State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
orkers of the defendant characterized him as being generous, helpful, polite, trustworthy, and committed to his son. However, they also testified to the defendant's prodigious consumption of alcohol, marijuana, and other narcotics, as well as his fondness for standing over the paint tank at work, huffing the fumes to get a "buzz."
Dr. Murray Smith, an expert in addiction medicine, testified that, based upon his review of the defendant's medical records, affidavits of witnesses, lab tests results, and an interview with the defendant, the defendant was toxically poisoned from the tremendous use of multiple drugs. He found that the defendant suffered from morbid obesity since childhood, had developed hepatitis between 1985 and 1987 from intravenous drug use, and that this disease led to cirrhosis. In 1991 the defendant was diagnosed as diabetic. The defendant was dependent upon alcohol, benzodiazepines, speed, amphetamines, and marijuana, but that he also used LSD and took narcotics intravenously. Dr. Smith opined that the various addictions and related problems affected the defendant's mental and emotional functioning, resulting in emotional instability, episodes of anxiety and depression, outbursts of anger, and instances of amnesia. Dr. Smith testified the effect of stimulants taken by the defendant would be to make him hyper, irritable, aggressive, paranoid, and suspicious. The defendant took six to eight times the prescribed dosages of some legend drugs and took ten times more drugs that the average person. In addition to the alcohol and illicit drugs, the defendant abused Halcion, Didrex, Preludin, Fastin, Lonamin, Valium, Phenobarbital, Seconal, Demeral, and Mepergan. Dr. Smith testified that the defendant suffered from synergism, meaning that the combination of drugs he was taking multiplied the effect of each drug. Dr. Smith stated that Denise Bondurant's description of the murder portrayed trance-like behavior characteristic of certain drug abuse. He opined that the defendant would have been unable to inhibit feelings of rage.
Dr. Gillian Blair, a psychologist, testified she conducted a psychological assessment of the defendant. She opined that, at the time of the murder, the defendant was severely disturbed and lacked the capacity to conform his behavior as a function of substance dependency and intoxication. She testified that detrimental parenting techniques and the defendant's obesity and psoriasis resulted in dependency on drugs and alcohol by the age of twelve. These factors arrested the defendant's personality development, explaining why the defendant is impulsive, has difficulty in delaying gratification, and has bad coping mechanisms. Dr. Blair testified the defendant was further destabilized emotionally by the stress of his marriage to Denise and the difficulties of coping with the disabilities of their son. She opined that this stress would fuel the defendant's drug and alcohol dependency.
In denying the motion for new trial, the trial court disagreed with the claim that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase. Characterizing Jerry Colley as "one of the most experienced and talented defense attorneys in this State," the trial court yielded to Mr. Colley's strategy to cast "reasonable doubt on the State[']s case," noting that the defense "worked at that theory throughout the trial."
We begin our inquiry by revisiting some of the constitutional dynamics established by the United States Supreme Court. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), the court, in reversing the 11th Circuit's approval of a claim, denied Strickland's claim that, in a capital sentencing proceeding, he had
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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|