Opinion ID: 1664341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: review of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances

Text: Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1), this Court is charged with independently determining whether the evidence supports the jury's finding of statutory aggravating circumstances and whether the evidence supports the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether the evidence supports the application of an aggravating circumstance, the proper standard to consider is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Henderson, 24 S.W.3d 307, 313 (Tenn.2000); State v. Keough, 18 S.W.3d 175, 180-81 (Tenn.2000); State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 150 (Tenn.1999). After a careful review of the testimony and evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, we conclude that the evidence fully supports the jury's findings that both aggravating circumstances are present in this case and that the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(1) provides as a statutory aggravating circumstance that [t]he murder was committed against a person less that twelve (12) years of age and the defendant was eighteen (18) years of age, or older. The record indisputably shows that the victim in this case, Nikki Reed, was eight years old at the time of her death and that the appellant was twenty-seven years old. Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of this aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(5) provides as a statutory aggravating circumstance that [t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. The appellant makes three arguments as to how this aggravating circumstance was improperly applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. First, he argues that the proof was insufficient to justify finding this aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt because the proof failed to demonstrate that the victim was conscious while she was tortured or suffered serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to cause death. Second, the appellant argues that his right to a unanimous jury was compromised by allowing the jury to consider either torture or serious physical abuse in finding the presence of this aggravating circumstance. Last, the appellant argues that the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance has been interpreted so broadly as to render it unconstitutional in that it fails to sufficiently narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. Having thoroughly considered each of the appellant's arguments, we find that none has merit, and we affirm the jury's finding of the presence of this aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.
The especially heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance may be proved under either of two prongs: torture or serious physical abuse. See State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 601 (Tenn.1999). This Court has defined torture as the infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains alive and conscious. State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788, 797 (Tenn.2000); State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529 (Tenn.1985). The phrase serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death, on the other hand, is self-explanatory; the abuse must be physical rather than mental in nature. Hall, 8 S.W.3d at 601; see also State v. Suttles, 30 S.W.3d 252, 262 (Tenn.2000). The word `serious' alludes to a matter of degree, and the term abuse is defined as an act that is `excessive' or which makes `improper use of a thing,' or which uses a thing `in a manner contrary to the natural or legal rules for its use.' State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 26 (Tenn.1996); see also State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872, 887 (Tenn.1998); Morris, 24 S.W.3d at 797. Our case law is clear that [t]he anticipation of physical harm to oneself is torturous so as to establish this aggravating circumstance. See State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 150 (Tenn.1999) (citing cases from other jurisdictions); see also Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d at 886-87; State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 358 (Tenn.1997). Our case law is also clear that the physical and mental pain suffered by the victim of strangulation may constitute torture within the meaning of the statute. See State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726, 732-33 (Tenn.1998); Hodges, 944 S.W.2d at 358. The facts of this case, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, easily satisfy both of these definitions. From the appellant's own statements, we know that this child was essentially kidnaped and secreted to a discrete and remote locationby someone in a position of trustunder the pretense that she was being taken to see her mother. The appellant stopped the car, and Nikki watched him take off his pants and then remove her own clothes. While still in the strict confines of the front seat of the car, the appellant climbed on top of her, covered her mouth, and began to forcibly rape her while crushing her throat with his left hand. At some point while she was being violently raped, Nikki was struck in several parts of her face, and her head was smashed against the door handle. Although it is impossible to know how long Nikki remained conscious during this terrifying ordeal, it is uncontroverted that she was alive and conscious at least through part of the rape, because even though the full weight of the appellant was crushing her and even though she was being manually strangled, the appellant admitted that Nikki struggled to get free with her arms and legs. In fact, the appellant candidly admitted that she struggled to get free for a little while. When the appellant finished his gruesome act, he noticed that she was no longer breathing and had turned blue, a fact he attributed to putting too much pressure on her [neck] where she couldn't breathe. There can be no reasonable doubt that while she struggled to free herself, Nikki was alive and conscious, and a jury could rationally infer from its common sense and everyday experience that she was extremely concerned about her own physical safety. Cf. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d at 886 (stating that juries in capital cases may still use their common knowledge and experience in deciding whether a fact is logically deducible from the circumstances in evidence, or in making reasonable inferences from the evidence, and may test the truth and weight of the evidence by their own general knowledge and judgment derived from experience, observation, and reflection). Moreover, the jury would have been fully justified in concluding that as the appellant gradually choked off all air to the child, Nikki was in an extreme state of mental pain and anxiety, as well as enduring and intense physical pain. A rational jury using common sense and judgment could clearly find that the proof established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the torture of the victim through infliction of severe mental and physical pain, and our cases require no more. The appellant cites this Court's decision in State v. Odom for the proposition that the proof was insufficient to establish torture because penile rape alone cannot establish torture. We agree with Odom to the extent that a rape, in and of itself, cannot support imposition of the death penalty when the crime charged is murder in the perpetration of a rape. The appellant ignores, however, that the mental anguish of the child in this case was not derived solely from the act of penile penetration. Rather, the severe mental and physical pain of the victim necessary to establish torture is derived from all of the surrounding circumstances of the murder, which necessarily include the kidnaping and forcible confinement of the victim by someone in a position of trust, the brutal rape of the victim, and the violent manual strangulation of the victim to the point that she lost consciousness and turned blue. While the mere fact of rape could not be used to impose death under the facts of the appellant's case, the sentencing authority certainly could have inquired into the unique circumstances surrounding the offense to determine whether the victim was tortured within the meaning of the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance. Contrary to the appellant's assertions, we find nothing in Odom which prevents a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the rape and murder. In fact, Odom's legitimate concerns with sufficient narrowing of the death-eligible class of defendants are actually furthered by such an examination, and only in this manner can the sentence of death be reserved for the worst of the worse. Based on our review of the entire record in the present case, we find that a rational jury could have concluded from all of the surrounding circumstances that Nikki Reed was tortured through the infliction of severe mental and physical pain. The appellant also argues that the proof is insufficient to establish that the victim suffered serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Again, we must disagree. By the appellant's own admission, he manually choked the victim so forcefully that she stopped breathing, turned blue, and lapsed into unconsciousness. A rational jury could certainly have found that this particular manual strangulation constituted serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death, even though the manual strangulation was not determined to be an actual cause of death. The law is clear that [t]here is no requirement that the cause or mode of death also be the cause or mode of the `serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.' Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d at 887. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in also concluding that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that this murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.
The appellant next argues that by permitting the jurors to find either torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death, the trial court denied him his constitutional right to a unanimous jury for the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. More specifically, the appellant notes that when the jury returned its verdict form, it indicated that it found that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. (emphasis added). The appellant argues that because the jury returned its verdict in the disjunctive, there is no way to determine whether the twelve jurors unanimously agreed on either basis for finding the aggravating circumstances or the facts in support thereof. In essence, the appellant argues that unless a jury unanimously agrees as to a particular set of facts constituting guiltor in this case, the particular set of facts constituting the presence of the (i)(5) aggravating circumstancea defendant is denied his or her right to a unanimous jury. After reviewing the applicable case law, we hold that the appellant was not denied his constitutional right to a unanimous jury or that a special unanimity instruction was required. It is beyond question that the right to a unanimous jury verdict is fundamental, immediately touching on the constitutional rights of an accused. See, e.g., Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tenn.1973). Our research reveals no case, however, in which we have held that the right to a unanimous jury verdict encompasses the right to have the jury unanimously agree as to the particular theory of guilt supporting conviction for a single crime. See, e.g., State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166, 170-71 (Tenn.1999) (holding that jury need not be unanimous as between direct criminal liability or criminal responsibility arising out of the same transaction because criminal responsibility is not a separate distinct crime); State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773 (Tenn.1998) (holding that general verdict of guilt on first degree murder poses no constitutional problem even though some jurors may have convicted the defendant based upon proof of felony murder or premeditated murder). In fact, we have recently reached just the opposite conclusion in State v. Adams, 24 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn.2000). In Adams , this Court was asked to decide whether a jury must unanimously agree on a specific serious bodily injury resulting from child neglect before it can properly return a guilty verdict for aggravated child abuse through neglect. In affirming the defendants' conviction and sentence, we stated, To adopt the appellants' argument that the jury must agree as to the specific serious bodily injury [supporting conviction for aggravated child abuse through neglect] requires, in essence, that the state elect the facts to support elements rather make an election of offenses. Our cases have not required that a jury unanimously agree as to facts supporting a particular element of a crime so long as the jury agrees that the appellant is guilty of the crime charged. 24 S.W.3d at 297 (emphasis in original). The United States Supreme Court has also stated that different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even when they agree on the bottom line. Plainly, there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 632, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). It is clear that torture and serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death are separate methods or theories of establishing the (i)(5) aggravator and not separate aggravating circumstances by themselves. We have stated previously that the phrase especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel is a unitary concept, State v. Van Tran, 864 S.W.2d 465, 479 (Tenn.1993), which may be proved under either of two prongs: torture or serious physical abuse. See Hall, 8 S.W.3d at 601. Our cases simply do not require that jurors agree as to which theory supports the view that the murder is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. So long as the proof is sufficient under either theory for finding the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, and so long as all jurors agree that the aggravating circumstance is present and applicable to the case at hand, different jurors may rely upon either theory to reach their conclusion. See Suttles, 30 S.W.3d at 266 (This [(i)(5) ] aggravating circumstance may be applied if the evidence is sufficient to support either torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.), and cases cited therein. As we have previously stated, the proof in this case was more than sufficient to allow a rational jury to find the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt under either a theory of torture or a theory of serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. This is not a case where the gruesome acts by the appellant establishing either torture or serious physical abuse occurred at such different times or under such varying circumstances that they could be said to be separate in fact. Rather, the proof established that the victim's severe mental pain and manual strangulation occurred proximately in time and space. In addition, we note that the court properly instructed the jury that it had to unanimously agree that the State proved this aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury clearly indicated from its verdict form that it unanimously found the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance to be present and applicable in this case. Based on these reasons, we conclude that the appellant was not deprived of his right to a unanimous jury verdict. In response, the appellant quotes a passage from State v. Brown, 823 S.W.2d 576 (Tenn.Crim.App.1991), as standing for the proposition that a jury must understand its duty to agree on a particular set of facts. Id. at 583. A closer reading of Brown, however, shows that this language served only to reemphasize that the purpose of election is to ensure that each juror is considering the same occurrence, see State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tenn.1993), and it does not support the proposition that a jury must agree to the facts establishing a theory of an offense. The defendant in Brown was charged in an open-dated indictment with possession of cocaine, and the proof established that the defendant engaged in conduct constituting the charged crime on at least four separate occasions. In reversing the defendant's conviction, the Court of Criminal Appeals only required unanimous agreement as to the specific occurrence of the crime, id at 583-84, not agreement as to the facts supporting different theories of guilt arising out of that one occurrence. Once a jury has agreed on the specific occurrence at issue, Brown cannot properly be read to require further agreement as to the particular facts supporting the elements of that offense when different theories are available for consideration. The appellant also cites the capital sentencing statute which states that no death sentence may be imposed but upon a unanimous finding that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances.... Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i). A plain reading of this statute only requires that the jury unanimously agree that the aggravating circumstance in question is present; it does not require that the jury agree as to all facts establishing the presence of that circumstance when different theories are available for consideration. Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we will not extend the meaning of that statute beyond its plain and obvious import. See, e.g., McClain v. Henry I. Siegel Co., 834 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn.1992). This issue is without merit.
The appellant next argues that the meaning of the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance has been so broadly interpreted by the courts of this state that it now fails to adequately narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. More specifically, the appellant refers to several cases from this Court which (1) allow torture to include severe mental pain, see State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn.1985); (2) allow a finding of torture without any intent on the part of the defendant to inflict torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death, see State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn.1998); and (3) allow jurors to use their common knowledge and experience in finding that physical and mental torture was inflicted upon the victim, see State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn.1998). Because of each of these broadening constructions, the appellant argues, this aggravating circumstance is applicable in virtually every first degree murder and fails to properly narrow that eligible for the death penalty. Again, we must disagree. The very purpose of the consideration of aggravating circumstances within a scheme of capital punishment is to provide some principled guidance for the sentencing authority to choose between death and a lesser sentence. See, e.g., Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428-29, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980); see also State v. Middlebrooks, 995 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tenn.1999). Although a court could interpret an aggravating circumstance so broadly that it would allow the jury unlimited discretion in imposing the death penalty, cf. State v. Wood, 648 P.2d 71 (Utah 1981), the test for constitutional infirmity is whether one could fairly conclude that an aggravating circumstance applies to every defendant eligible for the death penalty, see Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 364, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) (invalidating aggravating circumstance that an ordinary person could honestly believe described every murder); Godfrey, 446 U.S. at 428-429, 100 S.Ct. 1759 (A person of ordinary sensibility could fairly characterize almost every murder as `outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.'). We have consistently upheld the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-2-203(i)(5) in the face of arguments that it applies to all defendants, and we have repeatedly rejected the contention that it is vague or overbroad. See, e.g., State v. Middlebrooks, 995 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tenn.1999); State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269, 280 (Tenn.1998); State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 181 (Tenn.1991). Although the appellant's argument today differs somewhat from those previously advanced in other cases, we reaffirm the constitutionality of the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. First, it is clear that by defining torture to include severe mental pain, this Court has not broadened the scope of the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance so as to render it unconstitutional. In Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), the United States Supreme Court upheld the application of Arizona's especially heinous, cruel or depraved aggravating circumstance. Although finding the wording of the circumstance