# FIL ED M arch 24 , 200 8 Cec il Crowson , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk I N TH E TEN NE SSE E CO UR T OF C RI M I NA L A PPE A LS A T J A CK S ON J UL Y 1 9 9 6 S E S S I ON STATE OF TE NNESSEE, ) ) Appel l ee, ) C . C . A . N O . 02C01- 9506- C C - 00164 ) VS. ) GI BSON COU NTY ( TRA NSFERRED ) FROM M ON TGOM ERY COU NTY) ) RONNI E M I CHA EL CA UT HE RN, ) HONORA BL E DI CK J ER M A N, J R. ) A p p e ll a n t. ) (S e n ten c i n g -D e a th P e n a l ty) Fort he Appel l ant Fort he Appel l ee H ugh Rei d Pol and, Jr
. C har l es W
. Bur son 408 Fr ankl i n St r eet At t or neyG ener al and R eport er C l a rks vi l l e , T N 3 7 0 4 0 4 5 0 Ja m e s R o b e rt s o n P k w y. N ashv i l l e, T N 37243- 0493 R obertT
. Bat em an John P. C aul ey 221 Sout h T hi r d St r eet Assi st antAt t or neyG ener al C l a rks vi l l e , T N 3 7 0 4 0 4 5 0 Ja m e s R o b e rt s o n P k w y. N ashv i l l e, T N 37243- 0493 C l ay bur n Peepl es D i st r i ctAt t or neyG ener al 109 E. Fi rstSt r eet T r ent on, T N 38382 John C ar ney D i st r i ctAt t or neyG ener al 204 Fr ankl i n St r eet , Sui t e 200 C l ar ks v i l l e, T N 37040 S te ve G a rre tt Assi st antD i st r i ctAt t or neyG eneral 204 Fr ankl i n St r eet , Sui t e 200 C l ar ks v i l l e, T N 37040 O PI N I O N FI LED : ______________________________ DEATH PENAL TY AFF I RMED DAVI D H. W EL L ES J UD GE-2 - 

## OPI NI ON
T he or i gi nal t r i al of t hi s cas e t ook pl ace i n Mont gom eryC ounty . J udge J ohn H . P e a y p r e s id e d o ve r th e tri a l o f t h e a p p e ll a n t a n d h is c o -d e fe n d a n t, B re tt P at t er son, wh i ch r esul t ed i n two convi ct i ons for fel ony m ur der, one convi ct i on forf i rst degr ee burgl ary , and one c onv i ct i on for aggr av at ed r ape foreac h defendant
. The ju ry s e n te n c e d th e a p p e ll a n t to d e a th
. T h e a p p e ll a n t’ s c o -d e fe n d a n t re c e ive d a l ife s e n ten c e . O n d i re c t a p p e a l t o t h e S u p re m e C o u rt , the a p p e l l a n t’ s co n vi c ti o n s w e re af f i r m ed, butt he deat h penal tyw as setasi de and t he c ase was rem anded fora ne w sent enci ng hear i ng. St at e v . C aut her n, 778 S. W
. 2d 39 ( T enn. 1989)
. O n rem and, J u d g e P e a y g ra n ted the a p p e l l a n t’ s m o ti o n t o t ra n s fer the ca s e o u t o f M o n tgo m e ry C o u n ty. T h e n e w se n ten c i n g h e a ri n g w a s h e l d i n G i b s o n C o u n ty.
U p o n th e s e n te n c in g h e a rin g i n G ib s o n C o u n ty, th e a p p e ll a n t re c e ive d o n e l ife s e n te n c e a n d o n e d e a th s e n te n c e fo r h is tw o m u rd e r c o n vic ti o n s . A s to th e d e a th sent ence, t he j uryfound o n e a g gr av at i ng c i r cum st ance, t hatt he m ur derwas espec i al l yhei nous, at roci ous, orcr uel i n t hati ti nv ol v ed t ort ur e orse r i ous phy si cal abuse bey ond t hatnec ess aryt o produce deat h. See T. C
. A. § 39- 13- 204( i ) ( 5)
. The j uryf urt herfound t hatt he aggrav at i ng c i r cum st ance ou twei ghed t he ev i dence of m it ig a ti n g c irc u m s ta n c e s b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.
I n t hi s appeal , t he appel l antr ai ses num erous i ss ues att ack i ng t he v al i di tyof t he deat h s ent ence i m posed
. H av i ng rev i ewed t he v ar i ous cl a i m s, we f i nd no re ve rs ib le e rro r a n d th u s a ffi rm th e j u d g m e n t o f t h e tri a l c o u rt.
BA CKGROUND-3 - Because t hi s a ppeal pert ai ns onl yt o t he ne w s e n t e n ci ng hear i ng t hatwas order ed byt he Supr em e C ourt , t he ev i dence i nt roduce d pr i m ar i l y a ddr ess es t he appl i cabi l i tyof

t he aggrav at i ng and m i t i gat i ng c i r cum st ances . I n s hort , t he appe l l ant and hi s c o- defendant , Br ettPat t erson, broke i nt o t he resi dence of Pat r i ckand R osem a ry Sm i t h wi t h t h e a p p a r e n t i n t e n t i o n o f s t e a l i n g m o n e y . Onc e i n s i d e t he house , howev er , t he two m en s t r angl ed Mr
. Sm i t h and r aped an d s t r angl ed hi s wi fe. T h e ya ls o s to le s e v e ra l ite m s fro m t h e S m ith s ’ re s id e n c e , in c lu d in g a p u rs e , c re d it c a rd s , c h e c k s , c lo t h in g , a n d je w e lry . T h e tw o in d ivid u a ls w e re u ltim a te ly ap preh en de d whe n t he p ol i c e r ec ei v ed a t i p f r om a n ac qu ai nt an c e of t he two defendant s. Fora m or e det ai l ed descr i pt i on of t he c r i m es, se e St at e v . C aut her n, 778 S. W
. 2d 39 ( T enn. 1989) , and St at e v . Br ettPat t erson, N o. 88- 245- 3, M o n tg o m e ry C o u n ty (T e n n . C rim . A p p ., N a s h vil le , D e c . 8 , 1 9 8 9 ). T h e d e a th sent ence i m posed on rem and pert ai ned t o t he k i l l i ng of M rs. Sm i t h.
U pon answ er i ng a cal l on Jan uary 9, 198 7, of a possi bl e bu rgl aryi n progr ess, O ff i c e r J o h n Rob e rt Ni c h o l s o f t h e Cl a r k s v i l l e Po l i c e Dep a rt m e n t a r r i v e d a tt he Sm i t hs’ r esi dence i n C l ar ks v i l l e, T ennes see. The backdoorof t he hous e appea r ed t o hav e been ki ck ed open and t he wi ndow on t h e d o o r w a s s hatt er ed. O f f i cer N i chol s t est i f i ed t hatt he basem entof t he house l ooked r ansac ked. W hen he went upst ai rs t o f urt heri nspec tt he pr em i ses , he found t he nude bodyof a wom an l y i ng on t he fl oori n t h e fi rstbedroom he c am e upon. A sc arf was t i ed around t he wom an’ s n eckw i t h a v ase entwi ned wi t hi n t he s carf as so rtof

a t our ni quet
. I n t he ba c k be droo m , he fou nd t he bo dy of a m an k ne el i ng ag ai ns t t he be d wi t h hi s face o n th e m a ttr e s s . O ffic e r N ic h o ls te s tifie d th a t th e d is c o lo ra tio n a ro u n d th e m a n ’s necki ndi cat ed t hathe m i ghthav e been st r angl ed. O f f i cerN i chol s furt hert est i f i ed t hatt he room was i n di sar r ay : t he bed f r am e was broken, t he m att r ess was l y i ng on-4 -

th e fl o o r, a n d fu rn it u re h a d b e e n m o ve d
.
D r . C har l es H ar l an, C hi ef M edi cal Ex am i n e r fort he St at e of T ennes see, perfor m ed t he aut opsi es on t he two v i ct i m s. H e c oncl uded t hatbot h v i ct i m s d i ed as a resul t of l i gat ur e st r angul at i ons. H e opi ned t hat t he v i ct i m s coul d hav e di ed t hr ee t o s i xm i nut es aft ert he i ni t i at i on of t he str a n g ul at i on, butt hatt heym ayhav e been r endered unc onsc i ous as qui ck l yas t hi rtyse conds i nt o t he act s. D r . H ar l an t est i f i ed th a t p ro b a b ly m o re th a n e le ve n p o u n d s p e r s q u a re in c h o f p re s s u re w a s a p p li e d to M r. S m i th’s n e c k , the re b y c a u s i n g d e a th by ha l ti n g the b l o o d su p p l y t o t h e b ra i n . D r. H a rla n fo u n d m u ltip le a b ra s io n s , la c e ra tio n s , a n d c o n tu s io n s o n t h e m a le vic tim ’s neck , l owerl i p, and l eftgreatt oe. Som e of t he abr asi ons on t he nec k, he i ndi cat ed, coul d ha v e be en c a u s e d b yt he vi ct i m ’ s f i nge rnai l s as he grabbe d athi s neck. Ba s e d u p o n t h e f r a c t u r e o f t h e t h y ro i d c a rt i l a g e i n Mrs . Sm i t h ’ s n e c k , Dr
. H ar l an conc l ud e d t h a ta fo r c e g r e a t e rt h a n t h i rty - fo u rp o u n d s p e rs q u a r e i n c h c a u s e d h er deat h. Dr
. H ar l an c oul d notdet er m i ne, howev er , whet herei t hervi cti m su f fer ed r epe at ed st r ang ul at i ons.
D et ect i v e Er l e C rock ar el l of t he Cl ar ks v i l l e Pol i ce D epart m entv i deot aped t he cr i m e s cene. The t ape, m i nus port i ons whi ch wer e not r el ev ant t o t he aggrav at i ng ci r cum st ance , w a s s h ow n t o t he j urywi t h t he so und t ur ned of f
. T he d efense obj ect ed t o t he s howi ng of t hose segm ent s d epi ct i ng t he off i cers m ov i ng t he bodi es i n ordert o ex am i ne t hei r undersi des. The court , not i ng t he obj ect i on, opi ned t hat t hose sc enes wer e rel ev antt o t he es t abl i shm entof t he l one a g g rav at or . The fol l owi ng i s a su m m at i on of t he port i on of

t he t ape t hatwas shown:
T he o f f i cerwa l ks t hr oug h t he o pen ed b ack do or , wh i ch ha s a-5 - shatt er ed wi ndow. O ne of t he of f i cers i s s hown dus t i n g t he out l i ne of a s h o e p rin t o n th e d o o rn e a r th e k n o b . T h e b a s e m e n t lo o k s in d isa rra y: d e s kd ra w e rs o p e n e d a n d p a p e rs s tre w n a b o u t, c lo s e ts opened. Upst ai rs, t he f ur ni t ur e dr awers i n t he l i v i ng room are opene d and v ar i ous t hi ngs ar e s pr ead abo utt he f l oor . Ther e i s a ham m eron t he fl oori n one of

t he s i t t i ng room s a n d a m i crowav e on t he c of fee t abl e. T he h ouse app ears t o be r at her neati n ot her respe ct s. In th e h a ll w a y le a d in g to th e b e d ro o m s , th e re a re w h a t a p p e a r to be l abel s from t he t ops of bev er age bott l es. I n t he f i rstbedroom on t he ri g h t, a w o m a n ’ s n u d e b o d y i s l yi n g fa c e d o w n o n t h e f l o o r w i th a sc a rf t i ed a rou nd he r ne c k
. A v as e i s e ntwi ne d wi t hi n t he s c arf
. A n i gh t go wn and und ergar m ent s a r e l y i ng on t he fl oornearthe b o d y. Al so on t he fl o o r are f l o w e rs th a t a p p e a r t o h a ve c o m e f ro m t h e va s e . T h e d ra w e rs o n t h e d re s s e r are o p e n e d , the clo s e t d o o r i s o p e n e d a n d i tem s a re t hrown about , and t he bed cov eri s d i shev el ed. I n t he back bedroom , a m an’ s bodyi s shown k neel i ng agai nstt he bed wi t h hi s face on t he m att r ess . Hi s b odyi s w rap ped i n t he bed c o v e r. T h is b e d ro o m a ls o a p p e a rs to b e in d is a rr a y : th e b e d fra m e is of f i t s h i nges a n d the m att r ess i s l y i ng fl ush agai nstt he fl oor , t he d r e s s e ra n d d e s k d r a w e rs a n d t h e c l o s e td o o rs a r e o p e n e d , a n d i t e ms ar e s t r ewn aboutt he fl oor . The cam er a c apt ur es a c l ose- up on t he m a n ’ s h a n d s a n d fe e t, w h i c h a re b l u i s h i n co l o r. T he of f i cers rem ov e t he c ov ers from t he m an and f l i p hi s b ody o ve r. T h e sk i n o n t h e f ro n t o f h i s b o d y i s b l u e . A ro u n d h is n e c ka re abr asi on m ar ks , and hi s l i ps ar e bl oodi ed. T her e i s a bl ood s t ai n on t he bed where hi s face was l y i ng. T he v i deo shows t he of f i cers e x am i ni ng t he m an’ s a r m s a nd l egs, and al so shows cl ose- ups of hi s face and neck
. The v i deo t hen s hows t he off i ce rs cu t t i ng t he v ase outof t he sc arf and r em ov i ng t he s carf f rom around t he wo m an’ s n eck
. The of f i cers fl i p ov er t he wom an as wel l , and hersk i n and l i ps al so hav e a bl ui sh t i nt
. W hi l e t he of f i cers a r e m ov i ng t he bodi es, i ti s o bv i ous t hat r i gorm ort i s h as al r eadyoc cur r ed.
A fte r th e vid e o w a s s h o w n to th e j u ry, D e te c ti ve C ro c k a re ll e la b o ra te d a s to whathe o bserv ed. H e st at ed t hat t he l ockm echan i sm on t he bac k d oorwas broken. Al so, t he phon e l i ne on t he out si de o f t he hous e was cut
. Tw o bott l e c aps f rom
“ Bart l es and J am es” wi ne c ool ers were found on t he fl oori n t he hal l waynex tt o t he f rontbedroom . I n t he bac k b edroom , on e ach si d e o f the bed, t heynot i ced ey egl ass es on t he ni ghtst a n ds and hou se sl i ppers o n t he fl oor . Tw o butt ons f rom t he ni ght gown i n t he f rontbedr oom w er e t or n off ; one was found on t he f l oorand t he ot heron t he bed. Theynot i ced a sem i - cl earl i qui d i n t he f rontbedroom on t he bed cov erand on t he fl oornex tt o t he wom an. Aft ert heyr em ov ed t he s carf , t hey-6 -

det er m i ned t hati twa s i nde nt ed a bou t1/ 8 i nch i nt o t he w om an’ s neck. H e al so t est i f i ed t hatt he wi dt h of t he s t r angul at i on m ar k a round t he m an’ s neck was abo ut 1/ 16 i nch wi de. Det ect i v e C rock arel l st at ed t hatt heyfound t he appel l ant ’ s nam e on a pi ece of

paperi nsi de t he resi dence
. D et ect i v e C rock ar el l f urt hert est i f i ed t haton J anuary11 o r12, 19 8 7, he r ecei v ed i nst r uct i ons t o go t o 112 Fai t h D r i v e i n C l ar ks v i l l e fora de v el opm enti n t he cas e. T he bui l di ng att hi s addr ess w as a dupl ex , one si de bei ng 112 Fai t h D r i v e and t h e o t h e r1 1 4 F a i t h D r i v e . Up o n a r r i v a l , D e t e c t i v e C ro c k a r e l l o b s e rv e d f ro m a di st ance t he appe l l ant , Br ettPat t er so n a nd anot heri ndi v i dual wor ki ng on a grey C am aro i n t he y ar d ( t he Det ect i v e s t at ed t hathe h ad deal i ngs w i t h t he appe l l ant pr i ort o t hi s e ncoun t er )
. Aft erabouttwentym i nut es, D et ect i ve C rock ar el l and anot herof

f i cerdet ai ned t he t hr ee m en unt i l a s ear ch war r antwas obt ai ned. They chec ked t he m en forw eapons and sec ur ed t he ar ea so no one coul d l eav e. D ur i ng the p a t- d o w n fo r w e a p o n s , the y fo u n d a . 3 8 ca l i b e r ha n d g u n i n s i d e t h e ca r. D et ect i v e St ev e Post on of t he C l ar ks v i l l e Pol i ce D epart m ent ex ecut e d t he s e a rc h w a rra n t o n th e F a it h D rive re s id e n c e s . 1 1 2 F a it h D rive w a s i n B re tt Pat t erson’ s n am e and 114 was i n Er i c Bar bee’ s n am e. Det ect i v e Post on t est i f i ed t hatt he wal l between 112 and 114 Fai t h D ri ve h a d b e en k nock ed out , creat i ng a w a lk w a y thro u g h the tw o re s i d e n c e s . In t h e C a m a ro , the y fou n d c h e c k s , c re d it cards, and phot o I D s b ear i ng t he v i ct i m s’ nam es, t ool s, t he appel l ant ’ s bl ackl eat her ja c k e t w it h s o m e o f t h e S m it h s ’ c re d itc a rd s a n d $ 1 5 0 i n c a s h i n th e p o c k e t, a s to c k in g c a p , b la c kg lo ve s , a n d 8 8 0 m il it a ry c o rd
. In s id e th e re s id e n c e a t 1 1 2 F a it h D r i v e, t he off i cers found two sk i m ask s, bl ackgl ov es, a gr eyM em bers’ O nl yj ack et wi t h 88 0 m i l i tary c o rd i n t he p ocket , a . 45 a ut om at i c han dgu n, a bl ack pu rse cont ai ni ng Mr s. S m i t h’ s v ehi cl e r egi st r at i on, M r . S m i t h’ s r ecei ptbook wi t h a recei pt m ade outt o t he appe l l ant, and t he Sm i t hs’ ca rand house ke y s. I nsi de 114, t hey foun d a t ot e ba g w i t h a f l ashl i ghtand a col d w eat her m i l i t arym ask. Ser geantC har l es D ent on i nt erv i ewed t he appe l l anttwo t i m e s aft ert he m ur ders. T he f i rst i nt erv i ew on Janua ry 12, 1987, was an oral i nt erv i ew whi ch was re d u c e d to w riti n g b y th e S e rg e a n t a fte rw a rd s . T h e a p p e ll a n t a p p a re n tl y re fu s e d to gi v e a wr i t t en st at em ent
. As t he appel l antanswer ed t he S ergeant ’ s quest i ons, t heI n re v e rs i n g th e d e a th s e n te n c e a n d re m a n d i n g th e c a s e to th e tri a l c o u rt, t h e S u p re m e C o u rt 1 c o n c l u d e d th a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f p a rt o f th i s s ta te m e n t b yth e a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t h a rm l e s s e rr o r. C o n s e q u e n tly, o n ly th e a d m is s ib le s e c tio n w a s r e a d in to e v id e n c e b y S e r g e a n t D e n to n . In itia lly, S e rg e a n t D e n to n re a d th e tra n s c rip t o f th e s ta te m e n t w h i c h d e l e te d a n yre fe re n c e to B re tt Pat t er son. Because , howev er , t hi s t r i al pert ai ned t o sen t enci ng o nl y , and t he g ui l tof bot h t he a p p e l l a n t a n d P a tte rs o n h a d a l re a d yb e e n d e te rm i n e d , t h e c o u rt a l l o w e d th e S e rg e a n t t o re tu rn to th e w i tn e s s s ta n d a n d re l a te to th e ju ry t h e u n e d i te d p o rti o n s o f th e tra n s c rip t re fe rr i n g to -7 - Ser geantwrot e t he ans wer s on a pi ece of paper . Ser geant D ent on t est i f i ed t hathe adv i sed t he appe l l antof hi s Mi r anda r i ght s a nd t hat t he appel l ant wai v ed t he s am e. Furt her m or e, t he appe l l antr ev i ewed whatt he Ser geantwrot e and si gned t he s ta te m e n t. T h e fo ll o w in g i s a s u m m a ti o n o f t h a t s ta te m e n t, w h ich w a s re a d i n to ev i dence bySer geantD ent on:

