Opinion ID: 852960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Racial Motivation as an Aggravator

Text: The trial court relied in part on the manifest racism of Witmer's acts. As Judge Platt pointed out, Mr. Richardson was executed because he [was] black and he [was] there. (App. at 134.) He said, [In m]ost homicide cases the victim and the perpetrator have some relationship.... Mr. Richardson had the incredible tragedy to be behind Pierre Moran mall on the wrong day at the wrong time. It could have been any other dark skinned citizen of this community, no matter what race he or she may be. Be they Hispanic,... Pakistan (sic), ... Indian, or have a good tan from the State of Florida. Id. Although we have never explicitly held that choosing a victim based on race could be an aggravating circumstance, we have affirmed the notion that characteristics of the victims can support an enhanced sentence. In Ajabu v. State, 722 N.E.2d 339 (Ind.2000), for example, the defendant was convicted of three murders. We stated that Ajabu's brutal method of killing and the number and ages of the victims absolutely manifested a need for correctional treatment to deal with the heinous conduct and reckless disregard for human life. Id. at 343. As in Ajabu, the trial judge in this case determined that the evidence detailed the extreme viciousness of the murders. The sentencing statute's list of enumerated aggravating circumstances is not exclusive, of course, and we say without hesitation that racially motivated crimes are intolerable and may constitute an aggravating circumstance. It is a conclusion embraced elsewhere. In Barclay v. State, 343 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 1977), five men picked up a white hitchhiker and took him to a remote location where Barclay stabbed him repeatedly before shooting him twice in the head. Barclay later sent tapes to the victim's mother and local television stations declaring a race war. He was found guilty, and the judge sentenced him to death. Id. The U.S. Supreme Court later granted certiorari and stated, [t]he United States Constitution does not prohibit a trial judge from taking into account the elements of racial hatred in this murder. The judge in this case found Barclay's desire to start a race war relevant to several statutory aggravating factors. The judge's discussion is neither irrational nor arbitrary. Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939, 949, 103 S.Ct. 3418, 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983). [4] Likewise, in State v. McKnight, 511 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 1994), the Iowa Supreme Court determined that racial animus could be a factor without violating U.S. constitutional rights. In that case, two white males swerved at and hit the car of a black person, causing him to lose control of his vehicle. Id. at 390. The white men stopped and began to assault the black man and scream racial slurs at him. Id. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed McKnight's conviction and upheld the hate crime statute that enhanced his sentence, rejecting a claim that the enhancement violated McKnight's First Amendment rights. Id. at 396-97.