Opinion ID: 170350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: proof of substantial planning and premeditation

Text: Fields also contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove he actually engaged in substantial planning and premeditation with respect to the murders. He argues that the evidence showed he had planned only to rob the victims. Given the established facts and the nature of evidentiary-sufficiency review, this argument is without merit. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a high hurdle, as we ask only whether, taking the evidenceboth direct and circumstantial, together with the reasonable inferences therefromin the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could [make the challenged finding] beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Jenkins, 175 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir.1999). The government aptly summarizes facts from which a reasonable jury could (indeed, very likely would) find the SPP aggravator: [Fields] camouflaged his rifle, carefully constructed a ghillie suit, and practiced stalking people. He potentially began planning the Chicks' murder two days before the offense, when he first saw them. On the night of the murders, he drove to a secluded area and surveilled his victims while they sat on a vista. Instead of burgling their van and fleeing in the Chicks' absence, he methodically donned his ghillie suit, retrieved his rifle and waited for the victims to come within easy range. Even then, [he] watched the Chicks for 15 to 20 minutes before firing, then shot each victim repeatedly to ensure death. [He] left the area for at least an hour before returning to commit burglary, indicating his theft crimes were largely incidental to the homicides. Br. of Aplee. at 49 (record citations omitted). It is quite possible that pecuniary gain was a motive for the killings, as Fields insists. But this would just reinforce, not negate, the fact that the killings were plannedas the means to achieve the admitted pecuniary end. There was no error in connection with the jury's finding of the SPP aggravator.