ÿWPCk+ …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 UH@ 0Dˆ bÌ Ô 0lÜ 0DH 0JŒ 0TÖ 0^* Bˆ 0h¥ 0r 0| 0†û 0 1u D3† 0d¹ 0@U >]V›añU6RU*ˆB)²DCÛ AMU*k•¢¯^Qœ¯*Kv~u"vÓó# AOÆ)Æ* 0DÛ* D/+ BN+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÊEËÌEÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÓ€hRt#3|xÞ<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý- ù-((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d26 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) 'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman LÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d88887Border 1dd€-9Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÔ€;ÔÔ€;ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€;XÔÌÌò òDecember€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€;ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ôÔNotwithstanding€the€majorityððs€somewhat€shrill€and€self„consciousÏresponse€to€the€dissent€in€this€and€prior€cases,€majority€opinion,€p.€28„30,Ïthe€dissents€in€the€present€case€prompted€a€revision€of€the€majority€opinionÏand€expansion€of€the€proportionality€analysis€to€25€pages.€€The€procedure€forÏaccomplishing€the€proportionality€review€articulated€in€this€decision€for€theÏfirst€time€is€not€discernible€in€the€conclusory,€prefunctory€statements€madeÏin€the€prior€cases.€€Since€the€Court€has€not€found€any€of€the€116€sentences€ofÏdeath€disproportionate€under€the€statute,€whether€the€procedure€announced€willÏproduce€more€than€the€routine€affirmation€of€jury€verdicts€accompanied€byÏpraise€of€the€procedure€remains€to€be€seen.€Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ôÔThe€frequency€method€as€the€sole€means€of€determining€proportionality,Ïhas€not€been€adopted€in€any€jurisdiction,€though€Missouri,€New€Jersey,ÏPennsylvania,€and€Virginia€have€utilized€systematic€methods€of€recordingÏcertain€factors€for€comparison.€€These€methods€of€statistical€comparisons€areÏused€by€those€courts€in€conjunction€with€the€courtððs€general€comparison€of€theÏcrime€and€the€defendant€to€other€cases€under€the€precedent„seeking€approach.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòState€v.€DiFriscoóó,€662€A.2d€442€(N.J.€1995).€€The€majority€insistsÏthat€the€Court€has€used€the€ð ðprecedent€seeking€methodðð€since€the€enactment€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2406€in€1977.€€However,€the€name€of€the€method€givesÏlittle€insight€into€the€effectiveness€of€the€procedure€actually€followed.€ÏSome€states€which€employ€the€precedent„seeking€method€perform€effectiveÏreviews,€òòseeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòLawrie€v.€Stateóó,€643€A.2d€1336€(Del.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏPirtleóó,€904€P.2d€245€(Wash.€1995),€while€others€are€like€Tennessee,Ïperfunctory€at€best.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGuthrie€v.€Stateóó,€689€So.2d€948€(Ala.€Crim.ÏApp.€1996);€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€553€N.W.2d€120€(Neb.€1996).Ì ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ôÔThis€is€the€116th€capital€case€governed€by€a€statute€(Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„2406€(1977)€(currently€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„l3„206(c)(1)(D)Ï(Supp.€1996))€requiring€comparative€proportionality€review.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€3ÔÔ€6ÔÔ€6ôÔThe€factors€to€be€considered€under€the€majority€opinion€are€theÏaggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances,€the€means€of€death,€the€manner€ofÏdeath,€the€motivation€for€the€killing,€the€lace€of€death,€the€similarity€ofÏthe€victimsðð€circumstances€including€age,€physical€and€mental€conditions,€theÏvictimsðð€treatment€during€the€killing,€the€absence€or€presence€ofÏpremeditation,€the€absence€or€presence€of€provocation,€the€absence€or€presenceÏof€justification,€the€injury€to€and€effects€on€nondecedent€victims,€theÏdefendantððs€prior€criminal€record€or€prior€criminal€activity,€the€defendantððsÏage,€race,€and€gender,€the€defendantððs€mental,€emotional€or€physicalÏcondition,€the€defendantððs€involvement€or€role€in€the€murder,€the€defendantððsÏcooperation€with€authorities,€the€defendantððs€remorse,€the€defendantððsÏknowledge€of€helplessness€of€victim(s),€and€the€defendantððs€capacity€forÏrehabilitation.