ÿWPC, Q# ~ %‰n­ 04<UBp²U:ºw@ô 0c44— 0 Ò«} 0JŒ 0TÖ 1m* b— U:Ÿ U:Ù B AQ0 Æ 0cG 0Pª 0^ú 0hX 0@À 0D D/D Bs D3 à Ë 0rÓ 0|E 0†Á 0G 1u× 0dLU 6°U0*æU.B)>DCg AMª2÷¥)fÎ4<_B¡ª·Ûa*< Ff! ¬#v~L%vÓÊ&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎX«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular /qD0qD1qU2qU3q4qD5qÓ€AqCqVDqî(" $Ô€X·XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóWX$hH H ´ \H ô(‚(2­Ì$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XµXXXÔÔ€ô‰šôXXµÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|xDq2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$#De37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d#%()*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;³Æ$´´Ô2DeÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à((3­¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd2@ 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&'1234 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d@@@@7Border 1dd#(ACþÿ << Gÿÿ (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ%"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€>ÔÔ€>ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€>XÔÌÌò òApril€13,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€>ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCribbs€was€also€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary€and€attempted€first€degree€murder.€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€consecutive,€Range€II€sentences€of€ten€and€forty€years,€respectively,€on€theseÏconvictions.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ þÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý"Whenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgmentÏhas€become€final€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€of€direct€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourt€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€The€affirmance€of€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€deathÏshall€be€automatically€reviewed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€the€affirmance€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€clerk€shall€docket€the€case€in€the€Supreme€Court€and€the€case€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ððÌ üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€ð ðPrior€to€theÏsetting€of€oral€argument,€the€Court€shall€review€the€record€and€briefs€and€consider€òòallóó€errorsÏassigned.€€The€Court€may€enter€an€order€designating€those€issues€it€wishes€addressed€at€oralÏargument.ðð€Ì UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victimsðð€daughter€was€not€at€home€when€the€crime€occurred.€€She€had€spent€the€nightÏwith€her€aunt,€the€victimððs€sister.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€man€was€never€identified€nor€apprehended€by€police.Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòDyle›óó,€we€stated€that€ð ð[i]dentity€will€be€a€material€issue€when€the€defendant€puts€it€at€issueÏor€the€eyewitness€testimony€is€uncorroborated€by€circumstantial€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€612.€Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòCompareóó€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€653€S.W.2d€708,€716€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€661ÏS.W.2d€854€(Tenn.€1983)€(Finding€prejudicial€error€where€the€State€relied€upon€evidence€ofÏnonviolent€felonies€to€establish€the€aggravating€circumstance).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(1997€Repl.);€òòHurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€70.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€also€found€that€the€defendant€knowingly€created€a€great€risk€of€death€to€two€orÏmore€persons€other€than€the€victim€during€the€act€of€the€murder,€and€that€the€murder€was€committedÏfor€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€theÏdefendant€or€another.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(3)€&€(6)€(1982).€Ì –Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€>ÔÔ€>ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€also€found€that€the€defendant€knowingly€created€a€great€risk€of€death€to€two€orÏmore€people€other€than€the€victim,€during€the€act€of€murder.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(3)Ï(1982).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€=ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€>ԛрÑÑ7€ µ XXdædÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€??XÐd&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òÔ€>¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€>XÔó óÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àœò òFiled:ó ó€April€13,€1998›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€W.€Fred€Axley,ÌÙ€#ÙœßR€BCAA1-j|{Ä` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌPERRY€A.€CRIBBS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)à àSupreme€CourtÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€œ02S01„9703„CR„00014›ÌÌÌòòÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòà àFOR€APPELLEE:óóÌÌA.C.€Whartonà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ30th€Judicial€DistrictÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌW.€Mark€Wardà àà àÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌRon€Johnson€andÌBetty€Thomasà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌAssistant€Public€Defendersà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà à30th€Judicial€DistrictÌÔ€>&Ôà àà àà àà àà àÔ€>XÔà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€Wax€andÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€ShapiroÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àÌà@ àÌÌÔ€>„ÔÌÌÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€>XÔÌÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€AFFIRMED.à àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.€ÌÓÓÌÑ , ÑÑ7€f$XdÈ XXdæ7ÑÑ ` Ñà àIn€this€capital€case,€the€defendant,€Perry€Cribbs,€was€charged€withÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder,€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€ofÏan€aggravated€burglary,€and€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€ofÏaggravated€robbery€for€killing€the€victim,€Linda€œHarris,›€in€her€home€on€January€2,Ï1994.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€on€all€three€counts.× ƒD ××  ×€€In€the€sentencingÏhearing,€the€jury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€wasÍpreviously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,Ïwhose€statutory€elements€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€œperson;ðð›€and€(2)€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€or€wasÏattempting€to€commit,€a€burglary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(2)›€and€(7)Ï(1991€Repl.).€€Finding€that€the€two€aggravating€circumstances€outweighedÏmitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€jury€sentenced€theÏdefendant€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€conducted€some€weeks€afterÏthe€jury€rendered€its€verdicts,€the€trial€court€set€aside€the€juryððs€verdicts€of€guilt€onÏthe€charges€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€first€degree€murder€duringÏthe€perpetration€of€aggravated€robbery.€The€trial€court€entered€a€judgmentÏupholding€the€juryððs€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€charge€of€first€degree€murder€duringÏthe€perpetration€of€an€aggravated€burglary€and€the€sentence€of€death€byÏelectrocution.ÌÌà àOn€direct€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendantÏchallenged€both€his€conviction€and€sentence,€raising€nine€claims€of€error,€someÏwith€numerousÑ€EÑÇsubparts.€€After€fully€considering€the€defendantððs€claims,€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1997€Repl.),× ƒF ××  ×€the€case€was€docketed€in€this€Court.€ÌÌÓ` °ŽXÊ&Ø'XÓà àThe€defendant€raised€numerous€issues€in€this€Court,€but€after€carefullyÏexamining€the€entire€record€and€the€law,€including€the€thorough€opinion€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€the€briefs€of€the€defendant€and€the€State,€thisÏCourt,€on€September€2,€1997,€entered€an€Order,€limiting€review€at€oral€argumentÏto€seven€issues€and€setting€the€cause€for€the€November,€1997,€term€of€this€CourtÏin€Jackson.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€12.× ƒG ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€none€of€the€allegedÏerrors€require€reversal.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€findings€as€toÏthe€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances,€and€the€sentence€of€death€is€notÏarbitrary€or€disproportionate€to€the€sentence€imposed€in€similar€cases,Ïconsidering€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€Accordingly,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upholding€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€and€sentence€of€death€byÏelectrocution€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóà àÌà àThe€proof€presented€by€the€State€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€establishedÏthat€sometime€between€1:30€a.m.€and€1:45€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€January€2,Ï1994,€the€victims,€Sidney€Harris,€and€his€wife,€Linda€Harris,€returned€from€a€visitÏwith€friends€to€their€home€located€at€4378€Cottonwood,€in€Memphis.€€As€was€hisÏhabit,€Sidney€Harris€backed€his€car€onto€the€carport,€and€then€opened€the€doorÏfor€his€wife€to€enter€the€house.€€As€she€came€through€the€kitchen€door,€LindaÏHarris€was€attacked€and€knocked€to€the€floor€by€an€unknown€assailant.€€SidneyÍHarris€struggled€with€this€man,€who€was€armed€with€a€pistol,€for€approximatelyÏfifteen€seconds,€and€had€wrestled€him€to€the€floor€when€a€second€assailant,Ïarmed€with€a€double€barrel€sawed„off€shotgun,€intervened€and€ordered€Harris€toÏrelease€the€first€man.ÌÌà àWith€guns€leveled€upon€him,€the€two€intruders€ordered€Harris€to€sit€in€aÏchair€located€in€the€den€of€his€home,€which€was€just€off€the€kitchen,€about€five€feetÏfrom€where€his€wife€was€located.€€€At€some€point,€the€intruders€asked€Harris,Ïð ðwhere€is€the€œdope?ðð›€and€they€told€Harris€they€intended€to€shoot€him.€€Though€theÏlights€were€not€on€in€the€house€during€this€time,€Harris€said€the€carport€lightÏshone€through€the€open€kitchen€door€and€provided€sufficient€illumination€for€himÏto€observe€the€facial€features€of€the€intruders.€€Harris€observed€the€assailants€forÏtwenty€to€thirty€seconds€before€the€second€assailant€fired€the€shotgun,€strikingÏHarris€in€the€left€shoulder€and€hand.€€Harris€lost€consciousness€for€a€time€after€heÏwas€shot.€€When€he€regained€consciousness,€the€assailants€were€gone.€€HarrisÏobserved€his€wifeððs€body€lying€in€a€pool€of€blood€on€the€floor€of€the€œkitchen€where›Ïshe€had€been€initially€assaulted.€€Based€upon€the€discovery€of€œwadding›€materialÍon€the€left€side€of€her€neck€and€powder€burns€on€her€body,€the€medical€examinerÏtestified€that€Linda€Harris€had€sustained€a€contact€shotgun€wound€to€the€left€sideÏof€her€head€which€would€have€resulted€in€instantaneous€death.€€Harris€made€hisÏway€to€a€neighborððs€house,€where€he€was€able€to€summon€assistance€beforeÏagain€losing€consciousness.ÌÌà àWhen€the€police€arrived€at€the€scene€they€found€the€house€in€disarray.€ÏThe€intruders€apparently€had€gained€entry€to€the€house€through€an€openÏbedroom€window.€€Toys€belonging€to€the€victimððs€daughter€were€in€that€bedroomÏand€visible€on€the€videotape€of€the€scene€made€by€police.× ƒH ××  ×€€The€videotape€alsoÏshowed€the€body€of€Linda€Harris€in€the€kitchen,€shotgun€shells€on€the€den€floor,Ïand€bloodstains€on€the€chair€in€which€Sidney€Harris€had€been€€sitting€when€heÏhad€been€shot.€€There€were€several€bullet€holes€in€the€wall€to€the€left€of€the€chairÏin€the€den.ÌÌà àOfficer€Donald€Crow,€a€Memphis€policeman,€rode€with€Harris€as€he€wasÏtransported€to€the€hospital€shortly€after€the€shooting.€€Officer€œCrow›€testified€thatÏHarris€described€the€first€assailant€in€some€detail,€but€stated€that€the€man€hadÏbeen€wearing€a€black€ski€mask.€€With€respect€to€the€second€assailant,€Harris,Ïaccording€to€Officer€Crow,€said€only€that€he€was€tall,€thin,€and€wore€a€black€skiÏmask.€€€Sergeant€Ronnie€McWilliams€of€the€Memphis€police€directed€theÏinvestigation€and€interviewed€Harris€the€day€after€the€shooting.€€At€that€time,ÏHarris€said€that€he€could€not€identify€either€of€the€two€suspects€because€they€hadÏbeen€wearing€black€ski€masks.€€About€a€week€later,€Harris€told€a€police€officerÏthat€he€could€not€get€the€ð ðcomplexionðð€of€the€man€with€the€shotgun.€€SergeantÏMcWilliams€described€Harris€as€being€heavily€sedated€on€the€day€after€theÏmurder€and€said€that€he€had€been€in€serious€condition€when€the€secondÏstatement€had€been€taken.€€Harris€could€not€remember€speaking€to€police€on€theÏnight€of€the€murder€and€recalled€being€sedated€when€he€spoke€with€police€theÏnext€day.