Opinion ID: 2234065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lundell Murder

Text: Lundell was reported missing on August 20, 2002. By letter dated January 21, 2003, the prosecutor notified Vela's counsel that if Vela wishes to discuss the disappearance and strangulation murder of ... Lundell, we are available to listen to whatever he wishes to disclose. In a second letter dated March 11, 2003, the prosecutor advised Vela's counsel that he intended to use the Lundell murder at the aggravation stage of Vela's trial. On March 17, Galindo led investigators to a rural area of Madison County, Nebraska, where the body of Lundell was recovered from a shallow grave. At the aggravation hearing held in September 2003, the State presented evidence, over Vela's continuing objection, of his involvement in the death of Lundell, in order to establish the aggravating circumstance that Vela had a substantial prior history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity. [13] Lundell's severely decomposed body was found wrapped in a comforter held together by strapping tape beneath approximately 3 feet of earth. A bandana scarf was tied around the mouth and knotted in the back of the neck. The feet were bound together by a fabric strap and string. A forensic pathologist who performed an autopsy testified that the state of decomposition was consistent with burial in a moist grave since August 2002. Due to the extent of internal and external decomposition, the cause of death could not be determined. Lundell's mother testified that in August 2002, he had been living in a Norfolk apartment with Sandoval and two other persons. He normally contacted her at least once every 2 weeks, but she last heard from him on August 15. At that time, he was 19 years old. Lundell regularly wore a watch which he had purchased in about May 2002, but it was not found on his body or at the site of the exhumation, and his mother did not find it among his personal belongings at his apartment. Vela was wearing a watch at the time of his arrest on September 26; it was taken by law enforcement personnel and stored with his personal property. Lundell's mother identified this watch as belonging to Lundell. Several persons who had been incarcerated with Vela after his arrest for the bank murders testified that he admitted his involvement in the killing of Lundell. One witness testified that after seeing a television news account of the discovery of Lundell's body, Vela told him that he strangled Lundell because he had stolen marijuana from Sandoval and was giving information to the police. Vela also told this witness that the killing was a test to determine if he had the courage required to kill people in the bank. Vela told this witness that Sandoval and another person were involved with him in the Lundell murder and that they wrapped Lundell's body in a blanket and took it away in the trunk of a vehicle. Another former cellmate testified that Vela told him about a boy whom he, Galindo, and Sandoval had killed and buried. The witness testified that Vela told him that he strangled the boy with a wire while Galindo was holding his legs. According to this witness, Vela told him they killed the boy because he owed money to Vela and Sandoval. Vela also told the witness that he had taken a watch from the boy because he liked it. Vela described the watch as silver with a blue face. Another person who was acquainted with Vela both in and out of jail testified that he admitted involvement in the Lundell murder but did not end it. Also received in evidence at the aggravation trial was a letter which Vela wrote to his family while in jail, but did not send. In the letter, Vela stated that he was involved in Lundell's death and that he was sorry about it, but that if I wouldn't do it they would of kill[ed] me and I couldn't escape from them and I was ashame[d] to ask [for] help. At the conclusion of the aggravation hearing, the district court instructed the jury on five aggravating circumstances. [14] The instructions generally followed the NJI2d Crim. 10.1 model instruction for jury aggravation proceedings. With respect to aggravating circumstance (1)(a), the substantial prior history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity, the court gave an instruction which included all the elements of the first degree murder of Lundell. The instructions defined premeditation, but did not define malice. The court did not instruct on the lesser-included offenses of first degree murder as part of the aggravator. The jury returned a verdict finding all five aggravators existed for each of the five murders. The district court overruled Vela's motion for new trial.