ÿWPCj amð—âXÎ2 øœHÏvˆ‰óÞ„÷Ùž íe?Iƒ>.™Ó'!ªማ\ƒ/æºêàþñ‰Ó²ÚÛP"C›Ø —²Vù#~ (­‚·$d(/HU£²t$³–½µ/UW ž4Ž$$5‚™¤B˾R/öŠa$-z“'dÒšŽkž\{§mQŒ@+ZÕ%ÄÅœnå¾Ï§ªá¥ª^`õša [¤ƒ:t|[a>”A\Gyuí#Qkãg€˜Á9¼²îº-½Ã«;ÿÕ)¹Þ(ä6ו³÷HLªZöÿ÷Gímç»Ï'ãÈëôñÿïÄÇ&ŸYm^|0y$²¡+*}¸c›ìŒ¨î«IÊ•e 0ÔûÊ·Ø?"\hrPõÊ"¶HVNjdäæ¶Õò ]â¨âكĮ;+«ñ¤T¾¼áZs÷$aë,þn­¹H=뫽´ ò˜Dë`ÀŒŒ7•þ+¬bõŒüI€ôhšR|f(Û ”0 KJX ØªGºRvµRb‚q‹D÷ÆÞ3 µ…† &4ÔúSíóþl±j0z‚Z€7\ÉM.ôV=I!2 Ÿ7 ü§´Šêª’œBNX¶»w ò0?äN¸“µî¿Õ©µb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U%N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#ÌéNµ 0D·œûE—–™þ/v-´£ 1W 72ä 1u 72‹ 0c½ `$!j„#âî)-Ð*Ìý,²É-¡{0P1UNl9cº9•AѲCUNƒDbÑDÙD[êEs EJž¸W¸WV[V[[qcqcqcqcqcqcqcqcqcqcqcqcÌdU,ÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔdÔd 0ëeeee Bëeëe 0¤f D3¬f D-ßf 0K g g ASWgƪg 0¤ph 0Di A«Xi˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»è‹}+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+.bk1€Õ  ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÂÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ’Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€CAT€scan,€or€computerized€axial€tomography,€involves€the€use€of€x„rays€to€gather€ð ðanatomical€informationÐ ° Ðfrom€a€cross„sectional€plane€of€the€body€.€.€.€.ðð€€Ô_ÔSteadmanÔ_Ôððs€Medical€Dictionary€1459€(5òòthóó€ed.€1984).€ ŒÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ôÿMòòôÿMÔThe€defendant€did€not€accompany€Ms.€Marshall€to€the€emergency€room€because€he€was€not€dressed€andÐ ° Ðbecause€he€had€to€arrange€care€for€Christianððs€daughter€who€had€remained€with€Ms.€Marshall€after€€Christian€went€home. ôÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ôÿMòòôÿMÔòòSeeóó,€òòÔ_ÔWillettÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€937,€945„46€(Ark.€1995)€(stating€that€Arkansas€Supreme€Court€will€noÐ ° Ðlonger€conduct€proportionality€reviews);€òòState€v.€Salazaróó,€844€P.2d€566,€583„84€(Az.€1992)€(stating€that€the€ArizonaÐ tÄ ÐSupreme€Court€will€discontinue€proportionality€review);€€1995€Conn.€Acts€16,€ðð3(b)€(Reg.€Sess.)€(repealing€the€statutoryÐ 8ˆ Ðprovision€requiring€proportionality€review);€1994€Idaho€Sess.€Laws€127€(S.B.€1302)€(same);€1992€Md.€Laws€331€(Ô_ÔH.B.Ô_ÔÐ üL Ð590)€(same);€1985€Nev.€Stat.€527€(same);€1985€Okla.€Sess.€Laws,€Ch.€265,€ðð€1€(same);€1997€Ô_ÔPa.Legis.ServÔ_Ô.€Act€1997„28,Ð À Ððð€1€(S.B.€423)€(same);€Wyo.€Stat.€ðð€6„4„103(d)€(same). lÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€its€entirety€the€statute€provides:Ð ° Ðà8  à(a)€€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€aggravated€child€abuse€or€aggravated€child€neglect€who€commitsÐ tÄ Ðthe€offense€of€child€abuse€or€neglect€as€defined€in€ðð€39„15„401€and:Ð8ˆÐ Ð  Ðà0  à(1)€The€act€of€abuse€or€neglect€results€in€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€child;€orÐüL(#(# Ðà0  à(2)€A€deadly€weapon€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act€of€abuse.ÐÀ(#(# Ðà8  à(€b)€A€violation€of€this€section€is€a€Class€B€Felony;€provided,€that,€if€the€abused€or€neglected€child€isÐ „Ô Ðsix€(6)€years€of€age€or€less,€the€penalty€is€a€Class€A€felony.ÐH ˜Ð Ð  Ð ªÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCfóó.€footnote€3€in€òòState€v.€James€Lloyd€Julian,€IIóó,€No.€03C01„9511„CV„00371,€1997€WL€412539€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð ° ÐApp.,€€July€24,€1997)(suggesting€that€the€trial€court€might€err€if€it€allowed€a€jury€considering€the€death€penalty€to€considerÐ tÄ Ðaggravating€circumstance€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€where€the€indictment€charged€rape€of€a€child€or€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€as€theÐ 8ˆ Ðunderlying€felony€of€felony€murder).(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à úÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThat€statute€was€effective€until€July€1,€1995€and€€provided€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€€€ð ðFirst€Degree€murderÐ ° Ðis€.€.€.€(4)€[a]€reckless€killing€of€a€child€less€than€sixteen€(16)€years€of€age,€if€the€childððs€death€results€from€aggravatedÐ tÄ Ðchild€abuse,€as€defined€by€ðð€39„15„402,€committed€by€the€defendant€against€the€child.ðð€ VÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÿMòòôÿMÔThe€statute€under€which€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€was€convicted€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð ° Ðà8  àð ð(a)€First€degree€murder€is€.€.€.€(2)€A€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€or€attempt€toÐ tÄ Ðperpetrate€.€.€.€aggravated€child€abuse€.€.€.€.€ð ð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€&€(b).€Ð8ˆÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†ôÿMòò ôÿM#Ô `Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÿMòòôÿMÔIn€so€stating€we€are€aware€that€aggravated€child€abuse€is€punishable€as€a€Class€A€felony€if€the€victim€is€underÐ ° Ðsix€years€of€age.€€In€fact,€in€òòÔ_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó,€this€Court€held€that€when€the€State€is€invoking€this€enhanced€punishment€portionÐ tÄ Ðof€the€aggravated€child€abuse€statute,€the€age€of€the€victim€is€an€essential€element€of€the€Class€A€felony,€aggravated€childÐ 8ˆ Ðabuse,€and€as€such,€must€be€charged€to€the€jury.€€òòId.óó,€27€S.W.3d€at€899.€€€The€defendant€in€òòÔ_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó€had€been€convictedÐ üL Ðof€two€counts€of€aggravated€child€abuse.€€Therefore,€the€key€issue€was€the€appropriate€felony€classification€for€purposesÐ À Ðof€sentencing.€€However,€when€the€State€is€seeking€a€conviction€for€felony€murder€by€aggravated€child€abuse,€theÐ „Ô Ðenhanced€punishment€portion€of€the€aggravated€child€abuse€statute€is€not€relevant.€€If€the€defendant€is€found€guilty€ofÐ H ˜ Ðfelony€murder€by€aggravated€child€abuse,€the€sentencing€provisions€for€first€degree€murder€will€apply,€not€the€sentencingÐ  \ Ðprovisions€for€aggravated€child€abuse.€€Therefore,€the€age€of€the€victim€contained€in€subsection€(b)€of€the€aggravatedÐ Ð  Ðchild€abuse€statute€is€not€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€of€felony€murder€by€aggravated€child€abuse.Ô#†ôÿMòò ôÿM#Ô ØÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966). #Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ôÿMòòôÿMÔUnder€current€law€a€sentencing€hearing€may€be€conducted€to€determine€whether€the€sentence€should€be€lifeÐ ° Ðimprisonment€or€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€even€if€the€State€does€not€seek€the€death€penalty.€Ð tÄ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(a).€€Under€prior€law,€a€penalty€hearing€was€held€only€if€the€State€sought€the€death€penalty. ÂÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270„71.€ ¨Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòGreggóó,€428€U.S.€at€206;€96€S.€Ct.€at€2940;€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€665;€òòState€v.€Webbóó,€680€A.2d€147,€211Ð ° Ð(Conn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Welcomeóó,€485€So.€2d€1235,€1258€(La.€1983);€òòÔ_ÔTichnellÔ_Ôóó,€468€A.2d€at€15;€òòState€v.€McNeillóó,€485Ð tÄ ÐS.E.2d€284,€289€(N.C.€1997);€òòState€v.€Beyóó,€645€A.2d€685€(N.J.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Rhinesóó,€548€N.W.2d€415,€457€(S.D.Ð 8ˆ Ð1996);€òòÔ_ÔPirtleÔ_Ôóó,€904€P.2d€245,€276€(Wash.€1995). —Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€460. FÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€the€twenty€states€which€still€require€comparative€review,€only€three€states€include€in€the€pool€all€death„Ð ° Ðeligible€homicide€convictions€or€indictments.€€òòSeeóó€Ga.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„10„37(a);€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€376€So.2d€300,€312„13Ð tÄ Ð(La.€1979);€N.Y.€Ô_ÔJudÔ_Ô.€Law€ðð€211„a€(death„eligible€indictments).€€New€Hampshire€has€not€defined€the€pool€for€comparisonÐ 8ˆ Ðbecause€it€has€no€one€on€death€row,€even€though€it€has€a€capital€sentencing€scheme.€€Of€the€remaining€sixteen€states,€eightÐ üL 8 Ðlimit€the€pool€for€comparison€to€cases€in€which€a€death€sentence€actually€has€been€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBeck€v.€Stateóó,€396Ð ° ÐSo.2d€645,€664€(Ala.€1980);€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€437€So.2d€133,€137€(Fla.€1983);€€òòGall€v.€Commonwealthóó,€607€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð97€(Ky.€1980);€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€421€So.2d€1009€(Miss.€1982);€€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€399€N.W.2d€706,€733€(Neb.€1986);€€N.J.Ð 8ˆ ÐStat.€Ann.€ðð€2C:11„3;€òòState€v.€Steffenóó,€509€N.E.2d€383,€395€(Ohio€1987);€€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,€300€S.E.2d€63€(S.C.€1982).€Ð üL ÐEight€other€states€consider€cases€in€which€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€actually€was€held€and€death€was€a€sentencingÐ À Ðoption,€regardless€of€the€sentence€actually€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔFlamerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€490€A.2d€104,€139€(Del.€1983);€òòState€v.Ð „Ô ÐÔ_ÔWhitfieldÔ_Ôóó,€837€S.W.2d€503,€515€(Mo.€1992)€(en€banc);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€931€P.2d€1272,€1285€(Mont.€1996);€€òòState€v.Ð H ˜ ÐGarciaóó,€664€P.2d€969€(N.M.€1983);€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€301€S.E.2d€335,€355€(N.C.€1983);€òòRhinesóó,€548€N.W.2d€at€455Ð  \ Ð(S.D.€1996);€€òòJenkins€v.€Commonwealthóó,€423€S.E.2d€360,€371€(Va.€1992);€Wash.€Rev.€Code€Ann.€ðð€10.95.130(2)(b).Ð Ð  Ð.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular YÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€do€not€agree€with€the€dissentððs€assertion€that€discussion€of€òòTorresóó€in€this€case€ð ðmay€be€problematicðð€sinceÐ ° ÐòòTorresóó€will€be€reviewed€by€this€Court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)(2000).€€As€previously€stated,€theÐ tÄ Ðpool€of€similar€cases€for€comparison€includes€all€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€the€State€seeks€the€death€penalty,Ð 8ˆ Ða€capital€sentencing€hearing€is€held,€and€a€sentencing€jury€Ô‡)ôÿMòòôÿMÔdetermines€whether€the€sentence€should€be€life,€life€withoutÐ üL Ðthe€possibility€of€parole,€or€death.€€Whether€or€not€an€appeal€is€taken€and€whether€or€not€any€appeal€taken€is€concludedÐ À Ðis€not€relevant€to€determining€which€cases€are€included€in€the€pool.€€Comparative€proportionality€review€focuses€uponÐ „Ô Ðthe€sentencing€decisions€made€by€jurors€across€the€State€in€similar€cases,€involving€similar€defendants.€€€òòTorresóó€clearlyÐ H ˜ Ðis€a€part€of€the€pool€for€purposes€of€comparative€proportionality€review,€and€therefore€may€€appropriately€be€consideredÐ  \ Ðand€discussed,€regardless€of€the€status€of€any€appeal.€€We€emphasize€that€our€discussion€of€òòTorresóó€does€not€constituteÐ Ð  Ða€judgment€or€prejudgment€of€the€validity€of€his€conviction€or€sentenceòòóó.€€It€is€pertinent€here€because€it€is€a€similar€caseÐ ” ä  Ðin€which€a€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty,€and€both€the€State€and€the€defendant€herein€relied€upon€òòTorresóó.€€Unlike€theÐ X ¨  Ðdissent,€we€discern€no€problem€with€discussing€òòTorresòòóóóó€in€this€context.Ð  l  ÐÌÌÔ#†ôÿMòò)ôÿMl#Ô€ ‹Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÿMòòôÿMÔAs€pointed€out€in€òòBlandóó,€defendants€are€not€precluded€from€relying€upon€and€utilizing€the€entire€ð ðuniverseððÐ ° Ðof€first€degree€murder€cases€when€attempting€to€establish€a€claim€for€selective€prosecution€under€the€Equal€ProtectionÐ tÄ ÐClause,€òòseeóó€òòÔ_ÔWayteÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€470€U.S.€598,€608,€105€S.€Ct.€1524,€1531,€84€L.€Ed.2d€547€(1985).€€òòSeeóó€òòBlandóó,€958Ð 8ˆ ÐS.W.2d€at€666,€n.17. ÇÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€this€time,€Ms.€Marshallððs€other€children€were€visiting€her€mother.€(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular- ù- Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Marshall€testified€that€she€was€gone€six€minutes.€€The€defendant€stated€that€she€was€gone€three€minutesÐ ° Ðat€most.€ QÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Côð¹ òòôÿMÔAs€the€North€Carolina€Supreme€Court€noted€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€301€S.E.2d€335,€355Ð ° Ð(N.C.€1983),€ð ð[Ô_Ôe]venÔ_Ô€those€with€extensive€training€in€data€collection€and€statistical€evaluationÐ pÀ Ðand€analysis€are€unable€to€agree€concerning€the€type€of€statistical€methodology€which€shouldÐ 0€ Ðbe€employed€if€statistical€or€mathematical€models€are€adopted€for€purposes€of€proportionalityÐ ð@ Ðreview.ðð€€(Citing€Ô_ÔBaldusÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔPulaskiÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔWoodworthÔ_Ô€and€Kyle,€òòIdentifying€Comparatively€ExcessiveÐ ° ÐSentences€of€Death:€A€Quantitative€Approachóó,€33€Stan.€L.€Rev.€1€(1980);€Ô_ÔDixÔ_Ô,€òòAppellateÐ pÀ ÐReview€of€the€Decision€to€Impose€Deathóó,€68€Ô_ÔGeoÔ_Ô.€L.€J.€97€(1979)). i Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòPeople€v.€Holtóó,€937€P.2d€213€(Cal.€1997)€(holding€that€the€failure€to€record€statements€did€not€violate€the€dueÐ ° Ðprocess€clause€of€either€the€state€or€federal€constitution);€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔRaibonÔ_Ôóó,€843€P.2d€46€(Colo.€Ct.€App.€1992)€(holdingÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€failure€to€videotape€or€audiotape€the€defendantððs€statements€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€due€process€rightsÐ 8ˆ Ðunder€the€Colorado€Constitution);€òòColeman€v.€Stateóó,€375€S.E.2d€663€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1988)(holding€that€police€were€notÐ üL Ðrequired€to€electronically€record€the€defendantððs€custodial€statements€in€order€for€the€statements€to€be€admissible);€òòStateÐ À Ðv.€Ô_ÔKekonaÔ_Ôóó,€886€P.2d€740€(Haw.€1994)€(holding€that€the€failure€to€electronically€record€custodial€interrogation€was€notÐ „Ô Ða€due€process€violation);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔRhoadesÔ_Ôóó,€820€P.2d€665€(Idaho€1991)€(holding€that€statements€made€in€custody€do€notÐ H ˜ Ðhave€to€be€tape„recorded€in€order€to€be€admissible);€òòPeople€v.€Everettóó,€543€N.E.2d€1040€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(holdingÐ  \ Ðthat€the€failure€to€record€defendantððs€statements€did€not€violate€the€due€process€clause€of€the€Illinois€Constitution);€òòStokerÐ Ð  Ðv.€Stateóó,€692€N.E.2d€1386€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(holding€that€the€Indiana€Constitution€imposed€no€specific€duty€upon€lawÐ ” ä  Ðenforcement€officers€to€record€or€preserve€custodial€interrogations€in€places€of€detention);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBuzzellÔ_Ôóó,€617€A.2dÐ X ¨  Ð1016€(Me.€1992)€(holding€that€the€due€process€clause€of€the€Maine€Constitution€does€not€require€recording€of€custodialÐ  l  ¢ Ðinterrogations);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Diazóó,€661€N.E.2d€1326€(Mass.€1996)€(holding€that€custodial€statements€did€not€haveÐ ° Ðto€be€suppressed€even€though€they€were€not€electronically€recorded);€òòPeople€v.€Fikeóó,€577€N.W.2d€903€(Mich.€Ct.€App.Ð tÄ Ð1998)(holding€that€the€due€process€clause€of€the€Michigan€Constitution€does€not€require€the€recording€of€custodialÐ 8ˆ Ðconfessions);€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€522€So.2d€201€(Miss.€1988)(refusing€to€require€electronic€recording€of€custodialÐ üL Ðinterrogation€as€a€prerequisite€to€admissibility);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Craftóó,€669€A.2d€294€(Pa.€Super.€Ct.€1995)€(holdingÐ À Ðthat€the€Pennsylvania€Constitution€does€not€require€recording€of€custodial€interrogations);€òòState€v.€Jamesóó,€858€P.2d€1012Ð „Ô Ð(Utah€Ct.€App.€1993)€(holding€that€the€Utah€Constitution€does€not€require€electronic€recording€of€custodialÐ H ˜ Ðinterrogations);€òòState€v.€Gortonóó,€548€A.2d€419€(Ô_ÔVtÔ_Ô.€1988)€(refusing€to€adopt€a€constitutional€rule€requiring€the€taping€ofÐ  \ Ðcustodial€interrogations);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKilmerÔ_Ôóó,€439€S.E.2d€881€(W.€Va.€1993)€(holding€that€the€due€process€clause€of€the€WestÐ Ð  ÐVirginia€Constitution€does€not€require€that€police€electronically€record€custodial€interrogations). ”Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡)ôÿMòòôÿMÔThe€dissent€asserts€that€our€discussion€of€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó€and€òòÔ_ÔTeelÔ_Ôóó€is€inappropriate€because€they€are€notÐ ° Ðð ðsimilarðð€cases€as€required€by€statute.€€We€agree€with€the€dissent€that€these€cases€are€not€factually€similar€to€the€caseÐ tÄ Ðunder€consideration;€however,€they€were€relied€upon€by€the€defendant€to€illustrate€that€every€other€capital€case€inÐ 8ˆ ÐTennessee€involving€a€child€victim€is€much€more€aggravated€than€the€killing€in€the€instant€case.€€Given€the€defendantððsÐ üL Ðassertion,€our€consideration€of€every€prior€capital€case€involving€minor€victims€is€appropriate.€Ô#†ôÿMòò)ôÿM#Ô Ý ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBarnettóó,€783€So.2d€at€930„31€(applying€the€merger€doctrine€where€the€first€degree€felony€murderÐ ° Ðstatute€allowing€conviction€based€upon€certain€enumerated€felonies€and€ð ðany€other€felony€clearly€dangerous€to€humanÐ tÄ ¢ Ðlifeðð);€òòHansenóó,€885€P.2d€at€1025„1026€(applying€the€merger€doctrine€where€the€second€degree€felony€murder€statuteÐ ° Ðauthorized€conviction€for€a€killing€committed€during€any€felony€inherently€dangerous€to€human€life);€òòFoster€v.€Stateóó,€444Ð tÄ ÐS.E.2d€296,€297€(Ga.€1994)(applying€the€merger€doctrine€where€a€first€degree€felony€murder€statute€authorized€aÐ 8ˆ Ðconviction€for€a€killing€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€ð ða€felonyðð);€òòPeople€v.€Morganóó,€718€N.E.2d€206,€209€(Ill.Ð üL ÐApp.€Ct.€1999)(applying€the€merger€doctrine€where€a€first€degree€felony€murder€statute€authorized€conviction€for€a€killingÐ À Ðcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€any€forcible€felony)òòóó;€òòCommonwealth€v.€Wadeóó,€697€N.E.2d€541,€545„546€(Mass.Ð „Ô Ð1998)(applying€the€merger€doctrine€where€the€first€degree€felony€murder€statute€authorized€conviction€for€a€killingÐ H ˜ Ðcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€any€felony€punishable€by€life€imprisonment);òòóó€òòCamposóó,€921€P.2d€at€1270„1272Ð  \ Ð(applying€the€merger€doctrine€where€the€first€degree€felony€murder€statute€did€not€enumerate€possible€predicate€felonies);òòóóÐ Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Branchóó,€415€P.2d€766,€767€(Or.€1966)(applying€the€merger€doctrine€where€the€second€degree€felony€murderÐ ” ä  Ðstatute€authorized€conviction€for€a€killing€during€the€perpetration€of€any€felony€other€than€those€specifically€designatedÐ X ¨  Ðby€the€legislature€as€capable€of€supporting€a€first€degree€felony€murder€conviction). QÝ ƒRÄm$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBefore€the€CD„ROM€became€available€in€June€of€1999,€the€only€available€source€for€attorneys€statewide€toÐ ° Ðreview€the€Rule€12€Reports€was€in€the€Appellate€Court€Clerkððs€Office€in€Nashville. 3€8 ZTimes (|G2Äm$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿMò»»Ô d(|3G{$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G{$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼R5»»»ÔÑ8€)XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€ ¼R5»»¼R5ÔÓ=€R5»Ð»dÐd=Óà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡ îžî» ¼R5ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#† ¼R5»î îžh#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€5,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡ X)X» ¼R5ÔÌò òÔ#† ¼R5»X X)O#ÔSà0 @ àTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€BOBBY€G.€Ô_ÔGODSEYÔ_Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ€ X)X» ¼R5Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ  p ÐCriminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S38648€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÐ ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1997„00207„SC„R11„DD€„€Filed€November€29,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓBobby€G.€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€was€convicted€of€first€degree€felony€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€aggravatedÐ ŠÚ Ðchild€abuse.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€jury€imposed€a€€sentence€of€death€upon€finding€thatÐ vÆ Ðthe€single€aggravating€circumstance,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€murder€was€committed€against€a€person€less€than€twelveÐ b² Ð(12)€years€of€age€and€the€defendant€was€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age,€or€older,ððÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€outweighed€mitigatingÐ Nž Ðcircumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€The€defendant€was€also€convicted€of€aggravated€childÐ :Š Ðabuse,€and€the€trial€court€imposed€a€consecutive€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€for€this€conviction.€Ð &v ÐThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ôððs€conviction€for€aggravated€child€abuse,€concludingÐ b Ðthat€the€General€Assembly€did€not€intend€to€permit€a€separate€conviction€and€punishment€forÐ þN Ðaggravated€child€abuse€when€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€first€degree€felony€murder€duringÐ ê: Ðthe€perpetration€of€aggravated€child€abuse.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_ÔððsÐ Ö& Ðconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€However,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€the€sentence€ofÐ Â Ðdeath€comparatively€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases€and€modified€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_ÔððsÐ ®þ Ðsentence€to€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€Both€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€and€the€State€filedÐ šê Ðapplications€for€permission€to€appeal,€which€were€granted€by€this€Court.€€After€carefully€reviewingÐ †Ö Ðthe€record€and€the€relevant€legal€authorities,€we€affirm€that€portion€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsððÐ r  Ðdecision€finding€the€sentence€of€death€disproportionate€and€modifying€the€defendantððs€sentence€toÐ ^!®  Ðlife€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€We€reverse€that€portion€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ J"š! ÐAppealsðð€decision€finding€dual€convictions€for€felony€murder€by€aggravated€child€abuse€andÐ 6#†" Ðaggravated€child€abuse€inappropriate€and€reinstate€the€defendantððs€separate€conviction€and€sentenceÐ "$r# Ðfor€aggravated€child€abuse.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€isÐ %^ $ Ðaffirmed.Ð ú%J!% ÐÌÓ>ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmed€in€Part€andÐ ¾($( ÐReversed€in€Partó óÐ ª)ú$) Ðâ âÐ –*æ%*ý ÐÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€Ð ° Ðâ âJanice€M.€Holderóó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barkeróó,€JJ.€joined.€€Ô_ÔAòòdolphoÔ_Ôóó€A.€Bòòirchóó,€Jòòróó.,€filed€aÐ œì Ðconcurring€&€dissenting€opinion.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌStephen€M.€Wallace,€District€Public€Defender,€Ô_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee€and€James€T.€Bowman,Ð `° ÐJohnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant/appellee,€Bobby€G.€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_ÔÐ L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Alice€B.€Ô_ÔLustreÔ_Ô,Ð $ t ÐAssistant€Attorney€General;€H.€Greeley€Wells,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Barry€Ô_ÔStaubusÔ_Ô,Ð  ` ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee/appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.€Ð ü L  ÐÓÀÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ À  ÐÌò òòòGuilt€Phase€Proofóóó óÐ ˜è  ÐÓ  Óà  àThe€proof€offered€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€demonstrates€that€during€the€fall€of€1995,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€defendant,€twenty„two„year„old€Bobby€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô,€moved€into€an€apartment€with€his€girlfriend,Ð pÀ ÐRobin€Marshall,€and€her€three€children:€five„year„old€Ginger,€four„year„old€Dylan,€and€seven„month„Ð \¬ Ðold€Evan€Price,€the€victim€in€this€case.€€On€January€1,€1996,€Ms.€Marshall€spent€the€day€with€herÐ H˜ Ðchildren€and€her€friend,€Christy€Christian,€and€Christianððs€children.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€arrived€home€from€workÐ 4„ Ðaround€4:30€p.m.€€A€short€time€later,€Ms.€Marshall€left€the€victim€alone€with€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€while€she€droveÐ  p ÐChristian€to€her€apartment€on€the€other€side€of€the€complex.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€Ms.€Marshall€returned€a€shortÐ  \ Ðtime€later,׃/T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€victim€was€lying€on€her€bed.€€She€offered€to€put€the€victim€to€bed€in€his€crib,€but€theÐ øH Ðdefendant€said€he€would€do€it.€€Ms.€Marshall€went€downstairs€and€began€preparing€dinner.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_ÔÐ ä4 Ðcame€downstairs€a€short€time€later,€and€Ms.€Marshall€and€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€watched€a€videotaped€movie€forÐ Ð  Ðapproximately€one€hour.€€When€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€went€upstairs€around€7:15€p.m.€to€wake€the€victim€forÐ ¼  Ðdinner,€he€discovered€the€victim€was€not€breathing.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€brought€the€victim€downstairs,€andÐ ¨ø Ðwhile€Ms.€Marshall€called€911,€the€defendant€attempted€CPR.€€€Because€the€hospital€was€next€doorÐ ”ä Ðto€the€apartment€complex,€Ms.€Marshall€decided€to€drive€the€victim€to€the€hospital€herself.׃¤×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WhenÐ €Ð ÐMs.€Marshall€arrived€at€the€hospital,€the€victim€was€not€breathing€and€his€heart€was€not€beating.€€HeÐ l¼ Ðhad€vomit€on€his€face,€and€small€bruises€on€his€jaw,€forehead,€and€ear,€but€he€was€not€bleedingÐ X ¨ Ðexternally.€€€After€approximately€27€minutes,€medical€personnel€successfully€resuscitated€him€andÐ D!” Ðinserted€an€Ô_ÔendotrachealÔ_Ô€tube.€€X„rays€revealed€a€ð ðtwist„typeðð€fracture€of€the€victimððs€arm€above€theÐ 0"€  Ðright€elbow€and€suggested€a€skull€fracture.€€X„rays€also€revealed€that€the€Ô_ÔendotrachealÔ_Ô€tube€was€notÐ #l! Ðproperly€positioned€and€therefore€was€not€properly€ventilating€both€lungs.€€The€tube€was€retractedÐ $X" Ðto€correct€the€problem.Ð ô$D # Їà  àBecause€further€tests€were€needed,€the€victim€was€transferred€to€the€pediatric€intensive€careÐ ° Ðunit€at€the€Johnson€City€Medical€Center.€€A€CATÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€scan€revealed€three€skull€fractures,€two€on€oneÐ œì Ðside€and€one€on€the€other€side€of€the€back€half€of€the€victimððs€skull.€€The€scan€also€showedÐ ˆØ Ðmoderately€severe€to€severe€brain€swelling.€€Further€medical€examinations€revealed€bilateral€retinalÐ tÄ Ðhemorrhages.Ð `° ÐÌà  àMs.€Marshall€and€the€defendant€spent€the€night€and€most€of€the€next€day€at€the€hospitalÐ 8 ˆ Ðwaiting€for€news€about€the€victim.€€At€noon€on€January€2,€Detective€Ô_ÔDarlaÔ_Ô€Anderson€of€the€KingsportÐ $ t ÐPolice€Department€came€to€the€hospital€and€interviewed€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€about€the€victimððs€injuries.€€He€toldÐ  ` ÐDetective€Anderson€that€for€approximately€five€months€he€had€lived€with€€Ms.€Marshall€and€herÐ ü L  Ðthree€children.€€He€stated€that€he€provided€care€for€the€children€in€the€evenings€from€8:00€or€9:00Ð è 8  Ðp.m.€until€approximately€10:45€or€11:00€p.m.,€while€Ms.€Marshall€worked.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€€admitted€thatÐ Ô$  Ðhe€had€put€the€victim€down€for€a€nap€before€going€downstairs€to€watch€a€movie€with€Ms.€Marshall,Ð À  Ðbut€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€said€the€victim€was€fine€at€that€time.€€When€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€returned€an€hour€later,€he€noticedÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€victim€was€not€breathing.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€suggested€that€the€victimððs€arm€may€have€been€injured€whenÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€moved€him€onto€the€toddler€bed€and€unsuccessfully€attempted€CPR.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€said€someÐ „Ô  Ðð ðyellow€stuffðð€came€out€of€the€victimððs€mouth,€but€the€victim€was€not€breathing.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€thenÐ pÀ Ðcarried€the€victim€downstairs€and€asked€Ms.€Marshall€to€call€911.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àLater€that€afternoon,€Detective€Anderson€drove€to€the€victimððs€apartment€and€met€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_ÔÐ 4„ Ðas€he€was€returning€to€the€hospital.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€drove€back€to€the€apartment€and€allowed€DetectiveÐ  p ÐAnderson€to€inspect€and€photograph€the€victimððs€bedroom,€even€though€€Detective€Anderson€did€notÐ  \ Ðhave€a€search€warrant.€€Detective€Anderson€photographed€the€room€and€noted€that€the€crib€wasÐ øH Ðlocated€approximately€two€feet€from€the€toddler€bed€and€that€the€toddler€bed€was€approximately€sixÐ ä4 Ðinches€from€the€floor.€€Detective€Anderson€found€toys€scattered€inside€the€crib€and€stains€on€theÐ Ð  Ðsheet.€€Detective€Anderson€did€not€notice€any€blood€or€damaged€items€in€the€room.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€alsoÐ ¼  Ðallowed€Detective€Anderson€to€remove€the€crib€sheet€and€blanket€from€the€victimððs€bed,€and€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_ÔÐ ¨ø Ðgave€Detective€Anderson€the€t„shirt€he€had€worn€the€previous€day.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€explained€that€the€victimÐ ”ä Ðhad€been€teething,€his€gums€had€been€bleeding,€and€the€t„shirt€had€the€victimððs€teething€blood€on€it.€Ð €Ð ÐÔ_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€also€told€Detective€Anderson€about€the€victim€vomiting€in€the€car€on€the€way€to€theÐ l¼ Ðemergency€room,€and€Detective€Anderson€photographed€the€stains.€€Detective€Anderson€stated€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€defendant€freely€provided€information€and€described€him€as€cooperative€at€the€time€she€examinedÐ D!” Ðthe€apartment.€€At€trial,€the€State€offered€DNA€test€results€to€show€that€the€stains€on€the€crib€sheetÐ 0"€  Ðand€on€the€defendantððs€t„shirt€were€blood€stains€and€that€the€blood€had€come€from€the€victim.€Ð #l! ÐHowever,€hospital€personnel€testified€that€the€victim€was€not€bleeding€externally€when€he€arrivedÐ $X" Ðat€the€emergency€room,€and€the€autopsy€showed€no€signs€of€external€bleeding.Ð ô$D # Ðà  àÌà  àÔ_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€returned€to€the€hospital€after€speaking€with€Detective€Anderson,€and€later€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âevening,€around€6€p.m.,€life€support€was€withdrawn€because€the€victim€was€brain€dead.€€HospitalÐ ¸'#& Ðpersonnel€testified€that€both€Ms.€Marshall€and€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€were€distraught€and€upset€about€the€childððsÐ ° Ðdeath.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAn€autopsy€revealed€that€the€victim€had€suffered€a€severe€blow€to€the€back€of€his€head,Ð tÄ Ðcausing€skull€fractures,€brain€swelling,€and€a€lack€of€oxygen€to€the€brain,€which€led€to€his€death.€Ð `° ÐBleeding€into€the€soft€tissue€of€the€scalp€around€the€fractures€was€also€discovered,€but€no€Ô_ÔintracranialÔ_ÔÐ L œ Ðbleeding€was€present,€and€no€bone€displacement€was€detected.€€The€autopsy€confirmed€that€the€skullÐ 8 ˆ Ðfractures€and€the€arm€fracture€occurred€at€approximately€the€same€time.€€In€addition,€the€autopsyÐ $ t Ðrevealed€a€laceration€of€one€of€the€victimððs€intervertebral€discs.€€The€autopsy€also€revealed€that€theÐ  ` Ðvictim€was€suffering€from€Ô_ÔhypostaticÔ_Ô€pneumonia,€which€occurs€when€the€brain€is€so€damaged€thatÐ ü L  Ðit€cannot€produce€coughing€or€clear€secretions.€€In€this€case,€the€condition€was€worsened€because€aÐ è 8  Ðsmall€amount€of€vomit€had€been€inhaled€into€the€victimððs€lungs.€€The€autopsy€revealed€no€evidenceÐ Ô$  Ðof€prior€injuries€or€abuse.Ð À  ÐÌà  àMs.€Marshall€and€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€returned€to€their€apartment€after€the€victim€died,€and€shortlyÐ ˜è  Ðthereafter,€officers€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€arrived€and€asked€them€to€come€to€the€policeÐ „Ô  Ðdepartment€for€further€interviews.€€After€being€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€warnings,€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€signed€aÐ pÀ Ðwaiver,€agreeing€to€talk€to€police.€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ôððs€recollection€of€the€events€leading€up€to€Ms.€MarshallððsÐ \¬ Ðdeparture€from€the€apartment€was€consistent€with€his€earlier€statement.€€He€again€initially€denied€anyÐ H˜ Ðwrongdoing.€€Eventually,€however,€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€revealed€that,€during€the€short€time€Ms.€Marshall€hadÐ 4„ Ðbeen€gone,€he€had€become€angry€and€had€physically€abused€the€victim€because€he€would€not€stopÐ  p Ðcrying.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô,€however,€gave€the€police€several€differing€accounts€of€what€had€happened.€€In€threeÐ ä4 Ðvery€similar€statements,€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€said€that€he€had€been€swinging€the€victim€by€his€ankles€to€stop€hisÐ Ð  Ðcrying€and€had€hit€the€victimððs€head€on€the€toddler€bed€rail€and€his€head€and€arm€on€the€floor.€€InÐ ¼  Ðanother€statement,€which€he€prefaced€by€saying,€ð ðIððm€going€to€tell€you€the€truth,ðð€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€admittedÐ ¨ø Ðhe€became€irritated€by€the€victimððs€crying,€grabbed€him€by€the€arm€and€leg,€jerked€him€out€of€theÐ ”ä Ðcrib,€even€though€the€childððs€arm€was€caught€between€the€crib€railing,€and€threw€the€victim€towardÐ €Ð Ðthe€toddler€bed,€two€feet€away.€€The€victim€missed€the€bed,€landed€on€the€tile€floor,€slid€under€theÐ l¼ Ðbed,€and€hit€the€wall.€€Following€a€break€in€the€interview,€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€gave€a€final€statement,€which€wasÐ X ¨ Ðreduced€to€writing€and€signed€at€3:40€a.m.€€In€it,€the€defendant€said€that,€angered€by€the€victimððsÐ D!” Ðcrying,€he€squeezed€the€victimððs€head€between€his€biceps€and€forearm€for€about€ten€seconds,€untilÐ 0"€  Ðthe€victim€stopped€crying.€€When€he€stopped€squeezing,€the€victim€was€huffing€short€breaths.€Ð #l! ÐNonetheless,€the€defendant€claimed€that€the€child€was€still€breathing€when€the€defendant€returnedÐ $X" Ðhim€to€his€crib.€€When€asked€by€the€officers€why€he€had€given€so€many€differing€statements€aboutÐ ô$D # Ðthe€incident,€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€responded,€ð ðI€wanted€it€to€look€like€an€accident.ðð€€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€was€immediatelyÐ à%0!$ Ðarrested€for€the€murder€of€Evan€Price.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€State€offered€several€medical€expert€witnesses€including,€Dr.€Ô_ÔBickleyÔ_Ô€Craven,€whoÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtreated€the€victim€at€Ô_ÔHolstonÔ_Ô€Valley€Hospital.€€Dr.€Craven€confirmed€that€the€victim€had€been€treatedÐ )à$( Ðwith€an€antibiotic€for€sinusitis€some€twelve€days€before€this€incident,€and€at€that€time,€there€was€noÐ ° Ðevidence€of€abuse.€€Dr.€Craven€also€testified€that€the€childððs€medical€records€from€the€FamilyÐ œì ÐPractice€Center,€where€the€child€had€been€seen€several€times€for€ear€and€respiratory€infections,€didÐ ˆØ Ðnot€indicate€prior€abuse.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àDr.€Ô_ÔMohonÔ_Ô,€a€pediatric€physician€who€treated€the€victim€at€the€Johnson€City€Medical€Center,Ð L œ Ðopined€that€most€of€the€explanations€given€by€the€defendant€could€not€have€caused€the€victimððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðsevere€injuries.€€However,€he€testified€that€the€injuries€were€consistent€with€the€account€that€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€had€grabbed€the€victim€by€the€arm€and€leg,€caught€the€victimððs€arm€in€the€crib€railing,€andÐ  ` Ðthen€thrown€the€victim€so€forcefully€that€he€hit€the€tile€floor€and€slid€under€the€bed€and€against€theÐ ü L  Ðwall.€€However,€Dr.€Ô_ÔMohonÔ_Ô€acknowledged€that€there€was€no€sign€of€older€injuries€indicative€ofÐ è 8  Ðprevious€child€abuse€and€conceded€that€the€injuries€could€have€been€caused€by€reckless€or€grosslyÐ Ô$  Ðnegligent€behavior.Ð À  ÐÌà  àTestifying€for€the€defense,€Ms.€Marshall,€the€victimððs€mother,€said€the€defendant€usually€wasÐ ˜è  Ðresponsible€for€the€care€of€her€children€between€8:00€and€10:30€p.m.€each€night,€that€he€had€a€goodÐ „Ô  Ðrelationship€with€the€victim€and€with€her€other€two€children,€and€that€she€had€not€seen€or€heard€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€abuse€the€victim€on€the€night€of€the€incident,€although€she€conceded€that€she€did€not€knowÐ \¬ Ðwhat€occurred€while€she€was€driving€her€friend€home.€€Ms.€Marshall€testified€that€the€victim€sufferedÐ H˜ Ðfrequent€respiratory€infections,€and€at€the€time€of€this€incident,€he€had€been€cutting€teeth,€whichÐ 4„ Ðcaused€his€gums€to€bleed.€€She€said€that€the€blood€stains€on€the€defendantððs€t„shirt€came€from€theÐ  p Ðvictimððs€bleeding€gums.€€She€asserted€that€the€defendant€had€never€struck€the€victim€or€been€ð ðmeanÐ  \ Ðto€him.ðð€Ð øH ÐÌà  àDaniel€Christian,€a€friend€and€former€roommate€and€co„worker€of€the€defendant,€testified€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendant€loved€the€victim€and€had€served€in€a€ð ðfatherly€roleðð€to€the€victim,€providing€bothÐ ¼  Ðmonetary€and€emotional€support.€€Christian€recalled€that€the€defendant€had€turned€down€hisÐ ¨ø Ðinvitation€to€attend€the€Citrus€Bowl€in€Florida€so€that€he€could€spend€the€holidays€with€Ms.€MarshallÐ ”ä Ðand€her€children.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€employer,€Silas€Jenkins,€characterized€the€defendant€as€an€excellent€worker.€Ð X ¨ ÐJenkins€had€seen€the€defendant€with€the€victim€on€two€occasions€and€noticed€the€defendant€had€aÐ D!” Ðgood€relationship€with€the€victim€and€provided€good€care€to€the€victim.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àChristy€Christian,€a€neighbor€and€friend,€testified€that€the€defendant€had€always€been€kindÐ $X" Ðwith€the€children,€providing€for€them€financially.€€She€said€the€defendant€had€an€especially€goodÐ ô$D # Ðrelationship€with€the€victim,€treating€the€victim€as€his€own€child.€€€Christian€heard€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðplaying€with€the€victim€just€before€she€left€with€Ms.€Marshall€to€go€to€her€own€apartment€on€theÐ Ì&"% Ðevening€the€incident€occurred.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àScotty€Ô_ÔTrivettÔ_Ô,€who€had€been€at€the€hospital€on€the€night€the€victim€was€admitted,€testifiedÐ )à$( Ðthat€the€victimððs€head€struck€the€hospital€door€when€Ms.€Marshall€jerked€it€open€and€carried€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðvictim€inside,€screaming€for€help.€€Ô_ÔTrivettÔ_Ô€also€€testified€that€the€defendant€arrived€at€the€hospitalÐ h+¸&* Ðabout€thirty€minutes€later,€very€upset,€crying€and€hugging€Ms.€Marshall.€€Ô_ÔTrivettÔ_Ô€called€police€toÐ ° Ðreport€what€he€had€witnessed€when€he€heard€a€television€account€indicating€that€the€defendant€hadÐ œì Ðbeen€charged€with€murder.€€On€cross„examination,€Ô_ÔTrivettÔ_Ô€acknowledged€that€the€victim€appearedÐ ˆØ Ðto€be€dead€when€Ms.€Marshall€carried€him€into€the€hospital.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àRuby€Metros,€an€oncology€social€worker€at€the€Johnson€City€Medical€Center,€stayed€with€Ms.Ð L œ ÐMarshall€and€the€defendant€throughout€most€of€the€day€on€January€2,€1996.€€She€testified€that,€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðtimes,€they€appeared€relatively€calm,€and€at€other€times,€they€appeared€very€upset.€€Metros€said€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€was€very€emotional€when€he€learned€that€the€victim€would€be€disconnected€from€lifeÐ  ` Ðsupport€and€when€he€was€allowed€to€go€into€the€victimððs€hospital€room€for€the€last€time.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDr.€Geoffrey€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô,€a€specialist€in€trauma€medication,€testified€that€most€of€the€victimððsÐ Ô$  Ðbrain€injuries€were€caused€by€heart€stoppage€and€that€the€arm€fracture€probably€occurred€around€theÐ À  Ðtime€of€the€cardiac€arrest.€€He€opined€that€the€victimððs€torn€disc€could€have€been€caused€by€the€victimÐ ¬ü  Ðstriking€the€metal€frame€on€the€toddler€bed.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€misplacement€of€theÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔendotrachealÔ_Ô€tube€lessened€what€little€chance€the€victim€had€for€survival.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€noted€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€victim€had,€in€fact,€been€teething€at€the€time€of€his€death.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€testified€at€length€as€toÐ pÀ Ðthe€various€classes€of€injuries€associated€with€an€abused€child€and€noted€an€absence€of€any€of€theseÐ \¬ Ðinjuries€and€of€any€indication€of€prior€abuse.€€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€also€noted€the€absence€of€either€Ô_ÔepiduralÔ_ÔÐ H˜ Ðor€Ô_ÔsubduralÔ_Ô€hematomas,€which€are€normally€present€in€severe€deceleration€head€injuries.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðabsence€of€these€injuries€led€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€to€conclude€that€the€victimððs€death€was€caused€by€aÐ  p Ðcardiopulmonary€arrest€rather€than€ð ðtraumatic€brain€injury,€child€abuse/non„accidental€trauma,ðð€asÐ  \ Ðnoted€by€the€autopsy.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€€said€that€the€head€trauma€in€this€case€was€not€severe€enough€toÐ øH Ðcause€a€cardiac€arrest.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€opined€that€the€head€trauma€likely€caused€vomiting,€whichÐ ä4 Ðresulted€in€a€Ô_ÔlaryngospasmÔ_Ô€that€closed€the€victimððs€airways€and€caused€€respiratory€arrest,€andÐ Ð  Ðeventually,€cardiac€arrest.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔBoerckerÔ_Ô€conceded€that€even€if€€his€opinion€as€to€cause€of€death€isÐ ¼  Ðcorrect,€the€head€trauma€precipitated€the€cardiopulmonary€arrest,€which€caused€the€victimððs€death.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€rebuttal,€Dr.€William€McCormick,€the€medical€examiner€who€performed€the€autopsy,Ð €Ð Ðtestified€that€the€victimððs€spinal€injury€and€broken€arm€had€occurred€simultaneously€with€theÐ l¼ Ðcardiopulmonary€arrest.€€Dr.€McCormick€also€stated€that€the€victimððs€death€was€not€caused€byÐ X ¨ Ðaspirating€vomit€because€the€victim€had€only€a€small€amount€of€vomit€in€his€lungs.€€On€cross„Ð D!” Ðexamination,€Dr.€McCormick€opined€that€the€injuries€sustained€by€the€victim€could€have€been€theÐ 0"€  Ðresult€of€either€reckless€or€intentional€conduct.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€byÐ ô$D # Ðaggravated€child€abuse€and€aggravated€child€abuse.€€The€€trial€proceeded€to€the€sentencing€phase€onÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€first€degree€murder€conviction.