ÿWPC® :# <UNG %• 0(›w@Ã4&UH. 0Dv 0lº 0D& 0Jj ´ AQºb  0T 0^g 0hÅ 0r- 0|Ÿ 0† 0¡ 1u1 B¦ Æà 0D‰ 0@Í 0D 0dQ D/µ Bä D3 U>4 yr U6ë U*!B)KDCt AM·U*3.üav~]vÓÛ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ËÌÍDÎDÏÐÑÒDÓÔÓ€Ft‹#TUVWXY3|xß<ãÎ ,9Z 0Courier (W1) Regular(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔH !"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ- ù-2" 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 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd "3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€5ÔÔ€5ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔÌÌò òJanuary€5,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€5ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563€(Tenn.€1993)(there€were€noÏvalid€aggravators€and€consequently,€the€sentence€was€set€at€lifeÏimprisonment);€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797€(Tenn.€1994)(The€Court€did€notÏconsider€whether€the€error€was€harmless€because€the€case€was€remanded€forÏresentencing€on€an€unrelated€error);€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€926€S.W.2d€727€(Tenn.Ï1994)(though€error€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó€was€found,€it€was€not€necessary€toÏconduct€a€harmless€error€analysis€because€remand€for€resentencing€was€requiredÏon€other€grounds).€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ Ð XXdÈdÈ7ÑÖ€/ÖÑ  ÑÓÓÔ€0ÔØ ØÓ&€11XÐd&Óрќـ ÙßR€463A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Shelby€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€Joseph€B.€McCartie,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌMICHAEL€JOE€BOYD,à àà àà à(€€No.€02S01„9611„CR„00102Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à(ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àà àI€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€holding€that€the€juryððsÏconsideration€of€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€was€harmlessÏerror.€€Though€ð ðnot€every€imperfection€in€the€deliberative€processÏis€sufficient,€even€in€a€capital€case,€to€set€aside€a€...Ïjudgment,€the€severity€of€the€sentence€mandates€careful€scrutinyÏin€the€review€of€any€colorable€claim€of€error.ðð€€òòZant€v.€Stephensóó,Ï462€U.S.€862,€886,€103€S.Ct.€2733,€2747€(1983).ÌÌÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àThe€facts€of€this€case€show€that€the€victim€was€on€hisÏway€to€a€motel€room€with€the€defendantððs€girlfriend€when€he€wasÏshot€by€the€defendant.€€The€evidence€specifically€showed€that€theÍvictim€and€David€Hippen€drove€in€a€van€into€downtown€Memphis€toÏfind€a€motel€room€and€solicit€female€companionship.€€At€RaifordððsÏLounge,€two€women,€Barbara€Lee€and€Renita€Tate,€agreed€toÏaccompany€them€and€got€into€the€van.€€Lee€had€been€at€the€loungeÏwith€the€defendant€who€was€her€boyfriend,€and€with€two€other€men,ÏBruce€Wright€and€Terry€Yarber.€€The€two€women,€the€victim€andÏHippen€then€drove€to€the€parking€lot€of€the€Lorraine€Motel€whereÏthe€victim€ð ðstarted€to€give€one€of€the€women€a€$100€bill€to€rentÏtwo€rooms.ðð€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€592€(Tenn.€1990),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074,€111€S.Ct.€800€(1991).€€While€it€wasÏbeing€discussed€who€would€go€in€to€rent€the€rooms,€Wright,€Yarber,Ïand€the€defendant€drove€up€and€parked€next€to€the€van.€€TheÏcircumstances€of€the€murder€are€described€in€the€opinion€on€theÏdirect€appeal€of€this€case€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àDefendant€stepped€into€the€van€on€theÏpassenger€side€behind€the€driverððs€andÏpassengerððs€seats.€€He€then€pointed€a€pistolÏtoward€Hippenððs€face€and€said,€ð ðI€want€yourÏmoney€or€Iððm€going€to€kill€you.ðð€€He€snatchedÏthe€$100€bill€from€[the€victimððs]€hand.€ÏHippen€gave€defendant€his€wallet,€whichÏcontained€$30.ÌÌà8 àà àAs€defendant€leaned€over€Hippen,€[theÏvictim]€grabbed€his€arm€and€shoved€it€onto€theÏconsole.€€Defendant€fired€a€shot€and€the€threeÏmen€began€to€struggle€over€the€gun.