State v. Robinson
2004 WL 2158117, 146 S.W. 3d 469, 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 843 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court is not required to instruct a jury on the lesser-included offenses of solicitation and facilitation when the evidence only supports either the defendant's guilt for the completed offenses through criminal responsibility or the defendant's complete innocence. Furthermore, the (i)(5) 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' aggravating circumstance may be vicariously applied to a defendant who did not personally inflict the fatal injuries but was convicted under a theory of criminal responsibility.
Facts:
- On April 30, 1997, a squabble between children escalated into a fight involving gunfire between their mothers' boyfriends, who were members of the rival Gangster Disciples and Vice Lords gangs.
- In response, the Gangster Disciples called an "aid and assist" meeting, and numerous members, including high-ranking Gregory Robinson, gathered at a Hurt Village apartment.
- Vernon Green, a non-gang member, was seen near the apartment and accused of being a lookout for the Vice Lords.
- Robinson ordered other gang members to "snatch him up" and bring him inside the apartment.
- For approximately two hours, Robinson, along with other gang members, interrogated and beat Green with his fists and a broomstick.
- After conferring with other gang leaders, Robinson ordered six gang members to take Green from the apartment, stating, "Y'all know what to do" and telling them to take Green "fishing."
- The six gang members drove Green to Jessie Turner Park, where they shot and killed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Robinson was convicted by a jury in Shelby County Criminal Court, a trial court, of premeditated first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping.
- Following the penalty phase, the jury imposed a sentence of death.
- Robinson appealed his convictions and sentence to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals, with Robinson as the appellant and the State as the appellee, reversed the convictions and death sentence and remanded for a new trial.
- The State of Tennessee, as appellant, filed an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court, which was granted.
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 commit reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of solicitation and facilitation when the evidence presented supports only the defendant's guilt for the completed offenses through criminal responsibility or the defendant's complete innocence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
No. A jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is required only if the evidence in the record would support a conviction for that lesser charge. Here, the evidence did not warrant instructions on solicitation or facilitation. An instruction on solicitation is proper only when there is no proof of the completion of the crime; here, the murder and kidnapping were completed, so the only options for the jury were guilt for the completed offenses or innocence. Similarly, an instruction on facilitation was not warranted because no reasonable jury could find that Robinson knowingly furnished substantial assistance in the murder and kidnapping while lacking the intent required for criminal responsibility; the evidence supported only that he either intended to promote the offenses or was entirely innocent. The court also held that admitting the victim's skull as a demonstrative aid was not an abuse of discretion, as its probative value in corroborating accomplice testimony outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. Finally, the court held the death sentence was not disproportionate and that the 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' aggravating circumstance can be applied vicariously to a defendant convicted on a criminal responsibility theory, as the aggravator focuses on the circumstances of the crime, not the defendant's direct actions.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
While concurring with the majority's decision to affirm Robinson's convictions, the dissent disagrees with upholding the sentence of death. The dissent argues that the court's comparative proportionality review is inadequate to protect against the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. It highlights the wide disparity in sentences among the co-defendants in this case—where only Robinson received a death sentence while others, including the potential triggerman, received lesser sentences—as a clear manifestation of an arbitrary sentencing process. Therefore, the dissent concludes that Robinson's death sentence is disproportionate and should be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the `State v. Burns` test regarding jury instructions for lesser-included offenses, particularly for inchoate crimes like facilitation and solicitation. By holding that such instructions are unnecessary when the evidence presents an all-or-nothing choice between guilt for a completed crime or complete innocence, the court limits the potential for compromise verdicts based on unsupported theories. Critically, the case establishes in Tennessee that the 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' aggravating circumstance can be vicariously applied to a defendant convicted under a criminal responsibility theory. This broadens the scope of death penalty eligibility for individuals who order or direct murders without personally participating in the killing, reinforcing accountability for those in leadership roles in criminal enterprises.
