Opinion ID: 1057999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Testimony Suggesting Lack of Remorse

Text: The State elicited testimony that the Defendant had shown no remorse for the murder of his wife. The victim's father, for example, was asked whether the Defendant had ever expressed to you and your wife any remorse or sorrow of having murdered her? Mr. Saylor responded, None whatsoever. Similar, though less direct, testimony was given by witnesses Wade Tate, Jack Sallie, and Judy Hyder. During a bench conference after the last of these witnesses had been asked whether the Defendant had ever sought any counseling over remorse for his wife's death, defense counsel argued that if he's asking about pastoral counseling, those discussions are privileged. The court responded that it assumed the defense had waived the privilege by calling the witness. Defense counsel further stated: While we're up here, in order to preserve the record, I understand Your Honor's ruling on the questions about remorse, but to preserve the record I believe we need to make a motion to strike all those references. The presence of remorse can be a mitigating factor, but we've not advanced that. The absence of remorse is not an aggravating factor. And this Cozzolino case says you can't rebut a proposition that's not been advanced. So, it's not relevant [to] punishment. During closing argument, the prosecutor twice referred to the Defendant's apparent lack of remorse for his crime. First, he stated: But I submit to you there's one thing that cuts against this man having changed and become a Christian, and that is simply nowhere in this record, nowhere from that witness stand have you heard one person say that this Defendant has shown any remorse or any sorrow over the death of his wife, over what he has done. None. The prosecutor further argued: Has he at any time ever shown any remorse? No. Well, I take that back. Probably the closest thing to it was that very night when [he] told Julie Webb, I didn't love her but I'm going to miss the bitch. That was about the closest thing he's ever come to showing any sorrow or remorse for taking her life. Before this Court, the Defendant asserts that by allowing such testimony and argument, the trial court erroneously permitted the State to interject a non-statutory aggravating circumstance into the proceeding. The State counters that the Defendant has waived this issue. In the alternative, the State contends that evidence regarding lack of remorse was proper rebuttal evidence to the Defendant's evidence of his reformed character and religious conversion while in prison. Examining the closing argument first, this Court observes that the Defendant made no objection to the prosecutor's remarks. It is well settled that without a contemporaneous objection to a prosecutor's statements, the error is waived. State v. Farmer, 927 S.W.2d 582, 591 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820, 825 (Tenn.1978); State v. Compton, 642 S.W.2d 745, 747 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982)). With respect to the testimony concerning the Defendant's lack of a showing of remorse, the Defendant also failed to contemporaneously object to the prosecutor's questions. In fact, the Defendant only moved to strike references to remorse after the fourth witness had essentially completed her testimony. Nonetheless considering the issue, it lacks merit. As discussed in the previous section, the sentencing statute generally permits all evidence deemed relevant to the issue of punishment to be admitted in a capital sentencing proceeding. The prosecution is expressly permitted to rebut any mitigating factors relied on by a Defendant. See State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 424 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-2-203(c) (1982); Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn.2001)).