 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson3/7/2001
ion of the death penalty based on Appellants' prior convictions for felonies involving violence to the person and not on the felony murder aggravating circumstance. Thus, Middlebrooks is inapplicable to this case.
Finally, Appellants contend that Tennessee's death penalty statutes and procedures provide for constitutionally inadequate appellate review because the statutes do not require the jury to issue a finding as to what mitigating circumstances were found and why the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. This argument has previously been considered and specifically rejected by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d 75, 87 (Tenn. 1994) (rejecting the argument that there is no meaningful appellate review of death sentences because there is no requirement for written findings concerning mitigating circumstances). This issue has no merit.
V. VENUE
Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it denied their request for a change of venue. We disagree.
"In all criminal prosecutions the venue may be changed upon motion of the defendant . . . if it appears to the court that, due to undue excitement against the defendant in the county where the offense was committed or any other cause, a fair trial probably could not be had." Tenn. R. Crim. P. 21(a). However, " he mere fact that jurors have been exposed to pre-trial publicity will not warrant a change of venue." State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 532 (Tenn. 1997). "The matter of change of venue addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a denial of a change of venue will only be reversed on appeal for an affirmative and clear abuse of discretion." State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 114 (Tenn. 1998). In addition, " efore an accused is entitled to a reversal of his conviction on the ground that the trial judge erroneously denied his motion for a change of venue, he must demonstrate . . . that the jurors who actually sat were biased and/or prejudiced." Mann, 959 S.W.2d at 532 (citation and internal quotations omitted).
On January 6, 1996, Appellants filed a motion for change of venue in which they referred to an article in that day's edition of the Daily Times. Although the trial court's order of January 31, 1996, which denied the motion states that the court heard testimony from witnesses and argument from counsel, the record does not contain a transcript of this hearing. However, the record does contain two volumes of excerpts from the voir dire that was conducted in this case. A review of these excerpts indicates that the trial court carefully and meticulously orchestrated the jury selection process to ensure the selection of an impartial jury. The trial court conducted individual voir dire of the potential jurors in order to determine whether they had heard anything about the facts of this case and the Connie Branam case that would interfere with their impartiality. The trial court then gave counsel for the State and the defense the opportunity to ask further questions. The trial court then excused any potential jurors who indicated that they would have difficulty being impartial.
In this case, Appellants have failed to specifically identify any pretrial publicity that would suggest that there was any "undue excitement against [them]" in Blount County or any other reason why a fair trial could not be had in Blount County. Moreover, Appellants have failed to identify a single juror who was allegedly biasedl. Quite simply, Appellants have failed to meet their burden of showing that any of the jurors who sat during trial were actually biased or prejudiced against them. This issue has no merit.
VI. VOIR DIRE
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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|