Opinion ID: 1060826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In this case, the jury imposed the death penalty upon its finding [7] that [t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) (1991). On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support this aggravating circumstance. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that because the victim died instantaneously from a single gunshot wound to the head, the proof was not sufficient to show that the murder involved serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Relying upon decisions of this Court defining torture as the infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains alive and conscious, State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529 (Tenn.1985), the Court of Criminal Appeals also held that the proof in case was not sufficient to establish physical torture because Dr. Smith had testified that the individual burns caused the victim only moderate, rather than severe, physical pain. Nonetheless, the intermediate court found the proof showed mental torture, sufficient to support the aggravating circumstance because Dr. Smith testified that the victim had suffered a great degree of distress anticipating the infliction of the repeated burns and bruises. In this court, the defendant agrees with the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals as to physical torture and serious physical abuse, but asserts that the intermediate court erred in upholding the aggravating circumstance on the basis of mental torture because Dr. Smith's testimony that the victim suffered a great degree of distress is speculative. In contrast, the State agrees with the intermediate court's decision with respect to mental torture, but avers that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in finding the evidence insufficient to establish physical torture and serious physical abuse since the evidence of numerous moderately painful injuries considered cumulatively is sufficient to support findings of physical torture and serious physical abuse. As previously stated, torture has been defined as the infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains alive and conscious. Williams, 690 S.W.2d at 529. The proof in this case clearly is sufficient to show that the victim was alive and conscious when the injuries were inflicted. Dr. Smith testified that examination of the burns and bruises revealed that they had been inflicted before the victim's death. The victim's sister testified that she had seen the victim alive and conscious at 1:00 p.m. on the day of the murder. The defendant confirmed that testimony. The victim's sister said that she had observed a burn mark on the victim's neck at that time which had not been there the previous day. Obviously, this testimony reveals that the victim was conscious at least when some of the injuries were inflicted. The defendant consistently maintained that the victim had been conscious until he shot her. Considered in conjunction with Dr. Smith's testimony that the burns and bruises were inflicted before death, the defendant's testimony indicates that the victim was alive and conscious during the infliction of each and every burn and bruise. In our view, the proof in this record is sufficient to support a finding that the victim was alive and conscious when the injuries were inflicted. We must next consider whether the proof is sufficient to support a finding that the infliction of these injuries caused the alive and conscious victim severe physical or mental pain. In evaluating the sufficiency of the proof on this issue, we are mindful of two longstanding rules in this State. First, [t]he jury may use their common knowledge and experience in deciding whether a fact is logically deducible from the circumstances in evidence, or in making reasonable inferences from the evidence, and may test the truth and weight of the evidence by their own general knowledge and judgment derived from experience, observation, and reflection.... Trousdale v. State, 168 Tenn. 210, 76 S.W.2d 646 (1934); Fairbanks v. State, 508 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Tenn.1974); State v. Meeks, 876 S.W.2d 121, 131 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993). Second, while expert testimony may embrace an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact, State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn.1997); Tenn. R. Evid. 704, the jury is not bound to accept the testimony of an expert. Indeed, the weight and value of expert testimony is for the jury to determine. State v. Sparks, 891 S.W.2d 607, 616 (Tenn.1995). There is no exception to this rule for capital cases. The prosecution is not required to offer expert testimony as to the precise level of pain inflicted upon a victim. Even if such testimony is offered, as previously stated, jurors are not bound to accept the testimony of expert witnesses. Indeed, jurors are free to use their common knowledge and judgment derived from experience, observation, and reflection to decide whether a fact is logically deducible or reasonably inferred from the evidence. In finding the proof in this record insufficient to support a finding that severe physical pain had been inflicted upon the alive and conscious victim, the Court of Criminal Appeals cited only that portion of Dr. Smith's testimony indicating that the victim had suffered moderate pain from the individual burns. The intermediate court apparently considered the jury bound by that testimony. In evaluating the sufficiency of the proof, an appellate court must consider the entire body of evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Applying that standard to the facts in this case, we conclude that the proof is sufficient to support the jury's finding of physical torture beyond a reasonable doubt. Beginning six hours before the victim's death and lasting up until minutes before she actually died, the defendant inflicted first and second degree burns on her body in six places. Dr. Smith compared these burns to a severe sunburn or a scald burn. One burn had resulted when the defendant held an open flame under the victim's chin. On the left side of the victim's neck, the defendant carefully burned the numeral one (1). The defendant also beat the soles of the victim's feet with sufficient force to cause bruising, and according to Dr. Smith, great pain. Given the detailed description, both of these injuries and the methods by which they were inflicted, certainly the jurors, using their common knowledge and experience, could have assessed the degree of pain resulting from these injuries. Moreover, while we agree with the intermediate court's conclusion with regard to the sufficiency of the proof to support a jury finding that severe mental pain was inflicted upon the victim, we again do not base our conclusion solely upon Dr. Smith's testimony that the victim would have suffered a great degree of distress anticipating the infliction of the various injuries. Utilizing their common knowledge and experience as members of the human race, the jurors were capable of evaluating the proof and determining whether the victim suffered severe mental pain when, over the course of a six hour time period, her body was burned and beaten in her own home, with four of her young children present. The sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury's finding of torture does not depend upon whether an expert witness utters the magical words severe physical or mental pain. The relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn.1994). Applying this standard, we conclude that the proof is sufficient to support a jury finding that both severe physical and mental pain was inflicted upon the victim while she remained alive and conscious. Moreover, in our view, the evidence is also sufficient to support a finding of serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death even though the cause of the victim's death was a single gunshot wound to the head. There is no requirement that the cause or mode of death also be the cause or mode of the serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. In this case, burns and bruises were inflicted upon the victim over a period of six hours. [S]erious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death means just what it says; there must be serious physical, not mental, abuse, i.e., an act that is `excessive' or which makes `improper use of a thing,' or which uses a thing `in a manner contrary to the natural or legal rules for its use. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 26 (Tenn.1996). Certainly, the abuse of the victim in this case qualifies. The defendant burned the victim's body in various places and beat the soles of her feet before he shot her in the head. Considering this proof, we conclude that a rational jury could have found that this murder involved serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.