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà@ìàòòò òSentencing€Phase€Proofóóó óˆÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àThe€State€presented€no€further€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€relying€upon€the€proof€at€trialÐ )à$( Ðâ âto€establish€the€single€aggravating€circumstance,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€murder€was€committed€against€a€person€lessÐ |*Ì%) Ðthan€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€and€the€defendant€was€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age,€or€older.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€defendant€presented€the€testimony€of€several€witnesses,€all€of€whom€testified€about€hisÐ tÄ Ðbackground€and€life.€€The€defendant€had€suffered€an€unstable€childhood€in€a€poor,€dysfunctionalÐ `° Ðfamily€that€moved€frequently.€€The€defendant€had€moved€at€least€ten€times€by€age€seventeen.€€He€hadÐ L œ Ðbeen€trapped€in€a€house€fire€at€the€age€of€four;€and€his€father€was€an€alcoholic,€who€becameÐ 8 ˆ Ðemotionally€abusive€upon€discovering€that€the€defendantððs€mother€had€a€child€as€the€result€of€anÐ $ t Ðextramarital€affair.€€The€defendantððs€parents€divorced€when€he€was€five€years€old,€and€his€father€hadÐ  ` Ðprovided€no€financial€or€emotional€support€to€the€defendant€thereafter.€€The€defendantððs€step„fatherÐ ü L  Ðalso€abused€alcohol€and€was€emotionally€abusive€toward€the€defendant,€often€totally€ignoring€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant,€who€looked€like€his€biological€father,€while€showering€attention€on€the€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðbrother€and€sister.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€of€above€average€intelligence€and€performed€very€well€in€elementaryÐ ˜è  Ðschool.€€He€was€described€by€his€teachers€as€a€sweet€child,€very€shy,€studious,€but€accident„prone.€Ð „Ô  ÐWhen€the€defendant€was€thirteen€years€old,€his€mother€began€caring€for€a€baby€girl,€the€child€of€aÐ pÀ Ðfriend.€€The€defendant€was€left€on€his€own€and€began€using€alcohol€and€marijuana.€€By€fourteen,€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€was€adjudged€a€delinquent€and€lived€in€a€juvenile€home€for€several€months.€€He€wasÐ H˜ Ðreleased€to€return€to€his€own€high€school€by€his€sophomore€year,€but€he€did€not€perform€well.€€HisÐ 4„ Ðgrades€were€very€poor,€and€he€skipped€school€a€great€deal.€€He€quit€school€during€his€junior€year€ofÐ  p Ðhigh€school€and€began€working.€€He€was€seriously€involved€with€his€girlfriend€and€was€devastatedÐ  \ Ðwhen€she€moved.€€She€was€pregnant€with€his€child€when€she€left,€but€the€defendant€was€not€awareÐ øH Ðof€the€pregnancy.€€She€returned€when€the€child€was€two€and€one„half€months€old€and€left€the€childÐ ä4 Ðwith€the€defendant€and€his€mother.€€The€defendant€helped€his€mother€care€for€the€€baby,€and€heÐ Ð  Ðbought€the€child€diapers€and€other€needed€items.€€The€defendant€and€his€family€cared€for€the€childÐ ¼  Ðfor€six€and€one„half€months,€but€when€the€child€was€eight€and€one„half€months€old,€the€childððsÐ ¨ø Ðmother€took€the€baby€on€the€pretext€of€having€a€photograph€taken€and€never€returned.€€Later,€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendantððs€mother€learned€from€a€newspaper€notice€that€the€child€had€been€placed€for€adoption.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€defendantððs€mother€wrote€a€letter,€but€was€informed€that€she€had€no€legal€right€or€claim€to€theÐ l¼ Ðchild.€€€The€defendant€and€his€family€never€saw€the€child€again.€€The€defendantððs€mother€said€theÐ X ¨ Ðchildððs€adoption€had€a€devastating€effect€on€the€defendant.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àLater,€the€defendant€attempted€to€join€the€army€with€his€best€friend.€€The€defendant€scoredÐ #l! Ðvery€high€on€the€recruitment€screening€test,€but€he€was€seventeen€years€old€and€needed€parentalÐ $X" Ðconsent€to€complete€the€process.€€The€defendant€was€very€disappointed€when€his€father€refused€toÐ ô$D # Ðgive€his€consent,€and€the€defendant€was€unable€to€join€when€he€turned€eighteen€because€the€militaryÐ à%0!$ Ðhad€changed€its€policy€by€that€time€and€would€not€accept€persons€who€had€no€high€school€diploma.€Ð Ì&"% ÐSince€turning€eighteen,€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€joyriding,€driving€under€the€influenceÐ ¸'#& Ðof€an€intoxicant,€underage€possession€of€alcohol,€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license€€ð!ð€€allÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmisdemeanor€offenses.€€The€defense€rested€after€the€defendantððs€mother€testified,€€expressing€loveÐ )à$( Ðfor€her€son€and€asking€the€jury€to€spare€his€life.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€single€aggravating€circumstance€and€as€toÐ ° Ðseventeen€mitigating€circumstances€raised€by€the€evidence.€€The€jury€determined€that€the€aggravatingÐ œì Ðcircumstance€outweighed€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€sentenced€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€to€death.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€consecutive€twenty„five„year€sentence€for€theÐ tÄ Ðaggravated€child€abuse€conviction.Ð `° ÐÌà  àAs€stated,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€first€degree€murder€conviction,€butÐ 8 ˆ Ðfound€the€death€sentence€disproportionate€and€modified€the€sentence€to€life€imprisonment€withoutÐ $ t Ðthe€possibility€of€parole.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€also€vacated€the€conviction€for€aggravatedÐ  ` Ðchild€abuse,€finding€no€legislative€intent€to€permit€a€separate€conviction€and€punishment€forÐ ü L  Ðaggravated€child€abuse€when€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€first€degree€felony€murder€duringÐ è 8  Ðthe€perpetration€of€aggravated€child€abuse.€€We€granted€both€the€Stateððs€and€the€defendantððsÐ Ô$  Ðapplications€for€permission€to€appeal€and€now€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part€the€decision€of€theÐ À  ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌò òòòà@,,ìàElectronic€Recording€of€Statementóóó óˆÐ „Ô  Ðà  àWhen€initially€interviewed€by€the€police,€the€defendant€denied€knowing€anything€about€howÐ pÀ Ðthe€victim€sustained€the€injuries€resulting€in€his€death.€€Questioning€proceeded€and€the€defendantÐ \¬ Ðgave€about€nine€different€versions€of€what€occurred.€€One€of€the€officers€present€during€theÐ H˜ Ðinterrogation€testified€that€the€defendant€prefaced€the€eighth€version€by€saying€he€was€ð ðgoing€to€tellÐ 4„ Ð.€.€.€the€whole€truth.ðð€€The€defendant€then€acknowledged€that€he€had€attempted€to€throw€the€victimÐ  p Ðonto€the€bed,€that€the€victim€missed,€hit€the€floor,€slid€under€the€bed,€and€hit€the€wall.€€This€account,Ð  \ Ðthe€eighth€version,€was€most€consistent€with€the€physical€injuries€sustained€by€the€victim.€€After€thisÐ øH Ðstatement,€there€was€a€break€in€the€interview,€and€when€it€resumed,€the€defendant€refused€to€sign€theÐ ä4 Ðwritten€statement€recounting€the€eighth€version.€€Instead,€he€maintained€that€he€did€not€throw€theÐ Ð  Ðvictim€but€had€squeezed€the€victimððs€head€in€an€effort€to€stop€his€crying,€and€he€signed€a€writtenÐ ¼  Ðstatement€to€this€effect.€€No€part€of€the€interrogation€was€electronically€recorded.€€The€detectivesÐ ¨ø Ðacknowledged€that€they€could€have€easily€obtained€a€tape€recorder,€but€explained€that€ð ðwe€donððtÐ ”ä Ðnormally,€as€a€rule,€record€our€interviews.ððÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àAs€in€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendant€contends€in€this€Court€that€his€statementsÐ X ¨ Ðto€the€police€should€have€been€suppressed€because€they€were€not€electronically€recorded.€€He€reliesÐ D!” Ðupon€decisions€from€two€other€state€supreme€courts€requiring€that€custodial€interrogations€beÐ 0"€  Ðrecorded.€€òòSeeóó€òòStephan€v.€Stateóó,€711€P.2d€1156€(Alaska€1985);€òòState€v.€Scalesóó,€518€N.W.2d€587Ð #l! Ð(Minn.€1994).€Ð $X" ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€òòStephanóó,€the€Alaska€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€failure€of€police€to€create€anÐ à%0!$ Ðelectronic€recording€of€a€custodial€interrogation€occurring€in€a€place€of€detention€generallyÐ Ì&"% Ðviolates€the€due€process€rights€of€a€suspect€under€the€Alaska€Constitution.€€òòStephanóó,€711€P.2d€atÐ ¸'#& Ð1159.€€€Specifically,€the€court€found€that€because€of€its€ease€and€Ô_ÔinexpenseÔ_Ô,€particularly€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontext€of€custodial€interrogations€in€detention€facilities,€recording€ð ðis€now€a€reasonable€andÐ )à$( Ðnecessary€safeguard,€essential€to€the€adequate€protection€of€the€accusedððs€right€to€counsel,€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðright€against€self€incrimination€and,€ultimately,€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1159„60.€€€TheÐ h+¸&* ÐAlaska€court€concluded€that€absent€a€justifiable€excuse,€the€failure€to€record€a€custodialÐ ° Ðinterrogation€will€render€any€statement€received€therein€inadmissible€during€trial.€€òòId.óó€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€Minnesota€Supreme€Court€imposed€a€similar€electronic€recording€obligation€pursuantÐ tÄ Ðto€its€supervisory€powers.€€òòScalesóó,€518€N.W.2d€at€592.€€In€establishing€this€prospective€rule,€theÐ `° ÐMinnesota€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€statements€obtained€from€a€suspect€in€substantialÐ L œ Ðviolation€of€the€recording€requirement€would€be€suppressed.€€òòId.óó€at€592.€€Unlike€the€AlaskaÐ 8 ˆ ÐSupreme€Court,€the€Minnesota€Supreme€Court€refused€to€determine€whether€the€MinnesotaÐ $ t ÐConstitution€supported€imposition€of€the€requirement.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€admits€that€there€is€no€authority€in€Tennessee€requiring€that€interrogationsÐ è 8  Ðbe€electronically€recorded.€€The€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔLivesayÔ_Ôóó,€941€S.W.2d€63,€65€(Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996),€which€held€that€refusing€to€allow€a€defendant€to€obtain€an€independent€bloodÐ À  Ðanalysis€in€a€drunk€driving€prosecution€is€tantamount€to€suppression€of€evidence€favorable€orÐ ¬ü  Ðuseful€to€the€defense€and€is€a€violation€of€a€defendantððs€statutory€and€due€process€rights.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€asserts€that€the€failure€of€the€officers€in€this€case€to€electronically€record€theÐ „Ô  Ðinterrogation€violated€his€due€process€rights€by€denying€him€the€only€opportunity€to€have€anÐ pÀ Ðexact€record€of€what€he€said€to€the€police.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àòòóóIn€our€view,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€properly€distinguished€òòÔ_ÔLivesayÔ_Ôóó.€€€There,Ð 4„ Ðindependent€blood€tests€were€necessary€to€enable€the€defendant€to€test€the€accuracy€of€and€toÐ  p Ðrebut€the€Stateððs€proof.€€Here,€in€contrast,€the€defendant€does€not€ask€that€evidence€be€preserved;Ð  \ Ðhe€asks€that€it€be€gathered€in€a€certain€form.€€The€evidence€is€not€lost€merely€because€theÐ øH Ðinterrogation€was€not€recorded.€€The€officers€were€present€at€the€interrogation,€and€moreÐ ä4 Ðimportantly,€the€defendant€was€present€at€the€interrogation.€€Lack€of€an€electronic€recording€didÐ Ð  Ðnot€preclude€the€defendant€from€challenging€the€accuracy€of€the€officersðð€recollection€of€theÐ ¼  Ðinterrogation.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àMoreover,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€observed,€neither€the€state€nor€the€federalÐ €Ð Ðconstitution€requires€electronic€recording€of€interrogations.€€We€have€found€at€least€fifteen€otherÐ l¼ Ðstates€that€have€declined€to€impose€such€a€requirement€when€faced€with€the€issue.Ô_Ô׃1×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€òòSeeóó€DanielÐ X ¨ ÐDonovan€€&€John€Rhodes,€òòComes€a€Time:€The€Case€for€Recording€Interrogationsóó,€61€Mont.€L.Ð ° ÐRev.€223,€232,€n.52€(Winter€2000).€€There€can€be€little€doubt€that€electronically€recordingÐ œì Ðcustodial€interrogations€would€reduce€the€amount€of€time€spent€in€court€resolving€disputes€overÐ ˆØ Ðwhat€occurred€during€the€interrogation.€€As€a€result,€the€judiciary€would€be€relieved€of€much€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€burden€of€resolving€these€disputes.€€In€light€of€the€slight€inconvenience€and€expenseÐ `° Ðassociated€with€electronically€recording€custodial€interrogations,€sound€policy€considerationsÐ L œ Ðsupport€its€adoption€as€a€law€enforcement€practice.€€However,€"[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€determination€of€publicÐ 8 ˆ Ðpolicy€is€primarily€a€function€of€the€legislature."€òòGriffin€v.€Shelter€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€18€S.W.3d€195,Ð $ t Ð200„01€(Tenn.€2000).€€As€we€commented€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23„24€(Tenn.€1996),Ð  ` Ðthe€issue€of€electronically€recording€custodial€interrogations€ð ðis€one€more€properly€directed€to€theÐ ü L  ÐGeneral€Assembly.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€The€defendantððs€claim€that€his€statement€should€have€been€suppressedÐ è 8  Ðbecause€it€was€not€electronically€recorded€is€without€merit.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌà@ ìàòòò òConstitutionality€of€the€Felony€Murder€StatuteˆÐ ˜è  Ðà  àóóó óThe€next€general€issue€raised€by€the€defendant€is€whether€the€1995€amendment׃'ü ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€toÐ „Ô  ÐTennesseeððs€first€degree€murder€statute€violates€due€process€or€amounts€to€cruel€and€unusualÐ pÀ Ðpunishment€under€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€€Specifically,€the€statute€under€which€theÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€was€prosecuted€and€convicted€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  à(a)€First€degree€murder€is€.€.€.€(2)€A€killing€of€another€committed€in€theÐ  p Ðperpetration€of€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€.€.€.€aggravated€child€abuse€.€.€.€.€€(b)€€NoÐ  \ Ðculpable€mental€state€is€required€for€conviction€under€subdivision€(a)(2)€.€.€.Ð øH Ðexcept€the€intent€to€commit€the€enumerated€offenses€or€acts€in€such€subdivisions.€€Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€&€(b).€€Prior€to€1995,€aggravated€child€abuse€was€not€one€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€enumerated€felonies€capable€of€supporting€a€charge€or€conviction€of€first€degree€felonyÐ ¨ø Ðmurder.€€Additionally,€between€1989€and€1995,€the€required€mental€state€for€felony€murder€wasÐ ”ä Ðrecklessness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€39„13„202(a)(2)€(1991€Repl.).Ð €Ð Ðâ âÐ l¼ Ðà  àThe€defendant€first€contends€that€by€deleting€the€culpable€mental€state€of€reckless,€theÐ ° Ðâ â1995€amendment€rendered€the€statute€unconstitutional.