Tuesday, October 151985
Daily Nebraskan
Page 9
A O
71 1
ITIIfTl
o
Law officials unsure what Hunt decision means for state
defendant's indentity. Certainly, any killing has
the effect of rendering the victim incapable of
identifying the perpetrator; that truism, however,
does not satisfy the requirement that the murder
be committed 'to conceal the identity of the
perpetrator.' "
Further, the Supreme Court said, the murder
was cruel, but not "especially so, for any forcible
killing entails some violence toward the victim.
"The evidence establishes that the victim was
rendered unconscious within a short time of the
defendant's intrusion into her home."
Even after reading the Supreme Court's
opinion, Brown still argues that aggravat
ing circumstances existed.
"My reaction to the Hunt decision is kind of
'Boy, if this doesn't strike us as especially hei
nous, then we are living in a very dangerous
environment,' " Brown said. "This should be bad
enough to make us think this is especially hei
nous." In explaining why four of the justices had a
view different than his own, Brown said only that
this type of decision is a subjective one, one that
comes from "the gut."
"In deciding whether something is especially
heinous there is no yardstick, no calipers you
can lay down on a set of facts and say 'Well, this
crosses the line and this doesn't.' "
Chief Justice Krivosha, one of those who
joined in the majority opinion, gave a similar
analysis. While speaking to a UNL journaiism
class, Krivosha drew a line on the blackboard.
One end represented "heinous" crimes, he said,
the other "especially heinous."
These two ends are easy to determine, Krivosha
said. As simple as night and day, he said. The
chief justice then pointed to a spot midway
between the two points.
"But can anyone tell us at which moment
twilight began?" he asked.
Krivosha made these statements in September.
Since then, the justices have declined to
publicly comment on the decision
During the class period, however, Krivosha
expanded on the majority's opinion.
The majority decided Hunt's crime failed the
"especially heinous" test, he said, because
Ramspott was dead soon after Hunt entered the
mobile home. Thus, any of Hunt's subsequent
actions could not be part of the high court's
consideration, he said.
Martin Gardner, a law professor at UNL, said
this type of interpretation is a "pretty strict"
reading of the law.
"But in criminal statute that's a requirement,"
Gardner said.
While the minority opinion didn't go as far as
to state the subsequent actions were "especially
heinous," the three judges did say the method by
which Ramspott died was "especially heinous."
In the minority opinion, the justices stated:
"That Beverly K. Ramspott had physical suffering
is inferrable (sic) beyond a reasonable doubt
from the evidence of the strangulation method
used by the defendant."
Thomas Delay, the Norfolk attorney who
defended Hunt, disagreed with the minority
opinion. Under the law, he said, the courts must
weigh each new case against past decisions and
sentence accordingly.
In the Hunt decision, Delay said, the Supreme
Court compared the facts in the Hunt crime to
cases such as State v. Reeves and State v.
Roewert.
The Reeves case helped define the "especially
heinous" circumstance. In this instance Ran
dolph Reeves entered his cousin's home in
Lincoln and proceeded to rape her and stab her
several times. Reeves later stabbed another
woman who was staying at the home.
The second victim died soon after she was
stabbed, but Reeves' cousin lived long enough to
relay the ordeal to police that same night. This,
the high court said, established the fact that the
victim suffered excessively.
Going the other way, Ricky Roewert was
sentenced to life in prison rather than death by
the District Court of Platte County.
Roewert committed a robbery. In the process
of the robbery, he slit a man's throat, cut off the
victim's head and then mutilated the body.
Using comparisons such as these, Delay said,
the Supreme Court ruled appropriately that
Ramspott did not suffer for a great length of
time.
, Two pathologists testified that the victim
died quickly either after Hunt stuffed the
Panties down her throat or after he strangled her.
With this in mind, Delay said, the murder was
not "especially heinous and cruel."
"Especially heinous means in that particular
case comparing it to other first-degree murders.
Not to Joe Public or Suzy," he said. "It's not your
gut reaction . . . It's not black and white, two and
two equals four."
In reviewing the Hunt case according to the
statutes, Delay said, the high court has not set a
precedent for weighing aggravating and miti
gating circumstances. What it perhaps has done
is better define "especially heinous."
Past cases established that murders in which
the victim did not suffer failed to meet Nebraska's
criteria for capital punishment, he said. Hunt
simply reiterates that ruling.
Brown agrees that the Hunt case could be
used to define life sentences. But if Hunt sets a
precedent, he said, the state could face serious
problems in the future.
As an example, Brown cited the John J.
Joubert case, which soon goes before the Supreme
Court on an automatic appeal. Joubert, a former
Offutt Air Force Base airman, confessed to
abducting, torturing and repeatedly stabbing
two Bellevue boys to death in 1983.
The lower court that reviewed the case
sentenced Joubert to the electric chair in part
because of the "especially heinous" circum
stance. But the Supreme Court's recent decision
situation.
Peterson, who represents the Norfolk area,
will propose a bill during the next legislative
session. The bill, written in conjunction with
Don Stenburg, a Lincoln resident running for
attorney general on the Republican ticket,
allows the death penalty in cases where the ma
tive as well as the act is especially heinous, at
rocious or cruel. The bill also would make murder
committed in connection with or for the purpose
of sexual gratification an aggravating circum
stance. Peterson said the bill is tailored to prevent
another Hunt from killing and then receiving a
life sentence.
"I find it hard to believe we have four judges
who made the decision," he said. "But they did
and now we have to change the law."
Because of Hunt, Peterson said, "We may not
see very many people put to death under the
death penalty. I guess that would be my greatest
concern."
Proposals for new legislation have been met
with mixed reactions.
For instance, Brown said Peterson's proposal
D
"My reaction to the Hunt decision is kind of
'Boy, if this doesn't strike us as especially
heinous, then ve are living in a very dan
gerous environment.'
J. Kirk Brown
could affect Joubert's sentence, Brown said.
Both Joubert's and Hunt's crimes are equally
heinous, Brown said, "but the Supreme Court
seems to have built the fence right up against
Mr. Hunt . . . If Mr. Hunt isn't especially heinous,
who the hell is? What is left. What behavior is on
the far side of Mr. Hunt?"
While the high court's definition of "especially
heinous" concerns Brown, he said the
ruling that Hunt did not commit the
murder to conceal his identity bothers him even
more. Hunt shoplifted rather than bought theBB
gun, panties and nylons, he wore gloves and
"when he got done with the woman" he picked
up after himself, Brown said.
"You can only kill a person once, no matter
how many purposes that serves. And certainly
Mr. Hunt went there with the intention of killing
the woman and then engaging in some sexual
activity with the corpse," he said. "But it seems
to me that the (Supreme) Court then concludes
that having decided he was going to kill her
anyway that he didn't kill her to conceal his
identity."
If this was the high court's logic, Brown said,
he disagrees with it. Hunt had finished his
sexual fantasy when he checked Ramspott's
pulse. Yet when he assumed his victim was still
alive, he shoved her head into the bathtub,
Brown said.
"Now at that point in time, he wasn't
attempting to kill her as part of his sexual
fantasy," Brown said. "He was attempting to kill
her to tidy up . . . the scene of the crime."
The justices who wrote the minority opinion
shared this view. In their opinion, the three
dissenting justices said that these activities can
only lead one to conclude "Ramspott was
murdered to conceal the identity of the defendant
. . .The evidence establishes this beyond a
reasonable doubt."
Brown argued that Hunt's cleanup job should
have fallen under precedents such as State v.
Peery.
Wesley Peery robbed a coin shop in Omaha in
1975. During the robbery, Peery tied up the store
owner's wife, later murdering her. Because the
victim was bound, the high court ruled the woman
posed no threat to her assailant. The murder was
done simply to conceal a crime, the court stated.
"It seems to me that what Mr. Hunt did was to
a great extent similar to that," Brown said.
"Before, we said killing someone who was tied up
really shows a lack of respect for human life."
Now, he said, it is difficult to say where the
Supreme Court stands on the concealment
circumstance. , .
Delay dismissed this argument, saying the
circumstance just didn't apply to Hunt. The
high court ruled appropriately, he said.
The fact that lawyers and even justices
disagree on how the Hunt case should have been
interpreted concerns State Sen. Richard Peter
son And he plans to do something to remedy the
to add bcxual motivation to the list of eight
aggravating circumstances may have merit. But
more problems would be created than solved if
the law was redrafted, he said.
"If history proves anything," he said, "the bad
people are a heck of a lot more creative in what
bad they're going to commit than we, the decent
people who try to draft these laws, are likely to
dream up."
In an attempt to cover these future crimes,
Brown said, legislators could wipe out every
precedent the state has re-established since
1973.
In 1973, Nebraska formed its current capital
punishment laws as dictated by a 1972 U.S.
Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled all laws governing capital punish
ment were unconstitutionally vague and arbi
trarily applied. Thus Nebraska has had to re
establish precedents under the 1973 law, Brown
said.
Like Brown, Delay hesitates to support new
legislation. With the uproar over Hunt, Delay
said proposals tend to be "reactive rather than
reasoned legislation. And I'm not sure that
makes good legislation."
ennis Rasmussen, the former senator who
sponsored Nebraska's current legislation,
said there is no need to redraft his law.
The law covered Hunt, he said, the Supreme
Court simply failed to apply it appropriately.
"Anyone with a common knowledge knows
what a heinous crime is. (Hunt) was very
definitely a heinous crime," Rasmussen said. "I
think it boils down to whether you're for or
against the death penalty. The (Supreme) Court,
in my view, is against it, and they were searching
for an out."
When Rasmussen made his first pleas for
capital punishment 12 years ago, Sen. Ernie
Chambers of Omaha was his greatest foe. Today,
Chambers still is fighting legislation new and
old imposing the death penalty.
But, Chambers said, his objection to the death
sentence has not shaped his favorable opinion of
the Hunt decision. The Court simply followed the
law, he said.
"Remember," Chambers said, the phrase " 'es
pecially heinous' has a meaning. And it means
exceptional, out of the ordinary, unsual, not
run-of-the-mill.
"What these four judges did was look at this
case and understand they were going to make a
decision that was very unpopular, that would be
condemned. But based on their understanding of
the law they made the decision they had to
make. There was nothing they could gain by what
they did."
It is not the decision that is wrong, Chambers
said, it is public and legislative reaction that is
inappropriate. Proposals such as Peterson's are
motivated by publicity, he said, and they will
only make a "bad law" worse.
"When you enact a law because a case occurs
that you don't like, you're always a step
behind . . . And in the future it may turn out to
be a very bad, inappropriate law for the majority
of the cases that will be dealt with it."
In addition to the legislative proposals,
Chambers said, public outcry could affect the
high court's future decisions, but for reasons
different from those mentioned by Brown.
While Brown said death sentences could be
overturned inappropriately because of Hunt,
Chambers said the Supreme Court may have
difficulty going against public sentiment in
cases that should be reduced to life.
"I would hope that it wouldn't," he said. "But
we have people sitting there as judges who are
human beings, and they are influenced by
external circumstances and happenings. I hope
they're strong enough not to be swayed, but I
really don't know."
1 This story was done in conjunction with
the UNL journalism college's depth re
porting class, taught by Alfred Paget Jr.
MJt T
I: ' j , .'A -4,u ? INiM
v - f ' 'to? :m Jn
: ; .- ! ',"1 v- V I n-H' ' 1 ,v
r . - -' riP'i c'M i X
-fr'Y v : i
Kurt Ebrftart!i0&iy N5rcskan