Opinion
Criminal Action No. IN00-04-0180
Penalty Hearing Commenced: April 2, 2001 Penalty Hearing Concluded: April 5, 2001 Jury Recommendation: April 5, 2001
Decided: July 5, 2001
FINDINGS AFTER PENALTY HEARING. I.D. No. 0003016874.
James Apostolico, Esquire and Peter Veith, Esquire, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Deputy Attorneys General for the State of Delaware.
Todd B. Conner, Esquire and Kathryn van Amerongen, Esquire, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, 3rd Floor, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Attorneys for Defendant.
The Court must sentence Defendant for first-degree murder. By a 10-2 vote, a jury has recommended a sentence of death. In light of the jury recommendation, under 11 Del. C. § 4209(d) the Court must determine, paraphrasing, whether:
a. Beyond a reasonable doubt at least one statutory aggravating circumstance exists; and
b. By a preponderance of the evidence, after weighing all relevant evidence in aggravation or mitigation bearing on the offense and the character and propensities of Defendant, the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
Under Delaware's capital punishment law, if the Court finds that one statutory aggravating circumstance exists and that, by a preponderance of the evidence, all the relevant aggravators outweigh the relevant mitigators, "[a] sentence of death shall be imposed." "Otherwise, the court shall sentence Defendant to imprisonment for the remainder of Defendant's natural life without benefit of probation or parole or any other reduction." The court must consider the jury's recommendation, but it is not conclusive.
State v. Cohen, et al., Del. Supr., 604 A.2d 846, 856 (1992) (Although jurors are not the "final arbiters of punishment," as the "conscience of the community" they play "a vital and important role in the sentencing procedure.").
These are the written findings required by 11 Del. C. § 4209(d)(3). Sentencing will take place on Friday, July 6, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.
STATUTORY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WEIGHED AGAINST MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Weighing all the aggravating and mitigating factors is dismally one-sided in this case. As discussed below, the State presented substantial statutory and non-statutory aggravators. Defendant, however, insisted that his attorneys not present mitigating evidence. The court bluntly cautioned Defendant about the potentially fatal consequences for his decision. The court gave Defendant time, and more time, to consult with his counsel and his family. Defendant relented to a limited extent. He did not, however, allow his counsel to present the strongest mitigation case. Even so, the court has attempted to cobble together a mitigation defense from all available records, including a binder of materials proffered by Defendant's trial attorneys.
When the court tried to coax Defendant into going forward with his best penalty defense, the court announced that it would not review the binder. After reflecting on what is at stake, the court considered what could have been presented. As also discussed below, even after considering the mitigating factors not presented to the jury, the mitigators are far outweighed by the aggravators.
A. Aggravating Circumstances
1. Statutory Aggravating Factors
As mentioned, the jury unanimously found two statutory aggravating circumstances: the victim was pregnant and Defendant previously had been convicted of violent felonies. The jury's finding is supported by overwhelming evidence and its accuracy is all but conceded.
The autopsy confirmed that the victim was pregnant with a 15-17 week fetus. When Defendant was arrested, a note was taken from him. Defendant, himself, referred to the fact that the victim was pregnant.
As for Defendant's criminal history, presented below, Defendant conceded at trial that he was eligible to have been sentenced as a habitual offender even before he committed the murder. Based on his history of violent crimes, even if she had escaped with her life, Defendant still would have been sentenced to life imprisonment for assaulting the victim in her home.
2. Non-statutory Aggravating Circumstances
a. The Crime
Defendant strangled the victim with a cord. The crime required a determined state of mind. It takes time to kill someone the way Defendant murdered the victim. Before he strangled her, Defendant punched the victim in the face. He also stuck her with something sharp. Afterwards, Defendant poked the victim in the abdomen. The pre and post-strangulation injuries were not terrible, but they further demonstrate Defendant's determined mind-set.The victim was murdered in her home, which also was the place where Defendant's young children were living with the victim, their mother. Before the murder, Defendant sent the children outside. After the murder, Defendant locked them out of their home and left them on their own. Then, Defendant went to a motel with his girlfriend.
