affirming denial of motion for change of venue where “every juror who said he or she was familiar with the case said that he or she could disregard the reports and render an impartial decision,” “[a]ll potential jurors who said they could not disregard the reports were excused for cause, and the defendant “ha[d] cited no specific response from any seated juror that was troublesome”
How later courts described this case
- affirming denial of motion for change of venue where “every juror who said he or she was familiar with the case said that he or she could disregard the reports and render an impartial decision,” “[a]ll potential jurors who said they could not disregard the reports were excused for cause, and the defendant “ha[d] cited no specific response from any seated juror that was troublesome”
- introducing a piece of skull found in the defendant’s clothing and placing this piece of bone into the victim’s reconstructed skull to show that the defendant possessed a part of the victim’s skull—evidence that the court found was no more prejudicial than the use of a model skull would have been
- stating that these are but some of several factors that may be considered on the issue of premeditation
- imposition of death penalty upheld based on aggravating circumstances (i)(5) and (i)(6) where defendant hand-selected victim prior to murder, lured victim to remote area, bludgeoned victim to death, mutilated body, and kept part of victim’s skull as souvenir. Defendant had no prior criminal history and offered proof that she was under emotional or mental disturbance at time of the crime
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
A petition for rehearing has been filed on behalf of appellant. After consideration of the same, the Court is of the opinion that the petition should be and the same is hereby denied at the cost of appellant.