Court Opinion

ID: 9860963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:38:25.438051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:56.338932
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in the setting aside of the death penalty. The first reason given by the majority opinion is that there is insufficient proof that appellant was guilty of lying in wait to kill the decedent.
The majority cites the fact that appellant was in her trailer during the attack. However, the majority decision on this question is diametrically opposed to the correct findings in the early part of the opinion, which correctly hold that it is not necessary for appellant to have taken part directly in the murder as long as she planned and directed the execution .of the same.
It is unnecessary for this dissent to reiterate the authority for that proposition of law as it is amply contained in the majority opinion. That evidence alone is sufficient to sustain the death penalty. However, the majority proceeds to find that there is no evidence that appellant hired the actual perpetrators of the murder but simply persuaded them to so act.
As observed by the majority opinion, there is direct evidence that Buchanan was offered money to accomplish the killing. There is ample circumstantial evidence in this record from which the jury could have determined that all three men understood that there was to be compensation for the killing. For the majority now to hold this evidence to be insufficient is purely a matter of weighing the facts which was the exclusive prerogative of the jury.
Even if it is to be conceded that there is insufficient evidence that money was to be paid to the perpetrators the evidence of lying in wait to commit the killing is without contradiction and correctly set forth in the majority opinion. I cannot join in the rationalization of the majority to set aside the death penalty.
I would affirm the trial court in all things.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.