Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed Leon Jermain Winston's convictions for three capital murders and related offenses, as well as three death sentences. The court addressed alleged errors involving expert assistance, witness competency, jury voir dire, Virginia's death-penalty statutes, jury instructions, and proportionality review. The excerpt reflects the court's rejection of several claims and its conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying or structuring the requested expert assistance.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying or limiting requests for defense experts, including a mitigation expert, a child-psychology expert, and a mental-health expert.
- Whether the trial court improperly limited voir dire, removed prospective jurors opposed to the death penalty, or permitted an unconstitutional death-qualified jury.
- Whether the trial court improperly admitted hearsay, identification testimony, evidence of the victim's pregnancy, or testimony concerning information not released to the public.
- Whether the attempted-robbery, malice, concert-of-action, and capital-murder jury instructions were legally sufficient.
- Whether Winston was entitled to lesser-included-offense instructions for the murder of Rhonda Robinson.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Winston was the triggerman, intended to rob both victims, and was guilty of capital murder and attempted robbery.
- Whether multiple capital-murder verdicts concerning Rhonda Robinson violated double jeopardy.
- Whether Virginia's mental-retardation statutes could be applied to Winston and whether the burden concerning mental retardation violated Atkins, Ring, Apprendi, or constitutional prohibitions on retroactive laws.
- Whether evidence of prior and unadjudicated conduct was admissible during sentencing.
- Whether the death sentences were imposed under passion, prejudice, or arbitrariness, or were excessive or disproportionate under Virginia's statutory proportionality review.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err in denying Winston's request for a separate mitigation expert or a child-psychology expert, and it provided the requested mental-health assistance under Code § 19.2-264.3:1.
- The trial court did not err by refusing to permit voir dire concerning parole ineligibility.
- Removal of jurors who opposed the death penalty did not violate the fair-cross-section requirement, the Sixth Amendment, the Virginia Constitution, or equal protection.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony about the victim's pregnancy, police knowledge of nonpublic facts, or the out-of-court statement concerning the tattoo to explain an investigator's conduct.
- The defendant bears the burden of establishing that an out-of-court identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive before seeking exclusion of identification testimony.
- The attempted-robbery, malice, concert-of-action, and joint-participation instructions were proper, and Winston was not entitled to lesser-included-offense instructions for Rhonda Robinson's murder.
- The evidence was sufficient to prove that Winston was the triggerman, intended to rob both victims, and was guilty of the capital-murder and attempted-robbery offenses.
- The two capital-murder convictions and death sentences concerning Rhonda Robinson did not violate double jeopardy because they rested on distinct statutory provisions, each requiring proof of a fact the other did not.
- Virginia's mental-retardation statutes could be applied to Winston; mental retardation was an affirmative bar to execution rather than an element or aggravating factor, and placing the burden on Winston did not violate Atkins, Ring, Apprendi, due process, equal protection, or ex post facto principles.
- The trial court properly admitted testimonial evidence concerning prior and unadjudicated conduct, and the three death sentences were not imposed under passion, prejudice, or arbitrariness and were not excessive or disproportionate.
Key quotations
“The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, unless, as a matter of law, the testimony is inherently incredible.” (268 Va. at 589)
“Proof of the lack of mental retardation is not an element of a capital offense in Virginia, nor is it an aggravating factor in sentencing.” (268 Va. at 599)
“The proportionality review is entirely a creature of statute, and is not required by either the Constitution of Virginia or the Constitution of the United States.” (268 Va. at 603)
Factual background
Winston and Kevin Brown entered the Lynchburg home of Anthony and Rhonda Robinson during an attempted robbery. Anthony and Rhonda were shot and killed, and evidence linked Winston to the 9-millimeter handgun used in the killings through ballistic, DNA, and witness evidence. Winston's friend Nathan Rorls testified that Winston admitted killing and robbing the victims, and the evidence showed Winston fired multiple shots at both victims, including shots fired at Rhonda in front of her children.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Winston of three capital murders, two attempted robberies, statutory burglary, malicious discharge of a firearm, and five firearm offenses in the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg. The jury imposed three death sentences and additional imprisonment and fines; the trial court entered the sentences after a post-verdict hearing and suspended the fines. Winston appealed, and his noncapital appeals were consolidated with the capital appeals and the required proportionality review.