# FIL ED

M arch 26 , 200 8
Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON MA RC H 1996 S ESSI ON STATE OF TENN ESSEE , * C. C. A. #02C 01- 9508- CR -0 0211

Ap pe l l ee , * SH EL BY C OU N TY VS . * Ho n . W . Fr e d Axle y, Ju d ge P E RRY A . CR I B B S , * (D e a t h P e n a lt y)

Appel lan t. *

For Appel lan t: For Appel lee : A. C . W har

ton Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Di str ict Pu bli c D efender Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter 201 Po pla r Av enue S u it e 2 0 1 J o h n P . Ca u le y Me mphis , TN 381 03- 1947 Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l 4 5 0 Ja m e s Ro b e rt s o n P a rkwa y W . M ar k W ard Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 Assistan t Pub lic D efend er 147 Jef ferson , Suite 900 Jam es W ax and Dav id Sha piro Memp his, T N 38103 Assistan t District Atto rneys General 201 Po pla r Av enue, Third F loo r Me mphis , TN 381 03

OPIN ION F ILED :

_________ _________

____
AFF IR ME D

GARYR . W AD E, J UD GE2 OPIN ION T he d efend ant , Perry

A. Cribbs, w as con v icted o f prem edita ted f irst deg re e murder , first deg re e murder dur ing the per petrati on of an ag g ra v ated b u rg la ry, f irs td e gre e m u rd e r d u ri n g t h e p e rp e t ra t io n o f a ggr a va t e d ro b b e ry, ag g ra v ated burg lar

y , and att empted first deg re e murder . The death penal ty v erdicts w ere bas ed upon two of the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces presc ri bed by st atute : (1 ) the d efendant w as prev iou sl y co nv icted o f one or mo re felon ies, oth er than the pre sentcharge, w hose sta tutor y el ements i nv olv e the us e of v iol ence to t he person; and (2 ) the murder

w as commi tted w hil e the defendant wa s e n ga ge d in co m m it t in g a b u rg la ry. Tenn. C ode An n. §§ 39- 13- 204( i) (2 ) & ( 7) . The defendant was als o c onv icted o f ag g ra v ated burg lar

y and attempt ed first deg re e murder ; t he tr ial co urt i mposed conse cutive, Range II sent ence s of ten an d forty y ears respe ctiv ely. Som e w eeks after the j ur

y i mposed the d eath penal ty on t he first deg re e murder co nv icti ons, t he trial court set asid e an d the state agreed to dism iss convi ctions for prem edita ted f irst deg re e murder

and firs t deg re e murder dur ing the per petrati on of ag g ra v ated ro bber y . I n thi s d irectappeal , t he defendant has chal len g ed th e s uff ic ien cy of the e vid e n c e a n d h a s p re s e n t e d t h e fo ll o win g a d d it io n a l i s s u e s fo r o u r re vie w:

(1) w het her the ey ewi tne ss jury instruction s w ere adeq uate; (2) w het her the crime scene v ideo w as un fairly preju dic ial ; (3) w het her the pho tograph ic li neu p w as un duly sug g est iv e; (4 ) w hether

referenc es to t he Bi ble , v icti m impact, parole el ig ibi li ty , and mit ig ati on dur ing final arg ument q ual ified as prosec utor ial mis condu ct; (5 ) w hether

the sta te may

us e pr ior

co nv icti ons for attempt ed s econd deg re e murder to est abl is h the pr ior v iol ent fel oni es ag g ra v ator , Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 3- 204( i) (2 );3 (6) w het her the den ial of specially requeste d jury ins tr uct ion s was er ro neous ; (7 ) w hether

the Tenness ee deat h penal ty st atute v iol ates the sta te or

federal co nst it uti ons; ( 8 ) w h e t h e r

t h e p re s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e o f a nonv iol ent fel ony

to est abl is h the pr ior

v iol ent fel oni es ag g ra v ator

req uires re v ersal of the d eath sent ence; and (9 ) w hether

us e of the under ly ing felony for t his felony mu rder could be use d as an agg rav ating circumsta nce und er the sta te con stitutio nal sta nda rds as def ined in Sta te v. M iddleb rooks.
W e aff ir m the conv icti ons. By the appl ic ati on of g uid eli nes est abl is hed by our sup reme court, w e con clude thaterrors i n the pen alty pha se of the trial w ere harm less beyond a reason able dou bt. In o ur v iew , the sente nce o f dea th for this defendant i s n eit her

ex ces si v e nor

di spropor

ti onate, co nsi der ing the nature of the cr ime. The de ath p enal ty does not appear

to hav e been ar bit ra ri ly i mposed. The ev ide nce suppo rt s t he appl ic ati on of one o f the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces est abl is hed by

l aw . Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 206. Someti me between 1: 30 A. M. and 1:45 A.M . on the mor nin g of Janu ary2, 199 4, th e v ictims, Sid ney Harr is and wi fe, Lin da Harris, returne d to th eir home from a v is it

w it h s ev eral frie nds. After par ki ng thei r automobi le in the c ar por t, the v icti ms had j ustente re d the ki tch en w hen M s. Har ri s was knoc ked to t he g ro und by a bl ack mal e w ho w as ar med w it h a rev olv er . Mr . H ar ri s d esc ri bed t he as sai lan t as about si x

feet and one i nch, 240 pounds , w it h a mous tac he, l arg e round no se, thi ck ey ebrows, and hai r about an i nch lon g . The ass ail ant wore a l ig ht- col ored sto ck ing mask , den im o v erall s, and g lov es.

Mr . H ar ri s h ad w re stl ed th e as sai lan t t o the floor w hen a sec ond man, approx imat ely

si x feet and three i nches , 220 pounds , and ar med w it h a s hotg un,4 intervened . Th e seco nd a ssailant , w ho a lso w ore a light-colored sto cking ov er his head, w as cl othed in a tan or g old -c olo re d aut o mech ani c' s j umpsui t. The two men direct ed H ar ri s t o a c hai r in the d en and tol d hi m thatthey i ntended to shoothi m. Harris obse rv ed h is assailant s for tw ent y to thirty secon ds be fore he w as struck in the lef t shou lder and han d by a shotgun blastf rom th e seco nd a ssailant . W hile ack now led g ing thatthere w ere no li g hts on t he i nsi de of the house , H ar ri s c lai med that he c oul d s ee hi s a ss ail ants by the car por

t l ig ht. H ar ri s, apparentl y kn ock ed uncon sc iou s for

two to three mi nutes , awoke to find thathi s w ife had been k il led . He w as abl e to w alk

to a nei g hbor's hous e and knoc k b efore he pas sed out. Hos pit ali z ed for tw enty-tw o days, Har ri s i denti fied a photog ra ph of the defendants som e four to six w eeks lat er f rom a lineup comp iled by M em phis po lice. Harri s testif ied th at th e de fend anthad f ired the shotgun . Late r, Harri s w as ab le to con f irm th ata g ol d- fac ed M i c k ey M ou s e w at c h w i th a l ea th er b an d w as a mo ng t he i te ms sto len from hi s resi dence .

At t he ti me of the murder , t he defendant re si ded w it h J acq uel ine Can non, the mot her

of his ch il d. Ms . C annon t est ified thatthe defendant, w ear ing blu e j eans and a blu e deni m shi rt , had l eft thei r re si dence at about 9:00 or 10:0 0 P.M . on the n ig ht be fore t he murder and did not re tur n unt il after 1:00 A.M . She desc ri bed t he defendant as cov ered i n bl ood from a "hi t." She cl aimed that the defendant had admi tted shoot ing a man and a w oman. The defendant ex pla ine d tha t a ma n w ith w hom Ms. H arris had de v elop ed a relationsh ip w ant ed Mr. Harris dea d; th e de fend ant , w ho claim ed th at he w as sup pose d to be paid for his "hit," told Ms . C annon t hat h e had ki ll ed bot h v icti ms. M s. Can non, w ho s oon di sc ov ered from news repo rts that Mr. Harris surv iv ed th e sho oting, test if ied th at she w ithhe ld infor mati on from p oli ce about the i nci dent becau se of her fear of the defendant. She rela ted t hat t he defendant beat her so meti me l ater

w hen he sus pect ed th at s he5 had t old a ne ig hbor

aboutthe murde r; sh e w as hospi tal iz ed as a resul t of the beati ng . She t old her

brother aboutthe murde r; he c all ed C ri me Stop pers, w ho ult imat ely

pai d M s. Can non $90 0.00 for her i nformati on. On t he day

after the murde r, M s. Can non di sc ov ered a g old -faced Mi ck ey M ouse w atc h w it h a l eather band mark ed "g enui ne l eather ." W hen s he asked abo ut th e w atch , the defend antex plaine d tha t he ha d take n it f rom th e ho use w here he shotthe v icti m.

Serg eant Ron nie M cW il li ams of the M emphis Pol ic e l ed th e inv est ig ati on. The first infor mati on abou t t he w atc h c ame from M s. Can non. W hen Serg eant McW il li ams prepared a photog ra phi c l ine up, H ar ri s p ic ked out a photog ra ph of the defendant, tear fully i denti fyi ng hi m as "the mot her ______ that shotme!" Serg eant McW il li ams ha d i nter v iewed H ar ri s t he day

after the murde r. He t e s t if ie d t h a tHa rr is h a d in it ia ll y sa id t h a th e co u ld n o tid e n t ify e it h e r o f t h e two suspe cts beca use th ey w ore ski masks. Later, Harris had to ld a Memp his police off ic er thathe c oul d notg et t he "c omplex ion " of the man w it h the sh otg un. Serg eant McW il li ams de sc ri bed H ar ri s a s b ein g heav il y se dated on th e day

after the murde r and s ti ll i n s er iou s c ondi ti on w hen he made the se cond sta tement about a w eek lat er . Off ic er

D onal d C ro w , a Me mphis pol ic eman, was w it h H ar ri s w hen he w as transpo rt ed to the hospi tal sh ortl y after the shoot ing . Off ic er

C ro w tes ti fied th at Har ri s h ad des cr ibe d the first ass ail ant i n s ome deta il and sta ted t hat h e w as w earing a black ski mask. Off icer Crow testif ied th at Harris said little abou t his secon d assa ilant ot her tha n the fact th at he w as tall, thin , and wore a bla ck ski mask .6 T he victims' daughte r had spe nt th e night of the m urde r w ith Harris's sister-in-law . A v ideo tape of the Harris residence showed the b ody of Ms. H arris i n the kitchen , shot gun shells on th e de n f loor, an d bloo dsta ins on a ch air. The re w ere sev eral bul lethol es in the wall to the l eft of the c hai r in the d en. The hous e had bee n ransa cked. A bedroo m wi ndo w had bee n lef

t ope n. T here app eare d to be pry ma rks around mostof

the scree ns on the wi ndo w s. A shot gun w oun d to th e lef t side of the he ad ca used Ms. H arris's dea th. T he m edica l ex am iner foun d w add ing mate rial on the lef t side of her neck and powder

bur ns on th e bo dy . After the g uil ty

v erdicts w ere retur ned, each si de made an open ing sta tement for th e penal ty phas e of the tr ial . Thereafter , t he s tate est abl is hed t hat the d efendant, tw enty-t hree y ears o f age at the t ime of tri al, had been c onv icted o f two c ounts of attempt ed s econd deg re e murder and one c ount of ag g ra v ated ro bber y so me three y ears e ar li er . The st ate a ls o prov ed th at t he defendant had been c onv icted o f attempted sec ond deg re e burg lar y i n 1989.
T he d efend ant , w ho h ad liv ed in Sh elby C oun ty for abo ut nin e y ears, tes ti fied i n hi s o w n behal f. Ex pel led from j uni or hi g h s chool , t he defendant ser v ed abo ut four of

the twelv e-y ear sen ten ce imp osed for his prior convi ctions. W hile conc edi ng thatthe cr ime "w as ter ri ble ," t he defendant procl aimed his i nnoce nce. He cont ended t hat h is g ir lfri end, Ms . C annon, had fals ely i mpli cat ed hi m in the cr ime: "The reason sh e s aid that[was] bec ause me and h er had g ot i nto i t. She sto le some mone y

from me. I had w h[i ]pped her real bad and t old her

I w asn' t g oin g to c ome around no more... . So s he c ame i n and sai d thi s o n me." In an attempt to prov ide mit ig ati ng ci rc umstan ces , t he defendant, w ho had w or ked in cons tr uct ion for7 his uncle , testif ied th at he had a child w hom he ha d see n seven or eight times since the a rrest . Ini ti all y , t he defendant cl aims thatthe ide nti ficat ion ev ide nce w as insuf f icient to supp ort any of the th ree con v ictions. On a ppe al, ho w ever, the stat e is ent itled to the stron gest legi tima te vi ew of the evidence and all reaso nab le inferences w hic h mi g ht be draw n the re from. The credi bil ity of the w it ness es, the w eight to be g iv en th eir testim ony, and the reco nciliation of conf licts in the evidence are matt ers e ntr ust ed ex cl usi v ely to the j ur

y as the tr iers o f fact . By rg e v . St ate, 575 S.W .2d 2 92, 2 95 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1978) . A g uil ty v erdict, approv ed by

the tr ial ju d ge , re s o lve s co n f li c t in g t e s t im o n y in fa vo r o f t h e t h e o ry o f

t h e st a t e . St a t e v. Hat chett, 560 S. W .2d 6 27, 6 30 ( Tenn. 1978 ). Thi s c our t may se t as ide a c onv icti on onl y w hen t he "ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he findi ng by

the tr ier of fact of g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubt ." Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 13( e) .

