JANICE M. HOLDER, Justice.
A jury convicted the defendant of first degree felony murder. The jury imposed a sentence of death based on three aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more felonies involving the use of violence; (2) the murder was knowingly committed while the defendant had a substantial role in committing a robbery; and (3) the victim was seventy years of age or older.
Corinio Pruitt, the defendant, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder for the death of Lawrence Guidroz.
On the morning of August 2, 2005, Courtney Johnson encountered Mr. Pruitt by chance as he walked to the Apple Market on Winchester Road in Memphis, Tennessee. Mr. Pruitt talked about stealing a car and asked Mr. Johnson if he would get in the car with him if Mr. Pruitt took one. Although Mr. Johnson told Mr. Pruitt "no," he remained with Mr. Pruitt outside the market and spoke to people who came to the market, including Mr. Pruitt's cousin, Michael Rockett. Later, Mr. Johnson's friend, "Sed," came to the market. Mr. Pruitt remained outside the market as Mr. Johnson and Sed walked to the Family Dollar store at the other end of the shopping center. Mr. Johnson testified that he went with Sed to the Family Dollar store because he did not want to be involved in whatever Mr. Pruitt was going to do.
Taka Pruitt
Ms. Pruitt ran inside the market, told employees that someone had just been carjacked,
Courtney Johnson testified that he saw the victim arrive at the Apple Market in a brown Chevrolet and walk into the market just before he and Sed went to the Family Dollar store. Mr. Johnson said that the victim appeared to be fine when he went into the Apple Market. Mr. Johnson and Sed were in the Family Dollar store for "three to four minutes." When they walked back in the direction of the Apple Market, Mr. Johnson saw "an old man laying down with blood coming out of his head, and his car was gone." Mr. Pruitt was also gone. Mr. Johnson said he ran inside the market and asked someone to call 911. He left the scene before the police arrived because he did not want to be involved and did not want to "snitch" on Mr. Pruitt.
Memphis Police Officer Charmell Smith was the first officer on the scene and arrived before emergency medical personnel. She found the victim lying on his back on the ground and bleeding from his ears and mouth. She testified that the victim was "semi-conscious" and that she helped load the victim into an ambulance when it arrived. Based on her prior medical training as a certified nursing assistant, she opined that the bleeding from the ears indicated some kind of head trauma.
Thomas J. Leech III identified the victim, Mr. Lawrence Guidroz, from a still photo created from the Apple Market's security camera video. Mr. Leech testified that he had known Mr. Guidroz for more than twenty-five years and that he was very close to Mr. Guidroz. Mr. Leech went to the hospital to see Mr. Guidroz when he heard that Mr. Guidroz had been attacked. Mr. Leech remained in Mr. Guidroz's hospital room throughout the night. At no point was Mr. Guidroz able to communicate with Mr. Leech. Mr. Guidroz died the next day. Mr. Leech testified that Mr. Guidroz was seventy-nine years old at the time of his death. Mr. Guidroz was buried in Louisiana after a service in Memphis. Mr. Leech identified photographs of Mr. Guidroz's car, bearing the license plate number CUX 845.
Following the carjacking, Memphis Police began looking for the victim's car. Officer Jonas Holguin found the car parked at the Somerset Apartments near Tullahoma and Winchester and was instructed to watch it from a distance. At trial, Officer Holguin was shown the photograph of Mr. Guidroz's car, which had been identified by Mr. Leech, and confirmed that the license plate was the same as the car he was instructed to watch. At some point, the car was moved from the apartment complex without the knowledge of the police, and the police began to search the area in an attempt to locate the car. The car was later observed pulling into a residence at 3180 Beauchamp, and a team of police officers converged on that location.
The driver of the car, who was wearing a red shirt, went inside the house. The police made the decision to apprehend the driver. Mr. Johnson came out of the house and the police took him into custody. According to Sergeant Robin Hulley, Mr. Johnson yelled, "the guy you want is in the back yard." Officers went to the back yard and saw a man wearing a red shirt jump over a fence and run. Although dogs were called in to track the man, police had no success in finding him.
Mr. Johnson testified that after the incident at the Apple Market, he did not see Mr. Pruitt again until three days later, when Mr. Pruitt telephoned and asked to come to Mr. Johnson's house to take some liquor from Mr. Johnson's grandmother's bar. Because he knew Mr. Pruitt had stolen the victim's car, Mr. Johnson told Mr. Pruitt not to come to his house.
Nevertheless, Mr. Pruitt drove to Mr. Johnson's house and parked the car in the garage. Shortly thereafter, three to four unmarked police cars arrived on the scene. Mr. Johnson knew that the police were there for Mr. Pruitt. Although Mr. Johnson was not aware that Mr. Guidroz had died, Mr. Pruitt informed Mr. Johnson that he had "body-slammed" the victim before taking his car. At trial, Mr. Johnson identified a photograph of himself with Mr. Pruitt at the Apple Market on the day of the carjacking and identified the victim's car as the one Mr. Pruitt parked in his garage. Mr. Johnson was never charged in the case.
The car was taken to the crime scene investigation office, where Officer Francis Donald Carpenter processed the car for fingerprints. Officer Carpenter testified that he found several latent prints on the car. Two prints were lifted from the outside windshield on the front passenger side. Officer Nathan Gathright, a latent fingerprint examiner for the Memphis Police Department, testified that these prints belonged to Mbenda McCracken. A print found on the left rear fender outside the car belonged to Kendricks Scott.
Mr. McCracken identified Mr. Pruitt in the courtroom. In August 2005, Mr. McCracken had known Mr. Pruitt for approximately eight months. Mr. McCracken identified a photo of the victim's car and stated that he saw Mr. Pruitt driving the car in August 2005. When Mr. McCracken asked Mr. Pruitt where the car came from, Mr. Pruitt told him it was his girlfriend's car. Mr. McCracken got into the car and went with Mr. Pruitt to buy beer and marijuana. Mr. Pruitt, Mr. McCracken, and a friend named "Fred" drove around in the car for three to four hours and got high. Mr. McCracken later saw on the news that the car Mr. Pruitt was driving had been taken in a carjacking. Mr. McCracken denied any involvement in the carjacking.
Before Mr. McCracken testified, he and Mr. Pruitt were accidentally placed in the same holding cell for about forty-five minutes. Mr. McCracken was in custody on an aggravated burglary charge unrelated to the present case. Mr. McCracken testified that while he and Mr. Pruitt were in the holding cell, Mr. Pruitt told Mr. McCracken that there were two persons involved in the carjacking and that the other person had not been charged. Mr. Pruitt said that he and the other person were trying to get into the victim's car. When the victim approached the car, they jumped on him. Mr. Pruitt told Mr. McCracken that he grabbed the victim and threw him down. Mr. Pruitt tried to persuade Mr. McCracken to testify that he did not know Mr. Pruitt and that another man came into the neighborhood to attempt to sell Mr. McCracken parts from the car.
Kendricks Scott, whose fingerprints were found on the left rear fender, testified that he saw Mr. Pruitt driving the victim's car in August 2005. Mr. Pruitt offered Mr. Scott a ride to work and told Mr. Scott that it was "his auntie's car." Mr. Scott opened the rear door of the car and briefly sat in the back seat with the door open, but did not ride in the car. Another person, whom Mr. Scott did not know, was in the car at the time. The following day, when the police came looking for Mr. Pruitt at the house next door to Mr. Scott's residence,
Alma Rockett is Mr. Pruitt's aunt. Mr. Pruitt was living with Ms. Rockett in the Somerset Apartments in August 2005. On August 2, 2005, Ms. Rockett recognized Mr. Pruitt in video footage shown on a television news broadcast. She also recognized another man in the video who previously had been in her home with Mr. Pruitt. At trial, she was shown still photographs from the Apple Market security video. Ms. Rockett identified Mr. Pruitt as the man wearing the dark-colored shirt, a larger man as her son, Michael, and a smaller man as the man who previously came home with Mr. Pruitt. She also identified Michael's car in the photograph with the three men. After seeing the video footage on the news, Ms. Rockett and her son went downtown "to straighten it out, to let them know that [Michael] was not involved." After that night, Mr. Pruitt never came back to her house. When Mr. Pruitt later called Ms. Rockett, she told him to turn himself in to police.
Mr. Pruitt testified in his own defense. He acknowledged his prior convictions for aggravated burglary, robbery, criminal attempt to commit robbery, and theft over $500. He stated that on the morning of August 2, 2005, he left for work around 6:00 a.m. When he arrived at work, however, he discovered he had left his identification badge at home. Although he called his aunt to confirm the badge was there, he never went home to get it. Instead, Mr. Pruitt went to Courtney Johnson's house and arrived between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m.
Mr. Pruitt stated that he and Mr. Johnson talked for awhile and went to the Apple Market for the express purpose of stealing a car. While they were standing by the drink machine attempting to decide which car to steal, Mr. Pruitt's cousin, Michael, arrived and went into the market. When Michael came out of the market, Michael, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Pruitt walked to the Family Dollar store. Mr. Pruitt stated that Michael bought something, and the three of them returned to the front of the Apple Market by the drink machine until Michael left. Mr. Pruitt acknowledged seeing Taka Pruitt arrive at the market. He claimed that he and Mr. Johnson knew her because "[they] smoke[d] weed with her."
Mr. Johnson spoke to Mr. Guidroz when he arrived at the market. After Mr. Guidroz went inside, Mr. Johnson walked toward the Family Dollar store because he did not want to be seen on the surveillance camera. According to Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Johnson "popped up on the other side" from where Mr. Pruitt was and "scoped out" Mr. Guidroz's car. Mr. Pruitt testified that he was the lookout while Mr. Johnson got inside the car.
According to Mr. Pruitt, when Mr. Guidroz came out of the store, he saw Mr. Johnson in Mr. Guidroz's car. Mr. Guidroz began struggling with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Pruitt ran up to Mr. Guidroz, grabbed him, and "slung him" into the car. He believed that Mr. Guidroz fell to the ground after he hit the car. Mr. Pruitt admitted pushing Mr. Guidroz hard. Mr. Pruitt testified that he was scared and that he got into the car and drove it to Mr. Johnson's house on Beauchamp. Mr. Johnson did not get into the car with him. When Mr. Johnson came home, Mr. Pruitt left. Mr. Pruitt testified that he did not have a gun at the time he took the victim's car and that his intent was to steal the car and sell its parts.
The next day, Mr. Johnson called Mr. Pruitt and met him at the Somerset Apartments, where Mr. Pruitt was staying. The car was parked at an apartment complex across the street from the Somerset Apartments. Mr. Pruitt believed that Mr. Johnson was the person who moved the car to that location. Mr. Pruitt stated that on August 3, 2005, he and Mr. Johnson went back to Mr. Johnson's house in the victim's car and drove it into the garage. When the police arrived, Mr. Pruitt ran because he was scared. He claimed he did not know at the time that the victim had died. The following day, Mr. Pruitt turned himself in and gave a statement to the police.
When cross-examined about his statement to the police, Mr. Pruitt admitted that he told police he left Mr. Johnson standing outside the Family Dollar store when he took the victim's car. He admitted telling police that he did not leave the victim's car at Mr. Johnson's house. He also admitted telling police that he drove a number of friends around and that he let his friend, Reggie, use the car. Mr. Pruitt stated that he initially lied about Mr. Johnson's involvement because he did not want to "snitch" on him. Mr. Pruitt admitted that his version of the events did not match the security video, which shows Mr. Johnson walking to the Family Dollar store before the carjacking and walking back after the carjacking. He said that most of his statement to police was true. As to any inconsistencies between his version of events and the testimony from Taka Pruitt and Mr. McCracken, he claimed both were lying. He maintained that he did not intend to hurt the victim.
The State presented medical evidence regarding Mr. Guidroz's injuries. Dr. Karen Chancellor, the Chief Medical Examiner in 2005 for Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, performed Mr. Guidroz's autopsy. As a result of her internal and external examinations of Mr. Guidroz, Dr. Chancellor concluded that the cause of Mr. Guidroz's death was multiple blunt force injuries sustained to the head and chest and that the manner of Mr. Guidroz's death was homicide.
Dr. Chancellor found an abrasion on the front of Mr. Guidroz's face and a laceration on the left side of his forehead. She also noted that "there [was] ecchymosis or hemorrhag[ing] around both eyes, and that was caused by skull fractures . . . found inside the body." The injuries to Mr. Guidroz's body included bruising on the ear, the right and left side of the chest, the upper left arm, the neck and shoulder, the right ankle, the backs of both hands, both forearms, and the lips. Dr. Chancellor opined that all the victim's bruises were caused at the same time and at the time of the incident at the Apple Market.
As to her internal examination of Mr. Guidroz, Dr. Chancellor noted that "there was quite a bit of hemorrhage overlying the ribs on the left side" and a complete fracture of the clavicle. Eleven ribs on Mr. Guidroz's left side were fractured, with resulting bruises on the surrounding lung tissue. Dr. Chancellor remarked that Mr. Guidroz had extensive blunt force injuries to his head, which included skull fractures, bruises to brain tissue, and hemorrhaging around the brain. In addition, Mr. Guidroz suffered a subdural hematoma, which required surgery to avoid severe brain injury. She opined that the skull fractures were caused by at least three separate blows or impacts to the left side of the head. Mr. Guidroz also suffered fractures to the orbital plates directly above the eyes, which resulted in blood collecting around his eyes.
Dr. Chancellor was unaware that Mr. Guidroz had coagulopathy, a condition making him prone to bleed, but she was aware that Mr. Guidroz had severe coronary atherosclerosis, a blockage of the blood vessels of the heart. No evidence of surgical intervention for these blockages was present. Dr. Chancellor did not collect any of Mr. Guidroz's fractured bones during the autopsy. Dr. Chancellor stated that, although the practice of removing bones during autopsy was once "in vogue," the practice is no longer common. She also did not conduct a bone density test on Mr. Guidroz because a bone density test is not a routine part of an autopsy. Although she opined that Mr. Guidroz's injuries were consistent with being beaten, she was not able to determine the order of his injuries or whether his injuries resulted from being struck by a hard object, being forcibly thrust against a hard object, or a combination of these two actions. She did not believe, however, that a fall alone would have caused all of his injuries.
The defense introduced testimony from Dr. O. C. Smith, former Chief Medical Examiner for Shelby County, Tennessee. Dr. Smith reviewed the medical examiner's files and Mr. Guidroz's medical records in July 2007. Dr. Smith noted several deficiencies in the autopsy record. He commented on the absence of X-rays taken as part of the autopsy procedure and the absence of bones for review. Dr. Smith testified that bones can be excised, cleaned, and retained in inventory, or can be preserved with photographs or X-rays. Dr. Smith testified that when he was the medical examiner, the lab was able to test for bone density either by X-ray or by excising the bone and examining it. He opined that loss of bone density due to age or osteoporosis could have made Mr. Guidroz's bones more vulnerable to trauma. Dr. Smith's routine practice when he was medical examiner was to excise every fractured bone in a homicide or suspected homicide. He also commented that he was unable to examine Mr. Guidroz's brain specimen because the preserving fluid had been allowed to dry out.
