 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ruff11/4/1997
stopped her and took off her pantyhose. Because he felt they could be seen there from the road, however, he continued to lead her further down the field. When they finally stopped again, defendant removed her shirt and told her to remove her skirt and bra. He then removed her underpants, his own clothes, and then told her to lie down. While lying down, defendant committed sexual acts against the female and raped her. Afterwards, defendant got dressed, unloaded his gun in front of her and said: "If I'd known it was this easy, I would have never brought my gun."
As they were traveling back towards the store, the female convinced defendant to let her out prior to arriving at the store. After being let out, she ran to the store and there waiting was the president of the store and a police officer. She described the assailant to the officer, and shortly thereafter defendant was apprehended.
I.
Defendant first contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because there was no evidence presented at his trial to support the trial court's finding, as an nonstatutory aggravating factor, that he committed the kidnaping and rape of the female with premeditation and deliberation. Because there was no evidence of contact between he and the female prior to 13 June 1995, defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is susceptible of only one Conclusion - that the female was a "random victim" of his, thereby making it impossible for him to have kidnapped and raped after a period of premeditation and deliberation. We disagree.
In evaluating the appropriateness of certain nonstatutory aggravating factors, our courts have consistently held that a trial court may consider whether the defendant committed the subject offenses with premeditation and deliberation. A defendant is said to have committed an offense with "premeditation" if he formed the intent to commit the offense during some period of time, however short, before actually committing the offense. An offense is committed with "deliberation" if the acts constituting the offense are done in a "cool state of blood." To be in such a state, however, does not necessarily mean that the defendant brooded over committing the offense, or that he reflected upon it for a week, a day or an hour, or any other appreciable length of time. Rather, a defendant is said to have deliberated over an offense if he intended to commit the offense, and did so in furtherance of a fixed design to gratify a feeling of revenge, or to accomplish some unlawful purpose. Finally, "in determining the question of premeditation and deliberation it is proper for the [trier of fact] to take into consideration the conduct of the defendant, before and after, as well as at the time of the [crime], and all attending circumstances."
In light of the foregoing principles, we cannot agree with defendant that there was no evidence to support the trial court's finding that defendant kidnaped and raped the female with premeditation and deliberation. Without reiterating the particular facts of this case, we simply state here that our review of those facts convinces us that there was more than sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding. In view of defendant's actions before, during and after he kidnaped and raped the female, we believe there was enough evidence for the trial court to find that he committed those offenses in both a cool and calculated manner. Moreover, even in the absence of prior contact or ill will between defendant and the female, a reasonable inference could be drawn from defendant's actions and words that defendant had previously contemplated, for however long, kidnaping and raping someone. For instance, the f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|