IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
JANUARY 1997 SESSION
July 30, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
RONALD RICHARD HARRIES, ) No.03C01-9607-CR-00276
)
Appellant )
) SULLIVAN COUNTY
V. )
) HON. LYNN W. BROWN,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee ) (Post-Conviction - Death Penalty)
)
)
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Michael J. Passino John Knox Walkup
Lassiter, Tidwell & Hildebrand Attorney General and Reporter
213 Fifth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37219 Amy Tarkington
Assistant Attorney General
Peter Alliman 450 James Robertson Parkway
Lee & Alliman Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Highway 411 North (On appeal)
P.O. Box 425
Madisonville, TN 37354 Glenn R. Pruden
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
(At hearing)
H. Greeley Wells, Jr.
District Attorney General
P.O. Box 526
Blountville, TN 37617
OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED
William M. Barker, Judge
OPINION
In this capital case, appellant, Ronald Richard Harries, appeals as of right the
denial by the Sullivan County Criminal Court of his second petition for post-conviction
relief. He argues that the trial court erred in finding that the jury’s application of the
felony-murder aggravating circumstance in violation of the rule announced in State v.
Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn. 1992), was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. In that respect, he also contends the trial court erred by concluding that
evidence of his alcohol and drug intoxication at the time of the offense was not a
mitigating factor within the statute and that appellant’s history of drug addiction was
not sufficient mitigating evidence which would have resulted in a lesser punishment
absent the application of the invalid aggravating circumstance.
After a thorough review of the record, including the trial transcript and the
transcript from the hearing on appellant’s first post-conviction petition, we are of the
opinion that the use of the invalid felony-murder aggravating circumstance was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition is
affirmed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant was convicted in 1981 of the felony murder of Rhonda Greene, an
eighteen-year-old cashier at a convenience store in Kingsport.1 At the sentencing
phase of the trial, the jury imposed a sentence of death, finding the presence of two
statutory aggravating circumstances which were not outweighed by the mitigating
evidence. Specifically, the jury found that the defendant had been previously
convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, which involved the
use or threat of violence to the person, and the murder was committed while the
defendant was engaged in committing a robbery. See Tenn. Code Ann. §39-
1
A full recitation of the factual circumstances surrounding the offense is contained in the
sup rem e co urt’s opinion in app ellant’s c ase on direct appe al. State v. Harries, 657 S.W .2d 414 (Tenn.
1983).
2
2404(i)(2), (7) (Supp. 1981). On direct appeal to the supreme court, appellant’s
conviction and death sentence were affirmed. State v. Harries, 657 S.W.2d 414
(Tenn. 1983). No permission was sought for a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court.
Appellant’s first post-conviction petition was filed in March of 1986. That
petition raised thirty-five (35) issues, including claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel at trial and on appeal; unconstitutionality of the Tennessee death penalty
statute; numerous errors in voir dire and the selection of grand and petit juries in
Sullivan County; inadequate evaluation of appellant’s mental condition; and incorrect
application of the felony-murder aggravating circumstance. Following a three-day
evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief on the petition. On appeal, that
judgment was affirmed by this Court. Ronald Richard Harries v. State, No. 833 (Tenn.
Crim. App. at Knoxville, August 29, 1990), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1991).
The current petition was filed September 9, 1993, alleging constitutional error in
the application of the felony-murder aggravating circumstance to appellant’s conviction
for felony murder. See State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn. 1992). No
other grounds for relief were raised. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court issued a thorough statement of its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The trial court found: (1) that the evidence supporting the remaining valid
aggravating factor was uncontradicted and overwhelming; (2) that the prosecutor
placed little emphasis on the invalid aggravator during his closing argument; and (3)
that no additional evidence supporting the invalid aggravating circumstance was
introduced at the sentencing phase. In evaluating the evidence offered in mitigation,
the trial court found that any mitigation from appellant’s drug addiction was negated by
proof that appellant committed numerous crimes to support his habit. The trial court
further found that evidence that appellant was under the influence of drugs and
alcohol at the time of the crime was insufficient to demonstrate that he was
substantially impaired. See Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2404(j)(8) (Supp. 1981). It also
3
found that appellant’s claims of remorse for the crime were belated and lacked
sincerity and were not supported by the factual record. However, the trial court did
accord some weight to that claim and also to appellant’s claim that the shooting was
accidental. The trial court also considered a list of ten additional mitigating factors
submitted after the filing of the petition. Considering all the above, the trial court
concluded that the Middlebrooks error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See
State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct.
