Opinion ID: 1728613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Sympathy Instruction and Argument

Text: Next the defendant argues that the trial court's anti-sympathy instruction given at the sentencing and guilt phase of the trial violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. This issue is without merit. See State v. Smith, 857 S.W.2d 1, 21 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Boyd, 797 S.W.2d 589, 598 (Tenn. 1990). The defendant also contends that the trial court's refusal to charge the jury, as requested by the defendant, that you are allowed to consider sympathy elicited based on evidence presented, violated the Eighth Amendment requirement that a jury be allowed to consider any mitigating evidence. The trial court instructed the jury that they were authorized to weigh and consider any mitigating circumstances ... raised by the evidence throughout the entire course of the trial, and in addition to informing them of the statutory mitigating circumstances, instructed them that they were to consider any aspect of the defendant's character or record or any circumstances of the offense favorable to the defendant shown by the proof. The jury was not precluded from considering mitigating evidence by the charge given. The issue is without merit. See Edward v. State, 540 S.W.2d 641, 649 (Tenn. 1976); cf. Smith, 857 S.W.2d at 22 (instruction on mercy); Melson, 638 S.W.2d at 366 (instruction on mercy). Finally, the defendant contends that the prosecutor's closing argument at the sentencing hearing requesting that the jury not feel sorry for the defendant because of his head injuries and telling them to overcome their sympathy for the defendant violated the Eighth Amendment. Examination of this argument in context reveals that the prosecutor was urging the jury not to return a life sentence based on the mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant. Such argument is proper. This issue has no merit.