ÿWPCd 6# UN %] 0{cUFÞw@$4dx‡ 0¿ 0DNUF’ 0JØ 0T" 0^v 0hÔ 0r< 0|® 0†* 0° 1u@ 0dµ AQ Æj 0D0 0@t 0D´ D/ø B' D3D U>w U6µ U*ë BB)2DC[ AMžU*ëu‰Šv~vÓ‘˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(S"7$¡¡Ó  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ XÖXXXÔ<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular   ! e" E# L$ D% D& ' Ó€3 WX$PPè8 3|x3 (o(3æò$¤¤Ý ƒ"7!ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€ XžWXXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd----'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Times d% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd "/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ13,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€death€penalty€provisions€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203Ïhave€been€repealed;€the€aggravating€circumstances€are€now€codifiedÏat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204€(1991).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€*ÔÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÑ ( ÑÑ7€žWXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€,,XÐd&ÓÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€ ÙœßR€02/A1-j|j` k. `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àFiled:Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌPERRY€A.€CRIBBSà àà àà à)à àHon.€W.€Fred€Axley,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àS.€Ct.€No.€02„S„01„9703„CR„00014ÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà@ àòòCONCURRING€AND€DISSENTING€OPINIONóóÌÌà àà àI€fully€concur€in€the€majority€holding€that€CribbsððÏconviction€for€first„degree€murder€should€be€affirmed.€€I€concurÏalso€in€the€conclusion€reached€by€Justice€Reid€that€theÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€error€in€this€case€more€probably€than€not€affectedÏthe€sentence.€€I€write,€however,€to€express€my€separate€view€as€toÏpunishment€in€this€case€and,€at€the€same€time,€to€summarize€theÏmanner€in€which€I€have€addressed€òòMiddlebrooksóó€errors€in€previousÏcases.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992),Ïòòcert.€dismissedóó,€510€U.S.€124,€114€S.€Ct.€651,€126€L.€Ed.2d€555Ï(1993),€this€Court€determined€that€it€is€constitutionallyÏpermissible€to€impose€the€death€penalty€for€felony„murder€underÏTennesseeððs€death€penalty€provisions.€€€However,€the€Court€furtherÏheld€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€set€forth€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)(1982),× ƒ3 ××  ×€that€the€defendant€was€engaged€inÏcommitting€a€felony,€cannot€be€used€as€œthe€sole€support€for›Ïimposition€of€the€death€penalty€when€the€defendantððs€convictionÏfor€felony„murder€is€based€on€the€same€felony.€€The€reasoning€isÏthat€the€(i)(7)€aggravating€circumstance€does€not€sufficientlyÏnarrow€the€population€of€death„eligible€felony„murder€defendantsÏunder€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution€and€Art.€I,€ððÏ16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€because€(i)(7)€essentiallyÏduplicates€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€felony„€murder.€€òòId.óó€atÏ323.€€After€the€application€of€the€(i)(7)€aggravating€circumstanceÏwas€found€unconstitutional€in€that€case,€the€sole€aggravatingÏcircumstance€remaining€to€support€imposition€of€the€death€penaltyÏwas€€that€the€murder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÍinvolved€torture,€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)(1982).€ÏAlthough€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance€was€amply€supportedÏby€the€evidence,€the€Court€was€unable€to€conclude€that€theÏconstitutional€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€andÏthe€Court€accordingly€remanded€for€a€resentencing€hearing.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€under€review,€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€errorÏoccurred€because€the€jury€relied€on€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏfound€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7)(1991):€€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€aÏburglary.€€The€circumstances€of€the€burglary€had€already€beenÏutilized€to€convict€Cribbs€of€felony„murder,€and€the€other€twoÏfirst„degree€murder€verdicts€had€been€stricken€by€the€trial€court.€ÏAs€a€result,€the€class€of€death„eligible€defendants€was€notÏsufficiently€narrowed,€as€is€required€by€the€United€States€andÏTennessee€Constitutions.