1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). Appellant’s petition for relief was denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The parties have raised the question of the proper standard of review for this
Court to apply in reviewing the Howell harmless error analysis performed by the trial
court. A review of Tennessee case law reveals that this question has not been
squarely addressed. Our supreme court has had eight opportunities to consider
whether application of the felony-murder aggravator in violation of Middlebrooks was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Hines, 919 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn.
1995), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 133, 136 L.Ed.2d 82 (1996); State v.
Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. 1995), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 88, 136
L.Ed.2d 45 (1996); State v. Hartman, 896 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn. 1995); State v. Smith,
893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 99, 133 L.Ed.2d
53 (1995); Barber v. State, 889 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___,
115 S.Ct. 1177, 130 L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995); State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn.
1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1114, 115 S.Ct. 909, 130 L.Ed.2d 791 (1995); State v.
Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.Ct. 743, 130
L.Ed.2d 644 (1995); State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied 510
U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). Procedurally, however, it has not
had the opportunity to review findings of fact and conclusions of law following a trial
court’s Howell harmless error analysis. In fact, the supreme court has reviewed the
4
issue in the context of post-conviction only twice and both times without the benefit of
a post-conviction court’s findings on the issue. See Hartman, 896 S.W.2d at 96;
Barber, 889 S.W.2d at 186.
This Court has rendered decisions in capital cases in this procedural posture at
least twice. See Tommy L. King v. State, No. 01C01-9512-CC-00415 (Tenn. Crim.
App. at Nashville, February 12, 1997), appeal granted (Tenn. July 7, 1997); Michael J.
Boyd v. State, No. 02C01-9406-CR-00131 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, February 21,
1996), appeal granted (Tenn. November 25, 1996). In Boyd, a panel of this Court
discussed the trial court’s analysis of the Howell issue, but did not explicitly rely upon
the trial court’s findings or discuss the standard of review. The trial court’s findings
were not addressed in King.
We are mindful of the well-established standard of review generally applicable
to denials of post-conviction petitions. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law are given the weight of a jury verdict and accorded a presumption of
correctness. This Court is bound by those factual findings unless the evidence within
the record preponderates against the judgment. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d
689, 697 (Tenn. 1995); Cooper v. State, 849 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tenn. 1993); Adkins v.
State, 911 S.W.2d 334, 354 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810,
817 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); Rhoden v. State, 816 S.W.2d 56, 59-60 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1991); Bankston v. State, 815 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991); Black
v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990); Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d
932, 933-34 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); Brooks v. State, 756 S.W.2d 288, 289 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1988); Vermilye v. State, 754 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987);
Buford v. State, 666 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); Clenny v. State, 576
S.W.2d 12, 14 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978), cert. denied 441 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 2170, 60
L.Ed.2d 1050 (1979); Long v. State, 510 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974). The
supreme court recently applied this standard of review in a capital case when
5
reviewing a lower court’s determination on the ineffective assistance of counsel. Goad
v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 368-69 (Tenn. 1996).
Applying these principles, we conclude that the factual findings of the trial court
inherent in a harmless error analysis are entitled to a presumption of correctness. For
example, the emphasis that the prosecutor placed on the invalid aggravating
circumstance in closing argument, as well as the number of remaining valid
aggravating circumstances, should be considered factual findings. Determinations on
the quality of mitigating evidence are also entitled to the presumption. See Parker v.
Dugger, 498 U.S. 308, 111 S.Ct. 731, 737-38, 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) (concluding
that a state appellate court’s determination that the trial judge found no mitigating
circumstances in a capital trial is an issue of historical fact in habeas corpus
proceedings and entitled to presumption of correctness if fairly supported by the
record).
However, a trial court’s ultimate conclusion of harmlessness is not entitled to a
presumption of correctness, but rather requires a de novo review. See Yates v. Evatt,
500 U.S. 391, 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1894, 114 L.Ed.2d 432 (1991) (evaluating the
harmlessness of a constitutional error requires consideration of the entire record)
(citations omitted); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1257, 113
L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (stating that the Supreme Court has power to review the record de
novo to determine error’s harmlessness). This is due, in part, because the issue of
harmlessness is a mixed question of law and fact. See Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d
1485, 1496 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1230, 114 S.Ct. 2730, 129 L.Ed.2d 853
(1994) (finding that state court’s conclusion of harmlessness is a mixed question of
law and fact, not entitled to a presumption of correctness); Suniga v. Bunnell, 998
F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1993) (determination by state appellate court that instructional
error was harmless is mixed question of law and fact to be reviewed de novo). See
also Cremeans v. Chapleau, 62 F.3d 167, 169 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied ___ U.S.
6
___, 116 S.Ct. 822, 133 L.Ed.2d 765 (1996) (finding that mixed question of law and
fact is not entitled to deference).
Furthermore, it is impossible to determine the impact of an error and evaluate
its harmlessness without evaluating it in the context of the entire record. Our rules of
appellate procedure require as much: “A final judgment from which relief is available
and otherwise appropriate shall not be set aside unless, considering the whole record,
error involving a substantial right more probably than not affected the judgment or
would result in prejudice to the judicial process.” See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b)
(emphasis added). Moreover, Howell directs the reviewing court to examine the entire
record for factors which potentially influenced the jury’s decision. 868 S.W.2d at 260.
This is necessary to satisfy the constitutional demand of individualized sentencing
considerations in capital cases. Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 112 S.Ct. 1130,
1136, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992).
In reaching these conclusions, we are guided by the approach used in federal
courts for habeas corpus proceedings.2 In such proceedings, factual findings of the
state courts are entitled to a presumption of correctness, just as we grant deference to
the post-conviction court. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(1) (Supp. 1997). This deference is
equally applicable to findings of a state appellate court. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S.
539, 101 S.Ct. 764, 769, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). However, when determining the
harmlessness of an error, review of the record should be de novo with no presumption
of correctness. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 450, 88 L.Ed.2d
405 (1985) (concluding that ultimate question of admissibility of confession is not
factual determination entitled to presumption of correctness). It is within this context
that we review appellant’s assigned errors.
2
This Court has previously held that post-conviction review is comparable in scope to federal
hab eas corp us re view. Luttre ll v. State, 644 S.W .2d 408, 409 (T enn. Crim . App. 1982).
7
MIDDLEBROOKS ERROR
Appellant argues that his death sentence is infirm as a result of the jury’s
application of the felony-murder aggravating circumstance to his conviction for first
degree felony murder. He contends that such error cannot be considered harmless in
light of the substantial mitigating evidence presented at trial and the presence of only
one valid aggravating circumstance. We disagree.
When a defendant is convicted of first degree murder solely on the basis of
felony murder, use of the aggravating circumstance that the murder was committed
during the perpetration of a felony fails to sufficiently narrow the class of death-eligible
murderers. State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317, 346 (Tenn. 1992). Because use
of this aggravating circumstance in a felony-murder conviction to assess the death
penalty duplicates the elements of the offense, it violates the Tennessee Constitution.
Id. Thus, in order to support death as a penalty for the crime of felony murder, a
finding of at least one of the other statutory aggravating circumstances is necessary.
Id at 346-47. This rule has been held to apply retroactively. Barber v. State, 889
S.W.2d 185, 186 (Tenn. 1994), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1177, 130
L.Ed.2d 1129 (1995).3
It is apparent on the face of the record that a Middlebrooks error occurred in
appellant’s case. Appellant shot and killed Rhonda Greene during the course of a
robbery of the Jiffy Market where she worked. As a result, the jury found him guilty of
first degree felony murder. The jury’s application of the felony-murder aggravating
circumstance was duplicative of the elements of the crime. As a result, this
circumstance cannot be used to support appellant’s death sentence.
Such error, however, does not automatically mandate a reversal of appellant’s
death sentence or require a new sentencing hearing. This Court must review the
3
Ordinarily, the statu te of lim itatio ns would have expired on July 1, 1989, th ereby pre ventin g this
late-filed pos t-con viction petition. T enn . Code A nn. §40-3 0-10 2 (repea led 19 95). See also State v.
Masucci, 754 S.W .2d 90, 91 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). However, with regard to affording appellant the
right to litigate the Middlebrooks issue, his pre sent petitio n was tim ely under the rule announced in
Burford v. State , 845 S.W .2d 204 (Te nn. 1992).
