Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Robert
L. LEACH Jr.
Robert Leach
On July 8, 1999,
Robert Leach murdered Jean Poteet and murdered and raped Sarah
McBride in Sarah's home in Nashville on Haywood Lane.
Sarah McBride was a
sixty-nine-year-old widow who had been outside working in her yard when
Leach happened upon her. Leach asked Sarah if he could use her telephone
to call his sister to pick him up because his car was broken down. Sarah
agreed.
Leach told Sarah that
his telephone call to his sister was successful and that she would be
picking him up. Leach later admitted that he had in fact attempted to
call his sister in Texas, but was unsuccessful. He also admitted that he
did not own a car.
At approximately 7:30
a.m., Sarah's sister Louise called and spoke with Sarah as part of their
normal morning routine. Sarah told her sister that a man was in the
kitchen drinking coffee as he waited for his sister to pick him up.
Louise testified that
she urged her sister to have the man wait for his ride outside and that
Sarah responded, "OK, I'll call you later." Sarah never returned the
call. Louise testified that she went shopping at Wal-Mart and then
began calling her sister. She called her in fifteen to twenty minute
intervals, but no one answered.
At approximately 1:30
or 2:00 p.m., Louise became very worried and drove to her sister's house.
When she arrived, the garage door was up, and Sarah's pickup truck was
gone. She noticed that the back door was open. She entered Sarah's home
and noticed her cousin Jean Poteet's wig on the floor, a pair of
scissors on the floor, and a stream of blood.
Louise explained that
although her cousin Jean had her own apartment, she had essentially been
living with Sarah for a couple of months. After seeing the "stream of
blood," Louise walked through her sister's home. She found Jean lying
face down in the hallway. She checked to see if Jean was breathing, but
she was cold. She found her sister, Sarah McBride, on her bed. She was
not breathing. She called 9-1-1 from her sister's kitchen.
As soon as the
paramedics arrived, Louise was escorted out of her sister's home.
William Harris, Jean Poteet's cousin and legal guardian, testified that
he went to the scene immediately after learning that his cousin had been
murdered.
Mr. Harris testified
that his cousin Jean had a diminished mental capacity due to a blood
clot at the time of her birth. He testified that she was somewhat
retarded, and her right hand and leg were partially paralyzed. He
explained that because of her problems, financial and legal matters were
too much for her to handle; therefore, he had been appointed as her
guardian.
Mr. Harris explained,
however, that Jean had a fairly normal life. Other than the
aforementioned problems, she had no physical infirmities. He explained
that Jean enjoyed shopping and going out to eat, but because she could
not drive, she relied on others, including Sarah, for transportation.
He testified that Jean
enjoyed helping Sarah with her house and dog. He said that they spent a
lot of time together because neither would have to be alone. Jean was
seventy years old at the time of her death.
Detective Jim Reed
arrived at the McBride residence at approximately 2:30 p.m. in response
to the 9-1-1 call. Upon his arrival, two firemen advised him that two
deceased elderly women were inside the house. He entered the home where
he saw one woman face down on the floor and a second woman on a bed,
partially clothed. He ordered everyone out of the house.
After interviewing
Louise, he sent out a bulletin for officers to be on the look out for
the missing pickup truck. Evidence was collected from the scene
including a pair of black jeans, pieces of linoleum, scissors, a pair of
blue jeans, and a piece of the marble floor.
A few weeks later, a
plumber was called to Sarah's residence to fix a clogged sewer line. The
plumber recovered a pair of men's underwear in the line from the toilet
to the sewer line, which was turned over to the police.
Dr. Bruce Levy
testified that he performed rape kits on both victims and took
photographs of their bodies. Autopsies were performed on the victims the
following day. Dr. Levy testified that Jean Poteet died as a result of
strangulation with a ligature.
Dr. Levy surmised that
Jean was first attacked in the kitchen and dragged to the bedroom area
where she was found. He testified that Jean's blouse was pulled up
around her neck and tied in a knot. Further, the autopsy indicated that
someone sat on her abdomen as the ligature was being applied.
Dr. Levy testified that
the tip of Jean's tongue was bitten and protruding from her mouth, which
indicated that she was dragged by her blouse while it was tied around
her neck. According to Dr. Levy, Jean was still alive while she was
being dragged. Jean also had numerous blunt force injuries to her face
and suffered from brain hemorrhages due to blows to the head. Jean had a
defensive wound on the back of her left forearm, bruises on her abdomen,
and two pairs of scissor stab wounds on the left side of her chest and
abdomen.
When Jean was found,
her upper torso was exposed, but the clothing on her lower body was
intact. It was his opinion that Jean was probably not sexually assaulted
but that because her upper torso was exposed, he could not completely
rule out some sort of sexual assault.
Dr. Levy testified that
the cause of death of Sarah McBride was strangulation with a ligature.
The ligature on Sarah's body was a belt that was wrapped around the neck
twice. Unlike Jean, Sarah was not dragged by the ligature around her
neck.
In addition to the
injuries caused by the ligature, Sarah had a laceration over her left
eye, blunt force injuries to her head, a broken nose, a fracture at the
base of her skull, a fracture to her breastbone, and three fractured
ribs. Sarah had two sets of double puncture wounds on her back, which
were consistent with being stabbed with scissors. Sarah also had
bruising around her left eye, left cheek, nose, and mouth and defensive
wounds on the left forearm.
Sarah was found at the
scene lying on her back on a bed, partially clothed. Dr. Levy explained
that Sarah was completely unclothed from the waist down and the clothes
on her body had been pulled up to her upper chest and neck area. When
Sarah was found, her legs were open and up over her body, with her legs
flexed at the hips and bent at the knees.
As the result of
testing, it was determined that Sarah was raped. Dr. Levy testified that
it was his opinion that she was alive when the sexual assault began, but
died at some point during the assault. He also said that both Sarah and
Jean had irreversible brain damage approximately four minutes after the
ligature was applied.
Detective Mike Roland
was the lead investigator on the case. He testified that Leach became a
suspect in the murders when he was contacted by detective Marsha Brown
of the sex crimes unit. Detective Brown was investigating an incident
that occurred a few hours before the murders at an Econo Lodge within
one mile of Sarah's residence. Detective Brown gave Detective Roland
Leach's name.
Detective Roland
learned through the investigation of the sex crime at the Econo Lodge
that Leach had been living there. Evidence collected from the Econo
Lodge was consistent with evidence collected from the McBride residence,
and Leach's fingerprints were identified from evidence at the McBride
residence.
Detective Roland talked
with Leach's sister, Cathy, who lived in Missouri, on July 12, 1999.
Detective Roland advised Leach's sister that he was a suspect in a
double murder case in Nashville. She had not heard from her brother, but
she agreed to cooperate.
Leach called Detective
Roland on July 13, 1999. He told Detective Roland that he knew nothing
about the murders. He blamed his entire situation on the State of Texas
and its penal institution. He told Detective Roland that he had been
imprisoned in Texas and that when he was released he wanted to blow up
schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. He said that he had turned his
life around for a while but that when Texas wanted to revoke his parole,
he wanted to "go down there and blow up a whole city block."
When Detective Roland
asked him what happened in Nashville on Haywood Lane, he replied, "I
just-I snapped. I don't know. And I've snapped-I feel like snapping now."
Leach told Detective Roland that he knew he was prison bound and he
wanted to go to a psychiatric hospital because he could not deal with
reality. He stated he wanted just to travel and kill.
Detective Roland called
Leach's sister after he spoke with him, and she gave him the telephone
number for her brother. The police were then able to determine Leach's
location, and Detective Roland called the Missouri State Highway Patrol
and described the pickup truck taken from the McBride residence.
Sergeant Larry Wayne
Plunkett, Jr. testified that he was an officer with the Missouri State
Highway Patrol. He located the truck at the Friendly Tavern in
Greenville, Missouri. He and Deputy Larry Bruce with the Wayne County
Sheriff's Department in Greenville, Missouri entered the tavern and
located the owner, who identified Leach as the person driving the pickup
truck. Leach was on stage playing a guitar at the time. Sergeant
Plunkett arrested him.
Leach denied driving
the truck and insisted that he had walked to the tavern. The pickup
truck was secured and Leach was transported to the local jail. Leach
later admitted to Deputy Bruce that he was driving the truck. He said
that he was sorry he did it but that he just snapped.
He also told Deputy
Bruce that he had been trying to get help for three years. While Deputy
Bruce was at the tavern securing the pickup truck, a couple stopped and
asked why he was at Leach's truck. After a discussion with the couple,
Deputy Bruce went to their residence and recovered clothing supposedly
belonging to Leach and lawn equipment that Leach had given the couple
from the back of the truck.
Detectives Roland and
Vogel traveled from Nashville to Missouri to talk to Leach. Leach
explained that he had been in Nashville pursuing a music career. He
advised the detectives that he was gifted with music and had won Star
Search in 1997. He said he obtained employment at a Denny's restaurant
to pay the bills.
After staying at a
couple of other hotels, he took up residence at the Econo Lodge. He met
an employee of the Econo Lodge named Dorianne during his stay. He said
they flirted with each other. He told Detective Roland that on the last
night he spent in Nashville, he had been to a bar and had several beers.
He admitted that he was
"pretty tipsy." He remembered seeing Dorianne outside her room and her
inviting him in. Later, a black man entered the room and confronted him
about why he was with his girlfriend. Leach also said the man demanded
his money. He said that Dorianne began screaming and that he became
worried about going to jail.
He was very afraid, so
he hit the man and ran out of the hotel. He said he blacked out and woke
up in a pickup truck in Illinois. He said his knuckles were swollen as
if he had hit someone. He said he had on men's clothing that was not his.
He also saw jewelry boxes and costume jewelry in the truck. He denied
that he had stolen a purse.
He insisted that he did
not know what had happened but stated, "If I deserve it, I deserve it."
According to Leach's statement, he went to visit his family in Missouri.
He met a girl on the first night he was in Missouri, spent the night
with her, and gave her some of the jewelry. He also gave lawn equipment
to his aunt. When he talked with his sister, she told him he was about
to be on "America's Most Wanted."
He told Detective
Roland that he had a metal plate in his head from a car accident and
claimed that he had memory loss and blacked out as a result. He told
Detective Roland that he could only kill in self-defense. He continued
to claim that if he had done something, he had just snapped.
The day after Leach's
statement, Detective Roland transported him to Nashville. During the
trip, Leach pointed to a road and said that was where he went the wrong
way, going to Illinois instead of Missouri. He then said he had thrown
the purse out down the road.
A friend of Leach's
named Harold testified that he had known Leach for over fifteen years
but had not seen him for six years. He stated that Leach showed up at
his residence in Coldwater, Missouri on July 8, 1999, driving a pickup
truck. Leach stayed with him, his wife, and his sister-in-law, Becky,
for two nights. They went to the Friendly Tavern where they drank beer
and danced. He noticed nothing unusual about Leach's behavior.
Becky testified that
Leach drove her home in the pickup truck after their evening at the
Friendly Tavern. Leach told her he did not have a driver's license;
therefore, he only drove the back roads. She further testified she spent
the night with Leach at the Winberry residence the first evening he was
in town.
The next day, Leach
presented her with jewelry, which he said belonged to his ex-girlfriend.
She testified that she took some earrings, but turned them over to the
police after Leach's arrest. According to Becky, Leach appeared to be
acting normal while he was with her. Leach's aunt Jane also testified at
trial.
She testified that
Leach came to her home on July 11, 1999. She stated that she had not
seen him since his father's funeral, about six years before. She said
that he was driving a Dodge pickup truck with Tennessee tags. He stayed
in a trailer outside her home for two nights. While he was there, he
asked her to wash his clothes, but she refused because they had dog hair
all over them. She later gave the clothes to the police.
She testified that he
acted normal while he stayed at her home. A jail inmate who met Leach in
the Davidson County jail while they were housed in the same pod
testified that Leach told him he wanted to get sent to a psychiatric
hospital and asked how to establish the insanity defense in Tennessee.
According to the inmate,
Leach believed it was easier to escape from a psychiatric hospital, and
he wanted to go to Canada because Canada would not extradite him if he
was facing the death penalty. Leach also confided to the inmate that he
knew a psychologist in Texas who would testify that he had been
incompetent for a long time.
Leach told him the
details of the murders as follows: Leach went to a house in Antioch
where some women, whom he had previously seen in Denny's, lived. He told
one of the women that his car was broken down and he needed to call a
ride. Leach said one of the women recognized him as an employee of
Denny's and invited him to have some coffee. While he was inside, one of
the women received a call, he thought from a daughter, who told her to
get the man out of her house.
Leach told him that he
put a "chokehold" on both women, got them on the floor, and beat their
heads. Leach said he raped one of the women and fondled the other. Leach
went through the house and took some rings, necklaces, lawn care
equipment, and a pickup truck. Leach said that there was blood all over
the house. Leach said he had always had a secret fantasy of committing
multiple rapes and murders.
The jury found Leach
guilty of premeditated first degree murder as to Jean Poteet and Sarah
McBride. The jury also found him guilty of felony murder as to both
victims. Further, the jury found him guilty of especially aggravated
robbery and aggravated rape. The felony murder convictions were merged
into the premeditated murder convictions.
At the penalty phase of
the trial, the State presented the testimony of Sarah's older sister
Louise. She testified that her sister was sixty-nine years old at the
time of her death. She said that Sarah was her best friend and that they
talked every day before she was killed.
She said she had talked
to her sister the morning of her murder and regretted not going to her
home sooner. She thought she might have been able to save them. She
testified that she had "gone to pieces" since her sister's death and had
lost a lot of weight because she no longer eats. Sarah's stepson
testified and said that he and Sarah were very close.
