ÿWPCl‡ …# V %an­g 0( UB< w@~ 4¾ Ò bá 0âé 0DË U: I 0JQ 0T› 0^ï 1mM 0dº 0h 0r† Bø 0|U:‘ 0†Ë 0Q 0@á D3! 1uT 0dÉU66-U#*cU.B)»DCä AM't÷Ž …¥²Â‘t 4#êM%=7-pt5ªä8tŽ=D@FmPHÇ ½IU>„V¡ÂV–c^ù`rxcŠêjtm§ƒow*rú¡uÝ›wv~xyvÓöz 0É€ 0ŠX 0 â 0´‚‚ 0Ç6ƒ 0Ûýƒ 0ïØ„ AODžƆ 0D܆ D/ ‡ BO‡˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎX«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@($¡¡<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi ÷@ø@«ù@Dú@û@Dü@ý@Dþ@«ÿ@Ó€ AhRt#xxxxxx3|x A- ù-(Tf2p’$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ,°ÑÑü°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ô¹›ôXXÔÔ€&ô~ôôô¹›ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,kû¤AZ‹"Arial Regular2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 'ÿÿdxd#), ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d????7Border 1dd€.@Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÔ€=ÔÔ€=ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€=XÔÌÌò òDecember€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€=ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€judge€imposed€an€effective€fifty€year€sentence€for€the€convictions€of€attemptedÏaggravated€robbery,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€In€thisÏappeal,€the€defendant€does€not€challenge€those€convictions€or€sentences.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"Whenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgmentÏhas€become€final€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€of€direct€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourt€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€The€affirmance€of€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€deathÏshall€be€automatically€reviewed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€the€affirmance€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€clerk€shall€docket€the€case€in€the€Supreme€Court€and€the€case€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ððÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€ð ðPrior€to€theÏsetting€of€oral€argument,€the€Court€shall€review€the€record€and€briefs€and€consider€òòallóó€errorsÏassigned.€€The€Court€may€enter€an€order€designating€those€issues€it€wishes€addressed€at€oralÏargument.ððÌ ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSanders€was€not€related€to€either€Charles€or€Carlos€Sanders,€the€hosts€of€the€crap€game;Ïand€there€is€no€indication€that€he€knew€any€of€the€men€involved€in€the€attack€on€Norman€andÏNugent.Ì ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€its€opinion€on€the€petition€to€rehear€filed€by€the€State,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏexpressed€doubt€about€its€jurisdiction€over€the€case,€observing€that€one€possible€interpretation€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1996€Supp.)€would€divest€the€intermediate€court€ofÏjurisdiction€of€a€capital€case€immediately€upon€the€òòfilingóó€of€an€opinion€affirming€the€sentence€ofÏdeath.€€However,€the€better€interpretation€of€the€statute,€which€we€adopt,€is€that€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€retains€jurisdiction€to€dispose€of€a€timely€filed€petition€for€rehearing€of€a€capital€caseÏin€which€the€death€sentence€has€been€affirmed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€39.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€specific€finding€of€the€jury€in€this€case€was€that€the€murder€was€ð ð1.€cruel€2.€€torture.ðð€ÏIndeed,€the€State€did€not€rely€upon€the€ð ðserious€physical€abuseðð€prong€of€the€statute.€€The€failure€ofÏthe€verdict€to€repeat€the€language€of€the€statute€defining€the€aggravating€circumstance€does€notÏinvalidate€the€juryððs€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,€917€(Tenn.€1989)(upholdingÏverdict€of€ð ðatrocious,€cruel,€tortureðð);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€250€(Tenn.€1990).Ì *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€the€same€day€that€òòGreggóó€was€decided,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€alsoÏapproved€the€statutory€capital€sentencing€schemes€of€Florida€and€Texas.€€òòSeeóó€òòProffitt€v.€Floridaóó,Ï428€U.S.€242,€96€S.Ct.€2960,€49€L.Ed.2d€913€(1976);€òòJurek€v.€Texasóó,€428€U.S.€262,€96€S.Ct.Ï2950,€49€L.Ed.2d€929€(1976).Ì àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€response€to€òòFurmanóó,€Tennessee€enacted€a€capital€sentencing€scheme€in€1973,€PublicÏActs€1973,€Ch.€192,€ðð€2,€which€was€held€unconstitutional€under€Art.€II,€ðð€17€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€because€its€provisions€embraced€more€than€one€subject€and€not€all€of€the€subjectÏmatter€was€set€forth€in€the€caption.€€òòState€v.€Haileyóó,€505€S.W.2d€712€(Tenn.€1974).€€As€a€result,€theÏGeneral€Assembly€that€same€year€amended€the€definition€of€first€degree€murder€and€provided€aÏmandatory€death€penalty€for€all€persons€convicted€of€that€offense€or€as€an€accessory€before€the€factÏof€that€crime.€€Public€Acts€1974,€Ch.€462.€€In€òòCollins€v.€Stateóó,€550€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€1977),Ïhowever,€the€1974€statute€was€held€unconstitutional€under€three€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdecisions€invalidating,€as€violative€of€the€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments,€statutes€prescribingÏa€mandatory€sentence€of€death€upon€conviction€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòWoodson€v.€NorthÏCarolinaóó,€428€U.S.€280,€96€S.Ct.€2978,€49€L.Ed.2d€944€(1976);€òòRoberts€v.€Louisianaóó,€428€U.S.Ï325,€96€S.Ct.€3001,€49€L.Ed.2d€974€(1976);€òòWilliams€v.€Oklahomaóó,€428€U.S.€907,€96€S.Ct.€3218,Ï49€L.Ed.2d€1215€(1976).€€Thereafter,€on€February€8,€1977,€the€Governor€commuted€the€sentenceÏof€all€death€row€prisoners€to€life€imprisonment,€and€on€April€11,€1977,€the€death€penalty€statuteÏbecame€effective€when€passed€over€the€Governorððs€veto.€€òòSeeóó€òòMiller€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€758,Ï762„63€(1979).€€Although€the€capital€sentencing€scheme€has€been€modified€somewhat€over€theÏintervening€twenty€years,€the€1977€enactment€is€the€basis€of€the€current€capital€sentencing€statute.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€Public€Acts€1981,€Ch.€33;€Public€Acts€1989,€Ch.€591,€and€Public€Acts€1990,€Ch.€1038.€€Ì 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€view€was€commonly€held€by€other€state€legislatures€as€well.€€Those€states€adoptingÏstatutory€provisions€requiring€comparative€proportionality€review€include:€ò òAlabamaó ó,€Ala.€Code€ððÏ13A„5„53(b)(3);€ò òConnecticutó ó,€Conn.€Gen.€Stat.€ðð€53a„46b(3);€ò òDelawareó ó,€Del.€Code€Ann.€tit.€II,€ððÏ4209(g);€ò òGeorgiaó ó,€Ga.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„10„35(c)(3);€ò òIdahoó ó,€Idaho€Code€ðð€19„2827(c);Ïò òKentuckyó ó,€Ky.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€532.075(3);€ò òLouisianaó ó,€La.€Code€Crim.€Pro.€Ann.€art.€905.9€andÏLa.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€Section€1;€€ò òMarylandó ó,€Md.€Code€Ann.€[Crim.€Law]€ðð€414(e);€ò òMississippió ó,€Miss.ÏCode€Ann.€Ô&  Ôðð€99„19„Ô'  Ô105(3);€ò òMissourió ó,€Mo.€Rev.€Stat.€ðð€565.035(3);€ò òMontanaó ó,€Mont.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ46„18„310(3);€ò òNebraskaó ó,€Neb.€Rev.€Stat.€ðð€29„2521.03;€ò òNevadaó ó.€Nev.€Rev.€Stat.€ððÏ177.055(2)(d);€ò òNew€Hampshireó ó,€N.H.€Rev.€Sat.€Ann.€ðð€630.5(XI);€ò òNew€Jerseyó ó,€N.J.€Rev.€Stat.€ððÏ2C:11„3(e);€ò òNew€Mexicoó ó,€N.M.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€31„20A„4(c);€ò òNew€Yorkó ó,€N.Y.€Crim.€Proc.€ððÏ470.30(3);€ò òNorth€Carolinaó ó,€N.C.€Gen.€Stat.€ðð€15A„2000(d);€ò òOhioó ó,€Ohio€Rev.€Code€Ann.Ï2929.05(A);€ò òOklahomaó ó,€Okla.€Stat.€tit.€21,€ðð€701.13(c)(3);€ò òPennsylvaniaó ó,€42€Pa.€Cons.€Stat.Ï9711(H);€ò òSouth€Carolinaó ó,€S.C.€Code€Ann.€Ìðð€16„3„25(c);€ò òSouth€Dakotaó ó,€S.D.€Codified€Laws€Ann.€ðð€23A„27A„12;€ò òVirginiaó ó,€Va.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ17„110.1;€ò òWashingtonó ó,€Wash.€Rev.€Code€ðð€10„95„130(2);€ò òWyomingó ó,€Wyo.€Stat.€ðð€6„4„103(d).€ÏThree€other€states,€by€judicial€decision,€required€comparative€proportionality€review€including:€Ïò òArkansasó ó,€òòSheridan€v.€Stateóó,€855€S.W.2d€772,€780€(Ark.€1993);€ò òArizonaó ó,€òòState€v.€Richmondóó,Ï560€P.2d€41€(Ariz.€1976);€ò òFloridaó ó,€òòBrown€v.€Wainwrightóó,€392€So.2d€1327,€1331€(Fla.€1981).Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Tennessee€statutory€capital€sentencing€scheme€has€been€repeatedly€upheldÏagainst€constitutional€attack,€and,€from€the€raw€numbers,€appears€to€be€performing€its€intendedÏpurpose€of€reserving€the€death€sentence€for€the€ð ðworst€of€the€bad.ðð€In€1996,€approximately€492Ïpersons€were€named€in€first€degree€murder€indictments€in€this€State.€€102€persons€were€convictedÏof€first€degree€murder€in€that€year.€Five€death€sentences€were€returned,€with€33€individualsÏreceiving€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€while€64€individualsÏreceived€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€with€the€possibility€of€parole.Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIndeed,€in€the€wake€of€òòPulleyóó,€òòsupraóó,€nine€of€the€twenty„nine€other€states€which€initiallyÏconducted€comparative€proportionality€review€have€either€repealed€the€statutory€provisions€orÏoverruled€court€decisions€mandating€it.€€òòSeeóó,€ò òArkansasó ó€òòWillett›€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€937,€945„46Ï(Ark.€1995)€(stating€that€Arkansas€Supreme€Court€will€no€longer€conduct€proportionality€reviews);Ïò òArizonaó ó,€òòState€v.€œSalazar›óó,€844€P.2d€566,€583„84€(œAz›.€1992)€(stating€that€the€Arizona€SupremeÏCourt€will€discontinue€proportionality€reviews);€ò òConnecticutó ó,€1995€Conn.€Acts€16,€ðð3(b)€(Reg.ÏœSess›.);€ò òIdahoó ó,€1994€Idaho€œSess›.€Laws€127€(S.B.€1302);€ò òMarylandó ó,€1992€Md.€Laws€331€(œH.B.›Ï590);€ò òNevadaó ó,€1985€Nev.€Stat.€527;€ò òOklahomaó ó,€1985€Okla.€œSess›.€Laws,€Ch.€265,€ðð€1;Ïò òPennsylvaniaó ó,€1997€œPa.Legis.Serv›.€Act€1997„28,€ðð€1€(S.B.€423);€ò òWyomingó ó,€Wyo.€Stat.€ðð€6„4„103(d).€€€€€Ì jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝNo€state€has€applied€a€ð ðpureðð€frequency€method€approach€when€conducting€comparativeÏproportionality€review.€€Although€it€appeared€New€Jersey€would€do€so€in€òòMarshallóó,€òòsupraóó,€that€CourtÏopted€instead€to€utilize€both€the€frequency€method€and€the€precedent„seeking€method.€€òòState€v.ÏDiFrisco›óó,€662€A.2d€442€(N.J.€1995).€€The€New€Jersey€Supreme€Court€has€acknowledged€that€itÏrelies€ð ðmore€heavilyðð€on€precedent„seeking€review€than€on€frequency€analysis,€and€it€has€explicitlyÏrefused€to€set€an€arbitrary€numerical€standard€at€which€defendants€ð ðgenerallyðð€receive€the€deathÏpenalty.€€òòIdóó.€at€460.€€Although€the€Washington€Supreme€Court€appears€to€utilize€the€frequencyÏapproach€to€some€degree,€by€quantifying€for€comparison€the€number€of€aggravating€circumstances,Ïvictims,€and€prior€convictions,€that€Court€recently€stated:ÌÌà8 àà àWe€have€quantified€those€factors€that€are€easily€œquantifiable›€in€order€to€beÏas€objective€as€possible.€€By€this€we€do€not€suggest€proportionality€is€a€statisticalÏtask€or€can€be€reduced€to€numbers,€but€only€that€numbers€can€point€to€areas€ofÏconcern.€€At€its€heart,€proportionality€review€will€always€be€a€subjective€judgment€asÏto€whether€a€particular€death€sentence€fairly€represents€the€values€inherent€inÏWashingtonððs€sentencing€scheme€for€aggravated€murder.ÌÌòòState€v.€œPirtle›óó,€904€P.2d€245,€276€(Wash.€1995).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòGreggóó,€428€U.S.€at€206;€96€S.Ct.€at€2940;€òòState€v.€Welcomeóó,€485€So.2d€1235,€1258€(La.Ï1983);€òòTichnellóó,€468€A.2d€at€15;€òòState€v.€McNeillóó,€485€S.E.2d€284,€289€(N.C.€1997);€òòState€v.ÏRhinesóó,€548€N.W.2d€415,€457€(S.D.€1996);€òòPirtleóó,€904€P.2d€at€276.Ì 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝJustice€Reid€singles€out€in€his€dissent€the€above€quote€from€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€andÏconcludes€that€ð ðapplying€that€standard,€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€case€is€disproportionate.ðð€€HeÏfails€to€cite€the€remainder€of€this€paragraph.€€The€full€paragraph€speaks€for€itself€and€does€notÏsupport€Justice€Reidððs€conclusion.Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPreviously€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„205(c)(4)€(1982)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„2406(c)(4)€(Supp.€1977).€Ì ½ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSome€states,€either€by€statute€or€judicial€decision€limit€the€pool€for€comparison€to€onlyÏcases€in€which€a€sentence€of€death€has€been€imposed.€òòSeeóó€ò òAlabamaó ó,€òòBeck€v.€Stateóó,€396€So.2dÏ645,€664€(Ala.€1980);€ò òArkansasó ó,€òòSanders€v.€Stateóó,€878€S.W.2d€391,€400€(Ark.€1994);€ò òArizonaó ó,ÏòòState€v.€Whiteóó,€815€P.2d.€869,€884€(Ariz.€1991);€ò òFloridaó ó,€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€437€So.2d€133,€137Ï(Fla.€1983);€ò òKentuckyó ó,€òòGall€v.€Commonwealthóó,€607€S.W.2d€97€(Ky.€1980);€ò òMississippió ó,€òòKing€v.ÏStateóó,€421€So.2d€1009€(Miss.€1982);€ò òNebraskaó ó,€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€399€N.W.2d›€706,€733€(Neb.Ï1986);€ò òNew€Jerseyó ó,€N.J.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€2C:11„3;€ò òOhioó ó,€òòState€v.€œSteffen›óó,€509€œN.E.2d›€383,€395Ï(Ohio€1987);€ò òSouth€Carolinaó ó,€òòState€v.€œCopeland›óó,€300€S.E.2d€63€(S.C.€1982).€€Other€statesÏinclude€in€the€pool€cases€in€which€the€State€sought€the€death€penalty€and€a€sentencing€hearing€wasÏheld,€regardless€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€ò òConnecticutó ó,€Practice€Book€ðð€œ4066A›(b);Ïò òDelawareó ó,€òòœFlamer›€v.€Stateóó,€490€A.2d€104,€139€(Del.€1983);€ò òMarylandó ó,€òòTichnellóó,€468€A.2d€at€13„23;€ò òMissourió ó,€òòState€v.€Whitfieldóó,€837€S.W.2d€503,€515€(Mo.€1992)€(en€œbanc›);€ò òMontanaó ó,€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€931€P.2d€1272,€1285€(Mont.€1996);€ò òNevadaó ó,€òòœBiondi›€v.€Stateóó,€699€P.2d€1062€(Nev.€1985);Ïò òNew€Mexicoó ó,€òòState€v.€Garciaóó,€664€P.2d€969€(N.M.€1983);€ò òNorth€Carolinaó ó,€òòWilliamsóó,€301€S.E.2dÏat€355;€ò òOklahomaó ó,€òòœLiles›€v.€Stateóó,€702€P.2d.€1025,€1036€(Okla.€Crim.€App.€1985);€ò òSouthÏDakotaó ó,€òòRhinesóó,€548€N.W.2d€at€455;€ò òVirginiaó ó,€òòJenkins€v.€Commonwealthóó,€423€S.E.2d€360,€371Ï(Va.€1992);€ò òWashingtonó ó,€Wash.€Rev.€Code€Ann.€ðð€10.95.130(2)(b).€€Finally,€some€states€includeÏin€the€pool€all€death„eligible€homicide€convictions€or€indictments.€ò òGeorgiaó ó,€Ga.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„10„37(a);€ò òIdahoó ó,€òòState€v.€œCreech›óó,€670€P.2d€463,€476€(Idaho€1983);€ò òLouisianaó ó,€òòState€v.€Martinóó,Ï376€So.2d€300,€312„13€(La.€1979);€ò òNew€Yorkó ó,€N.Y.€œJud›.€Law€ðð€211„a€(death„eligible€indictments);Ïò òPennsylvaniaó ó,€òòCommonwealth€v.€œFrey›óó,€475€A.2d€700,€707€(Pa.€1984);€ò òWyomingó ó,€òòœEngberg›€v.ÏStateóó,€686€P.2d€541,€555€(Wyo.€1984).€€Of€the€twenty€states€which€still€require€comparative€review,Ïeight€limit€the€pool€for€comparison€to€cases€in€which€a€death€sentence€was€imposed;€eight€considerÏcases€in€which€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€was€held€regardless€of€the€sentence€imposed;€andÏthree€include€in€the€pool€all€death„eligible€homicides.€€One€other€state,€New€Hampshire€has€notÏdefined€the€pool€for€comparison€because€it€has€no€death€penalty€cases,€though€it€has€a€capitalÏsentencing€scheme.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€approved€more€limited€ð ðuniversesððÏthan€that€provided€by€our€Rule€12.€€òòSeeóó€òòGreggóó€428€U.S.€at€205,€n.€56,€96€S.Ct.€at€2940,€n.€56;ÏòòProffittóó,€428€U.S.€at€259,€96€S.Ct.€at€2969„70.Ì< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€do€not€include€in€the€pool€for€comparison€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€the€StateÏdid€not€seek€the€death€penalty€or€a€sentence€other€than€death€was€agreed€upon€as€part€of€a€pleaÏbargaining€agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€211,€òòWhitfieldóó,€837€S.W.2d€at€515€(including€in€theÏpool€for€comparison€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€the€State€did€not€seek€the€death€penalty€orÏagree€upon€a€sentence€less€than€death€without€a€hearing€amounts€to€implicitly€reviewingÏprosecutorial€discretion€which€is€generally€not€subject€to€judicial€review).€€Under€current€law€aÏsentencing€hearing€may€be€conducted€to€determine€whether€the€sentence€should€be€lifeÏimprisonment€or€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€even€if€the€State€does€not€seekÏthe€death€penalty.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(a)€(1996€Supp.)€€Under€prior€law,€a€penaltyÏhearing€was€held€only€if€the€State€sought€the€death€penalty.€We€include€in€the€pool€for€comparisonÏonly€those€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€the€State€seeks€the€death€penalty€and€a€sentencingÏhearing€is€held.€€Of€course,€the€decision€to€prosecute€or€seek€the€death€penalty€may€not€beÏdeliberately€based€upon€an€impermissible€consideration€ð ðsuch€as€race,€religion€or€other€arbitraryÏclassification.ðð€òòOyler›€v.€Bolesóó,€368€U.S.€448,€456,€82€S.Ct.€501,€506,€7€L.Ed.2d€446€(1962).€€By€thisÏdecision,€defendants€are€in€no€way€precluded€from€relying€upon€and€utilizing€the€entire€ð ðuniverseððÏof€first€degree€murder€cases€when€attempting€to€establish€a€claim€for€selective€prosecution€underÏthe€Equal€Protection€Clause,€œòòseeóó€òòWayte›€v.€United€œStatesóó,›€470€U.S.€598,€608,€105€S.Ct.€1524,Ï1531,€84€L.Ed.2d€547€(1985).Ì ŒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPresently€we€locate€similar€cases€for€comparative€proportionality€review€by€usingÏtraditional€research€methods€and€by€reviewing€the€more€than€five€hundred€Rule€12€reports€on€file€inÏthe€Clerkððs€office€in€Nashville.€€We€are€in€the€process€of€selecting€the€specific€criteria€to€be€used€inÏthe€preparation€of€a€Tennessee€CD„Rom€death€penalty€database€which€will€be€used€by€this€CourtÏand€accessible€to€the€litigants.Ì uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòCf›.óó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€207,€n.€75;€Section€4,€œLa.Sup›.€Ct.€R.€905.9.1€(requiring€theÏprosecution€and€defense€to€file€a€ð ðsentence€review€memorandaðð€addressing€the€propriety€of€theÏsentence€and€discussing€each€first€degree€murder€case€in€the€district€in€which€the€sentence€wasÏimposed,€along€with€a€synopsis€of€the€facts€about€the€crime€and€the€defendant€in€the€case€onÏappeal).€Ì hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€354„55€(Tenn.€1992)(Reid,€C.J.,Ïconcurring€and€dissenting);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€485€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïconcurring€and€dissenting);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€271€(Tenn.€1993)(Reid,€C.J.,Ïconcurring);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€585€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring);€òòState€v.ÏHurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€71€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting);€State€v.€Cazes,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï272€(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting);€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€744€(Tenn.€1994)€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïdissenting);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€932€(Tenn.€1994)€(Reid,€J.,€concurring€andÏdissenting);€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€527€(Tenn.€1997)€(Reid,€J.,€concurring);€òòState€v.ÏHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€362€(Tenn.€1997)€(Reid,€J.,€dissenting).€€The€basis€for€Justice€ReidððsÏprior€assertion€that€it€is€not€possible€to€articulate€an€alternative€approach€for€comparative€review€in€aÏdissenting€opinion€is€not€clear.€€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€272€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring)€(ð ðAn€adequateÏstructure€for€comparative€proportionality€review€cannot€be€set€forth€in€a€dissent.ðð)€€Jurists€in€otherÏstates€have€taken€on€the€task.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòState€v.€Rhinesóó,€548€N.W.2d€415,€461€(S.D.€1996)Ï(Amundson,€J.,€dissenting);€òòState€v.€Brettóó,€892€P.2d€29,€71€(Wash.€1995)€(Utter,€J.,€dissenting);ÏòòState€v.€Lordóó,€822€P.2d€177,€228€(Wash.€1991)€(Utter€and€Smith,€JJ.,€dissenting);€òòState€v.€JeffriesóóÏ717€P.2d€722,€731€(Wash.€1986€)€(Utter,€J.,€dissenting).€Indeed,€many€majority€decisions€actuallyÏbegin€as€dissenting€opinions.€€€Ì €Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€is€stated€in€footnote€1€of€Justice€Reidððs€dissenting€opinion,€the€discussion€ofÏproportionality€review€in€this€opinion€was€revised€and€expanded€after€the€initial€drafts€of€theÏdissenting€opinions€were€received.€€The€expansion€primarily€was€a€response€to€Justice€ReidððsÏdissenting€opinion.€€We€note€that,€as€a€result€of€our€response,€Justice€Reidððs€dissenting€opinionÏwas€revised€and€expanded.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýò òJustice€Reid€states:€"The€proportionality€procedure€outlined€by€theÏmajority€in€this€case€answers€many€of€the€problems€raised€in€those€priorÏdecisions.€€The€majority€sets€a€course€which€could€develop€into€a€procedureÏwhich€complies€with€the€statute€and€the€constitutions.ððó óÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€we€stated€in€òòBarberóó,€a€comparative€proportionality€review€is€conducted€by€this€Court€inÏall€death€penalty€cases.€òòIdóó.,€753€S.W.2d€at€668,€n.€5.€€Though€we€do€not€always€include€citations€toÏor€discussions€of€other€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€the€State€sought€the€death€penalty€andÏthe€defendant€received€a€life€sentence,€this€Court€always€considers€those€cases€when€conductingÏcomparative€proportionality€review.Ì mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€also€found€that€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,Ïinterfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another;ðð€and€thatÏð ð[t]he€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing,€or€was€an€accompliceÏin€the€commission€of,€or€was€attempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€after€committing€or€attempting€toÏcommit,€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€larceny,€kidnapping›,€aircraft€piracy,Ïor€unlawful€throwing,€placing€or€discharging€of€a€destructive€device€or€bomb.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏœ39„13„204(i)(6)›€&€(7)€(1991€&€Supp.€1996).€Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€found€that€the€defendant€had€committed€prior€violent€felonies,€that€theÏdefendant€was€in€lawful€confinement€when€he€committed€the€murder,€and€that€the€victim€was€aÏcorrections€employee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„23(i)(2),(8)€&€(9)€(1982)€(repealed).€Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€<ôÔÔ€=ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€Court€has€reviewed€116€capital€cases€since€1977€involving€110€defendants.€€Of€theÏ110,€at€least€46€were€between€the€ages€of€19€and€25€when€the€offense€was€committed.€At€least€9Ïwere€19€years€old€when€the€offense€was€committed.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€.‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€<ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€=ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€ kê XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€>>XÐd&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌØ ØÓ&€>>XÐd&ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àœò òFiled:ó ó€ò òDecember€1,€1997ó ó›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTY€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)̜ـ€ÙßR€AB@A1-j|«û` Å `€€@ÿRß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Arthur€T.ÏBennettà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌANDRE€S.€BLAND,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)à àSupreme€CourtÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„œS01›„9603„CR„00032ÌÌÌòòÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòà àFOR€APPELLEE:óóÌÌWilliam€L.€Johnsonà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌPatricia€A.€œOdell›à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ50€North€Front€St.,€Suite€1150à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœDarian›€B.€TaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€David€œBridgers›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€œPierotti›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€D.€HendersonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€C.€HenryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneysÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÔ€=„Ôà@ àÌÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€=XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àDROWOTA,€J.€ÌÌÑ ` ÑÑ , ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓà àIn€this€capital€case,€the€defendant,€Andre€S.€Bland,€was€convicted€ofÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder,€attempted€aggravated€robbery,€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery,€and€attempted€first€degree€murder.× ƒC ××  ×€€In€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€jury€found€one€aggravating€circumstance:€€ð ð[œt]he›€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physicalÏabuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5)€(1991€œRepl›.€&€1996€œSupp›.).€€Finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstanceÍoutweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€juryÏsentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà àOn€direct€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendantÏchallenged€both€his€conviction€and€sentence.€€After€fully€considering€theÏdefendantððs€claims,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment.€€Thereafter,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1996ÏSupp.),× ƒD ××  ×€the€case€was€docketed€in€this€Court.€ÌÌÓ` °ŽXÊ&Ø'XÓà àThe€defendant€raised€several€issues€in€this€Court,€but€after€carefullyÏexamining€the€entire€record€and€the€law,€including€the€thorough€opinion€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€the€briefs€of€the€defendant€and€the€State,€thisÏCourt,€on€December€9,€1996,€entered€an€Order€limiting€review€to€four€issues€andÍsetting€the€cause€for€oral€argument€at€the€April€1997€term€of€Court€in€Jackson.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€12.œ× ƒE ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€explained€below,€we€have€determined€that€none€of€theÏalleged€errors€have€merit.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€findings€asÏto€the€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances,€and€the€sentence€of€death€is€notÏdisproportionate€or€arbitrary.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€conviction€for€firstÏdegree€murder€and€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€are€affirmed.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€evidence€presented€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€established€that€onÏthe€evening€of€October€9,€1992,€the€defendant,€then€nineteen€years€old,€alongÏwith€Darryl€Bailey,€Martell€Pollard,€Carlos€Sanders,€and€two€men€known€only€asÏSteve€and€Yogi,€attended€a€crap€game€at€the€apartment€of€Charles€Sanders€inÍthe€Southbrook€Apartment€Complex€in€Memphis.€€When€the€crap€game€endedÏaround€10:00€p.m,€these€young€men€wandered€outside€and,€at€some€pointÏbetween€10:30€and€11:30€€p.m.,€decided€to€rob€two€strangers,€Earnest€NormanÏand€Marcel€Nugent,€whom€they€had€seen€arriving€at€the€complex€earlier.€€NugentÏhad€come€along€to€the€complex€with€Norman€to€visit€a€friend.€€Norman€andÏNugent€both€testified€that€when€they€arrived,€four€to€six€men€were€standingÏaround€in€the€parking€lot,€and€as€they€were€nearing€Normanððs€car€to€leave€aboutÏthirty€minutes€later,€the€group€of€men€approached€them,€asked€who€they€were,Ïwhere€they€were€from,€and€whether€they€had€any€money.€€When€Norman€andÏNugent€ignored€the€group€of€men,€one€of€the€defendantððs€party€struck€Norman€inÏthe€back€of€the€head€as€he€was€about€to€get€into€his€car.€€Norman€fled.€€As€he€ran,ÏNorman€realized€he€was€being€pursued€by€one€of€the€men,€and€he€heardÏsomeone€urging€another€person€to€shoot,€and€then€heard€a€gun€fire.€€NormanÏescaped€unhurt€to€a€nearby€service€station€and€called€911.ÌÌà àIn€the€meantime,€Nugent,€who€had€locked€himself€inside€Normanððs€car,Ïfound€himself€trapped€and€surrounded€by€the€group€of€men€as€they€tried€to€forceÍhim€out€of€the€car.€€About€this€time,€the€victim€of€the€murder,€twenty„year„oldÏOntrain€(Terry)€Sanders,× ƒF ××  ×€drove€into€the€parking€lot,€got€out€of€his€car,€andÏapproached€the€men€surrounding€Nugent.€€According€to€Nugent,€the€men€saidÏsomething€to€Sanders,€who€turned€and€headed€back€to€his€car€without€replying.€ÏThe€defendant€then€fired€a€gun,€hitting€Sanders€in€his€right€leg.€€BleedingÏprofusely,€Sanders€fled€some€273€feet,€almost€100€yards,€through€the€apartmentÏcomplex.€€The€defendant€and€Darryl€Bailey€jogged€after€Sanders€who€wasÏlimping€from€the€leg€injury.€When,€during€the€chase,€the€defendant€shot€SandersÏin€the€leg€again,€Sanders€attempted€to€hide€under€a€pickup€truck.€€However,ÏSanders€was€discovered€and€the€defendant€shot€him€at€least€two€or€three€moreÏtimes€while€he€lay€underneath€the€truck.€€The€defendant€and€Darryl€Bailey€thenÏleft€Sanders,€under€the€truck,€pleading€for€help,€and€ran€back€around€theÏapartment€complex€to€the€car€where€Nugent€was€trapped.ÌÌà àUpon€hearing€gunfire,€Henry€Adams,€who€lived€in€an€upstairs€apartment,Ïlooked€out€his€back€door€and€saw€a€man€with€a€large€shiny€gun€kneeling€downÏas€if€shooting€under€the€truck.€€Adams€heard€three€shots€fired,€then€saw€the€manÏwith€the€gun€turn€and€run.€€Hearing€a€man€screaming,€ð ðOh€God,€please€help€me,ððÏAdams€called€911€just€after€midnight.€€When€Adams€returned€to€his€back€door€toÏlook€out€into€the€parking€lot,€he€saw€someone€trying€to€crawl€out€from€underneathÏthe€pickup€truck,€and€heard€the€person€yelling€and€pleading€for€help€for€a€shortÏwhile€longer.ÌÌà àFloyd€P.€Johnson€owned€the€green€pickup€truck€under€which€Sanders€hadÏtaken€refuge,€and€Johnsonððs€upstairs€apartment€also€overlooked€the€area€inÏwhich€the€shooting€occurred.€€Johnson€testified€that€after€hearing€three€gunshots,Ïhe€looked€out€his€window€and€saw€a€man€lying€partially€under€his€truck€with€hisÏupper€body€exposed€and€covered€in€blood.€€Johnson€testified€that€the€man€wasÏcalling€out,€ð ðOh€God,€help€me!ðð€Because€he€feared€for€his€own€safety,€JohnsonÏstayed€on€his€balcony,€but€attempted€to€calm€Sanders€down€by€talking€to€him€andÍencouraging€him€to€remain€still.€€Johnson€said€he€talked€with€Sanders€for€ten€orÏfifteen€minutes€until€the€ambulance€arrived.ÌÌà àWhile€Sanders€fought€for€his€life€under€the€truck,€the€defendant€and€DarrylÏBailey€returned€to€Normanððs€car.€€Bailey€helped€the€group€of€men€break€throughÏthe€passenger€window€and€pull€Nugent€from€the€automobile.€€Nugent€scuffledÏwith€the€men€before€breaking€free.€€As€Nugent€fled,€his€jacket€was€pulled€off€hisÏback.€€According€to€Martell€Pollard€when€someone€shouted,€ð ðhe€has€a€gun,ðð€theÏdefendant€shot€Nugent€in€the€leg.€€The€men€then€took€his€watch€and€his€money,Ïkicked€him,€beat€him,€and€finally,€the€defendant€again€shot€Nugent€in€the€leg.€ÏThe€group€of€men€then€disbanded,€leaving€Nugent€lying€in€the€parking€lot.€ÏNugent€made€it€upstairs€to€the€apartment€of€Normanððs€friend,€where€he€waitedÏuntil€an€ambulance€arrived.ÌÑ7€XXdÈ XXdð7ÑÌà àThe€first€ambulance€on€the€scene€transported€Sanders€to€the€hospital.€ÏOne€of€the€paramedics€testified€that€the€unit€arrived€nine€minutes€after€receivingÍthe€call,€but€Sandersðð€condition€was€very€grave€at€the€time€of€their€arrival.€ÏSanders€died€in€the€ambulance€on€the€way€to€the€hospital.€ÌÌà àTwo€days€later,€at€the€urging€of€his€mother€and€grandmother€and€afterÏlearning€that€the€police€were€looking€for€him,€the€defendant€turned€himself€intoÏthe€Memphis€Police€Department€on€the€afternoon€of€October€12,€1992,€Ïapproximately€two€days€after€the€killing.€€At€that€time,€the€defendant€gave€aÏstatement€in€which€he€confessed€to€shooting€Nugent€and€Sanders€with€a€chromeÏ9„millimeter€pistol.€The€following€is€the€defendantððs€account€of€the€crime:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àMe,€Little€Darryl,€Carlosðð€daddy,€Carlos,€and€a€guy€named€PatÏwere€shooting€dice.€€We€were€inside€Carlos€Sandersðð€house€insideÏthe€Southbrook€Apartments.€€Little€Steve€knocked€on€the€door€andÏhe€came€out€and€got€the€9„millimeter€pistol€that€I€had.€€By€that€time€IÏgot€up€and€came€outdoors€and€got€the€gun€from€Little€Steve.€€AndÏYogi€approached€me€saying€he€was€fixing€to€rob€dude€that€was€upÏin€the€house.€€Carlos,€Martell,€Yogi,€Darryl,€Steve€and€me€wereÏstanding€out€there,€and€Yogi€was€telling€us€he€was€going€to€rob€theÏdude.€€I€gave€him€the€gun,€the€9„millimeter.€€By€that€time€the€dudesÏhad€come€out€the€apartment.€€Yogi€approached€him€sayingÏsomething€to€him,€and€then€they€got€into€physical€contact.€€Then€heÏhit€the€dude€and€the€dude€broke€loose€and€ran.€€The€other€dude€gotÏin€the€car€and€locked€himself€in.€€Steve€and€Darryl€grabbed€objectsÍfrom€the€ground€and€started€hitting€the€car€window.€€Darryl€pulledÏthe€dude€up€out€of€the€car.€€Steve,€Yogi,€Darryl,€Carlos,€Martell,€theyÏwas€hitting€the€dude€with€objects€they€picked€up.€€I€got€the€gun€backÏfrom€Yogi,€and€the€dude€in€the€Cadillac€[the€victim]€drove€up€andÏjumped€out€and€started€towards€us.€€And€then€I€shot€him€in€his€leg.€ÏThen€he€went€around€the€building€and€I€went€around€the€buildingÏand€shot€him€in€his€leg€again.€€€And€then€he€had€tried€crawl€upÏunder€a€truck€and€I€shot€him€again.€€Then€he€continued€up€under€theÏtruck.€€I€went€back€around€the€corner,€and€they€was€continuing€toÏbeat€the€dude€that€got€out€of€the€car.€€Then€I€walked€up€and€shot€inÏboth€his€legs.€€I€wasnððt€shooting€to€kill,€thatððs€why€I€shot€them€in€theirÏleg.€€I€turned€around,€threw€the€gun€and€ran€to€the€Kings€GateÏApartments€over€to€my€girlfriend€house,€Teresa€Wiggs.€.€.€.€and€thenÏwe€went€to€sleep.ÌÓÓÌWhen€asked€by€the€police€why€he€shot€Sanders€the€first€time,€the€defendantÏreplied,€ð ðBecause€when€they€was€beating€on€the€dude,€he€jumped€out€andÏapproached€us€and€said,€ððWhatððs€up?ðð€€And€I€turned€around€and€I€shot€him€in€hisÏleg.ðð€€The€defendant€said€that€he€shot€Nugent€ð ðso€he€couldnððt€get€away.ðð€€TheÏdefendant€denied€getting€any€money€or€valuables€from€either€Sanders€or€NugentÏor€being€involved€in€the€robbery.€€He€knew€the€other€men€ð ðwent€in€the€dudeÏpocketsðð€but€did€not€know€if€they€got€anything.€€Nugent,€however,€testified€that€heÏwas€robbed.€€In€addition,€police€found€an€unemployment€check,€a€bloody€dollarÍbill€and€assorted€change,€keys,€and€a€black€cap€near€the€pickup€truck€whereÏSanders€was€killed.€€Sandersðð€wallet€was€also€missing€and€never€found.ÌÌà àDr.€Sandra€Elkins,€a€forensic€pathologist€who€had€performed€the€autopsyÏon€Sanders,€testified€that€the€cause€of€his€death€was€multiple€gunshot€wounds,Ïone€of€which€œlacerated›€his€femoral€artery€and€caused€him€to€bleed€to€death.€€Dr.ÏElkins€found€nine€separate€gunshot€wounds€to€the€victimððs€right€leg,€extendingÏfrom€the€groin€area€of€the€upper€thigh€to€just€above€the€knee,€which€included€bothÏentrance€and€exit€wounds.€From€the€combination€of€entrance€and€exit€wounds,ÏDr.€Elkins€deduced€that€the€victim€had€actually€been€shot€four€or€five€times.€€AÏperson€with€the€victimððs€injuries,€Dr.€Elkins€testified,€could€live€from€two€to€fifteenÏminutes€and€be€conscious€four€to€five€minutes€after€suffering€such€a€wound.ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€proof€summarized€above,€the€jury€found€the€defendantÏguilty€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder,€especially€aggravated€robbery,Ïattempted€first€degree€murder,€and€attempted€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà àThe€trial€proceeded€to€the€sentencing€phase€on€the€conviction€for€firstÏdegree€murder.€€The€State€presented€two€witnesses.€€Dr.€Elkins€again€testifiedÏthat€someone€with€the€victimððs€injury€could€live€from€two€to€fifteen€minutes€and€beÏconscious€up€to€four€to€five€œminutes.›€€€Since€the€victimððs€femoral€nerve€had€onlyÏbeen€bruised€and€not€severed,€and€because€the€muscles€and€nerves€of€his€rightÏthigh€had€been€completely€destroyed,€Dr.€Elkins€testified€that€the€victim€wouldÏhave€experienced€pain€from€the€wounds€in€his€leg€during€the€time€he€remainedÏconscious.ÌÌà àThe€second€State€witness€was€the€victimððs€mother,€Vivian€Lewis,€a€deafÏmute€who€testified€through€an€interpreter.€She€testified€that€her€son€was€sweetÏand€good€and€had€never€been€in€any€trouble.€€She€said€that€the€victimððs€€twoÏsmall€daughters,€two„years„old€and€four„years„old€at€the€time€of€trial,€were€ð ðvery,Ïvery€worriedðð€and€wanted€to€see€their€fatherò ò.