ÿWPCw# ~œK¥-°ú¯¼ãZïARIƒ#q [Æ«¸ «‹S±Š/‰R`ï ûaC*Ê­2ò-Kw.¬xÉ™Kœ~7PÞ²~ìÐÇPx]Å:¶!¼:ô²B(d‹Y™—‘ƒxÏð¢kç =æÿa$6Ð ‚­E4 W E¦™7ÝlÕhÔ"3¾x°QÓ¸¹$µ¬ÀŸ5óNÃ.n§Ètðí&ÀR+k 6“#®|¢©ÔuQ”x´x£î Ò†Ïü¢âÖUd’ ûB‰åò•íà1~ÑÊuÀŸ:3ØѬÀÏD‚Ѩo‹Ù4:—7Ī¡>»Ï n@îÞIønïWÜ{nõú‰å.Ù+}'±»âÐ*ÿy14%Fzc­b³èµ *–ÿå»HîÛœC}º½?‰nŠÒp†k1Ô‚æè±+˜Êgtºº¹Š/.½¶h褒Œâ°«˜òÆjï=‹–2*/ÔcëýÞH„òÀ×PÇxP2’œɈþ„§ƒp!îd"²å¥jž€)¾èùI·ìHü¥ ‰°|{Ës}Ú)Htƒƒç¤‡4iÚãb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U @‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#„éNmmo 0DÜE Ä""ëæææñѪÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂbllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 0ëtttt B__ 0¤| D3 D-S 0K€ € ASË Æ! 0¤ä! 0Dˆ" A«Ì"»ƃE)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ;)bk3À¢3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 McCleskeyBaldusPulaskiWoodworthLockettFurman cÝ ƒRz“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðRace„taintedðð€is€used€to€describe€those€cases€in€which€racial€prejudice€has€influenced€either€the€prosecutorððsÐ ° Ðdecision€to€seek€the€death€penalty€or€the€juryððs€decision€to€impose€a€death€sentence.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ºÝ ƒRz“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòPulley€v.€Harrisóó,€465€U.S.€37,€50„51€(1984). áÝ ƒRz“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€USGAO€conceded€that€the€evidence€of€a€connection€between€the€defendantððs€race€and€the€death€penaltyÐ ° Ðwas€ð ðequivocalðð€in€comparison€to€the€connection€associated€with€the€victimððs€race.€€This€is€significant€because€the€victimÐ tÄ Ðin€the€pending€case€was€Afro„American.€€Evidence€that€the€victimððs€race€improperly€influences€capital€punishment€isÐ 8ˆ Ðrelevant€here,€however,€because€such€evidence€would€tend€to€affect€the€reliability€of€comparative€proportionality€reviewÐ üL Ðin€òòanyóó€case€where€race€is€a€factor.€€If€the€pool€of€cases€upon€which€we€rely€for€comparative€proportionality€review€is€race„Ð À Ðtainted,€then€considering€a€defendantððs€race€in€comparison€to€that€pool€lends€no€protection€against€racial€bias€in€capitalÐ „Ô Ðpunishment. çÝ ƒRz“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€òòBlandóó€Court€implied€that€a€comparative€proportionality€review€which€encompassed€non„death€penaltyÐ ° Ðcases€would€entail€an€impermissible€review€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€n.17€(citing€òòState€v.€Whitfieldóó,€837Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€503,€515€(Mo.€1992)).€€However,€a€primary€purpose€of€comparative€proportionality€review€is€to€ð ðguard€againstÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€capricious€or€random€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€665.€€If€the€evidence€were€to€show€that€the€death€penaltyÐ üL Ðhad€been€arbitrarily€applied€because€prosecutors€treated€similar€cases€differently€for€no€rational€reason,€such€randomÐ À Ðchoices€between€life€and€death€should€not€be€accepted€by€this€Court€any€more€than€if€the€same€result€had€been€createdÐ „Ô Ðby€aberrant€juries.  Ý ƒRz“$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKeoughÔ_Ôóó,€200€Tenn.€LEXIS€171€(S.€Ct.€2000);€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€8€S.W.3d€593€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€995€S.W.2d€550€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€993€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€979€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð276€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Pikeóó,€978€S.W.2d€904€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔNesbitÔ_Ôóó,€978€S.W.2d€872€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.Ð 8ˆ ÐHallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔVannÔ_Ôóó,€976€S.W.2d€93€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBlantonÔ_Ôóó,€975€S.W.2d€269Ð üL Ð(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCribbsÔ_Ôóó,€967€S.W.2d€773€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCaruthernÔ_Ôóó,€967€S.W.2d€726€(Tenn.€1998);€òòStateÐ À Ðv.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503€(Tenn.€1997).- ù-(|G2z“$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Mò»»Ô d(|3ÿg$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿg$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ »E»»»ÔÔ€ XB3X» »EÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ8€B3XXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡ îîX XB3ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#† XB3Xî î+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓÔ‡ ¼E»X XB3ÔApril€11,€2000€SessionÔ#† XB3X» ¼Eâ#ÔÐ üL ÐÌò òÔ‡ ¼E»X XB3ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€TYRONE€CHALMERSó óÐ úJ ÐÔ#† XB3X» ¼ES#ÔÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€€95„04473,€74€€€€€Carolyn€W.€Blackett,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1997„00174„SC„DDT„DD€„€Filed€October€5,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÌòòÓ  ÓAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting.Ð d´ ÐÌà  àThe€comparative€proportionality€review€is€intended€to€guard€against€the€arbitrary€impositionÐ <Œ Ðof€the€death€penalty,€and€I€agree€with€the€majority€that€race€is€a€factor€which€must€be€considered€ifÐ (x Ðproportionality€review€is€to€accomplish€its€purpose.€€The€majority€opinion,€however,€fails€to€provideÐ d Ðany€guidance€as€to€how€race€is€to€be€considered€in€that€analysis.€€Without€such€guidance,€theÐ P Ðobjective€of€comparative€proportionality€review€is€lost.€€Moreover,€there€is€evidence€that€the€poolÐ ì< Ðof€capital€cases€examined€in€proportionality€reviews€conducted€by€this€Court€may€be€ð ðrace„tainted.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РØ( ÐIf€this€is€so,€comparing€a€death„sentenced€defendantððs€race€to€the€race€of€defendants€in€prior€capitalÐ Ä Ðcases€does€nothing€to€prevent€the€arbitrary€imposition€of€capital€punishment.Ð ° ÐÌà  àThus,€the€lack€of€guidance,€the€use€of€a€pool€which€is€probably€ð ðrace„tainted,ðð€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðsubjective€manner€in€which€these€reviews€are€conducted€make€their€efficacy€questionable.€€BecauseÐ tÄ Ðof€these€views,€I€cannot€agree€to€impose€the€death€penalty€in€this€case€and€therefore€dissent.Ð `° ÐÔ#†XB3XX XB3‹#ÔÓÆÓÌIÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àBefore€examining€the€role€of€race€in€comparative€proportionality€review,€its€impact€uponÐ #`" Ðcapital€punishment€in€general€must€be€addressed.€€Several€commentators€have€questioned€whetherÐ ü#L# Ðrace€improperly€influences€the€decision€of€which€defendants€should€be€executed.€€Ð è$8 $ ÐÌà  àA€nationwide€review€performed€by€the€United€States€General€Accounting€OfficeÔ‡ XB3XXXB3Ô€(USGAO)Ð À&"& Ðof€more€than€two€dozen€studies€on€death€sentencing€found€that€ð ð[i]n€82€percent€of€the€studies,€raceÐ ¬'ü"' Ðof€victim€was€found€to€influence€the€likelihood€of€being€charged€with€capital€murder€or€receivingÐ ˜(è#( Ðthe€death€penalty,€i.e.,€those€who€murdered€whites€were€found€to€be€more€likely€to€be€sentenced€toÐ „)Ô$) Ðdeath€than€those€who€murdered€blacks.