ÿWPC… I# UN %g 0 (mw@•4Õéøb 0l 0DtUH¸ 0@ 0D@ B„ B¡ AQ¾Æ 0DÕ D/ 0DH D3Œ 0J¿ 0T 0^] 0h» 0r# 0|• 0† 0— 1u' 0dœ U>U*>U6h„žB)"DCK AMŽU*Û',ìHv~4vÓ²˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ Š ‹ Œ  DŽ  E ‘ ’ Ó€œ ê‚_#ÔXTÔô3|xœ - ù-((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<à09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óüÿP Pd d!"&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'÷ÿ dxd(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,-./0123 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times< Œ 9p`(Courier New zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ()ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ% Line 7 d@@@@7Border 1dd!ACþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€CÔÔ€CÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€CXÔÌÌJune€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔWhileÔ€>&ÔÔ€CÔ€Ô€>ÔÔ€>ôÔthe€1989€amendment€of€this€aggravating€circumstance€replacingÏð ðdepravity€of€mindðð€with€ð ðserious€physical€abuse€beyond€that€necessary€toÏproduce€deathðð€appears€to€provide€a€meaningful€standard€for€determining€theÏappropriateness€of€death€as€a€penalty,€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€at€526€(Reid,ÏJ.,€concurring),€the€Courtððs€continued€broad€application€of€this€circumstanceÏmay€threaten€its€constitutionality.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€361„362€(Reid,€J.,€dissenting).€Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔInÔ€>&ÔÔ€CÔ€Ô€>ÔÔ€>ôÔthe€same€vein,€a€similar€failure€to€respond€to€the€holdings€in€òòMcKoyÏv.€North€Carolinaóó,€494€U.S.€433,€110€S.Ct.€1227,€103€L.Ed.€2d€269€(1990),€andÏòòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486€U.S.€367,€108€S.Ct.€1860,€100€L.Ed.€2d€384€(1988),€mayÏthreaten€the€validity€of€past€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€òòAustin€v.€Bellóó,€126€F.3d€843,Ï849€(6th€Cir.€1997)€(suggesting€that€Tennesseeððs€instructions€on€mitigatingÏcircumstances€may€violate€òòMcKoyóó€and€òòMillsóó).ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€<ÔÝ  ÝÒ 8 ÒÒ À ÒØ ØÓ&€==XÐd&ÓÑ  ÑÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€>ԛр ÑÑ7€‰iXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÖ€?֜ـ!ÙßR€BDAA1-j|öý` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Cheatham€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€Allen€W.€Wallace,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌJAMES€BLANTON,à àà àà àà àà à(€€No.€01S01„9605„CC„00093Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à(ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCURRING€AND€DISSENTING€OPINIONó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓà àI€concur€with€the€rejection€of€the€defendantððs€claim€thatÏthe€statute€under€which€he€was€sentenced€is€unconstitutional,€and€IÏconcur€in€affirming€the€conviction€of€first€degree€murder.€€However,ÏI€would€modify€the€punishment€to€life€imprisonment€because€theÏsentence€of€death€in€this€case€is€excessive€or€disproportionate€toÏthe€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.Ìà@ àÌò òà@ àIÌÌà àó óBefore€addressing€the€issue€of€proportionality,€I€am€firstÍcompelled€to€comment€on€the€defendantððs€claims€attacking€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€death€penalty.€€As€in€earlier€cases,€theÏdefendant€offers€an€often„repeated€series€of€arguments€against€theÏsentence€of€death,€all€of€which€have€been€as€often€rejected€€by€theÏCourt.€€The€lawyers€for€death€row€inmates,€as€well€as€the€Court,Ïappear€disengaged€from€any€mutual€consideration€of€meaningful€issues.€Ïò òÌÌà àó óFor€almost€eight€years,€I€have€expressed€grave€concernÏabout€Tennesseeððs€implementation€of€the€death€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€191„201€(Tenn.€1991)€(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting).€ÏAlthough€I€have€concurred€in€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€inÏseveral€cases,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€œ958›€S.W.2d€œ679›€(Tenn.€1997);ÏòòState€v.€Mannóó,€œ959›€S.W.2d€œ503›€(Tenn.€1997);Ô€CÔ€òòÔ€>ÔState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2dÏ489€(Tenn.€1997);Ô€CÔ€Ô€>ÔòòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€516€(Tenn.€1993);€òòStateÏv.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993);€the€constitutionality€of€thisÏform€of€punishment€and€of€the€laws€providing€for€its€imposition€haveÏnot€been€finally€settled.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€an€accepted€principle€that€the€enactments€of€theÏGeneral€Assembly€are€presumed€constitutional.€€òòVogel€v.€Wells€FargoÏGuard€Servicesóó,€937€S.W.2d€856,€858€(Tenn.€1996);€œòòPetition›€of€Bursonóó,Ï909€S.W.2d€763,€775€(Tenn.€1995).€€Whenever€the€constitutionality€ofÍa€statute€is€attacked,€this€Court€is€required€to€indulge€everyÏpresumption€in€favor€of€its€validity€and€resolve€any€doubt€in€favorÏof,€rather€than€against,€the€constitutionality€of€the€act.€òòDorrier€v.ÏDarkóó,€537€S.W.2d€888,€891€(Tenn.€1976).€€€Despite€this€well„settledÏrule€of€constitutional€law,€capital€defendants€have€repeatedly€arguedÏthat€the€death€penalty€is€unconstitutional€without€presenting€anyÏbasis€sufficient€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€constitutionality.€€ÌÌà àFor€example,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€thatÏð ðan€evolving€sense€of€decencyðð€determines€the€standard€of€protectionÏafforded€by€the€prohibition€against€ð ðcruel€and€unusual€punishmentsððÏfound€in€the€Eighth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòSeeóóÏòòTrop€v.€Dullesóó,€356€U.S.€86,€78€S.Ct.€590,€2€L.Ed.€2d€630€(1958);ÏòòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.€238,€92€S.Ct.€2726,€33€L.Ed.€2d€346Ï(1972).€€At€the€same€time,€the€Court€has€refused€to€hold€that€theÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€by€a€state€is€per€se€cruel€andÏunusual€punishment€and€thereby€prohibited€by€the€federalÏconstitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€96€S.Ct.€2909,€49ÏL.Ed.€2d€859€(1976).€€As€I€noted€in€òòBlackóó,€however,€theÏdeterminations€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€set€only€a€minimumÏstandard€and€do€not€limit€this€Courtððs€authority€to€provide€greaterÏœprotection›€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€815€S.W.2d€at€192Ï(citing€òòDoe€v.€Norrisóó,€751€S.W.2d€834,€838€(Tenn.€1988)€and€òòMiller€v.ÍStateóó,€584€S.W.2d€758,€761€(Tenn.€1979)).€€Therefore,€despite€theÏpresumption€of€constitutionality,€should€it€be€shown€that€the€deathÏpenalty€offends€the€ð ðstandard€of€decencyðð€existing€in€Tennessee,€theÏdeath€penalty€would€be€barred€under€our€state€constitution.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€351€(Tenn.€1992)€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïconcurring€and€dissenting).€€Yet€attorneys€representing€defendants€inÏcapital€cases€have€never€offered€this€Court€any€definitive€orÏempirical€evidence€to€establish€such€a€ð ðstandard.ðð€€These€are€factualÏissues€that€can€be€resolved€only€by€proof;€and€in€the€absence€ofÏproof,€there€is€no€basis€on€which€this€Court€can€assess€contemporaryÏvalues€in€Tennessee€under€either€the€federal€or€state€constitutions.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€583€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring);€òòStateÏv.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€264€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring).ÌÌà àIn€òòBlackóó,€I€likewise€indicated€that€the€method€ofÏimplementing€a€sentence€of€death€in€this€State€is€alsoÏconstitutionally€suspect.€€815€S.W.2d€at€199„201.€€After€reviewingÏthe€historical€background€of€electrocution€as€a€means€of€execution,€IÏopined€that€the€case€should€be€remanded€to€allow€the€defendant€ð ðtoÏpresent€evidence€to€the€[trial]€court€on€the€constitutional€issue€ofÏwhether€electrocution€per€se€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€underÏArticle€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€While€this€is€anÏissue€of€grave€concern,€it€is€one€that€cannot€be€decided€without€someÍevidence€of€the€nature€of€death€by€electrocution.€€Nevertheless,€noÏproof€has€ever€been€presented€to€the€trial€courts€on€this€issue€soÏthat€this€Court€might€determine€whether€electrocution€is€ð ðcruel€andÏunusual€punishmentðð€under€the€state€constitution.ÌÌà àThe€burden€rests€upon€the€party€challenging€theÏconstitutionality€of€a€statute€to€rebut€the€presumption€ofÏconstitutionality.