Opinion ID: 1788253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: aggravating factors applicable to alexis stuart

Text: Brooks next challenges the trial court's findings with regard to the aggravating factors applicable to the murder of Alexis Stuart. According to Brooks, the evidence does not establish that Brooks murdered Stuart for pecuniary gain or that Brooks killed Stuart as part of the premeditated plan to murder Carlson. The standard of review for whether an aggravating factor exists is whether it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Almeida v. State, 748 So.2d 922, 932 (Fla.1999). Aggravating factors require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not mere speculation derived from equivocal evidence or testimony. Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071, 1075 (Fla.1988). An aggravating factor may be supported entirely by circumstantial evidence, but the circumstantial evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis which might negate the aggravating factor. Hildwin v. State, 727 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla.1998) (quoting Geralds v. State, 601 So.2d 1157, 1163 (Fla.1992)). The pecuniary gain factor is permitted where the murder is an integral step in obtaining some sought-after specific gain. Hardwick, 521 So.2d at 1076. In the instant case, the trial court determined that the only motivating reason for Brooks to murder Stuart was to collect the $10,000 promised by Davis. This determination is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The direct evidence adduced at trial was that Brooks had been promised $10,000 for the murder of Carlson. The only logical inference to be drawn from the promise of such a large sum of money, coupled with evidence demonstrating that Davis was of limited economic means, is that Davis and Brooks knew of the existence of the $100,000 insurance policy on Stuart's life and the need to kill the baby to obtain the proceeds. Such evidence establishes that the elimination of Stuart was an integral step in obtaining the $10,000 and, as such, amply supports the trial court's finding of the pecuniary gain aggravating factor. See Hardwick, 521 So.2d at 1076. The trial court's determination that the murder of Alexis Stuart was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner is also supported by competent substantial evidence. As discussed above, the baby's murder was part of the prearranged plan hatched by Davis and Brooks and was necessary for Brooks to obtain the $10,000 promised. Gilliam's averred ignorance of Alexis Stuart's existence or a plan to murder the baby does not, as Brooks contends, undermine the trial court's conclusion. As previously discussed, Brooks would have been more familiar with the economic status of Davis and his modest finances and naturally more inquisitive with regard to the source of the $10,000 payment. Brooks also admitted to knowing about the baby and that his cousin had denied paternity. Record evidence further demonstrates that Gilliam was not privy to every aspect of the murder plan, with Brooks and Davis stepping behind closed doors to discuss the plan out of Gilliam's earshot. Furthermore, even if a prearranged plan to murder Stuart was not shown, the CCP aggravator is nonetheless properly applied in the instant case. As this Court has determined, the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating factor can be supported by evidence that the defendant planned to kill, even if the actual victim was other than the intended victim. See Bell v. State, 699 So.2d 674, 677 (Fla.1997) (determining that application of CCP was not precluded where the victims murdered were not the actual subjects of the defendant's plan to kill). To establish the existence of CCP, the State must show a heightened level of premeditation establishing that the defendant had a careful plan or prearranged design to kill, but that heightened premeditation does not have to be directed toward the specific victim. Id. at 677-78; see also Sweet v. State, 624 So.2d 1138, 1142 (Fla.1993) (It is the manner of the killing, not the target, which is the focus of [the CCP] aggravator.). Mark Gilliam's testimony regarding the failed attempts by the trio on Carlson's life, the plan to commit the act at a predesignated spot in a high crime neighborhood, Brooks' possession of the murder weapon and latex gloves, and discussion  at least with respect to Gilliam  of a viable cover up story leaves no reasonable doubt that Brooks had a prearranged design to kill. See Bell, 699 So.2d at 677 (Cold, calculated, premeditated murder can be indicated by the circumstances showing such facts as advance procurement of a weapon, lack of resistance or provocation, and the appearance of a killing carried out as a matter of course.). Thus, the CCP aggravator applies to Stuart's murder, regardless of whether she was the primary intended victim. Moreover, the trial court's finding that Stuart was killed with one fatal blow to the heart, followed by the infliction of postmortem mutilation wounds is supported by competent, substantial evidence, [19] and further bolsters the application of the CCP aggravator to the murder of Stuart because it reflects a desire to make both murders appear to be slashing murders.