Opinion ID: 1920351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Consideration of the Aggravators of Robbery and Pecuniary Gain

Text: ś 72. Spicer asserts that it was error for the trial judge to submit to the jury the following aggravating factor: The capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain during the course of a robbery. [26] According to Spicer, these two aggravating circumstances cannot be submitted together nor should they have been submitted separately to the jury. We do not agree and find Spicer's analysis incorrect. ś 73. Spicer did not object to the submission of the aggravating circumstances and is thus procedurally barred from appealing. Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1247 (Miss.1995). Notwithstanding the procedural bar, we find Spicer's assertion without merit. Spicer relies on Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 681 (Miss.1991), for the proposition that an instruction like the present was impermissible. In Willie this Court found that instructing the jury on two separate aggravators for pecuniary gain and robbery allowed the jury to doubly weigh the same evidence. Willie, 585 So.2d at 680-81. In Turner v. State, 732 So.2d 937 (Miss.1999), we dealt with an argument similar to the one presently raised where pecuniary gain and robbery were instructed as part of one aggravator. In Turner this Court upheld the conviction on the principle that the two aggravators were essentially one and therefore the single instruction was appropriate whereas two separate instructions were not. Id. at 954. The present case tracks Turner and as a result there was nothing impermissible with the instruction. We find that Spicer's twelfth assertion of error is without merit.