T h e a p p e ll a n t i n d ica te d t h a t h e fi rs t k n e w a b o u t t h e p ro p e rty t aken i n t he bur gl aryw hen P att erson t ol d hi m . H e sai d he r ead abo ut t he burgl aryi n t he pape rbutdi d n ’ tk n o w whose n am es wer e on t he chec ks and credi tca r ds. The appel l antst at ed t hathe d i d n ’ tse e t he chec ks orcredi tca r ds i n t he t r unk of t he Cam aro unt i l the m o rni ng of J a n u a ry1 2 . H e s a id h e k n e w n o th in g a b o u t a V C R
. T h e a p p e lla n t to ld t he of f i cerhe d i d notb rea k i n t o t he Sm i t hs’ hous e ort el l any one any i nfor m at i o n a b o u tt h e Smi t h s ’ h o u s e . He f u rt h e rs t a t e d t h a th e k new Pat t erson broke i nt o t he hous e. Pat t erson t ol d hi m he b roke i n t he house , butdi dn’ tm ent i on any t hi ng abou tanym urders. The appel l ant st at ed t hatPat t erson di dn’ tg i ve h i m any t hi ng f rom t he robbery . J oe D enni ng was wi t h Pat t erson on t h e ni ghtof t he 8t h. The appel l ant m ent i oned he owned a T oy ot a. He s t a t e d he di d notkn ow who com m i t t ed t he robberyatt he H or nbuck l e 66, buti ndi cat ed t hatD enni ng and P at t er son co m m i t t ed t he burgl aryof t he S m i t hs’ pl ace. ( D efense couns el obj ect ed t o t he refer ence of t h e H or nbuck l e robbery , butt he o bj e c t i o n w a s o v e r r u l e d )
. T h e a p p e l l a n ts a i d h e k n e w t h e s t o l e n i t e ms wer e i n t he t r unk of

t he C am aro w hen t he pol i ce cam e t o 112 Fai t h on Janua ry12. He st at ed he di d n o to w n a m ason’ s h am m er . The appel l antf urt herst at ed t hathe d i d nott el l Pat t erson abouta robberyat t he Hor nbuck l e 66.
T he s econd i nt erv i ew, whi ch was c onduc t ed on J anuary13, 1987, was t aped byS ergeantD ent on. O f f i cerJoe G r i f

fywas al so pr esentdur i ng t he i nt erv i ew. Aft er t he appe l l antwas adv i sed of hi s r i ght s, he i ndi cat ed t o t he of f i cers t hathi s a t t or ney t ol d hi m nott o t al k u nl ess he was present
. The of f i cers i nfor m ed the appel l anthe coul d wai v e hi s r i ght s a nd t al k n onet hel ess , and t he appe l l antsa i d, “ O
. K. ” Dur i ng t he i ni t i al appeal of

t hi s cau se , h o w e v er , t he t ape recordi ng of t he s t at em entwas l ost
. A t r ansc r i pt i on of t he t ape recordi ng ex i st s, and t hi s was r ead i nt o ev i dence by Ser geantD ent on dur i ng t he hear i ng on r em and. The fol l owi ng i s a su m m at i on of 1Pat t er son. -8 -

th a t t ra n s c rip t:

T he appe l l antst at ed t hatM rs. Sm i t h t ol d hi m t o c om e byt he house about10: 30 or11: 00 p. m . t hatni ght
. He an d B ret tPat t erson rode i n t he C am aro t o t he Sm i t hs’ r esi dence
. She t ol d hi m t o go t o t he backdoor , buti twas l ock ed. W h e n t he appe l l antst art ed t o l eav e, Pat t erson t r i ed t o k i ckt he door , buti tst i l l woul dn’ topen. Pat t erson broke t he wi ndow on t he doora n d rea ched i n and opened t he door f rom t he i nsi de. He wal ked i n and l ooked around wi t h a fl ashl i ght
. The appel l antwas st i l l out si de when Patt erson cam e bac k o utand cutt he phone l i nes on t he out si de of t he hous e. T h e y w e n t u p s tairs t o the b a c k b e d ro o m w h e re the S m i ths w e re sl eepi ng. M r . S m i t h satup and y el l ed, “ who i s i t ?” Pat t erson gr abbed M r. S m it h , fli p p e d h im o ve r, a n d p u t a p il lo w o ve r h is h e a d
. M r. S m it h was y e l l i ng and M rs. Sm i t h t r i ed t o getoutof t he bed. The appel l ant t ol d Mr s. Sm i t h t o go hi de i n t he cl oset i n t he f rontbedroom . Pat t erson and Mr
. Sm i t h wer e f i ght i ng. T he appel l ant t r i ed t o use t he phone b ut di dn’ tr eal i ze i tw as out
. H e we ntd ow nst ai rs and wh en h e cam e ba ck up, M r . Sm i t h was dead. Pat t erson gr abbed Mr s. Sm i t h a s she was c o mi n g b a c kd o w n t h e h a l l w a ya n d t h e yw e n ti n t h e f r o n tb e d ro o m. T he appe l l antsai d M rs. S m i t h t ook hercl ot hes of f vo l unt ar i l y . She and Pat t erson di d s om et hi ng i n t he bedroom and she cam e outand t ol d t he a p p e l l a n t s h e w a s so rry. T h e a p p e l l a n t s a i d h e d i d n o t ra p e h e r. P at t er son t ook a rope outo f h i s pocke tand we ntt o t he b ack b e d ro o m a n d ti e d i t a ro u n d M r. S m it h ’s n e c k
. P a tte rs o n th e n c a m e to t he f rontbedroom and was goi ng t o choke M rs. S m i t h. The appel l ant asked hi m not t o, buthe di d i tanyway. H e t i ed a scarf ar oun d he rneck butsh e wa s s t i l l a l i v e s o h e p u t a b a l l o r s o m e t h i n g i n t h e sc arf and tw is te d it a ro u n d h e r n e c k
. T h e y le ft th e h o u s e , b u t th e a p p e lla n t s a id t heydi dn’ tt ake any t hi ng. T he ent i r e i nci dentt ook pl ace i n l ess t han t hi rtym i nut es. They used wi r e c utt ers from t he appe l l ant ’ s t ool b o x t o c utt he t el ephone wi r es. Th e a p p e l l a n ts a i d h e s a w Mrs . Smi t h t h e n i g h tb e fo r e a b out 7: 00 p. m . He sai d s he was at t he Fai t h D r i v e resi dence and t hen t hey w e n t o u t t o e a t. T h e a p p e ll a n t c la im e d h e h a d b e e n s e e in g M rs . S m it h of f and on for som e t i m e and had sexwi t h hertwi ce befor e. He st at ed th a t h e h a d d o n e s o m e w o rko n t h e S m it h s ’ M e rc e d e s . M rs . S m it h w o u ld b rin g it b y h is p la c e a n d d ro p it o ff; h e n e v e r p ic k e d it u p a t th e ir pl ace. T he appe l l antst at ed he di d notw e a r gl ov es ora s ki m askt he ni ghtof t he m urders. The appel l antst at ed t hatM rs. Sm i t h c onsen t ed t o hav i ng sex wi t h Pat t erson t hat ni ght
. She t ook hercl ot hes of f i n f ront of t hem and l ai d down on t he bed i n t he c ent erbedroom . She t ol d t he appel l antshe was sor ry , butsh e di dn’ tas k a boutherhus band. The-9 - appel l antsa i d t hatPat t erson dr ank two wi ne c ool ers. T he appe l l ant s ta te d th a t h e d id n o t ra p e M rs . S m ith . H e fu rt h e r s ta te d th a t h e d id n ’t re m o v e a n y th in g fr o m th e h o u s e b u t th a t h e d id n ’t k n o w if P a tte rs o n d id o r n o t. T he appe l l antadm i tt ed t hathe k new t hatcredi tca r ds and a gr ey Me mb e rs ’ On l y j ac k e tw e r e t a k e n . He s a i d h e d i d n o tk n o w i f a V CR was t aken. The appel l antdeni ed t aki ng a wat ch and r i n g fr o m t he house butst at ed t hathe g av e a wat ch and r i ng t o “ Jac ki e” ( Jaque l i ne Pi gue) t he nex tday
. He al so deni ed goi ng t o t he Sm i t hs’ hous e t o s t eal any t hi ng; he went t her e becau se M rs. Sm i t h i nv i t ed hi m . The appel l ant s ta te d th a t n o th in g i n th e h o u s e w a s d istu rb e d w h e n h e l e ft, i .e ., dr ess erdrawers o rcl osetdoors were notopened
. T he a p p e l l a n ts t a t e d t h e yt o o ka p u rs e f ro m t h e h ouse. Pat t erso n b rou g hta s hortrope wi t h hi m , butt he appe l l antdeni ed hav i n g a n yro p e . Th e a p p e l l a n ta l s o d e n i e d t o u c h i n g e i t h e ro f t he v i ct i m s. T he appel l ant st at ed M r . Sm i t h was notsu ppose d t o be t her e. T he appe l l ant al so st at ed t hat M rs. Sm i t h t ol d hi m she was goi ng t o get rid o f h e r h u s b a n d n o m a tte r w h a t it to o k . T h e a p p e lla n t s a id h e d id n ’t s t r a n g l e e i t h e rv i c t i m. T h e a p p e ll a n t s ta te d h e h a d b e e n to th e S m it h s ’ o n c e b e fo re to pi ckup a ch eckbutnev erwenti nsi de t he house. T he appe l l antkn ew t he S m i t hs forno m or e t han a y ear. B ot h of t hem had bee n t o hi s pl ace b e fo re . H e s a w th e m o n c e e ve ry tw o o r th re e m o n th s . M rs . S m it h di dn’ tof feranyr esi st ance t hatn i g h t ; s h e gav e s exwi l l i ngl yt o bot h of th e m ( e ve n th o u g h e a rli e r in h is s ta te m e n t h e d e n ie d h a vin g s e x w it h her )
. W hi l e Pat t erson st r angl ed Mr
. Sm i t h, t he appe l l antw as hi di ng M rs. Sm i t h i n t he cl osetand r unni ng outof t he hous e. He wentt o t he c a r to l e a ve . H e h e a rd h e r s c re a m s o h e c a m e b a c ki n s id e . T he appe l l a n tdoesn’ tkn ow whyhe fol l owed Pat t erson i nt o t he house aft erhe b roke t he bac k d oor , buthe a dm i t t ed he coul d hav e r un a w a y . S in c e P a tte rs o n d ro v e th e C a m a ro t h a t n ig h t, th e a p p e lla n t d id nothav e t he k ey s. He saw Pat t erson and M r . Sm i t h f i ght i ng and he ran to th e p h o n e n e a r th e k it c h e n . T h e a p p e ll a n t s ta te d h is fin g e rp rin ts shoul d be on t he phone. W hen t heyl eftt he hous e, t he appe l l antst at ed t hatP at t er son t ol d hi m t he S m i t hs w er e de ad. H e di dn’ tcal l t he p ol i ce becau se he k new he woul d be a pr i m e s uspec t
. The appel l antsa i d he c o n s i d e re d h i m s e l f a n a c c e s s o ry t o m u rd e r. Kar en Ri v et na, M rs. S m i t h’ s si st er , t est i f i ed t hatsh e wi t ness ed t he appe l l ant hel p Mr
. Sm i t h c onnec ta VC R t o a t el ev i si on i n t he bas em entof t he Sm i t hs’ hous e. She al so t est i f i ed t hatsh e onc e rode wi t h t he Sm i t hs t o t he appe l l ant ’ s p l ace i n order t o drop of

f one of t hei rca rs o n whi ch t he appel l ant was goi ng t o wor k. I n addi t i on,-1 0-

M s. R i v et na i dent i f i ed fort he c ourtM rs. Sm i t h’ s wat ch and weddi ng r i ng, as wel l as M r. S m it h ’s g re y M e m b e rs ’ O n ly j a c k e t.
J a q u e lin e P ig u e te s tifie d th a t s h e a n d t h e a p p e lla n t d a te d fo r a w h ile b a c kin 1 9 8 7
. S h e s tate d th a t s h e h a d b e e n s e e i n g th e a p p e l l a n t fo r a b o u t a m o n th b e fore t he m urde rs o c c ur r ed
. Sh e al s o s t at ed t ha ts he m etBr ettPatt ers on a bo uttwo weeks befo re the m ur ders. Ms. Pi gue t est i f i ed t hatsh e gotof f wor k a round 9: 30 p .m . th e n ig h t o f th e m u rd e rs , a n d m e t th e a p p e lla n t a n d P a tte rs o n a t a lo c a l A rb y ’s befor e headi ng t o herni ghtj ob as bart enderatR ockVegas. She i ndi cat ed t hatt he two m en appe ar ed t o be on ac i d bec ause “ [ t ] heywer en’ tbei ng t he s am e as t hey a l w a y s w e r e . U s u a l l y , t h e yw e r e v e ry h a p p y g o - l u c k y . T h e yw e r e b e i n g v e rys o l e mn a n d b e in g v e ry q u ie t.” S h e a ls o te s tifie d th a t th e a p p e lla n t to ld h e r h e h a d ta k e n a c id ear l i eri n t he week. Accordi ng t o Ms. Pi gue, Pat t erson l efti n t he Cam aro befor e t he appel l antand her ; sh e and t he appel l antl efti n hercar . The appel l antwas wear i ng a b la c kl e a th e r ja c k e t a n d b o o ts w h e n s h e s a w h im th a t n ig h t.-1 1- M s . P i g u e t e s ti fi e d t h a t th e d a y a fter the m u rd e rs th e a p p e l l a n t g a ve h e r a w a tc h a n d w e d d in g rin g to h o ld fo r h im s o th e yw o u ld n o t g e t lo s t. T h e a p p e lla n t to ld hert hatso m eone owed hi m m oneyand h e was keepi ng t he wat ch and r i ng as col l at er al
. He al so t ol d her t hat he was m ov i ng outof t own. Ms. Pi gue t est i f i ed t hat t he a ppe l l antwa s i n a “ hap py go-l ucky” ty pe o f m ood wh en h e ga v e he rt he w at ch and r i ng. He di d notm ent i on any t hi ng about t he m urders. M s. Pi gue furt hert est i f i ed th a t s h e s a w t h e a p p e ll a n t’ s p h o to a s s o c ia te d w it h a n e w s re p o rt a b o u t t h e S m it h m ur ders o n t he fol l owi ng M onday ni ght
. She was t aken abackbec ause she di d not b e l i e ve the a p p e l l a n t c o u l d d o s u c h a thing
. A ft e r t a l k i n g w i th h e r pa re n ts t h e n e xt m or ni ng, M s. Pi gue gav e t o t he pol i ce t he i t em s whi ch whi ch t he appe l l anthad gi v en h e r.
M s . P ig u e a lso te s ti fi e d th a t th e a p p e ll a n t h a d w ritt e n h e r tw o le tte rs a b o u t a m ont h aft erhi s c onv i ct i on. Sh e o n l yr ead t he f i rstone, butsh e des t roy ed bot h of t hem
. The one she r ead di d not m ent i on any t hi ng about t he c r i m es orhi s c onv i ct i on; t he appe l l antj ustas ked how she w as doi ng. She m ent i oned t hatt her e w er e “ sm i l ey fac e s ” on t h e l e tt e r.
Jos eph Fr eder i ckD enni ng , a h i g h s c h o o l f r i end of t he appe l l ant ’ s, t est i f i ed t hat abouta week befor e t he m urders, t he appel l anti nqui r ed aboutbuy i ng a handgun. D enni ng t ook t he appe l l antand Pat t erson t o N ashv i l l e t o purchas e a . 45 hand gun f rom an acqua i nt ance of hi s. T he appe l l antgav e D enni ng $50. 00, whi ch D enni ng gav e t o hi s a cquai nt ance, and t he ac quai nt ance was goi ng t o c om e t o C l ar ks v i l l e on Janua ry10, 1987, t o col l ect t he r em ai ni ng $200. 00. D enni ng al so t est i f i ed t hatt he a p p e l l a n t b o u g h t a . 3 8 ca l i b e r ha n d g u n f ro m h i m t h e p re vi o u s ye a r.-1 2- D enn i ng t est i f i ed t hatt he a ppe l l antand P a tt e rson cam e t o hi s r esi den ce a ro u n d 3 :00 a .m . o n Ja n u a ry 9 , 1 9 8 7
. H e sta ted t h a t b o th m e n w e re d re s s e d n i c e l y, a n d h e s a id t h e a p p e lla n t w a s h y p e ra c tiv e . T h e a p p e lla n t to ld D e n n in g th a t h is gi r l f r i end bou ghthi m t he c l ot hes he was wear i ng. T he m en as ked D enni ng t o go out wi t h t hem , butD enni ng t ol d t hem he was goi ng t o s l eep. Denni ng furt hert est i f i ed t hatt he appe l l antwas athi s p l ace t he nex tm o rni ng when h e awoke
. The two of t hem t hen d rove ov erand pi ck ed up Pat t erson. Denni ng t est i f i ed t haton t he way b a c kto h is p la c e , t h e a p p e ll a n t s h o w e d h im s o m e c re d itc a rd s , a c h e c k b o o k , a wat ch and r i ng, and ask ed hi m i f he knew how t o us e s t ol en c r edi tca r ds. Denni ng st at ed t hat t he Sm i t hs’ nam e was on t he c r edi tca r ds. The appel l antt ol d hi m he was goi ng t o g i ve t he wat ch and r i ng t o hi s g i r l f r i end. Denni ng t est i f i ed t hatPat t erson to ld h im s o m e th in g to th e e ffe c t th a t h e a n d th e a p p e lla n t a lre a d yk ille d tw o p e o p le a n d kil l i n g o n e m o re w o u l d n o t m a tt e r.
D enni ng t est i f i ed t hatt he appe l l antagai n c am e t o hi s pl ace Janua ry10, 1987. T he appe l l antsh owed D enni ng a newspaperart i cl e aboutt he m urders a nd s ai d “ he was i nv o l ved wi t h t he k i l l i ngs and t hathe was goi ng t o be fam ous and t hatt hey woul dn’ tca t ch hi m al i v e i f t heyt r i ed t o ca t ch h i m . ” T he appe l l antt ol d hi m t hathe ti e d a s c a rf a ro u n d M rs . S m it h ’s n e c k , b u t s in c e h e d id n o t h a ve e n o u g h s tre n g th to ki l l her , he u sed a v ase t o h el p t i ght en t he s carf
. The appel l antal so t ol d D enni ng tha t h e rap e d t h e w o m a n a n d p o u re d “B a rt l e s a n d J a m e s ” w i n e co o l e rs a l l o ve r he r. T he appe l l anti nfor m ed Denni ng t hathe c utt he phon e l i nes on t he out si de of t he house , br oke t he wi ndow i n t he back door , and wentupst ai rs and shi ned a f l ashl i ght i n t he Sm i t hs’ faces. T he appe l l ant sai d he t r i ed t o ki l l M rs. S m i t h bu tcoul d no t , so he gat her ed s t uf

f t o s t eal and puti tnex tt o t he bac k d oor . Denni ng t est i f i ed t hatt he appel l antt ol d hi m he and Pat t erson had rope, a penl i ght , and gun s wi t h t hem dur i ng-1 3-

th e c rim e s . D e n n in g a ls o te s tifie d th a t h e s a w s k i m a s k s a n d g lo v e s a t P a tte rs o n ’s r esi dence
.
D e n n i n g sta ted t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s a c ti n g “re a l e xc i ted ” ab o u t the m u rd e rs and abo ut bei ng fam ous. D enni ng t est i f i ed t hatPat t erson sai d “ he had t o f i ni sh t he jo b [s tra n g li n g M rs . S m it h ] fo r R o n n ie b e c a u s e R o n n ie
. . . d id n ’t h a ve th e s tre n g th t o do i t
. ” Pat t erson al so t ol d D enni n g tha th e k i l l ed Mr
. Sm i t h. Fi nal l y , D enni ng te s tifie d th a t h e w a s o ffe re d im m u n ityo n o th e r u n re la te d m a tte rs in e x c h a n g e fo r h is t est i m onyi n t hi s c ase.
Jam es Phi l l i ps Andr ews, a room m at e of Jo e D enni ng i n J anuaryof 1987, t est i f i ed t hathe m ett he appel l antabouta m ont h befor e t he m urders. He st at ed t hat t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d B ret t P a t t e rson stop p e d b y t h e i r p l a ce e very o t h e r d a y o r s o to v i si t
. A ndrews t est i f i ed t hat t he appe l l ant and P at t er son cam e by h i s res i den ce dur i ng t he ear l ym or ni ng hours of Ja nuary9, 1987, butt hatt heydi d notst ayl ong.
Andr ews fu rt h e rt est i f i ed t hatt he appe l l antca m e t o hi s resi dence l at ert hat sam e ev eni ng. The appel l ant , D enni ng and Andr ews were s i t t i ng around wat chi ng te le vis io n w h e n a re p o rt a b o u t re w a rd m o n e y fo r th e S m it h m u rd e rs w a s b ro a d c a s t. A n d re w s m e n tio n e d t o t h e o th e rs h e w is h h e k n e w w h o k ille d t h e c o u p le s o h e c o u ld gett he m oney . T he appel l antt ol d A ndr ews and D enni ng t hathe was t he one. The appel l antt ol d t hem so m e of t he det ai l s aboutt he i nci dent , how t heybroke i nt o t he h o u s e o f t h i s c o u p l e fo rw h i c h h e h a d d o n e s o me w o r k , w e n tt o t h e ma s t e rb e d ro o m, t ol d t he wom an t o geti nt o t he c l oset , st r angl ed t he m an, and t hen raped t he wom an. T h e a p p e lla n t s ta te d th a t h e s to le a V C R (w h ic h th e a p p e ll a n t s a id h e g a v e to h is fat her ) , credi tca r ds, and a w eddi ng r i ng. Andr ews al so t est i f i ed t hatt he appe l l ant-1 4-

i nfor m ed h i m h e w o r e g l o v e s d u r i n g t h e i n c i d e n t
. An d r e ws t e s t i f i e d t h a tt he a p p e ll a n t a c te d “p ro u d ” a b o u t w h a t h e d id ; “[t]o h im , it w a s li k e a g re a t tro p h y.” Andr ews adm i t t ed t hati n hi s s t at em entt o t he pol i ce, he refer r ed m or e t o “ t hey ” or “th e m ” ra th e r th a n “ h e ” w h e n r e la ti n g w h a t t h e a p p e ll a n t h a d to ld h im i n re g a rd s to Pat t e rs o n a n d h i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e i n c i d e n t
. Fi n a l l y , An d r e ws s t a t e d t hatt he a p p e l l a n tt h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l h i m i f h e r e p e a t e d a n y t h i n g t h e a p p e l l a n tt o l d h i m.
C h a rle s T ra c y , a te a c h e r a t th e D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n , te s tifie d o n b e h a lf of t he appe l l ant
. He test i f i ed t hatt he appe l l antwas one of hi s a i des, and t hatt he app el l ant obt ai ned hi s G E D wh i l e i n pri son. Acco r di ng t o T r acy, t he a ppe l l antwo r ks wel l wi t h peopl e, has good com m uni cat i on ski l l s, i s a cc ept abl e t o s uperv i si on, and m a in ta in s g o o d p e rs o n a l h y g ie n e . T ra c yte s tifie d th a t th e a p p e lla n t tu to rs o th e rs in gai ni ng t hei r G ED and ass i st s i n gr adi ng papers. A l ett er of appr eci at i on t o t he appel l antsi gned byT r acywas i nt roduce d i nt o ev i dence
.
T he appe l l a n tt est i f i ed on hi s o wn behal f
. He st at ed t hathe was bor n on Sept em ber5, 1967, and adopt ed and r ai sed byhi s m at er nal grandm ot herand st ep gr andfat her
. H e nev ersaw hi s nat ur al fat herand onl yr em em bers s eei ng hi s n at ur al m o th e r s e v e ra l tim e s . H e te s t if ie d t h a t h e d id n o t le a rn u n til a g e fifte e n th a t h is g ra n d m o th e r a d o p te d h im
. T h e a p p e ll a n t d ro p p e d o u t o f s c h o o l in th e e le ve n th gr ade t o he l p care forhi s gr and m ot her, wh o suffer ed f rom P ar ki nson ’ s di sease , so hi s s t ep grandfat herco ul d wor k o ut si de t he hom e. The appel l antt est i f i ed t hatheAs an i ni t i al m at t er , t he st at e ar gues t hatsev er al i ssues r ai sed o n ap peal hav e be en wai v ed 2 because t he a ppel l antfai l ed t o t i m el yobj ect , T
. R
. A. P. 36( a) , St at e v . Ki l l ebr ew, 760 S. W
. 2d 2 28, 23 5 (T en n. C ri m . A pp . 19 88 ), or r ai s e t he i s s ue i n t he m oti on for ne w t ri al , T
. R
. A
. P
. 3(e), S t ate v. Bak er , 785 S. W
. 2d 1 32, 135 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 198 9)
. Because of t he q ual i t at i v e di ffer ence between de at h an d ot hersent ences, howev er , ourSupr em e Cour thas nor m al l yconsi der ed t he m er i t s of

an i ssue e v en i ft he a ppel l antdi d no tcont em por aneou sl yobj ectt o t he e r r ororr ai se t he i s s ue i n t he m oti on for ne w t ri al
. Se e S t ate v. B i gb ee , 88 5 S
. W
. 2d 79 7, 80 5 (T en n. 19 94 ); S t ate v. D uncan, 698 S. W
. 2d 6 3, 67- 68 ( T enn. 198 5) ; St at e v . St r out h, 620 S. W
. 2d 4 67, 471 ( T enn. 1981)
. Accor di ngl y , we wi l l consi dert hese i ssues o n t hei rm er i t s. -1 5- wor ked on aut om obi l es as a hobby , and was e m p l o yed i n a g ar age unt i l age ei ght een.
T he appe l l antwas m ar r i ed and di v or ced, and has a s on f rom t hatm ar r i age. H i s s on, ei ght at t he t i m e of r esent enci ng, v i si t s t he appel l anti n pr i son ev eryt hr ee m ont hs ors o . T h e a p p el l antt est i f i ed t hathe h as r em ar r i ed s i nce he has been i ncarcer ate d . H e re c ei v ed h i s G E D i n 19 91, and al so ob t ai ned cert i f i cat i on a s a le g a l a s s is ta n t/p a ra le g a l in 1 9 8 9 , b o th w h ile in p ris o n . T h e a p p e lla n t d e s c rib e d h is dut i es as a t eache r ’ s a i de, and t est i f i ed abou ta l ett e r of appreci at i on f rom t he t eache rand f rom a cor r ect i onal off i cer , and approv i ng rem ar ks byt he rev i ew board. T he appe l l anti nt roduce d greet i ng c ards whi ch he c r eat es and sel l s i n pr i son. F in a ll y, th e a p p e ll a n t t e s ti fi e d t h a t h e c o rre s p o n d s re g u la rly w it h d o c to rs , h e a lt h d e p a rt m e n t o ffic ia ls , in s u ra n c e c o m p a n ie s , a n d re n ta l a g e n c ie s c o n c e rn in g h is gr andm ot her ’ s c ondi t i on and si t uat i on.
B e fo re th e a p p e lla n t re s te d , t h e tri a l ju d g e i n fo rm e d th e j u ry th a t B re tt P at t er son recei v ed a l i fe sen t ence forhi s two f i rstdeg r ee m ur der conv i ct i ons.
SU F F I CI EN CY OF T HE E VI DE NCE 2 T he appe l l antargues t hatt he ev i dence i nt roduce d att he re- sent enci ng hear i ng was i nsuf

f i ci entt o s at i sf

yt he appl i ca t i o n of t he s ol e aggrav at i ng-1 6-

c irc u m s ta n c e , th a t th e m u rd e r w a s e s p e c ia lly h e in o u s , a t r o c io u s , o r c ru e l. Speci f i cal l y , t he app e l l a n tr el i es on two fact ors i n s upportof hi s a rgum ent : ( 1) ev i dence t hatt he v i ct i m l ostco nsc i ousne ss t hi rtyseconds i nt o t he ac t , and ( 2) t he fa c t th a t th e a p p e ll a n t w a s n o t th e o n e w h o a c tu a ll y kill e d th e vic ti m . T h e s ta te argues i n r espon se t hat t he ev i dence f ul l ysu pport s t he j ury ’ s v erdi ct
. The factt hat Pat t erson r ecei v ed a l ess ersent ence, accordi ng t o t he st at e, does notwei gh i nt o t he suf f i ci encydet er m i nat i on. (1 ). T he e v i den ce present ed d ur i ng t he re- sent enci ng h eari ng i n t hi s case shows t hatt he two v i ct i m s d i ed as a resul tof l i gat ur e s t r angul at i on. Th e force of pr ess ur e appl i ed t o t he nec k o f M r . S m i t h w as probabl ygreat ert han el ev en poun ds p e rs q u a r e i n c h , w h i l e t h e fo r c e a p p l i e d t o Mrs . Smi t h ’ s n e c ke q u a l e d t h i rty - four p o u n d s o r m o re . D r. H a rla n te s tifie d th a t a s a r e s u lt o f th e s tr a n g u la tio n , th e th y ro id c a rtil a g e s u rro u n d in g th e la ryn x i n M rs . S m it h ’s n e c k w a s fra c tu re d
. T h e fl o w o f b o th b lo o d a n d o xyg e n to t h e h e a d c e a s e d
. D r. H a rl a n tes ti fi e d tha t s h e d i d n o t d ie i nst an t a n e o u s l y , b u tr a t h e rw i t h i n t h r e e t o s i xm i n u t e s . Dr
. Ha r l a n t e s t i f i e d f u rt her t hatsh e c oul d hav e fal l en unc onsc i ous wi t hi n t hi rtyse conds , but poss i bl y l at er , aft er th e in itia tio n o f th e fo rc e t o h e rn e c k . A c c o rd in g to D r. H a rla n , s e v e ra l s m a ll abr asi ons on Mr s. Sm i t h’ s neck , i ndi cat i v e of f i nger nai l sc r at ches , su ggestt hatsh e poss i bl yatt em pt ed t o rel i ev e t he press ur e bei ng appl i ed.
T he t est i m ony al so sugge st s t hat t he v i ct i m was r aped befo re t he st r ang ul at i on. T hou gh t he a ppe l l anti ni t i al l ym ent i one d i n hi s st at em entt o t he p ol i ce t hatonl yPat t erson rap ed Mr s. Sm i t h, he l at ert ol d t he of f i cers t hathe t oo had sex wi t h Mr s . Sm i t h t ha tni gh t
. Mor eo v er , t he t es t i m on yof bot h Denn i ng a nd And r ews i ndi cat es t hatt he a ppe l l antt ol d bo t h of t hes e wi t nesse s he di d i n factrape M rs.-1 7-

S m ith . D r. H a rla n te s tifie d th a t h e fo u n d a w h it e s tic k ys u b s ta n c e o n th e vic tim ’s body , buthe d i d no td e t e rm i ne ex act l ywhati twas. Ther e i s a l so t est i m ony s u g g e s tin g th a t th e a p p e lla n t a n d P a tte rs o n p o u re d w in e c o o le rs o v e r M rs . S m ith ’s bodyaft ert he r apes. Furt her m or e, t he rapes apparent l yoc cur r ed s hort l yaft ert he st r angul at i on of

herhus band. The coupl e w as abr upt l yawaken ed i n t he m i ddl e of t he ni ght
. Mr s. Sm i t h st art ed sc r eam i ng, so t he appe l l ant“ hi d her” i n t he c l osetof th e fro n t b e d ro o m , w h ile h is c o -d e fe n d a n t fo u g h t w ith a n d s tr a n g le d h e r h u s b a n d in t he m ast erbedroom . Mr s. Sm i t h was t hen raped an d s t r angl ed t o deat h.
T he a ppe l l anta rg u e s t hatt he e v i den ce i m pl y i ng t hatt he vi ct i m l ost c o n s c io u s n e s s a s e a rly a s th irty s e c o n d s i n to th e o rd e a l is in s u ffi c ie n t t o s u p p o rt a fi n d i n g o f the so l e a g g ra va ti n g circu m s tan c e . I n a d d i ti o n , this C o u rth a s a sta tuto ry obl i gat i on t o det er m i ne whet her t he j ury ’ s v erdi ct i s suppo rt ed byt he ev i dence
. See T e n n . C o d e A n n . s e c tio n 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 6 (c )( 1 )( B ). A s is c o m m o n ly re c o g n iz e d , th e ju ry ’s v erdi ct , approv ed byt he t r i al court , ac credi t s t he t est i m onyof t he wi t ness es fort he St at e and r esol v es al l conf l i ct s i n fav orof t he S t at e’ s t heory . S t at e v . H at chett , 560 S .W .2d 6 2 7 , 6 3 0 (T e n n . 1 9 7 8 ); S tate v. G ra c e , 4 9 3 S .W .2d 4 7 4 , 4 7 6 (T e n n . 1 9 7 3 ). O n ap pea l , “ t he st at e i s e nt i t l ed t o t he st rong estl egi t i m at e v i ew of t he t r i al ev i den ce and al l r eason abl e i nfer ences whi ch m ay be dr awn t her ef rom . ” St at e v . C abbage, 571 S
. W
. 2d 832, 835 ( T enn. 1978)
. T hi s C ourtdoes notr ewei gh orr eev al uat e t he e vi d e n c e . I d
. T h e j u ry’ s f i n d i n g , the re fore , w i l l o n l y b e d i s turb e d i f, a ft e r a cons i der at i on of

t he ev i dence i n t he l i ght m ost fav or abl e t o t he St at e, a rat i onal t r i er of fact coul d not hav e found t he ex i st ence of t he aggrav at i ng c i r cum st ance bey ond a rea s o n a b l e d o u b t. S e e Ja c k s o n v. V i rg i n i a , 4 4 3 U .S
. 3 0 7 , 9 9 S .C t. 2 7 8 1 (19 7 9 ); S tate v. W i l l i a m s , 6 5 7 S .W .2d 4 0 5 , 4 1 0 (T e n n . 1 9 8 3 ).T he St at e no t es, wi t h whi ch we a gr ee, t hatal t hough t he t r i al courter r oneou sl yi nst r uct ed t he 3 j uryund ert he n ew l angua ge r at hert han t he o l d l angua ge o ft he e speci al l yhei nous, at r oci ous, or cr uel agg r av at i ng ci r cum st ance ( because of t he d at e of

t he o ffense) , t he e r r orwas ha r m l ess as t h e i n s t r u c t i o n i n u r e d t o t h e b e n e f i to ft h e a p p e l l a n t
. S e e S t a t e v . Th o m p s o n , 0 3 C0 1 - 9 4 0 6 - CR0 0 1 9 8 ( T e n n . C r im . A p p . J a n . 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 ) , p e r m . a p p . d e n ie d , c o n c u r r in g in r e s u lts o n ly, ( T e n n . J u ly 1 , 1 9 9 6 ). F u rth e r m o r e , t h e 1 9 8 9 a m e n d m e n ts to th e d e a th p e n a lty s ta tu te m a n d a te th a t t h e ju ry m ustf i nd t hatt he a ggr av at i ng ci r cum st ances outwei gh t he m i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ances “ bey ond a r easona bl e do ubt ” befor e i tcan i m pose t he d eat h pe nal t y . T enn. C ode Ann. § 39- 13- 203 ( Supp. 1989)
. Pr i ort o t he a m endm ent s, howev er , t he j urysi m pl yhad t o f i nd t hatt he a ggr av at i ng c i rcu m s t an c es ou tw ei gh ed t he m i t i ga t i ng ci rcu m s t an c es . § 3 9-1 3-2 03 (198 2). I n t he ca s e b efo re u s , t h e tr ia l ju d g e e r r o n e o u s ly in s tr u c te d th e ju ry u n d e rth e n e w la w r a th e rth a n th e la w in exi st ence att he t i m e of t he o ffense. See § 39 - 11- 112. See al so St at e v . Sm i t h, 893 S. W
. 2d 9 08, 919 ( T enn. 199 4) ; St at e v . Br i m m er , 876 S. W
. 2d 7 5, 82 ( T enn. 199 4)
. Si nce, howev er , t he am endm ent s t o t he st at ut e cr eat e a hi gherbur den ofpr oof , and t hus i nur e t o t he b enef i tof t he a p p e l l a n t, w e b e l i e v e a n ye rr o r c o m m i tte d b yth e tri a l ju d g e w a s m e re l yh a rm l e s s . S e e , e .g ., St at e v . T hom pson, N o. 03C01- 9406- C R - 00198 , D i ck son Count y( T enn. C r i m . App. Jan. 24, 19 96 ), pe rm . ap p. de ni ed , co nc urri ng i n res ul t s on l y , (T en n. 19 96 ). -1 8- T e n n e s s e e C o d e A n n o ta te d s e c ti o n 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 4 (i)(5 ) p ro vid e s th a t th e d e a th p e n a ltym a yb e im p o s e d if th e ju ryfin d s th e S ta te h a s p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le doubtt hat“ [ t ] he m urderwas espec i al l yhei nous, at roci ous, or cr uel i n t hat i ti nv ol v ed to rtu re o r s e rio u s p h ys ica l a b u s e b e yo n d th a t n e c e s s a ry t o p ro d u c e d e a th .” In S ta te 3 v . H odges , N o. 01C 01- 9212- C R - 00382 ( T enn. C r i m . App. , M ay18, 1995) , a pa nel of t hi s C o u rth e l d t hat“ [ s] t r ang ul at i on a l one doe s notest abl i sh t he h ei nou s, at roci ous, orcr uel aggrav at i ng fact o r. ” S l i p op. at15. Acco r di ngl y , t her e m ustbe ev i dence of

so m e t ort ur e orse r i ous phy si cal abuse abov e and bey ond t he nat ur e of t he s t r angul at i on i n ordert o j ust i fyt he hei nous, at roci ous, orcr uel aggrav at or . See id . “T o rt u re ” h a s b e e n d e fin e d a s “th e in flic tio n o f s e v e re p h y s ic a l o r m e n ta l p a in upon t he v i ct i m whi l e he or she r em ai ns al i v e and cons ci ous. ” St at e v . W i l l i am s, 690 S .W .2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 9 (T e n n . 1 9 8 5 ). “S e rio u s p h ys ica l a b u s e b e yo n d th a t n e c e s s a ry to produce deat h” m eans j ustt hat ; t her e m ust be ser i ous phy si cal , notm ent al , abus e, i
. e. , “ an a ctt hati s ‘ excessi v e’ orwh i ch m akes ‘i m pr ope ruse of a t hi ng, ’ orwh i ch u s e s a t h i n g ‘ i n a m a n n e r c o n tra ry to t h e n a tura l o r l e g a l ru l e s for i ts u s e .’ ” S tate v. O dom , 928 S. W
. 2d 18, 26 ( T enn. 1996) ( quot i ng Bl ack ’ s L aw D i ct i onary11 ( 6t h ed. 1 9 9 0 )).-1 9- I n t he recentca se of

O dom , t he j uryse nt enced t he appe l l a n tt o deat h upon a fi n d i ng of

t he hei nous, at roci ous, orcr uel aggrav at or , am ong ot hers, fort he conv i ct i on of

m urderdur i ng t he per pet r at i on of rape. O dom , 928 S. W
. 2d at20- 21. T he el der l yv i ct i m was acc ost ed i n herca rbyt he appe l l ant , raped, and st abbed sev e r a l t i m e s i n t h e h e a rt , l u n g , a n d l i v e r . Odo m , 9 2 8 S. W
. 2 d a t 2 2
. Sh e d i ed as a resul t of i nt er nal bl eedi ng whi ch occ ur r ed f rom t he st ab wounds. I d. I n r ul i ng t hat t he e v i den ce w as no tsuf f i ci entt o sup portt h e fi n d i n g of t he e speci al l yhei nou s, a tro c i o u s , o r cru e l a g g ra va tor, t h e S u p re m e C o u rth e l d t h a t “rap e (pe n ile p e n e tr a tio n ) d o e s n o t o rd in a rilyc o n s titu te ‘to rt u re ’ o r ‘s e rio u s p h y s ic a l a b u s e ’ w ith in t he m eani ng of

[ t hi s a ggr av at i ng c i r cum st ance]
. ” O dom , 928 S. W
. 2d at26 ( em pha si s add ed). T he C ourt f urt her not ed t hatt he st ab w oun ds di d no tev i den ce t ort ur e orse r i ous phy si cal abus e bey ond t hatnec ess aryt o produce deat h. I d.
A s th e S ta te a s s e rt s , M rs . S m ith s u ffe re d m e n ta l to rt u re w h e n s h e w a s fo rc ib ly r em ov ed f rom herbed whi l e sc r eam i ng i n t he m i ddl e of t he ni ght , hi dden i n a c l oset wh i l e h e rhus band was dead ordy i ng, and subs equent l yraped. T he ev i dence , t hough no td i rectl ysh owi ng t hatM rs. Sm i t h k new t he ex actfat e of hersp ouse, suppo rt s t he st rong assum pt i on t hatshe hear d w hatw as happeni ng and knew he r husba nd was i n di r e ci r cum st ances . T he v i deo shown t o t he j ury cl ear l y depi ct s t hat a p ro fou n d s tr u g g l e o c c u rred b e tw e e n t h e a s s a i l a n ts a n d M r. S m i th; t h e b e d co ve rs w e re s tr e w n a b o u t th e ro o m , M r. S m ith w a s k n e e lin g a g a in s t th e b e d , fin g e rn a il sc r at ch m ar ks wer e found on hi s n eck , and t he bed f r am e was broken awayf rom t he headboard and t he m att r ess was l y i ng on t he fl oor . I n hi s s t at em entt o t he pol i ce, t he appe l l ant sai d t hat as Pat t erson l eftt he m ast erbedroom aft erki l l i ng Mr
. Sm i t h, h e g ra b b e d M rs . S m ith a s s h e w a s c o m in g b a c k d o w n th e h a llw a y . T h e ju ryc o u ld e a s i l y h a ve c o n c l u d e d t h a t s h e w a s g o i n g t o ch e c ko n h e r hu s b a n d a ft e r sh e h e a rd-2 0-

t he s t r uggl e.
I tcl ear l yappears from t he record t hat t he s t r angul at i on oc cur r ed af t ert he r apes and whi l e t he v i ct i m was cons ci ous. Ev en t hough O dom st at es t hatr ape doe s notordi nar i l y cons t i t ut e t ort ur e or ser i ous phy si cal abuse , we f i nd t hatt he fact s o f t he c a s e s u b ju d ic e m o re d is tin c tlyd e m o n s tr a t e th e ir e x is te n c e . In O d o m , th e vic tim wa s r ape d on ce. H er e, t he v i ct i m w as r ape d twi ce, and bytwo di f fer enti ndi v i dua l s. M o re o ve r, th e r a p e s w e re n o t c o m m itte d u p o n th e i n it ia l c rim in a l c o n fro n ta ti o n . In O dom , t he rape en sued al m ost i m m edi at el yaft ert he vi ct i m wa s accost ed. M rs. S m ith w a s n o tr a p e d u n til a fte r s h e w a s p la c e d in a c lo s e t w h e re s h e a p p a re n tly h e a r d t h e a tt a c ko n h e r h u s b a n d
. A n d a fte r th e ra p e s o c c u rre d , t h e a s s a il a n ts f ur ther t ort ur ed and r i di cul ed M rs. Sm i t h bypour i ng two bott l es of wi ne c ool ers o v er h e r na k e d b o d y.
M rs. Sm i t h rem ai ned c onsc i ous foratl eastt hi rtyseconds w hi l e s he was bei ng st r angl ed af

t ersh e had been twi ce r aped. T he abr asi ons on herneck i ndi cat e t hat she t r i ed, uns ucc ess f ul l y , t o rel ease t he press ur e f rom around he rnec k. Al t hough D r . H ar l an t est i f i ed t hathe was unc ert ai n f rom t he m edi cal ev i dence whet hera break occ ur r ed i n t he s t r angul at i on proces s, ot hert est i m onysuggest s t hatw hen t he i ni t i al a tte m p t t o s tra n g le p ro ve d fu ti le , a n a p p a re n t s e c o n d , m o re s u c c e s s fu l, a tte m p t t o st r angl e Mr s. Sm i t h was m ade us i ng a t our ni quetdev i ce. A s Jos eph Denni ng t est i f i ed, t he appe l l ant t o l d hi m he m ade t he f i rstatt em ptt o s t r angl e Mr s. Sm i t h. A ccor di ng t o D enn i ng’ s te s ti m ony, t he a ppe l l antl acked t he st r eng t h t o ki l l her, so Pat t erson had t o c om pl et e t he ac tus i ng t he v ase i n t he s carf
. Th e abr asi ons on M rs. Sm i t h’ s n eck i ndi cat e t hat she was cons ci ous dur i ng a port i on of t he s t r uggl e. Ita p p e a rs from t h e rec o rd t h a t M rs. S m i th w a s fo rce d t o e n d u re n o t o n l y t h e se ve re-2 1-

phy si cal pai n of

t he st r angul at i on, but t he gr uel i ng m ent al pai n as wel l of notkn owi ng when and i f

the a ss ai l ant s woul d c ont i nue whatprobabl yappeared t o heras r epeat ed ac t s o f

st r angul at i on and t ort ur e.
C a s e l a w s ta te s th a t a s tra n g u la ti o n , i n a n d o f i ts e lf , i s n o t s u ffi c ie n t t o est abl i sh t he hei nou s, at roci ous, or cr uel agg r avat i ng ci r cum st ance . Se e H odg es, s l i p o p . a t1 5
. N o rd o e s a ra p e , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , s a t i s fyt h i s a g g r a v a t o r . S e e O d o m, 928 S. W
. 2d at26. H owev er , we bel i ev e t hatt he s t r angul at i on, co m bi ned wi t h t he tw o rap e s a n d t h e e vi d e n c e s u rrou n d i n g t h i s e n ti re crim i n a l e p i s o d e , d o e s su p p o rt t he j ury ’ s fi ndi ng of t he es peci al l yhei nous, a t roci o us, orcr uel aggrav at i ng ci r cum st ance i n t hi s c ase.
W e bel i ev e ourco ncl usi on i s fu rt h e rb u tt ress ed byanot herdi st i nct i on between t hi s c ase and O dom
. I n O dom , t he appel l antw as conv i ct ed of fel onym urderi n t he per pet r a t i o n o f r a p e . The a p p e l l a n t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e wa s c o n v i c t e d o f fel ony m ur deri n t he per pet r at i on of f i rstdegree burgl ary . T he C ourti n O dom , hol di ng t hat a ra p e d o e s n o t o rd in a r il y c o n s titu te to rt u re , s ta te d th a t to h o ld o th e rw is e w o u ld p e rm it e v e rym u rd e rc o m m itte d in th e p e rp e tr a tio n o f a ra p e to b e a u to m a tic a lly cl ass i f i ed as a de at h- el i gi bl e of fens e. I n es senc e, anot herM i ddl ebrooks - ty pe dupl i cat i on probl em woul d ens ue. Accordi ngl y , t he C ourt ’ s r eason i ng sugge st s t hat i t s s t at em entaboutr ape was nec ess i t at ed bec ause t he appe l l antst ood c onv i ct ed of fel onym urderi n t he per pet r at i on of a r ape. Because t he appel l antbefor e us was notco nv i ct ed of

m ur deri n t he per pet r at i on of a rape, we a r e s at i sf i ed t hatour h o ld in g d o e s n o t c re a te th e c o n s ti tu ti o n a l in fra c ti o n i n ti m a te d b y t h e S u p re m e C o u rt. (2 ). The appel l antcl ai m s t h a tbec ause t he t est i m onydem onst r at es t hat-2 2-

P a tte rs o n a c tu a lly k ille d M rs . S m ith , th e re is in s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u s ta in th e ju ry ’s f i n d i n g o f

t h e e s p e c i a l l yh e i n o u s , a t ro c i o u s , o rc r u e l a g g r a v a t o r . T h e S u p r e me C ourt , i n St a t e v . Br a n a m , 8 5 5 S. W
. 2 d 5 6 3 , 5 7 0 ( Ten n . 1 9 9 3 ) , o u t l i n e d t he c o n t ro l l i n g l a w a d d r e s s i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m: I n Edm und v. F l or i da, 458 U
. S. 782, 789, 102 S. C t
. 3368, 3372, 73 L .E d .2 d 1 1 4 0 (1 9 8 2 ), th e U n it e d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t d e a th i s a di sproport i onat e penal tyand, t her efor e, co nst i t ut es crue l and unusu al puni shm entundert he Ei ght h Am endm ent , wher e i ti s i m posed aga i nsta defend ant“ sol el yforpart i c i p a t i on i n a r obb eryi n w hi ch a n o th e r r o b b e r ta k e s life ,” w ith o u tp r o o f th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h im s e lf a tte m p te d o r in te n d e d to k ill, o r in te n d e d th a t le th a l fo rc e b e u s e d
. T h is cons t i t ut i onal s t a ndard was r ef i ned byt he Courti n T i son v . Ar i zona, 4 8 1 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 5 8 , 1 0 7 S .C t. 1 6 7 6 , 1 6 8 8 , 9 5 L .E d .2 d 1 2 7 (1 9 8 7 ), in whi c h i t wa s h e l d t h a t t h e Ei g h t h Am e n d m e n t d o e s n o t p ro h i b i tt he deat h penal tyi n t he case of a de fendantwhose part i ci pat i on i n a fel ony th a t re s u lts in m u rd e r is m a jo r a n d w h o s e m e n ta l s ta te a t th e tim e is one of r eck l e ss i ndi f

fer ence t o t he v al ue of hum an l i fe - - ev en t hough th e p ro o f fa ils to s h o w in te n t to k ill. S ee a l so T
. C
. A
. § 39-11- 407 ( “ i t i s n o d efense t hat
. . . ( 2) T he p er son forwh ose condu ctt he defendanti s cr i m i nal l yr espon si bl e has been acqui t t ed, has notbeen prosec ut ed orco nv i ct ed, has been conv i ct ed of a di f fer entof fense ordi f

fer entty pe o r clas s o f o ffe n s e , o r i s i m m u n e f ro m p ro s e c u ti o n .” ) Even t hough t her e i s s om e t est i m onywhi ch sugge st s t hatPat t erson was t he one who u l t i m at el yst r angl ed Mr s. Sm i t h t o deat h, t he t est i m ony al so shows t hatt he a p p e ll a n t a tte m p te d to s tra n g le th e vic ti m b u t s im p ly d id n o t h a ve e n o u g h s tre n g th to b rin g th e ta s kto th e in te n d e d c o n c lu s io n . T h is d o e s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly r e d u c e h is c u lp a b ility. T h u s th e a p p e lla n t’s c la im in th is re s p e c t m u s t fa il.
CO NS T I T UT I ON A L I T Y OF T HE E S P E CI A L L Y H E I NO US , A T RO CI OU S , OR CR UE L A GGR AV A T OR N ex t , t h e a p p e l l antco nt ends t hatt he l anguage of t he aggrav at i ng ci r cum st ance found i n T ennes see C ode Annot at ed s ect i on 39- 13- 204( i ) ( 5) i s t oo v ague t o s at i sf

yco nst i t ut i onal st andards. Thi s a ggr av at i ng c i r cum st ance can be im p o s e d in th e d e a th p e n a ltyc o n te x t if th e ju ryd e te rm in e s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le-2 3-

doubtt hat“ [ t ] he m urderwas espec i al l y hei nous, at roci ous, or cr uel i n t hati ti nv ol v ed t o rt u re o rse r i ous phy si cal abus e bey ond t hatnec ess aryt o produce deat h. ” I d. Furt her m or e, t he appe l l antcl ai m s t he defi ni t i ons of t he t er m s i n t he s t at ut e gi v en by th e tria l c o u rta re t h e m s e lv e s t o o va g u e a s w e ll. T h e S u p re m e C o u rtre c e n tly addr ess ed t hi s i ss ue i n O dom
. The C o u rtuphel d t he v al i di tyof t he aggrav at i ng ci r cum st ance underco nst i t ut i onal att a ck s. S ee O dom , 928 S. W
. 2d at25- 26. A c c o rd in g ly, t h e a p p e ll a n t’ s i s s u e i s w it h o u t m e rit.

SEN TEN CE O F LI FE W I THO UT PO SSI BI LI TY O F PA RO LE T h e a p p e l l a n t a l s o a rg u e s t h a t the t ri a l co u rtsh o u l d h a ve i n s tr u c ted t h e j u ry i tco ul d c onsi derl i fe wi t houtt he pos si bi l i tyof parol e as an a l t er nat i v e s ent ence. The appel l antr el i es upon Tennessee C ode A nnot at ed s ect i ons 39- 13- 204( k) and 39- 11- 1 1 2 in s u p p o rto f h is a rg u m e n t. T h e S ta te c o n te n d s th a t b e c a u s e t h e o ffe n s e s in th is c a s e w e re co m m itte d p rio r to th e a m e n d m e n t p ro vid in g l ife w it h o u t t h e p o s s ib il ity o f p a ro l e , the a p p e l l a n t w a s p ro p e rl y s e n ten c e d u n d e r t h e o l d l a n g u a g e . M o re o ve r, t he St at e as sert s t he appe l l antsh oul d be pr ev ent ed f rom rai si ng t hi s i ss ue on appeal when he reques t ed t he t r i al co urtnott o i nfor m t he j uryof t he new s ent enci ng opt i on.
Sect i on 39- 13- 204( k) was am ended i n 1993, and t hatam endm entprov i des in p e rtin e n t p a rt: I f t he t r i al co urt , oranyot herco urtwi t h j ur i sdi ct i on t o do so, orders t hat a d e fe n d a n t c o n v ic te d o f firs t d e g re e m u rd e r ( w h e th e r th e s e n te n c e is deat h, i m pr i sonm entforl i fe wi t houtt he pos si bi l i t y o f parol e or i m pr i sonm entforl i fe) be g r ant ed a new t r i al , ei t heras t o gui l tor p u n is h m e n t o r b o th , th e n e w tria l s h a ll i n c lu d e th e p o s s ib le puni shm ent s o f

deat h, i m pr i sonm entforl i fe w i t houtt he pos si bi l i tyof parol e ori m pr i sonm entforl i fe. S e e a l s o § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 2 (c) (1 9 9 3 ) ( c re a ti n g p e n a l ty o f l i fe w i tho u t p o s s i b i l i ty o f p a ro l e ). A c c o rd in g to th e a p p e lla n t, b e c a u s e h e w a s g ra n te d a n e w s e n te n c in g h e a rin g , th is-2 4-

s e c ti o n o f t h e c o d e s ta te s th a t h e s h a ll re c e ive th e b e n e fi t o f a n i n s tru c ti o n o n l ife wi t houtt he pos si bi l i tyof parol e. T he S t at e, on t he ot herhand, ar gues t hatse ct i on 16 of ch apt er473 of

t he P ubl i c A ct s of

1993 prov i des t hatt hi s n ew sent enci ng opt i on shal l onl yappl yt o of

fenses co m m i t t ed on oraft erJu l y1, 1993. Acco r di ng t o t he St at e, si nce t he of

fenses i n t hi s cas e occ ur r ed i n 1987, t he t r i al court w a s n ot aut hor i ze d u n d e rt h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e c o d e t o i n s t r u c tt h e j u ryo n l i fe w i t h o u tt he poss i bi l i tyof

parol e as an a v ai l abl e s ent ence.
Al t er nat i v el y , t he appe l l antc i t e s t o Te n n e s s e e C ode Annot at ed s ect i on 39- 11- 112 as aut hori tyi n sup portof hi s argum ent
. T hi s sect i on st at es: W h e n e ve r a n y p e n a l s tatu te or p e n a l l e g i s l a ti ve a c t o f the s ta te is r epeal ed oram ended bya subs equentl egi sl at i v e ac t , anyof fense, as def i ned byt he st at ut e orac tbei ng repeal ed oram ended, co m m i t t ed whi l e s uch st at ut e orac twas i n f ul l for ce and effectsh al l be p rosec ut ed undert he ac to r st at ut e i n ef fectatt he t i m e of

t he c om m i ss i on of

t he of fense. Ex ceptas prov i ded und ert he pr ov i si ons of § 40- 35- 117, i n t he§ 40 -35 -11 7 o utl i ne s t he ap pl i c ab l e d ates of t he C ri m i na l S en t en c i ng R efo rm A c tof 19 89
. F or 4 ex am pl e, a n offen se c om m i t t ed p r i ort o Ju l y1 , 1 98 2 sh al l b e pr os ec ut ed u nd ert he p r i orl aw , r egar dl ess of

sent enci ng co nsi der at i ons. -2 5- ev entt he subs equent act prov i des fora l ess erpenal ty , anypuni shm ent im p o s e d s h a ll b e i n a c c o rd a n c e w it h th e s u b s e q u e n t a c t. 4 T h e a p p e ll a n t a rg u e s th a t b e c a u s e t h e 1 9 9 3 a m e n d m e n ts to th e d e a th p e n a lty st at ut e prov i de fort he s ent enci ng al t er nat i v e of l i fe wi t houtt he pos si bi l i tyof parol e, w h i c h coul d ar gua bl y be consi dered a l esser pen al ty , t he t r i al j udg e shou l d h a ve i nst r uct ed t he j uryon t hi s o pt i on as m andat ed byt he abov e- quot ed s t at ut e.
C ont r aryt o t he appe l l ant ’ s c l ai m , howe v er , we are c onv i nced t hatt he t r i al j u d g e ru l e d c o rrec tl y i n this c a s e . A s this C o u rt a n n o u n c e d i n S tate e x. re l
. S tew a rt v . M cW hert er , 857 S. W
. 2d 875, 877 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1992) , per m . t o appea l deni ed, i d
. , ( T enn. 1993) , “ [ t ] he c r i m i nal sa v i ngs st at ut e [ § 39- 11- 112] has nev er been i nt er pr et ed t o appl y t o conv i ct i ons and sent ences whi ch wer e al r eadyr ecei v ed when a s ubseq uentactoram endm entprov i ded fora l ess erpenal ty . ” Furt her m or e, t he ef fect i v e dat e s ect i on of t he l i fe wi t hout parol e ac tm andat es t hatt he ent i r e new act , notso l el ysu bsec t i on ( k) deal i ng wi t h new tr i a l s, shal l appl yonl yt o of fenses com m i t t ed af

t erJu l y1, 1993. Furt her m or e, t he Supr em e C ourt i n t hi s c ase or der ed th e n e w s e n te n c in g h e a rin g i n 1 9 8 9 , w e ll b e fo re th e a m e n d m e n ts c re a ti n g l ife w it h o u t t h e p o s s ib il ity o f p a ro le w e re e n a c te d
. G ive n th e p re c ise l a n g u a g e o f t h e a c t, w e d o n o t b e l i e ve t h e l e g i sl a t u re i n t e n d e d fo r t h e n e w se n t e n ci n g o p ti o n to e n c o m p a s s th o s e c rim e s c o m m itte d b e fo re J u ly 1 , 1 9 9 3
. A c c o rd in g ly, th is is s u e is w it h o u t m e rit.

PR OSE CUT ORI A L M I SC ONDUCT-2 6- T h e a p p e lla n tc la im s th e d e a th p e n a ltys h o u ld b e re v e rs e d b e c a u s e c e rt a in r em ar ks m ade byt he prosec ut ordur i ng c l osi ng argum ent s v i ol at ed hi s c onst i t ut i onal rig h ts
. S p e c ifica ll y, th e a p p e ll a n t c o n te n d s th e p ro s e c u to r e n g a g e d i n i n a p p ro p ria te nam e- cal l i ng, and i m proper l yencour aged t he j uryt o “ do i t s d uty ” fort he s ake of d e te rr e n c e . T h e S ta te a rg u e s th a t th e re m a rk s w e re in re s p o n s e to th e a p p e lla n t’s a rg u m e n t a n d w e re in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e c o u rt ’s in s tr u c tio n s o n th e la w . E v e n if t he s t at em ent s were i nappropr i at e, t he S t at e as sert s t hatt heywer e rat herbr i ef and of l i t t l e si gni f i cance , and t herefor e an yer rorwa s harm l ess.
As i s com m onl y r ecogn i zed, cl osi ng argum ent s a r e an i m port antt ool fort he part i es dur i ng t he t r i al proces s. C onseq uent l y , t he att or ney s a r e us ual l ygi v en wi de l at i t ude i n t he sc ope of t hei rargum ent s, se e St at e v . Bi gbee, 885 S. W
. 2d 797, 809 ( T enn. 1994) , and t r i al j udges i n t ur n are ac corded wi de di sc r et i on i n t hei r cont rol of tho s e a rg u m e n ts, s e e S tate v. Z i rkle , 9 1 0 S .W .2d 8 7 4 , 8 8 8 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p .) , p e rm . to a p p e a l d e n ie d , id ., (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ). S u c h s c o p e a n d d is c re tio n , h o w e v e r, is notco m pl et el yunfett er ed. The t estfordet er m i ni ng whet h e rt h e p ro sec ut i ng att or ney com m i t t ed rev er si bl e m i scond ucti n t he ar gum enti s “whe t her t he i m pr ope rcond uct c o u l d h a ve a ffe c ted t h e ve rd i c t to th e p rej u d i c e o f the d e fen d a n t. ” H a rri n g ton v. St at e, 385 S. W
. 2d 758, 7 5 9 (T e n n. 1965)
. The fol l owi ng fact ors h av e been re c o g n ize d to a id th e C o u rt i n th is d e te rm in a ti o n : 1 ) th e c o n d u c t c o m p la in e d o f, v i ewed i n l i ghtof

t he fact s a nd ci r cum st ances of t he c ase; 2) t he c ur at i v e m easures undert aken byt he courtand t he prosec ut or ; 3) t he i nt entof t he prosec ut ori n m aki ng t he i m properst at em ent ; 4) t he c um ul at i v e ef fectof t he i m p roperco nductand any ot herer rors i n t he record; and 5) t he rel at i v e st ren g t h orweakne ss of t he c ase. St at e v . Buck, 670 S. W
. 2d 600, 609 ( T enn. 1984) ; Judge v . St at e, 539 S. W
. 2d 340, 3 4 4 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ).-2 7- T he fol l owi ng i s a r eci t at i on of t he rel ev antp o rt i o n of t he St at e’ s rebutt al argum entati ss ue here:

Y e s , w e a re a s k i n g fo r t h e d e a th p e n a l ty. W h y? W h y sh o u ld R o n n ie C a u th e rn d ie ? I o n c e h e a rd a n in te rp re ta tio n o f th e L o rd ’s Pr ay er . “ D el i v erus f rom ev i l , ” or i gi nal l yt r ansl at ed and act u a l l y read, “ D el i v erus f rom t he evi l o ne” - - farm or e pe rsona l l y , farm or e graphi c, and farm or e i nt ense - - t he ev i l one. I n t he 1960 ' s, t he Rol l i ng St o n e s c am e outwi t h a s ong. The r ef r ai n aft ere ach chorus w as, “Pl ease d t o m eetyou. H ope y ou g uess m ynam e. ” An d , I su g g e st t o y ou i twas a s ong abo utt he ev i l one a p p e a ri n g i n p e rso n t h ro u g h o u t the a g e s i n m a n y d i ffe re n t g u i s e s . M r. P o la n d s a y s c iviliz e d s o c ie ty -- in c iviliz e d s o c ie ty , w e d o n ’t k ill. B u t in ci v i l i zed so ci et y , we m ustadd r ess - - we m ustst and up to, w e m ust confrontt he real i t i es of ourdai l yex i st ence and ourd a i l y su rv i v al not onl yof oursel v es butof

ourch i l dr en and t hei rch i l dr en. I tca m e t o dawn on m e aft erI t houghtabout , “ Pl eased t o m eet y ou, hope y ou gues s m ynam e” - - t haton J anuary8t h and Janua ry9t h, 1987, t he ev i l one desc ended upon Pat r i ck and R osem ary Sm i t h, and t he ev i l one i s s m art , t he ev i l one i s sk i l l ed, t he ev i l one i s wi l y , and t he ev i l one i s m ani pul at i v e. A si m pl e l i t t l e dem onst r at i on oftha t , l adi es and gen t l em en, i s t hi s. The ev i l one appeared t odayand produce d g re e ti n g c a rd s -- “M e rryC h ris tm a s ,” “H a p p y H o li d a ys .” Buton Janua ry t he 8t h, 1987, t he ev i l one appeared att he door of 351 H am pshi r e D r i v e, a ho m e not unl i ke y ours i n a n ei ghbor hood no t unl i ke y ours - - t he e v i l one app eared t here i n di sgui se - - a m ask, a bl ack j ack et , a pi st ol , st r angl i ng rope, and t he ev i l one i s capab l e of t a ki ng adv ant age of

whatwas av ai l abl e i nsi de t hei rhous e. Y e s , w h e th e r yo u l ike i t o r n o t --w h e th e r yo u vo lu n te e re d o r n o t, y ou wer e e n g a g e d i n t h e u l t i m a t e b a t t l e i n e v e ry d a yc o m b a tw i t h t he e v il o n e , a n d h e ’s n o t g o in g to g o a w a y . H e a p p e a re d in M in n e s o ta in th e fo rm o f J e ffre y D a h lm e r [s ic ]. H e a p p e a re d i n U n io n , S o u th C ar ol i na, and on Jan uaryt he 9 t h, he ap pea r ed i n t he d oor of P at r i ck and Rosem arySm i t h. Yo u c a n n o tnegot i at e wi t h t he ev i l one, l adi es and gent l em en. You canno t deal i n good fai t h wi t h t he ev i l one. Yo u-2 8- hav e gott o des t royand dest roy , orhe a nd hi s b enefact ors wi l l des t roy y ou. He’ l l des t royus . He’ l l des t royourch i l dr en. T h e e vi l o n e t o o kt h e n a m e o f R o n n i e C a u the rn o n t h a t d a y. T hatwas hi s n am e, and he’ s b ey ond redem pt i on. H e ’ s b ey ond r eha bi l i t at i on. T here i s no t r eat m ent for t hi s i ndi v i dua l posi ng i n a m ask a n d ta k in g h u m a n fo rm . T h e re is n o tre a tm e n t fo r t h is p e rs o n . T h is person has been ar ound t hrough t he ages and w i l l appearagai n. Yo u canno t cure hi m . D on’ t t ry t o sav e hi m . Engage hi m i n com batand dest royhi m . Do y ourduty . W hen y ou open t hatpapera n d you f i nd t hatt he St at e has ca r r i ed outyo uri nst r uct i on, yo u w i l l hav e s cal ed t he r a m p a rt s a tl eastone t i m e, and y ou wi l l hav e been a partof br i ngi ng b a c kp e a c e a n d t ra n q u i l i ty i n y o u r co m m u n i ty a n d i n o u r co m m u n i ty, and y ou wi l l se nd a m ess age t o t he ev i l one. You wi l l se nd a m ess age t hatwe s t and ready- - ar m ed, and r eadyt o f i ghtfor al l i n t he wor l d, for ev ery t hi ng t haty ou bel i ev e i n, fort he s anct i tyof y ourhom e, t he bl ess i ng of

se ei ng y our chi l dr en reach adul t hood an d hav e y our gr andch i l dr en, and y ou wi l l t ake t hat st ep and l eav e a l e g a cy t o yo ur chi l dr en t hatt heyso m edaywi l l nothav e t o grappl e wi t h whatt he S m i ths h a d t o d e a l w i th a n d w h a t K a re n R i ve tna a n d h e r m o the r ha ve t o deal wi t h.

“ H ol i dayG r eet i ngs @ -- a t i m e fo r l o ve d o n e s t o g e t tog e the r. H or r i bl e c haos has been reaped a nd rack ed on t hi s fam i l y . I ’ m as ki ng y ou t o do y ourduty . St and t al l
. Thank y ou. T h e a p p e lla n t c o n te n d s th a t re fe re n c e s to h im a s th e “e v il o n e ” w e re h ig h ly i nappropr i at e. T he appel l ant f urt her argues he was prej udi ced when t he prosec ut or c o m p a re d h im to th e d e vil , J e ffre y D a h m e r, a n d S u s a n S m it h . C lo s in g a rg u m e n ts m ustbe t em perat e, m ustbe ba sed upo n evi den ce i nt rodu ced d ur i ng t r i al , and m ust be pert i nentt o t he i ss ues bei ng t r i ed. Cokerv . St at e, 911 S. W
. 2d 357, 368 ( T enn. C r i m . App. ) , per m . t o appea l deni ed, i d. , ( T enn. 1995) ; St at e v . T y son, 603 S. W
. 2d 748, 754 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1980)
. Rem ar ks dur i ng argum e n tc o m par i ng t he a p p e l l a n t to o the r pe o p l e a n d b i b l i c a l f i g u re s a re i rrele va n t a n d p a ten tl y i m p ro p e r. See S t at e v . Bat es, 804 S. W
. 2d 868, 881 ( T enn. 1991)
. M or eov er , i tappears t o be wel l es t abl i shed i n T ennes see t hatr efer ences t o bi bl i cal pas sages orr el i gi ous l aw-2 9-

dur i ng a cr i m i nal t r i al are al so i nappropr i at e. See St at e v . St ephens on, 878 S. W
. 2d 5 3 0 , 5 4 1 (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ); K irk e n d o ll v. S ta te , 2 8 1 S .W .2 d 2 4 3 , 2 5 4 (T e n n . 1 9 5 5 ).
As t he appe l l antsu ggest s, t he predom i nat e t hem e i n t he St at e’ s fi nal a rg u m e n t a p p e a rs n o t o n ly to b e c o u c h e d i n te rm s o f re li g io n , b u t a lso a p p e a ls to d e te rr e n c e . W h ile th e fe d e ra l c o n s titu tio n d o e s n o t p re c lu d e t h e s e n te n c in g ju ryin a c api t al ca se f rom co nsi der i ng t he f ut ur e danger ousne ss of a part i cul arappel l ant w h e re su c h is a rele va n t fac tor u n d e r t h e se n ten c i n g sta tute , s e e S p a z i a n o v. F l or i da, 468 U
. S
. 447 , 104 S
. C t
. 315 4, 82 L. E d. 2d 3 40 (1984); C al i for ni a v . R am os, 4 6 3 U. S
. 9 9 2 , 1 0 3 S
. Ct
. 3 4 4 6 , 7 7 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 1 7 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; J u r e k v . Te x a s , 4 2 8 U. S. 262, 96 S. C t
. 2950, 49 L. Ed. 2d 929 ( 1976) , T ennes see court s h av e hel d t hatgeneral det er r ence i s n otan a ppropr i at e argum entdur i ng s ent enci ng, se e S t at e v . I r i ck , 762 S. W
. 2d 121, 131 ( T enn. 1988)
. See al so St at e v . Bat es, 804 S. W
. 2d 868, 882 ( T enn. 1991)
. An argum ent based upon det er r ence i s u sual l yco nsi der ed i r r el ev ant and unrel at ed t o anym i t i gat i ng oraggrav at i ng c i r cum st ance, unl ess t he argum ent r el at es t o ei t hert he St at e’ s o rappel l ant ’ s t heoryof t he case. B at es, 804 S. W
. 2d at 8 8 2 . A s th is C o u rth a s h e ld , h o w e v e r, “th e p ro s e c u to r [d o e s ] n o t e n g a g e in m i s c o n d u c t b y co m m e n ti n g t h a t the j u ry [ i s ] ‘ the vo i c e for this c o m m u n i ty. ’ ” S tate v. D a l t o n , N o . 0 2 C 0 1 - 9 4 0 8 - C R - 0 0 2 9 1 , D a v i d s o n C o u n ty , s l i p o p . a t3 ( T e n n . C r i m. App. , Ju l y 11, 1995)
. T he St at e “ m ust[ nonet hel ess ] r ef r ai n f rom argum entdes i gned to i n fl a m e t h e ju ry. ” C o k e r v. S tate , 9 1 1 S .W .2d 3 5 7 , 3 6 8 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). See al so St at e v . Z i rkl e , 9 1 0 S. W
. 2d 874, 888 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1995) ( ci t i ng H a rri n g ton v. S tate , 3 8 5 S .W .2d 7 5 8 (T e n n . 1 9 6 5 )).Ear l i eri n t hi s pr osecut or ’ s ar gum ent , howev er , t he a ppel l antdi d v oi ce an obj ect i on. T he 5 pr osecut orm ade sev er al st at em ent s conce r ni ng t he ci r cum st ances oft he cr i m e, whi ch t he ap pe l l an tcl ai m ed w ere ou t s i de t he sc op e o f hi s rem ark s i n c l os i ng an d t hu s no tprop er m att ers forr ebutt al
. T he p r osecut orst at ed h e woul d m ake hi s ar gum entr el ev antt o ap pel l ant ’ s r em ar k s, and t he co urtal l owed hi m t o pr oceed. -3 0- T h e S ta te a rg u e s th a t th e c o m m e n ts w e re m a d e in re b u tta l to th e a p p e lla n t’s s ta te m e n t t h a t a c ivi liz e d s o c ie ty d o e s n o t k il l. T h e S ta te a lso c la im s th a t i ts r efer ence t o t he e v i l one wa s i n accordance wi t h t he court ’ s def i ni t i on of “ at roci ous: e xtre m e ly e vil o r c ru e l. ” A c c o rd in g to th e S ta te , t h e p ro s e c u to r w a s s im p ly tryin g to s a ti s fy th e a g g ra va ti n g c irc u m s ta n c e .
T he prosec ut ori nt ended o bv i ousl yt o i m pr ess upon t he j uryt hatt he appe l l ant is a n e v il p e rs o n w h o d e s e rv e s th e d e a th p e n a lty
. T h e S ta te ’s p o s itio n in th e tria l, h o w e ve r, w a s o b vi o u s a s w e l l w h e n i t fi l e d n o ti c e o f i n ten t to s e e kt h e d e a th p e n a l ty. T he prosec ut ort ol d t he j uryt o do i t s d uty . Thi s i s a rguabl yno d i ffe ren tthan t he prosec ut oras ki ng t he j ury t o r et ur n a gui l tyv erdi ct
. Acco r di ngl y , i tappears t o us t hat t he prosec ut orwas si m pl yr ei t er at i ng t he St at e’ s p osi t i on t hatt he nat u re o f t he cr i m es war r ant ed an ex t r em e puni shm ent
. O f course, r efer ences t o t he ev i l one, t he dev i l and ot her not or i ous cr i m i nal s ar e notr el ev antt o t he fact s a nd c i r cum st ances of t hi s case an d are t hus i m pr ope r . I nsi nua t i ons regar di ng d et er r ence ar e al so i m proper . The app e l l a n t , howev er , di d notobj ectt o t hi s l i ne of argum entand t he courtt hus t ook n o curat i v e m easu r es. 5
Aft er ex am i ni ng t he abov e- quot ed r em ar ks i n l i ght of t he ent i r e cl osi ng a rg u m e n t, th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g th e c a s e , a n d th e o v e ra ll s tre n g th o f th e S ta te ’s c a s e , h o w e ve r, w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e i m p ro p e r c o m m e n ts-3 1-

m ade dur i ng t he St at e’ s rebutt al argum ent af fect ed t he v erdi ct t o t he pr ej udi ce of t he a p p e ll a n t. A c c o rd in g ly, t h is is s u e i s w it h o u t m e rit.
A DM I SSI ON OF T HE VI DEOTA PE T h e a p p e ll a n t c la im s th a t t h e tri a l ju d g e a b u s e d h is d isc re ti o n b y a ll o w in g i n to ev i dence a v i deot ape dep i ct i ng t he cr i m e sc ene. Speci f i cal l y , t he appe l l antargues th a t t h o s e s e g m e n ts o f t h e ta p e s h o w in g th e o ffi c e rs tu rn in g t h e b o d ie s o ve r o n to t h e i r back s i n ordert o obt ai n an ant er i orv i ew wer e hi ghl yi nf l am m at oryand i rr e l e van t
. The appel l antpl aces greatwei ghtupon t he factt hatt he or i gi nal t r i al j udge r edact ed f rom t he j ury ’ s v i ew dur i ng t he gui l t phase of t he t r i al t hose sc enes depi ct i ng t he m ov i ng of t he bodi es. I n r espon se, t he St at e argues t hatt he v i deo was r el ev antt o s how t he hei nous, at roci ous, orcr uel nat ur e of t he c r i m e.
T he adm i ss i bi l i tyof

r el ev antv i deot apes of t he c r i m e s cene and v i ct i m s h as l ong bee n wi t hi n t he s ound di sc ret i o n o f the t r i al j udge, and hi s o rherr ul i ng on adm i ss i bi l i tywi l l notbe d i st ur bed on appeal abs enta c l earsh owi ng of an a buse of th a t d isc re ti o n . S ta te v. B a n k s , 5 6 4 S .W .2 d 9 4 7 , 9 4 9 (T e n n . 1 9 7 8 ). S e e a lso , S ta te v . Bi gbee, 885 S. W
. 2d 797, 807 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v . Van T r an, 864 S. W
. 2d 465, 477 ( T enn. 1993)
. M or eov er , t he r ecentt r end i s t o v estm or e di sc r et i on i n t he t r i al j udge' s r ul i ngs on adm i ss i bi l i ty . See Banks, 564 S. W
. 2d at949; S t at e v . B ai l ey , N o. 01C 01- 9403- C C - 00105, D i ck son C ounty( T enn. C r i m . App. , N ashv i l l e, Ju l y20, 1 9 9 5 ); p e rm . to a p p e a l d e n i e d , i d ., (T e n n . 1 9 9 6 ).
E v i den ce i s r el evanti f i thas " any t end ency t o m ake t he exi st ence of any fact t hati s of

conse que nce t o t he d eter m i nat i on o f t he a ct i on m or e probabl e or l ess p ro b a b l e t h a n i t w o u l d b e w i tho u t the e vi d e n c e ." T e n n . R
. E vi d
. 4 0 1
. H o w e ve r,-3 2-

