Court Opinion

ID: 9768004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:37:59.780149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:35.318850
License: Public Domain

Execútion date set for May 13, 1983.
WELLIVER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in most of the principal opinion’s reasoning and in its result. I am unable, however, to concur except as to the result in that part of the principal opinion that addresses appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of the statutory aggravating circumstance.
The death penalty may not be imposed unless the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt one of the twelve statutory aggravating circumstances. § 565.012(4)-(5), RSMo Supp. 1982.1 Those aggravating circumstances are enumerated in § 565.012(2). In this case the trial court instructed the jury on only one aggravating circumstance: that the murder “involved torture or depravity of mind and that as a result thereof it was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman.” - That instruction was taken from § 565.012(2)(7), which provides as a statutory aggravating circumstance that “[t]he offense was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, or depravity of mind.” Appellant makes no argument regarding the fact that the trial court inverted the language of the statute, but in any event I do not believe that fact has any bearing upon this case. The jury found as a statutory aggravating circumstance that the murder involved “[tjorture, depravity of mind and that as a result it was outrageous and wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.” Appellant’s argument is unclear, but it appears to be that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of torture and that because the jury did not find “torture or depravity of mind” in the disjunctive language of the statute the lack of evidentiary support vitiates the finding of the statutory aggravating circumstance.
I agree with the principal opinion that appellant’s argument is without merit, but I reach that conclusion for a different reason. Neither torture nor depravity of mind constitutes the aggravating circumstance. The aggravating circumstance is that the murder is “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman.” The murder possesses that quality, the statute says, because it involves torture or depravity of mind. Thus, a finding of at least one — either torture or depravity of mind — is prerequisite to a finding of the aggravating circumstance. Here the jury found the aggravating circumstance. That it so found because it apparently thought the murder involved both torture and depravity of mind is inconsequential. I agree with the principal opinion that the evidence supports a finding of both, but only a finding of one or the other was necessary to a finding of the aggravating circumstance. There was no error.
I disagree with the principal opinion for two related reasons. First, it characterizes § 565.012(2)(7) as comprising two statutory aggravating circumstances rather than one. According to the principal opinion, torture and depravity of mind constitute separate aggravating circumstances. I believe, as demonstrated above, that the statutory language itself forecloses that reading. Second, having made that characterization, the principal opinion states that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of “both statutory aggravating circumstances,” and then it goes on to conclude that in any event “where two or more statutory aggravating circumstances are found by the jury, the failure of one circumstance does not taint the proceedings so as to invalidate the other aggravating circumstance found and the sentence of death thereon.” I think this latter statement is both unnecessary and unwise.
The question whether the failure of one statutory aggravating circumstance found by the jury vitiates the death sentence is not present in this case. It is, however, pending before the United States Supreme Court. See Zant v. Stephens, 456 U.S. *107410, 102 S.Ct. 1856, 72 L.Ed.2d 222 (1982). In Zant the Supreme Court certified to the Georgia Supreme Court the following question: “What are the premises of state law that support the conclusion that the death sentence in this case is not impaired by the invalidity of one of the statutory aggravating circumstances found by the jury?” Id. at 1859. The Georgia Supreme Court has answered that question by stating that
[a] case may not pass the second plane into that area in which the death penalty is authorized unless at least one statutory aggravating circumstance is found. However, this plane is passed regardless of the number of statutory aggravating circumstances found, so long as there is at least one. Once beyond this plane, the case enters the area of the factfinder’s discretion, in which all the facts and circumstances of the case determine, in terms of our metaphor, whether or not the case passes the third plane and into the area in which the death penalty is imposed.
Zant v. Stephens, 250 Ga. 97, 100, 297 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1982). Our cases accept a similar rationale underlying the use of statutory aggravating circumstances. See State v. Shaw, 636 S.W.2d 667, 675 (Mo.banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 239, 74 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982); State v. Bolder, 635 S.W.2d 673, 682 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 770, 74 L.Ed.2d 983 (1983). Nevertheless, we have never decided the question that the principal opinion would purport to decide. In State v. Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1, 10 n. 5 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 933, 102 S.Ct. 432, 70 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981), we noted the Georgia Supreme Court’s position on the issue, but we also noted that there is considerable authority to the contrary. The evidence in that case fully supported both of the aggravating circumstances that the jury found, id. at 10, and thus there was no issue of the failure of one of the aggravating circumstances.
The principal opinion’s statement is of course only dictum, but it nevertheless is a strong dictum. I think it imprudent in advance of necessity to decide the issue it purports to settle, especially by making such an unqualified statement. In Zant the Georgia Supreme Court refused to adopt such an unconditional holding. That court stated that
[a] different result might be reached in a case where evidence was submitted in support of a statutory aggravating circumstance which was not otherwise admissible, and thereafter the circumstance failed. Furthermore, this court must consider each case involving a failure of one or more of a multiple of statutory aggravating circumstances to determine whether, because of the failure, the sentence was imposed under the influence of an arbitrary factor.
250 Ga. at 101, 297 S.E.2d at 4.
We should not be quick to speak to this important issue. We should await a case in which the question is squarely presented so that we can give it full consideration. Perhaps by that time, too, we will have the guidance of the Supreme Court’s final decision in Zant.

. All statutory references are to RSMo Supp. 1982.