*1 processes. its unnecessary It
legitimate goal of the state and is incom- dignity of
patible with the man and
judicial process. conclusion that the Our may longer no
death be exacted I, consistently with article California 6,
section of our Constitution is
grounded who sympathy those violence,
would commit crimes of society
concern for diminishes
itself it takes life of one whenever
its members. Lord Chancellor Gardiner Lords, debating
reminded the House of capital punishment Eng-
abolition punish-
land: ‘When we abolished the you
ment treason that should
hanged, while still and then cut down
alive, still and then disembowelled while
alive, we did not quartered, and then sym- we punishment
abolish that because traitors,
pathised with but because punishment it was a
took view that re- longer with our self consistent (268 Hansard, De-
spect.’ Parliamentary Pari., (5th Series) (Lords, First
bates 43d
Sess., 1964-1965) (1965) p. 703.)” 100 Cal. 171,
Rptr. at P.2d at 899. penalty, un-
I would hold that the death circumstances, is a cruel and unusual
der I, prohibited by Article Section
punishment
16, of of Tennessee. Constitution
Therefore, imposition I from the dissent in this case. Tennessee, Plaintiff-Appellee,
STATE
v.
William GROSECLOSE Edward Eugene Ronald
Defendants-Appellants.
Supreme of Tennessee. 17, 1981.
Feb. Feb. 1981.
Petition Rehear April Denied
Petition *2 began
Jury selection in this Feb- 13, 1978, completed ruary and was on Feb- ruary pleas guilty 17. After defendants, February trial commenced on *3 18,1978, February on and was concluded 28. sentencing hearing consumed from 3. of the through March 1 March None before the at the defendants testified hearing. guilt phase of the The State presented during witnesses thirty-nine portion resulting trial. The record voluminous, were, course, and there discrepancies and conflicts in the tes- some timony. There was material presented jury, support of the essential following facts.
Mr. and were married in Mrs. Groseclose April, They experiencing been had prior marital difficulties for some time separated been for They her death. weeks, part of two which about Jr., Leech, & Atty. William M. Gen. Re- in Kings- visited his mother Mr. Groseclose Jr., porter, Jolley, Atty. L. Asst. Robert Mr. was twen- port, Tennessee. Groseclose Gen., Nashville, for plaintiff-appellee. 1977; age his wife ty-nine years of in June Barrett, R. Larry D. Woods and Lionel in twenty-four. He had served Jr., Nashville, defendants-appellants. years. Prior to his wife’s Navy for several employed Navy death he had been OPINION Recruiting there that he It was Service. acquainted with several of the had become HARBISON, Justice. persons involved the homicide. other Appellants William Edward Groseclose discharged Eugene appeal Rickman from his and Ronald Mr. Groseclose 1977, 16, their convictions of murder in the first de- on June because of employment pursuant enlisting gree irregularities and a sentence re- serious tried employed recep- thereto. A who was as a codefendant His wife cruits. Britt, them, Phillip Michael physicians. Shortly convicted with group tionist for a imprisonment. His marriage was sentenced life Mr. Groseclose had thеir after present appeal. involved in the insurance amount of obtained substantial on life of his wife. assign- After consideration of careful made behalf of ments of error weeks the actual For several record, entire we are homicide, planned the death Mr. Groseclose and sentence are opinion that the verdict been may His have of the victim. motives and that no re- sustained the evidence she was about to sue him apprehension that was committed versible error divorce, life insur- to obtain the desire appeals which these lengthy trial out of wom- or interest another proceeds, ance arise. sug- There in the record an. is evidence In all gest possibilities. these Appellants were for the murder convicted events, re- of his former he contacted one about Lee June of Deborah Groseclose Mount, cruits, effort to Wayne an Barton 29,1977. appel- was the wife of The victim Groseclose. someone to murder Mrs. employ William Edward Groseclose. lant placed automobile, Mount him touch with his code- another greatly alarming her. Britt, nineteen-year-old boy. fendant question There is no she was brother-in-law, Britt contacted former frightened she did inci- Ultimately, Rickman. with the police evening dent to the June knowledge and participation of Britt and persons, reported 1977. She also it Mount, agreed perform act husband, including apparently having her for a specified and negotiated price. Britt suspicion of his involvement. was to share the proceeds. According plan, Mr. Groseclose left his promised also to reward Mount thereafter. early morning residence on the of June Mount was indicted with the other three taking his infant son with left him. He case, however, defendants. His was sev- unlocked, door to back the residence al- *4 ered and he testified for the State though supplied had previously key he testimony trial. His devastating all to use they the murderers the event three Although defendants. he cross- obtaining difficulty access to the house. length examined at by counsel for all de- Riсkman and Britt went residence at fendants, testimony his clearly showed that about 5 or 5:30 the morning and waited the homicide was committed Rickman workshop in a near the home until Mr. and Britt behalf of being and after left. They Groseclose then entered the procured by Groseclose. house. Each had sexual relations with Mrs. testifying Also for the State was Pamela They Groseclose. then her permitted Lindsey, Baker who at the time of the dress, during process bathe and which Rick- living homicide was an apartment man advised her that thеre was a “con- Rickman and with one Donnie Tatum. Mrs. According tract” on phrase her life. Lindsey was never indicted in connection Rickman, used both and Britt terri- with the death of Mrs. Groseclose. In her “plea bargained” fied woman with her at- testimony, she meeting described detail a try get tackers and offered to money participants between the and Mr. Grosec- refused, them. This offer was and Rick- lose, as well planning as the and the after- proceeded strangle man Mrs. Groseclose math of the murder. Shortly after it was into par- unconsciousness. Whether Britt committed, she assisted shaving Rickman in ticipated in this act or not unclear from hair, beard, his altering materially his proof. not, He he said that did al- changing appearance. and Rick- She though point one having he admitted man fled to Oklahoma where Rickman was held the Mrs. briefly hands of Groseclose arrested about one body week after the Rickman, while she was struggling with Mrs. Groseclose was discovered. who had seized her from In behind. The murder was one the most atro- events, still apparently detecting pulse cious Although and inhuman conceivable. victim after the had been rendered uncon- there are different conflicting versions and scious, Rickman stabbed her three four point, evidence on appears it that there times spinal in the back near the cord. plan was a for Rickman to accost Mrs. Thinking dead, their victim to be Rickman Groseclose on the afternoon of June 28 and placed body and Britt then her in the trunk frighten point her that she would of her automobile and drove the vehicle to a police. incident She parking adjacent Memphis lot the main was then to be day, murdered on the next Library. During trip, Public Rickman plan being that di- suspicion would be dead, became aware that the victim was not verted from her previous husband and in a not, later introduced he said planned incident. Whether occurred, that he could fact and Britt hear her cries for approached help Mrs. parking Groseclose on the from the trunk. Britt lot near the denied place her employment. having When she said that he could not would recall heard him, not talk with he followed her home any outcry the victim. events,
In all the victim was left locked in Also assignment without merit is an broiling challenging the trunk of her automobile in the admissibility photo of two sun 9 m. graphs from about a. on June 29 until her body the victim on the badly body ground gruesomeness decomposed prejudi was discovered their during early apparently polaroid cial effect. were July therein afternoon of These snapshots, period days. 4—a taken at a distancе of several of some five Medical feet, detail, injuries little testimony show other than revealed which body. the actual location of the Their had been con inflicted Mrs. Groseclose approach gruesomeness tents do not Rickman would not have been fatal and eyewit given by that she the oral several died from the excessive heat in the nesses, probative they primarily trunk of were (systemic hyper- automobile position body to show the thermia). discovery. vehicle at the time of its Mr. repоrted missing his wife relevant, photographs proba and their day 29 and went June tive value was considerable. We find through pretense searching for her error in their admission. during the days. perpe- next several trators, dealing proof Another issue with the Britt met with him pertains to the admission in evidence of a and told him that their mission had been *5 grenade through detonator accomplished. testimony the He withdrawn funds Lindsey. Lindsey Pamela Mrs. testified night from a bank account the of June possession was the to a this detonator partial рayment in order make to prior Upon to the homicide. ob pay Rickman and the balance when jection by counsel for the defense to the proceeds he collected the of the insurance exhibit, admission of the the District Attor policies on his wife. ney its stated that relevance would become Lindsey Rickman and Pamela had been apparent when a Donnie Tatum testified as living apartment by rented one an Don- witness. began nie Tatum. Police an extensive in- present Tatum at the trial wait- vestigation into the this homicide after being ed for considerable time before discovery ghastly July of the victim on called, he was called as witness. When They Mount, interviewed Tatum and objected the defense counsel light. the entire scheme came to Within given by any outset to evidence him on the princi- week after the homicide most of the ground granted immunity that he had been pal participants custody. were in Tatum by grand jury the and that this fact was not gave police, a detailed statement the known to cоunsel to the trial. made which was consistent with that later objection, In the face of this the State Lindsey by generally Mrs. Britt and agreed not use Tatum as a witness. His given by consistent also with one Rickman. signed police the statement later suppression hearing, After a full the state- and, record, testimony filed like the for the Rickman, in ments of both Britt and redact- Mount, extremely it was detrimental form, ed were admitted into evidence Ta- all three defendants. exclusion of Later, sentencing jury. read to the therefore, was, tum as a witnеss material their unredacted statements were None of the de- benefit the defense. read in full. fendants, however, gre- to strike the moved discussion of the facts nade detonator from record or testi- Further mony Lindsey thereto. unnecessary, except specific pertaining relevant Mrs. contrary, assignments of There was over To the counsel defendants error. prosecution witness- whelming guilt of all three of cross-examined several proof of defendants, detonator, assignments grenade er es about and it was sufficiency ror referred to thereafter on several occasions challenging objection objection. without The initial are overruled. renewed, was never nor was it mentioned in Appellants complain of the voir dire jurors the motion for new trial after examination of the and their qualifi verdict. respect cation with penalty. is apparent It an from examination of record, however, We have examined the Tatum’s per- that had he been any do not find that error testify, grenade mitted to detonator committed in excusing material, would have been and testimony jurors for cause. We further note that concerning it would have been detrimental appellants did not exhaust peremptory their statement, to Rickman. In the Tatum said challenges, and there is basis reversal that when he was first interviewed respect jur with examination police apartment after the homicide ors. Rickman secreted himself in an adjoining assign Likewise without merit are
closet detonator and threatened to сomplaining ments of failure of the court himself, destroy investigat- Tatum and the reporter arguments to transcribe the final by activating officer the detonator if representing appellants counsel. Counsel gave Tatum any damaging information to appeal at the trial. police. All of this was ex- counsel, however, Trial fully approved the cluded jury. consideration transcript appeal of the record on and must There was no origi- reversible error in the approved abridge deemed have its nal admission of the certainly detonator and ment. In supporting the absence of affida no prejudicial error to the defendants as a vits prejudicial evidence that subsequent result of the trial developments. reversible error occurred the final If initially error occurred in the admis- counsel, summations of we cannot sustain detonator, sion it was at most harm- assignment. less and must be deemed waived failure *6 to objection Equally renew the appropriate at an without merit is the com plaint judge time. that the Parenthetically, on trial failed to com the sentencing plete supply report to the clerk Rickman admitted of possessing the this concerning Court the detonator and defendant Britt. potential demonstrated its a report required Such is in all cases where jurors. use to the the is jury submitted the Appellants assign as testimony by error consideration, imposed whether or not. police implicating officer Groseclose after See Rule 47 of the rules of this Court. given by statements Britt and Rickman had case, rеports In the concerning been ordered redacted and all references in Groseclose and Rickman were included in each to any codefendant deleted. the on appeal, required record as by the Rule, but since Britt’s case is not involved statement the officer was The here, a report concerning him was not in- merely remark, an introductory to which report cluded. Such a was prepared by the objection immediately was made and sus however, judge, trial and transmitted the Cautionаry tained. given instructions were clerk of this Court of April under date jury. the The statement came late in the compliance in the with rule. Accord- presentation proof, of the long State’s after ingly assignment the of error the regarding both Lindsey testified, Mount Mrs. absence of is overruled. directly implicating all of the defendants. circumstances, therefore, Under the the Appellants assigned have errors re the officer was most a garding instructions, the but from an technical error and merely was cumulative examinatiоn them we are the opinion repetitive damaging to much more tes given closely that the instructions followed timony subject the same which had al the Tennessee statutes which the Court has ready objection. been admitted without previously held constitutional. One of the assignment The is principal of error overruled. complaints in made the brief appellants judge was the failure of the trial half. Groseclose had no criminal rec- ord, “mitigating,” only mitigating define the term we but are factor opinion of the that this is а word in common his whom established in