holding sufficient evidence to establish kidnapping where victim last seen at mall at defendant’s open car door, relationship between them was such that victim would not have voluntarily entered car moments before she was due at work, victim found substantial distance from mall, and victim had stab wounds demonstrating severe bodily injury
How later courts described this case
- holding sufficient evidence to establish kidnapping where victim last seen at mall at defendant’s open car door, relationship between them was such that victim would not have voluntarily entered car moments before she was due at work, victim found substantial distance from mall, and victim had stab wounds demonstrating severe bodily injury
- holding that trial counsel did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance where appellant failed to specify the evidence which might have been revealed if the continuance had been granted and counsel had been afforded the opportunity to investigate further
- stating that “[c]ounsel will not be found ineffective for failing to call a witness unless the petitioner can show that the witness’s testimony would have been helpful to the defense.”
- stating that, while evidence of a victim's fear of a defendant may be relevant to a kidnapping charge, such evidence is "irrelevant to the charge of criminal homicide"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice.,
dissenting.
I join the majority’s affirmance of appellant’s conviction, but I dissent to the holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of the aggravating circumstance of torture. I would affirm both the conviction of first degree murder and the sentence of death.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(8) states that an aggravating circumstance is a killing by means of torture. Torture is the intentional infliction of a considerable amount of pain and suffering on a victim which is unnecessarily heinous, atrocious or cruel manifesting exceptional depravity. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 256, 277 , 561 A.2d 699, 709 (1989). There must be an indication that the killer was not satisfied with the killing alone. Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 535 Pa. 210, 236 , 634 A.2d 1078, 1091 (1993). Torture includes the infliction of *553 intense pain to punish or coerce someone; it is torment or agony or anguish of body or mind. Commonwealth v. Nelson, 514 Pa. 262, 279 , 523 A.2d 728, 737 (1987).
I believe the record belies the majority’s conclusion that the Commonwealth failed to prove torture as an aggravating circumstance. The record reflects that: Lori Auker was forcibly placed in appellant’s car, as shown by the presence of Lori’s hair in the door jamb; she was forcibly placed in the trunk of the car, as shown by the presence of her cat’s hair in the trunk; and she was subjected to the fear, anguish, and physical punishment of having to ride in appellant’s trunk. There was no evidence that Lori was dead before reaching the site, as no blood was found in the car or in the trunk. Further, there was no evidence that the victim immediately died from the numerous, painful stab wounds, so the jury could reasonably have inferred that Lori Auker was left alone to bleed to death and suffer greatly in the steep ravine.
I believe these facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to support beyond a reasonable doubt the jury’s finding that the murder was committed by means of torture. The majority’s contrary conclusion, I believe, reflects the personal views of the justices rather than a proper application of our appellate standard of review.
CASTILLE, J., joins this dissenting opinion.