### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON H e a r d in N a s h v ille J une 2, 2004 S e s s i on

S T AT E OF T E NNE S S E E v . GRE GORY ROB I NS ON

App e al b y P e r m iss ion fro mth e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Crim inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 97-13179-80 Jam es C. Beasley, Jr ., Judge

No. W2001-01299-SC- R11-DD - F iled Septem ber 28, 2004

We gr anted the State’ s application fo r p er m i ssion to appeal to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals er

red by reve rsing the defendant’s conviction for premeditated first deg ree murder

a ndhis se nte nc e of

de a th. Up on re vie w, we ho ld that th e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls e rr e d in

re ve rs ing the de fe nd a nt’ s c on vic tio n a nd se nte nc e

. I n p art ic ula r, we c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt did not err by failing t o i n s t ru ct the jury on fac ilitation and soli citation or by permitting the medical

e xami ne r t o d isp la y

the vic tim ’s c le a ne d a nd re c on str uc te d skull a s a de mon str a tiv e a id d uring his
te sti mon y ; th a t th e pr os e c uti on didno t pr e se nt i nc on sis te nt theorie s a nde vid e nc e in the se pa rate trials of the de fenda nt an d co -defendant Pre ntiss P hillips ; and that the sente nce of death is not disproportionate c onsidering the circ umstances of the crime and the defe ndant. Having reinstated
t h e d ef endant’ s conviction and sente nce, w e have also revie wed a nd considere d all other e rror s
a lle g e d b y

the de fe nd a nt a ndc on c lud e that no ne wa rr a nts re lie f. With re sp e c t to iss ue s n ot h e re in specific ally

addre ssed, we a ffirm the decision of t he C ourt of Criminal Appea ls. Relevant portions of that opinion are published here afte r as an appendix

. Acc ording ly
, the j udg ment of t he C ourt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls i s r e ve rs e d in pa rt , a ff ir me d in pa

rt , a ndthe jud g me nt o f the tr ia l cou rt is reinstated.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 1 1; Judg m e nt of t he Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als Re ve r se d in P ar t a nd Aff irm ed in Par t; Judgm ent of the Trial Court Reinstate d

F RAN K F. D R OW OT A , III
, C.J ., delivere d the opi n i o n of the c ourt, in which E. R I L EY A NDE R S ON , J ANI CE M. H OL DER , and W I L L I AM M. B ARKE R , J J ., joined. A DOL PH O A. B I RCH , J R ., filed a

concur ring -dissenting opinion.

P aul G. S um mer s, At to rneyGen eral and Re po rt er; Mi chael E. Mo ore, S ol ici to r Gen eral ; J os eph F. Whalen, Associate Soli citor Genera l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Patienc e R. B ra nh a m and Pa ula Wulf f, As sis ta nt Dis tr ic t Atto rn e y s Ge ne ra l, fo r the app e lla nt/ app e lle e , St a te of Tenne ssee.W i t ne sses at t rial also referre d t o t his gan g a s t he T rav eli ng V i ce L o rd s. 1

T he p ark previ o usl y had be en kno wn as B el l evue P ark. 2

-2- J o s e p h S

. O z m e n ta n d S t e f f e n G

. S c h r e i n e r , M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e ( a ttr i a l ) ; a n d E d m u n d L

. C ar e y, J r., Na shville, Tennessee , and Robert C. B rooks, Memphis, Tenne ssee ( on appea l), for the appellee/appellant, Gr eg ory Robinson.

OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound The de fenda nt, Greg ory Robinson, was convicted by a Shelby

Countyjury

of the p re m edit ated f

irst deg ree murder a nd espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping of Ve rnon Gre en. Proof pr e se nte d a t tria l e sta

bli sh e d th a t on the a ft e rn oo n of Ap ri l 30, 199 7, a sq ua bb le be tw e e n tw o s ma ll children in the H urt Villag e Apartments in North Memphis led to an a rg ument betwee n the mothers of the se c hil dr e n, wh ic h e sc a la te d in to a fi g ht, inc lud ing g un fi re , be tw e e n the wo me n’ s b oy frie nd s,
me mbe rs of

ri va l Me mph is g a ng s – the Ga ng ste r Dis c ipl e s and the Vi c e L or ds

. As a re su lt o f this 1 fig ht, the Hurt Villag e Gang ster Disciples called an “aid and assist” meeti n g, an d M emphi s-ar ea Ga n gs t e r D i s c i p l es co n gre gat ed at an ap ar t m en ti n t h e H u rt Vi l l age co m p l ex fo r t h i s m ee t i n g. Although the victim was not a g ang member a nd had not be en involved in the ea rlier f ight, he was
seen ne ar the apartment where the aid and a ssist m eet i n g wa s b eing held. When a g ang member

acc used Gre en of a cting as a lookout for the Vice L ords, the def endant inst ru ct ed o t her g ang members to “snatch him up” and bring him to the apartment. F or one a nd one-ha lf to two and oneha lf ho ur s, the de fe nd a nt, a lon g wi th o the r g a ng me mbe rs , b e a t a nd int e rr og a te d Gr e e n. Ev e ntu a lly Gre en was taken from the apartment by six g ang members and shot to death in J essie Turne r Park. 2 Gre en’s body

was discove red in the pa

rk betwe en 5 and 5:30 a .m., on May 1, 1997, by members of a loca l walking club, who ca lled the police. When Of fice r Alvin Peppers a

rriv ed at t h e s ce ne, he found the victim’s body

ly ing f ace down i n a prone position. Offic er Peppe rs explained that he

c ou ld n ot i de ntify

the vic tim ’s fe a tur e s, su c h a s e y e c olo r, be c a us e the “ fa c e of the bo dy wa s so mutilated that there w as noth ing that we could identify .” Of fice r Pepper s found no identify ing objects on t he body
, such as a wallet or j ewe lry
, but he recove red a numbere d dry clea ner’ s tag from inside the victim’s clothing tha t appar ently was he lpful in identify in g t h e v i ctim. Two live .45 caliber bullets, two .45 caliber bullet c as i n g s, and one .20 g aug e shotg un shell casing wer e found within a five foot r adius of the victim’s body . The following complicated and detailed r ecitation of the te sti mon y

a t tria l is ne c e ssa

ry to a fu ll a ndpr op e r c on sid e ratio n o f the is su es pr e se nte d in thi s
app e a l.

Severa l former

g ang members testified a

bout the events surr ounding G r e e n’s kidnapping and

mur de r. Tw o o f the se te sti fi e d f or the pr os e c uti on . T he fi rst , Ch ri sto ph e r Ja me s, kn ow n a s “ B ig Chris,” testified for

the prosec ution. J ames had been a Gangste r Disciple for thre e or f our months

on Ap ri l 30 , 1 99 7. Ar ound 5 or 6 p.m . o n A pril 3 0, 19 97 , Jam e s a nd fe llo w G a ng ste r D isc ipl e s, J arvis Shipp, known as “J-Roc,” and two othe r g ang members c alled “Popcorn,” and “ S t ev e,” witnessed a f

ight be tween Shipp’s g irlfriend a nd the g irlfriend of “Snoop,” a V ice L ords g ang-3-

member. L ater , as James, Shi pp, and Popcorn w ere wa l k ing towa rd the a partment of Shipp’s g irlfriend, Snoop appr oache d them and beg in s wi n gi n g at Shipp. After Shipp and Snoop beg an fig hting, another Vice L ord dre w a g un. At this point , J ames a nd Popcorn fled, but a bullet gr azed P o p co rn ’s h an d as t h ey we re ru n n i n g fr o m t h e sc en e. T h ey arri v ed fr o m t h e fi gh t at t h e H u rt Vi l l age apartment of sisters Nata lie, Nichole, a nd April Bla ck ar ound 8 p.m. Shortly there afte r, Shipp, along with fe ll o w Gang ster Disciples Pre ntiss P hillips , J ames L ee White Carr adine, known a s “Thug L ife,”

a nd“ Ste ve ,” a nd“ Chu c k” arrived a t the apa rt me nt. Shi pp wa s a ng ry a ndde c ide d to “ c a ll s ome more Ga ng sters over

there to Hurt Villag e.” A n aid and a ssist m eeting was c alled, a nd acc ording to J ames, twe nty

or thirty additional Gang ster Disciples f rom all over Me mp h i s ar ri v ed at the apartment for the mee ting.

After their ar rival, Philli ps came inside the apa rtment and said t h at Ve rn o n Gre en wa s outside “watching out at the apartment.” One of the later arriving Gang ster Disciples, whom James identified as the de fenda nt, instructed Shipp and three other G ang ster Disciples to “g o snatch up” Vernon Gre en. James said Shipp and the others followed the defe ndant’s instruction without hesitation. Gree n arrived at the apartment around 10 p.m., escorted by “[t] wo disciples in front [and]
tw o dis c ipl e s in the ba c k. ” Gr e e n sto od in the mid dle of the fl oo r a s the de fe nd a nt a sk e d G re e n if he had be en outside watching for the Vice L ords. The de fenda nt then hit Gree n in the fac e, struck Gre en numer ous times, both with hi s fists and with a broom stick, and then pushed Gre en onto the

c ou c h. Jame s, wh o h a d li ve d in the Hu rt Vi lla g e apa

rt me nts a ndkn ow n G re e n for seve n y e ars , described Gre en as the neig hborhood comedian and st ated that Gree n had not bee n a g ang member

a n d h a d n o tb e e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e f i g h te ar l i e r

i n t h e d a y.

After Gre en wa s beate n, he wa s taken upstairs by “two other

g uy s.” Gre en re mained upstairs for thirty to forty -five minutes. During this ti me, J ames wa s “jumped on” a nd “beat up” downstairs by six Gang ster Disciples beca use he had not he lped “Jarvis and them fig ht.” J ames testified tha t Phill ips came out of the kitchen, where he had been m eeting with Shipp and Kevin Wil kins, known as “Big Folk,” “cut on the radio and started pic king out six people,” who then be at J ames for flee ing

rathe r tha n a idi ng Shi pp du ri ng the fi g ht w ith Sno op . Jam e s te sti fi e d th a t Ph ill ips , n ot the de fe nd a nt, selec ted the g ang members who be at J ames a nd that the def endant ha d been upsta irs at this tim e.

Gre en wa s escorted downstairs a fter James was be aten, but a short time later, Gre en wa s taken f rom the apa

rtment. Be fore Gr een left the apa rtment, J ames saw the def endant, Shipp, and Phill ips ta lking toge ther in the kit c h e n an d o v e r h e a r d th e d e f e n d an t s ay , “ Y ’ a ll kn o w w h at to do.” J ames be lieved this statement meant “ [t ]hey [were] g oing to kill [ Gre en].” J ames re called tha t the vic tim ha d b e e n h e ld a

t th e a pa rt me nt two or

tw o a nd on e -h a lf ho ur s. Whe n a ske d if

the vic tim

said any thing dur ing this time, J ames said the vic tim “told P rentiss [P hillips ], ‘t el l them folks to stop.’” When Gree n was e scorted f rom the apar

tment by Shipp, Wilkins , Charles Golde n, known as “ Fuf u,” and Antonio J ackson, G

ree n had bee n wea ri ng a blac k shirt, black pants, a nd black shoe s. Gree n’s black shirt had be en pulled over his head so that Green w as unable to see or use his arms to re sist. As this group le ft the apa

rtment, J ames ov er h eard the def endant a g ain say , “Y’ all know what to do.” Jame s also te sti fi e d th at th e de fe nd ant a t on epo int

aime d a nin emilli met er gun at hi s f a c e , w hil e threa tening that the “sa

me thing” would happen to James if J ames e ver sa id “s o m et h ing a

bout it.” J ames b e li e v e d

th e d e f e n d an t’ s c o mm e n t m e an t “ [t ]h e y g o in g to kil l m eto o

. ” A f ter G r e e nan d

the other g angmembers left the apartment, Phill ips and “Steve” walked J ames home in the e arly morning hours of May

1, 1997.-4-

J ames a dmitted that he had never see n the def endant be foreApril 30, 1997, an d t hat the defe ndant had not bee n a member of the Hur

t Village Gang ster Disciples. J ames maintaine d, however, that the def

endant ha d been a

member of

the Memphis Gang ster Disciples a nd had bee n prese nt at the Hurt Villag e apa

rtment on April 30, 1997.

Def ense c ounsel on cross- examination questioned J ames reg arding a st atement hemade to the police on May 8, 1997, one week after these events occurred. I n that statement, James informed the po lic e tha t “ [he ] sa w A nth on y , Jar

vis Shi pp , Sh a

un , a nd a big heavy -s e t g uy

tha t I do n’ t kn ow his name, Antonio Jackson, and Big Folk” kill Green. (Emphasis added.) In his Ma y 8 statement James also said that “Shaun” instructed S hipp and three ot her g angmembers to “g o snatch Vernon Gre en up” and that “Shaun” questioned and hit Gre en at the a partment. In his May

8 statement James provided the fo llo wi nga c c ou nt o f t

hee ve nts :

J -R o c, M ac Ka o s , S h au n , an d L o w- Do wn we n t

i n t o th e k i t ch en fo r a

p ri v at e m ee t i n g. And I heard them talking softly to eac h other for about five minutes. And then J-Roc and Shaun ca

me out of the kitchen. And then MacKa os and L ow-Dow n cameout of the kitchen. And Ma cKa os said, y ou all need to take care of this and tol d J arvis, wha t y ou -a ll d o n ow is p e rs on a l. T he n M a c Ka os and L ow -D ow n le ft

.
Also in his May 8 statement, James indicated that “Shaun c ame up to me a nd said I better not say nothing to nobody , and if y ou think this was something let us fi n d o u t t h at y ou said something

a bo ut t his .” Al tho ug h on Ma

y 8, 19 97
, Jame s tol d the po lic e tha t many g ang me mbers be at the vic tim
, J ames testified at trial that only the defe ndant beat Gre en. Finally
, in this May 8, 1 9 9 7
, s t atement J ames c laimed he

heard threecar s st ar t and heard a t least six doors close. A nd after they left–and Prentiss had a g un in his right hand a nd said, if any one say

any thing a bout thi s they wi l l be dea

lt with. And then he said, all the g ang sters in here keep this on the 1919. And af ter that Prentiss and Steve e scorted me to my house.

When asked by police on May 8 if he ha d any

thing e lse to add to his statement to aid the investig ation, J ames ha d replied: “ All I

can sa y is that Vernon wa s a g o o d p erson a nd didn’t need to bekilled by any one.” When de fensecounsel pre ssed J ames to explain w hy he had mentioned the name “ Shaun” and had not onc e mentioned the de fenda nt’s name in his May

8, 1997, statement, James replied:

Man, hold up man. W hen Vernon was g etting be at, man, Vernon the onewho called tha t ma n Sh a un . So I we nt b y wh at V e rn onc a lle d h im.

J ames a dmitted he had not pre viously provided this information to police and a lso conce ded he ha d not previously

indicated the defe ndant threa tened him while holding a nine millimeter g un to his head. Although James had c onsistently “g iven t h e samename f

or every body else that did every

thing that

n i g h t , ” th e a c t i o n s h e att

ri b u t e d t o th e d e f e n d an t at t ri a l h a d b e e natt ri b u t e d t o “ S h a u n ” i n h i s M ay 8 statement. I

n responseto questions from defe nse cou n s el
, J ames indi cate d that Phill ips was “coordinator” a

nd Shipp “chief of

secur ity ” of theHurt Villag e Gang ster Disciples. James did not attribute a r ank to the def

endant, howe ver.-5-

On re -direc t examination, J ames c larified his prior testimony and May

8 statement, explaining that many g ang members be at the victim, but the defendant hit Gre en first and no other g angmember beat Green a

t the same time as the def en d ant. J ames also ex plained he ha d not known the g ang members p re s en t o n Ap ri l 30, 1997, by their leg al names a

nd had re fer

red to them by

their stree t names. James said he had never seen the defe ndant before that night, had not known the de fenda nt’s
name, a nd had re fer

red to the de fenda

nt as “Shaun” in his May

8 statement bec ause he hea rd Gre en
re fer to the de fe nd ant as “ Sha un .” Jame s expla

ine d tha t, wh e n the po lic e sh ow e d him a p ho tog ra ph ic

arr ay shortly after Green’ s kidnapping and murder, he se lected thedefe ndant’s photog raph but re fer red to the person in the photog raph a s “Shaun.”

Jame s ma int aine d th e a c c ur a c y

and tr uth fu lne ss o f h is May 8 sta te me nt an d cla

ime d its o nly

err or wa s his use of the name “Shaun” w hen descr

ibing the defe ndant’s actions. J ames c laimed he ha d

n o t l ear ned the de fenda

nt’s correct na

me until the first day

of trial. James reaffirme d his direct testimony and re i t er at ed t h at the def endant g ave theorder

to “snatch up” Gre en; that the def endant beat Green; that the de fenda nt met with Phi llips, S hipp, and W i l k i n s in the kitchen; and, that the defe ndant twice c ommented,“Ya ’ll know what to do.” O n re- cross-e x amination
, d ef ense counsel po int e d o ut t

ha t, d e sp itehis pr oc lama

tio n to the c on tr a ry , Jame s kn e w the

de fe nd ant’ s c or

re c t na me prior to trial and had used t he defenda nt’s correct na

me when previously

testifying. Serg eant William As hto n o f t

heMe mph is Po lic e Depa

rt me nt c or ro bo ra te d Jam e s’ s te sti m o n y

r e g a rdi n gt h e p ho tog ra ph ic

arr ay . Serg eant Ashton re called tha t J ames identified the def

endant’ s photogr aph fr om the arr ay , but ref erred to the per son in the photogr aph as “ Shaun.”

Testify ing next for the pr osecution, Jarvis Shi pp, known also as “ J -Roc,” a dmitted he had bee n a Ga ng ster Disciple a

nd that he had he ld the “chie f of se curity ” ra nk in the Hurt Villag e sec tion of the g ang . Sh ipp c or

ro bo ra te d Jam e s’ s te sti mon y

c on c e rn ing the

sq ua bb lebe tw e e n th ec hil dre n th at le d to the ar g ument betwee n the children’s mothers t hat eventually escalated to the altercation betwe en Shipp and Snoop. Shipp also corrobora ted J ames’s te stimony

concerning J ames a

nd Popcorn f

le e in gth e f ig ht and the g unshot injury

to Popcorn.

When he ar

rived a t the Hurt Villag e apa

rtment of Natalie, N ichole, and April Blac k at about 9 p.m., Shipp saw J ames, P opcorn, Phi llips, I siah Triplett, Sepacus Triplett, Steve Hardin, and J ames L ee White Carr adine, all members of the G ang ster Disciples. The Bla ck sisters also were pre sent, but Phi lli ps , th e “ c oo rd ina

tor ” of the Hu rt Vi lla g eGa

ng ster D isc ipl e s, or dere d th eB la c k s ist e rs up sta ir s. After they complied, Philli ps called an aid a nd assist meeting , stating tha t the Gang ster Disciples were g oing to “ step to another le vel” a nd retaliate ag ainst the ViceL ords. Shipp believed Phillips meant the Gang ster Disciples were g oing back to hu rt al l o r som e of theVice Lords as re veng e for injuring Popcorn.

Shi pp e xplaine d h ow th e

G a n g s ter D i s c i p l e s w ere

o rg a n i z e d i n t o s e c tio ns throu g ho ut M e mph is. In addition to the Hurt Villag e section, where Phill ips w as the “coordinator” a nd Shipp the “chief

of

secur ity ,” the Ga

ng ster Disciples ha d s ec t i o n s in Mitchell Heig hts, Sout h Memphis, Scutterfield, Fr ay ser, Watkins Manor, B ingha mp to n , H yd e

Pa r k
, D o u g la s s , Ri v er s ide , Ca s ta li a , Whit eh a v e n , T u la ne, and Westwood. Acc ording to Shipp, “T-Mone y ,” who lived in Chicag o, was the “ head g uy over the whole entire

city ” of Me mphis. Kevin Foley , also known as “Ka os,” was the number two person over the e n ti r e c it

y

. H o w e v e r , b e c a

u s e “ T

- M o n e y ” w a s o u t o f to w n , “ K a o s w a s li k e th e g o vernor ” over Memphis. According to Shipp, the defe ndant was from the Mitchell Heig hts section of the g angand-6-

“at that particula

r t ime he was a active chief of security over the entire c ity of Memphis.” As suc h, the de fe nd ant r anke d ju st b e low Ka os , a nd be c a us eT- Mo ne y wa s o ut o f t ow n, the de fe nd ant e ff

e c tiv e ly ranke d second in the Me mphis Gang ster Disciples. As c hief of se curity for Me mphis, the defenda nt

e ns ure d th at all s e c tio n s e c ur ity c hie fs were or g anize d and g a ve or ders wh e n K a os wa s n ot a ro un d to do so.

Shipp and Phil lips followed the chain of command when calling the aid and a ssist m eetingon Ap ri l 30, 199 7, c a l l i n g f

i r s t K a o s th e nth ed e f

e n d an t

. A f

t e r th e s ec a l l s w e r em a d e , f

o r ty t o e i g h ty Ga ng ster D isc ipl e s f

ro m all o ver M e m

p h is a rr ive d a t th ea pa rt me nt, a nd many of the m w e re

a rm e d w ith handg uns. After their arrival, Philli ps ordered James L ee White Carr adine a nd another

person upstairs to p re ve nt t

heB la c k s ist e rs fr om c omi ngdo wn sta ir s o r l e a vin g the

a pa rt me nt.

Kaos a rrived a t the apar tment a bout 9:30 or 9:45 p.m. The defe ndant arr ived shortly

there afte r
and imm e dia te ly a sk e d Sh ipp , “ Why

a re n’ t y ou r g uy s o n p oin t?” S hi pp said th ede fe nd ant m e ant, “Why are n’t y our g uy s on secur ity , watchingout, looking? ” Thedefe ndant direc ted Shipp, a s “the

secur ity of Hurt Villag e” to de termine the ide ntity of the “ g uy

peeping around t h e co rn er.” After

escor ting the de fenda

nt inside the apar

tment, Shipp l eft to determine the identity of the person. When Shipp returned a

short time later a

nd advised the d ef

endant that the person was V ernon G ree n, the defe ndant inquired, “ Who is Ver non Gre en? ” Phill ips a

nd others “sta

rted screaming ” that Green w as a Vice L ord. The de fenda

nt then ordered Shipp and five othe r gan g members to plac e Green under “GD a rre st.” Acc ording to Shipp, t he def endant mea

nt ga ng members were to de tain and hold Gre en
a g ains t hi s w ill

.
After locating Gre en, Shipp told Gre en “my brothers, the Gang ster Disciples, wanted to speak with him,” and esc orted Green inside the apar tment. After direc ting Green into the dining room, the defe ndant asked Gre en if he was a Vice L ord. When Gre en replied,“no,” thedefe ndant aske d Gre en if hekn e w w here

the Vi c e L or ds were loc ate d. Whe n Gr e e n ag ain repli e d “n o, ” the de fe nd ant, Phi lli ps , and Wilkins beg an punching , hitting, and phy sically abusing Gre en. Af

ter Green f

ell to theg round, Shipp asked the others g angmembers to “hold up” on beating Gre en. S hipp then assure d Gre en “w e
weren’t g oing to do nothing to him, we just wa nted to know” the loca

tion of the ViceL ords. Gre en then said the Vice L ords were at a pa rticular loc ation, so the defe ndant ordered Shipp, and fiveother g angmembers to ver

ify Gre en’s infor

mation. About halfwa

y to this l ocation, Shipp and the others met

a woman “who considered herself a si ster of the Gangster Disciples.” She told them the Vice Lords

were “r unning dow n Danny

Thomas.”

Shipp and the others re turned to the a partment, a

nd when they

arr ived, the victim was sitting in a co rn er, away

from the c ouch. Ac cordingto Shipp, Green ha d been f orce d to sit i n the cor

ner beca use Gre en “ha d defe cate d on himself.” Shipp and other ga ng members ridiculed Gre en for doing so. After lear ning theVice Lords had not bee n at the location Gre en provided, the de fenda nt ordere d Sepacus Tr

iplett and another

g ang member to take

Gre en upst airs. Shipp went upst airs as well and saw Gre e n lying on the fl oo r of a be dr oo m with g ang me mbers sta nd inga ro un d h im p oin tin g g un s a t hi s he a d an d thr e ate nin g to kil l him. Shi pp said t heB la c k s ist e rs were

in a no the r u ps tair s b e dr oo m w ith a box springs mattress acr oss the door to prevent their depar ture. When Shipp heard loud music and

re tur ne d d ow ns tair s, Phi lli ps and the de fe nd ant w e re

se le c tin g g ang me mbers and ins tr uc tin g the m to fo rma c i rc l e. P h i l l i p s “t o l d J am es t o get

i nth e c en t er o f t

h e ci rc l e. ” S h i p p s ai d

P h i l l i p s wa s i nch ar ge of the situation, but the defe ndant was advising on the proper pr ocedure bec ause Phillips had neverAc c or di n g t o S h i pp , J a me s a c t u a l l y w a s be a t e n by t w e l v e i n di v i du a l s du r i n g t h e s i x mi n u t e s , s i x s e c on ds t i me 3 peri od

. B eca us e h e wa s a “ bi g g uy ” t he f i r s t s i x i ndi vi dual s “ got t i r ed” a nd “sto p p ed h i t t i ng on h i m. ” At t he t hr ee

m inu te , t h re e se c o n d m a rk , P h ill ip s se le c te d six o the r in d ivid u a ls, t o c o n tinu e the b e a ting , o n e o f wh o m w a s S h ip p

.
-7- before “put a

brother in violation.” When aske d which of thetwo had the hig her r ank, Shipp replied: “B asically , y ou’ll say

Gre g ory Robins o n.” Howe ver, Shipp qualified his reply by pointing out that these e vents occ urre d in Hurt Villag e, Phillips ’s “turf.” Shipp ag ree d that the Gang ster Disciples a re structure d somewhat like the U nited States, with a national lea der a nd local lea ders.

After J ames moved to the c enter of the c ircle, thedefe ndant and Phillips announced James had

“ six min ute s si x sec on ds , n o c ov e r u p, ” me anin g Jame s w ou ld b ebe ate n f or six min ute s a

nd six seconds by

six people. Gang ster Disciples referre d to this puni shment as “ a p umpkin head.”

3 Ac c or di ng to S hip p, Jame s w a s p la c e d in “ re tire me nt” or

“ onho ld” fo r s ix mon ths and tol d n ot t o consider himself a

Gang ster Disciple. Phill ips a nd another individual, whom Shipp did not know, then

escor ted J ames out of the a

partment.

After J ames left, Shipp told “the guy s to bring [Green] downstairs.” Green a rrived dow nstairs with a t-shirt over his head to obstruct hi s sight and to restric t his hands so that he could not bre ak aw ay
or de fe nd him se lf. Sh ipp te sti fi e d th at th ede fe nd ant, Phi lli ps , and Wilk ins e a c h in div idu a lly

sp oketo Kaos on a cellular telephone, dur

ing “ one long con t i n uous conver sation.” Shipp reporte d that after hang ing up, “[t] hey said Kaos said, ‘take him f ishing.’” Shipp, who was not a part of the c onversa tion wi th Ka os , u nd e rs too d th is m e ant t he y were to “ ta ke [Gre e n] w ay

ou t so me wh e re

ou t of the dis tr ic t, roug h him up a littl e bit by phy sical abuse, and let him ge t back the be st way he could.” Shipp then heard the def

endant dire ct Philli ps and Wilki ns t o selec t six men to take Green to a destination. Wil kins picked Antonio J ackson, a man known as “Paris,” and a nother individual Shipp did not know. Phi lli ps se le c te d Sh ipp , Ch a rl e s Poo le
, and a man kn ow n a s “ Ma c En do .” Shi pp te sti fi e d th at Wilk ins
, J ackson, Par

is, and MacE ndo were fr om Mitchell Heig hts. Shi pp was from Hurt Vil lag e, and Cha rles Poole was fr om Scutterfield.

Wil kins left with the s ix men s elec ted, and Phill ips rema ined at the apartment. The men dr ove in two separa

te ca rs to Be llevue P ark. When Gree n pulled the shirt from his eyes and realized he wa s in a dar k are a, he be g an plea ding w i t h t h em , s ay ing numerous times, “just let me g o, man, I ’m not g oing to sa

y nothing, plea se, just let me g o.” Shipp, Pari s , P o o l e, and MacEndo phy sically car ried Gre en to the top of a hil l and dropped him onto the g round. Wilki ns “sug g ested” the other me n stand a fe w fe et awa

y from Green. Shipp testi fi ed t h at although Wilki ns was not superior in rank to the defe ndant, Wilki ns was the “ big he ad” w ho was g iving dire ctions at the par k. Wil kins kicked Gre en in the side and asked Gre en if he had any last words. Shipp then heard a g un being cocke d and saw Jac ks onfi re

the g un . Gre e n w a s ly

ingfac edo wn, and bu lle ts s tr uc k h is l ow e r b a c k a

nd bu tto c ks

. Gre en beg an g asping for brea th a nd say ing that he had be en hit, that he wa s dead, a nd that he wa s not g oing to sa

y any thing. When J ackson remar ked to Wilki ns that the buckshot were not af fec ting Green, Wil kins asked P aris for his chrome plated automatic pistol. Wil kins handed the pistol to J ackson, w ho shot G ree n in the head. The g un jammed, but Jackson adjusted it and fired a g ain. The g angmembers the n f le d th e sc e ne

and la te r m e t a t a g a s st atio n o n So uth

Pa rk wa y , w here Wilk in s adv ise d th e m to “takethe stree ts, a ct normal.” Wil kins g ave them marijuana to “ calm us down.” They met ag ain at-8-

an apa rt ment in the Mitchell Heig hts area . Shipp later lear ned this apar

tment belong ed to “F

ufu” – Charles Golde n.
Two day s after

the murder , Phill ips told Shipp to take a “six day vaca tion.” Phill ips called the defe ndant, and the de fenda nt arrive d and drove Shipp, his “baby ’s mother” and his children to a local motel. The defe ndant told Shipp not to answer his pa g er or use the telephone. Howe v er , S hipp

answe red a pag e from Phil lips and learne d that the police were looking for him. Shipp then pag ed the defe ndant, who immediately returne d Shipp’s call but reprimande d Shipp for being “a knuc klehea d” wh o d iso be y e d o rd e rs no t to us e the te le ph on eor

ans wer h is p a g e r. Af

te r a g ain te lli ng Shi pp no t to

answe r the telephone or respond to his pag er, the defe ndant assure d Shipp that he, or “other brothers,” would be droppingby to c heck on Shipp. Three day s later, the defe ndant sent “a g uy by the name of Cr e ns haw a

nd tw o mo re y ou ng e r g uy s” to p ic k u p Sh ipp and his fa mil y at th emot e l.

At the conc lusion of his direct examination testim ony , Shipp claimed t h at he had be en threate n e d

b y G an g s ter D is c ip le s f

o r b e in g a “ s n it c h ” an d

e xp la in e d th at h eh a d

s o u g h t p r o tective custody beca use he f eared he w ould be unable to survivein the g ener al jail popula tion, which included many Gang ster Disciples. Ship p d ecla red he had g iven truthful testimony and denie d the State had

o f f e r e d an y d e a l s , p r o m i s e s , o r

r e p r e s e n t at i o n s i ne x c h an g ef o r h i s t e s t i m o n y.

On cr oss-examination, S hipp admitted that he had given a leng thy statement to the police on May 27, 1997, and had not onc e mentioned the d efe ndant’s name , even thoug h he had me ntioned numerous Ga

ng ster Disciples, including Kaos, Phillips, J ackson, a nd Wil kins. Shi pp admitted he had ide nti fi e d n umero us Ga

ng ster D isc ipl e s w he n s ho wn ph oto g ra ph ic a rr ay s, inc lud ing Ka os , Ph ill ips
, Wil kins, J ackson, Carradine , Golden, “Smash,” Anthony , J ohnny , and Sepac us Triplett, but had failed to identify

the def endant whe n g iven the opportunity

. Although Shipp indicated in his May 2 7
, 1 997, statement that Ka os was the g overnor of Memphis, contrar

y to his trial testim ony , in this same statement Shipp claimed that Wil kins, from the Mit c he ll H e ig hts a

re a , w a s the c hie f o f s e c ur ity fo r N or th M e mph is, tha

t Ph ill ips ou tr anke d Wil kin s, and that Jackson was c hief of secur ity of Scutterf

ield. Fur thermore , in his May

27, 1997, statement Shi pp ind ic ate d th at Ph ill ips , n ot t hede fe nd ant, ins tr

uc te d h im t o ar

re st Ve rn onGre e n; t

ha t Ph ill ips
, not the defe n d an t , b eat the vic tim; t hat Philli ps, not the defe ndant, instructed g angmembers to take Gre e n u ps tair s aft e r h e ha d b e e n b e ate n; a nd tha t Ph ill ips , n ot t

hede fe nd ant, de c ide d Gre e n’ s f ate be c a us e Phi lli ps a nd oth ers ass um ed G reen wou ld“pu t t he l aw i n [ P hi ll ip s’s ] bu si nes s o r [ Gr e e n] w ou ld g et the Vice

L ords to retaliate ag ainst us.”

On cr oss-examination, S hipp admitted that Shaun Washington
, a Ga ng ster Disciple f

rom Mit c he ll H e ig hts , h a d b e e n p re se nt a t th ea pa rt me nt o n Apr

il 3 0, 19 97 , alth ough he had fai le d to

m e n t i o nS h a

u nW a s h i n g t o ni nh i s M ay 2 7
, 1 9 9 7
, s t a t e m e n t t o th ep o l i c eo r

i nh i s d i r e c t

t e s t i m o n y. Shi pp te sti fi e d th at so meGa ng ster D isc ipl e s h a veg old te e th, tha

t th eGa ng ster D isc ipl esy

mbo ls inc lud e the

six- po int sta

r, the pit c hf

or k, the he a rt wi th w ing s, a

c ro wn , a “ de viltail, ” and

the wo rl d w ith

a sw or d p ie rc ingit. Shi pp c laime d th at he ha d n e ve r h e a

rd the phra se“ ta

ke him fi sh ing ” be fo re

Ap ri l 30, 1997, but he maintained he had believed the phrase meant they were to drive away and leave Green to make his own way home. Shipp admitted there had bee n no discussion at the park a bout whether

or no t th e y were to k ill Gre e n. Shi pp a lso a dmi tte d tha t he ha d be e n ac qu aint e d with Gre e n b e c a us e he had da ted Gre en’s sister. Shipp conc eded tha t he had been c harg ed with first deg ree murder after-9-

g iving the Ma

y 27, 1997, statement, and tha t the prosec ution had filed a notice of i n t en t t o s ee k

the de ath pe nalty

. Whe n a sk e d if he e xpe c te d any c on sid e ra tio n f ro m th epr os e c uti onin e xch ang efo r h is testimony , Shipp responded, “Y es, bec ause thesimple fact I ’m fac ing the dea th penalty .” When aske d to clarify , Shipp stated, “If it’s in the prog ress. If it’s in the will.” When defe nse counse l commented, “You’ re not up here te stifying f or y our health, a

re y ou, sir? ” Shipp responded, “ I ’m up here testifying to tell the truth on my

behalf and on beha

lf of the victim’s fa

mily .”

On re-direc t examination, Shipp confirme d that he had identified onl y one Ga ng ster Disciple, Kaos, who outra

nked the de fenda

nt, and Shipp said he did so beca use “Kaos had told on” him

. Shipp p o i n t ed o u tthat the def

endant, not Ka os, had take n him to a hotel and advised him how to prote ct himself. Shipp also claimed he ha d been afra id to identify

the defendant because the def endant wa s “not play ing w ith a full deck.” Shipp maintained he had tol d the truth at all times, including his May 27, 1997, statement, except for his failure to identify

the def endant.

On re -cr oss examination S hipp emphasized that he had implicated Kaos beca use “[e]very one knew that Ka os was a snitch.” Shipp concede d he had initially implicated and identified Philli ps, even though he had testified that Phill i p s an d t h e d efendant were “ kind of on the same le vel” in ter ms of authority . Shipp admitt ed he ha d never implicat ed t h e d ef

endant pr ior to testifying a

t trial and acknow ledg ed that he hope d to avoid the dea th penalty by testifying a g ainst the defe ndant.

Also testifying f

or the prose cution, Dr. Thomas Deering
, the fore nsic patholog ist and assistant Shelby County medical e x aminer who per formed G ree n’s autopsy , explained that Gree n had a shotg un wound and two g unshot wounds to the rig ht side of his he ad, a shotgun wound across his uppe r bac k, and a shotg un wound to his le ft buttock. The shotgun w ound to the rig ht side of Gre en’s he ad lac era ted his brain and f

rac tured the ba se of his skul l and would haveitself been f atal. Gunshot wound B , near Gre en’s r ight temple, a

lso f rac tured Gre en’s skull a

nd struck his br ain and was alone “a severe if not fatal wound.” Gunshot wound C beg an at Green’ s rig ht temple, fra cture d his skull, broke his jawbone

onthe ri g ht, tr a ve le d thro ug h th e ba c k pa rt of his ton g ue , a

nd inj ure d mu sc le s in

the ri g ht s ide of his neck. T he shotg un wound to Gre en’s upper bac k caus ed s u p er ficial scr aping and would not have produce d death in and of itself, althoug h it would have bee n painful. The shotg un wound to Gre en’s left buttock fr actured the lower par t of hi s back bone and his coc cy x and also lac era

ted his rec tum and bladder . Dr. De eringopined that the victim was alive when the va rious wounds were inflicted.

Dr. De eringclea

ned and rec onstructed the victim’s skull t o deter mine the order of the g unshot wounds. After

examining the re constructe d skull and considering the l evel of bleeding at ea ch wound, Dr. De eringdeter

mined that the shotg un wound to the rig ht side of Gre en’s he ad wa s inflicted first, that g un sh ot w ou nd

B wa s in fl ic te d s e c on d, and g un sh ot w ou nd

C wa s ne xt i nf

lic te d, in a lmo st t

hesame location as g unshot wound B. Althoug h he could not deter mine if the shotg un wounds to Gree n’s bac k and buttocks pre cede d the wounds to his head, Dr . Deering testified t hat t he shot g un wound t o Gre en’s buttocks had a g rea

t deal of a ssociated blee ding and would have been quite painful. Given the minimal associate d bleeding , Dr. De eringopined that Gre en had very littl e blood pre ssure a

nd was “in trouble” at the time Gre en wa s shot in the back.

On cr oss-examination, Dr. Deering agre e d th a t he had reporte d no phy sical evide nce of a severe beating

. On redire ct, Dr. Deering acknow ledg ed that Gre en’s he ad wa s so severe ly damag ed by

the g unshot wounds that phy sical evide nce of any beatingabout Gre en’s he ad may not have be en visible.Fo r purpo ses of cl ari t y , we wi l l co nsi st ent l y us e t he ref erence M acG reg. 4

-10- Nonethele ss, on re-c ross-examination, Dr. De eringadmitted that “an a v er a g e

- s iz e d

g u y” s tr ik ing“hard blows with a closed f

ist” to a person’ s head would result in visible injuries. Theprosec ution then rested its case.

Testify ing f irst for the defe nse, J ames L ee Whi te C arr adine, known as “Thug L ife,” admitted he had be en pre sent at t he Hurt Villag e apartment on the evening Gree n was kidnappe d and murdered. Carra dine maintained, howe ver, tha t he and I siah Triplett had remained upstairs with the B lack sisters for most of t he evening

. Although Carra dine i dentified several Gang ster Disciples who were a t Hurt Vi lla g e a pa rt me nt, hemaint aine d th e de fe nd ant h a d n ot b e e n pre se nt at the a pa rt me nt. Ca rr a din esaid he fi rst me t th e de fe nd ant a t th e She lby

Cou nty jail a nd did no t kn ow wh e ther t

hede fe nd ant w a s a Gang ster Disciple.

Carra dine explained that, althoug h a man known va riously as “G reg, ” “MacGreg ,” or “ Red Gre g ,” had bee n prese nt at the apartment in Hurt Villag e on the e vening of Gre en’s murder, the

4 defe ndant was not that man. A s to MacGreg ’s ra nk, Carra dine stated, “ I ’m just not familiar

. You kn o w, h e h ad t o p ra n k

. ” No n eth el es s , C ar ra d i n e ma i n t ai n edth at

P h i l l i p s o u t

ra n k ed“th at

M ac Gr eg” and that “K aos wa s the dude that wa s over all of i t.” Carra dine said the person he kne w as Mac Gre g had bee n prese nt at the apa rtment and a

rmed with a g un. He de scribed MacGreg as bald, with a lig ht mustache, very light complected, about 5' 6" or 5' 7" in he ight, with “a

bunch of ta

ttoos,” and “twe lve g old in h is m ou th ,” a “si x -p oin t st a r i n th eweb o f h is h and ,” ta tto os on his ne c k, bo dy , a

nd a rm s, including a

“GD” tattoo, a “Ma cGreg ” tattoo on his rig ht forea rm, and a “to the wor

ld blow” tattoo on his left arm. Car

radineconfirme d that he had told the police in a May 9, 1997, statement that Mac Gre g
was c hief of se curity

and wa s know as the “ Ex ecutioner .”

On cr oss-examination, the prosecution pointed out t h at C arradinehad testified similarly at Kevin Wilkins ’s trial, stating that he knew a person known as “B ig Folk” but tha t Kevin Wilki ns was not that person. C arr adine reluctantly admitted he had been a Gang ster Disciple but maintaine d that he had no le ader ship role or ra nk within the ga

ng

. Whil e C arr adine de nied par ticipating in the phy sical assault on Gre en, he rec alled see ing the victim kneeling beside the staircase , with Shipp and six others standing around him. Carra dine explained tha t Phillips, along with the men he kne w as Mac Gre g and BigFolk, were “ standing behind the six dudes that were a round Vernon,” talking on the te l ep h one. Carra dine re called Shipp had be en walking be tween thetwo g roups. Af t er Gr ee n was moved to a n upstairs bedroom, Car

radineheard someone telling Gre en “to shut up bef ore he g ot killed then.” Carra dine conf

irmed that Philli ps was the Hurt Villag e coordinator and Shipp the Hurt Villag e chie f of sec urity

and said that MacG

reg ranke d “somewhere around” two or three in the Memphis Gang ster Disciples.

After Carra dine testified, the de fenda nt display ed his person to the j ury

. The record ref lects he had no tattoos on his ch es t , n eck, or bac k, no “Mac Gre g ” or “ Gre g ” tattoo on his rig ht arm, no star tattoos on his hands, a

nd no tattoo of “to the world blow” on his le ft arm. The rec ord also ref lects that the de fe nd ant h a d o n his le ft a rm a ta tto o of “ tw o h e a

rt ’s int e rtwi ne d w ith

e a c h o ther, on ewi th t

hena me Sardie, onewith the name Samantha.” Also tattooed on his left ar m was the word “Red.” A tattoo on the def endant’ s rig ht arm wa s descr ibed as following in the rec ord; “a number one with what a ppear s-11-

to be a br ick of a wall with Mom and Annie on it.” Finally , the re cord refle cts that the def endant ha d six g old teeth on the bottom a nd four g old te eth on the top, for a total of ten. The le tters “G” “R” “ E” “G” appea

red on his four t o p go l d t eeth. The rec ord re flec ts there were no star s or “pitch f orks or any thing e lse on the tee th.”

Annie R obin s o n , th e d e f

e n d an t’ s mo th e r , a lo n g w it hN ic h o le Ro b in s o nan d

Pa tr ic ia A n ne Robinson, two of the defe ndant’s sisters, testified that the defendant never had tattoos or gold teeth as de sc ri be d b y

Ca rr a din e . T hede fe nd ant’ s mot her, a lon g wi th the de fe nd ant’ s f ri e nd s, Da nn y Willi ams and Ronald Dowe ll, testified that the defe ndant had ne ver be en a g angmember.

Whil e a dmi tti ng he ha d be e n at the Hu rt Vi lla g e a pa rt me nt on Ap ri l 30 , 1 99 7, Se pa c us Tr ipl e tt

no ne the le ss d e nie d b e inga me mber o f t

heGa ng ster D isc ipl e s. Ho we ve r, Phi lli ps dire c te d Tr ipl e tt t o “contr ol the door,” so Tr

iplett ha d answe red the door for “every body ” and kne w “who c ame in and w ho didn’t come in.” Tr

iplett said he had not see n the def endant a t the apartment and believed Philli ps was “in cha rg e.” O n cross-e x amination, Sepacus Tr iplett admitted he had lied to the police in a statement g iven on M ay 8, 1997, and that he had pleade d g uilty to fac ilitation i n connec tion with Green’ s murder.

Freder ico M ason t estified that, althoug h he was not a member of the Ga ng ster Disciples, hehad been pr esent at th e a

p a r tm e n t o n A p ril 3 0
, 1 9 9 7

. M a s o n h a d s e e n a ma n kn o w n a s “ M a c Gr e g ” a “coupleof times at Hurt Villag e,” but M as o n did not know if MacGreg was a Gang ster Disciple. Mason maintained the de fenda nt and Mac Gre g were not the sameman. Mason di d n o t see the d ef en d an t at th e a p art m en t o nAp ri l 3 0
, 1 9 9 7
, h a d n e v e r s ee nth e d ef en d an t at th e H u rt Vi l l age complex, and had first see n the defe ndant when shown a picture by a police de tective. Ma son did not know if Mac Gre g had been at NicholeBla ck’s a partment on Apr

il 30, 1997, because

he wa s “g oing upstairs and downstair s.” Mason kne w Kaos but said h e did not know if Ka os had bee n at the apar tment on April 30, 1997, but Mason had seen Phillips and Shipp di scussing Gre en’s f ate. When asked if he

saw a ny one else , Mason replied, “L ike I said, them the only peoples that I just knew, y ou kn ow .” On

c ro ss- e xami na

tio n, Ma so n a dmi tte d he le ft the a pa rt me nt at a pp ro ximate ly 10 p. m. a

nd did

no t r e tur n u nti l a pp ro ximate ly

3 a .m.

Ste ve n H ard in t e sti fi e d a lso a nda dmi tte d h e ha d p le a de d g uil ty to f a c ili ta tio n to e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated kidnapping in connec tion with Green’ s kidnapping and mu rd er

. Hardin arrive d at the

apa rt me nt b e tw e e n 5 :30 a nd6 p .m. on Ap ri l 30
, 19 97

. Ha rd in sa id S hip p c a lle d th e a id anda ssi st

m e e t i n g a n d m a n y p e o p l e arr i v e d w h o mH ar d i n h a d n e v e r b e f o r e s e e n

. H ar d i n “ v a g u e l y”

reme mbere d s o me o f th e p e o p le w h o arr iv e d f o r th e me e ti n g , a n d in p ar ti c u la r , h e r e me mb e red a

ma n k no wn a s Mac Gr e g be ing the re that nig ht. Ha rd in sa id Ma c Gr e g ha d tat too s on h is h a nd , a rm s, neck, a nd shoulder and ha d a nice ly trimmed “blondish bear d.” Ha rdin maintai n ed t h e def

endant was not “Ma cGr eg ,” and said at no time during the evening did Hardin observe the de fenda nt at the apartment. Hardin a dmitted that he had bee n “told to go upsta irs by Prentiss Phillips and lookout the wi nd ow a ndinf

or m th e m” if

a ny on e , th e po lic e , th e Vi c e L or ds , “ wh oe ve r t ri e d to c ome up to the apa rtment.” Ha

rdin stay ed at his u pstairs lookout post from 6:30 p.m unti l 12 or 1 a.m. On

cross-e x amination, Har din admitted that, after pleading guilty , he had f ear ed re veng e fr om other Gang ster Disciples inca

rce rate d with him and acknow ledg ed that his inc arc eration with other g ang members wa s a frighte ning situation.T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 4 (i)( 5 ), (7 ) (1 9 9 7 ). 5

-12- April Bla ck testified that, on the e vening of Apr i l 3 0
, 1997, she wa s held in an upstairs bedroom a t gunpoint by

members of the Gang ster Disciples. Bla ck acknow ledg ed her acquaintance

a nda sso c ia tio n w ith me mbe rs of the Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e s, inc lud ing Ka os , M a c Gr e g , a ndPhi lli ps

. She admitted MacG reg had been at the aid and assist meeting at her apartment, but maintained the defe ndant is not MacGr eg . Bla ck admitted she was serving a ten-y ear sentenc e in the Mississ ippi Depa rtment of Corre ction for a rmed robbe ry , but claimed she w as not incar cer ated with Gang ster Disciples from Me mphis. O n cross-e x amination Bla ck admitted her brother ha d been shot by Ga n gs t er D i s ci p l es i n t h e S h el b y C o u n t y j ai l
, b u ts h e d en i ed b ei n g af ra i d o f t h e ga n g, al t h o u gh admitting she w as “c oncerned.”

Hora ce Bla ck, April Bla ck’s brother, admitted he had been a member o f t h e G ang ster Di sc ipl e s f

or te n y e ars . H e a lso a dmi tte d kno wi ng the de fe nd a nt f ro m ja il, bu t said , to his kn ow le dg e , th e de fe nd a nt ha d ne ve r be e n a me mbe r of the Ga ng ste r Di sc ipl e s. Ho ra c e B la c k s a id he did not know Kaos, despite being a g ang member for ten y ear s. On cross–e x amination, Hora ce B la c k a dmi tte d tha t he pr e vio us ly ha d b e e n c on vic te d o f p os se ssi on of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta nc e wi th the intent to sell, manufac ture, or de liver, and a g g ravated robbe ry

.

Se rg e a nt Ric ha

rd Park e r, a

Me mph is p oli c e of

fi c e r w ho ha d b e e n a ssi g ne d to the Ga ng Ta sk For ce fo r f iv e y e ar s , te s ti f

ie d f o r th e d e f e n s e ab o u t g a n g tatt o o s

. Se r g e a n t P ark e r d e s c r ib e d the

re a dil y ide nti fi able ta tto os of

te n u se d b y

Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e s. He state d th e de fe nd a nt’ s tatto os c ou ld “p o s s ib ly ” b e g a n g tatt o o s , b u t h e c o u ld n o t r e a d il y id e n ti f y th e m a s s u c h

. H e in d ic a te d th e letter “E” of the defe ndant’s “RED” tattoo r esembled a Gang ster Disciple trade mark, “altho u gh i t was mis sin g the po st u nd e r i t.” He fu rthe r not ed th at g a ng me mbe rs of te n “ c a mou fl a g e ” the ir

ta tto os , and he pointed out that tattoos can be e asily chang ed. Serg eant Par

ker indicated that g ang members had b egu n to esche w tattoos to avoid detec tion and explained that gold tee th, common among Gang ster Disciples, c an be r emoved a nd chang ed. De fense counsel pointed out t h at wh en he initiallyshowed Serg eant Par ker photog raphs of

the def endant’ s tattoos, Serg eant Par ker opined that the def endant’ s tattoos we re not g ang -re lated. After speaking with the prosec uting attorney s in the ha ll o uts ide the c ou rt

ro om, Se rg e a nt Par

ke r “ c a me to the c on c lus ion that th e ta tto os c ou ld p os sib ly be g ang -re lated.”

Ba sed upon this proof

, the jury convicted the defe ndant of pre meditated first de g ree murder and espe cially

ag g ravated kidnapping , finding the def endant c riminally

responsible for

the conduc t of anothe r.
The trial pr ocee ded to the pena lty phase. To e stablish the two ag g ra vating circ umstances – the murder

was e specia lly

heinous, atroc ious or cruel i n that it involved torture or serious phy sical abuse be y ond that nece ssary to pr oduce death and the murder was committed during a kidnapping 5 – the prosec ution rel ied upon the proof prese nted during the g uilt phase of the tria l and re -ca lled Se rg e a nt Pep pe rs to the sta nd . Se rg e a nt P e pp e rs ide nti fi e d a ph oto g ra ph of the vic tim ’s bo dy

a s it appea red w hen discove red in Jessie Turner Park on the morning of May 1, 1997.D es pi t e r eve r s i ng t he defendan t ’ s convi ct i on and deat h s ent enc e, t he C our t of Cri mi nal Ap peal s cons i dere d 6
al l t he i s s ues r ai s ed by t he defendan t on appeal as wel l as t he i s s ues appel l at e c our t s ar e mandat ed by s t at ut e t o cons i der i n cap i t al cases

. T hus, t hi s case need not b e rema nd ed t o t he C o urt of C ri m i nal A p p eal s fo r f urt her consi d erat i o n, and we have co nsi d ered al l t he i ss ues r ai sed b y t he d efend ant as well a s the ma nd at o ry s t at ut o ry revi ew i ss ues and have

con cl u ded t h e con v i ct i on s a n d s en t en ce s s h ou l d be a f f i r med.

-13- A frien d o f t h e d efe ndant, his mother, and two of his sist ers testified in mitigation. They described him as a “ loving f ather ” of se ven children , rang ing in a g e fr om one to six y ear s old, a member of

a lar g e, close -knit family , a conc erne d and ca ring brother t o h i s fi ve sisters, and the y oung est of his mother’s six children and her only son. He a ttended chur ch. Althoug h he had no steady job, the defe ndant had be en tra ined as a we l der. B oth the defe ndant’s mother, a nd Debr a McNe ese , a

mi tig ation specia list wit h Probation Manag ement Gr oup, testified that the def endant ha d a lea rn i n g disabilityand had dr opped out of school in the ninth g rade . After leaving school, the defe ndant worke d with his fathe r at Eag le I ron Work. Testify ing in his own be half, the de fenda nt asked the jury

to spare his life so tha t he could see his children.

Upon find i n g t h at the prosec ution had proven both a g g ravating c ircumstance s bey ond a
rea sonable doubt and that the agg ravating circumstance s outweig hed any mitigating circ umstances bey ond a rea sonable doubt, the jury imposed a sentenc e of de ath. The de fenda nt appea led, and the Cou rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls re ve rs e d the de fe nd a nt’ s con vic tio ns a ndse nte nc e of de a th. Th e Sta te the re a ft e r f

ile d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ion to a

pp e a l. F or the fo llo wi ng re a so ns , w e dis a g re e wi th the Court of Criminal Appea ls and reinstate and af firm the defe ndant’s convictions and sente nce of death. 6

II. F ailure to Instruct on Lesser -Included O ff enses The Court of Criminal Appea ls held that the trial court erred b y failing to instruct the jury on fac ilitation and soli citation of first de g ree preme ditated murder and espe cially

ag g ravated kidnapping

. T h e Court of Criminal Appea ls theref ore r ever sed the de fenda nt’s convictions and

rema nded to the trial c ourt for a new tria l. I n this Court, t he State conc edes that, under the circ umstances of this c ase and the test enunc iated in State v. B urns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 466-67 (Tenn. 1999), fa cilitation and solicitation are lesse r-include d offe nses of fir st deg ree preme ditated murder

. Nonethele ss, the State maintains that the evidenc e in this case did not justify a jury instruction on

e ith e r o f the se le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e s.

I n State v. Burns, 6 S.W .3d at 466-67, this Court e x plained that an offe nse is lesser- included if: (a) all of its statutory elements a

re inc luded wi thin the statutory elements of the offe nse cha

rg ed; or

(b ) i t f a ils to m e e t th e de fi nit ion in p art (a) on ly in the re sp e c t th a t it c on ta ins a statutory element or

elements e stablishing

( 1 ) a d i f f e r e n tm e n t a l s t a t e i n d i c a t i n g a l e s s e r k i n d o f c u l p ab i l i t y; and/or-14- (2) a les s serio us ha

rm or ri sk of ha rm to the sa me pe rs on , p ro pe rt y or public intere st; or

(c) it consists of

(1 ) f a c ili ta tio n o f the of

fe ns e c ha rg e d or of a n off

e ns e that othe rw ise meets the de finition of lesser-inc luded offe nse in part ( a) or (b); or

(2) s o l i cit ation to commit the offense char g ed or a n offe nse that otherwise me ets the def

inition o f lesser -included of fense in part (a ) or (b)

.
"Whether or not a pa

rticular le sser-inc luded offe nse should be cha rg ed t o the jury

depends on whether proof in the record would support the l esser char g e." I d. at 468. This Court has adopte d a two-step inquiry

for de termining if the evide nce justifies a j u ry i n s t ru ction on a lesser -included offe nse. The trial court must first determine:

whether any evidenc e exists t hat re asonable minds co u l d acc ept as to the lesse rinclu d e d o f

f e n s e

. I n ma

k in g th is d e te r mi n a ti o n , th e tria l c o u r t mu s t v ie w the evidenc e libera lly

in the light most favor able to the ex istence of the lesser -included offe nse without making any judgme nts on the cre dibilit y of such e vidence . Second, the tr ia l court

mus t de te rm ine if

the e vid e nc e , v ie we d in thi s li g ht, is l e g a lly sufficie nt to support a conviction for the lesser- included off ense.

I d., at 469. Whether a n instruction is required de pends upon the e vidence , n o t t h e t h eo ry of the d e f e n s e o r th e St a te

. St a te v

. A ll e n , 6 9 S. W. 3 d 1 8 1
, 1 8 8 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 2 ) ; St a te v. Richmond, 90 S.W .3d 648, 660 (Tenn. 2002) . Apply ing the se principles, w e conc lude t hat the trial c ourt did not

err in failing to instruct on solicitation and facilitation.

A. Solicitation A per son may

be convic ted of solicitation if that person " by means of or al, written or elec tronic communica tion, directly or throug h another , inte n t i o n ally commands, re quests or hires another to commit a criminal offe nse . . . with the intent that the crimin al o ffense be c ommitt ed. . . ." T enn. Code Ann. § 39-12-102( a) (1997). Part (c) of the Burns test, which makes solicitation

a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e , a pp lie s “ to situ a tio ns in wh ic h a def e nd a nt atte mpt s to c omm it, or so lic its another to commit, either the crime char g ed or a lesser- included offe nse, but no proof exis ts of the

c omp le tio n o f the c ri me .” Sta te v. El y , 48 S.W.3 d 710 , 719 (T e nn . 200 1) ; See a lso Sta te v. Ma rc um, 109 S.W .3d 300, 303-04 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting t his principle and holding that the trial cour t did not

err in failing to instruc t on attempted rape wher e the evidenc e did not support an attempt but instead

su pp orte d o nly

the c omp le te d o ff

e ns e of ra pe or th e de fe nd a nt’ s c la im o f i nn oc e nc e ). As in Marc um, in this case , the evidenc e unmistakably estab lished either the c ompleted offe nses of murde rIn B u rn s this C o u rt ind ic a te d the trial c o u rt sh o u ld p ro v id e a ju ry in stru c tio n o n so licita tio n a t t h e ne w trial, 7

e v e n tho u g h the o ff

e n se ha d b e e n c o m p le te d . H o w e v e r, this p o rtio n o f B u rn s h a s b e e n c la rified in th e late r c a se s o f E ly and M arcum

. T hese cases p l ai nl y exp l ai n t hat i nst ruct i o ns are not requir ed on eit her s o l i ci t at i o n or at t em p t where t he evi dence cl ear l y es t abl i s hes comp l et i on of t he cha r ged of

fens e.

-15- and espe cially

ag g ravated kidnapping or the de fenda nt’s claim of innocenc e. Consequently , the trial court did not err

by failing to instruct the jury on solicitation. 7

B. Fac ilitation Part (c) (1) of

the B urns test clea

rly desig nates fa cilitation a l esser-included of fense of the char g ed off

ense. B urns, 6 S.W.3d at 467. Thus, facilitation is a lesser-inc luded offe nse of pr e me dit a te d mu rd e r a nde sp e c ia lly a g g ra vate d kid na pp ing

. Ha vin g de te rm ine d th a t f a c ili ta tio n is a lesser -included of

fense , we must next determine whethe r the e vidence in this case wa rra nted an instruction on fac ilitation.

Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 11 -4 03 (a ) ( 19 97 ), de fi ne s " fa c ili tatio n" a s f oll ow s: A per son is criminally

responsible for t h e fa cilitation of a fe lony if, knowing that another intend s t o co m mit a specific f elony , but without the intent required f or criminal re sponsibili ty

under § 39- 11-402(2) , the p er son knowing ly furnishes substantial assistance in the c ommissi on of the fe lony

. (Emphasis added.) Criminal r esponsibility require s “the intent to pr omote or assist the commission of the off ense.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-402 (1997). Significa ntly , fac ilitation requires the lac k of criminal responsibilit y intent. Thu s , fo r a re asonable jury to find the defe ndant g uiltyof fa c ili ta tio n o f f

ir st d e g re e pr e me dit a te d mu rd e r o r es pe c ia lly a g g ra vate d kidn app ing , the jury wo uld have t o co n cl u d e that the defenda nt, while lacking the intent to promote or assist the commission of ei t h er of

fense , knowing ly

furnished substantial a ssistance in the c ommissi on of pre meditated murder a nd espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping

. See id. § 39-11-403( a) (1997). This rec ord conta ins no evidenc e that reasonable minds could acc ept to support these c onclusions. As rec ounted in g reat detail above , with respec t to premeditated murde r, the evidenc e rea sonably supports only one of the following conclusions: (1) Robinson was not pre sent at t he apartment, was not involved in Green’ s murder or the Gang ster Disciples, a nd there fore is c ompletely innocent; (2) Robinson is innocent be c a us e , w hil e he g a ve or de rs , h e didno t or de r any on e to kill or kid na p G re e n; o r ( 3) Rob ins on is g uiltyby criminal responsibili ty beca use he ordere d other g ang members to kidnap a nd kill Green. Considering the evidenc e in the lig ht most favor able to the ex istence of the lesser -included of

fense
, the evidenc e does not support the notion that the defendant merely furnished substantial a ssistance i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f p re m ed i t at ed fi r s t d e g r e e m u rd eran d es p ec i al l y aggr av at ed k i d n ap p i n g, without intending to promote or a ssist t he commission of these of fense s.

The Court of Criminal Appe als opined that the “knowing ly furnishes substantial assistanc e” element of

fac ilitation of first deg ree murder w as supported by proof that the def

en d ant orde red others to take G ree n to a sec luded l ocation. Howeve r, as the State points out , the evidenc e indicate s that the def

endant told ot her ga ng members to take the victim “fishing .” Shipp testified that he had

never befor e hea

rd that instruction but believed it m eant ga ng members were to take the victim “way out somewhere out of the district, roug h him up a littl e bit by phy sical abuse , and let him g et bac k the best wa y

he could.” Acc epting this view of the proof , no rea sonable juror

could have found that-16-

the def endant knowing ly

furnished substantial a ssistance in t he commission of the murder . I ndeed,

un de r this vie w o f the pr oo f, Gr e e n’ s mur de r dir e c tly vio la te d the de fe nd a nt’ s instru c tio n. I t si mpl y defie s logic to conclude that the defendant, while not intending to aid or promote Gre en’s murde r,
ne ve rthe le ss o rd e re d o the r g a ng me mbe rs to t ake Gr e e n “ ou t of the dis tr ic t, ro ug h h im u p a lit tle bit by phy sical abuse , and let him g et back the best way he could,” knowing all along that these g ang members intende d to kill Green. Simplyput, no rea sonable jury could have conclude d from the evidenc e pre sented that the de fenda nt had the knowledg e re quired for f acilitation but lacked the intent require d for criminal responsibility

. We theref ore c onclude that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on fac ilitation t o commit premeditated murde r. See Ely , 48 S.W .3d at 724 (h old ing that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t er

r by faili ng to ins truc t fa c ili ta tio n as no re a so na ble jury c ou ld believe that, although the defe ndant was pr esent at the scene of the robbe ry , knew that the

a c c o m p l i c e i n t e n d e d t o c o m m i tr o b b e r y, a n d s u b s t a n t i a l l y a s s i s t e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e r o b b e r y, he “ne verthe less did not intend ‘ to pr omote or assist the commission of the offe nse. . .’” ); Burns, 6 S.W. 3d a t 47 1 (h old ing that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

in r e fu sin g to i ns truc t on fa c ili ta tio n b e c a us e
no rea sonable jury could conclude t hat the def endant ha d the knowledg e re quired for fac ilitation but lacke d the intent require d for c riminal responsibility ).

As to f a c ili ta tio n to c omm it e s p e c i a lly a g g ra vate d kidn app ing , th e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls

e xplai nedthat, a lth ou g h th e pr oo f e sta bli sh e d th e de fe nd a nt’ s d ir e c t pa rt ic ipatio n in ini tia lly kid na pp ing a ndbe a tin g Gr e e n a t th e apa rt me nt, a jury c ou ld ha ve c on c lud e d tha t the de fe nd a nt d id not intend the kidnapping be espe cially ag g ravated when he o rd ere d g ang members to take Gre en “fishing .” Ag ain, as e x plained above , from the e vidence prese nted, no re asonable jury could have conclude d that the def

endant ha d the knowledg e re quired for fac i l i t at i o n but lacked the intent require d for c riminal responsibility to commit espec ially ag g ravated ki dnapping . Given the pr oof pr e se nte d
, t h e d e f

e n d a n tw a s e i t h e r

g u i l t y b y v i r t u e o f c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

o r h e w a s i n n oc e nt. Th e re fo re , th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

in f a ili ng to i ns truc t th e jury on faci li tatio n o f e sp e c ia lly ag g ravated kidnapping . The Court of Criminal Appea ls’ s d ec i sion setting aside the def endant’ s convictions and re manding for a new tria l theref

ore is re verse d.

III. Jarvis Sh ipp Acc om plice Instruction The de fenda nt asserts that the tria l court er red by instructing the jury

they wer e to determine

a s a qu e sti on of

fa c t w he the r o r not Jar vis Shi pp wa s an ac c omp lic e to the c ri me . T he Sta te a sse rt s the def endant waived thi s issue by failing to object to the cha rg e g iven the jury . Alternatively , the Sta te arg ue s th a t a ny

e rr or wa s h arm less be c a us e Shi pp ’s te sti mon y wa s c or ro bo rate d a

bu nd a ntl y by J ames’s te stimonyand other evidenc e, as the Court of Criminal Appeals found.

When the fac ts conce rning a witness' s participation ar e cle ar a nd undisputed, the trial court determines as a matter of l aw whether the witness is an accomplice. Ripley v. State, 189 Tenn. 681, 6 8 7
, 2 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6
, 2 9 ( 1 9 5 0 ) ; S t a t e v

. P e rk i n s o n , 8 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d 1
, 7 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 2 )

. If the fa cts are disputed or sus ceptible to differ ent i nfer ence s, the j ury must decide a s a question of fa ct wh e the r th e w i t n e s s i s a n a c c o m p l i c e

. P e rk i n s o n , 8 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t 7

. T h e t e s t g e n e r a l l y ap p l ie d is wh e the r the wi tne ss c ou ld b e ind ic te d f or the sa me of

fe ns e c ha rg e d a g a ins t the de fe nd a nt. Mo nts v. State, 214 Tenn. 171, 191, 379 S.W.2d 34, 43 (1964).W e no t e i n t hi s regard t hat t he skul l w as no t int rod uced i nt o evi d ence and t herefo re was never gi ven t o t he jur y 8
f o r i nspecti o n.

T o est ab l i sh unf ai r prejudice, t he d efend ant po i nt s o ut that a juro r exp eri enced a m i grai ne head ache d uri ng D r. 9

D e e rin g tes tim o n y a n d w a s e x c u se d fro m th e j u ry a fter m e d ic a l p e rs o n n e l e x a m ine d h e r. T h e d e fen d a n t’s ass e rtio n is

w itho u t m e rit. W e a g re e w ith a n d se t o u t b e lo w the trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n o n this issu e

. I n r ega r d t o t he j ur or r ef er r ed t o by t he D ef

endan t , s he exper i enc ed a mi gr ai ne hea dache an d re ques t ed D ar vocet ( an ext r emel y powerf ul pai nk i l l er ava i l abl e onl y by pres cr i pt i on) for her pai n. T he r eques t ed

m ed i ci ne was unavai l ab l e t o t he C o urt , and af t er b ei ng exam i ned b y a d o ct o r who co nf i rme d t hat t he ju ro r d id ind e e d h a v e a m igr a ine
, the ju ro r wa s d ism isse d d u e to the fac t tha t the d o c to r sta te d it w o u ld
t ake ap p roximatel y t wo t o t hree hours f o r t he m i grai ne t o s ub si d e. T he jur o r i n no w ay, s hap e o r f o rm i n di ca t ed or i n an y way i mpl i ed t h at t h e s k u l l con t r i bu t ed t o t h e on s l au g h t of he r con di t i on

. T h e j u r or h a d o b v io u sly e x p e rie n c e d m igr a ine he a d a c h e s b e fo re , giv e n tha t she no rm a lly to o k D a r v o c e t t o

con t r ol t h es e h ea dac h es

. T h e D ef en dan t ha s of fer ed n o pr oof w h at s oev er t h at t h e demon s t r at i on of
t he skul l had any co nnect i o n t o t he jur o r’ s m i grai ne. T he D efend ant do es howeve r, m ake m uch o f t he f act t hat t hi s juror wrot e t he wo rd “pain” o n her no t ep ad
, and ass ert s t hat she hel d i t up f o r ot her j urors

-17- I n this case, the f

acts we re not disputed, and the trial court should hav e i n structed the jury to consider Shipp an ac complice a s a matter of law. Howe ver, the defe ndant fa iled to object to the trial court’ s instruction and thus waived the issue. Fur thermore , even c onsidering the merits of the iss ue , th e e rr or

is h armles s becaus e Jame s’ s te sti mon y a ndDr . D e e ri ng ’s te sti mon y su ff ic ie ntl y
corr oborate d Shipp’s description of the e vents so that the evidence is sufficie nt to support the jury ’s

ve rd ic t of fi rs t de g re e mur de r. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

IV . D ispl ay of Skul l an d Ad m iss ion of P hot og r aphs The State ne x t ch alleng es the Court of Criminal Appea ls’s conclusion that the trial c ourt

e rr e d b othin a llo wi ng the fo re ns ic pa tho log ist to u se the vic tim ’s c le a ne d a ndre c on str uc te d s ku ll when testifying a

bout t he victim’s injuries and in admitting into evide nce c erta in photogr aphs depicting the victim’s body . Whil e the State c oncede s that the Court of Criminal Appeals re cited the cor rec t standard of

appellate revie w, the State nonethe less maintains that the Court of Criminal Ap p e a ls f

a il e d to ap p ly

th e c o rr e c t s tan d ar d

. A c c o r d in g to th e St a te , r a th e r th a n deter mining whether the trial court abused its discretion, the intermediate appellate court indepe ndently assessed the pr op ri e ty

of us ing the skull a t tria l be fo re c on c lud ing the re wa s “ no need f or its introduction.” 8 The State a lso reli es upon several c ases in which this Court reje cted de fense challeng es to the admissi o n o f

a v ic ti m’ s s ku ll d u r in g a

mu r d e r tria l. Se e , e

. g

. , St a te v

. Pi k e , 9 7 8 S. W. 2 d 9 0 4
, 925 (Tenn. 1998) ; State v. Cazes, 875 S.W .2d 253, 263 (Tenn. 1994) ; State v. King, 718 S.W.2d 241, 250-51 (Te nn. 1986); State v. Morris, 641 S.W.2d 883, 888 (Tenn. 1982).

I n response , Robinson ar g ues that this Court’s prior decisions are not c ontrolling be cause , unlike the def

endants in those cas es , h e was charg ed with pre meditated first de g ree murder by

c ri min a l r e sp on sib ili ty

a ndwa s n ot a c c us e d o f a c tua lly inf lic tin g the fata l in

jurie s u po n th e vic tim

. Furthermore , the def

endant a rg ues that Dr. D eering’ s thoroug h and cle ar te stimonyrega rdi ng the victim’s injuries rende red the skull’s use unnece ssary . Although Robinson admits tha t Dr. De ering ’s
t e s t i m o n y a n d u s e o f t h e s ku l l t o e x p l a i n t h e o r d e r o f t h e g u n s h o t s c o rr o b o r a t e d S h i p p ’ s t e s t i m o n y, the de fe nd a nt no ne the le ss ma int a ins that the skull wa s no t re le va nt to “ a ny dis pu te d iss ue in the g uil t phase” of his trial. The de fenda nt argues that, in light of the g reat dang er of unfair pr ejudice, the
t r i a l c o u r te rr e d b y a l l o w i n g D r

. D e e r i n g t o t e s t i f y a n d d i s p l a y t h e s ku l l d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y. 9to se e , an d tha t th is a c ti o n p re ju d ic e d the ju ry. T h e a c tio n s o f t h is ju ro r w e re m a d e kn o w n to this C our t dur i ng t r i al

. T hi s Co ur t ques t i oned t wo ju r ors i n r ega r d t o t hi s i nci dent

. O ne j ur or s t at ed t hat sh e ha d no t se e n a n y su c h no te . A n o the r j u ro r te stif ie d tha t s h e h a d se e n it , statin g , “It sa id , p a in. P

- A

- I- N

. H er head was hur t i ng real ba d

. A nd s he jus t wrote p ai n o n i t and hel d i t up.” I t i s o b vi o us t o t hi s C o urt t hat t he wo rd p ai n was i n ref erence t o t he m i grai ne, and t hat t he m em b ers o f t he jur y who

s aw t h i s n ot e al s o u n der s t ood t h e r ef er en ce

. Acc or di n g l y , t h i s Cour t f i n ds t h at t h e pr obat i v e v al u e of the sk u ll w a s n o t o u tw e igh e d b y the d a n g e r o f un fair p re ju d ic e . T h is issu e is with o u t m e rit.

-18- Admission of evidence is entrusted t o t h e sound di scre tion of the trial court, and a tria l court’s r uling on evidence will be dis turbed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. See State v. DuB ose, 953 S.W .2d 649, 652 (Tenn. 1997). A trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be re verse d on appea l unless the court “ applied an inc orre ct leg al standard, or re ache d a dec ision which is aga i n s t l og ic or re asoning that cause d an injustice to the party complaining .” State v. Sc hu c k, 95 3 S. W.2 d 6 62 , 6 69 (T e nn . 1 99 7)

. Whe n d e te rm ini ng a dmi ssi bil ity , a tr ia l c ou rt mus t f ir st decide if the evide nce is re levant. Te nn. R. Evid. 402 (“All rele vant evidenc e is admissible except as provided by

the Constitut ion of the United States, the Constit ution of Tenne ssee, these rule s or other rule s or laws of g ener al application in the courts of Te nnessee . Evidencewhich is not releva nt is not admissi ble.”) ; State v

. J ames, 81 S.W.3d 751, 757 (Tenn. 2002). Evide nce “ having any tendenc y to make the exis tence of any fac t that is of consequence to the determination of the ac tion more proba

ble or less proba

ble than it would be without the evidenc e” is re levant evidence. T enn. R. Evid. 401. After

a court concludes e vidence is releva nt, the court must then weig h the proba tive

va lue of the e vid e nc e a g a ins t th e da ng e r the e vid e nc e wi ll u nf a ir ly pr e jud ic e the de fe nd a nt at tria l. Relevant e vidence should be excluded if the court det er m i n es t h at t he probative value of the evidenc e “is substantially outweig hed by

it s d an ger o f unfair prejudice .” Te nn. R. Evid. 403 (empha sis added). This Court pre viouslyhas empha siz ed:

Rule 403 is a rule of admissibilit y , and it place s a hea vy burden on the party

seeking
to ex cl u d e t h e evide nce. E x cluding rele vant evidenc e under this rule is an extraordinary

reme dy that should be used sparingly and per sons seeking to exclude otherwise a dmissibl e and r eleva nt evidence have a signific ant burde n of per suasion.

J ames, 81 S.W.3d at 757-58 (interna l quotations and citations omitt ed).

Apply ing the se principles, w e conc lude that the trial c ourt did not abuse i t s d i s cr et i on by

a llo wi ng Dr . D e e ri ng to t e st if y and di spla y

the skull to e xpla in h is t e sti mon y . Ind e e d, no thi ng in this recor d i n d i ca t es that the trial c ourt “a pplied an incor

rec t leg al standar d, or re ache d a dec ision which is ag ainst logic or re asoning that cause d an injustice to the party complaining .”

I n a jury -o ut h e ari ng the tr ia l c ou rt c are fu lly c on si de re d th e de fe ns e ob je c tio ns , c or

re c tly

su mma ri zed g ov e rn ing la w re g ard ing the pr os e c uti on ’s ri g ht to pr ov e its c a se, and accu rate ly conclude d that this right ma y not be fore closed by a def endant’ s char acte rization of the proof a s undisputed or by

a def endant’ s offe r to stipulate or conc ede c erta in fac tual issues. See James, 81 S.W. 3da t 76 1; S ta te v

. W est , 7 67 S.W. 2d38 7, 39 4 ( Te nn . 1 98 9) (h old ing that th e tr ia l ju dg e did not err by

ref using to a cce pt defe ndant' s offe r to stipulate the identi t y o f all property when the defe ndant made the o ffe r in an e ffort to eliminate highly emotional and pre

judicial testimony ); Ki ng, 71 8 S.W.2 d a t 25 0- 51 (h old ing that th e vic tim ’s skull a nd skull fr a g me nts we re pr op e rl yE xhi b i t 8 d ep i ct s t he i njury t o t he vi ct i m ’ s b ut t o cks. E xhi b i t 9 d ep i ct s t he i njury t o t he vi ct i m ’ s b ack. 10

-19- a dmi tte d e ve n th ou g h th e de fe nd a nt s tip ulate d p ri or to t ri a l th a t th e vic tim ' s d e a th r e su lte d fr om a shot in the back of the head from a high- power ed rifle) . After acknow ledg ing that releva nt evidence may be excluded if its probative va lue is substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, the tr ia l c ou rt

sp e c if ic a lly c on c lud e d that the pr ob a tiv e va lue of Dr

. De e ri ng ’s te sti mon y a nd his us e of the sk u l l t o ex plain his testimonyoutweig hed the da ng er of unfair pr ejudice. T he trial c ourt state d: “ I c a n’ t th ink

of a be tte r w a y

to dis play a nd sh ow the inj urie s th a n b y us e of the a c tua l sk

ull

. I ’m not sure that y ou could recre ate that sufficie nt to do what I anticipate the doctor’s g oing to do ba se d o n w ha t I

he ardhim

do la st t ime .” L a te r in the pr oc e e din g wh ile ru lin g up on the a dmi ssi bil ity of c e rt a in p ho tog ra

ph s, thetr ia l c ou rt

no te d th a t th e skul l was les s g ra ph ic a nda

be tte r a id “ to de mon str a te the inj ur ie s” than s ome of the ph oto graphs

. Defe ns e c ou ns e l app are ntl y a g re e d w ith this assessment, stating, “ [a] nd with that skull y ou don’t have the b l o o d an d t he g ore that y ou see in tho se ph oto g ra

ph s. [Dr . D e e ri ng ] mor e than a de qu a te ly de mon str a te d to thi s e nti re c ou rt ro om i n
a very aca demic, prof

essional fa shion.”

Furthermore , as the de fenda nt corre ctly admits, Dr. Dee ring ’s testimony about the orde r of the g unshots corrobor ated Shipp’s testimony . I ndeed, it wa s Shipp’s testim ony about the orde r of the g unshots that Dr. Dee ring u s ed t h e skull to clarify and explain. Such corrobor ating evidenc e clea rly was re levant bec ause it wa s nece ssary to the prosec ution’s case . This Court repeatedly has held that a c onviction ma y not be based solely upon the uncorr oborate d testimony of an ac complice to the offe nse. See State v. B ane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 419 (Tenn. 2001) ; State v. Stout , 46 S.W .3d 689, 696-97 (Te nn.2001); State v. Big bee, 885 S.W .2d 797, 803 (Tenn.1994) . Evidence corr oborating

an ac complice’ s testimony , su ch as Dr . Dee ring ’s testimony , there fore certainly qualifies as “evide nce hav ing a ny

tendenc y to make the e x istence of any fac t that is of conseque nce to the determination of the ac tion more probable .” Te nn. R. Evid. 401. The defe ndant bore the hea vy burden of establishing that the dang er of unfair pr ejudice f

rom Dr. De ering ’s testimony and use of the skull substantiallyoutw ei ghed its probative va lue. The tria l court did not abuse its discre tion by conc l uding that the defe ndant fa iled to meet this burden. The Court of Criminal Appeals’s decision to the contra

ry is rever sed.

T h e State also c halleng es the Court of Criminal Appea ls’s conclusion that the trial c ourt

err ed by admitting Ex hibit 10, a post-mortem photogr aph of the victim’s right fore head. Aga in,

a dmi ssi on of evi den c e is e ntr us te d to the so un d d isc re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt , a ndapp e llate c ou rt s should not rever se a tria l court’s a dmissibi litydecision abse nt a showing o f abuse of discretion. Her e ag ain, no abuse of discre tion has been shown. T he trial court found, and the Court of Criminal Ap pe a ls a g re e d, that th e ph oto g ra ph in que sti on , E xhibi t 10 , a lon g wi th t wo oth e r p ho tog ra ph s, Ex hibits 8 and 9, wer e re levant to show preme ditation, the cause of death, and the victim’s location 10 and body position, and also were nece ssar y t o i l l ustrate the te stimonyof many of the state’ s witnesses. I mmediately

upon admission of the photog raphs, the trial court g ave the jury a limiting instruction and cautioned the jury ag ainst improperly

using the photogr aphs. The trial court did not
act a s a rubbe r stamp and admit eve ry photogr aph the pr osecution prof fer ed. As pre viouslystated, the trial court excluded certain autopsy photogr aphs, noting their ad m i s s i o n was not nec essary beca use Dr. D e e r in g h a d b e e n a ll o w e d to u s e th e v ic ti m’ s s ku ll a s a d e mo n s tr a ti v e a id

. T h e trial court did not apply an incorre ct leg al standard. Tenne ssee courts follow a policy of libera lityin the-20-

admission of photogr aphs in both c ivil and criminal ca ses. See State v. B anks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn. 1978) . Photogra

phs of a corpse are g ener ally admissible in murder prosecutions i f they are
re le v a n t t o th e is s u e s a t t r ia l. I d

. a t 9 5 0

- 5 1

. T h e tria l c o u r t’ s d e te r mi n a ti o n th a t th e p h o tog raphs

wer e rel evant to is sues at trial is not illogica l nor irra tional and did not cause an injustice to the defe ndant. As the t rial court found, t he photogra phs wer e relevant to sever al i ssues, illustrated and supplemented the te stimonyof Dr. D eering, and reve aled the brutality of t he attack and the ext ent of fo rc e us e d a g a ins t th e vic tim . Se e Sta te v

. S mi th
, 868 S. W.2 d 5 61 , 5 76 (T e nn . 1 99 3) . F or a ll the se re a so ns , w e c on clude that th e tr ia l c ou rt didno t e rr

by a dmi tti ng Exhi bit s 8 , 9 , a nd10 int o evidenc e. The Court of Criminal Appeals’s de cision to the contrary is rever sed.

V. Se r ge ant

As ht on’ s Te st im ony Rely ing upon Cra wford v. Washing ton, __ U.S. __, 124 S. C t. 1354 (2004), defense counsel compl a in s th a t S e r g e a n t A s h to n ’ s te s ti mo n y r e g ar d in g Sh a u n Wa s h in g to n ’ s id e n ti f ic a ti o n o f the defe ndant constituted inadmissible he arsa y that violated his c onstitut ional rig ht to confr o n t t he witnesses ag ainst him. W e ag ree with the C o u rt o f C riminal Appea ls and the trial court that the defe ndant elicited this hea rsay ev i d en ce an d cannot c omplain now about its introduction. W hen defe nse counsel cross-e x amined S erg eant Ashton about hi s prepa ration of photo spread “G G,” the following exchang e occ urre d.

Q: And as c ase c oordinator during y our investigation a re y ou awa

re of any other individuals that were interviewed that identified “GG ,” number six
, as being there ? A: Yes, sir. Q: And who would that be, sir? A: Right off

hand I wouldn’t know. I ’d have to look at my case

. Q : O k a y. W o u l d yo u p l e a s e –d o yo u h a v e t h a ts o m e w h e r e n e ar b y? A: I believe I ’ve g ot a copy

of it in myoffice

. Q: Ok a y . Co uldy ou g o o btain that? A: I t’ d ta

ke me a fe w m ome nts

. Q: Okay . Could y ou do that, sir? TH E CO UR T: Wha t are y ou a sk ing Mr . O zme nt? MR. OZ MENT: You honor, I ’m asking hi m t o o b t ain whatever other identifica tions

w e r e ma d e o f

“ G G ” s ix.

The c ourt then re ce s s ed for the eve ning, and when c ross-examination resumed the ne x t day , the following exchang e occ urre d betwee n defe nse counse l and Serg eant Ashton.

Q: Se rg e a nt A sh ton , y e ste rd a y wh e n w e le ft of

f we we re ta lki ng abo ut the ph oto sp re a d a ndthe pe op le that had ide nti fi e d p e op le in the ph oto sp re a d, c or re c t? A: Yes, sir. Q: Part ic ula

rl y ph oto sp re a d “ GG ,” c or

re c t? A: Yes, sir. Q: And the last question I left on wa s who else identifie d someone out of photo spre ad

“ GG .” Ha ve y ou ha d a n o pp ortun ity to c he c k y ou r r e c or ds on that? A: The be st I

could determine it was Christopher L ewis and Shaun Washing ton.-21-

Q: Okay . So out o f al l t h e people that – whe n they wer e shown this photo spread by office rs in y our depa

rtment that identified Gr eg ory Robinson during the c ourse of y our investig ation the only two wer e Christopher James and Shaun L ewis, corr ect – Sh a un L e wi s Jam e s? A: Th a t’ s w ha t w e ’v e g ot i n th e ir sta te me nts , c or

re c t.

On re -direc t, Serg eant Ashton testified that, wh i l e g iving a statement on June 13, 1997, S h au n W a s h i n gt o n l o o k ed at p h o t o gra p h i c a rr ay“G G” an d i d en t i fi ed t h e d ef en d an tas M ac Gr eg. When asked a

bout Washington’s demea nor at the time, Ser g eant Ashton responde d, “He was ve ry
s u r e o f h i m s e l f

. ” T h e d e f

e n d a n td i d n o ti n t e rp o s e a n o b j e c t i o n t o S e r g e a n tA s h t o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y.

Whil e the d ef

en d ant may

very well be c orre ct that both Crawf ord and Te nnessee Rule of Evidence Rule 803(1.1) ba r hea rsay statements of identification if the decla rant does not te stify

at tr ia l, n e ith e r C rawfor d n or Rul e 80 3( 1. 1) is d isp os iti ve in this c a se be c a us e the de fe nd a nt h ims e lf bo th e lic ite d a ndop e ne d th e do or to the te sti mon y

he no w a ssi g ns a s e rr or . U nd e r the se
c ir c ums ta nc e s, the de fe nd a nt i s n ot e nti tle d to re lie f. I nd e e d, it i s w e ll- se tt led th at a li tig a nt " wi ll not be permitted to take advanta g e of err ors which he himself committed, or invited, or induce d the trial court to commi t , o r whi ch we re the natura l conseque nce of his own neg lect or misconduc t." Norris v. Richar ds, 193 Tenn. 450, 246 S.W.2d 81, 85 (1952); see also State v. Smit h, 24 S.W .3d 274, 279-80 (Te nn. 2000); Tenn. R. App. P

. 36(a)

. Thus, the defendant is not entitled to relief on thi s c la im.

VI. F ailure to De clare a Mistrial The de fenda nt further maintains that the trial court erre d in deny ing his motion for a mistrial g i v e n t h e p r o s e c u t o r i a l m i s c o n d u c ti n p r e s e n t i n g N i c h o l e B l a c k ’ s t e s t i m o n y

. D u r i n g i t s r e b u t t a l, the prosecution called Nichole Black, one of t he si sters held in the apartment on the ni g ht of Ve rnon Gr e e n’ s mu rd e r. B la c k te stifi ed th at th e de fe nd a nt h a d b e e n inthe apa rt me nt o n th e nig ht i n qu e sti on . O n r e dir e c t e xami na tio n, the pr os e c uto r h a nd e d B la c k a ph oto g ra ph a nd a sk e d if s he c ou ld identify the per son in the photogr aph. De fense counsel objected to the identification, and the trial court he ld a jury -out hea

ring . Ultimate l y , the trial court excluded Blac k’s testimony and orde red it entirely stricken f rom the re cord be cause the prosec ution had failed to inform defense c ounsel that Bla ck had made a prior identification of the defe ndant. Althoug h the trial court denied the d e f e n d a n t ’ s r e q u e s tf

o r a m i s tr i a l
, t h e tr i a l c o u r ti n s tru c t e d t h e j u r y t o d i s r e g ar d B l a c k ’ s t e s t i m o n y.

The de cision o f wh et h er t o g rant or de ny a motion for a mistrial re sts within t he sound dis c re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt . A mis tr ial sh ou ld be de c lare d o nly up on a sh ow ing of

ma nif e st

nece ssity . State v. Say lor, 117 S.W .3d 239, 250-51 (Te nn. 2003). “In other wor ds, a mistrial is an appropriate re medy

when a trial ca nnot continue, or a miscarriag e of justi ce would result i f i t did.” Sta te v. L a nd , 34 S.W.3 d 516 , 527 (T e nn . Crim . App . 200 0) . A pp e llate c ou rt s sh ou ld n ot r e ve rs e a trial c ourt' s decision denying a re q u es t for a

mistrial absent a c lear

showing that the trial court abused its discre tion. St ate v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 279 (Tenn. 2002).

The rec ord in this case supports the trial court’s decision and demonstrates no ab u s e of dis c re tio n. Ni c ho le B la c k te sti fi e d th a t e ve n though th e powe r w a s o ut i n h e r a pa rt me nt o n A pr il 30, 1997, she had obse rved a man for ap p rox imately

thirty seconds by

the light of

a small pocke tT he ap p ea l i n thi s ca se ha s b ee n d elayed b ec au se t he rec o rd wa s l o st an d ha d t o b e re co nstructed an d b ec au se 11

u n oppos ed mot i on s r equ es t i n g e x t en s i on s h av e bee n g r an t ed.

-22- pag er he ld near

her f ace and that the man in the photog raph “l o oked like” the man she obser ved. Ni c ho le B la c k h a d ju st p re vio us ly te st if ied that no on e in the c ou rt ro om, inc lud ing the de fe nd a nt,

wa s at h e r a

pa rt me nt the nig ht o f G re e n’ s a bd uc tio n a ndmur de r. Vi e wi ng it a s a wh ole , N ic ho le Bla ck’s testimony

was unc erta in and vag ue. The trial judg e twice instr u ct ed the jury to disreg ard her te stimonyin its entirety . J urors a re pr esumed to follow the instructions of the c ourt. Reid, 91 S.W . 3d at 279; Stout, 46 S .W.3d at 715; S tate v. Willi ams, 977 S.W .2d 101, 106 (Tenn.1998)

. Un d ert h es e c i rc u m s t an ce s , t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n b y d en y i n g t h e d ef

en d an t 's

re qu e st f or a mis tr ia l. T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

VII. Due P roce ss Violation: In consistent Theories & Evidence I n his October 2000 motion for a new tria l, the defe ndant allege d his Due Process rig hts had been violate d beca

use t he theory of guilt prese nted by the prosecution at the Octobe r 1999 trial of co-de fenda nt Phil lips was fundame ntally inconsistent with and inhere ntly contra dictory to evidence and ar g ument prese nted by the prosec ution at his Nov em b er 1 998 trial. The trial judg e who 11 presided at the various trials and ple a colloquies re lated to this murder re ject ed t h e def

endant’ s claim. The tria l court noted that a lthough “ the evidenc e did not absolutely establish the identity of
t h e l ea d erat t h i s m ee t i n g, t h er e w as am p l e e v i d en ce t h at t h e D ef en d an twa s a l ea d erat t h at m ee t i n g. The fa ct that Prentiss Phil lips, a co-de fenda nt was also identified as a leader at this meeting doe s not rende r the finding that this Defendant was a le ader invalid.”

The de fenda nt rene wed his Due Process c laim in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Afte r announcing that the claim wa s a question of fir st impression in Tennessee , the C o u rt o f C riminal App e a ls a d o p te d th e a n a ly s is o f th e U n it e d St a te s Co u r t o f A p p e a ls in Sm ith v

. G o o s e , 205 F.3d 1045, 1052 (8th Cir. 2000). Consist ent wit h the Ei g hth Circuit’s approa ch, the Court of Criminal Appea ls explained that, in separ ate trials ag ainst co-de fenda nts for the sa me crime, the prosec ution violat es Du e P rocess by pursuing fac tually

contra dictory

theories that a

re at the core of the pr os e c uti on ’s c a se . T he int e rm e diate app e llate c ou rt e xpla ine d th a t to ob ta in rel ie f u nd e r this

app ro ach, a def

e nd a nt mus t e sta

bli sh no t on ly

a “ c or e ” inc on sis te nc y , b ut a lso a re a so na ble l i k e l i h o o d t h a tt h e o u t c o m e o f t h e t r i a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n tab s e n tt h e i n c o n s i s t e n c y. Apply ing this test, the interme diate appel l at e court found that, during the sepa rate trials of the defe ndant and c o-def

endant Phillips, t he prose cution “pre sented some proof and arg uments which

wer e inconsistent, contra dictory , and fa ctually irrec oncilable r eg arding the re lative ra nk of the defe ndant and Phillips.” The Court of Criminal Appeals nonethe less conclude d that the def endant had fa iled to establish a re asonable likelihood that abs en t t h ese pr osecutoria l inconsistencies the jury ’s ve rd ic t in the g uil t ph a se wo uldhav e been diff e re nt. Ho we ve r, fi nd ing a re a so na ble likelihood that the jury would not have imposed a sentenc e of de ath abse nt the inconsistencies, the Court of Criminal Appeals conc luded that the defe ndant’s sente nce of death should be r ever sed on this ground a lone.

I n th is C ou rt , th e Sta te ini ti all y argues that th e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls e rr e d in

rec og nizi ng an indepe ndent Due Process bar to the prosec ution’s r eliance and pursuit of inconsistentSe e, e. g. , G i gl i o v. U ni t ed Stat es, 40 5 U

. S. 15 0
, 15 3

- 5 4 (19 7 2 ). 12

H av i ng so co nc l ud ed
, w e n ee d no t an d d o no t co nsid er the S t ate’s asse rti o n that, ev en i f such D ue P ro ce ss 13
cl ai m s exi st , s uch cl ai m s shoul d be rai sed i n a po st

- co nvi ct i o n pe t i t i o n not o n ap p eal and t he Stat e’ s ass ert i o n t hat t he C o u rt o f C rim ina l A p p e a ls e rr e d in ad o p ting a n d a p p lying the a n a lyti c a l fra m e w o rk a rtic u la te d b y the E igh th C ir c u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. H o w e v e r, b a se d u p o n o u r find ing , w e r eje c t th e d e fen d a n t’s a sse rtio n th a t t h e p ro se c u tio n faile d to di s cl ose af

f i r mat i ve exc ul pat ory ev i dence t hat P hi l l i ps was t he highe st ran ki ng ga ng memb er an d t hat P hi l l i ps was ul t i m at el y res p o nsi b l e fo r t he m urder.

-23- the or ies at se pa

rate tr ia ls i nv olv ing the sa me c ri me . T he Sta te c on c e de s th a t a pr os e c uto r c le arl y deprive s a defen d an t o f Due Proc ess by knowing ly

using f alse e vidence or ar g ument to obtain a conviction or sente nce. Ho we v er , citing c ases f rom other jurisdictions, the State points out that 12 the law is less cle ar a s to w hether Due Process prec ludes a prosec utor’s use of fa ctually inconsistent
or contra dictory theories whe re the re is no known f alsity . See, e.g ., People v. Sakarias, 995 P.2d 152, 174 (Cal. 2000) (“ L ess clea r is whether , kno wi ng falsity aside, a prosec utor overste ps constitutional li mits byasserting, in se parate trials of differ ent defe ndants, fac tually inconsistent or
contra dict o ry theories of criminal eve nts.”) The State also maintains that this Court need not definitively

clarify the law in this case bec ause the prosec ution neither pursue d inconsistent theories nor pre sented c ontradictory evidenc e at these separ ate tria ls.

I n contra st, the defe ndant arg ues t hat t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls corre ctly rec og nized the Due Proc ess claim, appr opriately adopted the E ighth Circuit’s a n al y s i s of such c laims, and

acc urate ly

found a D ue Proce ss violation in t his case. N onetheless, the d ef en d an t challeng es the Court of Criminal Appeals’s c onclusion that the Due Pro ce s s violation did not affec t the jury ’s verdic t at the g uilt phase of his trial.

Having thoroug hly

revie wed the de fenda nt’s extensive trial rec ord, t he supplementa l rec ord

c on sis tin g of

tr a ns c ri pts fr om the se pa rate tr ia ls o r p le a

c oll oq uie s o f co-defe nda nts An ton io Jac ks on , Pr e nti ss P hil lip s, Jar vis Shi pp , a ndKe vin Wilkins , a ndthe ve ry le ng thy app e llate br ie fs
, we a re n o t persua ded the pr osecution pursue d inconsistent theories or of fer ed contr adictory

proof

a t th e se pa

rate tr ia ls o f the se c o- de fe nd a nts

. 13

As previously

detailed, the pr osecution off ere d proof at the defendant’s trial to establish that the def endant, a s chief of security
, ranke d third in the city -wide hie rar chy of the Memphis Ga ng ster Di sc ipl e s. Witn e sse s te sti fi e d th e de fe nd a nt o rd e re d o the r g a ng me mbe rs to “ sn a tc h u p” the vic tim
, and that the de fenda nt himself beat the victim at the ap ar t m en t

. Proof also showed that the defe ndant orde red othe rs to take the vic tim upst airs and de tain him. W itnesses testifi ed t h at t he de fe nd a nt o rd e re d Wilkins a nd Phi lli ps to se le c t g a ng me mbe rs to take the vic tim “ fi sh ing .” B ut, the jury also hea rd proof to show that Phil lips was coordinator for the Hu rt Villag e Ga ng ster Disciples. When asked w ho had the hig her r an k
, P h i l l i ps or the def endant, Shipp indicated the defe ndant ranke d highe r, but Shipp emphasized that the murder occur red on Phillips’s “turf” in Hurt V i l l a g e a n d t h a tP h i l l i p s a n d t h e d e f e n d a n tw e r e “ k i n d o f o n t h e s a m e l e v e l ” i n t e r m s o f a u t h o r i t y. J ames wa s not asked about the defe ndant’s rank, did not attribute a rank to the defe ndant, and stated he ha d ne ve r se e n the de fe nd a nt be fo re Ap ri l 30
, 19 97

. Ho we ve r, Jame s te sti fi e d th a t Ph ill ips he ld the r a n k o f c o o r d in a to r

w ith in th e H u r t V il la g e G a n g s te r D is c ip le s a n d it

w a s Ph il li p s w h o m the victim asked t o stop the assault. Moreove r defense counsel emphasized throug h cross-e x amination-24-

that Shipp and other prose cution witnesses had initially g iven statements to the police implicating Phill ips as the ra nking G ang ster Disci p l e re sponsible for the or ders that r esulted in the victim’s

mur de r. I nd e e d, bo th Jame s a ndShi pp we re c los e ly qu e sti on e d a

bo ut the ir failu re to i nit ia lly imp lic a te the de fe nd a nt, a nd in pa rt ic ula r, de fe ns e c ou ns e l e mph a size d th a t Sh ipp didno t impli c a te or mention the def

endant in his initial statement to the police but ha d instead named a nd implicated Phill ips.

Both Shipp’s a nd J ames’s testimony convey ed Phill ips’s leade rship role in Gree n’s kidnapping and murde r. Testimony indicated that Phillips announced the H urt Vi l l age Gang ster Disciples wer e g oing to r etaliate a g ainst the Vice L ords and step up the violence to a nother level and that Phill ips and S hipp called the aid and assist meeting

. Testimony also showed that P hillips posted g ang members a s lookouts at the door of the a partment a nd in an upstairs bedr oom, that Ph i l l i ps
acc used the victim of being a lookout for the V ice L ords, and that the vic tim asked Phill ips, rather than the def

endant, to “te ll them folks to st op.” F urthermor e, the testimony indicated that Phillips

announce d J ames would be punished for f ailing to a id S h i p p i n t h e fi g ht with the Vice L ords and

se le c te d g a ng me mbe rs to i nf lic t the pu nis hme nt. I n ad dit ion the re wa s p ro of that Ph ill ips me t w ith the def endant a nd Kaos. A defense witness said he heard P hillips and S hipp discussing Gr een’ s fate; and testimony

indic ated that Phillips, at the defendant’s direc tion, selected thre e of the g ang members who r emoved Gr een f rom the apa

rtment. Fina lly , there was testim ony that Phill ips

escorted J ames home a nd told Shi pp to take “a six day vacation.”

At Phi lli ps ’s su bs e qu e nt t

ri a l th e Sta te arg ue d a ndpr e se nte d e vid e nc e to s ho w that Ph ill ips
, as coor dinator, wa s the ranking member of the Hurt Villag e Ga ng ster Disciples, c alled the aid and assi s t m eeting , and g ave or ders to other s during the meeting . There was testimony that Phill ips reported the victim was outside and that Phil lips stated the victim would hav e t o be killed. The proof showe d that Phill ips picked other g ang members, including his number two man S hipp, to be part of the g roup that re moved Gre en fr om the apartmen t an d killed him. However , the proof at Phi lli ps ’s tr ia l a lso sh ow e d that the de fe nd a nt, a ns we ri ng Phi lli ps ’s c a ll, a tte nd e d th e a id anda ssi st

mee t i n g, order ed other s to “snatch up” the victim, met with Phi llips i n the kitchen, or dere d the victim taken upstairs af

t er t he victim had bee n beate n. The jury at Philli ps’s trial also hea rd evidenc e that the de fenda nt was Ka os’s ch i ef of security with authority

to car ry out orders f

rom Kaos, that the de fenda nt ordere d the victim taken fr om the ap ar t m en t, and that the def endant a nd Phill ips eac h picked thre e g ang members to take the victim from the apa rtment.

As s h o u l d be appa

rent fr om these brief

summaries, the prose cution did not pursue inc on sis te nt the or ie s or pr e se nt inc on sis te nt pr oo f a t the se se pa rate tr ia ls. As the Sta te po int s o ut, the foc us in eac h trial was upon e ach de fenda nt’s culpability , but the theory rema ined the same

. At Phill ips’s trial, the prosec ution focused on Phillips’s culpability for the kidnapping and murder, and much of

this proof related to Phil l i p s ’s pos ition as coordinator of the Hurt Villag e Ga ng ster Disciples. Witnesses at Phil lips’s trial were familiar with Phillips ’s coor dinator rank, but had neve r seen the defe ndant bef

ore the evening of April 30, 1997. The defe ndant makes muc h of the fa ct that the prosec ution at Phil lips’s trial arg ued that Ph illips , as coor dinator of the H urt Villag e Ga ng ster Di s ci p l es , h ad an ad d i t i o n al re as o n fo r p ar t i ci p at i n g i n t h e v i ct i m ’s k i d n ap p i n g an d m u rd er , s t at i n g:

[P]art of thi s

. . . wa s a

pe rs on a l si tuatio n. Th is w a sn ’t e nti re ly a Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e matter. It was per sonal. I t was a pe rsonal af fron t t o t h i s m an’s e g o, this man, the-25-

coordina tor of Hurt Village . An alter cation had ha ppene d o n h is turf betwe en the Vice L ords and the Gang ster Disciples and it diminis hed his power . And he wa sn’t g oin g to s ta ndfo r i t.
The prose cution did not make this arg ument at the def endant’ s trial. And, g iven that this arg ument

wa s c omp le te ly

un re la te d to the de fe nd a nt, the pr os e c uti on ’s failu re to p re ss this arg ume nt i s lo g ic a l. Howeve r, this arg ument is entirely consistent with testimony at the defe ndant’s trial indicating that Phill ips was very

upset afte r t he ski rmish with the Vice L ords and c alled the a id and assist meeting beca use he w anted to step up t h e v i o l en ce and re taliate ag ainst the Vice L ords. Thus, from our thor oug h revie w of the r ecor d and the briefs, we conclude that the prosec ution did not pursue inc on sis te nt the or ie s a t th e se se pa rate tr ia ls.

B y so statin g , w e do no t in te ndto i mpl y the e vid e nc e a t th e se se pa rate tr ia ls w a s id e nti c a l. I t was not – discrepancies ex ist. But these discrepancies were isolated and im materia l when take n in context and certa inly

do not give rise to a Due Process violation.

As a pra ctical matter , discrepa ncies a re c ommonlyunavoidable w hen seve ral individuals are pr os e c ute d in se pa

rate tr ia ls f

or the sa me of

fe ns e . Ind e e d, su c h tria ls p re se nt cha ll enges bec a us e “the truth is clouded by

secr et and e labora te g ang rituals; the use of two and three code names for g ang members; and the commi ssion of crimes by g roups.” State v. Phill ips, 76 S.W .3d 1, 10 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p

. 2 0 0 1 ). Furthermore , as the Ala bama Court of Criminal Appe als noted, “e vidence of criminal conspira cies ha

rdly ever comes fr om minis ters and c ivic leade rs.” Ande rson v. State, 354 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977). T his case w ell-illustrates that point. J ames a nd Shipp were themselves g ang members, a nd Shipp was an ac complice to these crimes. The C o u rt of Criminal Appea ls has described J ames as “a r ather inarticulate witness who was pr one to cryptic response s.” State v. J ackson, 52 S.W .3d 661, 667 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). This description is entirely acc urate

. Jame s a pp e are d to c on tr a dic t hi mse lf wh ile te sti fying a t both the de fe nd a nt’ s tria l and Phi lli ps ’s tr ia l, but the prosec ution did not encourag e him to do so. Rather, the rec ord sug g ests the prosec utors wer e sometimes themselves surprised or confuse d by

his an s we rs. At t he def

endant’ s trial, J ames wa s not asked a nd did not a scribe a rank to the defe ndant but indicated that Phill ips and Shipp followed the def endant’ s directions without hesitation. At Phil lips’s trial, J ames fir st said Phill ips outranked the def endant but later

testified the def

endant, not Phil l i p s , h ad b ee n “ca lling the shots” in the apartm en t

. T h e p rosec utors did not adopt this t estimony to arg ue that Phillips outranke d the defe ndant. I nstead, the pr osecution’s e vidence , arg ument, and theor y focuse d upon Phill ips’s own

s t at em en t s an d ac t i o n s a n d u p o n P h i l l i p s ’s ra n k an d au t h o ri t y

as co o rd i n at o r o f t h e H u rt Vi l l age Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e s.

We al s o ar e n o t troubled, as wa s the Court of Criminal Appeals, by the prosec ution’s de c isi on to c a ll Sh ipp a s a wi tne ss at th e g uil t ph a se of the de fe nd a nt’ s trial whi le off e ri ng his
te sti mon y a t on ly the se nte nc ing ph a se of

Phi lli ps ’s tr ia l. A s pre vio us ly e xpla ine d, Shi pp ini tia lly g ave a statement to the police implicating Phill ips and attributing to Phillips m any of the a ctions he

a ttribu te d to the de fe nd a nt at th e de fe nd a nt’ s tr ia l. H a d Sh ipp be e n c a lle d b y the pr os e c uti on a s a witness at Philli ps’s tri al an d then provided te stimonyconsistent with his ini tial statement to the police, the pr osecution’s proof at the sepa

rate trials would have be en inconsistent. By choosing not to call Shipp during the g uilt phase of Phill ips’s trial, and offering his testimonyon a nar row point at the sente ncing phase, the prosec ution avoided eve n the potential for inc onsistencies. F urthermor e,T he d efend ant a l so chal l enged the co nsecut i ve sent ences imp o sed fo r hi s espec i al l y a ggravat ed ki d nap p i ng 14

con v i ct i on

. I n t h i s Cour t , t h e def en dan t f i l ed a l et t er of

s u ppl eme n t al a u t h or i t y r el y i n g u pon B l ak el y v

. W as h i n g t on , 542 U .S

. _

_ _ , 1 2 4 S . C t.2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ), to su p p o rt h is c h a llen g e

. T h e d e fen d a n t a rg u e s tha t p u rs u a n t to B la k e ly an d A p p re n d i, he was ent i t l ed t o a jury t ri al o n t he f act o rs supp o rt i ng co nsecut i ve sent enci ng. T he Stat e d i d not res p o nd

. T he reco rd ref l ect s t hat t he d efend ant did no t rel y upo n A p p rendi i n t he t ri al co urt or i n t he C o urt of C ri m i nal A p p eal s i n s up p o rt

o f t h is c la im , no r d id he a rg u e in the lo w e r c o u rts tha t a j u ry h a d to m a k e the c o n se c u tive se n te n c ing fi n d ing s. W e no te
t hat s everal co urt s have reject ed t he d efend ant ’ s co nt ent i o n and hel d t hat B l akel y and A p p re n d i d o not ap p l y t o t he d eci si o n t o i m p o se consecut i ve sent ences. See P eo p l e v. Sykes
, 16 C al

. R p t r. 3 d 3 1 7
, 3 2 7 (C al

. A p p

. 2 D i st

. 20 0 4 ) ( ci t i ng cases)

.
-26- unlike the Court of Criminal Appea ls, we do not find the prose cution’s fa ilure to question J ames about the def

endant’ s rank at the defe ndant’s trial unusual. James testified he ha d never seen the defen d an t p ri or to April 30, 1997, and ha d been a member of

the East Villag e Ga ng ster Disciples

on ly thr e e or fo ur mon ths a t th a t ti me . G ive n th is t e sti mon y , th e pr os e c uti on ha d n o r e a so n to believe James knew any thin g about the def endant’ s rank. More over, James illustrated his lack of knowledg e or unc erta inty on this iss ue at Phillips’s trial where J ames testified inc onsistentlywhen qu e sti on e d a

bo ut the re la tiv e ra nk s o f P hil lip s a ndthe de fe nd a nt.

I n short, the prosec ution presented a consistent theory

at these s ep ar ate trials. The prosec ution at e ach trial soug ht to establish eac h defe ndant’s criminal responsibility for first deg ree
mur de r a nde sp e c ia lly

a g g ra va te d k idn app ing by sh ow in g t hat e a c h d e fe nd a nt h e ld a le a de rs hip position i n the g ang , either c ity wi de chie f of se curity or Hurt Villag e coor dinator, and tha t, acting in his leadership role, eac h defe ndant orde red a nd otherwise dir ecte d g ang members to kidnap a nd murder Ve rn o n Gr een. Accor dingly , we do not ag ree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’s conclusion that the pr o s ec u t i on prese nted fa ctually inconsistent theories and e vidence at the de fe nd a nt’ s a ndPhi lli ps ’s se pa rate tr ia ls. Re ve rs a l of the de fe nd a nt’ s d e a th s e nte nc e on thi s b a sis
, there fore , is not warra nted. The de fenda nt’s sentenc e of de ath is reinstated.

VIII. Apprendi & Ring Challenge Having conclude d that the def endant’ s conviction of first de g ree murder and sentenc e of death should be r einstated, we next consider the defe ndant’s contention that his sentenc e should be

vacated as unconstitutional be cause the ag g ravating circ umstances wer e not c harg ed in t he ind ic tme nt. As su pp ort fo r this c la im the de fe nd a nt r e lie s u po n A pp re nd i v. Ne w Je rs e y , 5 30 U. S. 466 (2000) a nd Ring v. Ar i z o n a, 5 3 6 U. S. 584 (2002). This issue is without m erit. See State v. Be rry ,___S.W .3d___(Tenn. 2004)

. 14

IX. Mandatory Re view Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tion 39-13-206(c )(1) (1997), mandates that this Court determine: (1) whe ther the sentenc e of death was imposed in any arbitra ry fashion; (2) w hether

the evidenc e su pports the jury ' s finding of statutory ag g rava ting c ircumstance s; (3) whe ther the e vidence

su pp orts the jury ' s f

ind ing that a g g ra va tin g c ir c ums ta nc e s o utw e ig h a ny mit ig a tin g c ir c ums ta nc e s; and (4) whe the r the se nte nc e of de a th i s e xce ssi ve or

dis pr op ortio nate to the pe na lty imp os e d in sim ila r c a se s, c on sid e ri ng bo th the na tur e of the c ri me a ndthe de fe nd a nt.T he st at ut o ry l anguage p rovides: “ [t ]he defendant kno wi ngl y creat ed a great ri sk o f de at h t o t wo (2) or m o re 15

per s on s , ot h er t h an t h e v i ct i m mu r der ed, du r i n g h i s ac t of mu r der

. ” T en n

. Code An n

. § 39- 2- 203( i ) ( 3) ( 1982 & Su pp. 1 9 8 6 ).

-27- A t h o ro u gh re v i ew o f t h e re co rd re v ea l s t h at t h e e v i d en ce i s s u ff i ci en tt o s u p p o rt t h e j u ry 's finding of the a g g ravating c ircumstance s bey ond a re asonable doubt. The jury based imposition of the de a th pena lty

up on tw o a g g ra va tin g c ir c ums ta nc e s: “ the mur de r w a s e sp e c ia lly he ino us , a tr oc iou s, or

c ru e l in that in inv olv e d to rtur e or se ri ou s p hy sic a l a

buse bey on d th at ne c e ssa ry to produce d ea th” and “ the murder was knowing ly

committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defe ndant, while the de fend ant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit . . . kidnapping .” See T enn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-204(i)( 5), (7) (1997).

The de fenda nt contends t hat t he evidence is not sufficie nt to support the jury ’s finding of the (i )( 5) a g g ra va tin g c ir c ums ta nc e be c a us e the a g g ra vating cir c ums ta nc e ma y no t be vic ari ou sly

ap p l i e d w h e r e , a s h e r e , t h e f i r s t d e g r e e m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n i s b a s e d u p o n c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

. In determining whe ther the evidenc e supports a jury ’s finding of a statutory ag g ravating c ircumstance
, the pr op e r inq uiry fo r an app e llate c ou rt is wh e the r, a ft e r re vie wi ng the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t favor able to the state , a rational trier of fac t co u l d h av e found the exi stence of the a g g ravating circ umstance be y ond a re asonable doubt. State v. Sutt les, 30 S.W .3d 252, 262 (Tenn. 2000)

.

I n Owens v. State, 13 S.W .3d 742, 760 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999), perm. app. denied (T enn. 2000), the intermediate appellate court approve d vicarious a pplication of the (i)( 5 ) a gg ravating circ umstance. Th e d ef

en dant in Owens hire d Sidney Porterfie ld, her c o-def

endant, to kill her husband. Porterf

ield bludge oned Owe ns’s husband to death with a tire iron. Owe ns did not participa te in the bludg eoning , and, as he re, w as not prese nt when the a ssault occur red; y et the jury applied the ( i)(5) a g g ravating c ircumstance t o support imposit ion of the death penalty . Owens arg ued the jury

had er red i n ap p ly ing the ag g ravating c ircumstance beca use she a ctually

had not pa rt ic ipate d in the m ur de ro us a ssa ult . In r e je c tin g thi s a sse rt ion , th e Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls emphasized that the statutory lang uag e of the (i)(5) ag g ravating c ircumstance focuse s on the nature

a ndc ir c ums ta nc e s o f the mur de r r a the r tha n th e c on du c t or int e nt of the de fe nd a nt. Th e int e rm e diate appellat e co u rt o pined that this Court had impli citly approve d vicarious application of the ag g ravating c ircumstance in another case. Owens, 13 S.W .3d at 761 (citing State v. B lanton, 975 S.W .2d 269, 279-80 (Te nn. 1998) (upholding the jury ’s finding of the (i) (5) a g g ravating circ umstance to support de ath sentenc e on the preme ditated murder c onvictions despite the lack of evidenc e indicating that the defe ndant inflicted the fata l blows) ). Thus, the Owe ns court held that the (i)( 5) ag g ravating circumstance can be applied to support the death penalty for a defe ndant, who, lik e Ow e ns , d id n ot i nf

lic t th e fata l bl ow s.
Ap plying the a na ly sis the Cou rt of Cr imi na l App e a ls ap pli e d in O we ns , th is C ou rt ha s h e ld that the (i)( 3) ag g ravating c ircumstance may not be vicariously applied. J ohnson v. State 38 S.W .3d 52 , 6 3 (T e nn

. 20 01 ). I n s o h old ing , w e e mph a size d th a t, “ un lik e oth e r a g g ra vatin g c ir c ums ta nc e s, such as the ( i)(5) a g g ravator, the s tatutory lang uag e of the (i)(3) ag g ravating c ircumstance ” foc uses 15 upon the def

endant' s actions and intent rathe r than upon the a ctual cir cumstance s surrounding the killing. I d. Although we formally adopted the analy sis of Owens, w e expressly

declined in JohnsonJo hnson, 38 S.W

. 3 d at 63 n. 1 7 (“ W hi l e we f o rma l l y ad o p t t he m et ho d us ed by t he O wens C o urt i n anal y zi ng 16

t h is iss u e , w e d o not necessar i l y ad o p t t he co ncl usi o ns o f t hat co urt i n ap p l y i ng t hi s anal y si s t o any aggravat i ng ci r cums t anc e ot her t han t he ( i ) ( 3) a gg r ava t or. ”)

-28- to adopt the holding of

Owens w ith respec t to the (i)(5) a g g ravating c ircumstance

. Vicarious 16 application of the (i)(5) ag g ravating c ircumstance n o w is square ly prese nted. Ther efor e, we take th is o p p o r tu n it y

to a g r e e w ith th e Co u r t o f Crim in a l A p p e a ls a n d a d o p t th e h o ld in g o f O w e n s

. We hold that the (i)(5) ag g ravating c ircumst an ce m aybe vica riously applied bec ause the statutory lang uag e foc uses upon the natur e and c ircumstance s of the crime, rathe r t han the actions, intent, and conduct of

the def endant. This holding brea ks no new g round. See St ate v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 150 (Tenn. 1999) (noting that the (i)(5) ag g ravating c ircumstance focuse s upon the “c ircumstance s of t he kil ling” and st ating that “whe ther the defe ndant i ntended the victim’s suffe ring is irreleva nt

un de r ( i) (5 )” ). Th us , th e de fe nd a nt’ s a sse rt ion is w ith ou t me ri t.

