Opinion ID: 1998744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Challenge to Imposition of the Death Sentence Based Upon The Totality of the Evidence Regarding the Section 9-1(b)(11) Aggravating Factor

Text: Defendant next contends that the totality of the evidence at the sentencing hearing establishes that the murder was not cold, calculated, and premeditated within the meaning of section 9-1(b)(11), but rather that it resulted from a rage caused by defendant's personality structure and the victim's rejection of his request for consensual sex. Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Wahlstrom during the aggravation-mitigation phase of the sentencing hearing, defendant contends that he disproved the section 9-1(b)(11) factor in aggravation and therefore the jury improperly determined that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude the imposition of the death sentence in regards to that aggravating factor. In determining whether a death sentence was properly imposed, this court assesses the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991, 49 L.Ed.2d 944, 961 (1976) (plurality opinion); People v. Johnson, 128 Ill.2d 253, 277-78, 131 Ill.Dec. 562, 538 N.E.2d 1118 (1989). We are also mindful that each capital case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts, focusing on whether the circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant are such that the deterrent and retributive functions of the ultimate sanction will be served by imposing the death penalty. Johnson, 128 Ill.2d at 280, 131 Ill.Dec. 562, 538 N.E.2d 1118. As we have extensively discussed in connection with our treatment of defendant's challenge to the jury's eligibility finding pursuant to section 9-1(b)(11), the evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the murder in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner pursuant to a preconceived plan, scheme or design to take a human life by unlawful means. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(b)(11) (West 1994). In addition, during the second phase of the sentencing hearing, the State presented 21 witnesses in aggravation, detailing defendant's extensive criminal record beginning in his early teenage years, as well as his conduct after his arrest for Maria's murder, including statements which continued to evidence his violent thoughts towards women and his lack of remorse. In contrast, defendant presented five witnesses in mitigation, two of whom were his parents, with the majority of the evidence presented by Dr. Wahlstrom. Under our statutory scheme, at the second stage of the sentencing proceedings the jury weighs and balances any mitigating factors against the aggravating factors to determine whether a death sentence is appropriate. E.g., Munson, 171 Ill.2d at 185, 215 Ill.Dec. 125, 662 N.E.2d 1265. If the jury unanimously determines that there are no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude the imposition of the death penalty, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(g) (West 1994). Upon careful consideration of the character of defendant and the circumstances of his crime, we conclude that the evidence presented during defendant's sentencing hearing supports the jury's decision that the penalty of death was appropriate.