Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: murder to prevent arrest aggravating circumstance (i)(6)

Text: With respect to this issue, defendant first argues that, if interpreted to apply under the facts of this case, the aggravating circumstance, the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another violates the narrowing principles adopted by a majority of this Court in State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn. 1992). The only basis for finding the aggravating circumstance in this case, according to the defendant, is the theory that he killed the victim to prevent his arrest for killing her, a theory and circumstance arguably present in every first degree murder in which the victim knows the murderer. Defendant urges this Court to adopt a narrowing construction of the aggravating circumstance and find the evidence in this case insufficient to support its application. This Court has previously held that to establish the applicability of this aggravating circumstance, the State must prove that avoidance of prosecution or arrest was one of the purposes motivating the killing. State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 581 (Tenn. 1993). We have refused to narrow the application of the circumstance to only those killings which are solely or predominantly motivated by a desire to avoid arrest or prosecution. State v. Carter, 714 S.W.2d 241, 250 (Tenn. 1986) (avoidance of arrest need not be sole motive for murder). While we agree with the defendant that the aggravating circumstance logically can not and does not apply when the only theory advanced by the State is that the victim was killed to prevent the defendant from being arrested or prosecuted for the killing, we do not agree that was the only theory advanced by the State and supported by the proof, in this record. Indeed, as the Court of Criminal Appeals observed, the evidence supports the conclusion that the victim was killed to prevent the defendant's apprehension and prosecution for the separate offense of burglary of which the defendant was convicted. The proof shows that the defendant intended to get money from a victim with whom he was well-acquainted. By refusing to reveal the residence or identity of the intended victim to his wife, the defendant was obviously attempting to avoid having anyone witness the crime. By his own statement, the defendant admitted that the victim recognized him. The proof therefore supports the jury's finding that one purpose of the murder was to avoid prosecution or arrest. See also State v. Smith, 857 S.W.2d 1, 14 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Thompson, 768 S.W.2d 239 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Irick, 762 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. 1988); State v. Coe, 655 S.W.2d 903 (Tenn. 1983). The facts of this case are distinguishable from State v. Branam, 855 S.W.2d 563 (Tenn. 1993), on which the defendant relies. In Branam , the proof showed that the killer was a person whom the victim did not know, and the defendant, whom the victim knew, remained out of the victim's sight. Therefore, there was no proof that the victim could have identified the triggerman or the defendant, and therefore, no proof that one purpose motivating the killing was avoidance of prosecution or arrest. Application of the aggravating circumstance also does not violate the narrowing principles of Middlebrooks . In Middlebrooks , a majority of this Court held that when a defendant is convicted of the statutory offense of felony murder, the felony murder aggravating circumstance, which duplicates the elements of the underlying offense, does not sufficiently narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and can not be relied upon as a basis for imposition of the death penalty. In this case, the defendant was convicted of premeditated first degree murder which required the State prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing of another. The State was not statutorily required to prove, as part of the offense, that one purpose motivating the killing was the avoidance of arrest or prosecution. Therefore, the aggravating circumstance does not duplicate the elements of the underlying offense and sufficiently narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. Cf. State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1994) (murder for renumeration). Consequently, we decline the defendant's invitation to further limit application of the aggravating circumstance.