# FILED Sep te mb er30, 1996 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO URT OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON NO VEM BER1995 SESSI ON

MI CH AEL E UG EN E SA MP LE, * No. 02C 01- 9505- CR -0 0131

AP PE LL AN T, * SH EL BY C OU N TY VS. * Hon . Be rn ie W ein man S T AT E O F T E NN E S S E E , * (P o s t -C o n vic t io n -- De a t h P e n a lt y)

APPEL LEE. *
LAR RY M cKA Y , * No. 02C 01- 9505- CR -0 0139 AP PE LL AN T, * SH EL BY C OU N TY VS. * Hon . Be rn ie W ein man S T AT E O F T E NN E S S E E , * (P o s t -C o n vic t io n -- De a t h P e n a lt y)

APPEL LEE. *
For Appel lan t Sa mple: For the Appel lee Dav id M. El dr idg e Cha rl es W . Bu rs on 606 W . M ain Av e. Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter P.O. Box 1126 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kway Knoxv il le, TN 37902 Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Har ry R . R ein har

t John H. Bak er , I II 536 So uth H ig h St re et Ass t. Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter Col umbus, OH 43215- 5605 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kway Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 F o r A p p e ll a n tMc K a y: Jac ob M . D ic ki nson, IV John W . Pi erotti 648 Po pla r Av e. Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l Me mphis , TN 38105- 4512 Reg ina ld R. H enderson Dav id C. Ste bbi ns Ass t. Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l 8 Eas t Lon g Street, Sui te 42 4 201 Po pla r Av e. Col umbus, OH 43215 Me mphis , TN 38103
OPIN ION F ILED : ___

________ RE VER SED AN D RE MA ND ED
W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge OPIN ION1 T h e a p p e ll a n t s f il e d se p a ra t e p e t it io n s a n d s e p a ra t e a p p e a ls

. W e h a ve conso lidate d the app eals pursu antt o T enn essee Ru les of A ppe llate Proce dure 16(b).

2 The opi n i o n fi l e d F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 9 5 , re fe r re d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s ’ “ fo u rt h amen d ed pet it ion for p ost -c onv icti on reli ef,” w hic h w as filed on J une 13, 1989, and den ied by the trial courto n M a rch 12, 19 91. Althou gh the plea dings are notin this re cord, i t app ears t hat S ample and M cKay filed pro se peti ti ons for pos t- conv icti on reli ef on J une 28, 1989, and September 16, 1992, and t hat t hese peti ti ons w ere deni ed by the t ri al cour

t. This co urt al lud ed to addi ti onal peti ti ons for pos t- co n vict io n reli ef that had bee n fil ed, b ut i t di d notaddress them in the o pin ion of Febr uar y 15, 1995. 2 The appel lan ts, Mi chael Eug ene Sampl e and Lar ry M cKay , app eal as of ri g ht from the Shel by

C ounty C ri minal C our

t’ s j udg ments deny ing thei r peti ti ons for pos tconv icti on reli ef. The appel lan ts w ere eac h c onv icted i n a j oin t t ri al of tw o c ounts of felony 1 murde r and s e n te n ce d to death in Nov ember of 1982. Their

co nv icti ons and s entenc es w ere af f irmed on direct ap pea l by the T enn essee Supre me Court, a n d a p e tition for w rit of cer ti orar i w as deni ed by

the Uni ted S tates Supreme C our t. State v . Mc Kay

& S ample, 680 S. W .2d 4 47 ( Tenn. 1984 ), ce rt . den ied , 470 U .S. 1034 ( 1985)

. Ini ti a l su its for pos tc o n vic t io n re li e f

we re d e n i e d b y t h e t ri a l c o u rta n d a f f ir m e d o n a p p e a l. La rry Mc K a y & M i c ha el E ug en e Sa mp l e v . St at e, No . 25 (Te nn . C r i m. App ., M ar . 1, 1 98 9, J ac k s on ) , pe r m. to ap peal deni ed, ( Tenn. 1989 ). Su bseq uent peti ti ti o n s for pos t- conv icti on reli ef f il ed by each w ere al so deni ed by the tr ial co urt and aff ir med on a ppeal

. Mi chael E. Sampl e & L a rry Mc Kay

v . St ate, No. 02C 01- 9104- CR -0 0062 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , F eb. 1 5, 19 95, Jackson )(applicatio n for perm ission to ap pea l pend ing). 2

Sam p le ’s presentpos t- conv icti on s uitw as filed on J anuar y 27, 1995, and McKay’s suitwa s f il e d o n Febru ary1, 199 5. T he ground s for relief in both suits w ere ess enti all y

the same: (a ) that the Stat e of Tennes see present ed false tes ti mony at t ri al and su p p re s s e d e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e ; ( b ) t h a t t h e d e a t h s e n t e n c e s w e re p re d i c a t e d on an inv ali d ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce under Sta te v . M idd leb ro o ks , 840 S.W .2d 3 17 ( Tenn. 1992) ; ( c) thatthe ins tr uct ion s d efini ng reason abl e doubti n the g uil t and sen tenc ing phase s w ere unc onst it uti onal ; and ( d) thatnumerous er ro rs co mmitt ed by the tr ial co urt,3 The spec ifical leg ati ons w il l be s et forth he re in. 4 See Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 30- 102 [ re peal ed i n Acts 1995, ch. 207 § 1]. 3 prose cuto rs, and trial coun sel v iolate d the T enn essee and United St a t e s Constitu tions. 3

The tr ial co urt di smi ss ed Sampl e’s peti ti on w it hout an ev iden ti a ry hea ri ng after ru li ng thathe c oul d notproceed w it h a pos t- conv icti on pet it ion w hil e an appeal from the den ial of

a p rior po st-conviction suit w as pen ding with th e Court of Crimin al App eals. The tr ial co urt dism iss e d M cK a y’ s p eti ti on on the g ro und t hat i t had been filed after the expiration of

the th ree year statute of limitation s then app licable to post -conviction cases. 4 On appeal , the appel lan ts arg ue that the tr ial cour t er re d in dis mis si ng th e ir p eti ti ons w it hout a heari ng . Theyrei terate the cla ims asser ted in thei r peti ti ons and als o arg ue th at t h e t ri a l c o u rte rre d in d e n yin g t h e ir re qu e s t s fo r s t a t e f u n d e d e xp e rta n d in ve s t ig a t ive ser v ic es.

After a tho ro ug h rev iew of the record and author ity , we c oncl ude t hat the t ri al court erred in dismissing the pet itions. T he trial co urt’s ju dgme nts are reversed, an d the se cas es are remanded for furth er proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.
W e w il l br iefly

su mmari z e the co nv ictin g ev ide nce. O n Aug ust29, 1981, Me lvi n W a ll a c e , Jr

. , e n t e re d t h e L &G gro c e ry s t o re in Me m p h is , T e n n e s s e e . He s a w two em ployees of

the sto re, Ben jam in Cooke a n d S t e ve J one s, bot h of w hom he kne w . He saw a man he l ater

i denti fied attr ial as M cKay hol din g a gun to Coo ke’ s h ead, and he re ali z ed a ro bber

y w as in prog re ss . W hen W all ace ra n for the d oor , a sec ond man, w hom he ide ntif ied attrial as S a m ple, sh ot him in the th igh and in the back. W allace h eard Sampl e demand money and threaten to k il l ev er y one i n the st ore. Shots foll ow ed. W all ace sa w McKay

sh oot C ooke in the h ead. W all ace str ug g led w it h Sampl e, an d Sam ple tried to sh oothim on ce mo re. McKayand Sam ple th en f led f rom th e store. Cooke and J ones die d from s hots to the h ead butW all ace sur v iv ed. Cha rl es Ri ce tes ti fied th at4

he al so saw

the ro bber

y i n p ro gre ss ; he lat er

i denti fied Sampl e and Mc Kay

. The Stat e int ro duced physi cal ev ide nce re lat ing to the c ri me and e v iden ce p u rp o rt ing to li nk the a p p e ll a n t s t o o t h e r ro b b e ri e s c o m m it t e d in t h e a re a . T h e a p p e ll a n t s we re co n vic t e d o f two count s o f murder

i n the per petrati on of ar med robber y .
I Sampl e’s first is sue is that the tr ial cour t er re d in dis mis si ng the peti ti on due to t he pend ency

of an appe al from a prev iou s p eti ti on for post -c onv icti on reli ef. He arg ues that the basi s for dis mis sal w as factual ly and leg all y

er ro neous . The Stat e c onced es that the t ri al cour

t er re d. W e ag re e.

The re co rd i n d icates th at t his peti ti on was filed on J anuar y 27, 1995. The Sta t e ’ s a n s w e r t o t h e p e t i t i o n w a s fi l e d o n F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1 9 9 5 ; i t a s s e rt e d o n l y t h a t t he appel lan t was not p er mitt ed to pursue the p ost -conv icti on c ase w hil e a s eparate p ost conv icti on suitw as pendi ng before the Court of Cri minal Appeals

. The tr ial co urt di smi ss ed the p etition o n tha t basis on the sa me d ay, Feb ruary 10, 1 995 . Fiv e da y s later, ou r court filed i ts opi nio n in Mi chael E. Sampl e & Lar ry M cKay v . St ate, No. 02C 01- 9104- CR -0 0062 (Tenn. C ri m. App. , F eb. 1 5, 19 95, J ack son)

. Sampl e fil ed a re ply w ith the tr ial co urt, ass erti ng thatthe Stat e’s ans w er w as factual ly

and leg a lly incor re ct. The t ri al cour t, how ev er , t ook no furt her acti on.

In La ney v . Stat e, 82 6 S.W .2d 117 (T enn . 199 2), w hich is cited by both side s, the t ri al cour

t di smi ss ed a pet it io n for pos t- conv icti on reli ef becaus e a p re v iou sl y fil ed peti ti on was pendi ng on a ppeal

. Our su preme co urt s aid thatthe Post -Conv icti on Procedu re Act di d not“as a matter of law ban multi ple su it s a ttac ki ng the same c onv icti on.” Id

. a t 1 1 8

. Ins tead, w here “ separate a nd di sti nct ” sui ts are fil ed, a tr ial co urt has the jurisdiction to hea r and det ermin e the issues even if the ap pea l from a previ ous p etition is pendi ng before a hi g her co urt. Id.5 The re cords cont ain ing the all eg edl y ex cul pator

y ev ide nce w ere att ached to t he appe ll ants ’ post -c onv icti on pet it ion s. It is not c lea r from the peti ti on exact ly w hen the i nformati on was obtai ned. 5

Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt er re d i n di smi ss ing the peti ti on on th is bas is

. The cour t had the jur is dicti on to co nsi der Sampl e’s peti ti on, a nd i t er re d i n fail ing to do s o.

II Sampl e and Mc Kay

arg ue th at t hey w ere deni ed th eir r ig hts to a fair

tr ial and to du e proces s u nder

the Tenness ee and Uni ted S tates C onst it uti ons becau se the S tate present ed fals e tes ti mony at tr ial and suppress ed ex cul pator y ev ide nce. They

as ser t t hat the g roun ds for relief

w ere un known a nd una v ailable p rior to the de cision in Capita l Case Res ource Cen ter

of Tenness ee, Inc. v. W oodal l, No. 01A01- 9104- CH -0 0150 (Tenn. App., J a n . 2 9 , 1 9 9 2 , N a s h vil le ). I n W o o d a ll , t h e Co u rto f A p p e a ls h e ld t h a tp o li c e in ve s t ig a t ive re cords conc er nin g a cas e under col lat eral atta ck w ere not exe mpt f ro m dis cl osure under the Tennes see Publ icR ecords Law

. Id. sl ip op. at 5; se e al so Tenn. C ode An n. § 10- 7- 501 , et. seq. T hus, having obta ined previ ously suppresse d po lice records and state me nts, the a ppel lan ts arg ue th at the tr ial cour t shoul d hav e c onducted a hear ing to further dev elo p the issues. 5

The Stat e arg ues on appe al thatSample has notsh ow n tha t he is enti tl ed to re li e f o n t h e su b s t a n t ive a ll e ga t io n s , b u titco n c e d e s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtsh o u ld h a ve condu cte d further proceed ing s to cons ide r the is sue ra is ed and any procedu ra l defenses available to th e Sta te

. T h e Sta te argues th at McKay fa iled to allege factu al groun ds in suppo rtof his cl aim and als o fail ed to ov ercome p ro cedural bar ri ers t o hear ing the peti ti on. The Stat e mai ntai ns that the t ri al cour t c or re ctl y

dismi ss ed McK ay ’s su iton t he bas is of the statu te of

limitation s.6 A W e w il l summar iz e the fact ual alle g ati ons made by both Sampl e and Mc Kay in suppo rtof thei r cl aims . They i nsi st that the S tate’ s k ey w it ness at tr ial , M elv in W all ace, Jr ., g av e fals e tes ti mony . W all ace tes ti fied, i n per ti nent part, that he w re stl ed w it h Sampl e, g ot a “g ood l ook” at Sampl e’s face, and was “p osi ti v e” of his id enti ficat ion of Sampl e at tr ial . W all ace admitted at tri al thathe fai led to ide nti fy Sampl e i n a p hy si cal l ine -u p, bu t he sai d he w as confused due t o medi cat ion

. Sampl e and Mc Kay as ser t t hat t hey

fil ed moti ons re q uest ing ex cul pator

y ev ide nce pr ior

to tr ial and that they

recei v ed a three page st atement W all a ce m ade t o aut hor it ies on A ug ust31, 1981. They al leg e, ho w ev er , t hat records obtai ned und er

the publ ic re co rd s l aw rev eal ed th at t he St ate w it hhel d the foll ow ing ev ide nce: (1) On August 30 , 198 1, W allace to ld Memp his Police Sgt. J.D.

W elc h tha t he did not noti ce subj ect#2 [al le g edl y Sampl e] d u ri n g t h e ro b b e ry. (2 ) W a ll a c e t o ld S gt

. W e lc h t h a tsu bje ct# 1 [ a ll e ge d ly M c K a y] w as the one w ho stood over him and shothim [a nd n ot subject #2, a ll eg edl y

Sampl e, as W all ace tes ti fied attr ial ]. ( 3)O n N ov em be r

1 7, 1 98 1, W al l ac e to l d M em ph i s P oli ce Off ic er J. D. D oug las thathe c oul d noti denti fy the s econd man [al leg edl y

Sampl e] i n the robber

y . W all ace onl y

saw one of the me n du ring the robbe ry , t h e o ne who shot h im [alleged ly Mc Kay]. (4) W allace gave physi cal descriptio ns of the suspe cts, inc lud ing thei r hei g ht, w eig ht, and sk in compl ex ion , t hat d id not m a t c h S a m p le o r M c K a y. T h e a p p e ll a n t s a ll e ge t h a tt h e S t a t e wit h h e ld a d d it io n a l e xc u lp a t o ry e vid e n c e t h a twe s u m m a ri ze b e lo w:

(1 ) Rep orts that ind ic ated Sampl e’s and Mc Kay ’s fing er pr int s w ere notfound at the L & G g ro cer y st ore. (2) Informa tion regarding othe r poten tial suspe cts w ho were all eg ed to be near

the sc ene atthe ti me of the c ri me, i ncl udi ng SammyH ouse. (3) Descriptions of

the pe rpetrat ors giv en to the po lice d is p a t c h e r t h a td id n o tm a t c h S a m p le o r M c K a y.7 (4 ) Ev ide nce that dr ug s w ere commonl y sol d fr o m th e L&G g ro cer y st ore, w hic h prov ide d othe r poss ibl e moti v es and sus pect s for

the cr ime. (5 ) De sc ri pti ons of the perp etrators g iv en to pol ic e off ic ers b y Ch a rl e s Ri c e t h a td id n o tm a t c h S a m p le o r M c K a y. (6 ) Inc onsi ste nt s tatement s made by C har les R ic e aboutthe offense and w hat h e obs er v ed. (7 ) Ex cul pator

y ev ide nce re lat ing to the other robber ies i n the a re a wh ic h t h e S t a t e t ri e d t o li n kt o S a m p le a n d Mc K a y.

T h e a p p e ll a n t s ’ a ll e ga t io n s cl e a rl y im p li c a t e co n s t it u t io n a l ri gh t s . I n B ra d y v. Ma ry lan d, 37 3 U .S. 83, 8 7 ( 1963) , t he U nit ed St ates Supre m e C o u rth e ld that the prosec uti on has the duty to furni sh ex cul pator

y ev ide nce to t he ac cus ed upon req uest

. Ex cul pator

y ev ide nce mayper

tai n notonl y

to th e g uil t or

i nnoce nce of the ac cus ed, b ut als o to the p uni shmentw hic h may be i m p o se d i f

the acc used is co nv icted o f the c ri me. Stat e v . M arshal l, 845 S.W .2d 2 28 ( Ten n . Crim . App. 199 2)

. Any “ suppress ion by

the prose cution of

ev iden ce favorable to a n accu sed upon request v iolate s due process w here the e v ide nce is mater ial ei ther to g uil t or

to puni shment , i rrespecti v e of the g ood fait h or bad faith o f

the pro secut ion.” Brady v . Mary land , 373 U.S. at 87 . Th e du ty to disclose extends to all “fav orabl e i nformati on” reg ardle ss of w hether the ev ide nce is admi ss ibl e at tr ial

. Stat e v . Ma rs hal l, 845 S.W .2d at 233; Branch v . St ate, 4 Tenn. Cr im. App. 164, 168, 469 S. W .2d 5 33, 5 36 ( 1969)

.

