 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
studies a jury is 520% more likely to impose a death penalty sentence for each of the defendant's prior murder convictions of which the jury is aware.
For the reasons explained above, we hold that the defendant has demonstrated no prejudicial ineffectiveness of counsel in preparing for and conducting the sentencing hearing.
F. Jencks Violation.
Next, the defendant contends that counsel failed to obtain Jencks material before trial. This claim is without merit. Under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 26.2(a), opposing counsel is entitled to move the trial court for the production of Jencks materials only after a witness other than the defendant has testified on direct examination. The state is under no obligation to provide witnesses' statements prior to trial, even in capital cases. State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387, 394 (Tenn. 1989). Accordingly, trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to request such statements before trial.
G. Compensation of Appointed Counsel.
Finally, the appellant submits that trial counsel's representation was affected by the low compensation rate of court-appointed counsel. This claim is also without merit. Appointed counsel had a professional responsibility and ethical obligation regardless of the amount of his compensation. State v. Hoosier, 631 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982); see Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, EC 8-3. We do not find that trial counsel was deterred from carrying out his professional and ethical obligation due to inadequate compensation.
X. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY STATUTES
The defendant raises several challenges to the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-2-204 and -206 (1982) (repealed 1989); however, these arguments have been rejected repeatedly by our supreme court. See, e.g., State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 737 (Tenn. 1994); Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 86-88; Cazes, 875 S.W.2d at 268-71; Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 258-59; Smith, 857 S.W.2d at 22-24; State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 542 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Bane, 853 S.W.2d 483, 489 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 196 (Tenn. 1992); Black, 815 S.W.2d at 179; Barber, 753 S.W.2d at 664, 670-71.
XI. SECTION 39-13-206(c)(1) REVIEW.
We now attend to this court's duties imposed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1). Upon our review of the entire record, we conclude that the sentence of death was not imposed in any arbitrary fashion, that the record supports the jury's finding of both statutory aggravating circumstances and the prevalence of aggravating circumstances over any mitigating circumstances, and that the sentence is not excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (1997).
The evidence supports the jury's reliance upon the defendant's previous conviction of a felony involving the use of violence to the person, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(I)(2) (1982) (repealed 1989), and the victim's murder being "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(I) (5) (1982) (repealed 1989). As to factor (2), the proof clearly established the defendant's prior conviction of second-degree murder. As to factor (5), the proof consisting of the defendant's extrajudicial statements shows that the defendant attacked the victim with a child's rocking chair, beating the victim relentlessly for several minutes with sufficient force to reduce the chair to pieces. This proof shows that the murder "involved torture or depravity of mind." Id; see State v. Teal, 793 S.W.2d 236, 251 (Tenn. 1990); State v. Thompson, 768 S.W.2d 239, 252 (
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
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|