Opinion ID: 1085420
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arbitrariness of Death Penalty

Text: Our review of the record confirms that the death sentence in this case was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion. Although Mr. Pruitt claims the death penalty was imposed arbitrarily, he points to no procedural infirmity in the prosecution of his case. Our review of the record demonstrates that Mr. Pruitt received a full and fair trial at both the guilt and penalty phases in accordance with the applicable statutes and procedural rules. 2. Evidence of Statutory Aggravating Circumstances We also conclude that the evidence supports the jury’s findings with respect to the three aggravating circumstances. Mr. Pruitt concedes that the evidence is sufficient to support the application of two of the aggravating circumstances, and we agree. Mr. Pruitt’s prior convictions for aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempted robbery support the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(2). Mr. Pruitt was previously convicted of robbery and aggravated robbery, and the indictments in those cases specified that the offenses involved violence to the person. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-204(i)(2), -401, -402. Likewise, the evidence that Mr. Guidroz was seventy-nine years old at the time of his murder supports the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(14), that the victim of the murder was seventy years of age or older. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(14). The evidence also supports the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(7). The (i)(7) aggravating circumstance requires that the murder be “knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant, while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit” one of the specified felonies, in this case, robbery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(7). Mr. Pruitt contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he “knowingly” killed Mr. Guidroz so as to support the (i)(7) aggravating circumstance because no evidence was presented that he was aware that throwing Mr. Guidroz to the ground was reasonably -25- certain to kill him. Murder is a “result-of-conduct” offense. See State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593, 615 (Tenn. 2006). “A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(20) (2010). Testimony from Taka Pruitt established that Mr. Pruitt pushed Mr. Guidroz into Mr. Guidroz’s car. Ms. Pruitt testified that Mr. Pruitt appeared to be inside the car “tussling” with Mr. Guidroz. Dr. Chancellor’s testimony detailed the extensive injuries suffered by Mr. Guidroz. Both Dr. Chancellor and Dr. Levy testified that Mr. Guidroz’s injuries were not entirely consistent with simply being pushed to the ground. The expert testimony detailing three separate skull fractures and eleven fractures to eight different ribs established that Mr. Pruitt violently beat Mr. Guidroz. Mr. Pruitt admitted that he threw Mr. Guidroz to the ground in what Mr. Pruitt described to Mr. Johnson as a “body-slam.” Whether a person acted “knowingly” is a question of fact for the jury. State v. Brown, 311 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn. 2010). The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Mr. Pruitt was aware that his conduct was reasonably certain to cause Mr. Guidroz’s death. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to establish that this was a “knowing” killing and to submit the felony murder aggravating circumstance to the jury. 3. Weighing Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances We next consider whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court instructed the jury that before a sentence of death or sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole could be imposed, the jury must unanimously find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more statutory aggravating circumstances. As noted, the trial court instructed the jury on the aggravating circumstances found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(2),
In addition, the trial court instructed the jury as to its consideration of mitigating circumstances as follows: Tennessee law provides that in arriving at the punishment the jury shall consider as previously indicated any mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence which shall include but aren’t limited to the following: One, the capacity of the Defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his misconduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or intoxication -26- which was insufficient to establish a defense to the crime but which substantially affected his judgment. Two, the youth of the Defendant at the time of the crime. Three, the Defendant has a family whose members have expressed love and support. Four, the Defendant’s formal education is limited to completing the seventh grade of school. Five, the Defendant’s father has never been a part of the Defendant’s life. Six, the Defendant’s family for three generations may have suffered from mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction. Seven, the Defendant’s mother was arrested for receiving stolen property when the Defendant was two years old and has many arrests thereafter. Eight, the Defendant experienced significant deficits in his adaptive behavior. Nine, the Defendant’s I.Q. has been measured at 66, and he was diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded when he was age sixteen. Ten, the Defendant was diagnosed as being mildly mentally retarded by the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Center. Eleven, the Defendant suffers from schizophrenia, has made suicide attempts and has a family history of schizophrenia. Twelve, the Defendant has expressed pressure and stressors leading up to the crime. Thirteen, the Defendant did not intentionally kill Lawrence Guidroz. Fourteen, the Defendant did not premeditatively kill Lawrence Guidroz. Fifteen, the failure of our social system to protect and school the Defendant. [Sixteen,] [t]he failure of our mental health system to treat the Defendant. -27- Seventeen, the neglect and abandonment of the Defendant during his childhood. Eighteen, the trauma produced by loss during the Defendant’s childhood. Nineteen, the Defendant has expressed remorse for his action. Twenty, any residual doubt that remains with you concerning the guilt or intent of the Defendant. Twenty-one, the Defendant possibly was prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol. Twenty-two, the impact of an execution of the Defendant upon his family members. Twenty-three, any other mitigating factor which is raised by the evidence, produced by either the Prosecution or Defense at either the guilt or sentencing hearing. That is, you shall consider any aspect of the Defendant’s character or record or any aspect of the circumstances of the offense favorable to the Defendant which is supported by the evidence. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that Mr. Pruitt had no burden to prove a mitigating circumstance and that there was no requirement of jury unanimity as to any particular mitigating circumstances and no requirement that the jury agree on the same mitigating circumstance. The trial court further instructed the jury that “the sentence shall be death” if the jury unanimously found that the State had proven the existence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Our standard of review is to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is taken in a light most favorable to the State. State v. Stephenson, 195 S.W.3d 574, 593 (Tenn. 2006) (abrogated on other grounds by State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012)). We concluded in the previous section that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of the three statutory aggravating circumstances. We have reviewed the -28- statutory and non-statutory mitigating circumstances included in the court’s penalty phase instructions to the jury. Although the mitigating circumstances may outnumber the aggravating circumstances, we conclude that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could have found that the (i)(2), (i)(7), and (i)(14) aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Proportionality of Death Sentence Finally, we address whether Mr. Pruitt’s sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). Our interpretation of this statutory mandate and the resulting comparative proportionality review standards were formalized in State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). The statutory directive requires us to conduct proportionality review in every capital case, and the parties addressed the issue of proportionality review in their initial briefs and oral arguments. Based on the nature of the challenges to proportionality review raised during oral argument and a careful deliberation of the issues, we determined that certain issues could benefit from additional briefing. We ordered the parties to submit additional briefs and scheduled re-argument on the following issues: whether the absence of an intent to kill should render the death penalty disproportionate; whether the proportionality analysis adopted by the majority of the Court in State v. Bland should be modified; and whether the category of cases considered in our proportionality analysis should be broadened. We also invited several organizations to submit amici curiae briefs on these issues. We begin with an examination as to whether the absence of an intent to kill should render the death penalty disproportionate. Mr. Pruitt responds to this question by asserting categorical and statutory comparative proportionality challenges to the death penalty. Because we discuss the role of a defendant’s culpable mental state in comparative proportionality review below, we turn to Mr. Pruitt’s categorical challenge.
Categorical proportionality examines whether the death penalty is proportionate as a punishment when applied to a specific category of offenders or offenses.14 Mr. Pruitt’s 14 A variety of terms have been used to describe these Eighth Amendment proportionality challenges to the death penalty. The United States Supreme Court often uses the terms categorical rule or categorical proportionality. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (prohibiting the death penalty for (continued...) -29- categorical proportionality challenge is that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment under the Eighth Amendment in felony murder cases in which the sole participant intended to commit the underlying felony but the killing was allegedly unintentional. As raised, we interpret this argument as a challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty as punishment for felony murder. The constitutionality of the death penalty for felony murder has been repeatedly challenged in Tennessee. In State v. Barber, 753 S.W.2d 659, 671 (Tenn. 1988), the defendant contended that the felony murder statute was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The basis of the defendant’s claim was that the statute elevated an accidental killing to the level of first degree murder with a possible sentence of death if the killing was committed during one of the enumerated felonies. Barber, 753 S.W.2d at 671. The felony murder statute in effect at the time of Barber did not require a separate mens rea for the killing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-201(a) (1982). This Court rejected the constitutional challenge, holding that the imposition of the death penalty in the manner proscribed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-2-202 does not violate the United States and Tennessee constitutions. Barber, 753 S.W.2d at 671 (citing with approval State v. Hopper, 695 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985), which held that the statutory form of felony murder is “a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative function”). The constitutionality of our felony murder statute was again addressed at length by this Court in State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 335. In Middlebrooks, the defendant was convicted of felony murder as a participant in an aggravated kidnapping involving torture and the eventual killing of the minor victim. 840 S.W.2d at 325. Felony murder at that time included a “reckless” mens rea requirement. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2) (1991). Following the penalty phase, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture; and (2) the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(5), (7) (1982). The defendant was sentenced to death. On appeal, we addressed the constitutionality of both the felony murder statute and the felony murder aggravating circumstance. 14 (...continued) juveniles); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (prohibiting the death penalty for intellectually disabled individuals). This Court has discussed categorical proportionality using a variety of terms including “traditional Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis” in State v. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d 759, 781 (Tenn. 2001), and “per se proportionality approach” in State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317, 341 (Tenn. 1997) (discussed infra). -30- The felony murder statute has traditionally applied to the perpetrator of the felony murder and to his or her accomplices. The statute’s basic premise is that a defendant who willingly and actively participates in one of the enumerated felonies becomes accountable for the consequences flowing from the commission of, or participation in, the felony and may be convicted of first degree murder. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 336. In Middlebrooks, we recognized that Tennessee allows convictions for first degree murder of “those who commit accidental killings, and of persons who did not kill the victim and may not have intended that the victim be killed or suffer any physical harm.” 840 S.W.2d at 336. Although the felony murder doctrine has been challenged repeatedly, the vast majority of states permitting the death penalty authorize its imposition in cases of felony murder under some circumstances. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 337 (citing Finkel, Capital FelonyMurder, Objective Indicia, and Community Sentiment, 32 Ariz. L. Rev. 819, 890 (1990)).15 The Court also recognized that few legislatures had repealed the doctrine and that courts continued to enforce it. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 337. Against this backdrop, the Court turned its focus to the issue of mental culpability and the minimum standards for determining whether a sentence of death may be constitutionally imposed under the United States Constitution. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 337. In Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), and Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), the United States Supreme Court examined whether the death penalty is a constitutionally disproportionate penalty for an accomplice who participates in the felony but who did not actually kill the victim. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 337. Enmund stands for the proposition that the death penalty is permissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments if a defendant kills or attempts to kill another, or intends that a killing take place or that lethal force will be imposed. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 337-38 (citing Enmund, 458 U.S. at 797). Tison permits the imposition of the death penalty in situations in which a defendant substantially participates in the underlying felony and exhibits a reckless disregard or indifference to the value of human life, even if the defendant is not the perpetrator of the murder. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 337-38 (citing Tison, 481 U.S. at 157-58). We noted that this minimum standard set by the United States Supreme Court did not answer the question under article I, section 16 of our constitution. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 338 (citing State v. Dicks, 615 S.W.2d 126, 132 (Tenn. 1981) (recognizing that this Court may impose higher standards and stronger protections than those set by the federal constitution)). In answering this question, the Court used the Gregg v. Georgia criteria 15 The Court acknowledged that a number of jurisdictions allow the death penalty only when a killing perpetrated during the felony is intentional, deliberate, purposeful or knowing. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 337. -31- utilized in State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). The Gregg analysis requires the following three inquiries: First, does the punishment for the offense conform with the contemporary standards of decency? Second, is the punishment grossly disproportionate to the offense? Third, does the punishment go beyond what is necessary to accomplish any legitimate, penological objective?16 Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 338 (citing Black, 815 S.W.2d at 190-91). We held, based on the responses of legislatures and juries, that the death penalty is an appropriate sanction for felony murder and that imposing the death penalty for felony murder does not go beyond what is necessary to accomplish legitimate, penological objectives. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 338-40. We also concluded that the absence of intent does not render the death penalty disproportionate for felony murder. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 339-40 (citing Tison, 481 U.S. at 157, which recognized that “some nonintentional murderers may be among the most dangerous and inhumane of all”). This Court rejected what we termed “per se” disproportionality, in which the death penalty is deemed disproportionate when an offender falls within a particular category. Instead, we maintained our reliance on statutory comparative proportionality to compare defendants on a case-by-case basis. We concluded that the death penalty for felony murder in Tennessee does not per se violate article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d at 340-41. The issue of the constitutionality of the felony murder statute came full circle in State v. Godsey, in which we addressed the effect of the 1995 amendment to our felony murder statute. 60 S.W.3d at 773. The 1995 amendment deleted “reckless” as the required mental state, returning the felony murder statute to its pre-1989 form. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 773. Mr. Godsey argued that the removal of the culpable mental state fundamentally changed the felony murder doctrine so as to render our felony murder statute unconstitutional. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 773. We disagreed and determined that the statute as amended was consistent with the traditional felony murder doctrine because the State was required to prove that the predicate felony was committed with the requisite culpable mental state. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 773. We reaffirmed Barber and Middlebrooks and rejected the defendant’s argument that the 1995 amendment violated due process or constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 773-74. Mr. Pruitt acknowledges our consistent affirmation of the constitutionality of the death penalty as punishment for felony murder, including our refusal to consider felony murder categorically disproportionate. Nevertheless, he maintains that courts must continuously revisit the death penalty to determine if it remains a proportionate punishment in a given 16 In Black, the Court first examined the constitutionality of the imposition of the death penalty under article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution. Black, 815 S.W.2d at 185. -32- category in light of evolving standards of decency. See Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 (2008); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01 (1958). In this case, Mr. Pruitt asks us to reexamine categorical proportionality with regard to felony murder when the perpetrator intended to commit the predicate felony but did not intend that a killing occur. Mr. Pruitt alleges that the killing of Mr. Guidroz was unintentional and that he therefore falls within this category. Citing a series of decisions by the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Pruitt contends that the standards of decency have evolved to such a degree that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for this category of felony murderers and is therefore disproportionate in his case.17 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that as our society matures, our standards of decency evolve as well. A defendant challenging the application of the death penalty for a certain class of cases must prove that a societal consensus against imposing the death penalty has emerged. See Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 373 (1989). Proportionality review under evolving standards of decency should be guided by objective factors. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 312. The primary and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation or pattern of laws enacted by the state legislatures. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 312; Stanford, 492 U.S. at 373. “Objective indicia” of society’s standards are also expressed through a state’s practice regarding executions. Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 421 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 563). Whether the death penalty is disproportionate to a particular category also depends on controlling precedent and the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation and understanding of the Eighth Amendment. Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 421. To meet his burden in this case, Mr. Pruitt must therefore provide objective evidence that a societal consensus has emerged against imposition of the death penalty for an unintentional killing committed during the commission of a felony. Mr. Pruitt focuses on two primary areas in which he claims the evolving standards and consensus are most evident. First, he points to Atkins and Roper as evidence of the Supreme Court’s narrowing of the class of defendants subject to the death penalty based on personal culpability. Second, Mr. Pruitt claims that Enmund and Tison illustrate a societal shift away from imposing the death penalty for unintentional killings. Both assertions fall short of meeting Mr. Pruitt’s burden in this case. 17 See Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 446 (interpreting the United States Constitution as prohibiting the death penalty for the offense of rape of a child under age twelve); Roper, 543 U.S. at 578 (interpreting the United States Constitution as prohibiting the death penalty for juveniles); Atkins, 536 U.S. at 321 (interpreting the United States Constitution as prohibiting the death penalty for persons with an intellectual disability); Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d at 812 (interpreting the Tennessee Constitution as prohibiting the death penalty for intellectually disabled persons). -33- In Atkins, the United States Supreme Court determined that societal standards had evolved to the extent that imposing the death penalty on intellectually disabled defendants violated the Eighth Amendment. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 321. In Roper, the Supreme Court concluded that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders under the age of eighteen. 543 U.S. at 578. In both cases, the defendants presented significant evidence that a number of state legislatures excluded juveniles and intellectually disabled offenders from capital sentencing schemes, and that juries in those states had declined to impose the death penalty on those categories of individuals. In this case, however, Mr. Pruitt has provided no objective evidence that the same trends are occurring with respect to an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission of a felony. We must similarly reject Mr. Pruitt’s submission of Enmund and Tison as further objective evidence of evolving standards of decency. Enmund and Tison addressed defendants who were accomplices to, but not perpetrators of, felony murder. Enmund and Tison conducted extensive analyses of the capital sentencing schemes of the various states and the states’ authorization of the death penalty for felony murder in various instances. However, the Supreme Court gave no indication in either case that the death penalty for felony murder had fallen into disfavor because some states, including Tennessee, require no culpable mental state for felony murder. The legislative and judicial responses to Enmund and Tison lend little support to the arguments advanced by Mr. Pruitt.18 We find no significant legislative or judicial retreat from felony murder or the imposition of the death penalty for felony murder when the respective statutory criteria for capital punishment are met. Furthermore, we find no significant movement by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of a principal’s culpability in a felony murder case. Likewise, in Tennessee, we see no evidence of significant judicial or legislative movement away from the death penalty for felony murder. Our death penalty statute continues to include felony murder for which no culpable mental state is required as a capital offense, and our juries continue to impose the death penalty for felony murder. Mr. Pruitt has failed to demonstrate the existence of a societal consensus against executing a felony murderer who did not intend to kill the victim. For these reasons, we affirm our holding in Middlebrooks and reject Mr. Pruitt’s challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty for felony murder. 18 See Joseph Trigilio & Tracy Casadio, Executing Those Who Do Not Kill: A Categorical Approach to Proportional Sentencing, 48 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1371 (2011). -34-
Our examination now turns to the statutory comparative proportionality review mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). Within this examination, we consider whether the comparative proportionality analysis formalized in State v. Bland should be modified, including whether the pool of cases considered in comparative proportionality analysis should be broadened. We also look at the role that a defendant’s culpable mental state plays in statutory comparative proportionality review. In State v. Bland, we articulated the comprehensive analysis that this Court had utilized for eighteen years to conduct statutory comparative proportionality review under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(D).19 Bland confirmed this Court’s application of the precedent-seeking method of analysis, which requires the reviewing court to compare the case on appeal with other cases in which the defendants were convicted of the same or similar crimes. 958 S.W.2d at 664. This comparison examines the facts of the crimes, the characteristics of the defendants, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances involved. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 664. The function of the comparative review is not to search for proof that a defendant’s death sentence is perfectly symmetrical with others. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 665. Rather, the precedent-seeking method enables this Court to identify “aberrant [death] sentences,” which is the goal of comparative proportionality review. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 665.20 19 The dissent’s claim that Bland changed the proportionality analysis this Court had applied from 1977 to 1997 is inaccurate. The majority in Bland emphasized that it was not enunciating a new test but was merely articulating in detail the analysis the Court had consistently employed during the preceding eighteen years. 958 S.W.2d at 664-65, 667. This point was reiterated in a number of subsequent cases. See, e.g., State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 789 (Tenn. 1998); State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 513, 537 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679, 699 (Tenn. 1997). At least one member of the majority in Bland had served during seventeen of the eighteen years in which comparative proportionality review had been conducted prior to Bland. The majority’s collective knowledge and insight placed it in the unique position to determine whether Bland constituted a change in the law. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, Bland’s addition of the guiding considerations and use of the phrase “plainly lacking in circumstances” did not equate to a pronouncement of a new proportionality analysis. 20 Contrary to the dissent’s assertions and its paraphrase of the statutory language, Bland is consistent with the plain language and legislative intent of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). The dissent erroneously uses the phrases “worst of the bad” and “punishment fits the crime” to describe the ultimate goal of proportionality review. Although these terms commonly appear in death penalty jurisprudence and in related literature, these phrases refer to the aim of the entire capital sentencing scheme and not to statutory comparative proportionality review in isolation. Determining the “worst of the bad” begins with the types of murders or murderers a state legislature has decided warrant a sentence of death and is reflected in the statutory scheme adopted by the legislature, including the statutory aggravating (continued...) -35- In determining which cases are “similar cases” for the purposes of comparison under the statute, the Court selected Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 12 cases as the universe from which the more narrow pool of “similar cases” would be drawn.21 Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 665-66. In Bland, we chose as our pool those cases in which a capital sentencing hearing was conducted to determine whether the sentence should be death, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or life imprisonment, regardless of the sentence returned by the jury. 958 S.W.2d at 666. After describing the pool of similar cases, the Bland Court enumerated several factors relevant to the process of identifying and comparing similar cases including: (1) the means of death; (2) the manner of death; (3) the motivation for the killing; (4) the place of death; (5) the similarity of the victims’ circumstances including age, physical and mental conditions, and the victims’ treatment during the killing; (6) the absence or presence of premeditation; (7) the absence or presence of provocation; (8) the absence or presence of justification; and (9) the injury to and effects on nondecedent victims. 958 S.W.2d at 667. The Court also identified relevant criteria when comparing the characteristics of defendants, including the defendant’s: (1) prior criminal record or prior criminal activity; (2) age, race, and gender; (3) mental, emotional, or physical condition; (4) involvement or role in the murder; (5) cooperation with authorities; (6) remorse; (7) knowledge of helplessness of victim(s), and (8) capacity for rehabilitation. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 667. The Court recognized that even within the framework established in Bland, “[c]omparative proportionality review is not a rigid, objective test.” Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 668. The reviewing court must also rely on the collective “experienced judgment and intuition” of its members. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 668. A death sentence is not deemed disproportionate “unless, the case taken as a whole is plainly lacking in circumstances 20 (...continued) circumstances. Our proportionality statute’s inquiry is whether the death sentence in a particular case is “excessive” or “disproportionate” to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). The statute does not require this Court to determine whether a death penalty is proportionate to the sentences imposed in all first degree murder cases in Tennessee. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 665. By focusing on whether a death sentence is “disproportionate” or “aberrant,” the Bland analysis is true to the statutory language. 21 Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 12 requires a standardized report to be completed in all cases in which the defendant is convicted of first degree murder, including cases remanded by the appellate court for retrial or resentencing. This requirement also applies to cases in which a defendant pleads guilty to first degree murder. Rule 12 reports are returned to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. A database of Rule 12 reports is available on CD-ROM. -36- consistent with those cases where the death penalty has been imposed.” Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 668.22 We first examine whether the Bland proportionality analysis should be modified by broadening the pool of cases used in our statutory comparative proportionality review. In Bland, we recognized that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) did not identify those cases that the General Assembly deemed to be “similar cases” for the purpose of comparative proportionality review. 958 S.W.2d at 665-66. We examined other state statutes and judicial decisions to assist us in determining the most appropriate pool of similar cases for our proportionality comparison. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 666 n.15. In Bland, we found three primary pools utilized in jurisdictions across the United States. 958 S.W.2d at 666. In some states, the pool is limited by statute or judicial decision to cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 666 n.15. Other jurisdictions limit the pool to cases in which the State sought the death penalty and a sentencing hearing was held, regardless of the actual sentence imposed. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 666 n.15. The final pool includes all death-eligible homicide convictions or indictments. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 666 n.15. As indicated above, we defined the pool as including first degree murder cases in which a capital sentencing hearing was conducted to determine whether the sentence should be death, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or life imprisonment, regardless of the sentence returned by the jury. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 666.23 This choice aligned 22 The dissent insists that Bland is “the seeming conflation of the consideration of the circumstances in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-31-206(c)(1)(B) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D).” We disagree. Bland was the first Tennessee decision to fully survey the Supreme Court’s prior decisions to glean and enumerate a number of factors, other than aggravating circumstances, that are relevant in comparative proportionality review. Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 667. Rather than “conflating” the analysis, Bland provided a more structured