Here, on e of the v icti ms, Si dney H ar ri s, made an emoti onal and po s i ti v e i de nt i fi c at i on o f t he d efe nd an t as t he p ers on "t ha t s ho t me " from a photog ra phi c l ine up. At t ri al, he a g ain i denti fied th e defendant as the s econd ass ail ant. There w as cor ro borati v e ev ide nce. J acq uel ine C annon o bser v ed th e defendant c ov ered i n bl ood on the n ig ht of the murder , des cr ibe d a watc h tha t met the d esc ri pti on of one t aken from the Har ri s resi dence , and ov er heard the defendant say thathe "h ad s hot t he l ady and the man. " Here, t he j ur

y ch ose to ac credi t t he te sti mony of the s tate' s w it ness es. That w as thei r prerog ati v e. There is su ff ic ien t ev ide nce of the i denti ty of the defendant, in our

v iew , t o s uppor

t eac h of the conv icti ons. Se e J ack son v . Vi rg ini a, 443 U .S. 307 ( 1979) .8 I In a relat ed issue , the defend antcomp lains tha t the trial court ina deq uatel y

ch arg ed th e j ur

y on t he i ss ue of ey ew it ness i denti ficat ion . Shor tl y after tr ial , our su preme co urt promulg ated a new j ur y i nst ru cti on on ide nti ficat ion , hol din g tha t the v alue of

such evidence dep end ed u pon sev eral facto rs: (1 ) T h e wit n e s s ’ c a p a c it y a n d o p p o rt u n it y t o o b s e rve the o ffender . This i ncl udes, among othe r thi ng s, the len g th of ti me av ail abl e for obser v ati on, t he di sta nce from w hic h the w it ness obs er v ed, t he l ig hti ng , and w hether the person w ho c ommitt ed th e c ri me w as a pr ior acq uai ntanc e of the w it ness ; (2) T he d egree of

certainty ex presse d by the w itness re g ardin g the ide nti ficat ion and the c ircums tanc es under w hic h i t was made, i ncl udi ng w hether i t i s t he productof the w it ness ow n recol lecti on; (3 ) The occ asi ons, i f any , on w hic h the w it ness fail ed to mak e an ide nti ficat ion of the d efendant, o r made an ide nti ficat ion thatwas inc onsi ste nt w it h the i denti ficat ion at t ri al; and (4 ) The occ asi ons, i f any , on w hic h the w it ness made an i denti ficat ion thatw as cons is tent w it h the i denti ficat ion at trial, an d the circumsta nces su rround ing such ide nti ficat ion s. Stat e v . D y le, 899 S.W .2d 6 07, 6 12 ( Tenn. 1995 ).

Beca use the r ule i n the D y le opi nio n s peci fical ly appl ies to thos e c ases w hic h w ere on appeal at the t ime of its rele ase, the ins tr uct ion s p ro v ide d by the tr ial judge on the issue of

ident ity w ere clearly inad equate ; and thus, this court m ust cons ide r each of the D y le factors i n det er mini ng w hether the er ro r is har mles s o r prejud icial. Ten n. R. Crim. P. 52(a). T he inst ruction actua lly g iv en was as fo llow s: [T]he bu rd en of proof is on t he St ate t o s how thatthe defendant . .. is the ide nti cal person w ho c ommitt ed th e all eg ed c ri me.... I n c onsi der ing the q uest ion of ide nti ty

... , t he J ur

y may tak e i nto c onsi derati on th e means and oppor tuni ty of ide nti ficat ion , i f any ; w hether i t was li g ht or dar k; the d is tanc e i nter v eni ng ; t he dress or

cl othi ng wor n; the c haract er

and col or

of the s ame; t he s iz e, he ig ht, and col or of the i ndi v idu al; w hether kn ow n to him and i f so,9 how l ong, an d if

seen before, un der w hatcircumsta nces; w hether r unni ng or

mov ing rapi dly , s tandi ng st il l, w alk ing fa stor s lo w a t t h e tim e cla im e d to th e pe rso n te st if ying; the c olo r of the hai r; hat w or n; faci al ex press ion or features and appearance; w hether w it h or w it hout mousta che and bea rd ; w hether [t he] p erson ... w as w hit e, bla ck , dar k, y ell ow , or

l ig ht c olo r; mask ed or

not; the v oic e and speec h. As to t he first Dy le factor , t he te sti mony es tabl is hed t hat t he v icti m saw the d efendant for as much a s t hir ty se conds from a dis tanc e of fiv e feet or l ess . Moreover, the jury instructio n as to th is fa ctor w as v erymuch like that required in Dy le. The v icti m cl aimed that the l ig ht fro m the car por t was adeq uate. The ph y si cal desc ri pti on th e v icti m prov ide d to pol ic e, w hil e noti deal , g enerall y co mport ed w it h the a ppearance of the defendant.

As to th e seco nd facto r, the vi ctim expressed certainty of his ide nti ficat ion dur ing the photog ra phi c l ine up. Off ic er M cW il li ams de sc ri bed t he v ictim's ph y sical reaction to a ph oto graph of the de fend antas "sha king ... almo st cr y ing ." The photog ra phi c l ine up, w hic h too k p lac e w it hin si x w eeks after

the cr ime, does not a ppear

to hav e been the l eastbi t s ug g est iv e. T he th ird fa ctor is less helpf ul to the state . Th e v ictim did se lect on ly the p hotog ra ph of the defendant w hen first present ed i n the l astof three s eparate photog ra phi c l ine ups. O n the othe r hand, there w as some e v ide nce sug g est ing that the v icti m di d notg et a g ood l ook at hi s a ss ail ants bec ause they wore s toc ki ng s o r bla ck sk i mask s. The j ur

y , howev er , obv iou sl y

ac cept ed th e ex pla nati on offered by the s tate. That is , t he i nit ial des cr ipt ion s o f the as sai lan ts w ere made w hil e the v icti m w as ser iou sl y

i nju re d and at t imes he was re cei v ing treatment, ei ther i n the am bula nce o r at the ho spital; th us a less tha n accu rate de scription un der tho se ci rc umstan ces w as understa ndabl e.10 As to t he fourt h factor , t he v icti m id enti fied th e defendant in both the pho tograph ic li neu p an d late r at trial. The v ictim claim ed th at he w as certain thatit w as the d efendant w ho had fire d the sh otg un. It w oul d be natural to c oncl ude t hat the v ictim ha d a he ightene d sen se of aw aren ess no t only at the tim e of the of fense but a ls o at the p hotog ra phi c l ine up and at t ri al. I n our v iew , t he i denti ficat ion procedu re s d o notappear to be s ug g est iv e. Und er al l of these ci rc umstan ces , i t doe s n ot ap pear thatthe inad equacy of

the ide ntif ication instruction s af fecte d the results of

the trial. Th us, the defend antwould not be entitle d to a n ew trial on this ba sis.
I I The defendant ne xt c ontends thatthe v ide otape int ro duced as ev ide nce for th e s tate w as unfair ly preju dic ial . The defendant as ser ts that there w as no v ali d reason to dis pla y the decea sed v icti m ly ing i n a p ool of blo od ot her than to inf lam e the jury . Th e trial court did sup press tho se po rtions of the ta pe which w ere the mos t g ru esome. F or ex ample, the firs t del eted seg ment s how ed a por ti on of the v ictim's brain m atte r separat ed f rom h er skull and scat tered across the kitchen f loor; a s econd se g ment di spl ay ed th e s hatte re d face an d s kul l of the v icti m.

Rul e 403 of the Tennes see Rul es of Ev ide nce per mits tr ial co urts the discretion to exclude relevant evidence if th e prob ative v alue of thatev iden ce is subst ant ially

outweig hed bythe da ngers of unfair prejudice . See St ate v . Ban ks, 564 S. W .2d 9 47 ( Tenn. 1978 ). The t ri al cour t mus t abu se it s d is creti onar y auth or ity before this cou rt may consider a reversal.

In t his i nst ance, the tr ial co urt c lea rl y ex erci sed dis creti on by admi tti ng only the least gruesom e of w hatis otherw ise relevant evi den ce. As not ed in Ba nks,11 " sh o ck in g an d ho rrifying t h e ju ry em o ti o n a lly do e s n o t a ss istth e m in m a kin g a re asone d det er minat ion of how se ri ous the c ri me i s.. .." Id. at 952. In t he c ontext of the tr ial and the c ircums tanc es of the c ri me, i t i s o ur v i ew t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt di d no t ab us e i ts d i s c ret i on . Th e v i de ot ap e of t he c r i me sc ene was probati v e. W hil e fri g hteni ng , t he v ide otape w as not s o i nflammator y as to s ubst anti all y

outweig h i ts probati v e v alu e. Si mil ar ev ide nce w as admitted i n St ate v . Va n Tra n, 86 4 S. W .2d 4 65, 4 77 ( Tenn. 1993 ); w hil e the su preme co urt ordered tha t an acco mp anying narratio n by the of f icer should have been ex clude d, it held t h a tt h e p ro b a t i v e v a l u e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o u tw e i g h e d a n y p o s s i b l e p rej u d i c e . I d . W e cann ot m ake a distinction between th e facts in this case and those in Van T ran, also a deat h penal ty

ca se, and thus find n o er ro r. O ther ex amples of death penal ty cas es in w hic h c ri me sc ene v ide otapes w ere us ed are St ate v . Ba tes , 804 S.W .2d 868 , 878 -79 (Te nn. 199 1), and State v . Payne, 79 1 S.W .2d 10, 19 -20 (Te nn. 199 0), af f'd, 50 1 U.S. 80 8 (199 1).
III

T he d efend antnext comp lains tha t the pho tograph ic li neu p w as un duly suggestiv e. He base s the claim on the fact th at po lice had informe d the v ictim in adv ance that they

had a s uspect and thatthe photog ra ph of the defendant, from the total of sev en present ed, was the o nly one that had a q uest ion mar k b y the iden tif ication num ber.

To be admi ss ibl e as ev ide nce, an i denti ficat ion mustnot hav e been condu cte d i n s uch an i mpermi ss ibl y su g g est iv e manner

as to create a s ubst anti al li kel iho od of i rreparabl e mi si denti ficat ion . Si mmons v . U nit ed St ates , 390 U .S. 377 (1 968) . In N eil v . Bi g g ers, 409 U .S. 188 ( 1972) , t he Sup re me C our t hel d tha t a12 re li abl e i denti ficat ion procedu re , ev en th oug h s ug g est iv e, w il l not n eg ate a n ide nti ficat ion of the d efendant. The factors d eter mini ng w hether the procedu re w as too s ug g est iv e to acc ept a s reli abl e w ere det er mined to be the follo w ing :

(1 ) the o ppor

tuni ty of the w it ness to v iew

the cr imi nal at t he ti me of the offense; (2 ) the w it ness ' deg re e of atte nti on; (3 ) the a cc uracy

of the w it ness ' pr ior

des cr ipt ion of the indiv idua l; (4) the lev el of

certainty dem onst rated bythe wi tne ss at t he c onfronta ti on; a nd (5 ) the t ime betw een t he c ri me and t he c onfronta ti on. Id. at 19 9.
Ini ti all y , a phy si cal or a ph otog ra phi c l ine up i s t he preferred means of ide nti ficat ion . Ei ther

has been deter mined to be much les s s ug g est iv e tha n a "sh owup," where the victim is either presen ted w ith the suspe ct or a single photog ra ph of the sus pect . Stat e v . Ter ry M . H enderson, sl ip op. a t 5, N o. 01 C01 - 9401- CR -0 0012 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , atN ashv il le, October 6, 1994) . Bey ond t hat, the extent to w hic h an ide nti ficat ion procedu re may su g g esta s ing le sus pect , ev en w it h the N eil v . Bi g g ers fact ors, is l arg ely su bje cti v e. If the procedu re q ual ified as bei ng suggestiv e, th e de fend antcould ha v e relied on sev eral oth er facts to supp ort his argume nt: tha t the enco unt er lasted less than a minu te, th at th ere w as no direct li g ht i n the H ar ri s resi dence , t hat t he defendant w ore a s toc ki ng ov er hi s face, and that Mr . H ar ri s may

hav e s uffered di mini shed capac ity due to hi s i nju ri es. Al l of that w oul d fav or

the suppress ion of the l ine up i denti ficat ion . There ex is t, how ev er , ot her more si g nific ant fact ors fav orabl e to the s tate. There w as proof that Har ri s d id not know w hether or not a phot og ra ph of the sus pectw as in the o ri g ina l ar ra y . The v icti m tes ti fied th at t he phot og ra ph of the defendant was among the thi rd or fourt h tha t he saw and tha t he im me diate ly recogniz ed th e de fend antas his assailan t. All13 of the phot og ra phs inc lud ed profile and frontal v iews o f blac k mal es w it h s imi lar compl ex ion s, mousta ches , and hai r len g th. Al l of the i ndi v idu als w ere dress ed i n tshirts and tw o w ere w earing jackets. None app ear to sta nd o ut f rom th e oth ers in any w ay . The v icti m lo oked at s ev eral other l ine ups w hic h di d noti ncl ude photog ra phs of the defendant and he w as unabl e, of c ourse, to ide nti fy any one el se. The v icti m st ated that he pai d no atten ti on to the numbers u nder neath the in d ivi d u a ls in t h e p h o t o gra p h s b e fo re m a k in g t h e id e n t if ic a t io n . T o t h e o bje ct ive ey e, t he q uest ion mar k a ppears t o be ass oci ated w it h the number under neath the photog ra ph and not t he i ndi v idu al therein .

In orde r to dete rmine w het her the pretrial pho tograph ic li neu p w as so unn ecessa rily

sugg estive as to v iolate constitu tiona l due pro cess, th is court mu st ex amine the t otal ity

of the c ircums tanc es ex is ti ng at the t ime of the i denti ficat ion . See S tov all v . D enno, 388 U .S. 293 ( 1967) . Abse nt a show ing by the defendant t hat the ev iden ce prep ond erate s against the judgmen t of the trial court, this court m ust defer t o the r uli ng of the t ri al cour t. Sta te v . D av is , 872 S.W .2d 9 50, 9 55 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1993) . By

the use of these g uid eli nes, our as ses sment is thatthe proces s was not s ug g est iv e. Ev en i f it had bee n, t he phot og ra phi c i denti ficat ion w as sti ll proper ly

admi tted int o ev ide nce by the use of the N eil v . Bi g g ers c ri ter ia. The v icti m saw

the defendant ata di sta nce of les s t han fiv e feet for ov er thi rty se conds . Des pit e the st ock ing , t he v icti m spec ific all y recal led the facial features of the defend ant . Th e v ictim de scribed th e de fend antas having a mo usta che, thick eyebrow s, and a larg e roun d no se. T he h eight and w eight descriptio ns w ere cons is tent w it h the defendant' s a ctu al appearance. The v icti m tes ti fied th at a beam of li g ht fro m the car por t al lowed for a c lea r v iew of his as sai lan t.
I V14 Hav ing found no rev ersi ble er ro r in our anal y si s o f the tr ial , t he ju d gm e n t s o f

co n vic t io n a re a f

f ir m e d . W e n o w tu rn t o t h o s e gro u n d s a ll e ge d t o h a ve affect ed th e propr iety

of the s entenc e of death.
Ini ti all y , t he defendant cont ends that sev eral comments made by the prose cuto r during cl osing argumen t at the sente ncing pha se of the trial v iolate d his cons ti tuti onal r ig ht t o a fai r proceed ing . Spec ific all y , t he defendant cl aims thatthe prosec utor

made i nappropr iat e Bi bli cal , v icti m impact, parole el ig ibi li ty and miti g ati on re ferenc es. The s tate cl aims thatal l but o ne of the cont enti ons hav e been w aiv ed. In th e alte rnative, the sta te asse rts that th e prose cuto r did not com mit error, bu t if so, i t was har mles s.

In a rece nt, sim ilar case of State v . John nie La mo nt Dalto n, th is court ru led as foll ows: W hen a defendant al leg es prosec utor ial

mis condu ct, the defendant i s req uired to sh ow thatthe argume nt w as so inf lam ma tory or the co ndu ct so improper thati t affected t he v erdict t o hi s d etr iment . In rev iew ing an allegation o f improp er cond uct, th is court shoul d c onsi der

se v eral factors i ncl udi ng the int ent o f the prose cuto r, the curat iv e me asure s w hich w ere und ertake n by the court, th e imp rope r condu ct v iew ed in cont ext and i n l ig ht of the facts and ci rc umstan ces of the cas e, t he c umulat iv e effectof the remark s w it h any othe r er ro rs i n the record, an d the rela ti v e s treng th or w eakne ss of the c ase. The t ri al jud g e has w ide dis creti on i n c ontroll ing the arg ument of c ounse l. That dis creti on w il l not b e i nter fered w it h on appeal i n the absen ce of an abus e the re of. Sl ip op. a t 4- 5, N o. 01 C01 -9 408- CR -0 0291 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , N ashv il le, Ju ly 11, 19 95 ) ( c i ta ti on s o mi tt ed ) ; s ee a l s o C ok er v . St at e, 9 11 S .W .2 d 35 7 ( Ten n. C r i m. App.) , app . den ied , ( Tenn. 1995 ); Sta te v . N or ri s, 874 S. W .2d 5 90 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 199 3).T hough t he d ef endan t f ai l ed t o con t em por aneou sl y obj ect t o m ost of t he cl ai m ed e r r or s and 1 n e g le c te d to r a is e th e is s u e in h is m o tio n f o rn e w tr ia l, in lig h t o fth e n a tu r e o fth e c a s e , it a p p e a r s th is cour t shou l d no net hel ess r ev i ew t he a l l eged m i sconduct . See St at e v . Bi gbee, 885 S. W . 2d 7 97, 805 ( T enn. 199 4) ; St at e v . D uncan, 698 S. W . 2d 6 3, 67- 68 ( T enn. 198 5) ; St at e v . St r out h, 620 S. W . 2d 4 67, 47 1 (T en n. 19 81 ). 15

Thoug h the defendant faile d to cont emporaneous ly obj ectto most of the claimed errors and ne glected to raise the issue in his motio n for new trial, obv iou s reason s for

the appl ic ati on of the w aiv er r ule , our su preme co urt has tradi ti onal ly

rev iewed th e mer it s o f such cl aims i n c api tal ca ses . So sh all w e. 1
Dur ing the prosec utor's cl osi ng arg ument, the d efendant di d l odg e an obj ect ion to the p ro sec utor's reli g iou s referenc es. The t ri al jud g e ov er ru led the obje ction. The disput ed p ortion s of the argum entare as follows: And I nev er

l ik ed, q uit e frank ly , I nev er real ly feel comfort abl e us ing bi bli cal referenc es. ... W hat I w ant t o do--an d the only reaso n I me ntion ed th at is beca use I te ll y ou q uit e frank ly , I don' t feel comfort abl e ev en me ntion ing the biblical referen ces. And the on ly referen ce I do want to m ake is it is w ritten whethe r it is Koran, N ew

Testa ment or

Ol d Test ament t here i s o ne consiste nt th ing, that is: W hat ever a man so w s, so shall be reaped. W hat t hat mean s i s a cc ountabi li ty . It means that there are s tandards of conduct. Itmeans acc ountabi li ty

w hat you s ow , you reap. And that is the onl y reli g iou s t hin g I g et i n the re and I don 'tw ant t o int er ject mysel f. I j ustsa id that. I di dn'tw ant a ny body to g et offended, y ou k now , i f I make a bi bli cal referenc e but that ita v er

y i mport ant p art i n our

l aw , our l aw i n the Stat e of Tenness ee. W hatev er a man sows, so shal l he re ap... . Mr . C ri bbs needs to be ac count abl e for his l ife. W hatev er

a pe rs on s ows, so shal l he reap. (E mphasi s a dded) . Notonl y does the defendant q uest ion the propr iety of the Bi bli cal referenc e, he arg ues more strenuous ly thatthe er ro r w as ex acer bated by the i nsi nuati on th at t he l aw of the s tate is rooted in the B ibl e. It is w ell es tabl is hed i n Tennes see that re ferenc es to B ibl ic al pass ag es or reli g iou s l aw

dur ing a c ri minal tr ial are i nappropr iat e. See S tate v . St ephens on, 878 S.W .2d 530 , 541 (Ten n. 19 94) (judge's referen ces to Bib lical passage);16 Ki rk endol l v . St ate, 281 S. W .2d 2 43, 2 54 ( Tenn. 1955 ) (p ro sec utor's referenc e to relig ious law) . Such referen ces, ho w ever, do notconstitu te reversible error unless the a ppel lan t c an c lea rl y es tabl is h tha t t hey

had some e ffecton t he v erdict. Stephe nson, 878 S.W .2d a t 541 ; Ki rk endol l, 281 S.W .2d a t 254 .

In Kir ke n d o ll, th e pro se cu to r ap p a re n tl y refe rre d to Mos a ic la w d u rin g a v oir di re ex chang e w it h one of the prospecti v e j urors. Our su preme co urt dee med the e rror har mles s b ecaus e the tr ial j udg e admoni shed the p ro sec utor ag ain st any further su ch comments . 281 S. W .2d a t 254 . In S tephens on, t he c our t al so ru led th e erro r ha rm le ss be ca u se in a p p ro p ria te rem a rks m a d e by th e tri a l ju d ge, "J u d ge notlest y e be judged," w ere isolate d referen ces occu rring w ell before the jury re tur ned t he deat h s entenc e. 878 S. W .2d a t 541 . In S tate v . Al fonz o E. Anderson, sl ip op. 1 5, N o. 02 C01 -9 410- CR -0 0243 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , atJa ck son, Sept . 20, 1995) , app . den ied ( Tenn. 1996 ), the prosec utor referred to the Bi ble as "the re al la w b o o k" du rin g clo sin g argu m e n ts . T h e de fe n se obje ct e d an d th e tri a l ju d ge ins tr uct ed th e j ur

y thatthi s was jus t c los ing arg ument an d tha t not hin g the prose cution said shou ld be ta ken a s fact. Holding tha t the error was ha rmless, th is cour t obs er v ed th at t he remark s were l imi ted i n s cope and t hat t he tr ial co urt t ook re medial measu re s. Id. at 15- 16.