€ÌÌà àà àWith€the€now€invalidated€(i)(7)€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€only€one€other€aggravating€circumstance€is€left€toÏsupport€Cribbsðð€death€sentence:€€the€defendant€was€previouslyÏconvicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€the€statutory€elements€of€whichÏinvolve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2)€(1991).€€In€support€of€this€aggravating€circumstance,Ïthe€State€adduced€proof€regarding€four€prior€convictions„„twoÏattempted€second„degree€murder€convictions,€one€aggravated€robberyÏconviction,€and€one€second„degree€burglary€conviction.€€The€StateÏconcedes€that€it€mistakenly€admitted€evidence€of€the€priorÏburglary€conviction,€which€does€not€involve€violence.€€StandingÏalone,€this€error€is€a€minor€one.€€In€addition,€however,€it€isÏimportant€to€note€that€each€of€the€remaining€three€priorÏconvictions€arose€from€the€same€incident.€€Consequently,€theÏnumber€of€prior€convictions€submitted€to€the€jury„„four„„isÏextremely€misleading.€€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€is€combined€withÏmisleading€evidence€regarding€the€only€remaining€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€I€am€unable€to€find€that€the€jury€would€have€reachedÏthe€same€conclusion€had€the€improper€evidence€not€been€submitted.€ÏAlthough€Cribbs€may€not€have€offered€persuasive€mitigatingÏevidence,€and€the€prosecution€may€not€have€emphasized€or€adducedÏadditional€proof€of€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance,€I€cannotÏconclude€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€these€errors€was€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Particularly€in€light€of€my€previousÍdecisions€on€this€issue,€I€am€convinced€that€this€case€must€beÏremanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€previous€death€penalty€cases€involving€similarÏerrors,€I€have€consistently€expressed€that€the€cause€should€beÏremanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€In€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910ÏS.W.2d€381,€398€(Tenn.€1995)€òòcert.€deniedóó.€___€U.S.€___,€117€S.ÏCt.€88,€136€L.€Ed.2d€45€(1996),€I€joined€in€the€Courtððs€unanimousÏholding€remanding€the€case€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€TheÏdefendant€had€been€convicted€of€felony„murder,€in€the€shootingÏdeath€of€a€woman€in€the€course€of€a€robbery.€€The€jury€based€itsÏimposition€of€the€death€sentence€on€two€aggravating€circumstances:€Ï(1)€the€defendant€had€previously€been€convicted€of€a€violentÏfelony,€voluntary€manslaughter;€and€(2)€the€murder€was€committedÏin€the€course€of€a€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)€andÏ(i)(7)(1982).€€The€second€aggravating€circumstance€was€invalidÏunder€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€and€the€Court€concluded€that€there€was€no€wayÏof€knowing€whether€the€jury€would€have€imposed€the€death€penalty,Ïhad€it€not€been€permitted€to€consider€the€improper€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€104€(Tenn.€1995),€aÏpost„conviction€case,€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€of€murderÍin€the€perpetration€of€a€kidnaping.€€An€inmate€testified€that€theÏdefendant€had€bragged€to€him€about€raping€the€victim€before€andÏafter€he€killed€her.€€I€wrote€for€the€majority€of€the€Court,Ïretroactively€applying€òòMiddlebrooksóó€and€remanding€the€case€forÏresentencing€because€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€invalidated€theÏaggravating€circumstance€that€the€murder€was€committed€during€theÏcommission€of€a€kidnaping.€€In€addition,€the€jury€had€relied€onÏtwo€valid€aggravating€circumstances:€€(1)€the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involvedÏtorture€or€depravity€of€mind;€and€(2)the€murder€was€committed€byÏthe€defendant€during€his€escape€from€lawful€confinement.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€and€(i)(8)(1982).ÌÌà àà àWe€noted€in€òòHartmanóó€that€several€facts€supported€aÏfinding€of€harmless€error.€€First,€no€additional€evidence€wasÏintroduced€in€support€of€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€thatÏthe€murder€was€committed€during€a€kidnaping.€€Additionally,€theÏprosecutor€did€not€emphasize€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstanceÏin€his€argument,€and€there€was€little€mitigating€evidence.€ÏMoreover,€the€Court€found€that€the€ð ðescapeeðð€aggravatingÏcircumstance€was€both€objective€and€uncontradicted.€€Nevertheless,Ïbecause€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€aggravating€circumstanceÍwas€less€objective€and€the€credibility€of€the€testimony€supportingÏit€was€highly€contested,€the€Court€could€not€conclude€that€theÏsentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€accorded€no€weightÏto€the€invalid€aggravator.