Opinion ID: 2623403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Leslie v. Warden [14]

Text: The majority affirms the grant of a new penalty hearing for Bennett in part because of the conclusion in Leslie that the `at random and without apparent motive' aggravator is misapplied to situations where the defendant unnecessarily kills another person in the course of a robbery. [15] I disagree with the contention that the facts of this case are so analogous to Leslie that the result must also be the same. This court concluded in Leslie that to use the at random and without apparent motive aggravator, the State must demonstrate that the defendant selected his victim without a specific purpose or objective and his reasons for the killing are not obvious or easily understood. [16] It is insufficient to merely show the defendant unnecessarily murdered someone during a robbery. [17] Despite a jury's finding to the contrary, the court in Leslie held that insufficient evidence existed to support the at random and without apparent motive aggravator. [18] Instead, the Leslie majority discerned that Leslie had motives that were not even mentioned at trial. [19] I prefer the reasoning of the dissent in Leslie. [20] The Leslie dissent reviewed the decision from the direct appeal that `[e]vidence indicated that Leslie had received the money and could have left the store unfettered, but killed [the clerk] anyway.' [21] The Leslie dissent concluded that [n]othing has changed to warrant overturning that conclusion. If the Legislature's intent were as clear as the majority suggests, it could have amended the statute to invalidate the use of the at-random aggravator in robbery situations. [22] Here, Bennett's poetry indicates his `need to cause some death.' [23] He also told a friend about the `killing spree' he and Joe Beeson were on. [24] Bennett was convicted of murdering Michelle Moore without a specific purpose or objective and his reasons for the killing are not obvious or easily understood. [25] Without any communication, Bennett simply pulled out a .45 caliber handgun and shot Michelle Moore in the face. I cannot find a reason for this murder that is obvious or easily understood. [26] Perhaps more importantly, the Leslie dissent recognized the lack of authority to expand the fundamental miscarriage of justice standard to encompass invalidation of aggravators. [27] We have recognized only two situations which meet this standard, where a petitioner makes a colorable showing that he is actually either innocent or ineligible for the death penalty. [28] The jury found four aggravating circumstances. Assuming, arguendo, that we eliminated the at random and without apparent motive aggravator, three valid aggravating circumstances remain. Thus, as the Leslie dissent concluded, no fundamental miscarriage of justice exists which would permit this court to disregard procedural bars required by statute. [29]