Opinion ID: 1044041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Third Sentencing Hearing

Text: At the third sentencing hearing, the State offered proof that at approximately 1:15 p.m. on the date of her murder, the victim, a seventy-eight-year-old woman, left the residence of her sister, Mary Louise Long, [2] for an appointment with Dr. Stanley Zellner, a podiatrist. When the victim had not returned by 4:30 p.m., Ms. Long called Dr. Zellner, who informed her that the victim had failed to attend her scheduled appointment. Ms. Long first telephoned the police department to report the victim's disappearance and then contacted John Sullivan, a long-time acquaintance, who agreed to help look for the victim. The two traced the route the victim had to drive and found her car in a parking garage. When Sullivan approached the vehicle, he observed the body of the victim on the floor of the backseat. After returning to the car, he did not inform Ms. Long what he had seen, explaining that she was a very nervous, high strung person. As he drove out of the parking garage, Sullivan encountered a police car parked on a nearby street and told the officer where he could find the body. Sullivan then drove Ms. Long to her residence before returning to the crime scene to provide the police with a statement. Donna Michelle Locastro, who was employed by the Memphis Police Department at the time of the murder, had taken Ms. Long's missing person's call prior to the discovery of the body. She and her partner, Don Crowe, first called the local hospitals, the city wrecker dispatch, and the traffic bureau before setting out on the route the victim would have driven to her appointment. The officers arrived at the parking garage at approximately 8:00 p.m., shortly after Sullivan had discovered the body. When Officer Locastro looked inside the vehicle, she noticed what appeared to be blood on the right front passenger's seat and a wallet wedged between the emergency break and the driver's seat. She also saw that the victim was clutching what appeared to be a check in her left hand. She and other officers secured the area and contacted the homicide unit. Detective Ronnie McWilliams, who was assigned to the case on the day after the murder, testified that a fingerprint found in the vehicle led to the identification of Otis Smith as a potential suspect. Three days after the murder, Smith was arrested. He had in his possession an Old Timer's Light Blade Knife, which had a fold-out blade of over four inches. During the arrest, Detective McWilliams informed Smith of his rights. When he signed a waiver, however, Detective McWilliams observed that Smith had started to sign another name. Later, when his true identity was established, Smith signed a second waiver under the name Richard Odom. In a written statement to the police, the Defendant, thirty years old at the time and unemployed, admitted killing the victim and provided details of the crime. He stated that just before the murder, he was in the stairwell trying to relax. When another individual entered the stairway, he entered the garage area at the same time the victim arrived. Claiming that he intended only to steal her purse so he could get something to eat and catch a nap, he told officers that when he ran over to grab her purse, he somehow grabbed her arm or hand or whatever and we kind of fell back into the car. He stated that he always kept his knife open because of potential danger in the area and that somehow or another, while [p]ushing the lady off of me and over the back seat . . . [,] I managed to . . . cut her, I guess. The Defendant also told the police that when [t]he lady called me, son, . . . I told her, I would give her a son [and] I went to the back . . . seat with her. I don't know if I stabbed her when I got in the back seat with her or when I got back in the front seat. The Defendant admitted that he raped the victim and insisted that she was still alive at the time, claiming that she remarked that she had never had sex before. He told police that he could not remember whether he had stabbed the victim again after the rape. The Defendant acknowledged searching the victim's purse and wallet, but claimed that he found nothing of value and left the items in the car. While admitting that he took the victim's car keys, he stated that he threw them away as he left the parking garage. At the conclusion of his interrogation, the Defendant remarked, I need help mentally and psychologically, something I can't express just freely and openly. Dr. Jerry Thomas Francisco, the Shelby County Medical Examiner at the time of the murder, conducted the autopsy. He found a stab wound at the front of the victim's chest and two on the right side of her body towards the back. He also observed cuts on the victim's right hand, which he described as defensive wounds. The knife wound to the front of her chest passed into the right side of the heart, causing two tears which, in turn, caused blood to accumulate in the heart cavity and the left side of her chest. A wound near the side penetrated her chest cavity and produced a tear in the lung, which caused bleeding in the lung cavity. The other wound to the side passed through her abdominal cavity into the liver, which produced bleeding in the peritoneal cavity. Dr. Francisco, who determined that the victim was 5 feet 6 inches in height and weighed 113 pounds, characterized each of the three wounds as lethal. In his opinion, the victim died between one and two hours after the wounds were inflicted. During his examination of the body, Dr. Francisco also discovered a tear of the vagina, a wound he described as caused by forcible penetration. Fluid samples from the victim's vaginal area [r]evealed the presence of sperm and enzymes that are present in seminal fluid. It was Dr. Francisco's opinion that the vaginal injuries were likely the product of forcible rape. The proof also established that the Defendant had been convicted of murder in Rankin County, Mississippi in 1998, seven years after the victim's murder. The 1998 conviction was for a murder that had occurred some twenty years earlier. The Defendant was sentenced to a term of life. At the request of defense counsel, the judgment of conviction was admitted as an exhibit so that the jury would understand that there was a detainer in Mississippi waiting on [the Defendant] no matter what happens in this case. [3] The defense counsel, in an effort to persuade the jury to spare the Defendant's life, called Glori Shettles, an investigator who was qualified as an expert in the field of mitigation, and several other witnesses to testify. Because Ms. Shettles had previously worked for the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, she also qualified as an expert in parole procedure and policies. She testified that her background study indicated that the Defendant, who had one older and one younger sister, was born in 1960 to Norman and Nellie Smith, who were twenty and seventeen years old respectively. Ms. Shettles described his home life as unstable and testified that his mother abandoned the family before the Defendant was two-and-a-half years old. The Defendant never saw his birth mother again. [4] After the Defendant and his sisters were sometimes left at a daycare center for days, the State intervened and the Defendant and his two sisters were adopted by members of the Odom family. The Defendant was adopted by Jimmy and Shirley Odom, who had three biological children at the time: Cindy, Jimmy Jr., and Larry, ranging in ages from two to seven. When the Defendant, at age three, joined the Odom family, he had cigarette burns on his body. Burns on his feet were so severe that he was unable to wear socks and shoes. About a year after adopting the Defendant, the Odoms divorced, and his adoptive mother married Marvin Bruce, who allegedly mistreated the Defendant and his brother Larry. [5] According to Ms. Shettles, Bruce used excessive discipline on both boys and ridiculed the Defendant for wetting the bed by hanging his sheets and clothes outside for others to see. Ms. Shettles also learned that when the Defendant and Larry were bathing, Bruce would would scrub them excessively . . . would pull and tug on their penis [and] call them names and make fun of them. Her investigation indicated the Defendant had also endured cruelty at the hands of Shirley Odom's mother, who never accepted the Defendant as part of the family and treated him differently from her biological grandchildren; no one Ms. Shettles interviewed [had] the impression that [Shirley Odom's mother] cared anything for the Defendant. The Defendant, when an adolescent, ran away from the Bruce home and subsequently was ordered into the Mississippi juvenile court system. A psychological evaluation performed for the authorities there when the Defendant was fourteen years old indicated that he suffered from impaired insight, memory, and reasoning. He was diagnosed as having a moderate to severe personality disturbance. The evaluator determined that the Defendant only read at a beginning second grade level and strongly urge[d that he not be] place[d] . . . in any academic situation. It was recommended that he enter a complete evaluation program in order to avoid psychosis or mental deterioration to the point of institutionalization. Thereafter, the Defendant was placed in a Caritas program, but was found unfit to participate after thirty days. After his release in 1975, the Defendant was returned to the juvenile authorities. He escaped to be with his birth father, who lived one hundred and thirty miles away. Afterward, he voluntarily returned and was placed at the Columbia Training Center. [6] According to Ms. Shettles, the Defendant tried to run away from Columbia several times. Because on one occasion the Defendant was treated for a severe contusion of the right eye and jaw, Ms. Shettles speculated that he had been beaten while institutionalized there. During this period, a psychologist, who predicted that the Defendant would be incarcerated his whole life, described him as brain damaged, incorrigible, antisocial, unable to respond to usual social contingency program [sic] and a loser with respect to probable adult adjustments. The psychologist also believed that the Defendant was untreatable, unmanageable and a liability to society for the rest of his natural life, commenting that if this youngster changes for the better, it will be an act of God. When the Defendant was fifteen, he was conditionally released and, for a time, helped care for his uncle, who had lost his legs to