ÿWPCB_ Y ñcoWe5ÝÖV6X½xb÷4þÛ8V!´ò¢:sSÇ¥Ee~>£`¯»ÊEn8™|ëÁƒ"X¤œ:.…c’£8ÅB ¿ûhþ¦M@‰%­ÖKMY$§k7_ô§Y2×|z‡´~_º*ÒR¤íœ=z h#4:X®ÇŸ¦óõa‘3¡ÄÎðüüüû:!Ä5'Òù(ù(ù(Ë,Ó, 0DÛ/f0ë …7bpApApAµxAÑ-C9þEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEþEE7H;9H 0ítNÇ aOaOaO B([([ 0¤E[ D5é[ D-\ 0KK\K\ AS–\Æé\ 0¤¯] 0DS^ A«—^˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»x„+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+xP¢ ˜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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ —Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€majority€seems€to€assert€that€because€this€Court€has€never€addressed€the€applicability€of€these€doctrinesÐ ° Ðin€the€context€of€a€motion€to€reopen,€the€holding€in€òòState€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Westóó€applies€only€to€issues€raised€for€the€first€time€on€post„Ð tÄ Ðconviction€appeal.€€Nevertheless,€this€interpretation€is€contrary€to€our€specific€language€in€òòWestóó€applying€our€holdingÐ 8ˆ Ðto€all€proceedings€falling€within€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€òòActóó€in€effect€at€the€time€West€filed€his€petition,€as€wellÐ üL Ðas€to€ð ðproceedings€brought€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€òòActóó€currently€in€force.ðð€€òòWestóó,€19€S.W.3d€at€757Ð À Ð(emphasis€added).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ  Ñ ³Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔPrior€to€the€amendments,€section€2255€originally€provided€in€pertinent€part,€ð ðThe€sentencing€court€shall€notÐ ° Ðbe€required€to€entertain€a€second€or€successive€motion€for€similar€relief€on€behalf€of€the€same€prisoner.ðð€€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ tÄ Ð2255€(1994).€ Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔRule€702€Ô_ÔprovidesÔ_Ô:€ð ðIf€scientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trierÐ ° Ðof€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue,€a€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,Ð tÄ Ðexperience,€training,€or€education€may€testify€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€otherwise.ðð(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman  ôÝ ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€term€ð ðactual€innocenceðð€as€used€in€federal€jurisprudence€has€its€origins€in€a€trio€of€1986€United€StatesÐ ° ÐSupreme€Court€cases€addressing€the€exceptions€under€which€a€habeas€petitioner€could€have€the€merits€of€a€procedurallyÐ tÄ Ðbarred€claim€heard.€€Specifically,€the€Court€held€in€òòMurray€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Carrieróó,€the€second€case€in€the€trilogy,€that€to€prevent€aÐ 8ˆ Ðð ðmiscarriage€of€justice,ðð€ð ðwhere€a€constitutional€violation€has€probably€resulted€in€the€conviction€of€one€who€is€òòactuallyÐ üL Ðinnocentóó,€a€federal€habeas€court€may€grant€the€[petitionerððs€abusive,€successive,€or€defaulted€habeas€corpus€writ]€evenÐ À Ðin€the€absence€of€a€showing€of€cause€for€the€procedural€default.ðð€€477€U.S.€478,€496€(1986)€(emphasis€added).€€ ïÝ ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔMoreover,€although€not€applicable€to€this€case,€a€petitioner€may€also€assert€a€claim€in€a€motion€to€reopenÐ ° Ðð ðseeking€relief€from€a€sentence€that€was€enhanced€because€of€a€previous€conviction€.€.€.€and€the€previous€conviction€hasÐ tÄ Ðsubsequently€been€held€to€be€invalid.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(3).(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular %Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔRule€703€Ô_ÔprovidesÔ_Ô:€ð ðThe€facts€or€data€in€the€particular€case€upon€which€an€expert€Ô_ÔbasesÔ_Ô€an€opinion€orÐ ° Ðinference€may€be€those€perceived€by€or€made€known€to€the€expert€at€or€before€the€hearing.€€If€of€a€type€reasonably€reliedÐ tÄ Ðupon€by€experts€in€the€particular€field€in€forming€opinions€or€inferences€upon€the€subject,€the€facts€or€data€need€not€beÐ 8ˆ Ðadmissible€in€evidence.€€The€court€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€factsÐ üL Ðor€data€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ðð 4Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔDr.€Adler€testified€in€his€affidavit€that€the€WAIS„III€ð ðretains€the€same€format€as€its€predecessorðð€but€hasÐ ° Ðð ðdeveloped€new€norms.ðð€€ ñÝ ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€previously€held€that€the€Eighth€Amendment€does€not€categoricallyÐ ° Ðprohibit€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€defendants,€so€long€as€the€sentencing€authority€is€able€to€ð ðconsider€and€giveÐ tÄ Ðeffect€to€mitigating€evidence€of€mental€retardation€in€imposing€Ô_ÔsentenceÔ_Ô,€[and€make]€an€individualized€determinationÐ 8ˆ Ðwhether€ððdeath€is€the€appropriate€punishmentðððð€in€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòPenry€v.€Lynaughóó,€492€U.S.€302,€340€(1989).€Ð üL ÐHowever,€the€Supreme€Court€has€granted€review€in€òòAtkins€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Virginiaóó,€òòcert.€grantedóó,€__€U.S.€__€(Oct.€1,€2001)€(No.€00„Ð À Ð8452),×Ã%×× C ×€to€readdress€this€same€issue:€ð ð[w]hether€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€individuals€convicted€of€capital€crimesÐ „Ô Ðviolates€the€Eighth€Amendment.ðð€€Nevertheless,€even€if€the€Supreme€Court€decides€to€retain€òòÔ_ÔPenryÔ_Ôóóððs€holding€in€thisÐ H ˜ Ðcontext,€the€Tennessee€Constitution€could€still€entitle€the€petitioner€to€greater€protections€than€the€federal€constitution.€Ð  \ ÐAs€such,€I€agree€with€the€majority€that€the€constitutional€analysis€in€this€case€should€concern€only€Article€I,€section€16. ºÝ ƒRÊL$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷¥ ò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€dismissed€as€improvidently€granted€the€pending€case€òòÔ_ÔMcCarverÔ_Ô€v.Ð ° ÐNorth€Carolinaóó,€____€U.S.€____,€121€S.€Ct.€1401€(2001).€€Nevertheless,€the€issue€in€òòAtkins€v.€Virginiaóó€is€substantiallyÐ tÄ Ðthe€same. ÈÝ ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€HoweverÔ_ÔÔ_Ô,Ô_Ô€the€majority€recognizes€that€mental€retardation€exists€in€degrees,€some€much€less€severe€thanÐ ° Ðothers,€and€that€it€acknowledges€that€persons€with€mild€retardation€are€certainly€capable€of€attaining€some€measure€ofÐ tÄ Ðaccomplishment€in€academia,€work,€and€society.€€If€this€is€true,€and€I€believe€that€it€is,€then€one€must€question€why€aÐ 8ˆ Ðmildly€Ô_Ôretarded€personÔ_Ô€cannot€also€possess€the€cognitive,€moral,€and€volitional€capacities€necessary€to€commit€crimeÔf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg Ô€andÐ üL Ðbe€Ô_ÔpunishedÔg Ô.Ô_Ô€€The€majorityððs€Ô_ÔrationaleÔ_Ô€is€silent€on€this€apparent€contradiction.  þÝ ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔIndeed,€I€would€note€that€rehabilitation€also€does€not€appear€to€be€a€valid€justification€for€any€type€of€non„Ð ° Ðcapital€punishment.€€I€see€no€evidence€in€the€record€which€suggests€that€mentally€retarded€persons€can€€be€ð ðrehabilitatedððÐ tÄ Ðto€instill€concepts€of€moral€blameworthiness€and€Ô_Ôappreciation€of€consequences€where€none€existed€previously.€€Indeed,Ð 8ˆ Ðif€such€were€the€case,€then€a€categorical€prohibition€would€be€inappropriate,€because€retribution€and€deterrence€wouldÐ üL Ðthen€justify€the€punishment€of€at€least€some€of€these€offenders.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó \Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThese€provisions€include€the€protections€of€the€right€to€a€fair€trial,€the€right€to€counsel,€and€the€privilegeÐ ° Ðagainst€self„incrimination.€€The€majority€overlooks€the€fact€that€if€the€mental€condition€of€the€defendant€prevents€theÐ tÄ Ðexercise€of€any€of€these€rights,€then€punishment€will€not€follow€anyway.€€Without€any€such€showing,€however,€noÐ 8ˆ Ðjustification€exists€to€declare€the€ensuing€punishment€cruel€and€unusual€merely€because€of€the€possibility€that€these€rightsÐ üL Ðwere€not€intelligently€exercised.€€Ôf  ÔÔf  Ôò òÔg ÔÔg ÔÐ À Ðà  àÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôó óÔg ÔAgain,€if€the€majorityððs€rationale€is€taken€to€Ô_ÔitsÔ_Ô€Ô_Ônext€logicalÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôstep,Ô_Ô€how€can€the€majority€justify€imposing€òòanyóó€typeÐ „Ô Ðof€punishment,€capital€Ô_Ôor€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔotherwiseÔ_ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€upon€mildly€retarded€offenders€for€their€Ô_Ôcrimes?Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔ_Ô€€If€capital€punishment€of€mentallyÐ H ˜ Ðretarded€persons€is€substantively€disproportionate€because€these€defendants€may€encounter€difficulties€in€the€criminalÐ  \ Ðjustice€system,€why€are€not€other€lesser€punishments€also€disproportionate€under€this€same€analysis?€€The€difficultiesÐ Ð  Ðencountered€by€these€defendants€are€no€less€when€the€punishment€is€life€without€parole€as€opposed€to€death.Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€ á Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€majority€has€also€considered€non„capital€states€as€evidence€of€the€national€consensus€on€this€issue.€€ThisÐ ° Ðtype€of€analysis,€however,€has€been€rejected€by€a€majority€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€as€inappropriate€forÐ tÄ Ðanalysis€under€the€Eighth€Amendment.€€In€òòStanford€v.€Kentuckyóó,€492€U.S.€361€(1989),€wherein€the€Court€refused€to€findÐ 8ˆ Ða€bar€against€the€execution€of€persons€aged€16€and€above,€a€majority€of€the€Court€noted€that€Ð üL Ðà8  àThe€dissent€takes€issue€with€our€failure€to€include,€among€those€States€evidencing€a€consensus€againstÐ À Ðexecuting€16-€and€17-year-old€offenders,€the€District€of€Columbia€and€the€14€States€that€do€notÐ „Ô Ðauthorize€capital€punishment.€€òòIt€seems€to€us,€however,€that€while€the€number€of€those€jurisdictionsÐ H ˜ Ðbears€upon€the€question€whether€there€is€a€consensus€against€capital€punishment€Ô_ÔaltogetherÔ_Ô,€it€is€quiteÐ  \ Ðirrelevant€to€the€specific€inquiry€in€this€case:€Ô_ÔwhetherÔ_Ô€there€is€a€settled€consensus€in€favor€ofÐ Ð  Ðpunishing€offenders€under€18€differently€from€those€over€18€insofar€as€capital€punishment€isÐ ” ä  Ðconcernedóó.€.€.€.€€òòThe€issue€in€the€present€case€is€not€whether€capital€punishment€is€thought€to€beÐ X ¨  Ðdesirable€but€whether€persons€under€18€are€thought€to€be€specially€exempt€from€it.€€óóWith€respect€toÐ  l  Ðthat€inquiry,€it€is€no€more€logical€to€say€that€the€capital-punishment€laws€of€those€States€which€prohibitÐ à 0  Ðcapital€punishment€(and€thus€do€not€address€age)€support€the€dissentððs€position,€than€it€would€be€to€sayÐ ¤ô  Ðthat€the€Ô_ÔÔf  Ôage-of-adult-criminal-responsibilityÔ_ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€laws€of€those€same€States€(which€do€not€address€capitalÐ h¸  Ðpunishment)€support€our€position.Ð,| Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€Ô_ÔatÔ_Ô€370€n.2€(emphasis€added).€€Consequently,€in€my€mind,€to€the€extent€that€national€values€are€relevant€to€the€inquiry,Ð ð@  Ðthe€proper€comparison€is€more€properly€limited€to€those€jurisdictions€which€authorize€capital€punishment€in€the€firstÐ ´  Ðinstance.- ù- «Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔGiven€the€majorityððs€emphatic€conclusion€that€the€mental€condition€of€these€offenders€removes€their€criminalÐ ° Ðculpability,€how€can€the€majority€justify€imposing€òòanyóó€type€of€punishment,€capital€or€not,€upon€mildly€retarded€offendersÐ tÄ Ðfor€their€crimes?€ ÇÝ ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€majority€Ô_Ôstates€that€I€cite€no€authority€for€my€analysis€that€the€Constitution€does€not€categoricallyÐ ° Ðprohibit€execution€of€persons€possessing€the€cognitive,€moral,€and€volitional€capacities€to€commit€crime.€€Therefore,Ð tÄ Ðthrough€inclusion€of€this€footnote,€I€hope€to€draw€the€majorityððs€attention€to€the€fact€that€I€have€cited€both€òòÔ_ÔLaneyÔ_Ôóó€andÐ 8ˆ ÐòòÔ_ÔPenryÔ_Ôóó€as€binding€and€persuasive€authorities€for€this€proposition.€Ô_Ô /Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€majority€supposes€that€I€have€overlooked€the€fact€that€the€constitutional€inquiry€in€this€case€is€composedÐ ° Ðof€examination€of€three€separate€factors.€€Ôg ÔI€Ô_ÔhaveÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€however,Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€acknowledged€this€factÔ_Ô€and€have€provided€my€own€analysisÐ tÄ Ðof€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôall€three€of€these€factors.Ôf  Ôò òó óÔg Ô 1Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔSection€39„13„203€Ô_ÔprovidesÔ_Ô€in€pertinent€part:€Ð ° Ðà8  à(Ô_ÔaÔ_Ô)à ` àAs€used€in€this€section,€ð ðmental€retardationðð€means:ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€à ¸ àSignificantly€subaverage€general€intellectual€functioning€as€evidenced€by€aÐ 8ˆ Ðfunctional€intelligence€quotient€(I.Q.)€of€seventy€(70)€or€below;ÐüLÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€à ¸ àDeficits€in€adaptive€behavior;€andÐÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€à ¸ àThe€mental€retardation€must€have€been€manifested€during€the€developmental€period,Ð „Ô Ðor€by€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age.ÐH ˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(Ô_ÔbÔ_Ô)€à ` àNotwithstanding€any€provision€of€law€to€the€contrary,€no€defendant€with€mental€retardationÐ  \ Ðat€the€time€of€committing€first€degree€murder€shall€be€sentenced€to€death.ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(Ô_ÔcÔ_Ô)€à ` àThe€burden€of€production€and€persuasion€to€demonstrate€mental€retardation€by€aÐ ” ä  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€upon€the€defendant.€€The€determination€of€whether€the€defendant€wasÐ X ¨  Ðmentally€retarded€at€the€time€of€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder€shall€be€made€by€the€court.(|I27$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€ ½ Ý ƒR7$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîÕò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔThe€statute€allowing€the€petitioner€to€reopen€a€previous€post„conviction€petition€Ô_ÔprovidesÔ_Ô€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà0  à(Ô_ÔaÔ_Ô)€à ` àA€petitioner€may€file€a€motion€in€the€trial€court€to€reopen€the€first€post„conviction€petition€only€if€theÐ 8ˆ Ðfollowing€applies:ÐüL(#(# Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€à ¸ àThe€claim€in€the€motion€is€based€upon€a€final€ruling€of€an€appellate€courtÐ À Ðestablishing€a€constitutional€right€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial,€ifÐ „Ô Ðretrospective€application€of€that€right€is€required.€€Such€motion€must€be€filed€within€one€(1)€year€ofÐ H ˜ Ðthe€ruling€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€or€the€United€States€supreme€court€establishing€aÐ  \ Ðconstitutional€right€that€Ô_ÔwasÔ_Ô€not€recognized€as€existing€Ô_Ôat€theÔ_Ô€time€of€trial;€orÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€à ¸ àThe€claim€in€the€motion€is€based€upon€new€scientific€evidence€establishing€that€suchÐ ” ä  ÐÔ_ÔpetitionerÔ_Ô€is€actually€innocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€the€petitioner€was€convicted;€orÐX ¨ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€à ¸ àThe€claim€asserted€in€the€motion€seeks€relief€from€a€sentence€that€was€enhancedÐ  l  Ðbecause€of€a€previous€conviction€and€such€conviction€in€the€case€in€which€the€claim€is€asserted€wasÐ à 0  Ðnot€a€guilty€plea€with€an€agreed€sentence,€and€the€previous€conviction€has€subsequently€been€held€toÐ ¤ô  Ðbe€invalid,€in€which€case€the€motion€must€be€filed€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€finality€of€the€rulingÐ h¸  Ðholding€the€previous€conviction€to€be€invalid;€and€Ð,| Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€à ¸ àIt€appears€that€the€facts€underlying€the€claim,€if€true,€would€establish€by€clear€andÐ ð@  Ðconvincing€evidence€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€have€the€conviction€set€aside€or€the€sentenceÐ ´  Ðreduced.ÐxÈ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€à ` àThe€motion€must€set€out€the€factual€basis€underlying€its€claims€and€must€be€supported€byÐ <Œ Ðaffidavit.€€The€factual€information€set€out€in€the€affidavit€shall€be€limited€to€information€which,€ifÐ P Ðoffered€at€an€evidentiary€hearing,€would€be€admissible€through€the€testimony€of€the€Ô_ÔaffiantÔ_Ô€under€theÐ Ä Ðrules€of€evidence.€€The€motion€shall€be€denied€unless€the€factual€allegations,€if€true,€meet€theÐ ˆØ Ðrequirements€of€Ô_ÔsubsectionÔ_Ô€(a). d(|3Ç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€TÝ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼TÝ»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñò òó óòòóóÑ€@¸ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡îJ¬î»¼TÝÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÓÓà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼TÝ»îîJ¬##ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€4,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼TÝÔÌÔ#†¼TÝ»XX#Ôò òHECK€VAN€Ô_ÔTRANÔ_Ô€€v.€€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ó óÔ‡XX»¼TÝÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†¼TÝ»XX¢#ÔÔ‡XX»¼TÝÔÌò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ЀÔ#†¼TÝ»XXù#ÔÔ‡XX»¼TÝÔCriminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„14409€€€€€€Hon.€John€P.€Ô_ÔColtonÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€VP) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„00739„SC„R11„Ô_ÔPDÔ_Ô€„€Filed€December€4,€Ô_Ô2001Ô#†¼TÝ»XXŒ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼TÝÔÔ_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€VP) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌò òÔ#†¼TÝ»XXT#Ôó óÓ  ÓÔ‡XX»¼TÝÔòòWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€with€whom€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€J.,€joins,€concurring€in€part,€dissenting€inÐ P  Ðpart.Ô#†¼TÝ»XX)#ÔÔ‡XX»¼TÝÔÐ <Œ ÐÌÌÓÓÔ#†¼TÝ»XXð#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼TÝÔà  àWith€its€decision€today,€a€majority€of€this€Court€has€effectively€permitted€a€defendant,€whoÐ P Ðwas€sentenced€to€death€in€1989€for€the€brutal€execution€of€a€74„year„old€grandmother,€an€opportunityÐ ì< Ðto€escape€the€ultimate€punishment€for€his€actions€solely€because€he€has€managed€to€obtain€a€lowerÐ Ø( Ðscore€on€a€revised€I.Q.€test€than€he€was€previously€able€to€do.€€Before€today,€the€Constitution€of€thisÐ Ä ÐState€has€never€been€held€to€provide€blanket€capital€immunity€to€a€class€of€persons€based€only€on€theÐ ° Ðòòfactóó€of€low€intellectual€ability€and€deficits€in€adaptive€behavior.€€Instead,€the€Constitution€has€barredÐ œì Ðsuch€executions€only€when€Ô‡XXXXÔthe€defendantððs€mental€condition€displaces€the€following€capacities:€Ô#†XXXX„ #ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ(1)Ð ˆØ Ðthe€òòcognitive€capacity€óóto€appreciate€that€certain€action€will€lead€to€the€death€of€others;€(2)€the€òòmoralÐ tÄ Ðcapacity€óóto€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€murder;€Ôg ÔorÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€(3)€the€òòvolitional€capacity€óóto€behave€in€aÐ `° Ðlawful€manner.€Ô#†XXXX #ԀРL œ ÐÌà  àBy€permitting€Heck€Van€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ô€the€opportunity€to€escape€his€capital€sentence€because€of€hisÐ $"t! Ðnew€score€on€an€I.Q.€test,€the€majority€ignores€that€Heck€Van€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ô€has€not€argued€that€his€allegedÐ #`" Ðcondition€ever€affected€his€abilities€Ô‡XXXXÔto€appreciate€that€certain€actions€would€lead€to€the€death€ofÐ ü#L# Ðothers.€€The€majority€ignores€that€Heck€Van€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ô€Ô#†XXXX2#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔhas€not€argued€that€his€Ô#†XXXX#Ôalleged€condition€everÐ è$8 $ Ðaffected€Ô‡XXXXÔhis€ability€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€murder.€€The€majority€also€ignores€that€HeckÐ Ô%$!% ÐVan€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ô€has€not€Ô#†XXXX¥#Ôargued€that€his€alleged€condition€ever€affected€Ô‡XXXXÔhis€ability€to€behave€in€a€lawfulÐ À&"& Ðmanner.€€Ô#†XXXX·#ÔInstead,€the€majority€holds€that€Heck€Van€Ô_ÔTranÔ_Ô€should€escape€his€capital€sentence€becauseÐ ¬'ü"' Ðhis€new€score€on€an€updated€I.Q.€test€òòremoves€his€moral€blameworthiness€óófor€the€senseless€andÐ ˜(è#( Ðintentional€execution€of€an€elderly€victim,€Kai€Yin€Ô_ÔChueyÔ_Ô.€€I€simply€cannot€agree.€Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àMoreover,€the€majority€has€Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôcompletely€disregarded€the€petitionerððs€claims€alleging€ð ðnewÐ \+¬&+ Ðscientific€evidence€establishing€that€[he]€is€actually€innocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€[he]Ð H,˜', Ðwas€convictedðð€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(a)(2).€€Instead,€the€majority€hasÐ 4-„(-ý÷ ÐÔ_Ôdetermined€that€the€motion€to€reopen€is€ð ðmore€appropriatelyðð€based€on€the€provisions€of€TennesseeÐ ° ÐCode€Annotated€section€40„30„217(a)(1),€which€provides€in€pertinent€part€that€the€ð ðclaim€in€theÐ œì Ðmotion€is€based€upon€a€final€ruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutional€right€that€wasÐ ˆØ Ðnot€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial.ðð€€Although€the€majority€hasò òó ó€extended€this€very€narrowÐ tÄ Ðbasis€to€reopen€to€apply€in€this€case,€the€constitutional€issue€now€raised€for€the€first€time€in€thisÐ `° Ðmotion€to€reopen€has€clearly€been€òòwaivedóó€by€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€raise€it€in€his€original€post„Ð L œ Ðconviction€petition.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).€€In€accordance€with€our€holding€in€òòStateÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Westóó,€19€S.W.3d€753€(Tenn.€2000),€this€Court€lacks€the€authority€to€consider€this€constitutionalÐ $ t Ðissue,€and€it€should€therefore€be€dismissed.€€Accordingly,€because€subsection€(a)(1)€is€not€anÐ  ` Ðapplicable€avenue€for€relief€in€this€case,€the€petitioner€must€seek€relief€on€other€grounds.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIndeed,€the€petitioner€filed€his€motion€to€reopen€pursuant€to€subsection€(a)(2)Ôf  Ô,€alleging€thatÐ Ô$  Ðan€updated€version€of€the€I.Q.€test€has€established€his€mental€retardation€thereby€rendering€himÐ À  Ðð ðactually€innocentðð€of€capital€punishment.€€ThisÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€Court€has€not€previously€considered€the€properÐ ¬ü  Ðstandards€governing€the€admissibility€of€ð ðnew€scientific€evidenceðð€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ˜è  Ðsection€40„30„217(a)(2)Ôg ÔÔg Ô.€€ConsequentlyÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€it€is€inappropriate€for€the€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔpetitionerÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€assume€that€theÐ „Ô  ÐWAIS„III€qualifies€as€such€without€further€inquiry.€€I€also€disagree€that€the€language€ð ðactualÐ pÀ Ðinnocence€of€the€offenses€for€which€he€was€convictedðð€in€this€subsection€includes€innocence€of,€orÐ \¬ Ðineligibility€for,€the€death€penalty.€€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔAccordinglyÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€I€am€unable€to€join€the€majorityððs€decisionÐ H˜ Ðpermitting€the€petitioner€to€reopen€his€post„conviction€petitionÔf  ÔÔf  Ô€under€either€subsection€(a)(1)€or,€perÐ 4„ Ðthe€petitionerððs€request,€subsection€(a)(2)Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€and€for€the€reasons€given€below,€I€respectfully€dissent.Ð  p ÐÌà  àA€review€of€the€factual€history€of€this€case€will€provide€a€better€understanding€of€theÐ øH Ðprocedural€and€substantive€issues€before€the€Court:Ð ä4 ÐÌà@!ìàò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€1987,€during€the€course€of€robbing€a€family„owned€restaurant,€the€petitioner€and€threeÐ ”ä Ðother€defendants€shot€and€killed€three€innocent€victims,€all€family€members.€€A€fourth€familyÐ €Ð Ðmember€was€brutally€beaten€but€eventually€recovered.€€The€evidence€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€revealedÐ l¼ Ðthat€he€shot€two€of€the€victims,€including€seventy„four€year„old€Kai€Yin€Chuey,€multiple€timesÐ X ¨ Ðincluding€once€in€the€throat€and€once€in€the€back€of€the€head.€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,Ð D!” Ð469€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€petitioner€then€entered€the€restaurant€office€where€he€knew€valuables€wereÐ 0"€  Ðkept,€and€he€stole€gold€and€jewelry€having€an€estimated€wholesale€value€of€$25,000.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€robbery,€three€of€the€criminals€took€most€of€the€stolen€jewelry€and€fled€toÐ ô$D # ÐHouston,€Texas.€€There,€the€defendant€managed€to€sell€some€of€the€stolen€gold€for€$4,000,€which€theÐ à%0!$ Ðtrio€divided€amongst€themselves.€€For€almost€six€months€after€the€robbery,€the€petitioner€remainedÐ Ì&"% Ðin€hiding€until€he€was€arrested€in€Houston.€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest,€the€petitioner€initially€gave€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpolice€a€fictitious€name€upon€inquiry.€€After€he€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€he€was€asked€ifÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhe€knew€why€he€was€being€arrested,€to€which€he€replied,€ð ðFor€a€shooting€in€Memphis.ðð€€Later,€theÐ )à$( Ðpetitioner€gave€a€written€statement€in€which€he€admitted€his€involvement€in€the€crimes.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€jury€found€him€guilty€of€three€counts€of€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€robbery€byÐ ° Ðuse€of€a€deadly€weapon€and€sentenced€him€to€death€for€each€of€the€murder€convictions.€€The€courtÐ œì Ðalso€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€thirty€years€imprisonment€for€the€robbery€to€be€served€concurrentlyÐ ˆØ Ðwith€the€death€sentences.€€On€appeal,€his€convictions€and€one€death€sentence€were€affirmed€by€thisÐ tÄ ÐCourt.Ð `° Ѐ€Ð L œ Ðà  àOn€March€7,€1995,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging,€amongÐ 8 ˆ Ðother€things,€that€he€was€mentally€retarded€and€thus€ineligible€for€the€death€penalty€under€TennesseeÐ $ t ÐCode€Annotated€section€39„13„203.€€The€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€in€OctoberÐ  ` Ð1997.€€At€the€hearing,€the€petitioner€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Andrew€J.€Adler,€the€psychologistÐ ü L  Ðwho€tested€the€petitioner€using€the€Vineland€Adaptive€Behavior€Scale€and€the€Wechsler€AdultÐ è 8  ÐIntelligence€Scaleð!ðRevised€(WAIS„R).€€Dr.€Adler€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€deficits€in€adaptiveÐ Ô$  Ðbehavior€that€had€manifested€during€the€petitionerððs€developmental€period€and€that€the€petitioner€hadÐ À  Ða€full„scale€I.Q.€of€sixty„seven.€€He€concluded€that€Van€Tran€was€therefore€mentally€retarded€asÐ ¬ü  Ðdefined€by€section€39„13„203(a).׃Q×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€the€Stateððs€expert,€psychologist€Dr.€Lynn€Zager,Ð ˜è  Ðtestified€that€Dr.€Adlerððs€calculations€of€the€WAIS„R€test€scores€were€erroneous€and€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðpetitionerððs€I.Q.€was€actually€seventy„two.€€Following€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€foundÐ pÀ ÐDr.€Adlerððs€calculation€to€be€in€error€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ \¬ Ðaffirmed€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€and€further€held€that€a€proceeding€for€post„conviction€relief€isÐ H˜ Ðinappropriate€for€addressing€the€issue€of€present€incompetency€to€be€executed.€€On€November€23,Ð 4„ Ð1999,€this€Court€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€the€post„conviction€petition.€€òòVan€Tran€v.€Stateóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ  p Ð257,€261€(Tenn.€1999).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWithin€a€month€after€this€Courtððs€decision€to€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€post„convictionÐ ä4 Ðpetition,€Dr.€Adler€again€tested€the€petitioner€using€the€Wechsler€Adult€Intelligence€Scale„III,€anÐ Ð  Ðupdated€version€of€the€WAIS„R.€€Dr.€Adler€determined€that€the€results€of€this€test€showed€that€theÐ ¼  Ðâ âpetitionerððs€full„scale€I.Q.€was€sixty„five.€€Relying€on€this€information,€the€petitioner€then€filed€aÐ ¨ø Ðmotion€to€reopen€his€previous€post„conviction€petition€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ° Ðsection€40„30„217(a)(2).׃S×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€reopen,€finding€that€the€evidence€presented€by€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner,€even€if€considered€ð ðnew€scientific€evidence,ðð€did€not€establish€his€actual€innocence€of€theÐ `° Ðmurders€for€which€he€was€convicted.