Opinion ID: 2452857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Aggravating Circumstance/Avoiding Arrest

Text: Hall asserts that the trial court erred by submitting an improper aggravating circumstance to the jury. Aggravating circumstance # 4 allowed the jury to consider whether the murder of William R. White was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest of defendant. Hall claims this aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague and the consideration of this factor would require a finding of an aggravating circumstance in every murder case, because the murder always ensures that the victim will be unable to identify the killer. Under the present Missouri capital sentencing scheme, the sentencer ... must find that one or more statutory aggravating circumstances exist beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Carter, 955 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1374, 140 L.Ed.2d 522 (1998). The jury found two aggravating circumstances existed in the evidence at trial. In addition to the circumstance Hall takes issue with, the jury found that Hall committed the murder for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value. The evidence introduced at trial revealed that Hall took jewelry and White's wallet from the store after he shot White and pawned several pieces of the jewelry a short time after the murder. This aggravating circumstance alone was sufficient for the jury to recommend that Hall be sentenced to death. See Carter, 955 S.W.2d at 559. Even if the jury had found only the aggravating circumstance challenged by Hall, that circumstance is not unconstitutional as applied in this case. Hicks testified that Hall told her several times that he killed White because the only good witness is a dead witness. The facts of this case clearly support a finding that Hall murdered White to avoid being arrested for the robbing of White's store. Point denied.