Kennedy v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 16C01-8704-CF-45,16C01-8704-CF-45 |
| Citation | 620 N.E.2d 17 |
| Parties | Stuart S. KENNEDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
J. Richard Kiefer, Kevin P. McGoff, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This appeal from the imposition of the death penalty returns to us after the trial court, on remand, resentenced Kennedy to be executed. The issue in this second direct appeal is whether the trial court committed reversible error in sentencing Kennedy to death after the jury recommended against the death penalty. We hold, pursuant to Martinez Chavez v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 731, modified on reh'g (1989), Ind., 539 N.E.2d 4, that the facts do not support the trial judge's conclusion that the jury recommendation was unreasonable. Therefore, the trial court's override of the jury's recommendation against death must be reversed.
The facts of this case are set forth in our opinion which affirmed Kennedy's conviction, by jury, of the crimes of murder, felony murder, kidnapping, and robbery. Kennedy v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 633, 635-36. At the original sentencing, the trial court imposed the death penalty despite the jury's recommendation against it. We vacated Kennedy's sentence of death and remanded with instructions to resentence Kennedy in view of our decision in Martinez Chavez. In remanding Kennedy to the trial court, we discussed the role played by both the court and jury in the Indiana death penalty system. We said:
[T]he trial court as trier of fact must independently determine the existence of aggravators and mitigators, weigh them, consider the recommendation of the jury, and come to a separate conclusion as to whether or not to impose the death penalty. However, when the jury's recommendation is against the penalty of death, it is to be given a special--but not controlling--role in the judge's process, because it represents factual and evaluative determinations with respect to aggravators and mitigators in favor of the defendant following a fair hearing, and because it represents the collective conscience of the community. In such cases, after determining the aggravators and mitigators and assigning each its just weight, and after assigning the recommendation of the jury its considerable weight, the trial court must then determine whether the relative weight of the proven aggravator or aggravators points so clearly to the imposition of the death penalty that the jury's recommendation must be superseded. Nonetheless, and despite the heightened role of the jury recommendation of life, ultimately it is the judge who must make the final sentencing decision.
Following remand, the trial court resentenced Kennedy to death in a resentencing order which reads as follows:
RE-SENTENCING ORDER
This case is before the Court for a new sentence determination pursuant to the Indiana Supreme Court's orders of September 19, 1991, and April 10, 1992. Specifically, this Court understands that it should reconsider the death sentence impose[d] here, which was contrary to the jury's recommendation, in light of the standard set forth in [Martinez] Chavez v. State (1989), 314 N.E.2d 731; rehearing denied, 539 N.E.2d 4.
To carry out this assignment, the Court incorporates by reference all findings contained in its sentencing order of March 21, 1988. This Court has reviewed the evidence before it at sentencing, aggravating and mitigating, and finds that the sentence of death imposed against Stuart S. Kennedy was appropriate. The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim, Michelle Seagraves, was intentionally killed by Kennedy during the commission of a felony. The evidence also showed that the abduction and murder of Michelle Seagraves were unusually calculated and savage. This Court believes that the facts in this case are so clear and convincing that no reasonable person could disagree that Stuart S. Kennedy should be executed for this brutal murder.
In Chavez, supra, the Supreme Court vacated a death sentence imposed by the trial court, which sentence was contrary to the jury's recommendation. In its decision, the Supreme Court pointed out that the defendant, Chavez, was an accomplice with the defendant, Rondon. The evidence established that Rondon was the leading personality in the commission of the murder and that Chavez played a secondary role. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that reasonable people could differ on the question of whether of [sic] the death penalty was proper.
In contrast to Chavez, the role of Stuart S. Kennedy in the murder of Michelle Seagraves was primary. The evidence before the jury was sufficient for them to find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Kennedy who randomly selected and kidnapped her, confined and transported her from Columbus, Ohio, to a secluded area near Moores Hill, Indiana, and there strangled her, smashed her head with a rock and, finally, shot her in the head with a large caliber firearm which could have been the one found in the gym bag he was using. Kennedy was no bystander. He was the active, leading personality in the torture and murder of Michelle Seagraves.
The jury in this case performed its task admirably but, for whatever reasons, recommended against the death penalty. The Court finds that their recommendation was unreasonable because it was an insufficient response to the defendant's conduct. If any murder warrants the imposition of the death penalty, this case is surely it.
The Court, therefore, re-sentences the defendant, Stuart S. Kennedy, and orders that he be executed in the manner prescribed by law on October 9, 1992, before sunrise.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1992.
/s/______________________
In this appeal, Kennedy argues that the resentencing order is a virtual restatement of the first sentencing order, the only addition being the fourth paragraph which concludes that Kennedy was the primary perpetrator. Kennedy further argues that such additional conclusion is not supported by the evidence. We agree.
The trial court properly held that the evidence before the jury was "sufficient" for them to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was Kennedy who selected, kidnapped, confined, transported and killed the victim and that, therefore, the jury could have recommended the death penalty. However, the jury did not do so. Therefore, in deciding whether to override the jury's recommendation, the role of the trial court was to determine whether the evidence concerning Kennedy's role in the commission of these crimes points "so clearly to the imposition of the death penalty that the jury's recommendation was unreasonable." Martinez Chavez, 539 N.E.2d at 5.
In reviewing the evidence in this case, we are not so clearly convinced that Kennedy was either the primary perpetrator or "leading personality" in the commission of this crime. A review of the evidence reveals that both Kennedy and his cohort, Jackson, participated in the kidnapping, transporting, and murder of Michelle Seagraves. Neither was a bystander. However, the evidence at Kennedy's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleenor v. Farley
...sentences that had been imposed contrary to jury recommendations. Jackson v. State, 597 N.E.2d 950, 955-56 (Ind.1992); Kennedy v. State, 620 N.E.2d 17, 19-20 (Ind.1993). In Roark v. State, the court revisited the issue and concluded that the Martinez Chavez standard needed modification beca......
-
Smith v. Farley
...reversals or remands of such convictions. Burris v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1067 (Ind.1990) and cases there collected; See also, Kennedy v. State, 620 N.E.2d 17 (Ind.1993); James v. State, 613 N.E.2d 15 (Ind.1993); Bellmore v. State, 602 N.E.2d 111 (Ind.1992); Evans v. State, 598 N.E.2d 516 (Ind.......
-
Lowery v. Anderson
...the Martinez Chavez standard and reversed death sentences that had been imposed contrary to jury recommendations. Kennedy v. State, 620 N.E.2d 17, 19-20 (Ind.1993); Jackson v. State, 597 N.E.2d 950, 955-56 In Roark v. State, the court revisited the issue and concluded that the Martinez Chav......
-
Harrison v. State
... ... In Indiana, a criminal defendant is not constitutionally entitled, at public expense, ... Page 1253 ... to any type or number of expert witnesses he desires to support his case. Kennedy v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 633, 640, cert. denied 503 U.S. 921, 112 S.Ct. 1299, 117 L.Ed.2d 521 [1992]. A defendant who requests funds for an expert witness has the burden of demonstrating the need for that expert. Id. The appointment of experts is left to the sound discretion of the ... ...