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denialÐ L œ Ðof€the€motion€to€reopen€and€we€granted€permission€to€appeal.€€In€this€Court,€the€petitioner€presentsÐ 8 ˆ Ðthree€issues€for€our€review:€€First,€he€argues€that€the€Wechsler€Adult€Intelligence€Scale„III€test€Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔshouldÐ $ t ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôbe€considered€ð ðnew€scientific€evidenceðð€pursuant€to€section€40„30„217(a)(2).€€Second,€he€argues€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€clear€statutory€language€ð ðactually€innocent€of€the€offenseðð€in€section€40„30„217(a)(2)€should€beÐ ü L  Ðconstrued€to€mean€ð ðactual€innocence€of€or€ineligibility€for€the€death€penalty.ðð€€And€third,€he€assertsÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€Tennessee€statute€prohibiting€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€capital€offenders,€Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203,€should€be€applied€retroactively,€thereby€entitling€him€to€a€reduced€sentence.€Ð À  ÐÌÔf  ÔÔf  ÔÔf  Ôò òÔg ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôó óÔg Ôà  àAfter€hearing€oral€argument€in€April€2001,€this€Court€requested€that€the€parties€fileÐ ˜è  Ðsupplemental€briefs€addressing€the€additional€issue€of€whether€executing€a€mentally€retardedÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€would€violate€either€the€Eighth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€or€ArticleÐ pÀ ÐI,€section€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€majority€today€holds€first,€that€section€39„13„203Ð \¬ Ðhas€prospective€application€only€and€therefore€does€not€serve€to€relieve€the€petitioner€from€hisÐ H˜ Ðsentence.€€The€majority€is€entirely€correct€in€this€decision,€and€I€concur€in€that€part€of€the€opinion.€Ð 4„ ÐHowever,€for€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€I€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€conclusions€regarding€both€Ð  p Ðprocedural€and€substantive€matters€in€this€case.€Ð  \ Їà@> > ìàò òI.€€PROCEDURAL€ANALYSIS€UNDER€THEˆÐ ° Ðà@´ ´ ìàPOST„CONVICTION€PROCEDURE€ACTó óˆÐ œì ÐÌà  àAlthough€largely€overlooked€by€the€majority,€this€case€presents€several€significant€proceduralÐ tÄ Ðissues€concerning€the€ability€to€reopen€a€post„conviction€petition€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ `° Ðsection€40„30„217(a).€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôpetitioner€filed€his€claim€solely€pursuant€to€subsectionÐ L œ Ð(a)(2),€the€majority€does€not€address€this€issue€on€its€merits.€€Invoking€the€doctrine€of€fundamentalÐ 8 ˆ Ðfairness,€the€majority€instead€concludes€that€the€petitioner€may€reopen€his€petition€under€subsectionÐ $ t Ð(a)(1).€€Because€the€petitioner€is€not€constitutionally€entitled€to€reopen€hisÔf  ÔÔg Ô€post„conviction€petition,Ð  ` ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôbut€may€do€so€only€when€the€statute€permits€its€reopeningÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€I€would€deny€his€petition€for€failing€toÐ ü L  Ðsatisfy€any€of€the€statutory€requirements€for€reopening€his€post„conviction€petition.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@ƒ ƒ ìàòòA.€€à@@6 6 ìàTENNESSEE€CODE€ANNOTATED€SECTION€40„30„217(a)(1)óóˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àToday,€the€majority€has€decided€thatÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€petitioner€Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ômay€file€a€new€motion€to€reopen€pursuantÐ ˜è  Ðto€subsection€(a)(1).€€In€so€deciding,€the€majority€has€fashioned€a€unique€procedure€to€provide€theÐ „Ô  Ðpetitioner€this€avenue€for€relief.€€First,€the€Court€has€improperly€addressed€a€constitutional€issue€thatÐ pÀ Ðhas€been€òòwaivedóó€because€the€petitioner€failed€to€raise€it€in€his€original€post„conviction€petition.€Ð \¬ ÐNevertheless,€by€ordering€the€parties€to€supply€supplemental€briefing€on€thisÔf  ÔÔg Ô€constitutional€issue,€theÐ H˜ ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔCourt€has€excused€the€waiver,€addressed€the€substantive€issue,€and€created€a€ð ðfinal€appellate€rulingÐ 4„ Ðestablishing€a€constitutional€right.ðð€€The€petitioner€is€now€being€allowed€to€refile€his€motion€toÐ  p Ðreopen€pursuant€to€subsection€(a)(1),€basing€his€claim€onÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€majorityððs€decision€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôtoday.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àHoweverÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€the€majority€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôoverlooks€a€fundamental€procedural€flaw€in€its€analysis:€according€toÐ ä4 Ðour€unanimous€holding€in€òòState€v.€Westóó,€19€S.W.3d€753€(Tenn.€2000),€once€an€issue€has€been€waivedÐ Ð  Ðby€a€petitioner,€the€Court€òòlacks€the€authorityóó€to€excuse€that€waiver,€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ¼  Ð30„206(g);€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€3(B).€€The€unanimous€order€previously€entered€cannot€be€heldÐ ¨ø Ðto€have€placed€the€constitutional€issue€properly€before€this€Court.€€ForÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€reasons€that€follow,€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔtheÐ ”ä Ðconstitutional€issue€should€be€dismissed,€and€the€petitioner€must€seek€to€reopen€his€post„convictionÐ €Ð Ðpetition€on€other€grounds.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€1995Ôf  ÔÔg Ô,€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔVan€Tran€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€raised€numerous€andÐ D!” Ðvarious€claims,€including€an€allegation€that€he€was€mentally€retarded€and€therefore€òòstatutorilyóóÐ 0"€  ÐineligibleÔf  ÔÔg Ô€for€the€death€penaltyÔf  ÔÔg Ô€under€section€39„13„203.€€The€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiaryÐ #l! Ðhearing€in€1997,€and€the€petitioner€was€provided€with€a€full,€fair,€and€meaningful€ð ðopportunity€toÐ $X" Ðpresent€proof€and€argument€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ðð€€òòCf.óó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h).€€Based€on€all€the€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðpresented,€the€trial€court€foundÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€petitionerððs€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôclaims€of€mental€retardation€to€be€without€merit€andÐ Ì&"% Ðsubsequently€dismissed€his€petition.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àDespite€having€a€full,€fair,€and€meaningful€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€1997,€the€petitionerÐ )à$( Ðnever€raised€the€issue€of€whether€execution€of€mentally€retarded€persons€violates€Article€I,€sectionÐ |*Ì%) Ð16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€In€fact,€he€did€not€even€assert€this€issue€in€the€current€proceedingÐ h+¸&* Ðto€reopen€until€he€applied€for€permission€to€appeal€to€this€Court.€€Where€a€petitioner€fails€to€raise€anÐ ° Ðissue,€despite€having€had€the€opportunity€to€do€so,€that€issue€is€deemed€waived€under€the€Post„Ð œì ÐConviction€Procedure€Act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)€(1997).€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àBecause€the€petitioner€has€previously€waived€the€substantive€constitutional€issue€before€usÐ `° Ðnow,€theÔf  ÔÔg Ô€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôdoes€not€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôpermit€him,€outside€of€the€exceptions€listed€in€theÐ L œ Ðstatute,€to€assert€that€issue€in€any€subsequent€proceeding.€€The€majority€today€appears€to€overlookÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€fact€that€petitionerððs€previous€waiver€of€the€substantive€constitutional€issue€renders€this€CourtÐ $ t Ðwithout€statutory€authority€toÔf  Ô€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔgrantÔf  ÔÔg Ô€reliefÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€the€petitioner€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôbased€on€this€issue€underÔf  ÔÔg Ô€theÔf  ÔÔg Ô€post„Ð  ` Ðconviction€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôstatutes.€€Consequently,€because€the€substantive€constitutional€issue€is€not€properly€beforeÐ ü L  Ðthe€Court,€the€majority€has€inappropriately€used€subsection€(a)(1)€to€give€the€petitioner€anÐ è 8  Ðopportunity€to€avoid€his€capital€sentence.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àImportantly,€I€do€not€find€that€our€previous€order€requesting€additional€briefing€on€this€issueÐ ¬ü  Ðhas€effectively€excused€the€petitionerððs€previous€waiver.€€Once€an€issue€has€been€waived€by€aÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€in€the€post„conviction€context,€this€Court€possesses€no€authority,€whether€by€statute,€rule,Ð „Ô  Ðor€the€plain€error€doctrine,€to€excuse€that€waiver€in€order€to€reach€the€merits€of€a€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòWestóó,Ð pÀ Ð19€S.W.3d€at€756„57.׃ ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Consequently,€to€the€extent€that€our€previous€order€requesting€Ôg ÔadditionalÐ \¬ Ðbriefing€could€be€construed€as€excusing€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€that€issue,€the€order€was€beyondÐ H˜ Ðthe€scope€of€our€authority€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Under€no€set€of€circumstancesÐ 4„ Ðcan€our€previous€order€be€construed€to€place€the€substantive€constitutional€issue€properly€before€theÐ  p ÐCourt€for€resolution€on€its€merits.€€€€Ð  \ Ðà  àÌà  àTherefore,€in€accordance€with€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€and€our€previous€holdingÐ ä4 Ðin€òòWestóó,€I€find€that€the€constitutional€issue€presently€addressed€by€the€Court€has€been€previouslyÐ Ð  Ðwaived€by€the€petitioner€and€is€beyond€the€authority€of€this€Court€to€review.€€Because€we€also€lackÐ ¼  Ðthe€authority€to€excuse€the€petitionerððs€waiver,€we€are€likewise€without€authority€to€address€theÐ ¨ø Ðpetitionerððs€constitutional€claim€on€its€merits€as€the€majority€has€done€today.€€Accordingly,€I€wouldÐ ”ä Ðhold€that€the€substantive€constitutional€issue€should€be€dismissed,€thereby€prohibiting€the€petitionerÐ €Ð Ðfrom€filing€a€future€motion€to€reopen€under€subsection€(a)(1).€Ð l¼ ÐÌà@ƒ ƒ ìàòòB.€€TENNESSEE€CODE€ANNOTATED€SECTION€40„30„217(a)(2)óóˆÐ D!” Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àWithout€any€explanation,€the€majority€asserts€that€a€motion€to€reopen€may€be€based€on€aÐ #l! Ðâ âclaim€involving€either€a€ð ðnew€legal€issueðð€or€new€scientific€evidence€establishing€that€the€petitionerÐ $X" ÐÑ@¸Ñâ âÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñis€actually€innocent€of€the€offense€for€which€he€or€she€was€convicted.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Presumably,€the€majority€hasÐ ° Ðâ âused€the€language€ð ðnew€legal€issueðð€as€a€paraphrase€for€the€precise€statutory€language€of€section€40„Ð œì Ð30„217(a)(1),€which€allows€a€petitioner€to€base€a€claim€in€a€motion€to€reopen€based€upon€a€ð ðfinalÐ ˆØ Ðruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutional€right€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€atÐ tÄ Ðthe€time€of€trial.ðð€Ð `° ÐÌà  àAlternatively,€as€the€majority€has€recognized,€the€petitioner€may€file€a€motion€to€reopen€basedÐ 8 ˆ Ðon€a€claim€of€new€scientific€evidence€establishing€actual€innocence€of€the€òòoffense€or€offenses€forÐ $ t Ðwhich€the€petitioner€was€convictedóó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(2).€€Instead,€the€petitioner€inÐ  ` Ðthis€case€has€filed€his€motion€to€reopen€presumably€pursuant€to€subsection€(a)(2),€alleging€that€theÐ ü L  ÐWAIS„III€provides€new€scientific€evidence€establishing€his€mental€retardation,€thereby€rendering€himÐ è 8  Ðactually€innocent€òòof€his€capital€sentenceóó.€€The€majority€never€discusses€the€propriety€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðpetitionerððs€claim,€specifically€whether€the€petitioner€has€indeed€satisfied€the€strict€requirements€forÐ À  Ðreopening€a€post„conviction€petition€under€section€40„30„217(a)(2).€€Because€this€Court€has€neverÐ ¬ü  Ðbefore€considered€the€proper€standard€governing€the€admissibility€of€ð ðnew€scientific€evidence,ððÐ ˜è  Ðfurther€inquiry€is€necessary€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner€has€at€all€satisfied€the€strictÐ „Ô  Ðrequirements€for€reopening€a€post„conviction€petition€under€section€40„30„217(a)(2).€€MoreÐ pÀ Ðimportantly,€I€cannot€accept€the€petitionerððs€expanded€definition€of€the€phrase€ð ðactual€innocence€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€offenses€for€which€he€was€convictedðð€to€include€innocence€of€or€ineligibility€for€the€deathÐ H˜ ÐpenaltyÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€This€interpretation€not€only€neglects€the€plain,€unambiguous€language€of€the€statute,€but,Ð 4„ Ðif€relying€on€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòSawyer€v.€Whitleyóó,€505€U.S.€333€(1992),Ð  p Ðalso€ignores€that€the€General€Assembly€has€adopted€a€more€narrow€definition€of€the€ð ðactualÐ  \ Ðinnocenceðð€exception€in€section€40„30„217(a)(2)€than€was€adopted€by€the€òòSawyeróó€Court.€Ð øH ÐConsequently,€for€the€reasons€that€follow,€I€would€deny€the€petitionerððs€motion€to€reopen€for€failingÐ ä4 Ðto€satisfy€any€of€the€procedural€requirements.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ˆˆìàòòò ò1Ôf  ÔÔg Ô.€€New€Scientific€Evidenceó óÔf  ÔÔg ÔóóÔf  ÔÔg ԈР¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995€does€not€define€ð ðnew€scientific€evidenceðð€asÐ |Ì Ðused€in€Section€40„30„217(a)(2).€€It€seems€to€me€that€two€reasonable€constructions€of€the€phrase€areÐ h¸ Ðpossible.€€First,€the€language€could€be€narrowly€construed€to€mean€only€scientific€evidence€whichÐ T ¤ Ðeither€was€not€developed€or€was€not€in€existence€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€original€post„Ð @! Ðconviction€proceeding.€€Alternatively,€the€language€could€be€given€a€broader€construction€byÐ ,"|  Ðincluding€scientific€evidence€which,€although€in€existence,€was€not€available€to€the€petitioner€at€theÐ #h! Ðtime€of€his€original€post„conviction€proceeding€by€the€exercise€of€due€diligence.€€Ð $T" ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÌà  àI€would€give€the€statutory€language€the€broader€construction€because€I€believe€that€it€moreÐ Ü%,!$ Ðnearly€effectuates€the€intent€of€the€General€Assembly.€€While€this€legislation€was€being€consideredÐ È&"% Ðby€that€body,€Chairman€Frank€Buck€of€the€House€Judiciary€Committee€remarked,€ð ðWhen€someÐ ´'#& Ðscientific€test€comes€back€and€proves€people€to€be€innocent,€there€always€ought€to€be€some€methodÐ ° Ðby€which€that€wrong€is€corrected.€€Always.ðð€€99th€General€Assembly,€1st€Sess.,€House,€Tape€#2,Ð œì ÐH.B.€0001€(Mar.€29,€1995)€(remarks€of€Rep.€Buck).€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àRegardless€of€the€construction€given€the€phrase,€such€evidence€must€be€admissible€under€theÐ `° Ðapplicable€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€as€required€in€Section€40„30„217(b)€(ð ðThe€factualÐ L œ Ðinformation€set€out€in€the€affidavit€shall€be€limited€to€information€which,€if€offered€at€an€evidentiaryÐ 8 ˆ Ðhearing,€would€be€admissible€through€the€testimony€of€the€affiant€òòunder€the€rules€of€evidenceóó.ðð)Ð $ t Ð(emphasis€added).€€The€specific€rules€of€evidence€that€govern€the€issue€of€admissibility€of€scientificÐ  ` Ðproof€in€Tennessee€are€rules€702׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€703.׃ Ü×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2dÐ ü L  Ð257,€264€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€rules€together€necessarily€require€a€determination€as€to€the€scientificÐ è 8  Ðvalidity€or€reliability€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€265.€€In€short,€evidence€will€be€admissible€if€it€isÐ Ô$  Ðscientifically€reliable€or€valid.€€òòId.óó€€Several€non„exclusive€factors€with€which€courts€can€determineÐ À  Ðreliability€include€the€following:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  à(1)€whether€scientific€evidence€has€been€tested€and€the€methodology€with€which€itÐ „Ô  Ðhas€been€tested;€(2)€whether€the€evidence€has€been€subjected€to€peer€review€orÐ pÀ Ðpublication;€(3)€whether€a€potential€rate€of€error€is€known;€(4)€whether€.€.€.€theÐ \¬ Ðevidence€is€generally€accepted€in€the€scientific€community;€and€(5)€whether€theÐ H˜ Ðexpertððs€research€in€the€field€has€been€conducted€independent€of€litigation.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€(citing€òòDaubert€v.€Merrell€Dow€Pharmaceuticals,€Inc.óó,€509€U.S.€579€(1993)).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€my€view,€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔVan€Tranððs€latest€I.Q.€scores€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ômay€not€be€presumedÔf  ÔÔg Ô€ð ðnew€scientific€evidenceððÐ ä4 Ðwithout€consideration€of€the€validity€or€reliability€of€the€test€as€required€by€our€evidentiary€rules€andÐ Ð  Ðprocedures.€€Although€I€am€of€the€opinion€that€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€an€evidentiary€hearingÐ ¼  Ðon€his€motion€to€reopen€his€post„conviction€petition€for€the€reasons€contained€in€this€dissentÔf  Ôò òó óÔg Ô,€if€aÐ ¨ø Ðhearing€is€to€be€held,€then€it€is€clear€that€the€petitioner€will€be€required€to€show€by€clear€andÐ ”ä Ðconvincing€evidence€that:€(1)€the€WAIS„III€test€was€not€reasonably€available€to€him€at€the€time€ofÐ €Ð Ðhis€original€post„conviction€petition;€(2)€the€updated€version€of€the€I.Q.€test€is€qualitatively€differentÐ l¼ Ðâ âfrom€its€predecessor€such€that€this€updated€version€is€able€to€provide€a€more€accurate€measurementÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€petitionerððs€true€intellectual€abilities;׃!×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€(3)€the€WAIS„III€test€provides€a€valid€or€reliableÐ ° Ðâ âmeasurement€of€the€petitionerððs€I.Q.Ð œì ÐÌà@  ìàò òÔf  Ô2Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔòòÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€The€Meaning€of€ð ðActually€Innocent€of€the€OffenseððÔf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔóóÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôó óÔg ԈРtÄ ÐÌà  àAssuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€test€results€from€the€WAIS„III€do€constitute€ð ðnew€scientificÐ L œ Ðevidence,ðð€the€petitioner€must€nevertheless€demonstrate€that€these€results€establish€his€actualÐ 8 ˆ Ðinnocence€ð ðof€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€[he]€was€convicted.ðð€€The€petitioner€does€not€argueÐ $ t Ðthat€his€alleged€mental€retardation€proves€his€innocence€of€his€underlying€crime€of€murder;€rather,Ð  ` Ðhe€urges€this€Court€to€adopt€an€expanded€meaning€of€this€phrase€to€include€ð ðactual€innocence€of€orÐ ü L  Ðineligibility€for€the€òòdeath€penaltyóó.ðð€€As€support,€the€petitioner€cites€the€United€States€SupremeÐ è 8  ÐCourtððs€decision€in€òòSawyer€v.€Whitleyóó,€505€U.S.€333€(1992),€where€the€Court€held€that€a€prisonerÐ Ô$  Ðcould€establish€his€actual€òòsentencingóó€innocence€if€the€prisoner€shows€by€clear€and€convincingÐ À  Ðevidence€that,€absent€a€constitutional€error,€no€reasonable€juror€would€have€found€the€petitionerÐ ¬ü  Ðeligible€for€the€death€penalty€under€the€applicable€state€law.€€òòId.óó€at€336.Ð ˜è  ÐÌòòà@  ìàÔf  ÔTÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôhe€Proper€Interpretation€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÔf  ÔÔg ԈРpÀ ÐÓ  ÓÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔSectionÔf  ÔÔg Ô€40„30„217(a)(2)óóÐ \¬ ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÓê…ÓÔf  ÔÔg ÔÌà  àIf€the€petitionerððs€broad€definition€of€ð ðactually€innocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€whichÐ 4„ Ðthe€petitioner€was€convictedðð€were€adopted€to€include€ð ðinnocent€of€capital€punishment,ðð€such€aÐ  p Ðjudicial€construction€would€clearly€and€unduly€expand€the€statuteððs€coverage€beyond€its€intendedÐ  \ Ðscope.€€A€cardinal€rule€of€statutory€construction€is€that€courts€should€seek€to€ascertain€and€give€effectÐ øH Ðto€the€intention€and€purpose€of€the€General€Assembly.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€General€Assembly€has€explicitly€qualified€the€term€ð ðactually€innocentðð€in€subsectionÐ ¼  Ð(a)(2)€with€the€clause,€ð ðòòof€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€the€petitioner€was€convictedóó,ðð€(emphasisÐ ¨ø Ðadded),€leaving€little€doubt€as€to€what€the€prisoner€must€demonstrate.€€The€legislature€is€presumedÐ ”ä Ðto€use€each€word€in€a€statute€deliberately,€and€Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔf  Ôò òÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôó óÔg Ôthe€use€of€each€word€conveys€some€intent€and€has€aÐ €Ð Ðspecific€meaning€and€purpose.€€òòBrowder€v.€Morrisóó,€975€S.W.2d€308,€311€(Tenn.€1998).€€Indeed,€thereÐ l¼ Ðseems€little€question€that€the€legislature€applied€subsection€(a)(2)€to€mean€that€the€prisoner€mustÐ X ¨ Ðdemonstrate€actual€innocence€of€the€crime€or€crimes€for€which€he€was€convicted€and€not€merely€hisÐ D!” Ðsentence.€€If€the€legislature€had€intended€the€petitionerððs€broader€definition,€it€would€have€includedÐ 0"€  Ðthe€language€used€in€subsection€(a)(3),€which€explicitly€allows€a€prisoner€to€seek€relief€ð ðòòfrom€aÐ #l! Ðsentence€that€was€enhancedóó.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThis€interpretation€is€consistent€with€the€repeated€usage€within€the€Post„ConvictionÐ à%0!$ ÐProcedure€Act€of€the€terms€ð ðoffense,ðð€ð ðsentence,ðð€and€ð ðconviction.ðð€€It€is€a€general€rule€of€statutoryÐ Ì&"% Ðconstruction€that€where€the€same€language€is€used€repeatedly€in€the€same€context,€it€is€presumed€toÐ ¸'#& Ðcontain€the€same€meaning€throughout€the€statute.€€òòCf.óó€òòMadison€Suburban€Util.€Dist.€v.€Carsonóó,€191Ð ¤(ô#' ÐTenn.€300,€305,€232€S.W.2d€277,€279€(1950).€€Significantly,€these€terms€are€used€according€to€theirÐ ° Ðordinary€and€well„known€meanings,€as€evidenced€both€by€clarifying€language€in€the€statute€and€byÐ œì Ðtheir€use€both€in€the€disjunctive€and€in€the€conjunctive.€€A€prime€example€of€our€legislature€usingÐ ˆØ Ðthe€terms€ð ðoffenseðð€and€ð ðsentenceðð€according€to€their€separate€and€distinct€meanings€is€found€inÐ tÄ Ðsection€39„13„203(c),€which€requires€the€court€to€determine€whether€a€defendant€is€mentally€retardedÐ `° Ðð ðat€the€time€òòof€the€offense€of€first€degree€murderóó.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€Moreover,€in€subsection€(d)Ð L œ Ðof€this€same€provision,€if€a€defendant€found€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€is€also€found€to€have€beenÐ 8 ˆ Ðmentally€retarded€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€then€the€jury€ð ðshall€fix€the€punishment€in€a€separateÐ $ t Ðsentencing€proceeding.ðð€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„220(a)€(requiring€this€Court€to€set€anÐ  ` Ðexecution€date€upon€affirming€a€conviction€òòandóó€sentence€of€death€on€direct€appeal)€(emphasisÐ ü L  Ðadded);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.ðð40„30„203€(ð ðRelief€under€this€part€shall€be€granted€when€the€convictionÐ è 8  Ðòòoróó€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgement€of€any€right€guaranteed€by€theÐ Ô$  ÐConstitution€of€Tennessee....ðð)€(emphasis€added).Ð À  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€it€is€clear€that€the€General€Assembly€intended€the€term€ð ðoffenseðð€to€meanÐ ˜è  Ðnothing€more€than€the€underlying€crimes€for€which€the€petitioner€was€convicted.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHodgeÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9708„CR„00332,€1998€WL€283100,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€3,€1998)Ð pÀ Ð(rejecting€defendantððs€attempts€to€prove€mental€incompetency€by€introducing€mental€health€recordsÐ \¬ Ðdating€back€to€1966€but€only€first€discovered€in€1996€as€failing€to€establish€ð ðactual€innocenceðð€of€theÐ H˜ Ðoffenses€for€which€the€defendant€was€convicted).€€This€interpretation€fits€most€logically€within€theÐ 4„ ÐAct€as€a€whole.€€It€is€difficult€to€conceive€that€the€legislature€would€distort€the€ordinary€definitionÐ  p Ðof€the€term€in€one€subsection€of€the€statute€but€to€clearly€apply€its€plain€meaning€in€all€otherÐ  \ Ðprovisions.€€Consequently,€to€prevent€such€an€anomalous€interpretation,€subsection€(a)(2)€must€beÐ øH Ðconstrued€to€require€the€petitioner€to€prove€his€actual€innocence€of€the€crimes€for€which€he€wasÐ ä4 Ðconvicted.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@= = ìàòòÔf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔòòSawyerÔf  ÔÔg Ô€v.€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔWhitleyÔf  ÔÔg Ôóó€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôand€ð ðActual€InnocenceóóððÔf  ÔÔg ԈР¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€urges€this€Court€to€adopt€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€analysis€inÐ €Ð ÐòòSawyer€v.€Whitleyóó,€505€U.S.€333,€338€(1992),€thereby€expanding€the€definition€of€ð ðactually€innocentÐ l¼ Ðof€the€offenseðð€in€section€40„30„217(a)(2)€to€include€ð ðinnocent€of€the€death€penalty.ðð€€Although€weÐ X ¨ Ðmay€look€to€federal€interpretation€of€similar€federal€laws€for€guidance€in€enforcing€our€own€statutes,Ð D!” Ðwe€are€neither€bound€by€nor€limited€by€federal€law€when€interpreting€our€Post„Conviction€ProcedureÐ 0"€  ÐAct.€€Indeed,€even€assuming€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€application€of€federal€habeasÐ #l! Ðlaw€is€even€remotely€persuasive€to€this€Courtððs€interpretation€of€the€Tennessee€Post„ConvictionÐ $X" ÐProcedure€statute,€it€is€important€to€note€at€the€outset€that€our€General€Assembly€adopted€a€moreÐ ô$D # Ðnarrow€definition€of€the€ð ðactual€innocenceðð€exception€in€section€40„30„217(a)(2)€than€was€relied€onÐ à%0!$ Ðby€the€òòSawyeróó€Court.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àIn€òòSawyeróó,€the€defendant€alleged€that€a€fundamental€miscarriage€of€justice€would€occurÐ ¤(ô#' Ðabsent€federal€review€of€his€abusive€and€successive€federal€habeas€corpus€claims€on€the€merits.€€HeÐ )à$( Ðargued€that€as€a€result€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€certain€evidence€was€withheld€fromÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€jury€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€trial.€€òòSawyeróó,€505€U.S.€at€338.€€The€defendant€assertedÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€because€this€evidence€was€unconstitutionally€kept€from€the€jury,€he€was€ineligible€for€the€deathÐ ° Ðpenalty€and€therefore€actually€innocent€of€his€capital€sentence.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àAddressing€the€meaning€of€ð ðactual€innocence,ðð׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€Court€concluded€that€ð ðactual€innocenceððÐ tÄ Ðmeans€ð ðinnocent€of€deathðð€and€is€a€ð ðvery€narrow€exception€.€.€.€subject€to€determination€by€relativelyÐ `° Ðobjective€standards.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€341.€€Nevertheless,€the€Court€found€the€ð ðactually€innocentðð€exceptionÐ L œ Ðinapplicable€because€the€psychological€evidence€allegedly€withheld€from€the€jury€did€not€relate€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€crime€or€to€the€aggravating€factors€found€by€the€jury€that€made€himÐ $ t Ðeligible€for€capital€punishment.€€òòId.óó€at€348„49.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àHowever,€under€our€General€Assemblyððs€more€narrow€definition€of€the€phrase€ð ðactuallyÐ è 8  Ðinnocent,ðð€a€petitioner€who€files€a€motion€to€reopen€a€post„conviction€petition€based€on€newÐ Ô$  Ðscientific€evidence€is€required€to€demonstrate€actual€innocence€of€the€underlying€crimes€for€whichÐ À  Ðhe€was€convicted.€€Courts€interpreting€similarly€worded€statutes€have€also€declined€to€expand€theÐ ¬ü  Ðplain€meaning€of€the€language€to€allow€a€petitioner€relief€from€a€capital€sentence.€€For€example,Ð ˜è  Ðfederal€habeas€corpus€law€has€been€recently€amended€by€the€Antiterrorism€and€Effective€DeathÐ „Ô  ÐPenalty€Act€of€1996,€Pub.€L.€No.€104„132,€ðð€105,€110€Stat.€1214€(amending€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2255׃(×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×),€toÐ pÀ Ðallow€a€prisoner€to€file€a€second€habeas€petition€only€if€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidence€.€.€.€would€beÐ \¬ Ðsufficient€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€no€reasonable€factfinder€would€haveÐ H˜ Ðfound€the€movant€òòguilty€of€the€offenseóó.ðð€€Relying€upon€this€Congressional€amendment,€the€SeventhÐ 4„ ÐCircuit€has€denied€a€prisonerððs€attempt€to€file€a€successive€section€2255€motion€for€merely€assertingÐ  p Ðhis€actual€òòsentencingóó€innocence€rather€than€his€innocence€of€his€underlying€crime.