€€€ó óLewis€also€testified€that€her€sonððsÏmurder€had€left€his€family€ð ðvery,€very€hurt.ððÌÌà àThe€defense€presented€three€witnesses:€the€defendantððs€mother,€MarilynÏBoyd;€his€maternal€grandmother,€Virginia€Bland;€and€the€defendant€himself.€€TheÏdefendant€had€never€known€his€father€and€was€raised€by€his€mother€andÏgrandmother,€who€both€testified€that€he€had€turned€himself€into€the€police€at€theirÏurging.€€The€defendant€had€dropped€out€of€high€school€in€the€eleventh€grade,Ïwhen€he€was€suspended€for€being€ð ðdisrespectful€to€a€teacher.ðð€He€had€a€juvenileÏrecord€beginning€at€the€age€of€eleven,€consisting€of€multiple€assaults€andÏbatteries,€car€thefts,€and€at€least€one€drug€conviction.€€The€defendant€testified€thatÏhe€shot€the€victim€because€the€victim€ran€back€to€his€car€as€if€he€was€ð ðfixing€to€getÏhis€gun€or€something;ðð€that€he€did€not€know€why€he€and€Darryl€had€followed€theÏvictim;€that€he€had€been€drinking€and€the€crime€was€a€spur€of€the€momentÏdecision;€and€that€the€victim€was€shot€several€times€because€the€automatic€gunÏð ðkept€on€repeating€shots.ðð€€He€expressed€remorse€and€repeated€that€he€was€notÏtrying€to€kill€the€victim:€ð ð[t]hatððs€why€I€shot€him€in€the€leg.ðð€€The€defendant€alsoÏadmitted€that€he€carried€a€gun€because€he€sold€drugs€and€that€he€had€beenÏselling€drugs€on€the€night€of€the€killing.€€During€closing€argument,€counsel€for€theÏdefendant€stressed€his€youth,€lack€of€education,€and€single€parent€upbringing.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€proof,€the€jury€determined€that€the€State€had€proven€theÏexistence€of€one€aggravating€circumstance€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5)€(1991€Repl.€&€1996€Supp.).€€€In€addition,€the€jury€foundÏthat€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighed€the€mitigating€circumstancesÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€as€a€result,€sentenced€the€defendant€to€deathÏby€electrocution.€€The€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€in€accordance€with€the€juryððsÏverdict€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.× ƒG ××  ×€€After€reviewing€the€recordÏand€considering€the€errors€assigned€by€the€defendant,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ò òÌÌà@ àòòà@ àSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEóóó óÌà àRelying€upon€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€the€defendantÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€finding€theÏevidence€sufficient€to€establish€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€He€argues€thatÏthe€only€proof€of€these€elements€is€repeated€gunshots.€€ÌÌà àA€guilty€verdict€by€the€jury,€approved€by€the€trial€court,€accredits€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€for€the€State€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€theÏprosecutionððs€theory.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1973).€€AÏverdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€aÏpresumption€of€guilt,€and€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€why€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2dÏ913,€914€(Tenn.€1982).€€€€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÏweight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€byÏthe€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€This€Court€does€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence.€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏNor€may€this€Court€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€factÍfrom€circumstantial€evidence.€€€òòLiakas€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€298,€305,€286€S.W.2dÏ856,€859€(1956).€€Therefore,€on€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€trial€evidence€and€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferencesÏwhich€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€Consequently,€in€considering€theÏdefendantððs€claim€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient,€we€must€determine,€afterÏreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€whether€anyÏrational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà à€At€the€time€of€the€killing,€first„degree€murder€was€defined€as€anÏð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„202(a)(1)€(1991).€€ð ðIntentionalðð€is€defined€as€the€ð ðconscious€objective€orÏdesire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„11„106(18)€(1991€Repl.).€Premeditation,€on€the€other€hand,€requires€ð ðthe€exercise€ofÏreflection€and€judgment.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(2)€(1991€Repl.).€ÍFinally,€deliberation€requires€proof€of€a€ð ðcool€purposeðð€that€includes€some€periodÏof€reflection€during€which€the€mind€is€free€from€passion€and€excitement.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„201(b)(1)€(1991€Repl.);€òòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€539.€ÌÌà àThe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€questions€for€the€juryÏwhich€may€be€established€by€proof€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€ÏòòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€539.€€There€are€several€factors€which€tend€to€support€theÏexistence€of€these€elements€which€include:€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€anÏunarmed€victim;€the€particular€cruelty€of€the€killing;€declarations€by€the€defendantÏof€an€intent€to€kill;€€evidence€of€procurement€of€a€weapon;€preparations€before€theÏkilling€for€concealment€of€the€crime,€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€ÏòòBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€541„42;€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144,€148€(Tenn.€1992).̛̜à àConsidering€the€proof€in€this€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,Ïas€we€are€required€to€do,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€theÏevidence€is€sufficient€to€establish€premeditation€and€deliberation.€Contrary€to€theÏdefendantððs€assertion,€the€existence€of€repeated€gunshots€to€the€victim€is€not€theÍonly€evidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€Here,€the€defendant€shot€anÏunarmed€victim€òòafteróó€the€victim€had€turned€around€and€headed€back€towards€hisÏcar.€€When€the€victim€attempted€to€get€away,€the€defendant€followed€him,€at€aÏrather€slow€pace,€some€273€feet.€€During€the€chase,€the€defendant€again€shot€theÏvictim,€consciously€choosing€to€engage€in€the€conduct.€€After€being€shot€a€secondÏtime,€the€victim€sought€refuge€under€a€pickup€truck.€€At€that€point,€the€victim€wasÏtrapped€and€helpless.€€If,€as€the€defendant€claimed,€he€intended€only€to€disableÏthe€victim,€he€would€have€ended€the€assault€at€that€point.€€Instead,€the€defendantÏconsciously€chose€to€kneel€down€and€shoot€the€unarmed€victim€at€least€two€orÏthree€more€times€while€he€was€underneath€the€pickup€truck.€€Even€assuming,€asÏthe€defendant€claimed,€that€the€automatic€weapon€continued€to€fire€after€he€hadÏreleased€the€trigger,€the€proof€in€this€case€shows€that,€at€a€minimum,€theÏdefendant€pulled€the€trigger€on€three€separate€occasions€„€once€when€the€victimÏbegan€to€return€to€his€car,€once€during€the€chase,€and€once€while€the€victim€triedÏto€hide€underneath€the€pickup€truck.€€The€jury€logically€could€have€concluded€thatÏthe€defendant€had€time€to€reflect€upon€and€choose€a€course€of€action€when€heÏfirst€fired€his€gun€at€the€retreating€victim,€again€during€the€casual€chase€whichÍensued,€€and€again€upon€discovery€of€the€victim€under€the€pickup€truck.€€TheseÏcircumstances€support€a€finding€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€After€leavingÏthe€victim€begging€for€help€underneath€the€pickup€truck,€the€defendant€returnedÏto€Normanððs€car€where€he€stood€and€observed€the€beating€and€robbery€ofÏNugent.€€This€fact€illustrates€calmness€and€dispassion.€€When€Nugent€brokeÏaway€and€began€to€run,€someone€yelled€that€he€had€a€gun,€and€the€defendantÏshot€Nugent€twice.€€Once€again,€the€defendant€coolly€responded€to€the€situationÏby€shooting€another€unarmed€person.€€Thereafter,€the€defendant€ð ðdumpedðð€theÏgun€in€an€effort€to€conceal€the€crime€and€went€to€his€girlfriendððs€house€and€fellÏasleep.€€Calmness€immediately€following€a€killing€is€evidence€of€a€cool,Ïdispassionate,€premeditated€murder.€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€148.ÌÌà àClearly,€the€evidence€in€this€record€is€sufficient€to€support€the€conclusionÏthat€the€defendant,€without€passion€or€provocation€and€with€a€cool€purpose,Ïconsciously€engaged€in€the€conduct€which€caused€the€victimððs€death€afterÏexercising€judgment€and€reflection.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€inÏthis€record€is€sufficient€to€establish€premeditation€and€deliberation.ò òÌòòà@ àÌà@ àSUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCE€„€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCEóóó óÌà àPursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(B)„(C)€(1991€Repl.€&€1996ÏSupp.),€we€have€examined€the€evidence€to€determine€whether€it€is€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€aggravating€circumstance€found€by€the€jury€and€whether€it€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏoutweighed€any€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€evidence€is€clearly€sufficient€to€support€these€findings.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€correctly€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€definitions€of€the€termsÏð ðheinous,ðð€ð ðatrocious,ðð€and€ð ðcruelðð€in€accordance€with€this€Courtððs€decision€inÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Odomóó,Ï928€S.W.2d€18,€26€(Tenn.€1996).€€Also€in€accordance€with€òòWilliamsóó,€the€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€that€ð ðtortureðð€means€ð ðthe€infliction€of€severe€physical€or€mentalÏpain€upon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€proofÍintroduced€by€the€State€during€the€trial€clearly€established€torture.× ƒH ××  ×€€TheÏdefendant€shot€the€victim€once€in€the€leg.€€The€victim€began€bleeding€profusely.€ÏProof€introduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing€established€that€the€bruising€of€theÏvictimððs€femoral€nerve€would€have€caused€great€€pain.€€Despite€the€bleeding€fromÏthe€wound€and€the€resulting€pain,€the€victim€fled€as€fast€as€he€could€from€hisÏattackers.€€They€pursued€him€for€some€273€feet,€almost€100€yards,€shooting€himÏagain€during€the€chase€.€€No€doubt€terrified,€the€victim€crawled€under€a€truckÏseeking€refuge,€but€the€defendant€was€relentless.€€He€knelt€down€and€shot€theÏvictim€several€other€times€in€the€leg€while€the€victim€was€underneath€the€truck,Ïand€then€left€the€dying€victim€under€the€truck€pleading€for€help.€€SandersÏrepeatedly€called€out,€ð ðOh€God,€please€help€me,ðð€as€the€defendant€and€his€friendÏran€away€from€the€scene€of€the€shooting.€€According€to€the€medical€testimony,€theÏvictim€could€have€remained€alive,€conscious€and€in€pain€for€four€to€five€minutesÏafter€he€was€shot.€€According€to€the€testimony€of€two€eyewitnesses,€the€victim€wasÍalive,€conscious,€pleading€for€help,€and€attempting€to€crawl€out€from€underneathÏthe€pickup€truck€for€ten€to€fifteen€minutes€after€they€first€heard€gunshots.€€The€factsÏand€circumstances€surrounding€this€murder€are€clearly€sufficient€to€establishÏtorture€as€that€term€has€been€defined€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€to€supportÏthe€juryððs€finding€that€this€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€inÏthat€it€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€death.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(I)(5)€(1991€Repl.).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€€òòStateÏv.€Jonesóó,€789€S.W.2d€545€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.Ï1989);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€761€S.W.2dÏ763€(Tenn.€1988);€€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.ÏCooperóó,€718€S.W.2d€256€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.€McNishóó,€727€S.W.2d€490€(Tenn.Ï1987);€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€664€S.W.2d€281€(Tenn.€1984).€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€theÏstatutory€aggravating€circumstance€so€found€outweighed€mitigatingÏcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€mitigation€of€the€offense,€theÏdefendant€relied€upon€his€cooperation€with€police,€his€youth,€lack€of€a€prior€adultÍrecord,€lack€of€education,€and€absence€of€his€father€from€the€home.€€Although€theÏproof€shows€that€Bland€eventually€turned€himself€into€the€Memphis€police,€he€didÏso€only€at€the€urging€of€his€grandmother€and€mother€and€only€after€the€police€hadÏinstituted€an€intensive€search€for€him.€€Moreover,€while€the€defendant€was€youngÏat€the€time€of€the€murder,€only€nineteen,€and€had€no€adult€criminal€record,€BlandÏadmitted€that€he€had€an€extensive€juvenile€record€which€began€at€age€elevenÏand€included€multiple€assaults€and€batteries.€€Though€the€defendant€had€notÏcompleted€high€school,€he€attended€school€through€the€eleventh€grade€and€wasÏsuspended€for€being€disrespectful€to€a€teacher.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€heÏsuffered€from€a€mental€disease€or€defect.€€The€weight€given€aggravating€andÏmitigating€circumstances€is€entirely€within€the€province€of€the€jury.€The€juryÏdetermines€whether€or€not€mitigation€exists€and€whether€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€outweigh€mitigation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Barberóó,Ï753€S.W.2d€659,€669€(Tenn.€1988).€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏoutweighed€mitigating€œcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.›ÌÌà@ àà@ àòòò òPROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWóóó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€claims€that€his€sentence€is€disproportionate€to€theÏpenalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€andÏthe€defendant.€€The€defendant€is€therefore€asserting€that€his€sentence€isÏcomparatively€disproportionate.€€Initially,€we€emphasize€that€statutoryÏcomparative€proportionality€review€must€be€distinguished€from€traditional€EighthÏAmendment€proportionality€analysis,€which€is€the€ð ðabstract€evaluation€of€theÏappropriateness€of€a€sentence€for€a€particular€crime.ðð€€òòPulley€v.€Harrisóó,€465€U.S.Ï37,€42„43,€104€S.Ct.€871,€875,€79€L.Ed.2d€29€(1984).€€By€contrast,€comparativeÏproportionality€review€ð ðpresumes€that€the€death€penalty€is€not€disproportionate€toÏthe€crime€in€the€traditional€sense.€€It€purports€to€inquire€instead€whether€theÏpenalty€is€nonetheless€unacceptable€in€a€particular€case€becauseÏdisproportionate€to€the€punishment€imposed€on€others€convicted€of€the€sameÏcrime.ðð€€€òòIdóó.,€465€U.S.€at€42„43,€104€S.Ct.€at€875„76.€€ÌÌà àAs€a€general€principle,€comparative€proportionality€review€can€be€properlyÏunderstood€only€if€considered€in€light€of€its€jurisprudential€origins.€€We€begin€ourÍreview€with€a€1972€decision€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€which,€in€effect,Ïinvalidated€all€of€the€death€penalty€statutes€of€the€states€and€the€federalÏgovernment.€€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.€238,€92€S.Ct.€2726,€33€L.Ed.2d€346Ï(1972).€€In€òòFurmanóó,€the€Court€held€that€the€Georgia€statute€was€violative€of€theÏEighth€Amendmentððs€prohibition€against€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€becauseÏthe€Georgia€system€left€the€decision€of€whether€a€defendant€lived€or€died€to€theÏunfettered€discretion€of€the€jury.€€According€to€òòFurmanóó,€€under€the€GeorgiaÏsystem,€which€was€representative€of€the€other€statutes€in€effect€throughout€theÏcountry,€a€sentence€of€death€was€unconstitutional€because€ð ðwantonly€and€.€.€.Ïfreakishly€imposedðð€and€cruel€and€unusual€ð ðin€the€same€way€that€being€struck€byÏlightning€is€cruel€and€unusual.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€408€U.S.€at€309„10,€92€S.Ct.€at€2762„63Ï(Stewart,€J.,€concurring).€ÌÌà àFour€years€later,€in€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€96€S.Ct.€2909,€49ÏL.Ed.2d€859€(1976),× ƒK ××  ×€the€Court€again€reviewed€the€Georgia€capital€sentencingÍstatutes€which€had€been€amended€in€response€to€òòFurmanóó€to€limit€jury€discretionÏand€avoid€arbitrary€and€inconsistent€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Among€theÏfeatures€of€the€amended€statutory€scheme€was€a€requirement€that€the€GeorgiaÏSupreme€Court€ð ðreview€every€death€sentence€to€determine€whether€it€wasÏimposed€under€the€influence€of€passion,€prejudice,€or€any€other€arbitrary€factor,Ïwhether€the€evidence€supports€the€findings€of€a€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€and€ðð[w]hether€the€sentence€of€death€is€excessive€orÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€theÏcrime€and€the€defendant.ðððð€€òòIdóó.,€428€U.S.€at€204,€96€S.Ct.€at€2939„40.€€AfterÏrejecting€the€argument€that€the€death€penalty€is€prohibited€by€the€EighthÏAmendment€regardless€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€character€of€theÏoffender,€or€the€procedure€followed,€the€Court€upheld€the€amended€GeorgiaÏstatutory€scheme,€concluding€that€ð ðthe€concerns€expressed€in€òòFurmanóó€that€theÏpenalty€of€death€not€be€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€and€capricious€manner€can€beÏmet€by€a€carefully€drafted€statute€that€ensures€that€the€sentencing€authority€isÏgiven€adequate€information€and€guidance.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€428€U.S.€at€195,€96€S.Ct.€atÍ2935„36.€€One€aspect€of€the€Georgia€statute€cited€with€approval€by€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€in€òòGreggóó€was€the€appellate€review€feature€which€wasÏdescribed€as€ð ða€check€against€the€random€or€arbitrary€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€428€U.S.€at€206,€96€S.Ct.€at€2940„41.ÌÌà àResponding€to€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€decision€in€€òòGreggóó,Ïòòsupraóó,€€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly,€in€1977,€enacted€a€capital€sentencingÏscheme€which€contained€a€comparative€proportionality€review€provision€that€wasÏbased€upon€the€Georgia€statute.× ƒL ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€David€Raybin,€ð ðNew€Death€PenaltyÍStatute€Enacted,ðð€Judicial€Newsletter,€University€of€Tennessee€College€of€LawÏpp.€11„12€(May€1977).€Because€of€the€approval€given€such€provisions€in€òòGreggóó,Ïat€the€time€of€its€enactment,€the€comparative€proportionality€provision€included€inÏthe€Tennessee€capital€sentencing€scheme€was€considered€to€be€constitutionallyÏrequired.€€òòSeeóó€Judicial€Newsletter€at€p.€11€(ð ðThese€appellate€review€proceduresÏappear€to€be€constitutionally€required€to€insure,€at€least€on€a€statewide€level,€thatÏthe€death€penalty€is€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion.ðð).× ƒM ××  ×€€That€view€wasÍcommonly€held€until€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€explicitly€rejected€the€ideaÏthat€comparative€proportionality€review€is€constitutionally€required.€€òòPulleyóó,€465ÏU.S.€at€€50„51,€104€S.Ct.€at€879„80€(ð ðThere€is€.€.€.€no€basis€in€our€cases€for€holdingÏthat€comparative€proportionality€review€by€an€appellate€court€is€required€in€everyÏcase€in€which€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€and€the€defendant€requests€it.ðð);€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòWalton€v.€Arizonaóó,€497€U.S.€639,€655„56,€110€S.Ct.€3047,€3058,€111€L.Ed.2dÏ511€(1990);€òòMcCleskey€v.€Kempóó,€481€U.S.€279,€306„308,€107€S.Ct.€1756,€1774„75,€95€L.Ed.2d€262€(1987)€(presumption€that€sentence€not€disproportionateÏwhere€it€is€imposed€under€a€system€which€furnishes€sufficient€guidance€to€theÏsentencer€through€constitutionally€valid€aggravating€and€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€and€a€federal€court€does€not€review€the€conclusions€of€the€stateððsÏhighest€court€so€long€as€the€proportionality€review€was€undertaken€in€goodÏœfaith).× ƒN ××  ×›€€While€important€as€an€additional€safeguard€against€arbitrary€orÍcapricious€sentencing,€comparative€proportionality€review€is€not€constitutionallyÏrequired.× ƒO ××  ×€€Therefore,€in€adopting€an€approach€to€comparative€proportionalityÏreview,€a€state€appellate€court€must€evaluate€the€statutory€language€at€issue€andÏthe€legislative€intent€in€light€of€the€jurisprudential€background€of€òòFurmanóó€andÏòòGreggóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Webbóó,€680€A.2d€147,€200€(Conn.€1996).ÌÌà àDespite€the€lack€of€any€federal€constitutional€standard,€there€are€two€basicÏapproaches€to€statutory€comparative€proportionality€review:€(1)€the€frequencyÏmethod;€and€(2)€the€precedent„seeking€method.€€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€209;€òòState€v.ÏMarshallóó,€613€A.2d€1059€(N.J.€1992).€€Both€approaches€share€a€common€goalÏwhich€is€to€determine€whether€a€particular€sentence€is€disproportionate€to€theÏsentences€imposed€for€similar€crimes€and€similar€defendants.€€òòIdóó.€€While€the€goalÍis€the€same,€the€approaches€are€fundamentally€different€in€principle€andÏapplication.€€In€general,€the€frequency€method× ƒP ××  ×€employs€a€complicated€statisticalÏanalysis€that€attempts€and€purports€to€quantify,€with€near€mathematical€precision,Ïthe€various€factors€leading€to€the€imposition€or€œnonimposition›€of€the€death€penaltyÏand€the€frequency€with€which€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€in€certainÏcircumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòMarshallóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòState€v.€œPirtle›óó,€904€P.2d€245€(Wash.Ï1995).€€This€approach€has€been€criticized€as€an€unworkable€attempt€ð ðto€quantifyÏthe€unquantifiable.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€209;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€œRamsey›óó,€864ÍS.W.2d€320,€327„28€(Mo.€1993)€(en€œbanc›).€€By€contrast,€a€reviewing€courtÏemploying€the€precedent„seeking€approach€compares€the€case€before€it€to€otherÏcases€in€which€the€defendants€were€convicted€of€the€same€or€similar€crimes€byÏexamining€the€facts€of€the€crimes,€the€characteristics€of€the€defendants,€and€theÏaggravating€and€mitigating€factors€involved.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.€òòWebbóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòœTichnell›€v.ÏStateóó,€468€A.2d€1,€13„23€(Md.€1983).ÌÌà àWithout€explicitly€adopting€the€nomenclature,€this€Court€has€applied€theÏprecedent„seeking€approach€for€the€past€eighteen€years.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€665„66€(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€The€Tennessee€statute€was€modeled€after€the€Georgia€schemeÏapproved€in€òòGreggóó.€€The€frequency€approach€had€not€even€surfaced€withinÏpublished€death€penalty€jurisprudence€in€1977€when€our€statute€was€enactedÏand€it€is€inconsistent€with€the€type€of€fact€specific€analysis€employed€by€GeorgiaÏand€described€and€approved€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€€in€òòGreggóó.€ÏThere€is€no€indication€that€our€Legislature€contemplated€a€complicated€statisticalÏinquiry€when€it€enacted€the€statutory€proportionality€review€provision€in€1977.€ÍòòSeeóó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€209.€€Moreover,€the€General€Assembly€has€neverÏamended€the€statute€to€eliminate€or€modify€the€precedent„seeking€approachÏwhich€has€been€utilized€by€this€Court€since€the€comparative€review€provision€wasÏenacted.ÌÌà àWe€are€mindful€that€the€purposes€of€comparative€proportionality€review€areÏto€eliminate€the€possibility€that€a€person€will€be€sentenced€to€death€by€the€actionÏof€an€aberrant€jury€and€to€guard€against€the€capricious€or€random€imposition€ofÏthe€death€penalty.× ƒQ ××  ×€€€As€we€have€previously€stated,€comparative€review€of€capitalÏcases€insures€rationality€and€consistency€in€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€ÏòòBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€665„66;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€œKandies›óó,€467€S.E.2d€67,€86Ï(N.C.€1996).€€In€light€of€the€jurisprudential€background€against€which€our€statutoryÏprovision€was€adopted,€combined€with€the€General€Assemblyððs€use€of€the€wordÏð ðdisproportionate,ðð€it€is€clear€that€our€function€in€performing€comparative€review€isÏnot€€to€search€for€proof€that€a€defendantððs€death€sentence€is€perfectlyÍsymmetrical,€but€to€identify€and€invalidate€the€aberrant€death€sentence.€€òòIdóó.;€òòStateÏv.€œGroseclose›óó,€615€S.W.2d€142,€150€(Tenn.€1981)€(trial€court€reports€areÏdesigned€to€prevent€the€arbitrary€or€capricious€imposition€of€the€death€penalty);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€211;€òòState€v.€Beyóó,€645€A.2d€685€(N.J.€1994).€€œIf€theÏcase,€taken€as€a€whole,€is€plainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€thoseÏin€similar€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed,€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€in€the€case€being€reviewed€is€disproportionate.€€òòState€v.€Ramseyóó,€864ÏS.W.2d€320,€328€(Mo.€banc€1993).ò ò× ƒR ××  ×ó ó€€Even€if€a€defendant€receives€a€deathÏsentence€when€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€similar€to€those€of€an€offenseÏfor€which€a€defendant€has€received€a€life€sentence,€the€death€sentence€is€notÏdisproportionate€where€the€Court€can€discern€some€basis€for€the€lesser€sentence.€ÏòòSeeó󛀜€òòState›€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€251€(Tenn.€1986).€œ€Moreover,€where€thereÏis€no€discernible€basis€for€the€difference€in€sentencing,€the€death€sentence€is€notÏnecessarily€disproportionate.€€This€Court€is€not€required€to€determine€that€aÍsentence€less€than€death€was€never€imposed€in€a€case€with€similarÏcharacteristics.€€On€the€contrary,€our€duty€under€the€similarity€standard€is€toÏassure€that€no€abberant€death€sentence€is€affirmed.€€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€203.€Ïð ðSince€the€proportionality€requirement€on€review€is€intended€to€prevent€caprice€inÏthe€decision€to€inflict€the€[death]€penalty,€the€isolated€decision€of€a€jury€to€affordÏmercy€does€not€render€unconstitutional€death€sentences€imposed€on€defendantsÏwho€were€sentenced€under€a€system€that€does€not€create€a€substantial€risk€ofÏarbitrariness€or€caprice.ðð€€€òòCfóó.€òòGreggóó,€428€U.S.€at€203,€96€S.Ct.€at€2939.ò ò€€ó óÌÌà àIn›€our€view,€the€precedent„seeking€method€effectively€enables€this€Court€toÏachieve€the€goal€of€comparative€proportionality€review€„„€identifying€aberrantÏsentences.€€If€a€reviewing€court€allowed€its€comparative€proportionality€analysisÏto€be€governed€by€statistical€and€quantitative€analysis,€the€concept€ofÏð ðindividualized€considerationðð€expounded€in€òòœLockett›€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604„05,€98€S.Ct.€2954,€2964„65,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978)(Burger,€C.J.,€pluralityÏopinion),€would€be€frustrated.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€301€S.E.2d€355,€356€(N.C.Ï1983);€òòState€v.€œCopeland›óó,€300€S.E.2d€63,€72€(S.C.€1982).ÌÌà àIn€performing€our€comparative€proportionality€function,€we€are€guided€byÏthe€language€of€the€statute€which€provides€that€appellate€courts€reviewing€capitalÏcases€should€determine€whether€ð ð[t]he€sentence€of€death€is€excessive€orÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€theÏnature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D)Ï(1991€Repl.€&€Supp.€1996).× ƒS ××  ×€€Though€the€statute€itself€is€silent€on€the€issue,× ƒT ××  ×€theÍuniverse€from€which€we€choose€the€pool€of€ð ðsimilar€casesðð€for€comparisonÏincludes€ð ðall€cases€in€which€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€first€degree€murder.ðð€ÏTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€12.ÌÌà àFor€purposes€of€comparative€proportionality€review,€we€eliminate€from€theÏð ðuniverseðð€and€include€in€the€more€narrow€ð ðpoolðð€for€comparison€only€thoseÏcases€in€which€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€was€actually€conducted€to€determineÏwhether€the€sentence€should€be€life€imprisonment,€life€imprisonment€without€theÏpossibility€of€parole,€or€death€by€electrocution,€regardless€of€the€sentenceÍactually€imposedÔ€UÔ.Ô€=Ôœ× ƒV ××  ×›€€€òòSeeóó€Footnote€14,€òòsupraóó€(listing€other€states€with€the€sameÏlimitation).€€ð ð[œB]ecause›€the€aim€of€proportionality€review€is€to€ascertain€what€otherÏcapital€sentencing€authorities€have€done€with€similar€capital€murder€offenses,€theÏonly€cases€that€could€be€deemed€similar€.€.€.€are€those€in€which€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty€was€properly€before€the€sentencing€authority€for€determination.ðð€ÏòòTichnellóó,€468€A.2d€at€15„16;€òòWhitfieldóó,€837€S.W.2d€at€515;€òòSmithóó,€931€P.2d€atÏ1285;€òòRhinesóó,€548€N.W.2d€at€455„56.€òòAccordóó,€òòœFlamer›€v.€Stateóó,€490€A.2d€at€139.ÌÌà àSelecting€similar€cases€from€the€pool€for€comparison€is€not€an€exactÏscience.€No€two€cases€or€defendants€are€precisely€identical.€ThoughÏconsideration€of€the€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances€as€revealed€by€theÏRule€12€reports€is€a€crucial€element€of€the€process,€we€are€not€limited€to€onlyÏthose€cases€in€which€exactly€the€same€aggravating€circumstances€have€beenÏfound.€€òòBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€667;€òòState€v.€œBrimmer›óó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€84€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€In€choosing€and€comparing€similar€cases,€this€Court€considers€manyÏvariables€which€are€not€readily€subject€to€complete€enumeration€and€definition.€€ÏòòBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€665;€òòWilliamsóó,€301€S.E.2d€at€355.€€This€Court€has€notÏpreviously€attempted€to€explicitly€enumerate€factors,€other€than€aggravating€andÏmitigating€circumstances,€which€are€relevant€to€identifying€similar€cases€andÏconducting€€proportionality€review.€€However,€clearly€discernible€from€a€review€ofÏthe€comparative€proportionality€discussions€contained€in€our€prior€decisions€areÏseveral€other€factors€relevant€to€the€process€of€identification€and€comparison€ofÏsimilar€cases€which€include:€(1)€the€means€of€death;€(2)€the€manner€of€deathÏ(e.g.,€violent,€torturous,€etc.);€(3)€the€motivation€for€the€killing;€(4)€the€place€ofÏdeath;€(5)€the€similarity€of€the€victimsðð€circumstances€including€age,€physical€andÍmental€conditions,€and€the€victimsðð€treatment€during€the€killing;€(6)€the€absence€orÏpresence€of€premeditation;€(7)€the€absence€or€presence€of€provocation;€(8)€theÏabsence€or€presence€of€justification;€and€(9)€the€injury€to€and€effects€onÏœnondecedent›€victims.€€€òòSeeóó€òòBarberóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€œHodges›óó,€944€S.W.2dÏ346€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ï893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€œNichols›óó,€877€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€1994);ÏòòœBrimmer›óó,€òòsupraóó;€òòœCazes›óó,€òòsupraóó;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòState€v.€œHowell›óó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€œTran›óó,€864€S.W.2d€465Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€œCaughron›óó,€855€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ï839€S.W.2d€54€(Tenn.€1992);€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏòòCompareóó€òòMarshallóó,€613€A.2d€at€œ1083.ÌÌà àAlso›€evident€from€a€reading€of€our€prior€cases€are€several€criteria€relevantÏto€a€comparison€of€the€characteristics€of€defendants€which€include:€(1)€theÏdefendantððs€prior€criminal€record€or€prior€criminal€activity;€(2)€the€defendantððs€age,Ïrace,€and€gender;€(3)€the€defendantððs€mental,€emotional€or€physical€condition;€(4)Ïthe€defendantððs€involvement€€or€role€in€the€murder;€(5)€the€defendantððsÍcooperation€with€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantððs€remorse;€(7)€the€defendantððsÏknowledge€of€helplessness€of€victim(s);€(8)€the€defendantððs€capacity€forÏrehabilitation.€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€12,€Report€of€Trial€Judge€inÏCapital€Cases.€€While€by€no€means€an€exhaustive€list,€examination€andÏconsideration€of€these€and€other€salient€factors€allows€this€Court€to€identifyÏsimilar€cases€and€determine€whether€the€sentence€of€death€in€the€case€underÏreview€should€be€invalidated€as€œdisproportionate.ÌÌà àTo›€assist€this€Court€in€fulfilling€our€statutory€duty,€the€State€and€theÏdefendant€in€each€case€must€fully€brief€the€issue€by€specifically€identifying€thoseÏsimilar€cases€relevant€to€the€comparative€proportionality€œinquiry.× ƒW ××  ×€€When›Ïaddressing€proportionality€review,€the€briefs€of€the€parties€shall€contain€a€sectionÏsetting€forth€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crimes€that€are€claimed€to€beÏsimilar€to€that€of€which€the€defendant€has€been€convicted,€including€the€statutoryÍaggravating€circumstances€found€by€the€jury€and€the€evidence€of€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€In€addition,€the€parties€shall€include€in€the€section€a€discussion€ofÏthe€character€and€record€of€the€defendants€involved€in€the€crimes,€to€the€extentÏascertainable€from€the€Rule€12€reports,€appellate€court€decisions,€or€records€ofÏthe€trials€and€sentencing€hearings€in€those€cases.× ƒX ××  ×ÌÌà àComparative€proportionality€review€is€not€a€rigid,€objective€test.€€òòCazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€at€270.€€In€conducting€proportionality€review,€we€do€not€attempt€toÏemploy€mathematical€or€scientific€techniques.€€òòWilliamsóó,€301€S.E.2d€at€355.€€InÏevaluating€the€œcomparative€proportionality›€of€the€sentence€in€light€of€the€factorsÏdelineated€above,€a€reviewing€court€must€also€rely€upon€the€experiencedÏjudgment€and€intuition€of€its€own€members.€òòœRamsey›óó,€864€S.W.2d€at€327„28;€òòStateÏv.€Eastóó,€481€œS.E.2d›€652,€668€(N.C.€1997);€òòWilliamsóó,€301€S.E.2d€at€356;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòMarshallóó,€613€A.2d€at€1075.€ò ò€œó óAs€previously›€œexplained,€the€sentence€of€death€isÍnot€disproportionate,€unless,€the€case€taken€as€a€whole€is€plainly€lacking€inÏcircumstances€consistent€with€those€in€cases€where€the€death€penalty€has€beenÏimposed.ÌÌÔ€UÔ›à àÔ€=ÔIn€this€case,€Justice€œReid›€agrees€that€the€proof€œshows€premeditation€andÏtorture›€and€that€the€evidence€supports€the€œjuryððs›€finding€that€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€outweighs€€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ïbut€œhe›€concludes€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€œdisproportionate,€stating€that€ð ðtheÏproof€does€not€show€this€defendant€to€possess€the€characteristics€òòmostóó€repulsiveÏto€societyððs€sense€of€decency,€and€òòmostóó€destructive€to€the€very€fabric€of€society.ðð€ÏSince€Justice€Reid€does€not€enumerate€the€characteristics€which€are€mostÏrepulsive€and€destructive€to€society,€we€can€only€assume€that€he€has€utilized€hisÏown€subjective€judgment€to€make€the€determination.€€In€our€view,€jurors€are€betterÏequipped€to€decide,€in€the€first€instance,€whether€a€particular€defendant€shouldÏreceive€the€death€penalty.€€The€appellate€task€under€€ðð€206(c)(1)(D)€is€toÏcompare€similar€cases,€not€to€gauge,€in€isolation,€the€culpability€of€a€specificÏdefendant€or€the€heinousness€of€a€particular€crime.€€òòSeeóó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€204.ÍOur€role€in€conducting€comparative€proportionality€review€is€not€to€second„guessÏthe€juryððs€decision,€but€to€identify€and€invalidate€›aberrantœ€death€sentences.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€this€fundamental€disagreement€about€the€role€of€this€Court,ÏJustice€Reid,€beginning€in€òòState›€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€œ84„85€(Tenn.›€1992)Ï(C.J.€œReid›,€œdissenting),›€œhas€repeatedly€charged€the€majority›€with€failing€ð ðtoÏarticulate€and€apply€a€standard€for€comparative€review.€.€œ.ðð€€However,€as€in€theÏpresent€dissent,ò ò€ó óin€òòHarrisóó,€Justice€Reid€did€not€articulate€a€proposed€standard€norÏoffer€any€constructive€advice€to€the€majority€on€a€methodology€to€correct€theÏalleged€error.€This›€trend€of€œcriticizing›€œthe€majorityððs€comparative€proportionalityÏreview€analysis,€while€at€the€same€time€offering€no€specific€suggestions€forÍimprovement€has€continued€over€the€intervening€five€years.× ƒY ××  ×€Ìò òÌà àó óEven€in€the€three€prior€direct€appeal€decisions€of€this€Court€where€JusticeÏReid›€has€agreed€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€not€œdisproportionate,€€òòseeóó€òòBushóó,Ï942€S.W.2d€at€527;€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€585;€òòHowell›óó,€868€S.W.2d€at€œ271,ÏJustice€Reid€has€provided€no€express€guidance€as€to€the€objective€criteria€andÏstructured€analysis€he€employed€to€conclude€that€the€sentence€of€death€was€notÏdisproportionate.€€In€fact,€the€explanations€for€the€conclusion›€in€òòœHowellóó,€òòSmithóó,Ïand›€œòòBushóó€that€the€sentence€is€not€disproportionate›€œappear›€to€be€œwell„written›Íœexplanations€of€how€the€facts€surrounding€the€commission€of€the€offenseÏdemonstrate€the€rationality€of€the€sentence€imposed,€similar€to€the€analysis€whichÏconsistently€has€been€employed€by€a€majority€of€this€Court€and€often€criticized€byÏJustice›€œReid.ò ò€€ó óOne›€distinction€from€a€majority€discussion€of€comparativeÏproportionality€review€is€apparent,€however.ò ò€€œó óThe€prior€concurring›€opinions€doÏnot€discuss€or€even€cite€a€single€similar€first€degree€murder€œcase,›€considered€inÏcomparison,€which€supports€the€finding€of€proportionality.€œ€òòSeeóó€òòBushóó,€942€S.W.2dÏat€527;€òòSmithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€585;€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€€272„73.€€Likewise,›€inÏthose€œprior€cases›€in€which€œJustice€Reid€has€found€the›€sentence€of€death€œto€beÏdisproportionate,€he€has€articulated€no€objective€criteria€or€framework€forÏanalysis,€nor€has€he€cited€or€discussed€similar€first€degree€murder€cases€toÏsupport€the€finding.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòHodges›óó,€944€S.W.2d€at€346;€òòœNichols›óó,€877€S.W.2dÏat€744;€òòœCazes›óó,€875€S.W.2d€at€272.ò òÌÌà àó óIn€this€case,€œa€majority€of€this€Court€has›€œcarefully€articulated›€many€factorsÏrelevant€to€comparative€proportionality€review,€and€engaged€in€a€lengthyÏdiscussion€of€its€history€and€œpurpose.€€Justice€Reid€continues€to€characterize€ourÍprior€discussions€of€comparative€proportionality€review€as€ð ðconclusoryðð€andÏð ðperfunctory.ðð€€Without€the€benefit€of€specific€suggestions€or€guidance,× ƒZ ××  ×€however,€Ïthe€analysis€employed€by€the€majority€in€this€case€has€unaccountably€gainedÏJustice€Reidððs€guarded€approval.× ƒ[ ××  ×€€€€€›ÌÌà àœIn€fact,€Justice€Reid€applies›€the€factors€enumerated€by€the€majority€inÏdetermining€that€the€sentence€is€œdisproportionate.€€However,€in€applying€theÏanalysis,€Justice€Reid€considers€specific€facts€in€isolation€and€fails€to€recognizeÏthat€the€factors€are€to€be€applied€in€the€context€of€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense.€€For€example,€Justice€Reid€states€that€the€ð ðmeans€of€death€was€aÏhandgun,€undoubtedly€the€most€commonly€used€instrument€of€homicide.€€Use€ofÍthis€weapon€does€not€weigh€for€or€against€culpability.ðð€€Justice€Reid€fails€toÏmention€anywhere€in€his€analysis€that€the€gunshot€wounds€causing€death€wereÏinflicted€during€the€course€of€a€chase€in€which€the€unarmed,€injured€victim€fled€forÏhis€life.€€The€other€factors€relied€upon€by€Justice€Reid€in€support€of€his€conclusionÏare€also€suspect.€€Particularly€bothersome€is€Justice€Reidððs€statement€that€ð ðtheÏvictim€could€reasonably€expect€the€possibility€of€violenceðð€because€the€ð ðplace€ofÏdeath€was€the€parking€lot€of€an€apartment€complex€in€South€Memphis,€a€locationÏat€which€unlawful€activity,€including€drug€dealing,€dice€games,€robbery,€assaultÏand€public€drunkenness,€was€not€unexpected.ðð€€A€law€abiding€citizen€is€free€toÏtravel€anywhere€he€or€she€chooses.€€Where,€as€here,€a€citizen€is€randomlyÏmurdered€in€a€high€crime€area€and€a€perpetrator€is€convicted€and€sentenced€toÏdeath,€the€citizenððs€decision€to€travel€into€the€neighborhood€has€òònoóó€bearing€onÏwhether€the€death€penalty€is€disproportionate.€€Also€troublesome€is€Justice€ReidððsÏobservation€that€the€defendant€€had€no€adult€criminal€record.€€Considering€theÏdefendantððs€extensive€juvenile€record€and€that€he€was€nineteen„years„old€at€theÏtime€of€this€offense,€his€lack€of€a€criminal€adult€record€has€little€relevance.€€Finally,ÍJustice€Reidððs€assertion€that€the€defendant€has€a€capacity€for€rehabilitation€isÏcompletely€without€support€in€the€record.ÌÌà àFor€the€first€time€in€a€dissenting€or€concurring€opinion€Justice€Reid€citesÏand€discusses€three€other€cases€to€support€his€finding.€€However,€the€State€didÏnot€seek€the€death€penalty€in€two€of€the€cases.€€Therefore,€they€are€not€similarÏcases€for€comparative€proportionality€review.€€With€respect€to€the€third€case,€theÏState€sought€the€death€penalty,€but€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€Though€the€details€of€the€case€areÏnot€clear€from€Justice€Reidððs€opinion,€we€emphasize€that€the€isolated€decision€ofÏthe€sentencer€to€afford€mercy€does€not€render€the€death€sentence€in€this€caseÏdisproportionate.€€In€sum,€Justice€Reidððs€analysis€does€not€demonstrate€that€thisÏcase,€òòtaken€as€a€wholeóó,€is€plainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€thoseÏcases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed.Ì€Ìà àApplication€of€the€principles€of€comparative€proportionality€reviewÏconvinces€us€that€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€case€is€neither€excessive€norÍdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases€considering€the€natureÏof€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D)€(1991ÏRepl.€&€1996€Supp.).€€We€have€studied,€compared,€and€analyzed€cases€andÏconducted€a€meaningful€proportionality€review€as€outlined€herein€and€in€òòBarberóó,Ï753€S.W.2d€at€663„68.€€We€have€made€an€independent,€conscientious,€andÏthorough€review€of€this€case,€as€we€have€in€every€other€capital€case€which€hasÏcome€before€this€Court€over€the€past€eighteen€years.€€As€a€result€of€that€review,Ïwe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€premeditated€killing€of€this€victim€warrantsÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà àWithout€provocation€or€explanation,€the€defendant€shot€an€unresisting,Ïretreating€victim€and€then€chased€the€injured€man€some€91€yards,€shooting€himÏonce€more€during€the€course€of€the€chase.€€The€defendant€was€not€deterredÏwhen€the€severely€injured€victim€sought€refuge€under€a€pickup€truck;€instead,€heÏknelt€down€and€shot€the€helpless€man€several€more€times.€€The€defendantÏignored€the€victimððs€pleas€for€help€and€left€him€dying€under€the€pickup€truck.€€TheÏvictim€remained€alive,€conscious,€and€in€pain€for€at€least€three€to€four€minutes,Íand€perhaps€for€as€long€as€ten€or€fifteen€minutes€according€to€the€testimony€ofÏeyewitnesses.€Unaffected€by€the€exceptional€cruelty€of€his€actions€toward€TerryÏSanders,€the€defendant€returned€to€the€scene€of€the€ongoing€robbery,€watchedÏthe€group€of€men€drag€Nugent€from€the€car,€and€did€not€hesitate€to€shoot€NugentÏtwice€when€he€tried€to€escape.€When€the€robbery€was€completed€the€defendantÏdisposed€of€the€gun€he€had€used€and€went€to€his€girlfriendððs€apartment€and€slept.€ÏThe€defendant€described€the€shooting€as€a€spur€of€the€moment€decision.€€He€saidÏthat€he€had€been€drinking€and€selling€drugs€prior€to€the€shooting.€€Though€youngÏwhen€the€murder€was€committed,€only€nineteen€years€old,€and€lacking€a€€priorÏadult€criminal€record,€the€defendant€had€a€criminal€history€which€dated€back€eightÏyears€and€included€numerous€assaults€and€batteries.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€€the€death€penalty€is€disproportionate€in€thisÏcase€because€this€Court€has€generally€affirmed€only€those€death€sentencesÏimposed€for€more€ð ðatrociousðð€murders.€€While€it€is€true€that€this€Court€hasÏreviewed€and€affirmed€the€death€penalty€in€cases€involving€more€atrociousÏkillings€than€the€present€crime,€this€fact€does€not€invalidate€as€disproportionateÍthe€penalty€imposed€in€this€case.€€òòBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€664„65.€€Moreover,€asÏwe€have€previously€recognized,€the€fact€that€there€are€cases€in€which€a€lifeÏsentence€has€been€given€for€murders€that€were€also€perhaps€ð ðmore€atrociousððÏthan€the€murder€in€this€case€does€not€mean€the€death€penalty€is€disproportionateÏin€this€case.€€òòBarberóó,€753€S.W.2d€at€664„65€(citing€and€discussing€cases).€€InÏconducting€our€review€in€this€case,€we€have€certainly€found€examples€of€moreÏatrocious€killings€in€which€the€jury€declined€to€impose€the€death€penalty.× ƒ\ ××  ×ÌÌà àFor€instance€in€òòState€v.€Jack€Jay€Northóó,€No.€02C01„9512„CC„00369€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Dec.€12,€1996),€app.€denied€(Tenn.€1997),€the€defendant€€Ïand€a€co„defendant€entered€the€home€of€the€forty„five€year€old€victim€in€the€earlyÏmorning€hours€and€shot€the€victim€multiple€times€using€a€single€shot€sawed„offÏshotgun.€€The€first€shot€was€to€the€victimððs€arm€and€occurred€in€the€living€room.€ÏThe€victim€then€fled€into€the€bathroom€and€was€shot€two€times€more€as€he€lay€onÍthe€floor€begging€the€defendants€to€spare€his€life.€€The€cause€of€death€was€aÏgunshot€wound€to€the€victimððs€head.€€Both€North€and€his€co„defendant€admitted€toÏbeing€at€the€scene.€€However,€€both€denied€being€the€trigger€man€and€eachÏblamed€the€other€person€for€planning€and€instigating€the€killing.€€The€proofÏshowed€that€the€defendants€were€engaged€in€gang€activity€and€committed€theÏmurder€to€prove€their€worthiness€to€other€gang€members.€€Neither€North€nor€hisÏco„defendant€were€acquainted€with€the€victim,€but€there€was€some€proof€thatÏNorthððs€mother€had€socialized€with€the€victim€during€a€time€period€when€NorthÏwas€living€with€his€father.€€North€was€twenty€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€killing.€ÏThough€he€did€not€graduate€from€high€school,€North€had€received€a€GED.€€NorthÏhad€a€prior€conviction€for€burglary.€€In€the€course€of€the€investigation,€North€gaveÏconflicting€statements€to€the€police,€initially€denying€any€involvement€in€theÏkilling.€€According€to€the€trial€judge,€North€testified€both€at€the€trial€and€atÏsentencing€in€a€ð ðtearful,€emotional€manner.ðð€The€jury€found€North€guilty€of€firstÏdegree€premeditated€murder€and€also€found€that€the€State€had€proven€theÍexistence€of€three€aggravating€circumstances× ƒ] ××  ×€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ïincluding€the€circumstance€returned€by€the€jury€in€this€case,€that€ð ð[t]he€murderÏwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€seriousÏphysical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€to€produce€death.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204€(i)(5)€(1991€Repl.).€€However,€the€jury€declined€to€impose€the€deathÏpenalty,€returning€instead€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibilityÏof€parole.€€The€juryððs€decision€to€impose€a€sentence€less€than€death€on€North,Ïeven€though€the€circumstances€of€the€crime€reveal,€in€the€words€of€the€trial€judge,Ïthat€he€was€ð ða€cold,€callous€person€with€absolutely€no€regard€for€human€life,ððÏdoes€not€render€Blandððs€sentence€disproportionate.€€òòCfóó.€òòGreggóó,€òòsupraóó,€428€U.S.Ïat€203,€96€S.Ct.€at€2939.ÌÌà àIn€conducting€our€review,€we€also€have€reviewed€other€cases€bearingÏsimilarities€to€the€circumstances€of€this€crime€and€the€character€of€this€defendant,Ïin€which€the€defendants€received€a€life€sentence.€€For€example,€in€òòState€v.€JamesÏMorning€Craft,€Jr.,€and€Lewis€Moorletóó,€C.C.A.€No.€31,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏJackson,€Mar.€8,€1989),€app.€denied€(Tenn.€1989),€the€seventy€year€old€victim,Ïowner€and€operator€of€a€liquor€store€in€Memphis,€closed€his€business€at€11€p.m.Ïand€went€to€his€car.€€Finding€a€tire€flat,€he€drove€the€car€from€the€parking€lot€to€theÏfront€of€the€store€to€change€the€tire.€Craft,€along€with€several€other€persons,Ïhelped€the€victim€change€the€tire,€and€when€the€task€was€nearly€completed,€theÏvictim€was€shot€three€times.€€Craft€was€observed€running€from€the€scene€with€theÏwounded€victim€firing€a€gun€at€him.€€The€victim€died€from€the€gunshot€wounds€aÏshort€time€later,€one€of€which€severed€his€aorta.€€The€proof€showed€that€Craft€andÏMoorlet€had€discussed€robbing€the€victim€shortly€before€the€crime€was€committed.€ÏCraft€had€named€Moorlet€as€the€triggerman€to€several€witnesses€that€testified€forÏthe€State.€€The€jury€found€both€Craft€and€Moorlet€guilty€of€first€degree€murderÏcommitted€in€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€€The€State€relied€upon€only€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Craft,€twenty€at€theÍtime€the€offense€was€committed,€had€a€low€IQ€and€only€a€seventh€gradeÏeducation.€€The€trial€judge€characterized€Craft€as€ð ðeasily€led.ðð€€Three€yearsÏearlier,€Craft€had€been€convicted€of€burglary.€€Moorlet€had€a€twelfth€gradeÏeducation€and€no€prior€criminal€record.€€Though€his€IQ€was€listed€as€not€knownÏby€the€trial€judge,€his€conduct€during€the€trial€was€described€as€ð ðexcellent.ðð€€ThereÏwas€no€evidence€of€drug€or€alcohol€influence€in€the€killing.€€Considering€theÏproof,€the€jury€declined€to€impose€the€death€penalty€and€instead€imposed€a€lifeÏsentence€upon€each€defendant.€Unlike€this€case,€there€was€no€evidence€that€theÏmurder€committed€by€Craft€and€Moorlet€involved€torture.