Opinion ID: 1058888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Jury Verdict FormAggravating Circumstances

Text: Davidson next contends that the death sentence was invalid because the jury's verdict form did not establish that the jury found the aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State. The State argues that Davidson waived review of the issue by failing to object contemporaneously [11] and that, in any event, the verdict form was sufficiently clear to show that the jury found all of the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The State relied upon three aggravating circumstances in seeking the death penalty: (1) that the defendant had a prior conviction for a felony whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person; (2) that the defendant knowingly committed the murder in the commission of a kidnapping; and (3) that the defendant knowingly mutilated the body of the victim after death. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (7), (13) (1991 & Supp.1995). The trial court instructed the jury on the precise statutory language of these aggravating circumstances. In imposing the death penalty, the jury's verdict form stated: We, the jury, unanimously find the following listed statutory aggravating circumstance[ ] or circumstances: (1) Previously convicted of one (1) or more felonies, etc. (2) The murder was knowingly committed, etc. (3) The Defendant knowingly mutilated the body of the victim after death. The verdict form concluded that [w]e, the jury, unanimously find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances so listed above outweigh any mitigating circumstances. This Court has never held that the jury's verdict form must be an exact or verbatim statement of the statutory aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State. See State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 661 n. 6 (Tenn.1997) (holding that [t]he failure of the verdict to repeat the language of the statute defining the aggravating circumstance does not invalidate the jury's findings). The jury's verdict must be sufficiently clear, however, to indicate that the jury has found the elements of the aggravated circumstance or circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. See State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291, 303 (Tenn.2002). The verdict is sufficient where the aggravating circumstances found are clearly those allowed by the statute and permit effective appellate review of the sentence. Id. at 304 (quoting State v. Teel, 793 S.W.2d 236, 250 (Tenn.1990)). We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' conclusion that the jury's verdict in this case established that the jury found the aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State in seeking the death sentence. The State relied upon three aggravating circumstances and the trial court's instructions to the jury tracked the precise statutory language of each of the three aggravating circumstances. Although the jury's verdict form did not specifically restate the precise statutory language, it plainly indicates that the jury found all three aggravating circumstances. Indeed, as the Court of Criminal Appeals observed, the verdict form's use of etc. demonstrates that the jury found the exact aggravating circumstances upon which it had been instructed and then used a short, common term for incorporating the entire statutory language by reference. Indeed, any other conclusion would be unreasonable. See id. at 303-04. This Court's decision in State v. Harris, 989 S.W.2d 307 (Tenn.1999), upon which Davidson relies, is distinguishable. In Harris, we held that a sentencing verdict was error where the jury found that the murder was especially heinous and atrocious and did not recite the complete statutory language of especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. 989 S.W.2d at 313-14. [12] Moreover, the statements of the jury foreperson revealed that the jury intended to omit the remaining critical language of the aggravating circumstance, i.e., torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Id. at 314. We held that verdict was incomplete and erroneous under the circumstances of that case. See id. In contrast, there is no indication in this case that the jury intended to omit any elements of the aggravating circumstances or that it altered the aggravating circumstances to suit its findings. Accordingly, Davidson is not entitled to relief on this ground. In a related argument, Davidson asserts that the death sentence was invalid because the verdict form did not state that the jury found the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant statutory provision requires that the jury unanimously determine that at least one aggravating circumstance has been proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt and that such aggravating circumstance or circumstances have been proven by the State to outweigh any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g)(1)(A), (B) (1991 & Supp.1995). The statute further provides that if the sentence imposed is a death sentence, the jury shall [r]educe to writing the statutory aggravating circumstance or statutory aggravating circumstances so found and [s]ignify that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g)(2)(A)(i), (ii) (1991 & Supp.1995). Finally, the statute requires that the jury's verdict form substantially appear as follows: We, the jury, unanimously find the following listed statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances: [Here list the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances so found.] We, the jury, unanimously find that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Therefore, we, the jury, unanimously find that the punishment shall be death. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g) (Supp.1995). [13] As stated above, the jury's verdict form stated, We, the jury, unanimously find the following listed statutory aggravating circumstance[ ] or circumstances, which it then listed. The verdict concluded, We, the jury, unanimously find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances so listed above outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, the verdict mirrored and satisfied the relevant statutory language regarding the required jury verdict form in a death penalty case. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g) (1991 & Supp.1995). In addition, the trial court's instructions to the jury emphasized the precise statutory requirements with respect to the State's burden of proof. For instance: Tennessee law provides that no sentence of death ... shall be imposed by a jury but upon a unanimous finding that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one (1) or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances .... ... Members of the Jury, the court has read to you the aggravating circumstances which the law requires you to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was established. ... If you unanimously determine that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance or several aggravating circumstances have been proven by the state, beyond a reasonable doubt, and said circumstance or circumstances have been proven by the state to outweigh any mitigating circumstance or circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt, the sentence shall be death. The jury shall reduce to writing the statutory aggravating circumstance or statutory aggravating circumstances so found, and signify that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, there is no doubt that the jury was instructed on the correct standards of proof and that its verdict complied with the controlling statutory provisions. See State v. Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900, 904 (Tenn.2001) (providing that the jury is presumed to follow the trial court's instructions). The trial court's detailed instructions to the jury and the use of the statutorily-required verdict form distinguish this case from our decisions in State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145 (Tenn.1999), and State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn.1994). In Stephenson, the jury's verdict was facially void because the court gave conflicting instructions as to the applicable burden of proof and the sentencing verdict form omitted the applicable burden of proof. See Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d at 557-58. In Carter, the verdict forms also omitted the applicable burden of proof, and thus they were facially void, despite the jury having been given proper instructions. See Carter, 988 S.W.2d at 152. In contrast, it is clear that the trial court in this case properly instructed the jury and that the jury's verdict was based on the applicable law. Accordingly, Davidson is not entitled to relief based on this issue.