Dr. Smith testified that Mr. Guidroz's medical records indicated he suffered from coagulopathy, which made him prone to bleed. Mr. Guidroz lost 1.5 liters of blood during his brain surgery, which required a transfusion of blood, fresh frozen plasma, and platelets. Dr. Smith opined that the coagulopathy, together with the blockages in Mr. Guidroz's heart, made him particularly vulnerable to injury. The coagulopathy also would have caused "seepage" of blood during surgical procedures, which would have made Mr. Guidroz's injuries look worse than they actually were. The ecchymosis, or hemorrhaging or bleeding under the skin, on various parts of Mr. Guidroz's body also could have been exacerbated by the coagulopathy. Dr. Smith discussed a condition known as "senile ecchymosis" that occurs as part of the aging process and opined that some of Mr. Guidroz's ecchymosis might be attributable to his age. He explained that with such a condition, even minor trauma can cause bruising with superficial bleeding on the skin's surface. He conceded that the ecchymosis could be from the original injuries but thought that it was probably a combination of surgery and original injury. Dr. Smith agreed that blood beneath the skin on the left side of Mr. Guidroz's neck likely resulted from the fracture and dislocation of the clavicle and fractures of the adjacent ribs, not from surgery.
Dr. Smith found evidence of a "contre-coup" or "decelerating" brain injury and distinguished between accelerative trauma and contre-coup trauma. Accelerative trauma occurs when a moving object strikes a fixed head and leaves a bruise on the skin and causes damage in the area of the brain immediately beneath the blow. A contre-coup injury, however, is decelerative trauma caused when a moving head hits a fixed object. Injury to the skin occurs at the point of impact, but the injury to the brain occurs on the opposite side of the head. Dr. Smith testified that, although the fractures of Mr. Guidroz's skull were on the left side of his head, he suffered a contre-coup injury to the right side of his brain, indicating that his injuries occurred in a fall.
Dr. Smith noted that the fractures to the clavicle, ribs, and head were all on Mr. Guidroz's left side and opined that the cause of death was "a fall to a flat surface or some contact where the body is in motion, and then it's been arrested by a hard, unyielding surface." Dr. Smith opined that the fall could have been from a standing height, from running and falling, from falling from a height, or from being propelled, depending on the strength of Mr. Guidroz's bones and the force that caused the fall. He ruled out the possibility that blows or strikes to Mr. Guidroz's body were the sole cause of his injuries.
Dr. Smith agreed with Dr. Chancellor that the manner of Mr. Guidroz's death was homicide and the cause of Mr. Guidroz's death was blunt force injury to his head and chest. He also agreed that Mr. Guidroz's injuries were consistent with a scenario of
Dr. Bruce Levy, then Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Tennessee and the Medical Examiner for Davidson County, testified for the State in rebuttal. Although Dr. Smith's routine practice during his tenure was to remove bones from the body and store them, Dr. Levy testified that this practice was unique to Memphis and uncommon. In Dr. Levy's opinion, Dr. Chancellor, who actually performed the autopsy, was in the best position to render opinions as to what she saw and to interpret her observations. In his view, she followed the standard practice of documenting the autopsy by photographs, diagrams, and narratives describing what she saw.
Dr. Levy stated that Mr. Guidroz suffered blunt force trauma injuries. He opined that the victim's skull fractures, which were indicative of at least two separate blows, combined with the fractures to the ribs and clavicle, led to a "differential diagnosis." In other words, there could be different causes for the injuries: either a fall from some height, a car collision, or an accelerated fall in which the victim was thrown to the ground with some force. Dr. Levy opined that breaking eight or nine ribs was not consistent with a simple fall to the ground, but might be consistent with an accelerated fall. Likewise, the multiple injuries to the chest, arms, face, and head were inconsistent with a simple fall.
He testified that when faced with a differential diagnosis, a medical examiner will rely on the history of the case. In this case, the anecdotal reports that Mr. Guidroz was assaulted in a carjacking and thrown to the ground were factors in determining the cause of his injuries. Dr. Levy testified that "body-slamming" can cause multiple fractures like the ones observed in Mr. Guidroz. The presence of complex skull fractures was indicative of a significant amount of force, "much greater than you could possibly get from simply falling to the ground and striking your head on a flat surface."
Based on the evidence, the jury convicted Mr. Pruitt of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery. The jury also convicted Mr. Pruitt of second degree murder as a lesser-included offense of the charged first degree premeditated murder. The trial court merged the two convictions and proceeded to the penalty phase.
Marie Leech was a close family friend of Mr. Guidroz. She testified that she met Mr. Guidroz at St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church and had known him for more than twenty-five years. On Sundays after church, Mr. Guidroz usually had dinner at Ms. Leech's home. Mr. Guidroz was the godfather of Ms. Leech's middle child and particularly close to that child. Ms. Leech explained that Mr. Guidroz had a very active life. He attended Mass daily at different churches throughout Memphis and went to St. Peter Villa, an assisted living facility, three days a week to visit and care for residents there. Ms. Leech testified that Mr. Guidroz was fondly regarded in the Oakhaven neighborhood where he had lived for more than forty years.
The State introduced Mr. Pruitt's indictments and judgments of conviction from five prior offenses through Shelby County Criminal Court Deputy Clerk, Alice Robinson. Those offenses were robbery and an attempted robbery committed on November 26, 2002, and three aggravated robberies committed on November 4, 1996.
In mitigation, Mr. Pruitt presented the testimony of Dr. Rebecca Rutledge, a clinical psychologist, who assessed him in November 1996 at the request of the Memphis and Shelby County Juvenile Court. Mr. Pruitt was sixteen years old at that time. As part of her assessment, Dr. Rutledge administered to Mr. Pruitt the Slosson Intelligence Test, a Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test, and a Rorschach Psycho-diagnostic Technique Test. Mr. Pruitt's score on the Slosson test was sixty-six, which is in the upper mildly mentally retarded range.
Prior to her testimony, Dr. Rutledge reviewed a report from the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute ("MTMHI") resulting from a September 2006 evaluation of Mr. Pruitt. She noted that the MTMHI staff's diagnosis of Mr. Pruitt as mildly mentally retarded was consistent with her 1996 diagnosis.
On cross-examination, Dr. Rutledge conceded that she did not have any particular memory of Mr. Pruitt. At the time of the 1996 screening, she did not find that he suffered from any mental illness that would have prevented his transfer to adult court, nor did she find any disorders when she administered the Rorschach and the Bender Gestalt tests. Dr. Rutledge testified that the juvenile court asked her to administer the Slosson test. She explained that the Slosson test was designed to provide an estimate of general verbal cognitive ability in a short time frame. She acknowledged that the Slosson test, unlike other tests, did not have built-in standards for determining malingering. Dr. Rutledge testified that the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Screening ("WAIS") test is the "gold standard" for functional intelligence quotient ("I.Q.") testing and is better at discerning specific areas of impairment. She opined, however, that Mr. Pruitt "would have fallen pretty close to [his score on the Slosson test]" if he had been given the WAIS test in 1996.
Dr. Rutledge was aware of the staff observations in the MTMHI evaluation that Mr. Pruitt was exaggerating his mental illness symptoms. MTMHI had also noted Mr. Pruitt's self-reported paranoid schizophrenia, although there was no record of his having received treatment for the disorder. Dr. Rutledge conceded that Mr. Pruitt could have deliberately underperformed on the 1996 Slosson test to avoid being transferred to adult court. She also conceded that Mr. Pruitt had many reasons to underperform during his 2006 assessment at MTMHI because of his pending capital murder charges.
Mr. Pruitt's mother, Vivian Pruitt, testified that if Mr. Pruitt were to receive a death sentence, it "would just kill [her] too." She recounted that Mr. Pruitt was the youngest of five children she had by three different men. Mr. Pruitt's father was about sixteen years younger than Ms. Pruitt, and Mr. Pruitt never had a relationship with him. When she was pregnant with Mr. Pruitt, Ms. Pruitt smoked, but she did not recall drinking. When Mr. Pruitt was born, she was married to Walter Lee Pruitt. Although the two have since divorced, Mr. Pruitt thought of Walter Lee Pruitt as his father and was close to him.
Vivian Pruitt detailed a family history of mental health issues. She had previously been hospitalized at Memphis Mental Health Institute three times due to addiction problems, but had been sober for fifteen to twenty-five years at the time of trial. During her period of addiction, she was arrested numerous times, usually for minor offenses like public intoxication, and was frequently in and out of prison. On one occasion she was arrested for aggravated assault when she shot Mr. Pruitt's father. When Ms. Pruitt was in prison, Mr. Pruitt stayed with his grandmother, Frankie Timberlake.
According to Ms. Pruitt, Ms. Timberlake, who helped raise Mr. Pruitt, spent time in and out of mental institutions. Several of Ms. Timberlake's siblings (Vivian Pruitt's aunts and uncles) had mental health problems as well. One of Ms. Timberlake's siblings died from a drug overdose and another committed suicide. One of Mr. Pruitt's sisters, Tapika Pruitt, had attempted suicide several times. Vivian Pruitt considered Mr. Pruitt a normal child with good test scores, and she never sought any type of treatment for him. He did not seem "slow" to her, but she believed he was in resource class
Vivian Pruitt testified that Mr. Pruitt's first arrest was at age thirteen or fourteen and that he had experienced "problems" since that time. After Mr. Pruitt was released from juvenile court, he was arrested for several other offenses, including stealing shoes and writing graffiti on the school walls. He was in and out of juvenile court and was sent at various times to different juvenile facilities. He escaped from the Memphis Boys Group Home after he was charged with the three aggravated robbery offenses in 1996. Ms. Pruitt testified that Mr. Pruitt eventually quit school "because they had him in juvenile."
Ms. Pruitt said that Mr. Pruitt was living with his aunt, Alma Rockett, on the day of the carjacking and was scheduled to work at Patterson Warehouse. She indicated that Mr. Pruitt had moved in with Ms. Rockett after he and his sister, Quiana Pruitt, with whom he had been living, had a dispute about Mr. Pruitt's discipline of Quiana's son. Vivian Pruitt believed Mr. Pruitt was experiencing stress over the fight with his sister and his housing situation at the time of the offense.
Quiana Pruitt testified that if her brother were sentenced to death and executed it would "really hurt [her]." She and Mr. Pruitt have the same father, who was not involved in their lives, and she considered Walter Pruitt her father. She recounted that she and Mr. Pruitt had a difficult upbringing. Their grandmother, Ms. Timberlake, was their primary caretaker because their mother was frequently in prison. Their aunt, Alma Rockett, told them their mother was "on drugs, didn't want [them], [and] neglected [them]." Quiana Pruitt also recounted the family history of mental health problems. Her mother and extended family on her mother's side-including an uncle and two aunts-suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Their sister, Tapika, had mental health and drug problems. Ms. Timberlake had Alzheimer's disease and was hospitalized in a mental institution in 2000.
Quiana Pruitt did not consider her brother "slow" when he was growing up. She recalled that Mr. Pruitt began getting into trouble at the age of thirteen or fourteen and was in and out of "juvenile." He eventually dropped out of school in the seventh grade. Mr. Pruitt moved in with Quiana Pruitt and their mother following his release from prison after serving his sentence for the 1996 aggravated robbery convictions. Mr. Pruitt left their home after attempting to discipline Quiana Pruitt's son and went to live with his aunt, Alma Rockett.
In rebuttal, the State presented Sandra Atkinson, the records supervisor for Memphis City Schools. Ms. Atkinson reported that Mr. Pruitt was enrolled in the first grade at Carnes Elementary School in September 1987. Although his grades and conduct were average in the first grade, he was retained and repeated the first grade. During April of his second year in the first grade, he transferred to Larose Elementary School, where he remained for the rest of his elementary school years. Mr. Pruitt received mostly As and Bs for grades, and Es and Ss for conduct.
Mr. Pruitt's academic performance declined dramatically during his seventh-grade year. He enrolled at Vance Middle School in the Fall of 1994 and attended until December, when he transferred to Colonial Middle School for one week, then returned to Vance Middle School until May 5, 1995, after which he withdrew. Ms. Atkinson testified that Mr. Pruitt was frequently absent in the seventh grade. No grades were available because he did not complete his seventh-grade year. Although Mr. Pruitt took some of the TCAP tests, he apparently missed some of the testing days because he had no scores for reading or spelling. Mr. Pruitt's remaining scores were poor, ranging from a low in the eighth percentile for science to a high in the forty-second percentile for study skills.
Although Mr. Pruitt did not complete the seventh grade, he was nevertheless promoted to the eighth grade. During his eighth-grade year in 1995, however, he did not attend school until November 2, 1995, and he stopped attending after January 30, 1996. His grades were dramatically lower his eighth-grade year, reflecting all Fs for the semester. His records were transferred to an alternative school on April 26, 1996. Ms. Atkinson testified that the transfer to an alternative school could have been for non-attendance or behavior issues, but the records did not reflect the reason. Nothing in Mr. Pruitt's records indicates that he was ever in a resource class.
In surrebuttal, the defense recalled Vivian Pruitt to explain the dramatic decline in Mr. Pruitt's academic performance following elementary school. She testified that Mr. Pruitt fell in the fifth grade and struck his head. She stated that he had persistent headaches following that injury, but that she "didn't think it was that serious." When he was in the seventh grade, four of Mr. Pruitt's friends were killed in a particularly gruesome car wreck. Mr. Pruitt went to the scene and observed their injuries. Mr. Pruitt's behavior declined after witnessing the accident. Mr. Pruitt also had a brother who died from AIDS during this period. Ms. Pruitt testified that she did not believe Mr. Pruitt knew right from wrong or that he meant to kill Mr. Guidroz.
Prior to the jury charge in the penalty phase and before closing arguments, Mr. Pruitt made an oral motion challenging the appropriateness of the death penalty in his case pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203 because he had a functional I.Q. "below seventy" and deficits in adaptive behavior. The trial court denied the motion, noting that neither the court nor the State had been provided notice that a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203 would be made. The trial court commented that the motion should have been filed prior to trial and stated that the timing of the motion was improper.
The jury found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances that: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person; (2) the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant, while the defendant had a substantial role in committing, or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit a robbery; and (3) the victim was seventy years of age or older at the time of the murder.
After the jury returned a sentence of death, Mr. Pruitt filed a motion for new trial, in which he challenged, among other things, the trial court's refusal to consider his oral motion to disallow the consideration of the death penalty due to intellectual disability. At a hearing, trial counsel testified that he had given the State a "Notice of Intent to Present Expert Testimony Regarding Mental Condition" on February 5, 2008, but failed to formally file this motion with the trial court clerk until March 10, 2008, after the trial had ended. He argued that this motion, together with the proof at trial of Mr. Pruitt's diagnosis of "mild mental retardation" gave the State sufficient notice that he was challenging the applicability of the death penalty.