€€Unlike€the€unexplained,Ïsenseless€murder€committed€by€Bland,€the€murder€committed€by€Craft€andÏMoorlet€occurred€during€the€perpetration€of€a€spur€of€the€moment€robbery.€ÏThough€the€killing€was€certainly€reprehensible,€it€was€not€an€act€of€completeÏrandom€violence€as€was€the€killing€in€this€case.€€Despite€Blandððs€assertions€thatÏhe€decided€to€shoot€Sanders€on€the€spur€of€the€moment,€the€assault€upon€theÏhelpless€victim€continued€for€sometime€and€covered€some€distance.€€The€assaultÏby€Craft€and€Moorlet€ended€quickly€and€the€victim€was€not€defenseless.€One€ofÏthe€persons€who€had€been€helping€the€victim€change€the€flat€tire€testified€for€theÍState€against€Craft€and€Moorlet.€€He€said€when€the€task€was€nearly€completed,Ïhe€began€to€walk€away,€leaving€Craft€and€the€victim€behind€tightening€the€lugÏbolts.€€After€taking€only€15€or€20€steps,€the€witness€heard€three€shots€and€turnedÏto€see€the€wounded€victim€firing€a€gun€at€a€fleeing€Craft.€€Clearly,€the€manner€ofÏthe€killing€and€the€motive€for€the€murder€committed€by€Craft€and€Moorlet€areÏdistinguishable€and€support€the€lesser€sentence€given.ÌÌà àLikewise,€in€òòState€v.€Horace€Jonesóó,€C.C.A.€No.€117,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏJackson,€Dec.€4,€1980),€app.€denied€(Tenn.€1981),€the€jury€imposed€a€lifeÏsentence€€in€a€case€with€facts€somewhat€similar€to€the€instant€case.€€There,€theÏforty„one€year€old€victim€was€in€a€pool€hall€in€Memphis€when€the€defendant€cameÏin€and€shot€him€three€times.€€The€victim€fell€to€the€floor,€and€as€he€lay€there€faceÏdown,€the€defendant€again€pulled€the€trigger,€but€the€gun€misfired.€€TheÏdefendant€fired€the€gun€two€more€times€and€then€reloaded€it.€€The€victim€got€upÏfrom€the€floor€and€ran€to€a€room€in€the€back€of€the€establishment€where€he€brokeÏa€window€with€a€cue€stick€in€an€attempt€to€escape€the€defendantððs€assaults.€ÏWhen€the€victim€ran€towards€the€back€of€the€pool€hall,€the€witnesses€present€ranÍoutside,€but€then€heard€three€more€shots.€€When€they€returned€inside,€the€victimÏwas€deceased.€€Over€a€month€later,€the€police€apprehended€the€defendant€in€anÏapartment€where€he€was€hiding€in€a€closet.€€At€trial,€the€defense€offered€proof€toÏshow€that€the€victim€had€been€looking€for€the€defendant€during€the€months€beforeÏthe€murder€and€intended€to€harm€him€because€of€a€dispute€over€a€ð ðcrap€game.ðð€ÏThe€case€proceeded€to€a€sentencing€hearing€at€which€the€defense€offered€expertÏtestimony€that€the€defendant€could€be€rehabilitated€and€would€profit€fromÏparticipation€in€a€long€term€psychotherapy€counseling€group.€€Other€mitigatingÏcircumstances€relied€upon€by€the€defendant€included€victim€participation,€moralÏjustification,€and€extreme€emotional€disturbance.€The€defendant€was€twenty„fourÏat€the€time€the€offense€was€committed.€€Based€upon€the€proof,€the€jury€declined€toÏimpose€the€death€penalty€and€returned€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€Jones,Ïunlike€the€defendant€in€this€case,€offered€proof€of€his€capacity€for€rehabilitation.€ÏProof€was€also€offered€to€show€that€the€victim€and€Jones€were€acquainted€andÏthat€the€victim€had€been€threatening€Jones.€€While€certainly€no€justification€for€theÏmurder,€it€is€a€circumstance€which€reflects€upon€the€character€of€the€defendant.€ÏIn€contrast,€the€victim€in€this€case€was€a€stranger€to€the€defendant€and€posed€noÍthreat€when€he€asked€simply€ð ðwhatððs€up?ðð€€Although€the€circumstances€of€the€twoÏmurders€are€somewhat€similar,€the€mitigation€proof€offered,€and€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€defendant€and€the€victim€explain€the€lesser€sentence€given€Jones.ÌÌà àBased€upon€our€review,€we€conclude€that€the€following€cases€in€which€theÏdeath€penalty€has€been€imposed€have€many€similarities€with€this€case.€In€òòState€v.ÏVan€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993),€this€Court€affirmed€the€death€sentenceÏof€a€nineteen€year€old€defendant€who,€after€shooting€another€victim,€killed€aÏseventy„four€year€old€woman€during€the€course€of€a€robbery.€€As€in€this€case,€theÏvictim€had€already€been€shot€and€was€lying€on€the€floor.€€€Without€provocation€orÏexplanation,€Van€Tran,€like€the€defendant€in€this€case,€put€a€gun€to€the€back€of€theÏunresisting€and€helpless€victimððs€head€and€pulled€the€trigger.€Van€Tran€was€bornÏin€Viet€Nam,€the€son€of€an€American€soldier€who€was€killed€in€the€war.€€As€in€thisÏcase,€Van€Tran€had€grown€up€without€his€father,€and€had€little€education.€€AlongÏwith€his€mother,€Van€Tran€was€resettled€in€Memphis€by€a€Catholic€relief€agencyÏand€attended€school€for€only€a€short€time€before€dropping€out.€€Van€Tran€had€aÏgood€employment€record,€and€he€had€no€prior€criminal€record.€€In€addition,€heÍcooperated€with€the€authorities€and€expressed€remorse€for€the€killings.€€As€in€thisÏcase,€the€jury€returned€a€single€aggravating€circumstance„„the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)€(1982)€(repealed).€€Finding€that€the€evidence€supportedÏthis€aggravating€circumstance€and€that€there€were€no€mitigating€circumstancesÏsufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstance,€theÏjury€sentenced€Van€Tran€to€death.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€McNishóó,€727€S.W.2d€490€(Tenn.€1987),€the€victim,€a€seventyÏyear€old€widow,€was€beaten€about€the€face€and€head€with€a€glass€flower€vase€byÏthe€defendant.€€The€victim€was€alive€when€she€was€found,€but€died€a€short€timeÏlater.€€As€in€this€case,€McNish€was€young,€twenty„nine,€when€he€committed€theÏoffense.€€He€had€no€prior€criminal€record.€€Previously,€McNish€had€sustainedÏhead€injuries€in€an€automobile€accident€and€was€using€prescription€drugs€heavilyÏto€combat€headaches.€€Similar€to€Bland,€who€said€he€had€been€drinking€when€heÏkilled€Terry€Sanders,€€McNish€had€been€using€drugs€when€he€committed€theÏmurder.€€As€in€this€case,€the€jury€imposed€the€death€sentence€upon€finding€aÍsingle€aggravating€circumstance€„„€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982)€(repealed).ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€718€S.W.2d€256€(Tenn.€1986),€the€defendant,€ageÏthirty„three,€shot€his€estranged€wife€four€times€while€she€was€trapped€inside€aÏglass€and€brick€cashierððs€booth.€€As€did€Bland,€Cooper€shot€an€unarmed,Ïhelpless€victim€without€provocation.€€Also€like€Bland,€Cooper€did€not€shoot€hisÏwife€four€times€in€rapid€succession.€€€The€victim€in€Cooper,€as€in€this€case,€€hadÏtime€to€contemplate€her€fate.€€Cooper€shot€once,€walked€away,€then€turned€backÏand€resumed€firing€at€her.€€The€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty,€finding,€as€in€thisÏcase,€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982)Ï(repealed).ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1989),€the€jury€imposed€theÏdeath€penalty€after€finding,€as€in€this€case,€that€the€murder€was€especiallyÍheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982)€(repealed).€€Like€Bland,€Henley€had€beenÏdrinking€and€taking€drugs€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€Henley€forced€the€victims,€aÏmarried€couple€with€whom€he€was€acquainted,€from€the€road€to€their€house€atÏgunpoint,€demanding€money.€€When€the€victims€attempted€to€comply,€HenleyÏrefused€to€take€the€money,€and€without€provocation,€shot€the€husband€and€thenÏthe€wife.€€When€the€helpless,€unresisting€wife€began€moaning,€Henley,€like€BlandÏin€this€case,€shot€her€two€more€times.€€Later,€Henley€poured€gasoline€on€her€bodyÏand€set€the€house€on€fire.€€Though€the€husband€died€from€the€gunshot€wound,Ïthe€wife€died€from€burns€and€smoke€inhalation.ÌÌà àIn€òòBarberóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€defendant€without€provocation,€struck€the€helplessÏand€unresisting€seventy„five€year€old€victim€five€times€in€the€€head€with€a€crescentÏwrench.€€The€victim€in€òòBarberóó€tried€to€protect€herself€by€fending€off€the€blows€withÏher€hands.€€Terry€Sanders,€the€victim€in€this€case,€tried€to€protect€himself,€fleeingÏfrom€the€assault€and€seeking€refuge€underneath€the€truck.€€Barber€was€twenty„nine€years€old€when€he€committed€the€murder.€€As€mitigation,€he€relied€upon€hisÍcapacity€for€€rehabilitation€and,€like€Bland,€his€youth.€€As€in€this€case,€the€juryÏfound€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982)Ï(Repealed).€€In€addition,€€the€jury€determined€that€the€murder€was€committedÏduring€the€course€of€a€felony.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185,€189„90Ï(Tenn.€1994)€(concluding€that€the€juryððs€consideration€of€felony„murderÏaggravating€circumstance€was€harmless€error).€à àÌÌà àFinally,€though€the€jury€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989)Ïfound€three€aggravating€circumstances× ƒ^ ××  ×€in€addition€to€finding€that€the€murderÏwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravityÏof€mind,€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€and€the€character€of€the€defendant€inÏthat€case€bear€similarities€to€the€circumstances€of€this€killing€and€the€character€ofÏthis€defendant.€€While€incarcerated,€Taylor€attacked€a€guard€with€a€hand„madeÏknife.€€As€in€this€case,€the€attack€was€without€provocation.€€The€victim€fled€downÍthe€hall,€but€was€pursued€by€the€defendant.€€Though€the€victim€pled€for€mercy,€theÏdefendant€continued€with€the€assault.€€Eventually,€the€defendant€ended€theÏassault,€leaving€the€victim€alive€and€conscious,€but€severely€wounded.€€BlindedÏby€the€assault,€but€conscious,€the€victim€called€out€in€pain€to€other€prison€inmatesÏuntil€he€was€removed€to€the€hospital.€€As€was€Bland,€Taylor€was€calm€after€theÏkilling,€returning€to€his€cell,€concealing€the€weapon,€and€changing€clothes.€€TheÏvictim€died€forty€minutes€later€from€internal€bleeding.€€€Like€Bland,€Taylor€reliedÏupon€his€youth€as€mitigation€of€the€offense:€he€was€twenty„one€when€heÏcommitted€the€murder.€€Also€like€Bland,€Taylor€had€a€juvenile€record.€ÌòòÌóóà àAs€stated€earlier,€though€no€two€cases€are€identical,€the€above€six€casesÏhave€many€similarities€with€Bland.€€In€each€case,€the€defendant€assaulted€anÏunresisting€and€defenseless€victim€without€provocation€or€explanation.€€In€eachÏcase€multiple€wounds€were€inflicted€upon€the€victim,€causing€pain€and€suffering.€ÏLike€Terry€Sanders,€the€victims€in€at€least€two€of€the€cases,€òòCooperóó€and€òòTayloróó,Ïwere€trapped€and€unable€to€get€away€from€the€defendantððs€assault.€€€Like€Bland,Ítwo€of€the€defendants€were€very€young× ƒ_ ××  ×€when€the€offense€was€committed€„„Ïnineteen€and€twenty„one.€€Also€like€Bland,€two€of€the€defendants€had€beenÏdrinking€or€using€drugs€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€After›€reviewing€the€casesÏdiscussed€œabove,›€and€many€other€cases€not€herein€œdescribed,›€we€are€of€theÏopinion€that€the€penalty€imposed€by€the€jury€in€this€case€is€not€disproportionate€toÏthe€penalty€imposed€for€similar€crimes.̛̜Ìà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àœIn€accordance€with€the€mandate€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(A)Ï&€(D)€(1991€Repl.€&€1996€Supp.),€and€the€principles€previously€discussed,€weÏhave€considered€the€entire€record€in€this€cause€and€find€that€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€was€not€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion;€that€the€evidence€supports,€asÏpreviously€discussed,€the€juryððs€findings€of€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance€and€that€the€evidence€supports€the€€juryððs€finding€that€theÍaggravating€circumstance€outweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(A)„(C)€(1991€Repl.€&Ï1996€Supp.).€€We›€have€considered€the€defendantððs€assignments€of€error€andÏhave€determined€that€none€have€merit.€€With€respect€to€issues€not€specificallyÏaddressed€herein,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,Ïauthored€by€Judge€Paul€G.€Summers€and€joined€in€by€Judge€David€H.€œWelles›Ïand€Judge€William€M.€Barker.€€The€defendantððs€sentence€of€death€byÏelectrocution€is€affirmed.€€The€sentence€of€death€will€be€carried€out€as€providedÏby€law€on€the€œ6th€day€of€April›€œ1998,›€unless€otherwise€ordered€by€this€Court€orÏother€proper€œauthorities.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFrank€F.€Drowota,€œIII,›Ìà àà àà àà àà àJusticeÌÌÌœò òÌConcur:ó ó›ÌAnderson,€C.€J.€and€Holder,€J.ÌÌœReid›,€J.€„€œseparate›€œconcurring€and€dissenting›€œopinion.›ÌÌBirch,€J.€„€separate€œconcurring€and€dissenting›€œopinion.Ì›ÓÓ