Opinion ID: 162318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence Supporting HAC Aggravator

Text: 54 Mr. Willingham challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the HAC aggravator. The controlling constitutional test is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt. Hale, 227 F.3d at 1334-35. This court has not decided, for AEDP1A purposes, whether such issues of evidentiary sufficiency are legal and hence governed by § 2254(d)(1), or factual and hence governed by §§ 2254(d)(2), (e)(1); in any event, however, the critical question is whether the OCCA's decision [affirming the HAC finding] was reasonable. McCracken v. Gibson, 268 F.3d 970, 981 (10th Cir.2001). In our view, it clearly was. 55 The OCCA summarized the evidence supporting the HAC aggravator as follows: 56 Appellant's own testimony reveals that he punched Mrs. Van Wey in the face at least three times, then he slammed her head into the wall causing her to fall to the ground on her back. Mrs. Van Wey was still conscious at that point because she was able to roll over and rise to her hands and knees before being kicked in the face by Appellant. Circumstantially, it was at that point that she lost consciousness and aspirated her own blood which caused her death. Certainly this evidence supports a finding that Mrs. Van Wey was subjected to serious physical abuse.... 57 Along with Appellant's testimony, the medical examiner testified that there were at least four violent blows to the victim's head. This evidence combined with Appellant's testimony can lead one to conclude that some of these blows occurred prior to the loss of consciousness. Circumstantial evidence and common sense would lead a reasonable jury to believe that this killing was successfully designed to inflict a high degree of pain on the victim. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to show that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. 58 Willingham, 947 P.2d at 1085. 59 Mr. Willingham does not take issue with the factual accuracy of that summary, which the trial record clearly bears out. Rather, he contends Mrs. Van Wey was beaten to unconsciousness so quickly that she suffered little longer than had [he] walked in and shot her. Aplt. Br. at 66. He does not cite any authority, and we know of none, to support his cavalier equation of the extended, brutal beating suffered by Mrs. Van Wey with a single, mercifully swift gunshot. The district court correctly rejected this contention as wholly without merit. 60 He also insists this case is controlled by Thomas v. Gibson, 218 F.3d 1213, which invalidated a HAC finding that had been based solely on evidence of multiple blows and the inference that a murderer would [not] continue striking a murder victim if the first landed blow rendered the victim unconscious. Id. at 1228. Thomas is inapposite. In that case there was no evidence that a struggle had taken place, that [the victim] had defensive wounds, or that [the defendant] had any wounds on his body consistent with a struggle when he was arrested shortly after the murder. Id. Moreover, a witness close enough to observe many details ... did not testify to hearing any noises, voices, or screams. Id. Here, in contrast, we have Mr. Willingham's own description of Mrs. Van Wey's conscious struggle until the final violent blow was landed, which is consistent with the injuries inflicted and further corroborated by the fresh scratch on Mr. Willingham's neck at the time of his arrest. We also have testimony from a witness who heard banging noises and a scream coming from the direction of the women's washroom at the time in question. Clearly, the kind of inference questioned in Thomas was not needed by the OCCA to affirm the HAC finding in this case.