....Ofthesetypesofproof,evidenceregardingtheemotionalimpactofthemurderonthevictim'sfamilyshouldbemostcloselyscrutinizedbecauseitposesthegreatestthreattodueprocessandriskofundueprejudice,particularlyifnoproofisofferedontheothertypesofvictimimpact....("Itwouldbeverydifficulttoreconcilearuleallowingthefateofadefendanttoturnonthevagariesofparticularjurors'emotionalsensitivitieswithourlongstandingrecognitionthat,aboveall,capitalsentencingmustbereliable,accurate,andnonarbitrary.")However,thereisnobright-linetest,andtheadmissibilityofspecifictypesofvictimimpactevidencemustbedeterminedonacase-by-casebasis. xx GStatev.Nesbit,978S.W.2d872,891(Tenn.1998)(footnotes& ($ citationsomitted).UnlikeNewJersey,thisCourthasnotlimitedthenumberofvictimimpactwitnessesallowedtotestify;norhasitfurnishedguidanceforusingwitnesseswhoareminors.UnlikeNewJersey,thisCourthasnotlimitedthevictimimpacttestimonytofactualratherthanemotionalinformation;tothecontrary,itspecificallyallowsevidenceofthe emotionalimpactofthemurder.Themeresuggestionthatthetrialcourt closelyscruti..nize..emotionaltestimonyinnowayguidestrialcourtsinimplementingthissuggestion.Andfinally,unlikeNewJersey,this 7$-6 Court..doesnotrequirethatthevictimimpactevidencebereducedtowritingandreadbythewitnessattrial,aprocedurewhichwouldgofartopreventthatunconstitutionalresultnotedinNesbit allowingthefateofadefendanttoturnonthevagaries  ofparticularjurorsemotionalsensitivities.XƁXXXp- -#XpXXXƁP# Iwouldholdthattheadmissionofvictimimpactevidence x  duringthesentencingphaseofacapitalpunishmenttrialisunconstitutionalunderTennesseelawunlessadmittedwithprecisedefinitionandclearlimitation.Asheretoforestated,theadoptionofproceduressuchasthoseusedbytheStateofNewJerseywouldprovidesuchdefinitionandlimitationaswouldensuretheconstitutionalityofvictimimpactevidenceinTennessee. Iwouldfurtherholdthatvictimimpacttestimony,whenadmittedoutsideoftheprocedurehereinespoused,requiresastrictharmlesserrorreview.Itisasimplematter,especiallyincaseswithheinousfactssuchastheoneundersubmission,togiveshortshrifttotheharmlesserroranalysisandfind,basedonthosefacts,thattheerrorwasharmless.ThisiseasilyillustratedbythelanguageinPayne. +T!( T8 8 Once[theperpetrators]identitywasestablishedbythejurysverdict,thedeathpenaltywastheonlyrationalpunishmentavailable. 0X&. Thus,theStatesargumentwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(emphasisadded.) xx $VStatev.Payne,791S.W.2dat19.Onthecontrary,theimposition 5\+4 ofpunishmentaswellasanyharmlesserroranalysisshould,inmy 7-6 view,includeapainstaking,intenselythoroughscrutinizationofthefactsandlaw. Inthecaseatbar,the-murder-victimsdaughterwasallowedtotestifynotonlyabout-thebackgroundof-herparents---background-,butalsoaboutthesufferingofherfather,thefactthatthemurderhadcausedherfamily problemsforelevenyears,andthatshewould goto[her]gravewithit.Consideringthisevidence,Iconcludethattheerrormoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmentandprejudicedthejudicialprocess.SeeTenn.R.App.P.36(b).Tobesure,I   drawnoconclusionsregardingthepenaltyimposedinthiscase;I-wouldhold--find-onlythatajuryshouldbeallowedtoreconsiderthepenaltyaftertheprocedureshereinsuggestedhavebeenimplemented.Onlybysuchstrictlimitationofthistestimonycanweavoidtransgressingonadefendantsconstitutionalrighttoafairdeterminationofpunishmentbasedontherelevantaggravatingfactors. Accordingly,Iwouldremandthiscaseforanewsentencinghearingconductedinamannerconsistentwiththediscussionhereincontained.----------..    h      p ______________________________    h      p AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,Justice- 8-7 -