Opinion ID: 2623403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reweighing/harmless error

Text: [T]he Federal Constitution does not prevent a state appellate court from upholding a death sentence that is based in part on an invalid or improperly defined aggravating circumstance either by reweighing of the aggravating and mitigating evidence or by harmless error review .... [36] In reweighing, this court disregards the invalid aggravating circumstances and reweighs the remaining permissible aggravating and mitigating circumstances. [37] A harmless error analysis involves performing a new sentencing calculus to determine whether the error of the invalid aggravating circumstance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [38] Either analysis should produce the same result because both ask the same question: Is it clear that absent the erroneous aggravator the jury would have imposed death? [39] As addressed above, the at random and without apparent motive aggravator is invalid. Remaining are three valid aggravators and three mitigating circumstances that the jury specifically found. The remaining aggravators are: Bennett knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; the murder was committed while Bennett was engaged in the commission of a burglary; and the murder was committed while Bennett was engaged in the attempted commission of a robbery. The first aggravator is supported by sufficient evidence. The last two aggravators are also supported by sufficient evidence but are essentially based on the same aspect of this felony murder. The three mitigating circumstances are: no previous criminal history; Bennett's youtheighteen at the time of the murder; and alcohol and drug usage. Also during the penalty hearing, the jury heard testimony that Bennett was led in the wrong direction by his fascination with heavy metal music and was influenced by Beeson as well as his other peers. Evidence also showed he had dyslexia and other problems in school, exhibited a potential for suicide, and showed signs of depression. Considering the remaining aggravators, the mitigating evidence that the jury heard, and the undisclosed mitigating evidence that the jury did not hear, particularly the evidence regarding Beeson's dominant role in the crimes, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have imposed the death penalty in the absence of the erroneous aggravator and the State's Brady violations. For this reason, we affirm the district court's order vacating Bennett's sentence of death and ordering a new penalty hearing.