Opinion ID: 2545349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Avoid-Arrest Aggravator

Text: Cole argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on and in finding the avoid-arrest aggravating factor. She claims that the facts support the conclusion that the dominant motive for the murders was to facilitate theft rather than to avoid arrest. We conclude that the trial court did not err. [T]o establish the avoid arrest aggravating factor where the victim is not a law enforcement officer, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness. Reynolds v. State, 934 So.2d 1128, 1156 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Bell v. State, 841 So.2d 329, 336 (Fla.2002)). However, [e]ven without direct evidence of the offender's thought processes, the arrest avoidance factor can be supported by circumstantial evidence through inference from the facts shown. Id. at 1157 (alteration in original) (quoting Swafford v. State, 533 So.2d 270, 276 n. 6 (Fla.1988)); see also Looney v. State, 803 So.2d 656, 677 (Fla.2001) (This Court has also said [the avoid-arrest] factor may be proved by circumstantial evidence from which the motive for the murders may be inferred.). Further, the avoid arrest aggravator is proper where `the victim is transported to another location and then killed.' Jones v. State, 748 So.2d 1012, 1027 (Fla.1999) (quoting Hall v. State, 614 So.2d 473, 477 (Fla.1993)). In Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 20 (Fla. 2000), we held that the avoid-arrest aggravating factor was improperly found when the facts indicated that Zack committed the murder at issue during the course of committing multiple crimes over a period of several days and in multiple cities. We explained that [t]he record suggests only that [the victim's] murder was part of Zack's premeditated plan to kill her and take her car and possessions. While it is true that Zack did not have to murder [the victim] to accomplish his monetary goals, this alone does not make Zack's dominant motive the desire to avoid arrest. Id. In Buzia v. State, 926 So.2d 1203, 1210 (Fla.2006), we distinguished Zack and emphasized that unlike Zack, Buzia was not on a crime-riddled journey. Buzia knew his victims, he easily subdued the victims, and the victims posed no immediate threat to Buzia. Id. at 1206, 1211. Thus, there was little reason for Buzia to kill the victims other than to avoid arrest. Id. at 1211. Similarly, in Looney, we held that the trial court properly found the avoid-arrest aggravating factor where Looney and his codefendants entered the victims' home, subdued the victims, and then killed the victims after realizing that the victims knew a codefendant. 803 So.2d at 676-78. We emphasized that Looney and his codefendants were able to leave the premises without injuring or killing the victims because they had access to the victims' vehicle and the victims were immobilized and unable to resist. Thus, there was no reason for Looney and his codefendants to kill the victims other than to avoid arrest. Id. at 677-78; see also Hoskins v. State, 965 So.2d 1, 20 (Fla.2007) (holding that avoid-arrest aggravator was supported by fact that defendant could have left elderly victim, who had been bound and gagged, without killing her); Thompson v. State, 648 So.2d 692, 695 (Fla.1994) (upholding the avoid-arrest aggravating factor where defendant had little reason to kill the victimsother than to eliminate witnesses after obtaining the victims' money). In the instant case, the transportation of the victims to the grave site in Georgia points to avoiding arrest as the sole or dominant motive for the murders. See Jones, 748 So.2d at 1027. In addition, like those in Buzia and Looney and unlike those in Zack, the crimes were not part of a crime-riddled journey. Rather, Cole and her codefendants specifically targeted the victims. As we held in Buzia and Looney, if Cole and her codefendants' dominant or sole motives were truly for pecuniary gain, rather than to avoid arrest, there would have been no reason to murder the victims after stealing items from the victims' home and especially no reason to murder them after obtaining the victims' PIN numbers at the grave site. The victims were in particularly poor health and could not have posed any danger to the codefendants at either the victims' home or the grave site. The codefendants had access to the victims' car while at the victims' home and could have left the victims without any transportation in rural South Georgia. Competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding of the avoid-arrest aggravating factor.