Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to charge jury with presumption of sentencing

Text: Defendant Thomas asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that it must presume that a life sentence would be served or that the death penalty would be carried out. He argues that absent such an instruction there is a substantial probability that jurors would improperly speculate on the consequences of their verdict. This is not a novel issue. Our supreme court has held that the after-effect of a verdict is not a proper consideration for the jury. See State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 21 (Tenn.1990), aff'd, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). The court has ruled that it is not error for a trial court to refuse to charge the jury with the very instruction requested by Defendant Thomas. See, e.g., State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 543 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 979, 114 S.Ct. 475, 126 L.Ed.2d 426 (1993); Payne, 791 S.W.2d at 21. Accordingly, Defendant Thomas is entitled to no relief on this ground.