T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co‪.‬

This case was taken en banc principally to consider two of the several constitutional claims asserted by appellant Richard Tucker. In Section One of this opinion, we discuss the claim that the instructions on intent at Tuckers trial impermissibly shifted the burden of proof in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S. Ct. 2450, 61 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1979). We conclude that there was a Sandstrom error, but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In Section Two of this opinion, we discuss Tuckers claim that the prosecutors argument during the sentencing phase of his capital trial rendered the sentencing phase fundamentally unfair. We reject Tuckers argument in this regard, and conclude that his sentencing phase was not fundamentally unfair.