The trial court held a hearing on December 12, 2008, and January 16, 2009, on the issue of Mr. Pruitt's eligibility for the death penalty. The defense initially rested on the proof presented at trial by Dr. Rutledge. The State introduced testimony from Dr. Sam Craddock,
Dr. Craddock identified a staff conference report from MTMHI dated September 22, 2006. Noted on the report was an Axis I diagnosis of "schizophrenia, differentiated type," and an Axis II diagnosis of "mild mental retardation." Dr. Craddock testified that the latter diagnosis was recorded in error and should have read "borderline intellectual functioning." Other notes throughout the file, including the discharge summary, recorded the Axis II diagnosis as borderline intellectual functioning, not mental retardation. Dr. Craddock could not explain why he had made the transcription error. After reviewing Mr. Pruitt's records, Dr. Craddock prepared an addendum to the report stating that the "mild mental retardation" note was made in error.
Dr. Craddock testified that there are three requirements for a diagnosis of mental retardation: subaverage intellectual functioning demonstrated by an I.Q. below seventy,
Other factors led Dr. Craddock to conclude that Mr. Pruitt's score was not indicative of mental retardation. For instance, at the age of eighteen, Mr. Pruitt had received a score of eighty-one on a Beta test administered through the Department of Correction. At that time, Mr. Pruitt indicated an interest in earning his Graduate Equivalency Degree and learning about small engine repair. The Beta test score indicated that Mr. Pruitt was reading at an eighth-grade level, spelling at a high school level, and understanding math at a fifth-grade level. Furthermore, Mr. Pruitt's school records indicated he had performed well both academically and on his TCAP tests until the sixth grade. School records did not indicate that Mr. Pruitt was ever in special education classes, which Dr. Craddock would have expected if Mr. Pruitt was mentally retarded.
Dr. Craddock also did not see any deficits in Mr. Pruitt's adaptive behavior. Mr. Pruitt had stated to Dr. Craddock that one of his interests was playing chess, which Dr. Craddock noted is inconsistent with someone who is mentally retarded. Also, Dr. Craddock "question[ed] the scores because mentally retarded individuals . . . typically score high on performance and low on verbal." Mr. Pruitt's scores revealed just the opposite. Dr. Craddock stated that
In rebuttal, Mr. Pruitt presented the testimony of Dr. Rutledge. She had compared the results of the test that she administered to Mr. Pruitt with the results of the test administered by Dr. Craddock. She stated that both tests indicated Mr. Pruitt had an I.Q. of approximately sixty-eight. Dr. Rutledge's memory of Mr. Pruitt's adaptive skills was that he had fifth-grade reading skills, third-grade math skills, was unable to live independently, and was unable to remain gainfully employed. She admitted that she last saw Mr. Pruitt twelve years earlier, when he was sixteen years old and spent, at most, an hour with him. She also admitted that at the time she thought his scores might not accurately reflect his actual ability. She did not have his school records and was unaware that at one point he scored in the ninety-eighth percentile on his TCAP tests.
On May 22, 2009, the trial court entered an order denying Mr. Pruitt's motion for new trial and found that Mr. Pruitt had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. The trial court found that Mr. Pruitt had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significantly subaverage intellectual functioning as evidenced by an I.Q. of seventy or below. The court found that neither the test score in 1996 nor the test score in 2006 was the product of Mr. Pruitt's best efforts and that his grades in school and TCAP scores indicated that the 1996 and 2006 test scores were unreliable. The trial court also determined that Mr. Pruitt failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered deficits in his adaptive behavior. The trial court based this finding on Mr. Pruitt's excellent performance in school through the sixth grade and testimony from his mother that he seemed like a "normal" child. The trial court also noted Dr. Craddock's testimony that he did not see any deficits in Mr. Pruitt's adaptive behavior. The trial court found that the drop in Mr. Pruitt's grades and test scores after the sixth grade appeared to result from traumatic events in his life, drug use, incarceration, and absence from school.
Mr. Pruitt argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for first degree felony murder. Specifically, he contends that Taka Pruitt's account of the attack on Mr. Guidroz does not differ substantially from his testimony, and that to the extent it does, her veracity is compromised because of her location and distance from the site of the attack.
Our standard of review is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
Mr. Pruitt was charged with first degree felony murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery. At the time of the offense, felony murder included a killing "committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any first degree murder, act of terrorism, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, kidnapping, aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, rape of a child, aggravated rape of a child or aircraft piracy." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(2) (2007). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(b) also provided that "[n]o culpable mental state is required for conviction under subdivision (a)(2) . . . except the intent to commit the enumerated offenses or acts." Additionally, the death must occur "in the perpetration of" the enumerated felony.
Mr. Pruitt contends that the evidence supports his testimony that he had no intent to deprive Mr. Guidroz of his car and only ran to Mr. Guidroz's car to aid Mr. Johnson, who had attacked and was struggling with Mr. Guidroz. We disagree.
Mr. Johnson expressly denied playing any role in the robbery. Mr. Johnson testified that Mr. Pruitt intended to steal a car that day. Mr. Pruitt admitted as much during his testimony. Taka Pruitt testified that Mr. Pruitt acted alone in attacking Mr. Guidroz. Mr. Pruitt's suggestion that her testimony is somehow compromised because she was unable to fully see what was happening in Mr. Guidroz's car is a question of credibility that the jury resolved in favor of the State. After the attack, Ms. Pruitt saw Mr. Pruitt drive off in Mr. Guidroz's car. Mr. Pruitt admitted that he took the car. Moreover, both Dr. Chancellor and Dr. Levy testified that multiple blows were inflicted on Mr. Guidroz. All of the medical testimony reflected that Mr. Guidroz died as a result of the injuries sustained during the attack.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence supports the jury's finding that Mr. Pruitt used violence to take Mr. Guidroz's car and that Mr. Guidroz died as a result of injuries sustained from that use of violence. The proof is therefore sufficient to support Mr. Pruitt's conviction for first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of a robbery.
Our review of Mr. Pruitt's intellectual disability claim has been made more difficult by Mr. Pruitt's timing in raising the issue at trial. The statute precluding the death penalty for an intellectually disabled defendant does not specify when the issue must be raised.
Nonetheless, we review the record on appeal to determine if Mr. Pruitt has an intellectual disability that precludes imposition of the death penalty. On appeal, the issue of a defendant's intellectual disability is a mixed question of law and fact.
Individuals with an intellectual disability at the time of commission of a first degree murder may not be sentenced to death. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(b). The statutory criteria for finding intellectual disability are whether the defendant exhibits
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a). The defendant has the burden of proving intellectual disability by a preponderance of the evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(c);
In
As noted in
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(a)(1) requires that an I.Q. score of seventy or below be presented as proof of intellectual disability. In
The evidence presented during the penalty phase of the trial and the post-trial hearings on Mr. Pruitt's eligibility for the death penalty established that Mr. Pruitt had raw I.Q. test scores that were below seventy. Dr. Rebecca Rutledge testified that when she administered the Slosson test in 1996, twelve years prior to Mr. Pruitt's trial, Mr. Pruitt was sixteen years old and obtained a score of sixty-six. Dr. Sam Craddock administered the WAIS test in 2006 during Mr. Pruitt's inpatient evaluation prior to trial. Mr. Pruitt's score on the WAIS test was sixty-eight.
Dr. Rutledge testified that she believed the results were "slightly below [the defendant's] . . . true level of cognitive functioning" because he did not appear to take the test seriously. Dr. Craddock stated in his psychological report that Mr. Pruitt appeared to be making a good effort on the tests. However, he occasionally gave quick answers, without taking time to think through the questions. Although both experts stated that Mr. Pruitt may not have given his best effort on the tests, neither testified that Mr. Pruitt's I.Q. would have been higher than seventy if his effort had been greater.
Neither expert testified that Mr. Pruitt's test scores were "unreliable." The trial court, however, found that the scores on the tests administered were unreliable based on Mr. Pruitt's school records and on the opinions of both experts that Mr. Pruitt did not put forth his best effort during the testing process. Having rejected both test scores, the trial court concluded that Mr. Pruitt had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his I.Q. was seventy or below.
The trial court rendered its decision on Mr. Pruitt's intellectual disability on May 22, 2009, nearly two years before we clarified in
Under these circumstances, we are unwilling to uphold a finding that the tests are of no value in determining whether Mr. Pruitt has met his burden in showing that his I.Q. is seventy or below, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(a)(1). The evidence showed that Mr. Pruitt had I.Q. test scores below seventy. In the absence of expert testimony that his I.Q. was above seventy, we hold that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination that Mr. Pruitt failed to prove that he had significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning as evidenced by a functional I.Q. of seventy or below.
To establish intellectual disability, a defendant must not only establish significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning but must also establish "[d]eficits in adaptive behavior." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a)(2). "Deficits in adaptive behavior" refers to the inability of an individual to adapt to surrounding circumstances.
In this case, little evidence was presented concerning Mr. Pruitt's adaptive behavior. Dr. Rutledge testified that Mr. Pruitt was unable to live independently, retain employment, and to abide by community standards. She admitted, however, that she spent only an hour with him twelve years prior to her testimony, when he was only sixteen years old. She recognized that Mr. Pruitt had spent a significant amount of time in the juvenile justice system by the time she had observed him and arguably had not had the opportunity to demonstrate whether he could manage on his own. To the contrary, once Mr. Pruitt was released from prison after serving his sentence for the 1996 aggravated robbery charges, he obtained employment and was employed on the day of the carjacking. He was living with his aunt at the time of the carjacking and had previously lived with his mother and sister, but the record does not indicate that he lived with them due to a deficit in adaptive behavior. Additionally, Dr. Craddock expressly testified that he did not observe Mr. Pruitt to have any significant adaptive deficits. The record supports the trial court's finding that Mr. Pruitt failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had deficits in adaptive behavior.
Finally, Mr. Pruitt must prove that his intellectual disability manifested during his developmental period or by age eighteen. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(a)(3). Mr. Pruitt did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he had deficits in adaptive behavior and therefore has not demonstrated that he had an intellectual disability that manifested during his developmental period or before he reached the age of eighteen. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's determination that Mr. Pruitt has not demonstrated an intellectual disability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203. Mr. Pruitt is therefore eligible for the death penalty.
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1) (2010) requires us to review the application of the death penalty to determine whether:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1).
Our review of the record confirms that the death sentence in this case was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion. Although Mr. Pruitt claims the death penalty was imposed arbitrarily, he points to no procedural infirmity in the prosecution of his case. Our review of the record demonstrates that Mr. Pruitt received a full and fair trial at both the guilt and penalty phases in accordance with the applicable statutes and procedural rules.
We also conclude that the evidence supports the jury's findings with respect to the three aggravating circumstances. Mr. Pruitt concedes that the evidence is sufficient to support the application of two of the aggravating circumstances, and we agree. Mr. Pruitt's prior convictions for aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempted robbery support the jury's finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(2). Mr. Pruitt was previously convicted of robbery and aggravated robbery, and the indictments in those cases specified that the offenses involved violence to the person.
The evidence also supports the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance.
Mr. Pruitt contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he "knowingly" killed Mr. Guidroz so as to support the (i)(7) aggravating circumstance because no evidence was presented that he was aware that throwing Mr. Guidroz to the ground was reasonably certain to kill him. Murder is a "result-of-conduct" offense.
Testimony from Taka Pruitt established that Mr. Pruitt pushed Mr. Guidroz into Mr. Guidroz's car. Ms. Pruitt testified that Mr. Pruitt appeared to be inside the car "tussling" with Mr. Guidroz. Dr. Chancellor's testimony detailed the extensive injuries suffered by Mr. Guidroz. Both Dr. Chancellor and Dr. Levy testified that Mr. Guidroz's injuries were not entirely consistent with simply being pushed to the ground. The expert testimony detailing three separate skull fractures and eleven fractures to eight different ribs established that Mr. Pruitt violently beat Mr. Guidroz. Mr. Pruitt admitted that he threw Mr. Guidroz to the ground in what Mr. Pruitt described to Mr. Johnson as a "body-slam." Whether a person acted "knowingly" is a question of fact for the jury.
We next consider whether the evidence supports the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court instructed the jury that before a sentence of death or sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole could be imposed, the jury must unanimously find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more statutory aggravating circumstances. As noted, the trial court instructed the jury on the aggravating circumstances found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(2), (i)(7), and (i)(14).
In addition, the trial court instructed the jury as to its consideration of mitigating circumstances as follows:
The trial court correctly instructed the jury that Mr. Pruitt had no burden to prove a mitigating circumstance and that there was no requirement of jury unanimity as to any particular mitigating circumstances and no requirement that the jury agree on the same mitigating circumstance.
The trial court further instructed the jury that "the sentence shall be death" if the jury unanimously found that the State had proven the existence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our standard of review is to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is taken in a light most favorable to the State.
We concluded in the previous section that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of the three statutory aggravating circumstances. We have reviewed the statutory and non-statutory mitigating circumstances included in the court's penalty phase instructions to the jury. Although the mitigating circumstances may outnumber the aggravating circumstances, we conclude that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could have found that the (i)(2), (i)(7), and (i)(14) aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finally, we address whether Mr. Pruitt's sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). Our interpretation of this statutory mandate and the resulting comparative proportionality review standards were formalized in
The statutory directive requires us to conduct proportionality review in every capital case, and the parties addressed the issue of proportionality review in their initial briefs and oral arguments. Based on the nature of the challenges to proportionality review raised during oral argument and a careful deliberation of the issues, we determined that certain issues could benefit from additional briefing. We ordered the parties to submit additional briefs and scheduled re-argument on the following issues: whether the absence of an intent to kill should render the death penalty disproportionate; whether the proportionality analysis adopted by the majority of the Court in
We begin with an examination as to whether the absence of an intent to kill should render the death penalty disproportionate. Mr. Pruitt responds to this question by asserting categorical and statutory comparative proportionality challenges to the death penalty. Because we discuss the role of a defendant's culpable mental state in comparative proportionality review below, we turn to Mr. Pruitt's categorical challenge.
Categorical proportionality examines whether the death penalty is proportionate as a punishment when applied to a specific category of offenders or offenses.
The constitutionality of the death penalty for felony murder has been repeatedly challenged in Tennessee. In
The constitutionality of our felony murder statute was again addressed at length by this Court in
The felony murder statute has traditionally applied to the perpetrator of the felony murder and to his or her accomplices. The statute's basic premise is that a defendant who willingly and actively participates in one of the enumerated felonies becomes accountable for the consequences flowing from the commission of, or participation in, the felony and may be convicted of first degree murder.
Against this backdrop, the Court turned its focus to the issue of mental culpability and the minimum standards for determining whether a sentence of death may be constitutionally imposed under the United States Constitution.
