IN TENNESSEE, JURIES MUST DETERMINE SENTENCES FOR ALL OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT, UNLESS THE DEFENDANT WAIVES JURY DETERMINATION AND THE PROSECUTOR AGREES TO THE WAIVER. THE STATE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THAT A SENTENCING JURY MAY HEAR EVIDENCE REGARDING A DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS AND MISCONDUCT AFTER THE DEFENDANT HAS PLEADED GUILTY, EVEN THOUGH SUCH EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY IN A TRIAL. HOWEVER, THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT, BEFORE ACCEPTING A GUILTY PLEA, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST INFORM THE DEFENDANT THAT A GUILTY PLEA MEANS THE DEFENDANT'S PRIOR RECORD CAN BE REVEALED TO THE SENTENCING JURY. THIS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT GOES BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD SET FORTH BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THE TENNESSEE COURT'S DECISION THAT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS IS ADMISSIBLE AT A JURY SENTENCING HEARING IS CORRECT. THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO A SENTENCING JUDGE AND THAT AVAILABLE TO A JURY PERFORMING THE SAME FUNCTION. HOWEVER, THE DECISION PRESENTS A PROBLEM. DEFENDANTS WHO OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE PLEADED GUILTY MIGHT ELECT TO GO TO TRIAL JUST TO KEEP THEIR PRIOR CONVICTIONS FROM THE JURY. TO AVOID THIS POSSIBILITY, TENNESSEE SHOULD IMPLEMENT A BIFURCATED JURY SYSTEM, IN WHICH DECISIONS ON GUILT AND SENTENCING ARE RENDERED BY DIFFERENT JURIES. (LKM)