Court Opinion

ID: 9736152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:45:19.305643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.706303
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent only from that part of the opinion of the court which finds that the record does not support the finding of the sentencing panel that two aggravating circumstances existed.
The sentencing panel found as follows:
(b) “The murder was committed in an apparent effort to conceal the commission of a crime or to conceal the identity of the perpetrator of a crime.”
The evidence does establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of Beverly K. Ramspott was committed to avoid detection and apprehension and was committed in an apparent effort to conceal the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, to-wit: Robert Edward Hunt, Jr. In this regard, the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Robert Edward Hunt, Jr. obtained through theft a rope, nylon stockings, ladies [sic] panties, and a pellet gun in preparation for his assault of the victim. The only logical conclusion for the theft of these items is that they were stolen by the defendant to avoid the possibility that they might later be traced to the defendant. The defendant then went to the home of Beverly K. Ramspott, gained admission and *727rendered his victim helpless and unconscious. The defendant then disrobed his victim, masturbated and ejaculated on her body and then checked her pulse for signs of life. The defendant, after finding a pulse, placed his victim face down in the bathtub partially filled with water. Death was caused by strangulation. The defendant then wiped the premises free of fingerprints, removed the victims [sic] eyeglasses to avoid fingerprint detection, gathered up his remaining paraphernalia and fled. The only conclusion that can logically be reached is that Beverly K. Ramspott was murdered to conceal the identity of the defendant, the perpetrator of the assault upon Beverly K. Ramspott. The evidence establishes this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, this aggravating circumstance does exist.
(d) “The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or manifested exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence.”
The evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s purpose in going to the place where Beverly K. Ramspott resided was to have sexual relations with Beverly K. Ramspott. That the defendant was determined to have sexual relations with Beverly K. Ramspott regardless of what he had to do, is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Robert Edward Hunt, Jr. picked his victim at random from an engagement announcement contained in the local newspaper. He then put together the items he deemed necessary to carry out his plan, to-wit: The rope, nylon stockings, panties, magazines, and a pellet gun. The defendant then drove to the vicinity of the victim’s home, placed the premises under surveillance for a period of time, and then gained entry by the use of the pellet gun. Upon entering the mobile home, the defendant bound the victim and after hearing her plea of “Please don’t kill me” forced two ladies [sic] panties into the mouth and throat and then proceeded to strangle the victim with a nylon stocking in such a manner so as to leave three bruised areas *728around the neck of Beverly K. Ramspott, moved her from the living room to the bedroom, determined that she was still alive by taking her pulse, and then placed her unconscious body face down in a bathtub containing water. The defendant then left Beverly K. Ramspott to die. All of the above was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That Beverly K. Ramspott had physical suffering is inferrable [sic] beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence of the strangulation method used by the defendant.
That defendant killed Beverly K. Ramspott is indisputable and conclusive.
The facts above summarized and as more fully set forth in the evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was determined to have sexual satisfaction for his own pleasure from a woman selected at random, that he had with him an instrument of death to assist him in carrying out that purpose; that he did make an assault upon Beverly K. Ramspott and that he strangled Beverly K. Ramspott to carry out that purpose. Beverly K. Ramspott died as a result thereof.
The Supreme Court in State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528, and subsequent cases approved a statement that “all first degree murder crimes are capable of being accurately characterized by one or more of the descriptive adjectives employed (in Id) but by the use of the words ‘specially’ and ‘exceptional’ the Legislature has required a much greater degree of these characteristics than is usually present in a murder. This category of aggravating circumstances would include murders involving...sexual abuse or the imposition of extreme suffering.” The defendant sexually abused Beverly K. Ramspott during the course of strangulation. See State v. Perry, 199 Neb. 656, State v. Simants, 179 Neb. 549, and State v. Williams, 205 Neb. 56. The murder of Beverly K. Ramspott was callous, cold-blooded and involved cruel disregard for human life.
The three-judge sentencing panel in State v. Williams, supra, found that Williams killed two women, one of *729whom was attempting to escape. The sentencing panel imposed the death penalty in regard to the murders of each of the women finding that aggravating circumstance Id did apply to each murder. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Here the defendant strangled Beverly K. Ramspott, rendered her defenseless, sexually abused her and left her to die from strangulation.
This murder displays a callous, cold-blooded and cruel disregard for human life. This murder also manifests a shocking display of maliciousness and ruthlessness in that the victim was selected at random and hunted down. The murder of Beverly K. Ramspott manifested exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence. The acts of killing this defenseless woman, Beverly K. Ramspott was totally and senselessly bereft of any regard for human life.
This aggravating circumstance does exist.
There is conflicting evidence in the record in regard to both of these matters, but in my opinion the record sustains the findings of the sentencing panel beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant went to great pains in an effort to avoid leaving evidence at the scene of the crime, such as fingerprints, which would identify him. His fantasy did not require that the victim be dead at the time of his sex act; it was only necessary that she be helpless and subject to whatever he wished to do. The psychiatrist who examined the defendant at the request of defense counsel stated in his report as follows:
There is considerable ritualistic quality to the planning of the assaultive episode, with evidence of the defendant’s expectation that certain fantasies would be fulfilled. These apparently had to do with the subduing and controlling of a female, who would then be forced to accede to his needs without being able to leave him. I am aware of no specific evidence, and there is no psychiatric evidence, to indicate that Mr. Hunt intended to kill his victim, although he did not show significant concern for the danger in which he obviously placed her.
At the sentencing hearing this witness testified as follows:
Q. Doctor, to clarify the last question of Mr. Smith’s for *730a minute. From your examination you were aware and did come to some conclusion about an intent of Mr. Hunt to either kill or render unconscious or control Beverly Ramspott as it occurred immediately prior to the events in question, are you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you find that he had an — Did you find, Doctor, or do you have an opinion as to whether or not he went into that home with the intent to kill or intent to render unconscious and to incapacitate Beverly Ramspott?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What was your finding in that regard?
A. My opinion is that he was far more interested in control, rendering unconscious, incapacitating, and not very interested, if at all, in killing an individual.
Q. Doctor, your statement about the defendant’s primary interest in controlling his victim, rendering her unconscious and lack of interest in killing her, just so I understand, are you saying whether or not he killed her was unimportant to him? Secondary?
A. I believe it was secondary. I don’t believe he cared very much at the time while the act was going on. But, I don’t believe — I have no reason to believe that he was consciously trying to kill her at the time.
There is evidence which will support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant inserted the gag in the victim’s mouth to silence her; that he strangled her until she became unconscious; and that he thought she was still alive until sometime shortly before he placed her face down in the tub partially filled with water. If the victim died as a result of panties being forced almost into her throat, instead of drowning in the tub, that was not the cause of death intended by the defendant.
If this murder did not manifest exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of morality and intelligence, I am at a loss to imagine what type of a killing would conform to the statutory description.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court in all *731respects.
Shanahan and Grant, JJ., join in this dissent.