Opinion ID: 1058965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to State Aggravating Factors in the Indictment

Text: Muhammad alleges that the capital murder indictments are defective because they failed to recite aggravating factors that would support a death sentence. He argues that pursuant to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), aggravating factors in support of the death penalty are the functional equivalent of elements of the offense of capital murder. He further alleges that it was error to refuse his request for a bill of particulars specifying the aggravating factors upon which the Commonwealth would rely. Finally, despite the fact that the Commonwealth filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty based upon both aggravating factors of vileness and future dangerousness, he argues that the Commonwealth's notice did not cure the defect in the indictments. Ring involved the statutory sentencing scheme in Arizona where a death sentence may not legally be imposed unless at least one aggravating factor is found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Ring, 536 U.S. at 596, 122 S.Ct. 2428. Additionally, the Arizona statutes provided that the judge, without a jury, was to make this determination. Id. at 592-93, 122 S.Ct. 2428. The issue before the Supreme Court of the United States was stated as follows, The question presented is whether that aggravating factor may be found by the judge, as Arizona law specifies, or whether the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that the aggravating factor determination be entrusted to the jury. Id. at 597, 122 S.Ct. 2428. Citing the Court's prior opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the precise answer was provided: Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as `the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense,' Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494, n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury. Ring, 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428. The Virginia statutory scheme does not suffer from the infirmities found in Apprendi and Ring. In Virginia, if the defendant elects a jury trial, the existence of one or both aggravating factors of vileness or future dangerousness is submitted to a jury. Muhammad recognizes that Virginia's statutory scheme provides for jury determination of aggravating factors; however, he argues that the indictments in his case were defective for failure to set out the aggravating factors upon which the Commonwealth would seek the death penalty. In Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999), the Supreme Court reviewed a conviction under a federal statute prosecuted in federal court. The Court stated, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 243, n. 6, 119 S.Ct. 1215. The Court in Apprendi quoted this statement and added, The Fourteenth Amendment commands the same answer in this case involving a state statute. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 476, 120 S.Ct. 2348. However, in a footnote to the opinion, the Court stated, Apprendi has not here asserted a constitutional claim based on the omission of any reference to sentence enhancement or racial bias in the indictment. He relies entirely on the fact that the due process of law that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to provide to persons accused of crime encompasses the right to a trial by jury ... and the right to have every element of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt .... That Amendment has not, however, been construed to include the Fifth Amendment right to presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury that was implicated in our recent decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 [118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350] (1998). We thus do not address the indictment question separately today. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 477, n. 3, 120 S.Ct. 2348. As if to emphasize the point, the Court stated in a footnote to Ring, Ring does not contend that his indictment was constitutionally defective. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 477, n. 3[, 120 S.Ct. 2348] (Fourteenth Amendment has not... been construed to include the Fifth Amendment right to `presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury'). Ring, 536 U.S. at 597, n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 2428. Muhammad concedes in his brief, [w]e have acknowledged that states are currently not bound by the federal constitution to proceed in felony cases by way of indictment. He then makes the argument that is now before this Court: Nevertheless, having chosen to establish a grand jury system in Virginia, there is a federal due process right that demands the state properly follow that scheme. We disagree with Muhammad. A similar argument was made and rejected in Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). In Finley, Pennsylvania provided court appointed counsel for collateral attacks upon conviction, a right not required by the Constitution of the United States. The Court held that Finley could not sustain a federal constitutional claim for deficient performance of counsel in such collateral proceedings where there was no federal constitutional right to counsel in the first place. Id. at 558-59, 107 S.Ct. 1990. Similarly, Muhammad has no constitutional claim for failure to include aggravating factors in the two capital murder indictments because proceeding by indictment is not constitutionally required of the states. Additionally, in Virginia, if the indictment gives a defendant sufficient notice of the nature and character of the offense charged so he can make his defense, no bill of particulars is required. Roach v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 324, 340, 468 S.E.2d 98, 107, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 951, 117 S.Ct. 365, 136 L.Ed.2d 256 (1996), Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 147, 225 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1976). In Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 454, 470 S.E.2d 114, 123, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 887, 117 S.Ct. 222, 136 L.Ed.2d 154 (1996), we held that an indictment reciting an offense under Code ง 18.2-31 was sufficient to place the defendant on notice of the nature and character of the offense charged. We noted that: The capital murder indictment alleged that on or about October 14, 1994, in the City of Richmond, Christopher Cornelius Goins did feloniously and unlawfully commit capital murder in that he did kill and murder Robert Jones in a willful, deliberate and premeditated killing of more than one person as part of the same act or transaction. Id. at 454 n. 1, 470 S.E.2d at 123 n. 1. We held that the indictment in Goins was sufficient. Muhammad's indictments were sufficient as well. A defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars as a matter of right. Code ง 19.2-230 provides that a trial court may direct the filing of a bill of particulars. The trial court's decision whether to require the Commonwealth to file a bill of particulars is a matter committed to its sound discretion. Quesinberry v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 364, 372, 402 S.E.2d 218, 223, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 834, 112 S.Ct. 113, 116 L.Ed.2d 82 (1991). Here, the trial court denied Muhammad's motion for a bill of particulars identifying the aggravating factors upon which the Commonwealth would rely. After the trial court denied the bill of particulars, the Commonwealth nonetheless filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty which fully placed Muhammad on notice that the Commonwealth intended to prove both future dangerousness and vileness as aggravating factors. We hold that aggravating factors are not constitutionally required to be recited in a capital murder indictment. We hold that the indictments in this case were sufficient under Virginia law. We hold that the purported violation of Virginia's indictment provisions in this case does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional claim. We hold that it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse Muhammad's motion for a bill of particulars. Finally, we hold that any error that could have been committed by the failure to order a bill of particulars was rendered harmless by the provision of the information Muhammad sought in the Commonwealth's notice of intent to seek the death penalty.