ÿWPCA9 [û±¯òó’åÅ®ó¬b7ÑÀÂðQ'¾*¤“µ›PñŠI"j‡A›#  $Ç’#L¨ç‘Änõó9.N÷þüÅ¢4M™}¼Ë÷_åAÕþ– EäÙ‚g/Câ‰ó20£SwbÊ­ÞG ;SûÇì`e™«2$Z[¥R֦˟^«U©+ )9?»ñD™E‡ï¨QFgÍì5DØ©†ý–Ò®ÿ$I |RÓbš}£¨­x¶B^“š ÑYÎ÷¸ü=ûqOÆ[²÷xß=Þþ˜UJô,ÅûNáE@ãÕ¡ÎsÁò”žn=ƘS¶µ\ˆrz!JÉŒz”©â•5b3%¤9çŒÀ‡ƒÅ7w| ‰–é£b³Î¿ã?-×ôOã÷m^Ÿ±.Ÿ`IêD~†s¬®î¹†~´«FEŠ{½Ú'¨%±Nàj!ñçYLØã–¦GIL°8´‰Õ§¤õ#˃qéÕrÄÒÍkv ;‚@,RxÙ›iaN»WÊP³.èåå!é£ÞXŠg¾ÕVƒÖÏ܈ bh[ÙiÏÖZ¬•ž×õhÙù¡ÃÔ™ZÝ+㛚­ºënû½ñÍmh ·FŠâ– Æê™»{ÿ@z ·Ê2‚À­Fb %\^ b 0ˆnU6NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ #ÁÐ Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã €©N) 0D+LoE»ò½U:¯½éU@¦U:æÜ ÖüÒ’á>s ±#t·$„+&¯'ú·'"±*Ó-Sã1ã1ã1ã1ã1ã1b646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464646464 0ë>4>4>4>4 B)5)5 0¤F5 D3ê5 D-6 0KJ6J6 AS•6Æè6 0¤®7 0DR8 A«–8»jx-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9‚±,´*§3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 vÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€has€filed€six€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief,€all€of€whichÐ ° Ðhave€been€denied.€€Our€records€indicate€that€the€following€post„conviction€suits€were€denied€and€also€affirmed€on€appeal:€Ð tÄ ÐòòMcKay€&€Sample€v.€Stateóó,€No.€25,€1989€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€153€(March€1,€1989);€òòSample€&€McKay€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð 8ˆ Ð02C01„9104„CR„00062,€1995€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€115€(Feb.€15,€1995);òòóó€òòState€v.€Sample€&€Ô_ÔMcKayÔ_Ôóó,€No.02C01„Ð üL Ð9506„CR„00175,€1996€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€460òòóó€(July€26,€1996).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó BÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àPresent€versions€of€these€aggravating€circumstances€are€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(3),Ð ° Ð(6),€(7)€(1997€&€Supp.€2001). èÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àIn€contrast,€the€current€Post„Conviction€Procedures€Act€contains€a€one€(1)€year€statute€of€limitations.€Ð ° ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a)(1997).€€Because€Sampleððs€petition€was€filed€before€the€effective€date€of€the€presentÐ tÄ Ðact,€it€is€governed€by€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€then€in€effect., øð AZ"Arial Regular ³Ý ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àMoreover,€the€prosecution€is€responsible€for€any€favorable€evidence€known€to€others€acting€on€theÐ ° ÐStateððs€behalf,€including€the€police.€€òòSeeóóòòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€437,€115€S.€Ct.€1555€(1995);€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,Ð tÄ Ð38€S.W.3d€at€56.(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman +•ŸzAZ‹"Arial Regular ÒÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àPresently€codified€atTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€10„7„505€(1999€&€Supp.€2001). ÌÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€we€have€previously€rejected€the€petitionerððs€argument€that€an€appellate€court€mayÐ ° Ðnot€conduct€harmless€error€review€of€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Boydóó,€959€S.W.2d€557,€562„63Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€We€have€also€previously€rejected€the€argument€that€the€harmless€error€review€must€also€weigh€the€effectÐ 8ˆ Ðof€alleged€errors€that€are€not€properly€before€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Kingóó,€989€S.W.2d€319,€327€(Tenn.Ð üL Ð1999).€ Ý ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àIn€addition,€the€State€notes€that€the€claim€was€actually€available€several€months€earlier€pursuant€to€theÐ ° ÐCourt€of€Appealsðð€decision€in€òòFreeman€v.€Ô_ÔJeffcoatÔ_Ôóó,€No.€01A01„9103„CV„00086,€1991€Tenn.€Ct.€App.€LEXIS€659Ð tÄ Ð(Sept.11,€1991,€as€corrected),€which€reached€a€similar€conclusion€as€òòWoodallóó.€€ ˆÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€appeared€to€make€such€an€initial€determination€by€finding€that€MelvinÐ ° ÐWallaceððs€inconsistent€statements€regarding€identification€were€not€material€because€he€was€thoroughly€examined€at€trial.€Ð tÄ ÐWe€note,€however,€that€the€trial€court€assessed€òòóóonly€a€portion€of€the€witnessððs€statements€and,€moreover,€did€not€makeÐ 8ˆ Ðfindings€regarding€òòallóóof€the€allegedly€exculpatory€evidence€asserted€by€the€petitioner.€ 4Ý ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitionerððs€efforts€to€acquire€the€evidence€amounted€to€a€challengeÐ ° Ðto€the€conduct€of€his€post„conviction€counsel€is€clearly€erroneous;€the€efforts€were€directly€relevant€to€the€question€ofÐ tÄ Ðwhether€the€petitioner€had€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€raise€the€issue.€€Similarly,€the€trial€courtððs€observation€that€theÐ 8ˆ Ðpetitioner€did€not€comply€with€the€Public€Records€Act€by€requesting€the€records€in€person€during€business€hours€is€hardlyÐ üL Ðdispositive€of€whether€the€petitioner€had€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€raise€the€issue€within€the€statutory€period.ò ò€ó ó üÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àPresently€found€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(3),€(6)€(1997€&€Supp.€2001). jÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àIn€addition,€the€petition€alleged€that€the€prosecution€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€regarding€an€earlierÐ ° Ðrobbery€committed€in€the€same€area€that€the€prosecution€had€attempted€to€link€to€Sample€and€McKay. zÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àIn€adopting€this€balancing€analysis,€we€have€declined€to€create€a€specific€limitations€period€for€later„Ð ° Ðarising€claims.€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208;€òòsee€alsoóóòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€at€30.  ðÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àAs€we€have€recognized€in€analogous€circumstances€regarding€the€tolling€of€the€statute€for€mentalÐ ° Ðincompetency:€€ð ðWe€emphasize€that€to€make€a€prima€facie€showing€of€incompetence€requiring€tolling€of€the€limitationsÐ tÄ Ðperiod,€a€post„conviction€petition€must€include€specific€factual€allegations€that€demonstrate€[mental€incompetency].€Ð 8ˆ ÐUnsupported,€conclusory,€or€general€allegations€of€mental€illness€will€not€be€sufficient€to€require€tolling€and€preventÐ üL Ðsummary€dismissal€.€.€.€.€€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€40€S.W.3d€459,€464€(Tenn.€2001). Ý ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ô¥-òòô¥-ÔAlthough€we€have€remanded€on€the€exculpatory€evidence€issue,€we€believe€it€is€appropriate€to€addressÐ ° Ðthe€òòMiddlebrooksóó€issue€as€it€presently€has€been€raised€under€the€existing€circumstances€in€this€record.