8
record of the evidence at trial and evaluate whether the error is harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. See State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 259 (Tenn. 1993), cert.
denied 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). To perform that
analysis, our supreme court delineated certain factors which potentially influence the
sentence imposed at trial. Id at 260. These relevant factors include: (1) the number
and strength of the remaining valid aggravating circumstances; (2) the extent to which
the prosecutor emphasized the invalid aggravating circumstance during closing
argument; (3) the evidence admitted to establish the invalid aggravator; and (4) the
nature, quality, and strength of the mitigating evidence. Id at 260-61. If the reviewing
court determines that the jury would have imposed the same sentence had it given no
weight to the invalid aggravating circumstance, the error is harmless and the sentence
may be affirmed. Id at 262.
HOWELL ANALYSIS
A. Remaining Aggravators
At appellant’s trial, the jury found one other aggravating circumstance in
addition to the felony-murder aggravator: appellant had previous convictions of
felonies involving the use or threat of violence to the person.4 Tenn. Code Ann. §39-
2404(i)(2) (Supp. 1981). In support of this aggravating circumstance at the sentencing
phase, the State introduced testimony and certified copies of convictions to
substantiate three previous violent felonies from the state of Ohio: robbery, armed
robbery and kidnapping.5
Although the number of valid aggravators is relevant, the crucial inquiry is the
qualitative nature of the aggravating circumstance, its substance and persuasiveness,
and the quantum of proof supporting it. Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 261. In this respect,
our supreme court has determined that the prior violent felony aggravator is more
4
At trial, appellant conced ed the pre sen ce o f thes e two agg rava tors in his closing argu m ent.
5
Appellant testified about his previous convictions during his direct testimony at the guilt phase
of the trial.
9
qualitatively persuasive and objectively reliable than others. Id. Moreover, the
influence of this aggravating circumstance increases if there is proof of multiple felony
convictions. Id. See also State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 738 (Tenn. 1994), cert.
denied 513 U.S. 1114, 115 S.Ct. 909, 130 L.Ed.2d 791 (1995).
Appellant’s previous robbery conviction arose from the hold-up of a dairy store
in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The victim, an eighteen-year-old clerk at the store, testified
that appellant entered the store and demanded money. He had his hand in his pocket
and she was unsure if he was armed.6 The armed robbery conviction and kidnapping
arose in Canton, Ohio. Appellant was armed and entered a restaurant. As he was
robbing a waitress, a police cruiser drove into the restaurant parking lot. Appellant
took the waitress hostage to make his escape. He and his accomplice held her for ten
hours and then released her. The victim testified at trial, stating that appellant
threatened her life more than once while she was being held, but that she was not
physically harmed. She added that appellant did not want to release her and his
accomplice eventually convinced him to do so. Appellant pled guilty to all three crimes
and served approximately seven and one half years in an Ohio state prison.7
The record supports the trial court’s finding that the remaining aggravating
circumstance in appellant’s case was supported by uncontradicted and overwhelming
proof. The appellant testified to the substance of these crimes during the guilt phase,
the State introduced certified copies of the convictions, and the victims of the crimes
testified at the sentencing phase of appellant’s trial. Due to the objective nature of this
aggravating circumstance and the quantum of proof supporting it, we believe it
significantly influenced the jury’s verdict.
6
The characterization of this crime as a violent felony used to support the aggravating
circumstance was challenged on direct appeal. The victim’s testimony was that she was placed in fear
because appellant’s hand was in his pocket in a manner indicating that he had a weapon. Considering
that fa ct, our sup rem e co urt fou nd that it was not error to adm it the conviction . Harries, 657 S.W .2d at
421 .
7
Up on re lease, appellant was imm ediately incarc erate d in federa l prison for m ail fraud .
Appellant comm itted the instant offense less than two months after his December 12, 1980, release from
con finem ent.
10
Appellant argues that the admission of non-violent criminal acts during the
penalty phase of the trial undermines confidence in the jury’s determination on the
previous violent felony aggravating circumstance. At the sentencing phase, the State
introduced proof of convictions for malicious breaking and mail fraud. The
circumstances surrounding those offenses demonstrate that they did not involve
violence or the threat of violence. A panel of this Court recently held that the
admission of non-violent felonies at the penalty stage of a capital trial does not
necessarily require a new sentencing hearing, but may be considered harmless error.
