Opinion ID: 1947870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: violation of the due process clause?

Text: The appellant's argument that this aggravating circumstance is vague and overbroad is identical to the argument made in Washington v. State, supra . We rejected this argument in Washington, and again reject it here. In Washington, this Court said: In our opinion the words `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel' are not confusing nor likely to be misunderstood by the average citizen. The average citizen has a reasonable knowledge of the generally accepted meaning of these words. He comes in contact with these words frequently, if not in personal conversation at least through the news media of television, radio or the press. 361 So.2d at 65. In rejecting an identical argument in Spinkellink, the Fifth Circuit said: Again, we feel that the meaning of such terms is a matter of common knowledge, so that an ordinary man would not have to guess at what was intended. ... What is intended to be included are those capital crimes where the actual commission of the capital felony was accompanied by such additional acts as to set the crime apart from the norm of capital felonies  the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim.  578 F.2d at 611. (Emphasis added).