€€Majority€opinion€at€_____€[slip€op.€at€pp.€25„26].Ô€6ÔÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€3ÔÝ  Ý›Ò ° ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÖ€4ÖÑ  ÑÖ€5ÖÔ€6ÔÑ€ ÑÑ7€r:XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€77XÐd&Ӝـ€ÙßR€:<9A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à€€€(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€(Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à€€€(€€Shelby€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€(€€Hon.€Arthur€T.€Bennett,Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€(ÌÒ ° ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€(€€S.€Ct.€No.€02S01„9603„CR„00032ÌANDRE€S.€BLAND,à àà àà à€€€(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€(Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à€€€(ÌÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ À ÒÌÓÓØ ØÓ&€77XÐd&Óà@ àòòò òCONCURRING€AND€DISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌà àà àThe€issues€before€the€Court€are€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€and€comparative€proportionality€of€the€sentence€of€death.€ÏI€agree€with€the€majority€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏthe€juryððs€finding€of€premeditation,€that€the€evidence€is€sufficientÏto€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€torture€(i.e.€the€ð ðinfliction€ofÏsevere€physical€or€mental€pain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€sheÏremains€consciousðð),€and€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighsÏthe€mitigating€circumstances.€€However,€I€would€find€that€theÏsentence€of€death€is€disproportionate.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€stated€by€the€majority,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏheld€in€òòPully€v.€Harrisóó,€465€U.S.€37,€104€S.Ct.€871€(1984),€thatÏcomparative€proportionality€review€is€not€required€by€the€EighthÏAmendment€in€every€capital€case.€€Majority€Opinion€at€_____€[slipÏop.€at€p.€19].€€That,€however,€does€not€dispose€of€theÏconstitutional€issues.€€The€Eighth€Amendment€requires€a€ð ðmeaningfulÏbasis€for€distinguishing€the€few€cases€in€which€[the€death€penalty]Ïis€imposed€from€the€many€cases€in€which€it€is€not.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòFurman€v.ÏGeorgiaóó,€408€U.S.€238,€313,€92€S.Ct.€2726,€2764€(1972)€(White,€J.,Ïconcurring).€€In€Tennessee,€an€essential€aspect€of€that€ð ðmeaningfulÏbasisðð€required€by€the€United€States€Constitution€is€theÏproportionality€review€mandated€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„206(c)(1)(D).€€Under€Tennessee€law,€ð ðprosecutors€may€indict€andÏjuries€may€convict€on€proof€of€reckless€indifference,€leaving€theÏconstitutional€requirement€for€narrowing€to€appellate€review.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€354€(Tenn.€1992)€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïand€Daughtrey,€J.,€concurring€in€part€and€dissenting€in€part).€Ïð ð[C]ase€specific€proportionality€review€.€.€.€ensures€that€theÏdictates€of€the€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€and€their€stateÏcounterparts,€Article€I,€ðððð€16€and€18,€are€met€in€capital€felonyÏmurders.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€350€(Drowota,€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting).€Ïð ð[T]his€Court,€able€to€consider€not€just€individual€cases€but€theÍspectrum€of€sentences€in€cases€statewide,€is€charged€with€guardingÏagainst€arbitrary,€capricious,€and€freakish€imposition€of€capitalÏpunishment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€84€(Tenn.€1992)€(Reid,ÏC.J.,€and€Daughtrey,€J.,€dissenting).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€addition€to€the€requirements€of€the€Eighth€AmendmentÏand€Article€I,€Section€16€,€constitutional€due€process€requires€aÏrational€and€consistent€imposition€of€the€death€sentence.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòHarris€v.€Blodgettóó,€853€F.