ÿWPC35 ¦·tbO³!=ဎ[~E³#=zˆfÝÖŒFÌÑK,ãØ‹KÑÒZ܇m®=¥·n·OÔaGÏà¼uè }¢ö&ƒ+³Qe¢¹ÏÞH \ШÚÖbUé®§Îáb€ÚÙLáXÂ|ÌçQ•”ÉÅÀ©ÂÓE=õ˜ŒHµóÓ)yõ˜èUWÂ7WЖµ³~áöt.+ú¦´ Áò’rŒü7]×Ü+ÍWx"¥¥r9ÚìHç͈q´sb§Gx %šžÂŽOŒËˆ.Ú«÷Ô¹Ë ý@øÔ§ÈÏalïò¤ý3YŸ»ì!MGQ0óÜh€X=€Û­å±dÞ  \Û”%½ŒyÃÈùhDU1ùàÖ¦B ”Ì2D­ÚÜjbY'ìC8c.»ñmgô7«Òúƒw5 ¢UÏÊ7¼ïrû¨= 1ͪôx6¤ª_L–äzÞJ¬‹Ôç¥ZåïeâÙ®LÌÌÔ>Qô²Q%þ¯µ¥$¥šŠÚøÑôxÓž´y-¿˜0v%6  C\³øª¶ ²f}®}Ù)ÇGàE¼•ô:6^BnNîÁž]M{xàØÕ;Wñ—ÊâˆðÃ`Ýo‚LTÍTþ[jBxVÛŠÁs'|¶À÷ï,þ‘Bžb %\^ b 0ˆnU-NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ #ÉÐ Æ™ Æ_ Æ%ÆëUN±Nÿ 0 DlEE±U@³ùóìççÚÆÜÍ¢óo äb$F%VÇ& (((((((((((b&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0 0 ë.0.0.0.0 B11 0¤61 D5Ú1 D-2 0K<2<2 AS‡2ÆÚ2 0¤ 3 0DD4 A«ˆ4»ÁT/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularo=/ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó bÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòState€v.€Ô_ÔLanardÔ_Ô€Keith€Armstrongóó,€M2000„02575„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Amos€Brownóó,Ð ° ÐE2000„00285„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Jerry€Baxter€Gravesóó,€E2001„00123„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.Ð tÄ Ðgranted);€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Harrisóó,€E1992„0014„SC„R11„PC€(perm.€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Mario€Hawkinsóó,€M2000„Ð 8ˆ Ð02901„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔLavayaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDemondÔ_Ô€Leeóó,€E2001„00053„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied);Ð üL ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔAsataÔ_Ô€Loweóó,€E2000„01591„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Johnny€Ô_ÔMoffittÔ_Ôóó,€W2001„00781„SC„R11„CDÐ À Ð(perm.€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Clifford€Ô_ÔPeeleÔ_Ôóóò òó ó,€E1999„00907„SC„R11„CD€(perm€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMarthiasÔ_Ô€S.€Phillipsóó,Ð „Ô ÐM2000„02575„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔFredrickÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDevillÔ_Ô€Riceóó,€E2000„02389„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.Ð H ˜ Ðdenied);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKardiusÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWilksÔ_Ôóó,€W2001„02172„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied);€and€òòState€v.€Walter€Wilsonóó,€W2001„Ð  \ Ð01463„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.€denied).€€€€(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  ïÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòState€v.€Ô_ÔAlfonzoÔ_Ô€Williamsóó,€W2001„00452„SC„R11„CDò òó ó€(perm.€app.€denied). CatalanoKendrickShoemakeDrowotaAdolphoGirskeySneedBlackstockGleaves IveyBadenhopecaregiverT]here ÝÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€have€noted€previously€the€disturbing€conclusion€that€life€cases€are€more€likely€to€be€omitted€from€the€databaseÐ ° Ðthan€death€cases,€thereby€placing€defendants€at€a€significant€disadvantage€in€their€efforts€to€locate€those€cases€in€whichÐ tÄ Ðclaims€of€Ô_ÔdisproportionalityÔ_Ô€may€be€based. Ý ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMy€specific€findings€regarding€the€Rule€12€database€are€based€on€a€review€of€the€Rule€12€reports€on€file€asÐ ° Ðof€January€1,€2003. ÐÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEach€code€represents€a€certain€factor.€€For€instance,€the€code€ð ðPHA4"€should€be€entered€for€a€case€in€whichÐ ° Ðthe€killing€occurred€during€a€rape,€whereas€the€code€ð ðPHA8"€should€be€entered€if€the€killing€occurred€during€aÐ tÄ Ðkidnapping.€€Both€should€be€entered€if€there€was€a€kidnapping€and€a€rape. ¼Ý ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Rule€12€report€was€filed€with€the€Clerk€on€April€22,€2002. ÃÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€are€in€no€way€criticizing€the€Administrative€Office€of€the€Courts.€€The€manner€in€which€they€haveÐ ° Ðapproached€the€formidable€task€of€updating€the€CD„ROM€disks€has€been€impressive.€€Additionally,€their€staff€is€alwaysÐ tÄ Ðhelpful€to€our€efforts€to€obtain€more€proportionality€information. éÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòÔ_ÔTatrowÔ_Ôóó,€over€a€two€day€period,€the€defendant€Ô_ÔkidnappedÔ_Ô,€tortured,€and€finally,€killed€two€victims.€€1998€WLÐ ° Ð761829,€at€**1„6.€€The€Cumberland€County€jury€declined€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€€òòId.óó€at€*1.€€Other€cases€involvingÐ tÄ Ðmore€than€one€victim,€thereby€being€clearly€more€egregious€that€cases€involving€one€victim,€include€òòState€v.€Loweóó,€No.Ð 8ˆ ÐE2000„01591„CCA„R3„CD,€2002€WL€31051631€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Sept.€16,€2002),€in€which€the€defendant€wasÐ üL Ðsentenced€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€No€Rule€12€report€has€been€filed€in€òòLoweóó€and€it€is€impossible€to€tellÐ À Ðfrom€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€opinion€whether€the€death€penalty€was€sought. ÚÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRichard€Willing,€òòDeath€Penalty€Gains€Unlikely€Defendersóó,€USA€Today,€Jan.€7,€2003,€1A. wÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€2001,€155€persons€entered€death€row,€the€smallest€number€since€1973.€€Adam€Ô_ÔLiptakÔ_Ô,€òòNumber€of€InmatesÐ ° Ðon€Death€Row€Declines€as€Challenges€to€System€Riseóó,€N.Y.€Times,€Jan.€11,€2003,€at€A13. LÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIndeed,€most€death€sentences€are€never€carried€out.€€ð ðOf€the€779€people€sentenced€to€death€in€California€inÐ ° Ðthe€past€four€decades,€for€instance,€10€have€been€executed.ðð€€òòId.óó ÿÝ ƒRXÙ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€470€S.W.2d€610,€613€(Tenn.€1971)€(holding€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]nÔ_Ô€order€to€convict€on€circumstantialÐ ° Ðevidence€alone,€the€facts€and€circumstances€must€be€so€closely€interwoven€and€connected€that€the€finger€of€guilt€isÐ tÄ Ðpointed€unerringly€at€the€defendant€and€the€defendant€aloneðð);€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€327€S.W.2d€308,€317€(Tenn.€1959)€(Ô‡ô¶Uòòô¶UÔð ðInÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€effort€to€guard€against€improper€verdicts,€it€is€commonly€stated€that€in€determining€the€sufficiency€of€circumstantialÐ üL Ðevidence,€(1)€all€the€essential€facts€must€be€consistent€with€the€hypothesis€of€guilt,€as€that€is€to€be€compared€with€all€theÐ À Ðfacts€proved;€(2)€the€facts€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt;€and€(3)€the€factsÐ „Ô Ðmust€establish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€of€the€accused€as€to€convince€the€mind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€accusedÐ H ˜ Ðis€the€one€who€committed€the€offense.ðð)€òòóó(quoting€Wharton's€Criminal€Evidence,€12th€Edition,€Vol.€3,€Sec.€980,€pageÐ  \ Ð473)Ô#†ô¶Uòòô¶U2#Ô;€òòÔ_ÔPruittÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€460€S.W.2d€385,€390€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1970)€(stating€that€ð ðto€warrant€a€criminal€conviction€uponÐ Ð  Ðcircumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€evidence€must€be€not€only€consistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€it€must€also€beÐ ” ä  Ðinconsistent€with€his€innocence€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€or€hypothesis€except€that€of€guilt,€andÐ X ¨  Ðit€must€establish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€of€the€accused€as€to€convince€the€mind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€he€is€theÐ  l  Ðone€who€committed€the€crimeðð).- ù-(|G2XÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶Uò»»Ô d(|3L$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3L$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Å»»»ÔÑ8€IXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îÅÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Å»îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€4,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XIX»¼ÅÔÌò òÔ#†¼Å»XXIò#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JERRY€RAY€DAVIDSONÔ‡XIX»¼ÅÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAutomatic€Appeal€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ÐCriminal€Court€for€Dickson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CR2232€€€€€€Allen€Wallace,€JudgeÔ#†¼Å»XXI`#ÔÔ‡XIX»¼ÅÔÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00105„SC„DDT„DD€„€Filed€October€20,€2003Ð ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Å»XXI„#ÔòòÔ‡XIX.¼ÅÔAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€dissenting.Ð d´ ÐÌà  àÔ‡XIXXXIÔÔ#†¼Å»XXI #ÔÔ€XIX»¼ÅÔI€write€separately€to€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€holding€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€isÐ <Œ Ðsufficient€to€establish€premeditation€and€to€express€my€grave€concern€that€the€majority€continues€toÐ (x Ðemploy€a€proportionality€review€that€I€view€as€wholly€inadequate.€€I€join,€however,€JusticeÐ d ÐAndersonððs€dissent€regarding€the€admission€of€Ô_ÔDarlaÔ_Ô€Harveyððs€testimony.€€Ô#†XIXXXIs#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔÐ P ÐÌÔ#†XIXXXIÂ#Ôà@ìàA.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceˆÐ Ø( ÐÌà  àThe€majority€concedes€that€the€paucity€of€the€evidence€supporting€premeditation€presents€theÐ ° ÐCourt€with€a€ð ðcloseðð€question€as€to€whether€premeditation€was€established€beyond€a€reasonableÐ œì Ðdoubt;€it€then€concludes€that€Ô‡XIXXXIÔthe€ð ðfacts€and€circumstances€as€a€wholeðð€show€premeditation.Ô#†XIXXXIu #Ô€€Ô‡XIXXXIÔIn€myÐ ˆØ Ðview,€however,€the€proof€of€premeditation€is€woefully€lacking.€€The€proof€as€I€view€it€not€only€failsÐ tÄ Ðto€show€premeditation,€but€demonstrates€instead€that€the€homicide€resulted€from€impulsive€behavior.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThere€was€not€even€one€scintilla€of€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€defendant€engaged€in€anyÐ 8!ˆ  Ðpreparation€or€planning€for€this€crime.€€The€defendantððs€lack€of€preparation€is€evidenced€in€theÐ $"t! Ðcircumstances€that€brought€the€defendant€and€the€victim€together.€€On€the€evening€of€the€crime,€theÐ #`" Ðdefendant€and€the€victim€left€a€bar€together€because€the€victim€had€no€transportation,€a€circumstanceÐ ü#L# Ðthat€the€defendant€could€not€have€anticipated.€€Further,€the€defendant€showed€no€concern€for€keepingÐ è$8 $ Ðhis€conversation€with€the€victim€private,€and€he€offered€her€transportation€while€in€earshot€of€theÐ Ô%$!% Ðbartender.€€Ð À&"& ÐÌà  àThe€majority€points€to€a€ð ðveritable€arsenal€of€weaponsðð€found€in€the€defendantððs€truck€asÐ ˜(è#( Ðevidence€of€premeditation.€€The€items€found€in€the€defendantððs€truck,€however,€allow€for€numerousÐ „)Ô$) Ðother€conclusions.€€To€follow€the€majorityððs€reasoning,€the€defendant,€who€had€already€planned€toÐ p*À%* Ðkill,€had€only€to€choose€a€victim€and€then€from€his€ð ðarsenalðð€find€the€means€with€which€toÐ \+¬&+ Ðaccomplish€the€crime.€€Other€and€more€plausible€conclusions€emerge.€€The€items€in€the€defendantððsÐ H,˜', Ðtruck€may€also€suggest€a€rather€nomadÔ_ÔicÔ_Ô€person€whose€possessions€are€never€far€from€hand€or€aÐ 4-„(-ýe ÐÔ_Ôperson€well„equipped€for€any€eventuality€that€may€arise€in€a€rural€area.€€Just€as€clearly,€it€may€be€thatÐ ° Ðthe€defendant€is€simply€an€untidy€person.Ð œì ÐÌÔ#†XIXXXIû #ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔà  àFurther€evidence€points€to€the€conclusion€that€the€defendant€did€not€act€with€premeditation.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€victim€voluntarily€left€the€bar€with€the€defendant,€and€while€the€events€that€followed€are€unclear,Ð `° Ðthe€evidence€showed€that€the€victimððs€house€was€unlocked€and€that€there€was€no€sign€of€struggle€orÐ L œ Ðblood€in€her€home.€€The€evidence€did€show€that€the€victimððs€blood€was€in€the€defendantððs€truck,€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðarticles€belonging€to€the€victim€were€found€in€a€field€near€her€home,€and€that€the€defendant€made€aÐ $ t Ðstatement€to€police€that€the€victim€might€be€found€chained€to€a€tree€with€her€head€and€hands€missing.€Ð  ` ÐFrom€this€evidence,€the€majority€concludes€that€the€victim€was€first€taken€to€a€field€near€her€homeÐ ü L  Ðand€attacked€in€some€way,€and€then€she€was€taken€to€a€secluded€area,€chained€to€a€tree,€and€murderedÐ è 8  Ðby€the€defendant,€who€was€at€all€times€acting€with€premeditation€in€committing€this€crime.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIt€is€with€the€majorityððs€interpretation€of€the€evidence€that€I€cannot€agree.€€Had€there€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðblood€or€signs€of€struggle€in€the€field,€or€had€the€victim€been€found€chained€to€a€tree,€this€theoryÐ ˜è  Ðwould€merit€further€consideration.€€However,€such€is€not€the€case,€and€the€evidence€lends€itself€toÐ „Ô  Ðother€more€logical€interpretations.€€One€interpretation€might€be€that€the€defendant,€as€a€result€of€someÐ pÀ Ðunexpected€event,€killed€the€victim,€and€after€figuring€out€how€to€bury€her,€dumped€her€possessionsÐ \¬ Ðin€the€field.€€An€interpretation€such€as€this€does€not€involve€premeditation.€€Accordingly,€theÐ H˜ Ðevidence€certainly€does€not€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€committed€aÐ 4„ Ðpremeditated€murder,€especially€when€the€evidence€of€premeditation€is€entirely€circumstantial.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€behavior€after€the€crime€also€supports€an€interpretation€that€he€did€not€planÐ øH Ðthis€murder.€€After€the€crime,€the€defendant€suddenly€and€unexpectedly€disappeared€from€his€job€andÐ ä4 Ðhis€home,€which€resulted€in€a€missing€person€report€being€filed.€€Again,€this€conduct€is€moreÐ Ð  Ðsuggestive€of€a€panicked€response€to€an€unexpected€event€rather€than€of€a€premeditated€murder.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àFinally,€I€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€conclusion€that€the€ð ðnature€of€the€mutilationðð€showsÐ ”ä Ða€pre„existing€intent€to€kill€ð ðcarried€out€with€care€and€precision.ðð€€The€reason€for€the€mutilation€isÐ €Ð Ðunascertainable;€nothing,€however,€in€this€conduct€reflects€a€calm€or€reflective€mental€stateð!ðeitherÐ l¼ Ðbefore€or€after€the€murder.€€If€anything,€this€conduct€suggests€extreme€irrationality.Ð X ¨ Їà  àTherefore,€since€the€circumstantial€evidence€considered€as€a€whole€is€just€as€easily€construedÐ ° Ðto€support€a€less€culpable€mental€state,€I€would€find€that€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€element€ofÐ œì Ðpremeditation€remains.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@ ìàB.€€Comparative€Proportionality€ReviewˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€I€continue€to€adhere€to€the€views€expressed€in€a€long€line€of€dissents€beginningÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€òòState€v.€Chalmersóó,€28€S.W.3d€913,€920„25€(Tenn.€2000)€(Birch,€Jr.,€J.,€concurring€andÐ $ t Ðdissenting),€and€elaborated€upon€in€òòState€v.€Godseyóó,€60€S.W.3d€759,€793„800€(Tenn.€2001)€(Birch,Ð  ` ÐJr.,€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting),€that€the€comparative€proportionality€review€protocol€currentlyÐ ü L  Ðembraced€by€the€majority€is€an€inadequate€protection€from€the€arbitrary€and€disproportionateÐ è 8  Ðimposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206€(1997).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€substantive€shortcomings€of€the€procedure€this€Court€has€adopted,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcontinuing€failure€of€our€database€compilation€system€to€generate€a€reliable€source€of€informationÐ ˜è  Ðfor€purposes€of€proportionality€review€further€compromises€reliable€conclusions€as€toÐ „Ô  Ðproportionality.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€12€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court,€a€report€isÐ pÀ Ðrequired€to€be€completed€in€all€cases€in€which€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,Ð \¬ Ðincluding€cases€in€which€the€conviction€is€by€a€plea€of€guilty.€€Ô#†XIXXXI #ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€12(1).€€There€is€aÐ H˜ Ðform€requiring€specific€information€about€the€facts€of€the€crime,€the€background€of€the€defendant€andÐ 4„ Ðvictim,€and€the€sentence€received.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€The€trial€court€is€required€to€compile€all€the€informationÐ  p Ðrequired€and€transmit€the€report€to€the€Clerk€of€the€Supreme€Court€within€fifteen€days€after€it€hasÐ  \ Ðruled€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòId.óó€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€Rule€12€reports€constitute€the€sole€method€by€this€Court€of€keeping€a€separate€tally€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€sentences€imposed€in€first€degree€murder€convictions,€and€thereby,€it€is€the€best€source€of€casesÐ ¼  Ðto€consider€in€a€proportionality€review.€€However,€by€just€looking€at€my€office€files€of€the€first€degreeÐ ¨ø Ðmurder€cases€presented€before€this€Court€in€the€last€six€months€of€2002,Ô#†XIXXXI*%#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔ€roughly€twenty„nine€percentÐ ”ä Ðof€first€degree€murders€are€not€being€included€in€these€Rule€12€reports.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XIXXXI )#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔ€€Ô#†XIXXXI.*#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔAlthough€the€DepartmentÐ €Ð Ðof€Corrections€apparently€keeps€records€from€which€all€first€degree€murder€convictions€and€sentencesÐ l¼ Ðcould€be€extracted,€as€well€as€those€convictions€where€the€defendant€was€charged€with€first€degreeÐ X ¨ Ðmurder€but€was€convicted€for€a€lesser€offense,€the€Court€relies€on€the€Rule€12€reports€that€are€filedÐ D!” Ðwith€the€Clerk€for€its€record€of€first€degree€murder€convictions€and€sentences.€€This€Court€has€beenÐ 0"€  Ðgreatly€disappointed€when€revelations€of€omitted€cases€have€shown€the€scarcity€of€these€records.€Ð #l! ÐConsequently,€we€have€attempted€to€rectify€the€problems€through€both€rule€amendments€and€internalÐ $X" Ðprocedures.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àDespite€published€assurances€from€this€Court€that€procedures€to€ensure€the€filing€of€Rule€12Ð Ì&"% Ðreports€are€now€in€place,€òòseeóó€òòGodseyóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€785,€it€is€apparent€that€the€database€compilationÐ ¸'#& Ðprocess€is€still€not€working.€€Petitions€for€first€tier€review€were€filed€for€roughly€forty„one€first€degreeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmurder€convictions;€in€twelve€of€these€cases€(involving€thirteen€defendants),€no€Rule€12€report€wasÐ ° Ðfiled.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€one€of€the€cases€in€which€a€Rule€12€report€was€filed,€the€report€omitted€the€facts€of€theÐ œì Ðmurder.׃t×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Such€information€is€crucial€in€a€proportionality€review.€€The€inevitable€conclusion€is€that,Ð ˆØ Ðsix€years€after€our€proportionality€review€process€was€carefully€explained€in€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€651,€661„74€(Tenn.€1997),€and€one€year€after€remaining€problems€with€reporting€wereÐ `° Ðrecognized€in€the€dissent€in€òòGodseyóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€793„800,€twenty„nine€percent€of€first€degreeÐ L œ Ðmurder€defendants€(in€my€review,€none€of€whom€were€sentenced€to€death׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×)€are€still€not€beingÐ 8 ˆ Ðrepresented€in€the€Rule€12€reporting€system.€€The€Rule€12€reporting€system,€as€a€method€of€enablingÐ $ t Ðthis€Court€to€practically€consider€similar€cases€in€its€proportionality€review,€has€failed.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€omission€of€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€was€not€imposed€affects€the€integrity€of€ourÐ è 8  Ðanalysis.€€How€can€our€Court€or€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€determine€whether€the€sentence€ofÐ Ô$  Ðdeath€is€proportional€when€many€of€the€cases€in€which€death€was€not€imposed€are€not€accessible€forÐ À  Ðreview?€€In€looking€for€cases€similar€in€circumstances€to€the€defendantððs,€ò òó óonly€death€cases€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðapparent€from€our€initial€search€of€the€filed€Rule€12€reports,€a€misleading€result€considering€theÐ ˜è  Ðnumber€of€cases€involving€kidnapping€and€killing€in€which€a€life€sentence€was€imposed.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àFor€example,€in€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Antonio€Dewayne€Carpenteróó,€No.€W2001„00580„CCA„Ð \¬ ÐR3„CD,€2002€WL€1482799,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€12,€2002),€the€defendant€was€convictedÐ H˜ Ðof€felony€murder,€premeditated€murder,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€especially€aggravatedÐ 4„ Ðrobbery.€€òòId.óó€€According€to€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€the€victim€was€abducted€from€a€SonicÐ  p Ðrestaurant€at€gunpoint.€€òòId.óó€at€*3.€€She€was€struck€in€the€head,€and€run€over€with€a€car€several€times.€Ð  \ ÐòòId.óó€€Her€body€was€moved€to€a€ditch€and€covered.€€òòId.