Si mil ar ly , it is w ell establ is hed that the State’ s know ing us e of false tes ti mony to c onv ict an acc used v iol ates the r ig ht t o a fai r and i mpart ial tr ial as embodi ed i n the due proce ss clause of the fourte ent h am end me nt to the Unite d Sta tes Con stitutio n an d article 1, s e ct i o n s 8 a n d 9 o f t h e Te n n e s s e e C o n s t i t u t i o n . P y l e v . K a n s a s , 3 1 7 U .S. 213, 216 (194 2); Sta te v. Spurlock, 87 4 S.W .2d 6 02, 6 17 (Te nn. Crim. A pp. 1 993 ). W hen a w itness a n s w e rs q u e s t i o n s o n d i re cto r c ro s s e x a mi n a t i o n fa l s e l y , t h e p ro s e c u t i o n h a s an aff ir mati v e duty

to cor re ct the fal se tes ti mony . Gi g li o v . Uni ted Stat es, 405 U. S. 1 50, 1 53 (1 972) ; N apue v . I ll ino is , 360 U .S. 264, 269 ( 1959) ; St ate v . Sp ur loc k, 874 S.W .2d a t 617

.8 Acc ordin g ly , the all eg ati ons made by Sampl e and Mc Kay cl ear ly sta ted const itut i on al g rou nd s for rel i ef. Te nn . C od e An n. § 4 0- 30
- 10 5. Th e k ey i s s ue s w ere wh e t h e r t h e gro u n d s we re via b le a t t h is s t a ge o f t h e p o s t -c o n vic t io n p ro c e e d in gs . As we w ill discuss, th e trial court did no t gi v e du e con siderat ion to these keyissues.

B (1 ) Und er the Post -C onv icti on Procedu re Act g ov er ning t hese peti ti ons, a pet itione r could raise all constitu tiona l claims except tho se w hich ha v e be en p rev iously deter mined, w aiv ed, o r bar re d by the sta tute of li mita ti ons. The stat utor y defini ti ons for previous dete rmina tion a nd waiv er w ere as follows:

(a ) A g ro und for re lie f

i s ‘ prev iou sl y

dete rmi ned’ i f a cour

t of compet ent j ur is dicti on has r ule d on the mer it s after a full and fa ir h e a rin g. (b)(1) A ground for re lief is ‘w aived’ if the petitio ner kno w ingly and und ersta ndi ng ly

fail ed to present it for deter minat ion i n any proce edin g before a cou rt o f c o mp ete nt jurisdiction in w hich the g ro und c oul d hav e been present ed. (2 ) There is a re b u ttabl e presumpt ion thata g ro und for re li ef not rais ed i n anysuch proc eedi ng w hic h w as hel d w as w aiv ed. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 30- 112.

In Hous e v . State, 911 S.W .2d 705 (Tenn. 1995) , cer t. deni ed, _

__ U .S. ___, 116 S. Ct . 168 5 ( 1996) , our su preme co urt hel d t h a t “a ‘ f u ll an d fair hear ing ’ suffici ent t o sup p ort a findi ng of prev iou s d eter minat ion oc curs i f a peti ti oner i s g iv en th e oppor

tuni ty to presentproof and arg ument on the peti ti on for post -c onv icti on reli ef.” Id. at 706. W it h re g ard to w aiv er , t he c our t hel d: [T]he re butta ble presumpt ion of waiv er is not ov ercome b y an allegation tha t the petitio ner did n ot pe rsona lly and therefore ‘ k n o w i n g l y

a n d u n d e rst a n d i n g l y , ’ w a i v e t h e g ro u n d fo r re l i e f. W aiv er i s t o be deter mined by an o bje cti v e s tandard under w hich a pe titione r is bou n d by the action or inaction of his attor ney . Beca use there i s n o r igh t to effect iv e as si sta nce of couns el in post -c onv icti on proceed ing s, an al leg ati on of ine ffect iv e as si sta nce of pri or post -c onv icti on couns el does not6 In t his re g ard, Sampl e and Mc Kay ci te opi nio ns from thi s cour t s uppor ti ng a subjective test for w aiver. See Paul GregoryHo use v. State , No. 03C0 1-91 10-CR00326 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , Mar . 28, 1994, Knoxv il le)& D onal d Edward J ohnso n v . St ate, No. 02C 01- 9111- CR -0 0 237 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , M ar . 23, 1994)

. As noted abov e, t he supre me court’s opin ion i n House , w hich w as release d after the brief ing of this app eal, mandates an o bje cti v e s tandard. 9

precl ude app li cat ion of the de fenses of w aiv er and prev iou s deter minat ion

. Id. Thus, the cour

t g av e a b ro ad i nter pretati on to both st atuto ry defenses

.
The burden i s o n the post- conv icti on petit ion er to all eg e facts i n a p eti ti on to ov ercome t he appli cat ion of procedu ra l bar ri ers. Sta te v . Smi th, 814 S. W .2d 4 5, 48 ( Tenn. 199 1); see a lso Te nn. Code An n. § 40 -30-10 4(10 ). If a co mp ete n t ly d raf ted petitio n is before the court, and “all plea dings, f iles a nd records of t he case w hich are b efore the court conc lus ively

sh ow thatthe peti ti oner is enti tl ed to no re li ef, the cour t may order

the peti ti on dis mis sed. ” T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 30- 109( a) (1 ). Howev er , i n rev iew ing a po st- conv icti on pet ition an d de term ining w het her it state s a colorab le claim for relief , the trial cou rt must treat t he al leg ati ons in the p eti ti on as true. Sk inn er v . St ate, 4 Tenn. Cr im. App. 447, 472 S.W .2d 903 , 904 (1971 ).

Both Sampl e and Mc Kay al leg ed numerous g ro unds in thei r peti ti ons to rebut the se de fense s, principally tha t the y w ere un able to raise these issues prior to the W ood all dec is ion. Ad dition ally , the y assert tha t as convicted felon s they were un able to obt ain pub l i c re c o rd s e v e n a ft e r t h e W o o d a l l d e c i s i o n . S e e , e . g . , I n R e : R e c o rd s S o ug ht B y D an i el B

. Tay l or

v . N ei l , N o. 01A O1
- 92 11
- C H
- 00 43 9 ( Ten n. App ., M ar . 17 , 19 93 ) , pe r m. to ap pea l d enie d, (T enn . 199 3). Th us, th ey specif ically assert tha t the y

did notperson ally ma ke a “knowing and und erstan ding” waiver of the issue s. 6

W ith regard to Sam ple, th e Sta te asse rts in its bri e f t h a ta n exculpato ry evidence issue w a s r a ise d in Sam ple’s Jun e 19 89 p etition and thatthe use of false7 W e i nit ial ly note thatthe Stat e fail ed to rais e the defenses of w aiv er and prev iou s d eter minat ion i n i ts answers t o the peti ti ons, w hic h c oul d render the defenses w a ived on a ppeal

. See S tate v . J ames R ic hard Per ry , N o. 03 C01 -9 401- CR -0 0016 (Tenn. C ri m. App. , Jul y 24, 1995, Knoxv il le)

. In an y ev ent, w e c oncl ude t hat t he St ate has not s how n tha t t hese defenses w ere s ubst anti ated by the re cord. 8 Mo re ov er , t he Stat e ag ain fail ed to rais e the se defenses in it s a nswer to McKay’s pet ition. Th e plea dings atta ched to the State ’s brief do no t const itute ev iden ce for our co nsi derati on. 10 ev ide nce is sue w as not ra is ed on direct appeal or in a pr ior post -c onv icti on pet it ion

. The 7 Stat e c o r re ct l y

c o n c e d e s , h o w e v e r , t h a tS a mp l e ’ s p e t i t i o n re b u tt e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of procedu ra l bar ri ers b y

as ser ti ng thatthe g ro unds for reli ef w ere unav ail abl e before the W oodal l deci si on. In ot her words, i f Sample’ s a ll eg ati ons are ac cept ed as tr ue, t he groun ds for relief

w ere un available du e to th e Sta te’s sup pres s io n of ev iden ce. T hus, Sam ple could not have had an oppo rtunity to presen t the issues for a ruling “on the merits” for th e pur pose of prev iou s deter minat ion

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 112( a)

. Lik ew is e, t he is sues co uld not h av e been present ed i n a p ri or su itfor t he pur pose of w aiv er . Tenn. C ode Ann. § 40- 30- 112( b) (1 ); se e W ooden v . St ate, 8 9 8 S .W .2d 7 52, 7 54 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1994) ; St ephen C . Pa rk er v . Stat e, No. 01C 01- 9008- CR -0 0188 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , F eb. 2 6, 1991, Nas hv il le) , per m. to appeal denied, ( Tenn. 1991). M oreov er , t he tr ial co urt di smi ss ed Sampl e’s su iton a leg all y inc or re ct basi s w it hout g iv ing any cons ide ra ti on to t he al leg ati ons or the possi ble st atuto ry

defenses

. Acc ordin g ly , as the Stat e c onced es on appe al, the defenses of w aiv er

and prev iou s d eter minat ion w ere rebutt ed by Sampl e.