€Supp.€1239,€1291€(1994).€€Where€theÏState€provides€for€a€system€of€appellate€review,€that€procedure€mustÏconform€with€basic€requirements€of€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòHerrera€v.ÏCollinsóó,€506€U.S.€390,€408,€113€S.Ct.€853,€864€(1993).ÌÌà àà àConsequently,€only€an€effective€procedure€for€performing€aÏcomparative€proportionality€review€will€satisfy€the€statute€as€wellÏas€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€€€€ÌÌÓ` ` h—XÓà àAs€noted€by€the€majority,€beginning€with€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ï839€S.W.2d€54,€84€(Tenn.€1992)€(C.J.€Reid,€dissenting),€andÏcontinuing€over€the€intervening€five€years,€I€have€criticized€theÏCourt€for€failing€"to€articulate€and€apply€a€standard€forÏcomparative€proportionality€review€of€the€death€sentence.€.€.€."€€InÏòòHarrisóó,€I€urged€the€Court€to€"develop€and€apply€objective€criteriaÍand€procedures€for€comparing€all€first€degree€murder€cases€and€inÏeach€capital€case€expressly€analyze€those€features€showing€it€to€beÏsimilar€to€or€different€from€other€first€degree€murders."€€òòId.óó€atÏ85.€€The€proportionality€review€procedure€outlined€by€the€majorityÏin€this€case€answers€many€of€the€problems€raised€in€these€priorÏdecisions.€€The€majority€sets€a€course€which€could€develop€into€aÏprocedure€which€complies€with€the€statute€and€the€constitutions.× ƒ= ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àAfter€discussing€the€ð ðtwo€basic€approaches€to€statutoryÏcomparative€proportionality€review,ðð€the€majority€rejects€theÏð ðfrequency€methodðð€as€being€ð ðunworkableðð€and€adopts€the€ð ðprecedent„seeking€method,ðð€as€a€reliable€means€ð ðto€identify€and€invalidateððÏdisproportionate€sentences€of€death.× ƒ> ××  ×€€Majority€Opinion€at€_____Í[slip€op.€at€œpp.€20„22].›€€The€majority€states€that€this€method€willÏaccomplish€the€purpose€of€comparative€œproportionality€„›€ð ðinsure[]Ïrationality€and€consistency€in€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.ðð€ÏMajority€opinion€at€_____€[slip€op.€at€œp.€22].›ÌÌà àThe€cases€to€be€compared€in€determining€rationality€andÏconsistency€in€the€sentence€of€each€case€under€review,€as€announcedÏby€the€majority,€will€be€ð ðcases€in€which€a€capital€sentencingÏhearing€was€actually€conducted€to€determine€whether€the€sentenceÏshould€be€life€imprisonment,€life€imprisonment€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole,€or€death€by€electrocution,€regardless€of€theÏsentence€actually€imposed.ðð€€Majority€opinion€at€_____€[slip€op.€atÏœp.€24].›€€It€should€be€noted€that€this€category€of€ð ðsimilar€casesðð€isÏdifferent€and€smaller€than€the€ð ðuniverseðð€of€all€cases€in€which€theÏaccused€has€been€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,€as€contemplatedÏby€Rule€12.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€12.€€I€share€the€concernsÏexpressed€by€Justice€Birch€in€his€separate€dissent€on€this€point.ÌÌà àThe€Court€then,€for€the€first€time,× ƒ? ××  ×€enumerates€factorsÏdetermined€to€be€ð ðrelevant€to€identifying€similar€cases€[for]Ïconducting€proportionality€review.ðð€€Majority€Opinion€at€_____€[slipÏop.€at€œp.€25].›€€The€Court€states€that€the€enumeration€is€notÏexhaustive€and€invites,€even€requires,€that€counsel€for€the€partiesÏidentify€other€factors€and€cases€deemed€relevant€to€theÏproportionality€inquiry.€€Majority€opinion€at€_____€[slip€op.€at€p.Ï26].€€This€provides€counsel€a€framework€within€which€to€addressÏœproportionality.›€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€thus€has€taken€an€important€first€step€inÏarticulating€a€structured€review€process€for€determining€if€aÏsentence€of€death€is€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€inÏsimilar€cases.ÌÌà àHowever,€there€appears€to€be€some€lack€of€consistency€inÏthe€standard€for€determining€if€a€sentence€of€death€isÏdisproportionate.€€The€Court€acknowledges€that€this€case€is€not€asÏð ðatrociousðð€as€some€cases€in€which€the€sentence€of€death€has€beenÏimposed,€and€also€that€the€case€is€not€as€ð ðatrociousðð€as€some€casesÏin€which€the€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€was€imposed,€but€findsÍthese€conclusions€to€be€of€no€significance€in€determining€if€theÏsentence€is€disproportionate.€€Majority€opinion€at€_____€[slip€op.Ïat€œp.€29].›€€The€majority€states:€€ð ðEven€if€a€defendant€receives€aÏdeath€sentence€when€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€similar€toÏthose€of€an€offense€for€which€a€defendant€has€received€a€lifeÏsentence,€the€death€sentence€is€not€disproportionate€where€the€CourtÏcan€discern€some€basis€for€the€lesser€sentence.ðð€€Majority€œopinionÏat€_____€[slip€op.€at€pp.›€œ22„23].›€€The€majority€states€again:€Ïð ðunless,€the€case€taken€as€a€whole€is€plainly€lacking€inÏcircumstances€consistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€where€the€deathÏpenalty€has€been€imposed€[the€sentence€is€œnot€disproportionate].ðð›€ÏMajority€œopinion€at€_____€[slip€op.€at›€p.€œ28].›€€The€standard€basedÏon€these€statements€seems€to€be€that€the€sentence€of€death€isÏdisproportionate€if€the€determinative€factors€are€not€ð ðconsistentððÏwith€those€in€cases€in€which€death€has€been€imposed.€€But€theÏmajority€also€states:€€ð ðMoreover,€where€there€is€no€œdiscernible›Ïbasis€for€the€difference€in€sentencing,€the€death€sentence€is€notÏnecessarily€disproportionate.ðð€€Majority€œopinion€at€_____€[slip€op.Ïat›€p.€œ23].›€€Based€on€its€analysis€of€cases€in€which€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€has€been€imposed€and€those€in€which€it€was€not€imposed,€itÏappears€the€majority€is€requiring€ð ðmany€similaritiesðð€with€cases€inÏwhich€death€was€the€sentence.€€Majority€œopinion€at€_____€[slip€op.Ïat›€p.€œ38].›€€ÌÌà àApplication€of€the€identifying€factors€announced€by€theÏCourt€to€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€and€to€the€character€of€theÏdefendant€does€not€show€this€to€be€one€of€the€few€cases€in€which€theÏsentence€of€death€should€be€imposed.œ× ƒ@ ××  ×›€€The€first€identifying€factorÏlisted€by€the€Court€is€the€means€of€death.€€In€this€case,€the€meansÏof€death€was€a€handgun,€undoubtedly€the€most€commonly€usedÏinstrument€of€homicide.€€Use€of€this€weapon€does€not€weigh€for€orÏagainst€culpability.€€The€manner€of€death€was€several€shots€into€theÏvictimððs€leg€inflicting€injuries€which€caused€him€to€bleed€to€deathÏin€approximately€15€minutes€after€losing€consciousness€in€about€fiveÏminutes.€€Based€on€their€verdict€of€premeditation€and€torture,€theÏjury€apparently€concluded€that€the€defendant€intentionally€shot€theÏvictim€several€times€in€one€leg€with€the€expectation€that€he€wouldÏsuffer€as€he€died.€€This€means€of€death€and€the€duration€ofÏsuffering€is€not€extraordinary.€€The€motivation€for€the€shooting€isÍnot€entirely€clear.€€So€far€as€the€record€reflects,€the€defendantÏand€the€victim€were€strangers€to€each€other.€€The€defendantÏobviously€took€offense€to€the€victimððs€inquiry€as€to€why€theÏdefendant€and€others€were€trying€to€extricate€another€stranger€fromÏa€locked€car.€€This€apparently€was€the€provocation€for€the€offense,Ïas€there€is€no€other€reasonable€explanation€for€the€shooting.€€TheÏplace€of€death€was€the€parking€lot€of€an€apartment€complex€in€SouthÏMemphis,€a€location€at€which€unlawful€activity,€including€drugÏdealing,€dice€games,€robbery,€assault,€and€public€drunkenness,€wasÏnot€unexpected€and€at€which€the€victim€could€reasonably€expect€theÏpossibility€of€violence.€€The€victim€was€a€young€adult€with€noÏremarkable€physical€or€mental€conditions.€€The€jury€foundÏpremeditation.€€There€obviously€was€no€justification€for€the€crime.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€had€committed€some€serious€offenses€as€aÏjuvenile€but€had€no€criminal€record€as€an€adult.€€He€was€a€19„year„old€male€at€the€time€the€offense€was€committed.€€There€is€noÏevidence€of€the€defendantððs€mental€or€emotional€conditions€beyondÏthat€evidenced€by€his€criminal€acts.€€His€physical€condition€doesÏnot€appear€in€the€record,€other€than€he€was€able€to€fire€the€weaponÏand€run€at€a€moderate€rate€of€speed.€€The€defendant€was€the€soleÏperpetrator€of€the€offense.€€He€voluntarily€surrendered€to€theÏpolice€and€gave€a€full€statement€of€the€events€which€transpired€atÍthe€time€the€offenses€were€committed.