Opinion ID: 1730477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider the aggravating circumstance of avoiding lawful arrest in each of the four cases.

Text: Carr contends that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury to consider the aggravating circumstance of whether the capital offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest. Carr finds error in the fact that no limiting instruction defining avoiding arrest was given. Further, Carr alleges there was insufficient evidence presented at trial in support of the aggravating circumstance. The State again raises defense counsel's failure to object to the instruction at trial, and submits that the issue is procedurally barred. The State also contends that there was sufficient evidence to support the aggravating circumstance of avoiding arrest. This Court in Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114 (Miss. 1991), addressed this issue of avoiding arrest and the need for a limiting instruction to narrow this aggravator. We stated: Hansen next takes issue with the aggravating circumstance found in Miss. Code Ann.  99-19-101(5)(e) (Supp. 1987), The capital offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody. It is argued some sort of limiting instruction need be given to narrow this aggravator. In Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 651 (Miss. 1983), we rebuffed this contention, stating, If there is evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred that a substantial reason for the killing was to conceal the identity of the killer or killings or to `cover their tracks' so as to avoid apprehension and eventual arrest by authorities, then it is proper for the court to allow the jury to consider this aggravating circumstance. Under this construction the Court properly submits this aggravator to the jury, if evidence existed from which the jury could reasonably infer that concealing the killer's identity, or covering the killer's tracks to avoid apprehension and arrest, was a substantial reason for the killing. Hansen, 592 So.2d at 152-153. Thus, it is this Court's role to inquire into whether there is any credible evidence upon which the jury could find the aggravating circumstance in question. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 490 (Miss. 1988). The evidence showed that Charlotte, Gregory and Carl Parker had been bound. All four of the Parkers had been shot at least once. Charlotte died of smoke inhalation, while the rest of her family died of the gunshot wounds. Carl Parker's truck was found in Clarksdale loaded with the Parker's possessions, ranging from a ceiling fan pulled out of the ceiling to clothes. There was evidence presented that the Parker home was burned to the ground as a result of an incendiary device. In addition, the jury heard testimony from Anthony Washington that Carr said that his partner told him they had to burn the house down to destroy the evidence. The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that the killings were committed to avoid arrest. We find the trial court properly submitted the aggravating circumstance of avoiding arrest to the jury. See Hansen, 592 So.2d at 153. This assignment of error is procedurally barred due to Carr's failure to object. Alternatively, on the merits, there is no basis for finding error on this issue.