Opinion ID: 1790946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the imposition of the death penalty was disproportionate.

Text: ¶ 43. Bishop argues that the death penalty was disproportionately imposed upon him and that the State failed to prove the required factors for the imposition of the death penalty beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 44. Bishop argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he contemplated lethal force, and that the evidence showed that he intended only to give Gentry a good whooping. ¶ 45. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom in the light most consistent with the verdict. We have no authority to disturb the verdict short of a conclusion that no rational trier of fact could have found the fact at issue beyond a reasonable doubt. White v. State, 532 So.2d 1207, 1220 (Miss.1988). ¶ 46. Bishop points to the cases of Reddix v. State, 547 So.2d 792 (Miss.1989), and Bullock v. State, 525 So.2d 764 (Miss.1987), in which the imposition of the death penalty was reversed where the defendants did not actually kill the victim, but either watched the murder or committed part of the underlying felony. Bishop, on the other hand, took an active part in Gentry's murder: he provided the weapon used on the victim, kicked the victim, chased the victim down and held him while the lethal blows were being inflicted. It is reasonable to conclude that if one intends to beat someone in the head with an unusually large hammer, that person intends to use lethal force. Furthermore, the length of time between the first blow and the fatal blow indicates that Bishop not only knew that lethal force would be used, but also encouraged the use of lethal force. He also discussed burying the victim after the crime was completed. ¶ 47. This issue is without merit.
¶ 48. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3)(c), we must consider whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. Under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7) (Supp. 2001), for a defendant to be given the death penalty, certain factors must be met: (7) In order to return and impose a sentence of death the jury must make a written finding of one or more of the following: (a) The defendant actually killed; (b) The defendant attempted to kill; (c) The defendant intended that a killing take place; (d) The defendant contemplated that lethal force would be employed. ¶ 49. The United States Supreme Court, in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 788-801, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), required that the imposition of the death penalty be consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The death penalty cannot be given to an aider and abettor who has not killed, attempted to kill, or contemplated that life would be taken. ¶ 50. The record shows that, after Gentry had been hit in the head with the hammer for the first time, Bishop chased after him and brought him back. When Bishop saw Gentry hit with the hammer he knew deadly force was being used. When he ran Gentry down and held Gentry as he was being struck by Jessie, he became more of a principal in the crime. A jury could have easily found that Bishop killed, intended to kill, or at least contemplated that deadly force would be used. This case is not like a robbery where someone is killed on impulse. Bishop took an active role in the killing. ¶ 51. All of these facts show that Bishop's involvement was sufficient to justify the death sentence, even, assuming arguendo, that the actual killer did not receive the death sentence. [10] See Smith v. State, 724 So.2d 280, 304 (Miss.1998) (citing Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1268 (Miss.1995); Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 479 (Miss.1984); Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 656 (Miss.1983)). ¶ 52. We affirmatively find that Bishop contemplated that lethal force would be used and that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the sentences imposed in similar cases. See attached appendix of death penalty cases decided by this Court.