Opinion ID: 1972466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The death of Marc Locust.

Text: The principal question posed by this case is one of law, but legal issues do not arise in a vacuum, and a few words are in order about the events which precipitated this appeal. Because the materials in the file are focused primarily on the mental and emotional problems of the defendant, we do not know very much about his victim. It appears from the government's sentencing memorandum, however, that on February 28, 1992, Marc Locust was riding his bicycle to the Ivy Market, a local convenience store which he apparently frequented. Veney, who had purchased a revolver about four weeks earlier from a junkie, was pacing back and forth at a corner near the market. As Locust approached the store, Veney pulled the revolver from his waistband, pointed it at Locust, and shot him in the chest from a distance of six feet. The bullet pierced Locust's heart and lungs. Locust, who was unarmed, fell from the bicycle and tried to run away. Veney gave chase and fired again; a second bullet grazed Locust's forehead. Minutes later, Locust was found by his brother in a gutter, bleeding and gasping for breath. Marc Locust then died. He was twenty-one years old. Veney was arrested and gave a videotaped statement to the police. He stated that he and Marc Locust had argued several summers earlier over a girl. He claimed that Locust had shot at him a few weeks before the killing, but he could not remember exactly where this occurred. [2] Veney admitted that he shot Locust, and that he ran home and hid the revolver. He later threw the weapon into the river. Veney was charged with first degree murder while armed and with associated weapons offenses. In spite of the considerable evidence of premeditation, he was permitted to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter while armed. Murder charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. In advance of sentencing, Veney's counsel presented to the court evaluations of her client by two psychologists and one psychiatrist. It is apparent from these evaluations that Veney is at least moderately retarded [3] and that he suffers from various mental and emotional disorders. He was abused by both parents, and he was apparently present when his mother shot his father. Like his mother, Veney has on occasion attempted suicide. There can be no doubt that he is a limited young man and that he grew up in most unfortunate circumstances. The materials submitted by the defense also reveal, however, that Veney is an extremely dangerous individual. Since his teens, he has been engaged in numerous unlawful activities, including setting fires, cruelty to animals, stealing cars, destruction of property, fighting, and carrying a knife. He was committed to Saint Elizabeth Hospital and to the Receiving Home, and he spent two years at The Pines Treatment Center in Portsmouth, Virginia. He was released in June 1991. Then, according to the defense psychiatrist, Neil Blumberg, M.D., Veney returned to the District of Columbia and began associating with a delinquent crowd. He did not work, began drinking and abusing drugs, and eventually became involved in selling drugs, which became his primary means of support. Veney's chosen lifestyle is especially dangerous, both for him and for others because, in the words of defense psychologist Lanning E. Moldauer, Ph.D., Mr. Veney is particularly poorly equipped for the role of drug dealer or street hustler where the action is likely to turn violent and the demands for making quick, accurate distinctions in life-and-death situations are all too great. Veney, according to Dr. Moldauer, is abnormally hypervigilant and unrealistically fearful. This is a trait which may well have led to the death of Marc Locust. The prosecutor and defense counsel prepared separate thoughtful submissions to the sentencing judge. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor remarked, inter alia, that [t]here has been a lot of discussion about what would help Mr. Veney. I think the time has come to put the needs of the community ahead of those of Mr. Veney. [4] The judge declined to sentence Veney pursuant to the DCYRA, and ordered him incarcerated for a period of fifteen years to life. This appeal followed.