r el ev antev i dence " m aybe e x cl uded i f i t s p robat i v e v al ue i s s ubst ant i al l youtwei ghed b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir p reju d ice , c o n fu s io n o f t h e i s s u e s , o r m isle a d in g th e j u ry." T enn. R
. Ev i d
. 4 0 3
. Al ong t hese l i nes, t he t r i al co urtsh oul d be gui ded byt he fol l owi ng m att ers i n det er m i ni ng t he adm i ss i bi l i tyof r el ev antv i deot ape ev i dence : t he acc ur acyand cl ar i tyof t he v i deo and i t s v al ue as ev i dence ; whet hert he v i d eo depi ct s t he bodyas i tw as found; t he adequacyof t est i m oni al ev i dence i n rel at i ng t he fact s t o t he j ury ; and t he need for t he ev i dence t o est abl i sh a p rim a fa c ie c a s e o f g u ilt ort o rebutt he defendant ' s c ont ent i ons. Banks , 564 S. W
. 2d at951.
P ri o r t o t h e se n t e n ci n g he a ri n g on r e m a n d , t h e t ri a l j u d g e he a rd arg u m e n ts r egardi n g the a dm i ss i on of t he v i deot ape and r ul ed t hatt he probat i v e v al ue of t he ev i dence i n regards t o t he aggra vat i n g fact oroutwei ghed an yunfai rprej udi ci al ef fect
. The courtal so order ed t hatt he s o u n d be t ur ned of f so as t o av oi d any i m properi nf l uence f rom t he c om m ent s o f t he off i cers. See St at e v . Van T r an, 864 S .W .2 d 4 6 5 , 4 7 7 (T e n n . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e s e g m e n ts o f th e vi d e o ta p e a t is s u e in th is appeal d e a l wi t h t h e c a m e r a s h o t s o f t h e v i c t i m s . Tho s e p o rt i o n s s h o wi ng t he g e n e ra l la y o u to f

t h e h o u s e a n d th e e v id e n c e o f th e b u rg la ry , w h ile a rg u a b ly i r r el ev antforpur poses of se nt enci ng, are notati ss ue.
B o th vic tim s w e re fo u n d lyin g fa c e d o w n . M r. S m ith ’s b o d yw a s w ra p p e d in t he c ov ers k neel i ng agai nstand on t he bed, and M rs. Sm i t h’ s b odywas nude on t he f l oor . The v i deo s hows c l ose- ups of bot h v i ct i m s as t heywer e found. The v i deo t hen s hows t he of

f i cers rem ov i ng t he c ov ers from around Mr
. Sm i t h’ s b ody , t ur ni ng h i s b o d y o n t o h i s b a c k , a n d e x a mi n i n g h i s n e c k , a r ms a n d l e g s . T h e v i d e o z o o ms i n o n t h e w o u n d s a ro u n d h i s n e c ka n d fa c e . L i k e w i s e , the vi d e o sh o w s t h e o ffi c e rs r em ov i ng t he sc arf f rom around M rs. Sm i t h’ s neckand f l i ppi ng herbodyov er . Agai n,-3 3-

th e vid e o z o o m s i n o n th e w o u n d s a ro u n d h e r n e c ka n d fa c e .
Bot h bodi es ex hi bi t a bl ui sh t i nt t o t he sk i n and l i ps, as wel l as t he ef fect s o f l i v i di ty and r i gor m ort i s. W hi l e t he appe l l ant m ay be cor r ect t o ar gue t hat t h ese post m ort em feat ur es ar e i r r el ev ant t o any aspec t of t he hei nous, at roci ous, orcr uel agg r avat or , t he n at ur e of t he v ar i ous wo und s t o t he neck do app ear rel evant
. Ea ch vi cti m w a s st r angl ed wi t h a d i f fer entobj ect , and t hus r ecei v ed di f fer entty pes of st r angul at i on m ar ks around t he neck
. M or eov er , as t he ex pertt est i m ony dem onst r at ed, t he pi ct ur es of whatare probabl yf i nger nai l s c rat ches i ndi cat e t hatt he v i ct i m s a t t e m pt ed t o f r ee t he press ur e f rom around t hei rnec ks
. Becaus e of t he posi t i on i n whi ch t he v i ct i m s wer e found, i twas neces saryfort he of f i cers t o t ur n t he bodi es ov er t o ex am i ne t he wounds t o t he neck
. As t he for ensi c p at hol ogi stst at ed, t h e b l u i s h c o l o r o f t h e s k i n , i
. e . c y a n o s i s , i s a n a t u r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i s t y pe of ki l l i ng. The st i f

f ness of t he bodi es resul t i ng f rom the ri gorm ort i s i s a l so com m on aft erdea t h , a n d n o t i n a n d o f i t s e l f s o i n f l a m m a t o ry . Se e St a t e v . Bi g b ee, 885 S. W
. 2d 797, 807 ( T enn. 1994)
. As t he t r i al co urtnot ed, t hough t he c ondi t i on of t he bodi es i s n otp l easan tbyanym eans, i ti s “ notso gr uesom e as t o . . . sh ockt he c o n s c i e n c e o f the C o u rto r of t h e j u ry. ”
W e b e lie v e th e v id e o s w e re re le v a n t to th e ju ry ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f w h e th e r th e m u rd e rs w e re e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , a tro c i o u s o r c ru e l . W e c o n c l u d e t h a t the p ro b a ti ve v al ue of t he v i deot ape o u twei ghs anyunfai rprej udi ci al ef fect , and t he t r i al j udge t her efor e ac t ed appropr i at el y . C ont r ary t o t he appel l ant ’ s argum ent , t he fact t hatt he j udge on r em and al l owed m or e of t he v i deo t o be shown t han di d t he or i gi nal t r i al j udge i s i r r el ev antt o t hi s Court ’ s i nqui ryi nt o t he i ss ue. T he or i gi nal j udge’ s r ul i ng was bas ed i n part on showi ng t he v i deo dur i ng t he gui l tphas e of t he t r i al rat hert han-3 4-

th e s e n te n c in g p h a s e . T h is is s u e i s w it h o u t m e rit.
EVI DENCE O F UNR ELATED CRI M ES T h e a p p e ll a n t a lso a rg u e s th a t re ve rs ib le e r r o r o c c u rre d w h e n th e S ta te i nt roduce d ev i dence conc er ni ng a di f fer ent robbery for whi ch t he appe l l anthad been t r i ed and ac q u i t t ed. I n respon se, t he St at e argues t he appe l l anthas wai v ed t he is s u e b e c a u s e h e p e rm itte d th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e a n d d e n ie d th e c o u rt ’s of ferof a c ur at i v e i nst r uct i on.
T he appe l l antwas or i gi nal l yi ndi ct ed on ei ghtco unt s i n t hi s c ase. Thr ee of t hose charges pert ai ned t o c r i m es unr el at ed t o t he i nci dentatt he Sm i t hs’ r esi dence , and t heyw er e sev er ed f rom t he i ndi ct m ent
. The appel l antwas subs equent l yt r i ed and ac qui t t ed on t hos e three count s. Pr i ort o t he resent enci ng hear i ng, t he t r i al j udge grant ed t he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o keep t he separat e charges f rom t he j uryand w a rn e d th e S ta te th a t a m istria l c o u ld fo ll o w i f e vid e n c e o f t h e m s u rfa c e d
.
D ur i ng t he St at e’ s p roof i n t he hear i n g, t he St at e as ked D et ect i v e C har l es D ent on t o read one of t he appel l ant ’ s st at em ent s i nt o ev i dence
. T hi s st at em entwas obt ai ned dur i ng t he f i rsti nt erv i e w w i t h t he appe l l anton J anuary12, 1987. The a p p e lla n t o bje c te d to th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th is s ta te m e n t b e c a u s e it w a s n o t a ve rb a tim r ecordi ng of

t he c onv ersat i on between t he of f i cerand t he appel l ant , butrat her cons i st ed of

D et ect i v e D ent on’ s annot at i ons f rom t he i nt erv i ew. T he c ourtov er r ul ed t he obj ect i on and al l owed t he j uryt o rev i ew copi es of t he s t at em entwhi l e t he of f i cer re a d it a lo u d o n th e s ta n d . T h e fo llo w in g q u e s tio n a n d a n s w e r a p p e a r in th is st at em ent : “ Q uest i on - D o y ou k now who c om m i t t ed t he ar m ed rob b e rya tt he H or nbuck l e 66? Answer- N o. ” Thi s refer ence was t o one of t he t hr ee c harges on-3 5-

whi ch t he appe l l antw as acqui t t ed. Aft ert hi s p ort i on of t he s t at em entwas r ead, t he appel l antv oi ced anot herobj ect i on. The c ourt i nfor m ed t he wi t ness not t o r ead one f urt herques t i on i n t he s t at em entpert a i ni ng t o t he Hor nbuck l e robbery . The appel l ant , howev er , m ov ed fora m i st r i al because t he j urywas i n factr eadi ng al ong wi t h t he o f

f i c e r a n d c o u l d s e e t h e n e x t q u e s t i o n : “ Que s t i o n - Do y o u k n o w i f Jo e c o m m i t [si c ] the b u rg l a ry - rob b e ry w i th P a t? A n s w e r - I t h i n kso .” T h e co u rt ov er r ul ed t he m ot i on form i st r i al , and t he fol l owi ng ex chang e occ ur r ed: “ C ourt - W hat i nst r uct i on do y ou sugge st I gi v e?
. . . [Appel l ant ’ s c ounse l ] - W e’ l l j ustst and on t he M o ti o n fo r M istria l. ”
T hi s s i t uat i on i s q ui t e s i m i l art o t hat i n St at e v . Sm i t h, 893 S. W
. 2d 908 ( T enn. 1 9 9 4 ). In S m ith , o n e o f th e S ta te ’s w itn e s s e s m a d e r e fe r e n c e to th e d e fe n d a n t’s pr i orj ai l t i m e . T h e defendantm ov ed fora m i st r i al , whi ch t he c ourtdeni ed. The court , howev er , gav e t he j urya curat i v e i nst r uct i on t o di sregard t he s t at em entand nott o con si der i t for any purpose. I d. at923
. T he S uprem e C ourthel d t hati tm ust ass um e t he j uryfol l owed t he t r i al co urt ’ s i nst r uct i on. I d. Mor eov er , t he C ourtnot ed tha t g i ve n t h e rec o rd a s a w h o l e i n t h a t c a p i tal c a s e , the sta tem e n t, t h o u g h i m p ro p e r, coul d nothav e prej udi ci al l yaf fect ed t he j ury . I d. ( ci t i ng T
. R
. A. P. 36( b) )
. Li kewi se, i n St at e v . H ar r i s, 839 S. W
. 2d 5 4 , 72 ( T enn. 1992) ( ci t i ng T
. R
. A. P. 36( b) ) , t he Supr em e C ourt , i n c onsi der i ng t he e ffectof st at em ent s c oncer ni ng pr i orcr i m i nal act i v i tyon t he j ury ’ s v erdi ct i n a c a p i t al ca se, st at ed t hatt he adm i ss i on of t he ev i dence was har m l ess bey ond a r eason abl e doubtwhen v i ewed i n c ont ex tof t he ent i r e record. S e e al so St at e v . Baker , 751 S. W
. 2d 154, 164 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ); S tate v. L a w s o n , 6 9 5 S .W .2d 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ).
T h e d e c isio n s i n th e a b o ve -c it e d c a s e s w e re b a s e d i n p a rt u p o n th e a p p e ll a teT he a ppel l antobj ect ed t o t he i nt r oduct i on o ft he st at em ent , buthi s obj ect i on was gr ounde d 6 upon som et hi ng o t hert han t he r efer ence t o t he p r i oracqu i t t al ; he obj ect ed b ecause t he st at em entwas

notan exactt r anscr i ptof t he i nt erv i ew whi ch was co nduct ed.

-3 6- court ’ s a ss um pt i on t hatt he j uryobey ed t he t r i al co urt ’ s c ur at i v e i n s t r u c t i on pert ai ni ng to th e i n a d m i s s ib l e e vi d e n c e . I n t h e ca s e a t h a n d , the t ri a l co u rtg a ve n o cu ra ti ve i nst r uct i on. How ev er , as t he St at e not es, t he appel l ant r ef used t o ent ert ai n t he t r i al court ’ s o f

fert o gi v e s uch an i nst r uct i on. T he dec i si ons i n t he abov e- ci t ed opi ni ons al so r el i ed upon t he rat i onal e of T
. R
. A. P. 36( b) : “ A f i nal j udgm entf rom whi ch r el i ef i s a v ai l abl e and ot herwi se appropr i at e shal l notbe setasi de unl ess , co nsi der i ng t he whol e record, er rori nv ol v i ng a subs t ant i al r i ght m or e probabl yt han notaf fect ed t he j udgm entorwoul d resul ti n pr ej udi ce t o t he j udi ci al proces s. ” The f i rstpartof t hat sam e r ul e s t at es, i n p e rt i nentpart , t hat“ N ot hi ng i n t hi s r ul e s hal l be c onst r ued as r equ i r i ng rel i e f b e grant ed t o a pa rtyr espo nsi bl e foran errororwh o fai l ed t o t ake what ev eract i on was r eason abl yav ai l abl e t o prev entornul l i fyt he har m f ul ef fectof a n e rro r.” T .R .A .P . 3 6 (a ).
Accordi ngl y , al t hough t he t r i al court seem ed wi l l i ng t o ent ert ai n a reques tfor an i nst r uct i on, t he appe l l antr ef used t o recom m end an i nst r uct i on and deci ded i nst ead t o s t and on hi s m ot i on form i st r i al
. The r ecord i ndi cat es t hat t he appe l l ant al so had an opport uni tyt o r ev i ew t he st at em entbefor e i twas i nt roduce d, and di d not obj ectt o t he i m pr o p e rr efer ences . W e bel i ev e R ul e 36( a) co nt rol s o urdec i si on 6 her e. Mor eov er , co nsi der i ng t h e whol e record as m andat ed by36( b) , we f i nd t he e rror to b e h a rm l e s s b e yo n d a rea s o n a b l e d o u b t. T h e i m p ro p e r s ta te m e n ts w e re b rie f, a n d g ive n th e c o n te xt in w h ich th e y w e re m a d e , a d d e d n o “‘n e w d im e n s io n to t he j urors’ v i ew of

[ t he appe l l ant] ’ ”
. St at e v . H ar r i s, 839 S. W
. 2d 54, 72 ( T enn. 1992) ( quot i ng St at e v . C art er , 714 S. W
. 2d 241, 247- 48 ( T enn. 1986) )
. The st at em ent s d o notassoci at e t he a ppe l l antwi t h a n y ot her cr i m i nal act i v i tyorl ega l pr ocee di ngs.-3 7-

Furt her m or e, befor e t he hear i ng, t he t r i al j udge s t at ed t hata m i st r i al co ul d be war r ant ed i f

anyi m properev i dence co ncer ni ng t he pr i orac qui t t al s were i nt roduce d. Si nce he ov er r ul ed t he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on, t he j udge m usthav e been sat i sf i ed t hat no prej udi ce r esul t e d fr o m t hese i m properst at em ent s. W e agree. Thi s i ss ue, th e re fo re , i s w it h o u t m e rit.

A DM I SSI O N O F TRA NS CR I PT O F REC O RD ED STA TEM EN T N ex t , t he appe l l antco nt ends i twas r ev ersi bl e er ror for t he t r i al court t o al l ow a tra n s c rip t o f a ta p e -r e c o rd e d s ta te m e n t in to e v id e n c e w h e n th e S ta te w a s u n a b le t o produce t he o r i gi nal r ecordi ng. T he St at e ar gue s t hat t he o r i gi nal has be en l ost and t ha t t he t r an s c r i pt was prop er l y ad m i t t ed un de r t he ex c ep t i on t o t he b est ev i dence r ul e.
T he ev i dence ati ss ue here c onsi st s o f a t r a n sc r i ptof

a t ape- r ecorded i nt erv i ew betwe e n the appel l antand D et ect i v es D ent on and G r i f fy . O n t he i ni t i al di rect a p peal of

t hi s c ase, t he Supr em e C ourtr ev ersed t he deat h penal tybas ed upon t he i m properi nt roduct i on of a po rt i on of

t he i nt erv i ew. I n ac cordance wi t h t he Supr em e C ourt ’ s o pi ni on, t hatport i on of t he st at em ent was not i nt roduce d dur i ng t he hea r i ng o n r em and
. O n r em and , a r eda ct ed t r anscri ptwa s r ead i nt o evi den ce w hi ch om i t t ed anym ent i on of Br ettPat t erson. As partof hi s c om pl ai nt , t he appe l l ant a rg u e s th a t h e w a s “fo rc e d i n to th e u n te n a b le p o s itio n ” o f s u b s e q u e n tl y h a vin g to in tr o d u c e th e u n re d a c te d p o rt io n s o f th e s ta te m e n t w h ic h r e fe r re d to P a tte rs o n ’s in vo lve m e n t.
P r i o rt o t h e i n t ro d u c t i o n o f t h e t r a n s c r i p ti n t o e v i d e n c e , t h e r e w a s s o me di sc uss i on am ong t he part i es and t he j udge c oncer n i ng t he whereabout s o f t he-3 8-

o r i g i n a l t a p e d r e c o r d i n g . A p p a r e n t l y , t h e t a p e w a s l o s t o rmi s p l a c e d b yt h e S u p r e me C ourtso m et i m e dur i ng t he pr i orproceed i ngs. The t r i al j udge m ade t he fol l owi ng r ul i ng: A ll rig h t. A n d , th e T e n n e s s e e S u p re m e C o u rt ’s a lre a d ys e e n it. It’s been au t hent i cat ed byt he T r i al C ourti n Mont gom eryC ountyand t he T ennes see Supr em e C ourt
. I ’ m goi ng t o l etthe m r ead t hatport i on whi ch t he Supr em e C ourt sai d was adm i ss i bl e . . . As an o f f i cerof t he C ourt , I ’ m sa y i ng t hat[ t he st at e] proper l yhas t hi s t r ansc r i bed from t he or i gi nal t apes, and ov eryo urobj ect i on and aft ernot i ng y ourex cept i on, I ’ m goi ng t o al l ow i t s adm i ss i on . . . I t ’ s j ust t hat t he t ape i s now gone a n d h a s b e e n lo s t b yth e T e n n e s s e e S u p re m e C o u rt. . . a n d I’m a s s u m i n g t h a t this tra n s c ri p t
. . . i s p ro p e r. Accordi ng t o t he record befor e t he Court , the t r ansc r i ptof t he recorded i nt erv i ew was au t hent i cat ed and i nt roduce d dur i ng t he or i gi nal t r i al of t hi s c ase. See al so St at e v . C aut her n, 778 S. W
. 2d 39, 41 ( T enn. 1989)
. Dur i ng t hatt r i al , t he t r i al ju d g e o rd e re d t h e S ta te to re d a c t t h o s e p o rtio n s o f t h e s ta te m e n t t h a t re fe rre d to Pat t erson befor e t he st at em ent was i nt roduce d. Mor eov er , t he t r i al j udge on r em and ack nowl edged t he factt hatt he t aped recordi ng has been l ost
. Ru l e 1 004 of t he T ennes see R ul es of

E v i dence prov i des t hatot herev i dence of t he or i gi nal r ecordi ng i s a dm i ss i bl e i f

t he or i gi nal has been l ost or dest roy ed. Acco r di ngl y , t he i nt roduct i on o f t h e tra n s c rip t w a s p ro p e r.
N ei t heri s t her e anym er i tt o t he appe l l ant ’ s c l ai m t hathe wa s p r ej udi ced by t he i nt roduct i on of

bot h t he redact ed and un red a cte d t r ansc r i pt s. The appel l ant seem s t o s ugges tt hatt he ev i dence of the redac t ed s t at em entpl aced undue em phasi s o n hi s i nv ol v em enti n t he c r i m es. T he t r i al j udge, howev er , al l owed t he wi t ness t o t ake t he s t and aga i n and r ead t he unredact ed port i ons i nt o ev i dence
. Any ha r m c a u s e d b yt h e r e d a c t e d s t a t e m e n t , t h e r e fo r e , w a s c u r e d b yt h e a ddi t i onal e vid e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly, t h is is s u e i s w it h o u t m e rit.-3 9- NO NSTA TUT OR Y M I TI GA TI NG CI RCU M STA NCES T h e a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s the tr i a l j u d g e s h o u l d h a ve i n s tr u c ted the j u ry i t c o u ld cons i deras m i t i gat i ng fact ors t he factt hatt he appel l ant ’ s co- defendantr ecei v ed a l i fe s ent ence, and t hatt he appe l l anthas been a m odel pr i sonerand h a s h el ped ot hers i n si de and out si de t he pr i son. The S t at e argues t hatnei t hert he s t at e nor feder al co nst i t ut i on requi r e t he j udge t o i nst r uctt he j uryon n onst at ut orym i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ance s.
T he t r i al j udge i nst r uct ed t he j uryco ncer ni ng t he fol l owi ng s t at ut orym i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ances : 1) t he appel l ant has no s i gni f i cantcr i m i nal hi st ory ; 2) t he m ur derwas com m i t t ed whi l e t he appe l l ant w a s u ndert he i nf l uence of ex t r em e m ent al or em ot i onal di st ur bance ; 3) t he y out h of t he appe l l antatt he t i m e of t he c r i m e; 4) t he c a p a c i ty o f the a p p e l l a n t to a p p re c i a te the w ro n g fulne s s o f h i s c o n d u c t o r t o co n form hi s c onduc t t o t he requi r em ent s of t he l aw was s ubst ant i al l yi m pai r ed as a resul tof m ent al di sease ord efecto ri nt oxi cat i on w hi ch w as i nsuff i ci entt o est abl i sh a de fense as a m a t t e rof

l aw butwhi ch subs t ant i al l yaf fect ed hi s j udgm entt hrough t he i ngest i on of

dr u g s; an d 5) anyot herm i t i gat i ng ev i dence whi ch i s rai sed byt he e vi d e n c e . T h e j u d g e a l s o i n s tr u c ted t h e j u ry on t h e fo l l o w i n g n o n s tatu tory ci r cum st ances : 1) t he appe l l antwa s a n ent er pr i si ng y oung m an att he t i m e of t he cr i m e; 2) t he appe l l anthas a m i norchi l d; and 3) t he appe l l anti s m ar r i ed. The t r i al j udge ref used, howev er , t o i nst r uctt he j ury t hatPat t erson r ecei v ed a l i fe s ent ence, th e a p p e lla n t h a s b e e n a m o d e l p ris o n e r, a n d th e a p p e lla n t h a s h e lp e d o th e rs w h ile i n pr i son.
I n St at e v . O dom , t he Supr em e C ourtr ecent l yaddress ed the i ss u e of i nst r uct i ons on nons t at ut orym i t i gat ors u ndert he deat h penal tyst at ut e as am endedPr i ort o t he 1 989 am endm ent s, t he t r i al courtwas no tr equi r ed t o i nfor m t he j uryt hatno 7 di s t i nc t i on sh al l be m ad e b etwe en stat utoryan d s pe c i fi c al l yrequ es t ed no ns t atut ory

m i t i ga t i ng fac t ors . Se e § 39 -13 -20 3(e ) ( 19 82 ). T he j ud ge he re i ns t ruc t ed t he j ury nott o di st i ngui sh be tween t he two t y pes o ffact or s. See § 39 - 13- 204( e) ( 1) ( Supp. 19 95
. ). -4 0- in 1 9 8 9 . A lth o u g h t h e C o u rtre c o g n iz e d th a t th e tria l c o u rtis n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly m a n d a te d to in s tr u c t th e ju ryo n n o n s ta tu to rym itig a tin g fa c to rs , th e C o u rtd id cons t r ue t he 1989 am endm ent s, se e T e n n . C ode Ann. § 39 - 13- 204( e) ( 1) ( Supp. 1995) , t o requi r e t he j udge t o gi v e t he j u rys p e ci f i cal l yr eques t ed i nst r uct i ons on m i t i gat i ng c i r cum st ances t hat ar e r ai sed by t he ev i dence
. See O dom , 928 S. W
. 2d at29- 30. I n i t s d i sc uss i on, howev er , t he Courtal so ack nowl edged t hatundert he l aw as i tprev i ousl yex i st ed, se e § 3 9- 13- 203( e) ( 1982) , t her e was no s t at ut oryprov i si on r equ i r i ng t he t r i al courtt o i nst r uctt he j uryspeci f i cal l yon no nst at ut orym i t i gat or s:

[ T ] he onl y m andat ory i nst r uct i ons wi t h r espec tt o m i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ances are t hat t hose st at ut oryci r cum st ances whi ch ar e rai sed b yth e e v id e n c e s h a ll b e e x p re s s ly c h a rg e d , a n d th e ju rym u s t b e to ld t hatt heysh al l w ei gh and cons i deranyot herfact s o rci r cum st ances t hat ar e r ai sed by t he evi den ce t hatt hey f i nd t o be m i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ance s, i n m aki ng t he det er m i nat i on of whi ch ci r cum st ances , aggrav at i ng or m i ti g a ti n g , o u tw e i g h t h e o the r. O dom , 928 S
. W
. 2d at29 ( quot i ng St at e v . H art m an, 703 S. W
. 2d 106, 118 ( T enn. 1985) )
. See al so S t at e v . C azes , 875 S. W
. 2d 253, 268 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v . Sm i t h, 8 5 7 S .W .2d 1 , 1 5 (T e n n . 1 9 9 3 ); S tate v. W ri g h t, 7 5 6 S .W .2d 6 6 9 , 6 7 4 (T e n n . 1 9 8 8 ); S tate v. K i n g , 7 1 8 S .W .2d 2 4 1 , 2 4 9 (T e n n . 1 9 8 6 ).
T he t r i al j udge i n t hi s c ase i nst r uct ed t he j uryon t he l aw gov er ni ng m i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ances as am ended i n 19 8 9
. Se e T enn. C ode Ann. § 39 - 13- 204( e) ( 1) ( Supp. 1995)
. T he j udge al so i nst r uct ed t he j uryon t hr ee s peci f i c n onst at ut orym i t i gat i ng

7 fact ors. As di sc uss ed prev i ousl y , t he gene ra l prov i si ons of § 39 - 11- 112 and t he p ri nci pl es ag ai nstr et roact i v e ap pl i cat i on o f st at ut es m and at e t hatan offense c om m i t t ed u nd era r ep ea l ed o ra m en ded l aw sh al l b e pros ec ut ed u nd ert ha tl aw,-4 1-

unl ess t he new l aw prov i des fora l ess erpenal ty . See St at e v . S m i t h, 893 S. W
. 2d 908, 919 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v . Br i m m er , 876 S. W
. 2d 75, 82 ( T enn. 1994)
. The am endm ent s t o those s ect i ons of t he deat h penal tyst at ut e address i ng m i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ance s, how ever , do no tpert ai n t o l esser penal t i es.
A c c o rd in g ly, th e tria l ju d g e w a s n o t c o m p e lle d t o in s tr u c t th e ju ryo n s p e c ific nonst at ut orym i t i gat i ng fact ors, and shoul d hav e i nst r uct ed t he j uryundert he l aw as i tex i st ed att he t i m e of t he c om m i ss i o n o f

the o ffense. How ev er , bec ause t he i n s t r u c t i o n s o n t h e s e v e r a l n o n s t a t u t o rym i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n u r e d t o t he benef i tof

t he a p pel l ant , anyer rors i n t he t r i al co urt ’ s a ct i ons wer e har m l ess . See s u p r a n o te 3
. F u rth e rm o re , b e c a u s e th e p rio r la w d id n o t re q u ire th e j u d g e to i nst r ucto n non st at ut orym i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ance s, t he t r i al j udg e’ s ref usal t o i nst r uct on t he reques t ed m i t i gat i ng fact ors a ti ss ue here was proper . Thi s i ss ue, t her efor e, is w it h o u t m e rit.

E X CL US I ON OF E V I DE NC E I NT RO DU CE D A S M I T I GA T I ON T h e a p p e ll a n t a ls o a rg u e s th a t t h e tri a l ju d g e e rre d b y re fu s in g to a ll o w i n to e vid e n c e a s m it ig a ti o n a l e tt e r th e a p p e ll a n t re c e ive d fro m h is s o n . T h e S ta te cont ends t he t r i al j udge di d nota b u se hi s d i sc r et i on and t hatt he l ett erwas not ev i dence of

m i t i gat i on.
I n t he l e t t erati ss ue, t he appe l l ant ’ s s on wr i t es how he l ov es hi s fat herand th a t h e h o p e s to s e e h im a g a in s o o n . T h e le tte r a ls o d e s c rib e s s o m e o f th e s o n ’s r ecentac t i v i t i es. The S t at e obj ect ed t o i t s i nt roduct i on on t he grounds t hati twas not probat i v e of

anyi ss ue and was redundantof t est i m onyal r eadyi nt roduce d. The t r i al courtsu st ai ned t he obj ect i on. O n appea l , t he appel l antsi m pl yassert s t hatt he l ett er-4 2-

is e vi d e n c e o f m i ti g a ti o n tha t s h o u l d h a ve b e e n b e fore the j u ry. T h e S ta te , in r espon se, cl ai m s t hatt he l ett eradds not hi ng t o t he ev i dence of t he appe l l ant ’ s s on w h i c h w a s a l re a d y b e fore t h e j u ry.
I n St at e v . O dom , t he Supr em e C ourtr ev i ewed t he pr i nci pl es gov er ni ng m i t i gat i ng ev i dence
. W hi l e t he part i cul arfact s o f eac h c a se wi l l gov er n t he d e te rm in a tio n o f m itig a tin g c irc u m s ta n c e s , e v id e n c e re la tin g to th e a p p e lla n t’s charact erorbac kground i s c onsi der ed re l e v a n ta n d a d m i s si bl e as m i t i gat i on. O dom , 9 2 8 S .W .2d a t 3 1 (cit i n g B o yd e v. C a l i forn i a , 4 9 4 U .S
. 3 7 0 , 3 8 2 (19 9 0 ); P e n ry v. L yn a u g h , 4 9 2 U .S
. 3 0 2 , 3 1 9 (1 9 8 9 )). C o n ve rs e ly, e vid e n c e th a t d o e s n o t p e rta in to t he appel l ant ’ s c har act erorbac kground i s n otr el ev antand m ay be ex cl uded byt he t r i a l j u d g e . I d
. ( c i t i n g De l o v . L a s h e y , 5 0 7 U. S. 2 7 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; L o c k e t tv . Ohi o , 4 3 8 U. S. 5 8 6 , 6 0 5 n .1 2 (1 9 7 8 )).
I n t he c ase at hand, t he t r i al j udge al l owed t he appel l ant t o t est i fy t hathe h ad a s on and t h a t h e r e c e i v e d a v i s i t f ro m h i m e v e ry t h r e e o r fo u r m o n t h s. The i nt roduct i on of

t he l ett eri t s e l f , howev er , does notdepi ctany t hi ng addi t i onal aboutt he appel l ant ’ s c har act er . The j urywas al r eadyawar e t hatt he appe l l anthad a m i nor c h il d , a n d th e tria l ju d g e e ve n in s tru c te d th is fa c t a s a m it ig a ti n g c irc u m s ta n c e . W e b e lie v e th e le tte r is c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e w h ic h w a s p ro p e rlye x c lu d e d . “It is w e ll est abl i shed i n T ennes see t hatt he dec i si on t o adm i torex cl ude ev i dence i s l eftt o t he sound di sc r et i on of

t he t r i al j udge an d t he j udge’ s d eci si on wi l l notbe d i st ur bed unl ess i thas been ar bi t r ar i l yex er ci sed. ” St at e v . D av i s, 872 S. W
. 2d 950, 955 ( T enn. C r i m . App. ) , per m . t o appea l deni e d , i d
. , ( T enn. 1993) ( ci t i ng St at e v . Baker , 785 S. W
. 2d 132, 134 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1989) ; St at e v . H awk, 6 8 8 S
. W
. 2 d 467, 472 ( T enn. C r i m . App. 1985) )
. See al so St at e v . Sm i t h, 857 S. W
. 2d 1, 17 ( T enn. 1993)-4 3-

( ci t i ng Loc kettv . O h i o , 4 3 8 U
. S. 586, 604, n. 12, 98 S. C t
. 2954, 2965 n. 12, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 ( 1978) ; St at e v . Johns on, 632 S. W
. 2d 542, 548 ( T enn. 1982) ) ( “ U nder e it h e r th e c o n s ti tu ti o n o r th e [d e a th p e n a lty] s ta tu te , h o w e ve r, th e c o u rt re ta in s i ts tra d i ti o n a l a u tho ri ty t o e xc l u d e irre l e va n t e vi d e n c e [ i n a ca p i tal s e n ten c i n g h e a ri n g ]. ”) Accordi ngl y , bec ause t he t r i al j udge di d notabus e hi s d i sc r et i on ori m proper l yke ep a n y m it ig a ti n g e vid e n c e fro m th e j u ry, th is is s u e i s w it h o u t m e rit.

CO M P E T E NC Y OF J UR OR F OR E P E RS ON T he appe l l antnex tco nt ends t hatt he j u ro rfor eperson’ s i nabi l i tyt o read t he v erdi ctfor m wi t houtt he as si st ance of t he t r i al j udge ef

fect i v el ydeni ed hi m t he r i ght t o an i m part i al j u ry . S peci f i cal l y , t he appe l l antsu ggest s t hatsi nce t he for eperson had di f f i cul tyr eadi ng t he v erdi ctfor m al oud i n open court , sh e probabl yenc ount er ed di f f i cul tyunderst andi ng t he l egal i nst r uct i ons cont ai ned i n t he wr i t t en c harges. The St at e c ont ends t hatal t hough t he for eperson ex per i enced so m e t roubl e readi ng t he v erdi ctfor m , t her e i s n o ev i dence i n t he record whi ch i ndi cat es sh e c oul d not underst and t he s poken word of t he oral ch arges gi v en byt he j udge.
T he t r i al j udge read t he c harges t o t he j uryi n open courtbefor e al l owi ng t hem t o ret i r e. O nce t he j uryr et ur ned f rom t hei rdel i ber at i ons, t he fol l owi ng ex chang e ensue d: T H E C O U R T : Al l r i ght
. I ’ m goi ng t o as k y ou t o read t hatform e i f y ou wi l l
. W i t h regard t o t he f i rstco untof t he i n d i ctm e n twhi ch al l eges t he m u rd e r o f P a trick S m it h , w h a t i s yo u r ve rd ict? M S
. V A L E R IE C L A R K : L i fe i m p ri s o n m e n t. W e , the j u ry - - T H E C O U R T : W i l l y ou read i t- - r ead t hatform e? M S . C L A R K : W e , t h e j u ry -- o k a y -- w h a t’ s th a t? T H E C O U R T : U n a n i m o u s l y. M S
. C L A R K : U n a n i m o u s l y d e term i n e t h a t o n e -- T H E C O U R T : S tatu tory. M S
. C L A R K : S tatu tory.-4 4-

T H E C O U R T : Aggr av at i ng. M S
. C L A R K : A g g ra va ti n g -- T H E C O U R T : C i r cum st ance s. M S. C LAR K: C i r cum st ances has been p rov en byt he St at e bey ond a r eason abl e doubt
. W e, t he j ury , t herefor e, f i nd t he s ent ence shal l be i m pr i sonm entforl i fe. T H E C O U R T : A n d , yo u ’ve e a c h a ffi xe d yo u r n a m e to th a t. Is th a t ri g h t? M S . C L A R K : R ig h t. T H E C O U R T : W i t h r ega r d t o t he se cond coun tof t he i ndi ct m entwh i ch a ll e g e s th e d e a th o f R o s e m a ry S m it h , w h a t i s yo u r ve rd ict? M S. C LAR K: Puni shm entof deat h. T H E C O U R T : W i l l y ou read t hatform e, pl ease? M S
. C L A R K : W e , the j u ry - - T H E C O U R T : U n a n i m o u s l y. M S
. C L A R K : U n a n i m o u s l y f i n d t h a t the fo l l o w i n g l i s t -- l i s ti n g -- T H E C O U R T : S tatu tory. M S
. C L A R K : S tatu tory. T H E C O U R T : Aggr av at i ng. M S. C LAR K: Aggr av at i ng. T H E C O U R T : C i r cum st ance s. M S
. C L A R K : C i rcu m s tan c e s o f -- T H E C O U R T : D o yo u w a n t t o l ist th is fo r m e ? C a n yo u re a d th a t, pl ease? M S
. C L A R K : T h e m u rd e r w a s e s p e c i a l l y h u m a n -- T H E C O U R T : H ei nou s. M S
. C L A R K : -- h e i n o u s -- T H E C O U R T : A t roci ous. M S
. C L A R K : -- a tro c i o u s , a n d cru e l , i n t h a t i s i n vo l ve d -- T H E C O U R T : T ort ur e. M S
. C L A R K : -- t o rt u re -- T H E C O U R T : O r se ri o u s -- M S
. C L A R K : -- o r se ri o u s p h ys i c a l a b u s e b e yo n d t h a t n e c e s s a ry t o p ro ve -- T H E C O U R T : - - produce deat h. M S. C LAR K: - - produce deat h. T H E C O U R T : Al l r i ght
. W i l l y ou c ont i nue t o read? M S
. C L A R K : W e , the j u ry - - T H E C O U R T : U n a n i m o u s l y. M S. C LAR K: - - unani m ousl yfi nd t hatt he St at e has been prov en bey ond a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t tha t the circu m s tan c e s a re -- T H E C O U R T : S tatu tory. M S
. C L A R K : -- sta tuto ry - - T H E C O U R T : Aggr av at i ng. M S
. C L A R K : -- a g g ra va ti n g circu m s tan c e o r circ u m s tan c e s so t o l i s t a b o ve o u tw e i g h a n y o the r - - T H E C O U R T : M i t i gat i ng. M S. C LAR K: - - m i t i gat i ng c i r cum st ances . T her efor e, w e, t he j ury , unani m ousl yf i nd tha t the p u n i s h m e n t for the d e fen d a n t, R o n n i e -- T H E C O U R T : C aut her n. M S. C LAR K: - - C aut her n s hal l be d eat h. T H E C O U R T : Be seat ed pl ease.-4 5- T he Supr em e C ourtdeal twi t h t hi s v eryi ssu e i n K i r kendo l l v . St at e, 281 S. W
. 2d 243 ( T enn. 1 9 5 5 ), a c ase wher ei n t he deat h penal tywas af f i r m ed. The C ourthel d i twas noter rorfort he t r i al j udge t o accepta j urorw ho coul d notr ead t he wr i t t en c harges gi v en by the c o u rt
. I d. at255. The S upr em e C ourtr eason ed as fol l ow s: W e t hi nk t hough t hatot herj urors i f nec ess aryco ul d r ead t hi s t o t hatj urorwho coul d notr ead whi l e i n t he j uryroom . The pu rpo se o f h a v i ng t he wr i t t en c harge befor e t hem
. . . was t o p reven ta n d keep t he j uryf rom hav i ng t o k eep r unni ng backwar d and forwar d i nt o c ourt gett i ng t he court t o r echarge t hem on v ar i ous and s u n d rylittle th in g s t h a t th e ym ig h t h a v e fo rg o tte n . I t s e e m s to u s th a t a s lo n g a s th is w ritt e n c h a rg e is in t h e ju ryr o o m t h a t th e re a re o th e rs t h e re w h o c a n re a d th a t th is woul d s at i sf

yt hatques t i on. Consequent l yt hi s a ss i gnm entm ustbe o v er r ul ed. Id
. W e bel i ev e t hatt he hol di ng and r eason i ng i n Ki r kendo l l i s d i sp o si t i ve o f t he i ss ue befor e us here. The appel l a n th a s fai l ed t o poi ntt o any t hi ng i n t he record, a p a rtf ro m th e d i ffi c u l tl y in th e re a d i n g o f t h e ve rd i c t fo rm , w h i c h su g g e s ts M s . C l a rk di d notunderst and t he oral ch arges gi v en byt he j udge. Norhas t he appe l l ant dem onst r at ed t hat he suf fer ed any pr ej udi ce as a resul tof t he Ms. C l ar k’ s readi ng s k il ls. A c c o rd in g ly, w e c o n c lu d e th a t t h is is s u e i s w it h o u t m e rit.

