ÿWPC^( g²f¾¥¼5¿åìé4Ýã'òëû©çµæC‰›½nG½lN3ËÊá3ôj‚<®ÊÍ>Iœh»Úç)d‰íZ–†5¤Î`èâ)uÝôq%goŒZ¹1ì%Êó‘à‡vAv ¯ó º…ù³˜y7Bõr)“w@%Ò\ÕÇLS’ÆÁh “Ý‘Z»ÿ°Àk÷°u®îmU6W BZñÏ‚kzï%ëäS¡l·ÐÓ¡î<†]s£5,ur¬qû‚ﶲ‹d×/kÞ\.*jxÀûÿ` `€€@EL` 8ttxP„( tß›ñ%ñà@Ø Ø Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@ÕÕ(ÌàAT€KNOXVILLE€ó óˆÐ àØ ÐÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àò òà è àñp%ñòòñp%ñFOR€PUBLICATIONñp%ñóóñp%ñó óÐ JB ÐDONALD€WAYNE€STROUTH,à 8 àà  à)à è àÐ 6.  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àœò òFiled:€June€28,€1999ó ó›Ð   Ðà Ø àAppellant,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à€Ð   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÐ îæ  ÐV.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ÔÌ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€Frank€L.€Slaughter,Ð º²  ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àJudgeÐ  ˜  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellee.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ ld Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àSupreme€CourtÐ RJ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€03S01„9707„CC„00079€Ð 80 ÐÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÐ ÐÈ ÐMark€E.€Oliveà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPaul€G.€SummersÐ ¶® Ð321€W.€Jefferson€St.à à àà 8 àà  àà è àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ œ” ÐTallahassee,€FL€32301à à àà 8 àà  àà è àÐ ‚z Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àMichael€E.€MooreÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àSolicitor€GeneralÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àGordon€W.€SmithÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àSecond€Judicial€DistrictÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àEdward€E.€WilsonÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àP.O.€Box€526Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡„|H„XXÔà@VV(Ìàò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ#†X/€X„„|H“#ԈР`1X*/ ÐÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àDROWOTA,€J.€Ð \6T/4 Ðâ âÐ B7:05 ÐÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññ%ñÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññ%ññu%ñÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  ÑÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññu%ññp%ñÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ññp%ñño%ñÑDEÑÑ` ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ñño%ñÓÓà Ø àIn€this€post€conviction€capital€appeal,€we€must€determine€whether€the€juryððsÏâ âreliance€upon€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€as€support€forÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€is€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏunder€the€analysis€adopted€in€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð Äd ÐBoth€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€the€error€wasÏharmless€and€dismissed€the€petition€for€post€conviction€relief.€€After€fully€reviewingÏthe€record,€we€conclude€that€the€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€juryÏgiven€no€weight€to€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€andÏtherefore€affirm€the€lower€courtsðð€dismissal€of€the€petition.ÌÌÌà@%Ìàò òòòFACTUAL€à@@§§+€àBACKGROUNDóóˆÐ $Ä Ðœó óñn%ñÌñn%ñ›à Ø àOn€February€15,€1978,€James€Keegan,€the€sole€proprietor€of€a€usedÐ üœ Ðclothing€store€in€downtown€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€was€murdered.€€Keeganððs€bodyÏwas€found€on€the€floor€of€his€store.€€His€pockets€had€been€emptied€of€his€billfoldÏand€a€large€roll€of€money€he€habitually€carried,€and€several€items€were€missingÏfrom€the€store.€€Keegan€had€sustained€a€severe€blow€to€the€head€with€a€bluntÏobject€and€deep€lacerations€on€his€scalp€and€ear.€€Keeganððs€death€resulted€from€aÏdeep€laceration€which€extended€the€entire€width€of€his€neck.€€Keeganððs€throat€hadÏbeen€slit€literally€from€ear€to€ear.€€€The€laceration€was€approximately€three€inchesÏdeep€and€completely€severed€both€the€large€muscle€of€Keeganððs€œneck›€and€hisÏjugular€vein.€€According€to€the€medical€examiner,€Keegan€had€been€unconsciousÏfrom€the€blow€to€his€head€when€his€throat€had€been€cut,€and€Keegan€had€bled€toÏdeath€from€the€neck€wound€within€fifteen€minutes.€€ÌÐ Œ4,+0 Ðà Ø àDonald€Wayne€Strouth€and€Jeffrey€Stuart€Dicks€had€been€seen€in€the€areaÏof€the€store€around€the€time€of€the€murder,€and€they€were€eventually€arrested€andÏcharged€with€the€robbing€and€killing€of€Keegan.€€The€State€sought€the€deathÏpenalty€with€respect€to€both€Strouth€and€Dicks.€€Each€made€a€pre„trial€statementÏto€police€acknowledging€his€presence€at€the€scene€of€the€crime,€but€accusing€theÏother€of€killing€Keegan.€€For€this€reason,€Strouth€and€Dicks€were€tried€separatelyÏto€avoid€the€possibility€of€violating€òòBruton€v.€United€Statesóó,€391€U.S.€123,€88€S.Ct.Ð (È  Ð1620,€20€L.Ed.2d€476€(1968).ÌÌà Ø àThe€proof€introduced€at€Strouthððs€trial€demonstrated€that€Keeganððs€bodyÏwas€discovered€by€his€wife€around€noon.€€Police€were€called€to€the€scene€of€theÏcrime€and€discovered€two€sets€of€footprints€outside€the€back€entrance€of€the€store.€ÏPolice€also€discovered€that€an€electric€heater€had€been€turned€on€inside€the€storeÏand€a€fuel„soaked€towel€had€been€placed€across€the€heater.€€Testimony€indicatedÏthat€Keegan€did€not€use€electric€heaters€and€had€them€in€the€store€only€as€resaleÏitems.€€Dicks€and€his€girlfriend,€Betty€Merrit,€lived€in€an€apartment€near€the€storeÏowned€by€Keegan,€and€were€often€visited€by€their€friends,€Strouth€and€hisÏgirlfriend,€Barbara€Davis.€€About€a€week€before€the€murder,€Dicks€and€Merrit€wentÏto€Keeganððs€store€and€sold€him€some€clothes.€€According€to€Merrit,€Keegan€paidÏthem€from€a€large€roll€of€cash€he€kept€in€his€front€pants€pocket.€€On€the€day€beforeÏthe€murder,€an€employee€of€a€nearby€dry€cleaners€testified€that€he€had€seenÏStrouth€and€Dicks€standing€and€talking€beside€the€cleaners,€near€Keeganððs€store.€ÏTwo€other€eyewitnesses€saw€both€Strouth€and€Dicks€in€the€area€of€Keeganððs€storeÏon€the€morning€of€the€murder.€€ÌÐ €4 +0 Ðà Ø àEvidence€accumulated€by€the€police€and€introduced€at€Strouthððs€trial€tendedÏto€show€that€Strouth€had€been€the€person€who€actually€cut€Keeganððs€throat.€ÏWitnesses€testified€to€seeing€blood€on€Strouthððs€hands€and€clothes€shortly€afterÏthe€murder.€€Strouthððs€girlfriend€told€the€jury€that€she€had€given€Strouth€a€largeÏhawkbill€knife€as€a€present€sometime€before€the€murder,€and€she€said€that€StrouthÏhad€admitted€to€the€robbery,€and€stated,€ð ðJeff€froze€on€me.ðð€€The€medicalÏexaminer€testified€that€the€hawk„bill€knife€owned€by€Strouth€was€consistent€withÏand€could€have€been€used€to€slit€Keeganððs€throat.€€The€medical€examiner€alsoÏtestified€that€the€blood€spots€on€the€pants€that€Strouth€had€worn€at€the€time€of€theÏmurder€were€consistent€with€the€theory€that€Strouth€had€stood€over€the€victim€andÏcut€his€throat.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Xø ÐÌà Ø àUpon€hearing€the€proof,€the€jury€found€Strouth€guilty€of€murder€in€theÏperpetration€of€a€robbery€and€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€In€the€subsequentÏsentencing€hearing,€the€State€relied€upon€the€following€six€aggravatingÏcircumstances:€(1)€the€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€moreÏfelonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€which€involved€the€use€or€threat€ofÏviolence€to€the€person;€(2)€the€defendant€knowingly€created€a€great€risk€of€deathÏto€two€or€more€persons,€other€than€the€victim€murdered,€during€his€act€of€murder;Ï(3)€the€defendant€committed€murder€for€remuneration€or€the€promise€ofÏremuneration;€(4)€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind;€(5)€the€murder€was€committed€for€theÏpurpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€ofÐ è0ˆ', Ðthe€defendant€or€another;€and€(6)€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendantÏwas€engaged€in€committing€or€was€an€accomplice€in€the€commission€of,€or€wasÏattempting€to€commit€.