providing that under this statute, “any evidence relevant to the circumstances of the murder, the aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State, or the mitigating circumstances is admissible if such evidence has probative value in the determination of punishment”
How later courts described this case
- providing that under this statute, “any evidence relevant to the circumstances of the murder, the aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State, or the mitigating circumstances is admissible if such evidence has probative value in the determination of punishment”
- noting that, under the statute, “any evidence relevant to the circumstances of the murder, the aggravating circumstances relied upon by the State, or the mitigating circumstances is admissible if such evidence has probative value in the determination of punishment”
- finding mental torture applicable when the defendants broke into the victim’s home at gunpoint, forced the victim in a closet before raping the victim’s wife and ransacking their home, and then murdered the victim and his wife
- reaffirming Dellinger and rejecting the claim that Ring requires aggravating circumstances be included in the indictment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J„
dissenting.
I continue to adhere to the views expressed in a long line of dissents beginning with State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, *911 923-25 (Tenn.2000) (Birch, Jr., J., concurring and dissenting), and elaborated upon in State v. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d 759, 793-800 (Tenn.2001) (Birch, Jr., J., concurring and dissenting), expressing my view that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority is inadequate to insulate defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (0) (1997). Accordingly, I cannot, for the reasons stated in my previous dissents, concur in the imposition of the death penalty in this case.