# FILED A pr il 2, 19 96 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO URT OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KN OXVILLE FEB RU ARYSES SION , 199 4
STATE OF TENN ESSEE ) ) APPEL LEE ) NO . 03C 01- 9302- CR -0 0050

) ) H AM IL TO N C OU N TY ) V. ) HO N. STEPH EN M . BE VIL, JU DG E ) ) (F irst Deg re e M urder ; Attempted ) Secon d Degree Murder) ROBERT W ILL IAMS ) ) APP ELL ANT )
FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: James G. Greenl ey Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Atto rn ey at Law Atto rn ey Gene ra l (O n a p p e a l o n ly) P.O. Box 5255 Ki mbra R. Spann Sev ier v il le, TN 37862 Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kway John W . M cC lar

ty Nas hv il le, TN 37403- 0493 Mc Cl arty & Tay lor Atto rn eys a t Law Gar y D . G er bitz (At t ri al onl y ) Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l 822 M cC all ie Av enue Cha ttano og a, TN 37403 Rod ney Strong Ass t. Di st. Att or ney

Gene ra l Ka rla G. Go th a rd 3 1 0 Co u rt s B ld g. Ass t. Publ icD efender 600 M ar ket Street (At t ri al onl y ) Cha ttano og a, TN 37402 701 C her ry

Street, Sui te 30 0 Cha ttano og a, TN 37402 AFF IR ME D AS M OD IF IED OPIN ION F ILED : ___

_________

_________

___ JER RY SC OTT, PR ESID IN G J UD GE2 O P I N I O N The appel lan t was conv icted o f f irst deg re e murder and attempt ed sec ond- deg re e murder i n v iol ati on of Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 202( a) (1 ) and § 39- 12- 101( a)
. Judg ment was entered and follo w ing a s entenc ing hear ing , t he appel lan t was sent enced to death by el ect ro cut ion for t he first deg re e murder and t o thi rty

( 30) y ears i mpri sonmentfor the a ttemptto commi t s econd -d eg re e mu rder, to be serv ed co nsecu tiv ely. On app eal, th e followi ng issues are p re s e n t e d fo r o u r re vie w: I. W hether the ev ide nce w as suffici ent t o s how premedit ati on and delibe ration in the killing of Jane t Mill igan, and therefore, to supp ort a v erdict of

f irst degree mu rder? II. W hether the cour t er re d dur ing the jur

y se lecti on proces s b y deny ing the appel lan t i ndi v idu al seq uest ered voir di re , or by vio la t in g t h e p ri n c ip le s o f B a t s o n v. K e n t u c ky o r W it h e rs p o o n v. Illinois? III . W h e t h e r t h e s t a t e ' s m e re i n t ro d u ct i o n o f re c o rd s o f c o n v i ct i o n o f a "Rob ert W il li ams" s uff ic ien tl y es tabl is hes the p ri or-c onv icti on ag g ra v ati ng factor

for t hisappel lan t?

IV. W hether the sta te' s referenc e to the v icti m's deat h dur ing the sent enci ng hear ing was improper arg ument resul ti ng i n preju dic e to the a ppel lan t? V. W het her the jury

instruction s g iv en a t the sente ncing hea ring w ere const itution al? VI. W het her the Te nne ssee d eat h pe nalty statut oryschem e is uncon sti tuti onal on i ts face or as appl ied ? VII. W hether the tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to charg e the j ur y w it h specia l instructions relat ing to the ap pellan t's intoxication as a mitigating facto r?3 VIII . W hether the tr ial co urt er re d by i nst ru cti ng the jur

y first of the ind icted o ffense, first deg re e murder , and foll ow ing i t i n des cendi ng order of sev er ity

w it h the l ess er-i ncl uded offenses?

I. W e first address the appel lan t' s c ontent ion thatthe ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he v erdict of first deg re e murder . The ev ide nce of the events surroun ding the crime came solelyf rom th e survi v ing v ictim, David Mi ll ig an, w ho was the h usban d of the murde r v icti m, J anet Mi ll ig an. He tes ti fied tha t the app ellant , w ho h ad p rev iously liv ed wi th Ms. Mill igan, cam e to th eir home on the n ig ht of the cr ime and t old M r. M il li g an th at he ca me by to pic k u p some o f his bel ong ing s a nd woul d l ik e to "hol ler" at Ms . M il li g an. Mr . M il li g an s aid the appel lan t had a "ni ce atti tude" and he ag re eabl y l et the a ppel lan t i n and direct ed hi m to t he bedroom w here M s. Mi ll ig an was w atc hin g tel ev is ion w it h her young daug hter . W hen t he appe ll ant g ot t o the bed room , he rea ched in his coat po cket, p ulled o ut a pisto l and ord ered Mr . Mi ll ig an i nto t he bedroom. After Mr . M il li g an to ld the a ppel lan t t hat h e had no probl em w it h hi m tak ing al l of his bel ong ing s, the a ppel lan t s hot h im i n the si de of the face. M r. M il li g an te sti fied th at, after bei ng sh ot, he rais ed up and s aw the appel lan t pul l back

hi s w ife's head and s hoot her . The ev ide nce showed th at Ms. Mi llig an d ied f rom m ultiple gunsh ot w oun ds after bein g shotthree tim es, in the h ead, the e lbo w

