Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Improper Cross-Examination of Defendant's Mother

Text: During the penalty phase of the trial, the State sought to cross-examine Defendant Thomas' mother, Luella Barber, regarding a disciplinary write-up he received while in jail. The trial court permitted the questioning, finding, I think that's appropriate because that has a direct bearing on what she's testified to with regard to him being a good person or whatever.... I'll allow you to ask about the jail incident. The State proceeded with the following questioning of Luella Barber: Q: Okay. Are you aware of an incident that occurred in the jail back on June 7th of 2001 of this year? A: An incident  Q: Involving Andrew Thomas? A: No, I'm not. Q: Where he was part of a strip search that they do to the inmates, and they found a six-and-a-half-inch shank on him. A: I don't work here, so I don't know. Q: You didn't know anything about that? A: No one ever notified me about that[.] Mrs. Barber testified that knowledge of this incident would not change her opinion as to her son. Defendant Thomas complains that this line of questioning was error because it was more prejudicial than probative. Our criminal code provides that the rules of evidence do not limit the admissibility of evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(c). See also Stout, 46 S.W.3d at 702. The supreme court has interpreted section 39-13-204(c) as permitting trial judges wider discretion than would normally be allowed under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence in ruling on the admissibility of evidence at a capital sentencing hearing. See State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 14 (Tenn.), cert. den. 534 U.S. 956, 122 S.Ct. 357, 151 L.Ed.2d 270 (2001). As the Sims court stated, The Rules of Evidence should not be applied to preclude introduction of otherwise reliable evidence that is relevant to the issue of punishment, as it relates to mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the nature and circumstances of the particular crime, or the character and background of the individual defendant. As our case history reveals, however, the discretion allowed judges and attorneys during sentencing in first degree murder cases is not unfettered. Our constitutional standards require inquiry into the reliability, relevance, value, and prejudicial effect of sentencing evidence to preserve fundamental fairness and protect the rights of both the defendant and the victim's family. The rules of evidence can in some instances be helpful guides in reaching these determinations of admissibility. Trial judges are not, however, required to adhere strictly to the rules of evidence. These rules are too restrictive and unwieldy in the arena of capital sentencing. 45 S.W.3d at 14. The questioning was relevant to rebut testimony about Defendant Thomas' positive character traits, including allegations by Mrs. Barber that Defendant Thomas attempted to improve himself while incarcerated. Thus, Defendant Thomas is not entitled to relief on this claim.