Opinion ID: 1163403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Concealment Aggravator.

Text: [23] Brett also contends there was insufficient evidence for any rational jury to find the murder was committed to conceal the identity of the perpetrator because Mrs. Milosevich was not also killed. The concealment aggravator is established if the jury is presented with evidence which suggests that the killing was intended to postpone for a significant period of time the discovery of the commission of the crime .... (Italics ours.) State v. Bartholomew, 98 Wn.2d 173, 214, 654 P.2d 1170 (1982) ( Bartholomew I), State's cert. granted and remanded, 463 U.S. 1203, defendant's cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1212 (1983), reaff'd after remand, 101 Wn.2d 631, 683 P.2d 1079 (1984) ( Bartholomew II). Here, Martin testified Brett felt masks were not needed because there would be no survivors. Although this intent may not have been successfully carried out, there was evidence of such intent. There was also evidence indicating Brett intended to kill both victims but was thwarted because Mrs. Milosevich ran out the front door. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find Brett intended to commit the murder in order to conceal the robbery and his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. [24] Brett also asserts the concealment, if any, either merged into the murder or the aggravators of robbery, kidnapping, and burglary. Brett argues the concealment inheres in the overall plan to kill with premeditated intent for purposes of committing a robbery/kidnap/burglary. Br. of Appellant, at 111. Brett cites no authority for this proposition. Intent to conceal a crime or the identity of the perpetrator does not inhere in premeditated murder, robbery, kidnapping, or burglary. It is a separate intention from an intent to kill, or from the intent necessary for a robbery, burglary, or a kidnapping.