case. Witnesses he called, usage certainly “legalism” beyond supposedly general not a to attest his understanding ordinary reputation, only citizens character com- showed that posing jury panel. he had been well liked in his work at the witnesses, naval in Memphis. base These Appellants complain also of some in appellant further said that Gro- impanel cidents which occurred seclose had become unreliable and unde- ing jury, prospec of the such contact of work, pendable general per- his that jurors tive persons already with who had unsatisfactory, formance was and that he panel been excused from the and the view employment discharged jurors ing by appellants of the in handcuffs. that reason. These incidents to very briefly are referred his report summarizing In to this Court transcript; in the none are documented cases, judge trial made the follow- affidavits; opinion and we are of the respect comment with judge the trial committed no reversible er Rickman: ror in respect the matters com plained appellants “Due impaneling developed to the facts that jurors. guilt lawsuit the defendant’s was without of the death question. manner assignments principal One of error was the the victim this case second alleged disproportionate sentences has worst manner this Court seen given as contrasted with the years experience in criminal cases. This imprisonment sentence of life to their quarrel jury’s has no deci- carefully codefendant We re- Britt. have punishment for sion as to the this defend- regard, in this viewed the record are ant. there was material evi- describing justifying report, dence the record the discretion Earlier in the jurors victim, regard. exercised in this extent harm or torture to said: statutory essence of the atrocious, “The manner of death procedure under which the death victim, stabbing after she raping and may imposed requirement is the unconscious, placed choked jurors separately consider each *7 6/29/77, of car and died due to trunk a оn aggra individually, they and that consider (literally systematic hypothermia1 cook- vating mitigating and circumstances in death). ing Body found 7/4/77.” was course, decision, each case. Their is not manner, Groseclose, but, the arbitrary judge in As to trial be reached an hand, certainly gave description is of the manner of jury on the other the not the same required impose the death in death and made this comment: every involving a conviction of murder opin- in Court’s “There is no doubt in degree. the first kill ion that the defendant intended to his prоof. This defend- by wife as shown the jury aggravating The found cir willfully, maliciously ant and intentional- against cumstances both and whereby ly plan set in motion the his by clearly Rickman which are sustained the The wife met a most atrocious death. proof, including that this was a the fact its justified was decision as the jury particularly for hire that it was murder and defendant, although for this punishment In the brutal and atrocious. case Rick- physically present.” was not he man, rec the evidence showed substantial fully supports mitigat record prior activity. We find thаt the ord of criminal No by judge. his conclusions the trial ing proved on be- these circumstances “sys- Apparently typographical error for hyperthermia.” temic hand, legally the while Britt which he On had earlier inves- implicated as as fully substantially was the homicide tigating police was correct Rickman, which, is if there that he did fact kill the victim. On fact, accepted by the trier of would estab- occasion, testimony he confirmed Britt’s did physically engage lish that he not either present the only that the latter was on strangulаtion or stabbing the the the orders of to assist in furnish- only years age victim. He was nineteen was, ing transportation.2 jury The with no criminal record. There course, accept reject or entitled to all evidence, lay expert, substantial both contradictory part testimony, of Rickman’s subject he to domination in- point but at at this in the trial he did least older, fluence the more mature and more attempt which to minimize role Britt criminal, hardened Rickman. One of the played. had statutory mitigating circumstances in Court, judge In his to this the trial state act was committed under there from which stated that was evidence duress under “substantial domination jury mitigat- found several could have person.” of another T.C.A. 39-2404. § circumstances, including ing absence of Further, noted as trial record, prior criminal duress or domination trial, report, throughout particular- person, youth another the accused and ly Britt, at sentencing unlike contrition and remorse. He commented codefendants, his manifested remorse upon jury the sentence of the as follows: regret оver the incident. He testified that under jury “This trial the evidence guilty knowledge weighed upon his heavily easily this lawsuit could have found death conscience, and that when he was taken punishment. as took jury evidently freely into on custody July 10 he and volun- age into consideration defendant’s tarily disclosed of the circumstances sur- (19) and his domination or influence victim, rounding including the death of the codefendant, Ronald E. Rickman. This participation his own jury therein. The quarrel jury’s Court has no with the saw and observed his manner and demeanor decision to this defendant.” testifying, as contrasted to that of the whom, appellants, throughout both of We did most are of trial, any implication denied capriciously impos- whatev- not act arbitrarily or A accept er. trier of fact reasonably could on while testimony which Britt offered. Fur- sentencing imprisonment. while Britt to life ther, expert there was evidence offered persons The case of each of the accused subject his behalf that he is to a program be own separately considered its therefrom, rehabilitation and could benefit defending merits. Each of individual such evidence was offered either parties allowed wide discretion in appellants. offering hearing. the sentencing evidence at area, ranged over wide planned Britt testified that he had religious including philosophical topics, time of the homicide and personal history as well as de- each only accompanied upon that he *8 only fendant. The limitation which the tri- the latter’s orders and directions. When judge impоsed al involved a detailed exami- sentencing Rickman first testified at the and any participation Attorney he denied nation of the District his staff what- 29,1977. Later, appellants, pres- ever in the events of June counsel for out of the however, jury, respect at the of the with to the conclusion of sentenc- ence refusal ing hearing, again plea Attorney engage took the stand. of the District bargaining This time he testified that the written in these cases and as to his 2. On this occasion Rickman that he claimed that she had affair testified had an illicit love previously strongly Mrs. known with him. This chal- lenged supplied that she and others had him on cross-examination and was never drugs illegal by any sales. He also use narcotics other evidence. corroborated 150 handling assignments All of error are overruled.
policies in the of similar cases. No of in each case jury developed judgment The conviction issue for consideration pursuant imposed thereto sentencing hearing, in sentence portion at this of the will be carried arе affirmed. sentences opinion, our but each 1, 1981, provided by August as out law any unlimited freedom to introduce almost by ap- or modified stayed unless otherwise mitigating evidence which he desired. other authority. ap- Costs are taxed propriate remaining assignments er of pellants. by appellants challenge ror the constitution
ality of the Tennessee death statute JJ., COOPER, concur. FONES respects. in a These issues have number of J., BROCK, and dissents. C. concurs rejected by considered and previously been example, this in other cases. For Court OPINION are appellants contend that the statutes require they in that do not unconstitutional Justice, BROCK, concurring and Chief particular ag notice to the accused dissenting. gravating upon which circumstances affirming I concur in the conviction v. will at trial. Both State rely State degree I for first murder. the defendants (Tenn.1980), 592 553 Berry, S.W.2d dissent, sentence State, (Tenn. Houston v. 593 267 S.W.2d death, v. expressed State for the reasons 1980),3 considered and this contention was Dicks, 615 S.W.2d Houston, In to be without merit. found supra, remaining contentions most of the alleged respect now made with ORDER statutes, vagueness impo mandatory of the Appellants, William Edward Groseclose jeopardy double penalty, sition of the death Eugene and Ronald have filed hearsay sentenc use petitions rehearing. These have been rejected. ing hearing considered and considered the Court and are found to be was the to be without merit Likewise found petitions accordingly without merit. The limit miti the statutes
contention
are overruled.
jurors may
which the
gating circumstances
accu
any
them of
deprive
consider
urged
that the
petition it
In each
Coz
sentencing
rate
information. See also
“proportionality re
Court overlooked the
(Tenn.1979).
State,
zolino v.
584 S.W.2d
Georgia,
by Gregg v.
required
view”
pellants are vagueness void for and over-
breadth was addressed this Court at length opinion
some in its the ease Dicks, 126, particularly v.
State S.W.2d 39-2404(i)(5).
with reference T.C.A. § there constitution-
The Court sustained the
ality statute, are application that its to the facts case is consistent case,
interpretation stated in the Dicks
supra. petitions for rehearing for stay
of sentence are prejudice, overruled without right of appellants to seek stay
reconsideration of a if and when
proper application for review by the Su-
preme Court of the United States is filed.
Mr. Chief Justice Brock adheres to the expressed
views dissenting opinion case,
these cases and in supra. the Dicks COOPER, JJ.,
FONES and concur.
BROCK, J.,C. concurs and dissents.
COMMERCE UNION BANK OF CHAT al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
TANOOGA et
v. EQUALIZATION,
STATE BOARD OF
Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Tennessee.
4,May Warner, Jr., Anderson,
Robert J. Mary V. Nashville, plaintiffs-appellees. Lewis, Gen., Atty. Charles L. Asst. Nash- ville, defendant-appellant.