Und er thes e g uid eli nes, the prosec utor i n thi s c ase commi tted er ro r by ma king referen ces to th e Bible. W hen af forde d an opp ortun ity

to min imize the error, the t ri al jud g e i nst ead ov er ru led the obj ect ion by the defense. Ot her

than the ins tr uct ion form l ater

prov ide d to the j ur

y i n w hic h the j udg e s tated thatthe cour t was the p ro per

so urce of the l aw , t here w ere no curati v e i nst ru cti ons. The de fendant sug g est s t hat t he prosec utor's i ntenti n maki ng the comments w as to ex pla in and jus ti fy the l aw

of thi s s tate in ter m of Bibl ic al max ims and to i nform the j ur y thatthe17 Bible cou ld guide the m in th eir decision u nde r the law . Th e de fend antclaims this w as an i mprop er

att empt by

the prosec utor

to infla me the jur

y by i nsi sti ng thatthe law of the B ibl e, be ing the same a s t he l aw of the s tate, demanded the i mposi ti on of the d eath penal ty .

W hil e w e admoni sh the t ri al cour t for hav ing fail ed to tak e appropr iat e curati v e precaut ion s, w e v iew the "re ap w hat you s ow " arg ument more as a c ommon metaphor

for i ndi v idu al acc ountabi li ty rather than a B ibl ic al mandate; many author it ies woul d l ik ely

co ncede thatthi s p arti cul ar phrase log ic all y

appl ies to our criminal justice sy stem . For that reaso n, w e ho ld tha t the termin ology had no ef

fect on th e v erdict. The effort by the prosec utor

to est abl is h an ass oci ati on betw een re li g iou s a nd s tate law

i s, how ev er , a matter

of conc er n. It is one thi ng to arg ue th at the l aw of thi s s tate is founded upon g eneral pr inc ipl es of moral ity , butq uit e anot her to insist tha t the specif ic Bible v erse is a part of the law of

Te nne ssee. Noneth eless, t h e sp e c if icco m m e n t s m a d e b y t h e p ro s e c u t o r i n t h is ca s e d id n o t , in o u r vi e w, affectthe v erdict and woul d not , t herefore, w ar ra nt a new se ntenc ing hear ing i n and of themsel v es. J ur ies , by and larg e, are pl enty

as tute; they

us ual ly understa nd th at arg ument by

co unsel i s j ustthatand that iti s t he ex cl usi v e respon si bil ity of the ju d ge t o p ro vid e in s t ru c t io n s in t h e la w. T h e t ri a l c o u rtch a rg e d t h e la w a d e qu a t e ly; w e are con f iden t tha t the "Bible is the law " imp lication, in the con text of the en tire proceed ing , had no i mpact on th e v erdict.

The defendant al so cont ends that the p ro sec utor i mprop er ly

i nflamed the passion s of

the jury by referen ces to th e imp act of the m urde r on the v ictim's family . The defendant ob jected t o the co mments on th e g ro und t hat t he arg ument ex ceede d the sc ope of the sta tutor y ag g ra v ators. The j udg e ov er ru led the obj ect ion . In th is appe al, the defend antconce des th at vi ctim im pactev iden ce is permissible18 und er our state and fede ral constitu tions; he claim s, howev er, tha t the ev iden ce does not meetthe sta tutor y defini ti on of "rele v ant e v ide nce. " Tenn. R. Ev id. 401. T he d efend antinsists that victim impa ct has no bea ring on a ny of the sta tuto ry ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces .

A s ig nific ant p orti on of the prosec uti on's cl osi ng arg ument ad dress ed the i mpact of the murder on t he v icti m's famil y : [T he d efense ] says tha t life w ithou t parole sent ence is the same a s d eath. I respectfull y di sag re e. I' m s or r y i f I s ou nd t oo s tron g . A nd I ' m s or r y i f I rai s e my mouth. Butthere i s a su bst anti al amount o f difference. Beca use little Michae l Harr is w ho is four years old is nev er g oin g to be abl e to v is ither mother . She w il l nev er

... hol d her

mother . She w il l nev er be a ble to cr

y to her mother . She w il l nev er be a ble to cal l her

mother on t he phone. She w on'tg et l etters from her . And s he won'tbe abl e to w ri te l etters t o her . She won'tbe a ble to cal l her on th e ph one or g et calls for [sic] her. She won'tbe ab le to t ell her

abouther

boyfrie nds in li fe. Tell her abouther probl ems. Tell her

abouther

ac compl is hments . *** I c an'tand y ou c an'tbr ing bac k L ind a H ar ri s for her m oth er, for her husb and , for her dau ghter. W e can 't do th at. T hatis tr ue. W e can 't gi v e Michael Harris back her mother . But w e c an g iv e j ust ic e. And t hat i s w hat I ask y ou to do. In S tate v . Br immer , 876 S.W .2d 7 5, 86 ( Tenn. 1994 ), the Tenness ee Supreme C our

t ex press ly

adopt ed th e hol din g i n Pay ne v . Tennes see, 501 U. S. 808, 827 ( 1991) : re mark s made dur ing the sent enci ng phas e by the prosec utor about the v icti m and t he i mpact to hi s o r her famil y do n ot pe r se v iol ate t he Con sti tuti on. It is tr ue th at t he v icti m impact s tatement s may not be rele v ant t o the proof of anyst atuto ry

ag g ra v ator . Y et t he prosec utor's remark s s impl y poi nt ou t w hatthe jury alread y

knew, or could have legi tima tely inferred, f rom o the r sources in t h e t ri a l. Eve n if

ir re le va n t , t h e s e re m a rk s b y t h e p ro s e c u t o r wo u ld n o t , in o u r vi e w,19 hav e w ar ra nted a new

se ntenc ing hear ing . The defendant al so arg ues that the p ro sec utor made i mprop er re ferenc es to t he defendant' s p arole pos si bil it ies and the factthathe was re lea sed from pr is on ear ly

for a pr ior

co nv icti on: T here are no wi nne rs. This is just a horrible si tuati on. The defendant g oes int o c ust ody and now

y ou hear thi s i s h is tes ti mony , i n 1990 and he is co nv icted. In 1993 he i s o ut. H e's tol d i t was a twelv e- y ear se ntenc e. The peni tenti ar

y syste m does n'twor k.. .. N o q uest ion that he g ot ou t ear ly . Y ou heard from hi m. I t wasn' t t he state 's proof . W hathap pen ed a nd why it happ ene d is someth ing w e may

nev er kn ow . But itdoes happen . Our supre me court w as faced w ith the same issue in Stat e v . Nichols, 877 S. W .2d 7 22 ( Tenn. 1994 ); i n tha t c ase, the cour t not ed th at referenc es, ev en ind irectones , t o parole pos si bil it ies dur ing arg ument are i mprop er . Id. at 73 3 ( ci ti ng both Smit h v . St ate, 527 S. W .2d 7 37, 7 38 ( Tenn. 1975 ), and Graham v . St ate, 304 S.W .2d 6 22 ( Tenn. 1957 )) . The cour t obs er v ed th at w hil e referenc es to t he defendant' s p re mature rele ase on an ear li er co nv icti on c oul d hav e "hi nted" to t he jur y thata l ife s entenc e c ar ri ed w it h i t t he pos si bil ity of ear ly rele ase, the prosec utor's remark s d id not "c lea rl y " menti on parole pos si bil it ies for t he defendant. Nichols, 87 7 S.W .2d at 733 . Th e cou rt also not ed th at th e argume nt m ore directly c o m m e n t e d o n t h e fa il u re o f t h e d e fe n d a n t ' s p ri o r i n c a rc e ra t io n t o h a ve a p o s it ive ef fect on his beha v ior (w hich of course cou ld be an indirect argume nt ab outf utu re parole ). I d. In N ic hol s, how ev er , our su preme co urt ul ti matel y hel d tha t t he re ferenc es, to w hatev er deg re e i mprop er , di d notco nst it ute p re jud ic ial er ro r affect ing the outc ome of the t ri al. I d.

Lik ew is e here, t he prosec utor , w hil e s ubmitti ng thatthe "syste m doesn 'twor k," made no menti on of parole pos si bil it ies . See S tate v . H ine s, 75820 S.W .2d 515 , 520 (Ten n. 19 88)("Ha d [th e prose cuto r] g one on to m ent ion pa role poss ibi li ti es for defendant in thi s p ro ceedi ng , he cer tai nly woul d hav e been treadi ng on forbidd en ground ."). It is only w hen the argum entcould be fairly interpret ed a s a re ferenc e to parole thati t bec omes i mprop er . In ou r v iew , t his arg ument woul d not hav e w ar ra nted a new

se ntenc ing hear ing . T he d efend antalso argues tha t the prosecu tor insinua ted thatthe jury shoul d notco nsi der

the defendant' s mi ti g ati on bec ause itw as non- sta tutor y . For ex ample, the sta te arg ued, "w hat h av e y ou heard tha t i s mi ti g ati on?"; "hav e y ou heard anythi ng ?"; an d "w e don' t hav e mi ti g ati ng [c ircums tanc es] ." In B ri mmer, 876 S.W .2d a t 85, our

su preme co urt hel d tha t s uch sta tements by the prosec utor

do little mo re than "set o ut th e Sta te's inte rpretat ion of the pro of ." Accord ingly , this aspect of the defendant' s c lai m is mer it les s.

In sum ma ry , the Biblical referen ces, w hile inap prop riate in the se ci rc umstan ces di d not , i n our as ses sment, affectthe re sul ts of the proceed ing . The v icti m impact arg ument, w hil e of q uest ion abl e rele v ance, di d notaffectthe death penal ty v erdict. The al leg ed referenc es to pa ro le did not li kel y v iol ate p re ceden t. The arg ument as to the l ack of miti g ati ng ci rc umstan ces w as not i mprop er .