€€He€had€full€knowledge€thatÏwhen€the€final€shots€were€fired€the€victim€was€completely€helpless.€ÏHowever,€he€insisted€at€trial€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€theÏvictim.€€The€evidence€would€suggest€that€the€defendant€might€beÏrehabilitated,€though€there€is€little€direct€evidence€on€that€issue.€€ÌÌà àThis€proof€shows€that€the€defendant€is€not€a€productiveÏcitizen,€that€he€was€engaged€in€the€common€though€illegal€businessÏof€drugs,€that€he€is€capable€of€precipitous€deadly€violence,€andÏthat€he,€in€short,€is€a€symptom€as€well€as€an€instrument€of€aÏviolent€society.ÌÌà àHowever,€this€proof€assessed€according€to€the€majorityððsÏidentifying€factors€does€not€demonstrate€that€the€defendant€is€amongÏthe€worst€murderers.€€Although€every€murder€is€morally€reprehensibleÏand€socially€destructive,€the€proof€does€not€show€this€defendant€ð ðtoÏpossess€the€characteristics€òòmostóó€repulsive€to€societyððs€sense€ofÏdecency,€and€òòmostóó€destructive€to€the€very€fabric€of€society.ðð€€òòStateÏv.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€272€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€J.,€concurring).€ÏThe€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€ð ðcomparableðð€cases€relied€upon€byÏthe€majority€are€significantly€more€egregious€than€in€this€case.€€InÏòòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993),€the€elderly€victimÏwas€killed€execution„style.€€In€both€òòState€v.€McNishóó,€727€S.W.2d€490Í(Tenn.€1987),€and€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659€(Tenn.€1988),€theÏelderly€victims€were€killed€with€multiple€blows€to€their€heads.€€InÏòòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1989),€the€victims,€anÏelderly€couple,€were€shot.€€The€husband€was€killed,€but€the€wife€wasÏstill€alive€when€the€defendant€poured€gasoline€on€her€and€set€theÏhouse€on€fire.€€She€died€of€burns€and€smoke€inhalation.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€twenty„year„old€victim€was€shot€in€the€leg.€€TheÏmanner€of€death€and€age€of€the€victims€in€òòVan€Tranóó,€òòMcNishóó,€òòBarberóó,Ïand€òòHenleyóó€are€clearly€distinguishable.€€In€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€718ÏS.W.2d€256€(Tenn.€1986),€the€defendant€had€threatened€and€stalkedÏthe€victim,€his€wife,€for€some€time€before€the€murder.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€victim€was€killed€when€he€apparently€interrupted€aÏrobbery€in€progress.€€The€motivation€for€the€killing€in€òòCooperóó€isÏdistinguishable.€€In€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989),Ïthe€defendant,€while€incarcerated,€killed€a€guard€with€a€knife.€€TheÏdeath€sentence€was€imposed€based€on€four€aggravating€circumstances:€Ïthe€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€violentÏfelonies;€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel;€theÏdefendant€was€in€lawful€confinement€when€he€committed€the€murder;Ïand€the€victim€was€a€corrections€employee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),€(5),€(8),€&€(9)€(1982)€(repealed).€€In€the€present€case,Ïthe€jury€found€only€one€aggravating€circumstance:€€the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)€(1991).€€The€nature€of€the€crime€in€òòTayloróó,€as€reflectedÏin€the€aggravating€circumstances€supporting€the€death€penalty,€areÏunquestionably€distinguishable.€€ÌÌà àCiting€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€864€S.W.2d€320,€328€(Mo.€bancÏ1993),€the€majority€holds€that€"[i]f€the€case,€taken€as€a€whole,€isÏplainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€those€in€similarÏcases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed,€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€in€the€case€being€reviewed€is€disproportionate."€€MajorityÏOpinion€at€œ_____€[slip€op.€at€22,›€lines€18„21].€€Applying€thatÏstandard,€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€case€is€disproportionate.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€majority's€attempt€to€distinguish€theÏcases€it€reviewed€in€which€the€jury€declined€to€impose€the€deathÏpenalty,€those€cases€share€more€similarities€than€differences€withÏthe€present€case.