€€Our€conclusionsÐ tÄ Ðwill€not€preclude€additional€consideration€of€the€sentencing€error€as€it€may€relate€to€the€findings€regarding€the€exculpatoryÐ 8ˆ Ðevidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€59€(consideration€of€exculpatory€evidence€with€respect€to€remainingÐ üL Ðaggravating€circumstances).Ô#†ô¥-òòô¥-‹#Ô Ý ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àòòóóThe€dissent€writes€that€if€the€petitioner€is€ð ðsomehow€granted€an€additional€12€months€after€hisÐ ° Ðdiscovery€of€the€alleged€exculpatory€evidence€to€file€a€petition€for€relief,€nothing€here€suggests€that€he€is€entitled€to€anÐ tÄ Ðextra€òòfouróó€months€beyond€that€period€.€.€.€.ðð€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€dissentððs€consideration€of€a€12„month€periodÐ 8ˆ Ðin€its€analysis€is€misplaced€given€that€the€statute€of€limitations€applicable€in€this€post„conviction€case€was€three€years€andÐ üL Ðthere€was€no€specific€statutory€period€for€raising€late„arising€claims.€€Although€the€dissent€faults€the€òòWorkmanóó€decisionÐ À Ðfor€allowing€a€13„month€delay€where€the€statute€of€limitations€in€a€coram€nobis€case€was€12€monthsòòóó,€that€statutory€periodÐ „Ô Ðis€not€at€issue€here.€€€€€ IÝ ƒRE$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àAlthough€I€joined€Justice€Barker€in€dissenting€from€the€majority€in€òòWorkmanóó,€I€fully€respect€that€itÐ ° Ðis€the€law€in€this€State€and€must€be€applied€when€applicable.€€As€such,€I€find€that€the€reasoning€in€òòWorkmanóó€with€respectÐ tÄ Ðto€the€appropriate€due€process€balancing€analysis€under€òòBurfordóó€and€its€progeny€is€persuasive€as€applied€in€this€post„Ð 8ˆ Ðconviction€capital€case.€€- ù-(|G2E$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥-ò»»Ô d(|3ÿ|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€õ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼õ»»»ÔÑ8€ViXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î´î»¼õÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼õ»îî´ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€3,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XViX»¼õÔÌò òÔ#†¼õ»XXVií#ÔMICHAEL€EUGENE€SAMPLE,€òòet€al.óó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XViX»¼õÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ЀCriminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„14252€€€€€Bernie€Ô_ÔWeinmanÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„01202„SC„R11„PC€„€Filed€August€2,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌà  àÔ#†¼õ»XXVil#ÔÔ€XViX»¼õÔWe€granted€review€in€this€post„conviction€capital€case€to€address€two€issues:€€(1)€whether€theÐ d´ Ðtrial€court€properly€ruled€that€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€the€prosecution€suppressed€exculpatoryÐ P  Ðevidence€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€determinedÐ <Œ Ðthat€the€juryððs€reliance€on€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€in€imposing€a€death€sentenceÐ (x Ðfor€the€offense€of€felony€murder€in€violation€of€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€wasÐ d Ðharmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€denial€ofÐ P Ðpost„conviction€relief.Ð ì< ÐÌà  àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€we€hold€that€our€decision€inÐ Ä ÐòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.€1999),did€not€create€a€òòperóóòòseóórule€requiring€the€dismissal€ofÐ ° Ðall€late„arising€suppression€of€exculpatory€evidence€claims,€and€that€the€record€in€this€caseÐ œì Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€petitionerððs€liberty€interest€in€raisingÐ ˆØ Ðsuch€an€issue€was€outweighed€by€the€Stateððs€interest€in€finality.€€We€therefore€remand€for€furtherÐ tÄ Ðproceedings€on€this€claim.€€We€further€hold€that€the€violation€of€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€TennesseeÐ `° ÐConstitution€under€the€present€facts€in€the€record€was€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ L œ Ðunder€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€therefore€reverse€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ 8!ˆ  ÐAppealsðð€judgment€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð $"t! ÐÓãÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ü#L# ÐReversed€and€Case€Remanded€to€Trial€Courtó óÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€óóand€òòÐ À&"& ÐJanice€M.€Holder,€JJ.óó,€joined.€€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.J.óó,€filed€a€concurring€opinion.€€òòWilliamÐ ¬'ü"' ÐM.€Barkeróó,€J.,€filed€a€concurring€and€dissenting€opinion.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌDavid€M.€Ô_ÔEldridgeÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€and€Harry€R.€Ô_ÔReinhartÔ_Ô,€Columbus,€Ohio,€for€the€appellant,Ð p*À%* ÐMichael€Eugene€Sample.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ýC ÐÔ_ÔMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Jennifer€L.€Smith€and€Erik€W.€Daab,€Assistant€AttorneysÐ ° Ðâ âGeneral;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Reginald€Henderson€and€John€W.Ð œì ÐCampbell,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˆØ ÐÓW ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ `° ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óòòà@%ìàò òBACKGROUNDó óà@@ìì*ìàˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà@66ìàTrial€and€Direct€AppealóóˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner,€Michael€Eugene€Sample,€and€a€co„defendant,€Larry€McKay,€were€convictedÐ è 8  Ðof€felony€murder€and€sentenced€to€death€for€the€1981€killing€of€two€men€during€an€armed€robberyÐ Ô$  Ðin€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€To€place€the€issues€raised€in€this€appeal€in€the€appropriate€context,€we€willÐ À  Ðbriefly€summarize€the€evidence€from€the€trial€and€sentencing.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àMelvin€Wallace,€Jr.,€testified€that€on€August€29,€1981,€he€entered€the€L€&€G€Sundry€StoreÐ „Ô  Ðand€saw€two€employees,€Benjamin€Cooke€and€Steve€Jones,€being€held€at€gunpoint.€€Wallace€triedÐ pÀ Ðto€flee,€but€was€shot€in€the€leg€by€the€petitioner,€Michael€Sample.€€While€lying€on€the€floor,€WallaceÐ \¬ Ðheard€Sample€demand€money€and€threaten€to€kill€everyone,€and€he€saw€McKay€shoot€Cooke.€€WhenÐ H˜ ÐSample€realized€that€Wallace€was€still€alive,€he€shot€him€in€the€back;€Sample€then€put€a€gun€toÐ 4„ ÐWallaceððs€head,€but€it€misfired.€€Wallace€and€Sample€engaged€in€a€struggle,€and€Wallace€lostÐ  p Ðconsciousness€when€the€gun€fired€near€his€head.€€Wallace€survived€the€shootings,€but€Cooke€andÐ  \ ÐJones€were€killed.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€day€after€the€offenses,€police€officers€apprehended€Sample€and€McKay€and€found€a€.32Ð Ð  Ðcaliber€handgun€in€their€car.€€Bullets€fired€from€this€weapon€matched€those€found€in€all€three€victims.€Ð ¼  ÐTwo€days€after€the€offenses,€Wallace€identified€Sample€and€McKay€from€a€lineup.€€At€trial,€WallaceÐ ¨ø Ðagain€identified€Sample€and€McKay€as€the€persons€who€committed€the€offenses.€€A€second€witness,Ð ”ä ÐCharles€Rice,€testified€that€he€fled€from€the€scene€when€he€saw€the€robbery€in€progress;€he€likewiseÐ €Ð Ðidentified€Sample€and€McKay€as€the€perpetrators.€€Both€Sample€and€McKay€were€convicted€of€twoÐ l¼ Ðcounts€of€felony€murder.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÒe°Òà ½ àAt€a€sentencing€hearing€to€determine€punishment,€Ô‡XViXXXViÔSample€introduced€mitigating€evidence€thatÐ 0"€  Ðhe€was€an€ð ðexceptionally€goodðð€and€ð ðvery€conscientiousðð€employee.€€Several€family€membersÐ #l! Ðtestified€about€Sampleððs€work€history,€character,€and€qualities€as€a€husband,€father,€and€son„in„law.€Ð $X" ÐSampleððs€mother€testified€that€he€was€a€good€son€and€asked€the€jury€to€spare€his€life.€€Sample€testifiedÐ ô$D # Ðthat€he€did€not€commit€these€crimes€and€asked€the€jury€to€spare€his€life€for€the€sake€of€his€son€andÐ à%0!$ Ðwife.Ð Ì&"% ÐÔ#†XViXXXVi¥#ÔÌà ½ àThe€jury€sentenced€Sample€to€death€based€on€three€aggravating€circumstances:€€that€he€createdÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€great€risk€of€death€to€two€or€more€persons€other€than€the€victims€who€were€murdered;€that€heÐ )à$( Ðcommitted€the€murder€to€avoid,€interfere€with€or€prevent€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution;€and€that€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðmurders€were€committed€in€the€course€of€committing€a€felony.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2404(i)(3),Ð h+¸&* Ð(6),€(7)€(Supp.€1981).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€convictions€and€sentences€were€upheld€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€McKayóó,Ð ° Ð680€S.W.2d€447€(Tenn.€1984),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€470€U.S.€1034€(1985).€€Ð œì ÐÌà@;;ÆàòòPost„Conviction€ProceedingsóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà ½ àThe€present€action€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€in€January€of€1995.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitionÐ L œ Ðalleged,€among€other€grounds,€that€the€prosecution€violated€his€rights€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðunder€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€article€I,€ðð€8€of€the€TennesseeÐ $ t ÐConstitution€by€suppressing€exculpatory€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.Ð  ` Ð1194€(1963)òòóó;€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€52€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€petition€also€alleged€that€the€juryððsÐ ü L  Ðreliance€upon€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€violated€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€TennesseeÐ è 8  ÐConstitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌòòà ½ àóóThe€trial€court€initially€dismissed€the€post„conviction€petition€without€requiring€the€State€toÐ ¬ü  Ðfile€an€answer,€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€or€addressing€the€merits€of€the€issues€raised.€€WhenÐ ˜è  Ðthe€dismissal€was€appealed,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized€that€the€petition€had€been€filedÐ „Ô  Ðafter€the€expiration€of€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€then€applicable€to€post„conviction€cases,Ð pÀ ÐòòseeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990),€but€concluded€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€summarilyÐ \¬ Ðdismissing€the€petition€without€determining€whether€the€exculpatory€evidence€issue€should€be€heardÐ H˜ Ðas€a€ð ðlater„arisingðð€claim.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€further€held€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ 4„ Ðfailing€to€determine€whether€the€violation€of€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€òòóówasÐ  p Ðharmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSample€v.€Stateóó,€Nos.€02C01„9505„CR„000131€andÐ  \ Ð02C01„9505„CR„00139,€1996€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€597€(Sept.€30,€1996).Ð øH ÐÌà ½ àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€determined€that€consideration€of€the€exculpatory€evidence€issue€wasÐ Ð  Ðbarred€because€the€petition€had€been€filed€after€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€€The€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðcited€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.€1999),€in€which€this€Court€held€that€a€late„arisingÐ ¨ø Ðexculpatory€evidence€claim€was€properly€rejected€because€the€petitioner€had€not€been€denied€aÐ ”ä Ðreasonable€opportunity€to€litigate€the€issue€and€the€petitionerððs€liberty€interests€in€raising€the€issueÐ €Ð Ðwere€outweighed€by€the€Stateððs€interest€in€finality€of€judgments.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€theÐ l¼ Ðviolation€of€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Ð X ¨ Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àOn€appeal€following€the€remand,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððsÐ 0"€  Ðconclusion€that€the€exculpatory€evidence€issue€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€yet€expressedÐ #l! Ðconcern€that€the€decision€in€òòWrightóó€may€unfairly€prevent€petitioners€from€litigating€late„arisingÐ $X" Ðexculpatory€evidence€issues€through€no€fault€of€their€own.€€The€appeals€court€also€agreed€with€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourtððs€determination€that€the€juryððs€reliance€on€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€inÐ œì Ðviolation€of€article€I,€ðð€16€òòóówas€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€under€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð238€(Tenn.€1993).Ð tÄ ÐÌà ½ àWe€granted€this€appeal.€€€Ð L œ ÐÌòòóóÌà@) ) Æàòòò òEXCULPATORY€EVIDENCE€CLAIMó óˆÐ  ` ÐóóÌà@ÆàòòSuppressed€ð ðBradyðð€EvidenceóóˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà ½ àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€ð ðsuppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidenceÐ À  Ðfavorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€toÐ ¬ü  Ðguilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.ðð€€òòBrady€v.Ð ˜è  ÐMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196„97.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Evidence€is€favorable€to€an€accused€where€itÐ „Ô  Ðexculpates€the€accused,€mitigates€the€punishment,€or€impeaches€the€prosecutionððs€witnesses.€€òòSeeóóÐ pÀ ÐòòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€55„56.