Furthermore , the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the j ury ’s findi ng of t he (i)(5) ag g ravating circ umstance. G ree n was “ arr ested” and held at an apa rtment where n umerous armed g ang
me mbe rs , le d b y the de fe nd a nt, be a t a ndthr e a te ne d h im. Te sti mon y ind ic a te d th a t G re e n a sk e d h is captor s for re lease and re lief, that he a ppear ed very

frig htened, that he defe cate d during the orde al

a ndwa s r idi c ule d f

or do ing so , an d tha t he be g g e d his ca pto rs to le t him g o, pr omi sin g that he wo uld
not report their crimes. Wit nesses indi cate d that Gre en bec ame e ven more frig htened upon a rriving at the par k wher e he was murdered. There
, Gre en’s captors phy sically car ried and dropped him on the hilltop where he was murde red. B efor e Gr een w as r ep ea t ed l y shot in the head, Gr een be g g ed for his life. Gre en continued to be g for his life and cry out a fter be ing shot in the buttocks and the back. D r. De ering opined that the g unshot wounds to Gree n’s b u t t o cks would have bee n very painful. Dr. D eering also opined that the first g unshot wound to Gree n’s hea d would have be en fata l. I n short, the evidenc e cle arly is sufficient to support the jury ’s finding that “the murde r wa s espec ially heinous, atroc ious, or cruel i n that in involved torture or serious phy sical abuse bey ond that ne c e ssa

ry to p ro du c e de a th. ” Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.

Also without merit is t he def endant’ s claim that the (i)( 7) fe lony murder a g g ravating circ umstance ma y

not be applied to impose the de ath pena lty u p o n a d ef en dant who did not persona lly

kill the victim. See Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-13-204( i)(7). This a g g ravating c ircumstance may be applied upon proof that “the murder w as knowing ly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the de fe nd a nt, wh ile the de fe nd a nt ha d a subs ta nti a l r ole in c omm itt ing or a tte mpt ing to c omm it

... kidnapping .” See id. at (5), (7). The proof in this rec ord clearly is sufficie nt to support the jury ’s finding that Gre en’s mur der w as knowing ly direc ted by

the def endant while the defe ndant had a

su bs ta nti a l r ole in c omm itt ing Gr e e n’ s k idn app ing . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

Furt h ermore, the evide nce supports the jury ’s determination that the ag g ravating

c ir c ums ta nc e s o utw e ig he d th e mit ig a tin g fa c tor s be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. A dd iti on a lly , th e re is no indication that the sentenc e of de ath was imposed in an a rbitrary fashion.A pp ar ent l y , t he C our t o f C r i mi nal A pp eal s ad dres s ed t hi s i s s ue i n t he i nt er es t o f judi ci al econom y

. U nder 17

mo s t ci r cums t anc es , appel l at e cour t s s houl d r ef r ai n f r om conduc t i ng a c om para t i ve propo r t i onal i t y r evi ew i f t he capi t al

ca s e i s bei n g r ev er s ed an d r ema n ded f or a n ew t r i al or a n ew s en t en ci n g h ea r i n g

. Se e, e

. g

. , St at e v

. B on du r an t , 4 S. W

. 3d 6 6 2 , 6 7 5 (T e n n . 1 9 9 9 ); C a rte r, 9 8 8 S .W .2 d a t 1 5 3

.
-29- We m u s t next conduct a compar ative proportionalityrevie w. Addre ssing this issue, the Court of C ri mi n a l A p p e a ls h e ldth e d e a ths e n te n c e d is p r o p o rti o n a te

. We d is a g r e e

. St a tu to ry 17

c omp arativ e pr op ortio na lit y re vie w i s an ad dit ion a l sa fe g ua rda g a ins t arb itr ary

a ndc apric iou s d e a th
senten ce s

. S t ate v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 663 (Tenn. 1997); Te nn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 2 0 6 (c )( 1 )( D)

. Ou r f

u n ct i o n i n p er fo rm i n g t h i s re v i ew i s n o tt o s ea rc h f o r p r o o f t h at a d ef

en d an t 's death se ntence is perfe ctly sy mmetrical with the pe nalty imposed in all other first deg ree murder

case s, but to identify and invalidate the aber rant death sentenc e. State v. Godsey
, 60 S.W .3d 759, 782 (Tenn. 2001) ; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 665. I n conducting compar ative revie w, we do not act as

a " su per jury ," no r d o w e se c on d- g ue ss the jury ' s d e c isi on . B la nd , 9 58 S.W. 2da t 66 8. A d e a th
sentenc e i s aber

rant, and thus disproportionate, “[i] f the c ase, taken as a whole, is plainly

lacking in circumstanc es consistent with those in simil ar c ases in which the death pe nalty has bee n imposed.” B land, 958 S.W.2d at 665.

“ Se le c ti n g s im il ar

c a s e s

. . . f

o r c o mp ar is o n is n o t an e xa c t s c ie n c e

. ” I d

. a t 6 6 7

. “ N ot included in the pool of similar ca ses ar e first de g ree murder c ases in which the State did not seek the death penalty

or first deg ree murder case s in which a se ntence other than de ath was a g ree d upon

a s par t of a ple a ba

rg a ini ng a g re e me nt. ” Go ds e y , 60 S.W.3 d at 784 . Comp arativ e pr op ortio na lit y
re vie w i s n ot a se arc h for dis pr op ortio nate or abe rr a nt l if e c a se s. I d. As the Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Cou rt e xpla ine d:

Since the proportionality require ment on revie w is intended to preve nt caprice in the decision to inflict the [ death] penalty , the isolated dec ision of a jury to affor d merc y does not rende r unconstitutional death sentence s imposed on defe ndants who wer e sentenc ed under

a sy stem that does not cr ea te a substantial risk of a rbitrariness or caprice.

Gre g g v. Geor g ia, 428 U.S. 153, 203 (1976); Godse y , 60 S.W .3d at 784-85.

After identify ing similar c ases, this Court car efully ex am i n es the fa cts of the c rimes, the char acte ristics of the def

endants, a nd the ag g ravating a nd mitigating fac tors in the case on appea l and the similar ca ses. Godsey
, 60 S.W .3d at 782; Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 664. While the ag g ravating and mitigating c ircumst an ce s ar e im portant for comparison purposes, this Court considers many varia bles including : (1) the mea ns of death; (2) the manner of death (e.g ., violent, torturous, etc.); (3 ) the mot ivat io n for

the kil lin g ; ( 4) the pla c e of de a th; (5 ) the sim ila

ri ty of the vic tim s' circ umstances including age
, phy sical and mental conditi ons, and the victims' treatment during the killing; (6) the a

bsenceor p re s en ce of pre meditation; (7) the abse nce or prese nce of

provocation; (8) the a bsence or pre sence of justification; and (9) the i n j u ry to and ef

fec ts on non-dece dent victi m s

. Bl an d, 958 S.W .2d at 667 (c iting ca ses). In addition, severa l criteria are rele vant to a comparison of the cha

rac teristics of def

endants, including: (1) the defe ndant' s prior criminal recor d

or pr ior c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y ; ( 2 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a g e , r a c e , a n d g e n d e r ; ( 3 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n ta l,E v id e n c e ind ic a te s the d e fen d a n t to ld o the r ga n g m e m b e rs to ta k e the v ic tim “fi sh ing .” T h e re c o rd re flec ts 18

t h e g an g h ad a l an g u ag e al l i t s ow n

. J ame s t es t i f i ed h e h ea r d t h e def

en dan t t wi ce t el l ot h er g an g me mber s “ Y a’ l l k n ow wha t t o do

. ”

-30- emotional or phy sical condition; (4) the de fend an t 's involvement or role in the mur der; (5) the d ef en d an t 's co o p er at i o n wi t h au t h o ri t i es ; (6 ) t h e de fe n d an t 's re m o rs e; (7 ) t h e d ef en d an t 's k n o wl ed ge of helplessne ss of victim(s); and (8) the def endant' s capa city

for r ehabilitation. I d.

Mindful of t hese f

actor s, we ha ve compa

red the defe ndant’s sente nce to the se ntence imposed in simi lar c ases in the r eleva nt pool and have de termined that the de ath sentenc e imposed upon the def

endant is not disproportionate. As the State points out, the death pe nalty has bee n imposed and upheld in at lea st five other ex ec u t i o n -s ty le first deg ree murder c ases. See State v. Re id, 91 S.W. 3d24 7, 28 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; State v. Au sti n, 87 S.W. 3d44 7, 46 5 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) ; State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 262 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Va n Tran, 864 S.W.2d 465, 482 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Har

ris, 839 S.W .2d 54, 77 (Te n n . 1992). F urthermor e, the de ath pena lty has bee n imp os e d in se ve ra l ca se s in whic h the jury fo un d th e sa me tw o a g g ra vatin g c ir c ums ta nc e s a s th os e
re lie d u po n b y

the jury to s up po rt

imp os iti on of

the de a th pe na lty in the de fe nd a nt’ s c a se . Se e Sta te v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788, 791 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ); State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679, 683 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Ba rber , 753 S.W .2d 659 (Tenn. 1988); State v. Z ago rs k i
, 701 S.W .2d 808, 811 (Tenn. 1985) . Perhaps most signif icantly , howeve r, the death pe nalty

has bee n imposed and upheld in se vera l othe r case s in w hich the def endant, like the defe ndant in this case, wa s not present a t the s ce n e of the murder. A ustin, 87 S .W.3d at 465-66; State v. Stevens, 78 S.W .3d 817, 823 (Tenn. 2002) ; State v. Hutchison, 898 S.W .2d 161, 164 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Porterfie ld and Owe ns, 746 S.W .2d 441, 444 (Tenn. 1988)

. The Court of Criminal Appea ls disti ng uished these c ases, n oting that this ca se does not involve a “mur der f

or hire.” Whil e this clea

rly i s a dis tinction, it i s not a diffe renc e that re nders these c ases wholly

irrele vant for comparative proportionality revie w. Motive is mere ly one fa ctor to be consider ed. Proof that the defe ndant had the authority to direct this murder without providing

r e m u n e r a t i o n t o t h e p e rp e tr a t o r s d o e s n o tm i t i g a t e h i s c u l p ab i l i t y.

The interme diate appe llate court also distinguished this c ase on the basis that there was no evidenc e the murder was car efully planned. We disag ree . The re cord e stablishes that the victim was held at the a

partment seve ral hours, and during this ti me, the def endant a nd other g ang leade rs met

sever al times in the kitchen and a lso sp o k e s ev er al t imes on the telephone to discuss the victim’s fate . At the def

endant’ s direction, Phillips and Wilkins h an d -s el ec t ed gang members to take the victim from the apa

rtment. This ci rc u mstantial evidence indicates that the vic tim’s murder wa s pla nn e d b y

se ve ral g a ng me mbe rs , in c lud ing the de fe nd a nt.

Another f actor influencing the Court of Criminal Appeals’s de cision to find the sentenc e disproportionate wa s the lack of evidenc e indi cating the defendant inst ructe d other g ang members how to commit the murder. Ag ain, we disa g ree that this lack of evide nce is unique. F or example, there was no e vidence in Owens to sug g est that the def endant instructe d Porterfie ld to bludgeon he r hu sb a ndto d e a th w ith a

tir e ir on . The lac k o f d e fi nit ive e vid e nc e su g g e sti ng the de fe nd a nt t old 18-31-

oth e r g a ng me mbe rs ho w t o c omm it the mur de r doe s not re nd e r the de a th s e nte nc e c omp arativ e ly disprop o r ti o n a te , a lth o u g h th is is a f a ir p o in t t o ar g u e a s mi ti g a ti o n in a c ap it a l s e n te n c ing p ro ce ed i n g.
Although dif

fer ence s exi st betwee n this case a nd the similar case s listed above, we have pr e vio us ly

ind ic a te d th a t c omp arativ e pr op ortio na lit y re vie w “ is n ot a

se arc h f or pro of th a t a defe ndant’s death sentence is pe rfe ctly sy mmetrical.” Bla nd, 958 S.W .2d at 665. I ndeed, “no two defe ndants and no two c rimes ar e pre cisely alike.” State v. Ba ne, 57 S.W .3d 411, 429 (Tenn. 2001)

. We a re un able to c on c lud e that th is c a se is “ plainl y la c kin g in c ir c ums ta nc e s c on sis te nt w ith tho se in simi lar c ases in which the death pe nalty has bee n imposed.”

The Court of Crimi nal Appeals also based its finding of di sproportionality on its conclusion that no rational basis justified imposing a death sentence upon the def endant a nd a sente nce of

life imprisonment without t he possi bility of parole upon Phill ips. I n so holding, the lower c ourt relied upon this Court’s decisi o n i n S t at e v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726, 741 (Tenn. 1998), f or the propositi on that disparate sentenc es betwe en co- defe ndants rende r the c apital sentenc e dis pr op ortio na te un le ss the re is a ratio na l bas is fo r the dis pa rate se nte nc e s. As the Sta te po int s o ut, the dispar at e s en t en ces at issue in Cauthern wer e initially imposed by

the same jury . The int e rm e diate app e llate c ou rt a lso fa ile d to no te that th is C ou rt ha s e mph a size d a ndre ite rate d th a t a death se ntenceis not disproportionate “mer ely beca use t he cir cumstance s of the off ense a re similar to those of another

offe nse for

which a defe ndant has rec eived a life sentenc e.” A ustin, 87 S .W.3d at 465; State v. Hall, 976 S.W .2d 121, 135 (Tenn. 1998). Furthermore , this Court has often stressed th at a j u ry ’s i solated dec ision to afford mer cy does not rende r a de ath sentenc e disproportionate
, u n l e s s t h e d e a t h s e n t e n c e i s ab e rr a n t , i

. e

. , t h e c a s e , t ak e n a s a w h o l e , i s p l a i n l y la c kin g in circu m s t an ces c onsistent with other case s in which the death penalty has bee n imposed. As previously

explained, the death se ntence in this case is not aber rant.

Th e de fe nd a nt’ s a ndPhi lli ps ’s c a se s a re e xtre me ly

sim il ar, a s th e Sta te c on c e de s. N o n e t h e l e s s , d i f

f e r e n c e s s i g n i f

i c a n tt o c o m p ar a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y r e v i e w e x i s t

. M o s ti m p o r t a n t l y, Phill ips’s jury

found on l yone ag g ravating c ircumstance – that the murder was c ommitt ed in the

course of a kidna

pping. T enn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(i)( 7) (1997). Furthermore , althoug h Phill ips was the H urt Vi l l age Ga n gster Disciples c oordinator, the de fenda nt ranke d third in the city wide hiera rchy of the Gang ster Disciples and bear s more of the responsibility for Gre en’s murder. F or all these re asons, we conclude that the defe ndant’s sentenc e of death is not disproportionate to the
sentenc e imposed in similar case s, considering both the circ umstances of t he crime and the de fe nd a nt.

X. Conclusion We have c onsidered the entire r ecor d in this case and f ind that the sentenc e of death wa s not imposed in any

arbitra ry fashion, that the se ntence of death is not ex cessive or disproportionate, a nd
t h at t h e e v i d en ce s u p p o rt s t h e ju ry 's fi n d i n g o f t h e st at u t o ry aggr av at i n g ci rc u m s t an ce an d t h e j u ry 's fi nd ing that th ese ag g ra va tin g c ir c ums ta nc e s o utw e ig he d mi tig a tin g fa c tor s b e y on d a re a so na ble doubt. We have also c onsidered the defe ndant' s remaining assig nments of er ror a nd conclude that

none wa rra nt relief. With respec t to issues not spec ifically addre ssed here in, w e aff irm the dec ision-32-

of the Court of Criminal Appe als, authore d by J udg e J oe G. Riley , and joined by J udg e Da vid Hay es and Judge John Evere tt W illiams. The defe ndant' s convictions and sente nces a re a ffirme d. The

se nte nc e of

de a th s ha ll b e c arrie d o ut a s p ro vid e d by law on the 11 th d a y of Ma y 20 05 un le ss oth e rw ise or de re d b y

thi s Co urt or

oth e r p ro pe r a

uth ority . It app e ari ng that th e de fe nd a nt i s in dig e nt, costs of this appea l are taxed to the St ate of Tenne ssee.

____________________________________ F R A N K F

. D R O W O T A III
, CH I EF JUSTI CE