WPCJ 081Cu c/!>tL7|(0V(v3).5BsKb[ZK2s|'njӌ%4na]PB Vv[soFh Xe*f,-3 6p۶j9JbS+ʭU u5NJ)Lͽ"y8w&+c?NUzUa䧰@QIrv,:GN&czB(\"!79fe R16Éb` b;QoM:#h=r5v"~tkQY"c&(*a&):6s%6$o5i4cdj9ShT- tz~!)o`U|ΖMd)7VZuE^rAC)}cYH+lFnQL>gJ4M?P\tb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;;=E[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]b???????????????????????????????????? 0GGGG B22 0O D3 D-& 0KSS AS 0 0D[ AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,06) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular}|)+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   Chalmers R0$      1    _Majorityopn.at55,_n.52.___- -(|G20$ !.8C dd8         0   d(|3r$ !.8C dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3r$ !.8C dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8C dd8     _   C 8qXXdd8@ M,C INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#C M, #Ԉ &   October3,2000SessionatNashville L  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.TONYCARRUTHERS  p andJAMESMONTGOMERY  4  XqXC @@ AppealfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals 4  CriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  p @@Nos.940279799and95112829JosephB.Dailey,Judge#C XXqg#  \  XqXC @@*AV) ` dE<` A 4  @@TTNo.W199700097SCDDTDDFiledDecember11,_2000_ /  AV) ` dE<` A   #C XXq#  XqX.C AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,concurring,dissenting. (   Assuredly,Iagreewiththemajoritysdecisiontoupholdthefirstdegreemurderconviction  ofTonyCarruthersandtoorderanewtrialforJamesMontgomery. XqXXXqIwriteseparately,however,to  expressmycontinueddissatisfactionwiththecomparativeproportionalityreviewprotocolcurrently  appliedinTennesseedeathpenaltycases.#XqXX XqQ#ԀIcontinuetoholdtomyview,statedpreviously,that t Tennesseescomparativeproportionalityreviewprocedureisinadequateandshouldbecorrected. ` SeeStatev.Chalmers,28S.W.3d913(Tenn.2000)(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting);Statev. L Keen,___S.W.3d___(Tenn.2000)(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting). 8   InmydissentinChalmers,IraisedthreegeneralconcernswithTennesseescomparative ` proportionalityreviewprotocol: thetestweemploy[forcomparativeproportionalityreview]is L sobroadthatnearlyanysentencecouldbefoundproportionate;ourreviewproceduresaretoo 8 subjective;andthepoolofcaseswhicharereviewedforproportionalityistoosmall.Chalmers, $ 28S.W.3dat923(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting).Sincethattime,theseconcernsremain   unaddressed.Underthetestembracedbythemajority,adeathsentencewillbeheldproportionate !  unlessthecaseis plainlylackingincircumstancesconsistentwiththoseinsimilarcasesinwhich "! thedeathpenaltyhaspreviouslybeenimposed.SeeStatev.Bland,958S.W.2d661,665(Tenn. #" 1997).Adeathsentenceconceivablycouldbeheldproportionateeventhougheverycomparable p$# defendanthasreceivedalifesentenceandtheStatecandiscernnobasisforthedifferencein \% $ sentencing.Seeid.(statingthateven wherethereisnodiscerniblebasisforthedifferencein H&!% sentencing,thedeathsentenceisnotnecessarilydisproportionate).Thistestisinordinatelydifficult 4'"& fordefendantstomeet,anditfailstoprovideabidingassurancethat noaberrantdeathsentence  (p#' [willbe]affirmed.Cf.Bland,958S.W.2dat665.  )\$(   Moreover,asconcededbythemajority,ourcomparativeproportionalityreviewprotocol *4&*  [does]notutilizeamathematicalformulaorscientificgrid.Thetestisnotrigid.Majorityopn. + '+ at55.However,onlybytheestablishmentofamoredefinitiveframeworkforproportionalityreview , (, canweguaranteethatourreviewprotocolisindeedarational,consistentlyapplied,procedural -(- safeguardratherthanasubjectiveprocessnomoreinsulatedfromarbitraryapplicationthanthejury  decisionstheprotocolisdesignedtoreview.    Finally,the poolofcasesreviewedforproportionalityremains,inmyview,toonarrow, t andthemajoritysassertionthat [t]hepoolfromwhichsimilarcasesaredrawnhasincreased ` substantially_ #  1      _Ԁdoesnotremedythisconcern.Theproblemarisesbecausethepoolofcasesreviewed L  forproportionalitydoesnotembraceallfirstdegreemurdercasesinwhichthedeathpenaltycould 8  beimposed,butonlythosecasesinwhich acapitalsentencinghearingwasactuallyconductedto $ t determinewhetherthesentenceshouldbelifeimprisonment,lifeimprisonmentwithoutthe  ` possibilityofparole,ordeath.SeeBland,958S.W.2dat666.Theresultisthatdefendantsare  L  preventedfromarguingthattheirdeathsentenceisdisproportionatebecauseprosecutorstypically  8  donotseekthedeathpenaltyincasescomparabletotheirs.Themajoritysargumentthatthe pool $  ofdeathsentenceddefendantswhosecaseswecomparehasexpandedrapidly(preciselybecausethe   Courthasfoundmoreandmoredeathsentencesproportionateunderitsowntest)doesnothingto   solvetheunderlyingproblem.    XqXXXq  Icontinuetoadheretomystronglyheldviewthatourcomparativeproportionalityreview p protocolisinadequateandshouldbecorrected.Thus,Iamcompelledtotakeissuewiththeopinion \ ofmyesteemedcolleaguesbecauseIhavebeenunabletodiscerneventheslightestmovementon H theirparttoaddresstheconcernspreviouslyexpressedandreiteratedhere. 4   Accordingly,andrespectfully,Idissent.#XqXX XqU#  \    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE