ÿWPC* ¡ÓHn§ÓžÒRsNõ~vF9¦—F4U¥zA³SG·®a%¥ÐX%_Ý¡ë ë£ÂÌ™®zËÛKÒÅJ”ôþúˆ1’P˜÷£ò‚¼æ,°¦ªcêx ÒT$HásÉöºH yѳO5A]‡%MLj¡ÊÎ[£=:ͨ®fÊ`_e­ëv&?LQòr§ÏµÚ ’;*°¤DI«¬¼r¹­;éS{TE¹+šò4±Ðk¢§ò+"šyëwÐñÌõåÑËü#n-/lHv‚ÓIÂââ3!V!ÖŽd#$P:{ÆÃ7¯Nháž>khÕèS~òåøò>R]Ê]KΥa¿o ñ}™;y‡x›#´°¨–ç#o±Ú¹Ô ýz¢¡\«ìYÝ#¬`æW3`HMf ä þÇ×dî¶|yÕù´v¦°™Û~øfžÌok4°!J*,ÿÙ+ÓŸ´ÕŒdí}¹{”DÛj>‡“G$_Š„ .Ó.øX§SÁ“{ÈMŠðeh~Î@l–=>æ3Å¿•C‡Îu*Ä;¼€ÃË  “>\G­ cA‹|ö_˜ó-|‘ºš¾ sã%öI%€ÉîÂ}ˆßÖ4ù”x:6ζW#ÁÂUNƒ %Ñ 0:×U @ ^ Q w] 4a u „ m† N xŸ N 0 © 0 D b Ê 7Ø·ÙÆEŸ”¡µ5¶ê¶  bV!Ê^!UN("v"Ê‹"®U#U#U#U#U#U#U#U#ò$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Bõ)˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman Ó‹}+s 8n_+øÙ¡ œ ™¡3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ €GODSEYSteikerChalmersFurman"deathworthinessTichnell ZookEngbergBeinenquantifiableintracranial KenaShephardGodseyShiffmanMiddlebrooks Teel(:G25š$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ÀÝ ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNo.€E1999„00866„CCA„R3„DD,€2001€WL€245137€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€The€death€sentence€imposedÐ ° Ðin€òòTorresóó€is€presently€before€this€Court€on€automatic€appellate€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)Ð tÄ Ð(2000).€€That€review€is€currently€pending.€€I€note€in€passing€that€it€may€be€problematic€for€this€Court€to€rely€upon€òòTorresóóÐ 8ˆ Ðin€its€proportionality€analysis€when€we€have€not€yet€decided€whether€the€death€sentence€imposed€in€òòTorresóó€isÐ üL Ðproportionate. -Ý ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMoreover,€one€of€the€greatest€sources€of€inconsistency€in€capital€sentencing€may€arise€at€the€prosecutorial€level,Ð ° Ðwhere€the€State€possesses€almost€unbridled€discretion€to€choose€which€cases€will€be€prosecuted€as€death€penalty€cases.€Ð tÄ ÐFor€example,€a€cursory€review€of€the€Rule€12€reports€filed€in€first€degree€murder€cases€seems€to€suggest€that€prosecutorsÐ 8ˆ Ðin€some€counties€frequently€seek€the€death€penalty€in€cases€for€which€prosecutors€of€other€counties€do€not€seek€the€deathÐ üL Ðpenalty.€€While€this€conclusion€is€admittedly€unscientific,€there€exists€at€least€the€possibility€that€a€given€defendantððsÐ À Ðchances€of€receiving€the€death€penalty€may€depend€more€upon€the€county€where€the€crime€occurred€than€upon€the€natureÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€crime€itself.€€The€legislature€has€expressed€its€intent,€in€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€thatÐ ° Ðdefendants€be€fairly€and€consistently€treated€and€that€ð ðunjustified€disparity€in€sentencingðð€be€eliminated.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„102(2),€(3)€(2000);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòid.óó€ðð€40„35„103(3)(noting€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôi]nequalitiesÔ_Ô€in€sentences€that€are€unrelatedÐ 8ˆ Ðto€a€purpose€of€[the€Sentencing€Reform€Act]€should€be€avoidedðð).€€Thus,€under€principles€espoused€in€the€SentencingÐ üL ÐReform€Act,€this€Court€should€strive€to€ensure€that€inconsistencies€in€death€sentencing€such€as€regional€disparities€inÐ À Ðprosecutorial€decision„making€are€corrected.€€It€is€difficult,€however,€for€this€Court€to€squarely€address€whether€the€deathÐ „Ô Ðpenalty€is€being€inconsistently€applied€if€comparative€proportionality€review€cannot€take€into€account€those€cases€inÐ H ˜ Ðwhich€prosecutors€choose€not€to€seek€the€death€penalty. ­Ý ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€___€S.W.3d€___€(Tenn.€2001). ÏÝ ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€is€not€to€say€that€the€Court€must€engage€in€complex€statistical€analysis€in€order€to€conduct€a€reliableÐ ° Ðproportionality€review.€€A€statistical€analysis€likely€would€result€in€a€significant€increase€in€expense€and€complexityÐ tÄ Ðwithout€appreciably€increasing€the€overall€reliability€of€the€review.€€€New€Jersey,€for€example,€has€implemented€aÐ 8ˆ Ðstatistical€protocol€based€upon€a€complex,€subdivided€database€of€capital€cases,€but€the€small€sample€size€of€theÐ üL Ðcomparison€pool€and€problems€inherent€in€quantifying€such€abstractions€as€motive€and€type€of€murder€have€forced€theÐ À ÐCourt€to€focus€upon€a€precedent„seeking€process€similar€to€that€used€in€Tennessee.€€òòSee€generallyóóòòNew€Jersey€v.€Loftinóó,Ð „Ô Ð724€A.2d€129,€148„52€(N.J.€1999)€(ð ðBecause€frequency€analysis€is€statistically€based,€and€because€conclusions€drawnÐ H ˜ Ðfrom€small€sample€sizes€are€inherently€unreliable,€we€have€not€had€confidence€in€the€results€produced€by€the€models.ðð). ŠÝ ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€in€òòTorresóó€found€the€aggravating€factors€listed€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(1)€(1993)€(ð ðvictimÐ ° Ðwas€less€than€twelve€years€of€age,€and€the€defendant€was€eighteen€years€of€age€or€olderðð)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð tÄ Ð204(i)(5)€(ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€[the€killing]€involved€torture€or€serious€physical€abuse€beyondÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€necessary€to€produce€deathðð).€€òòTorresóó,€2001€WL€245137€at€*1. «Ý ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô976€S.W.2d€93€(Tenn.€1998). ¬Ý ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô958€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn.€1997). ¬Ý ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô959€S.W.2d€503€(Tenn.€1997).- ù- ÀÝ ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€case€is€missing€from€the€Rule€12€database.(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular Ñ  Ñ ÀÝ ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€case€is€missing€from€the€Rule€12€database. ¤Ý ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMajority€op.€at€___. èÝ ƒ5š$ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô\òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMoreover,€I€question€whether€some€of€the€ð ðdeathðð€cases€relied€upon€by€the€majority€are€sufficiently€similarÐ ° Ðto€merit€comparison€to€the€case€under€submission.€€For€instance,€when€the€objectively€measurable€details€of€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐMiddlebrooksóó€and€òòState€v.€Teelóó€are€examined,€it€becomes€apparent€that€these€cases€bear€little€relationship€to€theÐ 8ˆ Ðcircumstances€of€Godseyððs€case.€€Both€of€these€cases€involved€teenage€victims€rather€than€infants,€the€jury€in€both€casesÐ üL Ðfound€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€aggravating€circumstance€that€was€not€found€in€this€case,€both€cases€involvedÐ À Ðbrutal€rapes,€and€neither€case€involved€circumstances€typically€found€in€child€abuse€cases.€€As€the€majority€correctlyÐ „Ô Ðnotes,€no€two€cases€are€exactly€alike,€and€therefore€any€one€of€these€distinctions€in€isolation€might€not€render€a€caseÐ H ˜ Ðð ðdissimilar.ðð€€The€multitude€and€significance€of€the€dissimilar€factors€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€and€òòTeelóó,€however,€are€sufficientÐ  \ Ðto€make€those€cases€inappropriate€in€light€of€the€statutory€requirement€that€proportionality€analysis€be€restricted€toÐ Ð  Ðð ðsimilar€cases.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D)€(2000).€ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xè¸XXXÔÔ‡¼ý»XXè¸ÔÑ  ÑÑ€ÑÑ8€è¸XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€@¨Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ#†Xè¸X»¼ý\#ÔÔ‡îÜîXXè¸ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†Xè¸XîîÜ!#ÔÔ‡¼ý»XXè¸ÔˆÐ Ö& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€5,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†Xè¸X»¼ý¸#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼ý»XXè¸ÔSà0 @ àTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€BOBBY€G.€GODSEYó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ#†Xè¸X»¼ýN#Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ  p ÐCriminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S38648€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÐ ø H ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1997„00207„SC„R11„DD€„€Filed€November€29,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ Ë  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó  Ðó óÔ#†Xè¸XXXè¸=#ÔÌÓ  ÓòòÔ‡Xè¸XàXè¸ÔAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting.Ô#†Xè¸XXXè¸#ÔÐ žî  ÐÌà  àThe€majority€has€today,€for€the€first€time,€found€the€sentence€of€death€to€be€disproportionateÐ vÆ Ðto€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases€and,€as€a€consequence,€has€modified€the€defendantððs€sentenceÐ b² Ðto€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€I€concur€in€this€result.€€If,€however,€there€areÐ Nž Ðthose€who€would€trumpet€the€majority€opinion€as€proof€positive€that€the€proportionality€protocolÐ :Š Ðworks€as€it€should,€I€move€quickly€to€temper€their€voices.€€This€result€comes€from€a€protocol€IÐ &v Ðperceive€as€flawed€and€unreliable.€€Consequently,€in€my€view,€the€holding€evidences€neitherÐ b Ðreliability€nor€consistency.€€Rather,€the€protocol€remains€flawed,€and€a€flawed€protocol,€by€definition,Ð þN Ðproduces€a€flawed€result.Ð ê: ÐÌà  àThe€principle€underlying€comparative€proportionality€review€is€that€it€is€unjust€to€impose€aÐ Â Ðdeath€sentence€upon€one€defendant€when€other€defendants,€convicted€of€similar€crimes€with€similarÐ ®þ Ðfacts,€receive€sentences€of€life€imprisonment€(with€or€without€parole).€€Using€the€appropriateÐ šê Ðprotocol,€a€properly€conducted€proportionality€review€responds€to€this€problem€by€permitting€theÐ †Ö Ðjudiciary€to€engage€in€a€ð ðjudicial€field€levelingðð€process,€for€lack€of€a€better€description.€€Thus,Ð r  Ðproportionality€review€serves€a€crucial€role€as€an€ð ðadditional€safeguard€against€arbitrary€or€capriciousÐ ^!®  Ðsentencing.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€663€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€a€line€of€dissents€beginning€withÐ J"š! ÐòòState€v.€Chalmersóó,€I€have€identified€three€perceived€flaws€in€the€protocol€currently€embraced€by€theÐ 6#†" Ðmajority:€€(1)€the€proportionality€test€is€overbroad;€(2)€the€ð ðpoolðð€of€cases€used€for€comparison€isÐ "$r# Ðinadequate;€and€(3)€the€review€is€too€subjective.€€òòSeeóó€òòóó28€S.W.3d€913,€923€(Tenn.€2000)€(Birch,€J.,Ð %^ $ Ðconcurring€and€dissenting).€€€I€continue€to€offer€my€objections€to€the€majority€analysis€in€the€hopeÐ ú%J!% Ðthat€comparative€proportionality€review€may€be€reformed€to€more€effectively€fulfill€the€goals€forÐ æ&6"& Ðwhich€it€was€intended.Ð Ò'"#' ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€remedy€the€first€of€these€perceived€flaws,€the€overbreadth€of€the€protocol,€I€submitÐ ª)ú$) Ðthat€the€protocol€should€be€refined€to€more€accurately€identify€disproportionate€sentences.€€TheÐ –*æ%* Ðmajority€holds€a€sentence€is€disproportionate€only€if€the€case€under€review€ð ðis€plainly€lacking€inÐ ‚+Ò&+ Ðcircumstances€consistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed.ððÐ n,¾', ÐòòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€665.€€Even€if€a€defendant€can€show€that€others€received€life€sentences€forÐ Z-ª(- Ðsimilar€crimes€and€no€discernible€basis€exists€to€distinguish€the€cases,€the€sentence€will€ð ðnotÐ ° Ðnecessarily€[be€found]€disproportionate.ðð€€òòId.óó€€This€test,€however,€does€not€seem€reliably€gauged€toÐ œì Ðidentify€òòdisproportionateóó€sentences.€€Under€the€current€protocol,€a€sentence€may€be€foundÐ ˆØ Ðð ðproportionateðð€based€on€minimal€similarities€to€a€prior€death€penalty€case€even€if€the€defendant€canÐ tÄ Ðpoint€to€similar€cases€in€which€a€life€sentence€was€imposed.€€ð ðProportionalityðð€implies€consistencyÐ `° Ðand€balance€in€sentencing,€neither€of€which€is€accomplished€when€distinguishable€penalties€areÐ L œ Ðimposed€in€indistinguishable€cases.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOther€jurisdictions€provide€models€for€a€more€meaningful€and€objective€proportionalityÐ  ` Ðprotocol.€€In€these€jurisdictions,€the€circumstances€of€each€case€are€analyzed€to€determine€whetherÐ ü L  Ðits€characteristics€are€òòmore€consistentóó€with€other€capital€cases€wherein€a€death€sentence€has€beenÐ è 8  Ðimposed.€€Typical€of€those€jurisdictions€is€New€Jersey,€whose€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€ð ð[a]Ð Ô$  Ðcapital€sentence€is€excessive€and€thus€disproportionate€if€other€defendants€with€characteristics€similarÐ À  Ðto€those€of€the€defendant€.€.€.€generally€receive€sentences€other€than€death€for€committing€factually„Ð ¬ü  Ðsimilar€crimes€in€the€same€jurisdiction.ðð€€òòNew€Jersey€v.€DiFriscoóó,€662€A.2d€442,€448€(N.J.€1995)Ð ˜è  Ð(citing€òòNew€Jersey€v.€Martinióó,€651€A.2d€949€(N.J.€1994)).€€Essentially€the€same€test€has€been€citedÐ „Ô  Ðwith€approval€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€Maryland.€€òòSeeóó€òòTichnell€v.€Marylandóó,€468€A.2d€1,€n.18Ð pÀ Ð(Md.€1983).€€Even€the€Supreme€Court€of€Virginia,€which€has€never€reversed€a€case€on€comparativeÐ \¬ Ðproportionality€grounds,€focuses€on€ð ðwhether€generally€juries€in€[the€same]€jurisdiction€impose€aÐ H˜ Ðdeath€sentence€for€conduct€similar€to€that€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòStamper€v.