State v. Howell

493 Citing cases

  1. Harries v. State

    958 S.W.2d 799 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 36 times
    Applying Howell analysis toMiddlebrooks error committed in sentencing defendant under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2404 for murder committed in 1981

    Considering all the above, the trial court concluded that the Middlebrooks error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). Appellant's petition for relief was denied.

  2. Boyd v. State

    No. 02C01-9406-CR-00131 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 1996)   Cited 4 times
    In Boyd, a panel of this Court discussed the trial court's analysis of the Howell issue, but did not explicitly rely upon the trial court's findings or discuss the standard of review.

    The court compared the appellant's case to that of State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), and found that, pursuant to the test set forth in Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 260, the use of the felony murder aggravator in the appellant's case was harmless error. Since (1) the jury did not find any mitigating factors; (2) the appellant had a prior conviction for second degree murder; and (3) the invalidating aggravator did not "taint the jury because it was merely a consequence of the underlying felony, requiring no additional evidence above that used to convict the Petitioner of the murder," the post-conviction court found the death sentence to be valid. Neither the United States Constitution nor the Tennessee Constitution prohibit a reviewing court from upholding a death sentence that is based, in part, upon an invalid aggravating factor.

  3. Hartman v. State

    896 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn. 1995)   Cited 82 times
    In Hartman, 896 S.W.2d at 103-104, this Court considered the fact that the jury was not given the Williams definitions as part of its Howell analysis. Also considered significant in that case was the fact that the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance was based almost entirely upon the testimony of a witness whose credibility had been "seriously contested."

    We hold, however, that the sentence must be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing under this Court's decisions in State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn. 1992), State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), and State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797 (Tenn. 1994). The issue of whether the Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment has yet to be decided.

  4. State v. Walker

    910 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. 1995)   Cited 208 times
    In State v. Walker, 910 S.W.2d 381 (Tenn. 1995), this Court conducted the Howell harmless error analysis and observed that the defendant's prior violent felony conviction for voluntary manslaughter was "not nearly as positive" as the evidence supporting the aggravating circumstance in Howell.

    In State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), this Court conducted a harmless error analysis and found that the sentencing jury's consideration of the invalid felony-murder aggravating circumstance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence supporting the remaining aggravating factor of prior violent felony convictions was undisputed and overwhelming and the verdict would have been the same had the jury given no weight to the invalid felony murder aggravating factor. While the mitigating evidence in this case was comparable to that found to be inadequate in Howell, the prior violent felony aggravator was not nearly as positive.

  5. Harries v. State

    No. 03C01-9607-CR-00276 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jul. 30, 1997)

    Considering all the above, the trial court concluded that the Middlebrooks error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). Appellant's petition for relief was denied.

  6. State v. Hall

    C.C.A. No. 01C01-9311-CC-00409 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 5, 1997)   Cited 2 times

    In Tennessee, the trial court has wide discretion in examining prospective jurors and ruling on their qualifications.State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 248 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). It is also within the discretion of the trial judge to seat an alternate who had been selected by the parties when a regular juror must be removed.

  7. State v. Boyd

    959 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1998)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that a jury's reliance on an invalid felony murder aggravating factor does not require a resentencing hearing if the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same had the jury given no weight to the invalid aggravating factor

    The critical inquiry, therefore, is whether the error was harmless and whether a resentencing hearing is required. To assist in this inquiry, we review the analytical framework first announced in State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). There, we held that a Middlebrooks error does not require a resentencing hearing if the reviewing court concludes "beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same had the jury given no weight to the invalid felony murder aggravating factor."

  8. State v. Cribbs

    C.C.A. No. 02C01-9508-CR-00211 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 14, 1999)

    1989). Specifically, the defendant argues that our statutory scheme fails to meaningfully narrow the class of death eligible defendants. Our supreme court reviewed and dismissed this argument in State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tenn. 1993). The defendant also contends that the statute is unconstitutional because district attorneys have unlimited discretion in whether to seek the death penalty or not. Our supreme court rejected this argument in Brimmer, 876 S.W.2d at 86.

  9. State v. Bondurant

    C.C.A. No. 01C01-9606-CC-00236 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 18, 1998)   Cited 2 times

    However, such questions are not constitutionally compelled, and the trial court's failure to ask these questions is not reversible error unless it rendered the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair.Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 425-26, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 1905 (1991); see State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 247 (Tenn. 1993).

  10. King v. State

    992 S.W.2d 946 (Tenn. 1999)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in considering the jury's verdict, the appellate court must consider "the evidence actually presented to the jury"

    1991) (Drowota and O'Brien, JJ. dissenting),cert. dismissed, 510 U.S. 124, 114 S.Ct. 651, 126 L.Ed.2d 555 (1993), the defendant again petitioned for post-conviction relief. The trial court held that the jury's use of the felony murder aggravating circumstance was error under Middlebrooks. The trial court, however, held that the jury's reliance on the invalid aggravating circumstance was harmless error under the framework provided by this Court in State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). The trial court dismissed the defendant's petition for relief, and a majority of the appellate court affirmed finding: