State v. Odom
| Decision Date | 04 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. W2008–02464–SC–DDT–DD.,W2008–02464–SC–DDT–DD. |
| Citation | 336 S.W.3d 541 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennesseev.Richard ODOM. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Brock Mehler, Nashville, Tennessee and Gerald Skahan, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Richard Odom.Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; James E. Gaylord, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the perpetration of rape. In the penalty phase of the trial, the jury imposed a sentence of death, finding three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more violent felonies; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (3) the murder was committed during the defendant's escape from lawful custody or from a place of lawful confinement. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, but reversed the death sentence, holding that the trial court's limitation on the mitigating evidence during the penalty phase required a new sentencing hearing. This Court affirmed. A second jury sentenced the defendant to death, concluding that the single aggravating circumstance, that the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies, outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This Court reversed, holding that because the trial court had erroneously admitted detailed evidence of the defendant's prior violent felony offense, a third sentencing hearing was required. The jury again imposed a sentence of death, concluding that two statutory aggravating factors, that the defendant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use of violence to the person and that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery, had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and further determining that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the evidence of the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This sentence was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon careful review of the entire record, we hold as follows: (1) the defendant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was not violated by the disqualification of a prospective juror; (2) the prosecutor's closing argument did not result in the use of non-statutory aggravating factors in the jury's weighing process warranting reversal of the death sentence; (3) the admission of photographs of the body did not constitute error; (4) the trial court's instructions on parole did not violate the defendant's right to due process of law and heightened reliability; (5) the mandatory criteria of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39–13–206(c)(1) are satisfied; and (6) the reduction of the amount of compensation sought by appellate defense counsel by a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals did not require his disqualification from participating in this case. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
On May 10, 1991, Richard Odom (the “Defendant”) raped and stabbed to death Mina Ethel Johnson (the “victim”) in a Memphis parking garage. A year later, he was convicted of first-degree murder committed in the perpetration of rape. See State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tenn.1996) (“ Odom I ”). The jury found three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the Defendant was “previously convicted of one or more violent felonies; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (3) the murder was committed during the [D]efendant's escape from lawful custody or from a place of lawful confinement.” Id. at 20–21 (citing Tenn.Code Ann. § 39–13–204(i)(2), (5), (8) (Supp.1995)). After determining that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the Defendant to death by electrocution. Id. at 21. Our Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction but reversed the death sentence and ordered a second sentencing hearing. See State v. Odom, No. 02C01–9305–CR–00080, 1994 WL 568433, at *1, 1994 Tenn.Crim.App. LEXIS 689, at *2 (Tenn.Crim.App. Oct. 19, 1994).
This Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' determination that the trial court had erred during the penalty phase by excluding mitigating evidence in the form of a doctor's testimony and by improperly instructing the jury as to non-statutory mitigating circumstances. However, this Court further held that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's determination that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel and that there was “no justification” to support its finding that the murder was committed by the Defendant while he was in lawful custody or in a place of lawful confinement or during the Defendant's escape from lawful custody or confinement. Odom I, 928 S.W.2d at 21, 27.
On remand, the second jury also sentenced the Defendant to death, concluding that a single applicable aggravating circumstance, that the Defendant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies, outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Odom, 137 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tenn.2004) (“ Odom II ”). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentence of death. State v. Odom, No. W2000–02301–CCA–R3–DD, 2002 WL 31322532, at *43, 2002 Tenn.Crim.App. LEXIS 871, at *131 (Tenn.Crim.App. Oct. 15, 2002). On appeal, this Court ordered a third sentencing hearing, holding that the trial court had erroneously admitted “detailed and graphic evidence” of the Defendant's prior violent felony offense.1 Odom II, 137 S.W.3d at 586–87.
At the third sentencing hearing, the State offered proof that at approximately 1:15 p.m. on the date of her murder, the victim, a seventy-eight-year-old woman, left the residence of her sister, Mary Louise Long,2 for an appointment with Dr. Stanley Zellner, a podiatrist. When the victim had not returned by 4:30 p.m., Ms. Long called Dr. Zellner, who informed her that the victim had failed to attend her scheduled appointment. Ms. Long first telephoned the police department to report the victim's disappearance and then contacted John Sullivan, a long-time acquaintance, who agreed to help look for the victim. The two “traced the route” the victim had to drive and found her car in a parking garage. When Sullivan approached the vehicle, he observed the body of the victim on the floor of the backseat. After returning to the car, he did not inform Ms. Long what he had seen, explaining that “she was a very nervous, high strung person.” As he drove out of the parking garage, Sullivan encountered a police car parked on a nearby street and told the officer where he could find the body. Sullivan then drove Ms. Long to her residence before returning to the crime scene to provide the police with a statement.
Donna Michelle Locastro, who was employed by the Memphis Police Department at the time of the murder, had taken Ms. Long's missing person's call prior to the discovery of the body. She and her partner, Don Crowe, first called the local hospitals, the city wrecker dispatch, and the traffic bureau before setting out on the route the victim would have driven to her appointment. The officers arrived at the parking garage at approximately 8:00 p.m., shortly after Sullivan had discovered the body. When Officer Locastro looked inside the vehicle, she noticed what appeared to be blood on the right front passenger's seat and a wallet wedged between the emergency break and the driver's seat. She also saw that the victim was clutching what appeared to be a check in her left hand. She and other officers secured the area and contacted the homicide unit.
Detective Ronnie McWilliams, who was assigned to the case on the day after the murder, testified that a fingerprint found in the vehicle led to the identification of “Otis Smith” as a potential suspect. Three days after the murder, “Smith” was arrested. He had in his possession an “Old Timer's Light Blade Knife,” which had a fold-out blade of over four inches. During the arrest, Detective McWilliams informed “Smith” of his rights. When he signed a waiver, however, Detective McWilliams observed that “Smith” had started to sign another name. Later, when his true identity was established, “Smith” signed a second waiver under the name Richard Odom.
In a written statement to the police, the Defendant, thirty years old at the time and unemployed, admitted killing the victim and provided details of the crime. He stated that just before the murder, he was in the stairwell trying to relax. When another individual entered the stairway, he entered the garage area at the same time the victim arrived. Claiming that he intended only to steal her purse so he could “get something to eat and catch a nap,” he told officers that when he ran over to grab her purse, he “somehow grabbed her arm or hand or whatever and we kind of fell back into the car.” He stated that he always kept his knife open because of potential danger in the area and that “somehow or another,” while “[p]ushing the lady off of me and over the back seat ... [,] I managed to ... cut her, I guess.” The Defendant also told the police that when The Defendant admitted that he raped the victim and insisted that she was still alive at the time, claiming that she remarked that she had never had sex before. He told...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bell
...a death sentence imposed on defendants who suffered from some mental disabilities or childhood issues. For instance, in State v. Odom , 336 S.W.3d 541 (Tenn.2011), the defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of rape. In mitigation, the defendant presented e......
-
State v. Dotson
...the victims must have felt related to the “nature and circumstances” of the offenses and, therefore, were proper. See State v. Odom, 336 S.W.3d 541, 562 (Tenn.2011).The defendant contends that the prosecutor misrepresented the weighing procedure for aggravating and mitigating circumstances.......
-
State v. Clayton, W2015-00158-SC-DDT-DD
..."applies only during the guilt phase of the trial under the more rigid guidelines established by our Rules of Evidence." State v. Odom , 336 S.W.3d 541, 566 (Tenn. 2011) (citing Banks , 564 S.W.2d at 949-51 ). Although the Tennessee Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of photographs ......
-
State v. Rimmer
...appellate brief."). Nevertheless, because this is a capital case, we conduct a plain error review of this issue. See State v. Odom , 336 S.W.3d 541, 555 n.9 (Tenn. 2011) (applying a plain error standard of review but noting the issue could also be reviewed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotat......