Opinion ID: 1060373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Cross-examination of Witness Levi Haywood

Text: During the re-sentencing hearing, defense counsel presented the testimony of Levi Haywood, who testified that he had met Terry Casteel at the Shelby County Jail. Casteel informed Haywood that he had been beaten and coerced into testifying against the Appellant. Haywood continued to state that Casteel regretted his role as a prosecuting witness and asserted that the Appellant had not been involved in the murder. On cross-examination, Haywood admitted that he had previously omitted that Casteel had been beaten by the police in his recitation of his dealings with Casteel. The examination continued to reveal that Casteel was considered to be a snitch because he had implicated the Appellant. The following colloquy ensued: GENERAL CAMPBELL: What happens to snitches, Mr. Haywood? HAYWOOD: That all depends. GLANKLER: Object. COURT: Overruled. GENERAL CAMPBELL: What happens to snitches in the jail? HAYWOOD: It all depends. I wasn't a snitch and I almost got stabbed by a plumber because an officer said that I killed somebody. GENERAL CAMPBELL: What happens to a snitch, Mr. Haywood, in prison? HAYWOOD: In prison? GENERAL CAMPBELL: Yeah. HAYWOOD: They may get beat up. They may get put on segregated lock up. It all depends. GENERAL CAMPBELL: They may get killed, too? HAYWOOD: Yeah, they might. The Appellant now contends that the trial court erred in permitting into evidence Haywood's testimony about [w]hat happens to snitches in the jail. Specifically, he contends that the testimony is speculative and irrelevant and should not have been admitted into evidence. Again, at a capital sentencing hearing, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the punishment and may include, but not be limited to, the nature and circumstances of the crime; the defendant's character, background, history, and physical condition; any evidence tending to establish or rebut the aggravating circumstances enumerated in subsection (i) below; and any evidence tending to establish or rebut any mitigating factor. Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value on the issue of punishment may be received regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, provided that the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements so admitted. . . . TENN.CODE ANN. § 39-2404(c). Under these criteria, the State may properly introduce reliable testimony probative to rebut any mitigating circumstance advanced by the defense. In the present case, the Appellant sought to introduce residual doubt evidence to rebut the murder for remuneration aggravating circumstance. [4] Specifically, he presented the testimony of Levi Haywood to relate that Terry Casteel had only implicated the Appellant in the murder because Casteel was physically intimidated by the police. The State then sought to explain Casteel's motive in explaining to Haywood and other inmates as to why he testified against the Appellant. Evidence regarding the treatment of snitches was, therefore, probative in explaining Casteel's differing justification of his testimony to Haywood. [5] Accordingly, we find no error in permitting the introduction of such evidence. This claim is without merit.