Opinion ID: 2621257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The at random and without apparent motive aggravator

Text: Nevertheless, we have elected to reconsider whether this aggravator is appropriately applied when the sole basis for it is that the defendant unnecessarily killed someone in connection with a robbery. While this claim could have been raised before and is therefore subject to the waiver provisions of NRS 34.810(1)(b), we conclude that our refusal to consider the issue would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. [13] We have stated that a fundamental miscarriage of justice can be demonstrated by a showing that the defendant is actually innocent of the crime or is ineligible for the death penalty. [14] We conclude that it is also demonstrated by the situation in this case. Because, as discussed below, we consider his claim meritorious, Leslie is actually innocent of the at random and without apparent motive aggravator. And because there is a reasonable probability that absent the aggravator the jury would not have imposed death, we conclude that imposing the waiver bar to this claim would amount to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Starting with Bennett v. State, [15] this court interpreted NRS 200.033(9), the at random and without apparent motive aggravator, to include unnecessary killings in connection with a robbery. Because the killing was not motivated by the desire to complete the robbery, we concluded that there was no apparent motive. [16] Since Bennett, we have approved the aggravator's application to similar circumstances. [17] We now believe that Bennett overstated the applicability of NRS 200.033(9) to robbery-related killings. There are several reasons why the at random and without apparent motive aggravator is inappropriate when it is solely based upon the fact that the killing was unnecessary to complete the robbery. First, this type of application ignores the plain meaning of the aggravator's key words. [18] Random means lacking a specific pattern, purpose or objective. [19] Something is apparent when it is easily understood or obvious. [20] And motive is defined as an emotion that leads one to act. [21] With these definitions in mind, it appears that the Legislature intended this aggravator to apply to situations where a killer selects his victim without a specific purpose or objective and his reasons for killing are not obvious or easily understood. An unnecessary killing in connection with a robbery does not always fit in this category. Typically, the victim is not selected randomly. And often a robber has a discernible motive for killing someone who can identify him or who attempts to impede the robbery. Second, applying the at random and without apparent motive aggravator to killings connected with robberies is not in line with the statute's legislative history. This aggravator was initially included in the list that was to become NRS 200.033 but at some point was deleted. [22] Later, during a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a prosecutor queried whether the bill covered the San Francisco-type murder problem ... that is, the motiveless, thrill-killing murders. [23] The bill's sponsor replied that this type of murder would fall under the at random and without apparent motive aggravator. [24] The committee then decided to include the aggravator in the bill. [25] There is no indication that the Legislature intended the aggravator to apply to unnecessary killings in the course of a robbery. Third, another aggravator applies to killings connected with robberies. NRS 200.033(4) is implicated when the defendant killed while [he] was engaged ... in the commission of or an attempt to commit or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any robbery. Regardless of whether the murder was necessary to complete the robbery, the State may allege this aggravator any time the defendant killed in the course of or fleeing from a robbery. For these reasons, we conclude that the at random and without apparent motive aggravator is misapplied to situations where the defendant unnecessarily kills another person in the course of a robbery, and we depart from our prior interpretation of it. We conclude that Bennett and its progeny strayed too far from the plain meaning of NRS 200.033(9), and therefore, overrule that line of cases. In order to use this aggravator, the State must show more than the defendant unnecessarily killed another in connection with a robbery. The aggravator only applies to situations in which the defendant selected his victim without a specific purpose or objective and his reasons for the killing are not obvious or easily understood. [26] The facts of this case do not support the jury's finding that Leslie killed the clerk at random and without apparent motive. On the contrary, a State witness testified that Leslie cased the convenience store before robbing it and killed the clerk because he did not immediately give Leslie the money. There is another discernible motive for Leslie's killing. By killing the clerk, Leslie prevented the clerk from later describing him to the police and identifying him at trial. While the facts certainly support the robbery and burglary aggravators, they do not support the at random and without apparent motive aggravator.