UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JORGE AVILA TORREZ
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Thacker, Aug. 28, 2017,
Death Penalty- Post-offense convictions may be used to qualify a defendant for the death penalty
(Concur- Diaz- Higgs was appropriate; no need to question it by acknowledging “the merit of Appelant’s statutory argument”)
(Concur in part and dissent in part- Floyd- Concur about trial errors, but would find Torrez ineligible for death penalty)
While this is a death penalty case, it’s hardly interesting to MD practitioners on that basis, so… sorry. Skipping that part other than the header.
“whether Appellant was denied his right to an impartial jury when the district court refused to allow him to ask potential jurors whether they would consider a sentence of life upon hearing evidence that Appellant had murdered two young children and sexually abused one of them”
Yeah, good way to get an impartial jury…
Facts:
In 2005, two young girls were sexually assaulted and brutally murdered in Zion, Illinois. Semen and other DNA was recovered from the bodies of the girls.
In 2009, a US Navy intelligence specialist was murdered in her room on a military base near Arlington, VA. Semen was located on the bedsheets nearby.
A few months later, Torrez committed a string of sexual assaults in the Arlington area and was subsequently convicted of multiple counts related to kidnapping, rape, and use of a firearm in a felony.
When Torrez was arrested, a Glock-22 was found in his room along with a laptop containing dozens of sexually explicit videos depicting violent rapes and sexual assaults. Many were “sleeping rape” videos involving a victim who was sleeping when she was attacked and/or raped.
A check of a nationwide DNA database revealed that Torrez was a match for both the Zion and Navy murders.
In 2011, Torrez was indicted for the Navy murder and prosecutors sought the death penalty based on his prior conviction for a state offense involving use of a firearm as well as two prior convictions involving attempted infliction of serious injury or death.
At trial, evidence of the pornographic videos as well as the sexual assaults was admitted into evidence against Torrez.
In 2014, a jury convicted Torrez of first-degree murder.
At sentencing, the district court broke the penalty phase into two parts: 1) whether Torrez was eligible for the death penalty and 2) whether the factors warranted Torrez receiving the death penalty.
The jury found him eligible and unanimously recommended a sentence of death.
The judge sentenced Torrez to death.
Torrez then appealed, arguing that evidence was improperly admitted and that the death-penalty was wrongly imposed.
Held:
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. The evidence was used to show Torrez’s motive, intent, and modus operandi. And the death penalty was properly imposed.
Prior bad acts- Federal Rules prohibit use of evidence “of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
Prior bad acts- Federal Rules allow this evidence for other purposes, however, “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Prior bad acts- Because this evidence runs the risk of being unfairly prejudicial to the defense, to be admitted in evidence…:
(1) The evidence must not be offered to establish the general character of the defendant
(2) The act must be “necessary” in that it is probative of an essential claim
(3) The evidence must be reliable.
And (4) the evidence’s value must not be substantially outweighed by confusion or unfair prejudice
From the Case: The Court upheld admission of the pornographic videos showing rape of sleeping victims, as they were admitted to show intent and motive, as well as modus operandi since the victim was murdered in the early morning in her bed, and officials discovered Torrez’s semen on her bed sheets.
Prior bad acts- Crimes do not have to be identical in order to be used as prior bad acts establishing motive/intent/MO. They must only “be similar enough to be probative of intent.”
From the Case: The Court upheld admission of facts regarding the other sexual assaults, as they “were relevant and necessary to demonstrate Appellant’s modus operandi, motive, and intent.” These offenses resembled the Navy murder in the following ways:
(1) they all involved assaults on women Torrez did not know (well or at all) in their early to mid 20s;
(2) they all took place in the early morning hours;
(3) the motive appeared to be sexual, as evidenced by the semen on the bed, the rape of J.T., and Torrez’s forcing of M.N. to get into his car;
(4) the Navy murder and the February 27 offense both involved tying up women with cords from electronics found in the victim’s living space;
(5) the Navy murder and February 27 offense both involved strangling;
(6) there was no semen found in the Navy victim, but it was found on her bedsheet, and on February 27, Torrez used a condom when raping
J.T., telling her “I’m not an idiot.”
Bad acts- While bad acts may be unfairly prejudicial, they are not generally improperly prejudicial where they do not “involve conduct any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes with which the defendant was charged.”
Firearm Evidence- Eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove that a firearm was used. No expert testimony is necessary unless there is an indication that the firearm was fake.
FDPA- Categorical approach not to be applied in 18 USC 3292 analysis