€Virginiaóó,€257€S.E.2d€808,Ð 4„ Ð824€(Va.€1979).€€Thus,€I€would€urge€the€adoption€of€a€similarly€gauged€test€to€more€accurately€assessÐ  p Ðwhether€a€given€case,€viewing€its€circumstances€as€objectively€as€possible,€is€more€consistent€withÐ  \ Ðthe€circumstances€of€similar€capital€cases€and€capital€defendants€wherein€the€death€penalty€was€notÐ øH Ðimposed.Ð ä4 ÐÌÑ€Ñà  àReforming€the€test€used€to€identify€disproportionate€sentences,€however,€is€but€one€part€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€analysis.€€If€proportionality€review€is€to€be€effective,€this€Court€also€must€ensure€that€relevantÐ ¨ø Ðcases€are€not€omitted€from€the€comparison€pool.€€Concerning€the€paucity€of€the€pool,€in€òòBlandóó,€IÐ ”ä Ðexpressed€grave€concern€that€the€pool€of€cases€used€by€the€majority€in€comparative€proportionalityÐ €Ð Ðreview€analysis€was€too€small.€€958€S.W.2d€at€679€n.1€(Birch,€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting).€€IÐ l¼ Ðreiterate€that€concern€today.€€I€would€expand€the€pool€to€include,€at€a€minimum,€all€cases€in€whichÐ X ¨ Ðthe€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€regardless€of€penalty.€€Ideally,€however,€theÐ D!” Ðpool€should€include€all€cases€in€which€the€defendant€was€initially€indicted€for€a€capital€offense.€€InÐ 0"€  Ðdetermining€proportionality,€one€must€compare€all€similar€crimes€and€defendants,€not€just€thoseÐ #l! Ðdefendants€whose€prosecution€is€more€vigorously€pursued€by€the€State.€€Omitting€cases€in€which€theÐ $X" Ðdeath€penalty€was€not€sought€skews€the€proportionality€analysis,€for€similar€life€cases€upon€whichÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendant€otherwise€could€rely€often€will€be€excluded.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€While€it€is€acceptable€and€appropriateÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€State€should€have€discretion€in€seeking€the€death€penalty,€it€is€neither€logical€nor€appropriateÐ ° Ðfor€the€State€to€indirectly€determine,€by€the€use€of€prosecutorial€discretion,€the€cases€this€CourtÐ œì Ðultimately€may€consider€in€determining€comparative€proportionality€aspects€of€an€individualÐ ˆØ Ðdefendantððs€death€sentence.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOther€states€have€approved€comparison€of€all€death„eligible€cases€regardless€of€whether€theÐ L œ Ðdeath€penalty€was€sought.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòNew€Jersey€v.€Mortonóó,€757€A.2d€184,€189€(N.J.€2000)€(holdingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€court€would€ð ðconsider€all€death„eligible€cases,€whether€or€not€they€were€capitally€prosecuted,Ð $ t Ðbecause€the€Stateððs€decision€not€to€prosecute€the€defendant€capitally€does€not€necessarily€reflect€onÐ  ` Ðthe€defendantððs€lack€of€deathworthinessðð);€òòWashington€v.€Brownóó,€940€P.2d€546,€561€(Wash.€1997)Ð ü L  Ð(ð ðThis€pool€of€similar€cases€includes€those€in€which€the€death€penalty€was€sought€and€those€in€whichÐ è 8  Ðit€was€not.ðð);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòTichnellóó,€468€A.2d€at€18€(Md.€1983)€(including€in€the€pool€cases€in€which€theÐ Ô$  ÐState€sought€the€death€penalty,€but€noting€that€ð ðwe€do€not€preclude€any€defendant€.€.€.€[from€arguing]Ð À  Ðthat€designated€non„capital€murder€cases€are€similar€to€the€case€then€under€scrutiny€and€should€beÐ ¬ü  Ðtaken€into€accountðð).€€Only€by€implementing€such€a€standard€will€the€Court€ensure€that€our€protocolÐ ˜è  Ðprovides€a€reliable€proportionality€assessment.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àBeyond€broadening€the€pool€to€more€effectively€consider€all€similar€first€degree€murder€cases,Ð \¬ ÐI€submit€that€one€of€the€primary€means€for€review€of€that€pool€of€cases,€this€Courtððs€Rule€12Ð H˜ Ðdatabase,€may€also€need€intensive€scrutiny€and€extensive€Ô_ÔsupplementionÔ_Ô.€€Recently,€questions€haveÐ 4„ Ðbegun€to€surface€concerning€whether€the€Rule€12€database€is€sufficiently€accurate€or€complete€toÐ  p Ðjustify€reliance€by€this€Court€in€crucial€reviews€of€death€penalty€cases.€€Especially€significant€is€aÐ  \ Ðseries€of€articles€which€appeared€in€The€Tennessean€newspaper.€€One€of€the€articles€suggests€thatÐ øH Ðglaring€and€pervasive€flaws€exist€in€the€Rule€12€database.€€òòSeeóó€John€Shiffman,€òòMissing€Files€RaiseÐ ä4 ÐDoubts€About€Death€Sentencesóó,€The€Tennessean€(Nashville),€July€22,€2001,€at€A1.