€€As€in€this€case,€there€was€nothing€extraordinaryÏabout€the€manner€of€death,€the€motivation€for€the€killing,€or€theÏvictims'€circumstances,€and€the€defendants€were€young€and€had€minorÏprior€criminal€records.€€ÌÌà àThe€circumstances€of€this€case€are€consistent€with€thoseÏsimilar€cases€in€which€the€sentence€was€life€imprisonment€or€lifeÏwithout€parole.€€Consideration€of€the€identifying€factors€providedÍby€the€majority€point€to€three€specific€similar€life€cases€involvingÏa€senseless€killing€(with€nothing€unusual€about€the€manner€of€death)Ïof€a€victim€who€had€no€prior€relationship€with€the€defendant€and€œwhoÏwas›€not€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€or€disability.€€InÏtwo€of€the€cases,€the€State€did€not€even€seek€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€William€Darnell€Christianóó,€[NO€NUMBER€INÏORIGINAL],€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Apr.€28,€1989,€òòapp.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Aug.€7,€1989),€the€21„year„old€defendant€shot€the€26„year„old€victim€after€a€minor€altercation€at€a€nightclub.€€TheÏdefendant's€brother€became€upset€when€the€victim€asked€him€to€moveÏbecause€he€was€blocking€the€victim's€wife's€view€of€the€stage.€ÏLater,€when€the€victim€and€his€wife€were€dancing,€the€defendantÏstood€beside€them€and€pushed€the€victim.€€After€the€victim€pushedÏback,€the€defendant€pulled€out€an€automatic€pistol€and€shot€theÏvictim€in€the€chest.€€The€victim€was€unarmed.€€The€defendant€hadÏthree€prior€convictions:€€rape,€second€degree€burglary,€and€burglaryÏof€an€auto.€€The€defendant€had€œan›€œeleventh›€grade€education€and€thereÏwas€no€evidence€of€psychological€problems.€€The€defendant€wasÏdrinking€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€The€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder.€€The€State€did€not€seek€the€deathÏpenalty.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Jack€Layne€Bensonóó,€Bedford€Circuit€No.€13964Ï(Nov.€12,€1996),€the€31„year„old€defendant€robbed€the€20„year„oldÏvictim€of€his€wallet€and€then€stabbed€him€multiple€times€in€theÏchest.€€The€defendant€had€several€prior€convictions,€includingÏaggravated€burglary,€receiving€stolen€property,€carrying€a€concealedÏweapon,€and€œpossession›€of€drugs.€€The€defendant€had€œan›€œeleventh›Ïgrade€education€and€there€was€no€evidence€of€psychological€problems.€ÏThe€defendant€had€a€history€of€drug€and€alcohol€abuse,€but€there€wasÏno€evidence€that€he€was€under€the€influence€during€the€killing.€€TheÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€The€State€did€not€seek€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà àIn€the€third€case,€òòState€v.€Torrance€Johnsonóó,€ShelbyÏCounty€Criminal€Court€[NO€CASE€NUMBER€ON€RULE€12€REPORT](SentenceÏimposed€Jan.€11,€1997),€the€44„year„old€victim€was€shot€in€the€chestÏand€throat€while€she€was€at€an€ATM.€€The€jury€found€as€the€onlyÏaggravating€circumstance€that€the€defendant€had€prior€convictions.€ÏHowever,€the€Rule€12€report€also€indicates€that€the€mitigatingÏcircumstance€of€no€significant€prior€criminal€history€was€raised€byÏthe€evidence.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€underÏthe€influence€of€drugs€or€alcohol€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€ThereÏwas€no€co„defendant.€€There€is€no€data€concerning€the€defendant.€ÏApparently,€the€report€was€mixed€up€with€another€one€because€theÍdefendant€data€refers€to€a€different€person.€€It€is€unclear€from€theÏRule€12€report€whether€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€premeditatedÏor€felony€murder.€€The€State€sought€the€death€penalty,€but€the€juryÏimposed€a€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€ÌÌà àI€would€find€that€the€proof€in€this€case€does€not€showÏthat€the€sentence€of€death€is€not€disproportionate€to€the€penaltyÏimposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€the€nature€of€the€crime€andÏthe€defendant.€€I€would€therefore€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€courtÏfor€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€or€lifeÏimprisonment€without€parole.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.Ì