€.€.€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2404(i)(2)€„€(i)(7)€(Supp.Ï1978).ÌÌà Ø àLittle€proof€was€offered€by€either€the€State€or€the€defendant€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€The€State€offered€proof€to€establish€that€the€defendant€hadÏbeen€previously€convicted€of€a€felony€crime€against€nature€in€North€Carolina.€€TheÏdefense€called€Officer€Jim€Keesling,€who€had€taken€two€statements€from€StrouthÏon€March€8€and€9,€1978.€€Officer€Keesling€read€the€statements€into€the€record€forÏthe€juryððs€consideration.€€In€the€first€statement€Strouth€denied€that€he€had€been€inÏKingsport€on€the€day€of€the€murder,€and€in€the€second€statement,€Strouth€claimedÏthat€Dicks€and€a€third€person€had€committed€the€robbery€and€murder€while€heÏwaited€in€the€car.€€The€defense€attempted€to€call€a€minister€and€sociology€teacherÏto€testify€about€the€Christian€philosophy€on€the€death€penalty€and€about€theÏdeterrent€effect€of€the€death€penalty,€but,€the€trial€court€disallowed€the€testimonyÏafter€a€jury„out€hearing.€ÌÌà Ø àThe€jury€deliberated€for€approximately€seven€hours€before€returning€aÏverdict.€€Finding€that€the€State€had€proven€two€aggravating€circumstances€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt,€(1)€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€inÏthat€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind;€and€(2)€the€murder€was€committedÏâ âwhile€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€a€robbery,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€and€also€finding€thatÐ è0ˆ', Ðthere€were€no€mitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€theÏaggravating€circumstances,€the€jury€sentenced€Strouth€to€death€by€electrocution.Ìâ âÌà Ø àOn€direct€appeal€to€this€Court,€Strouthððs€first€degree€felony€murderÏconviction€and€death€sentence€were€affirmed.€€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467Ð 0 Ð(Tenn.€1981),€òòcert.óó€œòòdeniedóó,›€455€U.S.€983,€102€S.Ct.€1491,€71€L.Ed.2d€692€(1982).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р\ü  ÐHowever,€œthis›€œCourt›€vacated€Strouthððs€armed€robbery€conviction€holding€that€dualÏconvictions€for€felony€murder€and€the€underlying€felony€violated€principles€ofÏdouble€jeopardy.׃ Ê×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÀ` ÐÌà Ø àStrouth€filed€his€first€post„conviction€petition€in€1982,€alleging€numerousÏconstitutional€violations.€€After€a€lengthy€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€deniedÏrelief.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed,€and€this€Court€declined€to€reviewÏthe€case.€€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óóÐ ¼ \ Ðòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà Ø àStrouthððs€current€post„conviction€petition€was€filed€on€December€30,€1993.€ÏAmong€the€claims€raised,€Strouth€asserted€that€his€death€sentence€should€be€setÏaside€under€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€trial€court€Ð ¸)X $ Ðheld€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€concluded€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€wasÐ „+$"& Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€under€the€analysis€adopted€by€this€Court€inÏòòHowellóó,€òòsupraóó.€The€trial€court€held€that€the€remaining€claims€were€either€barred€byÐ /¼%* Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€or€waived.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€theÐ `  Ðtrial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition,€also€finding€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€harmlessÐ , Ì Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà Ø àThereafter,€we€granted€Strouthððs€appeal€limited€to€the€issue€of€whether€theÏlower€courtsðð€erred€in€finding€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€harmless€beyond€aÐ \ü  Ðreasonable€doubt.׃ Â×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ (È  ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€which€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€postÏconviction€petition.ÌÌÌà@îî"Ìàò òòòHARMLESS€ERROR€ANALYSISó óóó€ˆÐ $Ä Ðœñm%ñÌñm%ñ›à Ø àIn€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€a€majority׃)þ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€this€Court€determined€that€when€a€defendantÐ üœ Ðis€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder,€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€may€not€be€used€as€a€basis€to€supportÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€because€the€aggravating€circumstance€merelyÏduplicates€the€elements€of€the€underlying€offense.€€As€such,€the€felony€murderÐ ,&Ì  Ðaggravating€circumstance€fails€to€sufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligibleÏmurderers€and€violates€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.׃"×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€840€S.W.2dÐ , Ì Ðat€346.€€We€held€that€a€sentence€of€death€may€not€be€imposed€for€a€conviction€ofÏfirst€degree€felony€murder€unless€it€is€based€upon€at€least€one€of€the€otherÏstatutory€aggravating€circumstances.€€œòòId.óó›€at€346„47.€€Because€the€rule€announcedÐ 0 Ðin€òòMiddlebrooksóó€enhanced€the€integrity€and€reliability€of€the€sentencing€process,Ð \ü  Ðwe€have€applied€the€rule€retroactively.€€òòBoyd€v.€Stateóó,€959€S.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.Ð (È  Ð1998);€òòBarberóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€186.Ð ô”  ÐÌà Ø àIn€this€case,€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€Strouth€was€convicted€of€the€firstÏdegree€felony€murder€of€James€Keegan.€€In€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€theÏjury€based€the€sentence€of€death€upon€two€aggravating€circumstances,€one€ofÏwhich€was€that€the€crime€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€inÏcommitting€the€felony€of€robbery.€€Accordingly,€the€juryððs€reliance€upon€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€in€this€case€contravenes€the€rule€adopted€inÏòòMiddlebrooksóó.€€Ð T$ô ÐÌà Ø àHowever,€error€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó€does€not€result€in€automatic€reversal;Ð ì'Œ" Ðsuch€error€is€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€A€comprehensive€analyticalÏframework€to€govern€harmless€error€analysis€was€first€announced€by€this€Court€inÏòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€that€case€we€held€that€aÐ P-ð#( ÐòòMiddlebrooksóó€error€will€be€deemed€harmless€if€a€reviewing€court€concludesÐ /¼%* Ðð ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€theÐ è0ˆ', Ðjury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€factor.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€262.€Ð `  ÐOur€holding€was€premised€upon€decisions€of€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏwhich€had€directed€that€if€a€jury€considers€an€invalid€or€improper€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€either€ð ðconstitutional€harmless€error€analysis€or€reweighing€at€theÏtrial€or€appellate€level€suffices€to€guarantee€that€the€defendant€received€anÏindividualized€sentence.ðð€€òòStringer€v.€Blackóó,€503€U.S.€222,€232,€112€S.Ct.€1130,Ð \ü  Ð1137,€117€L.Ed.2d€367€(1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòRichmond€v.€Lewisóó,€506€U.S.€40,€113Ð (È  ÐS.Ct.€528,€121€L.Ed.2d€411€(1992);€òòClemons€v.€Mississippióó,€494€U.S.€738,€110Ð ô”  ÐS.Ct.€1441,€108€L.Ed.2d€725€(1990).€ÌÌà Ø àIn€òòHowellóó,€we€stressed€the€importance€of€applying€a€harmless€error€analysisÐ Xø Ðwhich€guarantees€the€precision€that€individualized€sentencing€demands€and€whichÏalso€provides€a€principled€explanation€for€our€decision€in€each€case.