óó€€There€was€medical€testimony€that€the€victimÐ øH Ðwas€alive€when€she€was€struck€in€the€head,€when€her€larynx€was€crushed,€and€when€she€sustainedÐ ä4 Ðthe€crushing€injuries€to€her€ribs,€pelvis,€abdomen,€and€chest.€€òòId.óó€at€*4.€€Though€the€death€penalty€wasÐ Ð  Ðsought,€the€Fayette€County€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€òòId.óóÐ ¼  Ðat€*1.€€No€Rule€12€report€was€filed€in€that€case.€€The€two€co„defendants€in€that€òòóócase€were€not€eligibleÐ ¨ø Ðfor€the€death€penalty€(and€thereby€not€part€of€the€proportionality€pool)€because€of€mental€retardationÐ ”ä Ðand€age.€€Id.€at€*1,€n.2;€òòÔ#†XIXXXIr*#ÔSeeóó€òòState€v.€Robert€Lewis€Carpenter,€Jr.óó,€69€S.W.3d€568€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð €Ð Ð2001);€òòState€v.€Gloveróó,€No.€W2000-01278-CCA-R3-CD,€2001€WL€1078279€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sep.Ð ° Ð14,€2001).Ô‡XIXXXIÔ€The€co„defendants,€however,€are€included€in€the€Rule€12€reporting€system.€Ô#†XIXXXI˜=#Ô€€Ô‡XIXXXIÔÐ œì ÐÌà  àòòAntonio€Dewayne€Carpenteróó€is€a€case€involving€kidnapping€and€mutilation€that€should€beÐ tÄ Ðincluded€in€the€pool€when€determining€the€proportionality€of€the€defendantððs€sentence,€but€becauseÐ `° Ðit€was€not€properly€reported,€it€was€not€considered€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€nor€is€itÐ L œ Ðmentioned€by€the€majorityò òó ó.€€Who€knows€how€may€other€similar€kidnapping€cases€are€not€includedÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€the€Rule€12€reports.€€òòóóEven€for€the€Rule€12€reports€that€are€filed,€delays€and€omissions€compromiseÐ $ t Ðthe€integrity€of€the€resulting€proportionality€pool.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAfter€Rule€12€reports€are€filed,€they€are€compiled€on€a€CD„ROM€disk€which€attorneys€mayÐ è 8  Ðobtain€from€the€Administrative€Office€of€the€Courts.€€The€specific€factors€of€each€case€relevant€toÐ Ô$  Ðproportionality€review€are€supposed€to€be€entered€using€ð ðfield€codes.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thereby,€a€death€penaltyÐ À  Ðcomputer€database€is€created€which€may€be€used€by€this€Court€and€accessible€to€the€litigants€to€findÐ ¬ü  Ðsimilar€cases.€€Additionally,€an€exact€image€of€the€Rule€12€report€is€scanned€onto€the€disk.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€CD„ROM€became€available€to€attorneys€in€June€1999.€€Unfortunately,€attorneys€haveÐ pÀ Ðhad€mixed€success€in€their€ability€to€access€the€information€on€the€disk€from€their€computers.€€AsideÐ \¬ Ðfrom€these€purely€technical€difficulties,€there€are€also€problems€with€incomplete€entries.€€As€statedÐ H˜ Ðin€one€newspaper€article,€ð ðhundreds€of€cases€included€in€the€database€.€.€.€are€missing€importantÐ 4„ Ðdetails€about€the€crime,€defendant,€and€victim.ðð€€òòGodseyóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€796€(quoting€John€Shiffman,Ð  p ÐòòMissing€Files€Raise€Doubts€About€Death€Sentencesóó,€The€Tennessean€(Nashville),€July€22,€2001,€atÐ  \ ÐA1).€€Indeed,€this€was€the€case€in€òòState€v.€Alfonzo€Williamsóó,€W2001„00452„SC„R11„CD€(perm.€app.Ð øH Ðdenied),€in€which€the€Rule€12€report€omitted€the€facts€of€the€murder.€€Aside€from€determining€fromÐ ä4 Ðthe€field€codes€that€the€case€involved€a€robbery€and€killing€by€shooting,€the€entry€on€the€databaseÐ Ð  Ðdoes€not€explain€the€facts.€€Because€òòWilliamsóó€was€appealed,€the€facts€can€be€found€by€furtherÐ ¼  Ðresearch€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealððs€opinion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€No.€W2001„00452„Ð ¨ø ÐCCA„R3„CD,€2002€WL€1482695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€15,€2002).€€Ô#†XIXXXI'>#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àOther€types€of€omissions,€even€in€appealed€cases,€are€harder€to€track.€€For€instance,€thoughÐ l¼ Ðthere€are€field€codes€which€indicate€whether€the€death€penalty€was€sought,€the€information€on€theÐ X ¨ ÐCD„ROM€sometimes€omits€this€information.€€In€òòState€v.€Corleyóó,€No.€87„286„III,€1989€WL€41579,Ð D!” Ðat€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€28,€1989),€the€unpublished€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€opinion€statesÐ 0"€  Ðthat€ð ð[t]he€record€describes€in€graphic€detail€15€hours€of€unrestrained€criminal€indulgence€duringÐ #l! Ðwhich€one€victim,€an€elderly€man,€was€cheated,€robbed,€kidnapped€and€held€captive€and€anotherÐ $X" Ðvictim,€a€young€woman,€was€murdered€almost€casually.