State v. Perry A. Cribbs, No. 02C01-9508-CR-00211 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson,
February 14, 1997). See also State v. Campbell, 664 S.W.2d 281, 284 (Tenn. 1984),
cert. denied 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 302, 83 L.Ed.2d 236 (1984). But see State v.
Johnson, 661 S.W.2d 854 (Tenn. 1983) (determining that admission of non-violent
felonies in support of the aggravating circumstance was so prejudicial that it required a
new sentencing hearing). In holding that any error at appellant’s trial in this respect
was harmless, we concur in the conclusion of Cribbs that the rationale of Johnson is
inapplicable in light of subsequent United States Supreme Court holdings. See
Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990)
(permitting harmless error review when jury has relied on invalid aggravating
circumstance in imposing death penalty).
We are confident in the jury’s finding on this aggravating circumstance in light
of the substantial proof offered to support it. Moreover, the trial court instructed the
jury to only consider the robbery, armed robbery and kidnapping convictions when
evaluating the aggravating circumstance. It specifically directed that no other previous
convictions could be considered on the aggravator.8 In light of these attendant facts
and the overwhelming proof submitted on the prior violent felonies, we do not find that
8
As a corollary, the trial court further instructed the jury that all of appellant’s previous
convictions could be considered to rebut any claim or potential claim in mitigation that appellant had no
significant h istory of p rior crim inal activity. See Tenn . Code A nn. §39-240 4(c) (Supp. 198 1).
11
the introduction of these two non-violent crimes affected the jury’s verdict. Any error in
their admission was harmless.9
B. Prosecution’s Closing Argument
We next consider the prosecutor’s closing argument and the extent to which it
emphasized the invalid felony-murder aggravating circumstance. Our review of the
record does not indicate that the district attorney placed any undue emphasis on this
aggravating circumstance. The State sought to prove six statutory aggravating
circumstances. The prosecutor’s argument walked the jury through each of the
aggravators and also addressed the mitigating circumstances. The prosecutor
referred to the felony-murder aggravator only twice.
If any emphasis can be detected in the argument, it was devoted to the
“witness killing” aggravator. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2404(i)(6) (Supp. 1981) (“the
murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a
lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another”). This theory was a
substantial component to the State’s proof, beginning at the guilt phase of the trial. In
response to questions by the prosecution, appellant acknowledged that the victims of
his previous violent crimes identified him as the perpetrator. In light of that, the State
implied that appellant intended to leave no witnesses to the robbery of the Jiffy Market
to reduce the possibility of identification. That theory was additionally supported by
proof that the appellant fired upon the other cashier at the market and circumstantial
proof that appellant believed Greene was the only clerk in the store at the time of the
robbery. See State v. Harries, 657 S.W.2d 414, 417 (Tenn. 1983).
Appellant acknowledges that only a small portion of the State’s argument
focused on the felony-murder aggravating circumstance, but argues that a substantial
portion of the argument was devoted to the “witness elimination policy of the felony
murder aggravator.” He attempts to equate the felony-murder aggravator with the
9
Introduction of the ma il fraud conviction was ch allenged on direct appeal. The s uprem e court
found that its adm ission was harm less error. Harries, 657 S.W .2d at 421-22.
12
witness-elimination aggravator.10 Compare Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2404(i)(7) (Supp.
1981) and Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2404(i)(6) (Supp. 1981). This Court has previously
rejected such a contention. State v. Leroy Hall, Jr., No. 03C01-9303-CR-00065
(Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, December 30, 1996). Similarly, claims that use of
these two aggravators constitute double weighing have also been rejected. State v.
James Blanton, No. 01C01-9307-CC-00218 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, April 30,
1997).
The legislature’s delineation of these two separate aggravators is sufficient to
rebut appellant’s claim. A finding of either can be used to support the imposition of
the death penalty. See Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2404(g) (Supp. 1981). In addition, the
plain language of these aggravating circumstances signify that they seek to target two
different groups of murderers. The witness-elimination aggravating circumstance,
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-2404(i)(6), enhances the punishment when it
can be proven that at least one motive for the killing was the threat of defendant’s
apprehension. State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 580 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 417, 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994). In contrast, the felony-murder
aggravator is used to target those murderers who cause the death of the victim while
committing, attempting to commit or fleeing from certain enumerated felonies. Tenn.