€€Thereafter,€and€at€trial,€Harris€described€the€first€assailant€as€a€blackÏman,€wearing€a€light„colored€sheer€stocking€mask,€a€denim€jumpsuit,€and€gloves,Ïapproximately€6'1"€in€height,€240€pounds€in€weight,€with€a€moustache,€largeÍround€nose,€thick€eyebrows,€and€hair€about€one€inch€in€length.× ƒI ××  ×€€Harris€said€theÏsecond€assailant,€who€had€shot€him,€also€had€been€a€black€man,€wearing€a€light„colored€sheer€stocking€mask,€a€œdirty€light›€green€or€gold€mechanicððs€œjumpsuit›€andÏgloves.€€Harris€said€this€man€was€taller€and€thinner€than€the€first€assailant,Ïapproximately€6'3"€or€6'4"€in€height,€and€about€220€pounds€in€weight€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€this€œmurder,€the€defendant›€was€residing€with€JacquelineÏCannon,€the€mother€of€his€daughter.€€œCannon€stated€that€on›€the€night€of€theÏœmurder,€the›€defendant,€wearing€blue€jeans€and€a€blue€denim€shirt,€left€theirÏresidence€at€approximately€9:00€or€10:00€p.m.€€When€he€returned€sometimeÏaround€1:00€a.m.,€Cannon€said€he€was€covered€in€blood€from€a€œð ðhit.ðð€€Cribbs€toldÏher€that›€he€had€shot€a€man€and€a€woman.€€Cribbs€explained€that€he€had€beenÏhired€to€kill€the€man€by€another€man€who€had€been€having€an€affair€with€theÏfemale€victim.€€Cribbs€said€that€he€had€killed€both€victims€and€claimed€that€heÏwould€be€paid€for€the€ð ðhitðð€soon.€€The€next€day,€Cannon€discovered€at€herÏresidence€a€gold„faced€Mickey€Mouse€watch€with€a€leather€wrist€band€with€theÍwords€ð ðgenuine€leatherðð€imprinted€on€the€back.€€When€she€asked€Cribbs€aboutÏthe€watch,€he€explained€that€he€had€taken€it€from€the€home€of€the€couple€he€hadÏkilled.ÌÌà àShortly€thereafter,€Cannon€learned€from€news€reports€that€a€man€andÏwoman€had€been€shot,€as€Cribbs€claimed,€on€the€night€of€January€2,€1994.€€TheÏwoman€had€been€killed€but€the€man€survived€the€shooting.€€Because€she€fearedÏCribbs,€Cannon€did€not€relay€her€knowledge€about€the€murder€to€the€police€atÏthat€time.€€Some€four€to€six€weeks€later,€however,€Cribbs€became€angry€withÏCannon€because€he€suspected€she€had€told€a€neighbor€about€his€role€in€theÏmurder.€€Cribbs€assaulted€and€beat€Cannon,€and€she€was€hospitalized€for€threeÏdays,€suffering,€among€other€things,€a€punctured€lung.€€Fearing€for€her€life,ÏCannon€related€to€her€brother€what€€Cribbs€had€told€her€about€the€murder.€€HerÏbrother€notified€Crime€Stoppers,€and€as€a€result,€the€police€located€andÏinterviewed€Cannon.€€Cannon€eventually€received€$900€from€Crime€Stoppers,Ïand€her€brother€received€$100.ÌÌà àUpon€learning€of€the€gold„faced€Mickey€Mouse€watch€from€Cannon,€policeÏasked€Sidney€Harris€if€his€wife€had€owned€such€a€watch.€€Harris€had€beenÏhospitalized€for€twenty„two€days€following€the€shooting€and€had€not€discoveredÏthe€watch€missing.€€When€questioned€by€œpolice,›€Harris€confirmed€that€his€wifeÏhad€owned€such€a€watch€and€that€it€had€been€among€the€items€missing€from€theÏhouse€after€the€murder.€€At€this€point,€having€reason€to€believe€that€the€defendantÏmay€have€been€involved€in€the€murder€of€Linda€Harris,€police€compiled€aÏphotographic€lineup€€of€eight€men,€including€the€defendant,€who€matched€theÏdescription€given€by€Harris.€€Visibly€œshaken›€and€emotional,€Harris€identified€theÏphotograph€of€Cribbs€as€ð ðthe€mother€„„„„„€that€shot€me!ðð€€Harris€previously€hadÏviewed€two€other€photographic€lineups,€but€had€not€identified€anyone€as€theÏperson€who€shot€him€and€killed€his€wife.€€At€trial,€Harris€also€positively€identifiedÏCribbs€as€the€man€œwho€shot€him.›ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€proof€summarized€above,€the€jury€found€the€defendantÏguilty€of€premeditated€first€degree;€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€ofÏan€aggravated€burglary;€and€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€ofÍaggravated€robbery.€€The€defendant€was€also€found€guilty€of€aggravated€burglaryÏand€attempted€first€degree€murder.ÌÌà àThe€trial€proceeded€to€the€sentencing€phase.€€The€State€relied€upon€theÏevidence€presented€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€and€in€addition,€introducedÏproof€to€show€that€the€defendant,€twenty„three„years„old€at€the€time€of€trial,Ïpreviously€had€been€convicted€of€two€counts€of€attempted€second€degree€murderÏand€one€count€of€aggravated€robbery€in€1990.€€Also€introduced€was€testimonyÏthat€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€of€attempted€second€degree€burglary€inÏ1989.ÌÌà àTestifying€on€his€own€behalf,€Cribbs€said€that€he€had€been€born€inÏAlabama,€but€had€lived€in€Shelby€County€for€about€nine€years.€€The€defendantððsÏmother,€grandfather,€and€two€brothers,€twenty„six€and€seventeen,€resided€inÏArmory,€Mississippi€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€€Because€of€his€grandfatherððs€œillness›Ïand€obligations€at€work€or€œschool,›€none€of€his€family€were€able€to€attend€his€trial.€ÏCribbs€said€that€his€family€had€visited€him€on€the€Sunday€prior€to€trial,€and€thatÍvisit€had€been€the€first€time€he€had€seen€his€mother€in€four€years.€€Cribbs€had€aÏcousin€in€Memphis€and€previously€had€been€employed€by€€his€uncleððsÏconstruction€company,€but€none€of€his€family€members€attended€the€trial€orÏtestified€on€his€behalf.€€Cribbs€said€that€he€had€told€his€aunt€that€the€trial€was€aÏmatter€of€life€or€death,€but€he€had€not€pressed€his€mother€to€attend€the€trialÏbecause€she€had€been€ill,€and€he€did€not€want€to€worry€her.€€Cribbs€said€that€heÏhad€attended€school€through€the€seventh€grade€but€had€dropped€out€when€heÏwas€expelled€for€truancy.€€Of€the€œtwelve„year›€sentence€he€received€on€theÏconvictions€for€attempted€second€degree€murder€and€robbery,€Cribbs€had€beenÏincarcerated€for€three€and€one„half€years€in€prison€and€had€not€violated€prisonÏrules€during€that€time.€€Cribbs€said€that€he€had€visited€with€his€only€child,€aÏdaughter,€seven€or€eight€times€since€being€arrested€for€the€murder€of€LindaÏHarris.€€Cribbs€denied€committing€the€crime€for€which€the€jury€had€convicted€him,Ïand€he€said€that€he€had€refused€to€plead€guilty€in€exchange€for€a€life€sentenceÏbecause€he€had€not€committed€the€crime.€€Cribbs€explained€that€Cannon€hadÏfalsely€implicated€him€in€the€murder€because€she€was€angry.€€Cribbs€said€that€heÏhad€argued€with€Cannon€because€ð ðshe€stole€some€money€from€me.€€I€hadÍwhooped€her€real€bad€and€told€her€I€wasnððt€going€to€come€around€no€more....€€SoÏshe€came€in€and€said€this€on€me.ðð€€Cribbs€denied€having€any€knowledge€of€aÏgold„faced€Mickey€Mouse€watch.€€Lastly,€Cribbs€asked€the€jury€to€spare€his€life,Ïsaying€that€he€would€conduct€himself€as€a€decent€individual€in€prison€if€given€aÏsentence€of€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole.ÌÌ€à àBased€upon€the€proof,€the€jury€found€that€the€State€had€proven€theÏexistence€of€two€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt:€(1)Ïð ð[t]he€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€theÏpresent€charge,€whose€statutory€elements€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€theÏperson;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engagedÏin€committing€or€was€attempting€to€commit,€a€burglary.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(2)›€and€(7)€(1991€Repl.).€€Finding€that€the€two€aggravatingÏcircumstances€outweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ïthe€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€set€asideÏthe€juryððs€œfindings›€of€guilt€and€œsentences›€of€death€on€the€charges€of€premeditatedÏfirst€degree€murder€and€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€The€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€of€conviction€upon€the€juryððs€verdictÏof€guilt€on€the€charge€of€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€anÏaggravated€burglary€and€the€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution.€€The€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€For€the€reasons€thatÏfollow,€after€carefully€reviewing€the€record€and€considering€the€errors€assignedÏby€the€defendant,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€upholding€the€defendantððs€conviction€of€first€degree€murder€andÏsentence€of€death€by€electrocution.ÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€JURY€INSTRUCTION€„€EYEWITNESS€IDENTIFICATIONóóó óÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€instruction€given€the€jury€in€this€caseÏregarding€eyewitness€identification€was€inadequate.€€In€support€of€his€claim,€heÏrelies€upon€this€Court's€decision€in€òòState€v.€œDyle›óó,€899€œS.W.2d›€607€(Tenn.€1995),Ïrendered€after€the€trial€of€this€case.€€In€òòœDyle›óó,€this€Court€adopted€a€new€juryÍinstruction,€which€must€be€given€whenever€identification€is€a€material€issue.œ× ƒJ ××  ×›€€òòIdóó.Ïat€612.€€The€instruction,€which€requires€the€jury€to€evaluate€the€evidence€in€lightÏof€several€explicit€factors,€is€set€out€below.ÌÌÓÓà8 àOne€of€the€issues€in€this€case€is€the€identification€of€the€defendantÏas€the€person€who€committed€the€crime.€€The€state€has€the€burdenÏof€proving€identity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€IdentificationÏtestimony€is€an€expression€of€belief€or€impression€by€the€witness,Ïand€its€value€may€depend€upon€your€consideration€of€severalÏfactors.€€Some€of€the€factors€which€you€may€consider€are:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€The€witness'€capacity€and€opportunity€to€observeÏthe€offender.€€This€includes,€among€other€things,€theÏlength€of€time€available€for€observation,€the€distanceÏfrom€which€the€witness€observed,€the€lighting,€andÏwhether€the€person€who€committed€the€crime€was€aÏprior€acquaintance€of€the€witness;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€The€degree€of€certainty€expressed€by€the€witnessÏregarding€the€identification€and€the€circumstancesÏunder€which€it€was€made,€including€whether€it€is€theÏproduct€of€the€witness'€own€recollection;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€the€witness€failedÏto€make€an€identification€of€the€defendant,€or€made€anÍidentification€that€was€inconsistent€with€theÏidentification€at€trial;€€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€The€occasions,€if€any,€on€which€the€witness€madeÏan€identification€that€was€consistent€with€theÏidentification€at€trial,€and€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€such€identifications.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àAgain,€the€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€everyÏelement€of€the€crime€charged,€and€this€burdenÏspecifically€includes€the€identity€of€the€defendant€asÏthe€person€who€committed€the€crime€for€which€he€orÏshe€is€on€trial.€€If€after€considering€the€identificationÏtestimony€in€light€of€all€the€proof€you€have€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€is€the€personÏwho€committed€the€crime,€you€must€find€the€defendantÏnot€guilty.ÌÓÓÌòòDyleóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€612.€€With€respect€to€the€applicability€of€the€rule€adopted€inÏòòDyleóó,€we€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àthis€instruction€must€be€given€when€identification€is€a€material€issueÏand€it€is€requested€by€defendant's€counsel.€€Failure€to€give€thisÏinstruction€under€these€circumstances€will€be€plain€error.€€IfÏidentification€is€a€material€issue€and€the€defendant€does€not€requestÏthe€instruction,€failure€to€give€it€will€be€reviewable€under€a€Rule€52Ïharmless€error€standard.€€This€ruling€is€applicable€to€cases€now€onÏappeal€and€to€those€cases€tried€after€the€release€of€this€opinion.ÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€€This€case€was€tried€before€the€issuance€of€the€decision€in€òòDyleóó,€but€wasÏpending€on€appeal€at€the€time€of€its€release.€€Accordingly,€the€rule€announced€inÏòòDyleóó€applies€to€this€case,€and€we€must€determine€whether€the€trial€court's€failureÏto€give€the€òòDyleóó€instruction€€is€harmless€or€prejudicial€error.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï52(a)€("No€judgment€of€conviction€shall€be€reversed€on€appeal€except€for€errorsÏwhich€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€on€the€merits.")€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€error€is€prejudicial€because€theÏinstruction€actually€given,€unlike€the€òòDyleóó€instruction,€did€not€inform€jurors€thatÏidentification€testimony€is€an€expression€of€belief€or€impression€by€the€witness,Ïand€did€not€instruct€the€jurors€to€consider€occasions€on€which€the€eyewitnessÏfailed€to€make€an€identification.€€òòIdóó.€at€612.€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€failureÏto€give€the€òòDyleóó€instruction€may€have€affected€the€verdict€in€this€case€since€theÏeyewitness,€Harris,€initially€had€stated€that€he€could€not€identify€anyone€norÏprovide€a€description€because€the€assailants€had€been€wearing€ski€masks.