Opinion ID: 1060373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Reverend Joe Ingle

Text: As mitigation proof, Austin presented the videotape depositions of two retired prison guards, Hardin Green and John Owen, describing Austin's actions during a 1985 prison riot. Both Green and Owen testified that Austin protected them and five other guards from inmates in the general population who had started a riot and were trying to break into the death-row unit. Later, Austin presented the testimony of Reverend Joe Ingle, a prison minister who had had a pastoral relationship with Austin for twenty-two years. After relating information about Austin, Ingle was asked to specifically recall the 1985 prison riot. Ingle explained that his knowledge of the riot was gained from conversations with John Owen. When Ingle began to relate what Owen had told him, the State objected. The trial court sustained the objection, finding that Ingle's testimony was hearsay [8] and duplicated Owen's testimony. As a preliminary matter, we note that Austin failed to make an offer of proof concerning Ingle's testimony. Under similar circumstances, we have held that the issue is waived. See State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 704 n. 10 (Tenn.2001); see also Sims, 45 S.W.3d at 15. Because Ingle's testimony about Austin's actions during the riot presumably would have mirrored Owen's testimony, we conclude that the record is adequate for review. We will therefore address the issue on its merits. Citing Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986), Austin contends that Ingle's testimony was not cumulative because Ingle was the only live witness presented to testify regarding Austin's actions during the riot. In Skipper , the United States Supreme Court determined that mitigating testimony about the defendant's good behavior in prison was not cumulative because it came from disinterested witnesses such as jailers while the earlier evidence had come from the defendant and his family and was the type of evidence a jury would naturally discount as self-serving. 476 U.S. at 7-8, 106 S.Ct. 1669. Unlike Skipper , the jury in Austin's case already had heard the testimony of two disinterested witnessesGreen and Owenconcerning the mitigating evidence. Moreover, the excluded testimony was based on second-hand knowledge, not first-hand observation as in Skipper . Ingle's testimony was no less cumulative because the prior testimony was presented by videotape depositions. A finding that mitigating evidence is cumulative, however, does not make such evidence inadmissible. As we have indicated, the Rules of Evidence do not govern the admissibility of evidence under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-2404(c) (Supp.1977) [now section 39-13-204(c) (Supp.2001)]. See Sims, 45 S.W.3d at 14. We have found error when a trial court excluded mitigating evidence on the ground that it was cumulative. See Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 738. In that case, the trial court excluded a letter written to the defendant from his eight-year-old son expressing love and support. In light of the principles expressed in section 39-13-204(c), we concluded that the trial court erred in excluding the letter. 967 S.W.2d at 738. We further held, however, that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the essence of the evidence was presented to the jury in other forms. Id. at 739. In the present case, the excluded evidence was more than cumulativeit was duplicative. Ingle was not an eyewitness to Austin's actions during the prison riot. Ingle could only repeat what Owen had told him. With no offer of proof to demonstrate otherwise, we must assume that Ingle's testimony would have consisted of hearsay duplicating Owen's previous testimony. Notwithstanding the principles expressed in § 39-2404(c) (Supp.1977) [now § 39-13-204(c)], a trial court still retains some discretion in controlling the presentation of proof in a capital sentencing hearing within the confines of constitutional requirements. See Sims, 45 S.W.3d at 14. Given the duplicative nature of Ingle's hearsay testimony, we are unable to conclude that the trial court erred in excluding the evidence. Furthermore, even if Ingle's testimony should have been admitted, any error in excluding the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 739.