*1 Tennessee, Appellee, STATE of WILLIAMS, Ronald
Laron
Defendant-Appellant. Tennessee,
Supreme Court
at Nashville.
Aug. 1983. 3,
Rehearing Denied Oct. *3 Butler, Goodrich, Billy
James F. Jack Patterson, Jackson, Charles for defendant- appellant. Leech, Jr., Atty.
William M. Gen. Reporter, Kymberly Lynn Anne Hattaway, Gen., Nashville, Atty. Asst. George W. Gen., Hymers, Atty. Dist. James G. Woo- dall, Gen., Jackson, Atty. Asst. Dist. appellee.
OPINION DROWOTA, Justice. Defendant, Williams, Laron Ronald
appeals his conviction of first mur- der, death, for which he was sentenced to degree burglary, and his conviction of first was sentenced to no less than for which he ten fifteen in the state years nor more than penitentiary. presents He to this Court review, several issues for all of which we carefully have studied and found to be without merit. the suffi- challenges
Since convictions, ciency of the evidence for his we summarize the evidence Friday, May trial. On at about a.m.,1 8:20 Jay Father John Jackson was appeared by tory 1. When Father priest lying Jackson had not and went inside. He found the Mass, parish 8:20 to celebrate an 8:10 a.m. on the floor of the den four feet inside the door. bookkeeper unlocked the back door to the rec- rectory found dead inside the of Mary’s St. dumpster, lids to the took box out of Jackson, Catholic Church Tennessee. belt dumpster, reached under his pockets of his clothing pulled out, placed something shirt and then into the and coins were scattered on floor of the box. big Then he walked “in a hurry” den A and in the hallway. sliding glass bypass. toward the Police later found a opened door which onto a porch screened-in just cardboard box two coins off containing shattered; had been and scattered papers the corner parking of Watkins Tower and an potted overturned plant a coffee lot, Bypass across the from Mary’s St. Man-- table indicated there had been struggle. or. addition, the drawers desk of a located in Bendoski time he testified at the saw bedroom area of the had been the man it was dumpster, dusk. pulled top out and thrown on of the desk However, area surrounding St. with disarray. Outside, their contents in *4 Manor, from the the dumpster highway, to the footprints of wearing someone tennis is well lighted and was illuminated at the shoes led the to from a nearby time he saw the man. As Bendoski stood 50 dumpster, Highway then across the 45 By- to 55 ground dump- feet from the and the pass building to a called Watkins Tower. ster was 50 to 60 feet building, from the he examiner pathologist and medical dumpster observed man at the the testified that Father died Jackson between angle. bill, cap The man wore a with a a 8:00 p.m. Thursday, and 8:30 on May 14. jacket, His pants and dark and shoes. hair revealed as a autopsy he died result of trial, was long. positively At Bendoski a gunshot wound to the of the right back identified the man he Defendant as the had second, shoulder. There was a nonfatal seen. gunshot would in the left shoulder. Scrapes body priest on the indicated the had cross-examination, On testified Bendoski struggled assailant, with his and lacerations he watched the man for approximately four on the head priest’s were consistent with period or five minutes. During that a blows from blunt instrument such as a time, he from saw the Defendant’s face the gun. occasions, side on two or three some seven Thursday night, On Father May Jack- eight to seconds each time. the De- When son ate Timby family dinner with the and dumpster, fendant walked around the Ben- p.m. left 8:00 and between 8:10 It takes doski to see was able the Defendant’s face approximately three to walk minutes from from an investiga- the front. Bendoski told rectory. the residence Timby to the Ed tor he saw identify that he could the man Bendoski, Manor, a resident of St. a dumpster, the but this informa- apparently persons home for retired located next to the investigator tion didn’t with register rectory, p.m. testified that at 8:22 attempt to police never made an as- evening May he and his wife looked identify the De- certain whether he could eighth outside the window of an floor anyone photographs fendant or else from manor, lounge High- at the which faces the a lineup. way parked He saw a Bypass. car 15, the evening, On Defend- Friday May parking southwest corner of the lot of Wat- ant sold revolver a .38 Smith & Wesson to kins across the from highway Tower Evan owner market Chapman, of Chat’s Noting Manor. that it was unusual to see a Cafe, and in Jackson. testified Chapman parked car in that area business jeans, wearing Defendant was blue a hours, proceeded and his wife to Bendoski shoes, jacket, short a little tennis hat. eighth their apartment located on the floor acquired The Defendant indicated he approximately p.m., At 8:24 manor. pistol security guard