gangrene. Ms. Shettles then addressed the Defendant's record at Riverbend Maximum Security Prison, where he had been incarcerated since 1992. During the period since the victim's murder, he had obtained his GED and a paralegal certification. He worked as a teacher's aide, participated in life skills and Bible study classes, and also engaged in various arts and crafts. He was described by a correctional officer as a hard worker, having a positive attitude, being helpful, and treating other inmates and staff with courtesy. The Defendant's only infraction was in 1996, when he threw a mop bucket towards a guard, who, while standing behind a glass barrier, had allegedly taunted him. Ms. Shettles remarked that one write-up during this period of time was an extremely low number. She also commented that the Defendant's prison record was very positive, rating in the top three. In her capacity as an expert on parole procedures, Ms. Shettles described the Defendant's chances for release on a life sentence as close to impossible. She made specific reference to the Defendant's other murder conviction in Mississippi, his escape from jail just prior to the murder of the victim, and prior theft and robbery convictions. [7] She also testified that even if the Defendant received parole in Tennessee, he would be returned to Mississippi to serve the remainder of the life sentence there. After reviewing the exhibits pertaining to mitigation, the jury submitted a series of written questions, including whether mandatory parole and parole could be define[d] in layman's terms. Afterward, defense counsel recalled Ms. Shettles, who testified that if the Defendant was given a life sentence in this case, he would not be eligible for mandatory parole. She also explained that if sentenced to life imprisonment the Defendant would be eligible for discretionary parole after twenty-five years, but that his prior murder conviction and his escape from prison in Mississippi made parole highly unlikely. [8] Tim Terry, an inmate records manager at Riverbend, confirmed that if the Defendant ever received parole in Tennessee, he would be returned to Mississippi to serve his life sentence there. He provided assurances that, in the event the Defendant received a life sentence for the victim's murder, he would not be moved from Riverbend to a local county jail. Dr. Joseph Angelillo, a clinical psychologist who qualified as an expert in forensic psychology, evaluated the Defendant and reviewed his social history. While admitting that he was unable to make a specific diagnosis, Dr. Angelillo found indications of schizoid personality features, marked by a tendency to do things alone, sub-par social skills, lack of joy, withdrawal from others, and a fear of relationships unless [there is] absolute assurance that they're going to be accepted. In his opinion, the lack of sufficient mental health treatment afforded the Defendant as a child, the rejection he had experienced, and the physical and sexual abuse he had undergone all had a profound effect on his development. Dr. Angelillo testified that the Defendant's time in the structured environment of Riverbend had behaviorally defined . . . his ability . . . to engage in constructive activities. He believed that the Defendant would continue to thrive in this structured environment if given a life sentence. Dorothy Rowell, the Defendant's adoptive aunt, also testified on his behalf, describing him as a part of our family. She stated that her mother had adopted one of the Defendant's sisters, and that the other had been adopted by Ms. Rowell's sister. Ms. Rowell, who had spent a substantial amount of time with the children prior to the Odoms' divorce, described the Defendant as [v]ery sweet, [v]ery loving, [a]lways smiling, [h]appy, and a [v]ery precious little boy. She stated, however, that after the divorce of his adoptive parents [h]e wasn't the happy smiling little boy that I remembered. She testified that the Defendant, when a teenager, was very, very good with her invalid brother, Charles, and [t]reated him like a baby. Cindy Martin, the Defendant's adoptive sister, described the Defendant as [t]he sweetest person you would ever want to meet prior to the time Marvin Bruce, his stepfather, became a part of his life. She described Bruce as horrible and a terrible person who mistreated the Defendant. She stated that after Bruce's arrival, the children stayed with their grandmother more often, and while Ms. Martin enjoyed being there because her grandmother generally spoil[ed] kids, their grandmother never really accepted [the Defendant] as her grandchild and would hit him with anything she could find. Jimmy Odom, Jr., the Defendant's older adoptive brother, testified that prior to the Odoms' divorce, the Defendant was treated well, and that they were kind of like a family then. He also claimed that things changed after his mother remarried, and that the Defendant wasn't treated like a child and never was loved. He described their grandmother as a mean woman who often struck the Defendant with belts and stuff like that, and who never accepted the Defendant into the family. He called Marvin Bruce a pervert[j]ust a sorry person. He stated that if the Defendant ever tried to reach for food at the dinner table before someone else, his stepfather