Opinion ID: 1044041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nature and Circumstances of the Crime

Text: The Defendant also argues that the photographs did not provide essential background for purposes of showing the nature and circumstances of the crime and, therefore, this Court's ruling in Odom II that the photographs were relevant for these purposes, see 137 S.W.3d at 588, is in direct conflict with the ruling in Teague, 897 S.W.2d at 248. Because the re-sentencing jury did not have the benefit of the proof introduced at the guilt phase, the State contends that its familiarity with the circumstances of the crime was essential to ensure both individualized sentencing by the jury and effective comparative proportionality review by the appellate courts. The Court of Criminal Appeals declined to address the Defendant's argument, stating that [a]s an intermediate appellate court, we are bound by the decisions of our supreme court and without authority to consider whether these decisions are in conflict. Odom, 2010 Tenn. Crim.App. LEXIS 223, at . Our resolution of this issue requires both a review of the standard by which evidence is admitted during a capital sentencing hearing and an examination of our holding in Teague. Generally, photographs of a murder victim's body are admissible if they are `relevant to the issues on trial, notwithstanding their gruesome and horrifying character.' State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Tenn.2003) (quoting Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 950-51). While the Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of photographs at trial, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(c) controls the admission of evidence in the sentencing hearing of a capital case. The statute allows for the admission of evidence on any matter that the court deems relevant to the punishment including, but not limited to, the nature and circumstances of the crime . . . regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence.  Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(c) (emphasis added); see also Carter, 114 S.W.3d at 903 (noting that, under the statute, any evidence relevant to the circumstances of the murder, the aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State, or the mitigating circumstances is admissible if such evidence has probative value in the determination of punishment). Although a trial court may use the Rules of Evidence as guidance in capital sentencing proceedings, Carter, 114 S.W.3d at 903, the rules should not be applied to preclude introduction of otherwise reliable evidence that is relevant to the issue of punishment, as it relates to mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the nature and circumstances of the particular crime, or the character and background of the individual defendant. Sims, 45 S.W.3d at 14. Instead, the relevant inquiries for the trial court are the reliability, relevance, value, and prejudicial effect of the evidence. Id. The admission of photographs lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing that the trial court abused that discretion. Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 949. In Teague, the issue was whether a defendant could present exculpatory evidence in a re-sentencing hearing as a means of mitigating his culpability for his crimes. 897 S.W.2d at 249. While holding that a defendant has the right to present at the [re-]sentencing hearing . . . evidence relating to the circumstances of the crime or the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, including evidence which may mitigate his culpability, id. at 256, this Court also expressed general approval of the State's introduction of background evidence, setting out guidelines as follows: [E]vidence of how the crime was committed, the injuries, and aggravating and mitigating factors are admissible. There appears to be no reason why such guidelines, carefully limiting evidence to the essential background, should not apply in capital cases in order to ensure that the jury acts from a base of knowledge in sentencing the defendant. Id. at 251 (quoting State v. Teague, 680 S.W.2d 785, 787-88 (Tenn.1984)). Nothing in Teague suggests that photographs of a murder victim at the scene of the crime cannot be considered essential background relevant to the nature and circumstances of the offense. In our view, Exhibit 5 demonstrates how the crime was committed. The victim's stab wounds illustrate the severity of the attack. See Teague, 897 S.W.2d at 251. Exhibit 6, which depicts the victim clutching a check in her hand, is probative of the State's assertion that the murder was committed while the Defendant was engaged in a robbery, an aggravating circumstance warranting the imposition of the death penalty. Id. In our view, there is no conflict between our determination in Odom II that the photographs were admissible to show the nature and circumstances of the crime and the principle established in Teague.