Opinion ID: 1058543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: testimony of dr. levy and autopsy photographs at penalty phase

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Levy to testify during the penalty phase of the trial and by allowing the introduction of autopsy photographs during Dr. Levy's testimony. The defendant argues that Dr. Levy's testimony and the photographs should have been excluded pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403, as the evidence was cumulative and unfairly prejudicial. In this respect, he asserts that the testimony had little probative value at the penalty phase because Dr. Levy's penalty phase testimony basically echoed his previous testimony. The state responds that the testimony of Dr. Levy and the autopsy photographs were needed at the penalty phase to prove the existence of the aggravating circumstance that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that [they] involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5). In his testimony, Dr. Levy described the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the victims before their respective deaths. This testimony was relevant and highly probative of the existence of torture and serious physical abuse, necessary elements of the especially heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance. As the state asserts, although the autopsy photographs may have been unpleasant, they were illustrative of Dr. Levy's testimony and highly relevant to the extent of abuse endured by the victims. Moreover, in a capital sentencing hearing, evidence that has probative value on the issue of punishment may be received regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(c); see State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 602 (Tenn.1999), cert. denied 531 U.S. 837, 121 S.Ct. 98, 148 L.Ed.2d 57 (2000) (holding that autopsy photographs were admissible in a capital sentencing hearing under the sentencing statute notwithstanding Rules 401 and 403 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Dr. Levy to testify at the sentencing hearing or in allowing the introduction of the autopsy photographs.