€€As€the€courtÐ  \ Ðexplained,€Ð øH ÐÌà8  àThe€ð ðactual€innocenceðð€exception€of€the€prior€law€was€judge„made,€and€so€itsÐ Ð  Ðcontours€were€appropriately€judge„fashioned€and€permissibly€judge„expanded.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðexception€in€the€new€law€is€graven€in€statutory€language€that€could€not€be€anyÐ ¨ø Ðclearer....[T]he€absence€of€any€indication€in€the€legislative€history€that€ð ðoffenseððÐ ”ä Ðwas€being€used€in€some€special€sense€different€from€its€ordinary€meaning€[makes€it]Ð €Ð Ðhighly€unlikely€that€Congress€intended€the€word€to€bear€a€special€meaning.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHope€v.€United€Statesóó,€108€F.3d€119,€120€(7th€Cir.€1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGreenawalt€v.€Stewartóó,€105€F.3dÐ D!” Ð1287,€1287„88€(9th€Cir.€1997).€Ð 0"€  Їà  àConsequently,€I€reject€the€petitionerððs€submission€for€a€broader€interpretation€of€the€ð ðactuallyÐ ° Ðinnocentðð€exception€as€used€by€the€General€Assembly€in€section€40„30„217(a)(2).€€Because€theÐ œì Ðpetitioner€has€not€met€the€standard€demonstrating€that€the€WAIS„III€test€results€establish€his€actualÐ ˆØ Ðinnocence€of€the€crime€of€first€degree€murder,€I€would€deny€his€motion€to€reopen€his€post„convictionÐ tÄ Ðpetition€on€procedural€grounds€alone.Ð `° ÐÌà@Ï Ï ìàòòC.€€CONSIDERATIONS€OF€FUNDAMENTAL€FAIRNESSóóˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àThe€majority€holds€that€considerations€of€ð ðfundamental€fairnessðð€dictate€that€the€petitionerÐ  ` Ðhave€a€meaningful€opportunity€to€raise€his€substantive€constitutional€claim.€€Declining€to€be€boundÐ ü L  Ðby€what€it€feels€are€the€ð ðtechnicalðð€mandates€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€and€SupremeÐ è 8  ÐCourt€Rule€28€governing€waiver€of€issues,€the€majority€has€now€given€the€petitioner€an€evidentiaryÐ Ô$  Ðhearing,€even€though€the€petitioner€has€never€been€statutorily€entitled€to€receive€this€hearing€in€theÐ À  Ðfirst€instance.€€Nevertheless,€the€majority€grants€the€petitioner€an€evidentiary€hearing€so€as€to€provideÐ ¬ü  Ðhim€ð ðdue€process€of€law.ðð€€I€disagree€because€in€my€view,€the€petitioner€has€already€been€fullyÐ ˜è  Ðafforded€due€process€of€law.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àUntil€todayððs€unfortunate€change€in€the€law,€no€defendant€has€previously€€possessed€a€federalÐ \¬ Ðor€state€constitutional€right€to€collaterally€attack€his€or€her€conviction€in€state€court.€€Instead,€as€thisÐ H˜ ÐCourt€has€often€recognized,€the€ð ðstate€may€erect€reasonable€procedural€requirements€for€triggeringÐ 4„ Ðthe€right€to€[such]€an€adjudication.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,€207„08€(Tenn.€1992).€Ð  p ÐIndeed,€the€state€may€even€ð ðterminate€a€[post„conviction]€claim€for€failure€to€comply€with€aÐ  \ Ðreasonable€procedural€rule€without€violating€due€process€rights.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€208€(citing€òòLogan€v.Ð øH ÐZimmerman€Brush€Co.óó,€455€U.S.€422,€437€(1982)).€€The€only€due€process€protection€afforded€aÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€in€the€post„conviction€context€is€that€a€procedural€rule€cannot€deny€the€defendant€an€Ð Ð  Ðð ðððòòopportunityóó€to€be€heard€at€a€meaningful€time€and€in€a€meaningful€manner.ðððð€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¼  Ð911€S.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995)€(quoting€òòMathews€v.€Eldridgeóó,€424€U.S.€319,€333€(1976))Ð ¨ø Ð(emphasis€in€original).€€Ô#†XXXXh²#ÔSo€long€as€Ô‡XXXXÔthe€policies€reflected€in€a€procedural€requirement€afford€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€a€fair€and€reasonable€opportunity€to€present€a€claim,€then€the€defendant€may€not€assert€thatÐ €Ð Ðhis€due€process€rights€have€been€violated.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208.€Ô#†XXXXA»#ÔÐ l¼ ÐÔ‡XXXXÔÌà  àI€cannot€agree€that€considerations€of€fundamental€fairness€dictate€that€we€bypass€the€statutoryÐ D!” Ðrequirements€for€obtaining€a€hearing€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€First,€the€petitionerÐ 0"€  Ðcannot€establish€his€substantive€eligibility€for€a€hearing€under€any€subsection€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ #l! ÐAnnotated€section€40„30„217(a),€and€I€know€of€no€authority€that€permits€a€court€to€reopen€a€post„Ð $X" Ðconviction€petition€when€the€defendant€does€not€meet€any€of€the€statutory€criteria€necessary€forÐ ô$D # Ðreopening.€€Indeed,€I€find€it€somewhat€anomalous€to€conclude,€as€the€majority€apparently€does€today,Ð à%0!$ Ðthat€due€process€of€law€somehow€entitles€the€petitioner€an€opportunity€to€reopen€his€post„convictionÐ Ì&"% Ðpetition,€even€though€he€is€not€entitled€to€such€a€hearing€under€the€statute,€and€even€though€dueÐ ¸'#& Ðprocess€would€not€compel€the€legislature€to€provide€for€such€a€hearing€in€the€first€instance.€€GivenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€sweeping€nature€of€the€majorityððs€new€ð ðfundamental€fairnessðð€doctrine,€I€am€concerned€whetherÐ )à$( Ðthe€statutory€requirements€to€receive€a€post„conviction€hearing€retain€any€meaning€at€all.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àBut€even€if€due€process€were€to€allow€a€hearing€when€the€petitioner€did€not€meet€the€statutoryÐ ° Ðrequirements€for€obtaining€a€hearing,€I€disagree€that€considerations€of€fundamental€fairness€areÐ œì Ðapplicable.€€First,€the€petitioner€Ô#†XXXX½¼#Ôòòhas€not€been€denied€óóa€meaningful€opportunity€to€be€heard€on€hisÐ ˆØ Ðsubstantive€constitutional€claim.€€Significantly,€at€his€1997€post„conviction€hearing,€Ô‡XXXXÔthe€petitionerÐ tÄ Ðwas€not€restricted€by€the€trial€court€from€raising€the€substantive€constitutional€issue,€and€the€recordÐ `° Ðcontains€no€indication€that€he€tried€to€raise€this€issue€but€was€inappropriately€limited€in€his€abilityÐ L œ Ðto€present€Ô#†XXXXÄ#Ôevidence€to€support€his€claims€for€relief.€€Indeed,€though€not€constitutionally€required,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetitioner€was€also€afforded€the€assistance€of€counsel€in€asserting€and€litigating€his€claims.€€As€such,Ð $ t Ðthe€petitioner€received€everything€that€ð ðfundamental€fairnessðð€requires€him€to€receive:€theÐ  ` Ðòòopportunityóó€to€be€heard€on€his€claim.€€The€majorityððs€holding€to€the€contrary€notwithstanding,€theÐ ü L  Ðpetitionerððs€own€failure€to€present€the€claim€as€a€basis€for€relief€is€not€tantamount€to€his€being€deniedÐ è 8  Ðthe€opportunity€to€present€the€claim.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àSecond,€unlike€all€of€our€previous€cases€invoking€the€ð ðfundamental€fairnessðð€doctrine€in€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpost„conviction€context,€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€raise€the€substantive€constitutional€claim€€was€notÐ ˜è  Ðdue€to€circumstances€beyond€his€own€control.€€Ô‡XXXXÔIn€previous€cases€where€this€Court€has€Ô#†XXXXAÉ#Ôgranted€a€post„Ð „Ô  Ðconviction€hearing€based€upon€due€process€grounds,€the€defendant€was€confronted€withÐ pÀ Ðcircumstances€beyond€his€control€that€prevented€him€from€asserting€a€claim.€€òòSeeóó€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,Ð \¬ Ð44€S.W.3d€464€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€40€S.W.3d€459€(Tenn.€2001);€òòSeals€v.€Stateóó,€23€S.W.3dÐ H˜ Ð272€(Tenn.€2000);€òòWatkins€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€302€(Tenn.€1995);€Ô‡XXXXÔòòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.€1992)Ô#†XXXXƒË#Ô.€Ô‡XXXXÔ€In€this€case,€however,€the€ability€to€present€and€litigate€the€substantive€constitutionalÐ  p Ðissue€was€entirely€within€the€petitionerððs€own€control.€€Consequently,€I€disagree€with€the€majorityÐ  \ Ðthat€ð ðfundamental€fairnessðð€now€requires€that€the€petitioner€be€given€a€second€bite€at€thisÐ øH Ðconstitutional€apple.à@ìì*ìàòòò òóóòòò òÔ#†XXXXÌ#Ôó óó óóóˆÐ ä4 ÐÌò òÔ‡XXXXÔÓ  ÓII.€€SUBSTANTIVE€CONSTITUTIONAL€ANALYSISÐ ¼  Ðó óÓ(ÎÓÌÔ#†XXXX Î#Ôà  àNevertheless,€even€granting€the€dubious€Ôf  Ôpropositions€that€the€substantive€constitutional€issueÐ ”ä Ðis€properly€before€the€Court€andÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€the€General€Assembly€intended€for€the€meaning€of€ð ðactualÐ €Ð ÐÔf  ÔÔf  Ôinnocence€of€the€offenseððÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€include€ineligibility€for€the€death€penalty,€the€petitioner€must€still€showÐ l¼ Ðthat€his€alleged€mental€condition€places€him€among€a€class€of€persons€who€are€ineligible€to€receiveÐ X ¨ Ða€capital€sentence.€€To€this€end,€the€petitioner€advances€two€arguments:€(1)€that€Tennessee€CodeÐ D!” ÐAnnotated€section€39„13„203,€which€proscribes€the€sentencing€of€mentally€retarded€persons€to€death,Ð 0"€  Ðshould€be€applied€retroactively€to€prohibit€his€execution,€and€(2)€that€both€the€Eighth€AmendmentÐ #l! Ðto€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€bar€hisÐ $X" Ðexecution€as€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAs€a€threshold€matter,€I€agree€with€the€majority€that€section€39„13„203€is€not€properly€appliedÐ Ì&"% Ðretroactively€to€relieve€this€defendant€of€his€capital€sentence.€€Apart€from€questions€as€to€theÐ ¸'#& Ðconstitutional€authority€of€the€General€Assembly€to€retroactively€relieve€a€defendant€of€a€final€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðvalid€sentence,€òòcf.óó€òòState€ex€rel.€v.€McClellanóó,€87€Tenn.€52,€55,€9€S.W.€233,€234€(1888),€I€find€noÐ )à$( Ðevidence€that€clearly€demonstrates€the€legislatureððs€intent€to€have€this€statute€operate€retroactively.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐConsequently,€if€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€have€his€post„conviction€petition€reopened,€it€can€onlyÐ h+¸&* Ðbe€because€the€Constitution€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€forbids€his€execution.׃$×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐòòÌÓ  ÓA.€€THE€NATURE€OF€THE€CONSTITUTIONAL€ISSUE€BEFORE€THE€COURTóóÐ ˆØ ÐÓ´ÖÓÌà  àInitially,€it€is€of€vital€importance€to€understand€the€precise€constitutional€question€before€theÐ `° ÐCourt.€€Contrary€to€the€majorityððs€formulation,€the€issue€in€this€case€is€òònotóó€simply€whether€theÐ L œ ÐTennessee€Constitution€prohibits€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€persons.€€Under€some€well„Ð 8 ˆ Ðsettled€circumstances,€it€already€does,€and€I€do€not€understand€these€well„settled€circumstances€toÐ $ t Ðbe€at€issue€here.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€the€Constitution€prohibits€the€execution€of€a€defendantÐ è 8  Ðwithin€ð ðthe€borderline€mentally€retarded€rangeðð€if,€because€of€that€mental€condition,€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðlacks€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€hisÐ À  Ðconduct€to€the€requirements€of€law.€€In€òòState€v.€Laneyóó,€654€S.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€1983),€this€Court,Ð ¬ü  Ðspeaking€through€then€Justice€Drowota,€denied€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€his€capital€sentence€onÐ ˜è  Ðthe€ground€that€the€fact€of€his€low€I.Q.€rendered€the€sentence€cruel€and€unusual.€€In€denying€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðmere€fact€of€low€intelligence€alone€rendered€a€capital€sentence€unconstitutional,€the€Court€held€thatÐ pÀ Ðso€long€as€the€mental€condition€did€not€affect€the€defendantððs€capacity€either€to€appreciate€theÐ \¬ Ðwrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€law,€the€law€wouldÐ H˜ Ðð ðhold€[that]€person€accountable€for€his€actions.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€389€(citing€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,Ð 4„ Ð543€(Tenn.€1977)).€€This€Court€then€upheld€Laneyððs€capital€sentence€upon€finding€that€his€I.Q.€ofÐ  p Ðseventy„two€did€not€affect€his€ð ðmental€capability€to€plan,€commit€and€attempt€to€cover€up€hisÐ  \ Ðinvolvement€in€the€crime.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAs€evidenced€by€òòLaneyóó,€the€law€is€already€settled€that€the€Constitution€of€the€State€ofÐ Ð  ÐTennessee€forbids€the€execution€of€a€mentally€retarded€defendant€under€certain€circumstances,€suchÐ ¼  Ðas€Ô‡XXXXÔwhere€a€defendantððs€mental€condition€displaces€the€following€capacities:€(1)€the€òòcognitive€capacityóóÐ ¨ø Ðto€appreciate€the€consequences€of€certain€action,€(2)€the€òòmoral€capacityóó€to€appreciate€theÐ ”ä Ðwrongfulness€of€certain€action,€or€(3)€the€òòvolitional€capacityóó€to€behave€in€a€lawful€manner.€€òòSee€alsoóóÐ €Ð ÐòòÔ#†XXXX/à#ÔPenry€v.€Lynaughóó,€492€U.S.€302,€338€(1989)€(OððConnor,€J.)€(stating€that€the€Eighth€Amendment€doesÐ l¼ Ðâ ânot€bar€execution,€unless€a€defendantððs€mental€condition€affects€his€or€her€cognitive,€volitional,€andÐ X ¨ Ðmoral€capacities).Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg Ô׃2×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ôg Ô€€Ô‡XXXXÔHowever,€the€majority€today€expands€this€prohibitional€bar€well€beyond€theÐ ° Ðâ âholding€of€òòLaneyóó.€€Instead€of€focusing€its€rationale€on€the€cognitive€abilities€of€the€individualÐ œì Ðdefendant,€the€majority€now€expands€prior€law€to€render€òòallóó€mentally€retarded€persons,€òòóódespite€theÐ ˆØ Ðactual€cognitive,€moral,€Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔorÔg Ô€volitional€abilities€possessed€by€the€individual€defendant,€ineligible€forÐ tÄ Ðcapital€punishment.׃& ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`° ÐÌà  àAs€such,€the€issue€before€the€Court€is€not€simply€whether€the€Constitution€prohibits€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðexecution€of€the€mentally€retarded.€€Under€some€circumstances,€it€does,€and€it€always€has.€€Instead,Ð $ t Ðthe€òòreal€issueóó€in€this€case€is€whether€the€Tennessee€Constitution€now€also€forbids€the€execution€ofÐ  ` Ðsomeone€who€suffers€from€a€mental€condition,€but€whose€condition€òòdoes€notóó€affect€his€or€herÐ ü L  Ðcognitive,€moral,€Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔorÔg Ô€volitional€capacities€to€commit€capital€murder.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€majorityððs€decision€is€a€broad€expansion€of€existing€law,€and€one€that€I€believe€isÐ À  Ðunwarranted€and€will€lead€to€injustice€in€individual€cases.€€Instead,€I€would€hold€that€the€ConstitutionÐ ¬ü  Ðcontinues€to€permit€the€punishment€of€a€defendant€who€has€the€cognitive€capacity€to€appreciate€thatÐ ˜è  Ðcertain€action€will€lead€to€the€death€of€others,€who€has€the€moral€capacity€to€appreciate€theÐ „Ô  Ðwrongfulness€of€murder,€and€who€otherwise€has€the€volitional€capacity€to€behave€in€a€lawful€manner.