ðð€€United€States€General€Accounting€Office,€òòDeath€PenaltyÐ p*À%*ý ÐSentencing:€€Research€Indicates€Pattern€of€Racial€Disparitiesóó€at€5€(Feb.€1990)€òòreprinted€inóó€136€Cong.Ð ° ÐRec.€S6889„90€(daily€ed.€May€24,€1990).€Ô#†XB3XX XB3— #Ô€€Additionally,€the€USGAOððs€review€revealed€that€ð ðmoreÐ œì Ðthan€half€of€the€studies€found€that€the€race€of€the€defendant€influenced€the€likelihood€of€beingÐ ˆØ Ðcharged€with€a€capital€crime€or€receiving€the€death€penalty.ðð€€òòId.óó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àPerhaps€the€most€widely€cited€analysis€of€this€issue€in€the€context€of€a€case€is€found€inÐ L œ ÐòòMcCleskey€v.€Kempóó,€481€U.S.€279,€107€S.€Ct.€1756€(1987).€€The€case€arose€in€Georgia,€andÐ 8 ˆ ÐMcCleskey€offered€statistical€evidence€showing€that€the€death€penalty€in€Georgia€was€more€likelyÐ $ t Ðto€be€imposed€upon€Afro„American€defendants,€particularly€when€the€victim€was€Caucasian.€€òòId.óó€atÐ  ` Ð286-87,€107€S.€Ct.€1764„65€(discussing€D.€Baldus,€C.€Pulaski,€&€G.€Woodworth,€ComparativeÐ ü L  ÐReview€of€Death€Sentences:€€An€Empirical€Study€of€the€Georgia€Experience,€74€J.€Crim.€L.€&Ð è 8  ÐCriminology€661€(1983)).€€Although€a€bare€majority€of€the€Court€upheld€McCleskeyððs€conviction,Ð Ô$  ÐJustice€Brennan€pointed€out€in€dissent€that€McCleskeyððs€statistics€raised€serious€questions€about€theÐ À  Ðfairness€of€the€death€penalty:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAt€some€point€in€this€case,€Warren€McCleskey€doubtless€asked€hisÐ „Ô  Ðlawyer€whether€a€jury€was€likely€to€sentence€him€to€die.€€A€candidÐ pÀ Ðreply€to€this€question€would€have€been€disturbing.€€First,€counselÐ \¬ Ðwould€have€to€tell€McCleskey€that€few€of€the€details€of€the€crime€orÐ H˜ Ðof€McCleskeyððs€past€criminal€conduct€were€more€important€than€theÐ 4„ Ðfact€that€his€victim€was€white.€.€.€.€[F]rankness€would€compel€theÐ  p Ðdisclosure€that€it€was€more€likely€than€not€that€the€race€ofÐ  \ ÐMcCleskeyððs€victim€would€determine€whether€he€received€a€deathÐ øH Ðsentence:€€6€of€every€11€defendants€convicted€of€killing€a€whiteÐ ä4 Ðperson€would€not€have€received€the€death€penalty€if€their€victims€hadÐ Ð  Ðbeen€black,€while,€among€defendants€with€aggravating€and€mitigatingÐ ¼  Ðfactors€comparable€to€McCleskeyððs,€20€of€every€34€would€not€haveÐ ¨ø Ðbeen€sentenced€to€die€if€their€victims€had€been€black.€€Finally,€theÐ ”ä Ðassessment€would€not€be€complete€without€the€information€that€casesÐ €Ð Ðinvolving€black€defendants€and€white€victims€are€more€likely€to€resultÐ l¼ Ðin€a€death€sentence€than€cases€featuring€any€other€racial€combinationÐ X ¨ Ðof€defendant€and€victim.€€The€story€could€be€told€in€€a€variety€ofÐ D!” Ðways,€but€McCleskey€could€not€fail€to€grasp€its€essential€narrativeÐ 0"€  Ðline:€€there€was€a€significant€chance€that€race€would€play€a€prominentÐ #l! Ðrole€in€determining€if€he€lived€or€died.Ð$X"` x` x ÐòòÐ ô$D # ÐId.óó€at€321€(Brennan,€J.,€dissenting)€(citations€omitted).€€€More€recently,€in€òòState€v.€Harveyóó,€JusticeÐ ° ÐHandler€of€the€New€Jersey€Supreme€Court€stated€in€dissent€that€ð ðthe€evidence€that€prosecutors€andÐ œì Ðjuries€are€significantly€more€likely€to€charge€with€and€sentence€to€death€black€defendants€killingÐ ˆØ Ðwhite€victims,€is€overwhelming.ðð€€731€A.2d€1121,€1194€(N.J.€1999).€Ô‡ XB3XXXB3Ô€While€a€complete€review€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€evidence€linking€race€and€capital€punishment€is€beyond€the€scope€of€this€opinion,€theÐ `° Ðoverwhelming€conclusion€is€that€ð ð[e]ven€under€the€most€sophisticated€death€penalty€statutes,€raceÐ L œ Ðcontinues€to€play€a€major€role€in€determining€who€shall€live€and€who€shall€die.ðð€€òòCallins€v.€Collinsóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð114€S.€Ct.€1127,€1135€(1994)€(Blackmun,€J.,€dissenting).Ð $ t ÐÌÓ  ÓIIÐ ü L  ÐÓ£ÓÌà  àBecause€of€the€final,€irrevocable€nature€of€the€death€penalty,€we€must€be€cautious€to€insureÐ Ô$  Ðthat€its€imposition€is€not€tainted€by€racial€prejudice.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Cobbóó,€743€A.2d€1,€136€(Conn.€1999)Ð À  Ð(Berdon,€J.,€dissenting)€(ð ðWhen€death€is€the€consequence€there€is€no€margin€for€error.ðð).€€SuchÐ ¬ü  Ðcaution€mandates€that€Tennessee€impose€reliable€safeguards€to€prevent€racial€discrimination€fromÐ ˜è  Ðinfecting€the€capital€sentencing€protocol€and€its€appellate€review.€€Until€this€is€done,€we€cannot€beÐ „Ô  Ðcertain€that€the€death€penalty€is€being€imposed€in€a€fair€and€constitutional€manner.€€Unfortunately,Ð pÀ Ðthe€majorityððs€analysis€of€proportionality€review€in€the€case€before€us,€in€my€view,€fails€to€provideÐ \¬ Ðthe€necessary€safeguards€against€the€improper€consideration€of€race€in€the€imposition€of€capitalÐ H˜ Ðpunishment.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XB3XX XB3œ#ÔÔ‡ XB3XXXB3ÔThe€majority€opinion€devotes€but€a€single€paragraph€to€analyzing€the€role€of€race€inÐ  \ Ðcomparative€proportionality€review.€€Under€the€circumstances,€this€analysis€falls€far€short,€in€myÐ øH Ðview,€of€providing€the€criteria€necessary€to€safeguard€against€the€improper€consideration€of€race€inÐ ä4 Ðthe€imposition€of€capital€punishment.€€The€majority€states€that€ð ðrace€is€considered€when€performingÐ Ð  Ðcomparative€proportionality€review€to€ensure€that€an€aberrant€death€sentence€was€not€imposed€dueÐ ¼  Ðto€the€defendantððs€race.ðð€€Unfortunately,€the€opinion€fails€to€suggest€how€a€reviewing€court€shouldÐ ¨ø Ðdetermine€whether€a€death€sentence€was€imposed€ð ðdue€toðð€race.€€As€discussed€above,€numerousÐ ”ä Ðstudies€have€indicated€that€racial€bias€may€play€a€significant€role€in€determining€which€defendantsÐ €Ð Ðreceive€the€death€penalty.€€Without€some€assurance€that€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€cases€haveÐ l¼ Ðremained€free€from€such€bias,€it€is€unclear€how€comparative€proportionality€review€could€ever€ensureÐ X ¨ Ðthat€race„motivated€death€sentencing€does€not€occur.€€If€a€defendantððs€sentence€is€compared€to€a€poolÐ D!” Ðof€cases€which€are€similarly€race„tainted,€the€reviewing€court€is€without€a€benchmark€by€which€toÐ 0"€  Ðdetermine€whether€the€defendantððs€sentence€is€ð ðaberrant.ððÐ #l! ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€the€majority€does€not€clarify€whose€race€should€be€considered€in€comparativeÐ ô$D # Ðproportionality€reviewð!ðthe€defendantððs,€the€victimððs,€or€both.€€In€òòState€v.€BlandóóÔ#†XB3XX XB3$#Ô,€the€Court€addressedÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€list€of€factors€to€be€considered€in€proportionality€reviewòòóó.€€958€S.W.2d€661,€667€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð Ì&"% ÐIn€addressing€the€characteristics€of€defendants,€the€òòBlandòòóóóó€Court€listed€ð ðage,€race,€and€genderðð€asÐ ¸'#& Ðfactors€to€be€considered.€€However,€in€addressing€the€characteristics€of€victims,€the€Court€listed€onlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðthe€similarity€of€the€victimsðð€circumstances€including€age,€physical€and€mental€conditions.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð )à$( ÐAlthough€the€òòBlandóó€Court€did€recognize€that€its€list€was€ð ðby€no€means€.