He explained that his
parents had divorced when he was young, and his father and stepmother
had been married for twenty-seven years at the time of his father's
death. He told the jury that she loved to garden and had been employed
for thirty years before retiring. After his father died, she kept his
pickup truck and could never sell it. She had grieved over her husband's
death for a few years and had really started to enjoy life again. He
testified that his stepmother's death had been very hard on him and his
children.
William Harris
testified that he was Jean Poteet's cousin and legal guardian. He again
explained to the jury that she had a diminished mental capacity.
Although she was never able to work outside of the home, she was able to
take care of her mother and aunt until they passed away.
He testified that she
enjoyed going out to eat and traveling. Jean had started renting an
apartment on her own in 1997 after her aunt's death. Mr. Harris
testified that she had been burdened with responsibilities of taking
care of people her entire life. He explained that she had just started
to enjoy some freedom. She had been able to travel some with his family
and was looking forward to more travel. He testified that her death had
greatly affected his life.
The jury sentenced
Leach to death for the murders of Jean Poteet and Sarah McBride.
As to victim Jean
Poteet, the jury found four aggravating circumstances: Leach had
previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies; the murder
was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture
or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; the
murder was knowingly committed by Leach while he was committing or
attempting to commit robbery or aggravated rape; and the victim was
seventy years of age or older or was particularly vulnerable due to a
significant handicap or significant disability, physical or mental.
As to victim Sarah
McBride, the jury found three aggravating circumstances: Leach had
previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies; the murder
was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture
or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; and
the murder was knowingly committed by Leach while committing or
attempting to commit robbery or aggravated rape.
The trial court
subsequently sentenced Leach to consecutive sentences of twenty-five
years for the especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape
convictions, which were ordered to be served consecutively to the death
sentences.
The State’s proof at
trial showed that Leach arrived by bus in Nashville in June 1999. Leach
had left Missouri to pursue a career in music and to avoid revocation of
his parole on a Texas burglary conviction. By early July 1999, he was
working as a server at a Denny’s restaurant in south Nashville and
living at a nearby Econo Lodge hotel.
Around 3:00 a.m. on
July 8, 1999, Leach forced his way into the room of Dorianne Brown, an
Econo Lodge employee who lived at the hotel, and started to choke her.
When someone knocked on the door, Leach pulled out a knife and told
Brown not to say anything. After the person at the door left, the
telephone rang and distracted Leach. Brown ran out of the room to the
hotel office and asked for the police to be called. When the police
arrived, Leach was gone.
Around 7:00 a.m.
that same morning, Louise Howard telephoned her sister, Sarah McBride, a
sixty-nine-year-old widow who lived about a mile from the Econo Lodge.
McBride’s cousin, seventy-year-old Jean Poteet, was staying with
McBride. As a result of a stroke suffered at birth, Poteet had
diminished mental capabilities and her right hand and right leg were
partially paralyzed. Poteet wore a leg brace from her knee to her
ankle. McBride indicated on the telephone that there was a man in her
kitchen drinking coffee while he waited for his sister to pick him up.
Howard told McBride, “Sarah, get that man out of the house, and put him
on the patio.” McBride responded, “Okay. I’ll call you later.” Howard
left to go shopping. When Howard returned, she was unable to reach
McBride by telephone and went to McBride’s house around 1:00 p.m. The
garage door was up, and McBride’s 1982 Dodge truck was missing. The
back door to the house was open. Howard went inside and discovered the
bodies of Poteet and McBride.
Poteet’s wig and a
pair of scissors were on the kitchen floor next to the table. A trail
of blood led from the kitchen to the doorway of the master bedroom where
Poteet was lying face down with her blouse pulled up and knotted around
her throat. A pair of black jeans was next to Poteet’s head. McBride
was lying on her back on the bed. She was naked from the waist down,
and her legs were open and bent up over her body. A belt was tightened
around her neck. Both women had been stabbed and showed signs of blunt
trauma to the head.
Dr. Bruce Levy, the
Davidson County Medical Examiner, was called to the scene by the police
and performed autopsies on the victims the following day. Dr. Levy
determined that both women died as a result of ligature strangulation.
Dr. Levy opined that the ligature had been placed around Poteet’s neck
in the kitchen and that she had been dragged to the bedroom while she
was still alive. Congestion in her upper chest and face indicated that
someone was sitting on her lower chest or abdomen when tying the
ligature around her neck. Poteet had defensive wounds and also had
suffered blunt force injuries to her face. She had been hit at least
twice with enough force to cause bleeding to her brain. Like Poteet,
McBride had suffered defensive wounds and had two sets of paired
puncture wounds consistent with her being stabbed with scissors.
McBride also had suffered multiple blunt force injuries to her head,
including a laceration over her left eyebrow. Her nose, the bone
between her eyes and brain, her breast bone, and three of her ribs had
been broken. She suffered a laceration to her vaginal wall. Dr. Levy
determined that McBride had been sexually assaulted and had died during
the attack. Bruising on her ankles indicated that her legs were held
during the rape.
The police
investigation showed that someone had rummaged through the house. Chest
drawers were pulled out, closet doors were open, a mattress had been
moved, and jewelry boxes lay open. Bloody footprints were on the floor
in the entrance hall and living room. A pair of socks was found in the
sink in the bathroom off the master bedroom. A pair of men’s underwear
was later retrieved from the sewer line running from the toilet.
McBride’s purse and jewelry were missing as was the Dodge truck.
Forensic testing
showed that Leach’s left palm print was on a wall in McBride’s house and
that Leach’s fingerprints were on a coffee mug on the kitchen table.
After Leach’s arrest, it was determined that bloody footprints from the
floor in McBride’s house matched Leach’s tennis shoes and that sperm on
the vaginal swab from McBride matched Leach’s DNA.
Around 8:00 p.m. on
July 8, Leach appeared in the area of Greenville, Missouri, driving
McBride’s truck. Leach went to the home of a friend, Harold Winberry,
and announced that he had just come from Nashville. Leach, Winberry,
Winberry’s wife, and her sister, Becky Allen, went to the Friendly
Tavern in Greenville, where they drank, danced and socialized until 2:00
a.m. Leach and Allen slept together that night and the next. Leach
gave Allen a pair of McBride’s earrings. Leach also stayed at the home
of his aunt, to whom he offered McBride’s leaf blower. During this
time, Leach behaved normally, visited with other people, played his
guitar and sang, and showed off the Dodge truck, claiming it was his own
vehicle.
After Leach’s
identification had been confirmed by fingerprint evidence, Detective
Mike Roland of the Nashville Police Department contacted Leach’s sister,
Cathy Watson, who lived in Missouri. Watson in turn contacted Leach,
who called Detective Roland on July 13. During the telephone call,
Leach blamed all his problems on the Texas prison and parole system and
threatened to go to Texas and “blow up a whole city block.” Detective
Roland had the call traced to a pay telephone in Wayne County, Missouri,
where law enforcement officers were put on the alert for McBride’s
truck. Shortly thereafter, the truck was located outside the Friendly
Tavern. Leach was inside playing guitar on the stage. After he was
arrested, Leach said that he “was sorry he did it, but something just
snapped.” He claimed that he had been trying to get help for the past
three years.
Detective Roland
interviewed Leach in Missouri. Leach denied knowing anything about
McBride and Poteet, but he talked to Roland about the incident with
Brown at the Econo Lodge. Leach claimed that he had been drinking
heavily that night and said that he had been talking to Brown in her
room when a man came to the door and tried to rob him. Leach struck the
man. When Brown screamed and ran out of the room, Leach also fled.
Leach had no memory of what happened after he left the motel until he
“came to” driving the Dodge truck in Illinois and wearing someone else’s
clothes. Leach said that at most he had stolen the truck and asserted
that he would never hurt anyone except in self-defense. Nonetheless,
during the interview, Leach remarked, “If I deserve it, I deserve it.”
He also told Roland that he had suffered headaches, black-outs, and
memory loss ever since a metal plate had been put in his head after an
automobile accident. During the trip back to Nashville, Leach pointed
to the road where he had thrown away McBride’s purse.
Joseph Walker, a
convicted felon, met Leach while they were housed together in the
Davidson County Jail in late December 1999. Walker testified that Leach
asked Walker about the insanity defense. Leach stated that he was
trying to go to a psychiatric facility because it would be easier to
escape and flee to Canada, which would not extradite him if he was
facing a death penalty. According to Walker, Leach related the
following details of the murders. Leach told the women that his car was
broken down and that he needed to call for a ride. One of the women
recognized him from Denny’s and offered him a cup of coffee. She
received a telephone call instructing her to get him out of the house.
He put a choke hold on one or both of the women, got them down on the
floor, and beat their heads. He raped one woman and fondled the other.
He went through the house, took some jewelry, went to the garage, took
some lawn care equipment, and then left in a truck. Leach told Walker
that there was blood all over the house. Leach also said that he had
always had a secret fantasy of committing multiple rapes and homicides.
The only witness for
the defense was Leach. He testified at length about his life before the
murders. His parents separated when he was an infant. Leach rarely saw
his father whom he described as a “cattle rustler.” His father
sometimes took Leach with him to commit burglaries. Leach said that his
mother had a drinking problem and “hung out at the tavern.” Leach
related a history of sexual abuse by several people, including his
babysitter, a neighbor, a stranger, and a stepbrother. Until Leach was
fourteen, he had a bowel problem and would defecate in his pants almost
every day. His mother would punish him by rubbing his nose in his
feces; other children would tease him.
Leach admitted that
when he was a child he set fires and was generally disruptive. He was
placed in state custody at ten or eleven and was eventually transferred
to a state hospital school at twelve. He quit school after the eighth
grade. At fourteen he burglarized the same gas station four nights in a
row and was sent to reform school for two years. After his release, he
stayed with his father for only a month, traveled with a carnival for
three months, and then moved back with his mother and grandmother. He
returned to reform school for a year and was again released. When he
set fire to a laundromat, he was placed in a mental hospital for
evaluation and received a year in jail. When he was released, he broke
into a house and set fire to it. Leach testified that he never burned
anything after that incident.
In his late teens,
Leach went to Texas, then to New Orleans, and back to Missouri to his
mother. He became a Christian and worked at a Christian camp for a year
and one-half. Leach testified that he left the camp at nineteen after
he “fell away from God.” After moving back to Missouri, he committed a
robbery and served two years in prison before being paroled. He went to
Texas, where he was convicted of burglary and sentenced to seven years
on probation. He violated probation and was sent to a Texas prison,
where he was gang raped.
Leach was on parole
from 1988 until 1992. During that time, he bought a house and worked in
the heating and air conditioning business. In 1993, he was in an
automobile accident and had a metal plate put in his head. He violated
parole and returned to prison for three and one-half years. While
incarcerated, Leach was transferred from prison to prison. He described
the Texas prisons as violent places full of beatings, killings, and
rapes.
In February 1997, he
was again released on parole and lived with his sister in Missouri until
he felt that he was about to “snap” and went to live alone in the
woods. Leach claimed to have won Star Search in 1997 and then to have
gone to Branson, Missouri, where he was doing well until December 1998,
when he was arrested for assault and resisting arrest. He was
threatened with revocation of parole unless he participated in alcohol
treatment. Although he successfully graduated from treatment, he
continued to have trouble with his parole officer, and a parole
violation warrant was issued against him. Frightened of returning to
prison in Texas, Leach hid in the woods and took a bus to Nashville in
June 1999.
Leach gave the
following testimony concerning the events of July 8, 1999. Prior to
that time, he had been suffering from headaches and depression until he
felt “just like exploding.” He said that he had gone out to drink after
work, became intoxicated, and returned to the motel, where he saw
Brown. He knocked on her door and went into her room, where they talked
for several minutes. As he turned around to leave, “something
controlled” him, and the next thing he knew he was on top of her. Brown
pleaded with him not to hurt her, and he promised that he would not. A
man knocked on the door. Afraid that the man would hurt him, Leach
pulled out his pocket knife. The man left, but then the telephone
rang. When Leach dove at Brown as she moved toward the telephone, Brown
ran out the door. Leach fled until he came to an apartment complex,
where he spent the rest of the night sleeping in the shrubbery.
When Leach awoke, he
was angry and stressed. He went to a pay telephone at a convenience
store to call his sister but left when a police officer arrived. As he
walked along, he saw McBride watering flowers in her yard. Leach told
McBride that his car had broken down and asked to use her telephone to
call his sister. When his sister did not answer, Leach wanted to “buy
time” and made up a story that his sister was on her way to get him.
Leach drank some coffee while sitting with McBride on the front porch.
When the telephone rang, McBride told Leach to go into the kitchen and
get himself another cup of coffee while she answered the call. Leach
saw Poteet sitting in the kitchen. Leach testified,
I don’t know what
happened. I – I – the same thing at the hotel. It’s something came
over me. I heard a loud bang. The next thing I know I had Ms. Poteete
[sic] in my arms. When I realized what had happened, I let go of her as
she dropped to the floor. And I freaked out. I didn’t understand it
because I didn’t plan it. And I heard a slam of a door. And I turned
around and it was Ms. McBride, or that’s her name, I think. And I just
– I went blank.
Leach stated that he
woke up in the shower with water hitting his face. He did not know
where he was and was horrified to see the victims’ bodies. He changed
out of his bloody clothes. He took McBride’s jewelry box and purse. He
went outside, thought about setting the house on fire but “just blew it
off,” and left in McBride’s truck. He blacked out again and awoke under
a bridge on the Kentucky-Missouri border. He then drove several miles
in the wrong direction before turning around and heading to Greenville,
Missouri. On cross-examination, Leach denied ever talking with Walker
about the facts of the case and said that Walker approached him with the
idea of an insanity defense.
Based upon the above
evidence, the jury convicted Leach of first degree premeditated murder
of Jean Poteet, first degree premeditated murder of Sarah McBride, first
degree felony murder (during the perpetration of robbery) of Jean
Poteet, first degree felony murder (during the perpetration of robbery)
of Sarah McBride, especially aggravated robbery of Sarah McBride, and
aggravated rape of Sarah McBride. The trial court merged the felony
murder convictions with the premeditated murder convictions.
At the penalty
phase, the State presented proof that Leach was convicted in August 2000
of reckless aggravated assault and in May 1983 of robbery in the second
degree. The State recalled Dr. Levy, who repeated that Poteet was
conscious when the ligature was applied and that the victims would have
remained conscious for thirty to forty seconds until they died three to
four minutes later. He described strangulation as a very painful form
of death. Dr. Levy also testified that the scissor stab wounds suffered
by both victims would have been painful. Dr. Levy further stated that,
although McBride may have been unconscious when the belt was placed
around her neck, she was conscious when beaten and would have suffered
pain from the vaginal tear and injuries to her head and chest.
The State presented
three victim impact witnesses. The first witness was McBride’s older
sister, Louise Howard. She testified that McBride enjoyed working in
her yard. She said that McBride was her best friend and that they did
things together almost daily. She expressed her deep grief at losing
her sister. The next witness was Poteet’s cousin and legal guardian,
William Harris. He described his relationship with Poteet as almost
that of a brother. He testified that Poteet had the mental capacity of
a very bright child and had gone to school through the sixth or seventh
grade. Despite her handicaps, she was an excellent housekeeper and had
faithfully cared for her parents and Harris’ mother until they died.
The last witness for the State was McBride’s stepson, Robert McBride.
He testified that his father and McBride had been married for
twenty-seven years until his father’s death in 1992. Although McBride
grieved for her husband, she had eventually come to enjoy life again.
He stated that the murder had a horrible impact on him and related how
his youngest daughter, who was eight when the killings occurred, wanted
to avoid going near McBride’s house.
In mitigation, the
defense presented the testimony of several witnesses who corroborated
Leach’s account of his life before the murders. Leach’s aunt, Jane
Henson, testified that Leach’s father had been a womanizer who cared
nothing for his children and that Leach’s mother was mean to Leach
because he resembled his father. Another aunt, Judy Waltz, stated that
Leach came to live with her when he was twenty-six or twenty-seven. He
was very courteous, but she had to ask him to leave because of his
drinking and his infatuation with her daughter. After he moved out,
Leach had a successful roofing business but lost it because of his
drinking. Leach’s childhood friend, Richard Bennett, told how Leach’s
mother would beat Leach and punish him by putting him in a closet.
Bennett described Leach as a troubled child, tortured by other children
because he was passive and soiled his pants. Bennett related that Leach
frequented the home of a known pedophile when he was a child. Leach’s
sister, Cathy Watson, testified that, when Leach was paroled from the
Texas prison in 1997, he had changed and was paranoid and scared.
Watson also stated that on the morning of July 8, 1999, she had heard
her telephone ring but did not answer it because she was sick.
Two other defense
witnesses, Carol Duma and Reverend Harry Duma, testified about their
contact with Leach. Mrs. Duma taught Leach in kindergarten and
described him as fearful and apprehensive. Both testified about their
positive experience with Leach when he worked for them at a Christian
camp in his late teens. Leach seemed to do well, but at times he would
“snap” and frighten people. Reverend Duma described Leach as “very,
very lonely.”
Another mitigation
witness was Ann LaPoint, a nurse and licensed social worker from Texas,
who counseled Leach for seven to eight years while he was on parole.
LaPoint characterized Leach as immature, depressed, angry, needy,
delusional, and suffering from low self-esteem. Describing him as “a
five-year-old in a twenty or thirty-year-old body,” she said that she
had to teach Leach how to dress appropriately and comb his hair. She
confirmed that Leach was afraid of going back to prison because he had
been beaten and sexually assaulted there. She testified that Leach had
tried to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, hanging himself, and
running his car into a bridge embankment. On cross-examination, LaPoint
admitted that Leach had played mind games with her “like a typical
substance abuser,” had attempted to falsify a urinalysis, had trouble
with authority, and “wanted to blame the world and society for his
shortcomings instead of accepting responsibility for his actions.”
Based upon this
proof, the jury found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable
doubt the following statutory aggravating circumstances with regard to
both victims: 1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more
felonies (reckless aggravated assault and robbery), other than the
present charge, whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to
the person; 2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in
that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary
to produce death; and 3) the murder was knowingly committed by the
defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or
attempting to commit robbery or aggravated rape. Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-13-204(i)(2), (5), (7) (1997). As to victim Jean Poteet, the jury
also found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt a fourth
statutory aggravating circumstance: the victim was seventy years of age
or older or was particularly vulnerable due to a significant handicap or
significant disability, whether mental or physical, and at the time of
the murder the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of such
handicap or disability. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(14) (Supp.
1998). The jury further found that the State had proven that the
aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond
a reasonable doubt. As a result, the jury sentenced Leach to death for
the murders of Jean Poteet and Sarah McBride.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of
Evidence
Leach challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions for first degree
premeditated murder and first degree felony murder. He does not dispute
that he killed the victims. Instead, he argues that the evidence is
insufficient to support the convictions for premeditated murder because
the State failed to prove premeditation. He argues that the evidence is
insufficient to support the convictions for felony murder because the
State failed to prove that he intended to rob the victims either prior
to, or contemporaneous with, their murders.
When the sufficiency
of the evidence is challenged, the standard of review is whether,
considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Reid, 91
S.W.3d 247, 276 (Tenn. 2002). The State is entitled to the strongest
legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may
be drawn from it. State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600, 614 (Tenn.
2003). Questions regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight and
value of the evidence, and any factual issues raised by the evidence are
resolved by the trier of fact. Id.
First Degree
Premeditated Murder
First degree murder
includes a “premeditated and intentional killing of another.” Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (1997). Premeditation is defined as
follows:
As used in
subdivision (a)(1) “premeditation” is an act done after the exercise of
reflection and judgment. “Premeditation” means that the intent to kill
must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that
the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any
definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time
the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in
order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from
excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.
Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-13-202(d) (1997).
Premeditation may be
established by any evidence from which a rational trier of fact may
infer that the killing was done “after the exercise of reflection and
judgment” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(d).
Davidson, 121 S.W.3d at 615. We previously have identified the
following circumstances as supporting a finding of premeditation: the
use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim; the particular cruelty of
a killing; the defendant’s threats or declarations of intent to kill;
the defendant’s procurement of a weapon; any preparations to conceal the
crime undertaken before the crime is committed; destruction or secretion
of evidence of the killing; and a defendant’s calmness after a killing.
SeeState v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997).
However, these factors are not exhaustive. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d
at 615. Establishment of a motive for the killing is a factor from
which the jury may infer premeditation. State v. Nesbit, 978
S.W.2d 872, 898 (Tenn. 1998). Premeditation also may be inferred from
the use of multiple weapons in succession. State v. Bush, 942
S.W.2d 489, 501-502 (Tenn. 1997). Moreover, evidence of repeated blows
is relevant to establish premeditation, although this evidence alone is
not sufficient to establish premeditation. State v. Sims, 45
S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tenn. 2001).
We conclude that the
evidence, when examined in the light most favorable to the State, was
sufficient to support a finding of premeditation. Leach inflicted
multiple wounds upon each victim during the particularly cruel
killings. Leach used two weapons – scissors and a ligature – on each of
the unarmed victims. Leach attempted to dispose of evidence by flushing
his underwear down the toilet. Leach exhibited calmness after the
murders by showering, changing his clothes, looking for valuables, and
then driving to Missouri where he socialized with friends at a tavern
that night. Although Leach made no prior threats or declarations of
intent to kill McBride and Poteet, he told Walker after the murders that
he had always had a secret fantasy of committing multiple rapes and
homicides. Even without Walker’s testimony, however, the jury could
have reasonably inferred that Leach acted with premeditation when,
desperate to leave Nashville to escape arrest for attacking Brown, he
killed McBride and Poteet to obtain the means of facilitating his flight
and to prevent them from alerting the police.
First Degree
Felony Murder
First degree murder
includes a “killing of another committed in the perpetration of or
attempt to perpetrate any . . . robbery.” Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-13-202(a)(2) (1997). Robbery is defined as “the intentional or
knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or
putting the person in fear.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401(a) (1997).
To support a felony
murder conviction, the intent to commit the underlying felony must exist
prior to or concurrent with the commission of the act causing the death
of the victim. State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 107 (Tenn.
1999). Although the intent to commit the underlying felony cannot be
presumed from the act of committing the felony, a jury may reasonably
infer from a defendant’s actions immediately after a killing that the
defendant had the intent to commit the felony prior to or concurrent
with the killing. Id. at 108.
We conclude that the
evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was
sufficient to establish that the intent to commit the underlying felony
of robbery existed prior to the acts causing the victims’ deaths. On
the morning of the murders, Leach was evading the police because of his
attack on Brown. His telephone call to his sister went unanswered.
Leach lied to McBride about the success of the call in order to “buy
time.” After the murders, Leach had the truck and money he needed to
flee Nashville. From this evidence, the jury could have reasonably
inferred that Leach had formed the intent to rob the victims prior to
their murders.
Evidence to
Discredit Testimony of Joseph Walker
Leach asserts that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from
presenting a witness to discredit the testimony of Joseph Walker. As
noted above, Walker testified about incriminating statements made by
Leach while they were incarcerated in the Davidson County Jail. Walker
stated on cross-examination that while at Middle Tennessee Mental Health
Institute (“MTMHI”) in December 1999 he had refused to answer certain
questions. He denied telling evaluators at MTMHI that he had only been
arrested for minor offenses, that he could not read, and that he had
only a sixth-grade education. Leach sought permission from the trial
court to call Dr. Joseph Mount, a psychologist at MTMHI, to impeach
Walker with evidence that he had lied to evaluators about his criminal
record and personal information. Leach also requested that Dr. Mount be
permitted to testify that he diagnosed Walker as suffering from an
adjustment disorder and concluded that Walker was malingering and
attempting to manipulate the evaluation process. The trial court ruled
that, under the plain language of Rule 608(b)[1]
of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, Leach was precluded from presenting
extrinsic evidence regarding Walker’s alleged lies. Even if Dr. Mount’s
proffered testimony was admissible, the trial court ruled that it should
be excluded under Rule 403 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence because it
could confuse and mislead the jury and cause undue delay.
On appeal, Leach has
abandoned his argument that Dr. Mount’s testimony was proper impeachment
evidence under Rule 608 and now contends that the testimony was
admissible under Rules 613 and 616 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.
These theories were not presented to the trial court. In his motion for
a new trial, Leach argued that the trial court’s exclusion of Dr.
Mount’s testimony violated Leach’s rights to confrontation, to a fair
trial before an impartial jury, and to due process. As a general rule,
a party may not litigate an issue on one ground, abandon that ground
post-trial, and assert a new basis or ground on appeal. Johnson v.
State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 60 n.8 (Tenn. 2001). We hold that the issue of
whether Dr. Mount’s testimony was admissible under Rules 613 and 616 is
waived because Leach did not raise it in the trial court or in his
motion for a new trial. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e), 36(a).
Moreover, we conclude that Leach would not be entitled to relief
even if the issue had been properly preserved. Leach argues that Dr.
Mount’s testimony was admissible under Rule 613(b) as evidence of prior
inconsistent statements by Walker and under Rule 616 as evidence of
Walker’s prejudice against Leach. The State responds that the
inconsistent statements were not admissible as extrinsic evidence under
Rule 613 because they related to collateral facts and that Dr. Mount’s
testimony failed to establish bias or prejudice within the meaning of
Rule 616. At the time of Leach’s trial, Rule 613(b) provided:
“Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is
not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain
or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to
interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise
require.”[2]
Rule 616 states: “A party may offer evidence by cross-examination,
extrinsic evidence, or both, that a witness is biased in favor of or
prejudiced against a party or another witness.” We agree with the
State’s position.
Under the collateral
fact rule, the statement of a witness made during cross-examination as
to a collateral fact may not be impeached by extrinsic evidence of a
prior inconsistent statement as to that fact. SeeState v.
Hill, 598 S.W.2d 815, 820 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980); see generally
Neil P. Cohen, Sarah Y. Sheppeard & Donald F. Paine, Tennessee Law of
Evidence § 6.13[6] (4th ed. 2000). A collateral fact is one which
affords no reasonable inference as to the principal matters in dispute.
Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 41 S.W. 1031, 1034 (1897). A
fact is collateral for purposes of the collateral fact rule if it is
relevant only because it contradicts something said in court; it is not
collateral if it is relevant independent of any contradiction. SeeTennessee Law of Evidence at § 6.07[4][c].
Prior to the
enactment of the Rules of Evidence, the collateral fact rule was
an established part of the common law in Tennessee. See, e.g.,
State v. Rogers, 703 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1985); State v. Marlow, 665 S.W.2d 410, 412 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1983). This rule of evidence was founded upon the just
conclusion that the introduction of such evidence tends to confuse
the jury and uselessly to protract and increase the expense of
judicial investigations. Decherd v. Morrison, 32 Tenn.
305, 306-07 (1852). Although the Rules of Evidence do not mention
the collateral fact rule, it continues to be applied by courts in
this state. See, e.g., State v. Perkinson, 867
S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
The collateral fact
rule is essentially a rule of relevancy. Under Rule 402 of the
Tennessee Rules of Evidence, “[e]vidence which is not relevant is not
admissible.” Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would
be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Even relevant evidence
may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading
the jury, or by consideration of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Rules 402
and 403 embody the principles underlying the collateral fact rule. We
conclude, therefore, that the collateral fact rule remains viable
through Rules 402 and 403.
As with any type of
proof, admissibility of extrinsic evidence depends on relevancy.
