Opinion ID: 1659535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Argument Death Penalty Deterrence

Text: The next issue raised by the defendant is whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion, prior to the sentencing phase, to prohibit the State from arguing to the jury the deterrent effect of the death penalty. In overruling the motion, the trial judge indicated that she would allow argument on specific deterrence, i.e., deterrence of the defendant, as opposed to general deterrence, since the defendant had put on proof that, if properly medicated, he would function well under a life sentence. The defendant contends that since defense counsel cannot argue that the death penalty has no deterrent effect under this Court's holding in State v. Johnson, 632 S.W.2d 542, 547-48 (Tenn. 1982), then the State should not be allowed to argue that the death penalty does have a deterrent effect. This argument is completely without merit. We are unable to find, and counsel for the defendant has not pointed out, anywhere in the State's argument to the jury a reference to either the specific or general deterrent effect of the death penalty.