Opinion ID: 1891351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Avoiding a Lawful Arrest Aggravating Circumstance

Text: Reynolds next asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest. We have held: [T]o establish the avoid arrest aggravating factor where the victim is not a law enforcement officer, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness. Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 610 (Fla. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1103[, 122 S.Ct. 2308, 152 L.Ed.2d 1063] (2002); see also Alston v. State, 723 So.2d 148, 160 (Fla.1998). Mere speculation on the part of the state that witness elimination was the dominant motive behind a murder cannot support the avoid arrest aggravator. Likewise, the mere fact that the victim knew and could identify defendant, without more, is insufficient to prove this aggravator. Looney v. State, 803 So.2d 656, 676 (Fla.2001) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 966[, 122 S.Ct. 2678, 153 L.Ed.2d 850] (2002); see also Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805, 819 (Fla.1996). Bell v. State, 841 So.2d 329, 336 (Fla.2002). However, [e]ven without direct evidence of the offender's thought processes, the arrest avoidance factor can be supported by circumstantial evidence through inference from the facts shown. Swafford v. State, 533 So.2d 270, 276 n. 6 (Fla.1988); see also Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 409 (Fla.1992). Reynolds claims that this standard was not met in this case. With regard to this aggravating circumstance, the trial court made the following findings in its sentencing order: a. The Defendant knew the victims; and the victims, Danny Ray Privett and Robin Razor, knew the Defendant. They lived in close proximity to each other on the same street. b. It was proven at trial that victim, Danny Ray Privett, was surreptitiously murdered outside the trailer. This stealthy killing was committed while Danny Ray Privett was about to engage, in the act of, or having just finished urinating. The Defendant approached the victim, unnoticed, then viciously and deliberately battered the victim's skull with a piece of concrete. c. The victim was rendered unconscious almost immediately and died a short period thereafter without regaining consciousness according to the Medical Examiner. d. The gooseneck prowler trailer, being located some distance away, would not necessarily afford its occupants the opportunity to either see or hear the murder of Danny Ray Privett. e. Should the perpetrator be unknown to the victims located inside the gooseneck prowler trailer, there would be no need for him to proceed to the trailer and murder its occupants if he was not seen or heard by the remaining victims. f. The victim, Robin Razor, did know the Defendant and had expressed her dislike and mistrust of the Defendant to several acquaintances. It was necessary for the Defendant to eliminate Robin Razor to avoid arrest because Robin Razor would advise the authorities that the Defendant would be a primary suspect. g. Darrell Courtney testified at the guilt/innocence phase that the Defendant admitted that he had killed the victims. The Defendant expressed regret to Courtney over having to kill the child, Christina Razor, but advised that with my record I couldn't afford to leave any witnesses. h. The relationship that existed between the Defendant and Darrell Courtney was borne out of mutual respect due to their joint status of being convicted felons who had served time in prison. Darrell Courtney is logically the type of individual with whom the Defendant would share this information concerning the murders. The Defendant also had requested that Darrell Courtney perform an act on the Defendant's behalf concerning a jail guard. Said request was set forth in the Defendant's letter to Courtney and admitted into evidence. i. This aggravating circumstance has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This aggravating circumstance is given great weight by the Court. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and should be affirmed. See Willacy, 696 So.2d at 695. Reynolds contends that the mere fact that the Razor family knew Reynolds and that Robin Razor disliked him is insufficient to support the avoid arrest aggravating circumstance. Initially, we note that testimony elicited during Reynolds' interview with the authorities and from witnesses at trial supported the trial court's finding that the Razor family knew Reynolds and that a disagreement had occurred between Reynolds and the family. Moreover, in addition to this testimony, as the trial court noted, there was testimony from Darrell Courtney regarding a conversation Courtney had with Reynolds during which he admitted to committing the crimes and stated: [L]ook, with my record, I can't leave any witnesses. . . . [B]ut I do regret doing the little girl. Although Courtney's testimony was somewhat impeached by Robert Scionti's testimony at trial, this does not preclude the trial court from considering Courtney's testimony in its analysis of the aggravators present. It is clear from the trial court's sentencing order that it found Courtney's testimony credible because the trial court relied on this testimony as support for this statutory aggravating circumstance. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of a witness, and we are mindful to accord the appropriate deference to the trial court's assessment of this witness's testimony in our review of whether competent, substantial evidence exists to support this statutory aggravator. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1034 (Fla.1999) (We recognize and honor the trial court's superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact. . . . In many instances, the trial court is in a superior position `to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor, and credibility of the witnesses.') (quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976)). We have upheld the finding of this aggravator in cases in which the defendant has expressed apprehension regarding arrest. See Looney v. State, 803 So.2d 656, 676-78 (Fla.2001); see also Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1056 (Fla. 2000); Sliney v. State, 699 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1997). The statements made by Reynolds to Courtney regarding his apprehension of arrest given his previous record appear[ ] to be exactly the type of apprehension . . . this Court finds determinative of establishing the avoid arrest aggravator. Looney, 803 So.2d at 677. Notwithstanding the above, even if we were to agree with Reynolds and conclude that the trial court erred in finding this aggravating circumstance, the error would be harmless because we can state beyond a reasonable doubt that any error in this regard did not affect the result in this case. See DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1135 (holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction). Even if we struck this aggravating circumstance, three other aggravators would remain for the murder of Robin Razorthe murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, Reynolds had been convicted previously of another capital felony or a felony involving a threat of violence to the person, and the murder was committed during the commission of or attempt to commit burglary and four other aggravators would remain for the murder of Christina Razorthe murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, Reynolds had been convicted previously of another capital felony or a felony involving a threat of violence to the person, the murder was committed during the commission of or attempt to commit burglary, and the victim was a person less than twelve years of age. Therefore, even if we were to agree that the trial court erred in finding the avoid arrest aggravator, which we do not, the sentences of death imposed under the circumstances of this case would still be proportional. See discussion of proportionality review infra pp. 1160-61.