€€TheÏState€concedes€that€the€failure€to€give€the€instruction€was€error,€but€argues€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€held€the€error€harmless€since€the€failure€toÍgive€the€òòDyleóó€instruction€does€not€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€theÏoutcome€of€this€trial.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€identity,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€charged€the€jury€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€Court€charges€you€that€the€identity€of€theÏdefendant,€Perry€A.€Cribbs,€€must€be€proven€in€theÏcase€on€the€part€of€the€State€to€your€satisfactionÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€other€words,€theÏburden€of€proof€is€on€the€State€to€show€that€theÏdefendant€now€on€trial€before€you€is€the€identicalÏperson€who€committed€the€alleged€crime€with€whichÏhe€is€charged.€€In€considering€the€question€of€theÏidentity€of€a€person,€the€Jury€may€take€intoÏconsideration€the€means€and€opportunity€ofÏidentification,€if€any;€whether€it€was€light€or€dark;€theÏdistance€intervening;€the€dress€or€clothing€worn;€theÏcharacter€and€color€of€same;€the€size,€height,€andÏcolor€of€the€individual;€whether€known€to€him,€and€ifÏso,€how€œlong,›€and€if€seen€before,€under€whatÏcircumstances;€whether€running€or€moving€rapidly,Ïstanding€still,€walking€fast€or€slow€at€the€time€claimedÏto€the€person€testifying;€the€color€of€the€hair;€hat€worn;Ïfacial€expression€or€features€and€appearance;Ïwhether€with€or€without€moustache€and€beard;Ïwhether€person€said€to€be€identified€was€white,€black,Ïdark,€yellow,€or€light€color;€masked€or€not;€the€voiceÏand€speech.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àAll€these€things€when€shown€in€the€proof€mayÏbe€considered€by€the€Jury€in€determining€the€questionÏof€identity.€€The€word€identity€means€the€state€orÏquality€of€being€identical,€or€the€same;€it€meansÏsameness.€€Identification€means€the€act€of€identifyingÏor€proving€to€be€the€same.€€The€word€"Identify"€meansÏto€establish€the€identity€or€to€prove€to€be€the€same€asÏsomething€described,€claimed€or€asserted.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€Court€charges€you€that€if€you€are€satisfiedÏfrom€the€whole€proof€in€this€case,€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€that€the€defendant€Perry€A.€Cribbs,Ïcommitted€the€crime€charged€against€him,€and€you€areÏsatisfied,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€he€hasÏbeen€identified€as€the€person€who€committed€theÏcrime€charged,€then€it€would€be€your€duty€to€convictÏhim.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€you€are€not€satisfied€withÏthe€identity€from€the€proof,€or€you€have€a€reasonableÏdoubt€as€to€whether€he€has€been€identified€from€theÏwhole€body€of€the€proof€in€the€case,€then€you€shouldÏreturn€a€verdict€of€not€guilty.ÌÓÓÌà àConsidering€the€totality€of€the€instruction€actually€given,€and€the€proof€inÏlight€of€the€factors€delineated€in€òòDyleóó,€we€conclude€that€the€failure€to€give€the€òòDyleóóÏinstruction€does€not€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€outcome€of€thisÏcase.€€The€jury€was€instructed€to€consider€the€means€and€opportunity€ofÏidentification,€including€the€distance,€lighting,€and€whether€the€perpetrator€wasÍknown€to€the€eyewitness.€€Though€not€verbatim,€this€sufficiently€encompassed€theÏinstruction€with€respect€to€the€first€òòDyleóó€factor€so€that€prejudicial€error€does€notÏresult.€€Moreover,€the€proof€clearly€established€that€Harris€observed€theÏperpetrator€for€approximately€thirty€seconds,€from€a€distance€of€less€than€five€feet,Ïwith€a€light€from€the€carport€illuminating€the€perpetrator's€features.€€TheÏperpetrator€wore€a€stocking€mask,€and€was€a€stranger€to€Mr.€Harris.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€second€òòDyleóó€factor,€the€proof€is€clear€that€HarrisÏexpressed€certainty€of€his€identification€of€Cribbs€during€a€photographic€lineupÏwhich€occurred€within€six€weeks€of€the€crime.€€Officer€McWilliams€said€that€HarrisÏwas€visibly€œshaken›€and€emotional€when€he€first€observed€the€photograph€of€theÏdefendant.€€Moreover,€the€photographic€lineup€does€not€appear€to€have€beenÏsuggestive.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€third€òòDyleóó€factor,€the€proof€shows€that€Harris€selectedÏonly€the€photograph€of€the€defendant€even€though€he€previously€had€beenÏpresented€with€two€other€photographic€lineups.€€However,€Harris€had€beenÍunable€to€give€the€police€any€description€of€the€assailant€immediately€after€theÏshooting,€and€police€reports€reflected€that€Harris€had€said€the€perpetrators€hadÏbeen€wearing€black€ski€masks.€€However,€later€descriptions€given€to€police€byÏHarris€of€the€perpetrator's€facial€features,€height,€and€weight€matched€theÏdefendant.€€At€trial,€Harris€explained€that€he€had€been€seriously€injured€andÏreceiving€treatment€and€sedatives,€either€in€the€ambulance€or€at€the€hospital,Ïwhen€he€had€given€the€initial€descriptions.€€The€jury€obviously€accepted€thisÏexplanation€of€the€discrepancies.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€fourth€factor,€the€proof€shows€that€€Harris€positivelyÏidentified€the€defendant€from€a€valid€photographic€lineup.€€Harris€also€positivelyÏidentified€the€defendant€€later€at€trial.€€ÌÌà àBecause€the€instructions€given€the€jury€in€this€case€closely€resembled€theÏinstructions€required€by€òòDyleóó,€and€because€the€proof€with€regard€to€each€of€theÏfactors€delineated€by€òòDyleóó€was€plainly€established,€we€agree€with€the€Court€ofÍCriminal€Appeals€€conclusion€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€Failure€to€give€theÏòòDyleóó€instruction€does€not€€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€verdict.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òà àÌà@ àòòII.€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€œ(i)(2)›ÌóóÌó óà àOne€of€the€two€aggravating€circumstances€found€by€the€jury€in€this€case€toÏsupport€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€is€that€the€defendant€had€previously€beenÏconvicted€of€a€felony€offense€"whose€statutory€elements€involve€the€use€ofÏviolence€to€the€person."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(2)(1991).›€€To€establishÏthis€aggravating€circumstance,€the€State€offered€the€testimony€of€the€PrincipalÏClerk€of€the€Criminal€Court€Clerk's€office€in€Shelby€County€during€the€penaltyÏphase€of€this€trial.€€She€stated,€that€according€to€her€records,€the€defendant€hadÏfour€prior€felony€convictions:€two€convictions€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,Ïone€conviction€for€aggravated€robbery,€and€a€conviction€for€second€degreeÏburglary.€€The€defendant€challenges€admission€of€this€proof€in€two€respects.ÌÌà@ àò òA.€Second€Degree€Burglaryó óÌà àFirst,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€evidenceÏabout€his€previous€conviction€for€second€degree€burglary€because€the€statutoryÏelements€of€that€offense€do€not€œinvolve›€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person,€and€it€isÏtherefore€not€admissible€to€prove€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstance.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„204(i)(2)›€(1991€Repl.).ÌÌà àThe€State€concedes€that€evidence€about€the€defendant's€1989€convictionÏfor€second€degree€burglary€should€not€have€been€admitted€because€it€wasÏimmaterial€and€ineffective€to€prove€the€aggravating€circumstance€„„€that€CribbsÏpreviously€had€been€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies€whose€statutory€elementsÏinvolve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.€€However,€in€this€case,€the€StateÏasserts€€the€error€was€harmless.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àThe€State€did€not€rely€upon€the€conviction€for€second€degree€burglary€toÏprove€the€aggravating€circumstance.€€Apparently,€admission€of€the€evidenceÏabout€the€conviction€through€the€testimony€of€the€Criminal€Court€Clerk€wasÍinadvertent.€€€Indeed,€the€conviction€was€never€asserted€by€the€State€as€a€validÏbasis€to€support€the€aggravating€circumstance.œ× ƒK ××  ×›€€Following€the€Clerk's€testimony,Ïthe€conviction€was€not€mentioned€again€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€€It€was€neitherÏargued€by€the€State,€nor€submitted€to€the€jury€as€part€of€the€trial€court'sÏinstructions.€€Moreover,€the€jury's€finding€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€wasÏsupported€by€three€other€violent€felony€convictions.€€Accordingly,€the€erroneousÏadmission€of€the€testimony€regarding€the€defendantððs€prior€conviction€of€secondÏdegree€burglary€does€not€affirmatively€appear€to€have€affected€the€verdict€and€isÏharmless.ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€Attempted€Second€Degree€Murderó óÌ€à àThe€defendant€next€insists€that€his€two€prior€convictions€for€attemptedÏsecond€degree€murder€do€not€qualify€as€felonies€"whose€statutory€elementsÏinvolve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person."€€He€bases€his€argument€on€theÍstatutory€definition€of€the€offense€of€criminal€attempt,€which€is€set€out,€in€pertinentÏpart,€hereafter.ÌÓÓà8 à(a)€A€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€ofÏculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€Intentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€resultÏthat€would€constitute€an€offense€if€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€conduct€were€as€the€person€believesÏthem€to€be;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€Acts€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€elementÏof€the€offense,€and€believes€the€conduct€will€cause€theÏresult€without€further€conduct€on€the€person's€part;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€Acts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€orÏcause€a€result€that€would€constitute€the€offense,€underÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€as€theÏperson€believes€them€to€be,€and€the€conductÏconstitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commissionÏof€the€offense.ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)€(1997€Repl.).€€The€defendant€points€out€thatÏcriminal€attempt€is€a€separate€offense€from€the€principal€offense€attempted,€andÏhe€argues€that€the€statutory€elements€of€criminal€attempt€do€not€involve€the€use€ofÏviolence€to€the€person.€€The€State€responds€that€because€second€degree€murderÏinvolves€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person,€evidence€of€the€defendant's€priorÍconvictions€for€òòattemptedóó€second€degree€murder€was€properly€admitted€toÏestablish€the€existence€of€the€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà àAs€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€noted,€the€attempt€statute€requires€theÏperpetrator€to€act€"with€the€kind€of€culpability€otherwise€required€for€the€[principalÏoffense]."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)€(1997€Repl.)€€Second€degree€murder,Ïthe€principal€offense€underlying€the€defendant's€convictions€for€criminal€attempt,Ïis€defined€asÌÓÓà8 à(1)à à[a]€knowing€killing€of€another;€orÌÌà8 à(2)à8 à[a]€killing€of€another€which€results€from€the€unlawfulÏdistribution€of€any€Schedule€I€or€Schedule€II€drugÏwhen€such€drug€is€the€proximate€cause€of€the€death€ofÏthe€user.€ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„210(a)€(1997€Repl.).€€We€agree€with€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€that€this€language€supports€the€classification€of€the€crime€ofÏattempted€second€degree€murder€as€one€whose€statutory€elements€involve€theÏuse€of€violence€to€the€person.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ò òÌà àÌó óÌà@ àòòò òIII.€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€prosecutorial€argument€during€theÏpenalty€phase€resulted€in€an€arbitrary€and€unreliable€sentence€and€violated€hisÏstate€and€federal€constitutional€rights.€€In€particular,€the€defendant€says€that€hisÏsentence€should€be€reversed€because€of€prosecutorial€argument:€1)€justifyingÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€by€reference€to€religious€law;€2)€implying€that€theÏdefendant€would€be€eligible€for€parole€unless€the€death€penalty€was€imposed;Ïand€3)€referring€to€the€impact€of€the€murder€on€the€victim's€family.ÌÌà àThis€Court€previously€has€recognized€that€closing€argument€is€a€valuableÏprivilege€for€both€the€State€and€the€defense€and€has€afforded€wide€latitude€toÏcounsel€in€presenting€final€argument€to€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€œBigbeeóó,›€885€S.W.2dÏ797,€809€(Tenn.€œ1994);›€òòState€v.€Coneóó,€665€S.W.2d€87,€94€(Tenn.€1984).€ÏHowever,€when€a€prosecutor's€argument€veers€beyond€the€wide€latitudeÏafforded,€the€test€for€determining€if€reversal€is€required€is€whether€the€improprietyÍ"affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215ÏTenn.