and the w ri st.
Mr . M il li g an te sti fied th at hi s w ife had re cent ly purchas ed a pis tol and kept itunder her pi ll ow , butthatsh e had not p ull ed i t outw hen t he appe ll ant e ntered the b edroom. Indeed, he s aid thatno c onv ersat ion oc cur re d betw een t he appel lan t and M s. Mi ll ig an before the sh ooti ng s b eg an butthatM s. Mi ll ig an had beg un to sc re am as soon as she firs t s aw the appel lan t i n her

home.4 T he p rinciples w hich gov ern this cou rt's rev iew of a conviction by a jury are well es tabl is hed. This co urt mus t rev iew the re cord to deter mine if the evidence a ddu ced a t trial was suf f icient "t o sup port th e f inding of the trier of

fact of g uilt beyond a reason able dou bt." Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e). Th is rule is appl ic abl e to deter minat ion s o f gui ltpredi cat ed upon di re ct ev ide nce, ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce, or a c ombina ti on th ereof. Stat e v . M atthe ws, 805 S.W .2d 776 , 779 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 90). A j ur y v erdict of g uil ty , app ro v ed by the tr ial j udg e, ac credi ts the t est imony of the s tate' s w it ness es and resol v es all co nflicts in fav or of the t heor

y of the sta te. Stat e v . W il li ams, 657 S. W .2d 4 05, 4 10 ( Tenn. 1983 ); Sta te v . H atc hett, 560 S. W .2d 6 27, 6 30 ( Tenn. 1978 ). O n appea l, the sta te i s e nti tl ed to the strong estl eg it imat e v iew of the e v ide nce and al l re asona ble and leg it imat e inferencesw hic h may

be d ra w n the re from. St ate v . C abbag e, 57 1 S. W .2d 8 32, 835 ( Tenn. 1978 ). M oreov er , a v erdict ag ain st a c ri minal defendant re mov es the p re s u m p t io n o f

in n o c e n c e a n d ra is e s a p re s u m p t io n o f gu il to n a p p e a l, S t a t e v. Grace, 493 S.W .2d 4 74, 4 76 ( Tenn. 1973 ), w hic h the defendant/ appel lan t has the burde n of

ov ercom ing. State v . Brow n, 55 1 S.W .2d 329 , 330 (Ten n. 19 77).
In examini ng the suffici ency of the e v ide nce, thi s c our t doe s n ot reevaluate the weig ht or credibility of the wi tne sses' testim ony as those are matters e ntr ust ed excl usi v ely to the j ur

y as the tr iers o f fact . St ate v . Sh eff iel d, 676 S. W .2d 5 42, 5 47 ( Tenn. 1984 ); Sta te v . W ri g ht, 836 S. W .2d 1 30, 1 34 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 199 2). Nor may this cou rt substitu te its inferen ces for those draw n by

the tr ier of fact from c ircums tanti al ev ide nce. Li akas v . St ate, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W .2d 8 56, 8 59 ( 1956)
. The rele v ant q uest ion on a ppeal is w hether , after

v iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the S tate, any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e det er mined that the e ss enti al ele ments of the crime w ere esta blished beyond a rea sona ble do ubt . Te nn. R. App. P. 13(e);5

Jac ks on v . Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 314- 324, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 27 86- 2792, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1 979)
. Fi rs t deg re e murder

i s "[ a]n i ntent ion al, premedit ated, and del ibe ra te k il li n g o f a n o t h e r. " T e n n . Co d e A n n . § 3 9 -1 3 -2 0 2 (a )( 1 ) ( 1 9 9 1 ). I n S t a t e v. Brown, 836 S. W .2d 530 , 540 (Ten n. 19 92), th e Sup reme Court recent ly dea lt w it h thi s c ri me hol din g that , "ev en i f inten t ( or ' pur pose to k il l' ) and premedit ati on (' desi g n')may

be for med i n an ins tant, del ibe ra ti on req uires some p er iod of re flect ion , dur ing w hic h the min d i s ' free from the i nfluenc e of ex ci tement, or pass ion .' " "In order

to est abl is h first- deg re e murder , t he premedit ated ki ll ing must als o hav e al so been do ne del ibe ra tel y , t hat i s, w it h c ool ness and re flect ion ." Id. at 53 9. H ere, t he defendant came t o M s. Mi ll ig an'shome ar med w ith a pisto l and en tered the ho me , oste nsibly in an am icable f rame of mind . He shotM r. M il li g an and then Ms . M il li g an notonc e butthree ti mes. Gi v en th e abo v e stat ed facts an d the narrow conf ines of

this rev iew , w e f ind th e evidence to be more tha n s uff ic ien t t o prov e the defendant g uil ty of first deg re e murder beyond a re asona ble doubt . II. The appel lan t rais es sev eral is sues w hic h rela te t o the se lecti on of the jurors. Specif ically , he insists th at th e trial judge erred by den y ing his request for i ndi v idu al seq uest ered voir di re , and thatthe jur

y se lecti on proces s was v iol ati v e of both Bats on v . Ke ntuc ky , 476 U .S. 79, 1 06 S. Ct . 171 2, 90 L.E d.2d 69 (1 986) , and W it herspoon v . I ll ino is , 391 U .S. 510,88 S.C t. 1770, 20 L. Ed.2d 776 (1 968)
. The ul ti mate g oal of v oir di re i s t o s ee th at t he j urors a re co mpetent, unbi ased, and impar

