 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson3/7/2001
res you to consider if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was established. You shall not take account of any other aggravating facts or circumstances as the basis for deciding whether the death penalty would be appropriate punishment in this case. As support for their proposition, Appellants rely on Lowe v. State, 805 S.W.2d 368 (Tenn. 1991).
However, Lowe is clearly distinguishable from this case. In Lowe, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury pursuant to a habitual criminal statute that "a judgment of conviction of any person under the same name as that of the defendant is prima facie evidence that the identity of such person is the same as the defendant" and defined the term "prima facie" to mean that the evidence "is to be taken as an established fact unless and until it is overturned or rebutted by proof." Id. at 371. The supreme court held that the trial court erred because its instruction impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. Id. In this case, nothing in the trial court's instructions shifted the burden of proving identity to Appellants. The trial court never informed the jury that it could consider the fact that Appellants were named in the judgments of conviction from the prior cases as prima facie evidence that they had in fact been convicted of the named offenses. To the contrary, the trial court clearly informed the jury that the State had the burden of proving the existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the jury was clearly aware that in order to prove that the aggravating circumstance existed, the State had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellants were the people who had been convicted of the prior felonies involving violence against the person. This issue has no merit.
XXVIII. PROOF OF APPELLANTS' IDENTITIES
Appellants contend that the State failed to prove the existence of the aggravating factor in this case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, Appellants contend that the State failed to prove that they were the same individuals who were named in the judgments of conviction for the prior felonies. We disagree.
During the sentencing hearing, Scott Greene, Assistant District Attorney General for Sevier County, testified that he was present in the Criminal Court of Sevier County on February 24, 1993. Greene then testified that he was acquainted with James Dellinger and he identified Dellinger on the record. Greene subsequently identified a judgment of conviction for first degree murder in Sevier County case 5035. Greene testified that he had prepared the judgment form and the form had been signed by Judge Rex Henry Ogle. Green then testified that the defendant who was named in the judgment form was James Dellinger, the individual whom he had just identified. Shortly thereafter, the judgment of conviction was admitted into evidence.
Green also testified that he was acquainted with Gary Sutton, and he identified Sutton on the record. Green then identified a document dated February 24, 1993, as a judgment of conviction for first degree murder in Sevier County case 5033. Greene testified that he had also prepared this judgment form and this form had likewise been signed by Judge Rex Henry Ogle. Green then testified that the defendant who was named in the judgment form was Gary Wayne Sutton. Shortly thereafter, the judgment of conviction was admitted into evidence.
Anthony Rollins of the Cobb County, Georgia Sheriff's Department subsequently identified some documents pertaining to indictment number 82-2313. Rollins testified that the name of the person identified in the records was Gary Wayne S
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.
|
|