Code Ann. §39-2404(i)(7) (Supp. 1981). As such, different proof is necessary to
support the imposition of each. Although it may be argued that in many felony
murders the purpose is to eliminate witnesses, State v. Terry, 813 S.W.2d 420, 423
(Tenn. 1991), such a blanket assertion does not apply to every felony murder. It
cannot be said that every murder committed during the course of a felony is for the
purpose of eliminating witnesses. State v. Teresa Deion Smith Harris, No. 02C01-
9412-CC-00265 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, November 12, 1996). Each case must
stand on its individual factual circumstances. Appellant’s argument on this issue fails.
10
Although argued by the State, the jury did not find the witness-elimination aggravating
circumstance.
13
C. Evidence Supporting Invalid Circumstance
Also relevant to our determination is the evidence which was admitted to
establish the invalid aggravating circumstance. We must consider whether an invalid
aggravator was established by evidence that was materially inaccurate or admissible
only to support the invalid aggravator, or whether the evidence was otherwise
admissible in the guilt or sentencing phases. Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 261. Evidence
that the murder was committed during the commission of a felony came during the
State’s case-in-chief at the guilt phase and resulted in appellant’s conviction of felony
murder. No additional evidence to support the invalid aggravator was introduced in
the sentencing phase of the trial. An aggravating factor which duplicates the elements
of the underlying crime, as in appellant’s case, has less relative tendency to
prejudicially affect the sentence imposed. Id. Appellant conceded this point at the
post-conviction hearing.
D. Mitigation Evidence
Finally, we must consider all the relevant mitigating evidence, including its
nature, strength, and quality. Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 262. Appellant’s case is replete
with information offered as mitigation, primarily pertaining to his history of drug and
alcohol abuse and addiction. Indeed, at trial, drug and alcohol abuse was the primary
theory of appellant’s defense. Appellant contended that he was high on drugs at the
time of the offense and unaware of his actions.
Appellant testified during the guilt phase of the trial. In addition to testimony of
his previous crimes and periods of confinement, appellant detailed his use of drugs
and alcohol during his teenage years that continued throughout his adult life. He
stated that he unsuccessfully tried to overcome his drug habit while incarcerated.11 In
addition to alcohol, appellant provided detailed descriptions of the amount and types
of drugs he was using in the days before and the day of the shooting. Appellant’s
11
Appellant testified that when he was nearing release from prison, he sought methadone
treatment from the prison doctor. This claim was not corroborated by any other evidence in the record.
14
convicted accomplice and alleged drug supplier, Charles Wade Stapleton, attested to
appellant’s use of drugs and alcohol before the crime.12
Furthermore, appellant testified that he did not intend to kill Greene and that the
shooting was accidental. He explained that the gun was cocked when he entered the
store. As he pointed the gun at Greene, he claimed that another patron in the store
startled and jostled him, causing the gun to discharge. Another aspect of appellant’s
testimony intended to be mitigating was that the gun did not belong to him. Appellant
claimed that he obtained the gun from Ralph Page, a mutual friend of appellant and
Stapleton, and that Page was the moving force behind the robbery. Appellant
concluded his testimony by expressing remorse for the crime.
Appellant did not testify at the sentencing portion of the trial, relying on his
earlier testimony as mitigation. Instead he introduced documentary evidence in
mitigation at the sentencing phase. A report from Dr. Herbert Bockian, a psychiatrist
who evaluated appellant’s competency to stand trial and screened him for drug use,
was read into the record. That drug screen, performed the week of the trial, revealed
a trace amount of barbiturates in appellant’s blood. The test was performed in
response to appellant’s claims that he was obtaining and taking drugs while confined.
Apparently, the report was intended to corroborate appellant’s testimony of his drug
addiction.
A report from the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility was also introduced. The
1977 report reflected that appellant possessed a syringe and one pill of Creptodigin
while in jail. Prison guards also observed fresh needle marks on appellant’s arms at
that time. Again, this was intended to corroborate appellant’s testimony of drug abuse
and addiction, specifically his claims that it continued throughout his confinement in
penal institutions.
12
The State contended that this was in exchange for favorable testimony appellant had already
given on behalf of Sta pleton at his trial.
15
We view such evidence as having little, if any, value in lessening appellant’s
culpability in the eyes of the jury. Most of the evidence depicted an undesirable
lifestyle, painting a picture of a man who “caroused” at night, slept during the day, and
failed to maintain employment. In contrast, there was absolutely no evidence
introduced in support of appellant’s good character. State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238,
262 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687
(1994).
