Opinion ID: 1919690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The prosecution used a prior conviction for escape as an aggravating factor.

Text: Davis argues that the prosecution committed reversible error when it commented on Davis' prior escape. Davis argues that his future dangerousness is not an aggravating factor that may be submitted to the jury. Balfour v. State, 598 So.2d 731, 748 (Miss. 1992). Davis' reliance upon Balfour is misplaced. This Court's decision in Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 145 (Miss. 1991), is dispositive of this issue, wherein this Court upheld the prosecution's proof of a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of future dangerousness. Davis' five prior convictions, one for escape, over the course of seven years, offers substantial evidence that [Davis] lacked the ability to conform his behavior to the norms society demands. Hansen, 592 So.2d at 145. Prior to penalty phase deliberations, the trial judge instructed the jury as to the following aggravating factors: (1) Whether the capital murder was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment; (2) Whether the capital murder was committed intentionally while the Defendant was engaged in the commission of armed robbery or flight after committing the crime of armed robbery; (3) Whether the capital murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest of Defendant; (4) Whether the capital murder was committed for pecuniary gain. Later the trial court stated: I have previously read to you the list of aggravating circumstances which the court permits you to consider if you find that any of them are established by the evidence. These are the only aggravating circumstances you may consider. (emphasis added). Here, however, evidence of Davis' earlier escape was not offered in aggravation. Clearly, the jury's verdict was not based upon this non-statutory aggravating circumstance. Hansen, 592 So.2d at 145. The prosecution's use of Davis' prior escape appears as rebuttal evidence. At the penalty phase, Davis called a number of witnesses who testified as to his past. As was the case in Hansen, Davis was given great deal of latitude in proving, by way of mitigation, the various problems of his youth, and, as well, his positive behavioral points. This earlier escape appears to be as much a part of Davis' life story as the proof he offered in mitigation. Therefore, this assignment of error is without substantive merit.