Opinion ID: 2621432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 42

Heading: Disclosure of Prior Rape Convictions Most Certainly Inconsequential

Text: ś 299 The majority's reversal of Gregory's death sentence is all the more regrettable in light of the jury verdict of guilt and its finding of aggravating factors in the murder of Geneiene H. MCP at 2488, 2490. Disclosure of Gregory's R.S. rape conviction impacted neither of these determinations. Gregory was found guilty and deemed eligible for the death penalty separate and apart from his prior rape conviction. MCP at 2488, 2490 (The murder was committed in the course of, in furtherance of, or in immediate flight from a Rape in the First or Second Degree or a Robbery in the First Degree.) Instead, the disclosure of Gregory's rape conviction as part of his long criminal record was only part of the jury determination whether mitigating factors warrant leniency. ś 300 The jury in the murder case endured a two-month trial, some of which was summarized at the beginning of this opinion. The jury deliberated and ultimately convicted Gregory and found aggravating circumstances without any mention of his separate conviction for the rape of R.S. ś 301 At the penalty proceeding, the transcript of arguments and testimony presented to the jury spans some 500 pages. A handful of passing references were made to Gregory's rape of R.S., but the jury was provided with all of Gregory's criminal history. The overwhelming preponderance of the arguments and testimony focused upon the horrific murder of Geneiene H. and defense counsel's insistence that mitigating factors justified leniency. As the prosecutor argued to the jury: For the crimes against Geneiene [H.] alone, you don't need anything else to find that this defendant deserves the death penalty. Murder Case Verbatim Report of Proceedings (MRP) at 7747. ś 302 Although our statute places upon the State the burden of demonstrating that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances, the defendant appropriately bears the burden of proffering mitigating circumstances â a burden of production. Kansas v. Marsh, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2516, 2527, 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006); State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 668, 845 P.2d 289, cert. denied 510 U.S. 944, 114 S.Ct. 382, 126 L.Ed.2d 331 (1993). See RCW 10.95.060(2). ś 303 Here, most of the testimony at the sentencing hearing was provided by witnesses favorable to Gregory, asking for leniency. The jury also heard victim impact testimony provided by Geneiene H.'s mother, see Wash. Const. art I, § 35; MRP 7239-52, and brief rebuttal testimony of a former employer of Gregory, MRP at 7667-80. The jury heard from twelve witnesses called by defense counsel. See testimony in MRP beginning at 7345, 7356, 7376, 7472, 7493, 7502, 7508, 7549, 7567, 7594, 7636, and 7664. The jury even heard a mitigation specialist hired by the State to testify on Gregory's behalf. MRP at 7636. The jury plainly rejected defense counsel's best offerings of mitigating evidence on behalf of Gregory and concluded there were not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency. See RCW 10.95.060(4). For a likely explanation of the jury decision, reread pages 3-6, supra (crime description summary). ś 304 To be sure, this court is constrained by United States Supreme Court precedent holding that if the sentencer was allowed to hear evidence that would not otherwise have been before it, due process mandates reversal. Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212, 126 S.Ct. 884, 891, 163 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006). Nonetheless, common sense and the record show that this jury was overwhelmingly focused upon the murder of Geneiene H. At most, the judgment should be stayed to allow retrial of the separate rape case. If convicted, there is no reason to vacate the sentence for the rape and murder of Geneiene.