Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

The state argued this circumtmce as pgesent k ~me the degendant
killed Padgett and Sheppard b~ the furtherance of a %consp$racy to sell
drugstt. (T, 2430-24311,
found the takiny of the rihg and necklace to be an additional basis
for this aggravating circumstance.
as a basis for the finding this circmstance constitutes an inproper
doubling of this cbxnn&ance with the felony mder circumstance.
Provence v. State, 337 So. 2d 783 (Fla, 1976),
cirmtance cannot be justified under either theory.
proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a pecuniary mtivation for the rrturder
in order to sustain a finding of this aggravating circurrr;tance.
Shrons v. State, 419 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 19821, Peek v, State, 395 So.
2d 492 (Fla. 1981). zhe mntive was clearly witness elimination, not
to take a ring and necklace.
Shepprd would in any way enhance the defendant's profits from dealing
drugs.
See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 339 (Fla. 1982),
aggravating circmstance was not p r m and should not have been
mnsiderd. The prosecution had previously argued that mmy was _II_
the mtive for Padgett's murder. (T. 2130-2131).
?he trial qurt acceptEd this ZlrgUWllt and also
'Ihe use of the taking of the jewelry
kgxdless, this
- --
There must be
Nor can it be said that killing Nancy
The drug dealing was forpeculrl#y gain, the murder was not.
%his
not
(6) The capital c rk was especially heinous, at-wocious, or cruel.
921.141 (5) (h), Fla, Stat. (1981) *
The prosecutor argued that the circumstance applied because
Sheppard was taka to see Padgett's bdy before she was shot, and the
trial cart agreed, (R. 503-504) ,
Sheppard did rot knm she was going to be killeddwing a charge
conference. (T. 2010-2011),
her knees (T, 12601, and the shooting rendered her unmcious hrmdiately.
(T, 1032-1U33),
Wever, the murt acknwldged that
She was shot €rm khindwhen she fell to
The stab wounds that the state contendedwere later
Page -76-