€€We€disagree.€€In€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753Ð œì ÐS.W.2d€659,€671€(Tenn.€1988),€this€Court€considered€and€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€the€pre„Ð ˆØ Ð1989€statute,€which€did€not€contain€a€culpable€mental€state.€€In€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€840Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€317,€336€(Tenn.€1992),€we€reaffirmed€our€decision€in€òòBarberóó€and€upheld€theÐ `° Ðconstitutionality€of€the€felony€murder€statute€even€though€it€did€not€contain€a€culpable€mentalÐ L œ Ðstate.€€Even€more€recently€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔKimbroughÔ_Ôóó,€924€S.W.2d€888,€890€(Tenn.€1996),€weÐ 8 ˆ Ðdescribed€the€felony€murder€doctrine€as€follows:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àIn€the€typical€case€of€felony„murder,€there€is€no€malice€in€ððfactðð€with€respect€to€theÐ ü L  Ðhomicide;€the€malice€is€supplied€by€the€ððlawðð.€€There€is€an€intended€felony€and€anÐ è 8  Ðunintended€homicide.€€The€malice€which€plays€a€part€in€the€commission€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðfelony€is€transferred€by€law€to€the€homicide.€€As€a€result€of€the€fictional€transfer,Ð À  Ðthe€homicide€is€deemed€committed€with€malice.€Ð¬ü Ð Ð  ÐÌContrary€to€the€defendantððs€assertion,€the€1995€amendment€to€the€first€degree€murder€statute€didÐ „Ô  Ðnot€fundamentally€change€the€felony€murder€doctrine€so€as€to€render€the€statute€unconstitutional.€Ð pÀ ÐWith€respect€to€the€culpable€mental€state,€the€1995€amendment€merely€returned€the€felonyÐ \¬ Ðmurder€statute€to€its€pre„1989€form.€€Moreover,€like€the€other€enumerated€felonies,€the€predicateÐ H˜ Ðfelony€in€this€case,€aggravated€child€abuse,€includes€a€culpable€mental€state€ð!ð€ð ðknowingly.ðð€Ð 4„ ÐConsistent€with€the€traditional€felony€murder€doctrine,€the€statute€as€amended€in€1995€requiresÐ  p Ðthe€State€to€prove€that€the€predicate€felony€was€committed€with€the€applicable€culpable€mentalÐ  \ Ðstate.€€Therefore,€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€statute€violates€due€process€by€failing€to€include€aÐ øH Ðculpable€mental€state€is€without€merit.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€asserts€that€because€the€killing€in€this€case€resulted€from€knowingÐ ¼  Ðconduct,€the€facts€do€not€establish€a€ð ðreckless€disregard€for€human€life,ðð€as€required€by€òòÔ_ÔTisonÔ_Ô€v.Ð ¨ø ÐArizonaóó,€481€U.S.€137,€107€S.€Ct.€1676,€1688,€95€L.€Ed.€2d€127€(1987),€to€constitutionallyÐ ”ä Ðsupport€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€We€disagree.€€First,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ €Ð Ðalso€correctly€pointed€out,€òòÔ_ÔTisonÔ_Ôóó€involved€defendants€who€themselves€did€not€kill€the€victims.€Ð l¼ ÐHere€the€defendantððs€own€actions€killed€the€victim.€€In€òòÔ_ÔEnmundÔ_Ô€v.€Floridaóó,€458€U.S.€782,€102€S.Ð X ¨ ÐCt.€3368,€73€L.€Ed.€2d€147€(1982),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€approved€the€imposition€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€death€penalty€on€the€actual€killer€in€a€felony€murder,€and€the€Court€in€òòÔ_ÔTisonÔ_Ôóó€reaffirmed€thisÐ 0"€  Ðposition€with€respect€to€participants€in€a€felony€murder€who€exhibit€reckless€indifference€toÐ #l! Ðhuman€life.€€Furthermore,€the€culpable€mental€state€for€aggravated€child€abuse,€ð ðknowing,ðð€is€aÐ $X" Ðhigher€standard€than€ð ðreckless€indifference.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(2)(20)Ð ô$D # Ð(defining€knowing).€€Therefore,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€concluded€that€both€theÐ à%0!$ Ðstatutory€elements€and€the€facts€of€this€case€establish€reckless€indifference.€Ð Ì&"% Ѐ€€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àThe€defendantððs€next€argument€is€that€the€statute€violates€due€process€because€the€actsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconstituting€the€aggravated€child€abuse€upon€which€the€felony€murder€conviction€is€based€are€theÐ )à$( Ðsame€acts€that€caused€the€victimððs€death.€€The€defendant€contends€that€due€process€requires€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€underlying€felony€be€based€upon€acts€separate€from€those€causing€death.€€The€defendantÐ h+¸&* Ðpoints€to€other€jurisdictions€that€apply€the€merger€doctrine€to€preclude€a€felony€murder€convictionÐ ° Ðbased€on€assaultive€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔWanrowÔ_Ôóó,€588€P.2d€1320,€1322„1324€(Wash.€1978);Ð œì Ðòòseeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòAnnotationóó,€ð ðApplication€of€Felony„Murder€Doctrine€Where€the€Felony€ReliedÐ ˆØ Ðupon€Is€an€Ô_ÔIncludibleÔ_Ô€Offense€with€the€Homicide,ðð€40€A.L.R.3d€1341€(1971).€€The€State€respondsÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€merger€doctrine€is€a€rule€of€statutory€construction,€not€a€principle€of€constitutional€law,Ð `° Ðand€that€the€rule€applies€only€when€the€legislature€has€not€enumerated€the€felonies€that€willÐ L œ Ðsupport€a€conviction€for€felony€murder.€€We€agree.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àConceived€in€the€nineteenth€century,€the€merger€doctrine€wasÐ  ` Ðà8  àdeveloped€.€.€.€as€a€shorthand€explanation€for€the€conclusion€that€the€felony„Ð ü L  Ðmurder€rule€should€not€be€applied€in€circumstances€where€the€only€underlying€(orÐ è 8  Ðð ðpredicateðð)€felony€committed€by€the€defendant€was€òòassaultóó.€€The€name€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðdoctrine€derived€from€the€characterization€of€the€assault€as€an€offense€thatÐ À  Ðð ðmergedðð€with€the€resulting€homicide.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌòòPeople€v.€Hansenóó,€885€P.2d€1022,€1028€(Cal.€1994)€(emphasis€in€original).€€More€broadly,€ð ðtheÐ „Ô  Ðmerger€doctrine€bars€the€use€of€the€felony€murder€rule€when€the€underlying€felony€directly€resultsÐ pÀ Ðin,€or€is€an€integral€part€of,€the€homicide.ðð€€òòBarnett€v.€Stateóó,€783€So.2d€927,€930€(Ala.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð \¬ Ð2000);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Camposóó,€921€P.2d€1266,€1270„72€(N.M.€1996)(outlining€varyingÐ H˜ Ðapplications€of€the€merger€doctrine€in€different€jurisdictions).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àCourts€have€generally€declined€to€hold€that€the€merger€doctrine€implicates€any€principleÐ  \ Ðof€constitutional€law.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòRhode€v.€Ô_ÔOlkÔ_Ô„Longóó,€84€F.3d€284,€289€(8th€Cir.€1996)(rejectingÐ øH Ðthe€defendantððs€due€process€challenge€to€her€conviction€of€felony€murder€based€upon€childÐ ä4 Ðendangerment€because€the€argument€lacked€a€constitutional€basis,€depending€instead€upon€theÐ Ð  Ðmerger€doctrine);€òòState€v.€Lopezóó,€847€P.2d€1078,€1089€(Ariz.€1992)(observing€that€the€courtÐ ¼  Ðcould€conceive€of€no€constitutional€impediment€ð ðprecluding€the€legislature€from€classifying€childÐ ¨ø Ðabuse€that€results€in€the€death€of€the€child€as€a€predicate€felony€that€triggers€the€felony„murderÐ ”ä Ðstatuteðð);€òòÔ_ÔMappsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€520€So.2d€92,€93„94€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1988)(rejecting€the€argumentÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€felony€murder€statute€that€included€aggravated€child€abuse€as€a€predicate€offense€wasÐ l¼ Ðunconstitutional);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTremblayÔ_Ôóó,€479€P.2d€507,€511€(Or.€Ct.€App.€1971)(observing€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðmerger€doctrine€does€not€implicate€any€principle€of€constitutional€law).€€Instead,€courts€haveÐ D!” Ðviewed€the€merger€doctrine€as€a€principle€for€discerning€legislative€intent€and,€more€specifically,Ð 0"€  Ðas€a€principle€that€preserves€ð ðsome€meaningful€domain€in€which€the€Legislatureððs€carefulÐ #l! Ðgraduation€of€homicide€offenses€can€be€implemented.ðð€€òòHansenóó,€885€P.2d€at€1028.€€Accordingly,Ð $X" Ðthe€merger€doctrine€has€not€been€widely€accepted.€€òòSeeóó€òòCotton€v.€Commonwealthóó,€546€S.E.2dÐ ô$D # Ð241,€244€(Va.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€The€doctrine€has€been€applied€largely€in€those€states€where€theÐ à%0!$ Ðfelony€murder€statute€fails€to€specifically€list€the€felonies€capable€of€supporting€a€felony€murderÐ Ì&"% Ðconviction.׃4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóó€€Where€a€ð ðlegislature€explicitly€states€that€a€particular€felony€is€a€predicate€felonyÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€felony„murder,€no€ððmergerðð€occurs.ðð€€òòóó€òòLopezóó,€847€P.2d€at€1089;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔMappsÔ_Ôóó,€520€So.2d€atÐ ° Ð93;€òòHuntley€v.€Stateóó,€518€S.E.2d€890,€893€(Ga.€1999);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔRhombergÔ_Ôóó,€516€N.W.2d€803,€805Ð œì Ð(Iowa€1994);€òòPeople€v.€Jonesóó,€530€N.W.2d€128,€129€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCromeyÔ_Ôóó,€348Ð ˆØ ÐN.W.2d€759,€760€(Minn.€1984);€òòÔ_ÔFaragaÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€514€So.2d€295,€302„03€(Miss.€1987);€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐWilliamsóó,€24€S.W.3d€101,€115„17€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòState€v.€McCannóó,€907€P.2d€239,€241Ð `° Ð(Okla.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔTremblayÔ_Ôóó,€479€P.2d€at€511;€òòsee€generallyóó€40€Am.€Ô_ÔJurÔ_Ô.€2d.€òòHomicideóó€ððÐ L œ Ð66€(1999).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAs€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case€recognized,€the€General€Assembly€hasÐ  ` Ðexpressed€an€unmistakable€intent€to€have€aggravated€child€abuse€qualify€as€a€felony€capable€ofÐ ü L  Ðsupporting€a€conviction€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€€Under€such€circumstances,€the€mergerÐ è 8  Ðdoctrine€should€not€be€applied€to€preclude€a€conviction€for€first€degree€felony€murder,€evenÐ Ô$  Ðthough€death€is€the€consequence€of€an€aggravated€child€abuse.€€The€defendantððs€assertion€that€theÐ À  Ðmerger€doctrine€bars€his€conviction€for€felony€murder€is€without€merit.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€predicating€felony€murder€on€aggravated€child€abuseÐ „Ô  Ðviolates€the€due€process€restrictions€of€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299,€306€(Tenn.€1991),Ð pÀ Ðunless€the€aggravated€child€abuse€substantially€increases€the€risk€of€harm€over€and€above€thatÐ \¬ Ðnecessarily€present€in€the€crime€itself.€€We€disagree.€€In€òòAnthonyóó,€this€Court€held€that€dualÐ H˜ Ðconvictions€for€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€and€robbery€are€inappropriate€if€the€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€is€essentiallyÐ 4„ Ðincidental€to€the€robbery.€€In€contrast,€a€murder€qualifies€as€felony€murder€only€if€the€underlyingÐ  p Ðfelony€is€closely€connected€to€the€killing€in€time,€place,€causation,€and€continuity€of€action.€€òòStateÐ  \ Ðv.€Pierceóó,€23€S.W.3d€289,€295€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€other€words,€the€felony€murder€doctrine€requiresÐ øH Ðthat€underlying€felonies€be€ð ðincidentalðð€to€the€killing€in€time,€place,€causation,€and€continuity€ofÐ ä4 Ðaction.€€òòId.óó€€Applying€òòAnthonyóó€as€the€defendant€suggests€would€require€rejection€of€this€long„Ð Ð  Ðstanding€portion€of€the€felony€murder€doctrine.€€The€analysis€employed€in€òòAnthonyóó€to€determineÐ ¼  Ðthe€permissibility€of€dual€convictions€is€simply€inapplicable€in€the€context€of€determiningÐ ¨ø Ðwhether€a€felony€may€properly€support€a€conviction€of€felony€murder.Ð ”ä Ðòòò òó óóóÌÌÐ X ¨ Ðà@f f ìàòòò òAggravated€Child€Abuse:€€Lesser„Included€Offenseó óóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àThe€State€charged€the€defendant€with€both€felony€murder€and€aggravated€child€abuse,€theÐ œì Ðfelony€upon€which€the€murder€charge€was€based.€€The€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€bothÐ ˆØ Ðoffenses,€but€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€set€aside€the€conviction€for€aggravated€child€abuse,Ð tÄ Ðconcluding€that€it€is€a€lesser€included€offense€of€felony€murder.Ð `° ÐÌà  àInitially€we€note€that€the€issue€presented€in€this€case,€whether€dual€convictions€for€felonyÐ 8 ˆ Ðmurder€and€the€predicate€offense€of€aggravated€child€abuse€are€permitted€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð $ t Ððð€39„13„202(a)(2),€the€felony€murder€statute,€was€expressly€Ô_ÔpretermittedÔ_Ô€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ` Ð27€S.W.3d€889,€893,€n.€2€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€issue€in€òòÔ_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó€was€whether€aggravated€child€abuseÐ ü L  Ðwas€a€lesser„included€offense€of€reckless€killing€of€a€child,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€39„13„Ð è 8  Ð202(a)(4)€(1994),׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€statute€in€effect€at€that€time.€€This€crime,€reckless€killing€of€a€child,€wasÐ Ô$  Ðdefined€in€a€statutory€provision€entirely€separate€and€distinct€from€the€statutory€provisionÐ À  Ðdefining€felony€murder.€€€As€a€result,€we€concluded€that€a€legislative€intent€to€permit€dualÐ ¬ü  Ðconvictions€and€sentences€did€not€appear€to€be€present€under€the€1994€reckless€killing€of€a€childÐ ˜è  Ðprovision.€€òòÔ_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó,€27€S.W.3d€at€893.€€We€acknowledged€that€the€statute€defining€as€first€degreeÐ „Ô  Ðmurder€the€reckless€killing€of€a€child€by€aggravated€child€abuse€was€adopted€by€the€GeneralÐ pÀ ÐAssembly€in€response€to€òòState€v.€Kerry€Phillip€Bowersóó,€No.€115€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€filed€Aug.€2,Ð \¬ Ð1989),€and€that€the€statute€was€commonly€known€as€the€ð ðScotty€Ô_ÔTrexlerÔ_Ô€Law.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó,€27Ð H˜ ÐS.W.3d€at€893.€€The€intent€of€this€provision,€we€found,€was€not€to€permit€dual€convictions€but€toÐ 4„ Ðpunish€the€reckless€killing€of€a€child€as€first€degree€murder.€€òòId.óó€€Accordingly,€in€the€absence€ofÐ  p Ðlegislative€intent€to€the€contrary,€we€found€aggravated€child€abuse€to€be€a€lesser€included€offenseÐ  \ Ðof€reckless€killing€of€a€child.Ð øH ÐÌà  àHowever,€in€1995,€the€General€Assembly€again€amended€the€first€degree€murder€statuteÐ Ð  Ðby€repealing€the€separate€provision€defining€reckless€killing€of€a€child€and€by€amending€theÐ ¼  Ðfelony€murder€statute€to€add€aggravated€child€abuse€as€one€of€the€felonies€capable€of€supporting€aÐ ¨ø Ðconviction€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€€As€previously€stated,€Ô_ÔGodseyÔ_Ô€was€prosecuted€andÐ ”ä Ðconvicted€under€the€felony€murder€statute€as€amended€in€1995.