Impeachment by extrinsic evidence as contemplated by Rule 613 must
relate to facts relevant to a material issue at trial. Allowing the
introduction of extrinsic evidence for the purpose of contradicting a
witness’s testimony about merely trivial facts would not only waste time
but could also confuse the jury. The motive of a witness, however, is
always relevant to the main issue. SeeCreeping Bear v. State,
87 S.W. 653, 654 (1905). Therefore, extrinsic evidence that is
inadmissible for other purposes may be admissible to prove bias or
prejudice under Rule 616.
In this case,
Walker’s inconsistent statements involved collateral facts. Proof that
Walker lied to mental health evaluators about his criminal record and
personal information would not have been relevant to a material issue at
trial. Walker was thoroughly cross-examined about his criminal record
and motive for testifying. Proof that Walker was evasive and
manipulative during his mental health evaluation would also have had
little probative value in showing that he was biased in favor of the
State or prejudiced against Leach. As the Court of Criminal Appeals
observed, introduction of Dr. Mount’s testimony would have resulted in a
mini-trial concerning Walker’s actions during his mental health
evaluation and potentially confused the issues of Leach’s capital murder
trial. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly excluded
the evidence under Rule 403, regardless of the theory of admissibility.
Finally, we conclude that any error would be harmless because, assuming
Dr. Mount had discredited Walker’s testimony, the remaining evidence was
sufficient to support the convictions.
Instruction
Regarding Evidence of Attack on Dorianne Brown
The trial court
admitted evidence of Leach’s attack on Dorianne Brown at the Econo Lodge
under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence to show motive.
Leach did not object to admission of the evidence on this ground. At
the jury charge conference, however, the State requested the trial court
to instruct the jury that it could consider this evidence not only to
show motive but also to provide “the complete story of the crime.” The
trial court agreed and charged the jury as follows:
If from the proof
you find that the defendant has committed a crime other than that for
which he is on trial, you may not consider such evidence to prove his
disposition to commit such a crime as that on trial.
This evidence may
only be considered by you for the limited purpose of determining
whether it provides:
(a) the complete
story of the crime; that is, such evidence may be considered by you
where the prior crime and the present alleged crime are logically
related or connected, so that proof of the other tends, or is
necessary to prove the one charged, or is necessary for a complete
account thereof.
(b) motive; that is,
such evidence may be considered by you if it tends to show a motive of
the defendant for the commission of the offense presently charged.
Such evidence of the
other crime, if considered by you for any purpose, must not be
considered for any purpose other than that, specifically, stated.
On appeal, the Court
of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court erred in not conducting a
jury-out hearing as required by State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d
266, 272 (Tenn. 2000), to determine whether the evidence was admissible
to show contextual background. In addition, the Court of Criminal
Appeals held that the evidence in question was not properly admitted as
contextual background evidence under Gilliland. The Court of
Criminal Appeals concluded, however, that the error was harmless because
the evidence was admissible to prove motive. In this Court, Leach
submits that admission of the evidence on another ground did not render
harmless the trial court’s instruction that the evidence could be used
for the purpose of providing “the complete story of the crime.” Leach
contends that this instruction invited the jury to consider the attack
on Brown as establishing Leach’s propensity to commit the crimes in this
case, in violation of this Court’s holding in State v. Parton,
694 S.W.2d 299, 302 (Tenn. 1985).
In Gilliland,
the Court set forth the following standard for determining when
background evidence involving other crimes, wrongs or acts may be
offered “for other purposes” under Rule 404(b):
[W]hen the state
seeks to offer evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that is
relevant only to provide a contextual background for the case, the
state must establish, and the trial court must find, that (1) the
absence of the evidence would create a chronological or conceptual
void in the state’s presentation of its case; (2) the void created by
the absence of the evidence would likely result in significant jury
confusion as to the material issues or evidence in the case; and (3)
the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice.
Id.
at 272 (emphasis added). By its own terms, this standard is limited to
“evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that is relevant only
to provide a contextual background for the case.” Id. (emphasis
added). The State did not offer evidence of the attack on Brown as
contextual background for the case. The evidence was offered and
properly admitted to show motive, a material issue in the case.
Therefore, no error occurred relative to admission of this evidence.
The trial court
properly instructed the jury that the evidence could be considered for
the limited purpose of determining whether it tends to show a motive.
Evidence proving motive necessarily serves the purpose of completing the
story of the crime. Therefore, the portion of the instruction allowing
the evidence to be considered for the purpose of providing “the complete
story of the crime” was superfluous. Moreover, contrary to Leach’s
assertion, the instruction did not invite the jury to consider the
attack on Brown as propensity evidence. In determining whether
instructions are erroneous, this Court must review the charge in its
entirety and read it as a whole. State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d
346, 352 (Tenn. 1997). The instruction regarding the use of this
evidence specifically directed the jury that it “may not consider such
evidence to prove [Leach’s] disposition to commit such a crime as that
on trial.” The jury is presumed to have followed this instruction.
SeeState v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 106 (Tenn. 1998). We
therefore conclude that, viewed as a whole, the instruction regarding
evidence of the attack on Brown was not erroneous.
Failure to Charge
Aggravating Circumstances in Indictment
Leach contends that
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Rule 12.3(b) of the
Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; Article I, section 9 of the
Tennessee Constitution; and Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-13-202
require that an indictment for capital murder reflect that the grand
jury found the existence of one or more statutory aggravating
circumstances. Leach acknowledges that we rejected this argument in
State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458, 467 (Tenn. 2002), but asks that
we reconsider our ruling in Dellinger. We addressed this issue
in detail in our recent decision in State v. Berry, __ S.W.3d __
(Tenn. 2004). We noted that our statement in Dellinger that
“[t]he death penalty is within the statutory range of punishment
prescribed by the legislature for first degree murder,” 79 S.W.3d at
466, is not entirely accurate in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536
U.S. 584 (2002), and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531
(2004), both of which were decided after Dellinger. SeeBerry, __ S.W.3d at __ n.14. We concluded, however, that
Ring and Blakely do not affect our ruling in Dellinger
that the State is not required to charge aggravating circumstances in
the indictment. For the reasons stated in Berry, we hold that no
error occurred in this case.
Mandatory Review
We are bound by
statute to review the application of the death penalty to determine
whether:
(A) The sentence of
death was imposed in any arbitrary fashion;
(B) The evidence
supports the jury’s finding of statutory aggravating circumstance or
circumstances;
(C) The evidence
supports the jury’s finding that the aggravating circumstance or
circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances; and
(D) The sentence of
death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in
similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the
defendant.
Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-13-206(c)(1) (1997). Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we find
no indication that the sentence of death was imposed in an arbitrary
fashion. We also conclude that the State presented sufficient proof to
uphold the jury’s finding that Leach had prior convictions for felonies
whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person,
see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997), that the murders in
this case were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that they
involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to
produce death, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) (1997),
that the murders in this case were knowingly committed by Leach while he
had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit robbery or
aggravated rape, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(7) (1997),
and that victim Jean Poteet was seventy years of age or older or was
particularly vulnerable due to a significant handicap or significant
disability, whether mental or physical, and at the time of the murder
Leach knew or reasonably should have known of such handicap or
disability, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(14) (Supp. 1998).