€€As€theÏvictim€started€the€van€and€tried€to€driveÏaway,€the€defendant€ð ðemptiedðð€his€gun€at€him.€ÏInjured,€[the€victim]€fell€from€the€van€...Ï[and€died].ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€€The€defendant€was€charged€with€felony€murder,€and€a€sentenceÏof€death€was€sought€based€on€the€aggravating€factors€of€creating€aÏrisk€of€death€to€persons€other€than€the€victim,€killing€during€theÏperpetration€of€a€felony,€and€having€a€prior€conviction€for€aÏviolent€felony.€€The€jury€rejected€the€danger€of€risking€death€toÏothers€as€an€aggravating€factor€and€based€the€sentence€of€death€onÏfelony€murder€and€the€conviction€of€a€prior€violent€felony.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992),Ïòòcert.óó€œòòdismissedóó,›€510€U.S.€124,€114€S.Ct.€48€(1993),€the€CourtÏfound€the€use€of€felony€murder€as€an€aggravator€when€theÏconviction€is€based€on€felony€murder,€unconstitutional:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€We€have€determined€that€in€light€of€theÏbroad€definition€of€felony€murder€and€theÏduplicating€language€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance,€no€narrowing€occursÏunder€Tennesseeððs€first„degree€murder€statute.€ÏWe€hold€that,€when€the€defendant€is€convictedÏof€first„degree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€ofÏfelony€murder,€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏset€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„2„203(i)(7)Ï(1982)€and€39„13„204(i)(7)€(1991),€does€notÏnarrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€murderersÏsufficiently€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€theÏU.S.€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€because€it€duplicatesÏthe€elements€of€the€offense.€€As€a€result,€weÏconclude€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)Ïis€unconstitutionally€applied€under€the€EighthÏAmendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution€and€ArticleÏI,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€whereÏthe€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€felonyÏmurder.ÌÓÓÌÌòòId.óó€at€346.€€All€agree€that€in€this€case,€the€juryððs€use€of€felonyÏmurder€as€an€aggravating€factor€was€a€violation€of€the€EighthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€SectionÏ16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Nonetheless,€the€majorityÏaffirms€the€sentence€of€death€on€the€finding€that€ð ðbeyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€verdict€would€have€been€the€same€had€theÏjury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€aggravating€factor.ðð€€MajorityÏOpinion€at€___.€€[Slip€op.€at€9.]ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€ð ðin€aÏweighing€State€infection€of€the€process€with€an€invalidÏaggravating€factor€might€require€invalidation€of€the€deathÏœsentence.ðð€›€òòStringer€v.€Blackóó,€503€U.S.€222,€231,€112€S.€Ct.€1130,Ï1136€(1992).€€It€has€also€held€that€ð ðunder€such€circumstances€aÏstate€appellate€court€could€reweigh€the€aggravating€and€mitigatingÏcircumstances€or€undertake€harmless„error€analysisðð€as€long€as€theÏdeath€sentence€is€not€affirmed€ð ðwithout€a€thorough€analysis€of€theÏrole€an€invalid€aggravating€factor€played€in€the€sentencingÏprocess.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àThis€Court€properly€applied€a€harmless€error€analysis€inÏòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€510ÏU.S.€1215,€114€S.Ct.€1339€(1994).€€In€òòHowellóó,€the€victim€was€aÏconvenience€store€clerk€who€was€shot€once€in€the€forehead€at€closeÍrange.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€based€on€theÏaggravators€of€felony€murder€and€three€prior€violent€felonyÏconvictions€(armed€robbery,€first„degree€murder,€and€armed€robberyÏand€attempted€first„degree€murder).€€The€mitigating€evidence€wasÏthat€the€defendant€was€brain€damaged€from€four€head€injuries€andÏgrew€up€in€a€violent€home€environment.