Opinion ID: 2966425
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Robbery Predicate Challenge

Text: Savino also contends that counsel provided poor representation by failing to challenge the robbery predicate to the capital murder charge. We disagree. Under Virginia law, murder in the commission of a robbery is a killing which takes place before, during, or after the robbery and is so closely related thereto in time, place, and causal connection as to make the killing part of the same criminal enterprise as the robbery. George v. Virginia, 411 S.E.2d 12, 20 (Va. 1991) (citing 1981 and 1982 opinions), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 973 (1992); see also Harward v. Virginia, 330 S.E.2d 89, 91 (Va. 1985) (explaining that the language during the commission of in § 18.2-31 can include a killing before, during or after the underlying felony). Thus, robbery need not be the sole motive to sustain a charge of capital murder during the commission of a robbery in Virginia. George, 411 S.E.2d at 21. To prove a defendant guilty, the prosecution must show that the murder and the robbery were interdependent objects of a common criminal design. Quesinberry v. Virginia, 402 S.E.2d 218, 224 (Va.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 834 (1991). The fact that stealing occurs after the killing does not prove that the decision to steal was an afterthought and the two crimes were unrelated. Whitley v. Virginia, 286 S.E.2d 162, 166-67 (Va.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 (1982). Based on the evidence before us, a reasonable person could find that Savino committed robbery in connection with McWaters's murder. The record shows that Savino was in possession of McWaters's wallet when he was arrested. He admitted that he took McWaters's cash immediately after the murder and that he stole jewelry and other property belonging to the victim when he returned to the house later that night. He also told police that he had been planning to murder McWaters and then to escape with a friend to South America or Mexico or something like that afterward. Although there was some evidence that the plan never existed, a reasonable person could find the scheme linked to Savino's theft of McWaters's money and jewelry. In addition, because Savino also told police,all I wanted is the cocaine, the Commonwealth could have succeeded in arguing that Savino's drug habit induced both the killing and the robbery. Either 10 theory would satisfy the capital murder requirement that robbery was a motive that existed at the time of the killing. Savino's attorneys testified that they knew the state of Virginia law regarding capital murder during the commission of a robbery at the time they handled Savino's case. They stated that they considered the evidence against Savino and the possible prosecution arguments. The attorneys discussed the matter with Savino, among themselves, and with experts at the Washington & Lee Capital Litigation Project. Based on the information before them and the requirements of Virginia law, we find that the attorneys had sufficient reason to conclude that there was little chance of defeating the Commonwealth's proof that Savino murdered McWaters during the commission of a robbery. It was not an unreasonable strategy to forego the defense.