Case Title: State vs. Ronnie Michael Cauthern

Citation: 

Docket Number: 02S01-9612-CC-00108

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1998-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED March 23, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk FOR PUBLICATION 1 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE 3 4 AT JACKSON 5 6 7 8 9 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ( 10 ( 11 Appellee, ( 12 ( Gibson Criminal 13 ( 14 ( Hon. Dick Jerman, Judge 15 v. ( 16 ( No. 02S01-9612-CC-00108 17 ( 18 ( 19 RONNIE MICHAEL CAUTHERN, ( 20 ( 21 Appellant. ( 22 23 24 25 CONCURRING OPINION 26 27 28 29 I concur in affirming the conviction for first degree 30 murder and the sentence of death in this case. 31 32 Though it was error to charge the jury the revised 1989 33 definition of aggravating circumstance (i)(5), as I stated in State 34 v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn. 1997), where the same error was 35 made: 36 37 While "depravity of mind," in my view, is 38 fatally deficient in meaning, the language of 39 the 1989 statute, "serious physical abuse 40 beyond that necessary to produce death," is 41 plain and provides a meaningful standard for 42 determining the appropriateness of death as a 43 penalty. As a practical matter, then, the 44 substantive effect of the "error" in this case 45 was to elide, or even to correct, the 46 -2- unconstitutional portion of this aggravating 1 circumstance. 2 3 4 5 Id. at 526. Consequently, as in Bush, I agree that giving the 6 erroneous instruction to the jury is not grounds for reversal of 7 the sentence. 8 9 Additionally, though in some prior cases I have found 10 that the evidence was insufficient to establish torture as an 11 aggravating circumstance, see e.g., State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 12 26 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 272 (Tenn. 1994) 13 (Reid, J., concurring and dissenting); State v. Van Tran, 864 14 S.W.2d 465, 483 (Tenn. 1993) (Reid, C.J., concurring and 15 dissenting); State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 196 (Tenn. 1991) 16 (Reid, C.J., concurring and dissenting), the facts of this case 17 support a finding of torture. “Torture involves the infliction of 18 pain by a perpetrator upon a victim. It necessarily involves the 19 intent by the perpetrator to cause the victim to suffer” pain 20 beyond that necessary to produce death. State v. Hodges, 944 21 S.W.2d 346, 361-62 (Tenn. 1997) (Reid, J., dissenting). Here, the 22 facts show that Rosemary Smith was placed in a closet while her 23 husband was murdered, and then raped twice before she was 24 strangled. The evidence of torture in this case is significantly 25 greater than in these previous cases; consequently, I agree that 26 the evidence supports aggravator (i)(5). 27 28 For the reasons set forth by the majority, the sentence 29 of life without parole is not applicable to this case; however, I 30 -3- do not agree that the defendant can waive the charging of an 1 applicable sentence to the jury. Where the offense of first degree 2 murder is committed on or after July 1, 1993, the statute 3 specifically provides that the jury shall determine “whether the 4 defendant shall be sentenced to death, to imprisonment for life 5 without possibility of parole, or to imprisonment for life.” Tenn. 6 Code Ann. § 39-13-204 (Supp. 1996).Particularly in capital cases, 7 the constitutional rights of a defendant subject to sentencing, as 8 well as the State’s interest in just sentences, require that the 9 jurors be given an accurate instruction regarding every possible 10 sentence for a crime, despite the contrary desires of the 11 defendant. 12 13 The prosecutor’s closing argument was, as discussed in 14 the majority opinion, totally inappropriate; however, it probably 15 did not affect the sentence given the evidence in the record. 16 Likewise, it was error to exclude the note written to the defendant 17 by his son and the majority correctly placed the burden on the 18 State to prove that the error did not affect the sentence. As 19 reasoned in the majority opinion, given the evidence in mitigation 20 concerning the relationship between the defendant and his son, the 21 error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 23 Though I have previously found that the proportionality 24 review utilized by the Court was deficient in both form and 25 substance, this opinion discusses factors which are relevant and 26 significant and it uses life imprisonment cases as well as capital 27 -4- cases. It appears that the majority is making modest progress in 1 developing a rational and realistic procedure for determining 2 proportionality, and I do not disagree with the conclusion that 3 death is not a disproportionate sentence in this case. 4 5 I agree that the record does not reveal any reversible 6 error; accordingly, I concur in affirming the conviction and 7 sentence. 8 9 10 ______________________________ 11 Reid, J. 12