€.€.€exhaustive,ðð€òòsee€id.óó,€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€never€clearly€stated€that€the€victimððs€race€should€be€considered€inÐ h+¸&* Ðcomparative€proportionality€review.€€Given€the€vast€array€of€evidence€indicating€that€racialÐ ° Ðdisparities€in€death€sentencing€are€at€their€greatest€in€cases€where€an€Afro„American€defendant€hasÐ œì Ðkilled€a€Caucasian€person,€we€should€clearly€establish€that€the€victimððs€race€and€the€defendantððs€raceÐ ˆØ Ðbear€equal€significance€in€comparative€proportionality€review.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  ÓIIIÐ L œ ÐÓÿ/ÓÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€difficulties€inherent€in€the€comparison€of€race€in€comparativeÐ $ t Ðproportionality€review,€the€manner€in€which€proportionality€review€itself€is€conducted€raisesÐ  ` Ðsignificant€concerns.€€In€order€to€meet€constitutional€requirements,€a€protocol€of€capital€punishmentÐ ü L  Ðmust€provide€a€ð ðmeaningful€basis€for€distinguishing€the€few€cases€in€which€[the€death€penalty]€isÐ è 8  Ðimposed€from€the€many€cases€in€which€it€is€not.ðð€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€675€(Tenn.€1997)€(Reid,€J.,Ð Ô$  Ðconcurring€and€dissenting)€citing€òòFurman€v.€Georgiaóó,€408€U.S.€238,€313,€92€S.€Ct.€2726,€2764€(1972)Ð À  Ð(White,€J.,€concurring).€€Although€comparative€proportionality€review€itself€is€not€constitutionallyÐ ¬ü  Ðrequired,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóóthe€Tennessee€legislature€has€chosen€comparative€proportionality€review€as€a€means€ofÐ ˜è  Ðproviding€the€ð ðmeaningful€basisðð€required€by€the€constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€675€(Reid,Ð „Ô  ÐJ.,€concurring€and€dissenting).€€Unfortunately,€the€manner€in€which€we€conduct€our€comparativeÐ pÀ Ðproportionality€review€fails€to€accomplish€this€objective.€€The€review€procedures€are€ineffective€forÐ \¬ Ðthree€reasons:€€the€ð ðtestðð€we€employ€is€so€broad€that€nearly€any€sentence€could€be€foundÐ H˜ Ðproportionate;€our€review€procedures€are€too€subjective;€and€the€ð ðpoolðð€of€cases€which€are€reviewedÐ 4„ Ðfor€proportionality€is€too€small.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€proportionality€review€procedures€employed€by€the€Court€make€it€exceedingly€difficultÐ øH Ðfor€defendants€to€show€that€their€death€sentences€are€disproportionate.€€In€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€€theòòóó€CourtÐ ä4 Ðcreated€a€narrow€ð ðtotality€of€the€circumstancesðð€approach€for€determining€whether€a€defendantððsÐ Ð  Ðdeathsentence€is€disproportionate.€€958€S.W.2d€at€665.€€The€Court€first€outlined€the€test€to€be€usedÐ ¼  Ðin€comparative€proportionality€review:€€ð ðIf€the€case,€taken€as€a€whole,€is€òòplainly€lackingóó€inÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€consistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€is€imposed,€theÐ ”ä Ðsentence€of€death€in€the€case€being€reviewed€is€disproportionate.ðð€€òòId.óó€€(emphasis€added).€€The€CourtÐ €Ð Ðthen€stressed€that€it€would€not€find€a€death€sentence€to€be€disproportionate€merely€because€theÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€could€point€to€comparable€cases€where€the€death€penalty€was€not€imposed,€becauseÐ X ¨ Ðð ð[e]ven€if€a€defendant€receives€a€death€sentence€when€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€are€similarÐ D!” Ðto€those€of€an€offense€for€which€a€defendant€has€received€a€life€sentence,€the€death€sentence€is€notÐ 0"€  Ðdisproportionate€where€the€Court€can€discern€some€basis€for€the€lesser€sentence.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Furthermore,Ð #l! Ðeven€if€a€defendant€could€show€that€other€defendants€received€life€sentences€for€similar€crimes€andÐ $X" Ðthe€reviewing€court€could€òònotóó€discern€some€basis€for€the€difference€in€treatment,€this€would€notÐ ô$D # Ðnecessarily€spare€the€defendant.€€As€stated€by€the€òòBlandóó€Court,€ð ðwhere€there€is€no€discernible€basisÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€the€difference€in€sentencing,€the€death€sentence€is€not€necessarily€disproportionate.€€This€CourtÐ Ì&"% Ðis€not€required€to€determine€that€a€sentence€less€than€death€was€never€imposed€in€a€case€with€similarÐ ¸'#& Ðcharacteristics.ððòòId.óó€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÐ )à$( Ðà  àBecause€our€current€comparative€proportionality€review€system€lacks€objective€standards,Ð ° Ðcomparative€proportionality€analysis€seems€to€be€little€more€than€a€ð ðrubber€stampðð€to€affirmÐ œì Ðwhatever€decision€the€jury€reaches€at€the€trial€level.€€Justice€Handler€of€the€New€Jersey€SupremeÐ ˆØ ÐCourt,€criticizing€New€Jerseyððs€protocol,€a€comparative€proportionality€review€protocol€similar€toÐ tÄ ÐTennesseeððs,€described€such€reviews€as€ð ðan€inherently€subjective€exercise€that€ððinvokes€culpabilityÐ `° Ðassessments€by€the€court,€which€are,€essentially,€moral€judgmentsðð€.€.€.€.€[A]€death€sentence€canÐ L œ Ðalways€be€justified€given€the€level€of€individuality€afforded€the€analysis.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harveyóó,€731€A.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð1121,€1179€(1999)€(Handler,€J.,€dissenting)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Loftinóó,€724€A.2d€129€(1999)€(Handler,Ð $ t ÐJ.,€dissenting)).€€€Without€some€objective€standard€to€guide€reviewing€courts,€ð ðproportionalityððÐ  ` Ðbecomes€nothing€more€than€a€statement€that€the€reviewing€court€was€able€to€describe€the€case€beforeÐ ü L  Ðit€in€terms€comparable€to€other€capital€cases.€€In€the€pending€case,€the€range€of€similar€cases€wasÐ è 8  Ðbroadly€defined€to€encompass€ð ðcases€involving€the€shooting€of€a€randomly€chosen€victim€during€aÐ Ô$  Ðrobbery.ðð€€Had€the€Court€chosen€different€factors€and€defined€the€comparable€cases€more€narrowly,Ð À  Ðit€is€possible€that€the€number€of€ð ðsimilarðð€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€had€been€upheld€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðbe€much€smaller.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€Tennesseeððs€system€of€comparative€proportionality€review€does€not€considerÐ pÀ Ðall€prior€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€could€have€been€imposed.€€Therefore,€it€fails€to€protectÐ \¬ Ðdefendants€from€arbitrary€prosecutorial€decisions.€€In€òòBlandóó,€the€Court€determined€that€courtsÐ H˜ Ðapplying€comparative€proportionality€review€should€consider€only€ð ðthose€cases€in€which€a€capitalÐ 4„ Ðsentencing€hearing€was€actually€conducted€to€determine€whether€the€sentence€should€be€lifeÐ  p Ðimprisonment,€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€or€death€by€electrocution.ðð€òòBlandóó,Ð  \ Ð958€S.W.2d€at€666.€€Thus,€the€large€segment€of€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€the€prosecutorÐ øH Ðchose€not€to€seek€the€death€penalty€are€excluded€from€comparative€proportionality€review.€€As€IÐ ä4 Ðstated€in€my€dissent€in€òòBlandóó,€ð ð[d]efendants€are€often€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€after€a€trialÐ Ð  Ðin€which€the€prosecution,€for€whatever€reason,€did€not€seek€the€death€penalty..