Opinion ID: 1855634
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the evidence in this case can support the jury's finding on the avoiding arrest aggravating factor?

Text: ¶ 45. First, Wiley claims that the evidence was insufficient to support this aggravating circumstance. In support of his argument, Wiley cites the fact that one of the victims of the crime was not killed. Wiley also claims that there are no other facts to demonstrate that he attempted to avoid arrest. Wiley contends that this was a botched robbery, which resulted in a murder, but not a murder committed to avoid arrest. ¶ 46. The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an `avoiding lawful arrest' instruction is. well-settled[.] Woodward v. State, 726 So.2d 524, 541 (Miss.1997). Each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts. If there is evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred that a substantial reason for the killing was to conceal the identity of the killer or killers or to `cover their tracks' so as to avoid apprehension and eventual arrest by authorities, then it is proper for the court to allow the jury to consider this aggravating circumstance. Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 858 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 153 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 47. `Thus, it is this Court's role to inquire into whether there is any credible evidence upon which the jury could find the aggravating circumstance in question.' Woodward, 726 So.2d at 541 (quoting Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824, 854 (Miss. 1995)). In the case sub judice, Wiley fired three shots, which killed one of the two witnesses to the robbery, and seriously injured the other witness. The decedent, a storeowner, knew Wiley, a patron of the store. Wiley left the murder weapon and a box (which had contained a money bag) in a nearby, thickly wooded area that had dense undergrowth. The area was described as gullies, briars, it was just one big thicket, it was just almost impenetrable. In addition, Wiley left the money bag laying in some weeds, in a field near a dirt road. ¶ 48. The victims in this case knew Wiley. Furthermore, Wiley's efforts to dispose of and/or conceal the evidence of his crime are sufficient to support the avoiding arrest instruction. That is, there is evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that a substantial reason for the murder was to conceal Wiley's identity, or cover his tracks, so as to avoid apprehension and eventual arrest. Therefore, the granting of the instruction on this aggravator was proper. See generally Woodward, 726 So.2d at 541 (the fact that the defendant threw the murder weapon in a creek could reasonably indicate that he did not want to be arrested).