Opinion ID: 1057999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Testimony about Victim's Ring

Text: The Defendant submits that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of testimony about a ring that the Defendant had given to his girlfriend, Julie Webb. The Defendant argues that the testimony concerning the ring, obviously intended to suggest that the Defendant had stolen the ring from his young son, was not relevant to either an aggravating circumstance or any mitigating factors at sentencing. At the conclusion of Webb's testimony, the State sought to introduce the ring into evidence. The trial court sustained the Defendant's objection, but noted the possibility that the ring could be used in rebuttal. Thereafter, through cross-examination, the defense elicited testimony from Detective Caldwell that he was not aware of any criminal record that the Defendant had as a result of his investigation. The defense elicited further, similar testimony from Agent Davenport: Q: [Mr. Ogle]: I know you indicated, Sheriff, that Mr. Stephenson told you he didn't have any criminal arrests, or anything like that. I take it you didn't take his word for that, you checked it, did you not? A: [Davenport]: I believe I did. Q: And you found no criminal background on Mr. Stephenson whatsoever? A: I don't remember any, Mr. Ogle. I don't remember any. Q: Certainly none reflected in your file, is there? A: I can't find a criminal record. I don't remember a criminal record on Mr. Stephenson. Q: And as general procedure, that's something you would check during an investigation? A: That's correct. Q: And if there were a criminal history that could be significant as far as the case is concerned, is that true? Gen. Schmutzer: Your Honor, we'll stipulate we don't have a criminal history. Based on the testimony of both Detective Caldwell and Agent Davenport regarding the lack of the Defendant's criminal history, the State again sought to introduce the ring. The trial court noted that the State's stipulation had not come until several questions regarding the lack of a criminal background had been asked and answered and ruled that the defense had opened the door through its questioning of these State's witnesses. Julie Webb was recalled and testified that the Defendant gave the ring to her in November 1989, and the ring was introduced for identification purposes. Evidence relevant to the issue of punishment and therefore admissible at a capital sentencing hearing includes any evidence tending to establish or rebut any mitigating factors. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(c). `Rebutting evidence' is that which tends to explain or controvert evidence produced by an adverse party. Cozzolino v. State, 584 S.W.2d at 765, 768 (Tenn.1979) (citing State v. Anderson, 159 N.W.2d 809 (Iowa 1968); Hutchinson v. Shaheen, 55 A.D.2d 833, 390 N.Y.S.2d 317 (1976)). In this case, the Defendant gave notice that he intended to rely on the fact that he had no significant prior record. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(j)(1). At the hearing, the Defendant then pursued a particular line of questioning with two State's witnesses which was designed to and did in fact support this mitigating factor. The State was entitled to offer proof in rebuttal. The testimony of the victim's father and the Defendant's girlfriend established that the Defendant had taken a ring belonging to his young son and given it to his girlfriend. The fact that the Defendant had not been convicted or even arrested for this offense is irrelevant. As the State correctly notes, when the Defendant relies on the Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(j)(1) statutory mitigating factor, he inevitably becomes subject to rebuttal evidence offered by the prosecution showing prior criminal activity. Neither the prosecution nor the defense is limited under this statutory provision to proof of prior convictions. State v. Matson, 666 S.W.2d 41, 44 (Tenn.1984). This issue is without merit.