 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson3/7/2001
ry had been informed that the defendant had received a life sentence for one murder conviction, it was improper for the prosecutor to argue that the jury would be imposing no punishment at all if it imposed another life sentence for the second murder conviction. 755 S.W.2d at 767-68. In Bigbee, the supreme court held that the prosecutor's argument was improper because he had strongly implied that imposition of a death sentence for a second murder conviction would be an appropriate way to punish the defendant for a previous murder conviction for which the defendant received a life sentence. 885 S.W.2d at 812. The prosecutors in this case did neither of these things. First, the prosecutors never mentioned the fact that Appellants had received a life sentence for the Branam murder and they never argued that imposition of a life sentence in this case would be no punishment at all. Second, the prosecutors never stated or implied that imposition of a life sentence for the Griffin murder would be an appropriate punishment for the Branam murder. Instead, the prosecutors only mentioned the Branam murder in the context of arguing that because the State had proven the existence of the aggravating circumstance and had proven that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances, the death sentence was the appropriate sentence in this case. There is nothing improper about arguing that the existence of the prior conviction as an aggravating circumstance supports imposition of a death sentence. See id. This issue has no merit.
XXVI. FAILURE TO INFORM THE JURY ABOUT THE PREVIOUS LIFE SENTENCE
Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that Appellants had received life sentences for their convictions in the Branam murder case. We disagree.
Appellants concede that under current law, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury about the sentences in the Branam murder case. Indeed, the Tennessee Supreme Court has specifically held that it is improper to inform a jury in a capital case that the defendant received a life sentence for a previous first degree murder conviction. State v. Smith, 857 S.W.2d 1, 24-25 (Tenn. 1993). This Court has neither the authority nor the desire to overrule the supreme court on this issue. This issue has no merit.
XXVII. INSTRUCTION ABOUT PROOF OF IDENTITY
Appellants contend that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury about the State's burden of proof in establishing that Appellants were the same individuals who were convicted of prior felonies involving violence to the person. We disagree.
The record indicates that during the sentencing phase, the trial court instructed the jury that
The burden of proof is upon the state to prove any statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in this case, and is an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easily.
The trail court then instructed the jury that in order to show the existence of the aggravating circumstance for Sutton, the State was relying on a Sevier County first degree murder conviction and on a Georgia aggravated assault conviction. The trail court further instructed the jury that in order to show the existence of the aggravating circumstance for Dellinger, the State was relying on a Sevier County first degree murder conviction. Thereafter the trial court gave the following instruction:
Members of the Jury, the court has read to you the aggravating circumstances which the law requi
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.
|
|