Opinion ID: 2332719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Duplicitous aggravating circumstances

Text: During the penalty phase, the trial court instructed the jury on three aggravating circumstances: (a) The offense of Murder was committed while the Defendant was engaged in the commission of Robbery in the First Degree; OR (b) The offense of Murder was committed while the Defendant was engaged in the commission of Burglary in the First Degree; OR (c) The offense of Murder was committed for the purpose of receiving money, or any other thing of monetary value, or for other profit. Appellant objected to the third aggravating circumstance on the basis that it was duplicative of the first two. Appellant argues that the improper cumulation of aggravating circumstances caused the jury to give undue weight to the mere number of aggravators and constitutes double jeopardy. We disagree. Aggravating circumstances are not criminal offenses subject to double jeopardy considerations. Furthermore, the jury was only required to find that the murder was committed under one aggravating circumstance. The first two aggravators were clearly proper. Error, if any, in instructing on the third was harmless and did not prejudice Appellant. RCr 9.24.