Opinion ID: 1566486
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discussion of Remaining Issues

Text: Petitioner's assignment of error asserting that the evidence preponderates in favor of the defendant's innocence and against his guilt is overruled. The result of our holding today is to strike substantial portions of the evidence. Other parts are left intact. In view of the remand, we do not consider it necessary, appropriate, or proper for us to make extended comment on the evidence. Suffice it to say, we do not reverse for insufficiency and a retrial is not forbidden. Petitioner charges the Court with error in receiving evidence concerning the loss of money in Robin Shanks' account from the apparent misuse of a bank card. This testimony went to motive and was properly admitted. Petitioner insists that the defendant in a capital case is entitled to notice of the aggravating circumstances the State will attempt to prove at the sentencing hearing. Section 39-2404(i), T.C.A. (1979 Supp.), enumerates eleven circumstances to which the proof shall be limited. All of these, except for (i)(2) relating to prior convictions, inhere in the record and are explicitly demonstrated by the proof required on the first hearing. The defendant is put on notice by the statute of the precise aggravating circumstances which will be used against him. Further notice need not be incorporated in the indictment nor otherwise given. We find no controlling authority for the conclusion we reach. In Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582 (5th Cir.1978), the Fifth Circuit declined to decide the precise issue of whether the indictment must allege aggravating circumstances, holding instead that failure to object at trial to the indictment constituted a waiver and operated to foreclose the issue. [1] However, an extension for a stay of execution was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States and the issue of notice incorporated in the indictment or some sort of formal notice was raised. In denying the stay, Justice Rehnquist, in his role as surrogate for the entire Court, stated that he did not believe that four Members of this Court would find that claim either factually or legally sufficient to persuade them to vote to grant certiorari... . Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 442 U.S. 1301, 1306, 99 S.Ct. 2091, 2094, 60 L.Ed.2d 649, 653-54 (1979). We reject petitioner's argument and hold that a defendant in a capital case is not entitled to any form of notice as to the nature of the aggravating circumstances to be presented to the jury at the sentencing hearing. Notwithstanding this holding, it is better practice for the State, well in advance of trial, to give formal notice of the aggravating circumstances upon which it intends to rely. Until this question is more fully developed in the courts, such notice is prudent. Appellant insists that a search of his Nashville apartment was unlawful and void and the evidence procured thereby should have been excluded. This insistence has been discussed and debated in conference and has been considered fully by the Court. The majority is of the opinion that these assignments are without merit. [2]