€€This€burden€has€not€been€carried€by€thoseÏasserting€the€unconstitutionality€of€capital€punishment€in€thisÏState.€€As€in€prior€cases,€there€is€no€basis€in€the€record€presentlyÏœbefore›€the€Court€upon€which€the€Court€can€make€a€determination€thatÏthe€death€penalty€violates€or€does€not€violate€contemporary€standardsÏof€decency€in€Tennessee€or€make€a€determination€that€death€byÏelectrocution€is€œcruel›€and€unusual€punishment.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àThe€first€duty€of€this€Court€is€to€examine€each€case€andÏapply€the€law€fairly€and€dispassionately€and€thereby€render€justiceÏunder€the€law.€€To€this€purpose,€the€Court,€and€each€justice,Ïexamines€the€record€and€reviews€the€law,€giving€attention€to€theÏstatutory€issues€and€assignments€made€by€the€defendant€in€each€case.€€Ìà àThe€Court€has€a€concomitant€responsibility€which€is€equallyÍimportant,€that€is,€to€defend€the€integrity€of€the€stateððs€judicialÏsystem€and€its€judgments.€€Review€of€the€decisions€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€and€the€opinions€of€the€federal€circuit€andÏdistrict€courts€shows€that€the€sentences€imposed€under€the€capitalÏsentencing€schemes€of€the€various€states€receive€the€highest€scrutinyÏfrom€the€federal€courts.€€It€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€interpretÏthe€statutes€enacted€by€the€General€Assembly€and€particularly€capitalÏsentencing€statutes€so€as€to€render€convictions€under€state€law€whichÏare€consistent€with€the€minimum€standards€of€the€federal€constitutionÏand€are,€therefore,€impregnable€against€challenges€in€the€federalÏcourts.€€Nevertheless,€this€Court€continues€to€countenance€admittedÏerrors€that€offend€the€federal€constitution€in€the€trial€of€Ô€>&ÔcapitalÏcases€and€therebyÔ€>XÔ€Ô€>&Ôputs€at€riskÔ€>XÔ€Ô€>&Ôthe€convictions€and€sentences€of€someÔ€>XÔÏÔ€>&Ôof€the€stateððs€most€culpable€offenders.€€Ô€>XÔÌà àA€primary€example€is€the€Courtððs€response€to€challenges€toÏthe€constitutional€validity€of€the€so„called€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€orÏcruelðð€aggravating€circumstance,€particularly€as€it€existed€prior€toÏits€amendment€in€1989.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€(1982).× ƒE ××  ×€€In€theÏœpast,›€this€Court€has€repeatedly€and€without€analysis€held€that€thisÍaggravating€circumstance€is€not€constitutionally€vague€or€œoverbroad›Ïand€refused€to€respond€to€the€developments€of€federal€constitutionalÏlaw€that€required€further€refinement€of€the€law€pertaining€to€thisÏaggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.Ô€CÔ,€€òòÔ€>ÔState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2dÏ239,€252€(Tenn.€1989)€(responding€to€òòMaynard€v.€Cartwrightóó,€486€U.S.Ï356,€108€S.Ct.€1353,€100€L.Ed.€2d€372€(1988)).€€The€Court€hasÏpersisted€in€this€course€despite€dissent€by€its€members,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.ÏShepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€909€(Tenn.€1995)€(Reid,€J.,€dissenting);ÏòòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€271„272€(Tenn.€1994)(Reid,€C.J.,Ïdissenting);€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€485„490€(Tenn.€1993)Ï(Daughtrey€,€J.,€dissenting);€òòBlackóó,€òòsupraóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€195„197Ï(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting),€and€warnings€from€justices€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBarber€v.€Tennesseeóó,€___€U.S.€___,Ï115€S.Ct.€1177,€130€L.Ed.€2d€1129€(1995)€(Stewart,€J.€concurring)Ï(finding€the€instruction€on€ð ðdepravityðð€adopted€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,Ï690€S.W.2d€517€(Tenn.€1985),€ð ðplainly€impermissibleðð€under€òòGodfrey€v.ÏGeorgiaóó,€446€U.S.€420,€100€S.Ct.€1759,€64€L.Ed.€2d€398€(1980)).€€ÏThe€Courtððs€refusal€to€respond€to€such€criticism€places€in€peril€allÏsentences,€including€that€imposed€in€the€present€case,€that€are€basedÏupon€findings€of€this€aggravating€circumstance€under€the€pre„1989Ïstatute.× ƒF ××  ×€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIIIÌÓ  Óó óÌà àI€would€find€that€the€sentence€of€death€in€this€case€ð ðisÏexcessive€or€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similarÏcases,€considering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„206(c)(1)(D).ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651€(Tenn.€1997),€this€CourtÏset€forth€the€analysis€it€would€follow€in€performing€comparativeÏproportionality€review€of€capital€cases.€€Although€I€have€expressedÏmy€view€that€òòBlandóó€marked€only€ð ðan€important€first€step€inÏarticulating€a€structured€review€processðð€for€comparative€review,€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€676€(Reid,€J.,€dissenting),€it€appearsÏthat€òòBlandóó€now€provides€the€entire€framework€within€which€questionsÏof€comparative€proportionality€will€be€addressed€by€the€Court.€€òòSeeóó,ÏòòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€699;€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€at€513.€ÏIn€the€present€opinion,€the€majority€of€the€Court€has€undertaken€aÏlengthy€comparison€of€this€case€with€other€first€degree€murders,€bothÏcapital€and€life€cases,€under€the€òòBlandóó€analysis€to€find,€as€it€hasÏin€almost€all€of€the€approximately€120€preceding€cases,€that€theÍsentence€of€death€is€not€disproportionate.€€In€my€opinion,Ïapplication€of€even€the€modest€procedure€outlined€in€òòBlandóó€requiresÏthat€the€sentence€in€this€case€be€declared€excessive€andÏdisproportionate.ÌÌà àUnder€òòBlandóó€one€of€the€factors€listed€for€comparison€isÏð ðthe€defendantððs€involvement€or€role€in€the€murder.ðð€€958€S.W.2d€atÏ667.€€No€prior€case€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed€inÏthis€state€has€presented€such€a€paucity€of€evidence€regarding€theÏrole€of€the€defendant€in€the€killing.€€A€distinctive€feature€of€thisÏcase€is€that€it€is€based€entirely€upon€circumstantial€evidence.€€TheÏproof€establishes€that€the€defendant€was€one€of€a€group€of€threeÏescaped€convicts€who€were€in€the€immediate€area€of€the€murders€at€theÏtime€the€offenses€occurred.€€It€supports€the€finding€by€the€jury€thatÏa€member€or€members€of€this€group€killed€the€victims.€€It€establishesÏthat€shortly€after€the€murders€the€group€arrived€in€Memphis,ÏTennessee,€in€the€victimsðð€automobile,€which€contained€one€of€theÏmurder€weapons.€€However,€it€does€not€establish€that€the€defendantÏhimself€killed€the€victims€or€was€an€active€participant€in€theÏkillings.€€While€physical€evidence€reveals€the€method€and€manner€ofÏthe€victimsðð€deaths,€nothing€in€the€proof€identifies€the€actualÏkiller€or€elucidates€the€individual€roles€of€the€three€escapees€inÏthe€Vestersðð€deaths.€€In€short,€there€is€no€proof€of€the€defendantððsÍrole€in€the€killings.€€œItems›€taken€from€residences€where€the€physicalÏevidence€indicates€that€the€defendant€was€present€were€found€at€theÏVestersðð€home,€œbut€there›€is€no€proof€that€œthe›€œdefendant›€was€presentÏat€the€scene€of€the€Vestersðð€murders.ÌÌà àThe€majority€acknowledges€that€this€is€a€case€ð ðwhere€theÏevidence€did€not€positively€identify€the€shooter.ðð€€It€cites€to€fourÏother€cases,€òòState€v.€Sampleóó,€680€S.W.2d€447€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.ÏMcKayóó,€680€S.W.2d€447€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126Ï(Tenn.€1981);€and€òòState€v.€Strouthóó,€620€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€1981),€toÏsupport€its€conclusion€that€a€sentence€of€death€has€previously€beenÏaffirmed€in€such€a€case.€€However,€examination€of€these€four€casesÏshows€that€they€are€not€similar€to€the€present€case€in€this€respect.ÌÌà àMcKay€and€Sample€were€co„defendants€in€the€robbery€of€aÏð ðsundry€storeðð€in€Memphis€during€which€two€persons€were€killed.€€AnÏeyewitness,€whom€Sample€had€attempted€to€kill€during€the€offense,Ïidentified€both€men€as€being€present€in€the€store.€€The€eyewitnessÏalso€testified€that€he€saw€McKay€shoot€one€of€the€victims€and€heardÏSample,€who€was€standing€next€to€the€other€victim,€announce€that€ð ðIÏought€to€kill€all€you€son„of„bitchesðð€and€instruct€McKay€to€ð ðkillÏevery€son„of„a„bitch€in€hereðð€before€the€defendants€started€shooting.€ÏòòMcKayóó€and€òòSampleóó€are€not€cases€in€which€the€proof€did€not€positivelyÍidentify€the€shooter€or€disclose€the€defendantððs€active€participationÏin€the€murder.ÌÌà àIn€the€other€two€cases,€Dicks€and€Strouth€were€co„defendants€who€were€tried€separately.