 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manning v. State3/31/1999
3) (Rev. 1994 & Supp. 1998); see also Underwood, 708 So. 2d at 39.
A. The Especially Heinous, Atrocious or Cruel Circumstance
. Manning contends that the especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel (HAC) aggravating circumstance was both unsupported by the evidence and insufficiently defined. Instruction SSP-5 defining the HAC aggravator reads, "The Court instructs the Jury that the term 'especially heinous, atrocious and cruel' as used in these instructions is defined as being a conscienceless and pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim." This exact limiting instruction was previously approved by this Court as a proper instruction on the HAC aggravator in Lockett v. State, 614 So. 2d 888, 896 (Miss. 1992). Manning's argument that the instruction was unconstitutionally vague is without merit.
. Manning attempts to compare his case to numerous cases from other jurisdictions in which appellate courts reversed findings of the HAC aggravator where the victims were killed by multiple gunshot wounds. See McKinney v. State, 579 So. 2d 80, 84 (Fla. 1991) (murder by shooting victim is not heinous, atrocious, and cruel unless set apart from other murders by additional torture); Hatcher v. State, 379 S.E.2d 775, 778 (Ga. 1989) (murder committed by shooting victim twice in the head did not support finding that killing was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture and depravity of mind"); Commonwealth v. Brode, 564 A.2d 1254, 1257-58 (Pa. 1989) (torturous aggravator not supported merely by finding that victim suffered pain before death); State v. Wilson, 467 So. 2d 503, 521-22 (La. 1985) (murder by point-blank gunshot wound to the face with sawed-off shotgun did not support finding of HAC aggravating circumstance). These cases are neither controlling, nor persuasive here in a case involving severe beatings and throat slashings of two victims.
. Manning asserts that there was no evidence that either victim in this case suffered extended or torturous suffering before losing consciousness. His position simply is not supported by the evidence. Both victims sustained severe beatings about the head and face before having their throats viciously slashed to the backbone. The blows to the women's heads were brutal enough to cause bleeding under the scalp and inside the skull. Ms. Jordan endured multiple bruises to the brain, and Ms. Jimmerson suffered bleeding within the brain. Dr. Hayne testified that the throat slashings would have occurred ten minutes or more after the head beatings. Ms. Jimmerson additionally sustained defensive posturing blows to her left arm and injuries to her torso consistent with being stomped, resulting in fractured ribs, bruised lungs, abdominal bleeding, and bruising and tearing in her liver and spleen. Although Dr. Hayne testified that the head wounds would likely have rendered the victims unconscious, he did not specify how long it would have taken for them to lose consciousness. He also testified that both women would have endured laborious breathing after the beatings and before the throat slashings. "The number of wounds, the number of lethal weapons used to inflict these wounds, and the fact that death was not immediate, but prolonged" may all be considered as evidence supporting a jury's finding of the HAC aggravator. Davis v. State, 684 So. 2d 643, 662 (Miss. 1996). Furthermore, we have rejected the notion that the victim's "ability to remain conscious" after sustaining the lethal wounds has any relevance to the issue. Underwood, 708 So. 2d at 39. The HAC aggravator was both properly presented to the jury and sufficiently supported by the evidence in this case.
B. The "Avoid Lawf
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|