State v. Stephenson
878 S.W.2d 530, 1994 Tenn. LEXIS 143 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A death sentence is facially void and constitutes prejudicial, reversible error when the trial court provides the jury with outdated instructions and a verdict form that omit the statutorily required standard that aggravating circumstances must outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- John Wesley Stephenson was married to Lisa Stephenson, with whom he had two children.
- In March 1989, Stephenson began an affair with Julie Webb, telling her that his wife had died years earlier.
- On several occasions, Stephenson asked an acquaintance, Glen Franklin Brewer, to kill his wife in exchange for a boat, motor, truck, or money from a $5,000 life insurance policy.
- Stephenson also offered another acquaintance, Michael Litz, $5,000 to kill Lisa because he feared losing everything in a divorce.
- Stephenson enlisted Ralph Thompson to help carry out the murder, promising him a boat, motor, and truck in exchange.
- On the night of December 3, 1989, Stephenson and Thompson created an alibi by briefly visiting the home of Stephenson's coworker, Dave Robertson.
- Thompson then shot and killed Lisa Stephenson with a high-powered rifle while she sat in her car on a rural road.
- Stephenson later confessed to his involvement, admitting he drove Thompson to the scene, waited for the gunshot, and picked Thompson up afterward.
Procedural Posture:
- John Wesley Stephenson was tried in a Tennessee trial court on charges of first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
- The jury found Stephenson guilty on both counts.
- During the sentencing phase, the jury found one statutory aggravating circumstance and sentenced Stephenson to death.
- The trial court also sentenced Stephenson to twenty-five years for the conspiracy conviction, to run consecutive to the death sentence.
- Stephenson appealed his convictions and sentences 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Does a death sentence violate a defendant's rights when the trial court uses conflicting jury instructions and an outdated verdict form that omit the statutory requirement that aggravating circumstances must outweigh mitigating circumstances 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Justice
Yes. The death sentence is void because it was imposed based on a lower standard of proof than required by law. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury using the pre-1989 sentencing statute, which did not include the requirement that the State prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating ones. This error was compounded by providing the jury with a pre-1989 verdict form that also omitted this crucial standard. Conflicting and incorrect instructions on such a fundamental issue, combined with a verdict returned on a form that does not comply with the applicable law, renders the verdict a 'mere nullity' and constitutes prejudicial error that cannot be considered harmless.
Concurring and dissenting - Reid, Chief Justice
Yes. The death sentence should be reversed because the instruction and verdict form were deficient. However, the dissent disagrees with the majority's reasoning on a separate issue, arguing that Stephenson is not death-eligible at all. The aggravating circumstance used—that the defendant employed another to commit murder for remuneration—is invalid because it merely duplicates the facts required to find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder under a theory of criminal responsibility. Because the aggravator fails to genuinely narrow the class of death-eligible murderers, as required by the Constitution, the state cannot seek the death penalty on remand.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of procedural precision in capital sentencing. The court's holding demonstrates that fundamental errors in jury instructions, especially concerning the standard of proof, are not subject to a harmless error analysis and cannot be cured by post-verdict questioning of jurors. This decision reinforces that statutory sentencing schemes, particularly the high burden of proof required for a death sentence, will be strictly enforced. The ruling serves as a strong reminder to trial courts to ensure their instructions and verdict forms are current with the latest legislative amendments to avoid automatic reversal of capital sentences.
