Opinion ID: 1060898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: evidence of the underlying felonies

Text: The appellant also alleges that the trial court erred by denying his motion to prevent the State from introducing evidence of the underlying burglary and rape. He contends this evidence did not relate to either the aggravating or mitigating circumstances and thus was improperly before the jury. In response, the State asserts that the trial court acted appropriately. Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion to prevent the State from introducing evidence of the underlying burglary and rape. The trial judge denied the motion, stating: This was all evidence that was originally introduced at the original trial  at the guilt phase of the trial, and I think the jury is entitled to all the evidence from the guilt phase of the trial in making their determination as to what the proper punishment is. I think that's the law. I don't think that the rape itself could be an aggravating circumstance, but evidence of the rape could go to the proof of the aggravating circumstance that you're alleging, and for that reason that's why I'm going to allow the introduction. In his argument before the Court, the appellant seems to suggest that the Supreme Court's holding in State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn. 1992) controls this issue. Middlebrooks stands for the proposition that the State cannot rely upon the underlying felony in support of the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed in the perpetration of a felony when the appellant was convicted of felony murder. Id. at 346. In the instant case, however, the State sought to prove the existence of only one aggravating circumstance, that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Thus, there is no duplication problem like that encountered in Middlebrooks. Id. Moreover, in State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 270 (Tenn. 1994), the Supreme Court, while conducting a Middlebrooks harmless error analysis, stated: A sentencing jury may properly hear evidence regarding the circumstances of the offense. See also State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 925 (Tenn. 1994). As the trial court implied, the jury must be allowed to consider the circumstances surrounding the murder in order to appropriately determine the existence of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. The circumstances surrounding the murder include evidence of the separate felonies. The trial court ruled, however, that the State could not inform the jury that the appellant had been convicted of burglary and rape. Because we believe the trial court acted appropriately in this regard, we find no merit to this issue.