Opinion ID: 1057584
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Belittling Mitigation Proof

Text: Defendant also contends that, during closing argument, the prosecution improperly belittled the mitigating circumstances. Specifically, he complains about the following remarks: What mitigating factors is he pointing to? He expresses remorse. That doesn't make this any better. That doesn't make those three people any less dead. That doesn't take away from the pain and suffering of Larry Taylor and James Goff. I'm sorry just won't cut it. That's not going to mitigate the seriousness of this offense and what has happened out there at the TDOT facility. Saying I'm sorry is just not going to get it. Now I know his children love him. I would expect that from his children. That doesn't make this any better. Most people's children love them, but that doesn't mean that these three people are any less dead, and that does not mean that these people aren't suffering just the same. That doesn't make it any better. That doesn't make it anymore understandable. It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened out there. He adjusted well to prison life. That doesn't make this any better. He might live on in prison. That doesn't weigh anything. That doesn't make this any more understandable. Well let me tell you what weighs heavily against all of those mitigating factors in this case. That this Defendant left his house that morning with the intent of murdering his wife in cold blood, and it had special meaning to him because he was gonna do it with her brother's gun. He had a special purpose there to make sure that when she turned around after being shot in the leg, she knew she was dying with her brother's gun. That's what's weighty in this case. ... Depravity of mind.... I'm sorry doesn't mitigate that. My children don't want me to die doesn't mitigate that. I'll do well in prison doesn't mitigate that. I read books while I'm in jail doesn't mitigate that. (Emphasis added). We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that, for the most part, the prosecutor's remarks were aimed simply at the weight to be given the mitigating circumstances. Such argument is proper. Banks, 271 S.W.3d at 135; State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d 75, 85 (Tenn.1994). That portion of the argument we have italicized, however, went beyond simply arguing the weight of mitigating factors. Arguing that the jury should give weight to Defendant's use of Mrs. Jordan's brother's gun was tantamount to arguing that aspect of the crime as an aggravating circumstance. It is improper for a prosecutor to argue non-statutory aggravating circumstances. See Terry v. State, 46 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tenn.2001) (recognizing that the State may not rely upon nonstatutory aggravating circumstances in seeking the imposition of the death penalty). Moreover, this argument misstated the evidence. The gun which belonged to Mrs. Jordan's brother was the assault rifle. By the time Defendant shot Mrs. Jordan with that gun, she was already dead. She did not, therefore, know that she was dying with her brother's gun. There was, however, a contemporaneous objection to this argument, and the trial court instructed the jury that which gun [was] utilized is not an aggravating factor in itself. Additionally, the trial court's instructions made clear that the jury could base a verdict of death only upon its unanimous finding of one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances charged. Defendant is therefore not entitled to relief on this basis.