Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 37

Heading: whether the state's death penalty statute is constitutional.

Text: The appellant raises several constitutional objections to the Tennessee death penalty statute. Specifically, the appellant contends that the death penalty statute is unconstitutional in that: (a) it provides insufficient guidance to the jury concerning who has the burden of proving whether mitigation outweighs aggravation and what standard the jury should use in making that determination; (b) it fails to sufficiently narrow the class of death penalty eligible defendants; (c) it insufficiently limits the jury's discretion in that once it finds an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, it can impose death, regardless of what mitigation is shown; (d) it requires that if the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, it must impose death; (e) it allows the jury to afford too little weight to non-statutory mitigating factors. The statute requires that the jury consider any mitigating circumstances; (f) it does not require the jury to make the ultimate determination that death is appropriate in that it is merely filling in the blanks in determining and comparing mitigating and aggravating circumstances.; (g) it does not inform the jury of its ability to impose mercy; (h) it provides no requirement that the jury make findings of fact as to the presence or absence of mitigating circumstances, thereby preventing effective appellate review; (i) it prohibits the jury from being informed of the consequences of its failure to reach a unanimous verdict in the penalty phase of the trial; (j) it allows the imposition of a cruel and unusual punishment and in that it allows death to be imposed by electrocution; (k) it has been imposed discriminately on the basis of race, sex, geographic region, and economic and political status of the defendant; ( l ) the proportionality of arbitrariness review conducted by the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-205 is inadequate and deficient; (m) it permits the introduction of relatively unreliable evidence in the State's proof of aggravating circumstances and in its rebuttal of mitigating circumstances; (n) it allows the State to make final closing arguments to the jury in the penalty phase of the trial; All of the appellant's arguments except (g) have been rejected by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 268-269 (Tenn. 1994);. State v. Smith, 857 S.W.2d 1, 16-17, 23 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 185, 187 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Boyd, 797 S.W.2d 589, 596 (Tenn. 1990); State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 366, 368 (Tenn. 1982); State v. Groseclose, 615 S.W.2d 142, 150 (Tenn. 1981). With respect to the argument in (g), in consideration of the jury instructions given in a capital case, we find this issue to be without merit.