Opinion ID: 865182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: constitutionality of the avoiding arrest

Text: AGGRAVATING FACTOR ¶35. Brawner argues that the use of the avoiding arrest aggravating factor without a limiting instruction creates a vague, over broad and unconstitutional application of Mississippi’s death penalty statute which results in an unconstitutional sentence. Since this issue could have been raised on direct appeal and was not it is procedurally barred. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, we address the merits. ¶36. This Court has addressed this exact argument numerous times and found it without merit. Doss v. State, 882 So. 2d 176, 195 (Miss. 2004); Wiley v. State, 750 So. 2d 1193 (Miss. 1999); Puckett v. State, 737 So. 2d 322, 362 (Miss. 1999); Carr v. State, 655 So. 2d 824, 854 (Miss. 1995); Walker v. State, 671 So. 2d 581, 611 (Miss. 1995); Chase v. State, 645 So. 2d 829, 858 (Miss. 1994). Briefly stated, our death penalty statute does not equate every murder with an attempt to eliminate witnesses, but rather narrowly defines to whom the avoiding arrest aggravating factor may be applied. Wiley, 750 So. 2d at 1207. ¶37. As the Fifth Circuit has noted, our decisions have narrowly construed the application of the avoiding arrest aggravating factor only to circumstances where the accused purposefully killed the victim of the underlying felony to avoid or prevent arrest for that felony. Gray v. Lucas, 677 F.2d 1086, 1109-10 (5th Cir. 1982). Unequivocally this Court has said: Each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts. If there is evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred that a substantial reason for the killing was to conceal the identity of the killer or killers or to ‘cover their tracks' so as to avoid apprehension and eventual arrest by authorities, then it is proper for the court to allow the jury to consider this aggravating circumstance. 17 Wiley, 750 So. 2d at 1206 (citing Chase, 645 So. 2d at 858)). Therefore, this argument is without merit. ¶38. In turning to whether the present case is appropriate for the avoiding arrest aggravating factor, this Court employs a deferential standard of review. It is this Court’s role to inquire into whether there was credible evidence to support the jury’s finding of the aggravating factor. Wiley, 750 So. 2d at 1206. The following facts were admitted in support of the jury’s finding. Brawner confessed that it was his intent to rob the Crafts and Barbara. For that purpose he purchased and wore rubber gloves and broke into the Crafts’ home earlier that day to steal Carl’s rifle. He entered the Crafts’ home the second time for the sole purpose of robbing the inhabitants. It was not until after he had entered the home that he realized he would not be able to “get away with” the robbery without eliminating the witnesses. Barbara had gunshot wounds to her hands which indicated that she received them in a defensive posture. The only reason he shot his daughter, Paige was because she had witnessed him shoot Jane and Barbara and he feared that she would identify him to the police. ¶39. After he shot Jane, Barbara and Paige, he waited for Carl to come home before shooting him as he walked in the door. Brawner then stole Carl’s wallet, Jane’s wedding ring and food stamps from Barbara’s purse. Afterwards, he wiped down the crime scene with Windex to eliminate evidence. After taking the money from Carl’s wallet he disposed of the wallet so that it could not be found. Later, when confronted by the police he told them that he had bought the ring from a pawn shop. 18 ¶40. These facts indicate Brawner’s concerted effort to avoid arrest. This Court has held that use of gloves in the commission of an underlying felony is evidence of the accused’s intent to avoid arrest. See Chase, 645 So. 2d at 857. Further, this Court has recognized that where the victim of the crime knew the defendant and would have subsequently been able to identify him, that the victim’s murder provides credible evidence in support of the jury’s finding. See Puckett, 737 So. 2d at 362. This Court has also recognized defensive wounds on the victim, indicating that they were not aggressive to the defendant provide evidence of the defendant’s intent to avoid arrest. See Doss, 882 So. 2d at 193. These facts combined with the others and most notably Brawner’s confession that he entered with the purpose of robbing the victims provide credible evidence to support the jury’s finding. Id. This issue is without merit.