€€òòId.óó€at€103„05.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€in€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€800€(Tenn.Ï1994),€I€joined€the€majorityððs€conclusion€that€the€case€beÏremanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€The€defendant€had€beenÏconvicted€of€felony„murder€in€the€beating€and€shooting€death€of€aÏconvenience€store€clerk€during€a€robbery€attempt.€€The€jury€foundÏtwo€aggravating€circumstances€to€support€imposition€of€the€deathÏsentence:€€(1)€the€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€orÏmore€violent€felonies;€and€(2)€the€murder€was€committed€while€theÏdefendant€was€attempting€to€commit€a€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð39„13„203(i)(2)€and€(i)(7)(1982).€€The€second€aggravatingÏcircumstance€was€invalid€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€Additionally,Ïirrelevant€evidence€was€admitted€regarding€the€defendantððs€priorÏconviction€of€felony„murder.€€The€jury€heard€evidence€concerning:€Ïthe€life€sentence€the€defendant€had€received€when€he€wasÏpreviously€convicted,€the€facts€surrounding€the€previous€murder,Ïthe€character€of€the€previous€victim,€and€the€impact€the€murderÏhad€on€the€previous€victimððs€family.€€Further,€the€StateÍimproperly€emphasized€the€facts€of€the€prior€murder€and€made€anÏappeal€to€vengeance€in€its€argument.€€The€Court€held€that€theseÏcumulative€errors€were€not€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€andÏremanded€for€resentencing.€€òòId.óó€at€809„16.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€two€cases,€I€joined€the€majority€in€finding€aÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€error€harmless.€€In€the€first,€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€959ÏS.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€1998),€a€post„conviction€case,€the€defendant€wasÏconvicted€of€felony„murder€stemming€from€the€shooting€death€of€aÏperson€during€a€robbery.€€After€we€retroactively€appliedÏòòMiddlebrooksóó€and€invalidated€the€(i)(7)€aggravating€circumstance,Ïonly€one€other€aggravating€circumstance,€a€prior€conviction€forÏsecond„degree€murder,€supported€the€death€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)(1982).€€Because€the€prosecutor€did€notÏemphasize€or€bring€additional€evidence€of€the€invalid€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€and€because€the€mitigating€evidence€was€weak,Ïconsisting€only€of€the€defendantððs€testimony,€the€majority€foundÏthe€error€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€second,€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.Ï1995)€òòcert.€deniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€117€S.€Ct.€133,€136€L.€Ed.2d€82Ï(1996),€I€joined€in€the€conclusion€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€wasÍharmless€because€the€(i)(7)€aggravating€circumstance€was€supportedÏby€three€different€felonies:€€larceny,€robbery,€and€rape.€€Thus,€Ïthere€was€only€a€partial€duplication€with€the€felony„murderÏconviction,€which€was€based€solely€on€the€robbery.€€Additionally,Ïtwo€other€aggravating€circumstances€supported€the€death€sentence.€ÏòòId.óó€at€583„84.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€under€review,€I€conclude€that€a€remand€isÏappropriate.€€With€the€exception€of€òòBoydóó,€when€error€leaves€only€aÏsingle€aggravating€circumstance€remaining,€I€have€been€unwillingÏto€hold€that€the€juryððs€decision€was€unaffected€by€the€error.€ÏMoreover,€when€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€is€combined€with€at€leastÏone€additional€error,€I€have€also€been€unwilling€to€hold€theÏjuryððs€decision€was€unaffected.€€I€distinguish€òòBoydóó€from€theÏinstant€case:€€in€òòBoydóó€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€was€the€soleÏsentencing€problem.€€Here,€not€only€was€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€errorÏmisleading€to€the€jury,€but€also€the€number€of€prior€convictionsÏsubmitted€to€the€jury€was€misleading.ÌÌà àà àIn€sum,€I€agree€with€the€majority€that€the€first„degreeÏmurder€conviction€must€be€affirmed.€€However,€because€I€find€thatÏthe€submission€to€the€jury€of€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstanceÍand€an€invalid€prior€conviction€is€not€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€I€respectfully€dissent.€€I€would€remand€thisÏcause€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€Justice