€Ð pÀ ÐFor€the€reasons€given€below,€I€respectfully€dissent€from€the€conclusion€that€the€TennesseeÐ \¬ ÐConstitution€prohibits€the€petitionerððs€execution,€or,€consequently,€that€he€has€shown€that€he€isÐ H˜ Ðð ðactually€innocent€of€the€offenseðð€under€section€40„30„217(a)(2).Ð 4„ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓB.€€APPLICATION€OF€ARTICLE€I,€SECTION€16Ð  \ ÐóóÓUìÓÌà  àAny€interpretation€of€a€constitutional€provision€necessarily€begins€with€its€language.€€ArticleÐ ä4 ÐI,€section€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€ð ðexcessive€bail€shall€not€be€required,€norÐ Ð  Ðexcessive€fines€imposed,€nor€cruel€and€unusual€punishments€inflicted.ðð€€We€have€previouslyÐ ¼  Ðrecognized€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôthe€textual€similarity€of€this€provision€to€that€of€the€Eighth€Amendment,€and€as€such,€òòóóweÐ ¨ø Ðhave€adopted€the€analysis€used€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.Ð ”ä Ð153,€173€(1976),€for€determining€whether€a€punishment€is€cruel€and€unusual€under€the€TennesseeÐ €Ð ÐConstitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€189€(Tenn.€1991).€€According€to€this€standard,Ð l¼ Ðthe€petitioner€is€entitled€to€a€reduced€sentence€only€if€he€can€show€that€Ô#†XXXX‘ã#Ôhis€punishment€is€cruel€andÐ X ¨ Ðunusual€in€light€of€three€factors:€ð ðFirst,€does€the€punishment€for€the€crime€conform€withÐ D!” Ðcontemporary€standards€of€decency?€€Second,€is€the€punishment€grossly€disproportionate€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðoffense?€€Third,€does€the€punishment€go€beyond€what€is€necessary€to€accomplish€any€legitimateÐ ° Ðpenological€objective[?]ðð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€I€disagree€that€the€petitioner€has€successfully€metÐ œì Ðhis€burden€under€any€of€these€three€criteria.Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô׃3×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˆØ ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÌÔ‡XXXXÔòòò òÓ  Ó1.€€Penological€ObjectivesÔ#†XXXXÅó#Ô€Served€by€the€Punishmentó óóóÐ `° ÐÓêóÓÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àTaking€these€inquiries€in€reverse€order,€the€legitimate€penological€objectives€of€capitalÐ 4 „ Ðpunishment€in€this€state,€retribution€and€deterrence,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€31€S.W.3d€196,€217Ð  p Ð(Tenn.€2000),€are€not€undermined€so€long€as€the€defendant€possesses€the€capacities€to€appreciate€thatÐ  \ Ðcertain€action€will€lead€to€the€death€of€others,€to€appreciate€the€moral€wrongfulness€of€murder,€andÐ ø H  Ðto€behave€in€a€lawful€manner.€€While€the€mental€condition€of€some€offenders€may€significantlyÐ ä 4  Ðimpair€these€capacities,€I€disagree€that€this€conclusion€invariably€follows€in€all€cases.€€Consequently,Ð Ð  Ðwhere€these€capacities€remain€largely€unaffected€by€the€defendantððs€mental€condition,€theÐ ¼  ÐConstitution€cannot€bar€capital€punishment€on€the€ground€that€no€penological€goal€supports€it.Ð ¨ø  ÐÌÓ  ÓòòRetribution€and€Moral€BlameworthinessóóÐ €Ð  ÐÓ[øÓÌà  àÔ#†XXXXxô#ÔAs€for€the€former€objective,€the€retributive€value€of€capital€punishment€is€closely€tied€to€theÐ X¨ Ðdefendantððs€culpability,€as€evidenced€by€the€Supreme€Courtððs€statement€that€retribution€is€anÐ D” Ðappropriate€consideration€so€long€as€the€punishment€is€tailored€to€the€defendantððs€ð ðpersonalÐ 0€ Ðresponsibility€and€moral€guilt.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòEnmundóó,€458€U.S.€at€801Ô‡XXXXÔ.€€As€one€member€of€the€presentÐ l Ðmajority€has€noted€with€regard€to€retribution€in€the€capital€context,€this€justification€for€punishmentÐ X Ðmay€be€characterized€as€ð ðthe€need€to€offset€a€criminal€act€by€a€punishment€of€equivalent€ððmoralÐ ôD Ðquality.ðððð€€òòSeeóó€òòVan€Tranóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€Ô#†XXXX–ú#Ô277€(Birch,€J.,€dissenting)€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€Ð à0 ÐWhen€viewed€in€this€light,€the€retributive€aspect€of€capital€punishment€Ô‡XXXXÔð ðis€an€expression€of€societyððsÐ Ì Ðmoral€outrage€at€particularly€offensive€conduct.€€This€function€may€be€unappealing€to€many,€but€itÐ ¸ Ðis€essential€in€an€ordered€society€that€asks€its€citizens€to€rely€on€legal€processes€rather€than€self-helpÐ ¤ô Ðto€vindicate€their€wrongs.ðð€€Ô#†XXXX×ü#ÔòòGreggóó,€428€U.S.€at€183.Ð à ÐÌà  àThe€majority€takes€substantial€issue€with€the€notion€that€some€mentally€retarded€offendersÐ h¸ Ðcan€possess€any€moral€culpability€for€their€criminal€actions,€and€it€holds€that€the€mere€status€ofÐ T ¤ Ðmental€retardation€is€sufficient€to€render€a€defendant€utterly€incapable€of€acting€with€the€level€ofÐ @! Ðpersonal€culpability€that€would€justify€a€capital€sentence.Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€€Indeed,€while€the€majority€notes€thatÐ ,"|  Ðmental€retardation€exists€in€several€degrees€of€severity,€ranging€from€mild€to€profound,€it€makes€noÐ #h! Ðpractical€distinction€between€these€degrees€in€its€analysis€of€moral€blameworthiness.€€Taken€to€itsÐ $T" Ðlogical€extreme,€the€majorityððs€rationale€posits€that€the€mere€label€of€mental€retardation€is€sufficientÐ ð$@ # Ðto€remove€any€notion€that€a€defendant€can€possibly€be€morally€blameworthy.€€This€conclusion€cannotÐ Ü%,!$ Ðinvariably€follow,€because€it€ignores€the€differing€mental€capacities,€life€experiences,€and€generalÐ È&"% Ðabilities€possessed€by€individuals€within€the€majorityððs€large€and€diverse€class€of€persons.€€Ð ´'#& Їà  àDirectly€contradicting€conclusions€similar€to€those€advanced€by€the€majority€in€this€case,Ð ° ÐJustice€OððConnor€examined€the€record€in€òòPenryóóð"ða€record,€incidentally,€that€was€more€fullyÐ œì Ðdeveloped€and€supplemented€than€the€record€in€this€caseð"ðand€concluded€the€following€as€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðabilities€of€this€class€of€defendants:€Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àMentally€retarded€persons€are€individuals€whose€abilities€and€experiences€can€varyÐ L œ Ðgreatly....In€addition€to€the€varying€degrees€of€mental€retardation,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðconsequences€of€a€retarded€personððs€mental€impairment,€including€the€deficits€in€hisÐ $ t Ðor€her€adaptive€behavior,€ð ðmay€be€ameliorated€through€education€and€habilitation.ððÐ  ` ÐAlthough€retarded€persons€generally€have€difficulty€learning€from€experience,òò€óósomeÐ ü L  Ðare€fully€ð ðcapable€of€learning,€working,€and€living€in€their€communities.ðð€€òòIn€light€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€diverse€capacities€and€life€experiences€of€mentally€retarded€persons,€it€cannot€beÐ Ô$  Ðsaid€on€the€record€before€us€today€that€all€mentally€retardedò ò€ó ópeople,€by€definition,Ð À  Ðcan€never€act€with€the€level€of€culpability€associated€with€the€death€penalty.€óó€Ð¬ü Ð Ð  ÐÌ492€U.S.€at€338„339€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àTherefore,€while€the€majorityððs€conclusions€may€follow€in€some,€if€not€many,€cases,€theseÐ \¬ Ðgeneralities€are€overbroad€at€best,€and,€at€worst,€they€can€lead€to€manifest€injustice€in€individualÐ H˜ Ðcases.€€Indeed,€if€one€needs€proof€of€the€veracity€of€this€proposition,€one€should€look€no€farther€thanÐ 4„ Ðto€the€petitionerððs€case€before€us€now.€€Assuming€that€the€petitioner€falls€within€the€majorityððs€newÐ  p Ðclass€of€capitally€ineligible€defendants,€a€tragic€error€will€occur€if€the€majorityððs€assumptions€as€toÐ  \ Ðthe€general€abilities€of€this€class€are€given€effect€in€this€case.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àLet€only€three€facts€be€submitted€for€candid€and€objective€consideration:€€First,€the€petitionerÐ Ð  Ðhas€not€alleged,€either€in€his€petition€or€through€accompanying€affidavits,€that€his€mental€conditionÐ ¼  Ðaffected€his€ability€to€understand€what€would€happen€if€he€pulled€the€trigger€of€a€loaded€pistol.€€InÐ ¨ø Ðfact,€no€evidence€has€ever€suggested€that€Van€Tran€was€unaware€that€people€could€die€if€shot€in€theÐ ”ä Ðthroat€and€head,€as€was€the€case€with€Kai€Yin€Chuey.€€Instead,€the€petitionerððs€original€descriptionÐ €Ð Ðof€the€events€provides€considerable€evidence€that€he€was€acutely€aware€of€the€consequences€of€hisÐ l¼ Ðdeadly€actions,€and€a€different€score€on€an€updated€I.Q.€test€simply€does€not€change€this€conclusion.€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àÌà  àSecond,€the€petitioner€has€not€alleged,€either€in€his€petition€or€through€accompanyingÐ 0"€  Ðaffidavits,€that€his€mental€condition€affected€his€ability€to€understand€that€it€was€morally€wrong€toÐ #l! Ðmurder€or€that€it€otherwise€affected€his€ability€to€kill€with€premeditation€or€deliberation.€€Van€TranððsÐ $X" Ðawareness€of€the€moral€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€can€be€seen€not€only€in€his€six„month€flight€andÐ ô$D # Ðevasion€of€authorities,€but€also€from€the€fact€that€he€knowingly€gave€a€false€name€to€police€officersÐ à%0!$ Ðupon€his€arrest€in€Houston.€€Moreover,€no€evidence€from€any€proceeding€has€ever€suggested€that€VanÐ Ì&"% ÐTran€was€somehow€incapable€of€forming€an€intent€to€kill.€€To€the€contrary,€two€members€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpresent€majority€closely€reviewed€the€record€in€1993€and€specifically€found€that€the€murder€of€KaiÐ ¤(ô#' ÐYin€Chuey€ð ðinvolved€the€òòintentionalóó€and€senseless€killing€of€a€helpless,€elderly€victim€during€aÐ )à$( Ðrobbery.ðð€€òòVan€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€482€(emphasis€added).€€I€agree€with€their€assessment.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThird,€and€finally,€the€petitioner€has€not€alleged,€either€in€his€petition€or€throughÐ ° Ðaccompanying€affidavits,€that€his€mental€condition€affected€his€ability€to€behave€in€a€lawful€mannerÐ œì Ðor€that€it€otherwise€compelled€him€to€execute€Kai€Yin€ChueyÔ‡XXXXÔ.€€Indeed,€before€his€horrific€criminalÐ ˆØ Ðepisode,€he€apparently€had€no€criminal€record,€and€I€am€aware€of€no€similar€conduct€since€that€dayÐ tÄ Ðin€1987.€€Surely,€the€majority€must€concede€that€a€different€score€on€a€revised€I.Q.€test€does€notÐ `° Ðchange€the€fact€that€Van€Tran€is€capable€of€behaving€in€a€lawful€manner.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àGiven€that€Van€Tran€has€not€even€alleged€that€his€cognitive,€moral,€or€volitional€capacitiesÐ $ t Ðwere€affected€by€his€mental€condition,€it€is€difficult€to€understand€that€this€Court€could€conclude€thatÐ  ` Ðhe€is€somehow€not€morally€blameworthy€for€his€crimes.€€òòIn€fact,€it€is€precisely€because€he€possessesÐ ü L  Ðthese€capacities€that€he€òòisóó€morally€blameworthy€for€the€murder€of€Kai€Yin€Chuey.óó€€Ô#†XXXXr#ÔWhile€I€agree€thatÐ è 8  Ðin€some€cases€mental€retardation€will€substantially€affect€a€defendantððs€cognitive,€moral,€or€volitionalÐ Ô$  Ðcapacities€to€such€an€extent€that€capital€punishment€would€be€unconstitutional,€Van€Tranððs€caseÐ À  Ðillustrates€perfectly€that€the€offenderððs€mental€condition€does€not€òòinvariablyóó€affect€these€processes.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAs€to€these€offenders,€then,€retribution€remains€a€valid€and€material€penological€justificationÐ ˜è  Ðsupporting€capital€punishment.׃1×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô‡XXXXÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌÔ#†XXXX˜#ÔÔf  ÔÔf  Ôà  àBecause€I€am€able€to€assert€that€the€petitioner€has€always€possessed€the€Ô‡XXXXÔcognitive,€moral,€orÐ \¬ Ðvolitional€capacities€to€commit€first€degree€murder,Ô#†XXXX[#Ô€the€majority€posits€that€I€have€somehow€engagedÐ H˜ Ðin€an€improper€ð ðfact„finding€exercise€of€reviewing€this€case.ðð€€Ôg ÔMy€conclusions€regarding€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitionerððs€relative€capacities€were€not€found€by€me€on€some€ð ðfact„finding€exerciseðð;€they€areÐ  p Ðimplicit€in€the€juryððs€verdict€and€sentence€of€death.€€I€am€fully€confident€that€these€findings€areÐ  \ Ðcorrect,€because€the€petitioner€has€never€contested€their€veracity€in€any€proceeding,€not€even€beforeÐ øH Ðthis€Court€today.€€Moreover,€the€record€of€that€case€was€carefully€reviewed€by€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ä4 ÐAppeals€and€by€this€Court,€and€each€court€necessarily€concluded€that€the€petitioner€did€possess€theÐ Ð  Ðnecessary€cognitive,€moral,€and€volitional€capacities€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€as€evidenced€byÐ ¼  Ðtheir€affirmance€of€his€convictions.€€Therefore,€while€the€majority€has€taken€a€different€approach€toÐ ¨ø Ðconstitutional€adjudication,€I€am€certain€that€my€uncontested€assertions€as€to€the€petitionerððsÐ ”ä Ðcognitive,€moral,€and€volitional€capacities€are€the€result€of€legitimate,€and€constitutionally€accepted,Ð €Ð Ðmethods€of€appellate€review.Ð l¼ ÐÌÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔòòÓ  ÓDeterrence€of€Intentional€or€Reckless€ConductóóÐ D!” ÐÓi"ÓÌà  àWith€regard€to€deterrence€as€an€objective€of€capital€punishment,€the€majority€notes€thatÐ #l! Ðmental€retardation€may€prevent€a€defendant€from€fully€appreciating€the€consequences€of€actions.€Ð $X" ÐAgain,€while€this€proposition€may€Ôf  ÔÔf  Ôbe€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôtrue€in€some€cases,€I€see€no€evidence€that€it€is€invariably€true.€Ð ô$D # ÐWe€have€recently€explored€in€detail€how€deterrence€is€affected€by€sentencing€behavior,€and€weÐ à%0!$ Ðrecognized€that€punishment€can€work€to€deter€intentional,€knowing,€or€reckless€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1,€11€(Tenn.€2000);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòEnmundóó,€458€U.S.€at€798„99€(ð ðWe€are€quiteÐ ¸'#& Ðunconvinced,€however,€that€the€threat€that€the€death€penalty€will€be€imposed€for€murder€willÐ ° Ðmeasurably€deter€one€who€does€not€kill€and€has€no€intention€or€purpose€that€life€will€be€taken.ðð);Ð œì ÐòòTison€v.€Arizonaóó,€Ô‡XXXXÔ481€U.S.€137,€158„59€(1987)€(expanding€the€culpability€requirements€of€òòEnmundóóÐ ˆØ Ðto€include€ð ðmajor€participation€in€the€felony€committed,€combined€with€reckless€indifference€toÐ tÄ Ðhuman€lifeðð).€€Therefore,€where€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€does€not€affect€his€or€her€capacityÐ `° Ðto€intend€that€death€follow€from€certain€actions,€then€deterrence€remains€permissible€justification€inÐ L œ Ðthe€capital€context.