Court Opinion

ID: 9668322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:09:34.795546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.598967
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. The majority opinion states that a trial court should submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury for consideration if the State has introduced “any evidence, however slight,” in support of the aggravating circumstance. The majority opinion then states, however, that a jury’s finding that an aggravating circumstance exists beyond a reasonable doubt should be affirmed on appeal only if (1) the existence of the aggravating circumstance is supported by “substantial evidence,” or (2) viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the aggravating circumstance to have existed beyond a reasonable doubt.” The majority concludes that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that appellant Alan Willett committed the capital murders against his son and brother “in an especially cruel or depraved manner” as those terms are defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-604(8) (Repl. 1997), and it affirms Mr. Willett’s death sentence based upon that aggravating circumstance. It is correct to hold that, when we review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s finding that an aggravating circumstance exists beyond a reasonable doubt, we should apply the “substantial evidence” standard. I disagree, however, with the majority’s suggestion that a different standard, i.e., “any evidence, however slight,” should be applied by a trial court when deciding whether to submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury. There is no substantial evidence that Mr. Willett murdered his son and brother “in an especially cruel or depraved manner.” The evidence is insufficient to establish that aggravating circumstance, and we therefore should reverse and remand for resentencing. 1. The “substantial evidence” standard We have consistently held that evidence supporting a conviction is sufficient if it is “substantial.” Huggins v. State, 322 Ark. 70, 74, 907 S.W.2d 697, 700 (1995). Applying the “substantial evidence” standard, we will affirm a verdict of guilt if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is “forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion one way or the other” without “having to resort to speculation or conjecture.” McGehee v. State 328 Ark. 404, 410, 943 S.W.2d 585, 588 (1997). We consider only the evidence “supporting the verdict,” and we neither “weigh the evidence presented at trial, as that is a matter for the factfinder,” nor “weigh the credibility of the witnesses.” Bell v. State, 334 Ark. 285, 292, 973 S.W.2d 806, 810 (1998). In our death-penalty cases, however, we have been remarkably inconsistent in describing the standard to be applied when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s finding that an aggravating circumstance exists beyond a reasonable doubt. In Miller v. State, 269 Ark. 341, 354, 605 S.W.2d 430, 438 (1980), we said that a trial court should submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury if the circumstance is supported by “any evidence . . . however slight.” We further indicated that, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an aggravating circumstance, we would “not require the same degree of proof to sustain a jury finding that an aggravating or mitigating circumstance exists as we would require to sustain a conviction if that circumstance was a separate crime.” 269 Ark. at 355, 605 S.W.2d at 439. A fair reading of the Miller case and the cases that have followed it, see Dansby v. State, 319 Ark. 506, 524, 893 S.W.2d 331, 341 (1995); Wainwright v. State, 302 Ark. 371, 385, 790 S.W.2d 420, 427 (1990); Parker v. State, 300 Ark. 360, 368-69, 779 S.W.2d 156, 160 (1989); Clines v. State, 280 Ark. 77, 92, 656 S.W.2d 684, 691 (1983); Miller v. State, 280 Ark. 551, 559, 660 S.W.2d 163, 167 (1983)(Hays, J., concurring), suggests that, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s aggravated-circumstance finding, we apply a standard different from, and less demanding than, the standard applied when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s finding of guilt. In the case now before us, the majority, correctly in my view, departs from that precedent and holds, contrary to the Miller decision, that an aggravated-circumstance finding must be supported by “substantial evidence,” which is “the same degree of proof. . . require[d] to sustain a conviction . . . .” Miller v. State, 269 Ark. at 355, 605 S.W.2d at 439. In determining whether an accused is guilty of an offense, and in determining whether an aggravating circumstance exists, the jury applies the very same standard — i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is only logical that this Court apply the same standard on appeal — i.e., “substantial evidence” — when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those jury determinations. Despite our statements in our 1980 Miller opinion, we have applied, in at least four cases, the “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an aggravated-circumstance finding. See Greene v. State, 335 Ark. 1, 977 S.W.2d 192 (1998); Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 988, 936 S.W.2d 509, 546 (1996); Sheridan v. State, 313 Ark. 23, 30-32, 852 S.W.2d 772, 775-77 (1993); Miller v. State, 280 Ark. 551, 554, 660 S.W.2d 163, 165 (1983). Although I agree with the majority’s application of the “substantial evidence” standard in this case, I find its reference to a second standard of review to be confusing. The majority first states, correctly, that a finding that an aggravating circumstance exists beyond a reasonable doubt must be supported by “substantial evidence.” It then states, however, that such a finding will be affirmed if, “taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the aggravating circumstance to have existed beyond a reasonable doubt.” This second standard, known as the “rational factfinder” standard, is applied in federal court when a habeas corpus petitioner challenges, under the Due Process Clause, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a state court’s finding that an aggravating circumstance exists. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990). The same standard applies in federal court when a habeas corpus petitioner challenges on due-process grounds the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a state-court conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Following Lewis v. Jeffers, supra, we applied the “rational factfinder” standard in at least two cases in which we considered the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an aggravated-circumstance finding. See Kemp v. State, 324 Ark. 178, 200, 919 S.W.2d 943, 953 (1996); Coulter v. State, 304 Ark. 527, 533, 804 S.W.2d 348, 351-52, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 829 (1991). See also Miller v. Lockhart, 65 F.3d 676 (8th Cir. 1995). In cases reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions, however, we have consistently applied the “substantial evidence” standard rather than the federal standard announced in Jackson. In Jones v. State, 269 Ark. 119, 120, 598 S.W.2d 748, 749 (1980), we said that the language in Jackson v. Virginia did not “require [ ] us to abandon our decisions regarding the test of whether a jury verdict should stand in a criminal case. There must be substantial evidence to support such a decision.” See also Ricks v. State, 316 Ark. 601, 604, 873 S.W.2d 808, 810 (1994)(stating “the federal test as set forth in Jackson v. Virginia ... is of no particular relevance . . . .”). Despite our application of the “rational factfinder” standard in the Kemp and Coulter cases, we should, for the sake of clarity and consistency, apply only the “substantial evidence” standard in any case in which we review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting either a conviction or a finding that an aggravated circumstance exists. Our “substantial evidence” standard is arguably a “rough equivalent ]” to the Jackson-Lewis standard, see Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415, 432 n.10 (1994), and there is no suggestion that our standard affords any less “due process” to an accused than the standard articulated in the Jackson and Lewis cases. See Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 45 and n.21 (1982) (stating “the due process test of Jackson v. Virginia” “sets a lower limit on an appellate court’s definition of evidentiary sufficiency”). The majority opinion, by referring to, and perhaps applying, the “substantial evidence” and the “rational factfinder” standards of review, muddies an area of the law that is in need of clarity. There is one final statement in the majority’s discussion of this point that I find troublesome. The majority correctly holds that a jury’s finding that an aggravating circumstance exists beyond a reasonable doubt must be supported by “substantial evidence.” It suggests, however, relying on language in the 1980 Miller case, that a trial court may submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury if the State introduces “any evidence, however slight,” in support of the aggravating circumstance. The “substantial evidence” standard clearly requires a greater quantum of proof than the “any evidence, however slight” standard. The problem with the majority’s suggestion, then, is obvious. A rule allowing a trial court to submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury upon a lower evidentiary threshold, such as “any evidence, however slight,” will always result in a reversal if a jury finds the existence of an aggravating circumstance when the evidence supporting the aggravating circumstance is anything less than “substantial.” Thus, if this Court is to apply the “substantial evidence” standard in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s finding that an aggravated circumstance exists, then that is the standard that a trial court should apply in determining whether to submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury. For the sake of judicial economy, a trial court should not submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury unless there is substantial evidence, not merely slight evidence, in support of it. 2. “Especially cruel or depraved manner” Applying the “substantial evidence” standard, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to affirm Mr. Willett’s death sentence based upon the “especially cruel or depraved manner” aggravating circumstance set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-604(8) (Repl. 1997). In my view, there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that this aggravating circumstance existed beyond a reasonable doubt. According to § 5-4-604(8)(A), a defendant who commits a capital murder in “an especially cruel or depraved manner” may be subject to the death penalty. In the case at bar, the jury was instructed on the entire statute, but the State does not argue, and the majority opinion does not suggest, that Mr. Willett murdered his son and brother in an “especially depraved manner.” Indeed, the record contains absolutely no evidence suggesting that the murders fall within that provision. The question is whether these victims were murdered in an “especially cruel manner.” Section 5-4-604(8)(B) provides that “a capital murder is committed in an especially cruel manner when” as part of a course of conduct intended to inflict mental anguish, serious physical abuse, or torture upon the victim prior to the victim’s death, mental anguish, serious physical abuse, or torture is inflicted. “Mental anguish” is defined as the victim’s uncertainty as to his ultimate fate. “Serious physical abuse” is defined as physical abuse that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes protracted impairment of health, or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. “Torture” is defined as the infliction of extreme physical pain for a prolonged period of time prior to the victim’s death. [Emphasis supplied.] As there is neither argument from the State, nor any suggestion from the majority, nor any evidence in the record that Mr. Willett “tortured” his victims within the meaning of the above statute, the precise issue is whether this case falls within the “mental anguish” or “serious physical abuse” provisions. According to the majority, there is substantial evidence (1) that Mr. Willett intended to inflict “mental anguish” on his son Eric prior to his death and that Eric actually suffered “mental anguish”; and (2) that Mr. Willett intended to inflict “serious physical abuse” on his brother Roger prior to his death and that Roger actually suffered such abuse before he died. Even if it could be conceded that Eric was uncertain “as to his ultimate fate” in the last moments of his life and that Roger suffered “serious physical abuse” before he died, there is absolutely no evidence to show that Mr. Willett intended to inflict such forms of “cruelty” on his two victims. The record leaves no doubt that Mr. Willett murdered his son and brother, and attempted to kill himself and his other children, because he feared that the Department of Human Services, which had been investigating his family, was engaged in a “conspiracy” to “take away” custody of Mr. Willett’s children and brother. Mr. Willett’s statement, which was controverted by none of the State’s evidence, as well as all of his actions, established that Mr. Willett’s intention was to commit the murders quickly, without causing his victims to suffer, so that he and his family could all go “to the Lord.” The State had the burden of presenting substantial evidence in support of the aggravating circumstance it alleged, Greene v. State, supra, and that burden was not met. There is no evidence that Mr. Willett bore any animosity toward the victims, much less any evidence that he intended to treat them in an “especially cruel manner.” On account of this insufficiency in the evidence, Mr. Willett’s sentence of death should be reversed and the case remanded for a resentencing procedure. I respectfully dissent. Imber, J., joins in part one of this opinion.