€€Evidence€is€material€when€there€is€a€reasonable€probabilityÐ \¬ Ðthat€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different€had€the€exculpatory€evidence€beenÐ H˜ Ðdisclosed.€€òòId.óó€at€58.Ð 4„ ÐÌà ½ àThe€post„conviction€petition€and€attached€exhibits€in€this€case€alleged€that€the€prosecutionÐ  \ Ðviolated€these€due€process€principles€by€suppressing€police€records€that€included€numerous€statementsÐ øH Ðmade€by€Melvin€Wallace.€€For€instance:€Wallace€told€Sgt.€J.D.€Welch€that€he€did€not€notice€SampleÐ ä4 Ðduring€the€robbery;€Wallace€told€Sgt.€Welch€that€he€had€been€shot€by€McKay;€Wallace€told€OfficerÐ Ð  ÐJ.D.€Douglas€that€he€could€identify€McKay€but€not€the€second€man€involved€in€the€offense;€andÐ ¼  ÐWallace€gave€physical€descriptions€that€did€not€match€either€McKay€or€Sample.€€The€petition€allegedÐ ¨ø Ðthat€these€statements€were€exculpatory€and€material€because€they€contradicted€Wallaceððs€criticalÐ ”ä Ðeyewitness€testimony€at€trial.Ð €Ð ÐÌà ½ àIn€addition,€the€petition€alleged€that€the€prosecution€suppressed€the€following€exculpatoryÐ X ¨ Ðevidence:€€reports€that€Sampleððs€fingerprints€were€not€found€at€the€scene€of€the€offenses;€reports€thatÐ D!” Ðother€potential€suspects€were€near€the€scene€at€the€time€of€the€offenses;€descriptions€given€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðdispatcher€that€matched€neither€Sample€nor€McKay;€descriptions€given€to€officers€by€witness€CharlesÐ #l! ÐRice€that€matched€neither€Sample€nor€McKay;€inconsistent€statements€made€by€Rice€regarding€theÐ $X" Ðoffenses;€and€reports€that€drugs€were€commonly€sold€from€the€L€&€G€grocery€store.׃"Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ Ðà ½ àThe€petitioner€asserted€that€the€claim€was€not€raised€within€the€three„year€statute€of€limitationsÐ ° Ðbecause€he€was€unaware€that€the€prosecution€suppressed€the€exculpatory€evidence€until€he€had€accessÐ œì Ðto€police€investigative€files€pursuant€to€the€decision€in€òòCapital€Case€Resource€Center€of€Tennessee,Ð ˆØ ÐInc.€v.€Woodallóó,€No.€01A01„9104„CH„00150,€1992€Tenn.€Ct.€App.€LEXIS€94€(Jan.€29,€1992),€whichÐ tÄ Ðòòóóheld€that€the€Tennessee€Public€Records€Act׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€applies€to€criminal€cases€under€collateral€review.€Ð `° ÐMoreover,€after€remand,€the€petitioner€asserted€that€he€had€requested€exculpatory€evidence€bothÐ L œ Ðbefore€trial€and€after€the€òòWoodallóó€decision€and€that€he€did€not€obtain€possession€of€the€evidence€untilÐ 8 ˆ ÐSeptember€of€1993.Ô‡XViXXXViÔ€Ô#†XViXXXVi¬>#Ô€The€trial€court€nonetheless€determined€that€the€claim€was€barred€by€the€statuteÐ $ t Ðof€limitations.€€€€Ð  ` Ðà ½ àÌà@__ÆàòòStatute€of€LimitationsˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà ½ àóóAt€the€time€the€petitioner€filed€this€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€Post„ConvictionÐ À  ÐProcedure€Act€stated:€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à[a]€prisoner€in€custody€under€sentence€of€a€court€of€this€state€mustÐ „Ô  Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€under€this€chapter€within€three€(3)Ð pÀ Ðyears€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€courtÐ \¬ Ðto€which€an€appeal€is€taken€or€consideration€of€such€petition€shall€beÐ H˜ Ðbarred.òòÐ4„ x x ÐÌóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990).׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€statute€was€applied€prospectively,€meaning€thatÐ  \ Ðpetitioners€whose€cases€were€final€before€the€statute€was€enacted€were€given€three€years€from€theÐ øH Ðeffective€date€of€July€1,€1986,€in€which€to€seek€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Masuccióó,€754Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Because€this€Court€decided€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal€inÐ Ð  Ð1984,€the€parties€agree€that€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€began€to€run€on€July€1,€1986,€and€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€present€petition,€filed€in€January€of€1995,€was€filed€well€after€the€limitations€period€expired.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ½ àSample€argues,€however,€that€the€exculpatory€evidence€claim€could€not€have€been€raisedÐ €Ð Ðbefore€the€statute€of€limitations€expired€because€he€did€not€have€access€to€investigative€files€until€theÐ l¼ Ðdecision€in€òòWoodallóó€in€January€of€1992€and€did€not€have€actual€possession€of€the€exculpatoryÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€until€September€of€1993.€€Sample€urges€that€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€wouldÐ D!” Ðdeny€him€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€raise€the€claim€and€violate€due€process.€€The€State,€which€notesÐ 0"€  Ðâ âthat€òòWoodallóó€was€decided€in€January€of€1992,€and€that€the€petition€was€not€filed€until€January€ofÐ #l! Ð1995,€maintains€that€the€claim€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€and€that€the€petitioner€was€notÐ ° Ðdenied€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€have€the€claim€heard.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòÐ œì Ðâ âÌÌóóÔ‡XViXXXViÔà@ÖÖ%ÆàòòDue€ProcessóóˆÐ `° ÐÌà ½ àWe€first€addressed€whether€due€process€may€require€an€exception€to€the€post„convictionÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatute€of€limitations€in€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€petitioner,€whose€post„Ð $ t Ðconviction€petition€challenging€his€enhanced€sentencing€as€a€persistent€offender€was€filed€after€theÐ  ` Ðstatue€of€limitations,€argued€that€he€could€not€raise€the€issue€until€prior€convictions€used€to€enhanceÐ ü L  Ðhis€sentence€were€set€aside€in€a€separate€post„conviction€suit€in€another€county.€€òòIdóó.€at€205.Ð è 8  ÐÌà ½ àWe€recognized€that€although€the€State€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€preventing€the€litigation€ofÐ À  Ðstale€claims€by€enacting€statutes€of€limitations€in€post„conviction€cases,€ð ðdue€process€requires€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðpotential€litigants€be€provided€an€opportunity€for€the€presentation€of€claims€at€a€meaningful€time€andÐ ˜è  Ðin€a€meaningful€manner.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€208.€€In€weighing€the€interests€of€a€petitioner€against€the€interests€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€State,€we€said€that€ð ðthe€test€is€whether€the€time€period€provides€an€applicant€a€reasonableÐ pÀ Ðopportunity€to€have€the€claimed€issue€heard€and€determined.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€208.€€Accordingly€we€concludedÐ \¬ Ðthat€strict€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€prevent€the€petitioner€from€challenging€hisÐ H˜ Ðimproperly€enhanced€sentence€under€the€unusual€procedural€circumstances€in€òòBurfordóó€violated€dueÐ 4„ Ðprocess.