facially vague, the Court nevertheless upheld its application because of the limiting constructions placed on the wording by the Arizona courts. One of the limiting constructions placed upon this aggravating circumstance was that the crime must have been committed in an especially cruel manner when the perpetrator inflicts mental anguish or physical abuse before the victim's death. In upholding this circumstance as applied, the Walton Court expressly stated that a limiting construction which defines mental anguish to include a victim's uncertainty as to his ultimate fate passes constitutional muster. Id. at 654, 110 S.Ct. 3047. In addition, several other states with a statutory aggravating circumstance virtually identical to our (i)(5) circumstance have held that the word torture necessarily includes mental anguish within its meaning. [2] Accordingly, we conclude that the inclusion of severe mental pain within the definition of torture has not rendered this aggravating circumstance unconstitutional. Second, the fact that the statute does not require an intent on the part of the defendant to inflict torture or serious physical abuse upon the victim also does not broaden the scope of the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance so as to render it unconstitutional. We have repeatedly rejected this argument in the past, see State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 150 (Tenn.1999); State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269, 281 (Tenn.1998); see also State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 26 n. 5 (Tenn.1996), and we do so again today. Once again, we note that [c]ircumstance (i)(5) does not require a mens rea. The aspect of torture focuses on the circumstances of the killing. Carter, 988 S.W.2d at 150. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel circumstance is unconstitutional in the absence of any mental requirement, and we conclude that the absence of a mental state does not render this circumstance constitutionally infirm in this state. Nothing in our statutes or cases, however, precludes consideration of the defendant's mental state in mitigation of sentence. In fact, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(j)(9) specifically provides that the jury shall consider [a]ny other mitigating factor which is raised by the evidence produced by either the prosecution or defense at either the guilt or sentencing hearing. This broad catch-all provision necessarily includes consideration of the defendant's mens rea at the time the victim is tortured or receives serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Cf. State v. Zaragoza, 135 Ariz. 63, 659 P.2d 22, 27 (1983). In addition, before a jury may impose death, it must conclude that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g)(1). This calculus also necessarily includes consideration of the circumstances of the offense and the defendant's mental state at the time he or she inflicts torture or serious physical abuse upon the victim. Accordingly, the fact that a mental state is absent from the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance does not render this circumstance constitutionally infirm. Finally, we reject the contention that allowing a jury to use its common sense, knowledge, and experience somehow renders the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance constitutionally infirm. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, this aggravating circumstance is not susceptible to mathematical precision, Walton, 497 U.S. at 655, 110 S.Ct. 3047, and so long as the jury is given some meaningful guidance in the sentencing process, it is anomalous to conclude that the jury cannot then reach its final determination through the use of its collective knowledge, experience, and common sense. [3] If the appellant did not wish to have a jury use its collective knowledge and common sense to determine an appropriate sentence in his case, we observe that procedures were available for him to request sentencing without a jury. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-205(b). A jury's ability to use its collective knowledge, experience, and common sense to assist in reaching a determination in these weighty and complex matters is the very strength of the jury system, not evidence of its frailty or unconstitutionality. In summary, we hold that a rational jury could have found the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was more than sufficient to establish that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved both torture and serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Further, the trial court was not required to give an additional unanimity instruction as to the particular theory supporting this aggravating circumstance, because its general unanimity instruction with regard to the aggravating circumstances as a whole was adequate. Finally, interpretations of this Court have not expanded the meaning of the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance beyond constitutional bounds. We affirm the application of this aggravating circumstance to the appellant's case.
Having determined that a rational jury could have found the presence of two statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, we now undertake to determine whether the evidence supports the jury's finding that these aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury did not indicate which, if any, of the fifteen mitigating circumstances submitted by the trial court was properly supported by the evidence, but in undertaking this analysis, we will presume that the jury found all fifteen mitigating circumstances were raised and supported by at least some evidence. Nevertheless, based upon our own review, we conclude that the jury could have rationally concluded that the two aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Both aggravating circumstances were clearly present beyond a reasonable doubt and were properly considered by the jury. The evidence shows that the appellant secreted the victim away by driving her to a discrete and remote location. The appellant then violently raped and assaulted the victim, while manually strangling her with such force as to render her unconscious. Although the appellant argued that he was under extreme mental stress during his gruesome crime, the testimony of Mr. Wilson and others to the effect that the appellant appeared to be acting normally both before and after the murder, certainly weighs heavily against his position. Further, we are unable to say that the jury improperly weighed any evidence concerning the appellant's unfortunate childhoodor that it improperly weighed any evidence of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or attention deficit disorderas there was no testimony, expert or otherwise, that any of these circumstances affected the appellant at the time of his offense or were otherwise responsible, directly or indirectly, for his behavior on March 17, 1990. Accordingly, we find that a rational jury could have concluded that both aggravating circumstances in this case outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.