Opinion ID: 769328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Aggravating Factors Duplicative of the Offense

Text: 36 Paul argues the district court erroneously instructed the jury that Paul's intent to kill Williams was a statutory aggravator to be weighed in the selection phase of the jury's sentencing determination. 7 Paul also argues that as an aggravating factor, the intent finding does not serve to narrow the class of people eligible for the death penalty. 37 The government concedes that this instruction erroneously labeled intent as an aggravating factor, but argues that the error was not repeated in the special verdict form wherein the mental state inquiry was separate from the aggravating and mitigating factors inquiry. After reviewing the special verdict form, we agree that the jury was not led to believe that intent was to be treated by the jury as a statutory aggravator. The special verdict form starts with roman numeral one, which is the jury's required finding that Paul was eighteen, and then numeral two, which contains the REQUISITE MENTAL STATE intent finding. Roman numeral three is labeled STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS and contains the three statutory aggravating factors used in this case. This clear separation of the mental state from the aggravating factors did not lead the jury to believe that intent was a statutory aggravating factor. We therefore need not address Paul's argument that intent as a statutory aggravator did not adequately narrow the class of people eligible for the death penalty.
38 Paul also argues that because pecuniary gain was an element of the offense of robbery, and also was used as a statutory aggravating factor, the class of people eligible for the death penalty was not sufficiently narrowed. To withstand constitutional scrutiny, an aggravating factor which makes the defendant eligible for the death penalty must not apply to every defendant convicted of a murder, but instead only to a subclass of murder defendants, and it must not be unconstitutionally vague. See Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 972 (1994). 39 There is a difference between the eligibility determination and the selection determination in death penalty cases. See Jones, 527 U.S. at 377. During the eligibility phase, the jury makes the requisite age and intent findings, and the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the statutory aggravating factors set forth at 3592. Id. (emphasis added). If the government meets this burden, the jury then moves on to the selection decision, and must consider all of the aggravating and mitigating factors and determine whether the former outweigh the latter. Id. 40 Pecuniary gain was used as a statutory aggravating factor at the eligibility stage, in addition to being an element of the underlying offense. However, the jury found two other aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt, either of which would have made Paul death eligible. 8 Thus, any error in the use of pecuniary gain as a statutory aggravator was harmless.