ti al, and the d eci si on of how to condu ct v oir

di re of p ro s p e ct ive ju ro rs re s t s wit h in t h e so u n d d is c re t io n o f t h e t ri a l c o u rt . S t a t e v. Howell , 868 S.W .2d 2 38, 2 47 ( Tenn. 1993 )( ci ti ng Sta te v . H ar ri s, 839 S. W .2d 54, 65 (Te nn. 199 2)). This goal w as att aine d in this case and the trial judge did not a buse hisdi sc re ti on.6 First, as to the trial court's denia l of indiv idua l sequestered v oir dire, our Supreme C our

t hasco nsi ste ntl y

adhered to the posi ti on th at de ath q ual ific ati on in a ca p it a l c a s e d o e s n o tn e c e s s it a t e se qu e s t ra t io n d u ri n g vo ir d ire . S t a t e v. Smit h, 857 S. W .2d 1 , 20 (Tenn. 1993) ; ( ci ti ng Sta te v . J ohnso n, 69 8 S. W .2d 63l , 633 ( Tenn. l 985)and Stat e v . Po rt er field , 746 S.W .2d 4 41, 4 47 ( Tenn. 1988) ); Sta te v . St ephens on, 8 78 S. W .2d 5 30, 5 40 ( Tenn. 1994 ) (c it ing Smi th and Porterf ield). Inde ed, our Court ha s said tha t, "[i]n divi dua l voir dire is mandated onl y

w hen t here i s a ' si g nific ant p oss ibi li ty ' that a j uror has been ex posed to potent ial ly

preju dic ial mater ial ." Stat e v . H ar ri s, 839 S. W .2d 5 4, 65 (Tenn. 1992)( q uoti ng Sta te v . Po rt er field , s upra)
. The defendant he re arg ues that g ro up voir

di re focuss ed th e j urors o n the i ss ue of puni shmentand pred ispose d them to the v iew thatthe de ath pen alty is approp riate. He also cont ends that ithi ndered t he abi li ty of defense c ounse l to k now w ho to ex cl ude and thus ho w

to intelligently exercise the pe remp tory challen ges. The se ass erti ons are s pecul ati v e and are notfactual ly su ppor ted b y anythi ng i n the record. T he d efend anthas the refore failed to estab lish that group voir dire preju dic ed hi m to t he extent that the e nti re v oir di re and the i mpart ial ity of the jury were invalidated . See St ate v . Kee n, __ _S. W .2d ___ , No. 02S 01-9 112 -CR00064 S li p Op. at 28 ( Tenn. 1994 ); Stat e v . St ephens on, s upra. Ne xt , t h e d e fe n d a n ta s s e rt s t h a tt h e st a t e vio la t e d B a t s o n v. K e n t u c ky, 4 7 6 U. S
. 7 9 , 1 0 6 S
. Ct
. 1 7 1 2 , 9 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 9 (1 9 8 6 ), in it s e xe rc is e fo u r o f f ive pere mp tory challen ges used to ex cuse b lack prospe ctiv e jurors. As this Court has n ote d, a cha llenge to the unco nstitu tiona l ex ercise of a perem pto ry chal len g e mustbe made i n a t imel y fashi on. Stat e v . Bo g le, N o. 86 -2 58- III ( Ten n. C r i m. A pp . fi l ed A ug . 7, 1 98 7) ; S ta te v . Pe te rs , N o. 2 30 ( Ten n. C r i m. App. filed F eb. 2 4, 19 87)
. In t hisca se, no o bje cti on was int er posed unti l the appel lan t fil ed hi s mot ion for a new tr ial . By thatti me the tr ial j udg e c oul d no lo n ger ta ke co rre ct ive a ct io n , whi ch in th is c a se wo u ld ha ve b e e n de m a n d in g a racially-neu tral basis for the p erem pto ry challen ges. To ho ld oth erw ise would7

p e rm itde fe n d a n t s t o wit h h o ld o bje ct io n s a s a t a ct ic a l m a tt e r i n o rd e r t o h a ve g ro unds for rev ersal i n the ev ent o f a g uil ty v erdict, re sul ti ng i n tot al chaosi n our system of

criminal justice. T his court has reco gniz ed su ch a da nger and h eld that ti mely

obj ect ion s mus t be made ev en w hen c onst it uti onal i ss ues are at stake . State v . Sime rly , 612 S.W .2d 196 , 197 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p 19 80).
Ev en i f the obj ect ion s h ad been ti mely , i t app ears t hat n o v iol ati on of Bats on oc cur re d. Tw o of the ex cus ed bl ack j urors had c ri minal records, anot her had i ndi cat ed th at he mig ht no t be abl e to v ote for the death penal ty , and the fourth knew

one of the th en- potent ial w it ness es for th e s entenc ing phas e of the trial. Tho se racially -neu tral reason s for the p rosecu tion's use of its perem pto ry chal len g es neg ate a ny

co nst it uti onal probl em. T he th ird issue w ith regard to the jury selection inv olves the defend ant 's cl aim that the j ur

y se lecti on proces s v iol ated W it herspoon v . I ll ino is , s upra. Spe cif ically , he argues th at th e stat em ent s bytwo of the pro spect iv e jurors conc er nin g the death penal ty di d notj ust ify

thei r ex cus al for c ause. Bo th of the jurors indicate d tha t the y were stron gly

opp osed to the dea th pe nalty and would cons ide r impos ing i t und er no c ircums tanc es. O ne of the jurors h ad ta lk ed to the sta te represent ati v e from he r dis tr ict abo ut t ry ing to eli minat e the deat h penal ty f rom T enn essee law . Th e oth er said she did notthink she could liv e w ith he rself if she voted for the d eat h pe nalty. The W ithersp oon stand ard w as clarif ied in W ain w ri g ht v . W itt, 469 U .S. 412, 424, 105 S. Ct . 844 , 852 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 841 (198 5): That s tandard i s w hether the juror's v iews woul d "prev ent o r subst ant ially

impa ir the performa nce o f his duties a s a juror in accord ance w ith his instructio ns an d his oat h." W e no te th at, in add ition to dispen sing w ith W ithersp oon 's referen ce to " aut om atic" deci si onmaki ng , t hisst andard l ik ew is e doesnot re q uire tha t a juror's bi as be prov ed w it h "unmi sta kabl e c lar ity ." The Co urt al so re cog niz ed th at t he q uest ion s a sk ed and answers g iv en dur ing t h e vo ir d ire p ro c e s s d o n o ta lwa ys re ve a l a ju ro r' s b ia s wit h a b s o lu t e ce rt a in ty;8

"how ev er , t here w il l be s it uati ons w here the tr ial j udg e i s l eft w it h the defini te imp ression th at a pro spect iv e juror would be un able to faithf ully and impa rtially app ly the law." W ainwr ight, 469 U.S. at 42 5. T here fore, 'de feren ce mu st be pa id to th e tri a l ju d ge who se e s a n d he a rs t h e ju ro r. " Id . In th is c a se th e tri a l ju d ge bel iev ed th at t hose two j urors were adamant ly oppos ed to the death penal ty and the record abs olu tel y

su ppor ts that conc lus ion . The cons ti tuti onal st andard for ex cus ing j urors d ue to thei r v iews o n the deat h penal ty was met.
III . In t he s entenc ing phas e of the tr ial , t he s tate int ro duced ce rt ified co pie s o f the judgmen ts of

convictions of

three p rior v iolentfelon ies com mitt ed b y "Robe rt W il li ams," inc lud ing v olu ntar y mansl aug hter , s econd deg re e murder , and feloni ous ass aul t w it h bodi ly i nju ry . There w as no ot her ev ide nce li nki ng the appel lan t w it h the pr ior felon iesothe r than the n ame, "R ober t W il li ams." The appel lan t c ontendsthatthe prosec uti on, b y merely i ntroduci ng thos e records, di d not s ati sfyi ts burden of proof as t o the ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce that he had b e e n pre viou sly co n vict e d of on e or m o re fe lo n ie s o th e r th a n th e pre se n t c h a rge w hose sta tutor

y el ements i nv olv ed th e us e of v iol ence to t he person. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13 -204 (i)( 2).
The tr ial j udg e deni ed th e appel lan t' s mot ion for j udg ment of ac q uittal re g ardin g the death penal ty . A tr ial j udg e may se t as ide a v erdict and g ra nt a jud g ment of acq uittal pursuantto Rul e 29 (c ), Tenn. R . C ri m. P. , upo n findi ng tha t the ev iden ce is legally insuf f icient to estab lish the ele me nts of the of fense be y on d a rea s on ab l e do ub t. S ta te v . D av i s , 8 72 S .W .2 d 95 0, 9 55 ( Ten n. C r i m. App. 1993) ; see als o J ackson v . Vi rg ini a, s upra. The tr ial j udg e tho ro ug hly and acc uratel y

i nst ru cte d the j ur

y that : The Stat e i s req uired to adduc e s uff ic ien t proof to es tabl is h the ide nti ficat ion of the p erson named i n the j udi ci al re cords as bei ng the same person as the d efend anton trial beyond a reason able dou bt. In sh ort, the proof supp lied by the records is noth ing more9 than ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce, and if the jur y i s s ati sfied from the ev ide nce re g ardin g the ide nti ficat ion q uest ion , t hen t he j ur y may deter mine the d efendant i s o ne and the s ame person. The id enti ty

of the d efendant as the person named i n the document s i ntroduce d i nto e v ide nce must be es tabl is hed by the proof beyond a re asona ble doubt . If y ou hav e a reason abl e doubt as to w hether

the defendant hasbeen ide nti fied as the person named i n the doc uments , i t w il l be your duty to fix the puni shment at l ife i mpri sonment . Y ou may not ass ume the ide nti ty of the d efendant as the person named i n the doc uments , t hismustbe p ro v en to you beyond a re asona ble doubt . Y ou may tak e i nto a cc ount the c ommonalty [s ic] of the name c ontai ned i n the doc uments , t he l ack of a mi ddl e name, and the lack of

any other iden tif

y ing fa ctors. The appel lan t nev er

al leg ed th at he di d not co mmit the p ri or

feloni es, nor

di d he int er pose an obj ect ion to the i ntroduct ion of the d ocument s reflect ing the pr ior conv icti ons. The present ence inv est ig ati on repor t, the a cc uracy

