Opinion ID: 1060373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: Refusal to Instruct Jury Regarding Parole Eligibility

Text: During jury deliberation, the jury submitted a question to the court asking how long is a life sentence and if there is any possibility of parole. After consulting with both the State and defense counsel, the trial judge explained to the jury that, once a jury starts its deliberations, the trial judge is extremely limited on his involvement. . . . The judge continued that he was not at liberty to respond to their question and that the law to be applied had already been charged. The jury resumed deliberations at 9:35 a.m. and returned a verdict of death at 1:50 p.m. The Appellant now complains that, under the authority of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), the trial court's failure to answer the jury's question violated virtually every constitutional right belonging to a capital defendant. As advanced by the State, our supreme court reviewed and rejected this very same argument under almost identical circumstances in State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489, 503 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 953, 118 S.Ct. 376, 139 L.Ed.2d 293 (1997). In State v. Bush , the jury sent a note to the court fifteen minutes after deliberations began asking, How many years does the [defendant] serve if he gets life imprisonment and how long before parole? The trial court instructed the jury, parole eligibility is not an issue in a capital case. . . . In approving the trial court's response, our supreme court noted that, in Simmons, the Supreme Court held that due process only required an instruction that the defendant is parole ineligible where the defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits the defendant's release on parole. Bush, 942 S.W.2d at 503 (citing Simmons, 512 U.S. at 155-156, 114 S.Ct. at 2190). The Supreme Court added that the Court would not second-guess the refusal of a State to allow proof, instruction, or argument to the jury on the availability of parole [i]f parole is an option for a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment. Bush, 942 S.W.2d at 503 (citing Simmons, 512 U.S. at 168-169, 114 S.Ct. at 2196; see also Simmons, 512 U.S. at 175-177, 114 S.Ct. at 2200 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (parenthetical omitted)). Under the reasoning provided in Simmons, our supreme court held that [s]ince Tennessee is a state in which defendants sentenced to life imprisonment are eligible for parole, Simmons does not require that the jury be given information about parole availability. Bush, 942 S.W.2d at 503. This position is supported by other decisions of the court holding that the after-effect of a jury's verdict, such as parole availability, is not a proper instruction or consideration for the jury during deliberations. [11] Bush, 942 S.W.2d at 503 (citing [ State v. ] Caughron, 855 S.W.2d [526] at 543 [(Tenn.1993)]; State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 21 (Tenn.1990), aff'd by, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) (internal footnote omitted)). This issue is without merit.