myriad factors in Tennessee

2011We have construed the statute to permit the sentencing jury “to consider ‘a myriad of factors’ relevant to ... establishing and assigning weight to aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” 10 Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 156-57; Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d at 890 (“[0]nce a capital sentencing jury finds that a defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, the jury is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment to the offense and the individual defendant.”); State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 731 (Tenn.1994)

2000Cf. State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 731 (Tenn.1994) ("Once a capital sentencing jury finds that a defendant falls within the legislatively-defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, the jury ís free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the punishment appropriate to the offense and the individual defendant.”) (citing California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1005 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983); Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939, 948 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 878 , 103 S.Ct. 2733 , 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (198

2011The Court concluded that " ‘[ojnce the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, ... the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment.’ ” Id. at 950 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 (quoting California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1008 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)); cf. id. at 967, 103 S.Ct. 3418 (Stevens, J., concurring) ("[Tjhe Constitution does not prohibit consideration at the sentencing phase of information not directly related to either statutory aggravatin

2011The Court concluded that " ‘[ojnce the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, ... the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment.’ ” Id. at 950 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 (quoting California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1008 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)); cf. id. at 967, 103 S.Ct. 3418 (Stevens, J., concurring) ("[Tjhe Constitution does not prohibit consideration at the sentencing phase of information not directly related to either statutory aggravatin

2011We have construed the statute to permit the sentencing jury “to consider ‘a myriad of factors’ relevant to ... establishing and assigning weight to aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” 10 Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 156-57; Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d at 890 (“[0]nce a capital sentencing jury finds that a defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, the jury is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment to the offense and the individual defendant.”); State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 731 (Tenn.1994)

2011The Court concluded that " ‘[ojnce the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, ... the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment.’ ” Id. at 950 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 (quoting California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1008 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)); cf. id. at 967, 103 S.Ct. 3418 (Stevens, J., concurring) ("[Tjhe Constitution does not prohibit consideration at the sentencing phase of information not directly related to either statutory aggravatin

2011Furthermore, the Teny decision established that the "myriad of factors” that may be considered by the jury are guided by statute, which allows evidence of "the nature and circumstances of the crime; the defendant's character, background history, and physical evidence; any evidence tending to establish or rebut the aggravating circumstances; and any evidence tending to establish or rebut any mitigating factors.” 46 S.W.3d at 156-57 (internal quotations omitted).