Opinion ID: 1735417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: First Aggravator.

Text: ś 186. Walker further claims error with the utilization of robbery as an aggravator, which he claims is duplicative. In other words, Walker claims that the trial court used a doubling [19] technique. ś 187. The first aggravator reads as follows: 1. Whether the capital offense was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any robbery, rape, arson, or burglary. ś 188. The State again claims that Walker is procedurally barred for failure to cite any relevant authority. However, notwithstanding this procedural bar, Walker's issue is without merit because this Court has repeatedly held that evidence of the underlying crime can properly be used to both elevate the crime to capital murder and, later, as an aggravating factor. See Goodin, 787 So.2d at 654-55; Smith, 729 So.2d at 1223; Davis, 684 So.2d at 663-64. ś 189. Walker also claims that the court erred because the aggravator included reference to rape, which was not a possibility in this case. This is a spurious claim since the aggravator was copied from Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(d) (2000), which includes rape as one felony on a list of underlying felonies. During the objections to instructions, the trial court noted that rape was not an issue in this case, and the State agreed, noting that it simply copied the aggravating instruction from the statute. ś 190. This Court has `consistently held that instructions in a criminal case which follow the language of a pertinent statute are sufficient.' Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 880 (Miss.2003) (quoting Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131, 134 (Miss.1988)). Moreover, in Woodward, 726 So.2d at 539-40, this Court stated: The United States Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional violation where a trial court instructed a jury on two different legal theories, one supported by the evidence, the other not. Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527, 538, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 2122, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992) (citing Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991)). The high Court reasoned that although a jury is unlikely to disregard a theory flawed in law, it is indeed likely to disregard an option simply unsupported by the evidence. Sochor, 504 U.S. at 538, 112 S.Ct. at 2122. ś 191. Walker was indicted and convicted of capital murder, with robbery being the underlying felony committed. The State did not try to mislead the jury into believing that Walker was guilty of any underlying felony other than robbery. There was no evidence presented to even suggest that Walker was guilty of the crime of rape. This part of the instruction was not confusing, and therefore, ultimately proper.