The crime was not just intentional in the legal sense, it was deliberate and cold-blooded. Defendant not only knew that he was killing a defenseless mother who was pregnant, he was indifferent to the consequences for her children, her family, his family and himself.
b. The Murder's Impact
During the penalty hearing, several loved ones testified about what the victim's death means to them. Theresa "Treety" Williams was loved deeply by her family and they miss her dearly. More importantly, the victim's children have lost their mother and father. They will be raised by loving relatives, but they will have to deal with the aftereffects of their mother's murder for the rest of their lives. The record does not reveal what motivated Defendant to commit this murder. Whatever grievance Defendant thought he had with the victim, the children were not to blame. And they, too, will suffer for what Defendant did.
c. Defendant's Criminal History
Defendant is thirty-two. For twenty-two years, since he was ten, Defendant by his own admission has been committing crimes. His major involvement with Delaware's criminal justice system began in 1983, when he was fourteen and he was found delinquent several times. His delinquent acts included burglary, trespassing, theft, conspiracy and shoplifting. He was committed to Ferris School, a juvenile detention facility. He did poorly at Ferris and he was held there until he was released to aftercare in June 1985. Defendant's commitment was prolonged because he was poorly motivated. Shortly after being released, Defendant committed another theft and he was sent back to Ferris.
Defendant's adult criminal career began in earnest on January 11, 1988, when he and juvenile accomplices started breaking into homes to steal. Defendant was caught and convicted of burglaries and related crimes. He was sentenced to prison, followed by probation.
After his release from prison and while he was on his first, adult probation, Defendant continued committing serious crimes, drug offenses. He also was convicted of disorderly conduct while on his first, adult probation. Again, Defendant received more prison and more probation.
After he was re-released from prison and while he was on probation, Defendant committed even more serious crimes. Specifically, in 1993 Defendant committed two robberies and another house burglary. Thanks to those convictions, Defendant received another, lengthier prison sentence followed by more probation. At that point, Defendant qualified as a habitual offender, although he was not sentenced that way. Defendant finally committed this murder not long after he was released from prison and while he was serving yet another probation.
In short, Defendant is incorrigible. The criminal justice system did not mollycoddle Milton Taylor. He came to the system hardened and the system responded sternly to his poor attitude. He was detained as a juvenile and imprisoned as an adult. Juvenile detention did not deter him from committing delinquent acts and adult offenses. Imprisonment and re-imprisonment as an adult did not deter him from committing more serious criminal offenses, eventually including this. murder in the first degree. Defendant also has received therapeutic services. In more than one instance, Defendant washed-out of treatment due to his lack of motivation.
d. Defendant's Conduct in Prison
The State argued that Defendant's misbehavior in prison is another nonstatutory aggravating circumstance. The jury and the court carefully reviewed the voluminous prison records put into evidence by the State. By itself, Defendant's prison record hardly justifies the death penalty. But Defendant's prison record is an aggravating circumstance in two ways. First, Defendant has been written-up for minor rules infractions over and over again. So far, he has not been a major threat to prison security, correctional officers and other inmates. Mostly, his misconduct involves being off-limits, mouthing-off to correctional officers, and the like. While that behavior is less serious, it is disruptive. Defendant's frequent defiance undermines the correctional officers' authority and, in turn, prison security.
During its penalty phase deliberations, the jury discovered and reported to the court that the Department of Correction's records for Milton Taylor incorrectly included records for another inmate, Martin Taylor.
Defendant's frequent misconduct in prison is potentially significant in another way. Sometimes, when Defendant is caught breaking a prison rule, he accepts punishment without incident. Other times, he becomes defiant and verbally abusive. For example, on December 20, 1990, after a correctional officer told Defendant that Defendant was being written up for a minor infraction, Defendant loudly cursed at the officer: "I don't give a fuck about any write-up because [I have] only five days left before max out." In another incident, on July 23, 1994, after a family visit, a correctional officer told Defendant to wait for other inmates who were finishing their visits in the visitors' area. Defendant became disorderly and said: "Bitch, I don't max out for six and a half years, I don't give a fuck about none of you all. You can send me back to where I came from. . . ." Those incidents suggest that Defendant is emboldened when he feels that he has little left to lose or that the Department of Correction has limited means to punish him.
So far, