Title: State v. Dicks
Citation: 615 S.W.2d 126
Docket Number: N/A
State: Tennessee
Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 1981

615 S.W.2d 126 (1981) STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Jeffrey Stuart DICKS, Appellant. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 2, 1981. Rehearing Denied May 4, 1981. *127 James H. Beeler, Kingsport, Larry S. Weddington, Bristol, Richard Maxwell, Bart Durham, Nashville, J. Lawrence Smith, Asheville, N.C., for appellant. William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Robert L. Jolley, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee. COOPER, Justice. This case is before us pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-2406, which provides for review by this court of every case in which a death penalty is imposed. Appellant, Jeffrey Stuart Dicks, was found guilty of murder in the first degree for the killing of James Keegan in the course of the robbery of the Budget Shop in Kingsport, Tennessee. The Budget Shop is a second-hand clothing store. Mr. Keegan, the owner, was known to carry a substantial sum of money on his person to be used in the business. On February 16, 1978, Mr. Keegan's body was found on the floor of his place of business. His throat had been cut and there was evidence of a severe blow to his head. Death was due to the throat wound which, according to medical testimony, was inflicted while Mr. Keegan was unconscious from the head injury. A search of Mr. Keegan's person and his business establishment revealed that Mr. Keegan's money had been taken. Appellant and Donald Wayne "Chief" Strouth subsequently were arrested and indicted on a charge of murder in the first degree (murder in the perpetration of a robbery.) The defendants were tried separately, to avoid *128 the possibility of a Bruton[1] violation inherent in the fact that each of the defendants had given investigating officers a statement implicating the other. Appellant also was granted a change of venue from Sullivan County, where the crime was committed, to Greene County. On trial, appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree. In a subsequent hearing to determine the sentence to be imposed on the defendant, the jury found the following statutory aggravating circumstances: The jury also found that "there [were] no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances," and sentenced appellant to death. Appellant does not specifically question the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. He does question rulings by the trial judge on the admissibility of evidence in the guilt-determination phase of the trial, evidently on the bases that photographic evidence admitted tended to inflame the jury, and that statements by Donald Strouth and testimony of a psychologist, which were excluded, tended to show that appellant did no more than accompany the killer of James Keegan. Appellant also insists (1) that the sentencing to death of a defendant who did no more than "accompany the killer on the underlying felony" is grossly disproportionate to the defendant's moral guilt and is cruel and inhuman punishment, and (2) that sections of T.C.A. § 39-2404, dealing with punishment for first degree murder, are unconstitutional. The photographic evidence admitted over the objection of the appellant consisted of "before and after" photographs of Mr. Keegan, and a photograph of the defendant. Appellant insists the photographs of Mr. Keegan created a vivid picture of life and death for the jury, were without evidentiary value, and were clearly prejudicial. We find no prejudicial error in the admission of the photographs, though it would have been better had the "before" picture of Mr. Keegan been excluded since it added little or nothing to the sum total of knowledge of the jury. The other two pictures, however, were relevant to material issues in the trial and were not inflammatory. The picture of Mr. Keegan taken at the scene of the homicide, and which does not show the neck wound, was a necessary predicate to proof that Mr. Keegan was unconscious at the time his throat was cut. The physician, who so testified, did so partly on the photographic evidence showing the position of Mr. Keegan's body and the absence of blood on Mr. Keegan's hand as shown in the photograph, and partly on the description of the wound. The photograph of the defendant was relevant to the issue of identification. Barry Willis identified the coat shown in the photograph as the one appellant was wearing when he was seen by Willis on February 14, 1978, in the vicinity of the Budget Shop. Further, there was evidence that relatives of appellant had burned a long, green coat in the "dead of night," after police officers had come to their home seeking information concerning the appellant. It was the coat shown in the picture and the coat appellant admittedly was wearing at the time of the homicide. Appellant sought to call Donald Strouth as a witness in his behalf. When the trial judge excused Strouth from testifying, appellant sought to have admitted into evidence, through Barbara Davis, statements by Strouth which appellant contends were against penal interest. These statements were excluded by a ruling of the trial judge in a jury-out hearing. These rulings by the trial judge are assigned as error. *129 Appellant insists the trial judge erred in not forcing Strouth to testify or, at least, forcing him to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury. At the time of appellant's trial, Strouth stood convicted of the robbery and murder of James Keegan and was under a sentence of death. His case was on appeal to this court. In a jury-out hearing, the trial judge determined that Strouth had not testified in his own trial, and was going to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify in appellant's trial. As a consequence, the trial judge excused Strouth from taking the stand. We see no basic error in the trial judge's action. The calling of a witness who will refuse to testify does not fill the purpose of compulsory process, which is to produce testimony for the defendant. United States v. Roberts, 503 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1974). But if it did, where there is a conflict between the basic right of a defendant to compulsory process and the witness's right against self-incrimination, as in this case, the right against self-incrimination is the stronger and paramount right. Frazier v. State, 566 S.W.2d 545, 551 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). See United States v. Johnson, 488 F.2d 1206 (1st Cir.1973); United States v. Wyler, 487 F.2d 170 (2nd Cir.1973); United States v. Beye, 445 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir.1971). Further, a jury is not entitled to draw any inferences from the decision of a witness to exercise his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, whether those inferences be favorable to the prosecution or the defense. Bowles v. United States, 439 F.2d 536, 541 (D.C. Cir.1970). See also United States v. Johnson, 488 F.2d 1206, 1211 (1st Cir.1973), wherein the court points out that: The court also noted in Johnson that the cases saying it was not always reversible error to call such a witness to the stand fall short of establishing that the practice is either desirable or mandatory. 488 F.2d at 1211 n. 5. See generally, Annot., 86 A.L.R.2d 1443 (1962). Appellant also insists that the trial judge, having excused Strouth from testifying, erred in excluding testimony of Miss Davis relative to her conversations with Strouth. This court has recognized in principle that declarations against penal interest, made by an unavailable declarant, are admissible in criminal cases where the declarations are proven trustworthy by independent corroborative evidence that bespeaks reliability. Smith v. State, 587 S.W.2d 659, 661 (1979). But, appellant did not seek to have Miss Davis testify as to statements made by Strouth, but sought to have her testify as to impressions she formed from conversations she had had with Strouth. These impressions do not come within the exception carved out of the hearsay exclusion rule to permit the introduction of declarations against penal interest, and the trial judge properly excluded such testimony. Appellant also insists the trial judge erred in refusing to allow Dr. David McMillan, a clinical psychologist, to testify in the first phase, the guilt and innocence phase, of the trial. Dr. McMillan had administered a battery of tests including the Wexler Adult Intelligence Scale, Gender Gestalt Test, Rorschak Ink Blot Test, Thematic A Perception Test, Incomplete Sentence Blank and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. From these tests, Dr. McMillan proposed to testify that appellant "is a weak, moody, fearful person, and is a follower instead of a leader." No contention was made in behalf of appellant, nor could Dr. McMillan testify, that appellant was insane or incompetent under the test set forth in Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. 1977). The trial judge concluded this evidence would be admissible in the punishment phase of the trial, being relevant to mitigating circumstances, but that it was *130 not related to any issue in the guilt-determination phase of the trial. We see no error in these rulings. Appellant insists that the sentencing to death of a defendant who did no more than "accompany the killer on the underlying felony" is grossly disproportionate to the defendants moral guilt and is cruel and inhuman punishment. "Felony murder" can be the aggravating circumstance which justifies the imposition of the death penalty. See Presnell v. Georgia, 439 U.S. 14, 99 S. Ct. 235, 58 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1978); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 268, 96 S. Ct. 2950, 2955, 49 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1976); Cozzolino v. State, 584 S.W.2d 765 (Tenn. 1979). However, if the evidence in this case showed that appellant merely accompanied Strouth to the Budget Shop and waited outside in the get-away automobile as insisted by appellant, we would give serious consideration to holding, as did Justice White in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 621, 98 S. Ct. 2981, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1978), "that death may not be inflicted for killings consistent with the Eighth Amendment without a finding that the defendant engaged in conduct with the conscious purpose of producing death... ." 98 S. Ct. at 2985. But the evidence indicates that appellant's activities exceeded the mere accompanying of Strouth and driving of the get-away automobile. After the robbery and murder, two sets of footprints were found outside the rear entrance of the Budget Shop. Both sets of footprints were spaced so that they clearly indicated the persons making the prints "were running" as they left the shop. At the approximate time of the robbery and homicide, appellant and Strouth were observed on the roadway near the mouth of the alley leading from the Budget Shop running toward the home of appellant. Immediately on reaching his home, appellant collected his girlfriend and left Kingsport, taking no possessions with him. Further, appellant admits taking a "few" dollars from the robbery proceeds and used them in getting away from Kingsport. We think a jury reasonably could find from this evidence that appellant was an active participant in the robbery and murder of Mr. Keegan and was not, as appellant claimed, waiting for Strouth in an automobile. In the remaining assignment of error, appellant insists that T.C.A. § 39-2404(g)[2] is unconstitutional in that it "creates the presumption of death if one or more aggravating circumstances are proved, creating an unlawful shift in the burden of proof to the defendant." T.C.A. § 39-3404(g) is also attacked on the ground it makes death mandatory under certain conditions and does not allow the jury the opportunity to show mercy. Appellant also insists that T.C.A. § 39-2404(i)(5) one of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We see no merit in either instance. In this state, a trial on a charge of first degree murder is a bifurcated proceeding, with the jury first determining the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charge. Where it is found that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder, a second proceeding is held before the same jury to determine the sentence either life imprisonment, or death to be imposed. T.C.A. § 39-2404(a). The jury may impose the death penalty only upon finding that one or more aggravating circumstances listed in the statute are present, and further that such circumstance or circumstances are not outweighed by any mitigating circumstance. T.C.A. § 39-2404(g). The burden of proof rests upon the state to establish the aggravating circumstances beyond a *131 reasonable doubt and the jury must specifically find that these outweigh any mitigating circumstances before they are justified in imposing the death penalty. T.C.A. § 39-2404(f). These separate determinations must be put in writing and given to the trial judge along with the sentence of death, thus assuring that the jury has gone through the correct analysis in arriving at a death sentence. T.C.A. § 39-2404(g). This direction to the jury by the legislature of this state meets the requirement set forth in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 192, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 2934, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976) that a jury be given guidance in determining punishment when the death penalty is a possible punishment. The procedure described above is the suggested procedure of the Model Penal Code § 210.6, Comment 3, at 72 (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959), noted with approval by the United States Supreme Court in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 271 n. 6, 96 S. Ct. 2950, 2956 n. 6, 49 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1976). And, it has been held by this court to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Tennessee. See Houston v. State, 593 S.W.2d 267 (Tenn. 1980), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S. Ct. 251, 66 L. Ed. 2d 117, petition to rehear denied, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S. Ct. 797, 66 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1980); Cozzolino v. State, 584 S.W.2d 765 (Tenn. 1979). This procedure was followed in the instant case with the jury finding three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances. The argument by appellant that T.C.A. § 39-2404(g) makes death mandatory under certain circumstances and does not allow the jury the opportunity to show mercy, and as a result is unconstitutional, does not comport with our assessment of the effect of the statute. We pointed out in Houston v. State, supra, that: Appellant also urges that T.C.A. § 39-2404(i)(5), one of the two aggravating circumstances found by the jury, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The section of the statute under attack is as follows: In Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 255-56, 96 S. Ct. 2960, 2968, 49 L. Ed. 2d 913 (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States considered a similar attack on the constitutionality of an identical aggravating circumstance set forth in the Florida *132 death sentence statutes. The Court held that the aggravating circumstance, as construed by the Florida Supreme Court, was not impermissibly vague. The Florida Supreme Court had construed the provision to be directed at "the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim." State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1, 9 (Fla. 1973). In Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 (1975) the Florida court recognized that the provision was directed by its legislature at something "especially" heinous, atrocious or cruel, 322 So. 2d at 910. The trial court's instructions to the jury in this case are compatible with these constructions by the Florida court, which we approve. Further, as pointed out by the state in its brief, "the factual circumstances which the jury found in the instant case, the nature of the slitting of the victim's throat, support such an interpretation." Having again concluded that the Tennessee Death Penalty Act is constitutional and finding no prejudicial error committed in the trial, the judgment entered in the trial court of death by electrocution is affirmed. The date of the execution is set for July 15, 1981. FONES and HARBISON, JJ., concur. BROCK, C.J., dissents. BROCK, Chief Justice. I concur in the affirmance of Dicks' guilt of first degree murder, but I dissent from the sentence of death for the reasons herein set out. Article I, Section 16, of the Constitution of Tennessee provides: The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, contains a like prohibition. Although this Court has never declared a statute to be void because it is in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of Article I, Section 16, of the Tennessee Constitution, it long ago declared its authority and power to do so. In Brinkley v. State, 125 Tenn. 371, 143 S.W. 1120 (1911), the Court stated: Moreover, we are not bound to construe a provision of our own state constitution in the same way and to the same effect as the United States Supreme Court has construed a like provision of the federal constitution. A majority of this Court expressly so held in Miller v. State, Tenn., 584 S.W.2d 758 (1979). In the Miller case we refused to construe the ex post facto provisions of Article I, Section 11, of the Constitution of Tennessee so as to permit the application to the defendant of a death penalty statute which had been enacted after the commission of the homicide in question, although the Supreme Court of the United States in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S. Ct. 2290, 53 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1977), had held that the ex post facto provisions of Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States did not prevent the State of Florida from applying a Florida death penalty statute in similar circumstances. Speaking for the Court, Mr. Chief Justice Henry stated: To the same effect see State v. Kaluna, Hawaii, 520 P.2d 51 (1974). I concurred in the majority opinion in Cozzolino v. State, Tenn., 584 S.W.2d 765 (1979), which contains the following statement: In so doing I erred. But, I think it better to confess and correct that error than to perpetuate it.[1] I am unable to agree that the protection provided by the cruel and unusual punishments clause of Article I, Section 16, of the Tennessee Constitution must be reduced to the uncertainties and contradictions contained in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court involving the death penalty over the past ten years. In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1972), the Court struck down the death penalty as then applied on the ground that its imposition was capricious and arbitrary and, thus, unconstitutional. Nine separate opinions accompanied the 5 to 4 decision. Justices Brennan and Marshall found the death penalty to be cruel and unusual under all circumstances, and thus, unconstitutional. Justices Douglas, Stewart and White condemned the death penalty because it had been applied discriminatorily, "wantonly, ... freakishly, ... and so infrequently that it did not serve any public purpose... ." Stewart, J., at 408 U.S. 310, 92 S. Ct. 2763. Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun, Powell and Rehnquist dissented. Four years later, the Court held for the first time that a state could inflict the death penalty without violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976). A controlling plurality of the justices approved death penalty statutes that, in their view, narrowed the class of crimes for which the death penalty would be imposed and guided the discretion of the sentencer. Since Gregg v. Georgia, supra, however, just how much discretion the jury should be allowed in imposing death as a punishment has been a constant source of difficulty for the legislatures and the courts. On the one hand, notions of equal protection, due process, and fundamental fairness indicate that juries across the country should impose similar punishments for comparable crimes committed by comparable criminals. On the other hand, notions of compassion, individual justice and fairness indicate that it is "[h]ighly relevant if not essential" that the sentencer consider particular circumstances such as the background and personal characteristic of each defendant. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1978) [opinion of Burger, C.J., quoting Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1083, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1337 (1949)]. In my opinion it is impossible to reconcile this tension between consistency (sought to be achieved by guiding the *134 jury's discretion) and individual justice (attempted by allowing the jury to exercise discretion). The states' failure to achieve this delicate balance has forced the Supreme Court to overturn a number of death penalty sentences. See, e.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1976) (statutes providing for mandatory death sentence for certain offenses) (too little discretion); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S. Ct. 3001, 49 L. Ed. 2d 974 (1976) (statutes providing for mandatory death sentence for certain offenses and for submission of lesser-included offenses not supported by the evidence) (too little discretion in specifying sentence; too much caprice in specifying crime); Lockett v. Ohio, supra (statute listing exclusive mitigating circumstances) (too little discretion); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S. Ct. 1759, 64 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1980) (unconstitutional application of statute listing aggravating circumstances) (too much discretion); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S. Ct. 2382, 65 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1980) (statute precluding consideration of lesser-included offenses supported by the evidence) (too little discretion). The difficulty in striking a coherent balance between discretion and statutory control was pointed out in Lockett v. Ohio, supra, by Mr. Justice White, who chided the plurality for its "about face" since Furman. 438 U.S. at 622, 98 S. Ct. at 2982 (White, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment). And, Chief Justice Burger, reviewing the Court's recent death penalty cases, conceded that "The signals from this Court have not, however, always been easy to decipher." Id. at 602, 98 S. Ct. at 2963 (opinion of Burger, C.J.). I am not able to decipher "the signals" of those decisions and thus, make no prediction whether the current Tennessee death penalty statute, or the infliction of the death penalty in this particular case, can stand muster under the Eighth Amendment as it might be construed by a majority of the Supreme Court. Our General Assembly has made a good faith, conscientious effort to write a death penalty statute that complies with recent decisions of the Supreme Court. However, I have reached the settled conclusion that the death penalty violates Article I, Section 16, of the Constitution of Tennessee because it is a "cruel and unusual punishment." In an opinion by Chief Justice Hennessey, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in District Attorney for the Suffolk District v. James Watson, ___ Mass. ___, 411 N.E.2d 1274 (1980), has concluded that the death penalty statute of that state, equivalent to the Tennessee statute in every material respect, is invalid as a cruel or unusual punishment prohibited by Article 26 of Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Massachusetts because: "(1) the death penalty is unacceptably cruel under contemporary standards of decency, and (2) the death penalty is administered with unconstitutional arbitrariness and discrimination." Id. at 1275. I find the reasoning and conclusions of that opinion to be irrefutable. I believe it will stand as a landmark decision and by followed by the courts of many other jurisdictions in the years to come. I shall refer to it and quote from it extensively in this opinion. It must be conceded, of course, that at the time Article I, Section 16, of our state constitution was adopted in 1870 it was not considered to prohibit capital punishment. Capital punishment was employed before its adoption and has been employed since its adoption. But, as noted by the Supreme Court in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373, 30 S. Ct. 544, 551, 54 L. Ed. 793 (1910), a constitutional provision "is enacted, it is true, from an experience of evils but its general language should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore a principle, to be vital, must be capable of wider applications than the mischief which gave it birth." As noted by the Supreme Court of *135 California in People v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628, 100 Cal. Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880 (1972), cert. denied 406 U.S. 958, 92 S. Ct. 2060, 32 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1972): See also Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S. Ct. 590, 598, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1958), in which the Supreme Court observed that the Eighth Amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Therefore, when the validity of the death penalty is drawn in question, judges cannot avoid the task of determining whether the death penalty continues to conform to the "standards of the age."[2] If it falls below that standard, it is the duty of the court to declare it to be invalid. Ever since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) that has been the way such questions have been decided in this country. The courts have no more authority to defer to the judgment of the legislature in determining what is a "cruel and unusual" punishment than to defer to that branch of government for a determination of what is "due" process of law or what is an "unreasonable" search and seizure. In each of these instances, the determination is a judicial one which, in our jurisprudence, resides with the courts and cannot be avoided. What considerations enter into a determination whether the death penalty does or does not comply with contemporary moral standards? Clearly, there is not unanimity of public opinion either favoring or opposing the death penalty. However, public opinion, although relevant, is not conclusive of the issue. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has correctly pointed out "... that what our society does in actuality is a much more compelling indicator of the acceptability of the death penalty than the responses citizens may give upon questioning." Watson, supra, 411 N.E.2d at 1282. The last person executed in Tennessee was William Tines, on November 7, 1960. There was one execution in 1959 (Thomas Rutledge). There were none in 1958, two in 1957, and none in 1956. There were four in 1955. There were none in 1954, 1953, 1952, or 1951. No executions were carried out in the four recent administrations of Governor Frank Clement, Governor Buford Ellington, Governor Winfield Dunn and Governor Ray Blanton. Reciting a lack of executions in Massachusetts since 1948, Chief Justice Hennessey of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in District Attorney for the *136 Suffolk District v. Watson, supra, made this statement: The above recited experience in Tennessee leads me to a similar conclusion. I now point out certain aspects of the death penalty which, in my view, render it "cruel and unusual." The utter finality of the death penalty may cruelly frustrate the cause of justice. Once the prisoner has been put to death by the state there can be no relief granted although later developments in the evidence of the case or of the controlling law may show, conclusively, that the penalty was mistakenly inflicted.[3] Again, I quote from the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the Watson case: The death penalty is now unique in its designed infliction of both mental and physical pain upon the prisoner. This was pointed out by Mr. Justice Brennan in Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 287-88, 92 S. Ct. at 2751, as follows: See also, People v. Anderson, supra, 6 Cal. 3d at 649, 100 Cal. Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880. The barbarous nature of the death penalty and especially of the mental cruelty *137 which it inflicts upon the prisoner has been vividly expressed by Justice Liacos of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, as follows: In a footnote, Justice Liacos further states, Finally, the death penalty is absolutely unnecessary as a punishment and, therefore, is cruel.[4] Society would be adequately protected from the condemned murderer by his permanent imprisonment; killing him is not necessary. Our law recognizes only one instance in which a deliberate killing is justified, viz., one may kill another in his own or another's necessary self-defense. This being true, how can the whole body of individuals making up "The State" be justified in killing a person when it is unnecessary to do so for the protection of the people of the state? See Capital Punishment, 56 T. Sellin (1967 edition). By any modern concept of the term "cruel," the deliberate and unnecessary killing of a human being is cruel, whether done by an individual or by the State. With respect to the question whether the death penalty is necessary, the Supreme Court of California, in holding that its death penalty statute violated the "cruel or unusual" punishments clause of its state constitution, said in People v. Anderson, supra: I find that I am in agreement with the views thus expressed by the California Supreme Court. Life imprisonment without parole is an alternative that serves the functions of severely punishing the criminal and permanently protecting the society from the possibility of a repeated offense. Some writers have attempted to justify the death penalty on the grounds that society needs to kill some criminals in order to deter others from potential crimes. After a century of debate, investigators and scholars are in disagreement, at best, about whether the death penalty in fact does deter crime; indeed, some argue that it has the opposite effect. To prove that the death penalty, in particular, is a deterrent would require more than proof that the possibility of punishment, in general, deters crime. The proof would have to show that there are potential crimes that are not committed because of the existence of the death penalty and that they would be committed otherwise. Such an inquiry, by its nature, would be highly speculative. In any event, my view is that, for the reasons discussed herein, the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment for the person upon whom it is inflicted and is, therefore, unconstitutional. Were it positively shown that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on others, it would still be unconstitutional because it is a cruel and unusual punishment for the person upon whom it is inflicted. In other words, deterrence, or the lack thereof, is irrelevant to the constitutional issue whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual. Deterrent effect cannot save a cruel and unusual punishment. I am convinced that it is inevitable that the death penalty will be applied capriciously *140 and arbitrarily.[5] Again, I quote approvingly from the opinion of the Massachusetts court in Watson: I also agree with the Massachusetts court that while unguided jury discretion is intolerable, statutory guidelines cannot cure that uncertainty entirely; the subtle distinctions in the elements of crimes can be virtually impossible to define with certainty. I think the Massachusetts court is correct in its conclusion that even if guidelines could cure the arbitrariness in the jury's determination of the crime and the sentence, the death penalty still would be arbitrarily inflicted because of the unguided, discretionary powers exercised by others in the judicial process: See also Furman v. Georgia, supra, 408 U.S. at 286-300 and 287 n. 34, 92 S. Ct. at 2750-2757 and 2751 n. 34 (Brennan, J., concurring); Lockett v. Ohio, supra, 438 U.S. at 604-05, 98 S. Ct. at 2964-65 (opinion of Burger, C.J.). I would apply the foregoing reasoning to the Tennessee death penalty statute and hold that is is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by Article I, Section 16, of the Tennessee Constitution because, inevitably, it is arbitrarily and capriciously imposed.[8] The death penalty issue is a very complicated one; much more could be said about the subject than I have said. I adopt the following conclusion from the opinion of the California court in People v. Anderson, supra, to wit: I would hold that the death penalty, under all circumstances, is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by Article I, Section 16, of the Constitution of Tennessee. Therefore, I dissent from the imposition of the death penalty in this case. [1] Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968). [2] If the jury unanimously determines that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance or several statutory aggravating circumstances have been proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt, and said circumstance or circumstances are not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances, the sentence shall be death. If the death penalty is the sentence of the jury, the jury shall (1) reduce to writing the statutory aggravating circumstance or statutory aggravating circumstances so found and (2) signify that there were no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances so found. These findings and verdict shall be returned to the judge upon a form provided by the court... . [1] Cozzolino was granted a new sentencing hearing which resulted in his receiving a life imprisonment sentence. I did not participate in the decision of Houston v. State, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 267 (1980). [2] "If we look back at history, we find that capital punishment was once thought to be the only just punishment for thieves, adulteresses, heretics, and forgers. The sentiment of justice went so far as to require the robber to have his bones broken and his still living body left to expire tied to the spokes of a wheel fixed on a pole on a scaffold. We now find such punishments revolting; we use the death penalty only to remove life, and we perform the operation in the seclusion of a prison chamber. The point is that justice is a relative concept that changes with the times. A sense of justice must exist among all people to regulate their living together. This is an immutable requirement of social life, but what justice means is not immutable." Sellin, "The Inevitable End of Capital Punishment," in Capital Punishment 241-42 (T. Sellin ed. 1967). [3] The reality of the danger of convicting and punishing an innocent person is shown by our case, Forbes v. State, Tenn., 559 S.W.2d 318 (1977). Forbes was convicted of rape and served five years of a very long sentence in the penitentiary before he was pardoned recently by Governor Alexander after the police and the prosecuting attorney acknowledged that a mistake had been made and recommended that the Governor pardon Forbes. One shudders to think of the fate of forbes if rape had been punishable by death. [4] "The principle that a severe punishment must not be excessive does not, of course, mean that a severe punishment is constitutional merely because it is necessary. A State could not now, for example, inflict a punishment condemned by history, for any such punishment, no matter how necessary, would be intolerably offensive to human dignity. The point is simply that the unnecessary infliction of suffering is also offensive to human dignity." Furman v. Georgia, supra, 408 U.S. at 281 n. 26, 92 S. Ct. at 2748 n. 26 (Brennan, J., concurring). [5] See, generally, C. Block, Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake (1974); Block, Due Process for Death: Jurek v. Texas and Companion Cases, 26 Cath.U.L.Rev. 1 (1976). [6] I would add Governors to this list. [7] Two of our recent cases serve as examples: Cozzolino v. State, supra, and State v. Berry, 592 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1980). Both Cozzolino and Berry were convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal this Court ordered new trials. Upon the second trial, after a change of venue, Cozzolino's punishment was fixed at life imprisonment. After Berry's case was remanded for a new trial, his counsel and the prosecutor made a plea bargain that resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment. Same defendants, same crimes, same cases; but very different sentences resulted from the second proceedings. [8] I have treated arbitrariness and capriciousness of the infliction of the death penalty as an aspect of its being "cruel and unusual," as most courts have done. In my opinion this objection may also be considered as a lack of "due process."