ðð€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€to€life.€€TheÐ ô$D # Ðfield€codes€entered€for€this€defendant€omit€any€reference€to€whether€the€death€penalty€was€sought;Ð à%0!$ Ðtherefore,€it€is€unclear€whether€the€case€should€be€included€in€the€pool€or€not.€€If€one€used€the€fieldÐ Ì&"% Ðcodes€to€research€only€capital€cases€involving€a€kidnapping€on€the€CD„ROM,€this€case€would€notÐ ¸'#& Ðbe€shown.€€Nor€would€more€traditional€research€on€Westlaw€or€Lexis€rectify€the€problem€becauseÐ ° Ðthe€opinion€does€not€refer€to€the€original€sentence€sought.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòid.óó€€In€other€words,€aÐ œì Ðcomputer€search€for€the€word€ð ðdeathðð€or€ð ðcapitalðð€in€the€opinion€will€not€reveal€this€case.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€general,€the€use€of€traditional€methods€of€research€is€inadequate€to€fill€the€gaps€in€Rule€12Ð `° Ðreporting.€€Such€research€is€difficult,€time€consuming,€and€expensive.€€Furthermore,€such€researchÐ L œ Ðnecessarily€reveals€only€those€cases€with€published€or€unpublished€written€opinions,€or€in€otherÐ 8 ˆ Ðwords,€those€cases€which€were€appealed.€€Therefore,€where€a€conviction€is€not€appealed€(a€far€moreÐ $ t Ðlikely€occurrence€where€the€sentence€is€life€or€life€without€parole),€a€Rule€12€report€is€the€onlyÐ  ` Ðpractically€available€source€of€information.€€Additionally,€those€first€degree€murder€cases€which€areÐ ü L  Ðappealed€do€not€always€state€whether€the€death€penalty€was€sought,€a€determination€which€presentlyÐ è 8  Ðmust€be€made€in€deciding€whether€to€include€a€case€in€the€pool.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAside€from€the€failure€to€enter€certain€information,€the€sheer€delay€in€disseminating€theÐ ¬ü  Ðinformation€affects€the€pool.€€In€looking€for€cases€with€facts€similar€to€the€case€pending€before€us,ò òó óÐ ˜è  Ðone€recent€case€that€indicates€current€juries€would€impose€a€sentence€of€life€without€parole€is€òòStateÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Geraldrick€Jonesóó,€W2002„00747„CCA„R3„CD€(pending€in€C.C.A.).€€In€òòJonesóó,€after€a€first€date,Ð pÀ Ðthe€defendant€brought€the€willing€victim€home€with€him;€after€an€argument,€he€hit€her€several€timesÐ \¬ Ðwith€his€hands€and€with€a€five€pound€barbell€weight.€€The€victim€attempted€to€escape,€but€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€choked€her,€obtained€a€knife€from€the€kitchen,€and€cut€the€victimððs€throat€seven€times,Ð 4„ Ðalmost€severing€her€head.€€He€attempted€to€sever€her€limbs€so€that€she€would€fit€into€the€garbageÐ  p Ðcontainer.€€A€Shelby€County€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€life€without€parole.€€However,€whenÐ  \ Ðsearching€for€cases€similar€to€òòDavidsonóó€using€the€Rule€12€CD„ROM€on€January€8,€2003,€this€caseÐ øH Ðcould€not€be€found€even€though€the€Rule€12€report€had€been€filed€with€the€clerk€eight€monthsÐ ä4 Ðearlier.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€was€not€until€an€updated€CD„ROM€was€distributed€in€mid„January€of€2003,€after€theÐ Ð  Ðpublication€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€opinion,€that€the€òòJonesóó€case€appeared€on€the€CD„ROMÐ ¼  Ðdisk.€€Although€the€Administrative€Office€of€the€Courts€has€actively€sought€to€update€the€disk€everyÐ ¨ø Ðsix€months,׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€given€that€recent€cases€are€more€indicative€of€how€recent€crimes€under€recentÐ ”ä Ðcircumstances€influence€sentencing,€every€six€months€is€not€enough.€€Any€system€that€denies€accessÐ €Ð Ðto€current€sentencing€in€first€degree€murder€cases€denies€a€true€proportionality€review.Ð l¼ ÐÌòòà  àóóThese€flaws€must€be€rectified€before€a€death€sentence€may€be€affirmed.€€The€problems€withÐ D!” Ðthe€Rule€12€proportionality€review€system€do€not€exist€because€of€intentional€or€insincere€efforts€onÐ 0"€  Ðthe€part€of€our€judicial€system.€€The€problem€is€that€the€goalð!ða€system€of€fairly€comparing€cases€soÐ #l! Ðthat€defendants€are€guaranteed€that€the€termination€of€life€is€not€a€disproportionateÐ $X" Ðpunishmentð!ðrequires€precise€compliance€with€the€adopted€method€of€compiling€and€disseminatingÐ ô$D # Ðpertinent€information.€€The€diversity€of€human€nature€exhibited€in€each€particular€county,€jury,€andÐ à%0!$ Ðjuror,€inevitably€leads€to€disparate€sentences€in€capital€cases.€€There€is€no€other€logical€explanationÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€life€sentencing€in€cases€involving€the€brutal€kidnapping,€torture€and€murder€of€more€than€oneÐ ° Ðvictim,€òòsee€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Tatrowóó,€No.€03C01„9707„CR„00299,€1998€WL€761829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð œì ÐNov.€2,€1998),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€a€death€sentence€in€the€kidnapping€and€murder€in€the€case€before€us€now.òòóó€€A€trueÐ ˆØ Ðproportionality€review€is€critical€to€rectifying€and€balancing€such€disparate€sentences.€€Without€aÐ tÄ Ðproportionality€review€that€is€based€on€all€of€the€pertinent€cases,€this€Court,€as€well€as€the€Court€ofÐ `° ÐCriminal€Appeals,€continues€to€risk€affirming€disparate€sentences.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€problem€of€implementing€an€effective€proportionality€review€is€not€unique€to€Tennessee.€Ð $ t ÐRelying€on€findings€from€the€Bureau€of€Justice€Statistics€and€other€legal€studies,€legal€commentatorsÐ  ` Ðopine€that€the€drop€in€the€percentage€of€Americans€who€favor€the€death€penalty€(from€eighty€percentÐ ü L  Ðto€seventy€percent),׃ (×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€drop€in€the€number€of€people€entering€death€row€(which€also€declinedÐ è 8  Ðrelative€to€the€homicide€rate),׃!´×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€drop€in€the€number€of€people€executed,׃" ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€reflect€the€publicððsÐ Ô$  Ðand€the€judicial€systemððs€serious€concerns€about€the€administration€of€capital€punishment.€€òòóóAdamÐ À  ÐLiptak,€òòNumber€of€Inmates€on€Death€Row€Declines€as€Challenges€to€Justice€System€Riseóó,€N.Y.Ð ¬ü  ÐTimes,€Jan.€11,€2003,€at€A13.€€News€articles€show€that€in€public€opinion€polls,€forty€to€fifty€percentÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€population€believe€the€death€penalty€is€not€administered€fairly,€a€perception€that€ð ðhas€more€toÐ „Ô  Ðdo€with€practical€problems€[in€fairly€choosing€those€to€be€executed]€than€bedrock€beliefs€[opposingÐ pÀ Ðcapital€punishment].ðð€€òòId.óó€€òòóóThe€result€is€that€although€only€twelve€states€plus€the€District€of€ColumbiaÐ \¬ Ðhave€formally€rejected€execution€as€a€form€of€punishment.€€Tracy€L.€Snell€&€Laura€M.€Maruschak,Ð H˜ ÐU.S.€Depððt€of€Justice,€òòCapital€Punishment€2001óó€1€(Dec.€2002).€€In€practicality,€it€is€the€minority€ofÐ 4„ Ðlocations€that€utilize€the€death€sentence:€€ð ð[Eighty]€percent€of€American€counties€had€no€deathÐ  p Ðpenalty€convictions€from€1983€to€1997,€and€another€10€percent€had€only€one€.€.€.€.ðð€€Liptak,€òòsupraóó,Ð  \ Ðat€A13.€€Such€limited€use€of€capital€punishment€not€only€indicates€concerns€with€the€system€by€thoseÐ øH Ðresponsible€for€imposing€the€law,€but€it€also€somewhat€explains€the€inconsistency€between€sentencesÐ ä4 Ðin€cases€in€which€the€facts€are€equally€horrendous.€€òòóóÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àNo€sentence€of€death€should€be€affirmed€until€the€evident€inconsistencies€in€the€impositionÐ ¨ø Ðof€sentences€among€juries€can€be€checked€through€an€adequate€proportionality€review.€€Both€theÐ ”ä Ðimposition€and€execution€of€death€sentences€should€be€recognized€by€this€Court€as€too€unpredictableÐ €Ð Ðto€meet€the€requirements€of€justice.Ð l¼ ЀÌÓ×ÓC.€€ConclusionÐ œì ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€conclusion,€I€find€that€the€evidence€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€a€premeditated€killingÐ tÄ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€that€a€death€penalty€review€under€the€comparative€proportionalityÐ `° Ðprotocol€presently€used€by€the€majority€must€not€be€upheld.€€Accordingly,€I€respectfully€dissent.Ô#†XIXXXISI#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔÐ L œ ÐÌÔ#†XIXXXIo#ÔÔ‡XIXXXIÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð  ` Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JUSTICEà0@*!(#(#àò òó óÔ#†XIXXXIXo#Ô