Opinion ID: 1057594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Phrase Put a Fellow Citizen to Death

Text: The Defendant next contends that the trial court erred when it prohibited him from saying that the State was seeking to put a fellow citizen to death because such a limitation tends to minimize the impact of the jury's role in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). The State disagrees with the Defendant's interpretation of Caldwell and says the trial court did not err when it required the Defendant to say that the State was seeking the death penalty instead of that the State was seeking to put a fellow citizen to death. In Caldwell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere. 472 U.S. at 328, 105 S.Ct. 2633. As a result, Caldwell prohibits remarks that suggest to the jury that their decision to impose the death penalty would be temporary, tentative, or conditional, depending on the review of higher courts. McCormick v. State, No. 03C01-9802-CR-00052, 1999 WL 394935, at  (Tenn.Crim.App., at Knoxville, June 17, 1999), no Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed. For example, a trial court may not instruct the jury, as the Caldwell trial court did, that the jury's imposition of a death sentence is not binding or valid in any sense because it is subject to appellate review. Id. We conclude the trial court did not violate Caldwell when it required the Defendant to use the phrase seeking the death penalty instead of seeking to put a fellow citizen to death. The phrase seeking the death penalty did not suggest to the jury that its decision to impose a death sentence was only temporary, tentative, or conditional. McCormick, 1999 WL 394935, at . The limitation did not lessen the impact upon the jurors of the nature of their responsibility as jurors sitting on a trial where the death penalty is requested. Id.; see Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 328, 105 S.Ct. 2633. The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion or violate Caldwell when it limited the Defendant, and the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this matter. Id.