Opinion ID: 1396611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Insufficient Evidence to Support the Jury's Finding of a Statutory Aggravating Circumstance

Text: For his penultimate argument, appellant states that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of statutory aggravating circumstances, specifically that the murder was committed in an especially cruel or depraved manner. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-604(8)(A) (Supp. 2001). Here, the jury was instructed solely on the statutory aggravating circumstance of cruelty: [A] capital murder is committed in an especially cruel manner when, as part of a course of conduct intended to inflict mental anguish, serious physical abuse, or torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death, mental anguish, serious physical abuse, or torture is inflicted. (ii)(a) Mental anguish is defined as the victim's uncertainty as to his ultimate fate. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-604(8)(B) (Supp. 2001). This court recently explained our standard for reviewing a jury's sentencing verdict: We will uphold the jury's verdict if there existed substantial evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more aggravating circumstances exist and that they outweighed any mitigating circumstances.    On review, the jury's judgment will be upheld if, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the aggravating circumstance to have existed beyond a reasonable doubt. Kemp v. State, 324 Ark. 178, 200, 919 S.W.2d 943, 953-954, cert. denied, [519 U.S. 982] 117 S.Ct. 436, 136 L.Ed.2d 334 (1996). Willett v. State, 335 Ark. 427, 434, 983 S.W.2d 409 (1998). The balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is properly the duty of the jury. Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 97, 108-09, 991 S.W.2d 565, 570-71 (1999). The record in this case reflects Barbara Snow's testimony that appellant said he heard Pete moaning after the first shot, and then proceeded to shoot him in the back of the head. According to the State's expert witnesses, Pete would have lived several minutes after the first shot, even though the first shot was fatal. Finally, Randy Busti testified that several seconds passed between the first and second shots. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could have determined that after the first wound, Pete was uncertain as to his ultimate fate and, as a result, suffered mental anguish. Thus, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the murder was committed in an especially cruel manner. [8]