State v Sims
| Decision Date | 14 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | 98-00634 |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellee, V. VINCENT C. SIMS, Appellant. C.C.A. NO. W1998-00634-IN THE TENNESSEE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT JACKSON SEPTEMBER 1999 SESSION Filed |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
SHELBY COUNTY (No. 96-09279, 80 Below)
201 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ____________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL JUDGE
In this capital case, the defendant, Vincent C. Sims, was convicted by a jury of especially aggravated burglary and first-degree murder. The jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. At the sentencing hearing, the jury found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements involve the use of violence, (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death, (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another; and (4) the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant, while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, any burglary or theft. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (5), (6), and (7) (Supp. 1995). The jury found that there were no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the aggravating circumstances and sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. At a separate hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 20 years for his especially aggravated burglary conviction and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the defendant's sentence of death.
The defendant makes the following arguments in this direct appeal: (1) that the evidence of premeditation is insufficient to support his first-degree murder conviction, (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the full law of self-defense and in charging the jury on the victim's right to self-defense, (3) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, (4) that the trial court erred by granting the state's special request for a jury instruction on felony-murder, (5) that the evidence is insufficient to support application of the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance, (6) that the trial court erred by allowing the state to impeach the defendant's mitigation witnesses with his prior convictions, (7) that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defense to present hearsay evidence during the sentencing phase, (8) that the state's closing argument during sentencing constituted prosecutorial misconduct, (9) that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, (10) that the jury instruction on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance is unconstitutional, and (11) that the death penalty statutes are unconstitutional. We find that any error was harmless and affirm the judgment.
The 42-year-old victim, Forrest "Chip" Smith, was killed during the burglary of his home on April 5, 1996. According to a co-worker, the victim left his place of employment that day at approximately 10:05 p.m.
That same night, the defendant called Brian Keith Mitchell, the defendant's cousin and co-defendant, from a phone booth around 8:40 or 8:50 p.m. The defendant told Mitchell that he had broken into a house and needed help carrying a television. Mitchell went to pick up his mother, and when he returned, the defendant was waiting for him. It was approximately 9:30 p.m. when Mitchell and the defendant drove to the victim's house in a 1994 Toyota Camry owned by the defendant's girlfriend. Mitchell did not see a weapon on the defendant, however, he did see something "poking" out of the defendant's clothes. Earlier that day, Mitchell had seen the defendant with a .22 caliber pistol with a brown handle and an eight- or nine-inch barrel.
It took approximately 30 minutes to drive to the victim's house. When they arrived at the house, there were no cars in the driveway, and no one was at home. The defendant told Mitchell to unscrew the sensor light on the carport. While Mitchell was doing this, the defendant went in the front door, which was halfway off its hinges, and let Mitchell in through the side door by the carport. The two men took the big screen television out to the trunk of the car. Once the television was in the trunk, the defendant and Mitchell went back into the house to find wire to tie the trunk down. The defendant told Mitchell to untangle the wire while he got a computer that was in the front bedroom. While they were doing this, a light went on in the hallway. Mitchell ran out of the bedroom and saw the victim standing in the hallway with his empty hands in the air. Mitchell ran past the victim and out the door. The victim did not try to stop him. Mitchell tried to move the victim's vehicle, which was blocking the Toyota. The defendant came out of the house and tried to move the victim's vehicle as well. When they could not move the vehicle, the defendant ran back into the house to get the keys. Mitchell heard the defendant yell "Give me the keys, motherfucker, give me the keys." Then Mitchell heard eight or nine gun shots. The shots sounded the same and were in rapid succession. Mitchell slid the television out of the trunk when he heard the shots. When the defendant came out, he was holding a chrome .380 pistol and was holding his side, saying that he had been shot. The defendant threw Mitchell the keys and told him to move the victim's car to the end of the driveway. While Mitchell was moving the victim's car, the defendant moved the Toyota.
During the drive home, the defendant told Mitchell that he and the victim were "skrangling" over the gun when the defendant was shot in the side and the victim was shot in the head and neck. The defendant said that he had to turn the victim over to get the keys to his vehicle, and when asked why he killed the victim, the defendant said he had to because the victim saw his face. He appeared to be upset and excited after the murder. The defendant told Mitchell that he had lost his beeper but he was unsure where. He also told Mitchell not to tell anyone about the murder and that he was going out of town. At the time of the murder, the defendant was 24 years old and Mitchell was 17 years old.
The defendant's girlfriend, Tiffany J. Maxwell, testified that the defendant took her to work on April 5, 1996, and picked her up between 10:00 and 10:15 p.m. Maxwell's time sheets reflected that she worked until 11 p.m. that day, however, she testified that the defendant was always early. The defendant told her that someone had tried to rob him, and he had a deep scar on his side and blood on his shirt. She did not observe any other injuries. That night, they went home and went to bed. The next day, the defendant acted normal, and they took the car to be washed. At that time, Maxwell noticed that the frame on her license plate was broken. The defendant said someone had tried to steal the car. They bought a new frame after having the car washed and threw the rest of the old one in a dumpster.
When Patricia Louise Henson, the victim's girlfriend, arrived home between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m. on April 5, she was unable to pull into the driveway because the victim's vehicle was parked across the sidewalk, blocking the driveway. After attempting to call and page the victim, Henson approached the house. She saw the big screen television under the carport and the side door to the house propped open. The porch light, which she had left on, was turned off, and the motion detector light was unscrewed. In the house, Henson found the victim lying in a pool of blood. The victim kept telling her to "call 911, help me, call 911." Henson immediately called 911 on her mobile telephone. When Henson asked the victim what had happened, he said "robbery."
The police arrived within a few minutes, and an ambulance followed. The first officer to arrive on the scene observed that the victim was bleeding from several places and appeared to be shot and in extreme pain. The victim told the officer twice that "they shot me in the head," however, the victim did not know who had shot him nor could he describe the suspects. Shortly thereafter, the victim became unconscious and was taken to the hospital, where he was eventually taken off life support between 2 and 3 a.m. on April 6, 1996.
Items missing from the house included the remote control for the television, an answering machine and telephone, and one of the victim's pistols. When the police moved the big screen television from the carport, a beeper was discovered. It was later determined that the beeper was owned by the defendant. Also found in the carport was a broken license plate frame.
Cartridge casings, bullet fragments, and bullet holes were found throughout the kitchen, living room, and hallway of the victim's house. Five fired .380 caliber cartridge cases were...
To continue reading
Request your trial