State v. Brimmer
876 S.W.2d 75, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 15 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal prosecution, the penal statute in effect at the time of the commission of the offense governs the case, including sentencing provisions, unless a subsequent legislative act is explicitly made retroactive.
Facts:
- On October 22, 1989, Rodney Compton, having just returned from a cruise, gave David Brimmer a ride in his pickup truck.
- Brimmer admitted that he entered the truck with the intention of robbing Compton.
- Brimmer claimed that after Compton made sexual advances, he pretended to be a police officer, handcuffed Compton, and drove him to a park.
- At the park, Brimmer choked Compton to death with a wire.
- Brimmer then took Compton's truck, wallet, and other possessions and disposed of Compton's body in a hayfield in Loudon County.
- Compton's body was discovered on November 7, 1989.
- On February 3, 1990, Brimmer was arrested in Texas while driving Compton's stolen truck.
- While in custody, Brimmer confessed to killing Compton.
Procedural Posture:
- David Brimmer was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder in a Tennessee state trial court.
- The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress his confession, which the trial court denied.
- A jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.
- Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury found one statutory aggravating circumstance and sentenced the defendant to death.
- The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied.
- The defendant directly appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by instructing the jury under the capital sentencing statute in effect at the time the offense was committed, rather than an amended version in effect at the time of trial that would impose a higher burden of proof on the state?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Brien, J.
No, a trial court does not err by instructing the jury under the capital sentencing statute in effect at the time the offense was committed. Statutes are presumed to operate prospectively, and T.C.A. § 39-11-112 mandates that offenses be prosecuted under the law in effect at the time of their commission. Therefore, the trial court correctly applied the sentencing law from 1989, which did not require the state to prove that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found the defendant's confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, as there was no evidence of coercive police activity. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony on the potential for coercion, and incidental references to prior killings were deemed harmless error given the context.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Reid, C.J.
While concurring with the majority's conclusion that the conviction for premeditated first-degree murder is supported by the record, the dissent argues that the case should be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the statutory mitigating circumstance that the defendant's capacity was substantially impaired by a mental disease or defect. Substantial evidence of the defendant's borderline personality disorder was presented. The majority's requirement of proof that the mental disease caused the killing improperly conflates a mitigating circumstance with the complete defense of insanity, effectively eliminating any mental condition less severe than insanity as a mitigator.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Daughtrey, J.
While concurring that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of premeditated murder, the dissent argues that the death sentence should be overturned due to a plain error affecting the defendant's substantial rights. The trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the statutory mitigating circumstance related to mental disease or defect, despite expert testimony establishing the defendant's borderline personality disorder, violated the capital sentencing statute. The statute requires an instruction on any mitigating circumstance raised by the evidence, and the failure to do so in this case denied the defendant substantial justice, necessitating a new sentencing hearing.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strong legal presumption against the retroactive application of statutes, clarifying that criminal defendants are subject to the laws in effect when their offenses were committed, not subsequent, more favorable amendments. The court's holding provides certainty in sentencing law, preventing a flood of litigation every time a penal statute is amended. However, the powerful dissents highlight a critical and ongoing tension in capital jurisprudence: the threshold of evidence required to mandate a jury instruction on a specific mitigating circumstance. This split signals that the interpretation of what constitutes evidence 'raised by' the defense in the context of mental health will likely remain a contentious issue in future capital cases.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Brimmer