Ô_Ô׃!Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Therefore,€the€issue€in€thisÐ €Ð Ðappeal€is€whether,€under€the€1995€felony€murder€statute,€dual€convictions€for€felony€murder€byÐ l¼ Ðaggravated€child€abuse€and€aggravated€child€abuse€are€permissible.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€State€contends€that€by€adding€aggravated€child€abuse€to€the€list€of€felonies€capable€ofÐ 0"€  Ðsupporting€a€conviction€for€felony€murder,€the€Legislature€expressed€its€intent€to€permitÐ #l! Ðconvictions€and€punishment€both€for€felony€murder€and€for€the€underlying€felony,€aggravatedÐ $X" Ðchild€abuse.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€the€State€relies€upon€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐBlackburnóó,€694€S.W.2d€934,€936€(Tenn.€1985),€where€this€Court€concluded€that€the€LegislatureÐ œì Ðintended€to€allow€multiple€convictions€and€punishments€for€felony€murder€and€the€underlyingÐ ˆØ Ðfelony.€€The€State€points€out€that€in€òòBlackburnóó€this€Court€observed€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôn]othingÔ_Ô€in€the€statutoryÐ tÄ Ðdefinitions€of€murder€in€the€first€degree€and€of€the€felonies€listed€in€[the€felony€murder€statute]Ð `° Ðindicates€a€legislative€intent€that€conviction€and€punishment€for€both€offenses€should€not€beÐ L œ Ðpermitted.ðð€€òòId.óó€694€S.W.2d€at€937.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€response,€the€defendant€says€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€found€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€General€Assembly€did€not€intend€to€permit€dual€convictions€under€these€circumstances.€€InÐ ü L  Ðsupport€of€this€argument,€the€defendant€relies€upon€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„401(d)€whichÐ è 8  Ðdesignates€child€abuse€and€neglect€as€a€lesser€included€offense€ð ðof€any€kind€of€homicide.ðð€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€argues€that€if€child€abuse€and€neglect€is€a€lesser€included€offense€of€homicide,€thenÐ À  Ðaggravated€child€abuse,€which€refers€to€the€child€abuse€and€neglect€statute,€also€is€a€lesserÐ ¬ü  Ðincluded€offense€of€homicide.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWhile€agreeing€that€the€General€Assembly€has€designated€child€abuse€and€neglect€a€lesserÐ pÀ Ðincluded€offense€of€any€kind€of€homicide,€the€State€argues€that€the€General€Assembly€did€notÐ \¬ Ðdesignate€aggravated€child€abuse€a€lesser€included€offense€of€homicide.€€Therefore,€according€toÐ H˜ Ðthe€State,€the€Legislature€did€not€intend€to€preclude€dual€convictions€for€felony€murder€andÐ 4„ Ðaggravated€child€abuse.€€€As€support€for€this€assertion,€the€State€points€to€this€Courtððs€commentÐ  p Ðin€òòÔ_ÔDuckerÔ_Ôóó,€27€S.W.3d€at€893,€n.1€(Tenn.€2000):€ð ð[Ô_Ôw]hileÔ_Ô€child€abuse€has€been€explicitlyÐ  \ Ðdesignated€as€a€lesser„include€offense€ððof€any€kind€of€homicideðð€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„Ð øH Ð401(d),€the€legislature€has€not€designated€òòaggravatedòòóóóó€child€abuse€as€a€lesser„included€offense€ofÐ ä4 Ðððany€kind€of€homicide.ðððð€(Emphasis€in€original.)Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àGenerally,€the€State€is€correct€in€asserting€that€a€defendant€can€be€tried€and€convicted€forÐ ¨ø Ðfirst€degree€felony€murder€and€the€underlying€felony€in€a€single€trial€without€violating€theÐ ”ä Ðconstitutional€prohibitions€against€double€jeopardy.€€òòÔ_ÔBackburnÔ_Ôóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€936„37.€€€Indeed,Ð €Ð Ðdouble€jeopardy€does€not€require€dismissal€or€merger€where€"the€two€statutes€are€directed€toÐ l¼ Ðseparate€evils."€€òòBlackburnóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€936€(citing€òòÔ_ÔAlbernazÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€450€U.S.€333,Ð X ¨ Ð343,€101€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1137€(1981));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€377€n.€11€(Tenn.1996);Ð D!” ÐòòState€v.€Lewisóó,€919€S.W.2d€62,€69€(Ô_ÔTenn.Crim.AppÔ_Ô.1995).€The€key€issue€is€"whether€theÐ 0"€  Ðlegislature€intended€cumulative€punishment."€€òòBlackburnóó,€694€S.W.2d€at€936;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDentonóó,Ð #l! Ð938€S.W.2d€at€379.€€To€determine€legislative€intent,€we€look€to€the€language€of€the€relevantÐ $X" Ðstatutes.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àChild€abuse€and€neglect€is€defined€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„401(a),€which€provides:Ð Ì&"% Ðà8  à(a)€Any€person€who€knowingly,€other€than€by€accidental€means,€treats€a€childÐ ¸'#& Ðunder€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age€in€such€a€manner€as€to€inflict€injury€or€neglectsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsuch€a€child€so€as€to€adversely€affect€the€childððs€health€and€welfare€commits€aÐ )à$( ÐClass€A€misdemeanor;€provided,€that€if€the€abused€or€neglected€child€is€six€yearsÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€age€or€less,€the€penalty€is€a€Class€D€felony.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔSubsections€(b)€and€(c)€of€this€statute€are€procedural€in€nature.€€Subsection€(b)€addresses€theÐ ° Ðauthority€of€juvenile€courts€to€hear€matters€arising€under€this€section,€and€subsection€(c)€statesÐ œì Ðthat€the€provisions€of€the€section€are€supplementary€or€cumulative€to€other€statutory€provisions.€Ð ˆØ ÐSubsection€(d)€provides€in€relevant€part€that€child€abuse€and€neglect€ð ðmay€be€a€lesser€includedÐ tÄ Ðoffense€of€any€kind€of€homicide,€statutory€assault,€or€sexual€offense€if€the€victim€is€a€child€andÐ `° Ðthe€evidence€supports€a€charge€under€this€section.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„15„401(d).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAggravated€child€abuse€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„402,€which€provides€inÐ $ t Ðrelevant€part€as€follows:Ð  ` Ðà8  à(a)€€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€aggravated€child€abuse€or€aggravated€childÐ ü L  Ðneglect€òòwho€commits€the€offense€of€child€abuse€or€neglect€as€defined€in€ðð€39„15„Ð è 8  Ð401€and:óóÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÓ€ (¦Ù83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£®úÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝThe€act€of€abuse€or€neglect€results€in€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€child;€or݃3£®úçúÝŒÐÀ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àÝ‚3£ÙûÝÔ2¦ÙÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` Ð Ð àÝ  ÝA€deadly€weapon€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act€of€abuse.݃3£Ùûü݌Ьü ` Ð ` Ð  ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  à(€b)€A€violation€of€this€section€is€a€Class€B€Felony;€provided,€that,€if€the€abused€orÐ ˜è  Ðneglected€child€is€six€(6)€years€of€age€or€less,€the€penalty€is€a€Class€A€felony.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌ(Emphasis€added.)€€While€the€Legislature€has€specifically€provided€that€child€abuse€and€neglectÐ \¬ Ðð ðmay€be€a€lesser€included€offense€of€any€kind€of€homicide,ðð€the€aggravated€child€abuse€statute€isÐ H˜ Ðsilent€and€contains€no€similar€designation.€€ð ðOmissions€are€significant€when€statutes€are€expressÐ 4„ Ðin€certain€categories€but€not€others.ðð€€òòCarver€v.€Citizen€Util.€Co.óó,€954€S.W.2d€34,€35€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1997).€€€In€addition,€as€the€State€contends,€the€aggravated€child€abuse€statute€incorporates€onlyÐ  \ Ðsubsection€(a),€that€portion€containing€the€definition€of€child€abuse€and€neglect.€€The€aggravatedÐ øH Ðchild€abuse€statute€does€not€even€refer€to€subsection€(d),€the€portion€of€the€statute€designatingÐ ä4 Ðchild€abuse€and€neglect€a€lesser€included€offense€of€homicide.€€Given€that€subsection€(a)€isÐ Ð  Ðseparate€and€distinct€from€subsection€(d),€incorporation€of€subsection€(a)€does€not€mean€thatÐ ¼  Ðsubsection€(d)€has€also€been€incorporated.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àFinally,€and€perhaps€most€importantly,€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòBlackburnóó,€permittingÐ €Ð Ðdual€convictions€for€felony€murder€and€the€underlying€felony€in€the€absence€of€a€clearlyÐ l¼ Ðexpressed€legislative€intent€to€the€contrary,€was€rendered€in€1985.€€The€General€Assembly€isÐ X ¨ Ðpresumed€to€know€the€state€of€the€law€at€the€time€it€acts.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòWashington€v.€RobertsonÐ D!” ÐCountyóó,€29€S.W.3d€466,€473€(Tenn.€2000).€€Therefore,€when€the€General€Assembly€amended€theÐ 0"€  Ðfelony€murder€statute€in€1995€to€add€aggravated€child€abuse€to€the€list€of€felonies€capable€ofÐ #l! Ðsupporting€a€felony€murder€conviction,€the€General€Assembly€is€presumed€to€have€known€thatÐ $X" Ðdual€convictions€for€felony€murder€and€aggravated€child€abuse€would€be€permissible€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðabsence€of€a€clear€intent€to€the€contrary.€€Although€the€General€Assembly€specifically€designatedÐ à%0!$ Ðchild€abuse€and€neglect€a€lesser€included€offense€of€homicide,€there€is€no€similar€designation€forÐ Ì&"% Ðaggravated€child€abuse.€€Indeed,€we€have€evaluated€the€relevant€statutes€and€find€no€clearlyÐ ¸'#& Ðexpressed€legislative€intent€to€prohibit€dual€convictions.€€As€previously€stated,€the€key€issue€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmultiple€punishment€cases€is€legislative€intent.€€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€379.€€Where€theÐ )à$( ÐLegislature€has€indicated€that€cumulative€punishment€is€intended,€the€double€jeopardy€analysisÐ |*Ì%) Ðneed€not€proceed€any€further.€€òòId.óó,€938€S.W.2d€at€379,€n.14.€€€In€this€case,€reading€the€child€Ô_ÔabuseÐ h+¸&* Ðand€neglect,€aggravated€child€abuse,€and€felony€murder€statutes€together,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ° Ðlegislative€intent€to€allow€cumulative€punishment€is€clear.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€aggravatedÐ œì Ðchild€abuse€is€not€a€lesser€included€offense€of€felony€murder€and€that€dual€convictions€areÐ ˆØ Ðpermissible€in€this€context.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ tÄ Ðvacating€the€defendantððs€aggravated€child€abuse€conviction€is€reversed€and€the€judgment€of€theÐ `° Ðtrial€court€is€reinstated.Ð L œ Ðò òÌó óà@] ] ìàòòò òAggravating€Circumstance€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€„€Narrowingóóó óˆÐ $ t Ðà  àRelying€upon€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992),€the€defendant€nextÐ  ` Ðcontends€that€the€State€may€not€seek€the€death€penalty€for€a€felony€murder€in€the€perpetration€ofÐ ü L  Ðaggravated€child€abuse€where€the€sole€aggravating€circumstance€is€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð è 8  Ð204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€ð!ð€ð ðthe€murder€was€committed€against€a€person€less€than€twelve€(12)€years€of€age€andÐ Ô$  Ðthe€defendant€was€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age,€or€older.ðð€€The€defendant€contends€that€theÐ À  Ðaggravating€circumstance€duplicates€the€age€element€of€the€offense€of€aggravated€child€abuse€andÐ ¬ü  Ðtherefore€does€not€sufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€defendants€under€the€EighthÐ ˜è  ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€16€of€the€TennesseeÐ „Ô  ÐConstitution.€€Acknowledging€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€has€been€allowed€to€support€aÐ pÀ Ðsentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole€for€felony€aggravated€child€abuse€murder,€òòseeóóÐ \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Lacyóó,€983€S.W.2d€686,€696€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997),€the€defendant€points€out€thatÐ H˜ ÐòòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó€does€not€apply€outside€the€death€penalty€context.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€980€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð359€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€defendant€also€relies€upon€a€law€review€article€which€expressed€theÐ  p Ðtheory€that€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó€precludes€the€use€of€aggravating€circumstance€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€to€impose€theÐ  \ Ðdeath€penalty€for€felony€murders€based€on€aggravated€child€abuse.€€òòSeeóó€Gary€R.€Wade,€òòTheÐ øH ÐÔ_ÔTrexlerÔ_Ô€Saga:€Hale€&€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€23€Mem.€St.€L.€Rev.€319€(1993).Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€State€contends€that,€unlike€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€the€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€aggravating€circumstance€at€issueÐ ¼  Ðin€this€case€provides€meaningful€narrowing€because€the€underlying€offense,€felony€murder€byÐ ¨ø Ðaggravated€child€abuse,€applies€to€all€defendants€whose€murder€victims€are€under€eighteen€yearsÐ ”ä Ðof€age,€while€the€aggravating€circumstance€applies€only€to€those€defendants€whose€murderÐ €Ð Ðvictims€are€under€twelve€years€of€age.€€The€State€asserts€that€by€narrowing€the€class€of€murderersÐ l¼ Ðto€those€whose€victims€are€under€the€age€of€twelve,€the€General€Assembly€has€chosen€toÐ X ¨ Ðrecognize€the€discrepancy€in€size,€strength,€and€ability€between€victim€and€assailant,€as€well€asÐ D!” Ðthe€heightened€vulnerability€of€younger€children,€who,€generally€are€less€able€to€defendÐ 0"€  Ðthemselves,€describe€their€assailant,€seek€assistance,€flee€the€attack,€or€even€to€articulate€theÐ #l! Ðnature€of€the€crime.€€Given€these€factors,€the€State€says€that€making€those€who€kill€suchÐ $X" Ðvulnerable€victims€death„eligible€is€more€than€reasonable€and€constitutes€a€meaningful€narrowingÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€class€of€all€murderers.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€where,€a€majority€of€this€Court€held€thatÐ ° Ðð ðwhen€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder,ððÐ œì Ðuse€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€is€not€permissible€because€it€ð ðdoes€not€narrowÐ ˆØ Ðthe€class€of€death„eligible€murderers€sufficiently€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÐ tÄ ÐStates€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€because€it€duplicatesÐ `° Ðthe€elements€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòId.óó,€840€S.W.2d€at€346.€€In€so€holding,€we€observed€that€Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àAutomatically€instructing€the€sentencing€body€on€the€underlying€felony€in€aÐ $ t Ðfelony„murder€case€does€nothing€to€aid€the€jury€in€its€task€of€distinguishingÐ  ` Ðbetween€first„degree€homicides€and€defendants€for€the€purpose€of€imposing€theÐ ü L  Ðdeath€penalty.€€Relevant€distinctions€dim,€since€òòall€participants€in€a€felony€murderóó,Ð è 8  Ðregardless€of€varying€degrees€of€culpability,€enter€the€sentencing€stage€with€atÐ Ô$  Ðleast€one€aggravating€factor€against€them.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐòòÌId.óó€at€342€(emphasis€added).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àTo€determine€whether€the€concern€addressed€in€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó€exists€in€this€case,€we€mustÐ pÀ Ðlook€again€to€the€felony€murder€statute€under€which€the€defendant€was€convicted,€which€definesÐ \¬ Ðfirst€degree€murder€as€ð ð[a]€killing€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€or€attempt€toÐ H˜ Ðperpetrate€.€.€.€aggravated€child€abuse.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2).€€Child€abuseÐ 4„ Ðand€neglect€is€defined€as€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  à(a)€Any€person€who€knowingly,€other€than€by€accidental€means,€treats€òòa€childÐ øH Ðunder€eighteen€(18)€years€of€ageóó€in€such€a€manner€as€to€inflict€injury€or€neglectsÐ ä4 Ðsuch€a€child€so€as€to€adversely€affect€the€childððs€health€and€welfare€commits€aÐ Ð  ÐClass€A€misdemeanor;€provided,€that€if€the€abused€or€neglected€child€is€six€yearsÐ ¼  Ðof€age€or€less,€the€penalty€is€a€Class€D€felony.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„15„401(a)€(emphasis€added).€€Child€abuse€becomes€aggravated€when€theÐ €Ð Ðð ðact€of€abuse€results€in€serious€bodily€injury€to€the€child;€or€.€.€.€a€deadly€weapon€is€used.ðð€€Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„15„402.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Under€these€statutes,€felony€murder€by€aggravated€child€abuse€may€beÐ X ¨ Ðcommitted€against€a€person€less€than€eighteen€years€old.€€However,€the€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€aggravatingÐ D!” Ðcircumstance€applies€only€if€the€victim€is€less€than€twelve€years€old.€€Unlike€the€felony€murderÐ 0"€  Ðaggravating€circumstance€at€issue€in€òòÔ_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ôóó,€which€applied€equally€to€all€felonyÐ #l! Ðmurderers,€the€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€aggravating€circumstance€does€not€by€its€terms€apply€to€all€aggravated€childÐ $X" Ðabuse€murderers.€€This€aggravating€circumstance€simply€does€not€duplicate€the€elements€of€theÐ ° Ðunderlying€offense,€felony€murder€by€aggravated€child€abuse.Ô_Ô׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€It€narrows€the€class€of€death„Ð œì Ðeligible€defendants€because€it€applies€to€only€those€defendants€whose€murder€victims€are€lessÐ ˆØ Ðthan€twelve€years€of€age.€€We€agree€with€the€State€that,€in€adopting€this€aggravatingÐ tÄ Ðcircumstance,€the€General€Assembly€no€doubt€recognized€that€victims€under€twelve€years€of€ageÐ `° Ðare€typically€more€vulnerable€than€those€between€thirteen€and€seventeen€years€of€age.€€A€youngerÐ L œ Ðvictim€is€less€able€to€defend€himself€or€herself€and€less€able€to€flee.€€The€General€AssemblyÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonably€concluded€that€persons€who€attack€and€abuse€these€young€victims€are€among€the€mostÐ $ t Ðculpable€murderers.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó€òòÔ_ÔGilsonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€9€P.3d€883,€923€(Okla.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€2000)€(findingÐ  ` Ðlegislative€action€that€protects€vulnerable€children€legally€justified).€€€Thus,€we€hold€that€the€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)Ð ü L  Ðaggravating€circumstance€sufficiently€and€meaningfully€narrows€the€class€of€death„eligibleÐ è 8  Ðdefendants,€even€defendants€who€have€been€convicted€of€felony€murder€in€the€perpetration€ofÐ Ô$  Ðaggravated€child€abuse.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòEx€Parte€Ô_ÔWoodardÔ_Ôóó,€631€So.€2d€1065,€1071„72€(Ala.€1993)Ð À  Ð(upholding€the€constitutionality€of€a€similar€age€of€victim€aggravating€circumstance);€òòState€v.Ð ¬ü  ÐWoodóó,€967€P.2d€702,€716„17€(Idaho€1998);€(upholding€a€similar€age€of€victim€aggravatingÐ ˜è  Ðcircumstance€against€a€constitutional€narrowing€challenge);€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔRissleyÔ_Ôóó,€651€N.E.2d€133,Ð „Ô  Ð152„53€(Ill.€1995)€(upholding€a€similar€age€of€the€victim€aggravating€circumstance);€òòState€v.Ð pÀ ÐWilsonóó,€685€So.€2d€1063,€1071„72€(La.€1996)€(upholding€a€similar€age€of€the€victim€aggravatingÐ \¬ Ðcircumstance).€Ð H˜ ÐÌÌà@  ìàòòò òStatutory€Comparative€Proportionality€Reviewó óóóˆÐ  \ Ðà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€a€well„reasoned€opinion€concluded€that€the€sentence€ofÐ øH Ðdeath€in€this€case€is€disproportionate€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€cases.€€As€a€result,€theÐ ä4 ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€modified€the€sentence€to€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€ofÐ Ð  Ðparole.€€In€this€Court,€the€State€argues€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€invaded€the€province€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€jury€in€several€respects€when€it€held€the€defendantððs€sentence€comparatively€disproportionateÐ ¨ø Ðunder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€39„13„206(D).€€The€defendant€responds€that€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ”ä ÐAppeals€properly€concluded€that€a€death€sentence€in€this€case€is€disproportionate.€€We€agree.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€General€Assembly€has€directed€appellate€courts€reviewing€capital€cases€toÐ X ¨ Ðdetermine€whether€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€sentence€of€death€is€excessive€or€disproportionate€to€the€penaltyÐ D!” Ðimposed€in€similar€cases,€considering€both€the€nature€of€the€crime€and€the€defendant.ðð€€Tenn.Ð 0"€  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(c)(1)(D).€€In€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€851€(Tenn.€1997),€we€undertookÐ ° Ðan€exhaustive€analysis€of€this€statutory€provision€that€involved€a€full€inquiry€into€the€language,Ð œì Ðpurpose,€jurisprudential€background,€and€legislative€history€of€comparative€proportionalityÐ ˆØ Ðreview.€€We€emphasized€that€statutory€comparative€proportionality€is€different€from€traditionalÐ tÄ ÐEighth€Amendment€proportionality€analysis,€which€is€the€ð ðabstract€evaluation€of€theÐ `° Ðappropriateness€of€a€sentence€for€a€particular€crime.ðð€€òòPulley€v.€Harrisóó,€465€U.S.€37,€42„43,€104Ð L œ ÐS.€Ct.€871,€875,€79€L.€Ed.€2d€29€(1984).€€In€contrast,€statutory€comparative€proportionality€reviewÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðpresumes€that€the€death€penalty€is€not€disproportionate€to€the€crime€in€the€traditional€sense.€€ItÐ $ t Ðpurports€to€inquire€instead€whether€the€penalty€is€nonetheless€unacceptable€in€a€particular€caseÐ  ` Ðbecause€disproportionate€to€the€punishment€imposed€on€others€convicted€of€the€same€crime.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐòòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€662€(Tenn.€1997)€(quoting€òòPulleyóó,€465€U.S.€at€42„43,€104€S.€Ct.€at€875„76).€Ð è 8  ÐThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€characterized€statutory€comparative€proportionality€reviewÐ Ô$  Ðas€ð ða€check€against€the€random€or€arbitrary€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.ðð€€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,Ð À  Ð428€U.S.€153,€206,€96€S.€Ct.€2909,€2940„41,€49€L.€Ed.€2d€859€(1976).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àComparative€proportionality€review,€however,€is€not€a€constitutional€imperative€orÐ „Ô  Ðmandate;€it€is€instead€a€creature€of€statute.€€òòPulleyóó,€465€U.S.€at€€50„51,€104€S.€Ct.€at€879„80Ð pÀ Ð(ð ðThere€is€.€.€.€no€basis€in€our€cases€for€holding€that€comparative€proportionality€review€by€anÐ \¬ Ðappellate€court€is€required€in€every€case€in€which€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€and€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðrequests€it.ðð);€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€663„64€(ð ðWhile€important€as€an€additional€safeguard€againstÐ 4„ Ðarbitrary€or€capricious€sentencing,€comparative€proportionality€review€is€not€constitutionallyÐ  p Ðrequired.ðð).€€Indeed,€following€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€decision€in€òòPulleyóó,€nine€of€theÐ  \ Ðtwenty„nine€other€states€which€initially€conducted€comparative€proportionality€review€have€eitherÐ øH Ðrepealed€the€statutory€provisions€requiring€it€or€have€overruled€court€decisions€mandating€it.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ԀРä4 ÐSignificantly,€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€has€not€seen€fit€to€repeal€the€statute€which€directsÐ Ð  Ðthis€Court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€to€conduct€comparative€proportionality€review€inÐ ¼  Ðall€death€penalty€cases.€€In€addition,€the€General€Assembly€has€not€amended€the€statute€since€ourÐ ¨ø Ðcomprehensive€decision€in€òòBlandóó€fully€explained€the€analysis€we€employ€to€conduct€comparativeÐ ”ä Ðproportionality€review.€€Accordingly,€we€will€conduct€the€comparative€proportionality€review€inÐ €Ð Ðthis€case€in€accordance€with€the€analysis€adopted€in€òòBlandóó.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAs€we€have€stressed€on€prior€occasions,€we€do€not€take€lightly€our€statutory€duty€toÐ D!” Ðconduct€comparative€proportionality€review€in€every€capital€case.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€253,€270„71€(Tenn.€1994).€€We€employ€the€precedent„seeking€method€of€analysis.€Ð #l! ÐòòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€665.€€This€approach€requires€careful€consideration€and€examination€of€theÐ $X" Ðcase€on€appeal€and€other€cases€in€which€the€defendants€were€convicted€of€the€same€or€similarÐ ô$D # Ðcrimes.€We€examine€the€facts€of€the€crimes,€the€characteristics€of€the€defendants,€and€theÐ à%0!$ Ðaggravating€and€mitigating€factors€involved.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€664;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔTichnellÔ_Ô€v.Ð ° ÐStateóó,€468€A.2d€1,€13„23€(Md.€1983).Ð œì ÐÌà  àWhile€statutory€comparative€proportionality€review€insures€rationality€and€consistency€inÐ tÄ Ðthe€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€our€function€in€performing€this€review€is€not€to€search€forÐ `° Ðproof€that€a€defendantððs€death€sentence€is€perfectly€symmetrical€with€the€penalty€imposed€in€allÐ L œ Ðother€first€degree€murder€cases,€but€to€identify€and€invalidate€the€aberrant€death€sentence.Ô_Ô׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€InÐ 8 ˆ Ðconducting€comparative€review,€we€do€not€act€as€a€ð ðsuper€jury,ðð€nor€do€we€second„guess€theÐ $ t Ðjuryððs€decision.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€668.€€Simply€stated,€if€the€case,€taken€as€a€whole,€isÐ  ` Ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€those€in€similar€cases€in€which€the€death€penaltyÐ ü L  Ðhas€been€imposed,€the€sentence€of€death€is€disproportionate.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€651;€òòState€v.Ð è 8  ÐRamseyóó,€864€S.W.2d€320,€328€(Mo.€1993).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAdmittedly,€this€standard€is€not€easily€satisfied.€€When€the€sentencing€jury€is€properlyÐ ¬ü  Ðinstructed€by€the€trial€court€and€appropriately€considers€the€evidence€of€aggravating€andÐ ˜è  Ðmitigating€circumstances€under€a€statutory€scheme€that€is€constitutional,€disproportionate€deathÐ „Ô  Ðsentences€should€be€the€rare€exception,€not€the€norm.€€The€fact€that€no€death€sentence€hasÐ pÀ Ðpreviously€been€invalidated€as€disproportionate€in€Tennessee€is€an€indication€that€our€capitalÐ \¬ Ðsentencing€scheme€is€functioning€properly.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cobbóó,€743€A.2d€1,€125€(Conn.€1999)Ð H˜ Ð(noting€that€disproportionate€sentences€will€be€unlikely€where€the€sentencing€authority€isÐ 4„ Ðcorrectly€instructed€and€appropriately€follows€the€statute);€òòState€v.€Jacobsóó,€2001€WL€507878€(La.Ð  p Ð2001)€(noting€that€since€1976€only€one€death€sentence€had€been€set€aside€in€Louisiana€asÐ  \ Ðdisproportionate).€€Comparative€proportionality€review€is€simply€a€final€safeguard€in€the€initialÐ øH Ðappellate€process€to€ensure€that€no€aberrant€death€sentence€is€affirmed.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWhile€we€receive€Rule€12€reports€from€trial€judges€in€ð ðall€cases€in€which€the€defendant€isÐ ¼  Ðconvicted€of€first€degree€murder,ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€12;€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€666,€we€selectÐ ¨ø Ðsimilar€cases€for€comparative€proportionalityÔ_Ô׃+ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€from€a€pool€that€includes€only€those€first€degreeÐ ”ä Ðmurder€cases€in€which€the€State€seeks€the€death€penalty,€a€capital€sentencing€hearing€is€held,Ô_Ô׃(x×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ €Ð Ðand€the€sentencing€jury€determines€whether€the€sentence€should€be€life€imprisonment,€lifeÐ ° Ðimprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€parole,€or€death,€regardless€of€the€sentence€actuallyÐ œì ÐimposedÔ‡-X)XX X)Ô.Ô#† X)XX-X)°T#Ô׃$ü ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€ð ð[Ô_ÔB]ecauseÔ_Ô€the€aim€of€proportionality€review€is€to€ascertain€what€other€capitalÐ ˆØ Ðsentencing€authorities€have€done€with€similar€capital€murder€offenses,€the€only€cases€that€couldÐ tÄ Ðbe€deemed€similar€.€.€.€are€those€in€which€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€was€properly€before€theÐ `° Ðsentencing€authority€for€determination.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔTichnellÔ_Ôóó,€468€A.2d€at€15„16;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔWhitfieldÔ_Ôóó,€837Ð L œ ÐS.W.2d,€503,€515€(Mo.€1992);€òòSmithóó,€931€P.2d€1272,€1285€(Mont.€1996);€òòRhinesóó,€548€N.W.2d€atÐ 8 ˆ Ð455„56.€òòAccordóó,€òòÔ_ÔFlamerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€490€A.2d€104,€139€(Del.€1983).€€Not€included€in€the€pool€ofÐ $ t Ðsimilar€cases€are€first€degree€murder€cases€in€which€the€State€did€not€seek€the€death€penalty€orÐ  ` Ðfirst€degree€murder€cases€in€which€a€sentence€other€than€death€was€agreed€upon€as€part€of€a€pleaÐ ü L  Ðbargaining€agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€211,€òòÔ_ÔWhitfieldÔ_Ôóó,€837€S.W.2d€at€515.€€When€aÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€pleads€guilty,€he€or€she€extends€a€substantial€benefit€to€the€criminal€justice€system,€andÐ Ô$  Ðin€exchange,€the€State€is€entitled€to€extend€a€less€harsh€sentence€than€might€otherwise€be€given€ifÐ À  Ðthe€case€is€submitted€to€a€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€509€(Tenn.€1997)€(citingÐ ¬ü  ÐòòBrady€v.€United€Statesóó,€397€U.S.€742,€752„53,€90€S.€Ct.€1463,€1471„72,€25€L.€Ed.2d€747€(1970)).€Ð ˜è  ÐTherefore,€while€the€sentence€imposed€as€part€of€a€plea€agreement€likely€will€be€less€harsh€thanÐ „Ô  Ðthe€sentence€imposed€by€a€jury€after€a€trial€and€sentencing€hearing,€it€does€not€follow€that€the€lessÐ pÀ Ðharsh€sentence€resulting€from€the€plea€renders€the€jury€sentence€aberrant€or€disproportionate.€€AÐ \¬ Ðsentence€imposed€by€a€jury€simply€cannot€logically€be€compared€to€a€sentence€that€results€from€aÐ H˜ Ðplea€agreement.€€The€circumstances€are€different€in€all€respects.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€consideration€of€cases€in€which€the€State,€for€whatever€reasons,€did€not€seekÐ  \ Ðthe€death€penalty€would€necessarily€require€us€to€scrutinize€what€is€ultimately€a€discretionaryÐ øH Ðprosecutorial€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€211„12.€€€We€previously€have€declined€to€reviewÐ ä4 Ðthe€exercise€of€prosecutorial€discretion,€òòseeóó€òòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€253,€and€it€would€beÐ Ð  Ðparticularly€inappropriate€to€do€so€in€conducting€comparative€proportionality€review,€where€ourÐ ¼  Ðfunction€is€limited€to€identifying€aberrant€death€sentences,€not€identifying€òòpotentialóó€capital€cases.€Ð ¨ø Ðòòóó€Consideration€of€cases€in€which€the€State€did€not€seek€the€death€penalty,€in€effect,€would€beÐ ”ä Ðusing€a€prior€decision€of€the€State€as€a€basis€for€invalidating€a€death€penalty€in€Ô_ÔanÔ_Ô€unrelated€case.€Ð €Ð ÐòòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€211„12.€€Such€a€course€could€potentially€discourage€the€State€both€fromÐ ° Ðexercising€its€discretion€to€not€seek€the€death€penalty€and€from€engaging€in€plea€bargaining€withÐ œì Ða€defendant€charged€with€first€degree€murder.€€Indeed,€such€a€course€could€result€in€the€StateÐ ˆØ Ðseeking€the€ultimate€penalty€in€every€first€degree€murder€case.€€òòId.óó€€Proportionality€review€is€not,Ð tÄ Ðand€was€never€intended€to€be,€a€vehicle€for€reviewing€the€exercise€of€prosecutorial€discretion.€€Ð `° ÐFor€these€reasons,€we€do€not€consider€cases€in€which€the€State€did€not€seek€the€death€penaltyÐ L œ Ðwhen€conducting€comparative€proportionality€review.€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌà  àComparative€proportionality€review€also€is€not€a€search€for€disproportionate€or€aberrantÐ  ` Ðlife€cases.€€As€we€have€previously€stated,€even€if€a€defendant€receives€a€death€sentence€when€theÐ ü L  Ðcircumstances€of€the€offense€are€similar€to€those€of€an€offense€for€which€a€defendant€has€receivedÐ è 8  Ða€life€sentence,€the€death€sentence€is€not€disproportionate€where€the€Court€can€discern€some€basisÐ Ô$  Ðfor€the€lesser€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€665;€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€714€S.W.2d€241,€251Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€1986).€€Our€duty€under€the€similarity€standard€is€to€assure€that€no€aberrant€death€sentenceÐ ¬ü  Ðis€affirmed.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€665€(citing€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€203).€€As€the€United€StatesÐ ˜è  ÐSupreme€Court€so€aptly€stated:€€ð ðSince€the€proportionality€requirement€on€review€is€intended€toÐ „Ô  Ðprevent€caprice€in€the€decision€to€inflict€the€[death]€penalty,€the€isolated€decision€of€a€jury€toÐ pÀ Ðafford€mercy€does€not€render€unconstitutional€death€sentences€imposed€on€defendants€who€wereÐ \¬ Ðsentenced€under€a€system€that€does€not€create€a€substantial€risk€of€arbitrariness€or€caprice.ðð€Ð H˜ ÐòòGreggóó,€428€U.S.€at€203,€96€S.€Ct.€at€2939.ò ò€€ó óÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àHaving€defined€and€explained€the€pool,€we€must€emphasize€that€selecting€similar€casesÐ ` Ðfrom€that€pool€is€not€an€exact€science€because€no€two€crimes€or€defendants€are€preciselyÐ üL Ðidentical.€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€667.€€We€have€various€tools€available€to€use€in€locating€similarÐ è8 Ðcases.€€We€review€Rule€12€reports,€which€are€not€only€on€file€in€the€Appellate€Court€ClerkððsÐ Ô$ Ðoffice€in€Nashville,€but€are€also€now€available€on€CD„ROM,€making€them€more€accessible,Ð À Ðparticularly€for€defendants.׃6×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€While€Rule€12€reports€have€not€been€filed€in€every€prior€case,Ô_Ô׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€thisÐ ¬ü ÐCourt€and€trial€judges€across€this€State€are€working€together€to€ensure€that€these€reports€are€beingÐ ˜è Ðfiled€in€current€cases€and€will€be€filed€in€future€cases.€€Nonetheless,€we€emphasize€that€Rule€12Ð „Ô Ðreports€are€merely€a€starting€point€when€conducting€comparative€proportionality€review.€€TheseÐ pÀ Ðreports€are€always€supplemented€by€traditional€methods€of€legal€research,€which€enables€us€toÐ \ ¬ Ðlocate€written€appellate€court€opinions,€which€generally€are€available€on€first€degree€murder€casesÐ H!˜ Ðincluded€within€the€pool€for€comparison.€€These€written€opinions€detail€the€facts€andÐ 4"„  Ðcircumstances€of€each€case.€€Furthermore,€like€other€appellate€courts,€this€Court€draws€on€theÐ  #p! Ðexperienced€judgment€and€institutional€knowledge€of€its€members€when€evaluating€theÐ  $\" Ðcomparative€proportionality€of€a€death€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€668€(citing€cases);Ð ø$H # Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Fowleróó,€548€S.E.2d€684,€704€(N.C.€2001).€€€Such€institutional€knowledge€is€anÐ ä%4!$ Ðimportant€tool€for€purposes€of€comparative€proportionality€review.€€Id.€€To€further€assist€thisÐ Ð& "% ÐCourt,€we€have€directed€the€State€and€the€defendant€to€fully€brief€the€issue€in€each€case€and€toÐ ° Ðdiscuss€cases€and€factors€relevant€to€the€comparative€proportionality€inquiry.€€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ œì Ðat€667.€€This€Court€utilizes€all€the€tools€at€its€disposal€to€conduct€a€thorough€and€completeÐ ˆØ Ðcomparative€proportionality€review€in€every€case.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àHowever,€we€do€not€employ€a€statistical€analysis€that€attempts€to€quantify€the€variousÐ L œ Ðfactors€leading€to€imposition€or€non„imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€òòId.óó€at€664.€€ComparativeÐ 8 ˆ Ðproportionality€review€is€not€a€rigid,€objective€test€which€employs€mathematical€or€scientificÐ $ t Ðtechniques.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€668;€òòÔ_ÔCazesÔ_Ôóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270.€€This€sort€of€approach€€hasÐ  ` Ðbeen€rightly€criticized€as€an€unworkable€attempt€ð ðto€quantify€the€unquantifiable.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòBlandóó,€958Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€at€664€(quoting,€òòWebbóó,€680€A.2d€at€209);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòRamseyóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€327„28.Ô_Ô׃0×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€ò òó óAsÐ è 8  Ðpreviously€explained,€a€sentence€of€death€is€not€disproportionate,€unless,€the€case€taken€as€aÐ Ô$  Ðwhole€is€plainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€those€in€cases€where€the€death€penaltyÐ À  Ðhas€been€imposed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€comparing€similar€cases,€this€Court€considers€many€variables€including:€(1)€the€meansÐ „Ô  Ðof€death;€(2)€the€manner€of€death€(e.g.,€violent,€torturous,€etc.);€(3)€the€motivation€for€the€killing;Ð pÀ Ð(4)€the€place€of€death;€(5)€the€similarity€of€the€victimsðð€circumstances€including€age,€physical€andÐ \¬ Ðmental€conditions,€and€the€victimsðð€treatment€during€the€killing;€(6)€the€absence€or€presence€ofÐ H˜ Ðpremeditation;€(7)€the€absence€or€presence€of€provocation;€(8)€the€absence€or€presence€ofÐ 4„ Ðjustification;€and€(9)€the€injury€to€and€effects€on€Ô_ÔnondecedentÔ_Ô€victims.€€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€667Ð  p Ð(citing€cases).€€In€addition,€several€criteria€are€relevant€to€a€comparison€of€the€characteristics€ofÐ  \ Ðdefendants€which€include:€(1)€the€defendantððs€prior€criminal€record€or€prior€criminal€activity;€(2)Ð øH Ðthe€defendantððs€age,€race,€and€gender;€(3)€the€defendantððs€mental,€emotional€or€physicalÐ ä4 Ðcondition;€(4)€the€defendantððs€involvement€€or€role€in€the€murder;€(5)€the€defendantððs€cooperationÐ Ð  Ðwith€authorities;€(6)€the€defendantððs€remorse;€(7)€the€defendantððs€knowledge€of€helplessness€ofÐ ¼  Ðvictim(s);€(8)€the€defendantððs€capacity€for€rehabilitation.€òòIdóó.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àBefore€we€consider€the€record€in€this€case€in€light€of€these€factors,€we€first€consider€theÐ €Ð ÐStateððs€assertion€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€when€conducting€comparativeÐ l¼ Ðproportionality€review€by€considering€Tennessee€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€was€not€soughtÐ X ¨ Ðand€by€considering€cases€from€other€jurisdictions.€€We€note€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ D!” Ðindicated€in€an€order€denying€the€Stateððs€petition€to€rehear€that€the€Tennessee€cases€in€which€theÐ 0"€  Ðdeath€penalty€were€not€sought€were€used€only€to€provide€context€and€to€illustrate€the€possibleÐ #l! Ðremedies,€in€view€of€the€conclusion€that€the€sentence€was€disproportionate.€€The€Court€ofÐ $X" ÐCriminal€Appeals€also€explained€that€the€out„of„state€cases€were€cited€to€demonstrate€ð ðtheÐ ô$D # Ðextensiveness€of€our€research€and€our€concerted€effort€to€reach€the€right€result.ðð€€Accordingly,€theÐ ° ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€not€base€its€decision€upon€the€cases€in€which€the€State€did€notÐ œì Ðseek€the€death€penalty€or€the€out„of„state€cases.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€it€is€worth€reiterating€that€the€pool€of€similar€cases€includes€only€cases€inÐ `° Ðwhich€the€death€penalty€was€sought,€a€sentencing€hearing€was€held,€and€a€sentencing€juryÐ L œ Ðdetermined€the€appropriate€sentence.€€Whether€out„of„state€cases€should€be€included€in€the€poolÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€similar€cases€for€purposes€of€comparative€proportionality€review€is€an€issue€this€Court€has€notÐ $ t Ðpreviously€addressed.€€In€its€jurisprudential€history€there€is€no€indication€that€comparativeÐ  ` Ðproportionality€review€was€to€be€conducted€on€a€national€scale.€€€Such€review€generally€isÐ ü L  Ðperformed€by€at€least€one€state€appellate€court€that€has€statewide€appellate€jurisdiction,€andÐ è 8  Ðtherefore,€is€able€to€compare€a€particular€death€sentence€to€the€penalty€imposed€in€similar€casesÐ Ô$  Ðthroughout€the€state.€€€In€Tennessee,€comparative€proportionality€review€is€a€duty€imposed€uponÐ À  Ðthis€Court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€by€a€statute€that€is€part€of€the€Tennessee€capitalÐ ¬ü  Ðsentencing€scheme.€€Nothing€in€the€statute€indicates€that€the€General€Assembly€intended€the€termÐ ˜è  Ðð ðsimilar€casesðð€to€include€out„of„state€cases.€€In€addition,€given€that€capital€sentencing€statutesÐ „Ô  Ðdiffer€from€state€to€state,€cases€from€other€jurisdictions€are€likely€not€ð ðsimilarðð€for€purposes€ofÐ pÀ Ðcomparative€proportionality€review.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€out„of„state€casesÐ \¬ Ðshould€not€be€included€in€the€pool€of€similar€cases€for€purposes€of€comparative€proportionalityÐ H˜ Ðreview.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€State€identifies€two€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed,€€òòState€v.Ð  \ ÐKeenóó,€31S.W.3d€196€(Tenn.€2000)€and€òòState€v.€Torresóó,€No.€E1999„00866„CCA„R3„DD,€2001Ð øH ÐWL€245137€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€March€13,€2001),€and€argues€that€these€cases€support€itsÐ ä4 Ðassertion€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€finding€the€death€sentence€in€this€caseÐ Ð  Ðdisproportionate.€€The€State€argues€that€the€question€in€determining€whether€a€sentence€isÐ ¼  Ðdisproportionate€should€be€ð ðwhether,€viewing€the€entire€record,€the€decision€of€the€jury€wasÐ ¨ø Ðbased€in€reason€as€opposed€to€whim€or€prejudice.ðð€€According€to€the€State,€if€the€sentence€ð ðis€notÐ ”ä Ðunreasonable€it€cannot€be€deemed€aberrant,€arbitrary,€or€capricious.ðð€€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€responds€that€the€appropriate€inquiry€in€determining€whether€the€sentenceÐ X ¨ Ðis€disproportionate€is€whether€the€case€is€ð ðplainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€thoseÐ D!” Ðin€which€the€death€penalty€has€been€imposed.€.€.€.ðð€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€665.€€According€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant,€the€two€cases€the€State€relies€upon€are€not€similar€to€the€instant€case€and,€in€fact,Ð #l! Ðsupport€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€sentence€in€this€case€isÐ $X" Ðdisproportionate.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€asserts€that€every€other€capital€case€in€this€stateÐ ô$D # Ðinvolving€a€child€victim€is€much€more€aggravated€than€the€killing€in€the€instant€case.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  à€Initially€we€note€that€reviewing€the€record€in€each€case€in€isolation,€as€the€State€suggests,Ð ¸'#& Ðis€not€the€appropriate€analysis€when€conducting€òòcomparativeóó€proportionality€review.€€TheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€is€correct.€€The€relevant€inquiry€for€comparative€proportionality€review€is€whether€thisÐ )à$( Ðcase,€taken€as€a€whole,€is€plainly€lacking€in€circumstances€consistent€with€those€in€cases€whereÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€death€penalty€has€been€imposed.€€òòBlandóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€665.€€To€determine€whether€this€caseÐ h+¸&* Ðcan€be€said€to€be€plainly€lacking€in€cir