### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT JACKSON Novem ber 10, 200 4 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANDREW THO MAS AND

ANTHONY BOND

Automa tic Appeal from th e Court o f Crimina l Appeals Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 00-03095 Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

No. W2001-02701-SC-DDT-DD - Filed March 4, 2005

A DOLPHO A. B IRCH , J R ., J., c oncur ring an d dis senti ng.

Iconcur in the conclusion of the majority that Thomas’s conviction should be af firmed. As to the sen tence of death, however, I re spectfu lly d issent. As

Ihave pre

viously expresse d in

a long line of dis sents, I believe that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority

is inadeq uate to sh ield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the deat hpe na lt y. See Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 39 -13-206( c)(1)( D) (1995 Supp.). I

have consistently expressed my displeasure with the cur rent protocol since the time of its adoption in State v. Bland , 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). See State v. Robinson , 146 S.W.3d 469, 529 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring

and disse nting); State v. Leach , 148 S.W.3d, 42, 68 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting

); State v. D avis , 141 S .W.3d 600 , 632 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Berry , 141 S.W.3d 549, 589 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Holton , 126 S.W.3d 845, 872 (Tenn. 2004) (Birch, J., concurring and disse nting); State v. Davidson , 121 S.W.3d 60 0, 629-36(Tenn. 2 003) (B irch, J., di ssenting ); State v. Carter , 114 S.W.3d 895, 910-11 (T enn. 2003 ) (Birc h, J., dissen

ting); State v. Re id , 91 S.W.3d 247, 288-89 (Tenn. 2002) (Birch, J., concur

ring an d dissentin

g); State v. Austin , 87 S.W.3d 447, 467-68 (Tenn. 2002) (Birch, J., dissenting

); State v. Stevens , 78 S.W.3d817, 8 52 (Tenn. 2002) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. McKinney , 74 S.W.3d 291, 320-22 (Tenn. 2002) (B irc h, J. , concurring and dissenting); State v. Bane , 57 S.W.3d 41 1, 431-32(Tenn. 2 001) (B ir ch, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Stout , 46 S.W.3d 689, 720 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting); T erry v. State , 46 S.W.3d 14 7, 167 (Te nn. 2001)(Birch , J., dissent ing); State v. Sim s , 45 S.W.3 d 1, 23-24 (T enn. 2001 ) (Birc h, J., conc urring and disse nting); State v. Keen , 31 S.W.3d196, 233-34 (Tenn. 2 000) (Birch, J., dissenting). As previously discussed, I believe that the problem with the1 I have urged adopting a protocol i n which each case woul d be compared to fact uall y si milar

cases i n which either a li fe sentence or capital punish ment was impo sed to det ermine wh ether the cas e is more consis tent with “li fe”

cases or “d eath” cases. See State v. McKinney , 74 S. W.3d at 321 (Birc h, J., co ncurr ing and dissen ting). The current protoc ol allows a finding p rop ortion ality if the case is si milar to exis ting death penalty cases . In othe r word s, a case is dispr opo rtionate only i f th e case under revie w “is plain ly l acking in ci rcumstances consistent with those in similar cases in whi ch the dea th pe nalty has been i mposed.” Bland , 958 S.W .2d at 665 (emphasis added ).

2 In my view , exclud ing from com pariso n that gro up o f cases in w hich the State d id no t seek the death pena lty,

or in whi ch no capit al sen tenci ng heari ng was hel d, frustrates any meaningful com parison for p ropo rtionality purposes. See Bland , 958 S.W .2d a t 679 (Birc h, J., disse nting). Th is case, in p articular , is a pri me exampl e of t he ar bitrari ness of this pro toco l.

3 As I stated in my concurring/dissenting opinion in State v. Godsey , “ [t] he sc ope of t he ana ly sis employ ed by the majori tyappears to be rathe r amorphous and undef ined–expandin g, cont

racti ng, and s hif

tin g as the analy sis moves from case to case. ” 60 S.W .3d 759, 797 (Tenn. 2001 )(Birch, J., concurri ng and dissenting).

4 I also note that

in a recentstudy on the costs and the consequences of the death penalty conducted by the State Comp troller, one of the conclus ions was that prosecut ors across the stat e a re inco nsistent in the ir pursu it of the de ath pen alty, a fact that a lso co ntribute s to arb itrariness in the imp ositio n of the death pena lty. See John G. M organ, Comptroller

of the T reasu ry, Tenne ss ee’ s Dea th Penalty : Co st s an d Co nsequences 13 (J uly 20 04) , avail able at

ww w.co mp troller.sta te.tn.us /orea /repo rts

. -2- current proportionality analy

sis is threefold: (1) the proportionality test is overbroa d, 1 (2) the pool of cases used

for comparison

is inadequate, 2 and (3) review is too subjective. 3 These fl aws seri ously undermine the reliability of the cur rent proportionality protocol. See State v. Godsey , 60 S.W.3d at 793-800 (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting). In my

view, the curren

t compar ative pr oportiona lity protocol is woeful ly inad equate t o protect defend

ants from the arb itrary

or dispro

portiona te imposition of

th e d ea th pe na lt y. 4 Accordingly , I respectfully dissentfrom that

portion of

the major ity opinion affirming the imposition of the penalty of death.

___________________________________ ADOL PHO A. BI

RCH, JR.