Opinion ID: 2003518
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel During the Eligibility Phase of the Sentencing Proceedings

Text: Defendant contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during the first stage of the sentencing proceedings. According to defendant, his attorneys should have asserted a defense to imposition of the death penalty based on the eighth amendment proportionality principles set forth in Enmund v. Florida (1982), 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140, and Tison v. Arizona (1987), 481 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127. In Enmund, the Court concluded that the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. VIII) precludes capital punishment for an offender who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed. ( Enmund, 458 U.S. at 797, 102 S.Ct. at 3376, 73 L.Ed.2d at 1151.) Subsequently, in Tison, which was decided shortly after the sentencing proceedings in the case at bar, the Court held that major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement. Tison, 481 U.S. at 158, 107 S.Ct. at 1688, 95 L.Ed.2d at 145. Defendant maintains that certain physical and testimonial evidence presented at trial suggests that even to the extent he was involved in the murder of Vernita Wheat, he did not act alone. Defendant asserts that the evidence provides no basis for a rational conclusion as to the respective roles and mental states of the participants, and accordingly it cannot be established that he acted with the degree of personal culpability necessary to permit imposition of the death penalty. At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, defendant presented the testimony of Robert Isaacson, a defense attorney with extensive experience in capital cases. Isaacson testified that defendant's attorneys should have sought a ruling from the trial court that defendant was ineligible for the death penalty as a matter of law. According to Isaacson, if the trial court declined to rule that defendant was ineligible for the death penalty, defendant's attorneys should have requested that the jury be instructed in accordance with Enmund and should have offered argument on the question. Defendant contends that trial counsel's failure to take these steps constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. As noted, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on deficient representation of a criminal defendant are evaluated in accordance with the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Strickland provides as follows: A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. ( Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693.) Where it is possible to resolve an ineffective-assistance claim on the basis that the defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of counsel's allegedly defective performance, the claim may be decided against the defendant without consideration of whether counsel's performance was actually deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2070, 80 L.Ed.2d at 699; see also Mahaffey, 165 Ill.2d at 457-58, 209 Ill.Dec. 246, 651 N.E.2d 174. Having carefully reviewed the trial record, we conclude that the omissions by trial counsel upon which defendant bases his ineffective-assistance claim did not result in prejudice within the meaning of Strickland. Enmund and Tison place limits on when the death penalty may be imposed on a person who aids and abets a felony during the course of which a murder is committed by others. Neither decision limits the imposition of capital punishment upon an offender who personally performs the acts causing death. (See Mann v. Dugger (11th Cir.1987), 817 F.2d 1471, 1478, vacated on other grounds on reh'g (11th Cir.1987), 828 F.2d 1498; State v. Atwood (1992), 171 Ariz. 576, 650, 832 P.2d 593, 667; People v. Hayes (1990), 52 Cal.3d 577, 632, 276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 908, 802 P.2d 376, 410; State v. Fields (1995), 127 Idaho 904, ___, 908 P.2d 1211, 1224.) In finding defendant guilty of murder under the instructions given in this case, the jury necessarily determined beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant himself killed the victim. As the State correctly points out, the jury was not instructed on the principles of accountability. All of the murder instructions required the jury to find that defendant performed the acts causing Vernita Wheat's death in order to return a guilty verdict. We note that Enmund does not impose any particular form of procedure upon the States. (Emphasis in original.) ( Cabana v. Bullock (1986), 474 U.S. 376, 386, 106 S.Ct. 689, 697, 88 L.Ed.2d 704, 716.) What is required is that the State's judicial process leading to the imposition of the death penalty must at some point provide for [the requisite findings]. (Emphasis in original.) ( Bullock, 474 U.S. at 390-91, 106 S.Ct. at 699, 88 L.Ed.2d at 719.) Accordingly, the jury's guilt phase verdict will satisfy Enmund when the verdict necessarily establishes either: (1) that the defendant personally killed the victim or (2) that the defendant acted with the requisite culpable mental state in cases where an accomplice may have killed the victim. (See Andrews v. Shulsen (10th Cir. 1986), 802 F.2d 1256, 1272 (A death sentence may rest upon a guilty verdict which necessitates a finding of intent); Wingo v. Blackburn (5th Cir.1986), 783 F.2d 1046, 1050 (where jury was instructed that it could not find the defendant guilty of first degree murder unless he was proved to have intended to kill, Enmund did not impose a constitutional requirement that the instruction on specific intent be repeated at the sentencing stage); State v. Atwood (1992), 171 Ariz. 576, 650, 832 P.2d 593, 667 (jury's finding that defendant actually killed victim implicit in its verdict of guilty of first degree felony murder was sufficient under Enmund); State v. Fields (1995), 127 Idaho 904, ___, 908 P.2d 1211, 1224 (where the jury found at the guilt phase that the defendant actually killed his victim, Enmund was inapposite); Mann v. State (Okla.1988), 749 P.2d 1151, 1161 (To apply the Enmund criteria and its progeny in a malice aforethought murder at the sentencing stage, would be the equivalent of asking the jury to re-examine their finding of guilt (emphasis in original)); Webb v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1988), 760 S.W.2d 263, 269 (where jury was required to find an intent to promote or assist commission of an intentional murder before it could convict defendant as a party to the offense in the first instance, jury's later punishment verdict was not fatally defective).) Because the jury determined at the guilt phase that defendant himself killed the victim, defendant was not entitled to have the question revisited at the sentencing phase, and defense counsel's failure to submit instructions and offer argument on Enmund caused no prejudice under the Strickland test. Since from a procedural standpoint there was no right to have the jury pass upon the issue at sentencing, we need not speculate as to what the jury would have found had the issue been before it. Similarly, assuming the evidence supports the jury's determination, a motion to bar imposition of the death penalty would have been properly denied, and defense counsel's failure to make such a motion was not prejudicial under Strickland. Defendant maintains, however, that the evidence at trial suggests the involvement of another individual who may have been the actual killer. Defendant notes James Adams' testimony that he observed a black male wearing a large hat walking with a young girl near the building where the victim's body was discovered. Defendant points out that there was no testimony that he was wearing a hat during the relevant time frame. Defendant also contends that pubic hairs not belonging to him were present at the victim's autopsy. Lastly, defendant notes the unidentified fingerprint found next to his own on the door to the bathroom where the victim's body was discovered. We are not persuaded that this evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant performed the acts causing Vernita Wheat's death. First, that the individual observed by James Adams wore a hat does not mean that that individual was someone other than defendant. Even if defendant was not seen wearing a hat at other points in time, he might have worn one at the time Adams made his observation. Defendant's reliance on pubic hairs which he claims were present at the victim's autopsy is similarly unpersuasive. Defendant's argument is somewhat misleading inasmuch as he neglects to mention conflicting evidence regarding the origin of the pubic hairs and other testimony casting doubt on whether the hairs belonged to a participant in the crimes. Dr. Larry Blum performed the autopsy with the assistance of James Murray, a deputy coroner for Lake County. Murray testified that he observed Dr. Blum pull hairs from the pubic area of the victim. On the other hand, Dr. Blum testified that he did not recall taking any pubic hairs from the victim and did not discover any loose hairs in the pubic area of the victim. Dr. Blum also testified that he found no signs of sexual abuse. Chester Blythe, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, compared the pubic hairs to specimens obtained from defendant and concluded they did not match. However, Special Agent Blythe also testified that the hairs appeared to have been forcibly removed. Moreover, he noted the presence of tissue on the hairs, which was consistent with hairs obtained from a decomposing body. Given the somewhat conflicting testimony of Dr. Blum and Murray, and Agent Blythe's testimony suggesting that the hairs may have been plucked from a decomposing body, the jury need not have viewed the pubic hairs as establishing the involvement of an accomplice. Finally, although the unidentified fingerprint near defendant's own fingerprint might theoretically have been left by an accomplice, it might also have been left by someone unconnected to the crime, and its proximity to defendant's fingerprint could rationally be attributed to coincidence. We are aware that in rebuttal to defendant's closing argument the State asserted that the unidentified fingerprint belonged to an unknown party to the crime. Nonetheless, the State's argument was not binding on the jury. As noted above, the jury was not instructed on principles of accountability, and thus to convict defendant of murder under any of the theories presented, it had to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the actual killer. The question before us is whether the evidence supports this determination. We conclude that it does. Where circumstantial evidence relied upon to support the defense that another committed the crime is unsatisfactory, based upon mere surmise or possibility, without evidence to support it, a hypothesis of innocence may be rejected by the trier of fact. ( People v. Hendricks (1986), 145 Ill.App.3d 71, 102, 99 Ill.Dec. 20, 495 N.E.2d 85, rev'd on other grounds (1990); 137 Ill.2d 31, 148 Ill.Dec. 213, 560 N.E.2d 611.) In the case at bar, the jury was under no obligation to speculate that the victim may have been killed by a hypothetical accomplice. Even if we were to adopt defendant's theory that Vernita Wheat may have been killed by an accomplice, we would still conclude that trial counsel's inaction was not prejudicial. Under Tison, when a murder occurs during the course of another felony, major participation in the felony combined with reckless indifference to human life satisfies the eighth amendment's standard of personal culpability required for imposition of capital punishment. Although Tison was decided after the sentencing proceedings in the case at bar, defendant must demonstrate prejudice with reference to the Tison standard even though the existing standard under Enmund alone may arguably have been more favorable to defendant. See Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993), 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180, (although objection to death penalty eligibility might have been successful based on existing precedent at time of death penalty hearing, habeas corpus petitioner could not rely on that precedent, which had since been overruled, to demonstrate that trial counsel's failure to make the objection was prejudicial). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant may have had an accomplice who actually killed the victim, defendant was clearly a major participant in the underlying felony of aggravated kidnapping. Additionally, although the State's case depended upon circumstantial evidence which does not elucidate all the details of the victim's death, when the evidence is viewed in its entirety, the conclusion that defendant acted at least with reckless indifference to the victim's life is practically inescapable. The evidence clearly establishes that defendant kidnapped the young victim and that defendant was present at the location where the victim's body was discovered with her hands and chest bound and a cable wrapped around her neck. Given this evidence, it strains credulity to postulate that defendant might have acted with a mental state less culpable than reckless indifference to human life. We conclude both that the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite culpability under Tison, and that no reasonable probability exists that the jury would have found otherwise if the question had been submitted to it.