Opinion ID: 1571058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction on the Avoid Arrest Aggravator

Text: McLean also claims that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the avoid arrest aggravator, which the trial court ultimately rejected. We disagree. Florida law provides that evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. § 921.141(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). Then, the trial court must instruct the jury on any aggravators for which competent substantial evidence is received. Aguirre-Jarquin v. State, 9 So.3d 593, 607 (Fla. 2009) petition for cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1505, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2009). The avoid arrest aggravating circumstance applies when [t]he capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody. § 921.141(5)(e), Fla. Stat. (2004). When the victim is not a law enforcement officer, the evidence must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive for killing was to eliminate a witness. Bevel v. State, 983 So.2d 505, 518 (Fla.2008) (quoting Buzia v. State, 926 So.2d 1203, 1209 (Fla.2006)). This Court has held that the evidence presented on the avoid arrest aggravator may be in the form of circumstantial evidence from which the motive for the murders may be inferred. Hoskins v. State, 965 So.2d 1, 19 (Fla.2007) (quoting Farina v. State, 801 So.2d 44, 54 (Fla.2001)). Here, the State presented competent substantial evidence to support the avoid arrest aggravator. The victims were compliant and helpless when McLean shot them, and McLean had obtained the marijuana and was exiting the apartment when he fired the fatal shots. Such circumstances suggest that the shooting was intended to eliminate the witnesses. See Thompson v. State, 648 So.2d 692, 695 (Fla.1994) (Once Thompson had obtained the $1,500 check from Swack and Walker, there was little reason to kill them other than to eliminate the sole witnesses to his actions.). Also, McLean had instructed Jaggon to shoot the woman next door if he saw her, further indicating McLean's intent to eliminate any potential witnesses. During the crime, McLean did not wear a mask or otherwise disguise his appearance, making a subsequent identification by one of the victims likely if McLean did not eliminate the witnesses. With these facts presented, the jury instruction on this aggravator was not error. That the trial court later declined to find the aggravator does not render the jury instruction improper. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 928 So.2d 1089, 1132 (Fla.2005) (rejecting the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider the avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest aggravator when the trial court found that this aggravating circumstance did not exist); Pace v. State, 854 So.2d 167, 181 (Fla.2003) (The fact that the state did not prove [the avoid arrest] aggravator to the trial court's satisfaction does not require a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence... to allow the jury to consider the factor.) (quoting Bowden v. State, 588 So.2d 225, 231 (Fla.1991)). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the avoid arrest aggravator.