Summary
The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether a late-arising claim that the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence was barred by the post-conviction statute of limitations. The court held that Wright v. State did not establish a per se bar to such claims and remanded for further proceedings. The court also held that the jury’s reliance on the felony-murder aggravating circumstance violated the Tennessee Constitution but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the circumstances.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether due process permitted consideration of Sample's late-arising claim that the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence despite expiration of the applicable post-conviction statute of limitations.
- Whether the jury's reliance on the felony-murder aggravating circumstance violated article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and, if so, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holdings
- Wright v. State did not create a per se rule requiring dismissal of all late-arising claims alleging suppression of exculpatory evidence. Due process requires a case-by-case balancing of the petitioner's liberty interest in presenting the claim against the State's interest in finality, and the record here did not support barring Sample's claim.
- The jury's reliance on the felony-murder aggravating circumstance violated article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution because that aggravating circumstance duplicated the elements of felony murder, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the sentence would have been the same without giving weight to the invalid aggravator.
Key quotations
“We did not establish such a per se rule for rejecting exculpatory evidence claims in Wright or any other case, nor have we ever created a specific limitations period for late-arising claims in general.” (274)
“In balancing the interests of the parties, there is simply no basis for holding that the 16-month period in and of itself was unreasonable.” (276)
“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.” (277)
Factual background
Michael Eugene Sample and Larry McKay were convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death for the 1981 killings of two store employees during an armed robbery in Memphis. A surviving eyewitness testified that Sample shot him and that McKay shot one of the victims; another witness identified both men, and ballistic evidence linked a handgun found in their car to bullets recovered from the victims. Sample later alleged that police records contained suppressed statements and other evidence contradicting the eyewitness testimony and undermining the prosecution's case.
Procedural history
Sample and a codefendant were convicted of two counts of felony murder and sentenced to death; the convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Sample filed a post-conviction petition in January 1995 alleging suppression of exculpatory evidence and constitutional error in the use of the felony-murder aggravating circumstance. The trial court rejected the suppression claim as untimely and found the sentencing error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
Remand instructions
Remand to the trial court for further proceedings on the late-arising suppression-of-exculpatory-evidence claim and for proceedings consistent with the opinion. The harmless-error determination regarding the Middlebrooks violation does not preclude further consideration of the sentencing issue as it may relate to findings concerning the exculpatory evidence.