Willett v. State

• Decision Date: 17 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. CR,CR
• Citation: Willett v. State, 335 Ark. 427, 983 S.W.2d 409 (Ark. 1998)
• Parties: Alan WILLETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 97-341.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 409

983 S.W.2d 409

335 Ark. 427

Alan WILLETT, Appellant, v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 97-341.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Dec. 17, 1998.

William M. Pearson, Clarksville, for Appellant.

Winston Bryant, Attorney General, David R. Raupp, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Little Rock, for Appellee.

RAY THORNTON, Justice.

This is the second time we have reviewed the imposition of death penalties for each of two counts of capital murder committed by the appellant, Alan Willett.The two convictions for killing his son, Eric, and appellant's brother, Roger, were affirmed by this court in Willett v. State, 322 Ark. 613, 911 S.W.2d 937(1995)(Willett I ), as were convictions for attempted murder of appellant's surviving children, Jonathan and Ruby.In Willett I, appellant sought to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the aggravating circumstance found by the jury, but that argument was not raised to the trial court; therefore we did not consider the merits of that argument on appeal.However, we found error in the completion of the forms relating to mitigating circumstances which made it impossible to discern whether the jury found any mitigating circumstances to consider during the penalty phase, and reversed and remanded for resentencing.

During the resentencing hearing in August of 1996, the jury was presented evidence that appellant committed the capital murders of Roger and Eric in an especially cruel or depraved manner as those terms are defined by Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-604, the statute establishing aggravating circumstances.Evidence was also presented that a number of mitigating circumstances existed.The jury unanimously found that the statutory aggravating circumstance existed beyond a reasonable doubt; that the aggravating circumstance outweighed beyond a reasonable doubt all mitigating circumstances found to exist; and that the aggravating circumstance justified a sentence of death beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the capital murders.Appellant brings this appeal, and we affirm.

For his first point on appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence presented at the resentencing trial was insufficient to justify a sentence of death on each count of capital murder.Our test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.Ricketts v. State, 292 Ark. 256, 257, 729 S.W.2d 400, 401(1987).On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and sustain the conviction if there is any substantial evidence to support it.Abdullah v. State, 301 Ark. 235, 237, 783 S.W.2d 58, 59(1990).Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture.Hodge v. State, 303 Ark. 375, 377, 797 S.W.2d 432, 433(1990);Jones v. State, 269 Ark. 119, 120, 598 S.W.2d 748, 749(1980).

The pertinent parts of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-604 provide:

Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:

...

(8)(A) The capital murder was committed in an especially cruel or depraved manner.

(B) For purposes of this subdivision (8), 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 ... "Torture" is defined as the infliction of extreme physical pain for a prolonged period of time prior to the victim's death.

(C) For purposes of this subdivision (8), a capital murder is committed in an especially depraved manner when the person ... shows an indifference to the suffering of the victim and evidences a sense of pleasure in committing the murder....

On review, we examine whether substantial evidence was presented to support the jury's unanimous finding that the statutory aggravating circumstance existed, that it outweighed all mitigating circumstances, and that it justified a sentence of death, all beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence Supporting Aggravating Circumstances

The jury considered the testimony of appellant's daughter, Ruby, law-enforcement officials, and medical experts, and reviewed exhibits, photographs, and appellant's videotaped statement.Appellant's statement indicated that he considered murdering his family in August by carbon monoxide poisoning.He drove his family to a nearby lake to carry out this plan, but did not complete the murders.One month later, he stated that he sat up all night planning to kill his family and then to commit suicide.Early in the morning of September 14, 1993, he chose an eight-pound window weight as his weapon and first attacked his daughter Ruby, because she, as the oldest, would be most likely to talk him out of his plan.He struck her on the head, but she awakened, and according to Ruby, when she screamed, he attempted to smother her.The noise roused Ruby's thirteen-year-old brother, Eric, who entered the room while Ruby was seeking to flee with the youngest brother, Jonathan, in her arms.The appellant struck Jonathan on the head, and then turned his attention to Eric while Ruby and Jonathan escaped.Appellant stated that Eric practically ran into the weapon, and fell to the ground when he was struck on the head.Appellant then turned upon his own mentally handicapped brother, Roger, told him to turn around, and when he did so, struck him on the head.The blow, however, did not stun him, and appellant repeated the attack with as many as five blows until Roger fell to the floor.Appellant then returned to Eric and struck him again to make sure he was dead, before appellant locked himself in the bathroom and cut himself on the wrists and throat.The medical testimony was that Eric may have lived as long as thirty minutes after being struck, and Roger was still alive when the officers arrived at the scene soon after Eric's death.Both Ruby and Jonathan survived, and appellant's conviction and sentence for attempted murder of Rudy and Jonathan, affirmed in Willett I, is not at issue in this appeal.

We first consider whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the statutory aggravating circumstance was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in each of the charges.As we look at the evidence that Eric's murder was committed in an especially cruel manner because it was part of a course of conduct intended to inflict mental anguish upon Eric, we find evidence that Eric was confronted a month earlier with a plan to kill the family by carbon monoxide poisoning.Although that plan was not carried out, the awareness that such a plan had been considered illuminated the scene on the morning of the murders when Eric, hearing his sister's screams, ran into the room to witness his father's attack upon his sister Ruby and his brother Jonathan.

Appellant's defense that he didn't intend to inflict mental anguish upon Eric, he only intended to kill him, is demonstrative of an indifference to the suffering of the victim.Intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the crime.SeeWeaver v. State, 324 Ark. 290, 294, 920 S.W.2d 491, 493(1996).In this case, there was substantial evidence from which the jury could infer intent to inflict mental anguish, as well as to murder Eric, and in weighing the evidence, the jury is not required to accept appellant's explanation of his own motives.The jury is allowed to consider all evidence, including that which showed that Eric watched his father's attack upon his brother and sister.From this evidence a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Eric must have suffered indescribable mental anguish and that he suffered uncertainty as to his ultimate fate as his father turned his attack upon him.SeeDavasher v. State, 308 Ark. 154, 170, 823 S.W.2d 863, 872, (1992), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 976, 112 S.Ct. 2948, 119 L.Ed.2d 571, 572(1992).On review, the jury's judgment will be upheld 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.Kemp v. State, 324 Ark. 178, 200, 919 S.W.2d 943, 953-954, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 982, 117 S.Ct. 436, 136 L.Ed.2d 334(1996).

While appellant's brother Roger might not have understood the significance of the plan to subject the family to carbon monoxide poisoning, there was abundant and substantial evidence that he witnessed the mayhem of the murderous scene of September 14, 1993, because the appellant told him to turn around, and when he did so, hit him in the back of the head with the window weight.Death was not merciful to either Eric or Roger.The first blow to the head did not stun Roger, and repeated blows were required to put him on the floor, where he remained alive until officers arrived.This substantial evidence would support the jury's finding that Roger's death resulted from an especially cruel or depraved manner because the means of inflicting death was serious physical abuse that first created a substantial risk of death, which, when continued and intensified, did finally result in his death.

We conclude that there was substantial evidence before the jury to support the finding that the aggravating circumstance existed beyond a reasonable doubt in each of the counts of capital murder.

Evidence of Mitigating Circumstances

The jury found that nine mitigating circumstances existed in this case.These factors were: (1) the capital murders were committed while Alan Willett was acting under unusual pressures; (2) before the 14th of September, 1993, Alan Willett had no history of criminal conduct; (3) before the 14th of September, 1993, Alan...