Opinion ID: 1723757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: trial counsel failed to object to the submission of the avoiding arrest aggravating circumstance.

Text: ¶ 60. Ricky Chase raised the following issue during his direct appeal on the merits: The submission of the avoiding arrest circumstance violated Mississippi law, Article III, Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This Court discussed Chase's failure to object to this instruction at trial, his arguments concerning the instruction on appeal, and the facts in the record which supported the instruction. This Court stated: This Court in Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 152-53 (Miss. 1991) addressed this issue of avoiding arrest or covering one's tracks, where the Court found, Hansen next takes issue with the aggravating circumstance found in Miss Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(e)(Supp. 1987). The Court stated: The capital offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody. It is argued some sort of limiting instruction need be given to narrow this aggravator. In Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 651 (Miss. 1983), we rebuffed this contention, stating: Each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts. If there is evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred that a substantial reason for the killing was to conceal the identity of the killer or killings or to `cover their tracks' so as to avoid apprehension and eventual arrest by authorities, then it is proper for the court to allow the jury to consider this aggravating circumstance. This Court in Hansen, further stated: Under this construction the Court properly submits this aggravator to the jury, if evidence existed from which the jury could reasonably infer that concealing the killer's identity, or covering the killer's tracks to avoid apprehension and arrest, was a substantial reason for the killing. The cases above clearly indicate that the key to resolving this question of avoidance of arrest lies squarely on whether or not evidence existed within the record which would have allowed the jury to make reasonable inferences therefrom that the concealing of Chase's identity, and the covering of his tracks in order to avoid detection, apprehension and arrest, was a substantial reason for killing Elmer Hart. We are convinced that substantial and sufficient evidence does exist to support the giving of the instruction and for the jury's reliance thereupon in its sentence of death for Chase. Chase, 645 So.2d at 857-58. ¶ 61. Chase now argues that his counsel was ineffective for failure to object to this instruction. The State argues once again that Chase is attempting to re-argue an issue raised and decided on direct appeal, but rephrased as ineffective assistance of counsel. Chase cites several cases from this jurisdiction and others on two primary points: first, that failure to object to an improper instruction could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel; and two, the law in this State concerning when the avoiding lawful arrest instruction is appropriate. As the State points out, this Court considered some of the same authority when finding that this claim was meritless on direct appeal. This issue is without merit.