V Next, the d efendant i nsi sts thathi s tw o pr ior co nv icti ons for c ri minal atte mp t to com mit seco nd d egree mu rder did no t qualif y as felon ies "whose sta tutor y el ements i nv olv e the us e of v iol ence to a person. " Tenn. Cod e Ann. 39- 13- 204( i) (2 ). The arg ument i s b ased upon t he s tatut or y defini ti on of cr imi nal attempt : (a ) A person commi ts cr imi nal att empt w ho, a cti ng

w it h the ki nd of cul pabi li ty othe rw is e req uired for the21 offense: (1) Inten tiona lly

engages in action or causes a resu lt that w oul d c onst it ute a n offense if the ci rc umstan ces sur ro undi ng the condu ct w ere as the person bel iev es them t o be; (2 ) Act s w it h i ntentto caus e a resul t t hat i s a n el ement of the offense, and bel iev es the c onduct w il l caus e the re sul t w it hout further

co nducton t he person' s p art; or (3 ) Act s w it h i ntentto compl ete a co urse of acti on or caus e a resul t t hat woul d c onst it ute t he offense, und er the c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng the condu ct as the person bel iev es them t o be, and the c onduct c onst it utes a s ubst anti al ste p toward the co mmiss ion of the o ffense. (b ) Con ductdoes not cons ti tute a s ubst anti al ste p und er subd iv ision (a)(3) unless the person 's entire cou rse of acti on i s c or ro borati v e of the int ent t o c ommit the offense. (c ) It is no d efense to prosec uti on for cr imi nal att empt that the o ffense attempt ed w as act ual ly co mmitt ed. T enn . Code Ann. § 39-12 -101 . Th e de fend antpoint s out th at th is statut ory lan g uag e does not inc lud e as an e lement"v iol ence to pe rs on" and, thus , s houl d not hav e been admitted t o the j ur y . W hil e the st ate h as faile d to br ief the i ss ue, i nsi sti ng o n ly th a t t h e evid e n ce of th e de fe n d a n t' s p rio r " cri m e s o f viole n ce w a s co m p e lli n g" w hen, in fact, n o ev ide nce of the c ri mes ap pear i n the record of the sent enci ng phase of the t ri al, w e nonet hel ess reje ct the a rg ument of the defense. The attempt sta tute re q uires the p er petrator to act"w it h the ki nd of cul pabi li ty othe rw is e req uired for th e [pr inc ipa l offense] ." Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 12- 101( a) . Seco nd deg re e murde r neces sar il y

i ncl udes v iol ence: (1 ) [a] know ing ki ll ing of another ; or (2 ) [a] ki ll ing of another w hic h resul ts from the unl awful di str ibu ti on of any Sc hedul e I or

Sc hedul e II dr ug w hen s uch dr ug i s . .. the p ro x imat e c ause of the death of the us er . Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 210( a) . This l ang uag e s uppor ts the c las si ficat ion of the cr imes as v iol ent. In our v iew , t his i ss ue has no mer it .22 In a re lat ed i ss ue th e defendant cl aims the tr ial co urt und er mined the defense by

i ll ust ra ti ng to the j ur

y thos e s tatut or

y mit ig ati ng ci rc umstan ces the defense di d notactual ly rais e. The defendant c onced es that the s upreme co urt has cons is tentl y

recog niz ed th is er ro r to be har mles s a bsenta c lea r show ing of prejud ice. See State v . Sm ith, 89 3 S.W .2d 908 , 921 (Ten n. 19 94); St ate v . Te el, 793 S. W .2d 2 36, 2 52 ( Tenn. 1990 ); Sta te v . C arter , 714 S.W .2d 2 41, 2 51 ( Tenn. 198 6). He claims prejud ice beca use th e prose cuto r read the list of statu tory m it ig a t o rs su b m it t e d b y t h e d e fe n s e a n d a rg u e d t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n tfa il e d t o p ro ve any of them. The prosec utor's acti ons appear to be l ittl e more tha n an attemptto ev alu ate t he proof; acc ordin g ly , any er ro r coul d be cl ass ified as har mles s. V I Next, the d efendant c lai ms t he tr ial j udg e s houl d hav e i nst ru cte d the jur y thati ts sent ence w oul d actual ly be c ar ri ed outto the e xtent prov ide d by l aw . Spe cif ically , the defend antsugg ests th at w ithou t the instruction , the jury would spec ula te t hat t he deat h penal ty mig ht no t be car ri ed outand that he mi g ht be re lea sed in a few

y ears e v en i f sentenc ed to l ife w it hout parole . The defendant c it es to an i nst ance in the record w here a p ro specti v e j uror , w ho di d notsi t on the c ase, act ual ly q uest ion ed th e v ali dity of the s entenc es. The de fendant reason s t hat t he comments by

the prospecti v e j uror

and thos e of the cour

t i n i ss uin g i ts charg e may hav e i nfluenc ed j urors o n the panel .

Our su preme co urt has co nsi ste ntl y found thi s s peci al re q uestmade b y t h e d e fe n d a n tt o b e im p ro p e r. Se e V a n T ra n , 8 6 4 S . W . 2 d a t4 8 1 ; S t a t e v. Cau g hron, 8 55 S. W .2d 5 26, 5 43 ( Tenn. 1993 ); Sta te v . Pa y ne, 7 91 S. W .2d 1 0, 21 (Tenn. 1990) , aff'd, 501 U .S. 808 ( 1991) ; St ate v . M els on, 6 38 S. W .2d 3 42, 3 67 (Tenn. 1982) . So, w it hout further co mment, we reje ct the c ontent ion of the23 defendant.
T he d efend antalso insists tha t the trial court comm itted rev ersible er ro r by refusing to ins tr uctthe jur y thati t c oul d c onsi der

sy mpathy

w hen dec idi ng on a sent ence. H e arg ues that the t ri al cour t s houl d nothav e c harg ed th e j ur y to re nder i ts v erdict on the l aw

and the fact s rather

than any

sy mpatheti c n oti ons for the defend ant . By

rejecting this arg um ent , the trial j udge act ed in pe rfect acc ordance w it h es tabl is hed precede nt. See Stat e v . Smi th, 893 S. W .2d 9 08, 9 21 (Te nn. 199 4); Sta te v. Big bee , 885 S.W .2d 797 , 814 (Ten n. 19 94); St ate v . Caz es, 875 S. W .2d 2 53, 1 68 ( Tenn. 1994 ); Sta te v . H ar ri s, 839 S. W .2d 5 4, 75 ( Tenn. 1992) . Thus, w e hol d tha t t his cl aim is w it hout meri t.
VII W hile ackn owl edging that th e sup reme court ha s consiste ntly uph eld the d eath penal ty

st atute under

si mil ar att ack s, the d efendant i nsi sts thatour st atute fails to meanin g fully

nar ro w the cl ass of death eli g ibl e defendants . He cont ends that the d eath sent ence is i mposed capr ic iou sl y and ar bit ra ri ly ; t hat e lectrocut ion i s c ru el and unu sual pu nishm ent ; and thatthe ap pellat e revi ew proce ss is constitutio nally ina deq uate. Base d upon a l ong l ine of author ity , w e mustreje ct each cl aim. Se e Stat e v . Smi th, 893 S. W .2d 9 08 ( Tenn. 1994 ); Sta te v . Br immer , 876 S.W .2d 7 5 (Tenn. 1994) ; St ate v . C az es, 875 S.W .2d 2 53 ( Tenn. 1994 ); Sta te v . Smi th, 857 S . W . 2 d 1 (T e n n . 1 9 9 3 ); S t a t e v. B la c k , 8 1 5 S . W . 2 d 1 6 6 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ); S t a t e v. Boyd, 797 S.W .2d 589 (Ten n. 19 90); St ate v . Te el, 79 3 S.W .2d 236 (Ten n. 19 90); Stat e v . Thompso n, 76 8 S. W .2d 2 39 ( Tenn. 1989 ).24 Spec ific all y , t he defendant arg ues that our st atuto ry

sc heme fail s t o me anin gfu lly

narrow the class of

dea th eligible defend ant s. Our suprem e cou rt re v iewed and dis mis sed thi s a rg ument i n St ate v . H ow ell , 868 S.W .2d 2 38, 2 58 (Te nn. 199 3). The defendant al so cont ends that the s tatut e i s u ncons ti tuti onal becau se dis tr ict attor ney s h av e unl imi ted d is creti on i n w hether to seek the death penal ty or not. O ur

su preme co urt reje cte d thi s a rg ument i n Br immer , 876 S.W .2d at 86 . See also Coope r v . Stat e, 84 7 S.W .2d 521 , 536 -38 (Te nn Crim. Ap p. 19 92).

Next, the defend antinsists that th e stat ute is unconst itution al beca use iti s i mposed in a di sc ri minat or y fashi on. This v er

y arg ument was re

jected b y

the supreme co urt i n Br immer , 876 S.W .2d a t 87 n. 5. Se e al so Stat e v . Ev ans, 838 S.W .2d 185 , 196 (Ten n. 19 92).

Next, the d efendant c omplai ns that the d eni al of indi v idu al seq uest ered v oir

di re of prospecti v e j urors i n c api tal ca ses v iol ates co nst it uti onal principles. In Caz es, 87 5 S.W .2d at 269 , our sup reme court rejecte d this cont enti on. See al so Cau g hron, 8 55 S. W .2d a t 542 .

Next, the d efendant s ubmit s that the d eath q ual ific ati on proces s for prospecti v e j urors c re ates a "prosec uti on- prone, g uil t- prone j ur y ." Not ing the cont enti on has al so been reje cte d by the U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t, our supreme co urt reje cte d thi s c ontent ion as mer it les s i n Teel , 793 S.W .2d a t 246 .

The defendant al leg es that he w as unl awfully prohi bit ed from address ing j urors' mis conc epti ons about sent enci ng . This arg ument ha s b een25 ro uti nel y reje cte d by

our su preme co urt. See Br immer , 876 S.W .2d a t 86- 87; Caz es, 875 S.W .2d a t 268 ; Bl ack , 815 S.W .2d a t 179 .

Next, the d efendant as ser ts the j ur y sh oul d hav e been infor med of the effectof a non- unani mous v erdict; that is , t hat t he pena lty sh all be a l ife s entenc e. Ten n. C od e An n. § 3 9- 13 - 20 4( h) . Th i s c on te nt i on w as rej ecte d by o ur s up rem e cour t i n Br immer , 876 S.W .2d a t 87, C az es, 875 S.W .2d a t 268 , and Smi th, 857 S.W .2d a t 22- 23. In a re lat ed arg ument, the d efendant as ser ts that re q uir ing the jury to una nim ously ag ree on a life sente nce violates the stand ards en uncia ted in Mc Koy v . N orth C aroli na, 4 94 U .S. 433 ( 1990) , and M il ls v . M ar y lan d, 48 6 U .S. 367 ( 19 88 ) . Th i s c l ai m h as c on s i s te nt l y b ee n fou nd t o be w i th ou t me r i t by o ur s up rem e cour t. See Br immer , 876 S.W .2d a t 87; Thompson, 768 S.W .2d a t 250 .

T he d efend antalso insists tha t the statu te is unco nstitu tiona l becau se the j ur y i s n ot req uired to make the u lt imat e det er minat ion thatdeat h i s t he appropr iat e penal ty . Ag ain , our su preme co urt has reje cte d thi s c ontent ion . See Br immer , 876 S.W .2d a t 87; Smi th, 857 S. W .2d a t 22.

Next, the d efendant c omplai ns about his bei ng deni ed th e oppor tuni ty to p res en t th e fi na l c l os i ng a rg um en t i n th e pe na l ty p ha s e of t he t r i al . O ur s up rem e cour t has reje cte d thi s c ontent ion i n at lea st two pr ior ca ses . See B ri mmer, 876 S.W .2d a t 87 n. 5; C aug hron, 8 55 S. W .2d a t 542 .

The defendant al so cont ends that death by el ect ro cut ion i s c ru el and unusu al puni shment . Our su preme co urt has repeated ly reje cte d thi s n oti on. See Ni chol s, 877 S. W .2d a t 737 ; C az es, 875 S.W .2d a t 268 ; H ow ell , 868 S.W .2d a t 258 .26 T he d efend antsubm its thatapp ellate rev iew in deat h pe nalty cases is cons ti tuti onal ly

i nadeq uate. Ag ain , our su preme co urt has found the cl aim to be meri tl ess . See H ar ri s, 839 S. W .2d a t 77.
VIII The defendant c lai ms t hat t he admi ss ion of a prev iou s n onv iol ent felony co nv icti on ( attempt ed s econd deg re e burg lar y ) dur ing the penal ty

phas e of the t ri al w as er ro neous . The st ate a ss erts that the d efendant has w aiv ed th e i ss ue by fail ing to ti mely

obj ectto the e v ide nce or rais e i t i n the moti on for new tr ial . The sta te al so arg ues that the a dmis si on of thi s p ri or nonv iol ent fel ony

co nv icti on w as harm less error.

Generall y , a g ro und has been w aiv ed w hen t he defendant fails to lod g e an obj ect ion or

fail s t o rais e an is sue on moti on for new tr ial . Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 3 (e ), 3 6 (a ); S t a t e v. B a k e r, 7 8 5 S . W . 2 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 5 (T e n n . Cr im . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ); S t a t e v. Ki ll ebrew , 760 S.W .2d 2 28, 2 35 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1988) . Beca use of the q ua l i ta ti v e di fferen c e be twee n de at h an d ot he r s en te nc es , ho w ev er , ou r s up rem e court ha s conside red the merits of an issue e v en when the defend antfails to obje ct or raise the issue in the m otion for new trial. See Foo tno te 1. Accordingly , w e mu st cons ide r thi s i ss ue on the mer it s.

Tenness ee C ode An notat ed s ect ion 39- 13- 204( i)prov ide s t hat t he death penal ty

may be i mposed sol ely

upon a unani mous fin din g thatone or more of the statu tory aggravating ci rcumst ance s has be en p rov en b eyond a rea sona ble doubt. O ne of the two ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces found by the jur y i n thi s c ase w as that the d efendant had prev iou sl y been conv icted o f a v iol ent fel ony . The pr ior v iolentfelon y

thus requires proof

of a prior fe lony conv iction "whose sta tuto ry27 ele ments inv olv e the us e of v iol ence to t he person. " Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 3- 204 (i)( 2). During the sent encin g pha se of the trial, the state introdu ced e v iden ce that the d efendant w as prev iou sl y co nv icted o f two c ounts of attempt ed s econd deg re e murder , ag g ra v ated ro bber y , and att empted s econd deg re e burg lar y . Ex ceptfor t he attempted sec ond deg re e burg lar y , t hese pr ior

offenses i nv olv ed v iol ence ag ain st a person. Be caus e the co nv icti ons of attempted se cond deg re e murde r and ag g ra v ated ro bber y nec ess ar il y

i nv olv e v iol ence to t he person, the sta te w as precl uded fro m in troduci ng i nto e v ide nce the u nder ly ing facts thereof based on the r ule es tabl is hed i n St ate v . Bi g bee, 885 S. W .2d 7 97, 8 11 ( Tenn. 1994 ). The sta te was not, how ev er , prohi bit ed from p ro v ing thatthe defendant' s c onv icti on of attempt ed s econd deg re e burg lar y , a cr ime that by

st atuto ry

defini ti on does not neces sar il y

i ncl ude v iol ence to t he person did , i n fact, i nv olv e a v iol ent a ct ag ain st a person. In S tate v . J ohnso n, 66 1 S. W .2d 8 54 ( Tenn. 1983 ), the jur y se ntenc ed the defend antto dea th ba sed u pon the f inding of tw o aggravating ci rcumst ance s: th a t t h e m u rd e r was co m m it te d w h ile th e de fe n d a n t was en gage d in co m m it ti n g a felony and that the d efendant had prev iou sl y been conv icted o f one or more v iol ent feloni es (s econd deg re e murder , g ra nd l arceny , and att empted b urg lar y of an automobi le) . In ho ldi ng thatthe tr ial co urt c ommitt ed er ro r by al low ing the nonv iol ent c onv icti ons int o ev ide nce w it hout any sh ow ing of v iol ence to t he person, our su preme co urt w ro te t hat "t he probabi li ty of preju dic e resul ti ng from t he introd uction of

the evidence hereina bove held to have bee n w rongf ully adm itted is so g re at as to re q uire a rev ersal of the d eath sent ence. " I d. at862. Se e al so Stat e v . Ad ki ns, 653 S.W .2d 7 08, 7 16 ( Tenn. 1983 ) (p re jud ic e resul ted w here s tate re li ed28 upon c onv icti ons of seco nd deg re e murder , l arceny from t he person, and attemptto commi t a felony , butoffered no proof of v iol ence for th e l atter two) ; St ate v . Teag ue, 645 S. W .2d 3 92, 3 99 ( Tenn. 1983 ); Sta te v . M oore, 61 4 S. W .2d 3 48, 3 52 ( Tenn. 1981) . Thoug h the three v iol ent fel ony co nv icti ons w ere proper ly before the jur y , t he tr ial co urt s houl d nothav e al lowed th e j ur y to cons ide r the c onv icti on of attempt ed s econd deg re e burg lar y w it hout any

under ly ing proof of v iol ence to t he person. J ohnso n mi g ht be read t o c re ate a per se r ule thatw hen t he s tate int ro duces nonv iol ent fel oni es in attempt ing to est abl is h the ag g ra v ati ng circumsta nce o f

prior v iolentfelon ies, a rem and for a new senten cing hearing is re q uired. In ou r v iew , howev er , t he r uli ng i n J ohnso n does not re q uire a remand for a new se ntenc ing hear ing i n thi s c ase. Our 198 3 sup reme court de term ined thata rema nd was necessa ry in J o h n s o n b e c a u s e o f

" t h e a c t io n o f

t h e S u p re m e Co u rtin t h e re c e n tca s e o f Za n tv. Stephe ns, 456 U. S. 4 10, 1 02 S. C t. 1856, 72 L. Ed.2d 222 ( 1982) ." Johns on, 6 61 S.W .2d a t 862 . In Z ant, the U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t rev iewed a death penal ty cas e w here the Georg ia Supreme C our t hel d one of the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces inv ali d butnev er

thel ess aff ir med the sent ence of death. Z ant, 456 U .S. at 41 5- 17. The Un it ed St ates Supreme C our t remanded t o the Georg ia Supreme C our t t o answer the q uest ion : "W hat a re the premis es of stat e l aw thatsu ppor

t t he conc lus ion thatthe death sent ence in thi s c ase is not impai re d by the inv ali dity

of one of the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces found by the jur y ." Id. at 41 6. For a t ime, the ru li ng i n Z ant c re ated some u ncer tai nty aboutw hether an a ppe llate cou rt could up hold a dea th sen ten ce w hen one of tw o or mo re29 aggravating ci rcumst ance s w as foun d to be inv alid. T hatq uest ion w as resolved in C l em on s v . M i s s i s s i pp i , 49 4 U .S . 73 8 ( 19 90 ) , w he re th e U ni te d St at es S up rem e Cou rt"hel d tha t w hen a sent enci ng j ur y i n a weig hin g st ate h as re li ed, i n par t, on a co n st it u ti o n a lly in vali d aggra vat in g circ u m st a n ce , s ta te ap p e lla te co u rt s m a y reweigh the rema ining agg rav ating circumsta nces a gainst the mitigating ev iden ce." How ell, 868 S. W .2d a t 259 ( dis cus si ng the hol din g i n C lemons ). Thus , t he reason for t he 1983 r uli ng i n J ohnso n no lon g er appl ies . It is i mposs ibl e, of c ourse, for a ppel lat e cour ts to de ter mine w it h abs olu te c ertai nty w hether a j ur y , no matter

the q ual ity

or q uanti ty of the a g g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces , woul d hav e s ti ll i mposed the d eath pen alty w hen one facto r is later foun d to ha v e be en invalid. Y et th ere is no pe r se ru le for a re mand under thes e c ircums tanc es. W e must , t herefore, attemptto assess whethe r the errone ous int rodu ction o f the at tem pte d seco nd d egree burglary conv icti on affected t he out come o f this ca se.

W e ac know led g e tha t J ohnso n has nev er been ex pli ci tl y

ov er ru led . In Sta te v. C am pbe ll, 664 S. W .2d 281 , 284 (Ten n. 19 84), ho w ever, our suprem e cou rt address ed th e s ame i ss ue, r uli ng thatthe admis si on of a non v iol ent fel ony w as har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt ; t he s tate had i ntroduce d ev ide nce of an ag g ra v ated ass aul t, a g ra nd l arceny and a s econd deg re e burg lar y . Id. at 28 4. Our supreme co urt hel d tha t t here w as a v ali d pr ior v iol ent fel ony ; t hus that ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce had bee n adeq uatel y es tabl is hed. Id. In s ummary , i t was er ro r to ad mit proof of the co nv icti on for attempt ed sec ond deg re e burg lar y . W e must , howev er , find the e rror to be har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt . The proof is unc ontes ted t hat t he defendant had bee n c onv icted of tw o c ounts of attempt ed s econd deg re e murder and one c ount of ag g ra v ated ro bber y . Al l q ual ified as pr ior v iol ent fel oni es. M oreov er , t he prosec uti on, d ur ing30 ope ning and f inal argume nt, m ade no referen ce to th e bu rg lary . All remarks w ere directe d to th e three prope rly adm itted of

fense s inv olvi ng v iolence . Under the se ci rc umstan ces , t he er ro r w as cl ear ly har mles s b ey ond reason abl e doubt . I X The defendant c ontends thatthe death penal ty i n thi s c ase v iol ates the ma nda tes of

State v . Middlebro oks, 84 0 S.W .2d 317 (Ten n. 19 92). T he jury re tur ned v erdicts of gu il t for premedit ated firs t deg re e murder , first deg re e murder dur ing the per petrati on of an ag g ra v ated burg lar y , and first deg re e murder dur ing the p er petrati on of an ag g ra v ated ro bber y . At t he c oncl usi on of the sec ond pha se of the t ri al, the jur

y retur ned dea th pe nal ty v erdicts on eac h of the three c onv icti ons. Sev eral w eeks l ater , dur ing the moti on for new tr ial , t he tr ial co urt made the follo w ing obs er

v ati on: Y ou are abs olu tel y

co rrecti n poi nti ng out that [the defend ant ] can't rece iv e three dea th pe naltie s. And, only one shou ld stan d. T he te rms available to th e cou rt are tha t the othe r v erdicts are sim ply surplusa ge. It is dis creti onar

y w it h the co urt as a find er of fact, t hir

teent h juror , t o s tr ik e the v erdicts, and I w il l do th at. (E mphasi s a dded) . Thereafter , t he c our t s tr uck the v erdicts in Cou nt O ne and Three, the premedit ated firs t deg re e c onv icti on and the c onv icti on for firs t deg re e murde r dur ing the per petrati on of an ag g ra v ated ro bber y . The ju dg ment of conv icti on al lowed to st and was firs t deg re e murder dur ing the per petrati on of ag g ra v ated burg lar

y ; t he s ug g est ion s made by co unsel for t he s tate pla y ed a key ro le in that deter minat ion .

Dur ing the moti on for new tr ial , t he defendant soug ht t o hav e two of the d eath sent ences se t as ide . The st ate respon ded t o the tr ial co urt' s c omments by arguing the evi den ce sup porte d all three convictions. W hen the trial court re sta ted i ts int enti on to st ri ke two of the conv icti ons, the sta te as ked that Cou nts31 One a nd Three be str ic ken and t hat t he c onv icti on for murde r dur ing the per petrati on of a burg lar y , for w hic h the st ate a rg ued t he ev ide nce w as the strong est , s tand. Thereafter, the tr ial co urt hon ored th e s tate' s req uest .

On ap peal , t he defendant arg ues that the j ur y 's us e of the felony

as an ag g ra v ati ng factor

under thes e c ircums tanc es v iol ated the c onst it uti onal st andards firs t enu nci ated in Mi ddl ebrooks . In M idd leb ro oks , our su preme co urt hel d tha t t o sat is fy sta te c onst it uti onal st andards w hen t he defendant is co nv icted o f felo ny murde r, the felony

murder ag g ra v ator , Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 3- 204( i) (7 ), may not be us ed as an a g g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce suppo rt ing the impos it ion of the d eath penal ty . 840 S. W .2d a t 346 . Here, t he defendant arg ues that becau se he was ult imat ely

co nv icted o f felo ny

murder , i t was imper mis si ble to use the fel ony murder ag g ra v ator

as a ba si s for

i mposi ng the death penal ty . In respon se, the sta te arg ues th e fo llo wing: W hen g uil ty v erdicts on al ter nati v e c ounts are retur ned onl y one jud g ment of co nv icti on and one pun is hment ma y result. But th is does no t me an th at th e trial court must ele ct w hic h v erdict s houl d s tand. . .. The unmis tak abl e i ntentof the t ri al cour t was to ac credi t t he jur y 's v erdict. W e i nter pret t his as a c onces si on th at t here c an be onl y one jud g ment of co nv icti on; but t he s tate als o i nsi sts that , i n thi s c ase, there s ti ll remains mul ti ple v ali d v erdicts and t hat t he j ur

y v erdict of g uil ty

of premedit ated murde r precl udes any Mi ddl ebrooks er ro r.