€€The€majorityððsÐ Ð  Ðadmission€that€ð ðRule€12€reports€have€not€been€filed€in€every€prior€caseðð€is,€at€best,€a€substantialÐ ¼  Ðunderstatement.€€Shiffman€writes,€ð ðThree€of€every€five€first„degree€murder€convictions€[for€whichÐ ¨ø Ða€report€was€required]€are€missing€from€the€database.€€So,€too,€is€one€of€every€five€death€penaltyÐ ”ä Ðcases,€records€show.€€Whatððs€more,€hundreds€of€cases€included€in€the€database€.€.€.€are€missingÐ €Ð Ðimportant€details€about€the€crime,€defendant,€and€victim.ðð€€òòId.óó€€As€irony€would€have€it,€òòState€v.Ð l¼ ÐBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651€(Tenn.€1997),€the€case€in€which€this€Court€unveiled€the€ð ðpreparation€of€aÐ X ¨ ÐTennessee€CD„Rom€death€penalty€database€which€will€be€used€[for€proportionality€analysis]€by€thisÐ D!” ÐCourt€and€accessible€to€litigants,ðð€is€not€included€in€the€database.€€More€disturbingly,€the€fact€thatÐ 0"€  Ðlife€cases€are€much€more€likely€to€be€omitted€from€the€database€than€death€cases€suggests€thatÐ #l! Ðdefendants€are€placed€at€a€significant€disadvantage€in€their€effort€to€locate€those€cases€upon€whichÐ $X" ÐÑ@¨Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñclaims€of€Ô_ÔdisproportionalityÔ_Ô€may€be€based.€€While€ð ðtraditional€research€methodsðð€may,€as€theÐ ° Ðmajority€suggests,€supplement€the€Rule€12€reports,€such€methods€are€at€once€more€expensive,€timeÐ œì Ðconsuming,€and€difficult€than€a€search€of€the€Rule€12€database.€€Thus,€the€errors€and€omissions€fromÐ ˆØ Ðthe€Rule€12€database,€whether€as€extensive€as€suggested€or€not,€present€a€very€real€obstacle€forÐ tÄ Ðdefendants.€€Moreover,€the€majorityððs€platitudinous€assertion€that€ð ðexperienced€judgment€andÐ `° Ðinstitutional€knowledgeðð׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€will€somehow€overcome€the€flaws€plaguing€other€facets€of€theÐ L œ Ðproportionality€analysis€is€likely€to€be€of€little€comfort€to€defendants€facing€a€review€protocol€whichÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€already€too€subjective.€€In€my€view,€the€errors€and€omissions€in€the€Rule€12€database,€whetherÐ $ t Ðmany€or€few,€inject€€into€this€Courtððs€proportionality€review€a€real€possibility€of€error.€€UntilÐ  ` Ðremedied,€this€flawed€database€stands€as€yet€another€obstacle€to€a€fair€and€reliable€comparativeÐ ü L  Ðproportionality€review€in€Tennessee.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àBeyond€the€test€used€in€the€majority€protocol€and€the€cases€to€be€included€in€the€comparisonÐ À  Ðpool,€there€remains€one€additional€area€of€concern€in€proportionality€analysisð!ðthe€lack€of€objectivityÐ ¬ü  Ðin€identifying€which€cases€are€ð ðsimilarðð€to€the€case€under€review€for€the€purposes€of€proportionalityÐ ˜è  Ðanalysis.€€I€would€provide€a€more€objective€means€for€identifying€the€cases€to€be€used€forÐ „Ô  Ðcomparison.€€As€I€stated€in€òòChalmersóó,€ð ð[w]ithout€some€objective€standard€to€guide€reviewing€courts,Ð pÀ Ðððproportionalityðð€becomes€nothing€more€than€a€statement€that€the€reviewing€court€was€able€toÐ \¬ Ðdescribe€the€case€before€it€in€terms€comparable€to€other€capital€cases.ðð€€28€S.W.3d€at€924€(Birch,€J.,Ð H˜ Ðconcurring€and€dissenting).€€The€approach€taken€in€Washington€may€be€instructive.€€In€òòWashingtonÐ 4„ Ðv.€Pirtleóó,€the€Washington€Supreme€Court€noted€that€quantifiable€details€such€as€the€number€ofÐ  p Ðaggravating€circumstances,€victims,€and€prior€convictions€should€be€emphasized€ð ðin€order€to€beÐ  \ Ðobjective€as€possible.ðð€€904€P.2d€245,€276€(Wash.€1995).€€Although€the€òòPirtleóó€court€noted€thatÐ øH Ðproportionality€is€not€a€task€reducible€to€statistics,€it€nonetheless€emphasized€that€ð ðnumbers€can€pointÐ ä4 Ðto€areas€of€concern.ðð€€òòId.óó׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWithin€the€framework€provided€by€òòBlandóó,€objective€criteria€could€be€used€to€more€clearlyÐ ¨ø Ðselect€which€cases€should€be€used€for€comparison,€thus€lessening€the€inclination€to€subjectivelyÐ ”ä Ðcharacterize€cases€in€order€to€reach€desired€results.€€Many€factors€recorded€in€the€trial€courtððs€RuleÐ €Ð Ð12€report€in€first€degree€murder€cases,€such€as€the€number€and€type€of€aggravating€and€mitigatingÐ l¼ Ðfactors€found€by€the€jury,€the€defendant€and€victimððs€age,€race,€and€gender,€the€existence€or€lack€ofÐ X ¨ Ðprior€convictions,€and€the€number€of€victims,€may€be€objectively€quantified.€€A€case€which€does€notÐ D!” Ðshare€a€significant€number€of€these€objective€criteria€should€be€used€only€in€rare€instances.€€WhileÐ 0"€  Ðmore€subjective€factors€such€as€motive€and€manner€of€death€may€further€refine€the€comparison,€theseÐ ° Ðfactors€are€too€malleable€to€justify€primary€reliance.€€Emphasis€on€objective€factors€would€ensureÐ œì Ðconsistency€in€the€review€protocol.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€scope€of€the€analysis€employed€by€the€majority€appears€to€be€rather€amorphous€andÐ `° Ðundefinedð!ðexpanding,€contracting,€and€shifting€as€the€analysis€moves€from€case€to€case.€€TheÐ L œ Ðdifficulties€inherent€in€applying€this€protocol€become€evident€when€applied€to€the€case€underÐ 8 ˆ Ðsubmission.€€The€majority€lists€several€factors€that€it€considered€in€its€proportionality€analysis.€òò€InterÐ $ t Ðaliaóó,€it€notes€that€(1)€the€defendant€reacted€violently€when€the€victim€would€not€stop€crying;€(2)€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant€inflicted€serious,€and€ultimately€fatal,€injuries;€(3)€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€notÐ ü L  Ðprovoked€or€justified;€(4)€the€victim€was€helpless;€(5)€the€killing€did€not€appear€to€be€premeditated;Ð è 8  Ð(6)€the€defendant€was€caring€for€the€victim€while€the€victimððs€mother€was€at€work;€and€(7)€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€delayed€seeking€assistance€for€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó€Majority€op.€at€___.€€All€of€these€factors,Ð À  Ðhowever,€are€also€present€in€òòState€v.€Torresóó,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€one€of€the€ð ðdeathðð€cases€the€majority€includes€in€itsÐ ¬ü  Ðcomparison€pool.€€Indeed,€except€for€one€additional€aggravating€circumstance€found€by€the€jury׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€that€the€victim€in€òòTorresóó€suffered€prior€abuse,€the€two€cases€are€remarkably€similar.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWhile€the€victim€in€òòTorresóó€may€have€suffered€more€serious€abuse,€the€majorityððs€conclusionÐ \¬ Ðthat€this€case€is€ð ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstancesðð€similar€to€òòTorresóó€seems€inconsistent€with€priorÐ H˜ Ðcases€in€which€the€majority€has€sometimes€upheld€death€sentences€by€comparison€to€cases€so€widelyÐ 4„ Ðdivergent€that€they€share€no€similarity€but€a€single€aggravating€circumstance€found€by€the€jury.€€InÐ  p ÐòòState€v.€Baneóó,׃< ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€example,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€choking€and€stabbing€an€elderly€victimÐ  \ Ðduring€a€planned€robbery;€the€Court€upheld€the€death€sentence€on€a€finding€that€the€case€was€notÐ øH Ðð ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstancesðð€with€such€cases€as€òòState€v.€Vannóó,×ƒÈ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€involving€an€eight-year-oldÐ ä4 Ðvictim€killed€during€the€perpetration€of€aggravated€rape€and€incest;€òòState€v.€Hallóó,׃T ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€involving€aÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€who€burned€his€ex-girlfriend€to€death€after€pouring€gasoline€on€her€while€she€was€lyingÐ ¼  Ðin€the€front€seat€of€her€car;€and€€òòState€v.€Mannóó,׃à ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€involving€the€aggravated€rape€and€murder€of€anÐ ¨ø Ðelderly€woman.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaneóó,€___€S.W.3d€at€___€n.2€(Birch,€J.,€concurring€and€dissenting)€(noting€thatÐ ° Ðthe€majorityððs€ð ðnotion€of€similarity€appears€to€be€highly€malleableðð).€€Given€the€variety€andÐ œì Ðdissimilarity€of€cases€relied€on€in€the€òòBaneóó€proportionality€analysis,€the€majorityððs€finding€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðpending€case€is€ð ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstancesðð€similar€to€òòTorresóó€seems€difficult€to€justify.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðmajorityððs€analysis,€it€would€seem,€may€have€been€guided€more€by€subjective,€result„orientedÐ `° Ðjudgment€than€by€an€objectively€measurable€evaluation€of€the€pool€of€comparison€cases.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€then,€I€would€reform€the€Courtððs€review€protocol€as€follows:€€First,€in€order€to€moreÐ $ t Ðreliably€identify€disproportionate€sentences,€I€would€ask€whether€the€case€under€review€was€moreÐ  ` Ðconsistent€with€ð ðlifeðð€or€ð ðdeathðð€cases,€rather€than€requiring€that€the€case€be€ð ðplainly€lacking€inÐ ü L  Ðcircumstancesðð€comparable€to€death€penalty€cases.€€Second,€I€would€expand€the€pool€of€comparisonÐ è 8  Ðcases€to€include€all€first€degree€murder€cases,€not€just€those€cases€in€which€the€State€chose€to€seekÐ Ô$  Ðthe€death€penalty,€and€I€would€revamp€the€Courtððs€Rule€12€database€to€ensure€that€it€is€complete,Ð À  Ðreliable,€and€accurate.€€Finally,€I€would€more€heavily€emphasize€objectivity€in€selecting€which€casesÐ ¬ü  Ðare€ð ðsimilarðð€to€the€case€under€review€for€the€purposes€of€comparison.€€The€soundness€of€the€changesÐ ˜è  ÐI€propose€may€be€illustrated€through€application€to€the€case€under€submission.€€This€case€may€notÐ „Ô  Ðplainly€lack€circumstances€similar€to€òòTorresóó,€but€its€objectively€measurable€aspects€certainly€are€moreÐ pÀ Ðconsistent€with€the€numerous€ð ðlifeðð€cases€cited€by€the€majority.€€In€addition€to€those€cases,€I€wouldÐ \¬ Ðalso€include€several€ð ðlifeðð€cases€in€which€the€State€did€not€seek€the€death€penalty,€thus€furtherÐ H˜ Ðreinforcing€the€conclusion€that€the€death€sentence€in€the€case€under€submission€is€comparativelyÐ 4„ Ðdisproportionate.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àMy€research€and€review€of€the€current€Rule€12€database€of€capital€cases€reveals€a€number€ofÐ øH Ðfirst€degree€murder€cases€involving€child€abuse€which€were€excluded€from€comparison€by€theÐ ä4 Ðmajority€because€the€State€opted€not€to€seek€the€death€penalty.€€In€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€No.€02C01„9511„Ð Ð  ÐCR„00343,€1997€WL€287646€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€the€22„month„old€victim,€who€had€been€leftÐ ¼  Ðwith€the€defendant€while€the€victimððs€mother€was€at€work,€died€of€extreme€injuries€including€organÐ ¨ø Ðcontusions,€broken€ribs,€broken€blood€vessels€and€cuts,€bruises,€and€marks€on€the€neck,€face,€andÐ ”ä Ðabdomen.€€The€defendant€originally€claimed€the€victim€was€injured€in€a€fall,€but€later€admittedÐ €Ð Ðspanking€and€kicking€the€victim€on€multiple€occasions.€€The€defendant€received€a€life€sentence.€€InÐ l¼ ÐòòState€v.€Rhodesóó,€No.€M1999„959„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€264327€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000),€the€18„Ð X ¨ Ðmonth„old€victim€was€brought€to€the€hospital€unconscious€and€in€cardiac€arrest,€with€extensiveÐ D!” Ðbruising€to€the€arms,€legs,€and€face.€€The€victim€died€of€blunt€force€trauma€to€the€head.€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€later€confessed€to€beating€the€victim€with€a€switch€and€striking€him€in€the€head.€€TheÐ #l! Ðdefendant€received€a€life€sentence.€€Inòò€State€v.€Anthony€Hodgesóó,€7€S.W.3d€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð $X" Ð1999),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€òòState€v.€Kena€Hodgesóó,€No.€01C01„9804„CR„00170,€1999€WL€618861€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ô$D # ÐApp.€1999),€the€2„year„old€victim€was€found€dead€in€the€Hodgesðð€residence,€already€in€rigor€mortis.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€victim€had€died€of€blunt€force€trauma€to€the€head€and€torso€causing€intracranial€bleeding,Ð Ì&"% Ðswelling,€and€laceration€of€the€liver.€€Though€the€victim€was€alone€with€Anthony€Hodges€for€muchÐ ¸'#& Ðof€the€day€before€her€death,€there€was€evidence€to€indicate€that€both€parents€had€participated€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbeating€and€abusing€the€victim.€€Anthony€Hodges€received€a€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibilityÐ )à$( Ðof€parole;€Kena€Hodges€received€a€life€sentence.€€In€òòState€v.€Lyonsóó,€No.€M1999„00249„CCA„R3„CD,Ð ° Ð2000€WL€218131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000),€the€defendant€babysat€the€victim€while€the€victimððsÐ œì Ðmother€was€at€work.€€When€the€victimððs€mother€returned€home,€the€victim€appeared€sick.€€The€victimÐ ˆØ Ðstopped€breathing€the€next€day€and€was€transported€to€the€hospital,€where€she€died.€€An€autopsyÐ tÄ Ðrevealed€extensive€contusions€and€scrapes€to€the€head€and€multiple€tears€of€the€mesentery€caused€byÐ `° Ðblunt€trauma€to€the€abdomen.€€While€left€alone€during€a€police€interrogation,€the€defendant€wasÐ L œ Ðvideotaped€talking€to€himself€about€punching€the€victim€in€the€stomach.€€The€defendant€received€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðlife€sentence.€€In€òòState€v.€Burgessóó,€No.€M1999„02040„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€43216€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐApp.€2001),€the€16„month„old€victim€was€briefly€left€unsupervised€with€the€defendant€by€the€victimððsÐ  ` Ðmother.€€The€mother€subsequently€discovered€the€victim€was€unresponsive,€lethargic,€and€unable€toÐ ü L  Ðsit€or€stand.€€The€victim€was€taken€to€the€hospital,€where€she€died;€the€cause€of€death€was€identifiedÐ è 8  Ðas€massive€internal€bleeding€caused€by€blows€of€considerable€force€to€the€abdomen.€€The€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðlater€confessed€to€hitting€the€victim€in€the€stomach.€€The€defendant€received€a€life€sentence.€€In€òòStateÐ À  Ðv.€Lacyóó,€983€S.W.2d€686€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€the€defendant€beat€and€abused€the€5„year„oldÐ ¬ü  Ðvictim€over€an€extended€period€of€time.€€The€victim€was€found€dead€after€being€left€alone€for€the€dayÐ ˜è  Ðwith€the€defendant.€€The€cause€of€death€was€determined€to€be€multiple€blunt€force€injuries€whichÐ „Ô  Ðcaused€severe€internal€bleeding;€the€victim€also€had€evidence€of€burns,€scratches,€abrasions,€scars,Ð pÀ Ðand€fractures.€€One€doctor€testified€that€the€victim€had€suffered€the€most€severe€blunt€trauma€injuriesÐ \¬ Ðhe€had€ever€seen.€€The€defendant€received€a€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€InÐ H˜ ÐòòState€v.€Shephardóó,€No.€E2000„00628„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€767010€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Ô_Ô2001),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ 4„ Ðthe€victim€began€crying€uncontrollably€and€showing€signs€of€sickness€after€being€left€unsupervisedÐ  p Ðwith€the€defendant.€€The€victimððs€sickness€grew€progressively€worse.€€The€victimððs€mother€then€leftÐ  \ Ðthe€victim€unsupervised€with€the€defendant€again€the€following€night,€and€at€some€point€in€theÐ øH Ðevening,€the€defendant€appeared€at€a€hospital€with€the€victim,€who€was€not€breathing€and€had€noÐ ä4 Ðpulse.€€The€defendant€claimed€he€ð ðaccidentally€hit€[the€victim]€on€the€back€of€the€head€with€a€littleÐ Ð  Ð[toy]€TV.ðð€€The€victim€died€from€a€cerebral€hemorrhage€and€extensive€bilateral€hemorrhage€in€theÐ ¼  Ðback€layer€of€both€eyes.€€The€victim€also€suffered€from€two€broken€ribs€caused€by€ð ðenormousÐ ¨ø Ðpressure€of€squeezing.ðð€€The€defendant€received€a€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àWhen€the€facts€of€the€case€under€submission€are€compared€to€the€cases€listed€above€and€toÐ l¼ Ðthose€cases€listed€by€the€majority€in€which€the€defendant€received€a€death€sentence,׃(T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€it€is€clear€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€State€typically€does€not€seek€the€death€penalty,€and€juries€typically€do€not€impose€the€deathÐ D!” Ðpenalty,€in€cases€similar€to€Godseyððs€case.€€Indeed,€most€of€the€ð ðlifeðð€cases€listed€above€exhibitÐ ° Ðsignificantly€more€egregious€circumstances€than€the€case€before€the€Court.€€Thus,€Godseyððs€deathÐ œì Ðsentence€appears€to€be€aberrant.€€Because€Godseyððs€case€is€more€consistent€with€cases€for€whichÐ ˆØ Ðdefendants€typically€receive€a€sentence€of€life€or€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€I€concur€in€theÐ tÄ Ðmajorityððs€decision€to€modify€his€sentence€to€life€imprisonment.Ð `° ÐÓ  ÓÌÓPrÓà  àIn€light€of€the€issues€I€have€discussed€above,€I€continue€to€be€dissatisfied€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcomparative€proportionality€review€protocol€embraced€by€the€majority.€€Until€the€flaws€in€our€reviewÐ $ t Ðprotocol€are€corrected,€I€am€constrained€to€hold€that€comparative€proportionality€review,€as€appliedÐ  ` Ðby€the€majority,€ð ðcreates€an€impression€of€enormous€regulatory€effort€but€achieves€negligibleÐ ü L  Ðregulatory€effects.ðð€€òòCf.óó€Carol€S.€Steiker€and€Jordan€M.€Steiker,€òòSober€Second€Thoughts:€€ReflectionsÐ è 8  Ðon€Two€Decades€of€Constitutional€Regulation€of€Capital€Punishmentóó,€109€Harv.€L.€Rev.€355€(1995)Ð Ô$  Ð(generally€discussing€capital€punishment).€€Accordingly,€I€respectfully€dissent.Ð À  ÐÔ‡Xè¸XXXè¸ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JUSTICEÔ#†Xè¸XXX踬u#Ô