Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: The Prosecutor's Argument Regarding the Jury's Role with Regard to Mitigating Circumstances

Text: The first statement challenged by Mr. Banks relates to the jury's role with regard to mitigating circumstances. The prosecutor argued the following to the jury: [Y]ou're going to get a whole list of 17 or 18 of them [(mitigating circumstances)], a whole slew of them. But the Court is not telling you that any of those are mitigating circumstances. The Court can't do that because that's your job. That's your function. And you get to decide whether any of these 17 or 18 decisions are mitigating circumstances. Mr. Banks objected to this statement and requested a curative instruction. During a bench conference, the trial court explained that this statement was incorrect and permitted the prosecutor to correct her own error. Following the bench conference, the prosecutor argued to the jury that: In a few moments, the Court will present you with a list of things that are labeled `mitigating circumstances.' And it is up to you to accept or reject which ones apply in this case, if any. And after you determine whether any of these are to be considered, during your determination you also have to assess the weight to give each and every single one of these mitigating circumstances, if any. Mr. Banks did not object to this description of the jury's role with regard to mitigating circumstances. Following the closing arguments, the trial court gave the following instruction with regard to assessing mitigating circumstances as part of its general instructions: Mitigating circumstances. Tennessee law provides that in arriving at the punishment, the jury shall consider as previously indicated any mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence which shall include but are not limited to the following: ... [O]ne, the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. Convictions for the crimes of aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, domestic violence assault, and attempted aggravated burglary are not aggravating circumstances to be considered in determining the penalty but a conviction of that crime may be considered... in determining whether or not the defendant has a significant history of prior criminal activity. Two, the youth of the defendant at the time of the crime. Three, the defendant was an accomplice in the murder committed by another person and the defendant's conduct was relatively minor. Four, the defendant is HIV positive and as a result of his illness, the defendant has attempted to take his own life. Five, the defendant has held several jobs in spite of his illness. Six, the defendant transferred from school to school and was unable to maintain friendships established at school and did not complete high school. Seven, the defendant was one of ten children and he received only limited support from his mother and father. Eight, the defendant's family moved around from place to place and were never really together. Additionally, some of the children were removed from the home. Nine, the defendant's two younger sisters were raped. Ten, the defendant's mother is currently incarcerated and has been incarcerated for the majority of the defendant's life. In addition, the defendant's brother Robert Hill was incarcerated during a majority of the defendant's life. Eleven, .. . the defendant was the youngest of seven brothers and the brothers beat the defendant and picked on him to the point that others had to intervene. Twelve, despite lack of family support, the defendant was an active member of Leewood Church and participated in the youth activities. Thirteen, the defendant cared for his pets, tried to improve his domestic skills by learning to cook and has a talent for drawing. Fourteen, the defendant has been a good inmate. Fifteen, while incarcerated the defendant has completed numerous programs aimed at rehabilitation. Sixteen, the defendant has touched the lives of others in a positive way. Seventeen, both the defendant's family and friends from church will continue to keep in contact with the defendant and support him while he is incarcerated. And [eighteen], any other mitigating factor which is raised by the evidence produced either by the prosecution or the defense at either the guilt or the sentencing hearing. That is, you shall consider any aspect of defendant's character or record or any aspect of the circumstances of the offense favorable to the defendant which is supported by the evidence. No distinction shall be made between mitigating circumstances listed and those otherwise raised by the evidence. The defendant does not have the burden of proving mitigating circumstances. There is no requirement of jury unanimity as to any particular mitigating circumstance or that you agree on the same mitigating circumstance. Tennessee law provides that the jury shall consider any mitigating circumstances which may include, but are not limited to, those specified in Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(j) (2006). While the jury must consider these circumstances, the ultimate determination of whether mitigating evidence exists and the weight to be given to aggravating and mitigating circumstances are issues for the jury. State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788, 799 (Tenn. 2000); see also, e.g., State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 918 (Tenn.1998); State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tenn.1997). In accordance with the catch-all provision in Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(j)(9), the defendant may identify any other mitigation raised by the evidence as a mitigating circumstance. However, the jury is then free to determine whether the suggested circumstance is applicable to the case and the weight that should be given to that particular circumstance. For example, Mr. Banks asserted that the fact that he can cook should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Accordingly, the trial court instructed the jury that Mr. Banks offered his ability to cook as a mitigating circumstance and that they were required to consider it. However, the jury remained free to determine whether, in fact, Mr. Banks had learned to cook and, if so, whether being able to cook has any particular mitigation value. We have found statements similar to the prosecutor's original statement in this case to fall within the realm of permissible forms of argument. State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d 75, 85 (Tenn.1994) (declining to find that arguing that there were no mitigating statements in the case was reversible error). In addition, the prosecutor immediately corrected her statement, and the trial court gave the jury a complete and proper instruction regarding its role when considering the mitigating evidence. Juries are presumed to follow the trial court's instructions. State v. Young, 196 S.W.3d 85, 111 (Tenn.2006); State v. Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900, 904 (Tenn. 2001). With the trial court's instructions requiring the jury to consider the mitigating circumstances, there is no basis to conclude that the prosecutor's original statement rises to level of being reversible error. C.