Opinion ID: 2481410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Capital Sentencing Hearing-Sentencing

Text: In its closing statement, the State urged the jury to focus on the facts and circumstances of the defendant's horrible crimes and the many decisions and choices that he made while carrying out his crimes. The prosecutor argued that the two mental health counselors who best knew defendant, Maher and Ewing, rebutted defendant's mental health evidence. He noted that defendant brought a gun with him on the evening of July 8, 1996, and had it under the seat of his car when he went for a drive with L.M. That drive lasted only a few minuteslong enough to travel 1.6 milesand ended when defendant pulled off the road near an empty grain bin that was surrounded by dense vegetation and then drove his car over 100 feet further off the road to park behind the bin. This, according to the prosecutor, was not a haphazard, accidental, random thing. Similarly, defendant very calculatingly and deliberately concealed her body in that grain bin off the road where she could not easily or quickly be found. The prosecutor also questioned the testimony that defendant went to the Sloop home that night to commit suicide. If his intent was to kill himself, he would not have needed to scheme to get the adults out of the house. Rather, the prosecutor suggested, defendant's motive was to confront Rachel, to see if what Michelle Haist and L.M. had said about her feelings for him was true, so that he could decide if she deserved to die. The prosecutor noted that defendant drove at a high speed to the Sloop home, so that he could be sure the adults had left. He turned his headlights off and waited by the side of the road like a predator stalking his prey. This conduct was not impulsive, random, crazy; it was calculating, cold, and methodical. Further, if he had intended to commit suicide there, defendant would have simply pulled his car in the driveway. Instead, he drove 400 feet past the driveway and approached the house on foot, through a cornfield, bringing wirecutters and a flashlight. His cutting of the telephone wires was also inconsistent with his professed intention to commit suicide. The prosecutor argued that after Rachel failed his test and he shot her, defendant shot Lonna Sloop because she could have identified him. Similarly, he shot the two children because they knew him and could have identified him, even though they had not seen him because they were in an upstairs bedroom. Because defendant and Rachel had, by this time, seen the headlights of an approaching car, escape was not possible. His half-hearted, lame attempt to supposedly commit suicide was belied by all of his acts of planning    concealment and deception earlier that night. Further, his cooperation with the police was the result of his being caught red-handed. There was no mystery about whom L.M. was with that night or about who shot four persons in the Sloop home. Thus, his cooperation with police was one more instance of defendant's manipulative conduct. The prosecutor then summarized the statutory aggravating factors for the jury and argued that several of the factors were met. The prosecutor argued further that the evidence in mitigation should be given little weight. Defense counsel began by explaining that mitigation is not intended to provide an excuse for a defendant's actions, but that such evidence should be used to determine whether death is the appropriate penalty. He urged the jury to focus not just on what defendant did, but on his life and on what happened to him in his formative years that took him to that point. Defendant's expert witnesses established that he was a mentally ill young man and that his illnesses impaired his judgment. He argued that the testimony of these board-certified psychiatrists was more credible than that of the State's witnesses. Defense counsel also noted the decisions that affected defendant's life over which he had no control: his birth to a teenage mother who did not receive prenatal care, her reversal of her initial decision to give him up for adoption, his adoption by his grandparents and their decision not to tell him of his adoptive status, the manner in which he learned of his adoption, his parents' refusal to provide recommended speech therapy as a child, their refusal to give him recommended medication or to place him in the recommended treatment facility, and, finally, his removal from therapy with Patrick Ewing at his mother's insistence. Counsel also emphasized defendant's acceptance of responsibility, including his guilty plea. In addition, counsel noted defendant's youth and the expert testimony that he was not fully mature when he committed these crimes. After brief rebuttal by the State, defendant was allowed to make a statement. He expressed sorrow for his actions and for the pain he caused. He stated that although he could not change what he did in the past, he has since tried to make the right decisions. The jury was instructed and, after deliberation, rendered a unanimous verdict that death is the appropriate sentence. The court found that the record supported the jurors' finding and imposed the penalty of death. At a subsequent hearing, defendant was sentenced on the remaining counts. Defendant's posttrial motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to reconsider sentence were denied by the trial court after a hearing.