€338,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(1965).€€Factors€relevant€to€that€determinationÏinclude:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€the€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€light€of€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€curative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€theÏprosecution;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improper€arguments;ÌÌà8 à(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€and€any€other€errorÏin€the€record;€andÌÌà8 à(5)€the€relative€strength€and€weakness€of€the€case.ÌÓÓÌòòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809;€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984);ÏòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€In€evaluating€theÏdefendant's€claims,€we€apply€these€guiding€principles.ÌÌà@ àò òA.€Biblical€Referenceó óÌà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€State's€use€of€a€biblical€reference€to€justifyÏimposition€of€the€death€penalty€violated€his€rights€to€due€process,€a€fair€trial,Íseparation€of€church€and€state,€and€freedom€from€cruel€and€unusual€punishmentÏas€guaranteed€by€the€First,€Fifth,€Sixth,€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€of€theÏU.S.€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€Sections€3,€4,€6,€8,€9€and€16€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€The€State€concedes€that€quoting€from€the€Bible€is€impermissible,Ïbut€contends€that€the€prosecutor's€argument€in€this€case,€"whatever€a€man€sows,Ïso€shall€he€reap"€was€merely€a€metaphor€for€individual€accountability,€rather€thanÏa€justification€for€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€Considered€in€context€and€as€aÏwhole,€the€State€contends€that€the€prosecutor's€argument€was€not€erroneous.€ÏAssuming,€in€the€alternative,€that€the€argument€was€erroneous,€the€StateÏcontends€that€the€error€is€harmless.ÌÌà àThe€challenged€portion€of€the€prosecutor's€closing€argument€to€the€jury€isÏset€out€below:ÌÓÓà8 àà àAnd€I€never€liked,€quite€frankly,€I€never€really€feel€comfortableÏusing€biblical€references....€€What€I€want€to€do„„and€the€only€reason€IÏmentioned€that€is€because€I€tell€you€quite€frankly,€I€don't€feelÏcomfortable€even€mentioning€the€biblical€references.€€And€the€onlyÏreference€I€do€want€to€make€is€it€is€written€whether€it€is€Koran,€NewÏTestament€or€Old€Testament€there€is€one€consistent€thing,€that€is:€ÏWhatever€a€man€œsows,€so›€shall€be€œreaped€[sic].›€€What€that€means€isÍaccountability.€€It€means€that€there€are€standards€of€conduct.€€ItÏmeans€accountability€what€you€sow,€you€reap.€€And€that€is€the€onlyÏreligious€thing€I€get€in€there€and€I€don't€want€to€interject€myself.€€I€justÏsaid€that.€€I€didn't€want€anybody€to€get€offended,€you€know,€if€I€makeÏa€biblical€reference€but€that€is€a€very€important€part€in€our€law,€ourÏlaw€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Whatever€a€man€sows,€so€shall€heÏreap.ÌÌò òà8 àà àó óWell€what€did€Perry€Cribbs€say€[sic]?€€Violence€and€crime.€ÏPain€and€suffering.€€Think€what€he€„„€the€havoc€and€the€pain€that€heÏhas€reaped€upon€the€family€of€Linda€Harris.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€>„Ô.€.€.€.Ô€>XÔÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà àMr.€Cribbs€needs€to€be€held€accountable€for€his€life.€ÏWhatever€a€person€sows,€so€shall€he€reap.€€Unfortunately€a€lot€ofÏother€people€have€to€bear€with€paying€the€consequences€of€this.ÌÓÓÌÌà àIt€is€well„established€in€Tennessee€law€that€references€to€biblicalÏpassages€or€religious€law€during€the€course€of€a€criminal€trial€are€inappropriate.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€541€(Tenn.€1994)(judge's€referenceÏto€Bible€passage€during€voir€dire);€€òòKirkendoll€v.€Stateóó,€281€S.W.2d€243,€254Ï(Tenn.€1955)€(prosecutor's€reference€to€religious€law€during€closing€argument).€ÏIn€the€face€of€this€clear€and€longstanding€precedent,€the€repeated€introduction€byÍprosecutors€of€such€references€into€trials€of€serious€criminal€offenses€isÏinexplicable.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€objection€to€the€improperÏreference.€€We€note€that€the€trial€court€should€have€sustained€the€objection€andÏgiven€a€curative€instruction,€and€we€caution€trial€judges€to€guard€against€theÏinterjection€of€such€inappropriate€references.€€However,€evaluating€theÏinappropriate€remarks€of€the€prosecutor€in€this€case€in€light€of€the€previouslyÏmentioned€five€factors,€we€conclude€that€they€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€theÏprejudice€of€the€defendant.ÌÌà àContrary€to€the€defendantððs€contention,€œin€the€context€of€the€entireÏargument,€€the›€prosecutor€did€œnot€ask›€the€jury€to€base€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty€on€religious€law.€€Instead,€the€prosecutor€urged€the€jury€to€hold€theÏdefendant€individually€accountable€for€the€crime€he€had€committed.€€We€agreeÏwith€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that,€in€the€context€of€this€case,€the€prosecutorÏwas€using€the€"reap€what€you€sow"€argument€as€a€metaphor€for€individualÏaccountability.€As€a€result,€we€€view€the€comments€by€the€prosecutor€whichÏimplied€that€Tennessee€law€embraced€the€principle€of€"reap€what€you€sow"€asÍmerely€an€extension€of€that€metaphor.€€The€jury€in€this€case€was€correctlyÏinstructed€prior€to€beginning€deliberations€that€argument€of€counsel€is€notÏevidence€and€that€the€judge€provides€the€relevant€instructions€as€to€the€law.€€It€isÏwell„established€that€jurors€are€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€given€by€theÏtrial€judge.€€€€òòState€v.€œLaney›óó,€654€S.W.2d€383,€389€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.ÏBlackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€In€addition,€we€areÏconvinced,€from€our€reading€of€the€record,€that€the€prosecutor€did€not€intend€toÏmislead€the€jury€by€employing€the€metaphor€to€explain€individual€accountability.€ÏIndeed,€the€prosecutor€expressed€discomfort€about€using€the€metaphor,€butÏviewed€it€as€an€effective,€understandable€device€for€explaining€the€concept.€ÏViewed€in€the€context€of€the€entire€œproceeding,€we›€agree€with€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€verdict€to€the€defendant'sÏprejudice.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€Parole€Eligibilityó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€prosecutor's€argument€€improperlyÏimplied€to€the€jury€that€he€would€be€released€on€parole€unless€the€jury€sentencedÍhim€to€death.€€€The€defendant€points€to€the€following€excerpt€from€the€prosecutor'sÏargument€in€support€of€his€assertion.ÌÓÓà8 àà àThere€are€no€winners.€€This€is€just€a€horrible€situation.€€TheÏdefendant€goes€into€custody€.€.€.€in€1990€and€he€is€convicted.€€InÏ1993€is€he€[sic]€out.€€He's€told€us€it€was€a€twelve„year€sentence.€€TheÏpenitentiary€system€doesn't€work.ÌÌà8 àà àHe's€been€convicted€of€three€violent€crimes.€€.€.€.€[H]e€did€lessÏthan€.€.€.€three€and€a€half€or€four€years.€€The€Penitentiary€systemÏdoesn't€work.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€>¶Ô.€.€.€.€Ô€>XÔÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà àThere€is€no€question€he's€been€convicted€of€these€cases.€€NoÏquestion€that€he€got€out€early.€€You€heard€from€him.€€It€wasn't€theÏState's€proof.€€What€happened€and€why€it€happened€is€somethingÏwe€may€never€know.€€But€it€does€happen.ÌÓÓÌà àIn€our€view,€the€prosecutor's€argument€was€not€a€reference€to€paroleÏpossibility,€but€was€instead€a€comment€upon€the€failure€of€prior€incarceration€toÏpositively€effect€the€defendant's€behavior€€and€a€valid€response€to€theÏdefendant's€claim€that€he€could€conduct€himself€as€a€decent€individual€ifÏsentenced€to€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole.ÌÌà àHowever,€even€assuming€that€the€prosecutor's€argument€could€beÏinterpreted€as€referring€to€parole€possibilities,€a€review€of€the€record€reveals€thatÏthe€error€was€harmless.€€The€trial€court€in€this€case€properly€instructed€the€juryÏthatÌÓÓà8 àA€defendant€who€receives€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€for€life€shallÏnot€be€eligible€for€parole€consideration€until€the€defendant€hasÏserved€at€least€twenty€five€(25)€calendar€years€of€such€sentence.€€AÏdefendant€who€receives€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€for€life€withoutÏpossibility€of€parole€shall€never€be€eligible€for€release€on€parole.ÌÓÓÌTherefore,€even€assuming€the€jury€misconstrued€the€prosecutor's€comment€toÏmean€that€the€defendant€would€be€released€on€parole€unless€sentenced€toÏdeath,€the€instructions€given€by€the€trial€court€were€sufficient€to€clarify€theÏmisconception.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€in€this€case€was€clearly€and€accuratelyÏapprised€of€its€sentencing€options€in€accordance€with€current€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(e)(2)€(1997€Repl.)€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òC.€Victim€Impact€Argumentó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€during€closing€argument€the€prosecutorÏimproperly€argued€about€the€impact€of€the€killing€on€the€victim's€family,Ïparticularly€about€the€effect€on€the€victim's€surviving€daughter.€€The€StateÏresponds€that€the€argument€in€this€case€was€not€unduly€inflammatory€because€itÏonly€addressed€facts€that€the€jury€itself€could€have€inferred€from€the€evidenceÏpresented€during€the€guilt€stage.€€The€defendant€complains€about€the€followingÏportion€of€the€prosecutor's€closing€argument.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àœ[The€defense]›€says€that€[a]€life€without€parole€sentence€is€theÏsame€as€death.€€I€respectfully€disagree.ÌÌà8 àà àI'm€sorry€if€I€sound€too€strong.€€And€I'm€sorry€if€I€raise€myÏmouth.€€But€there€is€a€substantial€amount€of€difference.€€BecauseÏlittle€Michael€Harris€who€is€four€years€old€is€never€going€to€be€ableÏto€visit€her€mother.€€She€will€never€be€[sic]€hold€her€mother.€€She€willÏnever€be€able€to€cry€to€her€mother.€€She€will€never€be€able€to€callÏher€mother€on€the€phone.€€She€won't€get€letters€from€her.€€And€sheÏwon't€be€able€to€write€letters€to€her.€€She€won't€be€able€to€call€her€onÏthe€phone€or€get€phone€calls€for€her.€€She€won't€be€able€to€tell€herÏabout€her€boyfriends€in€life.€€Tell€her€about€her€problems.€€Tell€herÏabout€her€accomplishments.ÌÌà8 àà àNo,€ladies€and€gentlemen€of€the€jury,€not€for€one€second€doÏyou€believe€that€life€is€the€same€as€death.€€There€is€a€difference€andÏthe€difference€is€that€whatever€happens€in€our€penitentiary€systemÍthat€we€may€not€know€about,€what€we€do€know€is€dead€certain€isÏthat€four€year€old€little€girl€.€.€.€is€never€going€to€see€her€motherÏagain.ÌÓ  Ó€Ô€>„Ô.€.€.€.Ô€>XÔÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà àIt€is€hard€to€be€involved€in€this€case.€€It€is€not€easy€forÏanybody.€€It€is€not€pleasant.€€Let€me€tell€you€something€that€is€aÏwhole€lot€less€pleasant€than€this.€€Let€me€tell€you€something€that€is€aÏwhole€lot€harder€than€anything€we€are€going€to€do€today€or€anythingÏwe've€done€in€the€last€couple€of€months,€and€that€is€having€toÏexplain€to€that€little€girl€where€her€mother€is.€€And€where€her€motherÏis€never€going€to€come€back.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€same€floor€where€Linda€Harris€played€with€toys€with€herÏthree„year„old€daughter€that€is€the€same€floor€that€she€is€sittingÏthere€with€her€brains€laid€out€all€over€the€table.€€That€is€the€sadÏreality.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€>„Ô.€.€.€.€Ô€>XÔÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà àWhen€œ[the€defense]€told›€you€the€role€of€the€prosecutor€is€toÏseek€justice,€that€is€what€we€do.€€I€can't€and€you€can't€bring€backÏLinda€Harris€for€her€mother,€for€her€husband,€for€her€daughter.€€WeÏcan't€do€that.€€That€is€true.€€We€can't€give€Michael€Harris€back€herÏmother.€€But€we€can€give€her€justice.€€And€that€is€what€I€ask€you€toÏdo.ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€>„Ô.€.€.€.Ô€>XÔ€ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà àA€life€sentence€is€not€the€same€as€death.€€There€is€notÏvisitations.€€There€is€no€letters.€€There€is€no€radio.€€All€that€little€girl€isÍgoing€to€have€is€very€vague€memories€of€being€a€three€year€oldÏchild.€€And€all€somebody€else€in€her€family€that's€going€to€have€forÏyears€and€years€is€memories€of€trying€to€explain€that.ÌÓ  ÓÔ€>„Ô.€.€.€.€Ô€>XÔÌÌÓ  Óà8 àà à[œW]e›€cannot€give€Michael€Harris€back€her€mother.€€We€can'tÏgive€Sidney€Harris€back€his€wife.€€We€[can't]€give€Mrs.€Harris'Ïmother€back€her€daughter.€€But€we€can€give€them€justice.€€That€isÏwhat€I€ask€you€to€do.ÓÓÌÓÓÌÓÓÌà àThe€argument€in€this€case€referred€to€facts€that€the€jury€had€learned€fromÏproof€regarding€the€circumstances€of€the€crime.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2dÏ722€(Tenn.€1994).