## Facts

- Cecil C. Grose and Jamie Forbes had been romantically involved, but the relationship deteriorated and Forbes filed stalking and harassment charges against Grose.
- On the day before the scheduled hearing on those charges, Grose told William Carter that he was going to kill Forbes, showed Carter a rifle, and said that because he expected punishment on the stalking matter, he would kill her and “they would just think he was crazy” and he could avoid responsibility on insanity grounds.
- Carter contacted police, but before officers could stop Grose, Grose encountered Forbes driving.
- Grose drove up behind Forbes’s vehicle and shot her with a high-powered rifle, then left the scene.
- Forbes suffered two severe gunshot wounds and was hospitalized. The state’s proof showed that without medical treatment she would have died from the wounds within hours.
- Forbes later fell into a coma. To spare her further suffering and allow her to die with dignity, Forbes’s parents directed hospital staff not to resuscitate her if her heart or lungs stopped (a DNR instruction).
- Forbes died soon thereafter.
- A medical examiner testified that the cause of death was the gunshot wounds.
- A jury convicted Grose of first-degree murder, and the trial court imposed a life sentence.
- On appeal, Grose argued (among other things) that the DNR instruction—rather than the gunshot wounds—was the immediate cause of death, that the evidence did not support first-degree premeditated murder, and that the jury should have been instructed on diminished capacity based on proof including his use of alcohol and Valium.

## Issues

1. Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Forbes’s death was the natural and probable result of Grose’s shooting, or did the parents’ DNR instruction break the chain of causation?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for first-degree, premeditated murder?
3. Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on diminished capacity?

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the conviction and life sentence.
- The court held that the gunshot wounds were the legal cause of Forbes’s death; the DNR instruction was not a superseding intervening cause that relieved Grose of criminal responsibility.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a rational jury to find premeditation and intent to kill, including Grose’s prior threat, his showing of the rifle, and the manner of the shooting.
- The court held that the trial court did not err by declining to give a diminished-capacity instruction because Tennessee did not recognize diminished capacity as an independent defense, and the jury was otherwise properly instructed on the required mental state.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is criminally responsible for homicide when the victim’s death is the natural and probable result of the defendant’s act, even if medical decisions later limit treatment.
- A victim’s (or family’s) decision to refuse or withhold life-sustaining measures, including a DNR instruction, generally does not constitute a superseding intervening cause when the defendant’s act created the life-threatening condition.
- Medical testimony that the defendant’s injuries caused death, including proof that the victim would have died quickly without treatment, supports a finding of causation.
- Premeditation may be inferred from prior threats, planning activity, obtaining or displaying a weapon, statements showing an intent to kill, and purposeful conduct in carrying out the shooting.
- In Tennessee, diminished capacity was not a standalone defense requiring a special jury instruction; mental-health or intoxication proof may be considered by the jury on whether the state proved the required mens rea under proper instructions.

## Conclusion

State v. Grose upheld a first-degree murder conviction where the defendant shot the victim with a high-powered rifle after making prior threats and describing a plan to avoid responsibility; the court ruled that the victim’s parents’ DNR instruction did not break causation because the gunshot wounds remained the legal cause of death, and it further found the evidence sufficient for premeditation and no error in denying a separate diminished-capacity jury instruction.


State v. Grose, 982 S.W.2d 349 (1997)