State of Tennessee v. Hubert Glenn Sexton

A Scott County jury found the Appellant Hubert Glenn Sexton guilty of two counts of first degree murder arising from the deaths of Stanley and Terry Goodman. Following penalty phase, the jury found the presence of one statutory aggravating circumstance, that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another, and that this aggravator outweighed any mitigating factors. See T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(6). The jury imposed sentences of death. Appellant Sexton seeks review by this court of both his convictions for first degree murder and his sentences of death. He raises the following issues for our review: (I.) Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for change of venue; (II.) Whether the trial court erred in failing to properly admonish the jury before and during trial; (III.) Whether the trial court erred in failing to adequately voir dire the jury regarding extrajudicial information; (IV.) Whether the trial court erred in failing to excuse certain jurors for cause; (V.) Whether the trial court erred in admitting allegations of child sexual abuse; (VI.) Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the Appellant’s
willingness and later refusal to take a polygraph examination; (VII.) Whether the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the Appellant’s wife; (VIII.) Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that was similar to the murder weapon; (IX.) Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an unrelated speeding arrest; (X.) Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Appellant alleges was unlawfully obtained from his vehicle; (XI.) Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence relating to the preparation of Appellant’s IRS tax forms; (XII.) Whether individual and cumulative instances of prosecutorial misconduct
denied him a fair trial; (XIII.) Whether the convicting evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (XIV.) Whether the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; (XV.) Whether Tennessee’s death penalty scheme is constitutional; and (XVI.) Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial based on cumulative error. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.