of w hic h the appel lan t hasnot chal len g ed, s ets forth the pr ior co nv icti ons, but that re por t was not p re sent ed to the jur y and there was si mply

i nsuffici ent e v ide nce present ed to the j ur y that the appel lan t was the s ame "R ober t W il li ams" w ho was conv icted o f the othe r fe lonies.
Ou r Su p re m e Co u rtlo o ke d atth is is su e in a re ce n t c a se in volvin g Tenness ee'sformer

habi tual cr imi nal st atute w hic h had at t hat t ime been supe rsede d by the provisi ons o f the T enn essee Cri min al Sen ten cing R eform Act of 1989. The st atute prov ide d tha t "a jud g ment of co nv icti on of any person . . . under the same n ame as thatby w hic h s uch person is ch arg ed w it h the com mission or attem pt atcomm ission , of a felon y und er the te rms of

this chapt er , s hal l be pr ima facie ev ide nce that the i denti ty of suc h person is the same." Tenn.C ode An n. § 39- 1- 804 ( 1982)
. The Co urt found t hat t hisst atute w as not u ncons ti tuti onal per se , butpas sed cons ti tuti onal must er so l ong as the jur y was ins tr uct ed th at t he pr ior co nv icti on di d notsh ift t he burden t o the defendant butmerely

created a per mis si v e i nferenc e tha t t he defendant is the s a m e p e rs o n . Lo we v. S t a t e , 8 0 5 S
. W . 2 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 2 (T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ). He re , t h e ju ry10

re cei v ed v er

y adeq uate ins tr uct ion s reg ardin g how to w eig ht t he ev ide nce and returne d a sen ten cing v erdict pu rsuan t to the ev iden ce. How ever, the evidence w as not s uff ic ien t t o s how thatthe "Rob ert W il li ams" on tr ial i n thi s c ase w as the same "R ober

t W il li ams" c onv icted i n the othe r cas es. Thi s i ss ue has mer it . The sent ence of death i s s et as ide and the j udg ment i s modi fied to se t t he appel lan t' s p uni shmentat li fe impr is onment.
IV. Next, the a ppel lan t c ontendsthathi s s entenc e s houl d be re v ersed becau se of improper

j ur y arg ument by

the prosec utor

dur ing the cl osi ng arg ument atthe sent enci ng hear ing . Spec ific all y , he re fers to t he foll ow ing arg ument by

the sta te: "Y es, sh e s ti ll had hisT.V., i s t hat a mit ig ati ng ci rc umstan ce? D oes that outweig h her deat h?" Thes e words w ere foll ow ed by an obj ect ion from t he appe ll ant' s c ounse l w it h the ex pla nati on th at "[h]er deat h is not an ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce. " The t ri al jud g e s ust ain ed th e obj ect ion . The appel lan t di d notreq uesta l imi ti ng i nst ru cti on and none was g iv en. Howev er , t he j udg e c lea rl y i nst ru cte d the j ur

y not to c onsi der

any factors o r ci rc umstan ces to be ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces othe r than the a ppel lan t' s p ri or felon ies .
The sent enci ng st atute prov ide s t hat "[ n]o d eath penal ty . . . sh all be impos ed butupon a unani mous fin din g thatthe sta te ha s p ro v en beyond a re asona ble doubtthe ex is tenc e of one( 1) or more of the sta tutor

y ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces " and li mitsco nsi derati on to the twelv e ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces setforth i n the st atute . Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 204( i)( Supp. 1995)
. Add itiona lly , the statu te provides that"[i]n th e sen ten cing proceed ing, ev iden ce maybe p re sent ed as to any matte r that the c our

t dee ms rele v ant t o the puni shmentand mayi ncl ude, but n ot be l imi ted t o, t he nat ure and ci rc umstan ces of the c ri me;" th e defendant' s c haract er , bac kg ro und hi sto ry , and physi cal condi ti on;" a nd ev ide nce est abl is hin g or rebutt ing the ex is tenc e of the11

enumerated ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces and any mit ig ati ng factors. Tenn. C ode Ann. § 39- 13- 204 ( c)( Supp. 1995)
. In a re centca se w here the j ur y rev eal ed that they had cons ide re d the deat h of the v icti m and t he s ur ro undi ng ci rc umstan ces i n i mposi ng a de ath sent ence, our Supreme C our

t s tated that "[o]nc e a c api tal se ntenc ing j ur y finds thata de fendant fall s w it hin the legislativ ely- def ined category of person s elig ible for the d eat h pe nalty, the jury is free t o c onsi der

a my ri ad of factors t o det er mine w hether deat h i s t he p u n is h m e n ta p p ro p ri a t e t o t h e o f fe n s e a n d t h e in d ivi d u a l d e fe n d a n t . " St a t e v. Ni chol s, 877 S. W .2d 7 22, 7 31 ( Tenn. 1994 ). ( ci ti ng ca ses from t he U nit ed St ates Sup reme Court).
Ass uming arg uendo t hat t he remark was improper

i n i ts sug g est ion that the j ur y sh oul d weig h the v icti m's deat h ag ain st the mi ti g ati ng factors, itwas har mles s e rror . "A c our t rev iew ing the propr iety of arg ument i n a c api tal sent enci ng proceed ing mustdete rmi ne w hether the prosec utor's co mments affect ed th e s entenc ing dec is ion ." Stat e v . I ri ck , 762 S.W .2d 1 21, 1 31 ( Tenn. 1988)
. The st andard s et forth by thi s C our

t i n rev iew ing su ch an al leg ati on re q uires the c onsi derati on of fiv e factors i n det er mini ng w hether any i mprop er c o n d u ctwa s p reju d ic ia l: (1 ) t h e co n d u ctco m p la in e d o f vie we d in t h e co n t e xt a n d in li gh to f

t h e fa ct s a n d ci rc u m s t a n c e s o f t h e ca s e ; (2 ) a n y cu ra t ive measures under

tak en by the cour t and the prosec uti on; (3 ) the int ent o f the prosec utor

i n maki ng the improper st atement; ( 4) t he c umulat iv e effectof the improper co nductand any

othe r er ro rsi n the record; (5 ) the re lat iv e s treng th or w eakne ss of the c ase. J udg e v . St ate, 539 S. W .2d 3 40, 3 44 ( Tenn. C ri m. App 1976)
. Appl y ing thos e factors t o thi s remark , we find that the v erdict c oul d not hav e been affect ed to the preju dic e of the appel lan t by the is ola ted remark . T he p rosecu tor's rema rk w as mo dera te atmostand the trial judge gav e the jury cl ear and acc urate i nst ru cti ons as to t he l aw . This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t. Fur ther more, i n v iew

of our acti on on the p re v iou s i ss ue, t hisi ss ue i s o f no impor tanc e.12 V. T he a ppe llant ha s raised several constitu tiona l challenges to th e jury instructio ns giv en a t the end of the sen ten cing hearing. He first subm its thatit is cons ti tuti onal er ro r to i nst ru ct jur iesthatthey mustag re e unani mousl y i n order to i mp o s e a l i fe s e n t e n c e a n d t h e n t o p ro h i b i tj u r i e s fro m b e i n g t o l d t h e e ffe cto f a non- unani mous v erdict. The arg ument t hat t he j ur y sh oul d be tol d the effectof fai l i ng t o ag ree h as b ee n ad dres s ed a nd rep ea te dl y rej ecte d by

t he S up rem e Court. See State v . Brimm er, 876 S.W .2d 75, 87 (Ten n. 19 94); Sta te v. C azes, 875 S. W .2d 2 53, 2 68 ( Tenn. 1994 ); St ate v . Ke en, s upra, at36; Sta te v . Smi th, 857 SW .2d 1 , 22- 23 ( Tenn. 1993 ); St ate v . Ba rb er , 753 S.W .2d 6 5, 67 0- 71 (Te nn. 198 8).
Th e a p p e l l a n ta rg u e s t h a tre q u i r i n g t h e j u r y t o a g re e u n a n i mo u s l y

t o a l i fe v erdict v iol ated the h old ing s i n M cKoy v . N orth C aroli na, 4 94 U .S. 433, 110 S. Ct
. 1227, 108 L. Ed. 369 ( 1990) , and M il ls v . M ar y lan d, 48 6 U .S. 367, 108 S. Ct
. 186 0, 10 0 L.E d.2 d 38 4 (198 8). Our Supre me Court has rep eat edly rejecte d this a rg u m e n t . Se e S t a t e v. B ri m m e r, 8 7 6 S
. W . 2 d 7 5 , 8 7 (T e n n . 1 9 9 4 ); St a t e v. Thompson, 768 S. W .2d 2 39, 2 52 ( Tenn. 1989 ); St ate v . Ki ng , 718 S.W .2d 241, 249 ( Tenn. 1986 ). Sp eci fical ly , i n Br immer , t he C our t not ed th at M cKoy

and Mill s stand for the p rinciple tha t any requireme nt th at th e jury mustuna nim ously find a miti g ati ng ci rc umstan ce before i t c an be cons ide re d v iol ates the Ei g hth Amendment. H ow ev er , t he req uirement of a u nani mous v erdict doe s n ot v iol ate thos e pr inc ipl es. Br immer , 876 S.W .2d a t 87.
Add itiona lly , the app ellantargues thatthe T enn essee Patte rn Jury Ins tr uct ion s c re ate a reason abl e l ik eli hood t hat j urors a re l ed to bel iev e tha t t hey must unani mousl y

ag re e on the e x is tenc e of any mit ig ati ng factors. The S u p re m e Co u rth a s a ls o re p e a t e d ly reje ct e d t h is a rg u m e n t . Se e St a t e v. B ri m m e r, su p ra ; S t a t e v. Ca ze s , su p ra . Mo re o ve r, t h e t ri a l j u d ge sp e c if ic a ll y ins tr uct ed th e j ur

y i n thi s c ase that "[t] here i s n o req uirement of j ur y unani mity

as13

to a ny p ar ti c ul ar mi ti g at i ng c i rc um s ta nc e, o r t ha t y ou a g ree o n th e s am e mitigating circumsta nce. " It is a well-estab lished rule in T enn essee thata jury is presumed to ha v e foll ow ed th e i nst ru cti ons of the tr ial co urt. Sta te v . Lawson, 695 S. W .2d 2 02, 2 04 ( Tenn. 1985 ).
VI. The appel lan t' s n ext c hal len g e rela tes to the c onst it uti onal ity of Tenness ee'sdeat h penal ty st atute . Spec ific all y , he cont ends that Tenn. C ode Ann. § 39- 13- 204 ( i) (2 ) (S upp. 1995) , t he ag g ra v ati ng factor for p re v iou s v iol ent felony co nv icti ons, does not suffici entl y nar ro w the cl ass of persons el ig ibl e for the d eath penal ty . He arg ues that thi s a g g ra v ati ng factor presumes thatpersons conv icted o f felo nie s w it h v iol ent e lements a re v iol ent, and t hus unfair ly makes aid ers a nd abettors e li g ibl e for capi tal puni shment . The Tenness ee Sup re me C our t recent ly

address ed th is co ncer n and found that the c lea r lan g uag e of the sta tute did not re q uire tha t t hisag g ra v ati ng factor be l imi ted t o c onv icti ons w here the defendant direct ly us ed th re ats or v iol ence ag ain st another person. St ate v . Smi th, 857 S. W .2d 1 , 10 (Tenn. 199 3). "W e are of

the op inion th at th e de gree o f a defend ant 's inv olvemen t in an ag g ra v ated felony

g oes to t he weig ht t he j ur y i s t o g iv e ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ces w hen det er mini ng w hether they outweig h mi ti g ati ng ci rc umstan ces ." Id. M oreov er , t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t hasuphel d a si mil ar prov is ion i n the Georg ia death penal ty st atute . Zantv . St ephens , 462 U.S. 86 2, 10 3 S.Ct. 2 733 , 274 4, 77 L.Ed .2d 235 (1983 ). The re a defend ant 's pr ior record of conv icti on for a c api tal felony was hel d to be a v ali d ag g ra v ati ng factor and to effecti v ely

nar ro w the eli g ibl e c las s. Id. Ad dit ion all y , we poi nt ou t that our Supreme C our

t hasco nsi ste ntl y

uphel d, i n g eneral, the cons ti tuti onal ity of Tennessee 's deat h penal ty st atute under

both st ate a nd federal cons ti tuti ons. Stat e v . H ar ri s, 839 S. W .2d 5 4, 76 ( Tenn. 1992 ); Sta te v . N ic hol s, 877 S. W .2d a t 737.14 The appel lan t al so attac ks Tenness ee'sdeat h penal ty st atute as uncon sti tuti onal on t he g ro und t hat i t i s i mposed in an ar bit ra ry and capr ic iou s manner . Ini ti all y , he ass erts that unl imi ted d is creti on i s v est ed i n the prosec utor as to w hether

or not to s eek the d eath penal ty . In S tate v . C az es, su pra, ou r Supreme C our

t di re ctl y address ed th e i ss ue of prosec utor ial di sc re ti on, fin din g that no c onst it uti onal probl ems resul t from the mere oppor tuni ty for d is creti on. T h e co u rtci t e d a n d a p p li e d t h e Un it e d S t a t e s S u p re m e Co u rtca s e o f G re gg v. Geo rg ia, 42 8 U.S. 15 3, 19 9, 96 S.Ct. 29 09, 293 7, 49 L.E.2 d 85 9 (197 6), "in w hic h the C our

t hel d tha t opp ortuni ti es for di sc re ti onar y acti on oc cur ri ng dur ing the p ro ces si ng of a murder ca se, i ncl udi ng the author ity of the s tate prosec utor to s ele ct thos e persons for w hom he w is hes to s eek capi tal puni shmentdo n ot re nder the death penal ty

unc onst it uti onal on t he th eor y thatthe oppor

tuni ti es for dis creti onar

y acti on render

i mposi ti on of the death penal ty ar bit ra ry or freak is h."
He next poi nts to the d is propor ti onate infli cti on of cap it al puni shmenton the b asi s o f geo g ra phy , ec onomicst atus and g ender . The Stat e respon ds that the se allegation s are base d on statistics and studie s w hich w ere no t place d in the record and that thi s c our t may not tak e j udi ci al noti ce of those document s. A p p e ll a t e co u rt s m a y o n ly re vie w wha tis in t h e re c o rd a n d n o twh a tm ig h th a ve been or sh oul d hav e been inc lud ed. Dea rb or ne v . St ate, 575 S. W .2d 2 59, 2 64 (Te nn. 197 8). In relevant part, Te nn. R. App. P. 13(c) limits conside ration bythis Court to " tho se facts est ablishe d by the evi den ce in the trial court and set forth in the record and any

addi ti onal facts thatmay be j udi ci all y

noti ced. . . . " Asi de from the impropr iety

of appel lat e c onsi derati on of mater ial s n ot i ntroduce d at tr ial , t he Tennes see Supreme C our t hassu mmari ly

di smi ss ed c lai ms reg ardin g econo mic , g ender

and g eog ra phi c d is cr imi nati on i n the i mposi ti on of the death penal ty . C az es, 875 S.W .2d a t 268 ; acc ord Br immer , 876 S.W .2d a t 87, St at e v . Tho mp s on , N o. 0 2C 01 - 93 08 - C R - 00 19 5, S l i p Op
. at1 7, 1 8 ( Ten n. C r i m. App . filed March 9, 199 4).15 VII. The De fendant's next arg ument i s t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d by fail ing to instruct th e jury

regarding mitigating circumsta nces raised bythe evidence . He re fers spec ific all y

to the mi ti g ati ng factor se t fort h at Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 13- 204 ( j) (8 )( Supp.1 995) , i .e., that"[t]he c apaci ty of the d efendant toappreci ate t he w rongf ulne ss of

the de fend ant 's condu ct or to conform th e de fend ant 's condu ct to t he req uirements of the l aw was subs tanti all y

i mpaired as a resul t of mental dis ease or

defect or

i ntox ic ati on w hic h was ins uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h a d efense to the c ri me but w hic h s ubst anti all y affect ed th e defendant' s j udg ment." The tr ial jud g e dec li ned t o i nst ru ct the j ur y on t hisfactor

bec ause he di d notfind t hat there was suffici ent p ro of to s how i ts appl ic abi li ty . He sta ted t hat h e "di d notse e any proof of that w hats oev er before thi s j ur

y ." Indeed, the onl y

per ti nent tes ti mony

thatco uld pos si bly

rais e the i ss ue of the appl ic abi li ty of that factor

was the t est imony

of the v icti m, M r. M il li g an, t hat w hen t he appe ll ant c ame to the door , he had red eyes and l ooked l ik e he had bee n dr ink ing , and tes ti mony from a pol ic e det ect iv e tha t t hree hours a fter t he c ri me, th at w hen he saw the appel lan t, he c oul d s mell al cohol but the a ppel lan t "di d notse em l ik e he w as ov er ly i ntox ic ated or

so forth ."
In i nter preti ng the lan g uag e of Tenn. C ode An n. § 39-13 -204 (e) ( 199 5), the Supre me Court had state d tha t it is the trial j udge's du ty to de term ine w hich of the mi ti g ati ng ci rc umstan ces hav e been ra is ed by the ev ide nce and t hus shoul d be submi tted to t he j ur y for d eter minat ion . Stat e v . Bu ck , 670 S.W .2d 600, 608 ( Tenn. 1984 ). An d, t he "mi ti g ati ng ci rc umstan ces w hic h [are] no t ra is ed by the ev ide nce shoul d not[ be] ment ion ed i n the ch arg e." A cc ord S tate v . C az es, su pra, 87 5 S. W . at267.
In Sta te v. Bri mm er, supra , 876 S.W .2d at 82, our Sup reme Court uph eld the trial court's decision n ot to instruct the jury as to this sam e stat uto ry mitigator, § 39-13 -204 (j)( 8), or § 39- 13- 204( j) (2 ), thatthe murde r w as commi tted w hil e the16

defendant was under

the influ ence of extreme mental or emoti onal di stu rb ance. Th e re , e v e n t h o u g h t h e d e fe n d a n t ' s e v i d e n c e c o n s i s t e d o f t h e t e s t i mo n y o f a psy chol og is t t hat t he defendant w as ang ry , i mpuls iv e, an d prone t o out burstsas a resul t of a pe rs onal ity di sorder , t he tr ial j udg e found thi s was a c ommon dis order and absen t proof of causat ion , no spec ial j ur y i nst ru cti on was w ar ra nted.
In t hisca se, the li mite d ev ide nce that the a ppel lan t may have c onsumed som e alcoh ol is not evidence thathe w as into x icated to such a degree tha t his capa city to app reciate the wrongf ulne ss of his condu ct or conform h is condu ct to th e law

was imp aired. Such m itigating facts an d circumst ance s were simp ly not rais ed by

the ev ide nce, and, therefore, the t ri al jud g e di d not er r in charg ing the jury as to the mitigating fa ctors.
VII. In th e ap pellan t's f inal issue, he con ten ds tha t the trial court erred in charg ing the jur

y first w it h the i ndi cte d offense, obv iou sl y the most sev ere, an d proce edin g in desce ndin g orde r of sev erityend ing w ith the least severe lesserinc lud ed offense. He arg ues that the s eq uence al lowed th e j ur y to re tur n a ve rd ic to f

f irs td e gre e m u rd e r e ve n if t h e y m a d e f in d in gs t h a tsh o u ld h a ve re sul ted i n a l ess er

deg re e of murd er . This C our t recent ly

reje cte d thi s a rg ument in Stat e v . Ruthe rford, 87 6 S.W .2d 118 , 119 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 93); where it w as hel d tha t "( t) he s eq uenti al jur y i nst ru cti on di d notprecl ude t he j ur y from cons ide ri ng the les ser

c harg es. " This C our

t al so poi nted out t hat t he "T enn essee Patte rn Jury Instructio n 41 .01 sugg ests th e type of sequent ial jury ins tr uct ion thatwas g iv en by the jud g e." Id. This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.
CO NC LU SION W e hav e c arefull y

co nsi dered th e defendant' s c ontent ion s a s t o the all eg ed er ro rsoc cur ri ng dur ing the g uil t and se ntenc ing phas es and c oncl ude17

that the d efendant'sco nv icti on of first- deg re e murder mustbe a ff ir med. H o w e v e r , t h e s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h i s s e ta s i d e a n d t h e p u n i s h me n ti s fi x e d a tl i fe impr is onment. The ju dg ment i s a ff ir med, exceptas modi fied herein .

_________

_________

_________

___ JER RY SC OTT, PR ESID IN G J UD GE CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

_______ JOH N H. PEA

Y , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

_______ JOH N P. C OLTON , SP EC IAL JU DG E