WPC 1# UN % 0(UFEw@4 0J 0TH 0^ 0h 0rb 0| 0P 0 1uf 0dU>? AQ}  0D 0@ 0D U6\ D/ B B D3 B). DCW AM U* ' v~8vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular uDvdwUxUyDz{[|}Ӏ_#9Z|H3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  <  9p`(Courier New((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#  ""  --   YYY FILED-XJune15,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva ! .     X      %\RA'\7 XXdd7ћ  ќ!R,.+A1-j|S`  `@Rߛ @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  0 ATNASHVILLE  STATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) FORPUBLICATION      ) Appellee,    ) FILED:      )v.      ) CHEATHAMCOUNTY      )JAMESBLANTON  ) HON.ALLENW.WALLACE,JUDGE      ) Appellant.   ) NO.01S019605CC00093@ CONCURRINGANDDISSENTINGOPINION  Ijointhemajorityinaffirmingtheconvictionofthedefendantontwocountsofpremeditatedfirstdegreemurder,threecountsofgrandlarceny,andthreecountsoffirstdegreeburglary.However,becauseIconcludethatthepunishmentofdeathisdisproportionateundertherecordinthiscase,Irespectfullydissent.  Thedefendantarguesthatthe heinous,atrocious,andcruelaggravatingcircumstancecannotapplytohimbecausethereisnoevidencethatheshotorstabbedMrs.Vester.Themajoritydisposesofhisargumentbyconcludingthattheevidencewasclearlysufficienttosupporttheconvictions.However,the sufficiencyoftheevidenceanalysis,utilizedtodeterminewhethertoupholdaconviction,shouldnotalsobeutilizedtoupholdimpositionofthedeathpenalty.Clearly,itsstandardofreviewistoodeferentialforuseinthiscontext.SeeStatev.Sutton,761S.W.2d763,76465(Tenn.1988),cert.denied,497U.S.1031,110S.Ct.3287,111L.Ed.2d796(1990)(whendeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,thestandardofreviewiswhether,afterconsideringtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheState,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt).Thedeathpenaltyinvolvesthemostseriousofallconstitutionalissues.Consequently,evidenceshouldbescrutinizedcloselywhenacourtisreviewingitsimposition.  Asstated,Iagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthattheevidenceisclearlysufficienttosupporttheconvictions,eventhoughthereisnodirectevidencethatthedefendantshotorstabbedeithervictim.Withrespecttothesentence,however,Iamunwillingtoacquiesceintheimpositionofthedeathpenaltywithoutacloserlinkbetweenthedefendantandtheperpetrationofthecrime.AsJusticeReidnotedinhisdissent,theevidencedoesnotevennecessarilyplacethedefendantatthesceneofthekillingsastheywereoccurring.Forthisreason,Iconcludethat thedefendantsinvolvementorroleinthemurder[s],afactorofproportionality,isdispositivehere.Becausethereisnodirectevidencethatthedefendantwaspresentatthetimeofthekillings,Iconcludethatthepenaltyofdeathisdisproportionate,andindeedunconstitutional.SeeTisonv.Arizona,481U.S.137,107S.Ct.1676,95L.Ed.2d127(1987);Statev.Branam,855S.W.2d563,57071(Tenn.1993).Accordingly,Irespectfullydissent.Ӏ      ___________________________________      ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice