concluding that the flight instruction, which stated that “whether the Defendant fled was a question solely for their decision, that they need not infer flight, and that flight alone was insufficient to prove guilt,” when combined with the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt, rendered any error regarding the instruction harmless
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the flight instruction, which stated that “whether the Defendant fled was a question solely for their decision, that they need not infer flight, and that flight alone was insufficient to prove guilt,” when combined with the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt, rendered any error regarding the instruction harmless
- concluding there was circumstantial evidence of an immediate flight because the proof raised a reasonable inference that the defendant had seen the flashing lights of a police car that was responding to another call nearby, left the scene, and concealed himself in the community
- finding that the trial court properly denied a mistrial based upon a witness‟s improper statement that the defendant had previously been in jail because the witness‟s statement was “unresponsive and unsolicited” and was followed by a curative instruction from the trial court
- finding circumstantial evidence of an immediate flight because the facts led to a reasonable inference that the defendant had seen the flashing lights of a passing police car, which was responding to another call nearby, and concealed himself and left the scene
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
DROWOTA, Justice.
A petition for rehearing has been filed on behalf of Appellant, Sylvester Smith. After consideration of the same, a majority of the Court is of the opinion that the petition should be denied. Justice Reid, in his dissent to this order denying the petition to rehear, would adopt the American Association of Mental Retardation’s (AAMR) definition of “deficits in adaptive behavior” and concludes that “according to that definition, the Defendant is not death eligible.” Even under the AAMR definition, however, the Defendant has failed to establish that he suffered deficits in adaptive behavior.
The petition also argues that the State’s proof of the Defendant’s ability to adapt to prison did not show his ability to adapt to society; however, this argument incorrectly places the burden on the State to establish that the Defendant was not mentally retarded and ignores the fact that under the statute, See T.C.A. § 39-13-203(c), (e), the burden is on the Defendant to demonstrate deficits in adaptive behavior by a preponderance of the evidence, Something the petitioner in this case failed to do.
A majority of this Court is of the opinion that the Defendant did not carry the burden of showing that he was mentally retarded.
For the above reasons, the petition to rehear is denied at the cost of Appellant.
O’BRIEN, C.J., and ANDERSON, J., concur.
REID, J., dissents.