Opinion ID: 1755019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the Murder Unnecessarily Torturous to the Victim?

Text: Key also argues that the aggravating factor that the offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel should not have been applied to his case at all because, he says, the murder was not unnecessarily torturous to the victim, especially when compared to other capital offenses. See Kyzer. The trial court considered the following facts in its amended sentencing order to support its finding that the aggravating circumstance in § 13A-5-49(8) existed in this case: [Key] had a history of violence directed toward many people, including his family, and the capital victim herein. The Victim was well aware of this history and [Key's] ability and willingness to carry out any act of violence, including the serious bodily injury on another. On the date of the incident made the basis of this case, . . . he was manifesting acts and gestures indicating his intent to threaten, intimidate, and terrorize the victims, particularly Debra Key. As the encounter escalated, the Victim was well aware of the apparent intent of [Key] to kill her or to inflict bodily injury. She was forced to endure this appreciation throughout their attempt to elude him, while he was running his car up against the vehicle in which Ms. Key was riding, and, finally, after the Victims' vehicle had been forcibly run off the road and into a ditch, while both Ms. Key and her friend Ms. Doyle were trapped helplessly in that vehicle like animals in a trap, [Key], while continuing to manifest his intentions, walked to this wrecked vehicle with a weapon and proceeded to shoot Ms. Doyle, and then shoot, at least (5) five times, Ms. Key. In reviewing whether a murder is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, this Court has consistently considered several factors.
One factor this Court has considered particularly indicative that a murder is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel is the infliction of psychological torture. Psychological torture can be inflicted where the victim is in intense fear and is aware of, but helpless to prevent, impending death. Such torture must have been present for an appreciable lapse of time, sufficient enough to cause prolonged or appreciable suffering. Norris v. State, 793 So.2d 847, 861 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). In Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.1995), the defendant stalked a convenience-store clerk for several days before he walked into the store and shot her during a robbery. There was evidence that the clerk had been aware of his presence and that she was afraid of him. This Court held that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel given, among other things, that the murder was perpetrated under circumstances that caused fear and pain to the victim before death. The Court specifically stated that evidence as to the fear experienced by the victim before death is a significant factor in determining the existence of the aggravating circumstance that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Ex parte Whisenhant, 555 So.2d 235, 243-44 (Ala.1989). . . . 663 So.2d at 1003. This case is very similar to Rieber in that both the store clerk in that case and the victim in this case were afraid of their attackers and feared for their lives before their death. Key had been convicted of stalking the victim, and during the car chase and while she was in the car in the ditch she was aware of Key's propensity for violence and his intent to kill her or to inflict great bodily injury on her. The victim was forced to suffer psychological torture from the moment she saw Key pulling his vehicle up next to Robbie Doyle's car, throughout the car chase, during the time she was trapped in the car with no means of escape, while Key repeatedly shot her, and up until she was anesthetized for surgery. While this Court cannot be certain of the exact amount of time that elapsed during the course of those events, the victim here suffered psychological torture for a greater period of time than did the victim in Rieber. Thus, we hold that the evidence supports the finding that the victim suffered psychological torture for an appreciable period.
Another factor to be considered in determining whether the aggravating circumstance that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the victim experienced appreciable suffering after a swift assault that ultimately resulted in the victim's death. In order to prove this factor, the evidence must also show that the victim was conscious after the initial assault and suffered for an appreciable length for time. We addressed this factor in Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126 (Ala.1998). In Clark, although the victim sustained five shots to the head and back, and a final sixth shot to the ear, the record did not indicate that the victim was conscious and aware after the initial shots were fired. This Court held that it could not expand the aggravating circumstance set out in § 13A-5-49(8) to include murders such as the one in Clark, where the record did not reflect that the victim had suffered after the initial assault. In the present case, the evidence indicates that Key showed no remorse for his actions; even after the frightening car chase and repeated shooting of the victim, he left the victim to die, without seeking medical attention for her. Although the victim later received medical treatment, the medical expert in the case testified that the victim suffered exquisite pain and was forced to endure this pain along with a profound sensation of drowning the entire time she remained conscious. According to the medical expert, the victim suffered a slow death. There was also testimony indicating that when the victim arrived at the hospital she was having trouble breathing and was in a great deal of pain. Furthermore, one of the paramedics who transported the victim from the scene testified that she was conscious until she was anesthetized for surgery. This Court has stated that such execution-type slayings, evidencing a cold, calculated design to kill, fall into the category of murders that are especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. See Wright v. State, 494 So.2d 726, 744 (Ala.Crim.App.1985), aff'd, 494 So.2d 745 (Ala.1986) (trial court found that the two victims were murdered `in order that they would not be witnesses' and that they `were each shot in the head, [and] slowly died in a pool of blood'). Thus, the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the victim experienced appreciable suffering after a swift assault that resulted in her death.