W it h reg ard to Mc Kay , the Stat e makes no conc ess ion s. Ins tead, the Stat e arg ues on appeal that the ex cul pator y ev ide nce is sue w as ra is ed i n a p eti ti on fil ed i n J une of 19 89 and that the use of fals e ev ide nce is sue w as ra is ed in a pr ior peti ti on filed on September

16, 1992. As both sui ts w ere di smi ss ed by the tr ial co urt, the S tate sug g est s that the i ss ues w ere prev iou sl y dete rmi ned. These cont enti ons are not sup por ted b y the re cord. M oreov er , t he St ate d id not a ddress M cKay ’s al leg ati ons that the g ro unds for

8
re li e f could no t have bee n raised e arlier or heard on the m erits due to the State ’s supp ression of

the evidence and the un availability of t he evidence p rior to W ood all. Th us,11

w e c oncl ude t hat M cKay , l ik e Sam p le , re b u tted the d efenses of w aiv er and prev iou s deter minat ion

. (2 )

The Stat e also arg ues that Sampl e and Mc Kay f il ed their

petiti ons after the expiration of the three y ear statute of limitation s then app licable to post-con v iction case s. W hil e the Sta te c onced es that Sampl e’s sui t shoul d be re manded for further co nsi derati on, itmai ntai ns that Mc Kay ’s su itw as proper ly di smi ss ed. The rele v ant s tatut e prov ide d: [a] pr is oner

i n c ust ody

under se ntenc e of a cour

t of t his st ate mu st pet ition for post-co nviction relief und er this chap ter w ithin three ( 3) y ears o f the date o f f inal act ion of the h ig hestst ate appel lat e c our

t t o w hic h an appeal is tak en or co nsi derati on of suc h pet it ion sh all be b ar re d. T enn . Code A nn. § 40-30 -102 [repea led by Acts 1995 , ch. 20 7, §1 ]. Th e stat ute , w hich took effectJu ly

1, 1986, w as app lied pro specti v ely by our co urts. St ate v . M asuc ci , 754 S.W .2d 9 0 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1988) ; Abst on v . Stat e, 749 S. W .2d 4 87 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1988)

. Thus, defendants li ke Mc Kay and Sampl e, w hose cases we re final pr ior to the enact ment of the sta tute, w ere g iv en three y ears from Ju ly 1, 1986, in w hic h to seek pos tc o n v i ct i o n re l i e f.

Sa mp l e an d M c Ka y

a l l eg e th at ap pl i c at i on o f t he s ta tu te wou l d de ny t he m a re asona ble oppor

tuni ty to hav e the su ppress ion of ex cul pator y ev idence and t he us e of false tes ti mony

i ss ues cons ide re d inasmuc h as theyw ere not know n or av ail abl e until after the ex pirati on of

the three y ear

peri od. Theycite Bur

ford v . St ate, 845 S. W .2d 2 04 ( Tenn. 1992) , i n w hic h the su preme co urt s aid :

[B]e fore a sta te may

ter minat e a c lai m for failu re to compl y w it h procedu ra l re q uirements su ch as sta tutes of lim it a ti ons, due proces s req u ires tha t pot enti al li ti g ants be p ro v ide d an op po rtu ni ty

for t he p res en ta ti on of c l ai ms at a me an i ng ful t i me and i n a meanin g ful manner . The q uest ion , then, is ‘ w hether th e s t a t e ’ s p o l i cy re fl e ct e d i n t h e s t a t u t e a ffo rd s a fa ir and re a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n it y fo r . . . b ri n gi n g . . . su it

. ’ P ic k e ttv. Brow n, 63 8 S. W .2 d 3 69, 3 76 ( Tenn. 1982 ), rev ’d on eq ual protecti on g ro unds, 462 U. S.1, 103 S.C t 219 9, 76 L.E d. 2d 372 (1 983)

. I n othe r w ords, the tes t i s w hether the ti me per iod12 p ro vides an a ppl ic ant a reason abl e oppor tuni ty to hav e the cl aimed is sue heard and deter mined. M ic hel v. Loui si ana, 350 U.S. 91 , 93, 76 S.Ct. 158 , 160 , 100 L.Ed 83, 89 (1955 ). Bur ford v . St ate, 845 S. W .2d a t 208 ( emphasi s a dded; ci tati on omitted ). As a resul t, the cour t i n Bur ford recog niz ed th at “ iti s p oss ibl e that under the ci rc umstan ces of a par ti cul ar cas e , a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e ma y n o t a ffo rd a re a s o n a b l e o p p o rt u n i ty ” t o l i t i g a t e an is sue. I d.

Bur

ford was cl ar ified by

the supreme co urt in Sands v . Stat e, 903 S.W .2d 2 97 (Ten n . 1995)

. In c ertai n c ases , “ due proces s p ro hib it s t he s tr ict app li cat ion of the p ost c o n v ic ti on s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s t o b a r a p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m w h e n t h e g ro u n d s fo r re l i e f,
w hether l eg al or factual , ar is e after

the ‘fina l act ion of the hi g hestst ate a ppel lat e c our t t o w hic h an appeal i s t aken’
--or , i n oth er words, w hen t he g ro unds a ris e after the poi nt at
w hich th e limitat ions pe riod w ould norm ally have begun to run.” I d

. a t3 01 (em pha sis add ed). T he co urt set forth th e followi ng process in ana lyz ing Burford situa tions:

(1 ) d e t e rm in e wh e n t h e li m it a t io n s p e ri o d wo u ld n o rm a ll y h a ve beg un to r un; ( 2) dete rmi ne w h e th er the g ro unds for reli ef a ct u a ll y a ro s e a f

t e r t h e li m it a t io n s p e ri o d wo u ld n o rm a ll y h a ve commenc ed; a n d ( 3) i f the g ro unds are ‘ lat er-a ri si ng ,’ deter mine if, und er the facts of t he cas e, a str ict appl ic ati on of the limitation s period woul d e f fectively den y the pe titione r a reaso nab le opp ortun ity to prese nt th e claim. I n m a king this final dete rmi nati on, c our ts shoul d c are f ull y

w eig h the pet i t i o n e r ’ s l i b e rt y i n t e re st in ‘c oll ater all yatt ack ing cons ti tuti onal v iol ati o n s occ ur ri ng dur ing the conv icti on proce ss,’ Burford, 84 5 S

. W

. 2 d at 20 7, againstthe St ate ’s int eresti n prev enti ng the li ti g ati on of ‘ sta le and frau dul ent cl aims .’ I d. at208. San ds, 90 3 S.W .2d at 301 ; see also Caldw ell v . Stat e, 91 7 S.W .2d 662 (Ten n. 19 96).

Here, t he appe ll ants ’ directappeal s w ere decid ed in 198 4. The effect iv e dat e of the s tatut e of li mita ti ons, as note d, was Jul y 1, 1986. Gi v en th e prospecti v e appl ic ati on of the s tatut e, t he appell ants had three y ears f ro m the effect iv e date i n w hic h to file post conv icti on pet it ion s. They hav e al leg ed th a t th e l e gal and factual g ro unds in suppo rtof their e xcu lp ator

y ev ide nce and fals e tes ti mony i ss ues arose after the s tatut e had13

com me nced to run and then ex pired. Thu s, in accep ting the allegation s as true, it w ould appear thatthe appel lan ts hav e had no reason abl e oppor tuni ty in w hic h to li ti g ate t he is sues des pit e pr ior

pos t- conv icti on s uit s. M oreov er , i n bal anci n g t h e i n terest s o f the par ti es, i t i s o bv iou s t hat t he r ig hts affect ed- - due proces s a n d a fair tr ial
--i mpli cat e personal tr ial r ig hts of the a ppel lan ts. Se e C ald w ell v . St ate, 917 S. W .2d a t 667 -6 8. As suc h, t he grounds rai sed by Sample and McKay

direct ly af fect “the ju sti ce or in teg ri ty of the conv icti on or

se ntenc e.” I d. at667 (e mphasi s i n or ig ina l)

.
W e no te th at a Brad y

issue w as en v isioned as a later arising g roun d in Jus ti ce Dau g htrey ’s co ncur ri ng opi nio n i n Bur ford : “[L] eg it imat e g ro unds for reli ef mig ht come t o l ig ht l ong after the three y ear

per iod has r un, a s in t h e c a se of suppress ion of mater ial ev ide nce by

the prosec uti on th at i s c oncea led for many y ears a fter t he tr ial .” Se e Bur ford v . St ate, 845 S. W .2 d at 211 ( Dau g htrey , J ., conc ur ri ng ). Si mil ar ly , i n Ar thur L. Ar mstrong v . St ate, No. 01C 01- 9311- CR -0 0403 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , D ec. 8, 1994, Nas hv il le), a hab eas cor pus peti ti oner rais ed a lat e- ar is ing ex cul pator y ev ide nce is sue. Our co urt not ed th at t he i ss ue c oul d notbe rais ed in a s ta te ha beas cor pus cas e but ind ic ated that the p eti ti oner co uld ag ain se ek post -c onv icti on reli ef. The c our t s aid : The st ate c onced es, and w e ag re e, t h a t under the ru le of Bur ford v . St ate, 845 S. W .2d 2 04 ( Tenn. 1992 ), the three- y ear sta tute of li mita ti ons w oul d notapply to a pet it ion rais ing all eg ati ons of a re cent ly dis cov ered Brady is sue. In Burford, the Supre me Court bala nced the governmen tal in terestin prev enti ng l it ig ati on of st ale or fraudul ent c lai ms and the int erestof admini strati v e eff ic ien cy ag ain st the p ri v ate i n t e rest s of the defendant and c oncl uded t h a t t he g ov er nmental int erest s d id not o utw eig h the infrin g ement of a c onst it uti onal ri g ht affecti ng li fe or l ibe rty . 845 S. W .2d a t 209

. In a c o n c u r re n c e t o B u r

fo rd , J u s t i c e D a u g h t re y h y p o t h e si z ed a si tuati on in w hic h the su ppress ion of mater ial ev ide nce by the prosec uti on i s c oncea led for manyy ears a fter t ri al and conclu ded thatthe ap plication of a statu te of

limitation s in such a s it uati on woul d be a v iol ati on of due p ro ces s. Id. at 211. Ar mstrong , s li p op. at 7.9 Both Sampl e and Mc Kay rais e the Sta te’ s fai lure to co m p lyw it h i ts statu tory dut y

in this regard as separat e issues on a ppe al. On rem and , the State shall compl y w it h the rele v ant s tatut es. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 0- 114. 14 Likewise, in W ood en v. State , 898 S.W .2d at 753 , a pet itione r alleged in his thi rd peti ti on for post -c onv icti on re li ef t hat the sta te ha d s uppress ed ex cul pator y ev ide nce. He argued that the issue was not previously available be cause he ha d be en d enie d acce ss to records under

the Publ icR ecords Law

. Our co urt, after dis cus si ng pos si ble ex cept ion s to th e three y ear stat ute of limitation s u nde r Bu rford, rem and ed th e case to the trial court
w it h the foll ow ing i nst ru cti ons:

Upo n remand, t he tr ial co urt s houl d c onsi der first w hether

the ev ide nce is i n fact e xcu lpator y . If so, itca n the n det er mine w het her the ev iden ce sup p o rts the ap plication of the Bu rford due proces s e x cept ion to the s tatut e of li mita ti ons. I f each of the se question s is resolved in the af f irmative, th e t ri a l co urt ma y t h e n c o n s i d e r

a p p ro p r i a t e re l i e f. 898 S. W .2d a t 755

.

Acc ordin g ly , we c oncl ude t hat t he St ate h as not s how n tha t t he s tatut e of li mita ti ons bar re d the appel lan ts’ peti ti ons, i nsofar as these grounds are conce rn ed. To the cont ra ry , we bel iev e tha t a hear ing i s n eces sar y to further

co nsi der

the is sue.

C In s ummary , we c oncl ude t hat Sampl e and M cKay hav e s tated co nst it uti onal groun ds for relief w ith regard to the use o f false te stimo ny and supp ression of ex culpa tory evidence. The app ellant s’ allegations as to w hy the claims w ere n ot w aived, previously det ermin ed , o r barred by the statu te of limitation s rebutt ed th e ap plication of these sta tutor y defenses

. The Stat e made n o effort in the tr ial cour t to show that the d efenses
w ere appl ic abl e and ithas not subs tanti ated it s a ll eg ati ons on appe al. Mo re ov er , t he St ate did not compl y

w it h i ts sta tutor

y duty to compi le thos e por

ti ons of the record nec ess ar y to re sol v e the i ss ues. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 0- 114. Thus , we c oncl ude t hat t he c ases 9 must be remanded to the tr ial co urt for further co nsi derati on. If the ap pel lan ts’ al leg ati ons10 The cour t l ater cl ar ified that it s deci si on w as based i ndependen tl y upon Ar ti cl e I, se cti on 16 of the Tennesse e Const it uti on. Stat e v . H ow ell , 868 S.W .2d 2 38 (Tenn. 1993) , c ert. deni ed, _ __ U .S. ___, 114 S. Ct . 133 9, 12 7 L.E d.2d 687 ( 1994)

.

15 ar e s u b s t ant iated , and no stat uto ry defense s are shown to app ly , the trial court shall cons ide r the mer it s o f the i ss ues in acc ordance w it h the appl ic abl e aut hor ity .
III Sampl e and Mc Kay

next arg ue th at t hey

w ere ent it l ed to pos t- conv icti on reli ef un de r S ta te v . M i dd l eb roo k s , 84 0 S. W .2 d 31 7 ( Ten n. 19 92 )

. In M i dd l eb roo k s , ou r s up rem e court he ld tha t “w hen a d efend antis convicted of f irst-degree mu rder solely on th e ba sis of felo ny murder , t he ag g ravat ing ci rc umstan ce setout in Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 2- 203 (i)( 7)(198 2) and §39 -13-20 4(i)(7)( 199 1) doe s not na rrow the class of

dea th eligible murde re rs su ff ic ien tl y

under the Ei g hth A mendment t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and Ar ti cl e I, secti on 16 of the Tennes see Con sti tuti on bec ause itdupl ic ates the ele ments of the o ffense. ” Id. at 346. The appel lan ts al leg e that th e factor w as er ro neous ly

appl ied 10 in thei r cas es, thathar mles s e rror anal y si s i s i nappropr iat e w hen rev iew ing er ro rs made in a capi tal sent enci ng proceed ing , and that , as sumi ng a ha rml ess er ro r anal y si s mus t be appl ied , t he M idd lebroo ks er ro r w as not h ar mles s u nder the facts and c ircums tanc es of the se case s.

Middleb rooks w as de cided on Se pte mb er 8, 19 92. The constit u t io n a l rule announc ed th erein w as lat er hel d to appl y

retroact iv ely

i n p ost -c onv icti on c ases . Ba rb er v . State, 889 S.W .2d 185 (Tenn. 1994) , cer t. deni ed, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.C t. 1177, 130 L.Ed. 2d 1129 ( 1995) ; see als o W or kman v . St ate, 868 S. W .2d 7 05 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993)

. In B ar ber , t he c our t s aid : W hen an ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce is i mprop er ly i nje cte d i nto the p ro ces s b y

w hic h the j uror

mustw eig h ag g ra v ati ng and miti g ati ng ci rc umstan ces to deter mine a s entenc e, t he i nteg ri ty and reli a b ili ty

of the s entenc ing proces s i s j eopardiz ed becau se the d eath p enal ty may not be reser

v ed for onl y

the mo st culpa ble de fend ant s . F or this reason , w e ap ply Mi ddl ebrooks retroact iv ely

... .11 On ap peal , t he St ate n otes that Mc Kay and Sampl e filed pro s e moti ons to ha v e a M idd leb ro oks i ss ue i ncl uded w it h a pr ior post -c onv icti on appeal to thi s c our t. A j udg e of thi s c our

t g ra nted the motion on Oct ober 23, 1992; how ev er , the opi nio n fil ed by thi s cour

t on Febr uar

y 15, 1995, does not address Mi ddl ebrooks

. Thus, the S tate cor re ctl y co ncede s t hat t he i ss ue has not been waiv ed or prev iou sl y

dete rmi ned. 12 As to S ample, the jur y al so found that he created a great ri sk of deat h to two or more perso n s o ther

than the v icti ms murdered, a nd th at he co mmitt ed th e murde r to avoid , i nter

fere w it h, or p re ven t a law ful ar re st or

prosec uti on. See Tenn. Co d e A n n . § 3 9 -2 -2 0 3 (i )( 3 ) & (i )( 6 )( p re s e n t ly § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 4 (i )( 3 ) & (i )( 6 ))

. As t o Mc K a y, the j ur y al so found that he had a pr ior co nv icti on for a felony i nv olv ing v iol ence to a person, thathe c re ated a g re at r is k o f death t o two or more persons ot her

than the v icti ms murdered, a nd th at he commi tted the murders t o av oid , i nter fere w it h, or

prev ent a l awful ar re st or

prosec uti on. Tenn. C ode An n. § 3 9 -2-20 3( i) (2 ), ( i) (3 ), & ( i) (6 ) (presen tly

§39 -13-20 4(i)(2), ( i)(3), & ( i)(6))

. 16 Id. at 18 7.

