Opinion ID: 159762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: murder for remuneration

Text: Petitioner argues there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of the murder for remuneration aggravator. She contends there was no evidence showing her awareness of the amounts of money in the joint bank accounts or the value of the insurance. She further contends the jury’s decision was based on Bryson’s hearsay statements she had no opportunity to cross examine. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, on direct appeal, decided there was evidence this crime was motivated by financial gain. See Plantz, 876 P.2d at 281. The federal district court found ample evidence showing both that petitioner’s involvement in the murder of her husband was motivated by the expectation of recovering the proceeds from his life insurance and that petitioner recruited McKimble and attempted to recruit others to kill her husband for remuneration. After reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational factfinder could have found the existence of this aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780-82 (1990). Petitioner planned the murder of her husband in order to collect the insurance -29- proceeds. She was present when Bryson offered to pay Farris if he would kill Mr. Plantz. She promised McKimble money from the life insurance proceeds if he would help with the murder. Regardless of any hearsay, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of this aggravator. The Oklahoma appellate court’s determination that sufficient evidence supported this aggravator was not unreasonable.