Opinion ID: 2598537
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Great Risk of Death Aggravating Circumstance

Text: [ś 120] We next consider Olsen's challenge to the aggravating circumstance that he knowingly created a great risk of death to two or more persons. We have upheld application of this factor in Engberg v. State, 686 P.2d 541(Wyo.1984), finding: The testimony in this case further demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Engberg seriously endangered the lives of Kay Otto and other persons present in the parking lot at the time of the robbery and murder, as well as that of his victim, Vernon Rogers. In shooting errantly at persons in parked vehicles in the lot, Engberg manifested an utter disregard for lives of innocent persons. This evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Engberg knowingly created a great risk of death to two or more persons. Id. at 557. [ś 121] The State did not present any evidence or suggest that there were other bystanders involved who were threatened with grave harm as Olsen shot his intended victims. In applying this aggravating circumstance to Olsen, the State argued its basis was the harm inflicted upon the victims of his crime in a multiple homicide. The State defends its application by referring us to decisions in the jurisdictions of Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi, providing an interpretation that where there is more than one victim, where they are in the same building, room, or place, and within the same time frame, their killing may be said to have created a great risk of death to two or more persons. In contrast, Arizona has limited similar language to those factual situations where a grave risk of death has been created which threatens persons other than the intended victims. Arizona v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526, 633 P.2d 335, 351 (1981). [ś 122] The State's contention that the legislature intended the death penalty to apply to multiple homicide comports neither with the plain language of the statutory circumstance because the legislature could easily have included multiple homicide language, nor with an intent to restrict use of the death penalty to the most culpable of murderers. States that have included multiple homicide as an aggravating circumstance do so in addition to the inclusion of the aggravating circumstance of creating a great risk of death to others, and they use explicit, plain language. Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-703(F)(8) (2001); [5] Cal.Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3) (1999); [6] Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 16-11-103(5)( l ) (2000); [7] Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(2) (1997). [8] [ś 123] Strictly construing the Wyoming statute, we do not find that the statutory language of this aggravating circumstance evidences a legislative intent that all multiple homicides will be subject to the death penalty. Instead, we find that the use of the terms risk and persons was given its proper application in Engberg 's factual situation of placing bystanders in a parking lot at great risk of death by errant shooting. The State concedes that bystanders' lives other than the intended victims were not directly endangered during Olsen's crimes. It was reversible error to submit an instruction on this aggravating factor to the jury.