a as California and hallway while from a window the looking he that he to sell it because needed floor, wanted saw a tall eighth Bendoski sixty money. seventy He asked for dumpster approach black man located worth be- up gun, on This man lifted both of dollars for the which was ground. trial, tween two and three hundred dollars on the At the state read a statement game. open Chapman gave market. the Defend- knowledge denying any the Defendant for, only half the amount he asked gun telling or the of his of the crime pending police check gun. addi- 14. The Defendant’s May activities tion selling Chapman the unloaded gun, police was inconsistent statement gave him four rounds of testimony. his alibi In the with witnesses’ ammunition. When the check revealed that statement, the Defendant said he was with gun missing Memphis was one from the guy night. called “Hambone” most of that Department,2 police Chap- Police had testify. The Defendant did not identify man the man who gun sold him the Elmore, Shelby an inmate of the Roderick photographs. from six the morning On awaiting charge Jail trial on a County Defendant, police arrested came with the robbery, armed into contact who was wearing jacket, pants and tennis they Defendant when were both incarcerat- shoes. time, ed in June of 1981. At that Elmore Ballistics tests revealed that the bullets portions of a conversation be- overheard taken from the fatal wound from the tween the Defendant and an unnamed indi- wall in the rectory had been from the fired During vidual. the course of this conversa- revolver Chapman. sold to Hairs taken tion, stated he been had from the jacket were indistin- girlfriend. driven Jackson guishable from Father Jackson’s hair.3 The also stated he was on the *5 hairs jacket recovered from the Defendant’s grounds rectory of the and he had sold had been forcibly removed. None of the Elmore, pistol to someone in Jackson. fingerprints found inside the rectory, how- conversation, who could not hear the entire ever, matched the fingerprints. Defendant’s say did not hear the Defendant what time Investigators did impressions discover he was at the rectory, anything whether appeared which to by have been made him at happened rectory, to the whether he gloved fingers on pieces glass several of the came into contact with at recto- anyone from the broken sliding door and on the whether he ry anything or obtained of val- door itself. shoeprints None of the found rectory. ue while he was at the Elmore by police matched the Defendant’s ten- prosecu- testified he made no deals with the nis shoes. The police were unable locate to. Memphis tion in or in in exchange Jackson the tennis shoes which they believed made testimony for his at the instant shoeprints. he could not see Though the Defendant as alibi witnesses. he spoke, positive Elmore was the voice was Howard Williams testified he and the De- the Defendant’s. fendant together on Thursday May only proof introduced at sentenc- from 6:00 to p.m. They played pool, 10:30 two of De- ing hearing copies was certified drank and danced at the Carousel Club and mur- degree fendant’s convictions for first employee Chat’s Place. An of Chat’s Place Shelby County der in and second remembered the Defendant being there be- in Davidson These docu- p.m., County. tween 8:00 and 9:00 a little murder perhaps later, dispute stipulated because a arose between the ments were and State person pool and another over defense counsel. Sgt. Memphis Depart- Hawkins, acquaintance 2. Gooch of the Police Louise an of the De- fendant, ment testified that the .38 caliber revolver be- longed testified that she the Defendant drove Memphis Department to the evening May Police May to Jackson the and rented a missing had Regency been since 1981. room for him at the Inn for one week. properly kept jury Memphis evening. It was from the this She returned to Cox, belonged case that the revolver to Lt. who body 3. Father Jackson’s was exhumed on No- fatally gun by shot with his own the De- Williams, Shelby vember hair was taken from the v. fendant on State top and sides of the head. See also footnote 6. Criminal. 410
I
bullets
While the
matched those retrieved
body
from the victim’s
room
from the
The Defendant’s first four issues
the body
many
which
was found on
proof
concern whether there is sufficient
points,
points
there were other
that did not
sustain his
principles
convictions. The
Fourth, he points
match.
to the
govern
which
our review
conviction by
of a
Malone,
agent
of FBI
who examined and
jury
approved
are settled. A jury verdict
samples
hair
compared
taken from
vic-
trial
judge
accredits the
from the clothing
tim and
of the Defend-
the witnesses for the
resolves
State and
all
ant. Malone testified the
indis-
hairs were
conflicts in favor of
theory.
the State’s
and that
tinguishable
they were probably
Hatchett,
(Tenn.
State
source,
from a common
but that this sort of
1978);
Townsend,
State v.
4H
had
after the crime
dumpster
testified he saw the Defendant outside
ant at
re-
And so the State’s
another, Elmore,
been committed.
rectory, and
who testified
motion,
discovery
to the Defendant’s
sponse
being
he overheard the
admit to
knowledge of
has no
stating
State
Mary’s rectory.
jury
at
The
chose not
“[T]he
St.
murder,”
proper
was a
to this
eyewitnesses
to believe the alibi witnesses.
was
The Defendant
response.
correct
placed
A witness who
the Defendant
in-
unfairly surprised by Bendoski’s
not
shortly
at the scene of the crime
after the
court identification.
homicide,
an admission
the Defendant
Defendant contends his Sixth
premises,
forcefully
that he was on the
to the effective assist
right
Amendment
removed hair of the
found on the
priest
trial
abridged by
of counsel
ance
clothes,
sale of
the Defendant’s
to se
his motion for funds
denying
court’s
weapon
Chapman
the murder
to Evan
in the field
expert
assistance of an
cure the
murder,
the inconsistent
day after
Su
analysis.
of hair
United States
witnesses
accounts of the Defendant’s alibi
Court, in
ex rel. Smith
preme
United States
whereabouts,
and his own account of his
Baldi,
97 L.Ed.
U.S.
S.Ct.
Chapman’s descriptions
Bendoski and
no
that a state is under
(1953),
held
wearing
jacket
black man
and a little
obligation
provide
federal constitutional
considering
light
billed
all this in the
hat —
indigent
assistance to an
expert pre-trial
State,
are con
most favorable to the
we
defendant,
Baldi, re
defendant. The
jury
vinced a rational
could find the De
him a
appoint
the trial court
quested
guilty beyond
fendant
a reasonable doubt.
examination.
pre-trial
for a
psychiatrist
so,
to do
court’s refusal5
upholding the trial
II
stated,
testified.
“Psychiatrists
the Court
the trial
argues
suffices.” 344 U.S.
S.Ct.
That
court should have stricken Bendoski’s testi
comply
because the
failed to
mony
State
constitution
held this state’s
We have
discovery
specifi
with his
motion “to state
State,
right.
no such
Graham
preserves
of which the
cally
any eyewitnesses
...
(Tenn.1977). The Defend-
allegedly
who
wit
knowledge
has
no
up,
turns
to, and our research
points
crime.” Prior to trial the
nessed the
indigent
an
grant
which would
statute
aware of Bendo-
had made the Defendant
assist-
right
to this
criminal defendant
ski’s role as a witness and of the substance
“urge[s]
Although
ance.
and ad
of his
Bendoski’s name
testimony.
allowing
rule
law
adopt
this Court
dress
on the indictment.4 The State
appear
as-
expert
funds for
indigent
defendant
identify
was not aware
could
Bendoski
*7
sistance,”
“Essentially
so.
we decline to do
Defendant until Bendoski saw the Defend
itself to the
matter that addresses
this is a
through
glass
the court room
legislature.
discretion of the
judgment and
during
provided
door
the trial. The State
such
provide
it has not seen fit to
Thus far
re
copy
police
the Defendant with a
Graham,
defendants.”
indigent
services
Bendoski’s statement was re
port wherein
at 536.
The evidence
corded in narrative form.
review,
issue for
As his seventh
provided the Defendant
shows the State
erred
argues the trial court
much information as it had before
with as
an
Winbush
declaring Sgt. Gary Randy
Moreover,
eye
not an
in
Bendoski was
analysis.
fingerprint
the field of
expert
Pannell v.
in
to the crime. Cf.