Initially, the trial judge correctly point ed o ut th at th e de fend antcould n o t" re c e ive t h re e d e a t h p e n a lt ie s " wh e re t h e re wa s o n ly o n e vic t im . In S t a t e v. Hur ley , 876 S.W .2d 5 7, 70 ( Tenn. 1993 ), our su preme co urt hel d the defendant coul d notbe c onv icted o f tw o murders for one ki ll ing . See al so Stat e v . Be ll , 745 S.W .2d 8 58 ( Tenn. 1988 ); Sta te v . Z ir kl e, 91 0 S. W .2d 8 74 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), app.32 den ied, (T enn . 199 5). Multiple convictions for the single killing would v iolate dou ble jeop ardy pri nciples.

T y pically, w hen the de fend antis conv icted o f multip le of

fense s w hich w oul d v iol ate d oubl e j eopardy , t he tr ial j udg e w il l merg e the l ess er offense int o the g re ater offense. Se e St ate v . Ba nes, 874 S.W .2d 7 3, 81 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993) . The st ate' s b ri ef, how ev er , has us ed th e phrases "merg e the co nv icti ons" and "d ismiss the convictions" inte rchan geably. T hese are dif feren t conce pts w hich, in some i nst ances , mus t be dis ti ng uis hed i n order to achi ev e the des ired resul t. This co urt has des cr ibe d the pr inc ipl e of merg er as appl ic abl e w hen there are al ter nati v e c harg es: "t he g uil ty v erdict on the g re ater

ch arg e s tands and the g uil ty v erdict on the l ess er

ch arg e merg es int o the g re ater ch arg e." Banes , 874 S.W .2d at 81. Later, in Zirkle, 910 S.W .2d at 889 , this court ruled as follows:

A me rg er has be en gene rally def ined as follows: "The fusion or

abs or pti on of one t hin g or r ig ht i nto another ; g enerall y

sp oken of a cas e w here one of the subj ect s i s o f les s d ig nity or i mport ance than the o ther . Here the l ess i mport ant c eases to hav e an ind ependent ex is tenc e. * * * W hen a ma n com mits a m ajor crime w hich includ es a lesser of fense , or comm its a felon y w hich includ es a tort ag ain st a pr iv ate p erson, the latter i s merg ed i n the former ." Bl ack 's Law

D icti onar

y 1140 (6 th ed . 199 0) . "[M ]erg er

may oc cur w here one conv icti on i s a l ess er i ncl uded offense of anoth er conviction." Ray bin, T enn . Crim. Practice an d Pro. § 1 6.2 0. T hus, the te rm is more appropr iat ely

us ed i n c onsi der ing g re ater and les ser

i ncl uded offenses. It is tempt ing to appl y

a "merg er " co ncepti n thi s s it uati on and33 deter mine that felony

murder si mply "merg ed" i nto t he premedit ated murde r, thereby av oid ing a po tenti al Mi ddl ebrooks er ro r. G enerall y , w hen t he defendant has been conv icted o f both premedit ated murde r and felon y murder , t ri al jud g es eit her "merg e" or

"v acat e" i n order

to ele minat e the felony murder co nv icti on and all ow

the prem edita tion m urde r convi ction, w hich pree mp ts the possibility of a Middlebroo ks er ro r, to re main. I n H ur ley , 876 S.W .2d a t 70, the supreme co urt "v acat ed" th e felony murder co nv icti on w hen t here w ere two murder co nv icti ons for a si ng le death. In B ell , 745 S.W .2d a t 863 , our su preme co urt affirmed the t ri al jud g e's reje cti on of the fel ony

murder co nv icti on and approv al of the premedit ated murde r conv icti on. In Zi rk le, how ev er , our

co urt t aci tl y

approv ed th e tr ial co urt' s "merg ing " a felo ny murder c ou nti nt o th e prem ed i ta te d mu rde r c ou nt . S o, o ur

o w n op i ni on i n Z i r k l e i s s om e precede nt for

the conc lus ion thatfelony murder woul d as a matter

of law aut om atically "m erge" into prem edita ted murd er, thu s av oiding a Middleb rooks error; how ev er , a preci se appl ic ati on of the doct ri ne onl y per mits the merg er

of a l ess er offense int o the g re ater one; and felony

murder i s n ot a les ser

g ra de offense than that of premedi tated murder .

In W rig ht v. State, 549 S.W .2d 682 (Ten n. 19 77), ou r suprem e cou rt confir med the tes t t o det er mine w hether an o ffense is l ess er

and inc lud ed i n the g re ater offense. Q uoti ng the lat e J ust ic e W eld on W hit e i n J ohnso n v . St ate, 397 S.W .2d 1 70, 1 74 ( 1965) , t he c our t r ule d as foll ows: The tr ue te st of w hic h i s a l ess er and w hic h i s a g re ater crime is w het her the elem ent s of the forme r are c o m p le t e ly c o n t a in e d wit h in t h e la tt e r, so t h a tt o p ro ve the g re ater

the Stat e mustfirst prov e the el ements of the les ser . W ri g ht, 549 S. W .2d a t 685 -8 6.

Tw o y ears l ater , our

su preme co urt ag ain address ed th e s ubj ect :34 W e bel iev e tha t t he better r ule , and the one t o be follo w ed henc eforth in thi s S tate, i s t he r ule adopt ed imp licitly bythis court in W rig ht v. State, supra, th at, in thi s c ontext, an offense i s n eces sar il y i ncl uded i n anot her if the ele ments of the g re ater offense, as thos e el ements are s et forth i n the i ndi ctment , i ncl ude, but a re not cong ru ent w it h, al l the e lement s o f the l ess er . Howard v . St ate, 578 S. W .2d 8 3, 85 ( Tenn. 1979 ).

Mo re recent ly , i n St ate v . Tr usty , 919 S.W .2d 3 05 ( Tenn. 1996 ), the supre me court iden tif ied th e tw o types of lesser of

fense s. A lesser included of fense is one w hose ele ments are a s ubsetof the g re ater offense and w hic h does not re qu ir e p ro o f

o f a n y e le m e n tn o tin c lu d e d in t h e gre a t e r o f fe n s e , a s d e s c ri b e d a b o ve in W ri g ht an d H ow ard. A l ess er g ra de or

cl ass of offense is es tabl is hed by st atute . T rusty, 919 S.W .2d at 310 -11. T he grades o f hom icide are f irst degree mu rder, sec ond deg re e murder , v olu ntar y mansl aug hter , c ri minal ly neg li g ent h omic ide and v ehi cul ar homi ci de. The el ements of felony murder are a "reck les s k il li ng of another commi tted in the p er petrati on of, or att empt t o per petrate a ny " of the e numerated feloni es. Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 3- 202( a) (2 ). The el ements of premedit ated murde r are an "int enti onal , premedit ated and del ibe ra te k il li ng of another ." Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 3- 202( a) (1 ). Thus , dep endi ng upon the fact ual si tuati on, t he s tate could prove fe lony murde r w ithou t having proved prem edita ted murd er and v ice v ersa. Thus , nei ther

offense is a "l ess er

i ncl uded" offense. Mo re ov er , nei ther offen s e i s a "l es s er

g rad e or

c l as s " t ha n th e ot he r . Te nn es s ee ' s s ta tu to r y s c he me prov ide s t hat e ach offense is w it hin the same c las s o f homici de- -first deg re e murder . Theyboth are deat h el ig ibl e offenses ; eac h i s c las si fied i n our co de as "first deg re e murde r. " Se e Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -1 3- 202. The penal ti es for felony murder and premedit ated murde r are the sa me.35 Beca use nei ther

offense is g re ater

or l ess er than the other , t he doct ri ne of merg er

does not re sol v e thi s i ss ue. That i s, if felony murder co uld be said to merge into p reme ditat ed m urde r, then there would be n o Middleb rooks probl em. In ou r v iew , the trial j udge, who might have avoided th e Middleb rooks er ro r by se tti ng as ide the felony murder co nv icti ons, nonet hel ess foll ow ed th e proper tec hni cal procedu re by v acat ing or

"st ri ki ng " two of the conv icti ons ra ther than me rg i ng t he m. V ac at e me an s "[ t] o an nu l ; to s eta s i de ; to c an c el o r res c i nd . To re nder an a ct v oid ; as to v acat e an entr y of re cord, or

a j udg ment." Bl ack 's Law Di cti onar y 1548 (6 th ed . 199 0) . So, once the o ther co nv icti ons (i ncl udi ng thatof premedit ated murde r)w ere "s tr uck ," t hey w ere rendered "v oid ."
In S ta te v . D av i s , 61 3 S. W .2 d 21 8, 2 21 ( Ten n. 1 98 1) , ou r s up rem e court ruled thatonce a conviction is dismissed , "[t] here w as no t [a] legally v alid v erdict" to reinsta te. W e em pha siz e tha t in this case, the pro secut ion con curred in the t ri al jud g e's dec is ion to str ik e the co nv icti ons for premedit ated murde r and for murde r dur ing the per petrati on of a robber y . For the pur poses of our

appel lat e rev iew , only the conviction for mu rder com mitt ed d uring a burglary , a felon y murd er, re mains . As ind ic ated, the effectof v acat ing the premedit ated murde r conv icti on re troact iv ely

nul li fied th e appl ic abi li ty of the "c ommis si on of a felon y " ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce, Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 204( i) (7 ). W e are c onst ra ine d the n to find that the t ri al cour

t' s a cti on atthe hear ing on t he moti on for new tr ial created a Mi ddl ebrooks er ro r.

In ad dit ion , t he defendant arg ues the t hir teent h j uror

r ule al so re q uires us to c oncl ude a Mi ddl ebrooks er ro r occ ur re d. Rul e 33( f), Tenn. R . C ri m. P. ,36 provides, in part, a s follows: "T he trial cou rt may g rant a n ew trial fo llow ing a v erdict of gu il ty i f it dis ag re es w it h the j ur y aboutthe w eig ht of the ev ide nce. " In interp reting Rule 33(f ), our suprem e cou rt has he ld as follows:

Rul e 33( f) i mposes upon a tr ial co urt j udg e the ma nda tory dut y

to serv e as the thirteen th juror in every cr imi nal ca se, and that approv al by the tr ial j udg e of the jury 's v erdict as th e thirtee nth juror is a ne cessary prereq uis it e to impos it ion of a v ali d j udg ment. Stat e v . C arter , 896 S.W .2d 1 19, 1 22 ( Tenn. 1995 ) (e mphasi s a dded) . "The pur pose of the th ir

teent h j uror

r ule i s t o be a ' safeg uard .. . ag ain st a mi sc ar ri ag e of ju s t ic e b y t h e ju ry. ' " St a t e v. Mo a t s , 9 0 6 S . W . 2 d 4 3 1 (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ) ( qu o t in g S t a t e v. Johns on, 6 92 S. W .2d 4 12, 4 15 ( Tenn. 1985 ) (D ro w ota, J., di ss enti ng )) . Here, becau se the t ri al cour

t di smi ss ed two of the conv icti ons, the v erdicts suppo rt ing the conv icti ons obv iou sl y

had not b een app ro v ed by the tr ial j udg e as thi rt eenth juror . In fact, t he tr ial j udg e made s peci fic referenc e to that at t he hear ing on t he moti on for new tr ial . In D av is , our

su preme co urt hel d tha t w hen t he tr ial j udg e s ets as ide a v erdict, he has not approv ed i t as req uired by the thi rt eenth juror

r ule . 613 S. W .2d at 22 1. W ithou t the trial court's appro v al, the v erdict is inv alid. Id. W e are compel led to follo w

the precede nt es tabl is hed i n D av is . Ag ain , t he resul t i s a findi ng of Middlebroo ks error i n the pen alty pha se of the trial. The st ate a rg ues that the t ri al jud g e i mpli ci tl y ac credi ted a ll three v erdicts an d tha t the thirteen th juror rule doe s not ap ply beca use th e trial judge did not o rd er a ne w tr ial . W e mustdi sag re e w it h the st ate; a new tr ial w as not nece ssary , or ev en p ermissible , beca use th e trial judge f ully app rov ed o f

the verdict for murder

i n the co mmiss ion of a burg lar y . In t hisappeal , w e full y co ncur thatthe conviction w as w arrante d; th at w ould preclude , on do uble jeopa rdyprinciples, another tr ial on e it her

of the tw o c onv icti ons that w ere s et as ide .37 Beca use the t ri al jud g e di d notapprov e the v erdict for premedit ated mu rder, tha t v erdict is entitle d to no w eight. Th e simp le conclu sion is thatthe on ly v ali d c onv icti on remaini ng ag ain st the d efendant for w hic h the deat h penal ty may be imp osed is one for felon y murd er. W hile the circumsta nces a re unu sual, we must hol d tha t und er

the ru le of Mi ddl ebrooks , t he us e of the felony ag g ra v ator

dur ing sent enci ng w as er ro r.

