Opinion ID: 1528630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: failure to allow evidence of mitigating circumstances

Text: The majority opinion finds that Dr. Hutson's opinion concerning the validity of the defendant's score on the Beta IQ test was relevant to sentencing issues and therefore should have been admitted at the sentencing hearing. The majority, however, holds that the trial court's error in this respect was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because this information was indirectly presented to the jury as a mitigating factor when the defendant asked Dr. Hutson about other intelligence tests. A court cannot, consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 16 of the Tennessee Constitution, withhold from the sentencer evidence relevant to the defendant's background or character or to the circumstances of the offense that mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (1992). The error in this case is of constitutional dimension, see Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); and harmlessness must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The primary mitigating circumstance presented by the defendant concerned his limited mental capacity. The jury was allowed to hear that the defendant had received a score of 88 on the Beta IQ test but not allowed to hear Dr. Hutson's testimony that the Beta IQ test did not measure the critical statutory factor determining retardation. Denying the defendant the opportunity to present evidence that this so-called IQ test, containing a numerical indicator higher than the statutory level when measured by a valid test, was not valid, in all reason, affected the jury's conclusion as to the defendant's level of mental capability. The majority's conclusion that the fact that the Beta IQ test was not an IQ test at all for the purpose of determining mental retardation was communicated to the jury by Dr. Hutson's statement that the two IQ tests most commonly used were the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet, and that this statement by Dr. Hutson implied that these two were valid IQ tests in comparison with the Beta IQ test [2] is sophistry, at best. The majority's further conclusion, that this conceded violation of the defendant's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights [3] regarding the most significant fact in the case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, is absolutely implausible. I would hold that this error entitles the defendant to a new sentencing hearing.