Sover
witness
qualifi
255,
ruling.
no error in the
W.O.W.,
102 We find
171 Tenn.
eign Camp,
is a matter
expert
witness
Defend-
cation of
(1937).
only
He
saw the
S.W.2d
brief,
question
Baldi
in
was some factual
page
he acknowl-
5. There
44 of Defendant’s
4. At
properly moved
investigate
whether the Defendant
edges
about
time to
he had sufficient
expert assistance.
court for the
indictment.
listed in the
witnesses
within the sound discretion of the trial
the Defendant tells the interviewing officer
court, and a decision on the matter will not
of his movements
the city
about
after com-
be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse
ing to Jackson was
in open
read
court as
State,
such discretion. Murray v.
214 evidence for the State’s case. The use of
Tenn.
(1964).
IV
objects
to the state’s
mentioning
prior
death
maintains
two errors
sentence and to Mr. Woodall’s
were committed during
phrase
sentencing
“blew
brains out.” As there is
phase of his trial. During closing argu-
no evidence in the record about the details
ments,
State,
Mr. Hymers,
Cox,
counsel for the
of the killing of officer
Mr. Woodall’s
argued, in part, as follows:
improper.
comment was
Russell v.
See
State,
(Tenn.1976).
The Court has instructed that we are
error
require
does not
a reversal of the
considering paragraphs two and seven [of
sentence, however,
39-2-203(i)
T.C.A.
as he has
para-
As to
]....
Two,
graph
resulting prejudice.
shown no
In a consid
previously
was
convicted of
eration of whether
conduct on the
improper
one or more felonies other
reversal,
than the present
part
requires
of the State
a court
charge which involved
factors,
the use of
may
threat or
look to several
such as the
per-
violence to the
son.
effect of curative measures taken
court,
trial
the intent of
prosecution,
Now, Exhibit
[1],
No.
has to do with the
improper
cumulative effect of the
con
case,
County
Davidson
and that reflects
any
record,
duct and
other errors in the
plea
guilty
that a
was entered on Jan-
strength
the relative
of the case.
See
uary
Degree
Murder
Second
State,
Judge
(Tenn.Cr.
As (Tenn. Mr. com v. 342 State S.W.2d prior 1982); Simon, ment v. about death State S.W.2d 498 sentence, reach (Tenn.1982). we the same result. The argued State’s counsel from only the evi The Defendant’s of convictions first de- dence admitted at Defendant gree and first degree burglary murder are stipulated to his past murder convictions sentence not less than ten affirmed. The and the imposed sentences for those convic nor years more than fifteen the state tions. objected If the Defendant to this for penitentiary burglary and sentence being information upon, commented he of death murder in first degree for are should agreed not have sentences affirmed. The date of execution is fixed being part made a of the record. We wish 1983, 29, stayed November unless point out, however, the fact of Court by otherwise ordered this or other pending prior death sentence should not be proper authority. Costs are assessed to the by agreement. admitted evidence except as Defendant. prior The fact of the murder C.J., J., FONES, HARBISON, and RUS- coupled present convictions with the first SELL, Justice, Special concur. statutorily murder conviction is suf ficient to support sentence death. On BROCK, J., concurs in and dissents part review, speculate it not for this is Court in part. thought processes about of the jury. BROCK, J., part and dis- concurring in We the statutory review the evidence and senting part. requirements and insure the jury has been instructed the law. properly on my For the reasons stated in dissent in argument essence of the Defendant’s is that Dicks, Tenn., (1981), v. S.W.2d even in the murder past face convic penalty I that the is un- would hold death tions, chance, slim, there is some however constitutional; but, I in all other concur might that the him jury given have life had respects. it not past known sentence of death. But argument ignores such an new eliminating
death goal capri statute’s deliberating process.
ciousness in the While jury responsibility has the of determin
ing sentence, guided its decision finding is only statute. It at least one of the aggravating circumstances Tennessee, Appellee, STATE given. penalty may death be present case the no v. circumstances, mitigating evidence of HARRIES, Appellant. Ronald Richard aggravating were strong. circumstances Tennessee, Court of Supreme at Knoxville.
V challenges the constitu Sept. statute on tionality penalty death arguments, All the how grounds. several
ever, reviewed this Court in have been decisions, and is no merit
past there is consti penalty
them. The statute death State, 593 S.W.2d 267
tutional. Houston denied, 449 U.S.
(Tenn.1980), cert. (1980).
S.Ct.
Pritchett, (Tenn.1981);