Opinion ID: 1057999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Instruction on Life Sentence

Text: Shortly after the court completed its charge, the jury submitted a note with the following question: In the Questionnaire that we filled out as prospective jurors it stated a life sentence consisted of fifty-one years. As stated by you, our judge, on Thursday, October 3rd, 2002, a life sentence in the State of Tennessee was not fifty-one years, it had changed. Please review this law for us. Thank you, the jury. The court declined the defense's suggestion that the jury be instructed on a Defendant's eligibility for parole under current law. Instead, the court reiterated its earlier remarks to the jury regarding the meaning of a life sentence. The court stated: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: The question has been considered and let me reiterate what I had told you the other day when I brought to your attention that the Questionnaire was in error. I told you then and I tell you again, totally disregard that question of your understanding of what the law was, that it was a fifty-one, you had to build fifty-one years. That is to be totally disregarded, it is of no concern to you. When you stop and think for a moment of the many times that I have told you that your decision is based upon the evidence that you've heard and the law that I give you that applies to that evidence. You have not heard any evidence at all about what a life sentence is. You must think no more about this question. It is of no concern to you in your deliberations in this case. The issue in this case is whether or not a life sentence should be imposed or the death penalty. That's the issue. It's not a question of what is a life sentence. The Defendant submits that in response to the jury's inquiry, the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that a Defendant who receives a sentence of imprisonment for life shall not be eligible for parole consideration until the Defendant has served at least twenty-five (25) full calendar years of such sentence. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(e)(2). As noted, the offense in the present case was committed in December 1989. At that time, there were two sentencing options: life imprisonment and death. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203 (1989). In 1993, the sentencing law was amended to provide for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The amended statute was made expressly applicable to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1993. See 1993 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 473, § 16. Because the offense in this case was committed before the effective date of the amended statute, the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury regarding eligibility for parole under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(e)(2). Moreover, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the meaning of a life sentence should not be considered in its deliberations. State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn.1997), is most instructive on this issue. In that case, shortly after deliberations began, the jury inquired of the trial court, How many years does the [defendant] serve if he gets life imprisonment and how long before parole? Id. at 502. The trial court declined the Defendant's request to instruct the jury as to the availability of parole. Instead, the court instructed the jury only that parole eligibility is not an issue in a capital case.... Id. at 503. On appeal, our supreme court rejected the defendant's due process challenge to the trial court's instruction. In doing so, the court further stated, [i]ndeed, the trial court's refusal to give defendant's requested response to the jury question was entirely consistent with prior decisions of this Court holding that the after-effect of a jury's verdict, such as parole availability, is not a proper instruction or consideration for the jury during deliberations. Id. (citing State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 543 (Tenn.1993); State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 21 (Tenn. 1990)). This issue is without merit.