Olsen v. State - 2003 WY 46, 67 P.3d 536

Rule:

In Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-102(d)(ii), the jury is to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The jury is to engage in a statutory process of identifying the circumstances proved to exist and then deliberate whether the totality of the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison to the totality of mitigating circumstances as to warrant the death penalty. This language can only be read to require that in the sentencing phase of a capital trial the burden of proof necessary for a verdict of death over life imprisonment is on the State. If the jury is to be instructed to "weigh," a defendant must produce proof of mitigating circumstances; however, just as in affirmative defenses, the burden of negating this mitigating evidence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt remains with the State.

Facts:

Defendant Martin J. Olsen robbed a bar, and killed the bartender and the two patrons who were inside the bar. Defendant confessed the murders to his mother and then fled in his vehicle. After he left, his mother called the police, told them defendant was involved, and within a few hours, defendant was apprehended. Defendant was apprised of his rights, nonetheless, he confessed the murders to the police. At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of the investigating officers at the crime scene; defendant’s mother; a witness claiming to have seen Olsen observing the Little Chief Bar days before the robbery; and Olsen's recorded interviews with the arresting officer. During his voir dire opening statements, defense counsel told the prospective juror panel that Olsen admitted his guilt, and the single issue before them was whether he had committed first degree murder or second-degree murder. Defense counsel explained that intoxication was a defense to first-degree murder, and he intended to show that Olsen did not premeditate the murders. Through cross-examination of State witnesses, the defense established that Olsen had been drinking heavily the day of the robbery and murders, and, despite his many confessions, did not admit planning either the robbery or the murders. The jury instructions included instructions on first degree murder, felony murder, second degree murder, aggravated robbery, simple robbery, and larceny. The State delivered its closing argument, explaining the verdict form and the lesser included offenses. The sentencing phase began with an opening instruction to the jurors, explaining their duty in a death penalty sentencing hearing. In its opening statement, the State touched upon the gravity of the jury's task, and then discussed the five statutory aggravating circumstances it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury sentenced Olsen to death for each of the three murders. After resolving numerous post-trial motions, the trial court entered a judgment and sentence of death. Defendant appealed. 

Issue:

1. Was the defendant properly convicted of the crime charged? 
2. Was the defendant properly sentenced to death? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a second-degree murder was appropriate where the defendant shot the victims in the back of their heads. The Court further held that there was sufficient premeditation, planning activity, even though defendant suffered from brain injuries and was drunk, based on confessions and manner of killing. However, the Court reversed the death sentence, noting that death penalty statute was a weighing statute, and the instructions to the jury with regard to the sentence were ambiguous and improper. The Court suggested proper weighing instructions, i.e., that the limited statutory aggravating circumstances had to "outweigh" mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt to impose the death penalty, for the sentencing retrial.