The jury obviously gave little weight to appellant’s testimony that he was
“spaced out” or high on drugs at the time of the crime. Appellant possessed a clear
recollection of the events of that evening. Proof reflected that appellant and his
accomplice drove around for some time before the crime to find a good place to rob.
Appellant entered the store and waited for another customer to leave before he
committed the crime. In addition, he had no difficulty fleeing from the crime scene,
meeting his accomplice at an appointed place, and later counting the money and
separating it from food stamps. After counting the money, he buried the money bags
behind Stapleton’s house and later that night gave the food stamps to Stapleton’s
niece. Those activities indicate a keen appreciation for the wrongfulness of his
conduct. Moreover, the day following the crime, appellant, Stapleton, and Page
traveled to North Carolina to dispose of the gun used in the murder. Following that
trip, they had planned an elaborate scheme for the three of them to rendezvous in
Florida.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred by finding the proof insufficient to
sustain a determination that appellant was substantially impaired. Tenn. Code Ann.
§39-2404(j)(8) (Supp. 1981). As stated, we find the trial court’s conclusion on
substantial impairment supported by the record. However, he argues that even if the
proof did not satisfy that statutory mitigator, the information could still have been
considered in mitigation. See Tenn. Code Ann. §39-2404(j) (Supp. 1981) (mitigation
16
evidence not limited to statutory mitigating circumstances).13 See also Lockett v. Ohio,
438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (holding that evidence at the
sentencing phase cannot be limited to statutory mitigating circumstances). Contrary to
appellant’s assertion, the trial court did not find that the evidence could not be
considered in mitigation. Rather, it gave it little weight in mitigation when considering it
in light of the quality of the proof supporting the valid aggravating circumstance.
Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 262. Even though the evidence may have been considered by
the jury, its questionable value was necessarily considered by the trial court in
weighing the harmlessness of the Middlebrooks error. Hartman v. State, 896 S.W.2d
94, 104 (Tenn. 1995) (concluding that credibility of witness is relevant when weighing
harmlessness of invalid aggravating factor).
Moreover, the trial court found that evidence of appellant’s drug addiction was
not persuasive in mitigation; there was virtually no factual proof offered in support of
that claim. There was no medical evidence that appellant was addicted to drugs or
alcohol, nor did the psychological evaluations indicate that appellant was addicted.
His testimony on the issue, corroborated only by accomplice testimony and thin
documentary evidence from four years before the crime, is hardly convincing or
significant in light of the other proof.
The trial court also found by the appellant committing violent crimes to support
a drug habit, any mitigation from which the appellant might benefit was negated.
Appellant characterizes this conclusion as rank conjecture. Again, it was the trial
court’s duty to consider the quality and persuasiveness of the mitigating evidence in
the weighing of harmless error. Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 262.
13
Ap pellant’s brief cites “Section 39-2404(j)(9 )” w hich allegedly “provided that th e ju ry could
consider ‘any other evidence you find to be mitigating circumstances.’” W e note that subsection (j)(9)
was no t a part of the 1981 statute. Howeve r, the trial court’s instructions to the jury advised that the jury
cou ld con sider any facts o r circu m stan ces in m itigation.
17
Other mitigation evidence offered by appellant lacked credibility. Appellant
never disputed that he shot Rhonda Greene, but claimed that it was accidental.
However, this was contradicted by other witnesses. Appellant claimed that Scott
Fletcher, another store patron, startled him and jostled his arm causing the gun to fire.
In contrast, Fletcher’s statements to law enforcement and unequivocal testimony at
trial reflected that he was standing outside the store in the parking lot at his car when
he heard the gunshots. Additionally, the surviving store cashier testified that she saw
Fletcher exit the store and moments later heard the gunshot.
Finally, appellant’s remorse for Greene’s death was of little value in mitigation.
As the post-conviction trial court noted, this sorrow developed well after the crime was
committed. After shooting Greene, appellant exhibited no remorse. He did not
attempt to aid the victim, but instead fired a shot at the other clerk. He then
repeatedly demanded the money from her and did not permit her to seek medical
assistance for Greene.