I NDI VI DUA L A ND S EQUE ST ER ED V OI R DI RE N e x t, th e a p p e lla n t c la im s th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it d e n ie d th e a p p e lla n t’s m ot i on fori ndi v i dual and seque st er ed v oi r di r e. Speci f i cal l y , t he appe l l antco nt ends t he prospec t i v e j urors m ayhav e been awar e o f the fac t s o f

t hi s c ase pr i ort o t he h e a ri n g . T h e S tate co n ten d s t h e t ri a l co u rta c ted a p p ro p ri a tely.
T he a ppe l l antf i l ed a pr e- t r i al m o t i on request i ng p er m i ssi on t o con duct i ndi v i dual and seques t er ed v oi rdi r e of t he pr ospec t i v e j urors. T he t r i al co urtdeni ed t he m ot i on. Dur i ng t he v oi rdi r e, t he prosec ut oras ked, am ong ot hers, t he fol l owi ng-4 6-

que st i ons: H av e anyof

y ou heard orr ead any t hi ng atal l aboutt hi s c ase? H a ve a n y o f yo u h e a rd a n yo n e e xp re s s a n o p in io n a b o u t w h a t o u g h t t o happen i n t hi s c ase? T her e wi l l be t est i m onyt hatt hi s c r i m e oc cur r ed i n C l ar ksvi l l e, T e n n e s s e e . T h is is a c a s e , b y th e w a y, a b o u t tw o A rm y n u rs e s , a husba nd, P at r i ckSm i t h, and hi s wi fe, R osem ary . Thi s c r i m e oc cur r ed e i the r on t h e n i g h t o f J a n u a ry the 8 th, 1 9 8 7 o r the e a rl y m o rn i n g h o u rs o f J a n u a ryth e 9 th . M r. a n d M rs . S m ith -- C a p t a in S m ith a n d C a p ta in Sm i t h were c ap t ai ns i n t he Ar m y- - we r e ath om e as l ee p whe n two defendant s, R onal d C aut her n and anot herm an, br oke i nt o t hei rhom e, att ack i ng bot h of

t hem , r aped M rs. Sm i t h, gar rot ed - - t hat ’ s a t er m y ou m aynotkn ow t he m eani ng of r i ght now, but i f y ou’ r e chos en as a j uror yo u w i l l b e fore t h i s ca s e i s o ve r -- a n d l e ft the m b o th de a d
. N o w , h a ve anyof y ou ev erheard any t hi ng abou tt hi s factsi t uat i on? Is th e re a n yb o d y h e re w h o d o e s n ’tth in kth e y c a n g ive th e d e fe n d a n t a fa ir tr ia l? T he p rospe ct i v e j ur or s al l r espo nde d ne gat i v el yt o ea ch of t hese que st i ons.
I ndi v i dua l and sequ est er ed voi r di r e i s r equ i r ed o nl ywh en t here i s a “s ig n ific a n t p o s s ib ility” th a t th e p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro rs h a v e b e e n e x p o s e d to p o te n tia lly pr ej udi ci al m at er i al befor e t he t r i al
. St at e v . H owel l , 868 S. W
. 2d 238, 247 ( T enn. 1 9 9 3 ); S ta te v. H a rris , 8 3 9 S .W .2 d 5 4 , 6 5 (T e n n . 1 9 9 2 ). T h e d e c isio n o f w h e th e r to gr anti ndi v i dual and seque st er ed v oi rdi r e of prospec t i v e j urors l i es wi t hi n t he s ound di sc r et i on of

t he t r i al j udge, and t hatdec i si on wi l l notbe o v ert ur ned absenta f i ndi ng o f “m a n ife s t e rro r.” H o w e ll , 8 6 8 S .W .2 d a t 2 4 7 -4 8 ; H a rris , 8 3 9 S .W .2 d a t 6 5
.
T he a ppe l l anth a s fa i l ed t o de m onst r at e i n t he ca se athan d an ypr ej udi ce re s u l ti n g f ro m t h e t ri a l co u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s m o tio n . A l l o f the p ro s p e c ti ve j u ro rs i ndi cat ed t hey h ad no know l edg e of t he fact s orci r cum st ance s of t hi s case. T he fact tha t the ju ry k n e w t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s a l re a d y co n vi c ted o f fi rst d e g re e m u rd e r,-4 7-

cont r aryt o t he appe l l ant ’ s c l ai m , i s i r r el ev antt o t hi s i ss ue. The n a t u re of t he proceed i ngs i n a c api t al ca se neces sar i l ycreat es a s i t uat i on where t he s ent enci ng j urywi l l al way s k now t he gui l tdet er m i nat i on. The fact t hat t hi s was a r esent enci ng hear i ng does notpresentanysu bst ant i al di st i nct i ons, especi al l yw hen t he j urywas unaw ar e of

t he pr i orproceed i ngs. Acco r di ngl y , we f i nd t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d not abuse i t s d i sc r et i on i n deny i ng t he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on.-4 8- M E RC Y I NS T RU CT I ON T h e a p p e lla n t c la im s th e tria l c o u rts h o u ld h a v e in s tr u c te d th e ju ryth a t it c o u ld r ecom m end m er cywhen renderi n g i t s s ent ence. The S upr em e C ourthas cont i nual l yuphel d t he t r i al court ’ s deci si on i n t hi s r espec t
. See St at e v . B i gbee, 885 S. W
. 2d 797, 813- 14 ( T enn 1994) ; St at e v . C azes , 875 S. W
. 2d 253, 269 n. 6 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v . H art m an, 703 S. W
. 2d 106, 119 ( T enn. 1985) ; St at e v . M el son, 638 S .W .2 d 3 4 2 , 3 6 6 (T e n n . 1 9 8 2 ). A c c o rd in g ly, t h is is s u e i s w it h o u t m e rit.

EVI DENCE O F THE UNDERLYI NG F ELONI ES T h e a p p e ll a n t a lso a ll e g e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d b y d e n yin g h is m o ti o n to p r e v e n tt h e S t a t e f ro m i n t ro d u c i n g e v i d e n c e o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g b u rg l a rya n d r a p e . He cont ends t hi s e v i d e n ce d i d notr el at e t o ei t hert he aggrav at i ng orm i t i gat i ng c irc u m s ta n c e s a n d th u s w a s i m p ro p e rly b e fo re th e j u ry. In re s p o n s e , t h e S ta te a s s e rt s t h a t the t ri a l co u rta c ted a p p ro p ri a tely.
Pr i ort o t r i al , t he appe l l antf i l ed a m ot i on t o pr ev entt he St at e f rom i nt roduci ng ev i dence of

t he unde r l y i ng bur g l a rya n d rape. The t r i al j udge de ni ed t he m ot i on, st at i ng: T hi s w a s al l ev i dence t hatwas or i gi nal l yi nt roduce d att he or i gi nal tr ia l -- a t th e g u ilt p h a s e o f th e tria l, a n d I th in kth e ju ryis e n title d to a ll th e e v id e n c e fro m th e g u ilt p h a s e o f t h e tria l in m a k in g th e ir det er m i nat i on as t o whatt he properpuni shm enti s. I t hi n k t hat ’ s t he l aw. I don’ t t hi nk t hat t he r ape i t sel f coul d be an ag g ra v at i ng ci r cum st ance, butev i dence of t he rape c oul d go t o t he proof of t he a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m s ta n c e th a t y o u ’re a l l e g i n g , a n d fo r th a t re a s o n th a t’s whyI ’ m goi ng t o al l ow t he i nt roduct i on. I n hi s a rgum entbefor e t he Court , t he a p p e l l antse em s t o s ugges tt hatt he Supr em e C ourt ’ s h ol di ng i n St at e v . M i ddl ebrooks , 840 S. W
. 2d 317 ( T enn. 1992) cont rol s t hi s i ss ue. Mi ddl ebrooks s t a n d s fort he proposi t i on t hatt he St at e c annot-4 9-

r el yupon t he under l y i ng fel onyi n s upportof t he aggrav at i ng c i r cum st ance t hatt he m ur derwas com m i t t ed i n t he per pet r at i on of a fel o n y w h e n the appel l antwas c o n vic te d o f fe lo n y m u rd e r . I d . a t 3 4 6
. In th e i n s ta n t c a s e , h o w e ve r, th e S ta te sough tt o pr ov e t he ex i st ence of onl yone aggr av at i ng c i r cum st ance, t hatt he m ur der was hei nous, at roci ous, or cr uel
. T hus, t her e i s no dupl i cat i on probl em l i ke t h at encou nt er ed i n Mi ddl ebrooks
. I d.
M o r e o v e r , i n S t a t e v . C a z e s , 8 7 5 S
. W
. 2 d 2 5 3 , 2 7 0 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ) , t h e S u p r e me C o u rt , w h i l e co n d u c ti n g a M i d d l e b ro o k s h a rm l e s s e rror a n a l ys is, sta ted : “A sent enci ng j urym ayproper l yhearev i dence r egardi ng t he c i r cum st ances of t he of fense. ” See al so St at e v . S m i t h, 893 S. W
. 2d 908, 925 ( T enn. 1994)
. As t he t r i al courti m pl i ed, t he j urym ustbe al l owed t o consi dert he c i r cum st ances su r roundi ng t he m ur der i n o rd e r t o ap pr opri at el ydet er m i ne t he e x i st ence of t he h ei nou s, at roci ous, orcr uel aggrav at i ng c i r cum st ance. T he ci r cum st ances su r roundi ng t he m u rd e r i n c l u d e e v id e n c e o f the se p a ra te fe l o n i e s . T h e t ri a l co u rtrule d , h o w e ve r, t hatt he S t a t e c oul d noti nfor m t he j uryt hatt he appe l l anthad been c onv i ct ed of b u rg la rya n d ra p e . B e c a u s e w e b e lie v e th e tria l c o u rta c te d a p p ro p ria te ly in th is r egard, we f i nd no m er i tt o t hi s i ss ue.

E X CL US I ON OF P RO S P E CT I V E J UR OR T h e a p p e l l a n t m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o m m i t t e d r e v e rs i b l e er r orby e xc u s in g a p ro s p e c ti ve j u ro r b e c a u s e o f h is p e rc e ive d vie w s o n c a p it a l p u n ish m e n t. D ur i ng v oi rdi r e, a prospec t i v e j urori nfor m ed t he prosec ut ort hathe d i d nott hi nk he coul d “ l i v e wi t h” t he i m posi t i on of t he deat h penal ty . Subsequent l y , t he j udge as ked t he prospec t i ve j u ror i f he c oul d fol l ow t he l aw. He r espon ded byst at i ng t hat“ t he Lord m akes the deci si on on deat h, ” and t hathe d i d nott hi nk he c oul d i m pose t he-5 0-

p e n a l ty. T h e j u d g e t h e re a ft e r exc u s e d t h e m a n f ro m t h e j u ry.
T he appl i cabl e s t andard fordet er m i ni n g w het hera j urorwas proper l yex cus ed forca use becau se of

hi s bel i efs on t he deat h penal tywas del i neat ed i n W ai nwr i ght v . W i t t , 469 U
. S. 412, 424, 105 S. C t
. 844, 852, 83 L
. Ed. 2d 841 ( 1985) , and i s a s fol l ows: " whet hert he j uror ' s v i ews woul d ' p r ev entorsu bst ant i al l yi m pai rt he p e rfo rm a n c e o f

h is d u tie s a s a ju ro r in a c c o rd a n c e w ith h is in s tr u c tio n s a n d h is o a t h
. ' " S e e S t a t e v . A l l e y , 7 7 6 S
. W
. 2 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 8 ( T e n n . 1 9 8 9 ) ( T e n n e s s e e S u p r e me C o u rta d o p ts W a i n w ri g h t s tan d a rd ). F u rt h e rm o re , the U n i ted S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t "t h is s ta n d a rd d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t a j u ro r's b ia s b e p ro ve d w it h

' u n m i s ta k a b l e cla ri ty. ' " W a i n w ri g h t, 4 6 9 U .S
. a t 4 2 4 , 1 0 5 S .C t. a t 8 5 2
. T h e C o u rt al so not ed t hat" defer ence m ustbe p ai d t o t he t r i al j udge who sees and h e a rs t he j urors. " I d. at426, 105 S. C t
. at853.
W e agree t hatt he prospec t i v e j uror ’ s a nswers s uggest i ng t hathe c oul d not i m pose t he deat h penal ty " woul d ' pr ev ent or subs t ant i al l y i m pai r t he perfor m ance of hi s d ut i es as a j urori n ac cordance wi t h hi s i nst r uct i ons and hi s o at h. ' " I d. at424, 105 S .C t. a t 8 5 2
. S e e a l s o , S ta te v . S m i th, 8 9 3 S .W .2d 9 0 8 , 9 1 5 -1 6 (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ). Al t hough t hi s d et er m i nat i on m i ghtnot be " unm i st akabl ycl ear , " i tneed notbe. M or eov er , as t he U ni t ed St at es Supr em e C ourthas hel d, greatdefer ence shoul d be g i ve n t o t h e t ri a l j u d g e , w h o i s "l e ftw i th th e d e fi n i te i m p re s s i o n t h a t a p ro s p e c ti ve j urorwoul d be unab l e to fa i t hf ul l yand i m part i al l yappl yt he l aw. " W ai nwr i ght , 469 U
. S. a t 4 2 6 , 1 0 5 S. Ct
. a t 8 5 3
. The t r i a l j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s " s h a l l b e a c c o r ded a pr esum pt i on o f

cor r ect ness a nd t he burden shal l restu pon t he a ppe l l antt o est abl i sh byco nv i nci ng ev i dence t hat[ t hose f i n d i n g s w er e] er roneous . " St at e v . Al l ey , 776 S .W .2 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 8 (T e n n . 1 9 8 9 ). T h e a p p e lla n t h a s fa ile d to m e e t h is b u rd e n in th is-5 1-

cas e.
T he appe l l antal so cont ends t hatexcu si n g t he prospec t i v e j urorbec ause of hi s rel i gi ous bel i efs furt heri nt erfer es wi t h t he appe l l ant ' s c onst i t ut i onal r i ght s. O ur Supr em e C ourthas r ul ed t hatbec ause a j uror ' s " ' v i ews on capi t al puni shm entm ay hav e had a rel i gi ous foundat i on does not neces sar i l y t r ansfor m t he t estm andat ed b y t h e U n i ted S tate s S u p re m e C o u rti n [ W a i n w ri g h t v. W i tt] i n to re l i g i o u s t e s ts fo r .

. . [ co nst i t ut i onal pur poses ]
. ' " St at e v . Jo nes, 789 S. W
. 2d 545, 547 ( T enn. 1990) (1 9 9 0 ) ( q u o ti n g S tate v. B o b o , 7 2 7 S .W .2d 9 4 5 , 9 4 9 (T e n n . 1 9 8 7 )). A c c o rd i n g l y, M r. W i l l i am s’ oppos i t i on t o t he deat h penal ty , t h ough po ss i bl ybas ed on r el i gi on, a p p ro p ria te ly r e n d e re d h im u n fit a s a ju ro r. T h e tria l ju d g e a c te d p ro p e rly , a n d th is iss u e , t h e re fo re , i s w it h o u t m e rit.

A DM I SSI O N O F A PPE LLA NT’ S STA TEM EN TS T he appe l l ant , r el y i ng on hi s b r i ef subm i t t ed dur i ng t he i ni t i al di r ect appeal of t hi s c ase, argues t hatt he t ri a l courter roneous l yal l owed t he i nt roduct i on of t he a p p e lla n t’s s ta te m e n ts in to e vi d e n c e . T h e S u p re m e C o u rtp re v io u s ly a d d re s s e d th is i ss ue on t he or i gi nal appea l o f t hi s c ase. See St at e v . C aut her n, 778 S. W
. 2d 39 ( T enn. 1989)
. The r em and of t hi s cas e was based upon t he Court ’ s d et er m i nat i on t hata po rt i on of

t he appe l l ant ’ s stat e m e n twas er roneous l yi nt roduce d. I d. at47. D u rin g th e r e s e n te n c in g h e a rin g , th e tria l c o u rtfo llo w e d th e S u p re m e C o u rt ’s m and at e an d excl ude d t he o bj ect i ona bl e po rt i ons o f t he st at em ent
. Acco rd i n g l y, b e c a u s e th e S u p r e m e C o u rth a s a lre a d ya d d re s s e d th is is s u e , th e a p p e lla n t’s a rg u m e n t m u s t fa il.

CO NS TI TUTI O NA LI TY O F THE D EA TH PE NA LTYN o e x ec uti on da t e i s se ti n t hi s op i ni on . T en ne s s ee C od e A nn otat ed se c t i on 39 -13 -20 6(a )( 1) 8 p ro v i d e s fo r a u to m a ti c re v i e w b yth e T e n n e s s e e S u p re m e C o u rt u p o n a ff i rm a n c e o f th e d e a th penal t y . I ft he se nt ence ofdea t h i s uph el d byt he Supr em e Cour ton r ev i ew, t hatcourtwi l l sett he execut i on d at e. -5 2- Fi n a l l y , t h e a p p e l l a n ta s s e rt s t h e d e a t h p e n a l tyi s c r u e l a n d unus ual puni shm enti n v i ol at i on of t he s t at e and feder al co nst i t ut i ons. O n di r ectappeal , t he Supr em e C ourtr ej ect ed t hi s a rgum ent
. S ee St at e v . C aut her n, 778 S. W
. 2d 39, 47 ( T enn. 1989)
. Li kewi se, t he Court has r epeat edl y uphel d t he c onst i t ut i onal i tyof t he deat h penal tyi n t he face of si m i l arch al l enges . See St at e v . S m i t h, 893 S
. W
. 2d 908 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v . Br i m m er , 876 S
. W
. 2d 75 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v . C azes , 875 S .W .2d 2 5 3 (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ); S tate v. S m i th, 8 5 7 S .W .2d 1 (T e n n . 1 9 9 3 ); S tate v. B l a c k , 8 1 5 S .W .2d 1 6 6 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ); S tate v. B o yd , 7 9 7 S .W .2d 5 8 9 (T e n n . 1 9 9 0 ); St at e v . T eel , 793 S. W
. 2d 236 ( T enn. 1990) ; St at e v . T hom pson, 768 S. W
. 2d 239 (T e n n . 1 9 8 9 ). A c c o rd in g ly, t h is a rg u m e n t i s w it h o u t m e rit.

CO NC L US I ON Aft era t horough rev i ew of t he i ss ues and t he record befor e us as m andat ed byT ennes see C ode Annot at ed s ect i on 39- 13- 206( b) and ( c) , and fo r t h e reason s st at ed herei n, we a ff i r m t he appe l l ant ’ s s ent ence of deat h. W e c oncl ude t hatt he s e n te n c e w a s n o t im p o s e d in a n a rb itra ryfa s h io n , th e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e ju ry ’s f i ndi ng of t he aggrav at i ng c i r cum st ance, and t he ev i dence su pport s t he j ury ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he a ggrav at i ng ci r cum st an c e o u twe i ghs a ny m i t i gat i ng ci r cum st ance s. M or eov er , a com par at i v e proport i onal i tyr ev i ew, co nsi der i ng bot h t he c i r cum st ances o f t h e c rim e a n d th e n a tu re o f t h e a p p e ll a n t, c o n vin c e s u s th a t t h e s e n te n c e o f d e a th i s nei t her ex cessi v e no rdi spr opo rt i ona t e t o t he p ena l tyi m pose d i n si m i l arcases. 8-5 3- Accordi ngl y , t he j udgm entof t he t r i al co urti s a f

f i r m ed.

________________________________ DA V I D H. W E L L E S , J UD GE CONCUR:

__________________________________ DA V I D G. H A Y E S , J UD GE

__________________________________ CO RN E L I A A
. C L A RK , S P E CI A L J UD GE