Opinion ID: 1706950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to define avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest as an aggravating circumstance.

Text: ¶ 72. Bell argues that he should be granted a new trial because the instruction failed to define the avoiding arrest aggravator, saying that, without a limiting definition, the use of the avoiding arrest aggravator violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In a case addressing this same issue, the Court recently held that a limiting instruction is not necessary. Chase, 645 So.2d at 858. Chase also asserted that a limiting instruction was necessary for the aggravator that capital murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing lawful arrest. The Court, in denying the necessity for a limiting instruction, quoted a Fifth Circuit case that this factor was directed to a legitimate state interest and was `not so broad that it comprehends an impermissibly large group of murders.' Id. at 858 ( quoting Gray v. Lucas, 677 F.2d 1086, 1110 (5th Cir.1982)). As in Chase, Bell's jury was not unreasonable in inferring from the evidence that the murder was committed to avoid arrest. This question has been decided and the issue is without merit.