€òòId.óó€at€260„61;€Ð ð ÐòòBoydóó,€959€S.W.2d€at€560.€€To€aid€reviewing€courts€in€achieving€these€twinÐ ¼ \ Ðobjectives,€we€enumerated€several€nonexclusive€factors€which€should€guide€theÏharmless€error€analysis.€€The€factors€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€the€following:Ï(1)€the€number€and€strength€of€the€remaining€valid€aggravating€circumstances;€(2)Ïthe€extent€to€which€the€prosecutor€emphasizes€the€invalid€aggravatingÏcircumstance€during€closing€argument;€(3)€the€evidence€admitted€to€establish€theÏinvalid€aggravating€circumstance;€and€(4)€the€nature,€quality,€and€strength€of€theÏmitigating€evidence.€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€260„61.€€If€a€reviewing€court€isÐ P-ð#( Ðconvinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€jury€would€have€imposed€the€sameÏsentence€had€it€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance,€the€errorÏâ âis€harmless€and€the€sentence€may€be€affirmed.€€œòòId.óó›€at€262.€€Applying€the€analysisÐ ´2T). Ðin€this€cases€leads€us€to€conclude€that€the€error€is€harmless€and€does€not€requireÏresentencing.Ìâ âÌà Ø àWe€first€consider€the€strength€of€the€single€remaining€valid€aggravatingÏcircumstance€„„€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2404(i)(5)€(Supp.Ï1978).€€Strouth€asserts€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€is€weak€and€lacksÏobjective€reliability.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€Strouth€points€out€that€KeeganÏwas€unconscious€when€his€throat€was€cut€and€therefore€did€not€experience€pain.€ÏStrouth€also€emphasizes€that€the€jury€instructions€included€only€the€language€ofÏthe€statutory€aggravating€circumstance€and€did€not€include€the€definitionsÏannounced€later€by€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529„532Ð $Ä Ð(Tenn.€1985).€€The€State€responds€that€this€Court€has€repeatedly€upheld€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance,€and€has€never€held€that€theÏòòWilliamsóó€definitions€are€constitutionally€required.€€The€State€emphasizes€that€aÐ ˆ"( Ðvictim€need€not€be€conscious€to€support€a€finding€of€depravity€of€mind€andÏcontends€that€the€proof€in€this€record€overwhelmingly€establishes€the€applicabilityÏand€strength€of€the€aggravating€circumstance.€€We€agree.ÌÌà Ø àAs€noted€by€the€State,€this€Court€has€repeatedly€upheld€the€constitutionalÏvalidity€of€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòState€v.€Blantonóó,€975Ð P-ð#( ÐS.W.2d€269,€280€(Tenn.€1998);€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€105€(Tenn.Ð /¼%* Ð1995);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768Ð è0ˆ', ÐS.W.2d€239,€252€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€670€(Tenn.Ð ´2T). Ð1988).€€In€addition,€as€the€State€points€out,€we€have€specifically€held€that€theÐ €4 +0 ÐòòWilliamsóó€instruction€requirement€is€not€to€be€retroactively€applied.€€òòState€v.Ð `  ÐOððGuinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561,€568€(Tenn.€1986).€€Finally,€we€have€never€held€that€theÐ , Ì ÐòòWilliamsóó€definitions€are€constitutionally€required.€€òòHartmanóó,€896€S.W.2d€at€105.€€InÐ ø ˜ Ðfact,€in€òòThompsonóó,€we€distinguished€the€language€of€Tennesseeððs€(i)(5)Ð Äd Ðaggravating€circumstance€from€the€language€held€to€be€unconstitutionally€vagueÏby€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòGodfrey€v.€Georgiaóó,€446€U.S.€420,€100Ð \ü  ÐS.Ct.€1759,€64€L.Ed.2d€398€(1980),€and€òòMaynard€v.€Cartwrightóó,€486€U.S.€356,€108Ð (È  ÐS.Ct.€1853,€100€L.Ed.2d€372€(1988).€€We€pointed€out€that,€unlike€those€cases,€theÏð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€language€in€the€Tennessee€statute€does€not€standÏalone,€but,€instead,€is€modified€and€limited€by€the€phrase,€ð ðin€that€it€involvedÏtorture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€252.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€conductingÐ Xø ÐòòHowellóó€harmless€error€review,€we€have€considered€whether€the€òòWilliamsóóÐ $Ä Ðinstructions€were€provided€to€the€jury.׃6 ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€necessarily€must€consider€theÐ ð Ðevidence€and€instructions€remaining€after€elimination€of€the€invalid€aggravatingÏcircumstance€in€order€to€answer€the€inquiry€posed€by€òòHowelló󀄄whether€beyond€aÐ ˆ"( Ðreasonable€doubt€the€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€noÐ T$ô Ðweight€to€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.€€The€absence€of€the€òòWilliamsóóÐ `  Ðdefinitions€has€never€been€held€to€limit€the€significance€of€the€(i)(5)€aggravatingÏcircumstance€in€a€òòHowellóó€analysis.Ð ø ˜ ÐÌà Ø àThough€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance€is€more€subjective€than€otherÏaggravating€circumstances€in€the€sense€that€it€requires€careful€consideration€of€theÏfacts€of€each€murder,€this€subjectivity€does€not€negate€its€strength€in€a€òòHowellóóÐ (È  Ðanalysis€if,€as€in€this€case,€the€evidence€in€the€record€presented€to€the€juryÏoverwhelmingly€established€the€applicability€of€the€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà Ø àIn€this€case,€the€victim€was€approximately€seventy€(70)€years€old€at€the€timeÏof€the€murder.€€The€medical€examiner€found€that€Keegan€had€suffered€a€skullÏfracture€so€severe€that€the€skull€had€been€pushed€in€toward€the€brain,€causing€aÏlaceration€on€the€frontal€lobe€of€the€brain.€€This€injury€bruised€the€outer€surface€ofÏthe€skin€and€was€two€inches€in€diameter.€€A€blunt€instrument,€possibly€a€rock,Ïlikely€caused€this€wound€and€rendered€the€victim€unconscious.€€Keegan€also€hadÏa€jagged€laceration€over€the€right€portion€of€his€skull€which€penetrated€the€fullÏthickness€of€the€scalp€through€to€the€bone.€€This€injury€was€one„half€to€three„¼quarters€of€an€inch€deep.€€Keegan€also€had€a€laceration€across€his€right€ear€whichÏtransected€and€cut€through€the€cartilage.€€Both€of€these€wounds€were€made€by€aÏvery€sharp€instrument.€€The€fatal€injury€was€a€laceration€of€the€throat€whichÏextended€from€ear€to€ear€and€which€was€two€and€one„half€to€three€inches€in€depth.€ÏAs€one€law€enforcement€official€described€this€wound,€the€ð ðvictimððs€throat€was€cut;Ïhead€almost€decapitated.ðð€€The€medical€examiner€testified€that€this€fatal€woundÏwas€inflicted€when€the€victim€was€lying€unconscious€on€the€floor.€€The€cruelty€withÐ €4 +0 Ðwhich€the€perpetrators€attacked€this€elderly€man€and€showed€no€mercy€toward€himÏafter€he€was€already€unconscious€and€helpless€demonstrates€depravity€of€mind.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€814€(Tenn.€1985)€(holding€that€infliction€ofÐ ø ˜ Ðgratuitous€violence€and€needless€mutilation€of€victims€who€were€already€helplessÏevinced€depravity€of€mind);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993)Ð 0 Ð(holding€that€depravity€of€mind€established€by€proof€that€the€defendant€shot€theÏseventy„four„year„old€victim€as€she€lay€injured€and€helpless€on€the€floor).€ÌÌ€à Ø àIn€specifically€rejecting€Strouthððs€vagueness€challenge€to€the€aggravatingÐ À` Ðcircumstance€in€an€opinion€denying€his€petition€to€rehear€this€Courtððs€opinion€onÏdirect€appeal,€we€described€the€aggravating€circumstance€and€the€proofÏsupporting€it€as€follows:ÓÓÌÌà8 Ø àà 0 àThis€Court€has€consistently€held€that€this€aggravatingÏcircumstance€is€directed€to€the€conscienceless€or€pitiless€act€of€aÏdefendant€which€is€unnecessarily€torturous€to€the€victim,€or€evinces€aÏdepraved€state€of€mind;€and€that€the€depraved€state€of€mind€or€theÏtorture€inflicted€must€meet€the€test€of€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.Ð n# ÐGrosecloseóó,€et€al.,€615€S.W.2d€142€(Tenn.€1981);€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615Ð T$ô ÐS.W.2d€126€(Tenn.€1981).€€This€holding€or€construction,€in€ourÏopinion,€meets€the€test€of€òòGodfrey€v.€Georgiaóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€also€thatÐ  &À  Ðvoiced€in€òòProffitt€v.€Floridaóó,€428€U.S.€242,€255„56,€96€S.Ct.€2960,Ð '¦! Ð2968,€49€L.Ed.2d€913€(1976).Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à[Strouth]€and€his€companion„in„crime€Jeffrey€Dicks,€struckÏJames€Keegan€on€the€head€with€a€rock,€rendering€him€unconscious.€ÏWhile€Mr.€Keegan€was€in€an€unconscious€state,€[Strouth]€and€hisÏcompanion€slit€Mr.€Keeganððs€throat€and€left€him€to€bleed€to€death€„€aÏcold„blooded,€intentional,€conscienceless€and€pitiless€act.€€An€actÏwhich€can€only€be€characterized€as€heinous€and€atrocious,€and€oneÏwhich€evinces€a€depraved€state€of€mind€and€justifies€the€impositionÏof€the€death€penalty,€no€mitigating€circumstances€being€shown.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓÓÌContrary€to€Strouthððs€assertion,€the€remaining€valid€aggravating€circumstance€inÏthis€case€is€strong.€€It€is€supported€by€an€abundance€of€proof€which€was€presentedÐ f5,1 Ðto€the€jury.€€Given€the€qualitative€nature€of€this€aggravating€circumstance€and€theÏhigh€quantum€of€proof€supporting,€we€conclude€that€it€carried€substantial€weightÏwith€the€jury.ÌÌà Ø àNext,€we€must€consider€the€extent€to€which€the€prosecutor€emphasized€theÏinvalid€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€in€his€closing€argument.€€OurÏreview€of€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€district€attorney€placed€any€unusualÏemphasis€on€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€The€closing€argument€first€focusedÏupon€the€fact€that€little€or€no€evidence€of€mitigating€circumstances€had€beenÏpresented.€€Next€the€prosecutor€argued€each€of€the€six€aggravating€circumstancesÏupon€which€the€State€was€relying€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€argumentÏrelating€to€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€was€minimal.€€TheÏprosecutor€merely€reminded€the€jurors€that€by€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€theÏoffense,€they€had€also€found€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà Ø àIn€his€brief,€Strouth€quotes€extensively€from€the€district€attorneyððs€argumentÏin€an€attempt€to€demonstrate€undue€emphasis.€€However,€as€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€held,€an€objective€reading€of€these€excerpts€reveals€that€the€prosecutionÏwas€trying€to€emphasize€an€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€jury€eventuallyÏrejected,€that€the€murder€was€committed€to€avoid€arrest€or€prosecution,€i.e.€aÏwitness€killing.€€€Therefore,€the€prosecutor€did€not€unduly€emphasize€the€invalidÏaggravating€circumstance€in€closing€argument.€€In€fact,€the€emphasis€placed€uponÏthis€aggravating€circumstance€was€minimal.Ìâ âÐ ´2T). Ðà Ø àNext,€we€note€that€no€materially€inaccurate€or€inadmissible€evidence€wasÏâ âadmitted€to€establish€the€aggravating€circumstance.€€The€evidence€relied€upon€toÏestablish€the€aggravating€circumstance€had€been€properly€admitted€at€the€guiltÏphase€of€the€trial€to€support€the€conviction€for€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòHowellóó,€868Ð Äd ÐS.W.2d€at€261.€€No€additional€evidence€was€introduced€to€support€the€invalidÏaggravating€circumstance€at€sentencing.€€An€aggravating€circumstance€whichÏduplicates€the€elements€of€the€underlying€crime€has€less€relative€tendency€toÏprejudicially€affect€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòId.óó€€Ð ô”  ÐÌà Ø àFinally,€we€must€consider€the€nature,€strength,€and€quality€of€the€mitigatingÏevidence.€€We€note€that€very€little€evidence€was€offered€in€mitigation.€€OfficerÏKeesling€read€two€statements€Strouth€had€given€to€law€enforcement€officials.€ÏCounsel€for€the€defense€sought€to€introduce€evidence€on€the€Christian€philosophyÏof€death€as€a€punishment,€but€the€court€excluded€such€evidence€as€irrelevant.