Opinion ID: 1058933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: photographs of victims' bodies

Text: Three color photographs of the victims' bodies at the crime scene were admitted into evidence at the resentencing hearing. Two of these photographs were also admitted at the first sentencing hearing. The first photograph shows Mr. Jackson crouched in a closet and covered with blood. There is a large wound in his head through which part of his brain protrudes. The second photograph shows Mrs. Jackson lying in a pool of blood on the bathroom floor between the wall and the commode. The wound to her left eye is visible. The third photograph, which was admitted only at the resentencing hearing, shows Mrs. Jackson lying on the bathroom floor in a pool of blood. Unlike the second photograph, it shows Mrs. Jackson unclothed from the waist down. In the first appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the first two photographs. Although the issue was raised in this Court in the first appeal, we did not address the issue. In the appeal of Carter's resentencing, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, under the doctrine of the law of the case, the appeal was governed by its prior ruling upholding the trial court's admission of the first two photographs. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the third photograph was admissible as evidence of the circumstances of the crimes. The court noted that the third photograph was not unfairly prejudicial because the portion of the photograph showing the unclothed part of Mrs. Jackson's body was obscured by shadow. Carter argues that the photographs were unfairly prejudicial to him because they are gruesome and graphic and have marginal evidentiary value. Carter further contends that the photographs should not have been admitted because they were cumulative to evidence conveyed through the testimony of witnesses. Finally, Carter asserts that an exception to the law of the case doctrine applies because the prior ruling of the Court of Criminal Appeals upholding the trial court's admission of the first two photographs was clearly erroneous. Under the doctrine of the law of the case, when an initial appeal results in a remand to the trial court, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case, which must be followed upon remand by the trial court and by an appellate court on a second appeal. See State v. Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn.2000) (citing Memphis Publ'g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn.1998)). However, an issue decided in a prior appeal may be reconsidered if: (1) the evidence offered at the hearing on remand was substantially different from the evidence at the first proceeding; (2) the prior ruling was clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice if allowed to stand; or (3) the prior decision is contrary to a change in the controlling law occurring between the first and second appeal. See id. In the first appeal, this Court neither addressed nor decided by implication the issue of the admission of the photographs. Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeals properly applied the law of the case doctrine in upholding the trial court's admission of the first two photographs, even though this Court reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing on another ground. Cf. Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., 939 S.W.2d 83, 91 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996) (holding that law of the case doctrine does not apply to intermediate appellate court opinions that have been reversed and vacated). As explained below, Carter has failed to show that the prior ruling of the Court of Criminal Appeals was clearly erroneous. Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeals did not err in applying the law of the case doctrine to the issue of the admissibility of the first two photographs. Because this Court previously did not consider the admissibility of the photographs and did not decide the issue by implication, the law of the case doctrine does not control our review of the issue. Tennessee courts have consistently followed a policy of liberality in the admission of photographs in both civil and criminal cases. See State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn.1978). The general rule, announced in Banks, is that photographs of a murder victim's body are admissible if they are relevant to the issues on trial, notwithstanding their gruesome and horrifying character. Id. at 950-51. In addition, the admissibility of evidence at the resentencing hearing in this case is governed primarily by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(c) (1991 & Supp.1993), which provides: In the sentencing proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the punishment and may include, but not be limited to, the nature and circumstances of the crime; the defendant's character, background history, and physical condition; any evidence tending to establish or rebut the aggravating circumstances enumerated in subsection (i); and any evidence tending to establish or rebut any mitigating factors. Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value on the issue of punishment may be received regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence; provided, that the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements so admitted. However, this subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the constitution of the United States or the constitution of Tennessee. Accordingly, 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. See State v. Teague, 897 S.W.2d 248, 250 (Tenn.1995). This statute does not require, however, that the rules of evidence be completely disregarded. The trial court retains its traditional role in controlling the introduction of evidence, and it may continue to use the rules of evidence to guide its decisions regarding admissibility of evidence in capital sentencing proceedings. See State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1, 14 (Tenn.2001). We conclude that the three photographs at issue are relevant as background information because they accurately depict the nature and circumstances of the crimes. The introduction of background information regarding the nature and circumstances of the crime is especially important in cases such as the one before us in which the defendant pleaded guilty. In such cases, the sentencing jury does not have the benefit of proof normally introduced in the guilt phase of the trial. In this procedural posture, the parties are entitled to offer evidence relating to the circumstances of the crime so that the sentencing jury will have essential background information `to ensure that the jury acts from a base of knowledge in sentencing the defendant.' State v. Adkins, 725 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tenn.1987) (quoting State v. Teague, 680 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tenn.1984)). We conclude that the photographs are also relevant for the purpose of establishing the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance for both murders. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) (1991 & Supp.1993). The (i)(5) circumstance states: The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. Id. This Court has repeatedly held that photographs relevant to proving the aggravating circumstance that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel are admissible in the penalty phase. See State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 162 (Tenn.1998) (appendix); State v. Porterfield, 746 S.W.2d 441, 450 (Tenn.1988); State v. McNish, 727 S.W.2d 490, 495 (Tenn.1987). We have held that the anticipation of physical harm to oneself is torturous. See Carter, 988 S.W.2d at 150; State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872, 886-87 (Tenn.1998); State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 358 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 999, 118 S.Ct. 567, 139 L.Ed.2d 407 (1997). The contested photographs aid in establishing that the victims suffered torture in the form of severe mental anguish. The jury could infer from these photographs that both victims anticipated physical harm. Mental torture also occurs when a victim hears or anticipates the harm or killing of a spouse and is helpless to assist. See Carter, 988 S.W.2d at 150-51. The jury could reasonably infer from the testimony that Mr. Jackson knew or strongly suspected that his wife was being raped and that he was prevented from helping her. The photograph showing Mrs. Jackson's partially nude body corroborates her rape and is therefore also probative on the question of mental torture. Likewise, the photograph showing Mr. Jackson's body in the closet corroborates testimony that the couple was separated during the violent attack. The jury could reasonably infer from the testimony and the photographs that Mrs. Jackson was likewise helpless to assist her husband and that she heard the shot that killed him while in fear for her own life. We further conclude that the probative value of the photographs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We do not consider the photographs excessively gruesome or shocking, especially in light of the graphic testimony in this case. Moreover, while the photographs corroborate testimony presented at the sentencing hearing, the information sought to be conveyed by the photographs, even if cumulative, is clearly admissible. See State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788, 811 (Tenn.2000) (appendix) (stating that a relevant photograph is not rendered inadmissible merely because it is cumulative); see also State v. Van Tran, 864 S.W.2d 465, 477 (Tenn.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1046, 114 S.Ct. 1577, 128 L.Ed.2d 220 (1994) (holding that color photographs of deceased victims at crime scene were admissible despite introduction of extensive color videotape showing victims' bodies as they were found); State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 551 (Tenn.1992) (concluding that photographs of the victim's body were admissible despite oral testimony graphically describing victim's injuries). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the three photographs into evidence at the resentencing hearing.