€€òòId.óó€Ð  p ÐÌà ½ àIn€applying€òòBurfordóó,€we€have€since€clarified€that€due€process€may€prohibit€strict€applicationÐ øH Ðof€the€statute€of€limitations€in€a€post„conviction€case€ð ðwhen€the€grounds€for€relief,€whether€legal€orÐ ä4 Ðfactual,€arise€after.€.€.the€point€at€which€the€limitations€period€would€normally€have€begun€to€run.ðð€Ð Ð  ÐòòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297,€301€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€such€a€case,€the€court€must€determine€whetherÐ ¼  Ðapplication€of€the€limitations€period€would€deny€the€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€present€theÐ ¨ø Ðclaim€òòóóby€balancing€the€ð ðliberty€interest€in€ððcollaterally€attacking€constitutional€violations€occurringÐ ”ä Ðduring€the€conviction€process,ðð€.€.€.€against€the€Stateððs€interest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€ððstale€andÐ €Ð Ðfraudulent€claims.ðððð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,€917€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€1996)Ð l¼ Ð(òòóóÔ#†XViXXXVixI#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔapplication€of€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€did€not€deny€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunityÐ X ¨ Ðto€raise€a€pretextual€arrest€issue).׃#Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XViXXXVi—T#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔòòÐ D!” ÐÌÔ#†XViXXXViÊU#ÔóóÔ‡X Õ XXXViÔà ½ àÔ#†XViX XX Õ(V#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔAs€the€parties€recognize,€we€applied€this€balancing€analysis€to€circumstances€similar€to€theÐ #l! Ðpresent€case€in€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€òòWrightóó,€the€petitionerððs€first€degreeÐ $X" Ðmurder€conviction€and€death€sentence€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€in€1988.òòóó€€In€January€of€1995,Ð ô$D # Ðafter€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€had€expired,€the€petitioner€filed€a€post„conviction€petitionÐ à%0!$ Ðalleging€that€the€prosecution€violated€his€right€to€due€process€by€withholding€exculpatory€evidence.€Ð ° ÐAs€in€the€present€case,€the€petitioner€alleged€that€the€claim€did€not€arise€until€he€had€access€toÐ œì Ðinvestigative€records€under€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€in€òòWoodallóó.€€The€trial€court€nonethelessÐ ˆØ Ðfound€that€the€claim€was€barred€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€and€dismissed€the€petition.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà ½ àOn€appeal,€we€agreed€that€the€exculpatory€evidence€issue€was€a€later„arising€claim€andÐ L œ Ðstressed€that€òòóóð ðthe€critical€inquiry€[was]€whether€.€.€.€application€of€the€three„year€statute€of€limitationsÐ 8 ˆ Ðeffectively€denied€Wright€a€ððreasonable€opportunityðð€to€raise€the€issue.ðð€€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2dÐ $ t Ðat€29.Ô#†XViXXXVivV#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔ€€We€also€acknowledged€that€the€right€asserted€by€Wright€ð!ð€the€denial€of€due€process€from€theÐ  ` Ðprosecutionððs€suppression€of€exculpatory€evidenceð!ð€was€a€personal€trial€right€directly€relating€to€theÐ ü L  Ðjustice€or€integrity€of€the€conviction€and€sentence.€€òòId.óó€at€30€(citing€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€atÐ è 8  Ð87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1197)òòóó.€€Ô#†XViXXXVi+\#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà ½ àIn€applying€the€analysis,€however,€we€determined€that€Ô#†XViXXXVi ^#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔthe€balancing€otherwise€ð ðweigh[ed]Ð ¬ü  Ðheavily€in€favor€of€the€legitimate€interests€of€the€State,ðð€inasmuch€as€the€post„conviction€suit€was€filedÐ ˜è  Ðten€years€after€the€commission€of€the€offense,€six€and€one„half€years€after€the€conviction€became€final,Ð „Ô  Ðthree€and€one„half€years€after€the€three„year€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€expired;€and€nearlyÐ pÀ Ðthree€years€after€the€òòWoodallóódecision.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€Moreover,€we€concluded:Ð \¬ Ðà8 ½ àÐ ½Ð ½Ð  Ðà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð à[T]his€passage€of€time€is€directly€related€to€the€manner€and€means€ofÐ 4„ Ðlitigating€Wrightððs€issue.€€The€availability€of€critical€witnesses€andÐ  p Ðtheir€ability€to€recall€and€relate€details€as€to€the€alleged€suppression€ofÐ  \ Ðexculpatory€evidence€and€the€facts€of€this€offense€are€immediate€andÐ øH Ðsignificant€concerns.€€Wrightððs€mere€allegation€that€the€prosecutionÐ ä4 Ðsuppressed€exculpatory€evidence€does€not€warrant€relief.€€Instead,Ð Ð  ÐWright€must€establish€that€favorable€evidence€existed,€that€it€wasÐ ¼  Ðmaterial€to€the€defense,€and€that€it€was,€in€fact,€suppressed€by€theÐ ¨ø Ðprosecution.€€Accordingly,€.€.€.€òòóóraising€this€issue€at€this€stage€of€theÐ ”ä Ðproceedings,€would€require€extensive,€possibly€expensive€litigation.€€òòÔ#†XViXXXVi¤^#ÔЀРx x ÐÌÌId.óó€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,€917€S.W.2d€at€666€(ð ðAll€the€dangers€inherent€in€theÐ D!” Ðlitigation€of€stale€claims€ð!ð€which€the€State€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€preventing€ð!ð€appear€to€beÐ 0"€  Ðpresent€hereðð).Ð #l! ÐÌà ½ àDespite€the€factual€similarities€to€the€present€case,€we€believe€that€the€State€reads€òòWrightóótooÐ ô$D # Ðbroadly€in€asserting€that€it€requires€the€dismissal€of€all€late„arising€exculpatory€evidence€claims.€€WeÐ à%0!$ Ðdid€not€establish€such€a€òòperóó€òòseóó€rule€for€rejecting€exculpatory€evidence€claims€in€òòWrightóó€or€any€otherÐ Ì&"% Ðcase,€nor€have€we€ever€created€a€specific€limitations€period€for€late„arising€claims€in€general.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸'#& ÐòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€at€30;€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208.€€Instead,€beginning€withÐ ¤(ô#' ÐòòBurfordóó,€we€have€consistently€said€that€the€principles€of€due€process€are€flexible€and€require€balancingÐ )à$( Ðof€a€petitionerððs€liberty€interests€against€the€Stateððs€finality€interests€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€€òòSeeóó€òòÐ |*Ì%) ÐBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207€(ð ðIdentification€of€the€precise€dictates€of€due€process€requiresÐ h+¸&* Ðconsideration€of€both€the€governmental€interests€involved€and€the€private€interests€affected€by€theÐ ° Ðofficial€action.ðð).Ð œì ÐÌà ½ àAccordingly,€our€review€must€consider€that€the€record€in€the€present€case€differs€in€severalÐ tÄ Ðimportant€respects€from€that€in€òòWrightóó.€€The€post„conviction€petition€filed€by€Sample€wasÐ `° Ðaccompanied€by€exhibits€and€records€replete€with€apparent€exculpatory€evidence;€in€contrast,€theÐ L œ Ðpetition€in€òòWrightóó€contained€ð ðmere€allegationsðð€of€exculpatory€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€at€30;€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„104(b)€(1990)€(ð ðThe€petition€shall€have€attachedÐ $ t Ðaffidavits,€records€or€other€evidence€supporting€its€allegations€.€.€.€.ðð).׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€the€court€undertakesÐ  ` Ðits€review€of€the€petition,€exhibits,€and€records,€such€considerations€necessarily€bear€upon€theÐ ü L  Ðpetitionerððs€liberty€interest.׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà ½ àSimilarly,€the€record€in€this€case,€unlike€òòWrightóó,€details€the€petitionerððs€efforts€to€obtainÐ À  Ðexculpatory€evidence€both€before€trial,€after€trial,€and€after€the€decision€in€òòWoodallóó.€€The€petitionerÐ ¬ü  Ðasserted€that€the€prosecution€refused€to€respond€to€his€repeated€requests€and€that€he€was€unable€toÐ ˜è  Ðsecure€the€evidence€until€September€of€1993,€and€then€only€through€the€assistance€of€the€Capital€CaseÐ „Ô  ÐResource€Center.€€The€Stateððs€sole€response€is€that€the€exculpatory€evidence€was€available€whenÐ pÀ ÐòòWoodallóó€was€decided€in€January€of€1992;€the€State€does€not€explain€why€the€prosecution€did€notÐ \¬ Ðrespond€to€the€repeated€requests€of€the€petitioner€and€does€not€otherwise€convincingly€respond€to€theÐ H˜ Ðassertions€regarding€the€petitionerððs€efforts€to€secure€the€evidence.׃ < ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Again,€these€considerations€bearÐ 4„ Ðupon€not€only€the€significance€of€the€petitionerððs€liberty€interest€in€asserting€a€late„arising€claim€inÐ  p Ða€capital€case€but€also€the€balancing€of€that€interest€against€the€Stateððs€asserted€interest.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà ½ àMoreover,€given€these€significant€distinctions,€our€decisions€following€òòWrightóólikewise€bearÐ ä4 Ðupon€the€issue€in€this€case.€€In€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€44€S.W.3d€464€(Tenn.€2001),€for€example,€theÐ Ð  Ðpetitioner€alleged€that€his€òòproóóòòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€untimely€because€his€attorneyÐ ¼  Ðfailed€to€comply€with€the€procedural€requirements€for€withdrawing€from€representation€followingÐ ¨ø Ðdirect€appeal€and€the€petitioner€did€not€know€whether€his€direct€appeal€remained€pending.€€WeÐ ”ä Ðremanded€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€a€reasonableÐ ° Ðopportunity€to€seek€post„conviction€relief€through€no€fault€of€his€own€due€to€the€possibleÐ œì Ðmisrepresentation€of€his€counsel.€€òòId.óó€at€471.€€Moreover,€even€though€the€petitioner€apparently€hadÐ ˆØ Ðthree€months€to€seek€post„conviction€relief€after€learning€that€his€direct€appeal€had€concluded,€weÐ tÄ Ðremanded€for€a€determination€of€whether€he€had€ð ðtime€enoughðð€to€preserve€a€reasonable€opportunityÐ `° Ðto€seek€relief.€€òòSee€alsoóóòòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208.Ð L œ ÐÌà ½ àSimilarly,€a€majority€of€the€Court€recently€held€under€analogous€circumstances€that€dueÐ $ t Ðprocess€mandated€an€exception€to€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€where€a€petitioner€in€a€capitalÐ  ` Ðcase€sought€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence€of€actual€innocense.€Ð ü L  ÐòòState€v.€Workmanóó,€41€S.W.3d€100€(Tenn.€2001).׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€relying€on€òòBurfordóó€and€òòWilliamsóó,€the€CourtÐ è 8  Ðobserved:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð àà m àWeighing€the[]€competing€interests€in€the€context€of€this€case,Ð ¬ü  Ðwe€have€no€hesitation€in€concluding€that€due€process€precludesÐ ˜è  Ðapplication€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€consideration€of€.€.€.€thisÐ „Ô  Ðcase.€€[The€defendantððs]€interest€in€obtaining€a€hearing€to€presentÐ pÀ Ðnewly€discovered€evidence€that€may€establish€actual€innocence€of€aÐ \¬ Ðcapital€offense€far€outweighs€any€governmental€interest€in€preventingÐ H˜ Ðthe€litigation€of€stale€claims.Ð4„ x x ÐÌÌòòId.óó€at€103.€€Significantly,€the€majority€stressed€that€the€ð ðdelay€in€obtaining€th[e]€evidence€[was]€notÐ øH Ðattributable€to€the€fault€of€[the€defendant]€or€his€attorneys,ðð€and€that€the€State€had€failed€to€respondÐ ä4 Ðto€a€prior€subpoena€that€sought€the€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€Moreover,€the€majority€concluded€that€the€fact€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendant€waited€13€months€to€raise€the€claim€did€not€eliminate€the€due€process€implications.€€òòId.óóÐ ¼  Ðat€103„104.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ½ àIn€our€view,€these€considerations€are€applicable€in€the€present€case€given€the€distinctionsÐ €Ð Ðbetween€it€and€òòWrightóó.€€In€òòWilliamsóó,€for€example,€we€emphasized€that€a€post„conviction€petitionerÐ l¼ Ðshould€not€be€denied€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€raise€a€claim€due€to€anotherððs€misconduct.€€InÐ X ¨ ÐòòWorkmanóó,€we€emphasized€that€newly€found€exculpatory€evidence€in€a€capital€case€may€warrant€dueÐ D!” Ðprocess€consideration€where€the€fault€in€creating€delay€in€raising€the€issue€does€not€rest€with€theÐ 0"€  Ðpetitioner.€€Moreover,€the€fact€that€Sample€waited€approximately€16€€months€after€discovering€theÐ #l! Ðevidence€before€raising€the€issue€is€not€substantially€different€than€the€13„month€period€in€òòWorkmanóó.€Ð $X" ÐAs€we€said€in€òòWorkmanóó,€ð ðthe€time€within€which€th[e]€petition€was€filed€does€not€exceed€theÐ ô$D # Ðreasonable€opportunity€afforded€by€due€process.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€103.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà ½ àIn€reaching€this€holding€we€disagree€with€the€dissentððs€conclusion€that€the€petitioner€is€barredÐ ° Ðfrom€hearing€his€claim€because€he€waited€an€unreasonable€length€of€time€to€raise€the€issue€afterÐ œì Ðobtaining€the€evidence.€€Initially,€we€stress€that€the€petitioner,€despite€his€efforts,€did€not€obtain€theÐ ˆØ Ðexculpatory€evidence€until€well€after€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€had€expired€and€thereforeÐ tÄ Ðhad€òònoóó€opportunity€to€file€the€claim€within€the€statutory€period.€€In€comparison,€the€Court€has€grantedÐ `° Ðdue€process€relief€in€cases€òòóówhere€the€petitioners€discovered€their€late„arising€claims€for€relief€òòbeforeóóÐ L œ Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€had€expired€yet€asserted€the€claims€òòafteróóthe€statute€expired.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurfordÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€209€(nine€months€remaining€in€the€statutory€period);€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€44Ð $ t ÐS.W.3d€at€471€(three€months€remaining€in€the€statutory€period).