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€In€order€to€guarantee€the€precision€thatÏindividualized€sentencing€considerationsÏdemand€and€provide€a€principled€explanationÏfor€our€conclusion€in€each€case,€it€isÏimportant,€when€conducting€harmless€errorÏreview,€to€completely€examine€the€record€forÏthe€presence€of€factors€which€potentiallyÏinfluence€the€sentence€ultimately€imposed.€ÏThese€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€theÏnumber€and€strength€of€remaining€validÏaggravating€circumstances,€the€prosecutorððsÏargument€at€sentencing,€the€evidence€admittedÏto€establish€the€invalid€aggravator,€and€theÏnature,€quality€and€strength€of€mitigatingÏevidence.ÌÓÓÌÌòòId.óó€at€260„61.€€€The€Court€found€that€because€this€was€not€theÏdefendantððs€first€ð ðcold„blooded€execution„style€murderðð,€theÏprosecutor€did€not€emphasize€the€felony€murder€aggravator,€noÏadditional€evidence€was€introduced€for€the€invalid€aggravator,€andÏno€mitigating€evidence€of€good€character,€it€could€conclude€theÏsentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€toÏthe€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€factor.€€The€sentence€ofÏdeath€was€affirmed.ÌÌà àThe€constitutionally€mandated€purpose€of€the€harmlessÏerror€analysis€set€forth€in€òòHowellóó,€is€to€insure€that€ð ðbeyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€...€the€error€complained€of€did€not€contributeÏto€the€verdict€obtained.ðð€€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24,Ï87€S.€Ct.€824,€828€(1967)€(Scalia,€J.,€concurring).€€The€Court€isÏð ðobliged€to€determine€whether€there€[is]€reasonable€doubt€as€toÏwhether€the€constitutional€error€contributed€to€the€juryððsÏdecision€to€impose€the€sentence€of€death.ðð€€òòTuggle€v.€Netherlandóó,Ï516€U.S.€10,€___,€116€S.€Ct.€283,€286€(1995)€(Scalia,€J.,Ïconcurring).ÌÌà àMy€concurrence€in€òòHowellóó€was€based€on€the€conclusion,Ïafter€considering€the€factors,€that€it€was€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€charging€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€did€notÏaffect€the€juryððs€decision€to€impose€the€sentence€of€death.€€òòStateÏv.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€270„71€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring).ÌÌà àBased€on€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€decision,€the€Court€hasÏrequired€a€remand€for€sentencing€in€6€subsequent€cases€involvingÏthe€invalid€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€In€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€€Íwhere€a€14€year€old€boy€was€beaten€while€his€hands€were€tiedÏbehind€his€back€with€a€knife,€brass€knuckles€and€a€stick,€wasÏurinated€on€and€in€his€mouth,€burned€with€a€lighter,€€and€amongÏother€brutal€acts,€had€an€ð ðXðð€cut€into€his€chest€while€he€wasÏalive,€the€Court€found€that€even€though€the€other€aggravatingÏcircumstance€of€torture€was€amply€proved,€it€could€not€concludeÏthat€the€elimination€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€of€felonyÏmurder€was€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€317.€€In€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2dÏ185€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€1064,€114€S.Ct.€740Ï(1994),€where€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€killing€a€groceryÏstore€clerk€who€he€knew€with€a€single€gun€shot€to€the€back€of€theÏhead,€the€opinion€notes€only€that€the€jury€found€ð ðaggravatingÏcircumstancesðð€and€that€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó€the€sentence€is€setÏaside€and€the€case€is€remanded.€€In€òòSparks€v.€Stateóó,€1993€Tenn.ÏLexis€187,€No.€03S01„9212„CR„00105€(Tenn.€May€10,€1993)(notÏpublished),€where€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€armed€robbery€ofÏa€liquor€store€during€which€he€shot€and€killed€a€delivery€man,€theÏCourt€remanded€the€case€for€resentencing,€stating,Ì€ÌÓÓà8 àIn€prior€cases,€however,€we€have€foundÏharmless€error€analysis€difficult€to€sustainÏin€the€absence€of€written€findings€by€the€juryÏconcerning€mitigating€circumstances.