€€Indeed,€deterrence€would€also€be€a€permissible€justification€even€if€the€victimððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeath€was€only€the€result€of€reckless€conduct.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àEven€assuming€that€the€petitioner€possesses€an€I.Q.€of€sixty„five,€however,€no€evidence€hasÐ ü L  Ðever€been€presented€that€he€was€incapable€of€forming€an€intent€to€kill€or€was€otherwise€unable€toÐ è 8  Ðmurder€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€As€I€acknowledged€earlier,€this€Court€has€previouslyÐ Ô$  Ðfound€that€the€murder€of€Kai€Yin€Chuey€was€the€result€of€a€specific€intent€to€kill.€€òòSeeóó€òòVan€Tranóó,€864Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€at€482.€€Moreover,€the€petitionerððs€major€participation€in€the€felony,€even€if€not€the€resultÐ ¬ü  Ðof€a€specific€intent€to€kill,€was€certainly€the€result€of€knowing€or€extremely€reckless€conduct.€€WithÐ ˜è  Ðgood€reason,€the€law€has€always€supposed€that€these€types€of€actions€can€be€deterred€by€punishment.€Ð „Ô  ÐTherefore,€when€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€does€not€prevent€him€or€her€from€appreciating€thatÐ pÀ Ðdeath€would€follow€from€certain€action,€then€deterrence€certainly€remains€a€legitimate€penologicalÐ \¬ Ðgoal€in€the€capital€context.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌòòÔ#†XXXXì&#Ôò òÓ  Óó óInherent€Contradictions€in€the€Majorityððs€Analysisà @ à€of€Ð  p ÐPenological€JustificationsóóÐ  \ ÐÓU.ÓÌà  àTo€avoid€the€impression€that€its€analysis€of€penological€justifications€is€without€foundation,Ð ä4 Ðthe€majority€employs€contradictory€statements€to€first€justify€its€holding€and€then€to€respond€to€myÐ Ð  Ðreview€of€that€holding.€€For€example,€the€majority€first€asserts€that€retribution€cannot€justify€capitalÐ ¼  Ðpunishment€because€the€condition€of€mental€retardation€always€affects€the€defendantððs€ability€ð ðtoÐ ¨ø Ðappreciate€the€concept€of€blameworthiness,ðð€and€will€ð ðrender€a€mentally€retarded€offender€unableÐ ”ä Ðto€understand€that€certain€repercussions€flow€from€certain€[acts].ðð€€In€the€same€vein,€the€majorityÐ €Ð Ðstates€that€deterrence€is€an€improper€justification€because€mentally€retarded€persons,€as€a€class,€areÐ l¼ Ðð ðnot€able€to€weigh€the€cost€of€the€criminal€act,€the€consequences€of€the€punishment,€or€the€benefitsÐ X ¨ Ðof€alternatives.ðð€€However,€in€response€to€my€criticisms€of€its€holding,€the€majority€states,€inÐ D!” Ðcontradiction€to€its€earlier€conclusions,€that€ð ðwe€do€not€hold€that€the€conviction€and€punishment€ofÐ 0"€  Ða€mentally€retarded€defendant€never€achieves€valid€penological€goals.ðð€€Consequently,€the€veryÐ #l! Ðconclusion€that€the€majority€went€through€great€effort€to€dismissð"ðthat€retribution€and€deterrence€areÐ $X" Ðnot€valid€penological€goals€with€respect€to€mentally€retarded€offendersð"ðis€revived€when€necessaryÐ ô$D # Ðto€respond€to€the€obvious€shortcomings€of€its€holding.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àGiven€the€majorityððs€analysis€of€this€issue,€I€am€left€to€wonder€which€conclusion€nowÐ ¸'#& Ðrepresents€the€current€state€of€the€law.€€Notably,€if€the€former€conclusionð"ðthat€mentally€retardedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoffenders,€by€definition,€cannot€be€morally€blameworthy€or€be€deterred€from€unlawful€conductð"ðisÐ )à$( Ðthe€preferred€conclusion,€then€all€punishment,€capital€or€otherwise,€must€necessarily€be€unlawful€asÐ |*Ì%) Ðwell.€€After€all,€how€can€any€punishment€be€acceptable€if€the€offenderððs€mental€condition€invariablyÐ h+¸&* Ðinfects€his€or€her€moral€blameworthiness€and€ability€to€appreciate€consequences€of€action?׃*×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòLaneyóóÐ ° Ðsuggests€that€òònoóó€such€punishment€could€ever€be€valid,€and€as€such,€the€majorityððs€faint€attempt€toÐ œì Ðlimit€its€holding€to€capital€punishment€alone€is€suspect€indeed.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àOn€the€other€hand,€if€the€latter€conclusionð"ðthat€at€least€some€offenders€in€this€class€canÐ `° Ðdistinguish€between€right€and€wrong€and€appreciate€the€consequences€of€actionð"ðrepresents€the€newÐ L œ Ðstate€of€the€law,€then€absolutely€no€rationale€warrants€a€òòcategorical€óóexemption€from€any€punishmentÐ 8 ˆ Ðbased€solely€on€the€òòfactóó€of€a€mental€condition.€€Instead,€the€punishment€determination€should€beÐ $ t Ðmade€on€an€individualized€basis,€paying€close€attention€to€the€òòeffectóó€that€the€offenderððs€condition€hasÐ  ` Ðupon€his€or€her€particular€cognitive,€moral,€and€volitional€capacities,€just€as€I€have€advocated€today.€Ð ü L  ÐNevertheless,€the€majority€maintains€its€categorical€exemption€even€in€the€face€of€its€admission€thatÐ è 8  Ðretribution€and€deterrence€can€serve€as€legitimate€penological€justifications€in€this€context,€at€leastÐ Ô$  Ðfor€some€offenders.Ð À  ÐÌò òÓ  Óòò2.€€The€Substantive€Proportionalityó ó€ò òof€the€Petitionerððs€Capital€Sentenceó óóóÐ ˜è  ÐÓ¤=ÓÌà  àThe€next€inquiry€is€whether€a€sentence€of€death€is€a€proportionate€penalty€to€the€crime€of€firstÐ pÀ Ðdegree€murder.€€In€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€601€(Tenn.€1992),€this€Court€adopted€a€two„prongedÐ \¬ Ðinquiry,€taken€substantially€from€Justice€Kennedyððs€concurring€opinion€in€òòHarmelin€v.€Michiganóó,€501Ð H˜ ÐU.S.€957,€996€(1991),€to€determine€the€substantive€proportionality€of€punishment€under€Article€I,Ð 4„ Ðsection€16.€€The€first€inquiry€under€this€test€is€to€compare€the€sentence€with€the€crime€committed€toÐ  p Ðdetermine€whether€the€ð ðcomparison€leads€to€an€inference€of€gross€disproportionality.ðð€€If€anÐ  \ Ðinference€so€arises,€then€ð ðthe€analysis€proceeds€by€comparing€(1)€the€sentences€imposed€on€otherÐ øH Ðcriminals€in€the€same€jurisdiction,€and€(2)€the€sentences€imposed€for€commission€of€the€same€crimeÐ ä4 Ðin€other€jurisdictions.ðð€€òòHarrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€òòóóat€603.€€Ôf  ÔÔf  Ôò òÔg ÔÔg ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôó óÔg Ôà  àIn€this€case,€satisfaction€of€the€first€inquiry€validates€the€substantive€proportionality€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðdeath€penalty,€because,€as€this€Court€has€acknowledged€countless€times,€capital€punishment€is€notÐ ”ä Ðdisproportionate€to€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€190€Ô‡XXXXÔ(ð ð[W]henÐ €Ð Ða€life€has€been€taken€deliberately€by€the€offender,€we€cannot€say€that€the€punishment€is€invariablyÐ l¼ Ðdisproportionate€to€the€crime.€€It€is€an€extreme€sanction,€suitable€to€the€most€extreme€of€crimes.ððÔ#†XXXXD#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÐ X ¨ Ð(quoting€òòÔ#†XXXXYE#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔGreggóó,€428€U.S.€at€187)).€€Ô#†XXXX¼E#ÔContrary€to€the€majorityððs€rationale,€the€mental€condition€of€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€found€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€is€irrelevant€to€whether€the€punishment€is€substantivelyÐ 0"€  Ðproportional€to€that€crime€in€the€abstract,€unless€that€condition€leaves€the€defendant€withoutÐ #l! Ðsufficient€cognitive,€moral,€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔorÔf  ÔÔg Ô€volitional€capacities€to€commit€the€capital€crime€in€the€first€place.€€òòSeeóóÐ $X" ÐòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€339€(Tenn.€1992)€(stating€that€substantive€proportionalityÐ ô$D # Ðis€concerned€ð ðonly€with€the€imposition€of€capital€punishment€for€the€crime€of€[capital]€murder€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðabstractðð).€€As€I€stated€earlier,€I€am€unpersuaded€that€all€defendants€within€the€majorityððs€newlyÐ Ì&"% Ðformed€class€are€inherently€without€the€cognitive,€moral,€and€volitional€capacities€to€commit€capitalÐ ° Ðmurder.€€As€to€these€persons,€then,€capital€punishment€remains€presumptively€proportionate€to€theÐ œì Ðcrime€of€first€degree€murder€and,€hence,€it€cannot€constitute€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€for€theÐ ˆØ Ðreason€that€it€is€abstractly€disproportionate.Ð tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓConsiderations€of€the€Criminal€Justice€SystemóóÐ L œ ÐÓVKÓÌà  àAs€further€support€for€its€holding€that€a€capital€sentence€within€this€context€is€invariablyÐ $ t Ðdisproportionate,€the€majority€notes€that€the€mental€condition€of€some€defendants€may€hamper€theirÐ  ` Ðability€to€assist€counsel€or€to€make€decisions€about€the€course€of€their€defense.€€The€majority€furtherÐ ü L  Ðnotes€that€these€defendants€are€less€likely€to€withstand€police€coercion€or€pressure,€thereby€makingÐ è 8  Ðthem€particularly€vulnerable€to€involuntary€confessions.€€Presumably,€then,€because€of€these€factors,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€majority€Ôf  ÔconcludeÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔsÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€that€capital€punishment€in€this€circumstance€constitutes€cruel€and€unusualÐ À  Ðpunishment€under€Article€I,€section€16.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àI€do€not€necessarily€doubt€the€veracity€of€the€majorityððs€premises€as€applied€to€someÐ „Ô  Ðdefendants,€but€these€premises€are€simply€not€relevant€to€the€substantive€analysis€of€punishmentÐ pÀ Ðunder€Article€I,€section€16.€€The€constitutionality€of€the€punishment€under€Article€I,€section€16€isÐ \¬ Ðconsidered€òòin€the€abstractóó,€separate€and€apart€from€the€other€aspects€of€the€criminal€justice€system.€Ð H˜ ÐòòCf.óó€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€339.€€If€a€defendant€with€mild€mental€retardation€encountersÐ 4„ Ðdifficulty€in€the€system,€other€constitutional€protections€are€present€to€prevent€a€manifest€injusticeÐ  p Ðfrom€occurring.׃,×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€encountering€of€any€such€difficulties,€however,€has€never€been€considered€toÐ  \ Ðrender€the€ultimate€punishment€unconstitutional.€€Either€a€punishment€is€cruel€and€unusual,€or€it€isÐ øH Ðnot,€and€I€cannot€agree€that€the€majorityððs€perceived€shortcomings€in€the€criminal€justice€system€willÐ ä4 Ðrender€a€punishment€substantively€disproportionate€under€Article€I,€section€16.€Ð Ð  ÐÌò òÓ  Óòò3.€€Contemporary€Standards€of€Punishmentó óóóÐ ¨ø ÐÓ7TÓÌà  àFinally,€in€examining€the€remaining€prong€of€the€òòBlackóó€test,€I€disagree€that€the€petitioner€hasÐ |Ì Ðcarried€his€burden€in€demonstrating€that€contemporary€standards€of€punishment€in€this€State€haveÐ h¸ Ðso€drastically€changed€since€our€decision€in€òòLaneyóó€that€it€is€now€unconstitutional€to€execute€thoseÐ T ¤ Ðdefendants€whose€mental€condition€does€not€affect€their€cognitive,€moral,€or€volitional€capacities.€Ð @! ÐThis€final€examination€essentially€assesses€the€ð ðcontemporary€values€[in€Tennessee]€concerning€theÐ ,"|  Ðinfliction€of€a€challenged€sanction.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€264€(Tenn.€1993)Ð ° Ð(quoting€òòGreggóó,€481€U.S.€at€173).€€Ô‡XXXXÔThis€assessment€ð ðdoes€not€call€for€a€subjective€judgment,ðð€òòGreggóó,Ð œì Ð428€U.S.€at€173,€and€courts€look€to€a€variety€of€ð ðobjective€indicia€that€reflect€the€public€attitudeÐ ˆØ Ðtoward€a€given€sanction,ðð€such€as€legislative€enactments,€jury€sentencing€behavior,€prosecutorsððÐ tÄ Ðdecisions,€and€opinion€polls.€€In€examining€these€contemporary€values,€however,€ð ð[i]t€is€not€the€roleÐ `° Ðof€this€Court€to€superimpose€personal€morality€in€difficult€issues,€or€to€act€as€a€good€reflex€of€aÐ L œ Ðdemocratic€society.ðð€€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€190€(internal€quotations€and€citation€omitted).€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓEvidence€of€Contemporary€Values€in€TennesseeóóÐ  ` ÐÓšZÓÌà  àAlthough€a€defendant€always€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€a€societal€consensus€concerningÐ è 8  Ðthe€Ô#†XXXX¯W#Ôpunishment€at€issue€has€emerged,€òòseeóó€òòStanford€v.€Kentuckyóó,€492€U.S.€361,€373€(1989),€theÐ Ô$  Ðpetitioner€in€this€case€has€failed€to€satisfactorily€demonstrate€that€Tennesseans€have€arrived€at€aÐ À  Ðconsensus€against€executing€persons€whose€mental€condition€does€not€affect€their€cognitive,€moral,Ð ¬ü  Ðor€volitional€capacities€to€commit€murder.€€The€petitioner€has€brought€forward€no€evidence€thatÐ ˜è  Ðjuries€regularly€fail€to€return€a€capital€sentence€against€persons€whose€mental€condition€does€notÐ „Ô  Ðaffect€their€cognitive,€moral,€or€volitional€capacities€to€commit€murder.€€He€has€not€shown€thatÐ pÀ Ðprosecutors€routinely€fail€to€seek€the€death€penalty€in€eligible€cases€when€the€defendant€has€a€mentalÐ \¬ Ðcondition€that€does€not€affect€his€or€her€cognitive,€moral,€or€volitional€capacities€to€commit€murderÔ‡XXXXÔ.€Ð H˜ ÐFurthermore,€the€petitioner€has€cited€no€opinion€polls€in€this€state€that€demonstrate€that€the€peopleÐ 4„ Ðof€this€State€overwhelmingly€believe€that€it€is€morally€wrong€to€execute€persons€whose€mentalÐ  p Ðcondition€does€not€affect€their€cognitive,€moral,€or€volitional€capacities€to€commit€murder.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€fact,€the€òòonlyóó€ð ðobjective€indiciumðð€presented€by€the€petitioner€that€Tennesseans€haveÐ ä4 Ðreached€a€definitive€consensus€on€this€issue€is€the€presence€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ Ð  Ð39„13„203.€€Ô#†XXXXE_#ÔAs€the€majority€correctly€notes,€the€presence€of€a€statute€permitting€or€prohibiting€aÐ ¼  Ðparticular€form€of€punishment€is€a€strong€indicator€of€the€public€views€regarding€its€use.€€However,Ð ¨ø Ðjust€as€the€presence€of€a€statute€permitting€a€punishment€cannot€be€viewed€in€isolation€asÐ ”ä Ðconstitutionally€sanctioning€the€practice,€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€188,€neither€can€the€isolated€presenceÐ €Ð Ðof€a€statute€prohibiting€a€punishment€also€mean€that€the€Constitution€now€forbids€its€use.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àImportantly,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€rejected€the€view€that€a€single€statute,Ð D!” Ðwithout€other€evidence€of€contemporary€values,€demonstrates€a€consensus€among€those€representedÐ 0"€  Ðsufficient€to€command€constitutional€change.€€One€year€before€òòPenryóó€was€decided,€the€Congress€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€United€States€enacted€a€provision€that€specifically€provided€that€ð ð[a]€sentence€of€death€shall€notÐ $X" Ðbe€carried€out€upon€a€person€who€is€mentally€retarded.ðð€€òòSeeóó€21€U.S.C.€ðð€848(òòlóó)€(1988).€€AlthoughÐ ô$D # ÐCongress€presumably€acts€with€the€full€voice€and€authority€of€the€nation€as€a€wholeð"ðand€thereforeÐ à%0!$ Ðpresumably€reflects€the€contemporary€values€and€norms€of€the€nationð"ðthe€òòPenryóó€Court€did€not€findÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€this€statute€evidenced€a€national€consensus€against€executing€mentally€retarded€persons.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸'#& ÐòòPenryóó,€492€U.S.€at€394.€€Instead,€the€Court€gave€the€mere€presence€of€this€national€statute€virtuallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðno€weight€at€all,€and€it€continued€to€look€elsewhere€for€evidence€of€a€national€consensus€on€the€issue.€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€however,€the€majority€takes€an€approach€that€is€curiously€contrary€to€Ôg ÔÔg Ôthe€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôwell„Ð h+¸&* Ðreasoned€analysis€taken€in€òòPenryóó.€€Armed€only€with€the€presence€of€a€single€statute€on€the€issue,€theÐ ° Ðmajority€declares€that€Tennesseans€have€reached€a€consensus€sufficient€to€justify€constitutionalÐ œì Ðchange.€€I€simply€cannot€agree.€€When€a€punishment€furthers€legitimate€goals€of€punishment,€andÐ ˆØ Ðwhen€that€punishment€is€proportional€to€the€offense€and€to€the€offender,€the€mere€presence€of€aÐ tÄ Ðstatute€restricting€the€use€of€that€punishment€cannot€be€sufficient€evidence€of€the€punishmentððsÐ `° Ðsubstantive€constitutionality.€€Indeed,€because€the€majority€has€no€evidence€of€the€public€judgmentÐ L œ Ðin€Tennessee€other€than€the€presence€of€this€statute,€the€practical€effect€of€its€holding€in€this€case€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€elevate€that€statutory€text€to€constitutional€commandment.€€In€so€doing,€the€majority€hasÐ $ t Ðessentially€bestowed€upon€the€General€Assembly€the€power€to€constitutionally€prohibit€punishmentÐ  ` Ðunder€Article€I,€section€16€through€the€mere€enactment€of€a€single€statute.€€This€reasoning€is€flawed,Ð ü L  Ðhowever,€because€it€ignores€the€constitutional€reality€that€the€people€have€not€given€the€GeneralÐ è 8  ÐAssembly€the€ultimate€power€to€alter€or€amend€their€Charter€of€government.€€Instead,€the€peopleÐ Ô$  Ðhave€expressly€reserved€that€power€for€themselves.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€1;€art.€XI,€ðð€3.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThrough€the€exercise€of€its€legislative€power,€the€General€Assembly€is€always€free€to€prohibitÐ ˜è  Ðany€type€of€punishment€that€it€deems€inappropriate.€€Indeed,€because€the€legislative€power€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðstate€includes€the€power€to€define€punishment€for€crime,€òòseeóó€òòBibbs€v.€Stateóó,€162€Tenn.€646,€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô649Ôf  ÔÔg Ô,€39Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€1024,€1025€(1931);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHarrisóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€602,€the€Constitution€itself€confers€uponÐ \¬ Ðthe€General€Assembly€broad€discretion€to€permit€and€proscribe€different€types€of€punishment.€€InÐ H˜ Ðexercising€the€legislative€power€to€enjoin€a€particular€punishment,€however,€it€has€never€beenÐ 4„ Ðunderstood€that€the€General€Assembly€has€also€effectively€declared€that€punishment€to€beÐ  p Ðunconstitutional€and,€therefore,€outside€its€power€to€re„enact€or€amend€at€a€later€date€should€it€soÐ  \ Ðdesire.€€To€the€extent€that€the€majorityððs€holding€today,€which€relies€solely€upon€the€presence€of€aÐ øH Ðsingle€Ôf  ÔstatuÔf  ÔÔg ÔtÔf  ÔÔg ÔeÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€evidence€the€publicððs€constitutional€judgment,€now€permits€this€conclusion€toÐ ä4 Ðfollow,€I€believe€that€it€represents€an€unconstitutional€interference€with€the€legislative€power€to€fixÐ Ð  Ðand€define€punishment,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.€II,€ðð€2,€and€I€cannot€join€in€its€decision.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓUse€of€Other€Cognitive€Standards€in€TennesseeóóÐ ”ä ÐÌÓ>vÓà  àUltimately,€I€am€uncertain€as€to€why€the€majority€holds€that€the€mere€òòfactóó€of€mentalÐ l¼ Ðretardation€is€determinative€of€the€constitutional€inquiry,€rather€than€looking€to€the€òòeffect€óóthat€theÐ X ¨ Ðmental€condition€has€upon€the€defendant.€€This€holding€is€fundamentally€at€odds€with€the€law,€eitherÐ D!” Ðconstitutional€or€otherwise,€in€virtually€all€other€areas€in€this€state.€€Surely,€these€other€standardsÐ 0"€  Ðmust€be€of€some€persuasive€force€to€show€that€Tennesseans€have€not€reached€a€consensus€that€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔg ÔtheÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ #l! Ðcognitive,€moral,€or€volitional€capacitiesÔf  ÔÔf  Ô€of€a€defendant€are€now€irrelevant€to€his€or€her€punishmentÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€Ð $X" ÐThough€ignored€by€the€majority,€the€following€is€a€brief€list€of€examples€in€which€the€focus€ofÐ ô$D # Ðsimilar€inquiries€is€upon€the€òòeffectóó€of€the€defendantððs€mental€condition,€and€not€upon€the€mere€òòfactóóÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€defendantððs€condition:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€mere€òòfactóó€of€mental€retardation€does€not€prevent€a€defendantððs€impending€execution.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐInstead,€a€court€must€decide€whether€the€mental€condition€òòaffectsóó€the€defendantððs€ability€toÐ )à$( Ðunderstand€the€fact€of€the€impending€execution€and€the€reason€for€it.€€òòSeeóó€òòVan€Tranóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€266.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àòòóóThe€mere€òòfactóó€of€mental€retardation€does€not€prevent€a€defendant€from€being€found€competentÐ ° Ðto€stand€trial.€€Instead,€a€court€must€decide€whether€the€mental€condition€òòaffectsóó€the€defendantððsÐ œì Ðability€to€understand€the€nature€and€object€of€the€proceedings,€to€consult€with€counsel,€or€to€assistÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€preparation€of€his€or€her€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackstockóó,€19€S.W.3d€200,€205€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àòòóóThe€mere€òòfactóó€of€mental€retardation€does€not€prevent€a€defendant€from€pleading€guilty.€Ð L œ ÐInstead,€a€court€must€decide€whether€the€mental€condition€òòaffectsóó€the€defendantððs€ability€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðunderstand€the€proceedings€and€to€understand€the€significance€and€consequences€of€a€particularÐ $ t Ðdecision.€€òòSeeóó€òòMoten€v.€Stateóó,€935€S.W.2d€416,€420€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citing€and€quotingÐ  ` ÐòòGodinez€v.€Moranóó,€509€U.S.€389,€401€n.12€(1993)).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àòòóóThe€mere€òòfactóó€of€mental€retardation€does€not€prevent€a€defendant€from€waiving€òòMirandaóóÐ Ô$  Ðrights.€€Instead,€a€court€must€decide€whether€the€mental€condition€òòaffectsóó€the€defendantððs€ability€toÐ À  Ðwaive€those€rights€intelligently.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€431€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)Ð ¬ü  Ð(ð ðWe€recognize€that€no€single€factor€such€as€age,€education,€òòor€even€mental€retardationóó€is€conclusiveÐ ˜è  Ðon€the€waiver€issue.ðð€(emphasis€added)).€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àòòóóThe€mere€òòfactóó€of€mental€retardation€does€not€prevent€a€person€from€being€a€witness.€€Instead,Ð \¬ Ða€court€must€decide€whether€the€mental€condition€òòaffectsóó€the€witnessððs€ability€to€understand€theÐ H˜ Ðnature€of€the€oath€and€testify€truthfully.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€685€S.W.2d€301,€305€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1984).Ð  p ÐÌà  àIndeed,€òòóóthe€mere€òòfactóó€of€mental€retardation€does€not€prevent€a€defendant€from€being€foundÐ øH Ðguilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€Instead,€a€court€reviewing€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€must€decideÐ ä4 Ðwhether€the€mental€condition€òòaffectedóó€the€defendantððs€ability€to€kill€with€intent€or€with€premeditationÐ Ð  Ðand€deliberation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€537€(Tenn.€1992).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àGiven€that€all€these€circumstances€focus€upon€the€òòeffect€óóof€mental€retardation€as€the€relevantÐ ”ä Ðcharacteristic,€it€is€indeed€difficult€to€understand€the€majorityððs€holding€that€the€mere€òòfactóó€ofÐ €Ð Ðretardation€will€prevent€a€defendant€from€being€eligible€for€capital€punishment.€€Ô‡XXXXÔAlthough€theÐ l¼ ÐGeneral€Assembly€is€free€to€enact€a€statute€imposing€such€a€òòper€seóó€prohibition€if€it€so€desires,€theÐ X ¨ ÐCourt€has€now€fashioned€a€new,€broad€constitutional€rule€where€no€such€rule€has€previously€existedÐ D!” Ðand€where€no€clear€evidence€exists€to€suggest€that€there€is€a€contemporary€societal€consensusÐ 0"€  Ðmandating€its€recognition.Ô#†XXXXjˆ#Ô€€Indeed,€only€time€will€tell€whether€the€majorityððs€new€constitutionalÐ #l! Ðholding€founded€upon€generic€assumptions€regarding€the€abilities€of€òòallóó€mentally€retarded€personsÐ $X" Ðwill€work€profound€changes€in€other€areas€of€constitutional€law€as€well.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌòòÓ  ÓEvidence€of€Contemporary€National€ValuesóóÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÓ‹Óà  àBecause€the€majority€has€rejected€the€notion€that€it€is€interpreting€the€Eighth€Amendment€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthis€case,€I€am€uncertain€why€the€majority€tries€to€divine€a€contemporary€òònationalóó€standard€on€thisÐ )à$( Ðissue.€€Just€as€ð ðòòAmericanóó€conceptions€of€decencyðð€are€dispositive€in€the€Eighth€Amendment€context,Ð |*Ì%) Ðòòseeóó€òòStanfordóó,€492€U.S.€at€492€n.1€(emphasis€in€original),€only€that€evidence€reflecting€TennesseeððsÐ h+¸&* Ðcontemporary€values€should€be€relevant€to€the€analysis€under€Article€I,€section€16.€€Nevertheless,Ð ° Ðeven€taking€this€questionable€premise€as€true,€I€disagree€that€any€national€consensus€has€emerged€thatÐ œì Ðwould€warrant€a€change€in€the€meaning€of€Tennesseeððs€Constitution.€€As€Ôg Ôa€simple€count€from€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔtheÐ ˆØ ÐmajorityððsÔf  Ô€tally€revealsÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€òòless€than€halfóó€of€all€the€death€penalty€jurisdictions€have€legislativelyÐ tÄ Ðprohibited€the€execution€of€mentally€retarded€defendants.׃-×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€standards€by€which€theseÐ `° Ðprohibitions€are€measured€are€not€uniform,€and€at€least€one€jurisdiction€bars€such€executions€onlyÐ L œ Ðwhen€the€defendantððs€subaverage€intellectual€functioning€ð ðsubstantially€impairs€oneððs€capacity€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðappreciate€the€criminality€of€oneððs€conduct€or€to€conform€oneððs€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€law.ðð€Ð $ t ÐòòSeeóó€Kan.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€21„4623(e)€(1995).€€In€my€mind,€the€majorityððs€evidence€of€a€nationwideÐ  ` Ðconsensus€is€simply€insufficient€to€legitimately€conclude€that€Article€I,€section€16€constitutionallyÐ ü L  Ðmandates€a€categorical€prohibition€on€such€executions€in€this€state.Ð è 8  ÐÓ  Óò òòòó óóóÌÓ “ÓÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ À  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€summary,€I€cannot€agree€that€the€petitioner€has€satisfied€Ôf  ÔÔf  ÔanyÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€requirements€for€reopeningÐ ˜è  ÐÔf  ÔÔf  ÔhisÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€post„conviction€petition.€€The€petitioner€is€not€constitutionally€entitled€to€reopen€his€post„Ð „Ô  Ðconviction€petition,€and€as€such,€he€may€do€so€only€when€the€statute€permits€its€reopening.€€I€wouldÐ pÀ Ðfirst€find€that€the€constitutional€issue€presently€addressed€by€the€Court€has€been€previously€waivedÐ \¬ Ðby€the€petitioner€and€is€beyond€the€authority€of€this€Court€to€review.€€Because€we€also€lack€theÐ H˜ Ðauthority€to€excuse€the€petitionerððs€waiver,€we€are€likewise€without€authority€to€address€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitionerððs€constitutional€claim€on€its€merit€as€the€majority€has€done€today.€€Accordingly,€I€wouldÐ  p Ðhold€that€the€substantive€constitutional€issue€should€be€dismissed,€thereby€prohibiting€the€petitionerÐ  \ Ðfrom€filing€a€future€motion€to€reopen€under€subsection€(a)(1).€Ð øH ÐÌà  àI€would€also€find€that€the€petitionerððs€claim€to€reopen€fails€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ Ð  ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔsectionÔf  ÔÔg Ô€40„30„217(a)(2).Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ô€€Because€this€Court€has€not€previously€considered€the€proper€standardÐ ¼  Ðgoverning€the€admissibility€of€ð ðnew€scientific€evidence,ðð€it€is€inappropriate€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôto€assume€that€theÐ ° ÐWAIS„III€qualifies€as€such€without€further€inquiry.€€Moreover,€I€disagree€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔwithÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€Ôg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔpetitionerððsÐ œì Ðinterpretation€ofÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€language€ð ðactual€innocence€of€the€offenses€for€which€he€was€convictedðð€toÐ ˆØ Ðinclude€innocence€of,€or€ineligibility€for,€the€death€penalty.€€Such€an€interpretation€ignores€the€plainÐ tÄ Ðmeaning€of€the€words€themselves;€it€ignores€that€the€General€Assembly€has€distinguished€betweenÐ `° Ðthe€words€ð ðoffenseðð€and€ð ðsentenceðð€in€the€same€statute;€and€it€ignores€that€the€legislature€has€neverÐ L œ Ðused€the€term€ð ðoffenseðð€to€include€the€sentence€imposed€for€the€underlying€crime.€€Consequently,Ð 8 ˆ ÐI€am€unable€to€join€the€majorityððs€decision€permitting€the€petitioner€to€reopen€his€post„convictionÐ $ t Ðpetition.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àPerhaps€mostÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€importantly,€however,€I€disagree€that€the€Constitution€of€the€State€of€TennesseeÐ è 8  Ðbars€the€petitionerððs€execution.€€Contrary€to€the€majorityððs€holding