Opinion ID: 1116120
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: aggravated first degree murder

Text: [1] Defendants argue that the trial court committed four errors in its application of the aggravated first degree murder statute, RCW 10.95.020. The statute provides in pertinent part: A person is guilty of aggravated first degree murder if he or she commits first degree murder as defined by RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a), as now or hereafter amended, and one or more of the following aggravating circumstances exist: ... (8) There was more than one victim and the murders were part of a common scheme or plan or the result of a single act of the person; Defendants claim that the trial court interpreted the statute to require that murderers, not victims, be linked by a common scheme or plan. If the trial court had interpreted the statute as defendants contend, then it would have erred. In State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493, 647 P.2d 6 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211 (1983), we held that common scheme or plan involves a nexus between the killings and not the killers. Here, the proof of conspiracy, while incidentally linking the defendants together, showed that there was a common scheme or plan involved in the murder of the victims. The victims were part of a union reform movement that was hindering the conspirators' efforts to send members to Alaska to further the illegal gambling conspiracy. In order to facilitate the sending of Tulisan members to Alaska, the conspirators believed it was essential to eliminate Viernes and Domingo, so they arranged their murders.