Tennessee House Bill HB1002

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/23
• Refer: 2/2/23
• Refer: 3/14/23
• Refer: 3/21/23
• Engrossed: 3/30/23
• Enrolled: 4/18/23
• Passed: 4/28/23
• Chaptered: 5/3/23

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 37; Title 38; Title 39; Title 40; Title 41 and Title 55, Chapter 10, Part 4, relative to criminal justice.

Impact

The bill's passage represents a significant change in the way the state manages appeals and reviews for individuals sentenced to death. By codifying the role of the attorney general in these cases, it streamlines the review process and places more emphasis on state involvement. This could lead to more consistent outcomes in death penalty cases and ensure that the state has a coordinated response to appeals, particularly those challenging the defendant's intellectual competence concerning the death penalty.

Summary

House Bill 1002 amends various sections of the Tennessee Code Annotated, particularly focusing on the processes surrounding collateral review of death penalty cases. The bill establishes that the attorney general has exclusive control over the state's defense in collateral review requests for defendants sentenced to death. This means that the powers traditionally held by district attorneys in non-capital cases are extended to the attorney general in these circumstances, providing a more centralized approach to the legal processes involved in capital cases.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1002 is mixed. Supporters argue that it strengthens the integrity of the criminal justice system by ensuring that there is a singular authority managing complex death penalty cases, potentially reducing delays and increasing accountability in the review process. Conversely, critics raise concerns about the over-centralization of power at the state level, suggesting that it may diminish local district attorneys' roles and potentially lead to a lack of sufficient local oversight, which could be detrimental to fair trial rights.

Contention

Notable points of contention include discussions around the potential implications for defendants claiming intellectual disability, as the bill requires that collateral reviews involving such claims are closely managed by the attorney general. This could create challenges for defendants needing to prove intellectual disability, making access to legal recourse more complicated. Additionally, the overall impact of increased state control over these cases raises questions about the adequacy of checks and balances in the judicial system, particularly in sensitive matters like capital punishment.