€€€Ð  ` ÐÌà ½ àIn€addition,€although€the€petitioner€did€not€raise€the€issue€until€16€months€after€obtaining€theÐ è 8  Ðevidence,€it€bears€noting€that€there€was€at€that€time€òònoóóstatute€of€limitations€applicable€to€late„arisingÐ Ô$  Ðclaims;€indeed,€the€Court€in€òòBurfordóó,€which€was€decided€nine€months€before€Sample€obtained€theÐ À  Ðevidence€in€this€case,€declined€to€adopt€a€specific€period€for€asserting€late„arising€claims€in€favor€ofÐ ¬ü  Ða€case€by€case€due€process€analysis.€€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWrightóó,€987€S.W.2d€at€30.׃'×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р˜è  ÐMoreover,€the€16„month€period€under€these€circumstances€must€be€viewed€with€and€mitigated€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðfact€that€the€prosecution€suppressed€the€evidence€and€prevented€the€issue€from€being€litigated€for€overÐ pÀ Ð10€òòyearsóó.€€In€balancing€the€interests€of€the€parties,€there€is€simply€no€basis€for€holding€that€the€16„Ð \¬ Ðmonth€period€in€and€of€itself€was€unreasonable.€€€€€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà ½ àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€our€decision€in€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1999),did€not€create€a€òòperóóòòseóórule€requiring€the€dismissal€of€all€late„arising€suppression€of€exculpatoryÐ  \ Ðevidence€claims€and€that€the€record€in€this€case€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determinationÐ øH Ðthat€the€petitionerððs€liberty€interests€in€raising€such€an€issue€were€outweighed€by€the€Stateððs€interestÐ ä4 Ðin€finality.€€We€therefore€remand€for€further€proceedings€on€this€claim.Ð Ð  Ðà ½ àÌòòà@ýý!Æàò òMIDDLEBROOKS€ERRORó óˆÐ ¨ø ÐóóÔ‡XViXXXViÔÌà ½ àAs€detailed€above,€the€petitioner€asserted€that€the€juryððs€reliance€on€the€felony€murderÐ €Ð Ðaggravating€circumstance€to€impose€a€death€sentence€for€the€offense€of€felony€murder€violated€articleÐ l¼ ÐI,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€as€provided€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ Ð1992).€€Ô#†XViXXXVi~#ÔIn€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€we€held€that€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€set€forth€in€Tenn.Ð D!” ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)€(1982)€duplicated€the€elements€of€the€offense€of€felony€murder€and,€whenÐ 0"€  Ðapplied€to€a€felony€murder,€failed€to€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€murderers€as€required€by€articleÐ #l! ÐI,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # Ðà ½ àThe€new€constitutional€rule€announced€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€has€since€been€applied€retroactivelyÐ ° Ðin€post„conviction€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,€889€S.W.2d€185,€187€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€both€partiesÐ œì Ðrecognize,€therefore,€the€juryððs€reliance€on€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€factor€wasÐ ˆØ Ðconstitutional€error€properly€recognized€in€this€post„conviction€proceeding.€€The€critical€inquiry€isÐ tÄ Ðwhether€the€error€was€harmless€and€whether€a€resentencing€hearing€is€required.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð `° ÐÌò òó óà ½ àIn€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€we€held€that€òòóóa€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€does€not€require€a€resentencing€hearingÐ 8 ˆ Ðif€the€reviewing€court€concludes€ð ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€sentence€would€have€been€theÐ $ t Ðsame€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€factor.ðð€€868€S.W.2d€238,Ð  ` Ð262€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€stressed€that€the€reviewing€court€must€ð ðcompletely€examine€the€record€for€theÐ ü L  Ðpresence€of€factors€which€potentially€influence€the€sentence€ultimately€imposed,ðð€including€ð ðtheÐ è 8  Ðnumber€and€strength€of€remaining€valid€aggravating€circumstances,€the€prosecutorððs€argument€atÐ Ô$  Ðsentencing,€the€evidence€admitted€to€establish€the€invalid€aggravator,€and€the€nature,€quality€andÐ À  Ðstrength€of€mitigating€evidence.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€260„61.׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòóóÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà ½ àIn€reviewing€the€first€factor€under€òòHowellóó,€there€were€two€valid€aggravating€circumstancesÐ „Ô  Ðrelied€upon€by€the€jury€in€imposing€the€death€sentences,€in€addition€to€the€invalid€felony€murderÐ pÀ Ðaggravating€circumstance:€€that€Sample€knowingly€created€a€great€risk€of€death€to€two€or€moreÐ \¬ Ðpersons€other€than€the€victim€murdered,€during€the€act€of€murder;€and€that€the€murders€wereÐ H˜ Ðcommitted€to€avoid€arrest€or€prosecution.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2404(i)(3),€(6)€(Supp.€1981).׃! ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà ½ àWith€regard€to€the€ð ðgreat€risk€of€deathðð€aggravating€circumstance,€this€Court€has€said€it€ð ðhasÐ  \ Ðbeen€applied€where€a€defendant€fires€multiple€gunshots€in€the€course€of€a€robbery€or€other€incidentÐ øH Ðat€which€persons€other€than€the€victim€are€present.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€24€S.W.3d€307,€314€(Tenn.Ð ä4 Ð2000)€(citation€omitted).Ô‡XViXXXViÔ€€The€trial€court€found€that€both€Sample€and€McKay€ð ðwere€convicted€ofÐ Ð  Ðmurdering€two€people€and€in€addition€a€third€person€was€shot€and€left€to€die.ðð€€The€Court€of€CriminalÐ ¼  ÐAppeals€likewise€observed€that€the€evidence€showed€that€ð ðMcKay€and€Sample€were€acting€jointly€toÐ ¨ø Ðkill€three€people,€and€they€fired€at€least€seven€gunshots€between€them.ðð€€The€court€Ô#†XViXXXViBŸ#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔreasoned€that€theÐ ”ä Ðmurder€of€Cooke€placed€two€other€victims,€Jones€and€Wallace,€at€great€risk€of€death,€and€that€theÐ €Ð Ðmurder€of€Jones€placed€two€other€victims,€Cooke€and€Wallace,€at€great€risk€of€death.€Ô#†XViXXXVi-¡#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔ€We€agree€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€facts€Ô#†XViXXXVi`¢#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔrevealed€that€Sample€engaged€in€conduct€that€knowingly€created€a€great€risk€of€death€to€twoÐ X ¨ Ðor€more€persons€in€the€store€other€than€the€murder€victims.€€Indeed,€we€have€previously€cited€theÐ ° Ðpresent€case€as€an€example€of€this€aggravating€circumstance€being€applied€properly.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.Ð œì ÐStateóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€61;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€979€S.W.2d€276,€281€(Tenn.€1998).Ô#†XViXXXViÏ¢#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔ€€€Ô#†XViXXXViÙ¤#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔòòóó€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà ½ àWith€regard€to€the€ð ðavoiding€arrest€or€prosecutionðð€aggravating€circumstance,€this€Court€hasÐ `° Ðfrequently€said€that€this€aggravating€circumstance€applies€whenever€the€evidence€demonstrates€thatÐ L œ Ðavoidance€of€arrest€or€prosecution€was€one€of€the€motives€for€the€killing,€and€that€it€need€not€be€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsole€motive.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hendersonóó,€24€S.W.3d€at€314;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Baneóó,€57€S.W.3d€411,€423Ð $ t Ð(Tenn.€2001);€òòTerry€v.€Stateóó,€46€S.W.3d€147,€161€(Tenn.€2001).€Ô#†XViXXXVi¥#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔ€The€trial€court€found€that€it€wasÐ  ` Ðð ðabundantly€clear€from€the€record€that€the€shootings€occurred€in€order€for€[Sample€and€McKay]€toÐ ü L  Ðavoid€arrest€and€prosecution.ðð€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€likewise€correctly€observed€thatÐ è 8  ÐSample€and€McKay€killed€two€eyewitnesses€to€the€robbery€and€then€fled€after€believing€a€thirdÐ Ô$  Ðeyewitness€had€been€killed.Ô#†XViXXXViǧ#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔÐ À  Ðà ½ àÌà ½ àIn€turning€to€the€next€òòHowellóó€factor,€we€observe€that€no€additional€evidence€was€admitted€toÐ ˜è  Ðsupport€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€and€that€it€was€relied€upon€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðprosecution€solely€to€prove€the€offenses€in€the€guilt€phase.€€As€we€said€in€òòHowellóó,€ð ðan€aggravatingÐ pÀ Ðfactor€which€duplicates€the€elements€of€the€underlying€crime€has€less€relative€tendency€to€prejudiciallyÐ \¬ Ðaffect€the€sentence€imposed€than€invalid€aggravating€factors€which€interject€inadmissible€evidenceÐ H˜ Ðinto€the€sentencing€calculus,€or€which€require€the€sentencing€jury€to€draw€additional€conclusions€fromÐ 4„ Ðthe€guilt€phase€evidence.ðð€€868€S.W.2d€at€261.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€in€this€case€heard€no€moreÐ  p Ðevidence€in€support€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€than€had€already€been€presentedÐ  \ Ðto€prove€the€offense€of€felony€murder€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.Ð øH ÐÌà ½ àòòóóWith€regard€to€the€emphasis€placed€on€the€felony€murder,€the€record€reveals€that€theÐ Ð  Ðprosecution€mentioned€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€on€several€occasions€in€its€closingÐ ¼  Ðargument€following€the€sentencing€proceedings.€€As€the€trial€court€found,€however,€ð ðit€was€certainlyÐ ¨ø Ðmentioned€that€the€murders€were€committed€during€the€commission€of€a€robbery,ðð€but€ð ðmoreÐ ”ä Ðsignificance€was€attributed€to€the€other€aggravating€factors.ðð€€Similarly,€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ €Ð ÐAppeals€noted€that€while€the€prosecutionððs€closing€argument€ð ðdid€mention€the€felony€murderÐ l¼ Ðaggravator€several€times,€this€issue€was€not€dwelled€upon€or€given€undue€emphasis.ðð€€Our€review€alsoÐ X ¨ Ðreveals€that€the€majority€of€the€prosecutionððs€arguments€was€devoted€to€the€remaining€two€aggravatingÐ D!” Ðcircumstances€and€rebutting€the€mitigating€evidence.Ð 0"€  ÐÌÔ#†XViXXXVi»©#ÔÔ‡XViXXXViÔ€à ½ àWith€regard€to€the€final€òòHowellóó€factor€ð!ð€the€nature,€quality€and€strength€of€the€mitigatingÐ $X" Ðevidence€ð!ð€the€trial€court€found€that€Sample€asked€the€jury€to€spare€his€life€for€his€wife€and€child€andÐ ô$D # Ðthat€he€presented€evidence€regarding€his€family€support€and€work€background.€€The€Court€of€CriminalÐ à%0!$ ÐAppeals€summarized€the€mitigating€proof€as€follows:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8 ½ àà8 ½Ð ½Ð àTwo€of€Samplesðð€foremen€testified€on€his€behalf,€stating€that€he€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðan€ððexceptionally€goodðð€employee,€that€he€was€ððvery€conscientious,ððÐ )à$( Ðand€that€he€had€ððno€problem€with€the€peopleðð€he€oversaw.€€SampleððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðsister€testified,€explaining€that€Sample€had€left€school€after€the€ninthÐ h+¸&* Ðgrade€to€start€working.€€[Sampleððs]€mother„in„law€and€father„in„Ð ° Ðlaw...€testified€as€to€Sampleððs€good€character€and€as€to€his€goodÐ œì Ðqualities€as€a€husband,€father,€and€son„in„law.€€His€mother€testified€...Ð ˆØ Ðthat€Sample€was€a€good€son€and€[asked]€the€jury€to€spare€his€life.€Ð tÄ ÐSample€testified€on€his€own€behalf,€stating€that€he€did€not€commitÐ `° Ðthese€crimes€and€asking€the€jury€to€spare€his€life€for€the€sake€of€his€sonÐ L œ Ðand€wife.Ð8 ˆ x x ÐÌà ½ àWe€have€considered€all€of€the€relevant€òòHowellóó€analytical€factors€in€our€review€of€the€record,Ð  ` Ðand€have€considered€and€applied€the€requirement€for€individualized€sentencing.€€We€agree€with€theÐ ü L  ÐCourt€of€Appeals€that€while€the€evidence€in€mitigation€warrants€some€weight,€the€evidence€of€twoÐ è 8  Ðremaining€aggravating€circumstances€was€substantial.€€Moreover,€we€agree€that€there€was€noÐ Ô$  Ðadditional€or€improper€evidence€of€felony€murder€during€sentencing€and€that€the€prosecution€did€notÐ À  Ðplace€great€or€undue€emphasis€on€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.€€Accordingly,€we€agreeÐ ¬ü  Ðwith€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€that€the€verdict€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€noÐ ˜è  Ðweight€to€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.Ô#†XViXXXVie²#ÔÔ‡X Õ XXXViÔ€€Ð „Ô  ÐÔ#†XViX XX Õλ#ÔòòÌà@  %Æàò òCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà ½ àò òó óAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€we€hold€that€our€decision€inÐ 4„ ÐòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.€1999),did€not€create€a€òòperóóòòseóórule€requiring€the€dismissal€ofÐ  p Ðall€late„arising€suppression€of€exculpatory€evidence€claims€and€that€the€record€in€this€caseÐ  \ Ðpreponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€petitionerððs€liberty€interests€in€raisingÐ øH Ðsuch€an€issue€were€outweighed€by€the€Stateððs€interest€in€finality.€€We€further€hold€that€the€violationÐ ä4 Ðof€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€under€the€present€facts€in€the€record€was€harmless€errorÐ Ð  Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€under€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€thereforeÐ ¼  Ðreverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsÐ ¨ø Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€whichÐ ”ä Ðexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í à_____________________________________Ð 0"€  Ðà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà u àà Í àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÐ #l! Ð