ÿWPCû/ A# žUN© %÷ 0 DýU:Aw@{4»ÏÞ 0Ãæ 0¡©U:J 1m„U:ñ 0c+ 0JŽ 0TØ 0^, 0hŠ 0rò 0|d 0†à 0f 1uö bk 0ds AQ× B( ÆE 0D  0@O 0D D/Ó B D3U*RB)|DC¥ AMè65ük„gZëEˆ TÜ$¹ñ&v~ª(vÓ(*˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular X(r+$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒ„°Ò@"Arial Regular ½$¾$V¿$eÀ$Ã$DÄ$Å$Æ$DÇ$È$Ó€Ft‹#Ãð"úÿÿú, ú3|xÓ$(s(2g$¤¤Ý ƒr+!ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  ÝÒ44ÒÒ„„ÒÔ€ ôGêôX XÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("WV$Ô€ôèêôXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôb´ôôôèêÔÔ€X'?Xôôb´Ô,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular#3e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)+•ŸzAZ‹"Arial Regular(;3¾$´´Ô23eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 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 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)- ù-P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ&'()*Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd%%%%'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd&(5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ'"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔÌÌò òJanuaryÏ5,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€3ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Although€the€appeal€was€also€granted€on€the€issue€of€who€properly€represents€theÏdefendant,€i.e.,€his€appointed€counsel€or€the€Post„Conviction€Defender,€the€issue€was€renderedÏmoot€when€appointed€counsel€requested€and€received€an€order€from€this€Court€allowing€him€toÏwithdraw.€€€€Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€òòMiddlebrooksóó€holding€also€applied€to€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstanceÏas€subsequently€codified€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7)(1990).€Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(I)(2),€(3),€and€(7)(1982)[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204€(i)(2),€(3),€and€(7)(1997)].Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€At€the€time€of€this€offense,€felony€murder€included€ð ð[e]very€murder€committed€in€theÏperpetration€of,€or€attempt€to€perpetrate,€any€murder€in€the€first€degree,€arson,€rape,€robbery,Ïburglary,€larceny,€kidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€the€unlawful€throwing,€placing€or€discharging€of€aÏdestructive€device€or€bomb....ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„202(a)(1982)[now€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„202(a)(2)(1997)].€€The€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€provided€ð ðthe€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing.€.€.€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,Ïrape,€robbery,€burglary,€larceny,€kidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€unlawful€throwing,€placing€orÏdischarging€of€a€destructive€device€or€bomb.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)(1982)[nowÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7)(1997)].Ì ~ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Though€this€Court€and€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€previously€had€recognized€thatÏerrors€occurring€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial€may€be€reviewed€under€the€harmlessÏerror€doctrine€by€an€appellate€court,€it€was€not€until€1992€that€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏcompletely€delineated€the€proper€analysis€to€be€applied€by€an€appellate€court€when€an€invalidÏaggravating€circumstance€has€been€relied€upon€by€the€initial€sentencing€authority.€€òòSeeóó€òòStringer€v.ÏBlackóó,€503€U.S.€at€232;€òòSochor€v.€Floridaóó,€504€U.S.€at€540„541.€€This€Courtððs€decision€in€òòHowellóóÏdelineating€the€proper€harmless€error€analysis€for€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€was€not€rendered€until€afterÏour€decisions€in€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€1993€Tenn.€LexisÏ187;€No.€03S01„9212„CR„00105€(Tenn.,€May€10,€1993);€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€853€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993);€and€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€Therefore,€since€all€these€decisions€predated€òòHowellóó,€the€dissentððs€reliance€uponÏthese€cases€as€examples€of€the€proper€application€of€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€is€unwarranted.