Opinion ID: 1723757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: trial counsel failed to object to the lack of an instruction defining capital murder for pecuniary gain at trial and on appeal.

Text: ¶ 66. This issue is very similar to the previous issue. Despite the language of the issue which speaks of a limiting instruction, Chase, throughout this issue, argues that the pecuniary gain aggravator should be given a limiting construction. Apparently this proposed construction means that the pecuniary gain aggravator should only be given in cases involving murder for hire, or murder of an insured by a beneficiary or murder of a testator by a legatee or devisee. Much of the authority from other jurisdictions cited by Chase has adopted such an interpretation. Chase also cites Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988), and Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), for the proposition that the aggravating factor in question is vague; however, both of these cases dealt with the especially heinous, atrocious and cruel aggravator, or something similar. As was stated in the previous issue, this Court has found that in felony murder cases based on robbery the pecuniary gain aggravator should not also be given. As the State argues, this Court in Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824 (Miss. 1995), found that there was no reversible error when the pecuniary gain aggravator was submitted without a limiting instruction. In Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263 (Miss. 1994), the merits of the issue were not reached because of (1) failure of Foster to make a sufficient objection to the instruction in question and (2) prospective application of Willie v. State. We once again find that counsel for Chase, under the status of the law at the time of his trial, was not ineffective for failure to object to this instruction or to submit some instruction which would have narrowed its definition.