Opinion ID: 1058311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Failure to Instruct Jury on Catchall Mitigating Provision

Text: The defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the catch-all mitigating circumstance set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(j)(9). This statute allows the jury to consider [a]ny other mitigating factor which is raised by the evidence produced by either the prosecution or defense at either the guilt or sentencing hearing. Id. The State responds that the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals properly held that the issue was waived because the defendant did not object or include the issue in the motion for new trial. The record shows that the trial court instructed the jury on numerous statutory and non-statutory mitigating circumstances. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(j). The non-statutory mitigating circumstances charged to the jury included the defendant's history of childhood, mental illness or emotional disturbance, and brain injury or damage. Although the defendant correctly asserts that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the catch-all provision noted above, the transcript shows that the trial court gave the following instruction: Tennessee law provides that in arriving at the punishment, the jury shall consider as previously indicated, any mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence in the guilt-finding phase, the sentencing phase, or both, which shall include, but are not limited to, the following: [specific statutory and non-statutory mitigating circumstances]. No distinction shall be made between the mitigating circumstances listed and those otherwise raised by the evidence. The defendant did not object to the instructions, nor did the defendant include this issue in his motion for a new trial. Although a trial court must instruct the jury on the statutory mitigating catch-all provision, the omission in this case was not plain error. The trial court instructed the jury on statutory and non-statutory mitigating circumstances that could be considered. The trial court also instructed the jury that mitigating circumstances were not limited to the specific statutory and non-statutory factors. In sum, the trial court's instructions as a whole encompassed the statutory catch-all provision and informed the jury that it could consider any mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence in the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. Accordingly, the trial court's failure to instruct on the statutory mitigating catch-all provision did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant and was not plain error. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(b).