€€For€example,€the€assailants€gained€entry€to€the€Harris€homeÏthrough€a€bedroom€window,€and,€on€the€videotape€of€the€crime€scene,€toys€wereÏvisible€in€that€bedroom.€€From€that€proof,€the€jury€learned€that€the€victim€had€aÏthree„year„old€daughter.€€Much€of€the€prosecutorððs€argument€was€designed€toÏaddress€the€defendantððs€request€to€be€sentenced€to€life€without€the€possibility€ofÏparole,€and€defense€counselððs€subsequent€argument€that€a€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole€is€equivalent€to€the€death€penalty.€ÏThe€prosecutor€pointed€out€that,€unlike€the€defendantððs€œchild,›€if€the€jury€returned€aÍsentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€the€victimððs€daughter€would€beÏunable€to€contact€her€mother.ÌÌà àThis€Court€previously€has€cautioned€that€the€State€may€risk€reversal€byÏengaging€in€argument€which€appeals€to€the€emotions€and€sympathies€of€the€jury.ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€809;€òòSparks€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€564,€569Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€œ23A›€œC.J.S.›€òòCriminal€Lawóó€ðð€1270(c)(1989).€€Indeed,Ïprosecuting€attorneys€should€counsel€jurors€to€base€their€decision€upon€aÏreasoned€moral€response€to€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.Ï538,€542„43,€107€œS.Ct›.€837,€839„40,€93€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€934€(1987).€€Taken€in€contextÏand€read€as€a€whole,€however,€the€argument€in€this€case€was€not€soÏinflammatory€that€it€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€verdict€to€the€defendantððsÏprejudice.€€As€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized,€the€remarks€of€theÏprosecutor€simply€emphasized€information€€that€the€jury€already€knew€or€couldÏhave€legitimately€inferred€from€the€proof€relating€the€circumstances€of€the€offense.€ÏMuch€of€the€argument€was€a€response€to€defense€proof€and€argument.€€WideÏlatitude€is€to€be€afforded€counsel€to€present€closing€argument€to€the€jury,€but€weÍagain€caution€prosecutors€to€avoid€arguments€which€appeal€to€the€emotions€ofÏjurors.€€However,€in€this€case,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€thatÏthe€prosecutorððs€remarks€do€not€constitute€prejudicial€error€requiring€a€reversal.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òIV.€AGGRAVATING€CIRCUMSTANCE€œ(i)(7)ó óóó›à@ àÌÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€death€penalty€in€this€case€violatesÏthe€principle€announced€in€òòState€v.€œMiddlebrooks›óó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.Ï1992)(Drowota€and€OððBrien,€JJ.,€dissenting),€in€which€a€majority€of€this€Court€heldÏthat€ð ðwhen€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€ofÏfelony€murder,ðð€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€is€notÏpermissible€because€it€ð ðdoes€not€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€murderersÏsufficiently€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€ððÏ16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€because€it€duplicates€the€elements€of€theÏoffense.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€840€S.W.2d€at€346.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€charged€in€separate€counts€of€theÏindictment€with€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€first€degree€murder€during€theÏperpetration€of€an€aggravated€burglary,€and€first€degree€murder€during€theÏperpetration€of€an€aggravated€robbery.€€The€jury€returned€verdicts€of€guilt€on€allÏthree€counts€of€the€indictment.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,Ïthe€jury€returned€a€sentence€of€death€for€each€of€the€three€counts€of€theÏindictment.ÌÌà àSeveral€weeks€later,€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,Ïdefense€counsel€argued€that€the€verdict€was€erroneous€because€only€one€personÏhad€been€murdered€and€therefore,€only€one€sentence€of€death€was€appropriate.€ÏDefense€counsel€also€argued€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€theÏjuryððs€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€charge€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€TheÏState€responded€that€the€evidence€supported€all€three€convictions.€€The€trial€courtÏthen€made€the€following€observation:ÌÓÓà8 àYou€are€absolutely€correct€in€pointing€out€that€[the€defendant]€canððtÏreceive€three€death€penalties.€€And,€only€one€should€stand.€€TheÏterms€available€to€the€court€are€that€the€other€verdicts€are€simplyÍsurplusage.€€It€is€discretionary€with€the€court€as€a€finder€of€fact,Ïthirteenth€juror,€to€strike€the€verdicts,€and€I€will€do€that.ÌÌÓÓUpon€learning€of€the€trial€courtððs€intention€to€strike€two€of€the€verdicts€of€guilt,€theÏState€requested€that€the€verdicts€on€counts€one€and€three€of€the€indictment,Ïwhich,€respectively,€charged€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€first€degreeÏmurder€during€the€perpetration€of€an€aggravated€robbery,€be€stricken.€€The€trialÏcourt€agreed€and€entered€a€judgment€of€conviction€on€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt€onÏcount€two€of€the€indictment,€which€charged€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€anÏaggravated€burglary.ÌÌà àThereafter,€in€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendant€argued€thatÏwhen€the€trial€court€set€aside€the€convictions€for€premeditated€murder€and€felonyÏmurder€in€the€perpetration€of€aggravated€robbery,€a€"retroactive€òòMiddlebrooksóóÏerror"€resulted.€€Specifically,€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€juryððs€finding€of€theÏfelony€murder€€aggravating€circumstance€„„€the€murder€was€committed€while€theÏdefendant€was€engaged€in€committing€burglary€„„€€duplicated€the€elements€of€theÏonly€remaining€valid€conviction,€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€ofÍaggravated€burglary.€€According€to€the€defendant,€application€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€therefore,€failed€to€adequately€narrow€the€class€of€defendants€forÏwhom€the€death€penalty€œis›€reserved,€and€should€not€have€been€applied€underÏthe€authority€of€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€agreed€with€theÏdefendantððs€argument,€but€€affirmed€the€sentence€of€death€upon€finding€theÏð ðretroactive€òòMiddlebrooksóó€œerrorðð›€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€under€thisÏCourtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àIn€this€Court,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€error€was€not€harmless€underÏòòHowellóó€and€requires€a€remand€for€resentencing.€€€The€State,€in€contrast,€arguesÏthat€this€case€does€not€present€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€at€all,€and€urges€this€Court€toÏreinstate€the€juryððs€verdicts€of€guilt€with€respect€to€the€charges€of€premeditatedÏfirst€degree€murder€and€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€issue€with€the€well„settled€legal€propositionÏthat€no€constitutional€or€statutory€provision€prohibits€a€jury€from€rendering€aÏgeneral€verdict€of€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€where€both€premeditated€andÍfelony€murder€are€charged€and€submitted€to€the€jury.€€òòSchad€v.€Arizonaóó,€501€U.S.Ï624,€111€S.Ct.€2491,€115€L.Ed.2d€555€(1991);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„111€andÏ„112€(1990€Repl.);€òòState€v.€Coeóó,€655€S.W.2d€903€(Tenn.€1983).€€Even€though€it€isÏnot€constitutionally€or€legislatively€required,€specificity€in€the€verdict€is€desirableÏand€conducive€to€accurate€sentencing€determinations€and€effective€appellateÏreview.€€òòSeeóó€òòSchadóó,€501€U.S.€at€645,€111€S.Ct.€at€2504.€€Moreover,€as€weÏrecently€emphasized,€verdict€specificity€is€particularly€desirable€to€ensureÏeffective€compliance€with€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€œ958€S.W.2d›€œ620€(Tenn.›Ï1997).€€The€concern€expressed€by€a€majority€of€this€Court€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€wasÏthat€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€does€not€sufficiently€narrow€theÏclass€of€death„eligible€offenders€when€a€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€firstÏdegree€murder€òòsolelyóó€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder€because€it€duplicates€theÏelements€of€the€underlying€offense.€€When€a€defendant€is€convicted€ofÏpremeditated€murder,€and€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€isÏemployed€to€support€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€òòMiddlebrooksóó€is€notÏimplicated.€€œòòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,€692€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState›€v.€Hurleyóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€57,€69€(Tenn.€1993)€.€€Likewise,€€where€the€felony€murder€aggravatingÍcircumstance€is€based€upon€a€felony€distinct€from€the€one€relied€upon€to€proveÏthe€offense€of€first€degree€murder,€there€is€no€constitutional€prohibition€againstÏthe€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€to€support€imposition€ofÏthe€death€penalty.€€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€583€(Tenn.€1995).€€SinceÏapplication€of€the€principle€announced€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€turns€upon€the€findings€ofÏthe€jury€in€each€case,€multiple€count€indictments€which€require€specific€juryÏfindings€on€premeditated€and€felony€murder€should€be€utilized.€Trial€courtsÏshould€instruct€the€jury€to€render€a€verdict€as€to€each€count€of€such€an€indictment.€ÏObviously,€when€only€one€person€has€been€murdered,€a€jury€verdict€of€guilt€onÏmore€than€one€count€of€an€indictment€charging€different€means€of€committing€firstÏdegree€murder€will€support€only€one€judgment€of€conviction€for€first€degreeÏmurder.€€òòCarteróó,€œ958€S.W.2d›€œat€624,€n.€6.;›€òòHurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€70.€€However,Ïfindings€as€to€each€count€will€aid€the€trial€court€and€counsel€in€determiningÏwhether,€in€light€of€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstanceÏmay€be€relied€upon€at€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€to€support€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty.ÌÌà àApplying€these€principles€to€the€facts€in€this€case€it€is€clear€that€the€trialÏcourt€correctly€required€the€jury€to€return€a€verdict€as€to€each€count€of€the€multipleÏcount€indictment€which€charged€alternative€methods€of€committing€the€offense€ofÏfirst€degree€murder.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€also€correctly€concluded€that€theÏdefendant€could€receive€only€one€sentence€of€death.€€Only€one€killing€hadÏoccurred,€and€while€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilt€on€each€of€the€three€countsÏof€the€indictment,€the€three€counts€merely€charged€distinct€modes€of€committingÏthe€same€offense„„first€degree€murder.× ƒL ××  ×€€Since€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guiltyÏof€only€one€criminal€offense,€only€one€sentence€was€appropriate.€€At€the€penaltyÏphase,€the€responsibility€of€the€jury€was€to€fix€a€sentence€for€the€defendantððsÏconviction€of€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder.€Rather€than€remedying€the€juryððsÏerror€of€imposing€multiple€sentences€for€the€same€offense€by€entering€oneÏjudgment€of€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€and€striking€two€of€the€sentencesÏentered€by€the€jury,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€struck€the€juryððs€verdicts€of€guilt€onÏtwo€counts€of€the€indictment,€stating,€ð ðthe€other€verdicts€are€simply€surplusage.€€ItÏis€discretionary€with€the€court€as€a€finder€of€fact,€thirteenth€juror,€to€strike€theÍverdicts,€and€I€will€do€that.ðð€€As€a€result,€the€defendantððs€conviction€of€first€degreeÏmurder€is€now€grounded€solely€upon€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€aggravated€burglary.€€Since€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€in€this€case€also€is€based€upon€the€juryððsÏfinding€that€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€inÏcommitting€a€burglary,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€held€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€action€in€striking€the€verdicts€on€counts€one€and€three€of€the€indictmentÏresulted€in€an€error€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó.ÌÌà àThe€State€says€that€this€Court€need€only€reinstate€the€juryððs€verdicts€onÏcounts€one€and€three€of€the€indictment€to€alleviate€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error.€€WeÏare€constrained€to€disagree.€€Had€the€trial€court€upheld€the€juryððs€verdicts€withÏrespect€to€counts€one€and€three€of€the€indictment,€reliance€upon€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€would€not€be€precluded€by€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€ÏHowever,€we€are€unable€to€reinstate€those€verdicts,€because,€as€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€found,€once€vacated,€the€juryððs€findings€with€respect€to€thoseÏtwo€counts€were€rendered€void.