Opinion ID: 2588320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reweighing analysis

Text: Having stricken two aggravators pursuant to McConnell, we must reweigh. [68] Reweighing requires us to answer the following question: Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that absent the invalid aggravators the jury still would have imposed a sentence of death? [69] If we answer this question yes, then the errors were harmless, and Bejarano's McConnell claim is procedurally barred for lack of a showing of prejudice. If we answer this question no, then prejudice has been shown, and we must remand to the district court for a new penalty hearing. For reasons discussed below, we answer the question yes. Removing the robbery and receiving-money aggravators from consideration, four valid aggravators supporting Bejarano's death sentence remain: (1) he was under a sentence of imprisonment, i.e., probation for a 1986 misdemeanor conviction in Idaho for battery on a police officer; (2) he had a previous felony conviction involving the use or threat of violence, i.e., a 1979 conviction in Idaho for aggravated assault; (3) he had a previous felony conviction involving the use or threat of violence, i.e., a 1981 conviction in Idaho for aggravated assault; and (4) the murder was committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest. Bejarano's trial counsel admitted evidence that Bejarano had earned his GED diploma and welfare records, and he argued that Bejarano was the son of two Mexican immigrants, whose mother died at the age of 3, whose father died at the age of 6, and he bounced around from welfare and foster home to foster home . . . where he eventually ran away and began getting into trouble. . . . You'll see here that he has been tested, that his intelligent quotient is on the borderline range, that he has limited faculties. Some of you were able to garner that from his testimony, but you only got to listen to him in moments of bravado. Counsel asked the jury to please spare his life. We conclude that the case in mitigation was not particularly compelling. The invalid robbery and receiving-money aggravators were based on the same facts; thus, striking them effectively eliminates the weight of one aggravating circumstance from the case in aggravation. Four valid aggravators remain. Reweighing them against the mitigating evidence, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that absent the invalid aggravators the jurors would have still found Bejarano death eligible. We further conclude that they would have returned a sentence of death. In addition to evidence supporting the aggravators, the State presented numerous witnesses, including other inmates and prison officials, who testified about Bejarano's propensity for violence, which included different threats he made while incarcerated that he would kill again if given the opportunity. The most damning testimony during the penalty hearing, however, came from Bejarano himself. When asked if he wanted to address the jury about whether they should choose a sentence of life or death, Bejarano replied: I could really care less, really, to tell you the truth. He later warned the jury: I know the system. I will be out eventually. You better pray to God I don't get out. When asked how he would react if the jury sentenced him to death, he replied: I'll probably laugh at all you guys. I'll probably thank you, you know, because you're doing me a favor. You're doing everybody else a favor. But you know, there's nothing else to say, really, except for I'm glad its all over, you know. It's about what had to come to an end sooner or later. There's beaucoupthe other things if you guys ever found out about, I'd be executed five times, you know. When asked whether he ever offered to kill someone as a favor, he replied: It's not an offer; it's a freebie. Bejarano was then asked the location of the sawed-off rifle that killed the victim. He replied: I've never had a sawed-off rifle. I got a pistol, if that's what you want. I've got a .357 magnum, and a two-pistol six shot. Those are the only two at my disposal. They killed Roland, or Mr. Wright, or whoever this guy is you're talking about, you know, but you won't get either one of those, so it doesn't matter. Bejarano later testified: I have nothing to clear, no conscience to clear. In a final remark, he scolded the jury: You're sicker than I am when you sit back and giggle. . . . Believe me, you're sick. The murder of Roland Wright was senseless, and Bejarano's own testimony during the penalty hearing was defiant and unremorseful. He not only had a significant criminal history, he repeatedly threatened to commit future acts of violence and kill others. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that absent the invalid aggravators the jury would have still sentenced Bejarano to death. Bejarano is therefore not entitled to any post-conviction relief.