Opinion ID: 1426382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: request for modified tennessee pattern jury instruction

Text: The defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to give the no-adverse-inference instruction at the penalty phase of the trial as he requested. The no-adverse-inference instruction is located at Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction 43.03 and reads as follows: The defendant has not taken the stand to testify as a witness but you shall place no significance on this fact. The defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not required to take the stand in his own behalf and his election not to do so cannot be considered for any purpose against him, nor can any inference be drawn from such fact. Tenn. Pattern InstructionsCriminal 43.03 (3d ed.1992). This Court has previously held that a trial court's failure to give a no-adverse-inference instruction, where the defendant has not requested the instruction, is not error. See State v. Porterfield, 746 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn.1988); Rowan v. State, 212 Tenn. 224, 369 S.W.2d 543 (1962). We have not, however, addressed the issue as currently before us: whether a defendant has a constitutional right to a no-adverse-inference instruction at the penalty phase of a trial, when properly requested. Since this is an issue of first impression in Tennessee, we look to other cases for guidance. In Carter v. Kentucky , the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a defendant has a constitutional right to a no-adverse-inference instruction in the guilt phase of a bifurcated trial. 450 U.S. 288, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981). In Carter , the defendant chose not to testify during the guilt phase of the trial. Id. at 293, 101 S.Ct. 1112. Before closing arguments, the defendant requested, and the trial court refused to give, a no-adverse-inference instruction. Id. at 294, 101 S.Ct. 1112. The Supreme Court concluded that a trial court is required to give a no-adverse-inference instruction during the guilt phase of a trial when requested by the defendant. See id. at 300, 101 S.Ct. 1112. The Court noted further that the instruction on the presumption of innocence does not eliminate the need for the no-adverse-inference instruction where requested. See id. at 304, 101 S.Ct. 1112. In Finney v. Rothgerber, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the no-adverse-inference instruction was required at the second phase of a bifurcated trial. 751 F.2d 858 (6th Cir.1984). In that case, the defendant, who was free on bail, failed to return to the court room after lunch. Id. at 859. Since opening statements had already been made and the defendant was aware of the time court was to resume, the trial court proceeded without the defendant. Id. at 859-60. Although defense counsel made the request, the trial court refused to instruct the jury that [t]he defendant is not compelled to testify and the fact that he does not, cannot be used as an inference of guilt and should not prejudice him in any way. Id. at 860. The Sixth Circuit held: The due process clause requires a trial court, if requested, to instruct the jury during the enhancement portion of a bifurcated trial of one charged as a persistent felony offender that no adverse inference may be drawn from defendant's failure to testify. This requirement applies regardless of whether the defendant has testified during the trial of the underlying substantive offense. Id. at 863-64. The court went on to hold that due to the overwhelming evidence at the second phase of the trial, including the defendant's failure to return to court, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 865. In the present case, a no-adverse-inference instruction was given during the guilt phase of the trial. The defendant requested that the instruction also be given during the penalty phase of the trial, but the trial court refused. In this case, the trial court gave the following instruction at the penalty phase: The burden of proof is upon the state to prove any statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in this case. See Tenn. Pattern Instructions-Criminal 7.04 (3d ed.1992). The United States Supreme Court has established that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a no-adverse-inference instruction during the guilt phase of a trial when properly requested. See Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. at 300, 101 S.Ct. 1112. We believe that the right against self-incrimination is so fundamental that this right should be protected at all stages of the criminal process. We therefore agree with the United States Supreme Court in that [w]e can discern no basis to distinguish between the guilt and penalty phases of [a] capital murder trial so far as the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege is concerned. See Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 462-63, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). Accordingly, we hold that in Tennessee a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a no-adverse-inference instruction, when properly requested, at both the guilt and the penalty phase of the criminal trial. Because this case is being remanded for re-sentencing on other grounds, there is no need to decide whether the error in this case was harmless error.