## Facts

- Michael Dale Rimmer was convicted in Shelby County of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated robbery, and theft; the jury imposed a death sentence for the murder.
- On the first appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions but reversed the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
- At the second penalty hearing, a new jury again imposed death, finding the prior-violent-felony aggravating circumstance and concluding it outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the second death sentence on mandatory, automatic appeal; the merits of the underlying convictions were not at issue.
- During resentencing, the trial court excluded some defense mitigation proof solely as hearsay.
- Rimmer did not testify at resentencing and challenged the validity of his waiver of that right.
- The jury received a reasonable-doubt instruction consistent with Tennessee’s pattern instruction.
- The jury heard unsolicited references (from defense counsel and a defense witness) that Rimmer had previously been on “death row.”

## Issues

1. Whether excluding mitigation evidence solely on hearsay grounds at resentencing violated Rimmer’s rights and required a new penalty hearing.
2. Whether Rimmer’s waiver of the right to testify was invalid absent an on-the-record statement that counsel advised him about limits on cross-examination under State v. Cazes.
3. Whether the reasonable-doubt instruction given at resentencing violated due process.
4. Whether defense-generated references to Rimmer’s prior “death row” status required a new sentencing hearing.
5. Whether the death sentence was imposed arbitrarily or was disproportionate under Tennessee’s statutory proportionality review.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals and upheld the death sentence.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding mitigation evidence solely as hearsay, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the substance was otherwise presented or the excluded material lacked relevance or reliability.
- The court held a valid waiver of the right to testify does not require an on-the-record statement that the defendant was advised about Cazes; the waiver is assessed under a knowing-and-voluntary standard.
- The court held the reasonable-doubt instruction did not offend due process when read as a whole.
- The court held the “death row” references by defense counsel and a defense witness did not warrant a new sentencing hearing under the circumstances.
- The court concluded the death sentence satisfied proportionality guidelines and was not arbitrary or disproportionate.

## Legal Principles

- In capital sentencing, erroneous exclusion of mitigation evidence may be reviewed for harmless error; reversal is not required if the evidence was cumulative, or if its exclusion did not affect the reliability of the sentencing outcome.
- A defendant’s waiver of the right to testify is valid if knowing and voluntary under the totality of circumstances; a specific scripted colloquy referencing particular cross-examination rules is not required.
- A reasonable-doubt instruction that distinguishes reasonable doubt from mere possibility and clarifies that absolute certainty is not required can satisfy due process when the charge as a whole correctly conveys the State’s burden.
- Isolated references to a defendant’s prior death-row status, particularly when introduced by the defense and not exploited by the prosecution, do not require resentencing absent a showing of prejudice rendering the proceeding unfair.
- Tennessee’s mandatory death-sentence review includes arbitrariness and proportionality review; a death sentence may be upheld when supported by a statutory aggravator and consistent with penalties imposed in comparable cases.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Rimmer’s second death sentence, holding that the mitigation-evidence exclusion was harmless, the waiver of the right to testify and the reasonable-doubt instruction were constitutionally adequate, the defense-originated “death row” comments did not justify resentencing, and the sentence was proportionate and non-arbitrary under Tennessee law.


State v. Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d 12 (Tenn. 2008)