# State v. Carter

> Tennessee Supreme Court · September 18, 2003 · 114 S.W.3d 895

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523409

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Tennessee v. Preston CARTER
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 18, 2003
- **Citations:** 114 S.W.3d 895; 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 843; 2003 WL 22146113
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Birch
- **Judges:** Justice Janice M. Holder
- **Cited by:** 86 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523409

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- applying Dellinger to reject a claim that Ring requires aggravating circumstances be included in the indictment

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523409. Public record. Not legal advice.