In a 4-1 decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court has reversed a Court of Criminal Appeals opinion and ordered a new sentencing hearing for Richard Odom, convicted of the 1991 rape and murder of a Memphis woman, Mina Ethyl Johnson.
The majority opinion, written by Justice E. Riley Anderson, said the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to rely on a 1998 amendment to a state law to bolster its argument that Odom should be sentenced to death. At the time of Odom’s offense, prosecutors would not have been allowed to present details of his previous violent crimes, but the 1998 amendment abolished the prohibition.
Chief Justice Frank F. Drowota, III, and Justices Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., and Janice M. Holder concurred in the majority opinion, with Justice William M. Barker dissenting. The decision and dissent, filed Friday, resulted from an automatic appeal of Odom’s death sentence. He was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1992. In 1996, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing and jurors again imposed the death penalty.
During the second hearing the Shelby County trial judge allowed prosecutors to introduce “improper evidence,” Anderson wrote for the majority. The error by the trial court “led directly to the prosecution’s introduction of detailed and graphic evidence of prior violent felonies committed by the defendant.”
“The law as it existed at the time of the offense prohibited such evidence,” Anderson wrote. “Moreover, the prosecution heavily relied upon the inadmissible evidence underlying the defendant’s prior felonies in arguing that the jury should impose the death penalty for the defendant’s offense in this case.”
The error affected the verdict, the majority concluded. A new sentencing hearing must be “conducted in accordance with the law as it existed at the time of the offense.”
In his dissent, Barker said the 1998 change was procedural and therefore could be applied retroactively. Barker cited five situations spelled out in a 1979 state Supreme Court case, Miller v. State, in which the retroactive application of a law is unconstitutional. He said none of the five situations were applicable to Odom’s case.
“In short, I disagree with the majority opinion to the extent that it suggests that the 1998 amendment affects any substantive right of the defendant,” Barker wrote.
Barker said he would uphold Odom's death sentence.