Opinion ID: 1528630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: errors in the penalty phase

Text: The Defendant objects to several aspects of the jury charge given at the close of the penalty phase. The State responds that the Defendant has waived any objection to these complaints by failing to make a contemporaneous objection and failing to raise the issue in his motion for a new trial. The State further maintains that no error occurred. The Defendant submits that the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury in conformity to the new statute was a fundamental error which should be recognized in the context of a death penalty case, despite the fact that there was no objection or special request. The State maintains that if there was error, it was not of a constitutional nature and further did not constitute fundamental error. Similar arguments were made by the State in State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d 75 (Tenn. 1994) and State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1994). In Brimmer, we held that [u]nder these circumstances we exercise our discretion to review this issue in order to insure substantial justice is done. See Tenn. R.Crim.P. 52(b). 876 S.W.2d at 82.