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€1548€(6th€ed.€1990)Í(defining€ð ðvacateðð€as€ð ð[t]o€annul;€to€set€aside;€to€cancel€or€rescind.€€To€render€anÏact€void;€as€to€vacate€an€entry€of€record,€or€a€judgment.ðð);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€613ÏS.W.2d€218,€221€(Tenn.€1981).€€Moreover,€in€striking€the€juryððs€verdicts€on€thoseÏtwo€counts€of€the€indictment,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€his€authority€as€theÏthirteenth€juror.€€It€is€well„established€that€when€a€trial€judge€sets€aside€a€œverdict,›Ïhe€has€not€approved€it€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€and€unless€the€trial€court€approvesÏa€verdict€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€the€verdict€is€invalid.€€òòIdóó.€€Accordingly,€we€areÏunable€to€reinstate€the€juryððs€verdicts€with€respect€to€counts€one€and€three€of€theÏindictment.€€However,€we€agree€with€the€State€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏthat€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€is€harmless€in€this€case.ÌÌà àA€juryððs€reliance€upon€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance€is€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€if€an€appellate€court€can€conclude€that€the€sentenceÏwould€have€been€the€same€had€the€sentencing€authority€given€no€weight€to€theÏinvalid€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€738.€€In€òòHowellóó,€thisÏCourt€stated€that€when€conducting€harmless€error€analysis,€it€is€important€ÌÓÓà8 àto€completely€examine€the€record€for€the€presence€of€factors€whichÏpotentially€influence€the€sentence€ultimately€imposed.€€TheseÍinclude,€but€are€not€limited€to,€the€number€and€strength€of€remainingÏvalid€aggravating€circumstances,€the€prosecutorððs€argument€atÏsentencing,€the€evidence€admitted€to€establish€the€invalidÏaggravator,€and€the€nature,€quality€and€strength€of€mitigatingÏevidence.ÌÌÔ€>„Ôà@ à.€.€.€.ÌÔ€>XÔÌà8 àà à[E]€ven€more€crucial€than€the€sum€of€the€remainingÏaggravating€circumstances€is€the€qualitative€nature€of€eachÏcircumstance,€its€substance€and€persuasiveness,€as€well€as€theÏquantum€of€proof€supporting€it.€€In€that€respect,€the€TennesseeÏstatute€assigns€no€relative€importance€to€the€various€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances.€€By€their€very€nature,€and€under€theÏproof€in€certain€cases,€however,€some€aggravating€circumstancesÏmay€be€more€qualitatively€persuasive€and€objectively€reliable€thanÏothers....€€ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.,€868€S.W.2d€at€260„61.ÌÌà àAs€we€have€previously€recognized,€that€is€particularly€true€of€theÏaggravating€circumstance€remaining€in€this€case,€previous€convictions€of€feloniesÏinvolving€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.€€€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€738.€€Indeed,Ïthe€remaining€valid€aggravating€circumstance€in€this€case€was€supported€byÏthree€valid€prior€violent€felony€convictions.€€The€prosecutor€did€not€emphasize€theÏinvalid€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€in€his€argument.€€No€additionalÍproof€of€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€was€introducedÏduring€the€penalty€phase.€€Finally,€the€nature€and€quality€of€the€mitigatingÏevidence€was€weak,€consisting€of€the€defendantððs€testimony€that€he€had€familyÏmembers€with€whom€he€kept€in€contact;€that€he€followed€prison€rules€whileÏincarcerated;€that€he€had€worked€in€the€past;€and€that€he€had€not€committed€theÏcrime€of€which€he€had€been€convicted.€Applying€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€to€the€recordÏin€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€theÏsentencing€authority€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.€ÏAccordingly€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€resulting€from€the€trial€courtððs€action€isÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà@ àòòò òV.€CUMULATIVE€ERRORóóó óÌà àThe€defendantððs€next€contention€is€that€this€Court€should€remand€for€a€newÏsentencing€hearing€because€of€the€cumulative€prejudicial€effect€of€errorsÏoccurring€in€the€penalty€phase€of€his€trial.€€€The€defendant€is€correct€that€theÏcombination€of€multiple€errors€may€necessitate€the€reversal€of€a€death€penaltyÏeven€if€individual€errors€do€not€require€relief.€€òòBigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€at€812;€òòseeóóÍòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€28€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€However,€weÏhave€carefully€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case€and€considered€the€errorsÏassigned€by€the€defendant,€both€individually€and€cumulatively,€and€haveÏdetermined€that€none€constitute€prejudicial€error€requiring€a€reversal€and€remandÏfor€a€new€sentencing€hearing.Ìòòò òÌà@ àVI.€PROPORTIONALITY€REVIEWóóó óÌà àIn€the€recent€case€of€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€œ958›€S.W.2d€œ651€(Tenn.›€1997),€thisÏCourt€discussed€in€detail€the€precedent„seeking€analysis€which€has€beenÏemployed€over€the€past€eighteen€years€to€determine€whether€the€death€sentenceÏimposed€in€a€particular€case€is€òòdisproportionateóó€to€the€sentence€imposed€inÏsimilar€cases.€€In€conducting€comparative€proportionality€review,€we€begin€withÏthe€presumption€that€the€sentence€of€death€is€proportional€to€the€crime€of€firstÏdegree€murder.€€Therefore,€as€we€emphasized€in€œòòBlandóó,›€the€purpose€ofÏcomparative€proportionality€review€is€to€ð ðeliminate€the€possibility€that€a€personÏwill€be€sentenced€to€death€by€the€action€of€an€aberrant€jury€and€to€guard€againstÏthe€capricious€or€random€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.ðð€€òòId.óó,€__€S.W.2d€at€___.ÌÌà àAs€we€had€previously€explained,€and€reaffirmed€in€òòBlandóó,€comparativeÏproportionality€review€is€not€a€rigid,€objective€test.€òòIdóó.,€__€S.W.2d€at€__,€Slip€Op.€atÏ23;€€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€do€not€employ€aÏmathematical€formula€or€scientific€grid,€nor€are€we€bound€to€consider€only€thoseÏcases€in€which€exactly€the€same€aggravating€circumstances€have€been€found€byÏthe€jury.€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€84€(Tenn.€1994).€€After€identifying€aÏpool€of€similar€cases,€we€consider€a€multitude€of€variables,€some€of€which€wereÏlisted€in€òòBlandóó,€in€light€of€the€experienced€judgment€and€intuition€of€the€membersÏof€this€Court.€€òòBlandóó,€__€S.W.2d€at€___.€€With€respect€to€the€circumstances€of€theÏœoffense,›€relevant€factors€enumerated€in€òòBlandóó€include:€(1)€the€means€of€death;€(2)Ïthe€manner€of€death€(e.g.,€violent,€torturous,€etc.);€(3)€the€motivation€for€the€killing;Ï(4)€the€place€of€death;€(5)€the€similarity€of€the€victimsðð€circumstances€includingÏage,€physical€and€mental€conditions,€and€the€victimsðð€treatment€during€the€killing;Ï(6)€the€absence€or€presence€of€premeditation;€(7)€the€absence€or€presence€ofÏprovocation;€(8)€the€absence€or€presence€of€justification;€and€(9)€the€injury€to€andÏeffects€on€nondecedent€victims.€€With€respect€to€comparing€the€character€of€theÍdefendants,€the€following€factors€were€listed€in€òòBlandóó€as€relevant:€(1)€theÏdefendantððs€prior€criminal€record€or€prior€criminal€activity;€(2)€the€defendantððs€age,Ïrace,€and€gender;€(3)€the€defendantððs€mental,€emotional€or€physical€condition;€(4)Ïthe€defendantððs€involvement€or€role€in€the€murder;€(5)€the€defendantððsÏcooperation€with€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantððs€remorse;€(7)€the€defendantððsÏknowledge€of€helplessness€of€victim(s);€(8)€the€defendantððs€capacity€forÏrehabilitation.€€ÌÌà àApplying€that€analysis,€we€conclude€that€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€Ïthe€senseless€and€unprovoked€killing€of€this€woman€in€her€own€home€is€notÏdisproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€the€natureÏof€the€crime€and€the€defendant.€€The€defendantððs€conduct€demonstrates€aÏcomplete€disregard€for€human€life.€€Cribbs€and€his€partner€in€crime€wereÏinterrupted€while€burglarizing€the€Harris€home.€€Rather€than€leaving€theÏresidence€after€ordering€Sidney€Harris€to€release€his€partner,€Cribbs€insteadÏordered€Harris€at€gunpoint€to€sit€in€a€chair.€€Cribbs€told€Harris€that€he€was€goingÏto€shoot€him,€and€then€proceeded€to€follow€through€on€that€statement.€€From€hisÍsubsequent€statements€to€Cannon,€it€appears€that€Cribbs€intended€to€kill€SidneyÏHarris.€€Before€leaving€the€residence,€Cribbs€murdered€Linda€Harris€by€placingÏthe€shotgun€against€her€head€and€firing.€€The€victimððs€brains€were€literally€blownÏout€of€her€skull.€€There€is€no€logical€explanation€for€the€defendantððs€actions.€ÏLinda€Harris€apparently€had€been€rendered€unconscious€by€the€initial€attack€sheÏsustained€upon€entering€the€house.€€Therefore,€she€could€not€have€identifiedÏCribbs,€a€stranger€to€her,€and€the€unconscious€victim€could€not€have€provokedÏCribbs€in€any€way.€€There€is€no€apparent€motive€for€the€murder,€though€it€possiblyÏcould€have€been€a€case€of€mistaken€identity€in€light€of€the€intruderððs€question€toÏSidney€Harris€asking€for€the€ð ðdope.ðð€€The€senseless€murder€of€Linda€HarrisÏoccurred€in€her€own€home,€a€place€where€individuals€ordinarily€enjoy€the€mostÏsecurity.€€Cribbs€also€seriously€injured€Sidney€Harris,€who€remained€in€theÏhospital€twenty„two€days.€€Cribbs,€a€€twenty„three„year„old€€male,€previously€hadÏbeen€convicted€of€three€violent€felony€offenses.€€There€was€little€proof€about€hisÏmental,€emotional,€and€physical€condition.€€He€testified€that€he€had€attendedÏschool€through€the€seventh€grade,€but€had€dropped€out€after€being€expelled€forÏtruancy.€€Cribbs€did€not€cooperate€with€the€police€in€this€case.€€In€fact,€he€deniedÍinvolvement€in€the€murder,€even€after€the€jury€had€found€him€guilty.€€InÏconjunction€with€his€claims€of€innocence,€Cribbs€said€that€he€regretted€that€theÏmurder€had€been€committed.€€There€was€little€proof€with€respect€to€theÏdefendantððs€capacity€for€rehabilitation.€€However,€Cribbs€stated€that€he€couldÏconduct€himself€as€a€decent€individual€in€prison,€and€claimed€that€he€hadÏfollowed€prison€rules€during€his€previous€term€of€incarceration.€€Considering€theÏnature€of€this€crime€and€the€character€of€this€defendant,€this€murder€places€CribbsÏinto€the€class€of€defendants€for€whom€the€death€penalty€is€an€appropriateÏpunishment.€€Based€upon€our€review,€we€conclude€that€the€following€cases€inÏwhich€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed€have€many€similarities€with€this€case.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993),€the€twenty„seven„year„old€defendant€murdered€the€clerk€of€a€convenience€store€by€shooting€him€in€theÏœhead›€during€the€course€of€a€robbery.€€As€in€this€case€the€killing€was€unprovokedÏand€without€motive.€€The€defendant€did€not€cooperate€with€the€authorities€and€didÏnot€express€remorse.€€While€no€specific€evidence€was€presented€on€the€issue€ofÏhis€potential€for€rehabilitation,€Howell€had€a€prior€criminal€record.€The€jury€foundÍœthe€defendant›€guilty€of€first€degree€felony€murder€and€sentenced€him€to€deathÏupon€finding€two€aggravating€circumstances,€that€the€defendant€had€beenÏpreviously€convicted€of€felonies€involving€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person,Ïincluding€first€degree€murder,€armed€robbery,€and€attempted€first€degree€murder,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)›€(1982),€and€that€the€murder€was€committedÏwhile€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€a€felony,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(7)›€(1982).€€This€Court€found€that€the€juryððs€reliance€upon€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€violated€the€principle€announced€inÏòòMiddlebrooksóó,€but€upheld€the€sentence€of€death,€concluding,€as€in€this€case,€thatÏthe€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€The€mitigation€proof€relatedÏto€the€defendantððs€childhood€environment€and€psychological€testing.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57€(Tenn.€1993),€the€thirty„four„year„oldÏdefendant€shot€the€victim€once€in€the€head,€killing€him,€and€then€robbed€theÏvictim€and€burned€his€body.€€€As€in€this€case,€the€assault€was€entirely€unprovokedÏand€unexplained.€€The€defendant€did€not€cooperate€with€the€authorities€andÏexpressed€no€remorse€for€the€killing.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€bothÍpremeditated€and€felony€first€degree€murder,€and€as€in€this€case,€erroneouslyÏimposed€two€sentences€of€death.€€This€Court€upheld€the€conviction€forÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder€and€the€sentence€of€death€which€was€basedÏupon€the€juryððs€finding€of€the€sole€aggravating€circumstance,€that€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€a€felony,€robbery.