State of Tennessee v. Courtney B. Mathews

In 1996, a Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Courtney B. Mathews, of four counts of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The Defendant received consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each felony murder conviction and twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. The Defendant sought post-conviction relief, and this court subsequently held that he was entitled to post-conviction relief with respect to the motion for a new trial. On remand, the Defendant filed an amended motion for a new trial, and following a hearing, the trial court reduced his sentence for especially aggravated robbery to twenty years but otherwise denied his motion. On appeal, the Defendant raises challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the validity of the indictment, and the State’s failure to elect an offense; the admission into evidence of a black denim jacket; the State’s failure to correct false testimony; the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial based on an impermissible outside influence on the jury; the trial court’s refusal to allow additional closing arguments after it gave a supplemental jury instruction on criminal responsibility during jury deliberations; the trial court’s failure to issue an enhanced identification jury instruction; the trial court’s jury instruction on the reliability of fingerprint evidence; the State’s reliance on the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance during his trial while asserting that the aggravating circumstance could not be supported during the co-defendant’s subsequent trial; and the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself from the trial and post-trial proceedings. The Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to a new trial. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.