Ì€Ìà àMoreover,€in€each€of€the€cases€that€the€dissent€contends€were€ð ðsignificantlyÏcompromised,ðð€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€yielded€a€conclusion€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€was€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€òòsupraóó,€there€were€two€remaining€aggravatingÏfactors,€prior€convictions€for€a€violent€felony€and€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel.€€The€prior€convictionsÏwere€aggravated€rape€and€assault;€no€additional€evidence€or€undue€emphasis€had€been€placedÏon€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravator€during€sentencing.€€In€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€òòsupraóó,€five€rapeÏconvictions€supported€the€remaining€factor€of€prior€convictions€for€a€violent€felony;€no€additionalÏevidence€or€undue€emphasis€was€placed€on€the€invalid€factor.€€In€òòState€v.€(Sylvester)€Smithóó,€òòsupraóó,Ïthere€were€two€remaining€aggravating€factors,€prior€convictions€for€a€violent€felony€and€heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel.€€The€prior€convictions€included€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€assault€withÏintent€to€commit€murder,€and€aggravated€rape.€€Accordingly,€our€application€of€these€factors,€asÏwell€as€the€mitigating€evidence€offered€by€the€defendants,€led€to€the€same€conclusion€„„€that€theÏerror€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€defendant€cites,€among€other€provisions,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(a)(1982),Ïthe€ð ðjury€shall€fix€punishment€in€a€separate€sentencing€hearingðð,€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(k)(1982),€ð ða€new€trial€on€the€issue€of€punishment€shall€be€held€by€a€new€jury€empaneled€forÏthat€purpose.ðð€€€Ì ¯Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€3ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Mississippi€cases€relied€on€by€the€defendant,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWilcher€v.€Stateóó,€635€So.2d€789Ï(Miss.€1993),€are€specifically€predicated€on€an€interpretation€of€state€law€that€is€not€controlling€onÏthis€Court.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€3ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ћр ÑÑ7€ÍXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Ӝـ&ÙßR€675A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àœò òòòFiled:€€January€5,€1998ó ó›óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€SHELBY€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€€JOSEPH€B.€McCARTIE,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€€€€JUDGEÌMICHAEL€JOE€BOYD,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à àNo.€02„S„01„9611„CR„00102ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌPaul€J.€Morrow,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌOffice€of€the€Post„Convictionà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€€€€€Ì€€€Defenderà àà àÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌDaniel€A.€SewardÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àKathy€MoranteÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòAt€Trial:óóà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTerry€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÔ€3„Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€3XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÇÓÓà àThe€issue€in€this€post„conviction€death€penalty€appeal€is€whether€theÏjuryððs€reliance€on€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€was€harmless€error,€orÏwhether€resentencing€is€required€because€there€is€reasonable€doubt€that€theÏsentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalidÏaggravating€factor.€€The€jury€relied€on€a€valid€aggravating€factor,€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€prior€conviction€for€a€violent€felony€offense€(second„degreeÏmurder),€and€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance,€that€the€victim€was€killedÏduring€the€commission€of€a€felony.× ƒ8 ××  ×€ÌÌà àA€majority€of€this€Court€held€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317Ï(Tenn.€1992),€that€the€felony€murder€aggravating€factor€found€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)€duplicates€and€mirrors€the€elements€of€the€offense€ofÏfelony€murder€and€therefore,€when€applied€as€an€aggravating€factor€to€a€felonyÏmurder€conviction,€it€fails€to€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants€as€isÏrequired€by€œarticle›€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€€After€conducting€aÏharmless€error€analysis,€however,€both€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€concluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€under€the€facts€of€this€caseÏthe€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€theÍinvalid€aggravating€factor.€Both€courts€denied€the€post„conviction€petition.€€WeÏagree€and€affirm€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment.ÌÌÌÌÇà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€defendant,€Michael€Joe€Boyd,€was€convicted€of€felony€murderÏstemming€from€the€shooting€death€of€William€Price€during€an€armed€robbery€inÏNovember€of€1986.€€Price€and€a€companion,€David€Hippen,€had€solicited€twoÏwomen,€Barbara€Lee€and€Renita€Tate,€to€accompany€them€to€a€Memphis€motel.€ÏUpon€their€arrival€at€the€Lorraine€Motel,€Price€gave€one€of€the€women€a€$100Ïbill€to€rent€two€rooms.€€Michael€Boyd,€who€was€Leeððs€boyfriend,€drove€up€to€theÏscene€with€two€other€men€and€approached€Priceððs€van.€€Boyd€pointed€his€pistolÏat€Hippen€and€demanded€money.€€Price€grabbed€Boydððs€arm,€Boyd€fired€theÏgun,€and€a€struggle€ensued.€€When€Price€tried€to€drive€away€from€the€scene,ÏBoyd€ð ðemptiedðð€the€gun€at€him,€striking€him€with€five€or€six€shots€which€causedÏhis€death.ÌÌà àThe€prosecution€relied€on€three€aggravating€circumstances€to€seek€theÏdeath€penalty€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial:€(1)€that€the€defendant€had€aÏprior€conviction€for€a€violent€felony,€(2)€that€the€defendant€knowingly€created€aÏrisk€of€death€to€two€or€more€persons€other€than€the€victim€murdered,€and€(3)€thatÏthe€killing€occurred€in€the€perpetration€of€a€felony.œ× ƒ: ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àA€judgment€showing€that€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€in€1983€forÏsecond„degree€murder€was€introduced€by€the€prosecution€to€support€the€priorÏconviction€for€a€violent€felony€aggravating€circumstance.€€In€mitigation,€BoydÏtestified€that€someone€asked€for€change€for€a€$100€bill€and€he€was€going€toÏmake€change€when€Hippen€pulled€a€gun.€€He€said€a€struggle€took€place,€duringÏwhich€Price€was€shot.€€Boyd€testified€that€he€was€sorry€the€victim€had€been€killedÏbut€that€he€did€not€intend€to€rob€or€shoot€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àThe€jury€returned€the€sentence€of€death€based€on€two€aggravatingÏfactors,€prior€conviction€of€a€violent€felony€and€felony€murder,€and€the€convictionÏand€sentence€were€affirmed€by€this€Court€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2dÏ589€(Tenn.€1990),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1074€(1991).€€The€defendant€filed€aÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€that€alleged€numerous€constitutional€errors,Ïincluding€the€violation€of€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€underÏòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó.€€Following€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€deniedÏthe€petition.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€denial.€€We€granted€thisÏappeal€and€now€affirm€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment.ÌÌà@ àò òòòANALYSISó óóóÌà àIn€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€we€determined€that€the€felony€murder€aggravatingÏcircumstance€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)€duplicated€andÏmirrored€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€felony€murder€and,€when€applied€to€aÍfelony€murder,€failed€to€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€murderers€as€requiredÏby€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Eighth€Amendment€toÏthe€United€States€Constitution.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€€We€stressed€that€a€proper€narrowing€deviceÏmust€provide€ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àa€principled€way€to€distinguish€the€case€in€which€the€death€penaltyÏwas€imposed€from€the€many€cases€in€which€it€was€not€.