T he St ate c o n c ede s thatthe issue has no t bee n w aived or prev iously det ermin ed wi th regard to eith er Sam ple or McKay. M oreo v er, a lt h o u gh Mi ddle broo ks 11
w as deci ded well after

the sta tutor

y per iod of li mita ti ons had c ommenced and ex pired, t he Stat e ac know led g es that iti s a l ater-a ri si ng ground i nv olv ing si g nific ant l ibe rty i nterest s t o the a ppel lan ts. As suc h, appl ic ati on of t he three y ear sta tute of li mita ti ons w oul d deny the appel lan ts a reason abl e oppor tuni ty to hav e the cl aim li ti g ated. Se e Sand s v . St ate, 903 S.W

. 2 d a t3 0 1 ; B u r

fo rd v . S t a t e , 8 4 5 S

. W

. 2 d a t2 0 8

. A d d i t i o n a l l y , w e n o t e t h a tt he appel lan ts’ peti ti ons w ere fil ed w it hin three y ears o f the Mi ddl ebrooks opi nio n. See Law re nce Mo ore v . Stat e, N o. 03 C01 -9 504- CR -0 0122 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , F eb. 1 4, 19 96, Kno xv ille)(petition f iled w ithin three y ears of opinio n an nou ncing a new const itution al rule); Rud y M y ers v . St ate, No. 01C 01- 9308- CC -0 0270 ( Tenn. Cr im. App., Ja n. 20 , 199 4, Nashvill e)(petitio n f iled w ithin th ree years of a new, retroa ctiv ely app lied con sti tu ti on al r ule). Thus, the c lai m under

Mid dle brooks w as a v iab le g ro und for post -c onv icti on reli ef, and t he trial court erred in dism issing the petitio ns w ithou t consid ering the issues.

W it h reg ard to the s ubst ance of the i ss ue, t he appe ll ants co ncede thatthe or ig ina l sent enci ng j ur

y found ag g ra v ati ng circums tanc es in addi ti on to the felony murder factor

. N onethel ess , t he appe ll ants co ntend that a new se ntenc ing heari ng is mand ated 1213 As a coro ll ar y to thi s is sue, the appel lan ts arg ue th at C hapman, and not Howell , s ets forth the proper tes t to determi ne harml ess er ro r, thati s, w hether the Stat e proves “bey ond a reason able dou bt th at th e error...d id notcontribu t e t o the v erdict obt aine d.” Chapm an, 386 U.S. at 2 4. Moreover, the ap pellan ts argue tha t the test formula ted i n How ell v iol ates the Tenness ee and Uni ted S tates C onst it uti ons. I n Howell , our

su preme co urt c onsi dered C hapman and othe r appl ic abl e U n it ed St ates Su p re m e Co u rtca se s in fo rm u la ti n g its ha rm le ss erro r an a lysis . Id . a t 2 6 2 (cit in g, St ringer v . Bl ack , 503 U .S. 222 ( 1992) , So chor v . F lor ida , ___

U .S. ___, 112 S. Ct

. 2114, 119 L. Ed.2d 326 ( 1992 ), C le m ons v . M is si ss ipp i, 494 U. S. 7 38 ( 1990) , & Satt er w hit e v . Tex as, 486 U. S. 2 49 ( 1988) ). Thus , we v iew H ow ell as co nsi ste nt w it h the controlling auth ority , and w e reject th e ap pellan ts’ conte ntion s. 17 under Te n n ess ee c onst it uti onal and sta tutor y l aw bec ause an appe ll ate c our t c annot rew eigh aggravating and mitigating facto rs or oth erw ise cond uct a harm less error analysis. Mo re ov er , t he appe ll ants arg ue th at ev en i f a har mles s e rro r anal y si s i s a ppl ied , t he Mi ddl ebrooks er ro rs w ere not har mles s under eit her Cha pman v . C ali forni a, 38 6 U .S. 18 (1 967) or

Sta te v . H ow ell , 868 S.W .2d at 260. The appel lan ts ci te R ic kman v . D utton , 13 864 F . Su pp. 6 86 ( M. D. Tenn. 1 994) i n s uppor t of thei r posi ti on.

In S tate v . H ow ell , our

su preme co urt hel d tha t a Mi ddl ebrooks v iol ati on was subje ct to a harm less error a nalysis. In und ertakin g such an an alysi s, an ap pellat e cou rt shoul d c onsi der

“ the n umber and s treng th of the remaini ng ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces , t he prose cuto r’s arg um entat sent encin g, the evid e nce a dm itted to esta blish the inv alid ag g ra v ator , and the nature, qu ali ty , and stre ng th of m it ig ati ng ev ide nce. ” Id. at 261. The cour t furt her sa id: [E]v en more c ru ci al than the s um of t he re maini ng ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces i s t he q ual it ati v e nat ure of eac h c ircums tanc e, it s s ubst ance and persuas iv eness , as w ell as the q uantum o f proof supp o rt ing i t. In that re spect, the Tennes see sta tute assi gn s no relative impo rtance to the v arious sta tuto ry ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces . By thei r v er

y nature, an d under the p ro of in c ertai n c ases, h o wev er , s ome ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces may

be more qual it ati v ely persuas iv e and obj ect iv ely

reli abl e tha n oth ers.. .. Id. at 26 0- 61. Upo n rev iew ing thes e factors, an appe ll ate co u rtm a y u phol d a d eath sent ence if i t c oncl udes “b ey ond a re asona ble doubtthat the sentenc e woul d hav e been the s ame had the jur

y g iv en no w eig ht to the inv ali d felony murder ag g ra v ati ng factor

... .” Id. at 26 2 ( ci ti ng Str ing er v . Bl ack , 503 U .S. 222 ( 1992) ). Si nce it s d eci si on i n H ow ell , t he18

s u p re m e co u rth a s a p p li e d t h e h a rm le s s e rro r a n a lys is o n n u m e ro u s o c c a s io n s . St a t e v. Smit h, 89 3 S. W .2d 9 08, 9 25 ( Tenn. 1994 ), ce rt . den ied , ___ U .S. ___, 116 S. Ct . 99, 133 L.Ed. 2d 53 (1 994) ; Bar ber v . Stat e, 889 S.W .2d at 18 7- 189; Stat e v . N ic hol s, 877 S. W .2d 722 , 738 (T enn . 199 4), cert. de nied , ___U.S. ___ , 115 S.Ct. 90 9, 13 0 L.E d.2 d 79 1 (199 5); Stat e v . C az es, 875 S.W .2d 2 53, 2 69- 70 ( Te n n . 1994), ce rt . den ied , ___ U .S. ___, 115 S.C t. 743, 130 L. Ed.2d 644 ( 1995)

.

Thus, our supreme cour t has not onl y adopted a har mles s er ro r anal y si s for thi s ty p e o f

c a se , ithas al so appl ied the anal y si s o n numerous occ asi ons. As an int er mediat e appel lat e c our t, w e are bound to foll ow our supreme courtprece dent ov er the fede ral district court case of Rickman v. Dutton, supr a , wh ic h is ci ted bythe ap pellan ts. See S tate v . Bo w ers, 673 S. W .2d 8 87, 889 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1984) ; see als o R otunda & Nowak, Trea ti se on C onst it uti onal Law : Su bs t a n c e &P ro c e d u re , 2nd , §1. 6( c) (“ becau se the sta te c our

ts are not‘ lower

co urts, ’ they

are notreq uired to f o llo w the i nter pretati ons of lo we r fe d e ra l c o u rt s , su c h a s t h e Co u rto f A p p e a ls wit h ju ri s d ic t io n o ve r t h e ir st a t e t e rr it o ry, ev en on matters rela ti ng to the Con sti tuti on of t he Uni ted Stat es. ”)

. W e therefore re ject t he appel lan ts’ co ntent ion s w it h respect t o the propr iety and manner

of a har mles s e rror

rev iew i n d e a t h p e n a l ty

s e n t e n c i n g p ro c e d u re s b y an appel l a t e c o u rt

. G i v e n t h e p re s e n c e o f a Mi ddl ebrooks er ro r, a har mles s e rror anal y si s i s n ot on ly

appropr iat e buti s mand ated by our su preme co urt.

W hil e notco ncedi ng any of thei r other

arg uments , Sa mple a n d M cKay cont end thatthe error w as no t harm less und er Chapm an or H owell. Th ey argue tha t the re w as si g nific ant mi ti g ati ng ev ide nce at t ri al, thatthe prosec uti on focus ed i ts arg uments and it s e v ide nce on th e i n val id ag g ra v ati ng factor , and thatthe ev ide nce suppo rt ing the re maini ng agg ra v ati ng fact ors w as w eak or altog ether

insuffici ent. T he State conte nds that the e rror w as har mles s. Beca use of t he sc ant re cord before our cour t and becau se of the re mand on other

iss ues, w e c oncl ude t hat t he i ss ues shoul d be cons ide re d first by the tr ial19

cour t. The tr ial j udg e i s i n the b e tt er pos it ion to re v iew

the re cord of the proceed ing s, to hea r the argume nts of

t he partie s, and t o und ertake t he initia l rev iew of the Middle broo ks er ro r under

the anal y si s s et forth i n H ow ell

.
IV The appel lan ts cont end t hatthey w ere ent it led to post -c onv icti on reli ef becau se the j ur

y i nst ru cti ons at tr ial eq uated “reason abl e doubt ” w it h “ moral ce rt ain ty ” and all ow ed th e j ur

y to conv ict i f it coul d “ letthe mind re st easi ly on the cer

tai nty of g uil t.” The appel lan ts arg ue th at t he i nst ru cti on re li ev ed the Stat e of i ts burden of proof i n v iol ati on of the Tennes see and U nit ed States C onst it uti ons. The ap pel lan ts cl aim that the i ss ue w as not ra is ed ear li er and is not bar re d by the sta tute of li mita ti ons becau se iti s b ased on th e re centU nit ed St ates Supreme Cou rt ’s opi nio ns in Vi cto r v . Neb ra sk a, 51 1 U .S. 1 ( 1994) and Sandov al v . Cal ifor nia , 511 U.S. 1 (1994)

. In ad dit ion , t he appe ll ants rely on R ic kman
v . D utton , s upra, i n w hic h the dis tr ict cour t hel d that a si mil ar ly

worded reason abl e doubt ins tr uct ion w as uncon sti tuti onal

. The Stat e, ho w ev er , maintai ns that the a ppel lan ts are not enti tl ed to pos t- conv icti on reli ef on thi s g ro und.

Altho ugh the Sta te did not raise specif ic proce dura l defense s to th is claim in it s a nswer

to the p eti ti ons, w e hav e c oncl uded t hat i t is w it hout meri t und er pr ior opi nio ns of our co u rt

. In Petty

joh n v . St ate, 885 S. W .2d 3 64 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1994) , t he pos tconv icti on pet it ion er

rais ed a si mil ar

i ss ue: [ T ] h e Un it e d S t a t e s S u p re m e Co u rtre n d e re d a n o p in io n in two cas es in w hic h it anal yz ed th e rela ti onshi p of reason abl e doubt to t h e ‘ moral ce rt ain ty ’ phrase. Vi cto r v . N ebrask a and Sandov al v . C ali forni a, __ _ U .S. ___, 1 1 4 S.C t. 1239, 127 L.E d.2 d 5 8 3 ( 199 4). Th e Court ind icated thatthe ph rase ‘moral cer

tai nty ’ mayhav e l osti ts nin eteent h c entur y meani ng relative to t he level of

ce rtainty hu ma nly atta inab le in ma tters re la t in g t o h u m a n a f

fa i rs . I tre c o gn ize d t h a ta m o d e rn ju ry, u n aw are of the his tor ic al meanin g , mi g ht un dersta nd th e phra se, in the a bstract , to m ean some thing less than the very hig h l ev el of de ter minat ion cons ti tuti onal ly re q uired i n c ri minal cas es. H ow ev er, althou g h i t ex press ed c ri ti ci sm of the cont inu ed us e of the ‘moral cer tai nty ’ phrase, the Cou rtdi d not act ual ly hol d tha t i t was cons ti tuti onal lyi nappropr iat e, bu t14 Beca use we hold tha t the issues w ere eith e r wa iv ed o r prev iously deter mined, w e need not a ddress the appel lan ts’ alle g ati ons w it h reg ard to the s tatut e of limitation s. 20 looke d to the f ull ch arge to t he jury t o det ermin e if

the ph rase w as pla ced in suc h a c ontext t hat a j ur y woul d understa nd th at it mea nt certa inty w ith respe ct to hu ma n af fairs. Id. a t 365 -66 (emp hasis add ed). T he court conclu ded t hat“th e instructio ns as a w hole did not mak e i t reason abl y

l ik ely thatthe jur

y understo od the w ords ‘moral cer tai nty ’ eit her

as sug g est ing a s tandard of proof lower

than due proces s req uires or as al low ing co nv icti on upon factors other than the ev ide nce. ” Id. at 366. Thus, the cour t hel d tha t t he i nst ru cti on did not v iol ate due proces s. Id. Si mil ar ly , our co urt has co nti nued t o reje ct Vi cto r- Sandov al c la im s . Se e S t a t e v. S e xt o n , 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 6 (T e n n . Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); S t a t e v. Mi chael D e an Bus h, N o. 03 C01 -9 403- CR -0 0094 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , F eb. 1 2, 19 96, Knoxv il le) (p re sent ly

before the supreme co urt pursuantto Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 206( a) (1 )) ; St ate v . R ic ky Thompson, No. 03C 01- 9406- CR -0 0198 (Tenn. Cr im. App., Ja n. 24, 1 996, Knoxv il le) (a ppl ic ati on for per mis si on to appeal pendi ng ).

Acc ordin g ly , t he appe ll ants hav e fail ed to sh ow a v iol ati on of con sti tuti onal due proces s. W e are aware tha t the federal di str ict cour t granted habeas corpu s reli ef on thi s i ss ue i n R ic kman v . D utton , 864 F .Supp. at 710. As w e not ed i n the precedi ng i ss ue, h o we ve r, we a re n o tre qu ir e d t o fo ll o w Ri c k m a n o ve r th e d e c is io n s o f o u r co u rt

. T h u s , we bel iev e tha t t he appe ll ants are notenti tl ed to pos t- conv icti on reli ef on thi s i ss ue.

V The a ppel lan ts cont end t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n s ummari ly di smi ss ing numerous g ro unds all eg ing depr iv ati ons of cons ti tuti onal r ig hts under the fifth, si xth, eig hth and four teent h amendments to the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and Ar ti cl e I, se cti ons 8, 9, 16, a nd 17 of the Tennes see Con sti tuti on. The appel lan ts i n sis t t hat t hey di d not “k now ing ly

and understa ndi ng ly” w aiv e any of the is sues and that the s tatut e of li mita ti ons shou ld notapp ly

to bar the claims f rom b eing hea rd. The problem w ith the app el la n t s’ 1421

claim is tha t the y

rely on the “subject iv e” test fo r w aiver tha t the supre me court rejecte d in Hou se v . St ate, 911 S. W .2d a t 707

. As dis cus se d e a rl ier , H ouse adopted a broad, obj ect iv e tes t fo r waive r thatal so imput es the a cti ons or omi ss ion s o f couns el to a post conviction pe titione r. It is w ith this stan dard thatw e revi ew the app ellant s’ issues.

The foll ow ing i ss ues ass erted b y Sampl e are w aiv ed bec ause they w ere not ra is ed on directappeal : that a .32 cal ibe r handg un w as obtai ned purs uant to an unl awful search of a v ehi cl e and that the prosec uti on eng ag ed i n mi sc onduct t hroug h i ts q uest ion ing of w itnesse s during the sen ten cing phase . Te nn. Code An n. § 40 -30-11 2(b)(1) & (b)(2).

T he followi ng g roun ds argued b y both S a mp le and McKayare likew ise
w aiv ed: that the t ri al cour t er re d i n inst ru cti ng the jur y that it need notfind t he el ement of mali ce to c onv ict for felony murder ; t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d in fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y that ithad to find al l of the el ements al leg ed i n the i ndi ctmentto conv ict for felony murder ; t hat tr ial couns el w ere ine ffect iv e due to a confli ct of i nterest ; that th e St a te in troduce d prejud icial v ictim-imp act ev iden ce du ring the g uilt pha se of the trial; tha t trial counse l w ere ine ffect iv e bec ause the a ppel lan ts w ere made t o s iti n the sec ond ro w dur ing the t ri al; that the p ro sec uti on made improper cl osi ng arg uments dur ing the g uil t and se ntenc ing phas es o f t h e t ri a l; t h a t T e n n . Co d e A n n . § 3 9 -2 -2 0 3 (i )( 3 ) a n d (i )( 6 ) we re co n s t it u t io n a ll y d e fe ct ive and not sup porte d w ith suf f icient evidence; thatthe trial court erred in instructing the jury that it s v erdict s houl d not be influ enced bysy mpathy ; that the tri al cour t erred i n i nst ru cti ng the jury on the range of

pen alties for lesser include d of fense s; tha t the trial court erred in ins tr uct ing the jur

y that w it ness es are presu med to tel l the t ru th; that the j ur y ’s v erdict was preju dic ed by

extraneous i nfluenc es; thatthe tr ial co u rterred i n ex cl udi ng j urors for re li g iou s reason s; that the t ri al cour t er re d i n ex cl udi ng juror Bi shop; thattr ial and appel lat e coun sel w ere inef

fective fo r fa iling to raise th e ab ove e rrors; an d tha t the cu mu lative ef fect of the errors den ied a fair trial. In sum , the issues w ere no t raised on direct app eal or in15 W e woul d not e, ho w ev er , that the identi ficat ion iss ue maybe affect ed by the t ri al cour

t’ s r uli ng as to the e x cul pator y ev ide nce cl aim. 22 pr ior pos t- conv icti on s uit s. Thus, the i ss ues are w it hout meri t. Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 30- 112 (b)(1) & ( b)(2).

