Opinion ID: 2344370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Frequency Analysis Salient Factor Test.

Text: The following table reflects the outcome of the salient factors test of the E1/aggravated multiple-victims murders category; it includes the percentages for the E1 category both with and without defendant included. Death-sentencing Death-sentence rate, all Cases advancing rate after Category eligible cases to sentencing sentencing E1 23% (7/30) 60% (18/30) 39% (7/18) E1 without Wakefield 18% (5/28) 57% (16/28) 31% (5/16) In respect of the death sentencing rate for all eligible cases, the E1 category has a higher rate than all but the A (public servant), B (prior murder conviction), C (contract killing), and D1 (aggravated sexual assault) categories. We have observed that the greater the frequency of death sentences in a class of cases, the more certain we are that a given death sentence is proportionate for any member of that class. State v. Martini(II), supra, 139 N.J. at 30, 651 A. 2d 949. The following table shows the death-sentencing rate among all death-eligible cases in the five categories (two of which, categories D and E, contain two subcategories each) with the highest rates. Death-sentencing rate/all Principal Salient Factor eligible cases [22] A - Victim is a public servant 50% (5/10) B - Prior murder conviction 35% (14/40) C - Contract killing 19% (5/27) D - Sexual assault 16% (10/64) D1 - Aggravated sexual assault 20% (10/51) D2 - Other sexual assault 0% (0/13) E - Multiple victims 9% (7/76) E1 - Aggravated multiple victims 18% (5/28) E2 - Other multiple victims 4% (2/48) All factors (including F-Q) 10% (57/570) Referencing the AOC report in respect of defendant's death sentence, defendant claims it is noteworthy  in fact, striking  that every previous death sentence imposed in the E-1 category has been vacated and the defendant has received a sentence of life. Although reversed death sentences previously were not excluded from the statistical universe used in frequency analysis, State v. Chew (II), 159 N.J. 183, 198, 731 A. 2d 1070, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1052, 120 S.Ct. 593, 145 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1999), a reversed death penalty is a less persuasive indicator of deathworthiness than one that is affirmed. State v. Bey (IV), 137 N.J. 334, 348, 645 A. 2d 685 (1994). Defendant points out that he is the only person currently assigned to the E-1 classification who could emerge from prosecution with an ultimate sentence of death. Moreover, defendant contends that because less than one-fifth of cases in the E1 subcategory resulted in death sentences, society has not indicated a consensus that death is the appropriate punishment in cases of this sort. The State responds that the overall death rate for E1 murders is significantly greater than the overall death sentencing rate of ten percent. Because a greater percentage of aggravated multiple victim murderers advanced to a capital sentencing phase, received the death sentence after the penalty phase, and received the death sentence overall, than did all death-eligible murderers . . . the statistics belie defendant's contention that his death sentences are an aberration. The State contends that the statistics prove that both prosecutors and juries view aggravated multiple murderers as particularly deathworthy. We concur with the State's analysis of the salient factors test. The death sentencing rate for defendants assigned the E1 category is nearly double that of the entire universe of cases. The rate is not a statistically significant amount less than the rate for defendants in the D1 category, concerning whom we have rejected claims of disproportionality. See, e.g., State v. Timmendequas (II), supra, 168 N.J. at 39, 773 A. 2d 18; State v. (Ambrose) Harris (II), 165 N.J. 303, 319-20, 757 A. 2d 221 (2000). Because defendants in the E1 category advance to penalty trials and receive death sentences at a greater rate than all death-eligible defendants, defendant has failed to establish that his death sentences are disproportionate under the frequency analysis prong of proportionality review.