Opinion ID: 1102346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Murder Committed for Purpose of Avoiding or Preventing a Lawful Arrest

Text: In Riley v. State, 366 So.2d 19 (Fla.1978), we first extended application of the aggravator of a murder committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest beyond those involving law enforcement personnel, to include other capital murders specifically involving witness elimination. In so doing, we cautioned that [p]roof of the requisite intent to avoid arrest and detection must be very strong, in such cases, id. at 22, to sustain the avoid arrest aggravator as it pertains to witness elimination. Shortly thereafter, we reaffirmed Riley and explained our holding there as to the requirements of this aggravator: [A]n intent to avoid arrest is not present, at least when the victim is not a law enforcement officer, unless it is clearly shown that the dominant or only motive for the murder was the elimination of witnesses. Menendez v. State, 368 So.2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 1979) (emphasis supplied). We have reaffirmed that standard in numerous cases during the last twenty years. See, e.g., Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805 (Fla.1996) (In other words, the evidence must prove that the sole or dominant motive for the killing was to eliminate a witness.); Robertson v. State, 611 So.2d 1228, 1232 (Fla. 1993) ([T]he State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's dominant or only motive for the murder of the victim, who is not a law enforcement officer, is the elimination of a witness.); Floyd v. State, 497 So.2d 1211, 1215 (Fla.1986) (The state must clearly show that the dominant or only motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness.); Bates v. State, 465 So.2d 490, 492 (Fla.1985) (reasoning that `it must be clearly shown that the dominant or only motive for the murder was the elimination of' the witness). Even more recently, we reaffirmed that this aggravator cannot be found unless the evidence clearly shows that the elimination of the witness was the sole or dominant motive for the murder. Pomeranz v. State, 703 So.2d 465, 471 (Fla.1997). In Pomeranz, we struck the avoid arrest aggravator because there was no evidence that the defendant and the victim were acquainted and where both eyewitnesses testified that the shooting began because the victim grabbed the gun. Id. From these examples, we can distill an overarching rule from our earliest cases onward discussing this aggravator: the proof must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was murdered solely or predominantly for the purpose of witness elimination. In applying this legal standard to the facts of this case, we conclude that the avoid arrest aggravator cannot stand. Flatebo, Ambrose, and Mann all testified that Urbin shot the victim because the victim resisted the robbery attempt, a critical consistency in all of the witnesses' testimony relating Urbin's statements about the shooting. [3] Of course, Urbin's statements to those witnesses were relied upon by the State to establish the circumstances of the shooting. A shooting during a scuffle was also indicated by the facial injuries [4] inflicted upon Hicks and described by the medical examiner. Further, as Urbin argues, Although Flatebo testified that Urbin said he shot the victim because he bucked and because he saw his facethe evidence suggests this latter fact was at most a corollary, or secondary motive, not the dominant one. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, we conclude this factual situation more closely resembles the fatal confrontation in Cook v. State, 542 So.2d 964, 970 (Fla.1989), wherein we found that the facts indicated that the defendant shot instinctively, not with a calculated plan to eliminate [the victim] as a witness. See also Livingston v. State, 565 So.2d 1288, 1292 (Fla.1988) (striking avoid arrest aggravator because defendant's statement after shooting first victim, now I'm going to get the one in the back [of the store], did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that witness elimination was sole or dominant motive in shooting). Consequently, we find that the State did not carry its burden in demonstrating by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that witness elimination was Urbin's dominant or sole motive [5] in the killing.