State v. Odom, 336 S.W.3d 541

Background

Defendant Richard Odom raped and murdered Mina Johnson in a Memphis parking garage in 1991.
Over several trials on remand, multiple sentences of death were imposed; the Court of Criminal Appeals and this Court reviewed and affirmed/ordered new sentencing hearings.
At the third sentencing hearing, substantial mitigation evidence was presented about his troubled childhood and prison rehabilitation.
The State relied on two aggravating factors: prior violent felony and killing during a robbery; the jury weighed aggravators against mitigators and imposed death.
On appeal, issues included juror impartiality, prosecutorial argument, admission of photographs, parole instructions, and recusal/compensation issues; the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court held the death sentence was not imposed arbitrarily and affirmed the judgment; the 2012 execution date was set.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the prospective juror properly dismissed for cause?	Odom argues juror was biased; dismissal without explicit sign-off on death verdict is reversible.	Odom contends jury could have been impartial; dismissal exceeded proper scope.	Juror properly dismissed; due process not violated.
Did the prosecutor impermissibly urge non-statutory aggravators in closing?	Odom asserts non-statutory factors were improperly weighed.	Odom contends argument was improper; it skewed weighing.	Prosecutor's closing did not inject non-statutory factors; proper weighing instructions cured any error.
Were photographs of the body properly admitted at re-sentencing?	Odom claims photographs were cumulative and prejudicial.	Odom argues photos are essential background and admissible.	Photos admissible; law-of-the-case and Teague doctrine support admission.
Did parole instructions violate due process and reliability?	Odom argues parole instruction created false choice and undermined mitigation.	Odom had evidence showing low parole likelihood; instruction appropriate.	Parole instruction did not violate due process; evidence and defense mitigating proof supported proper instruction.
Was there reversible error in the review standards or other listed issues affecting the sentence?	Odom asserts potential errors in review standards and related rulings.	Odom claims errors but argues weighing standard and compliance remained proper.	No reversible error; statutory mandates and deference to trial weighing upheld.

Key Cases Cited

Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (juror for-cause dismissal when views impair duty)
State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. 1985) (proper discharge of juror who cannot judge death case)
State v. Teague, 680 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. 1984) (limits on background evidence in capital sentencing)
Banks v. State, 564 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1978) (guidelines for admissibility of photographs at trial)
State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895 (Tenn. 2003) (photographs admissible to illustrate nature and circumstances)
State v. Terry, 46 S.W.3d 147 (Tenn. 2001) (weighing evidence in capital sentencing; permissible arguments)
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1994) (parole ineligibility and due process in sentencing)
Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (non-statutory information allowed in sentencing weighing)
Ramos v. California, 463 U.S. 992 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (weighing factors in capital sentencing)