Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 35

Heading: whether the trial court failed to provide the jury with proposed instructions necessary for the proper determination of sentence.

Text: The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain requested jury instructions during the penalty phase of the trial. The trial court rejected the following special instructions: 1.(2) Burden of proof  generally; 2.(4) Life means life  death means death  sentence will be carried out; 3.(5) Definition of life and death  sentencing; 4.(6) Jury has responsibility for final decision  sentencing; 5.(7) Decision to be made by individual jurors  sentencing; 6.(9) Aggravating circumstance  definition  sentencing; 7.(10) Weighing aggravation and mitigation  defining mitigation  sentencing; 8.(13) Aggravating circumstance  standards for consideration  sentencing; 9.(14) Presumption regarding aggravating circumstances  sentencing; 10.(15) Aggravating circumstances  unanimity  sentencing: 11.(16) Aggravating circumstance  individual consideration but requirement of unanimity  sentencing; 12.(18) Sentence  crime in society; 13.(19) Deterrence  cost sentencing; 14.(20) Definition  weight and unanimity  sentencing; 15.(21) Definition  mitigating circumstances  sentencing; 16.(22) Mitigating circumstance  definition  sentencing; 17.(23) Mitigating circumstance  definition  sentencing; 18.(24) Standard of proof  sentencing; 19.(26) Weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances  sentencing; 20.(27) Doubt inures to the benefit of the defendant  sentencing; 21.(28) Mercy  sentencing; 22.(29) Consideration for sentence less than death  sentencing; 23.(30) Mitigation  reason for sentence less than death  sentencing; 24.(31) Sympathy  sentencing; 25.(32) Compassion  mercy  sentencing; 26.(33) Mitigation  reason for sentence less than death  sentencing; 27.(34) Mitigating circumstances  basis for sentence less than death  sentencing; 28.(35) Imposing a sentence less than death; 29.(36) May vote life  sentencing; 30.(37) Finding beyond a reasonable doubt that death is appropriate  sentencing; 31.(38) Lingering doubt  sentencing; 32.(39) Jury verdict  inability to agree  sentencing; 33.(40) No evidence except that introduced at trial  sentencing; 34.(42) Mitigating circumstance  age  sentencing; 35.(44) Mitigating circumstance  mental illness  sentencing; 36.(46) Mitigating circumstance  capacity to appreciate criminality  sentencing; 37.(47) Mitigating circumstance  emotional development  sentencing; 38.(50) Mitigating circumstance  adolescent  sentencing; 39.(51) Mitigating circumstance  parental expectations  sentencing; 40.(53) Mitigating circumstance  health of another  sentencing; 41.(54) Mitigating circumstance  domination  sentencing; 42.(55) Mitigating circumstance  planning of crime  sentencing; 43.(56) Mitigating circumstance  death of victim  sentencing; 44.(57) Mitigating circumstance  lingering doubt  sentencing. When a trial court's instructions correctly charge the applicable law, the court does not err by refusing special requests. Tillery v. State, 565 S.W.2d 509, 511(Tenn. Crim. App. 1978). Nor is it error to refuse to give an inaccurate special request. State v. Moore, 751 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1988). After reviewing the instructions given by the trial court, we conclude that the instructions adequately charge the applicable law. This issue is without merit.