State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, a/k/a Otis Smith

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed Richard Odom's automatic appeal from a death sentence imposed after resentencing for the felony murder of Mina Ethel Johnson. The court held that a 1998 amendment permitting evidence about the facts and circumstances of prior felony convictions could not be applied retroactively to Odom's 1991 offense, and it addressed several evidentiary and procedural issues. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. The trial court committed reversible error by applying the 1998 amendment retroactively to a 1991 offense and permitting extensive evidence concerning the facts and circumstances of Odom's prior felonies to support the prior-violent-felony aggravating circumstance.
2. The error was not harmless because the State introduced extensive, graphic evidence about the prior felonies and relied heavily on that evidence to urge the jury to impose death.
3. The trial court properly admitted two photographs of Mina Ethel Johnson but erred in admitting the photograph of the victim of Odom's prior murder conviction.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate Odom's due process or effective-assistance rights by denying a further continuance.
5. The death sentence was not invalid merely because the indictment did not charge the aggravating circumstance.
6. The court did not need to address whether the death penalty was excessive, arbitrary, or disproportionate at that time.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly applied the 1998 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(c) retroactively to permit evidence concerning the facts and circumstances of Odom's prior violent felony convictions.
2. Whether the admission of photographs of the victim in the present case and of the victim of Odom's prior murder conviction was proper.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated due process and the right to effective counsel by denying a continuance for psychiatric and neuropsychological testing.
4. Whether the death sentence was invalid because the indictment did not charge the aggravating circumstance.
5. Whether the court was required at that stage to conduct the statutory excessiveness, arbitrariness, or proportionality review under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(A)-(D).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded