Opinion ID: 2617828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Lankford asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support three of the trial court's findings of statutory aggravating factors. He argues that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that he had a propensity to commit murder and was a continuing threat to society; (2) that there was insufficient evidence of heinous, atrocious or cruel acts manifesting exceptional depravity to set this apart from other first degree murders in which the death penalty was not imposed; and (3) that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the murders exhibited an utter disregard for human life as set forth in State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 419, 631 P.2d 187 (1981). The evidence was sufficient to support the aforementioned statutory aggravating factors. 1. Doctor Estes' testimony that Lankford was an aggressive anti-social personality prone to violence combined with the fact that Lankford was convicted of two murders lends sufficient support to the trial court's finding that he had a propensity for violence and to commit murder. 2. The brutal manner in which Lankford bludgeoned the skulls of his two victims clearly supports the trial court's finding that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manifesting exceptional depravity. 3. The manner in which the Bravences were brutally murdered together with the fact that they were killed for the mere reason that the Lankfords wanted to steal their van support the court's finding that the murders were committed with utter disregard for human life. The record establishes that the aggravating factors were properly utilized by the court and that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings.