aggravating and mitigating factors in Tennessee

2010In comparing this case to other cases in which the defendants were convicted of the same or similar crimes, this court looks “at the facts and circumstances of the crime, the characteristics of the defendant, and the aggravating and mitigating factors involved.” Id. at 164 .

2007In comparing this case to other cases in which the defendants were convicted of the same or similar crimes, this court looks “at the facts and circumstances of the crime, the characteristics of the defendant, and the aggravating and mitigating factors involved.” Id. at 164 .

2005Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 782 ; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 664 .

2004Godsey, 60 S.W.3d at 782 ; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 664 .

2004Hall, 8 S.W.3d at 604 ; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 667 .

2004Hall, 8 S.W.3d at 604 ; Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 667 .

2018As we have observed, the aggravating and mitigating factors included in the ABA Standards are "illustrative rather than exclusive," Cowan , 388 S.W.3d at 268 , and "the purpose of the ABA Standards is to 'promote ... consideration of all factors relevant to imposing the appropriate level of sanction in an individual case,' " Lockett , 380 S.W.3d at 28 .

2018As we have observed, the aggravating and mitigating factors included in the ABA Standards are "illustrative rather than exclusive," Cowan , 388 S.W.3d at 268 , and "the purpose of the ABA Standards is to 'promote ... consideration of all factors relevant to imposing the appropriate level of sanction in an individual case,' " Lockett , 380 S.W.3d at 28 .

2011Regarding the nature of the crime, numerous factors are considered, including: “(1) the means of death; (2) the manner of death; (3) the motivation for the killing; (4) the place of death; (5) the victim’s age, physical condition, and psychological condition; (6) the absence or presence of premeditation; (7) the -49- absence or presence of provocation; (8) the absence or presence of justification; and (9) the injury to and effect on non-decedent victims.” State v. Reid, 213 S.W.3d 792, 820 (Tenn. 2006) (quoting Davis, 141 S.W.3d at 620 ).

2008As explained in Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 462 , “[c]onduct that is unreasonable under the facts of one case may be perfectly reasonable under the facts of another.” The petitioner alleges that trial counsel were ineffective in not discussing with him the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, properly investigating his prior criminal history, or filing an appeal from his conviction.

1998Through utilizing a “precedent-seeking approach [which] compares the case before [the court] to other cases in which the defendant[ ] [was] convicted of the same or similar crimes by examining the facts of the crimes, the characteristics of the defendants and the aggravating and mitigating factors involved,” Bland, --- S.W.2d at ---, slip op. at 21, our aim is to “eliminate the possibility that a person will be sentenced to death by the action of an aberrant jury and to guard against the capricious or random imposition of the death penalty.” Id., slip op. at 22.

1998The pool of cases to be considered consists of first-degree murder cases in which the jury considered the death penalty. 12 Id., slip op. at 24-25.

1993This argument was addressed and rejected in State v. Boyd, supra, where we found that “[t]here is no likelihood that this statutory language imposes a “presumption of death.” ” Boyd, 797 S.W.2d at 596 .

1993This argument was addressed and rejected in State v. Boyd, supra, where we found that “[t]here is no likelihood that this statutory language imposes a “presumption of death.” ” Boyd, 797 S.W.2d at 596 .