We noted that this minimum standard set by the United States Supreme Court did not answer the question under article I, section 16 of our constitution.
The issue of the constitutionality of the felony murder statute came full circle in
Mr. Pruitt acknowledges our consistent affirmation of the constitutionality of the death penalty as punishment for felony murder, including our refusal to consider felony murder categorically disproportionate. Nevertheless, he maintains that courts must continuously revisit the death penalty to determine if it remains a proportionate punishment in a given category in light of evolving standards of decency.
In this case, Mr. Pruitt asks us to reexamine categorical proportionality with regard to felony murder when the perpetrator intended to commit the predicate felony but did not intend that a killing occur. Mr. Pruitt alleges that the killing of Mr. Guidroz was unintentional and that he therefore falls within this category. Citing a series of decisions by the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Pruitt contends that the standards of decency have evolved to such a degree that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for this category of felony murderers and is therefore disproportionate in his case.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that as our society matures, our standards of decency evolve as well. A defendant challenging the application of the death penalty for a certain class of cases must prove that a societal consensus against imposing the death penalty has emerged.
To meet his burden in this case, Mr. Pruitt must therefore provide objective evidence that a societal consensus has emerged against imposition of the death penalty for an unintentional killing committed during the commission of a felony. Mr. Pruitt focuses on two primary areas in which he claims the evolving standards and consensus are most evident. First, he points to
In
We must similarly reject Mr. Pruitt's submission of
We find no significant legislative or judicial retreat from felony murder or the imposition of the death penalty for felony murder when the respective statutory criteria for capital punishment are met. Furthermore, we find no significant movement by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of a principal's culpability in a felony murder case. Likewise, in Tennessee, we see no evidence of significant judicial or legislative movement away from the death penalty for felony murder. Our death penalty statute continues to include felony murder for which no culpable mental state is required as a capital offense, and our juries continue to impose the death penalty for felony murder.
Mr. Pruitt has failed to demonstrate the existence of a societal consensus against executing a felony murderer who did not intend to kill the victim. For these reasons, we affirm our holding in
Our examination now turns to the statutory comparative proportionality review mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). Within this examination, we consider whether the comparative proportionality analysis formalized in
In
In determining which cases are "similar cases" for the purposes of comparison under the statute, the Court selected Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 12 cases as the universe from which the more narrow pool of "similar cases" would be drawn.
After describing the pool of similar cases, the
The Court also identified relevant criteria when comparing the characteristics of defendants, including the defendant's: (1) prior criminal record or prior criminal activity; (2) age, race, and gender; (3) mental, emotional, or physical condition; (4) involvement or role in the murder; (5) cooperation with authorities; (6) remorse; (7) knowledge of helplessness of victim(s), and (8) capacity for rehabilitation.
The Court recognized that even within the framework established in
We first examine whether the
In
As indicated above, we defined the pool as including first degree murder cases in which a capital sentencing hearing was conducted to determine whether the sentence should be death, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or life imprisonment, regardless of the sentence returned by the jury.
We chose not to include in the pool those first degree murder cases in which the State did not seek the death penalty or a sentence other than death was part of a plea agreement.
In
In
Mr. Pruitt maintains that broadening the pool of cases used in comparative proportionality review is necessary to ensure that the imposition of the death penalty in Tennessee satisfies federal and state constitutional standards as well as our comparative proportionality statute. He argues that the pool should include all cases in which the death penalty could have been sought, thereby permitting the Court to oversee prosecutorial charging decisions. Alternatively, he suggests that the pool include all cases in which first degree murder is charged. Mr. Pruitt maintains that this approach is consistent with the intent of the comparative proportionality statute. He claims that the selection of this pool would assist the Court in ensuring regularity in prosecutorial decisions to charge defendants with death-eligible crimes and jurors' decisions to impose a death sentence. He contends that either of these modifications to the pool will result in meaningful comparative proportionality review that will serve as a safeguard against arbitrarily imposed death sentences based on systemic deficiencies.
The viability of the alternative pools of cases suggested by Mr. Pruitt, the amici, and the dissent was substantially addressed by this Court in
District attorneys general, under our form of government, are vested with wide discretionary authority in the prosecution of criminal cases. Our discussion in
A prosecutor must decide how to proceed in a first degree murder case based on a complex array of factors including, among other things, the strength of the State's case, the availability and credibility of witnesses, the resources of the prosecutor's office, and occasionally the wishes of the victim's family. The prosecutor's decision not to seek the death penalty does not necessarily reflect a determination that the case is lacking in circumstances similar to other cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. We continue to reject the arguments asserted here and therefore affirm our use of the pool adopted in
Finally, we briefly address the role of a defendant's culpable mental state in the
With our affirmation of the
In this case, Mr. Pruitt is an African-American male from Shelby County, Tennessee. He was twenty-five years old when he committed this offense. Mr. Pruitt made the decision to steal a car from someone he perceived to be a vulnerable victim. His attempt to elicit the participation of sixteen-year-old Courtney Johnson was unsuccessful. Mr. Pruitt stood in front of the Apple Market and watched for someone to exit the store. He found his opportunity in seventy-nine-year-old Mr. Guidroz, who was exiting the store and returning to his vehicle. Mr. Pruitt followed the elderly victim to the vehicle and pushed Mr. Guidroz into the vehicle. Mr. Guidroz apparently resisted giving Mr. Pruitt the keys to the vehicle. Mr. Pruitt and Mr. Guidroz "tussled" inside the front seat of the vehicle with Mr. Guidroz's feet dangling out of the door of the vehicle. Eventually, Mr. Pruitt successfully retrieved the keys from his elderly victim and threw Mr. Guidroz to the ground.
The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Mr. Pruitt struck repeated blows to Mr. Guidroz. The medical examiner noted three separate skull fractures caused by three separate blows. A number of ribs were also fractured. Mr. Guidroz's body revealed scratches across his torso. The witnesses at the scene saw blood coming from Mr. Guidroz's head and ears. Mr. Pruitt fled the scene without rendering aid to Mr. Guidroz. Mr. Guidroz died as a result of the injuries suffered during the incident.
Mr. Pruitt drove the car he had taken from Mr. Guidroz for several days and repeatedly attempted to obscure the car from police view. Mr. Pruitt offered acquaintances rides in the car and provided differing accounts of how he came into possession of the car. He admitted that he had planned to sell parts from the car. When the police converged at Mr. Johnson's home, Mr. Pruitt fled the scene to prevent his apprehension. Mr. Pruitt later learned that Mr. Guidroz was dead. He turned himself in to police the next day and expressed remorse.
Mr. Pruitt's testimony at trial was completely contrary to the other evidence presented in the case. He utilized an expert witness to cast doubt on the extent of the beating suffered by Mr. Guidroz and to suggest that Mr. Guidroz had pre-existing conditions that hastened his death. The jury accredited the State's evidence and found Mr. Pruitt guilty of second degree murder and first degree felony murder. The evidence during the sentencing phase revealed that Mr. Pruitt had borderline intellectual functioning with an I.Q. score below seventy. He had an extensive prior record, including three aggravated robberies in 1996, a robbery and an attempted robbery in 2003, and theft over $500. The jury found Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(2), (i)(7), and (i)(14) as aggravating circumstances and imposed the death penalty.
We now consider prior capital cases with similarities to Mr. Pruitt's case. We are mindful that comparative proportionality review is not a rigid, objective test.
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
These cases, though not identical, share a number of similarities with Mr. Pruitt's case. The victims in these cases were vulnerable due to age and were apparently selected due to their known vulnerability. A number of the defendants were close in age to Mr. Pruitt at the time of commission of the offense. A great disparity existed between the physical strength of the defendants and that of the victims. Most of the victims died as a result of having been beaten. Many of the defendants took no weapon to the scene but used an object found at the scene. One of the defendants used his fists. Most of the victims were left injured and bleeding and some died later in the hospital. None of the defendants rendered aid to the victim.
We are mindful of Mr. Pruitt's claim that the killing of Mr. Guidroz was unintentional. He suggests that because he did not intend to kill anyone while intending to steal a vehicle, the death penalty is disproportionate when compared to other cases. The jury heard Mr. Pruitt's testimony and rejected his version of the events. It found Mr. Pruitt guilty of both second degree murder, which required a "knowing" killing, and felony murder. As discussed, first degree felony murder requires no culpable mental state other than the intent to commit the underlying felony. The proof adduced at trial further negates Mr. Pruitt's suggestion that Mr. Guidroz died as a result of unintentional or accidental conduct. A witness saw the "tussle" between Mr. Guidroz and Mr. Pruitt inside the vehicle. The elderly Mr. Guidroz was "slammed" to the ground by Mr. Pruitt. The medical proof established that Mr. Guidroz's injuries included skull fractures resulting from three separate blows or impacts to his skull.
Some of the defendants in the similar cases went to the scene with the intent to commit a felony but arguably not an intent to kill. Some found a "weapon" on the scene or used human fists to accomplish the killing when the victim resisted or attempted to alert authorities.
No two cases are identical. A reviewing court can always draw factual distinctions when comparing cases, as the dissent does here.
The dissent suggests that the Court also could have compared Mr. Pruitt's case to
The dissent suggests that Mr. Godsey and Mr. Pruitt's cases are sufficiently similar to mandate the reduction of Mr. Pruitt's sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We agree with the dissent that no weapon was involved in either case and that the violent acts were of a brief duration. The noteworthy similarities, however, end there. Unlike Mr. Godsey, Mr. Pruitt did not commit an act that was "entirely unexpected" or made on a "spur of the moment" reaction. Mr. Godsey's actions were borne out of his frustration with the crying child and, although horrible and tragic, were not pre-planned. Mr. Pruitt, on the other hand, deliberately set out that day with a plan to steal a vehicle from a vulnerable victim. Mr. Pruitt's criminal history illustrates that he knew how to plan robberies and carry them out. Mr. Pruitt repeatedly engaged in violent conduct that carried inherent, calculated risks. The felony murder of Mr. Guidroz, as with all murders, was a terrible tragedy, but it was hardly an unforeseeable outcome of a violent offense such as robbery. Accordingly,
The dissent has not convinced us that the
As discussed above, comparative proportionality review in Tennessee, as with other states, is a statutory directive that appeared in our death penalty statute when capital punishment was reinstated in 1977. As death penalty cases under the new statute began to make their way through the appellate process, the pool of available cases for comparative proportionality review was understandably non-existent or very small. Contrary to the dissent's assertion, the comparisons made by this Court in those early years to cases in which the death penalty was not sought resulted from necessity rather than from an earlier, philosophically different approach to proportionality.
With
After a review of prior decisions and a comparison with similar cases, we are of the opinion that Mr. Pruitt's case, taken as a whole, is not plainly lacking in circumstances consistent with other cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. We therefore conclude that his sentence of death is not disproportionate.
We have reviewed all of the issues raised by Mr. Pruitt and conclude that they do not warrant relief. With respect to issues that were raised in this Court but not addressed in this opinion, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Relevant portions of that opinion are published hereafter as an appendix.
In accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles adopted in prior decisions, we have considered the entire record in this case and conclude that the sentence of death has not been imposed arbitrarily, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence supports the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the sentence is not excessive or disproportionate.
The sentence of death shall be carried out as provided by law on the 14th day of October, 2014, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or other proper authority. It appearing that the defendant, Corinio Pruitt, is indigent, the costs of this appeal are taxed to the State of Tennessee.
CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL, and JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JJ., joined.
Harry E. Sayle, III, and Tony N. Brayton, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Corinio Pruitt.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; James E. Gaylord, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, Amy P. Weirich, Alanda H. Dwyer, and John W. Campbell, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
The Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs from the victim's autopsy. First, he contends that the photographs are cumulative and of little probative value, given the admission of the medical examiner's diagrams and the expert medical testimony regarding the victim's injuries that "explain the nature and extent of [the] victims injuries without the prejudicial emotional impact of the photographs." Second, the Appellant contends that the photographs, specifically Exhibits 33 and 39, were unfairly prejudicial pursuant to Rule 403 because they depicted injuries from medical intervention and injuries that were worsened by the victim's fragility, due to his prior medical conditions including senile ecchymosis and coagulopathy.
In response, the State initially notes that many of the photographs it offered were not admitted or were cropped in order to make them admissible. Moreover, it asserts that the photographs that were admitted were relevant to the issues in this case. The State argues that the diagrams alone were insufficient to explain the cause of the victim's injuries and omitted some injuries. Moreover, the State asserts that the medical examiner's testimony would have been difficult for the jury to understand without the admission of the photographs, since the testimony was tied so closely with the photographs. The State also argues that the photographs admitted were necessary to show the extensiveness of the victim's injuries and to establish that the victim was beaten. Furthermore, despite their number, the State argues that the subject matter of the "photographs only scarcely overlap[ped]." Regarding the argument that certain photographs were unfairly prejudicial, the State responds that the admitted photographs were not gruesome, and the medical examiner specifically identified the stitches and bruises that were the result of medical intervention. As to the argument that the photographs were unfairly prejudicial because they showed injuries worsened by the victim's fragility, the State responds that criminal defendants must take their victims as they find them.
During a hearing outside the presence of the jury during the guilt phase of the Appellant's trial, the trial court evaluated the admissibility of specific photographs taken during the victim's autopsy. The Appellant objected on the grounds that the photographs were cumulative to other proof and that their probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. The trial court overruled the Appellant's objections to the cumulative nature of the photographs, finding that the court had already "rejected two pictures . . . that were closeups that we're not going to put in, but each one of these [photographs] has a different part of the body that was not shown in the others, so I'm going to overrule your objection." The trial court further found that "the probative value is not outweighed by unfair prejudice." The defense objected to the following photographs at trial, and their admission is contested on appeal:
The aforementioned twenty-four color photographs were admitted into evidence, and Dr. Chancellor described the injuries depicted in each photograph. She stated that she was unable to provide the order in which the injuries were inflicted. However, she opined that the injuries were the result of blunt force and were sustained very close in time.
The trial court has discretion regarding the admissibility of photographs, and a ruling on this issue "will not be overturned on appeal except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion."
There is nothing gruesome, graphic, or horrifying about these pictures.
Exhibits 32 through 55 depict the numerous injuries sustained by the victim. Dr. Chancellor appropriately described the injuries and specified the injuries resulting from surgical or medical intervention. The photographs admitted by the trial court were relevant to supplement the testimony of the medical examiner.
The Appellant contends that the (i)(7) aggravating circumstance is unconstitutional pursuant to
In response, the State argues that the Appellant's argument regarding the constitutionality of the (i)(7) aggravating circumstance was recognized by the Tennessee Supreme Court's ruling in
In 1992, the Tennessee Supreme Court in
We conclude, pursuant to established precedent on this issue, that the (i)(7) aggravating circumstance sufficiently narrows the pool of death-eligible defendants.
