Opinion ID: 1756872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Point Five: Improper Sentence

Text: In the fifth point, Appellant makes the following arguments: A) the trial court erred in sentencing [Appellant] to death violating due process, fundamental fairness, and reliable, proportionate sentencing; B) [n]umerous trial errors, strong mitigating evidence, and a previous jury not finding [Appellant] guilty of first degree murder show this is an inappropriate case for death; and C) Missouri's lack of standards afford prosecutors unguided discretion in seeking death sentences resulting in inconsistent application of the death penalty. To safeguard against the arbitrariness of unguided prosecutorial discretion, when the state seeks death, it should be required to afford the accused an opportunity to avoid a death sentence by pleading guilty to first degree murder or a lesser offense.
This Court is statutorily required to engage in a proportionality review and determine: (1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; and (2) Whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in subsection 2 of section 565.032 and any other circumstance found; (3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime, the strength of the evidence and the defendant. Section 565.035.3.
Appellant does not allege, and a review of the record does not indicate, the death sentence was influenced by passion, prejudice, or arbitrary factors.
The evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the jury's findings of three aggravating factors. Appellant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person by means of a weapon that would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person when he shot Sgt. McEntee multiple times and a bullet struck a juvenile standing next to the patrol car. The act involved depravity of mind and the murder was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman, as the act involved two distinctly separate shootings within a short period of time and Sgt. McEntee was seriously injured and helpless at the time of the second shooting. The act was committed against a peace officer while engaged in the performance of his official duty as Sgt. McEntee was responding to a call and was in his patrol car.
The death sentence is neither excessive nor disproportion in this case. This Court has upheld death sentences when a police officer was killed. See State v. Tisius, 92 S.W.3d 751, 765-66 (Mo. banc 2002) ( Tisius I ); State v. Clayton, 995 S.W.2d 468, 484 (Mo. banc 1999); State v. Johnson, 968 S.W.2d 123, 135 (Mo. banc 1998). This Court has also upheld death sentences where an injured and helpless victim is subject to a fatal blow. See Tisius I, 92 S.W.3d at 765-66; State v. Cole, 71 S.W.3d 163, 177 (Mo. banc 2002); Johns, 34 S.W.3d at 118; State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 467 (Mo. banc 1999).
Appellant alleges that [n]umerous trial errors, strong mitigating evidence, and a previous jury not finding [Appellant] guilty of first degree murder show this is an inappropriate case for death. This Court found no trial errors when reviewing the record; thus, the alleged errors did not make the sentence unreliable. See Johnson I, 207 S.W.3d at 50. During the punishment phase, Appellant presented mitigating evidence of childhood abuse and neglect and good character. Deference is given to the jury's decision when there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found that the mitigating evidence did not outweigh the aggravating evidence. State v. Johnson, 244 S.W.3d 144, 157-58 (Mo. banc 2008). On reviewing the evidence, a reasonable juror could properly find the mitigating evidence of Appellant's childhood and good character did not outweigh the aggravating factors. This Court has upheld the death penalty despite evidence of childhood neglect. See id. at 157; State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 503 (Mo. banc 1997). Appellant also alleges the strength of the evidence is insufficient to support the sentence because his first trial ended when the jury could not reach a verdict. A prior mistrial is not dispositive on imposing the death sentence. See State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693 (Mo. banc 2007) (death penalty upheld after two prior mistrials and a conviction reversed).
Appellant argues his death sentence should be set aside due to prosecutorial discretion in seeking the death penalty. This Court has rejected this argument. State v. Barnett, 980 S.W.2d 297, 309 (Mo. banc 1998).
Point five is denied.