€œòòSeeóó,Ïòòe.g.óó,›€òòState€v.€Terryóó,€813€S.W.2d€420,€œ424„25›Ï(Tenn.€1991).€Considering€the€"heightened€needÍfor€reliability€in€death€cases,"€we€refused€inÏTerry€to€predict€what€the€outcome€of€the€caseÏwould€have€been€in€the€absence€of€one€of€theÏaggravating€circumstances.€Similarly,€in€òòStateÏv.€Pritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127,€129€(Tenn.Ï1981),€we€declined€to€"speculate"€on€what€theÏjury's€sentence€would€be€when€one€of€twoÏaggravating€circumstances€was€removed€fromÏconsideration.ÌÌà8 à€€€€€The€current€sentencing€statute,€T.C.A.€ððÏ39„13„204(g),€like€its€predecessor,€T.C.A.€ððÏ39„2„203(g),€requires€the€jury€to€engage€in€aÏcareful€weighing€process,€balancing€specifiedÏaggravating€circumstances€against€anyÏmitigating€circumstances€in€the€record.€But,Ïalso€like€its€predecessor,€it€does€not€requireÏthe€jury€to€report€in€its€verdict€whatÏmitigating€factors€were€considered.€Without€aÏsufficient€basis€for€reweighing€the€evidenceÏin€the€record,€we€are€disinclined€to€speculateÏin€this€instance€about€what€verdict€the€juryÏmight€have€returned€based€on€proof€of€a€singleÏaggravating€circumstance.€Certainly,€we€cannotÏsay€that€in€the€absence€of€the€felony„murderÏaggravating€circumstance,€there€is€proofÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendantÏshould€be€sentenced€to€execution.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€3„4.€€In€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€853€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1993),€theÏdefendant€was€found€guilty€of€premeditated€murder€and€felonyÏmurder.€€The€evidence€showed€a€premeditated€murder€and€robbery€inÏwhich€the€victim€was€beaten,€cut,€strangled,€gagged,€and€placed€inÏa€tub€with€a€plastic€bag€over€his€head.€€The€jury€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€death€finding€the€aggravators€of€torture€and€felonyÏmurder.€€The€Court€held€that€òòMiddlebrooksóó€€required€that€a€juryÏreconsider€the€evidence€ð ðeven€though€the€evidence€amply€supportsÏthe€aggravating€circumstance€of€the€murder€to€be€especiallyÍheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏdepravity€of€mind.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€490.Ô% € Ô€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1Ï(Tenn.€1993),€the€defendant€and€an€accomplice€during€the€robberyÏof€a€store€operated€by€an€elderly€couple,€knocked€down€the€man€andÏfatally€shot€the€woman€when€she€resisted€the€robbery.€€ThoughÏother€error€also€required€resentencing,€the€Court€stated,€ð ðTheÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€rule€establishes€that€elimination€of€the€[felonyÏmurder€aggravator]€requires€the€jury€to€reconsider€the€evidence€toÏdetermine€if€the€sentence€of€death€is€appropriate€in€this€case.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€25.€€In€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94€(Tenn.€1995),€theÏvictim€was€sixteen€years€old€when€she€was€kidnapped,€raped,€killedÏby€four€blows€to€the€head,€and€raped€again.€€In€doing€the€harmlessÏerror€analysis,€the€Court€stated€that€though€no€additionalÏevidence€was€introduced€in€support€of€the€invalid€aggravator,€theÏprosecutor€did€not€emphasize€the€invalid€aggravator,€and€there€wasÏonly€minimal€proof€of€mitigating€circumstances,€because€theÏremaining€aggravator€of€the€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€nature€ofÏthe€offense€was€supported€by€testimony€which€was€contested,€theÏCourt€was€ð ðunable€to€conclude€that€the€sentence€would€have€beenÏthe€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€aggravator.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€104.€€In€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381€(Tenn.€1995),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€____€U.S.€____,€117€S.Ct.€88€(1996),€the€victim€wasÏshot€several€times€while€sitting€in€her€car€in€her€driveway;€sheÏbled€to€death€at€the€hospital.