Opinion ID: 1060719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: howell analysis

Text: The principles evident in these Supreme Court casesthat a constitutional error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that appellate review must preserve the constitutional requirement of individualized sentencingwere of primary concern in our opinion in State v. Howell . We therefore held that when a jury has returned a death sentence based partially on the invalid felony murder aggravating circumstance, the verdict may be upheld only if a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same had the jury given no weight to the invalid factor. See id. at 260; see also Stringer, 503 U.S. at 230-31, 112 S.Ct. at 1136-37. In order to guarantee the precision that individualized sentencing considerations demand in capital cases and to provide a principled explanation for our review in each case, we established the following framework for appellate review: [I]t is important, when conducting harmless error review, to completely examine the record for the presence of factors which potentially influence the sentence ultimately imposed. These include, but are not limited to, the number and strength of remaining valid aggravating circumstances, the prosecutor's argument at sentencing, the evidence admitted to establish the invalid aggravator, and the nature, quality and strength of mitigating evidence. Id. at 260-61, 112 S.Ct. 1130 (emphasis added). As discussed above, the first factor in Howell requires consideration of any valid aggravating circumstances found by the jury. We stressed that even more crucial than the sum of the remaining aggravating circumstances is the qualitative nature of each circumstance, its substance and persuasiveness, as well as the quantum of proof supporting it. Id. at 261. Accordingly, Howell expressly requires in-depth and critical analysis of all remaining aggravating circumstances. The proper analysis is set out in Howell and later cases. In Howell , we found that the Middlebrooks error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because evidence supporting the remaining aggravating circumstance of prior violent felony convictions was undisputed and overwhelming. Id. at 262. Although we observed that this aggravating circumstance is more qualitatively persuasive and objectively reliable than other aggravating circumstances, id. at 261, we still analyzed the substance and persuasiveness of the evidence that supported the (i)(2) aggravating circumstance as it applied to defendant Howell. We said: In addition to the cold-blooded execution-style murder . . . in Memphis, Tennessee, the defendant committed another similar cold-blooded execution-style murder in Oklahoma within twenty-four hours . . . . Less than thirty days later, he committed an armed robbery in Florida and later engaged in a shootout with police officers before his capture, for which he was convicted of attempted murder. A few years earlier, he had been convicted in Wyoming for armed robbery. Id. at 262. Similarly, in State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn.1994), the Middlebrooks error was found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because the valid remaining aggravating circumstance, prior violent felonies, was supported by five prior convictions for aggravated rape. In performing the harmless error analysis as required by Howell , we reviewed each of the five prior convictions in detail and considered the substance and persuasiveness of the evidence: the defendant had committed five similar aggravated rapes within 90 days of [the victim's] murder, and in three instances was armed with weapons including a cord, a pistol, and a knife. The modus operandi of the convictions was similar to the felony resulting in [the victim's] murder. The defendant, when energized, went out night after night, roaming the city, selecting vulnerable victims, eventually breaking into their homes and violently committing rape. The evidence supporting the remaining valid aggravating circumstance is undisputed and overwhelming.  Id. at 738 (emphasis added); see also State v. Boyd, 959 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn.1998) (finding Middlebrooks error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part due to seriousness of the second degree murder used to establish the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance). Likewise, the substance and persuasiveness of the remaining valid aggravating circumstances was scrutinized in cases where the Middlebrooks error required remand for a resentencing. In Hartman v. State, 896 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn.1995), this Court stressed: In Howell , we noted that a critical factor in our harmless-error analysis was the qualitative nature of each aggravating circumstance that remained after the invalid aggravator was removed from the sentencing equation. This Court stated an intention to look to the substance of the remaining circumstances and their persuasiveness, as well as to the quantum of proof supporting them. The objective reliability of a remaining aggravating circumstance is of particular importance in this evaluation. Id. at 103 (emphasis added). In State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn.1995), this Court conducted the Howell harmless error analysis and observed that the defendant's prior violent felony conviction for voluntary manslaughter was not nearly as positive as the evidence supporting the aggravating circumstance in Howell . Moreover, we indicated that the Howell analysis requires more than merely determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the remaining aggravating circumstance: [Walker] was indicted for first degree murder and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. While this is, as instructed by the trial judge, conviction of a violent felony we have no way of knowing and cannot speculate whether the jury would have imposed the death penalty with one of the two aggravating circumstances withdrawn from their consideration and with the necessity of weighing the one remaining aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstances. Walker, 910 S.W.2d at 398 (emphasis added). In contrast, the majority in this case declines to reweigh the evidence of aggravating circumstances, stating only that it has considered the record and finds the valid aggravating circumstances objectively reliable and amply supported by the proof. The majority does not discuss the strength, qualitative nature, substance, persuasiveness, or quantum of the proof supporting the valid aggravating circumstances despite the express requirement in Howell . Thus, the majority fails to properly apply Howell and also fails to preserve the requirement of individualized sentencing. [1]