State v. Galindo

774 N.W.2d 190

278 Neb. 599

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Jorge GALINDO, Appellant.

No. S-04-443.

No. S-04-1326.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

October 9, 2009.

Douglas J. Stratton and Andrew D. Weeks, of Stratton & Kube, P.C., Norfolk, for appellant.

Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein, Lincoln, for appellee.

WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ., and SIEVERS, Judge.

McCORMACK, J.

I. NATURE OF CASE

                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
  I. Nature of Case ........................................................................  204
 II. Background ............................................................................  204
     1. Filing of Information ..............................................................  204
     2. Venue and Venire ...................................................................  205
     3. Trial: Guilt Phase..................................................................  206
     4. Aggravation Hearing ................................................................  207
     5. Sentencing .........................................................................  208
III. Assignments of Error ..................................................................  208
 IV. Standard of Review ....................................................................  209
  V. Analysis ..............................................................................  209
     1. Retroactive Application of L.B. 1 ..................................................  209
        (a) Ex Post Facto ..................................................................  210
        (b) Due Process ....................................................................  214
        (c) Bill of Attainder ..............................................................  215
     2. L.B. 1 as Unconstitutional Scheme ..................................................  216
        (a) Inducement, to Waive Jury Finding of Aggravators ...............................  216

        (b) Ability to Effectively Weigh Aggravating Circumstances and Admissibility of
            Record From Aggravation Hearing ................................................  217
     3. Notice of Aggravation ..............................................................  218
     4. Jury ...............................................................................  219
        (a) Alleged Inappropriate "Pep Talk" to Jury .......................................  219
        (b) Failure to Strike Jurors for Cause .............................................  221
        (c) Venue ..........................................................................  224
              (i) Pretrial Publicity .......................................................  224
             (ii) Jurors' Statements .......................................................  226
            (iii) Size of Community ........................................................  227
        (d) "Life Qualifying" the Venire ...................................................  227

        (e) Minimizing Jurors' Role in Death Penalty Determination..........................  228
     5. Enmund/Tison .......................................................................  231
        (a) Step Instruction ...............................................................  233
             (i) Separating Premeditated From Felony Murder ................................  233
            (ii) Enmund/Tison Findings as Functional Elements of Offense ...................  234
        (b) Bill of Particulars ............................................................  237
        (c) Whether Eighth Amendment Prohibits Any of Galindo's Death Penalty Sentences ....  237
     6. Evidentiary Challenges Considered During Aggravation and Sentencing Phases .........  238
        (a) Photograph of Lundell's Body During Aggravation Hearing .........................  238
        (b) Presentence Investigation Considered by Three-Judge Panel ......................  240
        (c) Record From Aggravation Hearing ................................................  242
        (d) Victim Statements Before Sentencing Panel ......................................  242
              (i) Nebraska Crime Victim's Reparations Act ..................................  242
             (ii) L.B. 1 ...................................................................  243
            (iii) Confrontation ............................................................  243
             (iv) Neither Nearest Surviving Relative Under § 30-2303 nor Contained in
                  Presentence Investigation Report .........................................  245
        (e) Failure to Consider First Degree Murder Cases in Which Defendant Was Not
            Sentenced to Death and "Baldus Report" .........................................  245
              (i) Non-Death-Penalty First Degree Murder Convictions ........................  246
             (ii) "Baldus Report" ................................ .........................  246
        (f) Nonstatutory Mitigators ........................................................  247
     7. Electrocution as Cruel and Unusual Punishment ......................................  248
     8. De Novo Review .....................................................................  248
 VI. Conclusion ............................................................................  248

On September 26, 2002, Jorge Galindo, Erick Vela, and Jose Sandoval entered a bank in Norfolk, Nebraska. Within 40 seconds, the three men had shot and killed four bank employees and one customer. When another customer walked in, but was able to escape, the three men fled. By the time they were apprehended, Galindo, Vela, and Sandoval had broken into two residences and stolen two vehicles, obtaining the keys to one of the vehicles at gunpoint. This case presents Galindo's appeal from his convictions on five counts of first degree murder, six counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, one count of robbery, and one count of burglary. Galindo was sentenced to death. Galindo does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's determination of guilt, but he presents numerous arguments as to why he should not be subjected to the death penalty in connection with these crimes.

II. BACKGROUND

1. FILING OF INFORMATION

The information against Galindo was filed on October 22, 2002. The original information did not set forth the alleged aggravating circumstances for death eligibility. However, in response to the subsequent passage of L.B. 1,¹ the State filed an amended information on November 22, containing a notice of aggravating circumstances, as required by the new law. The notice alleged five aggravating circumstances (1) Galindo had a substantial prior history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity; (2) the murder was committed in an effort to conceal the identity of the perpetrator; (3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or manifested exceptional depravity; (4) at the time of the murder, another murder had been committed; and (5) at the time of the murder, Galindo knowingly created a great risk of death to at least several persons.

2. VENUE AND VENIRE

The trial court rejected Galindo's motions for change of venue from Madison County, where Norfolk is located. At the time of Galindo's trial, Norfolk had a population of approximately 25,000 people. In the months before Galindo's trial, there had been a resurgence of publicity due to the 1-year anniversary of the crime and due to the recent legal proceedings of Vela and Sandoval. The media coverage was extensive and included detailed accounts of the evidence adduced in the other two legal proceedings, as well as the final verdicts of guilty and the imposition of the death penalty against those defendants. Coverage also included the planned memorial to the victims, profiles of the victims' families, and the effect of the shootings on the community. Some people interviewed by the media expressed their opinion that the defendants all deserved the death penalty. A relatively small number of articles and news reports involved complaints about the financial burden to the community, the rights given to the bank shooters, and how long it was taking to bring them to justice.

The proposed jury list was composed of 1,615 randomly selected members of the community, who qualified for jury service after answering an eligibility questionnaire.² From the jury list, 180 people were randomly selected for a jury pool. The 180 jury pool members were also sent a detailed supplemental questionnaire. Of the 156 respondents, 93 jury pool members, or almost 60 percent, stated that they could lay aside their impressions or opinions and render a verdict based only on the evidence and testimony, and not on sympathy or prejudice. A little less than 29 percent did not believe they could be impartial. The rest were unsure. From the jury pool, 71 people were randomly selected for the venire. The court permitted the parties to conduct lengthy, individual, sequestered voir dire of each prospective juror in the venire. From the venire, 42 prospective jurors were chosen, upon which each party could exercise 12 peremptory challenges, with 2 challenges for each of the alternates.³

Most of the 71 potential jurors had some exposure to media accounts relating to the bank shooting. In addition, 29 had a direct or indirect relationship with one of the victims, 4 knew Galindo's family or his exgirlfriend, and several were acquainted with the attorneys or law enforcement personnel that were potential witnesses in the case.

Prior to questioning, the trial judge read for the jury an article describing jury responsibility and the importance of making the sacrifice to...