The er ro r does not n eces sar il y resul t i n a rev ersal of the d eath penal ty . As sta ted p re v iou sl y

i n thi s o pin ion , our

su preme co urt has dev elo ped a sta ndard to deter mine w hether

the jur y 's us e of an i nv ali d ag g ra v ati ng factor i n i mposi ng deat h mig ht q ual ify

as har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt . Stat e v . H ow ell , 868 S.W .2d 238, 259 ( Tenn. 1993 ). The H ow ell co urt c onsi dered four factors i n det er mini ng w het her the error was ha rmless: (1) the nu mb er and strength of the rem aining v alid ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces ; ( 2) t he prosec utor's arg ument atse ntenc ing ; ( 3) t he e vid e n c e a d m it t e d t o e s t a b li s h t h e in va li d a ggr a va t o r; a n d (4 ) t h e n a t u re , qu a li ty, and s treng th of mi ti g ati ng ev ide nce. I d. at261.

Our su preme co urt app li ed th e H ow ell anal y si s t o det er mine w hether the erroneo us ap plication of the felon y

murd er agg rav ato r constitut ed reversible error in at least eight case s. See St ate v . Hines, 91 9 S.W .2d 573 (Ten n. 19 95), cer t. deni ed, _

___ U .S. ____, 117 S. Ct . 133 ( 1996) ; St ate v . W alk er , 910 S.W .2d 381 ( Tenn. 1995 ); Sta te v . H artman, 896 S. W .2d 9 4 ( Tenn. 1995 ), ce rt . den ied , _____ U .S. _____, 117 S. Ct . 88 (1 996) ;Sta te v . Smi th, 893 S. W .2d 9 08 ( Tenn. 1994) ; Ba rb er

v . St ate, 889 S. W .2d 1 85 ( Tenn. 1994 ); Stat e v . N ic hol s, 877 S. W .2d 722 (Ten n. 19 94); St ate v . Caz es, 87 5 S.W .2d 253 (Ten n. 19 94);S tate v . How ell, 868 S. W .2d 2 38 ( Tenn. 1993 ). I n al l but W alk er and Har tman, the e rror

w as been found to be har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt .38 In B ar ber , 889 S.W .2d a t 188 -9 0, t here w as onl y one re maini ng ag g ra v ator , t hat t he murder w as hei nous and at ro ci ous; bec ause proof of the re maini ng ag g ra v ator

w as so ov er

w hel ming , our

su preme co urt found t he er ro r to be har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt . In mak ing i ts ru li ng , t he c our t reason ed th e sta te di d notemphas iz e the i nv ali d ag g ra v ator , no new ev ide nce w as admitted t o est abl is h the i nv ali d ag g ra v ator , and the miti g ati ng ev ide nce w as ins ubst anti al I d. In N ic hol s, 877 S. W .2d a t 738 -3 9, t he onl y remaini ng ag g ra v ator

w as the commi ss ion of pr ior

v iol ent fel oni es, Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 204( i) (2 ). I t was esta blished byproof

of f iv e aggravated rap es. Id. As in Barb er, the suprem e cou rt found no rev ersi ble er ro r becau se proof of the ag g ra v ator w as so ov er

w hel ming ; t he re maini ng H ow ell factors were al so fav orabl e to the s tate. I d.

T his case is closely akin to Barbe r and Nichols be cause there is only one remaini ng v ali d ag g ra v ator . As in each of those two c ases , t he proof of the si ng le re maini ng ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce is ov er w hel ming . Mo re ov er , t he re maini ng H ow ell factors a ls o s uppor t a findi ng of har mles snes s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt . The first of the four factors, the n umber and streng th of the re maini ng v ali d ag g ra v ators, has been de sc ri bed as foll ows:

[W ]e ne cessarilyconside r the nu mb er of rema ining v alid ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces .. .; but e v en more c ru ci al than the sum o f

the rem aining agg rav ating circumsta nces is the q ual it ati v e nat ure of each ci rc umstan ce, i ts subs tanc e and persuas iv eness , as w ell as the q uantum of proof s uppor

ti ng i t. Howell 868 S.W .2d a t 261 ( emphasi s a dded) . Here, t he j ur y had a bas is for fin din g that the d efendant had three pr ior v iol ent fel ony

co nv icti ons. Se e Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 4 (i )( 2 ). T h e st a t e in t ro d u c e d p ro o f t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n th a d p re vio u s ly attempt ed two s econd deg re e murders a nd an ag g ra v ated ro bber y . Thus, the re maini ng proof of this ag g ra v ator w as both "persuas iv e" and w ell su ppor ted b y an adeq uate "q uantum o f proof." Id. at 26 1. The st ate n eed onl y prov e tha t t he39 defend anthas be en co nvicted of one prior v iolentfelon y to esta blish this ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce; there w as a s ur plu s i n proof of tw o. In N ic hol s, our supreme co urt obs er

v ed th at "t he effect and q ual it ati v e persuas iv eness of the rema ining agg rav ating circumsta nce [p rior v iolentfelon ies] increase s w here there is proof of more t han one pr ior v iol ent fel ony

co nv icti on." 877 S. W .2d a t 738 . The sec ond H ow ell factor i s t he prosec utor's arg ument atse ntenc ing . Dur ing openi ng and cl osi ng arg ument, the p ro sec utor di d notemphas iz e the felony murde r ag g ra v ator . In fact , muc h of the arg ument was g eared to w ard address ing the d efendant's pr ior

v iol ent fel oni es. F or

ex ample, the sta te arg ued dur ing cl osi ng that the d efendant had been "c onv icted o f thre e v iol ent c ri mes. W e di dn'tg o i nto t h e d e t a il s o f

a ll o f t h o s e cr im e s . Do n ' tb e li e ve itwo u ld b e p ro p e r t o d o t h a t . Bu twe do k now he was conv icted." The s tate did not emphasi z e the felony murder ag g ra v ator

near ly as much as the p ri or

v iol ent fel oni es; thatw eig hs ag ain st a findi ng of prej udi ci al er ro r. I n N ic hol s, 877 S. W .2d a t 737 , the c our t found t he Middleb rooks error to be harm less in part be cause "[a] n examina tion o f the St ate 's arg ument . .. re v eal [ed] that no g re at empha si s was pla ced on th e fact that the murde r occ ur re d dur ing the course of a felony . The bul k o f the arg ument rela ti v e to ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces focuse d on the d efendant's pr ior cr imi nal record and the predator y natu re of the c ri mes." The thi rd factor

i s w hether

any ev ide nce w as admitted t o es tabl is h the inv ali d ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce. The on ly proof of the felony

murder w as dur ing the g uil t pha se of the tr ial . Non e w as present ed dur ing the penal ty phas e. That fa vo rs t h e st a t e in t h e h a rm le s s e rro r a n a lys is . " E li m in a t io n o f t h e in va li d fe lo n ymurde r ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce [woul d nothav e] ' re mov e[d] any ev ide nce from the j ur y 's tot al cons ide ra ti on.' " N ic hol s, 877 S. W .2d a t 738 ( q uoti ng H ow ell , 86840 S.W .2d at 261 ).

Fi nal ly , w e mustco nsi der the nature and q ual ity

of the mi ti g ati ng ev ide nce. The on ly

su ch ev ide nce w as the d efendant's as ser ti on th at he st il l had family members w it h w hom he k ept c ontact; that he w as w ell -b ehav ed w hil e he w as inc arcerated; and that he had some wor k h is tor y . The defendant al so procl aimed his i nnoce nce of the c ri me. I n our v iew , t his ev ide nce q ual ified as l ittl e more tha n min ima l. As in H owell, w here the Middle broo ks error was foun d to be harm less, there w as no "mi ti g ati ng ev ide nce re lat ing to the g ood c haract er of the d efendant ." Howell 868 S.W .2d a t 262 . The death penal ty i n N ic hol s was aff ir med, des pit e one inv ali d ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce, bec ause the d efendant di d notpresentany persuas iv e mi ti g ati on ev ide nce. Thi s c ase is si mil ar i n tha t reg ard. W e c oncl ude, therefore, that the M idd leb ro oks er ro r w as har mles s b ey ond a re asona ble doubt . That the ev ide nce w oul d hav e s uppor ted a co nv icti on of premedit ated murde r, had the trial j udge no t set it aside , serv es to bu ttress ou r conclusion . So doe s the fact that there w as more than one und er ly ing felony to suppo rtthe felony

murder conv icti on; t hat i s, both attempt ed murder and ag g ra v ated burg lar y w ere es tabl is hed by the proof. In theor

y , one co uld hav e been used as an el ement of the felony murde r conv icti on, i .e., ag g ra v ated burg lar y . The other

co uld hav e been uti li z ed as an ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce under Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 204( i) (7 ) despi te t he Mi ddl ebrooks r ule :

W here, as i n the i nst ant c ase, a felo ny not under ly ing the felony murder co nv icti on i s u sed to s uppor t t he felony murde r ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce, there i s n o dupl ic ati on. Fur ther more, under

thes e facts the ag g ra v ati ng circumsta nce a s app lied restricts the se nte ncer's dis creti on to thos e w ho k il l w hil e i n the per petrati on of mu ltiple felon ies, a class of murd erers dem onst rably smal ler and more bla mew orthy than the g eneral cl ass of murde re rs el ig ibl e for the d eath penal ty under the prev iou s fel ony

murder st atute i n Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 - 2- 202( a) (1 982) . U nder thes e c ircums tanc es, w here a fe lo n y o t h e r t h a n t h a tu s e d t o p ro ve t h e su b s t a n t ive41 offense is us ed to es tabl is h the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce, there i s n o c onst it uti onal prohi bit ion ag ain st the u se of the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce in § 39- 2- 203( i) (7 ) to s uppor

t t he i mposi ti on of the death penal ty for felon y

murd er. Stat e v . H ine s, 919 S. W .2d 5 73, 5 83 ( Tenn. 1995 ) (e mphasi s a dded) .

Fi nal ly , t he s entenc e i s n eit her exces si v e nor

di spropor

ti onate to t he penal ty i mposed in si mil ar

ca ses . The sent ence does not a ppear to hav e been impos ed i n an ar bit ra ry fashi on. Proof of the v ali d, remaini ng ag g ra v ati ng circumsta nce o utweig hs the proof of mitigating circum stan ces. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

_________

_________ Ga ry R. W a d e , J u d ge CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

__ Jo e B. Jo n e s, Pre sid in g Ju d ge

_________

_________

_________

__ W ill ia m M. B a rke r, Ju d ge