We are aware that appellant has offered evidence throughout his post-
conviction proceedings that he suffers from brain damage. He argues that this should
be considered in mitigation of his crime. However, we note that such evidence was
not before the jury and could not have played a role in its decision. In addition, the
evidence of brain damage primarily consists of a letter from a New York psychiatrist,14
dated five years after the crime. Although appellant has been evaluated on numerous
14
This evaluation was the basis of a 1984 ruling by a federal district court that appellant was
incom pete nt to waive his pos t-con viction rights and p roceed to execu tion. See Groseclose ex rel.
Harries v. Dutton, 594 F.Supp . 949, 956 (M.D . Tenn. 1984 ).
18
occasions by both psychologists and psychiatrists,15 the record before us does not
indicate that other doctors have reached a similar conclusion.16
Appellant broadly attacks the Howell harmless error analysis because the jury
is not required to specify the mitigating circumstances it considered. He contends that
it is virtually impossible to determine harmlessness without knowing which facts the
jury considered in mitigation. Our supreme court, acknowledging that juries do not
specify mitigating circumstances, has nevertheless found that a harmless error
analysis can be performed. The court quoted with approval from Clemons v.
Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 756, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 625 (1990):
Nor are we impressed with the claim that without written jury findings
concerning mitigating circumstances appellate courts cannot perform
their proper role. In Fonzeo and Proffit, we upheld the Florida death
penalty scheme permitting a trial judge to override a jury’s
recommendation of life, even though there were no written jury findings.
An appellate court also is able adequately to evaluate any evidence
relating to mitigating factors without the assistance of written jury
findings.
Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 260. Appellant’s argument is without merit.
Appellant argues that his death sentence cannot be upheld in light of the
supreme court’s ruling in State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. 1995). In Walker, a
direct appeal of a death sentence, the court was unable to find the Middlebrooks error
harmless where the only valid remaining aggravator was a previous violent felony
conviction. Id at 398. However, Walker is readily distinguishable from appellant’s
case. At the Walker trial, the remaining aggravator was supported by only one
voluntary manslaughter conviction. Cf. State v. Michael J. Boyd, No. 02C01-9406-CR-
00131 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, February 21, 1996), appeal granted (Tenn.
15
Appellant’s com pete ncy to s tand trial was evaluated twice befo re the trial, as well as his ability
to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense. No personality disorders or
defects were discovered. W e also note th at, a ccording to tes tim ony from appellant’s trial counsel,
app ellant was vehe m ently oppos ed to purs uing an ins anity defense a nd ins tructe d his a ttorne ys not to
consider it. Moreover, appellant’s competency to proceed in the instant proceeding was evaluated at the
trial court level.
16
W e ack nowle dge that a rep ort fro m a boys’ hom e m ay have alluded to brain dam age.
However, this testing was done in 1962 and testimony at the first post-conviction hearing attacked the
credibility of this finding.
19
November 25, 1996) (finding in review of post-conviction proceeding that use of
felony-murder aggravating circumstance harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where
remaining valid aggravator, prior violent felonies, was supported by one conviction for
second degree murder). Here, however, the aggravator at appellant’s trial was
supported by proof of three previous violent felonies and a portion of that proof was
appellant’s own testimony. Therefore, the nature and the quantum of proof supporting
the aggravator was far more substantial than in Walker.
In fulfilling our duty to evaluate the mitigating evidence, we find that the
evidence proffered was of little consequence in lowering appellant’s culpability.
Appellant admitted shooting the victim and his claims in mitigation did little to
ameliorate his liability for the crime. On two separate occasions, the supreme court
has considered similar mitigating evidence presented on behalf of defendants and
found it insufficient to require a new sentencing hearing in the context of harmless
error. See State v. Hines, 919 S.W.2d 573, 584 (Tenn. 1995); Howell, 868 S.W.2d at
262. Considering the substantial proof presented on the remaining valid aggravator
and the nature of that proof, coupled with the prosecutor’s argument and absence of
inadmissible proof of the invalid aggravator, we find that the jury would have imposed
the death penalty had it not considered the invalid felony-murder aggravating
circumstance.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s findings of fact on the individual factors considered in Howell
are fully supported by the record. Moreover, our de novo review indicates that the
error in applying the felony-murder aggravator to appellant’s case was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the appellant’s
post-conviction petition is affirmed. Unless stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the appellant’s sentence of death by electrocution shall be carried out on February 10,
1998.
20
_______________________________
William M. Barker, Judge
CONCUR:
____________________________
Gary R. Wade, Judge
____________________________
Curwood Witt, Judge
21