€€The€defendant€thought€the€victimÏwould€be€carrying€a€lot€of€money.€€The€jury€found€the€defendantÍnot€guilty€of€premeditated€murder,€but€guilty€of€felony€murder€andÏsentenced€the€defendant€to€death€based€on€the€aggravators€ofÏfelony€murder,€and€the€existence€of€a€previous€conviction€of€aÏviolent€felony€(voluntary€manslaughter).€€The€Court€found€that€theÏmitigating€evidence€was€ð ðinadequateðð€to€overturn€the€sentence,€butÏthat€the€ð ðprior€violent€felony€aggravator€was€not€nearly€asÏpositiveðð€as€that€of€armed€robbery,€first€degree€murder,€andÏattempted€first€degree€murder,€found€in€òòHowellóó.€€òòId.óó€at€398.€€TheÏCourt€remanded€the€case€for€resentencing.ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€the€high€standard€for€harmless€errorÏanalysis€set€forth€in€òòHowellóó€has€been€significantly€compromised€inÏsome€cases.€€For€instance,€in€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1086,€115€S.€Ct.€743€(1995),Ïthe€victim,€a€sixty„eight€year€old€woman,€was€killed€by€blows€toÏthe€head,€raped€and€bitten.€€The€evidence€was€inconclusive€as€toÏwhether€the€victim€lost€consciousness€immediately€or€not.€€TheÏvictim€and€the€defendant€knew€each€other,€though€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€defendant€and€the€victim€was€not€shown€in€the€record.€ÏThe€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€based€on€the€aggravatorsÏof€felony€murder,€previous€convictions€of€violent€feloniesÏ(assault€and€aggravated€rape),€and€an€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious,€or€cruel€murder€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏdepravity€of€mind.€€The€Court€affirmed€the€sentence€stating€thatÏthe€other€two€aggravators€were€strongly€supported€by€the€evidence,Íno€additional€evidence€was€introduced€in€support€of€the€invalidÏaggravator,€the€prosecutor€did€not€emphasize€the€invalidÏaggravator,€and€the€mitigation€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÏchildhood€and€work€history€did€not€outweigh€the€valid€aggravatingÏcircumstances.€€In€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€1994),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1114,€115€S.Ct.€909€(1995),€this€CourtÏfound€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€to€be€harmless€stating€that€theÏdefendant€had€committed€five€similar€rapes€in€the€months€beforeÏthe€murder,€no€inadmissible€evidence€was€introduced€to€establishÏthe€invalid€felony„murder€aggravator,€the€State€did€not€put€aÏgreat€emphasis€on€the€fact€of€the€felony,€and€the€mitigating€proofÏwas€contested€by€the€State.€€In€òòNicholsóó,€the€defendant€confessedÏand€testified€to€raping€the€victim.€€The€death€resulted€from€theÏdefendantððs€hitting€the€victim€with€a€two„by„four€during€theÏstruggle;€the€victim€died€two€days€later.€€The€defendant€expressedÏremorse.€€I€dissented€from€the€Courtððs€conclusion€that€theÏallowance€of€the€jury€to€use€the€felony€murder€aggravator€wasÏharmless€error€because€the€State€failed€to€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€jury€was€not€influenced€by€the€invalidÏaggravating€circumstance.€€Indeed,€the€record€suggested€theÏopposite€conclusion:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€State€relied€on€two€aggravatingÏcircumstances€to€support€the€death€penalty€„Ïprevious€convictions€for€aggravated€rape,€andÏthe€fact€that€the€murder€occurred€during€theÏcommission€of€a€violent€felony.€€The€jury€wasÍinstructed€to€decide€whether€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€were€supported€by€the€evidence,Ïand€whether€they€outweighed€the€mitigatingÏevidence.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€evidenceÏof€the€aggravating€circumstances€was€offered,Ïwhich€included€substantial€emphasis€on€theÏcircumstances€of€the€crime€itself.€€EvidenceÏof€mitigating€circumstances€was€offered€fromÏthe€defendant,€his€family,€co„workers,€andÏfriends€as€to€his€character,€work€backgroundÏand€attitude,€and€family€history.