 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Morris2/5/1999
m five times in chest with Bowie knife, struck her twice in the face with a poker, and bound victim with hemp rope);
(9) State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1984) (death penalty affirmed based on aggravating circumstances (i)(2),(5) and (6), where defendant suffering from "chronic amphetamine psychosis" murdered elderly couple during commission of burglarizing their home, death of victims caused by crushing blows to the head, deaths were neither instantaneous nor simultaneous);
(10) State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342 (Tenn. 1982) (death penalty affirmed based on aggravating circumstances (i)(5) and (i)(6) where defendant used hammer to repeatedly beat victim in head, victim had attempted to defend herself during ordeal, only motive was victim's discovery of defendant's theft, defendant had no significant prior history of criminal activity).
In the cases cited, the defendants tortured, stabbed and assaulted unresisting and defenseless victims without provocation. Upon comparing the facts of these cases with those now before this court, we conclude that the multiplicity of wounds and the manner of their infliction upon Erica Hurd were particularly heinous, atrocious, and cruel. Additionally, although the appellant had ingested "crack cocaine" at sometime preceding the crimes, his statement provided to the police and his actions after the murders are evidence of preparation and planning immediately before the crimes. Moreover, although motive is unclear from the facts, it is clear that he intended to enact revenge upon Charles Ragland, his neighbor, for "disrepectin' him." The infliction of gratuitous violence in this case appears to be equally as horrifying or worse than that inflicted in previous cases. The penalty imposed by the jury in the present case is clearly not disproportionate to the penalty imposed for similar crimes.
Conclusion
In accordance with the mandate of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles adopted in prior decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we have considered the entire record in this cause and find that the sentence of death was not imposed in any arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports, as previously discussed, the jury's finding of the statutory aggravating circumstances, and the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (c)(1)(A)-(C). A comparative proportionality review, considering both the circumstances of the crime and the nature of the appellant, convinces us that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. Likewise, we have considered the appellant's assignments of error as to each of his convictions on appeal and the respective sentences and determined that none have merit. Additionally, we conclude, in reference to the murder of Charles Ragland, that the jury appropriately found two statutory aggravating circumstances and did not arbitrarily impose a sentence of life without the possibility of parole as to that count. Thus, we affirm the appellant's conviction for the first degree murder of Charles Ragland and the accompanying sentence of life without the possibility of parole, his conviction for the first degree murder of Erica Hurd and the accompanying sentence of death by electrocution, and his conviction for the aggravated rape of Angela Ragland and the accompanying sentence of twenty-five years.
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
JOE G. RILEY, Judge
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|