We further hold that the evidence supports the jury’s finding that the
aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond
a reasonable doubt.
Next, we must
determine whether the sentence of death in this case is disproportionate
to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering the nature of the
crime and the defendant. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) (1997).
We are mindful of the following principles applicable to proportionality
review:
In conducting a
comparative proportionality review, we begin with the presumption that
the sentence of death is proportional with the crime of first degree
murder. A sentence of death may be found disproportionate if the case
being reviewed is “plainly lacking in circumstances consistent with
those in similar cases in which the death penalty has been previously
imposed.” A sentence of death is not disproportionate merely because
the circumstances of the offense are similar to those of another
offense for which a defendant has received a life sentence. Our
inquiry, therefore, does not require a finding that a sentence “less
than death was never imposed in a case with similar characteristics.”
Our duty “is to assure that no aberrant death sentence is affirmed.”
State v. Hall,
976 S.W.2d 121, 135 (Tenn. 1998) (citations omitted). We have found the
following factors helpful in identifying and comparing similar cases:
1) the means and manner of death; 2) the motivation for killing; 3) the
place of death; 4) the similarity of the victims and treatment of the
victims; 5) the absence or presence of premeditation, provocation, and
justification; and 6) the injury to and effects on non-decedent
victims. SeeBland, 958 S.W.2d at 667. In comparing
defendants, we consider the following non-exclusive factors: 1) prior
criminal history; 2) age, race, and gender; 3) mental, emotional, and
physical condition; 4) role in the murder; 5) cooperation with
authorities; 6) remorse; 7) knowledge of helplessness of victim; and 8)
capacity for rehabilitation. Seeid.
The proof in this
case showed that Leach brutally beat, stabbed, and strangled two elderly
women. He raped one victim, sixty-nine-year-old widow Sarah McBride, as
she was dying. The other victim, seventy-year-old Jean Poteet, was both
mentally and physically disabled. The murders were committed during a
robbery at McBride’s home and were motivated by Leach’s desire to obtain
the means for fleeing Nashville and to prevent the victims from alerting
the police. The evidence also indicated that Leach had always had a
fantasy of committing multiples rapes and homicides. The murders were
premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified.
Leach, a white male,
was thirty-seven years old at the time of the murders and had a prior
criminal history including convictions for aggravated assault, robbery,
and burglary. He cooperated minimally with authorities and expressed
horror, but no remorse, about the murders. Leach presented mitigating
evidence that he suffered from low self-esteem, depression, and suicidal
tendencies. He was neglected and tormented as a child. He claimed to
have been physically and sexually abused, starting from childhood and
continuing into his adult years in prison. Despite these problems,
Leach experienced periods of relative calm in his life when he was
gainfully employed.
Based upon an exhaustive review of the record and Supreme Court Rule
12 reports, we conclude that the sentences of death imposed in this case
are not excessive or disproportionate when compared to the penalty
imposed in similar cases. SeeState v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d
503 (Tenn. 1997) (defendant raped and murdered sixty-two-year-old widow
during burglary, death sentence upheld based upon (i)(5) and (i)(7)
aggravating circumstances); State v. Bush, 942 S.W.2d 489 (Tenn.
1997) (defendant murdered seventy-nine-year-old widow, death sentence
upheld based upon (i)(5) and (i)(6) aggravators); State v. Smith,
893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994) (defendant raped and murdered elderly widow,
death sentence upheld based upon (i)(2), (i)(5), and (i)(7)
aggravators); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1994)
(defendant raped and murdered elderly woman, death sentence upheld based
upon (i)(2), (i)(5), and (i)(7) aggravators); State v. Barber,
753 S.W.2d 659 (Tenn. 1988) (defendant murdered elderly woman, death
sentence upheld based upon (i)(5) aggravator); State v. McNish,
727 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn. 1987) (defendant murdered seventy-two-year-old
widow, death sentence upheld based upon (i)(5) aggravator); State v.
Harbison, 704 S.W.2d 314 (Tenn. 1986) (defendant murdered
sixty-two-year-old woman, death sentence upheld based upon (i)(5)
aggravator); and State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1984)
(defendant murdered elderly couple, death sentence upheld based upon (i)(2),
(i)(5), and (i)(6) aggravators). Leach contends that, despite the
horrible nature of the crimes he committed, the sentences of death are
disproportionate in this case given the history of abuse he suffered.
He argues that a jury imposed a life sentence in a similar case where
the defendant had a less extensive history of abuse, citing State v.
J. Y. Sepulveda, 1997 WL 351107 (Tenn. Crim. App., June 26, 1997).[3]
We reiterate, however, that our analysis does not require a
determination of whether a given case is subjectively “more or less”
like other “death” cases or other “life” cases. Davidson, 121
S.W.3d at 623 (citation omitted). Instead, our review requires that we
identify an aberrant death sentence by determining whether the case is
plainly lacking in circumstances consistent with those in similar cases
in which the death penalty previously was imposed. Id. After
reviewing the cases discussed above, and many others not specifically
cited, we are of the opinion that the sentences of death in this case
are not excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar
cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the defendant.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1) and the principles
adopted in prior decisions, we have considered the entire record in this
case and conclude that the sentences of death have not been imposed
arbitrarily, that the evidence supports the jury’s finding that the
statutory aggravating circumstances have been proven by the State beyond
a reasonable doubt, that the evidence supports the jury’s finding that
the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances
beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the sentences are not excessive or
disproportionate.
We have reviewed all
of the issues raised by Leach and conclude that they do not warrant
relief. With respect to issues that were raised in this Court but not
addressed in this opinion, we affirm the decision of the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Relevant portions of that opinion are incorporated
herein and are attached as an appendix. Leach’s convictions and
sentences are affirmed. We note, however, that the judgment for the
especially aggravated robbery conviction in Count 5 incorrectly refers
to Count 6, and the judgment for the aggravated rape conviction in Count
6 incorrectly refers to Count 5. The case is remanded to the trial
court for correction of these clerical errors. The sentences of death
shall be carried out as provided by law on the 12 th day of April, 2005,
unless otherwise ordered by this Court or other proper authority. It
appearing that defendant Robert L. Leach, Jr., is indigent, costs of
this appeal are taxed to the State of Tennessee.
[1]
Rule 608(b) provides in pertinent part: “Specific instances of conduct
of a witness for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’s
credibility, other than convictions of crime as provided in Rule 609,
may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.”
[2]
Rule 613(b) was amended in 2003 to add the phrase “and until,” making
the rule clearly indicate that extrinsic evidence of the prior statement
is inadmissible “unless and until” the witness is afforded an
opportunity to explain or deny it. The amendment does not affect the
analysis in this case.
[3]In
Sepulveda, the nineteen-year-old defendant murdered his
ninety-five-year-old neighbor by beating and kicking her during a
burglary of her home. Sepulveda is distinguishable from the
present case. Sepulveda had a long history of significant drug
problems; he did not use a weapon on his victim, and his victim survived
the attack for several weeks.