Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: does enmund bar the imposition of the death sentence in this case?

Text: Frank, Sr. contends the record does not show he either intended to kill Gurley or actually committed the acts which led to his death, and that reversal is therefore required under Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), and Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645 (Miss. 1983). The issue in Enmund was [W]hether the Eighth Amendment permits imposition of the death penalty on one ... who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed. 458 U.S. at 797, 102 S.Ct. at 3376-77. The court answered the question in the negative. The appellant in Leatherwood raised an Enmund argument which the court rejected as follows: Enmund did not participate in the actual robbery nor was he present when the murder was committed  he was waiting in the getaway car. Michael Leatherwood, like Enmund, participated in the planning of the crime. The difference is that Leatherwood was also present and involved in the execution of the robbery/murder of Albert Taylor ... ..... Though Leatherwood testified he never believed the robbery would be carried out and certainly never intended to kill the victim, this Court cannot believe that one who attempts to strangle his victim into submission to the point of unconsciousness and tells his accomplice to stab him does not intend to or attempt to kill. The appellant's actions spoke louder than his words. Though Michael Leatherwood was not the trigger man, he planned, schemed, and ultimately physically subdued the victim by choking him with a rope, while another stabbed and bludgeoned the victim to death. These are hardly the facts upon which Enmund was decided by the United States Supreme Court and thus we find that the appellant's argument is not persuasive ... 435 So.2d at 656. We are of the same opinion here. The facts now before us are distinguishable from those upon which Enmund was decided. Specifically, we think unbelievable, in view of the evidence, the premise that sixteen-year-old Frank, Jr. single-handedly bound, gagged and strangled the adult male victim, while Frank, Sr. stood by and neither killed, attempted to kill, nor intended a killing or that lethal force would be employed to insure the robbery's success. Rather, the alternative inference is logical: that Cabello, the father and family leader, was the dominant party in the crime. We are of the opinion the Enmund shield does not extend to protect this defendant as revealed by the evidence.