€€He€alsoÏsubmitted€the€testimony€of€a€clinicalÏpsychologist€who€had€diagnosed€the€defendantÏas€having€intermittent€explosive€disorder.€ÏThe€Stateððs€closing€argument€emphasized€theÏfelony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€atÏleast€as€much€as€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏof€prior€convictions.€...€[The]€initialÏreturn€of€the€juror€death€penalty€verdict€formÏ...€[did€not€cite]€aggravating€circumstancesÏconcerning€the€defendantððs€record€ofÏconvictions.ÌÌà8 àà à...€There€is€at€the€very€least€aÏreasonable€possibility€that€the€injection€ofÏthe€invalid€felony€murder€aggravatingÏcircumstance€into€the€weighing€process€by€theÏjury€contributed€to€the€death€sentence€....ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€743„44€(Reid,€C.J.,€dissenting).€€In€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893ÏS.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€____€U.S.€____,€116€S.Ct.Ï99€(1995),€the€victim€was€an€elderly€woman€who€had€been€beaten,Ïraped,€her€throat€had€been€cut,€and€she€had€been€drowned€in€theÏbathtub.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€based€on€theÏaggravators€of€felony€murder,€previous€convictions€of€violentÏfelonies€(robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€assault€with€intent€toÏcommit€first„degree€murder,€and€aggravated€rape),€and€the€natureÏof€the€murder€as€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€TheÍmitigating€evidence€was€that€the€Defendant€was€mentally€retarded.€ÏBecause€the€evidence€supported€the€remaining€aggravators,€noÏadditional€evidence€was€introduced€in€support€of€the€invalidÏaggravator,€and€little€emphasis€was€placed€on€the€robbery€by€theÏprosecutor,€the€Court€affirmed€the€sentence€of€death.€€In€òòSmithóó,€IÏdissented,€stating,ÌÌÓÓà8 àIn€this€case,€although€the€two€remainingÏaggravating€circumstances€were€proven,€and€noÏadditional€evidence€was€admitted€in€support€ofÏthe€invalid€aggravating€circumstance,€theÏevidence€of€mental€retardation€is€a€strongÏmitigating€factor€whose€weight€could€well€beÏmore€persuasive€against€two€aggravatingÏcircumstances€than€three.€€Because€theÏexistence€of€substantial€mitigating€evidenceÏforces€the€jury€in€this€case€to€make€a€veryÏsubjective€decision€as€to€weight,€the€State,Ïwhich€has€the€burden€of€proof,€cannot€showÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€ultimateÏdecision€to€execute€the€defendant€was€notÏòòinfluencedóó€by€the€submission€of€the€invalidÏaggravating€circumstance;€therefore,€theÏsubmission€of€this€circumstance€was€notÏharmless€error,€and€resentencing€is€required.ÌÓÓÌÌòòIdóó.€at€932€(Reid,€J.€concurring€in€part€&€dissenting€in€part).€€€ÌÌà àSometimes,€like€in€òòHowellóó,€the€finding€of€harmless€errorÏœi›œs›€justified.€€For€instance,€in€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1184,€115€S.Ct.€1177€(1995),Ïthe€victim€who€was€seventy„five€years€old€and€in€bad€health,€wasÏkilled€by€multiple€blows€to€the€head.€€She€had€bruises€on€herÍhands€which€were€caused€when€the€victim€attempted€to€protectÏherself€from€the€blows,€and€the€evidence€showed€that€the€victimÏwas€alive€and€conscious€during€the€beating.€€The€defendant€alsoÏmade€comments€to€others€regarding€the€killing€indicating€theÏwillfulness€of€his€actions.€€The€jury€based€itððs€sentence€of€deathÏon€the€felony€murder€aggravator€and€on€the€fact€that€the€murderÏwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involvedÏtorture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Because€the€prosecutor€mentionedÏthe€felony€murder€aggravator€only€once,€no€additional€evidence€wasÏintroduced€to€support€the€invalid€aggravator,€and€no€strongÏmitigating€evidence€was€introduced,€the€Court€found€the€errorÏharmless.€€Though€noting€my€disagreement€with€the€analysis€of€theÏmajority€opinion,€I€concurred€in€the€judgment€that€the€sentence€beÏaffirmed.€€And€in€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.