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(7)›€(1982).€€Little€or€no€mitigating€proof€wasÏpresented.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€745€S.W.2d€858€(Tenn.€1988),€the€twenty„eight„year„oldÏdefendant€was€found€guilty€of€both€premeditated€and€felony€first€degree€murder.€ÏDuring€the€burglary€of€a€residence,€the€defendant€shot€a€sleeping€man€when€aÏfemale€resident€called€out€upon€seeing€the€defendant€in€the€dark.€€At€theÏpreliminary€hearing,€the€female€resident€identified€Bell€as€the€assailant,€claimingÏthat€she€had€recognized€him€at€the€time€of€the€assault,€but€because€he€was€aÏneighbor,€had€been€afraid€to€identify€him€to€police.€€As€in€this€case,€the€senselessÏmurder€occurred€during€the€course€of€a€burglary€of€the€victimððs€home.€€The€juryÏimposed€a€sentence€of€death€upon€finding€three€aggravating€circumstances,Íincluding€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(7)›€(1982).œ× ƒM ××  ×›€€Though€he€had€no€prior€violent€felony€convictions,€theÏdefendant€did€have€a€prior€criminal€record,€and€as€in€this€case,€there€was€littleÏmitigating€proof.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Terry€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241€(Tenn.€1986),€the€twenty„one„year„old€defendant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€for€the€killing€of€a€femaleÏcompanion.€€King€and€the€victim€had€been€taking€drugs€and€engaging€in€sexualÏrelations€intermittently€throughout€the€day.€€When€the€victim€accused€King€ofÏraping€her,€he€obtained€a€gun€from€a€friend,€ordered€her€into€the€trunk€of€her€car,Ïdrove€to€a€wooded€area,€and€ordered€her€out€the€trunk.€€The€victim€begged€forÏher€life€and€offered€King€money€to€release€her,€but€he€told€her€to€turn€her€back€toÏhim€and€then€shot€her€with€a€high„powered€rifle€in€the€back€of€the€head.€€King€andÏan€accomplice€robbed€the€victim,€€hid€her€body€and€stole€her€car.€€Eventually,ÍKing€cooperated€with€the€police,€and€gave€a€statement€admitting€his€involvementÏin€the€killing.€€The€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty€upon€finding€four€aggravatingÏcircumstances,€including€that€the€defendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€theÏviolent€felony€offenses€of€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€armedÏrobbery,€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€assault€with€intent€to€commit€aggravatedÏkidnapping.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)›€(1982).€€The€jury€also€found€thatÏthe€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€€was€engaged€in€committing€aÏfelony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(7)›€(1982).ÌÌà àFinally,€in€òòState€v.€Tommy€Kingóó,€694€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.€1985),€the€thirty„three„€year„old€defendant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€for€killing€theÏproprietor€of€a€tavern€during€the€course€of€a€robbery.€€The€victim€was€shot€in€theÏneck€and€died€a€week€later€from€the€wound€in€the€hospital.€€The€jury€found€threeÏaggravating€circumstances,€including€that€the€murder€was€committed€while€theÏdefendant€was€engaged€in€committing€a€felony€offense,€and€that€the€defendantÏhad€been€previously€convicted€of€felony€offenses€involving€the€use€of€violence€toÍthe€person.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„2„203(i)(2)›€&€(7)€(1982).œ× ƒN ××  ×›€€Little€mitigatingÏproof€was€offered,€but€the€defendant€claimed€he€was€morally€justified€becauseÏthe€victim€had€refused€to€pay€him€for€merchandise,€and€because€the€shootingÏhad€been€accidental.€€The€defendantððs€claim€was€contradicted€by€a€great€deal€ofÏproof€which€the€jury€obviously€credited.ÌÌà àWe€have€repeatedly€emphasized€that€no€two€cases€are€identical,€but€theÏabove€cases€have€many€similarities€with€the€facts€of€this€case.€€In€all€five€cases,Ïdeath€was€caused€by€a€gunshot€wound€to€he€head€or€neck€of€the€victim.€€TheÏmurders€were€unprovoked€and€the€only€apparent€motive€for€each€was€theÏdefendantsðð€desire€to€accomplish€another€criminal€act.€€Like€Cribbs,€in€four€of€theÏcases,€the€defendants€had€been€previously€convicted€of€felony€offenses€involvingÏthe€use€of€violence€to€the€person.€€Also€like€Cribbs,€many€of€the€defendantsÏoffered€little€proof€in€mitigation€of€the€offense,€and€did€not€cooperate€with€theÏpolice.€€After€reviewing€the€cases€discussed€above€and€many€other€cases€notÍherein€detailed,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€penalty€imposed€by€the€jury€in€thisÏcase€is€not€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€for€similar€crimes.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€mandate€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)Ï(1997€Repl.),€and€the€principles€adopted€in€prior€decisions€of€this€Court,€we€haveÏconsidered€the€entire€record€in€this€cause€and€find€that€the€sentence€of€death€wasÏnot€imposed€in€œan›€arbitrary€fashion,€that€the€evidence€œsupports›€the€juryððs€findingÏof€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstance,€and€the€juryððs€finding€that€theÏaggravating€circumstance€outweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(A)€„€(C)€(1997€Repl.).€WeÏhave€considered€the€defendantððs€assignments€of€error€and€determined€that€noneÏrequire€reversal.€€With€respect€to€issues€not€specifically€addressed€herein,€weÏaffirm€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€authored€by€Judge€Gary€R.ÏWade,€and€joined€in€by€Judge€Joe€B.€Jones€and€Judge€William€M.€Barker.€ÏRelevant€portions€of€that€opinion€are€published€hereafter€as€an€appendix.€€TheÏdefendantððs€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€is€affirmed.€€The€sentence€shallÍbe€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€œthe€17th›€day€of€œAugust,€1998€unless›Ïotherwise€ordered€by€this€Court€or€other€proper€authorities.ÌÓÓœÌÌÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àœFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,›Ìà àà àà àà àà àœJUSTICE›Ìò òœÌConcur:ó ó›ÌAnderson,€C.J.,ÌœHolder,€J.ÌÌReid,€J.€€„€Separate€concurring/dissenting€opinion.ÌBirch,€J.€„€Separate€concurring/dissenting€opinion.ÌÌÌÇÑ7€f$XdÈXdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€>èÔAppendixÔ€>XÔÌà@ à(Excerpts€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€Decision)€Ìó óÇ›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àœòòAT€JACKSONóó›Ìà@ àMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9508„CR„00211Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€W.€Fred€Axley,€JudgeÌPERRY€A.€CRIBBS,à àà à*à à(Death€Penalty)à àà à€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à*à àÌÌÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌA.€C.€Wharton€€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defender€à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ201€Poplar€Avenue€ÌSuite€201à àà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€Cauley€€à àà àÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947à àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkway€ÌW.€Mark€Ward€à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌœAssistant›€Public€Defender€à àà àà àÌ147€Jefferson,€Suite€900à àà àà àJames€Wax€and€David€ShapiroÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€General€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€œFILED:€ò òFebruary€14,€1997ó ó›ÌÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòò òOPINIONó óóớ̜à àà àÌÓÓœà@ àI.Ìà à›à àInitially,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€identification€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€any€of€the€three€convictions.€€On€appeal,€however,€the€stateÏis€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonableÏinferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€theÏweight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€theÏevidence€are€matters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrgeÏv.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€A€guilty€verdict,Ïapproved€by€the€trial€judge,€resolves€conflicting€testimony€in€favor€of€the€theory€ofÏthe€state.€€òòState€v.€Hatchettóó,€560€S.W.2d€627,€630€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€court€mayÏset€aside€a€conviction€only€when€the€"evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€theÏfinding€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï13(e).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€one€of€the€victims,€Sidney€Harris,€made€an€emotional€andÏpositive€identification€of€the€defendant€as€the€person€"that€shot€me"€from€aÏphotographic€lineup.€€At€trial,€he€again€identified€the€defendant€as€the€secondÏassailant.€€There€was€corroborative€evidence.€€Jacqueline€Cannon€observed€theÏdefendant€covered€in€blood€on€the€night€of€the€murder,€described€a€watch€thatÏmet€the€description€of€one€taken€from€the€Harris€residence,€and€overheard€theÏdefendant€say€that€he€"had€shot€the€lady€and€the€man."€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€jury€chose€to€accredit€the€testimony€of€the€state'sÏwitnesses.€€That€was€their€prerogative.€€There€is€sufficient€evidence€of€the€identityÏof€the€defendant,€in€our€view,€to€support€each€of€the€œconvictions.€€òòSeeó󛀜òòJackson›€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979).€€œÌÌÌ›à@ àœII.›Ìà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€videotape€introduced€asÏevidence€for€the€state€was€unfairly€prejudicial.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€thereÍwas€no€valid€reason€to€display€the€deceased€victim€lying€in€a€pool€of€blood€otherÏthan€to€inflame€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€did€suppress€those€portions€of€the€tapeÏwhich€were€the€most€gruesome.€€For€example,€the€first€deleted€segment€showedÏa€portion€of€the€victim's€brain€matter€separated€from€her€skull€and€scatteredÏacross€the€kitchen€floor;€a€second€segment€displayed€the€shattered€face€and€skullÏof€the€victim.€€ÌœÌ›à àà àRule€403€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€permits€trial€courtsÏthe€discretion€to€exclude€relevant€evidence€if€the€probative€value€of€that€evidenceÏis€substantially€outweighed€by€the€dangers€of€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€trial€œcourt›€must€abuse€œits›€discretionaryÏauthority€before€this€court€may€consider€a€reversal.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€instance,€the€trial€court€clearly€exercised€discretion€byÏadmitting€only€the€least€gruesome€of€what€is€otherwise€relevant€evidence.€€AsÏnoted€in€òòBanksóó,€"shocking€and€horrifying€the€jury€emotionally€does€not€assistÍthem€in€making€a€reasoned€determination€of€how€serious€the€crime€is...."€€òòIdóó.€atÏ952.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€context€of€the€trial€and€the€circumstances€of€the€crime,€it€is€ourÏview€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.€€The€videotape€of€the€crimeÏscene€was€probative.€€While€frightening,€the€videotape€was€not€so€inflammatoryÏas€to€substantially€outweigh€its€probative€value.€€Similar€evidence€was€admittedÏin€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€477€(Tenn.€1993);€while€the€supreme€courtÏordered€that€an€accompanying€narration€by€the€officer€should€have€beenÏexcluded,€it€held€that€the€€probative€value€of€the€evidence€outweighed€anyÏpossible€prejudice.€€òòIdóó.€€We€cannot€make€a€distinction€between€the€facts€in€thisÏcase€and€those€in€òòVan€Tranóó,€also€a€death€penalty€case,€and€thus€find€no€œerror.€ÏOther€examples€of€death€penalty€cases€in€which€crime€scene€videotapes€wereÏused€are€òòState›€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€878„79€(Tenn.€œ1991),€and€òòState›€v.ÏPayneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€19„20€(Tenn.€œ1990),€òòaff'dóó,€501€U.S.€808€(1991).›ÌÌà@ àœIII.›Ìà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€the€photographic€lineup€wasÏunduly€suggestive.€€He€bases€the€claim€on€the€fact€that€police€had€informed€theÏvictim€in€advance€that€they€had€a€suspect€and€that€the€photograph€of€theÏdefendant,€from€the€total€of€seven€presented,€was€the€only€one€that€had€aÏquestion€mark€by€the€identification€number.ÌÌà àà àTo€be€admissible€as€evidence,€an€identification€must€not€have€beenÏconducted€in€such€an€impermissibly€suggestive€manner€as€to€create€a€substantialÏlikelihood€of€irreparable€misidentification.€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.Ï377€(1968).€€In€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188€(1972),€the€œSupreme›€œCourt›€held€thatÏa€reliable€identification€procedure,€even€though€suggestive,€will€not€negate€anÏidentification€of€the€defendant.