Opinion ID: 1171916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: aggravating circumstances regarding the aggravated kidnapping charge.

Text: Keith contends the evidence does not support the District Court's findings of an aggravating circumstance regarding the aggravated kidnapping charge. Montana law requires the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance before capital punishment is appropriate. Section 46-18-305, MCA. Aggravating circumstances are addressed in § 46-18-303, MCA, which states that an aggravating circumstance exists when: (7) The offense was aggravated kidnapping which resulted in the death of the victim ... This subsection was amended in 1987, but the above quoted portion remains unchanged. The District Court specifically found that the aggravating circumstance of subsection (7) applied. Defendant Keith argues he should be exempted from this aggravating circumstance because he did release William Crose, Jr., unharmed, and fully intended to release Harry Shryock until the time at which he was shot by a law enforcement officer. Keith asserts the death of Shryock would never have occurred if the situation had been properly handled by law enforcement authorities. It is ironic that Keith blames the law enforcement authorities for an incident that he in fact created. Keith cannot now be exempted from this aggravating circumstance simply because he subsequently alleges his intent was to safely release Shryock. Section 46-18-303(7) simply states an aggravating circumstance exists when an aggravated kidnapping results in the death of the victim. Aggravated kidnapping is controlled by § 45-5-303, MCA, which states in part: (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated kidnapping if he knowingly or purposely and without lawful authority restrains another person by either secreting or holding him in a place of isolation or by using or threatening to use physical force, with any of the following purposes: (a) to hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage; (b) to facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter; ..... Keith's abduction of Shryock fits the requirements of this statute. At a hearing in District Court on March 28, 1985, Keith testified as follows: Q. Now, when you were at the airfield, and Mr. Shryock was in the airplane, was it your intention to have the airplane take off and take you some place? A. Yes, it was. Q. And you were, Mr. Shryock was going to, I say that, I think that it is Shryock, was going to fly you there? A. Yes, he was. Q. And was that done at gun point, too? A. Yes. Q. In other words, was your gun trained on Mr. Shryock? A. Yes, it was at the back of his head at all times. Q. And, did  when you exchanged the boy for the pilot, would you tell me how that was accomplished? I wasn't clear on that? A. The boy was let go. He was probably ten yards from the airplane. Mr. Shryock was already in the airplane and I got in the airplane. Defendant Keith committed an aggravated kidnapping of Shryock and that aggravated kidnapping resulted in Shryock's death. The District Court has properly found the existence of this aggravating circumstance.