€.€.€and€mustÏdifferentiate€a€death€penalty€case€in€an€objective,€even„handed,Ïand€substantially€rational€way€from€the€many€murder€cases€inÏwhich€the€death€penalty€may€not€be€imposed.€€As€a€result,€a€properÏnarrowing€device€insures€that,€even€though€some€defendants€whoÏfall€within€the€restricted€class€of€death„eligible€defendants€manageÏto€avoid€the€death€penalty,€those€who€receive€it€will€be€among€theÏworst€murderers„„€those€whose€crimes€are€particularly€serious,€orÏfor€which€the€death€penalty€is€particularly€appropriate.ÌÌÌÓÓWe€concluded€that€it€violates€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€to€useÏthe€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€to€support€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty€for€a€conviction€of€felony€murder.€€840€S.W.2d€at€343„346.€€The€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€factor€may,€of€course,€be€used€to€support€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty€if€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€premeditated€murder,€or€if€the€felonyÏused€for€the€aggravating€circumstance€is€different€from€and€in€addition€to€theÍfelony€used€for€the€felony€murder€offense.€€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€583Ï(Tenn.€1995),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€€€€€óóU.S.òò€€€€€€€óó,€117€S.Ct.€133,€136€L.Ed.2d€82€(1996).ÌÌà àBecause€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€rule€enhanced€the€integrity€and€reliability€ofÏthe€sentencing€process,€we€have€since€applied€the€rule€retroactively.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185,€187€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1184Ï(1995).€€Accordingly,€as€both€parties€here€recognize,€the€juryððs€reliance€on€theÏinvalid€felony€murder€aggravating€factor€was€constitutional€error€properlyÏrecognized€in€this€post„conviction€proceeding.€€ÌÌà àThe€critical€inquiry,€therefore,€is€whether€the€error€was€harmless€andÏwhether€a€resentencing€hearing€is€required.€€To€assist€in€this€inquiry,€we€reviewÏthe€analytical€framework€first€announced€in€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238Ï(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€1215€(1994).€€There,€we€held€that€aÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€error€does€not€require€a€resentencing€hearing€if€the€reviewingÏcourt€concludes€ð ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€sentence€would€haveÏbeen€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€felony€murderÏaggravating€factor.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€262.€€Our€holding€was€based€on€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€precedent€in€which€that€Court€had€said€that€if€a€jury€considersÏan€invalid€or€improper€aggravating€circumstance,€either€ð ðconstitutional€harmlessÏerror€analysis€or€reweighing€at€the€trial€or€appellate€level€suffices€to€guaranteeÏthat€the€defendant€received€an€individualized€sentence.ðð€€òòStringer€v.€Blackóó,€503ÍU.S.€222,€232€(1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòRichmond€v.€Lewisóó,€506€U.S.€40€(1992);ÏòòClemons€v.€Mississippióó,€494€U.S.€738€(1990).ÌÌà àIn€òòHowellóó,€we€adopted€a€harmless€error€analysis€that€guarantees€theÏprecision€that€individualized€sentencing€demands€and€provides€a€principledÏexplanation€for€our€conclusion€in€each€case.€€We€also€stressed€the€need€ð ðtoÏcompletely€examine€the€record€for€the€presence€of€factors€which€potentiallyÏinfluence€the€sentence€ultimately€imposed.ðð€€These€factors€include,€but€are€notÏlimited€to,€ð ðthe€number€and€strength€of€remaining€aggravating€circumstances,Ïthe€prosecutorððs€argument€at€sentencing,€the€evidence€admitted€to€establish€theÏinvalid€aggravator,€and€the€nature,€quality,€and€strength€of€mitigating€evidence.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€260„61.€€Only€after€a€thorough€and€critical€consideration€of€these€factorsÏcan€a€determination€be€made€as€to€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSochor€v.€Floridaóó,Ï504€U.S.€527,€541€(1992)(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring)(ð ðappellate€courtððs€baldÏassertion€that€an€error€of€constitutional€dimensions€was€ððharmlessðð€cannotÏsubstitute€for€a€principled€explanation€of€how€the€court€reached€thatÏconclusion.