Opinion ID: 2598537
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Premeditated Felony Murder Aggravating Circumstance

Text: [ś 129] Olsen contends that after he was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and felony murder, the premeditation and robbery elements of those crimes were used to establish the premeditated felony murder aggravating circumstance in violation of Engberg. The State contends that Engberg is distinguishable because it is limited to those cases where an underlying felony is used to convict a defendant of felony murder only; in this case, Olsen was also convicted of premeditated first degree murder, thus Engberg does not apply. We agree with the State. [ś 130] Engberg's rationale is that when an element of felony murder is itself listed as an aggravating factor, the Furman/Gregg constitutional requirement of narrowing the class of persons to be sentenced to death is not met. Engberg, 820 P.2d at 90. Engberg defined aggravation as: Any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself. Id. (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 60 (5th ed.1979)). In Engberg, the robbery established an essential element of the crime of felony murder and of two aggravating circumstances: the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a felony, and the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. Id. at 89. Engberg 's holding was very specific: We now hold that where an underlying felony is used to convict a defendant of felony murder only, elements of the underlying felony may not again be used as an aggravating factor in the sentencing phase. Id. at 92. Olsen was convicted of both felony murder and premeditated first degree murder, and Engberg does not apply. We disagree with Olsen's claim that permitting this aggravating factor does not narrow the class of persons to be sentenced to death. Once Olsen was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, this aggravating circumstance constitutionally submitted the question of whether he was eligible for the death penalty on the basis that he was engaged in the commission of a robbery. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury to consider this aggravating circumstance.