Sidney Porterfield

Background

Sidney Porterfield was convicted in 1986 and sentenced to death for the killing of Ronald Owens.

Sidney Porterfield was convicted of murder in the first degree. Gaile K. Owens was convicted of accessory before the fact, to wit: murder in the first degree.

The offence

Sidney Porterfield and Gaile K. Owens were tried for the killing of Mrs. Owens’ husband, Ronald Owens.

The evidence showed that over a period of months, Mrs. Owens solicited several men to kill her husband, and one of these men was Sidney Porterfield. Mrs. Owens met with Sidney Porterfield on at least three occasions, and the last meeting was at 2:30 p.m. on Sunday, February 17, 1985. At that time, she told him that her husband would either be home alone that night or would be at the church playing basketball.

That evening Mr. and Mrs. Owens and their two sons attended evening church services. Afterwards, when Mr. Owens remained at church to play basketball, the boys asked, as they usually did, to stay with their father. Mrs. Owens refused their request and took them to a restaurant for diner and then to the home of Mrs. Owens' sister, where they stayed until approximately 10:30 p.m. When they arrived home at about 11:00 p.m., Mr. Owens' automobile was in the driveway. The doors were open, the interior light was on and Mr. Owens' coat and tie were on the seat. The back door to the house was partially open, and the keys were in the lock.

There were signs of a struggle in the kitchen, and blood was splattered on the wall and floor. Mr. Owens was found in the den unconscious, with his head covered with blood. Mr. Owens died some six hours later from multiple blows to his head.

The autopsy revealed that Mr. Owens had been struck at least twenty-one times with a blunt instrument described by the forensic pathologist as a long, striated cylinder such as a tire iron. The blows had driven his face into the floor, crushed his skull and driven bone fragments into his brain. Mr. Owens also had sustained extensive injuries to his hands, and strands of hair between his fingers indicated he had been covering his head with his hands when he was beaten.

After the killing, George James, one of the men solicited by Mrs. Owens to kill her husband, contacted the police and told them of Mrs. Owens' offer. George James then assisted the police by permitting them to record telephone conversations with Mrs. Owens.

After one of the calls, George James met Mrs. Owens in the Raleigh Springs Mall in Memphis. James was wearing a hidden body microphone, monitored by police in a nearby automobile. Mrs. Owens paid James sixty dollars to keep quiet, telling him that it was all the money she had. She also stated that she had had her husband killed because of "bad marital problems." Mrs. Owens was placed under arrest at the Conclusion of her meeting with Mr. James.

At first, Mrs. Owens claimed that she only had hired people to follow her husband and "to rough him up." She did admit paying out some $4,000 to $5,000 to various men for expenses. Later, she confessed to offering three men $5,000 to $10,000 to kill her husband and to talking with a man known as "little Johnny" at 2:30 p.m. on the day of the murder about killing her husband. She had promised to pay him three or four days after the murder.

When asked why, Mrs. Owens stated, "e've just had a bad marriage over the years, and I just felt like he had, mentally I just felt like he had been cruel to me. There was very little physical violence."

A witness identified the man who met Mrs. Owens on Sunday afternoon as Sidney Porterfield. Another witness placed Sidney Porterfield in the vicinity of the Owens' house a week before the killing. Sidney Porterfield also made a statement to the police entered into evidence.

According to Sidney Porterfield, he met with Mrs. Owens on three occasions to discuss plans for the killing of Mr. Owens, the last being at 2:30 p.m. on Sunday, February 17, 1985. He stated that Mrs. Owens offered him $17,000 to kill her husband, and that he told her he would have to check out the situation. (Shortly after her husband's funeral Mrs. Owens had asked her father-in law for $17,000 "to pay some bills.") Porterfield stated that he went to the Owens' house that evening at about 9:00 p.m. On leaving his automobile, he put a tire iron in his pocket in case he encountered a dog.

Porterfield stated that he was walking in the back yard of the Owens' house when Mr. Owens came home; that Mr. Owens would not accept his explanation that he was looking for a house, but informed him he was going to hold him until the police arrived; that Mr. Owens grabbed him by the arm and attempted to pull him into the house. According to Porterfield, Mr. Owens had a brief case in one hand and was grasping Porterfield with the other. Porterfield stated that he tried to break away and, when he was unsuccessful, struck Mr. Owens with the tire iron. The men were then in the kitchen. Porterfield stated that Mr. Owens threw his hand up for protection but would not release him, and Porterfield continued to strike Mr. Owens with the tire iron, resulting in extensive damage to both of Mr. Owens' hands and to his head.

After leaving the Owens' house, Porterfield threw the tire iron and the gloves he was wearing into a dumpster. They were never recovered.

Defendant Porterfield offered no evidence in his defense.

Mrs. Owens presented testimony from a neighbor and from a funeral home employee. The neighbor testified that Mrs. Owens was almost hysterical after her husband was found. The funeral home employee testified that a large balance was owing on Mr. Owens' funeral bill, presumably to show that Mrs. Owens did have large debts to pay after her husband's death as she had represented to her father-in law in attempting to secure a loan.

Investigation

George James contacted the police and told them of Mrs. Owens' offer after the killing. Police recorded telephone conversations between George James and Mrs. Owens after one of the calls. Police used a hidden body microphone while George James met Mrs.

Sidney Porterfield made a statement to the police that was entered into evidence.

Trial

This was a direct appeal from the sentences of death imposed on the defendants, Sidney Porterfield and Gaile K. Owens, for the killing of Mrs. Owens' husband, Ronald Owens.

The defendants questioned the sufficiency of the evidence, rulings by the trial court on pre-trial motions, on voir dire, the admission of evidence, the argument to the jury by the state, the court's instructions to the jury, and they also insisted that the sentencing provisions of the Tennessee Death Penalty Act, T.C.A. § 39-2-203, were unconstitutional.

Evidentiary dispute raised by Sidney Porterfield

Sidney Porterfield insisted that the trial court erred in admitting co-defendant Owens' out-of-court confession into evidence. He argued that recitals in Owens' statement did not interlock with his confession and that their admission violated Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

The court discussed Bruton v. United States, Parker v. Randolph, and Cruz v. New York, including the analysis that an error occurred in admitting Owens' unredacted confession. The court then held that, under the facts of the case, considering only Porterfield's confession and the evidence of the other witnesses and the circumstances of the murder, the Bruton error was harmless.

Severance and jury selection issues

Mrs. Owens insisted she was prejudiced by having to try her case with Sidney Porterfield as it prevented her from pleading guilty and taking a proffered life sentence. The state indicated to defense counsel that it would recommend life sentences for both defendants if both defendants would plead guilty. The state withdrew the offer when Mr. Porterfield declined to plead. The trial court’s denial of a severance was held not to be an abuse of discretion.

In a separate action, both defendants moved to have their cases severed, insisting that the denial of the severance interfered with their use of peremptory challenges. The jury selection procedures and trial court decisions on these claims were addressed, and no prejudice was found.

The defendants also raised issues relating to voir dire, including motions for individual, sequestered voir dire, limiting questioning about exposure to pre-trial publicity, excusing prospective juror Charlayne Pickett, and denying a mistrial after prospective jurors overheard a newsreporter's story and after jurors made prejudicial remarks during voir dire. Sidney Porterfield also charged that the state used their peremptory challenges to systematically exclude blacks from the jury. The court found these contentions to be without merit.

The court stated that the trial judge questioned prospective jurors about knowledge of the case from neighborhood discussion or from reading the newspaper or hearing it on radio or television, found that most prospective jurors who had been exposed only vaguely recalled what they had read or heard, and that the jury selection record did not show jurors remembered the pre-trial publicity in any detail or that they were prejudiced or biased as a result.

The court addressed prospective juror Charlayne Pickett, noting her statement that she would automatically vote not to impose the death penalty in this or any other case regardless of the law and evidence, and held that this disqualified her as a juror and she was correctly excused for cause.

The court addressed the incident involving a newsreporter calling in a report of court proceedings using a pay telephone outside the courtroom, the trial court’s handling of potential prejudice through admonitions and individual voir dire, and the denial of a mistrial.

The jury as finally selected consisted of two black males, five white males and five white females. The state had four unused peremptory challenges.

Sentencing phase evidence

During the bifurcated sentencing hearing, the forensic pathologist again testified for the state about the circumstances of Mr. Owens' death, including blood being inhaled, bone fragments being driven into his brain, and the fact that Mr. Owens had lived six hours after the beating. Two photographs showing the head wounds suffered by Mr. Owens were introduced.

The state presented proof that Sidney Porterfield had been convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon in 1968 and of simple robbery twice in 1971. In mitigation, Gaile K. Owens presented evidence that she had been treated by a psychiatrist on one occasion in 1978 for severe behavioral problems and called two jail employees who testified that Mrs. Owens was a good prisoner who caused no problems, volunteered to work, and attended Bible study classes. Sidney Porterfield presented no evidence in mitigation.

Aggravating circumstances found

In imposing the sentence of death, the jury found three aggravating circumstances with respect to Porterfield and two with respect to Mrs. Owens. No mitigating circumstances were found.

For Sidney Porterfield, the jury found:

1. he had been previously convicted of one or more felonies involving the use or threat of violence to the person;
2. he committed the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, or employed another to commit the murder for remuneration, or the promise of remuneration; and
3. the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind. These were identified with reference to T.C.A. §§ 39-2-203(i)(2), (4) and (5).

For Gaile K. Owens, the jury found the same aggravating circumstances except for the finding of previous conviction of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.

Sentencing

Sidney Porterfield was sentenced to death on February 21, 1986.

The court addressed Porterfield’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury’s sentencing findings, including the identity issue involving earlier convictions shown as those of Sydney Porterfield, Jr. The record showed that a fingerpoint technician from the Shelby County Sheriff's Department testified that the defendant’s thumbprint matched the thumbprint of the person convicted under the name of Sydney Porterfield, Jr., and the court held the jury was justified in accepting this testimony and concluding they were the same person.

The court also addressed Porterfield’s contention that there was insufficient evidence that the murder was for remuneration or promise of remuneration, and that there was insufficient evidence that it was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel involving torture or depravity of mind. The court held that the statement Porterfield gave to police describing his meeting with Mrs. Owens and the purpose of the meeting was sufficient for the jury to find remuneration or promise of remuneration, and that the evidence of repeated tire iron blows was sufficient to support the jury’s finding regarding torture or depravity of mind.

The court addressed Mrs. Owens’ complaint about the trial court excluding evidence she had filed a motion asking permission to plead guilty and accept the sentence of life proffered by the state. The court held the evidence regarding Mrs. Owens’ interest in accepting a plea bargaining offer was not relevant to punishment or to any mitigating factor raised by the defendant and was properly excluded.

The court also addressed the defendants’ objections to introduction of two photographs at sentencing, the argument about the state’s assurance not to introduce morgue photographs, notice of aggravating circumstances, prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, jury instructions regarding sympathy or prejudice, definitions of torture or depravity of mind and the terms “heinous,” “atrocious,” and “cruel,” failure to define “torture” or “depravity of mind,” and failure to instruct about silence during sentencing. The court addressed jury instruction issues including quantum of proof, whether the instructions could be interpreted as mandating death, and the lack of instruction presuming the defendant would serve life if a life verdict was returned. The court found no prejudicial error.

The court addressed the defendants’ challenges to the constitutionality of the Tennessee Death Penalty Act and rejected claims about discriminatory application, including the equal protection argument that death penalty was disproportionately imposed on black citizens who allegedly killed white citizens. The court held that there was nothing in the record to support evidence, and that the defendant had not shown discriminatory purpose.

All assignments of error were overruled, and the judgment of conviction in each case and the sentence imposed were affirmed.

The sentences would be carried out as provided by law on April 15, 1988, unless otherwise stayed or modified by appropriate authority. Costs were taxed to appellants.

Appeals

This case included a direct appeal from the sentences of death imposed on Sidney Porterfield and Gaile K. Owens, followed by a petition to rehear denied.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee, January 19, 1988 appeal disposition was described, with a petition to rehear denied February 29, 1988.

Other details

Sidney Porterfield stated that he went to the Owens’ house that evening at about 9:00 p.m. Porterfield stated he put a tire iron in his pocket on leaving his automobile in case he encountered a dog. Porterfield stated he threw the tire iron and the gloves he was wearing into a dumpster, and they were never recovered.

During the trial, the court discussed the application of the Bruton rule and related confrontation principles, including the abandonment of the plurality reasoning in Parker in Cruz v. New York, and it addressed harmless error based on overwhelming evidence of guilt.