*1 аg- as an impact terized the victim evidence Tennessee,
gravating weighed against Appellee, factor to be STATE majority mitigating proof. concedes argument was error but finds that that the PIKE, Appellant. Gail Christa appear the error not to have affected did prejudice. verdict to the defendant’s Tennessee, Supreme Court I,like Wade, Judge conclude that cannot at Knoxville. argument, considered with the State’s 5,Oct. 1998. testimony, lengthy impact victim did not af- stating, I draw no fect the verdict. so Rehearing Nov. 1998. Denied imposed. regarding penalty conclusions only I that a be allowed to find should penalty under the correct sen-
reconsider
tencing guidelines. I remand this case would hearing. sentencing
for new ON PETITION
OPINION
FOR REHEARING rehearing for have been filed on
Petitions of both the Nesbit.
behalf State Clarence grant rehearing
The State asks the Court to capital that our review in cases is
and hold only those issues identified
limited 39-13-206(c)(l)(1997
Tenn. Code
Repl.). opinion initial ade- We decline. The
quately this issue. addressed argues opinion of
The defendant justices four
the Court is invalid because justices
participated in decision. Three quorum may sit as a Court
constitute a judgments. Trust and render valid Radford Co., 126, 137,21 S.W.
Co. v. Lumber 92 Tenn. (1893). justices participated in the Four case, constituting
decision in this with three majority. judgment is valid. rehearing
Accordingly, petitions the defendant are
filed the State and
denied, equally between the with costs taxed and the defendant. the views ex- Birch adheres to
Justice dissenting opinion. original
pressed in his Drowota, F. III Frank
/s/ Drowota, III, Frank F.
Justice HOLDER, J.,
ANDERSON, C.J., and
concur. Justice,
REID, participating. Special *3 doubt, the de-
reasonable sentenced re- fendant to electrocution. With spect conspir- to the defendant’s conviction of murder, trial acy degree commit first judge imposed twenty-five-year a consecutive sentence. appeal to the Court of Criminal
On direct challenged both her Appeals, the defendant sentences, raising eight convictions and fully considering the claims of error. After claims, the Court of Criminal defendant’s *4 Appeals judgment. affirmed the trial court’s Thereafter, Ann. pursuant to Tenn.Code (1997 39-13-206(a)(l) Repl.),1 § the case was Taiman, Martin, A. Knox- William C. Julie docketed in this Court. ville, appellant. for in The raised numerous issues defendant Walkup, Attorney Knox General and John Court, carefully examining the this but after Moore, Reporter, E. Michael Solicitor Gener- law, including the thor- entire record and the al, Morante, Kathy Attorney Deputy Gener- opinion Ap- ough the Court of Criminal al, Nashville, Nichols, Randall E. District peals and of the and the the briefs General, Crabtree, Attorney Sally William H. State, July entered an on Court Order Helm, Attorneys J. Assistant District Gener- 1998, limiting argument review at oral al, Knoxville, appellee. for The issues. See three Tenn. S.Ct. R. 12.2 September, case was at the term heard OPINION of this Court Knoxville. DROWOTA, Justice. record, reviewing deter- After we have have alleged mined that none of the errors case, defendant, capital In this Christa Moreover, supports merit. evidence Pike, premeditated Gail was convicted of first jury’s findings aggravating as to the and degree and conspiracy murder to commit circumstances, mitigating and the sentence of degree Following first murder. a sentencing arbitrary disproportionate death is not or hearing degree on the conviction for first cases, imposed the sentence similar consid- murder, aggravating found two cir- ering the the crime the defen- nature of (1) especially “[t]he cumstances: murder was Accordingly, judgment of the dant. heinous, or atrocious cruel in that it involved Appeals upholding Court of Criminal the de- physical beyond torture serious abuse is af- fendant’s convictions sentences death;” necessary produce “[t]he firmed. purpose murder was committed for the avoiding, interfering preventing with or FACTUAL BACKGROUND prosecution lawful arrest of the defendant proof by or another.” presented Tenn.Code 39-13- The at 204(i)(5) (6) (1997 Repl.). Finding guilt phase the trial that on established 11,1995, defendant, aggravating January the two circumstances out- Gail Christa Pike, weighеd mitigating beyond Corps circumstances student at Job Center imposed penalty 1. "Whenever the proceed case shall with the Ten- accordance degree judgment first murder and when the has Appellate nessee Rules of Procedure.” court, become final in the trial right appeal shall have the of direct from the trial provides Supreme 2. Tennessee Court Rule 12 Appeals. court to the Court of Criminal setting pertinent part as follows: “Prior to the affirmance conviction and the sentence of argument, oral the Court shall the record review automatically death shall be reviewed assigned. and briefs all and consider errors Supreme Upon Tennessee Court. the affirmance may designating order those is- Court enter an Appeals, the Court of Criminal the clerk shall argument.” sues it at oral wishes addressed Supreme docket the case in the Court and the Iloilo, Knoxville, picked up out pouring Kim who been and that she told friend left the piece of skull when she scene. facility, at the that she intend- also a student student, Slemmer, ed to kill another Colleen Though neither nor Wilson immedi- Iloilo just day.” she “had felt mean because police, ately reported on Pike’s statements 12, 1995, day, approxi- January at The next murder, January 13, day after Pike, mately p.m., along 8:00 Iloilo observed a.m., employee approximately 8:05 Slemmer, Corps stu- two other Job Depart- University of Grounds Tennessee dents, Tadaryl Shipp, Peterson and Shadolla semi-nude, ment, discovered Slemmer’s away boyfriend, walking from the Job Pike’s slashed, body near badly beaten ap- At Corps center 17th Street. toward campus. agricultural He greenhouses Pike, p.m., proximately 10:15 Iloilo observed badly body was so beaten testified Peterson, Shipp to the Center. return corpse for the he had first mistaken it not with them. Slemmer Upon inspection, he an animal. closer saw clothes and her nude breast and the victim’s night, Iloilo’s room Later that went body human female. it was the of a realized just told Iloilo that she had killed Slem- immediately law enforcement of- He notified piece brought back a mer and that she had ficials. victim’s skull as a Pike showed souvenir. *5 Depart- piece of told her that Police Iloilo the skull and she from the Knoxville Officers times, Department victim’s six beaten and the U.T. Police were had cut the throat ment Terry her, to John asphalt at the victim’s head. summoned the scene. Officer and thrown body he begged had testified at trial Pike told Iloilo the victim Johnson her, lying and was nude from beating was on debris stop cutting to and but found “them” up. dirt covered the the waist Blood and stop victim contin- Pike did not because the clothing. The victim’s body remaining and talk. Pike told Iloilo that she had ued to Multiple bludgeoned. cuts head had been large piece asphalt a at victim’s thrown appeared torso. Officer on her head, and slashes pieces, and when it into smaller broke thought he was look- Johnson stated that he at the victim well. she had thrown those he could ing at the victim’s face but not be Iloilo that cleaver had been Pike told a meat extremely because it mutilated. sure was and a box cutter used to cut the victim’s back from the area Johnson removed all civilians Finally, to throat. had been used cut her surrounding body. and secured scene pentagram a had been Pike said that carved chest. the victim’s forehead and Iloilo onto arrived, they began other se- As officers circle, dancing was in a smil- said that Pike curing the crime As officers discover- area. “la, la, she ing, singing and la” while related blood, clothing, other areas of articles ed these details about the murder. When Iloilo foliage, crime footprints, and broken morning next she saw Pike breakfast the size, eventually encompass- tripled in scene piece Pike what she done with the asked had long by 60 feet wide. area 100 feet replied that it of the victim’s skull. Pike was muddy, The crime scene was wet said, “And, yes, pocket and I’m scuffle, in her then with tram- there was evidence of eating with it.” bushes, prints breakfast in the pled and knee hand mud, large pool of drag A blood marks. morning, During a class later that Pike the victim’s feet from found about 30 Stephanie a similar statement to Wil- made body. son, point- Pike Corps another Job student. actually lying said, face spots body The victim’s to brown her shoes ed on shoes, pile When officers my mud on that’s blood.” down on of debris. “that ain’t over, body they pulled napkin pocket from her turned the discovered Pike then slashed. A which victim’s throat had been piece Wilson a of bone and showed bloody rag her neck. Detective piece skull. was around Pike said was of Slemmer’s Cook, Depart- Police she had slashed Donald R. of the U.T. Pike also told Wilson that ment, body accompanied morgue. to throat six and had beaten Slemmer’s times it had body after been in the head a rock. Pike told He observed Slemmer with pointed a five star and brains had cleaned and noticed that Wilson that victim’s blood her re- ground and kicked circle, commonly pentagram, known as a Slemmer in a Pike, as she According to peatedly. carved onto the victim’s chest. had been con- against the head Slemmer’s slammed York, investigator with Randy a criminal asked, “Why are crete, repeatedly Slemmer in- Department, began the Knoxville Police me?” When Slemmer you doing this to day vestigating January this case would be report Pike so she threatened sep- body York the victim’s was discovered. program, Corps from the Job terminated Shipp arately interviewed the defendant kicked Slemmer again repeatedly Pike Department Police on Janu- at the Knoxville ground lay on the face and side. Slemmer Investigator defen- ary 14th. York advised to run then tried for a time and and cried dant Pike of her Miranda rights, but she caught person Pike away, another but a statement. chose to waive them and make ground. pushed her to the Slemmer explained killing Pike detail how tape-record- Pike’s statement was occurred. Pike re- person, who Pike and the other forty-six pages. in some ed and transcribed “he,” until down to as held Slemmer ferred transcription given to the Copies of the struggling, dragged then her stopped she jurors jury, were allowed to listen to Pike cut Slemmer’s another area where through headphones. tape individual cutter. As Slemmer stomach with the box statement, Pike that she and said screamed,” Pike recounted “screamed and having problems Slemmer had been for some telling her that began to hear voices how she time. Pike claimed to awakened one have something prevent she had to do Slemmer night standing over her with to find Slemmer prison sending her to telling from on her Investigator York a box cutter. Pike told attempted murder. “trying get had been [her] Slemmer just looking point said she was At this boyfriend” “running and had been *6 “just watching her bleed.” and at Slemmer everywhere. mouth” Pike said that Slemmer over, up and rolled stood When Slemmer deliberately provoked her because Slem- away again, Pike cut Slemmer’s tried to run mer realized that Pike would be terminated Pikе back, big long cut on her back.” “the Corps program time from the Job the next up get to and repeatedly tried said Slemmer fight in or similar she became involved how bar- run. Pike recounted Slemmer incident. life, talk to begging Pike to gained for her planned that to Pike claimed she had not just if let telling and Pike that she would her Slemmer, planned kill but she had instead home in go, walk back to her her she would only fight to and let her know “to Slemmer Corps returning the Job to Florida without However, leave me the hell alone.” Pike belongings. Pike told Slem- facility for her that she had taken a box cutter and admitted harder to up” because it “was mer to “shut a miniature meat cleaver with her when she they’re talking you.” to somebody when hurt Corps left the Center. and the victim Job talked, more the more Slemmer Pike said the miniature Pike said she had borrowed face. she kicked Slemmer cleaver, identify meat but refused it person who had loaned to her. going to Pike what she was asked Slemmer her, thought Pike, point Pike she at which According asked do to she Slemmer the scene to check a noise. Pike left the Blockbuster Music heard accompany her to surrounding area to make sure Store, they walking, Pike told out and as returned, Pike she was around. When bag had a of “weed” hid- one that she Slemmer across the throat. began cutting Slemmer Tyson Though Pike refused to den in Park. beg for continued to talk and inci- Slemmer parties involved When name the other life, throat several dent, cut Slemmer’s group began walking to- her Pike said the she contin- that Slemmer arriving times. Pike said campus. Upon at the other the U.T. ward though up even talk and tried sit agricultural campus, ued to plant on U.T.’s steam times, and cut several throat had been exchanged words. Pike her Pike and Slemmer push pеrson would and the other banging that Pike began hitting Slemmer and then ground. Pike threw her back on on her knee. Slemmer’s head body attempted away again, Slemmer to run exact location where the victim’s and Pike threw a rock which hit Slemmer found. was back the head. Pike stated “the played After Pike’s statement person” other hit also Slemmer the head pictures Pike jury, the State introduced with a rock. fell to When Slemmer Police De- Shipp at the Knoxville taken ground, Pike continued to hit her. Eventual- giv- day the statement was partment on the ly Pike could hear said she Slemmer “breath- en, days two after the January out,” ing blood in and and she could see pictures, both Pike murder. “jerking,” “kept hitting Slemmer but Pike wearing pentagram necklaces. Shipp were hitting hitting her her and her.” Pike “Colleen, eventually Slemmer, you asked do A. an officer with Waggoner, Mark doing know to you?” who’s Slemmer’s Department, testified Knoxville Police response groaning noises. At this gloves of black pair he had retrieved point, person Pike said she and the other the Texaco I.D. cards from Slemmer’s grabbed each one of feet Slemmer’s These items on Avenue. station Cumberland dragged trees, area her to an near some officer, Another were also made exhibits. leaving body pile on a of dirt and debris. to illustrate Lanny Janeway, used chart They clothing left in the sur- Slemmer’s evidence blood or each of the locations where rounding episode Pike bushes. said the last- bloody chunks Photographs of was found. thirty ed “for about minutes to hour.” leaves, pools drippings on asphalt, blood person Pike that she other admitted and the into evidence. of blood were introduced had forced the victim to remove blouse asphalt victim’s bloody piece and the keep during and bra the incident to Slemmer into also introduced bloody clothing were away. running from Pike admitted also evidence. rag she had her hair removed from DePriest, a Raymond Special A. Agent point tied around Slemmer’s mouth at one by the Tennessee employed forensic scientist prevent talking. from Pike Slemmer de- he had testified that Investigation, Bureau of pentagram nied carving a the victim’s the shoes samples taken from received blood chest, person but had cut said other items Shipp. Those clothing Pike and the victim on her chest. had human blood he determined disposing body, After of Slemmer’s Margaret DNA unit. them were sent to *7 person and the other their hands washed and Bush, Bureau the Tennessee of employee puddle. They shoes a mud discarded the unit, assigned to the DNA Investigation of cutter, Pike box and returned the miniature perform had been unable to testified that she person Corps meat the from cleaver to at Job the from analysis the blood taken a DNA on she never iden- whom had borrowed it. Pike deter- Shipp, but had she shoes of Pike and Investigator tified individual. Pike told samples from the taken mined that the blood jeans York she had the bloodstained the Shipp clothing Pike and matched of both during worn the incident were still her profile DNA the victim. of they room. She said were covered mud Elkins, County Medi- Knox Dr. the Sandra rubbed mud from because she had the the on the Examiner, autopsy the cal performed jeans shoes onto to conceal bottom her the victim, by dental identified who later Investiga- the blood. Pike also admitted to Slemmer, nineteen-year- records as Colleen York had forms of tor that she discarded two Dr. described Corps Elkins old Job student. belonging to victim and the identification the and with dirt body the victim’s аs covered gloves in can at a victim’s black a trash up nude from the waist twigs. Slemmer was Texaco station on Cumberland Avenue. Pike socks, jeans, and shoes. clothed with York gave Investigator consent to search her clothing and the victim’s removing After accompanied and him to the room then Job attempted cleaning Dr. Elkins had body, the Corps From Pike Center. there retraced the catalog stab on to wounds steps, describing had occurred on the slash what killing. Investigator by assigning a letter night York victim’s torso the many eventually alphabet. him were so wounds testified that Pike directed to There
9H Finally, Dr. Elkins the eventually catalog only Dr. administer blows. Elkins decided to major Dr. in the victim’s sinus cavi- the most serious and wounds. that blood testified catalog every probably explained ty Elkins that to wound been alive and indicated she had required go through injuries she would have been inflicted. when the were conscious morgue alphabet again, stay the Dr. utilized testimony, Elkins During her days.” Eventually, for “three Dr. Elkins injuries. skull to describe victim’s “basically up hands said she threw [her] that in order determine She testified said, just superficial enumerable more [sic] death, necessary to remove cause back, slash wounds on the arms and chest.” the skull the head of victim have addition, In Dr. Elkins said the victim had Marks, Murray prepared by Dr. a forensic knees, purple indicating contusions on her University anthropologist at the of Tennes- bruising crawling, fresh consistent with explained that she had removed see. She right defensive wounds on her arm. order the victim’s skull in top of major Dr. Elkins described the slash and Embedded inside vic- remove the brain. cataloged stab wounds she had on the vic- the blunt force were tim’s brain as a result of arms, abdomen, back, tim’s chest. She skull. Dr. Elkins portions of victim’s gaping found a six inch across the wound piеces those and for- removed embedded pen- middle neck which had victim’s Marks. Dr. Marks re- warded them to Dr. etrated fat and neck. muscles skull, fitting por- those loose constructed addition, Dr. Elkins had found ten other tions into the left side area of skull. on slash wounds the victim’s throat. Other However, pieces completely had those face, slash wounds on victim’s filled side the victim’s one area on the left appeared Dr. Elkins observed what to be a Elkins skull. Dr. then showed pentagram carved onto the victim’s chest. piece given been to her of skull that had area Because the around each wound was red shortly the trial demonstrated before appearance, Dr. Elkins concluded remaining perfectly that it into the area of fit had beating victim’s heart been when the piece skull. The of skull utilized victim’s wounds were inflicted and she said the victim pock- by Dr. Elkins had taken from the been would not have been rendered unconscious jacket identified as et which witnesses by any of the stab or slash wounds. belonging to Pike. Dr. Elkins determined that the victim’s jacket over to law Pike’s had been turned injuries death was caused blunt force Corps employ- officials Job enforcement multiple head. victim had suffered Pollock, specialist A. ees. Robert orientation and extensive skull fractures. From au- he Corps, at Knoxville Job testified that had topsy, Dr. Elkins determined that the victim spoken January con- sustained minimum four blows to misplaced After Pike cerning a I.D. card. head; head, the left side of the *8 office, left his Pollock noticed a black leather right eye, one over in the one nose jacket hanging on the chair she had where right area. The frontal area of the victim’s jacket on hanging sat. had been bridge had skull had been fractured as of ap- chair Pollock locked the room when wound, However, major la- nose. 13th, p.m. January proximately 4:00 on “W”, injury involved beled as most left was still there when he returned at 7:30 a.m. of head. Dr. Elkins side the victim’s said January 17th. Because he had heard over injury, by blunt force to the that this caused in suspect that Pike was a the weekend right left of the victim’s head while side investigation, immediately Pollock murder a against victim’s head was firm side jacket Corps’ to the surface, turned the over Job right had side of also fractured the Safety Security Captain, William Hud- portion of the skull the skull and imbedded Police son. Hudson called the Knoxville De- Dr. into the victim’s brain. Elkins found jacket to Offi- partment and turned the over containing skull small divots victim’s he a short asphalt cer Bohanan when arrived particles chunk which Arthur black from have used time later. determined to been was later jacket, experi- because of the emotional release she
Officer Bohanan identified the having through from assured kill- it was introduced into evidence. He testified enced piece of bone that she could maintain her that he had discovered small Slemmer Shipp. questioned pocket jacket relationship with in the inside and had When immediately piece of skull found in the defen- taken it to Dr. Marks at the about coat, University Engum explained Dr. of Tennessee. Dr. Marks testi- dant’s actually identity concerning process by has no and the fied which the Defendant taking displaying piece prepared again skull had action of victim’s been fragment given that the bone Slemmer’s skull to her friends was the defen- demonstrated way getting recognition, “no matter perfectly to him Officer Bohanan fit into dant’s recognition. the bone reconstruction of the skull of the how distorted” the victim. cross-examinatiоn, Engum Dr. stated On question that the defen-
Following the introduction into evidence of that there was no skull, He reiterated photographs, the victim’s numerous dant had killed Slemmer. began, the attack clothing, opinion and items of the victim’s that his that once However, literally Dr. lost control. rested its ease-in-chief. deliberately Pike had Engum admitted Engum, psychologist, Dr. Eric a clinical park, pen- carved a enticed Slemmer defense and stated that he testified chest, bashed tagram Slem- onto Slemmer’s had conducted a clinical interview and had concrete, and beaten against the mer’s head battery administered a of tests to the defen- asphalt. En- Dr. head with Slemmer’s Engum dant. Dr. described Pike as an “ex- carrying weap- act of gum agreed that Pike’s tremely bright young Engum Dr. woman.” Finally, ons with her indicates deliberation. problem in explained that Pike “is excellent Pike had time to Engum Dr. conceded that ah, solving, reasoning, analysis, pay can at- her actions when consider calm down and tention, concentration, sequence, can sustains during the attack to inves- she left Slemmer ah, receptive expressive has excellent anyone whether tigate a determine noise and IQ language Pike had a full scale skills.” else was the area. percentile score of which is the 77th Bernet, director of the medical and which was characterized as “remarkable” William University, psychiatric hospital at Vanderbilt Engum completed Dr. since she had the statements grade. According Engum, Dr. testified that he had reviewed the ninth Kimberly Iloilo and the unequivocally showed that Pike had of the defendant and the tests Elkins, and Dr. reports Engum, Dr Dr. symptoms damage and that she of brain although However, there Engum con- Marks. He concluded was not insane. Dr. crime, pat- in this very that the defendant suffers from a were satanic elements cluded dabbling an adolescent personality tern was that of severe borderline disorder and phenome- (marijuana) depen- He then described signs of cannabis Satanism. exhibits whereby group aggression, He testified that non of collective dence and inhalant abuse. emotionally people gather and become dysfunctional that she the defendant is not so they en- institutionalized, result is that instead aroused and the end to be but needs behavior. On problems gage in some kind of violent multiplicity has a opined that she cross-examination, Dr. Bernet admitted relationships, controlling interpersonal behavior, spoken neither with achieving he had and in vocational Dr. Bernet any witnesses. nor of the other goals. academic *9 enough have infor- that he did not admitted examination, Engum Dr. During direet expert opinion as to mation to offer an acted with opined that the defendant had not premedita- Pike acted with intent whether killing in premeditation Slem- deliberation or killing the victim. tion acted Engum Dr. said she had mer. Instead during the diagnosis Based on this evidence offered his in a manner consistent with Pike, trial, disorder; jury found guilt phase of the personality she had lost borderline conspiracy degree guilty of first murder explained that she had danced He control. degree first murder. relating murder to Iloilo to commit around when trial, boyfriend ar- a had the sentencing the with belt. Hansen phase In the presented at rested. on the evidence State relied proof. phase presented no further guilt cross-examination, admitted Hansen On defense, mitigation, called Carrie problematic had been that Pike’s behavior Ross, testi- Pike’s aunt as a witness. Ross grow- begun years. The defendant had for experienced had no fied that the defendant at age home ing marijuana pots her bonding prema- she maternal because was away threatening to run from nine. After paternal grand- ture and raised her was street, had live on the Pike been home and mother until she in 1988. Ross said died boyfriend age have a live-in allowed to family history a that Pike’s has of substance Pike had Hansen admitted that fourteen. grandmother that Pike’s maternal abuse and boy- against the a “butcher-knife” wielded verbally an abusive to
was alcoholic who was friend, whipping had for who been arrested paternal Following Pike. of Pike’s death Pike lied to her her. also said had Hansen grandmother, Pike shuffled between her was from her on numerous occasions stolen Ross, According to mother and father. quit high Hansen conceded and had school. very dirty. Pike’s was Pike’s mother’s home since she that Pike had been out control her, on the mother set rules years Following Hansen’s eight was old. Ross, Pike occasions that had visited rested case. testimony, the defense its play- girl,” defendant had behaved as a “little rebuttal, presented the testi- the State ing dress-up eleven- Barbie and with her Underwood, Jr., mony of Harold James year-old cousin. police officer who University of Tennessee assigned to the crime scene on secure cross-examination, On Ross admitted that January 1995. testified that Underwood previously patho- she had described Pike as a with three the defendant came scene logical liar and she had been afraid to and five to five between four other females her allow Pike to associate with own children. why day. p.m that Pike asked Underwood Ross also admitted that Pike out of had been questioned marked off and the area had been years control since she was twelve old. identity concerning him of the victim and father, Pike, Glenn the defendant’s testi- suspects. any police not the had whether or fied that he had kicked the out of defendant during the spoke None the other females twice, his time in house the last 1989. He group fifteen minutes the was there. Under- papers signed adoption admitted that he had appeared giggled Pike wood said amused prior eighteenth for the defendant her noticed that around. Underwood moved cross-examination, birthday. On he admitted wearing unusual Pike necklace he home in had forced Pike leave his learning shape After at roll pentagram. aof allegation there had been an because January 14, that the victim of call on sexually had abused his pentagram had carved on her the murder two-year-old daughter from his second mar- chest, strange reported Pike’s behavior he father, riage. According to her had superior his officers. and unusual necklace to disobedient, dishonest, manipu- been proof at the on the submitted sen- Based him. lative when she lived with hearing, found existence tencing mother, Hansen, following aggravating circum- The defendant’s Carissa (1) nurse, beyond a “[t]he testified that Pike stances reasonable doubt: practical licensed heinous, especially atrocious percent of the time murder was had lived with or serious paternal grandmother’s cruel in that involved torture death. since necessary pro- physical beyond that Hansen that she had smoked mari- abuse admitted death;” and murder was com- “[t]he duce juana with the defendant order “estab- avoiding, purpose interfer- friendship.” related that the mitted for lish Hansen preventing a arrest or attemptеd by taking with or lawful defendant had suicide another.” shortly prosecution of the defendant or after the of her an overdose *10 13—204(i)(5) § Ann. Hansen also testified Tenn.Code paternal grandmother. 39— (1997 addition, jury found that boyfriends Repl.). In whipped that one of her 914 proven aggravating trier of fact from circumstantial evidence.
the State had State, 298, 305, Liakas v. 199 Tenn. 286 outweighed any mitigating circumstances cir- (1956). 856, Therefore, ap- 859 beyond a reasonable doubt. As S.W.2d cumstances strongest result, peal, the is entitled to the jury State sentenced the defendant to legitimate of the trial evidence and all by view electrocution. The trial court en- legitimate reasonable and inferences which judgment tered a in accordance with the may be drawn from the evidence. Conse- jury’s Ap- verdict and the Court of Criminal quently, considering the defendant’s claim peals reviewing affirmed. After the record sufficient, that the evidence is not we must considering assigned by the the errors determine, defendant, reviewing after the evidence in judgment we affirm the State, light most favorable to the wheth- Appeals. Court of Criminal any er rational trier of fact could have found guilty premeditated first I. degree conspiracy murder and to commit THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE: degree beyond first murder a reasonable CONVICTIONS 13(e); R.App. doubt. Tenn. P. Jackson v. 307, 2781, Virginia, 443 U.S. 99 S.Ct. 61 challenges The defendant first the suffi- Cazes, (1979); v. 875 L.Ed.2d 560 State ciency support the convic- of the evidence (Tenn.1994). 253 S.W.2d degree conspiracy tions for first murder and degree Specifically, to commit first murder. Degree Murder A. First respect degree for first to the conviction murder, argues that the State occurred, killing At the time this any did not offer evidence to establish delib- first-degree defined as an “in murder was eration or to establish that the defendant had tentiоnal, premeditated killing and deliberate opportunity at to reflect her actions § Tenn.Code Ann. 39-13- of another.” a time when her mind “was free from the (1991). 202(a)(1) “Intentional” was defined passion.” influence of excitement or objective or to en as the “conscious desire defendant also maintains that the evidence is or cause the result.” gage in the conduct 39-11-106(18) (1991 insufficient to sustain the conviction for con- § Ann. Tenn.Code degree spiracy to commit first murder. act”, on the other Repl.). “Premeditated hand, the exercise meant an act “done after analyzing asser defendant’s judgment.” Tenn.Code of reflection and tions, guided by following we are well- 39-13-201(b)(2) (1991 Repl.). Final- guilty by principles of law. A verdict settled ly, act” was defined as “one “[deliberate court, jury, approved by the trial accred purpose.” Tenn.Code performed with cool testimony for the its the of the witnesses 13—201(b)(1)(1991 Repl.). §Ann. 39— and resolves all conflicts favor of State Grace, premeditation The elements of prosecution’s theory. v. 493 State (Tenn.1973). 474, questions for the which A of deliberation are 476 verdict S.W.2d by proof the circum may be established guilt presumption of innocence removes killing. v. surrounding the replaces presumption guilt, stances it with (Tenn.1997); Bland, 651, 958 660 has the burden of illus S.W.2d and the defendant (Tenn. Brown, 530, 539 836 S.W.2d trating why is insufficient to State v. the evidence 1992). factors which tend There are several support jury’s Tuggle, State v. verdict. (Tenn.1982). elements Questions support the existence of these 639 S.W.2d deadly weapon witnesses, of a credibility of the which include: the use concerning the victim; cru evidence, particular upon an unarmed weight given value to be by elty killing; the defen by declarations all factual issues raised the evi well as kill; procure evidence of fact. This dant of intent are resolved the trier dence preparations before the weapon; reweigh or reevaluate the ment of does not Court crime, Cabbage, killing for concealment of 571 S.W.2d evidence. State killing. (Tenn.1978). immediately after may this substi calmness Nor Court Brown, Bland, 660; drawn tute its inferences for those *11 915 earlier, West, proclaimed had her 541-42; day Pike v. 844 one S.W.2d at State S.W.2d 144, 148(Tenn.1992). “she to because intent kill Colleen Slemmer day.” that just felt mean
Considering proof the in this record State, light to as we are most favorable the Clearly in this is suffi- evidence record the do, required agree of to we with the Court premedita- the elements of support cient to Appeals Criminal that the evidence is suffi- support and to the tion deliberation jury’s support finding premed- cient of to the guilty finding defendant of jury’s verdict the itation and Pike told a friend deliberation. degree premeditated murder. first day killing going one before the that she was procured to kill the victim. The defendant Conspiracy B. to Commit crime, weapons arming accomplish to the Degree Murder First a a minature herself with box cutter and next that The defendant contends cleaver, an- meat which she from borrowed support to her is insufficient the evidence Pike other individual. then lured the victim conspiracy to commit first de conviction for to the an isolated area to commit crime failed to gree because the State murder drugs victim telling the that she would share Specifi the the prove elements of offense. they the with her. Once arrived at isolated location, cally, the contends that there was the defendant the defendant attacked unarmed one, deadly proof, other than her “uncorroborated weapons. victim not but a used thirty an that box cutter had been attack continued minutes to statement” time, victim, During proof hour. and there was no that this extended the defen- on the ample opportunities Tadaryl Shipp dant which to Peterson and at Shadolla upon reflect her actions and choose a course the tacked victim. admission, By of conduct. her own the de- killing At the time this occurred actually long fendant ceased the assault time, present “[t]he and at offense of the enough to scout out the area and ensure that (2) conspiracy if two or more is committed Certainly, no one else was around. this having culpable people, each the mental state provided break in the chain of events object required is the of for the offense which time reflect upon defendant to actions. acting pur conspiracy and for the each fact, in her statement re- promoting facilitating or commission pose of repeatedly carefully counted how she offense, agree one or more of of an upon reflected her actions and to kill chose engage will conduct which consti them victim assure the victim would not §Ann. 39- tutes such offense.” Tenn.Code against testify “attempted her for murder.” 12-103(a) (1991 Repl.). The of con offense question, killing particular- Without criminality group is at and is spiracy aimed ly cruel; fact, particular cruelty a is group criminal principle based phrase merely begins which to describe activity poses greater public threat than killing. nature and circumstances of this by single committed indi criminal offenses attempted to defendant conceal offense (1991 § 39-12-103 Tenn.Code Ann. vidual.
by dragging body the victim’s secluded Comments). (Sentencing Repl.) Commission removing disposing area vic- conspira offеnse of While essence tim’s cards. The identification accomplish cy agreement a criminal tops also washed the of her shoes at the State, act, 1, unlawful v. Tenn. 3 Owens rubbed mud Texaco service station and (1885); Hodgkinson, v. from the bottom of her shoes onto her blue (Tenn.Crim.App.1989), agreement ’jeans calmly to conceal the blood. Pike dis- may expressed, need be formal posed cutter box and returned proven by evidence. State be circumstantial person meat cleaver from miniature (Tenn. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d whom it had been borrowed. Later “souvenir,” Crim.App.1993); Hodgkinson, 778 S.W.2d evening, displayed same may “The be es skull, gleefully 58. unlawful confederation piece the victim’s and she by circumstantial evidence kill- tablished recounted events the assault and Iloilo, whom, only parties in the execution the same friend to conduct *12 pretrial in enterprise. Conspiracy implies proceedings criminal con- this case. She as- every design participation coverage cert of and not in that media in this case made serts State, difficult, Randolph detail of execution.” 570 jury “arguably affected selection 869, (Tenn.Crim.App.1978). testimony disrup- S.W.2d generally and was witness proceedings.” recognizing tive of the While Viewing in in the evidence this record promulgated that this has a rule which Court State, light most favorable to the we have no permits coverage,3 Pike media nonetheless difficulty concluding that the evidence is suf- that “the record of selection contends support ficient to the defendant’s conviction coverage intense media made demonstrates conspiracy degree mur- to commit first impossible get a to fair trial.” der. Iloilo testified that she observed the defendant, victim, Shipp Peterson and 1995, аdopted in This Court December of leaving Corps facility together the Job on Supreme one-year pilot Rule 30 as a Court night evening, of the murder. Later that judicial project govern coverage to media defendant, Peterson, Iloilo observed proceedings experimental in Tennessee. Shipp return without the victim. After her 1,1996, January until rule was effective from return, Iloilo said that the defendant told her 31, During experimen- December 1996. this victim, using that she had killed the a meat period, tal and considered this Court solicited cleaver to cut the victim’s back and box general from members of the comments both cutter to cut her throat. Iloilo testified that judicial public participants pro- in and from begged Pike said the victim had “them” to ceedings by the me- which had been covered stop cutting beating her throat and her. Il- pursuant the terms of Rule 30. After dia to testimony oilo’s was consistent with and cor- adopting ap- considering comments and in which Pike roborative of the confession 30, amendments, propriate on December person said that she and another whom Pike making an order this Court entered “he,” accompanied to the victim referred permanent.4 Rule 30 killing to oc- the isolated location where (A)(1) person par- curred. Pike said that the other “[m]e- of Rule 30 authorizes Section victim, ticipated restraining cutting coverage judicial proceedings in public dia victim, hitting the victim the head with this appellate and trial courts ” However, asphalt, dragging coverage rocks and the victim’s is the media State.... body times, DNA “subject, authority to a more isolated location. test- of the at all to the (i) that the judge revealed blood stains found on the conduct of presiding control (ii) court; Shipp’s clоthing main- both Pike and matched the proceedings before (in) distractions; Finally, Shipp victim’s blood. both Pike and prevent tain decorum and witness, wearing pentagram days safety any party, necklaces guarantee murder, (iv) pentagram impartial juror; after the and -a had been fair and ensure the Accordingly, pending justice chest. carved onto the victim’s administration (D)(2) Further, that the evidence of Rule 30 the defendant’s contention cause.” Section judge support presiding is the conviction for specifically grants insufficient “refuse, degree conspiracy judicial to commit first murder is proceeding the discretion limit, suspend” without merit. me- temporarily terminate or if neces- coverage part of a case dia all or II. any important sary to of these accommodate interests. MEDIA COVERAGE in this case con- Although next
The defendant
asserts
“arguably af-
coverage
by refusing
grant
that the media
trial court erred
tends
testimony
gener-
deny
coverage of the
fected the witness
motion to
television
soliciting
interested
again
comments from
Supreme
order
3. Tennessee
Court Rule 30.
public.
must be
The comments
members of the
operate
4.
that Rule 30 continues to
"To ensure
Appellate
Clerk’s Office
Court
filed with
public
a manner that is in the best interest of the
by December
1998.
Nashville
jus-
compatible
with the administration
tice,”
31, 1998,
August
entered an
this Court
To the con-
participants.
more of the trial
disruptive
proceedings,” she does
ally
proof.
record,
trary,
is
of such
record
devoid
any specific portion
not cite
merit.
ways
issue without
Accordingly,
specific
offer
reasons as to the
nor
pro-
*13
testimony
the
was affected or
which
III.
Also,
ceedings disrupted.
the defendant
explain
coverage of
not
how media
the
does
OF THE EVIDENCE:
SUFFICIENCY
would
been less intense had cam-
crime
have
DEATH SENTENCE
from
courtroom dur-
eras been excluded
the
Aggravating
A.
Circumstances
proceedings. Although jury
ing the
selection
case,
jury imposed
In
the
the death
this
lengthy,
to
media cover-
part,
due
the
was
(1)
finding
mur-
penalty
“[t]he
both that
upon
assertion,
crime,
the
is
nor
age of
there
no
atrocious,
heinous,
or cru-
especially
was
der
juror
proof,
any particular
that
was biased
physi-
or
it involved torture
serious
el
that
addition,
coverage.
of the media
In
because
necessary
beyond
produce
that
to
cal abuse
reading
no
from
the tran-
there is
indication
(2)
death,”
murder was com-
that
“[t]he
and
coverage itself
script
that
the media
avoiding,
purpose
interfer-
mitted for the
of
any
disruptive
disruptive
or
event oc-
lawful
or
preventing
with or
arrest
Clearly,
during
proceedings.
curred
the
or another.”
prosecution of the defendant
deny
presiding judge’s decision
a motion
to
39-13-204©(5)
Tenn.Code Ann.
preclude
coverage
or limit media
is not
to
(1997
appeal,
defendant chal-
Repl.). On
the
proof
error
absence
media
sufficiency
sup-
lenges
the evidence to
the
impor-
coverage
compromise
the
will
one of
The
port
aggravating circumstances.
(A)(1)
these
tant interests set forth
Sections
Appeals rejected
claim
Court of
this
(D)(2)
Criminal
Rule
in this
30. The defendant
case
the evidence sufficient.
found
Therefore,
presented
proof.
the tri-
such
judge
al
did
abuse her
not
discretion under
first address the defendant’s
We
by denying
Rule 30
the defendant’s motion.
sup
to
claim that the evidence is insufficient
Moreover,
(i)(5)
the defendant has failed to dem-
In
port
aggravating
circumstance.
pre-
Williams,
(Tenn.
coverage
that the media
onstrate
v.
impaired to decide case body that the on the victim’s wounds alone, or that the trial on the evidence catalog. too The victim’s throat numerous adversely impact of media affected slashed, repeatedly had been defensive coverage participants. more of on one or arm, right on found her bruises wounds were Florida, 560, 449 U.S. also Chandler See crawling were found on her consistent with 581-82, L.Ed.2d 740 S.Ct. knees, had sustained least four and she (1981). Her skull was heavy head. blows pentagram A Likewise, places. in several in this case has fractured According coverage onto chest. had been carved that media failed show either proof, the defendant’s own impaired to the pretrial proceedings trial medical police and to other wit- to the jurors’ ability to decide the case statements nesses, and conscious adversely one victim was alive impacted evidence alone or Mitigating Aggravating vs. injuries upon her. B. when these were inflicted fact, Circumstances according In to the defendant’s state- ments, inflicted some of the wounds were contends Finally, the defendant begging stop because the victim would not consider and properly jury failed to admitted, for her life. The defendant also against weigh mitigating circumstances revealed, and the crime scene that the victim weight aggravating circumstances. away escape repeatedly tried to run given aggravating mitigating circum fact, attack. the victim was so terrified entirely province stances is within the that she offered to walk to her home or not jury. determines whether returning Corps Florida without Job aggrava mitigation exists and whether *14 facility belongings exchange for for her mitigating cir ting outweigh circumstances upon her life. The merciless assault the doubt. beyond a reasonable cumstances period thirty min- victim continued for a of (Tenn. 651, Bland, 661 State v. 958 S.W.2d record, Considering utes to an hour. this we 659, Barber, 1997); 669 753 S.W.2d State v. agree Appeals with the Court of Criminal discussed, (Tenn.1988). previously As overwhelmingly that the evidence is suffi- aggravating circum relied State support jury’s finding that “[t]he cient to offered mitigation, In the defendant stances. heinous, atrocious, especially murder was young when proof that she was to show cruel in that it involved torture or serious committed, prior had no that she offense was necessary physical beyond pro- that to abuse was un activity, she history that of criminal Ann. duce death.” Tenn.Code 39-13- or emo mental of extreme der the influence 204(i)(5) (1997 Repl.). murder oc when the tional disturbance curred, capacity appreciate to that her reject also the defendant’s con We conform or to wrongfulness of her conduct that is insufficient to tention the evidence of the law requirements her conduct to the (i)(6) support jury’s finding aggra of impaired as a result substantially was previ vating circumstance. This Court has defect, she had a mental disease or ously applicability to held that establish childhood, per had and that she difficult circumstance, aggravating of this State abuse. family history of substance sonal and prove prosecution must that avoidance cross-examination, elicited Through the State motivating purposes arrest was one of the witnesses testimony from the defendant’s Bush, 489, killing. State v. 942 S.W.2d difficult, manipulative, and that she had been (Tenn.1997); Smith, 504 State v. 868 S.W.2d previ early age, that she dishonest from an Carter, 561, (Tenn.1993); v. 714 581 State awith ously an individual had threatened (Tenn.1986) (avoidance S.W.2d knife, accused that she had been butcher murder). be sole motive for arrest need not sexually molesting half-sister. her case, police repeatedly In this Pike told proof to show that also rebuttal State offered victim, assaulting the she heard as she was group with a Pike had visited the crime scene telling voice her that she had to do some body day the victim’s of other females on the reporting the thing keep to the victim from giggled as she asked discovered and prison causing go her to for assault and Considering murder. questions about the begged attempted murder. When the victim record, opinion are of the proof in this we life, not responded Pike that she was for her support is sufficient that the evidence jail going “rotting in because of [the to be aggravating circum jury’s finding that stupid upon our con ass.” Based victim’s] mitigating circumstances outweighed stances record, agree with the sideration of the we beyond doubt. a reasonable Appeals that the evidence Court of Criminal jury’s finding support was sufficient IV. for the murder was committed “[t]he interfering pre purpose avoiding, with or REVIEW PROPORTIONALITY prosecution of the
venting a lawful arrest or
consider whether
must next
We
defendant or another.” Tenn.Code
13—204(i)(6)(1997
dispro-
of death is
the defendant’s sentence
Repl.).
§ 39—
below, considering the nature
explained
portionate
penalty imposed
As
similar
light
crime
eases,
considering the nature of the crime
factors,
imposition of
conclude that
these
we
§ 39-
and the defendant. Tenn.Code Ann.
and cruel
penalty for the torturous
the death
206(c)(1)(D)(1997
If
is
Repl.).
this case
13—
young
premeditated killing of this
woman
lacking in
“plainly
circumstances consistent
imposed
penalty
disproportionate
those in
in which the death
similar cases
proof
case
in similar cases.
imposed,”
penalty
previously
has
been
eighteen-year-old defendant
reflects
disproportionate.
sentence of death is
nineteen-year-old victim were ac-
(Tenn.1997).
Bland,
quaintances.
were female students
Both
However,
dispro-
a sentence
death is not
Corps facility Knoxville. Because
the Job
merely
portionate
because the circumstances
making
unfa-
allegedly
victim
been
of the offense are similar to those
another
boy-
her
about Pike and
vorable comments
offense
which a
has received
friend,
herself and lured
armed
role,
life sentence.
Id. at 665. Our
in con-
area
she assault-
to an
where
victim
isolated
ducting
as-
proportionality review is not to
aas
result of
the victim. The victim died
ed
than
sure
a sentence “less
fact,
force trauma to
head.
blunt
*15
imposed in a
similar charac-
never
case with
However, over
virtually
skull
shattered.
was
Instead,
duty
teristics.”
our
“is to assure
Id.
thirty-minute to one-hour
of a
the course
no
is affirmed.”
aberrant
sentence
death,
period
Pike stabbed and
before her
Id.
cutter and
the
with the box
slashed
victim
victim,
Pike
the
the meat cleaver.
kicked
choosing
comparing
In
and
simi
asphalt,
pieces
with
of
and carved
beat her
cases,
variables,
many
lar
consider
we
some pentagram
her chest. The medical tes-
onto
(1)
(2)
death;
of which
means of
include:
the
timony
estab-
and the defendant’s statements
(3)
death;
the manner of
the
motivation
the
was alive and
victim
conscious
lish
(4)
death;
(5)
killing;
place
the
fact,
during this
ordeal. In
accord-
torturous
circumstances,
similarity
in
of the victim’s
statement,
the victim
ing to Pike’s own
conditions,
cluding age, physical
mental
and
life.
vic-
begged
bargained
and
for her
during
killing;
and the victims’ treatment
away, but
restrained
tim tried to run
she was
(6)
presence
premeditation;
the absence or
co-conspirators. Pike
by Pike and her
(7)
presence
provocation;
or
absence
instead,
mercy;
exhibited a
showed no
she
(8)
justification;
presence
the absence or
and human
disregard for human life
total
(9)
injury
and
effects on nondece-
and
suffering
unpro-
this
when she committed
choosing
premeditated
dent victims.
Id.
667. When
unjustified
murder.
voked
comparing
similar cases we consider
record,
prior criminal
Pike had no
While
following
characteristics of
defendant:
previ-
Pike
own relatives testified that
(2)
(1) prior
prior
activity;
or
criminal
record
violent, manipulative, and
ously had been
(3) mental,
race,
emotional,
age,
gender;
young
Although Pike
at the
dishonest.
(4)
condition;
physical
involvement
committed, only eigh-
time this offense
(5)
murder;
cooperation
au-
role in the
old,
certainly
years
she is
not
teen
thorities;
(6)
re-
presence or absence of
person
See State v.
youngest
on death row.
(7)
morse;
knowledge of the
the defendant’s
(Tenn.1997).
Mann,
503, n. 5
victim; and
the defen-
helplessness of the
Pike
woman to
is
second
While
capacity for rehabilitation.
Id. Com-
dant’s
Tennessee,
a death sentence in
there
receive
rigid,
review is not a
parative proportionality
jury’s
absolutely
indication that
no
is
do
em-
objective
Id. at 668. We
not
test.
death sentence was motivat-
imposition
techniques.
ploy
Though
mathematical
scientific
upon
gender.
ed
or based
Pike’s
comparative proportionality
evaluating the
presented proof
In
that Pike suffers
the defense
disorder,
light
personality
of the factors delin-
the de-
the sentence
borderline
from
insane,
above,
rely
experi-
expert
that Pike is
we
also
fense
testified
eated
fact,
but,
highly intelligent. He
admit-
judgment and intuition of members
enced
many of Pike’s
cross-examination that
ted on
Id.
of this Court.
premedi-
er to kill her husband. The victim was
relating
killing
actions
twenty-one
the head
times with a
present
struck on
Although
tated.
others were
when
tire iron. The blows had driven the victim’s
killing
involved to some
occurred and
face into the floor of the den
his home.
degree,
proof
that Pike was the
reveals
fragments
and bone
His skull was crushed
fact,
police,
leader.
In
in her statement
brain,
into his
as
this case.
were driven
chilling
leading
Pike described in
detail her
Also,
case,
alive
as in this
the victim was
cooperated
Pike
role in this murder. “While
during
beating,
as was evi-
conscious
by giving
with the authorities
a statement
injuries to
hands and
denced
extensive
his
evidence,
leading
displayed
them to
she
fingers
of hair between his
which
strands
stunning
committing
lack of remorse for
attempting
that he had been
indicated
fact,
laughed
horrific
Pike
this
crime.
during
his head with his hands
cover
danced
she
to her friends
around as
boasted
ease,
beating.
like this
offered
Much
Owens
killing.
piece
took a
about the
previous-
proof mitigation
to show that she
victim’s skull with her as a “souvenir”
ly
by psychiatrist
on one
had been treated
trophy
displayed this
to her friends when she
years earlier for severe be-
occasion several
killing
re-
recounted how the
occurred. She
problems.
also offered testimo-
havioral
She
day
turned to the crime scene the
after the
“good prison-
ny to
that she had been a
show
murder with a number of other females and
problems,
volunteered to
er who caused
ques-
giggled
police
as she asked the
officer
work,
study
Bible
classes.” Id.
and attended
killing. Pike’s total lack of
tions about the
case,
Also,
in this
there was no
at 448.
remorse is also evident from a letter she
prior
had a
criminal
evidence that Owens
Tadaryl
boyfriend,
Shipp
short-
wrote to
ease,
sentenced
record. As
ly
jury had
Pike to death
after the
sentenced
upon finding
aggravating
to death
Owens
*16
degree
on the first
conviction. The letter
(1)
that Owens committed
circumstances:
sentencing hearing on
was introduced at the
remuneration,
promise
or the
murder for
conspiracy to commit
Pike’s conviction for
remuneration,
employed
or
another to com-
murder,
part
degree
and it is a
of the
first
remuneration, or the
mit
murder
for
letter,
appeal.
record in this
In the
Pike
(2)
and
promise of remuneration
complained
Shipp
to
heinous, atrocious, or
especially
murder was
get
trying to
nice to
Ya see what I
for
be
depravity
in that it involvеd torture
cruel
her
the hoe? I went ahead and bashed
2—203(i)(4)
§
of mind. Tenn.Code
39—
quickly instead of
brains out so she’d die
(5) (1982 Repl.).
and
more,
letting
and suffer
her bleed to death
(Tenn.
Hall,
679
In
v.
958 S.W.2d
State
they
and
fuekin FRY me!!! Ain’t that
1997),
twenty-four-year-old defendant
some shit?
girlfriend
twenty-two-year-old
murdered his
no evidence that Pike has a
There is also
igniting her
gasoline and
by dousing her with
testimony of
capacity for rehabilitation. The
car. As
trapped inside her
body
sat
as she
has
own relatives reveals
Pike’s
case,
disregard
a total
Hall exhibited
this
by
applicable
abide
rules
refused to
indifference to
complete
for human life and
Considering
society
very young age.
a
since
claimed, as
Though Hall
suffering.
human
defendant,
of the dime and the
the nature
case,
initial
that he
in this
did the defendant
cruel
conclude that
the torturous and
we
victim, Hall
frighten the
ly intended
to
nineteen-year-old woman
murder of this
to
never offered assistance
that he
admitted
for
places Pike into the class of defendants
body
her
he realized that
the victim after
appropriate
penalty
the death
is an
whom
inAs
this
engulfed by flames.
completely
review,
punishment.
Based
our
we
excruciating pain
case,
victim suffered
Hall’s
following
cases which
conclude that the
alive, conscious, co
suffering. She was
and
many
imposed
penalty has been
have
death
herent,
tongue swelled
as her
and alert
this ease.
similarities with
her mouth
protruded from
extent that it
experi
Owens,
eyelids
inverted. She
Porterfield,
746 S.W.2d
became
In State v.
pain of the burn
(Tenn.1988),
only the initial
jury
enced not
convicted
de-
the incisions
pain from
injuries, but also the
procuring
anoth-
fendant Gaile K. Owens
wounds were inflicted.
and slash
part
that were
of the medical treatment for
stab
case,
thirteen-year-old
victim had not been
As
this
was no The
burns.
there
slashed,
prior
evidence to indicate that Hall had
his neck had been
shot. Instead
record,
to
though
criminal
he admitted
abus-
and abdo-
chest
he had been stabbed
case,
ing
drugs.
men,
alcohol and
Also like this
case. Two
like the victim this
much
expert
displayed
that Hall
defense
testified
major
cut
abdomen had
his
wounds
disorder,
symptoms
personality
of borderline
veins,
protruded from his
his small bowel
but said Hall was not insane at the time the
body
also
through
wounds. This victim
these
jury
murder
was committed.
sentenced
on his
had numerous defensive wounds
case,
upon finding,
Hall to
as in this
hands. The medical evidence indicated that
(1)
aggravating
mur-
two
circumstances:
injuries
upon him
all of
were inflicted
these
heinous,
especially
der was
atrocious or cruel
to death
he bled
while he
alive
physical
in that it involved torture or serious
mitiga-
In
period
over
several minutes.
necessary
beyond
produce
abuse
case,
tion, Smith,
did
(2)
death;
the murder was committed
he
presented expert
proof that
psychological
engaged
while
in commit-
the defendant was
jury
personality
sen-
disorders.
attempting
or was
arson.
commit
tenced the
to death for each of his
defendant
(7)
13—204(i)(5)
Tenn.Code Ann.
39—
degree
three convictions for first
murder.
(1991Repl).
(Tenn.
Bush,
Smith,
(Tenn.
In State v.
5.
found that
murder
com-
statute,
language
engaged
of the 1989
in
mitted
the defendant was
in com-
in
while
mitting
felony
be-
Bush we held that the errоr was harmless
a
and that the defendant commit-
doubt, concluding
yond
§
ted
murder. Tenn.Code Ann.
39-2-
a reasonable
mass
(12) (1982).
203(i)(7)
proof
was
established that
murder
heinous.
(Tenn.
Mann,
of mind.
depravity
torture or
Tenn.Code
In State v.
culties as Three of the age twenty- defendants were under the BIRCH, ANDERSON, C.J., and five, Bush, Pike, eighteen years like BARKER, JJ., concur. HOLDER old when the murder for which he was con- cases, eight jury In victed occurred. all APPENDIX (i)(5) aggravating found the circumstance. (Excerpts from the Court Criminal cases, eight jury three of the found Decision) Appeals’ (i)(6) (i)(5) aggravating
both the and the cir- reviewing many cumstances. After cases THE AP- IN COURT OF CRIMINAL many discussed above and other cases not PEALS discussed,8 opinion herein we are of the AT KNOXVILLE OF TENNESSEE imposed by penalty in this case SESSION, 1997 JULY disproportionate is not excessive nor Tennessee, Appellee, State of penalty imposed for similar crimes.
y. Pike, Appellant. Christa Gail CONCLUSION In accordance with the mandate of Tenn. C.C.A. No. 03C01-9611-CR-00408 39-13-206(e)(l) (1997 § Repl.), Code Ann. County Knox principles adopted and the prior decisions Court, of this we have considered the entire Mary Hon. Beth Leibowitz record in this cause and find that the sen- imposed tence of death was not in an arbi- (First Degree Penalty) Murder-Death fashion, trary supports the evidence APPEAL THE ON FROM JUDGMENT jury’s finding statutory aggravating THE COURT OF OF CRIMINAL circumstances, jury’s finding and the COUNTY KNOW aggravating outweighed circumstances miti- Appellant gating For the beyond circumstances a reasonable doubt. TenmCode 39-13- Taiman, William C. 206(c)(1)(A) (C) (1997 Repl.). We have con- — P.O. Box 506 assignments sidered the defendant’s of error Knoxville,TN, 37901-0506 require and determined that none reversal. A Martin Julie respect specifically With to issues not ad- P.O. Box 506 herein, dressed we affirm the decision of the Knoxville,TN, 37901-0426 Appeals, Court Criminal authored Welles,
Judge
joined
David H.
Appellee;
For the
Judge
Judge
Thomas T. Woodall and Senior
*19
Walkup
John Knox
Byers.
portions
K.
John
Relevant
of that
Attorney
Rerporter
General and
opinion
published
appen-
are
hereafter as an
by Kathy
dix. The defendant’s sentence of death
Morante
House,
(Tenn.
(Tenn.1987).
Caughron,
v.
8. State
Assistant suspicion certainty. to absolute Of E. Randall Nichols selected, thought jurors eight the De- twelve Attorney General District guilty. Id. fendant William Crabtree case, present although many poten- In the S. Helm Jo jurors they tial that had heard indicated Attorneys media, every District General something Assistant the case in the about Building juror familiar City-County who said he or she was with disregard Knoxville, said that he or could case she TN 87902 reports impartial and render an decision. 26,1997 OPINION PILED: November jurors they potential All who said could AFFIRMED disregard reports were for excused specific Thе has cited cause. Defendant WELLES, H. DAVID JUDGE response any juror from seated that was troublesome. OPINION of Excusal Jurors Change of Venue Defendant asserts that the trial court The argues The Defendant that the trial court impanelled jury prodeath penalty a that was by failing grant her for erred motion a pro- improperly excused for cause those change a of venue. She maintains that ma- spective jurors they that indicated jority prospective jurors admitted that of opposed penalty. Defen- they had information about heard detailed suggests dant that the trial court erred cites the United the case. The Defendant ask, denying proposal a “don’t don’t Supreme in Irvin v. States Court decision tell,” jurors whereby procedure be used Dowd, 717, 1639, 366 U.S. 81 S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d the court about required would not be tell (1961), support proposition 751 death, feelings penal- personal their about if change granted of should be exten- venue ty- that the court pretrial publicity sive was such Witt, 424, 412, Waimmight In v. 469 U.S. presume jury is tainted even if should 844, (1985), 852, 83 841 105 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d prospective jurors they would stated that be Supreme reaffirmed as United State Court they able to set aside what had seen or determining proper when standard heard. juror may cause prospective be excluded for Dowd, However, selection lasted capital punish because of his or her views on Supreme more than four weeks. Also the juror’s ment test “whether the views of “swift, specifically Court stated that due substantially ‘prevent impair would widespread and methods of communi- diverse juror duties in accor performance his as a ” cation,” jurors required it is not be dance his instructions and his oath.’ in- totally ignorant 506, (Tenn. facts and issues Alley, 518 722, 1036, denied, at 1642. 1989), volved. 366 81 S.Ct. U.S. 493 U.S. 110 S.Ct. cert. (1990), if “[i]t The court also stated that sufficient 775 Tennessee 107 L.Ed.2d “thе court’s juror lay Supreme Court held that trial impression can aside his juror of his finding of a because bias opinion and render verdict based be capital punishment shall accorded views of presented in court.” 366 U.S. at evidence presumption correctness and the burden Dowd, panel S.Ct. at 1643. In 81 shall rest the Defendant establish persons. consisted court itself convincing that that determination evidence persons those due to their excused was erroneous.” guilt, opinions fixed were excused *20 objection conscientious because their present Defendant notes that The 727, penalty. ju- at 81 S.Ct. death 366 U.S. prospective examined case the trial court regarding thoughts their extensively at dire record indicated that rors 1645. The voir counsel penalty about death and allowed jurors prospective 370 of entertained 925 denied, 1086, (Tenn.1994); they 513 U.S. to examine those who indicated that had 263 cert. (1995); 743, 644 115 S.Ct. 130 L.Ed.2d problem penalty with the in an death effort (Tenn.1982). Morris, 883, v. 641 S.W.2d 888 to rehabilitate them. The no Defendant cites merit. This issue is without prospective juror who was excluded that Applying should not have been. the stan- Punishment and Unusual Cruel Alley, dard as set forth in the Defendant has by punish- convincing failed to establish evidence The Defendant contends that the her, by imposed upon ment electrocu- the court’s actions erroneous. tion, punishment under is cruel and unusual This issue is without merit.
the state and federal constitutions. Howev-
er,
previously
by
Use of the Skull as Evidence
this issue has been
decided
Supreme
and deter-
Tennessee
Court
pursu-
complains
Defendant next
merit.
v.
mined to be without
See State
ant to Rule 408 of the Tennessee Rules of
Cazes,
(Tenn.1994);
875
253
State v.
S.W.2d
Evidence, the skull of the victim should have
Howell,
(Tenn.1993);
868
238
State v.
S.W.2d
probative
been excluded bеcause its
value
(Tenn.1991).
Black,
ham,
24, 29,
964,
rule,
960,
procedural
paired by
67
the amended
we
450 U.S.
101 S.Ct.
(1981));
Ricci,
post
an
cannot conclude that
ex
facto viola-
17
v.
914
L.Ed.2d
State
(Tenn.1996).
475,
Furthermore,
tion occurred. This issue is without merit.
S.W.2d
480
39—11—
Tennessee Code Annotated section
Sentencing
Conspiracy
on the
Conviction
112provides that:
argues
the
Defendant
that
trial court
legis-
any penal
penal
or
whenever
statute
sentencing
erred in
the
to a con-
Defendant
repealed
act
the
is
or
lative
of
state
twenty-five
years
secutive sentence of
legislative act,
by
subsequent
amended
conspiracy
for the conviction of
commit
offense,
any
by the
or
as defined
statute
first-degree
Defendant com-
murder. The
amended,
being repealеd
act
or
committed
plains
inappropriately
that
the trial court
or
in full
while such statute
act was
force
aggravating
the
used the
circumstance that
prosecuted
the act
effect shall be
under
especially
crime was
cruel to sentence her
or statute in effect at the time of the
the
further com-
maximum sentence. She
commission
the offense.
plains that the trial court erred
determin-
Yet,
Supreme
the United States
Court has
dangerous
offender and
that she was a
change
held that
a rule of .evi
laws which
the
ordering her to
sentence consecu-
serve
dence,
punish
not
but which do
increase the
tively to the death sentence.
change
nor
the elements
the offense
ment
challenges
length,
the
When an accused
necessary
or the ultimate facts
to establish
of a sen
range,
the manner of service
or
guilt,
existing
but
remove
restrictions
tence,
duty to conduct a de
court has a
this
competency
of certain classes of evidence
presump
awith
novo
of the sentence
review
persons
or of
do
as witnesses
not constitute
by the
made
tion
the determinations
that
Bragan,
ex
facto
v.
post
laws. State
920
are correct. Tenn.Code
trial court
(cita
227,
(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)
241
S.W.2d
40-35-401(d).
presumption is “condi
§
This
omitted).
Florida,
v.
tions
In Dobbert
showing in the
upon the affirmative
tioned
293,
2290,
U.S.
97 S.Ct.
927 may modify if that Defendant treated or allowed “[t]he then we not the sentence even cruelty exceptional victim to be treated with preferred a result. we would havе different offense,” would Fletcher, (Tenn. during commission of the State v. 789 heavily it had because not be relied Crim.App.1991). sentencing in the Defen- already been used sentencing hearing, At the the State called on the other count. Tenn.Code dant to death Wade, only as its witness Officer Debbie 40-35-114(5). (7), § number Ann. Factor County Corrections Officer with the Knox offense involved a victim and was “[t]he Department. that on Sheriffs She testified gratify committed to the Defendant’s desire die, day the Defendant was sentenced to excitement,” factor pleasure for number gave requested she Officer Wade a letter and (9), possessed em- “[t]he Defendant eo-Defendant, passed that it be to her Tada- firearm, explosive ployed a device or other ryl Shipp. gave Officer Wade the letter to deadly weapon during the commission of the pass her lieutenant and was told not to it to offense,” (10), “[t]he and factor number Shipp. Mr. The letter into was introduced commit- Defendant had hesitation about evidence and read as follows: ting a crime to human life was when risk love, Tadaryl, hey, just you I wanted high,” applicable. also found to be you. much I I know how love have ten 40-35-114(7), (9), §§ Ann. Tenn.Code Imagine months to live. I that. would (10). mitigat- The trial court found that no could, every spend you moment with if I applicable. factors were baby. you you I want tell to tell them only with one of the trial We find error your go along lied statement and applications court’s of enhancement factors. you copy mine. Do have a of mine? If judge The trial held that Defendant had not, give you Okay? you I’ll big one. I love committing no hesitation about a crime when bunches, baby, they and no matter what do high. the risk to human life was Tenn.Code they change my to me can’t what’s 40-35-114(10). §Ann. We believe that the you heart. Please write Ime. miss so applied improperly court this enhancement get trying much. You see what I for be (10) Enhancement factor refers to factor. I nice to that hoe. went ahead and bashed having “no hesitation about quickly out so brains she would die human committing a crime when the risk to letting instead of bleed death and high.” previously rec life is This Court has they more suffer fuckin FRY me. ognized are inherent in a that factors which Ain’t that some shit. Please write and tell offense, designated particular even if not you’re feeling. me what Baker said he element, given an should be substantive give you paper would some and shit while See, e.g., weight increasing a sentence. you your lawyer are out there. Also tell if (Tenn. Scott, State v. S.W.2d testify, testify you, he wants me to I’ll I Crim.App.1987). that the risk We conclude you my will. Love for the rest of life. grading to human life is inherent in the Little devil. conspiracy the offense of to commit first- degree According to murder. Tennessee The trial court classified the Defendant as 39-12-107, “conspir section I, Code Annotated Range standard offender on the convic- (1) acy one classification lower offense conspiracy degree tion for to commit first offense that is the than the most serious trial murder. The court also considered sev- First-degree mur object conspiracy.” mitigating eral enhancement and factors offense, capital as a therefore der is classified setting pre- the sentence the minimum above first-degree murder is conspiracy to commit (15) sumptive years. sentence of fifteen felony, A a class reserved for Class First, applied trial court enhancement the most serious offenses. (2), factor number “[t]he Defendant Moreover, a leader the commission of an offensе allega- the indictment contains involving conspiracy or more criminal actors.” support tions in of the element of 40-35-114(2). taken, The trial act that the Defen- Tenn.Code that an overt be (5), Corps cen- judge and two others left the Job then stated that factor number dant by the ter, raised sentencing issues took the victim to an isolated location such. The *23 merit. and attacked her with a box cutter. Not Defendant are without is the risk to human life in inherent the offense, judice, high the case sub risk acts CONCLUSION charged were in the included indictment as record, of we con- Upon review the careful support of the an element of crime. See the Defendant has offered clude that (d). 39-12-103(a), § Tenn.Code Ann. En- from her grounds warrant relief convic- that applied “if may hancement factors be not degree premeditated tions first murder of themselves essential elements of the offense degree mur- commit first conspiracy charged as in the indictment.” Tenn.Code Moreover, that Defen- conclude der. we of 40-35-114. For both these rea- any ground war- dant has failed to establish sons, we conclude that enhancement factor of death and the sentence ranting relief from applied. should not have been twenty-five of the consecutive sentence trial, produced including evidence years. statement, the Defendant’s own let- Therefore, review of the thorough after a sentencing hearing ter introduced at as mandated us record before issues and the support certainly would factor she section 39-13- Annotated Tennessee Code a leader commission of the of- 206(b) (c), reasons stated for the Defendant, fense. statement of the of herein, appellant’s sentence affirm the we testimony concеrning recounting sentence was conclude death. We others, incident to the fact that carried she a fashion, arbitrary the evi- in an imposed not souvenir, piece of the skull a victim’s finding ag- jury’s supports dence her return scene of her were evidence circumstances, the evidence gravating Again, pleasure. for desire excitement finding aggrava- jury’s supports statement, by her own admit- the Defendant any mitigating outweigh ting circumstances carrying deadly weapon.
ted a Moreover, comparative circumstances. review, considering both the proportionality Although disagree the trial court’s we the nature crime and age circumstances finding that the Defendant’s and lack of sentence us appellant, convinces significant history prior criminal activi- dispropor- nor factors, neither excessive mitigating death is applicable ties not in similar penalty imposed tionate to the the trial court we cannot conclude that erred cases. sentencing to the maximum the Defendant (25) years. Clearly, twenty-five sentence of trial judgment of the Accordingly, the enhancing applicable factors when are court is affirmed. factors, weighed against mitigating PETITION ORDER ON supports the trial court’s sentence. record FOR REHEARING found sen- The trial court that consecutive PER CURIAM. Defen- tences were warranted because the petition rehearing has been filed on A for dangerous dant offender whose behavior is appellant. After consideration behalf of regard or no human life indicates little same, opinion the Court is committing had no hesitation about hereby and the same petition should be the risk to human life was crime which appellant. cost denied at the Wilkerson, high. See State (Tenn.1995). Again, given the 937-39 offense, espe- surrounding this circumstances
cially nature of the crime and the the heinous remorse, the Defendant showed no
fact that cri- met the
we conclude that Defendant sentencing trial and the
teria for consecutive ordering
court did abuse discretion