€€The€two€were€involved€in€theÏrobbery€of€a€shop€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€during€which€the€storeÏowner€suffered€a€severe€blow€to€his€head€and€a€fatal€knife€wound€toÏhis€throat.€€The€opinions€in€the€two€cases€indicate€that€bothÏdefendants€gave€statements€to€the€police€implicating€the€other€andÏthat,€despite€Dicksðð€assertions€that€he€had€remained€outside€in€a€carÏduring€the€robbery,€physical€evidence€established€that€both€men€hadÏbeen€inside€the€shop.€€Upholding€the€sentences€of€death€in€bothÏcases,€this€Court€noted€in€òòDicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€at€130,€that,€based€uponÏthe€œevidence,›€a€jury€could€reasonably€find€that€the€defendant€DicksÏwas€an€ð ðactive€participantðð€in€the€robbery€and€murder€of€the€victim.ÌÌà àAs€noted€earlier,€the€evidence€in€this€case€neitherÏcircumstantially€nor€directly€establishes€that€the€defendantÏparticipated€in€the€murder.€€In€short,€the€record€is€completelyÏsilent€on€this€point.€€In€this€respect,€there€is€no€ð ðsimilarðð€case€inÏwhich€the€death€penalty€has€been€upheld€by€this€Court€since€theÏenactment€of€the€present€capital€punishment€statute.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances€the€sentence€in€this€case€is€the€sort€of€ð ðaberrantÍdeath€sentenceðð€comparative€proportionality€review€is€meant€to€guardÏagainst.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIVÌó óÌà àThe€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€in€a€case€ofÏthis€sort€depends€upon€proof€of€the€nature€of€the€defendantððsÏparticipation€in€the€felony€and€the€killings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Branamóó,Ï855€S.W.2d€563,€570„571€(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòTison€v.€Arizonaóó,€481ÏU.S.€137,€107€S.Ct.€1676,€95€L.Ed.2d€127€(1987);€òòEnmund€v.€Floridaóó,Ï458€U.S.€782,€102€S.Ct.€3368,€73€L.Ed.€2d€1140€(1982).€€The€absenceÏof€any€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€role€in€the€murders€in€this€caseÏis€most€disturbing.€€The€Court,€without€so€much€as€a€nod€to€federalÏconstitutional€law€or€prior€Tennessee€constitutional€law,€hasÏabandoned€any€requirement€that€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trialÏaccomplish€genuine€narrowing€of€the€class€of€death„eligibleÏdefendants.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€354€(Reid,€C.J.,Ïconcurring€and€dissenting).€€Under€òòEnmundóó€and€òòTisonóó,€the€federalÏconstitution€allows€the€death€penalty€only€for€a€defendant€whoÏhimself€kills,€attempts€to€kill,€or€intends€that€a€killing€take€placeÏor€that€lethal€force€will€be€imposed,€or€for€any€defendant€whoseÏpersonal€involvement€in€the€felony€underlying€the€murder€isÏsubstantial€and€who€exhibits€a€reckless€disregard€or€indifference€toÍthe€value€of€human€life.€€In€òòBranamóó,€this€Court€held€that€impositionÏof€the€death€penalty€was€disproportionate€and€unconstitutional€underÏthe€Eighth€Amendment€where€there€was€no€evidence€to€show€that€theÏdefendant€was€ever€in€possession€of€the€murder€weapon€or€personallyÏapproached€or€confined€the€victim€at€any€time€during€the€robbery€andÏthat,€although€the€evidence€indicated€that€the€defendant€was€awareÏthat€the€triggerman€was€armed,€there€was€ð ðnothing€in€the€record€toÏestablish€the€defendantððs€mental€state€as€one€of€ððrecklessÏindifference,ðð€as€that€term€is€used€in€òòTisonóó.ðð€€855€S.W.2d€at€571.€ÏThe€proof€in€this€case€regarding€the€defendantððs€involvement€in€theÏkillings€is€equally€lacking€and€critical€questions€relating€to€theÏdefendantððs€involvement€in€the€crime€are€left€entirely€toÏspeculation.€€The€Court€has,€by€affirming€the€sentence€of€death€inÏthis€case,€abandoned€even€the€pretense€of€limiting€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€to€a€ð ðdemonstrably€smaller€and€more€blameworthyðð€class€ofÏmurderers.€€òòMaynard€v.€Cartwrightóó,€486€U.S.€356,€108€S.Ct.€1853Ï(1988).€€In€my€view,€the€sentence€violates€both€the€federal€and€stateÏconstitutions.ÌÌà àFor€these€reasons,€I€would€modify€the€defendantððs€sentenceÏto€life€imprisonment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„206(d)(2).ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLyle€Reid,€Special€Justice