State of Tennessee, Appellant v. Hugh Melson, Appellee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' divided determination that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to offer any evidence at the sentencing phase of Hugh Melson's capital murder trial. Applying Strickland's two-prong test, the court held that counsel's choice to rely on the abundant, uncontradicted mitigating evidence already introduced at the guilt phase—rather than recall three character witnesses or call six additional cumulative ones—was a fully justified strategic or tactical decision involving neither deficient performance nor prejudice. The court also announced that no legal requirement or established practice compels a capital defendant to present sentencing-phase proof, and it rejected the suggestion that Tennessee's Article I, section 9 departs from the federal Strickland prejudice prong. The post-conviction petition was dismissed.