### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

October 9, 2014 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM EUGENE HALL

A utomatic Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals
Criminal Court for Humphreys County

No s

. 10526, 10527, 10556, 10557, 10558, 10559 J on Kerry Blackwood
, Sr. Judge

No. M2012

- 0 0336

- SC

- DDT

- DD

– Filed March 20, 2015

S HARON G. L EE

, C.J., concurring.

I concur fully with the Court’s opinion except for Section III( E ), which reaffirms

the proportionality review performed in Mr. Hall ’s original direct appeal

. Because I believe this Court used an improper method for analyzing the proportionality of Mr. Hall’s death sentence, I have conducted an indep endent proportionality review . Upon doing so, I concur with the Court’s conclusion th at Mr. Hall’s death sentence is not disproportionate to the sentences imposed on other similar offenders who have

committed similar crimes.

In 1997 , this Court narrowed the scope of the proportionality review required by

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39

- 13

- 206(c)( 1)(D) by limiting it s consideration to only those cases in which the death penalty had been sought. State v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651, 666 (Tenn. 1997). Using this truncated approach, t his Court performed a proportionality review of
Mr. Hall’s death sentenc e in 1998 , finding the sentence not disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases

. 1 State v. Hall

, 976 S.W. 2 d 121, 135

- 38 (Tenn. 1998). More recently

, a majority of this Court reaffirmed the Bland approach in State v. Pruitt

, 415 S.W.3d 180, 2 17 (Tenn. 2013). I n Pruitt , I joined Justice Willi am C. Koch, Jr. in dissenting from the Court’s decision to continue following the Bland approach, as it improperly narrows the proportionality review required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39

- 13

- 206(c)(1)(D). Pruitt , 415 S.W.3d at 230 (Koch and Lee, JJ., concurring and

1 Th ough the Court also noted a number of cases “with comparable violence in which

defendants have received life sentences,” Hall , 976 S.W.2d at 138, this did not qualify as the broader pre

- Bland proportionality analysis , w hich requires a more comprehensive review of all similar first degree murder cases

.- 2

-

dissenting). Instead, we determined that the Court should return to its pre

- Bland proportionality analysis by consider ing “all first degree murder cases in which life imprisonment or a sentence of death has been imposed” and focus ing on whether the case under review more closely resemble s cases that have resulted in the imposition of the death penalty than those that have not. Id

. at 230

- 31.

I have undertaken the broader , pre

- B land review in this case , as I find it more consistent with Tenn. Code Ann. § 39

- 13

- 206(c)(1)(D). Based on a review of all similar

first degree murder cases, including those in which the death penalty was not sought, I have concluded that Mr. Hall’s perso nal background and the nature of the capital crime he committed closely resemble the personal backgrounds and the crimes committed by other persons who have received a death sentence. Accordingly, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39

- 13

- 206(c)(1)(D) and ba sed on the facts in this record, I find t hat Mr.
Hall’s death sentence is “[neither] excessive [n]or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the defendant .”

_______________________________ __ SHARON G. LEE, CHIEF JUSTICE