Opinion ID: 1580541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: impeachment of mitigation witnesses

Text: During the penalty phase, Sims presented mitigation testimony from five family members. His mother testified that Sims worked continually, was married with two children, and enjoyed spending time with his family. She also testified that Sims never got into trouble until he was a teenager. Mrs. Sims then related what she had heard about the shooting incident at the high school leading to Sims's convictions for aggravated assault. In her version, another passenger in the vehicle tossed the gun to Sims and it then fired accidentally. The State questioned her further on cross-examination regarding that shooting incident. Sims's father testified that Sims was a good child, was not disrespectful of his parents, was not involved in many fights growing up, and was not an aggressive person. Sims was teased because he was small, so Sims's father tried to teach him to fight back instead of running to his older brother. Sims's father testified that Sims started defending himself when he was released from jail. He then described an incident in which Sims intervened in an altercation on behalf of his brother and was shot. Sims's father also corroborated Sims's mother's testimony that Sims was always working or spending time with family. Before the State's cross-examination of Sims's father, the trial court conducted a bench conference. The trial court consequently allowed the State to impeach the character evidence offered during the father's testimony by asking if he knew about Sims's prior convictions for theft, aggravated assault, and aggravated burglary. The State also cross-examined Sims's brother and two aunts using the prior convictions to impeach their mitigating testimony. The prior convictions were a theme of the prosecutor's closing argument. The prosecutor pointed out the progression of Sims's crimes, telling the jury that it was Sims's graduation day. Sims argues that the testimony presented by his mitigation witnesses was not character evidence subject to the impeachment allowed by the trial court in this case. Alternatively, Sims maintains that the evidence was limited to his childhood character so that the prior convictions were not relevant impeachment. He further argues that the trial court erred by failing to weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. The admissibility of evidence during a first degree murder sentencing phase is governed primarily by Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(c), which at the time of Sims's trial stated: In the sentencing proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the punishment and may include, but not be limited to, the nature and circumstances of the crime; the defendant's character, background history, and physical condition; any evidence tending to establish or rebut the aggravating circumstances enumerated in subsection (i); and any evidence tending to establish or rebut any mitigating factors. Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value on the issue of punishment may be received regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence; provided, that the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements so admitted. However, this subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the constitution of the United States or the constitution of Tennessee. Sims's arguments are taken from Tenn.R.Evid. 405. Upon application to the trial court, this rule allows inquiry on cross-examination into specific instances of conduct relating to character. Tenn.R.Evid. 405. Before the specific instances of conduct may be admitted, however, the trial court must conduct a hearing outside of the jury's presence to determine that a reasonable factual basis exists for the inquiry. Id. The court must also conclude that the probative value of a specific instance of conduct on the character witness's credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect on substantive issues. Id. Our initial inquiry is whether § 39-13-204(c) precludes application of Tenn.R.Evid. 405 during the penalty phase of a first degree murder trial. This Court has said, This statute expressly exempts evidence adduced in capital sentencing proceedings from the usual evidentiary rules. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 28 (Tenn.1996); see also Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257, 271 (Tenn.1999) (rules of evidence do not limit the admissibility of evidence at capital sentencing). This Court has refrained, however, from holding that all evidence related to punishment is admissible without further inquiry. In Cozzolino v. State, 584 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Tenn.1979), we stated, [E]vidence is relevant to the punishment, and thus admissible, only if it is relevant to an aggravating circumstance, or to a mitigating factor raised by the defendant. We have gone on to hold, however, that evidence regarding the nature and circumstances of the crime or relating to the defendant's character and background is admissible regardless of its relevance to any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872, 890 (Tenn.1998). This conclusion is necessary to meet the constitutional requirement that sentencing be conducted in an individualized manner. Id. When addressing the admissibility of victim impact evidence, this Court has applied Tenn.R.Evid. 403 to restrict testimony by requiring that evidence whose probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect should be excluded. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d at 890; State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788, 813 (Tenn.2000); State v. Burns, 979 S.W.2d 276, 282 (Tenn.1998). Also, in State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn.1997), this Court cited Tenn.R.Evid. 103 in support of its position that the exclusion of certain mitigating evidence during sentencing was proper because no proffer was made. More closely related to this case, we have looked to Tenn.R.Evid. 404(b) in holding that evidence of the defendant's prior assault conviction was admissible to rebut evidence that the defendant was a docile person. State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 732 (Tenn.1994). These cases lead us to conclude that, in general, § 39-13-204(c) should be interpreted to allow trial judges wider discretion than would normally be allowed under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence in ruling on the admissibility of evidence at a capital sentencing hearing. The Rules of Evidence should not be applied to preclude introduction of otherwise reliable evidence that is relevant to the issue of punishment, as it relates to mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the nature and circumstances of the particular crime, or the character and background of the individual defendant. As our case history reveals, however, the discretion allowed judges and attorneys during sentencing in first degree murder cases is not unfettered. Our constitutional standards require inquiry into the reliability, relevance, value, and prejudicial effect of sentencing evidence to preserve fundamental fairness and protect the rights of both the defendant and the victim's family. The rules of evidence can in some instances be helpful guides in reaching these determinations of admissibility. Trial judges are not, however, required to adhere strictly to the rules of evidence. These rules are too restrictive and unwieldy in the arena of capital sentencing. In the current case, we hold that the trial judge was not required to strictly follow the Tennessee Rules of Evidence in determining whether the State should be allowed to question the defense's mitigation witnesses regarding Sims's prior convictions. The issue is not whether the testimony of Sims's father was character evidence under Tenn.R.Evid. 404 and 405. The focus should have been on the relevance of Sims's father's testimony to the mitigating factors presented by the defendant and on the relevance of Sims's prior convictions to refute those mitigating circumstances. One of the points raised in the testimony of both Sims's father and brother on direct examination was that Sims was not by nature an aggressive person and instead had to be encouraged by his family to defend himself. As indicated in Nichols, 877 S.W.2d at 732, and in State v. Moore, 614 S.W.2d 348, 352 (Tenn.1981), prior convictions may be admissible to rebut this type of mitigating evidence related to the defendant's general character as a non-violent person. Even when the prior crimes do not endanger other persons, evidence of serious prior criminal activity may be admitted to contradict the defense's assertion that the defendant has no violent tendencies. Moore, 614 S.W.2d at 352. Sims's prior convictions were therefore relevant to rebut the mitigating testimony that Sims was not an aggressive person. First, however, the trial judge should have determined whether the probative value of the prior convictions outweighed any prejudicial effect. See Nichols, 877 S.W.2d at 732. This weighing process is imperative when evidence proffered by the State has the potential to inflame the jury or interject arbitrary, non-statutory aggravating circumstances into the sentencing process. Based upon our independent review, we hold that any error on the part of the trial judge in failing to follow this procedure was harmless. Evidence of Sims's two 1991 aggravated assault convictions was already in evidence, properly argued by the State, and appropriately considered by the jury under the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance. The State did not ask specific questions regarding the underlying facts of the theft and aggravated burglary convictions. Any prejudicial effect in the jury's consideration of the prior convictions was outweighed by its probative value. Finally, a proper limiting instruction should normally be given before allowing the jury to consider evidence of prior convictions. See Nichols, 877 S.W.2d at 732. The limiting instruction in this case would have informed the jury that the prior convictions could be considered solely for the purpose of rebutting the mitigating testimony related to Sims's character as a non-aggressive person. Such an instruction would have decreased the danger of inserting a non-statutory aggravating circumstance into the jury's deliberations. Sims did not, however, request a limiting instruction. We conclude that the failure to grant sua sponte a limiting instruction in this case did not amount to fundamental or prejudicial error. See State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 255 (Tenn.1993) (reversal should be limited to those exceptional cases in which the impeaching testimony is extremely damaging, the need for a limiting instruction is apparent, and the failure to give it results in substantial prejudice to the rights of the accused.).