The foll ow ing i ss ues w ere rais ed by the appel lan ts in earl ier proceed ing s a nd
w ere previously

dete rmine d: th at th e trial court erred b y i n s t ru cting the jurythatit could presume mali ce from the use of a deadl y w eapon a nd th e deat h of the v icti m; tha t t he tr ial cour t erred in fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y on the e ffect s o f a non- unani mous v erdict; that tr ial c o u n s e l we re in e f

fe ct ive ; a n d t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rte rre d i n fa il in g t o s e ve r t h e t ri a ls

. S im il a rl y, S a mp l e ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a tW a l l a c e ’ s i d e n t i fi c a t i o n o f h i m w a s u n d u l y s u g g e s t i v e a n d, therefore, uncon sti tuti onal , w as address ed on directappeal

. Thus , t he i ss ues are w it hout 15
me rit. Ten n. Cod e Ann . § 40-3 0-11 2(a).

Fi nal ly , w e note that the appel lan ts als o all eg e that the foreg oing issues shou ld notbe proce dura lly barred du e to th e i n a c tions o f prior post-con v iction cou nsel. This cl aim has been forecl osed by H ouse, i n w hic h the co urt hel d tha t t he a cti ons or ina cti ons of post- conv icti on c ounse l are imput ed to a peti ti oner . Id. at 707. M oreov er , t he ine ffe ct iven e ss of post -c onv icti on c ounse l is not a s eparate g ro und for post -c onv icti on re li e f

. Id

. a t7 1 2 ( c it in g Mu rra y v. G ia rra t a n o , 4 9 2 U. S

. 1 , 1 0 (1 9 8 9 ) & P e n n s ylva n ia v. Finley, 481 U.S. 55 1, 55 4-55 (1987 )).

VI

Sampl e c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing hi s “mot ion to proceed ex par te in seek ing inv est ig ati v e and ex per t ser v ic es. ” The moti on as ser ted t hat funds for inv est ig ati v e and ex per

t s er v ic es w ere nec ess ar

y to prepare the pos t- conv icti on i ss ues and to c onduct a full and fair hear ing. T h e m oti on furt her as ser ted t hat s tatut or

y and co n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s m a n d a t e d t h a tt h e n e e d fo r t h e fu n d s b e s h o w n i n a n e x parte16 The moti on c it ed Tennes see Cod e Anno tated se cti on 40- 14- 207( b) , t he sixth, e ighth, an d fourte ent h am end me nts to the Unite d Sta tes Con stitutio n, an d article I, secti o n s s ix

throug h el ev en, four

teen, si xteen, and sev enteen of the Tennes see Con sti tuti on. 23 hear ing

. M cKay

di d notfil e a s peci fic mot ion for an ex par te proceed ing ; howev er , he 16
ass erts thatt h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n d e n y i n g h i s re q u e s tfo r s t a t e fu n d e d e x p e rta nd inv est ig ati v e s er

v ic es. The S tate did not address the re q u e sts i n i ts answers t o the peti ti ons, and the t ri al cour t di d notmake a s peci fic r uli ng i n ei ther ca se.

O n a p p e a l, t h e a p p e ll a n t s re ly i n p a rto n t h i s c o u rt ’s o p in io n s in O we n s v. Stat e, N o. 02 C01 -9 111- CR -0 0259 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , M ar . 25, 1994, Jac ks on) and Pay ne v . Stat e, No. 02 C0 1-92 04-CR-000 94 (T enn . Crim. App ., Mar. 25, 1 994 , Jackson ). This cour t had hel d tha t a capi tal pos t- conv icti on pet it ion er i s n ot en titl e d t o an ex par te proceed ing but that, upon a s uff ic ien t s how ing , a peti ti oner may recei v e funds for ex per t s er v ic es needed to es tabl is h a cons ti tuti onal vi ola ti on. The St ate a ls o reli es on th e Ow ens- -P ay ne c ases ; i t arg ues that the a ppel lan ts w ere notenti tl ed to an ex parte hear ing and did notshow a pa rticulariz ed n eed for state f und ed e x perts.

As not ed by the partie s, the supre me court g rante d ap plication s to app eal in both Ow ens and Pa y ne, a nd i t rele ased it s o pin ion after the br ief in g i n thi s a ppeal

. In Ow ens v . St ate, 908 S. W .2d 9 23 (Tenn. 1 995) , t he s upreme co urt r ule d, as a matter of sta tutor y co nst ru cti on, t hat t he ex parte prov is ion s o f Tennessee Cod e Anno tated se cti on 40- 14- 207( b) are to be appl ied i n pos t- conv icti on d e a th p e n a lt y ca ses . Id. at 92 8. The cour t s aid : To ob t a i n a n e x p a rt e h e a r i n g , a c a p i t a l p o s t - c o n v i ct ion peti ti oner

m u sts u bmita w ri tten moti on to the tr ial co urt, all eg ing w hy

under the par ti cul ar facts and ci rc umstan ces of the cas e, i nv est ig ati v e or ex per t s er v ic es are nec ess ar

y to en s u re t he p rotect ion of the pe titione r’s constitutio nal rights. A bare al leg ati on th at s uppor t s er v ic es are neede d i s n ot s uffi c i en t. I n ad di ti on , th e mo ti on mu s t i nc l ud e: ( a)t he n am e of the pro p o s ed e x pert or servi ce; (b) how, w hen and w here the e x aminat ion i s t o be condu cte d o r th e s er v ic es are to be p e r fo r me d ; ( c ) the c o s to f t h e e v a l u a t i o n a n d re p o rtt h e re o f;17 Moreover, w e no te th at th e ap pellan ts allege thatnum erou s i s s ue s s hou ld be, in ef fect, re-litigated wi th t h e b e n e f ito f f und s und er Ow ens. W e reject th is cont ent ion. T here is nothing in Ow ens to sugg est th at an y issues previ ously det ermin ed o r waived may be rev iv ed in th is man ner. 24 and (d) the cost of

any other nece ssaryserv ices, such as court ap p e a ra n c e s . T e n n . S u p . C t

. R u l e 1 3 , § 2 ( b ) ( 1 0 )

. O n c e t he pet itione r satisf ies the se thresh old pro c e dura l req uirem ent s, the tr ial cour

t must condu ct an ex par te hear ing on th e moti on. Id. at 92 8. Mo re ov er , the court sai d that, u pon s how ing a “ par ti cul ar iz ed need ” re q uir ing ex per t or inv est ig ati v e serv ic es to ensure the protecti on of a c onst it uti onal r ig ht, a pet it ion er mayrecei v e s tate funding for s uch ser v ic es. I d.

Obv iou sl y , O wens had no t b e e n de cid e d w h e n th e ap p e lla n ts ’ post-conv icti on pet itions w ere f iled; ho w ever, suprem e court Rule 13, §2(b)(10), which was cited in Ow ens, g ov er ned req uest s for

exparte hear ing s. In thi s reg ard, we not e tha t M cKay di d notev en request an ex

parte h earing mu ch less com ply w ith Rule 13 . Moreo v er, McKay ma de o nly a ba re al le ga t io n t h at he nee ded f und s for expert and investigativ e servi ces. McKay’s re q uest , t herefore, fell far shor t of show ing a par

ti cul ar iz ed need for reli ef. Sampl e fil ed a spec ificreq uestfor t he ex par te he ar in g and ci ted n umero us g ro unds in suppo rtof the re q uest , i ncl udi ng the sta tute int er preted in Ow ens; how ev er , he too fai le d to setforth detai led al leg ati ons in suppo rtof the mot ion as req uired byRule 13. Thus, w e c oncl ude that nei ther

Sampl e nor

M cKay sh ow ed he w as enti tl ed to reli ef on thi s g ro und. 17

VII In summ ary , the judgme nts i n bot h cases are rev ersed and the case s a re re manded t o the tr ial co urt for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.25 _________ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge

_________

_________

_________ Pa u l G. Su m m e rs, Ju d ge

_________

_________

_________ Da vid H. W e lle s, Ju d ge