ðð).ÌÌà àWe€have€since€applied€the€òòHowellóó€harmless€error€analysis€on€numerousÏoccasions€in€which€the€jury€considered€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€inÏconjunction€with€one€or€more€valid€aggravating€circumstances.€€In€the€followingÏcases,€the€error€was€found€to€be€harmless€and€the€sentence€was€affirmed.€ÍòòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€583;€òòState€v.€(Sylvester)€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908Ï(Tenn.€1994),€___€U.S.€___,€116€S.Ct.€99,€133€L.Ed.2d€53€(1995);€òòBarber€v.ÏStateóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€187;€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1114€(1995);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1086€(1995);€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€262.€ÏConversely,€we€concluded€that€the€constitutional€error€required€resentencing€inÏòòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381€(Tenn.€1995),€___€U.S.€___,€117€S.Ct.€88,€136ÏL.Ed.2d€45€(1996),€and€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àWe€disagree€with€the€dissentððs€assertion€that€ð ðthe€high€standard€forÏharmless€error€analysis€set€forth€in€òòHowellóó€has€been€significantly€compromisedÏin€some€cases.ðð€€On€the€contrary,€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€has€been€employed€in€theÏsame€manner€in€each€case„„€the€fact€that€some€errors€have€been€held€to€beÏharmless€and€others€harmful€underscores€that€an€individualized€determinationÍmust€be€made€in€each€case.× ƒ< ××  ×€ÌÌà àApplying€the€analysis€in€this€case€leads€us€to€conclude€that€the€error€isÏharmless€and€does€not€require€resentencing.€€The€remaining€aggravating€factorÏrelied€upon€by€the€jury€was€that€the€defendant€had€a€prior€conviction€for€secondÏdegree€murder„„a€violent€felony.€€We€said€in€òòHowellóó€that€ð ðeven€more€critical€thanÏthe€sum€of€the€remaining€aggravating€circumstances€is€the€qualitative€nature€ofÏeach€circumstance,€its€substance€and€persuasiveness,€as€well€as€the€quantumÏof€proof€supporting€it.ðð€€Although€the€statute€assigns€no€relative€importance€orÍweight€to€the€aggravating€circumstances,€we€observed€that€a€prior€violent€felonyÏconviction€ð ðmay€be€more€qualitatively€persuasive€and€objectively€reliableðð€thanÏother€factors.€€868€S.W.2d€at€261.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€defendantððs€prior€conviction€for€second„degree€murderÏis€a€significant€element€to€be€considered€in€our€analysis;€in€fact,€we€haveÏaffirmed€the€death€sentence€in€all€but€one€previous€case€in€which€a€prior€violentÏfelony€conviction€supported€the€aggravating€factor€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2).€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€584€(assault€in€the€first„degree);ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€926€(robbery,€assault€with€intent€to€murder,€andÏaggravated€rape);€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€738€(rape);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€at€270€(aggravated€rape€and€assault€with€intent€to€murder);€òòState€v.ÏHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€261€(murder,€aggravated€robbery).€€In€the€remainingÏcase,€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€the€conviction€was€for€voluntary€manslaughter,€a€lesserÏgrade€of€offense€than€second„degree€murder.€€910€S.W.2d€at€398.ÌÌà àTurning€to€the€second€òòHowellóó€factor,€the€record€reveals€that€theÏprosecution€did€not€emphasize€the€felony€murder€aggravating€factor,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203€(i)(7),€in€the€sentencing€phase.€€No€additional€evidenceÏwas€introduced€in€support€of€the€factor,€and€relatively€little€reliance€was€placedÏon€it€during€the€prosecutorððs€argument.€€Instead,€the€prosecution€stressed€theÍdefendantððs€prior€conviction€throughout€its€argument€as€demonstrated€by€theÏfollowing€passage:ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àThe€law€also€says€if€you€kill€once€and€then€you€kill€again,€itððs€okayÏfor€you€to€suffer€the€consequences€of€the€death€penalty.€€WhatÏÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€4 u` Ñdoes€it€take,€ladies€and€gentlemen?€€How€many€people€have€toÏdie€before€we€put€a€stop€to€[the€defendant].€€Do€we€have€to€waitÏuntil€he€kills€and€kills€and€kills€again?€€Heððs€killed€twice.€€YouÏwould€think€.€.€.€after€killing€once€that€a€man€like€that,€if€heððs€got€anyÏconscience€at€all,€would€want€to€get€as€far€away€from€a€pistol,€anÏinstrument€of€death,€as€he€could€ever€get.€.€.€.€Itððs€good€for€nothingÏother€than€to€kill€other€human€beings.€€Twice€[the€defendant]€usedÏthe€same€instrument€of€death.€€Itððs€time€.€.€.€to€put€a€stop€to€it.ÌÌÌÓÓFinally,€the€balance€of€the€Stateððs€argument€was€devoted€to€arguing€theÏaggravating€factor€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203€(i)(3),€that€the€defendantÏknowingly€created€a€risk€of€death€to€two€or€more€persons€during€the€victimððsÏmurder,€and€to€discrediting€the€testimony€and€credibility€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€applying€the€third€òòHowellóó€factor,€we€observe€that€no€additionalÏevidence€was€admitted€to€support€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravatingÏcircumstance;€the€prosecution€merely€relied€upon€the€evidence€in€the€guiltÏphase.€€As€we€said€in€òòHowellóó,€ð ðan€aggravating€factor€which€duplicates€theÏelements€of€the€underlying€crime€has€less€relative€tendency€to€prejudiciallyÏaffect€the€sentence€imposed€than€invalid€aggravating€factors€which€interjectÏinadmissible€evidence€into€the€sentencing€calculus,€or€which€require€theÏsentencing€jury€to€draw€additional€conclusions€from€the€guilt€phase€evidence.ðð€Í868€S.W.2d€at€261.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€in€this€case€heard€no€more€evidenceÏin€support€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€than€had€alreadyÏbeen€presented€to€prove€the€offense€of€felony€murder€during€the€guilt€phase.ÌÌ€à àFinally,€we€consider€the€final€òòHowellóó€factor€„„€the€nature,€quality€andÏstrength€of€the€mitigating€evidence.€€In€this€case,€the€mitigating€evidence€wasÏlimited€to€the€defendantððs€own€testimony.€€Although€the€defendant€argues€onÏappeal€that€he€showed€remorse,€it€is€significant€that€he€did€not€acceptÏresponsibility€for€his€part€in€the€offense;€instead€he€denied€that€he€shot€orÏrobbed€the€victim.€€No€other€mitigating€evidence€was€presented€before€the€jury.€ÏWe€have€considered€all€of€the€relevant€òòHowellóó€analytical€factors€in€our€review€ofÏthe€record,€and€have€considered€and€applied€the€requirement€for€individualizedÏsentencing€and€made€a€principled€explanation€for€our€conclusion.€After€doingÏso,€we€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€verdict€would€have€beenÏthe€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€aggravating€factor.€€ÌÌà àThe€dissent€concludes€that€a€finding€of€harmless€error€cannot€be€basedÏon€objective€facts€and€is€therefore€inappropriate.€€Notwithstanding€evidence€of€aÏð ðset€upðð€robbery€and€that€the€defendant€ð ðemptiedðð€his€gun€while€the€victim€triedÏto€flee€from€the€scene,€the€dissent€contends€that€the€killing€occurred€as€a€resultÏof€an€altercation€based€on€jealousy€and€that€the€defendant€testified€he€did€notÏintend€to€rob€or€shoot€the€victim.€€The€dissent,€however,€does€not€apply€theÍòòHowellóó€factors€that€support€an€objective€conclusion€that€the€juryððs€verdict€wouldÏhave€been€the€same€even€had€it€not€considered€the€invalid€factor.€€€In€particular,Ïthe€dissent€does€not€address€the€quality€and€strength€of€the€remainingÏaggravator€factor€that€was€supported€by€the€defendantððs€prior€conviction€forÏsecond„degree€murder,€nor,€apparently,€does€the€dissent€place€objectiveÏsignificance€on€the€òòHowellóófactors€that€no€additional€evidence€or€emphasis€wasÏplaced€on€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravator€during€sentencing.€€Thus,€theÏdissent€takes€issue€solely€with€the€majorityððs€conclusion€and€not€itsÏmethodology.ÌÌà àRejecting€precedent,€the€defendant€contends€that€our€appellate€review€isÏimproper€for€several€reasons,€all€of€which€we€have€implicitly€rejected€in€ourÏformulation€and€continued€application€of€òòHowellóó.€€First,€he€argues€that€he€has€aÏfederal€and€state€due€process€liberty€interest€to€jury€sentencing€due€to€theÏmandatory€language€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203.× ƒ= ××  ×€€The€case€cited€byÏthe€defendant€in€support€of€his€argument,€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€854€F.