€1995),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€____€U.S.€____,€117€S.Ct.€133€(1996),€the€victimÏwas€stabbed€multiple€times€and€at€the€time€of€death€the€victim€wasÏsexually€brutalized.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€deathÏbased€on€the€aggravators€of€felony€murder,€prior€convictionsÏ(assault€in€the€first€degree)€and€the€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel.€€In€mitigation,€the€defendantÏintroduced€evidence€of€a€bad€childhood€home€environment,Ïpsychological€problems,€and€his€good€behavior€while€in€prison.€ÏThe€Court€noted€that€the€defendant€was€ð ðfound€guilty€of€felonyÏmurder€solely€on€the€basis€of€armed€robberyðð€and€that€ð ðtwoÏfelonies,€larceny€and€rape,€in€addition€to€robbery,€were€used€toÍsupport€the€felony€murder€circumstance.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€583.€€The€CourtÏconcluded€that€the€felony€murder€aggravators,€therefore,€didÏperform€the€narrowing€function€required€under€the€constitution.€ÏDoing€a€harmless€error€analysis€for€the€portion€of€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravator€attributable€to€the€robbery,€the€Court€found€theÏerror€harmless€because€the€remaining€aggravating€circumstancesÏwere€strongly€supported,€the€prosecutor€did€not€emphasize€theÏinvalid€aggravator€and€the€evidence€of€mitigation€did€not€outweighÏthe€aggravators.€€€Though€I€dissented€on€the€basis€of€otherÏsignificant€errors,€including€the€trial€courtððs€rejection€of€theÏplea€agreement€reached€between€the€defendant€and€the€DistrictÏAttorney€Generalððs€office,€I€would€agree€that€the€use€of€theÏinvalid€aggravator€was€harmless€error€under€the€record€in€thatÏcase.ÌÌà àHowever,€comparison€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€ofÏòòHowellóó€and€those€in€this€case€indicate€a€further€lessening€of€theÏstandard.€ò ò€ó óThe€murder€in€this€case€resulted€from€an€altercationÏbased€on€jealousy.€€There€was€an€argument€followed€by€a€fight€andÏthen€a€shooting.€€The€only€valid€aggravator€relied€on€by€the€juryÏis€the€prior€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€The€mitigatingÏcircumstances€offered€by€the€defendant€are€that€he€was€sorry€theÏvictim€had€been€killed,€he€did€not€intend€to€rob€or€shoot€theÏvictim,€and€the€killing€had€happened€because€the€victim€pulled€aÏgun€on€him.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€is€simply€not€persuasiveÍenough€to€assume€that€without€the€consideration€of€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravator,€the€jury€would€have€reached€the€sameÏconclusion.€€In€my€view,€the€admission€of€the€invalid€circumstanceÏwas€not€harmless€error€under€the€òòHowellóó€analysis.ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àThe€issue€is€not€the€extent€to€which€theÏaggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances€wereÏsupported€by€the€evidence€or€whether€theÏaggravating€circumstances€outweighed€theÏmitigating€circumstances.€€A€finding€that€theÏevidence€in€support€of€the€valid€aggravatingÏcircumstance€was€overwhelming€and€the€evidenceÏin€mitigation€was€meager€may,€...€supportÏthe€juryððs€finding€that€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€the€aggravating€circumstance€outweighedÏthe€mitigating€circumstances,€but€it€does€notÏnecessarily€follow€that€the€jury€was€notÏinfluenced€by€the€invalid€aggravatingÏcircumstance.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€269€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.Ïconcurring).€€ð ð[I]n€all€cases€where€the€Court€must€make€aÏsubjective€decision€regarding€the€effect€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance,ðð€a€finding€of€harmless€error€is€inappropriate.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€268.€€In€my€view,€the€finding€of€harmless€error€cannot€be€basedÏon€objective€facts€in€this€case€and,€therefore,€must€be€aÏsubjective€conclusion.ÌÌà àà àI€would€remand€the€case€for€resentencing.ò ò€ó óÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.