Opinion ID: 4534441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The trial judge sentences Garcia to death.

Text: ¶39. The next week, the trial court held a three-day sentencing hearing. ¶40. The State’s presentation began with testimony from the 911 dispatcher who received the call from JT’s mother that JT was missing. A recording of the 911 call was played for the judge. Next, the apartment manager testified. She testified Garcia had reported to her on the night JT disappeared that a little girl was missing. He was soaking wet, like he had just gotten out of the shower. He also appeared very calm. The next morning, after police found JT’s body, Garcia returned to the manager’s apartment. Garcia told her that he had been in that trailer and that police would likely find his prints and accuse him of the crime. ¶41. Next, the State called Lieutenant Heather Dailey, who responded to the crime scene after JT’s body had been found. She described the trailer as messy and dark, with items strewn everywhere. She explained that JT had a shirt on but was naked from the waist down. Crime Scene Technician Jessica Kendzioreck arrived at the trailer an hour later. Before moving JT’s body, Kendzioreck took pictures of the trailer and JT’s body as it was found. These pictures were admitted into evidence. FBI Agent Ty Breedlove searched the trailer 17 that day. He testified that, in his eight or nine years of experience, the trailer “was one of the most disgusting crime scenes that we’ve been to, full of cockroaches and rat feces and rotted food and the smell stuck with us for a good two or three weeks. ¶42. Police Officer Grant Koon attended the autopsy of JT’s body, performed by the coroner the afternoon JT was found. Officer Koon testified he photographed the body. He also secured the samples taken from the body and submitted them to the FBI for testing. Shane Hoffman, the FBI forensic examiner who tested the samples also testified. He confirmed the DNA from the vaginal and anal swabs matched Garcia’s DNA but excluded Gray’s. The DNA on the socks tied to JT’s neck also excluded Gray’s DNA but was a possible, albeit inconclusive, match with Garcia’s. ¶43. In addition to the DNA evidence, the State presented the recording of Garcia’s conversation on the way to the police station. The State also played the recording of his interview once he arrived.9 ¶44. The FBI digital forensic examiner also testified about the internet searches made through the seized Xbox. Search terms included “toddler hentai,”10 “very young,” “petit, tiny, tween, crying, rape, anal, forced,” and “poor little thing, kidnapped and raped, virginravisher.” 9 At Garcia’s request, the judge also admitted the recording of his second interview with the police, in which Garcia admitted helping Gray hang JT’s body but denied sexually assaulting her. 10 See supra n.5. 18 ¶45. Finally, the State called Dr. Mark LeVaughn, State Pathologist. Dr. LeVaughn was admitted as an expert witness without objection from the defense. He testified the appearance of JT’s vagina and anus indicated injurious sexual penetration that would have caused JT pain and trauma. Dr. LeVaughn gave his expert opinion that, based on the crimescene photos, autopsy photos, and autopsy report, JT died from ligature strangulation or hanging. He also testified that, based on his experience, the abrasions found on JT’s neck below her left ear were scratch marks—marks typically left when someone tries to free herself from being hanged. ¶46. Garcia called Dr. Storer to testify on Garcia’s behalf. Dr. Storer relayed that Garcia came from a broken home with too many children, a history of domestic violence, and some odd religious beliefs. In particular, Garcia had been admitted to a child psychiatric hospital when he was eight years old. From his records, it appears Garcia had been an “extremely disturbed child.” Upon his release, Garcia was supposed to be placed in a residential facility for treatment, but his mother did not follow through. Garcia left school at sixteen and was, at one point, homeless.11 Dr. Storer also relayed Garcia’s history with sexually compulsive behavior, including obsessive masturbation beginning at a prepubescent age. He also experimented with bondage and sadomasochism beginning at the age of eighteen. During one period, Garcia would go to pornographic theaters and allow random men to tie him up and have sex with him. 11 Garcia later obtained his GED. 19 ¶47. Garcia also called Heather Hobby, Gray’s ex-girlfriend and the source of the tip that led to the search of Gray’s apartment.12 Hobby testified about Gray’s relationship with Garcia—how Gray mistreated Garcia, how Garcia would do anything Gray wanted, and how Gray took advantage of that. ¶48. In closing, Garcia’s counsel condemned the death penalty generally and asked the judge for mercy. ¶49. After deliberation, the trial judge sentenced Garcia to death. The judge noted that, in her opinion, Garcia “had not been totally truthful” and had “never shown remorse.” The judge found, regardless of whether Gray was or was not involved, Garcia admitted he sexually assaulted and caused the death of JT, and he is responsible for those actions. ¶50. The judge found two statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. First, beyond a reasonable doubt, the killing of JT occurred while Garcia was engaged in the commission of a sexual battery. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(d) (Rev. 2015). Second, beyond a reasonable doubt, the capital murder of JT was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(i) (Rev. 2015). The judge based her decision on evidence including the child’s age, size, injuries, pain and suffering. [JT] was five (5) years of age, was four (4) feet two (2) inches tall, and weighed fifty (50) pounds. Garcia was a heavyset twenty-nine (29) year old man at the time of the crime. [JT] had no means by which she could have resisted Garcia or defended herself from his actions based on her size and age. Further, she was face down, tied to a chair with her head stuffed into the seat and turned to the side. This occurred prior to the sexual assault even further restricting any ability to protect herself, avoid Garcia or avoid what was about to befall her. 12 Hobby testified she called the police when she learned a little girl in Gray’s apartment complex was missing because Hobby knew Gray “had a past with child pornography” and had been sexually abusive toward her. 20 Clearly she would have recognized and been aware of this occurring, that there was danger, and that something terrible was about to occur. Moreover, the assault and killing occurred in what is undisputedly a filthy trailer, with roaches running rampant everywhere and a terrible stench. [JT] was certainly able to see and know of these conditions before being bound to the chair. She was then penetrated both vaginally and anally while still alive and tied to the chair. Garcia admits only to the anal penetration, which caused her to defecate. The undisputed evidence, however, is that his DNA was found to be a match to the DNA located on the vaginal swabs, with the person Garcia claims committed the vaginal penetration being excluded on DNA testing of those swabs. Garcia’s DNA was also found to be a match to the DNA on the anal swabs, the rectum swabs, the inner thigh and vulva swabs, and the inside of the socks used to hang [JT]. The other person was also excluded from each DNA comparison. There is every reason to believe that [JT] was conscious for at least some of the sexual assault. The length of time she was tied to the chair is not specified in this record, but was obviously long enough for both the vaginal assault and the anal assault. Garcia admits the anal penetration which, even accepting only his own testimony, had to follow the vaginal penetration. Dr. LeVaughn testified to the serious injuries inflicted to the vaginal and anal areas. Those injuries involved the entire circumference of each area as well as injuries to the internal portions of those areas. Dr. LeVaughn also testified that the sexual assaults would have caused [JT] pain and terror. Finally, it is clear that death was not instantaneous upon the hanging. There is evidence that [JT] was conscious at some point during the hanging as there are scratches to her left face/jaw area which Dr. LeVaughn testified are consistent with someone attempting to free herself from a ligature around her neck. [JT] suffered significant physical and mental pain and suffering before her death. The sexual battery and killing of [JT] was brutal, cold and torturous. ¶51. The judge also found “some mitigating factors have been shown.” Garcia had no significant criminal history. And he was twenty-nine years old at the time of the crime, “still being a considered young person.” While Garcia claimed he committed the crime under extreme emotional disturbance, the judge found absolutely no evidence to support this alleged mitigating circumstance. Finally, Garcia presented evidence of his troubled 21 childhood and extensive information about the psychological evaluation performed by Dr. Storer. The judge noted that it appeared to be somewhat mitigating that his formative years “were far from good.” Further, while Garcia no doubt had an anxiety disorder, this disorder had nothing to do with the crime committed. And while Garcia had ongoing mental-health issues as a child for which he did not receive treatment, at age twenty-nine, Garcia had long been old enough to seek help on his own. ¶52. In the end, the judge found the mitigating circumstances insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances. She thereby sentenced Garcia to death. Following the denial of his motion to vacate the sentence and conduct a new sentencing trial, Garcia appealed his sentence only, having no right to appeal his underlying capital-murder conviction based on his guilty plea. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101 (Rev. 2015) (“[W]here the defendant enters a plea of guilty and is sentenced, then no appeal from the circuit court to the Supreme Court shall be allowed.”). But see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-105(1) (Rev. 2015) (“Whenever the death penalty is imposed, and upon the judgment becoming final in the trial court, the sentence shall be reviewed on the record by the Mississippi Supreme Court.”). Issues on Appeal ¶53. On appeal, Garcia raises eight sentence-related issues: 1. Must Garcia’s death sentence be set aside because the trial court unconstitutionally heard and decided material pretrial motions at a time when Garcia was incompetent to participate in the proceedings? 2. Was Garcia’s waiver of a jury at his sentencing proceeding invalid because the trial court improperly denied his pretrial motion for change of venue? 22 3. Must Garcia’s death sentence be set aside because the trial court relied on unconstitutionally admitted evidence to arrive at its sentencing decision? 4. Did the trial court reversibly err by finding Garcia competent to waive a jury trial at sentencing? 5. Was Garcia deprived of a fair sentencing tribunal because the sentencing judge should have disqualified herself based on her presentencing exposure to confidential information that would ordinarily not be known to a sentencing factfinder, her admitted predisposition in this case, and her intent to consider extra-record matters? 6. Was Garcia’s death sentence imposed in violation of the United States Constitution? 7. Must Garcia’s death sentence be set aside as disproportionate? 8. Does the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors in this case mandate reversal of Garcia’s death sentence? Additionally, Mississippi Code Section 99-19-105(3) mandates this Court review Garcia’s death sentence and make the following determinations: (a) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; (b) Whether the evidence supports the jury’s or judge’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in Section 99-19-101; (c) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant; and (d) Should one or more of the aggravating circumstances be found invalid on appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court shall determine whether the remaining aggravating circumstances are outweighed by the mitigating circumstances or whether the inclusion of any invalid circumstance was harmless error, or both. 23 Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3) (Rev. 2015).