€Supp.€1305Ï(M.D.€Tenn.€1994),€however,€recognizes€that€even€if€a€due€process€libertyÏinterest€exists€on€the€basis€of€these€statutory€provisions,€constitutional€harmlessÏerror€analysis€is€not€precluded.€€We,€therefore,€disagree€with€the€defendantððsÍassertion€that€these€statutory€provisions€preclude€appellate€review€of€theÏsentence.€€Moreover,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€repeatedly€held€thatÏconstitutional€harmless€error€analysis€is€appropriate€in€this€context,€providedÏthat€it€preserves€the€constitutional€requirement€of€individualized€sentencing.òò€óóÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòStringer€v.€Blackóó,€503€U.S.€at€232€(1992);€òòClemons€v.€Mississippióó,€494ÏU.S.€at€753.× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€òòHowellóó€conflicts€with€the€constitutionalÏharmless€error€test€set€forth€in€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18€(1967),€andÏthat,€applying€òòChapmanóó,€the€State€cannot€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€the€error€ð ðdid€not€contribute€to€the€verdict€obtainedðð€because€this€jury€did€inÏfact€rely€on€factors€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203€(i)(7).€€Again€weÏdisagree.€€Our€analysis€in€òòHowellóó€is€derived€from€relevant€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€precedent€that€indicates€not€every€verdict€based€partly€on€anÏunconstitutional€or€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€requires€resentencing,€andÏthat€an€error€may€be€deemed€harmless€if€it€may€be€concluded€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€verdict€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€givenÏno€weight€to€the€invalid€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòStringer€v.€Blackóó,€503€U.S.€at€232;€€òòClemonsÏv.€Mississippióó,€494€U.S.€at€753.€€€We€view€these€decisions,€and€the€test€set€forthÍin€òòHowellóó,€as€the€appropriate€analysis€and€consistent€with€the€òòChapmanóóÏharmless€error€test.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€defendant€insists€that€application€of€òòHowellóó€violates€ex€postÏfacto,€due€process,€and€equal€protection€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€andÏUnited€States€Constitutions€because€it€had€not€been€decided€at€the€time€of€thisÏoffense,€and€because€prior€cases€in€which€only€one€aggravating€factorÏremained€were€remanded€for€resentencing.€€It€is€clear,€however,€that€pre„òòHowellóóÏcases,€existing€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€offense,€had€upheld€death€penaltyÏsentences€where€the€jury€had€relied€on€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€484€U.S.€872€(1987);ÏòòState€v.€Workmanóó,€667€S.W.2d€44€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€469€U.S.€873€(1984);€ÏòòState€v.€Coneóó,€665€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1210€(1984);€òòStateÏv.€Campbellóó,€664€S.W.2d€281€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€469€U.S.€920€(1984).€ÏTherefore,€òòHowellóó,€which€sets€forth€a€principled€means€of€review€in€a€mannerÏthat€preserves€individualized€sentencing,€does€not€violate€ex€post€facto,€dueÏprocess,€or€equal€protection€provisions.Ìà@ àÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àOur€review€of€the€record€leads€us€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€juryððs€verdict€would€have€been€the€same€had€no€weight€beenÏgiven€to€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance,€and€that€the€juryððs€considerationÍof€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€was€harmless€error.€Therefore,€theÏjuryððs€reliance€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7),€although€constitutionalÏerror,€does€not€require€resentencing.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€denying€the€post„conviction€petition.€€The€sentence€ofÏdeath€will€be€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€the€5th€day€of€May,€1998,€unlessÏotherwise€ordered€by€this€Court,€or€other€proper€authorities.ÌÌÇà àThe€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant€for€which€executionÏmay€issue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌDrowota,€Birch,€and€Holder,€JJ.ÌÌReid,€J.,€dissenting€„€see€separate€dissentÌÌ