would pop him up beside his head, . . . and just make him wait. Although he never witnessed Bruce sexually abusing the Defendant, Jimmy, Jr. stated that he had no doubt that he had physically abused him. He testified that there was no love in our family and that, as a result, the Defendant never had a chance. Like the Defendant, Jimmy, Jr. was housed at Columbia Training School for a time. He stated that on each day of their detention, the residents spent forty-five minutes reading and forty-five minutes on mathematics, but that the rest of the day was spent in the fields. He testified to the excessive forms of discipline at the school, asserting that [t]hey would whup you with a board and that if you couldn't take the licks they would get other people to hold you down. He also stated that when residents ran away, they would receive a beating from the staff. Jimmy, Jr., who was an inmate at Parchman Prison at the same time as the Defendant and their brother Larry, described it as a real bad prison, where juvenile inmates are not housed separately. He stated that both Larry and the Defendant were sexually abused by the older inmates there and that his efforts to take up for his younger brothers often resulted in fights at the prison. Several others who had become acquainted with the Defendant during his time in prison also testified on his behalf. Celeste Wray, who had been involved in prison ministries for eighteen years, corresponded with the Defendant on a regular basis and developed a friendship with the Defendant. She stated that her letters from the Defendant had been pleasurable and enjoyable and that they were always very respectfu[l], which I appreciated. Ricky Harville, who was an instructor at Riverbend, testified that the Defendant worked as his aide when he began teaching at the prison in 2003. He recalled that the Defendant assisted the other inmates with reading and writing and that his interaction with them was very positive. He stated that the Defendant was very helpful, that he approached his job in a very positive manner, and that he served as a role model for other inmates who sought educational opportunities. In his opinion, the Defendant would continue to impact other inmates in a positive way if he received a life sentence. Gordon Janaway, a former teacher in various correctional institutes, taught the Defendant in a GED class at Riverbend. He testified that after the Defendant obtained his certificate, he became a clerk in the classroom. Janaway stated that the other inmates really respected him because he had earned a GED. . . which is not easy to do in corrections. Jim Boyd, who taught a life skills course at Riverbend, met the Defendant while conducting a class. Boyd testified that the Defendant was an active participant in the class and observed that the Defendant had changed for the better during his time in prison. Finally, Helen Cox, who was also involved in the life skills course, testified that she kept a photo of the Defendant on her desk that was taken the day he received his GED. She described the Defendant as a part of her extended family. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the jury imposed a sentence of death for the count of first degree murder, concluding that two statutory aggravating factors, that the Defendant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use of violence to the person and that the murder was committed while the Defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery, had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (7) (Supp.1990), and further determining that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the evidence of the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g). On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the death sentence was not imposed in an arbitrary manner and that the evidence supported the jury's findings as to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See State v. Odom, No. W2008-02464-CCA-R3-DD, 2010 Tenn. Crim.App. LEXIS 223, at  (Tenn. Crim.App. Mar. 4, 2010). That court also determined that the sentence was not excessive and was proportional in comparison to similar cases in which a death sentence has been imposed. Id. Because the death sentence was affirmed, the appeal was automatically docketed in this Court. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-206(a)(1) (2010). The following issues have been presented for our review: (1) whether the Defendant's state and federal constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury were violated by the disqualification of a prospective juror; (2) whether the prosecutor's argument for the jury to weigh non-statutory aggravating factors warrants reversal of the death sentence; (3) whether the admission of photographs of the body constituted error; (4) whether the trial court instructions on parole and prosecutorial misconduct violated the Defendant's right to due process of law and heightened reliability; (5) whether the mandatory criteria of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1) were satisfied; and (6) whether a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals, who had reduced the amount of compensation sought by appellate defense counsel, should have been disqualified from participating in the case.