Opinion ID: 1058506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: prejudicial information reaching the jury

Text: The defendant argues that the trial court improperly read to the jury all the possible aggravating circumstances during jury selection and not just the two relied upon by the state. The record reflects that the trial court did recite to the venire during the jury selection process the entire list of available statutory aggravating circumstances. It is error for the trial court to instruct the jury on inapplicable aggravating circumstances. State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269, 281 (Tenn.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1180, 119 S.Ct. 1118, 143 L.Ed.2d 113 (1999). However, the entire list of aggravating circumstances was not submitted to the jury as part of the instructions prior to deliberations. It was simply part of the explanatory portion of the trial court's discussion with the venire. At the close of the proof at the sentencing phase, the jury was properly instructed only as to the two aggravating factors relied upon by the state. This issue is without merit.
The defendant complains that the trial court permitted the prosecution to improperly suggest that the felony murder aggravator, which was based upon the underlying especially aggravated kidnapping, should be given extra weight against any mitigators. Specifically, the defendant cites to the state's argument, You've already come to this determination that there was, indeed, an especially aggravated kidnapping and that there was, indeed, a murder. The other one is the heinous, atrocious, and cruel. This argument is misplaced. The prosecution was merely reiterating to the jury that they had found during the guilt phase the elements of especially aggravated kidnapping, the underlying felony in the (i)(7) aggravator. The defendant also argues that the use of the same serious bodily injury to the victim to enhance kidnapping to especially aggravated kidnapping and to apply the (i)(7) aggravator was double counting, which violated double jeopardy. Initially, we note that the felony murder aggravator is triggered by a murder in perpetration of a kidnapping; it is not required to be an especially aggravated kidnapping. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(7). Regardless, there is no double jeopardy violation. See State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 706 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 998, 122 S.Ct. 471, 151 L.Ed.2d 386 (2001).
The defendant asserts that the trial court improperly permitted the state to rely upon two aggravating circumstances after defense counsel had detrimentally relied upon the state's opening argument of the penalty phase indicating it was relying upon only the (i)(5) aggravator. The state indeed only mentioned the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator in its opening statement. However, prior to the defendant's proof, the trial court heard argument on this issue and ruled the state was not limited to only one aggravating factor. It further noted the state had given proper notice of both aggravators. We agree with this ruling and discern no undue prejudice to the defendant.