Opinion ID: 1057584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Requested Limiting Instruction Regarding Dr. Matthews's Opinion Testimony

Text: During his testimony in rebuttal during the guilt/innocence phase of Defendant's trial, the State's witness Dr. Daryl Matthews stated that, in forming his expert opinion about Defendant's mental status, he relied a great deal on the statements of the various people who were at the scene. One of the statements he referred to was a transcript of the call that TDOT mechanic and reserve sheriff's deputy Freddie Ellison placed to the sheriff's department, in which Ellison told the dispatcher that he knew Defendant and that Defendant had told him to go on and back off. From this, Dr. Matthews inferred that Defendant had a lot of capacity to choose who he was going to shoot and who he wasn't going to shoot. In additional support of this conclusion, Dr. Matthews referred to Officer Anderson's report that quoted Defendant as stating that he did not want to shoot the police; to Mr. Bond's statement that Defendant looked up and saw me and shook his head as if to tell me he didn't want me involved; and to Mr. Leach's statement that, when Defendant drove up to the garage and got out of his truck, Defendant walked past Leach and nodded at him. Dr. Matthews also quoted from Paul Forsythe's statement about Defendant's interaction with Mr. Gordon. Forsythe had described the driver of the red truck as fold[ing] the seat forward on the truck and then pull[ing] out a black rifle with a silencer or something on the end of the barrel. Defense counsel objected and requested the trial court to instruct the jury that there was no proof in the record that the gun with which Defendant shot Mr. Gordon was equipped with a silencer. The trial court refused on the basis that Forsythe's statement did not claim definitively that the gun had a silencer, but merely reflected that he thought he saw something that looked like one. The court also told defense counsel that the jury will be told they've got to look to the basis... of the expert's opinion, how he formed his opinion, what he relied on. Later, Dr. Matthews quoted from a statement by Jerry Reynolds, reciting that, when Reynolds told James Ricky Simpson that Defendant had just killed Renee, Simpson responded, That son of a bitch called up there this morning.... Defense counsel objected to this testimony on the basis that it was hearsay. The court told the prosecution to move along and instructed the jury to disregard the last statements made. Dr. Matthews also quoted from Defendant's statement as reported by Investigator Miller. Investigator Miller reported that Defendant continued to make statements to me and ask questions such as: `How much time do you think I'll get for this? I don't want to rot in prison. I should have killed myself when the police stopped me. I hope I get the death penalty. After Dr. Matthews' testimony was concluded, defense counsel addressed the trial court about the proposed jury instructions and requested that the jury be instructed not to consider the hearsay contained in Dr. Matthews's expert testimony as substantive evidence. The court responded that it intended to charge Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction 42.02, emphasizing that portion of the instruction which informs the jury that it is to evaluate expert testimony based upon its judgment about whether the witness's background or training and experience is sufficient for the witness to give the expert opinion and that it had to also decide whether the witness's opinions were based on sound reasons, judgment and information. Defense counsel stated that this instruction was not adequate and reiterated that the jury should also be instructed that the hearsay is not substantive evidence and it should not be used as proof of the underlying facts that the expert is basing his opinion on. The trial court did not issue the requested limiting instruction. In its brief to this Court, the State concedes that the trial court erred in not giving the requested instruction, but contends that the error is harmless. We address this issue both with respect to any impact on the guilt/innocence phase of Defendant's trial, and also with respect to any impact on the sentencing phase of Defendant's trial. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703 sets forth the evidentiary parameters for the grounds on which expert witnesses base their opinions. The Advisory Commission Comments to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703 provide that [i]f the bases of expert testimony are not independently admissible, the trial judge should either prohibit the jury from hearing the foundation testimony or should deliver a cautionary instruction. Where an expert witness is referring to hearsay statements not otherwise admissible, then, the trial court should instruct the jury that the hearsay statements are to be used only for evaluating the expert witness's testimony and should not be relied on as substantive evidence. The trial court erred by not issuing the requested limiting instruction. However, the trial court's error entitles Defendant to a reversal of his convictions only if the failure to give the limiting instruction more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process. Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b). The crucial consideration in this inquiry is what impact the error may reasonably be taken to have had on the jury's decision-making. State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 372 (Tenn. 2008). With one possible exception, we have no trouble concluding that there was no impact on the jury's deliberations resulting from the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that it could not consider as substantive evidence the otherwise inadmissible hearsay included in Dr. Matthews's testimony because the hearsay added very little to what was already before the jury from other testimony. [12] We are troubled, however, by Dr. Matthews's rebuttal testimony about Defendant's statements to Investigator Miller, including I don't want to rot in prison. I should have killed myself when the police stopped me. I hope I get the death penalty. Dr. Matthews characterized Defendant's statements as concern about the future, wondering about hishis penalty, knowing that what he did was a crime, knowing something was going to happen, knowing what the possible penalties are, knowing he could get the death penalty, choosing, is it better to rot in jail or get the death penalty. At that moment, he was reflecting about that and decided on the death penalty. This testimony was offered to rebut the defense's expert testimony that Defendant was incapable of premeditation and intent at the time he shot the victims. Even relevant and otherwise admissible evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Tenn. R. Evid. 403; see also State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 951 (Tenn.1978). However, the defense did not make a contemporaneous objection to this testimony or request that the jury be instructed to disregard it. Any error in the admission of this testimony has therefore been waived. State v. Hines, 758 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tenn. 1988) (defendant not entitled to relief from death sentence on basis that his statement that he wanted death penalty was admitted during guilt phase and no objection was lodged). Nevertheless, we recognize that admitting into evidence a defendant's declarations about desiring the death penalty may create a risk that the jury will subsequently rely on the defendant's statements when deciding punishment. Accordingly, the admission of such statements should occur only after careful weighing, and the trial court should consider providing a limiting instruction to ensure that the jury does not utilize the declarations as a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance. While it may have been preferable for Defendant's declarations to have been excluded or accompanied by a limiting instruction, we are persuaded beyond any doubt that their admission had no impact on the jury's decisions to convict Defendant and subsequently to sentence him to death for each of the murders he committed. The State did not rely on this evidence during any of its closing arguments. Moreover, the proof in this case, both as to Defendant's guilt and as to the valid aggravating circumstances, was simply overwhelming. The trial court instructed the jury correctly about the elements of the crimes and the jury's responsibilities with respect to determining whether to convict Defendant of those crimes. The trial court also informed the jury that it could sentence Defendant to death only upon its finding one or more aggravating circumstance for each victim, and finding that the aggravating circumstance(s) outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was in no way informed that it could consider Defendant's statements about his punishment in either determining his guilt or in imposing sentence. Accordingly, we hold that Defendant is not entitled to relief on this basis.