holding that reversal was warranted where the jury foreman read biblical passages to the jury to support his argument for imposition of the death penalty
How later courts described this case
- holding that reversal was warranted where the jury foreman read biblical passages to the jury to support his argument for imposition of the death penalty
- holding that an amendment correcting the date on which the witnesses were sworn did not prejudice the defendant
- holding error occurred when “the jury foreman but- tressed his argument for imposition of the death penalty by reading to the jury selected biblical passages”
- where case reversed on other grounds, jury foreman reading from Bible to support argument for death penalty "of course[] was error which would have required a new sentencing hearing”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROCK, Justice,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
For the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in State v. Dicks, Tenn., 615 S.W.2d 126 (1981), I would hold that the death penalty is unconstitutional; in all other respects I concur in the Court’s majority opinion.