Opinion ID: 1060450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instructions and Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: Relying upon this Court's decision in State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn.1992), Miller raises two related issues. First, he alleges that the jury instructions given at his trial relieved the State of its burden to prove premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore violated his right to due process under the United States Constitution. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). Miller also argues that the prejudicial effect of these unconstitutional jury instructions is clear because the evidence was insufficient for any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of deliberation, premeditation, and lack of heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller argues that these issues are proper grounds for consideration in a post-conviction proceeding because this Court's decision in Brown announced a new constitutional rule that must be retroactively applied because it enhances the fact-finding process of the trial. See Meadows v. State, 849 S.W.2d 748, 754 (Tenn.1993) (discussing the circumstances that will require retroactive application of new state constitutional rules). Apparently recognizing that there is no precedent supporting his position, Miller says that the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case and in prior decisions has dealt only with the retroactivity of Brown's disapproval and abandonment of the premeditation can be formed in an instant jury instruction and has failed to address the retroactivity of the core issue of Brown : how to properly define deliberation apart from premeditation. The State argues that Miller's complaint about the jury instruction is waived because it was not raised on direct appeal. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-112(b)(1) (repealed 1995). [3] The State also argues that the sufficiency of the evidence to establish premeditation and deliberation may not be raised in this post-conviction action because it was previously determined by this Court in Miller's direct appeal. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-112(a) (repealed 1995); Miller, 674 S.W.2d at 282-83. The State also argues that Brown did not announce a new state constitutional rule, did not implicate any constitutional right, is not retroactive, and may not serve as the basis for post-conviction relief. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-105 (repealed 1995); [4] Harris v. State, 947 S.W.2d 156, 174 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996). Finally, the State asserts that even if these claims are considered on the merits Miller is entitled to no relief because the jury instructions given at his trial accurately stated the law and because the evidence offered sufficiently established premeditation and deliberation. We begin our analysis with Brown , in which this Court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish deliberation and premeditation and modified the defendant's conviction from first- to second-degree murder. Id. at 537. In so holding, we reviewed many Tennessee appellate court decisions and concluded that some of those decisions had blurred the distinction between premeditation and deliberationthe essential elements of first degree murder. Id. at 537-44. We emphasized that the courts of Tennessee should adhere to long-established rules of law and that we should abandon the modern tendency to muddle the line between first- and second-degree murder. Id. at 542-43. We found support for this view in the 1989 statute, [5] which had included both premeditation and deliberation in the definition of first-degree murder. Id. As a result, we concluded that it is prudent to abandon an instruction that tells the jury that `premeditation may be formed in an instant.' Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 543. We also overruled prior case law to the extent it had interpreted the fact of repeated blows to constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation in and of itself. Id. at 543-44. In Brown , contrary to Miller's assertion, we did not announce a new rule of constitutional law. In fact, we did not so much as refer to the state or federal constitution in our discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence issue. We also did not declare or imply that the potentially confusing premeditation may be formed in an instant instruction infringed upon a defendant's constitutional rights. Finally, we neither declared nor implied that the decision could or should be applied to invalidate every first-degree murder conviction that had been previously obtained. Indeed, the summary in Brown indicates the straightforward and routine nature of our holding: [W]e do not condone the homicide in this case, or the sustained abuse of the defenseless victim, Eddie Brown. We simply hold that in order to sustain the defendant's conviction, the proof must conform to the statute. Because the state has failed to establish sufficient evidence of first-degree murder, we reduce the defendant's conviction to second degree murder and remand the case for resentencing. Id. at 544 (emphasis added). In Brown we simply reiterated that Tennessee law had for many years required proof of both premeditation and deliberation to sustain a conviction of first-degree murder, and we repudiated any prior, aberrant decisions blurring that dual requirement. To avoid future blurring or confusion, we abandoned the jury instruction that advises premeditation may be formed in an instant, and emphasized that the fact of repeated blows is not sufficient circumstantial proof in and of itself to establish premeditation and deliberation. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals has uniformly recognized that Brown did not create a new constitutional rule which must be given retroactive application. See, e.g., Lofton v. State, 898 S.W.2d 246, 249 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 27, 1995); Harris v. State, 947 S.W.2d 156, 174 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 3, 1997); Alley v. State, 958 S.W.2d 138, 154 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 29, 1997); Thompson v. State, 958 S.W.2d 156, 173 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 20, 1997). The Court of Criminal Appeals has also appropriately recognized that this Court's abandonment of a potentially confusing jury instruction does not automatically mean that prior use of the abandoned jury instruction was constitutional error. See, e.g., Lofton, 898 S.W.2d at 250. The petitioner's attempt to distinguish the issues he raises in this case from these prior decisions refusing to apply Brown retroactively is unpersuasive. Accordingly, consistent with Brown itself, and with every other appellate court decision addressing the issue, we conclude that Brown did not create a new state constitutional rule, that the decision is not to be given retroactive application, and that use of the abandoned jury instruction did not infringe upon or implicate any constitutional right. Having so determined, it follows that Miller's challenge to the jury instructions given at his initial trial must fail. As the State points out, this issue has been waived because it was not raised in his direct appeal to this Court. [6] See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-112(b)(1) (repealed 1995). Moreover, Miller's related claim that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury's finding of premeditation and deliberation was previously determined by this Court in his direct appeal. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-112(a) (repealed 1995). The sufficiency of the proof as to premeditation and deliberation was the second issue addressed in this Court's opinion. See Miller, 674 S.W.2d at 282. After stating that one of the defenses interposed at trial was that the evidence was insufficient because the defendant was so intoxicated he could not commit premeditated murder, we considered and rejected that claim, concluding that [t]he jury was properly charged on that issue and their verdict was approved by the trial judge. Id. at 283. Clearly the precise issue of sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation and deliberation about which Miller now complains was previously determined and rejected by this Court on direct appeal. This issue cannot be revisited in this post-conviction proceeding.