€.€.€€However,€casesÐ ¼  Ðin€which€the€death€penalty€is€not€sought€are€equally€relevant€to€proportionality€as€cases€in€which€theÐ ¨ø Ðdeath€penalty€is€sought.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€679.€€Unless€we€compare€all€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€couldÐ ”ä Ðhave€been€imposed,€a€reliable€finding€of€proportionality€is€impossible.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDespite€the€weaknesses€of€comparative€proportionality€review,€we€continue€to€insist€thatÐ X ¨ Ðcourts,€prosecutors,€and€defense€counsel€expend€time€and€resources€conducting€these€reviews,€justÐ D!” Ðas€we€continue€to€insist€that€we€are€protecting€defendants€from€the€unfair€imposition€of€the€deathÐ 0"€  Ðpenalty.€€In€his€concurrence€and€dissent€in€òòBlandóó,€Justice€Reid€noted€that€not€one€of€the€116€deathÐ #l! Ðsentences€the€Court€had€reviewed€at€the€time€had€been€found€disproportionate,€and€he€cautiouslyÐ $X" Ðnoted€that€ð ðwhether€the€[comparative€proportionality€review]€procedure€.€.€.€will€produce€more€thanÐ ô$D # Ðthe€routine€affirmation€of€jury€verdicts€accompanied€by€praise€of€the€procedure€remains€to€be€seen.ðð€Ð ° ÐòòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€675€n.1.€€In€the€fourteen€capital€cases€the€Supreme€Court€has€reviewed€forÐ œì Ðproportionality€since€òòBlandóó,€the€string€of€affirmations€remains€unbroken€by€even€a€single€reversal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РˆØ ÐIn€reviewing€a€similar€comparative€proportionality€review€procedure€in€Connecticut,€Justice€PetersÐ tÄ Ðof€the€Connecticut€Supreme€Court€stated€that€ð ðthe€search€for€an€[aberrant€death€sentence]€is€theÐ `° Ðpursuit€of€a€chimera,ðð€and€she€concluded€that€defendants€facing€the€death€penalty€did€not€ð ðreceiveÐ L œ Ðeven€a€scintilla€of€protection€from€proportionality€review.ðð€€òòState€v.€Cobbóó,€743€A.2d€1,€133€(1999)Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Peters,€J.,€concurring).€€Because€of€the€weaknesses€inherent€in€Tennesseeððs€comparativeÐ $ t Ðproportionality€review€procedure,€the€same€could€be€said€of€comparative€proportionality€review€inÐ  ` ÐTennessee.Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ  ÓIVÐ Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€in€my€view,€the€majorityððs€opinion€fails€to€protect€defendants€fromÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€arbitrary€or€disproportionate€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Although€I€agree€that€comparativeÐ ˜è  Ðproportionality€review€is€essential€to€ensure€that€the€death€penalty€is€constitutionally€applied,€I€amÐ „Ô  Ðunconvinced€that€the€current€system€adequately€fulfills€this€purpose.€€Furthermore,€while€I€agree€thatÐ pÀ Ðrace€must€be€considered€a€factor€if€comparative€proportionality€review€is€to€be€effective,€theÐ \¬ Ðmajorityððs€cursory€treatment€of€this€issue€fails€to€specify€how€proportionality€analysis€should€beÐ H˜ Ðconducted€in€order€to€ensure€that€racial€bias€is€eliminated€from€our€capital€sentencing€system.€€UntilÐ 4„ Ðthese€flaws€are€addressed€and€corrected,€I€cannot€agree€that€the€defendantððs€death€sentence€in€thisÐ  p Ðcase€has€been€fairly€and€proportionately€imposed€in€keeping€with€the€constitution.€€Therefore,Ð  \ Ðalthough€I€concur€in€the€majorityððs€decision€to€affirm€the€defendantððs€conviction,€I€respectfullyÐ øH Ðdissent€from€its€decision€to€impose€the€death€penalty€in€this€case.Ð ä4 Ðò òó óÌÌòòóóÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JUSTICE