€€The€factors€determining€whether€the€procedureÏwas€too€suggestive€to€accept€as€reliable€were€determined€to€be€the€following:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€à àthe€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€theÏcriminal€at€the€time€of€the€offense;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€à àthe€œwitness'›€degree€of€attention;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€à àthe€accuracy€of€the€œwitness'›€prior€description€ofÏthe€individual;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€à àthe€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€theÏwitness€at€the€confrontation;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€à àthe€time€between€the€crime€and€theÏconfrontation.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€199.ÌÌà àà àInitially,€a€physical€or€a€photographic€lineup€œis›€the€preferred€meansÏof€identification.€€Either€has€been€determined€to€be€much€less€suggestive€than€aÏ"showup,"€where€the€victim€is€either€presented€with€the€suspect€or€a€singleÏphotograph€of€the€suspect.€€òòState€v.€Terry€M.€Hendersonóó,€slip€op.€at€5,€No.€01C01„9401„CR„00012€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€October€6,€1994).€€Beyond€that,Ïthe€extent€to€which€an€identification€procedure€may€suggest€a€single€suspect,Ïeven€with€the€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó€factors,€is€largely€subjective.€€If€the€procedureÏœqualified›€œas€being€suggestive,›€œthe€defendant€could€have€relied€on€several€otherÏfacts€to€support€his€argument:€€that›€the€encounter€lasted€less€than€a€minute,€thatÏthere€was€no€direct€light€in€the€Harris€residence,€that€the€defendant€wore€aÏstocking€over€his€face,€and€that€Mr.€Harris€may€have€suffered€diminished€capacityÍdue€to€his€œinjuries.€€All€of€that€would€favor€the€suppression€of€the€lineupÏidentification.€€There›€exist,€however,€other€more€significant€factors€favorable€toÏthe€state.€€There€was€proof€that€Harris€did€not€know€whether€or€not€a€photographÏof€the€suspect€was€in€the€original€array.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€photograph€ofÏthe€defendant€was€among€the€third€or€fourth€that€he€saw€and€that€he€immediatelyÏrecognized€the€defendant€as€his€assailant.€€All€of€the€photographs€includedÏprofile€and€frontal€views€of€black€males€with€similar€complexions,€moustaches,Ïand€hair€length.€€All€of€the€individuals€were€dressed€in€œt„shirts€and€two›€wereÏwearing€œjackets.€€None›€appear€to€stand€out€from€the€others€in€any€way.€€TheÏvictim€looked€at€several€other€lineups€which€did€not€include€photographs€of€theÏdefendant€and€he€was€unable,€of€course,€to€identify€anyone€else.€€The€victimÏstated€that€he€paid€no€attention€to€the€numbers€underneath€the€individuals€in€theÏphotographs€before€making€the€identification.€€To€the€objective€eye,€the€questionÏmark€appears€to€be€associated€with€the€number€underneath€the€photograph€andÏnot€the€individual€therein.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€order€to€determine€whether€the€pretrial€photographic€lineup€wasÏso€unnecessarily€suggestive€as€to€violate€constitutional€due€process,€this€courtÏmust€examine€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€existing€at€the€time€of€theÏidentification.€€òòSeeóó€òòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293€(1967).€€Absent€a€showing€byÏthe€defendant€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt,€this€court€must€defer€to€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€872ÏS.W.2d€950,€955€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€By€the€use€of€these€guidelines,€ourÏassessment€is€that€the€process€was€not€suggestive.€€œEven€if›€it€had€œbeen,€the›Ïphotographic€identification€was€still€properly€admitted€into€œevidence€by€the€use€ofÏthe€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó€criteria.€€The›€victim€saw€the€defendant€at€a€distance€of€lessÏthan€five€feet€for€over€œthirty›€seconds.€€Despite€the€stocking,€the€victim€specificallyÏrecalled€the€facial€features€of€the€defendant.€€The€victim€described€the€defendantÏas€having€a€moustache,€thick€eyebrows,€and€a€large€round€nose.€€The€height€andÏweight€œdescriptions€were€consistent›€with€œthe€defendant's€actual›€appearance.€ÏThe€victim€testified€that€a€beam€of€light€from€the€carport€allowed€for€a€clear€view€ofÏhis€assailant.Ìà àà àÌà@ àœIV.›Ìà àà àHaving€found€no€reversible€error€in€our€analysis€of€the€trial,€theÏjudgments€of€conviction€are€affirmed.€€We€now€turn€to€those€grounds€alleged€toÏhave€affected€the€propriety€of€the€sentence€of€death.€€ÌÌÌÌà@ àœV.Ìà àà àThe€defendant€claims€the€trial€court€undermined€the€defense€byÏillustrating€to€the€jury€those€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€the€defense€did€notÏactually€raise.›€€The€defendant€concedes€that€the€supreme€court€has€consistentlyÏrecognized€this€error€to€be€harmless€absent€a€clear€showing€of€prejudice.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€921€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€œTeelóó,€793€S.W.2dÏ236,€252€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€251€(Tenn.€1986).€€HeÏclaims€prejudice€because€the€prosecutor€read€the€list€of€statutory€mitigatorsÏsubmitted€by€the€defense€and€argued€that€the€defendant€failed€to€prove€any€ofÍthem.€€The€prosecutor's€actions€appear€to€be€little€more€than€an€attempt€toÏevaluate€the€proof;€accordingly,€any€error€could€be€classified€as€harmless.€€ÌÌà@ àVI.Ìà àà àNext,€the€defendant€claims€the€trial€judge€should€have€instructed€theÏjury€that€its€sentence€would€actually€be€carried€out€to€the€extent€provided€by€law.€ÏSpecifically,€the€defendant€suggests€that€without€the€instruction,€the€jury€wouldÏspeculate€that€the€death€penalty€might€not€be€carried€out€and€that€he€might€beÏreleased€in€a€few€years€even€if€sentenced€to€life€without€parole.€€The€defendantÏcites€to€an€instance€in€the€record€where€a€prospective€juror,€who€did€not€sit€on€theÏcase,€actually€questioned€the€validity€of€the€sentences.€€The€defendant€reasonsÏthat€the€comments€by€the€prospective€juror€and€those€of€the€court€in€issuing€itsÏcharge€may€have€influenced€jurors€on€the€panel.€€€€ÌÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€has€consistently€found€this€special€request€madeÏby€the€defendant€to€be€improper.€€òòSeeóó€òòVan€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€481;€òòState€v.ÏCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€543€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Payneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,Í21€(Tenn.€1990),€òòaff'dóó,€501€U.S.€808€(1991);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,Ï367€(Tenn.€1982).€€So,€without€further€comment,€we€reject€the€contention€of€theÏdefendant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€insists€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÏerror€by€refusing€to€instruct€the€jury€that€it€could€consider€sympathy€whenÏdeciding€on€a€sentence.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€chargedÏthe€jury€to€render€its€verdict€on€the€law€and€the€facts€rather€than€any€sympatheticÏnotions€for€the€defendant.€€By€rejecting€this€argument,€the€trial€judge€acted€inÏperfect€accordance€with€established€precedent.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2dÏ908,€921€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€814€(Tenn.€1994);€òòStateÏv.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€168€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€Thus,€we€hold€that€this€claim€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ àVII.Ìà àà àWhile€acknowledging€that€the€supreme€court€has€consistentlyÏupheld€the€death€penalty€statute€under€similar€attacks,€the€defendant€insists€thatÍour€statute€fails€to€meaningfully€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants.€€HeÏcontends€that€the€death€sentence€is€imposed€capriciously€and€arbitrarily;€thatÏelectrocution€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment;€and€that€the€appellate€reviewÏprocess€is€constitutionally€inadequate.€€ÌÌà àà àBased€upon€a€long€line€of€authority,€we€must€reject€each€claim.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857ÏS.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.ÏBoydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990);ÏòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989).€€ÌÌà àà àSpecifically,€the€defendant€argues€that€our€statutory€scheme€fails€toÏmeaningfully€narrow€the€€class€of€death€eligible€defendants.€€Our€supreme€courtÏreviewed€and€dismissed€this€argument€in€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€258Ï(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€statute€is€unconstitutionalÏbecause€district€attorneys€have€unlimited€discretion€in€whether€to€seek€the€deathÏpenalty€or€not.€€Our€supreme€court€rejected€this€argument€in€òòBrimmeróó,€876ÏS.W.2d€at€86.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€536„38€(Tenn€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€insists€that€the€statute€is€unconstitutionalÏbecause€it€is€imposed€in€a€discriminatory€fashion.€€This€very€argument€wasÏrejected€by€the€supreme€court€in€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87€n.€5.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€196€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€complains€that€the€denial€of€individualÏsequestered€voir€dire€of€prospective€jurors€in€capital€cases€violates€constitutionalÏprinciples.€€In€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€269,€our€supreme€court€rejected€thisÏcontention.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€542.ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€submits€that€the€death€qualification€process€forÏprospective€jurors€creates€a€"prosecution„prone,€guilt„prone€jury."€€Noting€theÏcontention€has€also€been€rejected€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€ourÏsupreme€court€rejected€this€contention€as€meritless€in€òòTeelóó,€793€S.W.2d€at€246.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€he€was€unlawfully€prohibited€fromÏaddressing€jurors'€misconceptions€about€sentencing.€€This€argument€has€beenÏroutinely€rejected€by€our€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€86„87;ÏòòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179.ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€asserts€the€jury€should€have€been€informed€ofÏthe€effect€of€a€non„unanimous€verdict;€that€is,€that€the€penalty€shall€be€a€lifeÏsentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(h).€€This€contention€was€rejected€by€ourÏsupreme€court€in€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87,€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268,€andÏòòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€22„23.€€In€a€related€argument,€the€defendant€asserts€thatÏrequiring€the€jury€to€unanimously€agree€on€a€life€sentence€violates€the€standardsÏenunciated€in€òòMcKoy€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€494€U.S.€433€(1990),€and€òòMills€v.ÍMarylandóó,€486€U.S.€367€(1988).€€This€claim€has€consistently€been€found€to€beÏwithout€merit€by€our€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòThompsonóó,Ï768€S.W.2d€at€250.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€insists€that€the€statute€is€unconstitutionalÏbecause€the€jury€is€not€required€to€make€the€ultimate€determination€that€death€isÏthe€appropriate€penalty.€€Again,€our€supreme€court€has€rejected€this€contention.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87;€òòSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€at€22.ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€complains€about€his€being€denied€theÏopportunity€to€present€the€final€closing€argument€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€ÏOur€supreme€court€has€rejected€this€contention€in€at€least€two€prior€cases.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87€n.€5;€òòCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€542.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€death€by€electrocution€is€cruelÏand€unusual€punishment.€€Our€supreme€court€has€repeatedly€rejected€this€notion.€ÍòòSeeóó€òòNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€737;€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268;€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2dÏat€258.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€submits€that€appellate€review€in€death€penalty€casesÏis€constitutionally€inadequate.€€Again,€our€supreme€court€has€found€the€claim€toÏbe€›meritless.€€òòSeeóó€œòòHarrisóó,›€839€S.W.2d€œat€77.›€ÌÌœà àFinally,€the€sentence€is€neither€excessive€nor€disproportionate€to€theÌÌpenalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€The€sentence€does€not€appear€to€have€beenÏimposed€in€an€arbitrary€fashion.€€Proof€of€the€valid,€remaining€aggravatingÏcircumstance€outweighs€the€proof€of€mitigating€circumstances.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÔ€>Ô›œ