€ÏStrouth€now€argues€that€much€weight€should€be€given€to€the€fact€that€he€wasÏyoung€at€the€time€this€offense€was€committed€„„€nineteen„years„old.€€He€arguesÏthat€youth€is€an€intrinsically€strong€mitigating€circumstance€and€that€it€lessens€hisÏdegree€of€culpability€for€the€crime.€€The€State€mentioned€the€defendantððs€ageÏwhen€arguing€to€the€jury€that€little€mitigation€evidence€had€been€presented.€ÏDefense€counsel€did€not€stress€Strouthððs€age€in€closing€argument.€€Instead,Ïdefense€counsel€asked€the€jury€to€impose€a€life€sentence€because€all€ð ðkilling,ððÏincluding€the€death€penalty€as€punishment€for€crime,€is€wrong.ÌÌà Ø àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€quality€of€theÏmitigation€offered€was€weak.€€Strouthððs€statements€read€by€Officer€Keesling€to€theÐ €4 +0 Ðjury€were€contradictory.€€Any€positive€effect€the€exculpatory€statement€may€haveÏhad€was€virtually€eliminated€when€measured€against€testimony€and€physicalÏevidence€at€trial€that€demonstrated€Strouthððs€primary€role€in€the€crime.€€The€factÏthat€Strouth€was€nineteen€at€the€time€of€the€killing€carries€no€great€mitigationÏweight€since€the€record€reflects€that€Strouth€had€been€living€independent€of€hisÏparents,€traveling€routinely€between€Tennessee€and€North€Carolina,€andÏcommitting€crimes€as€a€juvenile.€€This€is€not€the€picture€of€a€dependent€teenager,Ïnor€does€it€demonstrate€an€innocent€young€man€whose€inexperience€in€criminalÏmatters€may€have€led€him€into€an€unlawful€situation.€€Though€Strouth€argues€thatÏhe€did€not€actually€commit€the€murder,€but€was€merely€present€when€it€occurredÏand€submits€that€this€lesser€degree€of€culpability€should€be€considered€inÏmitigation,€the€evidence€submitted€at€trial€belies€these€contentions.€€The€evidence,Ïas€summarized€previously,€indicates€that€Strouth€was€actively€involved€in€theÏcrime€and€actually€inflicted€the€fatal€wound.€€Overall,€the€quantity,€nature€andÏquality€of€the€mitigating€evidence€is€weak.ÌÌà@,,)Ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóà@@€€0€àˆÐ  &À  Ðœñl%ñÌñl%ñ›à Ø àAfter€fully€considering€the€record€in€this€case€in€light€of€the€analysis€adoptedÏin€òòHowellóó,€we€are€convinced,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€sentence€wouldÐ Ä)d $ Ðhave€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€consideration€to€the€invalid€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€juryððsÏconsideration€of€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€was€harmless€error.€€TheÏremaining€aggravating€circumstance€was€supported€by€an€abundance€of€proofÏwhich€was€qualitatively€persuasive.€€The€prosecutor€did€not€emphasize€the€invalidÏaggravating€circumstance€in€his€closing€argument,€and€no€inadmissible€evidenceÐ Œ4,+0 Ðwas€introduced€to€support€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.€ÏLittle€mitigation€proof€was€offered,€and€the€nature€and€quality€of€the€mitigatingÏproof€which€was€offered€is€weak.€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€andÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€held€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€harmless€beyondÐ Äd Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€The€judgments€of€the€lower€courts€which€dismissed€StrouthððsÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€are€affirmed.€€Unless€stayed€by€this€Court€or€other€Ïproper€authority,€Strouthððs€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€shall€be€carried€outÏon€œñr%ññq%ñOctoberñq%ññr%ññq%ññq%ññr%ñOctoberñr%ññq%ñ€ñq%ññs%ñ28,€1999.ñs%ññt%ñ[four›€months].ñt%ñÌÌÓÓÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_______________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€IIIÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àJUSTICEÌÌÌÌÌò òConcuró ó:›Ð ¢!B ÐÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌœBirch,€J.›ÌÌœHolder,€J.€„€Separate€Concurring€Opinionñk%ññi%ñvñi%ññk%ñ›ÌÌ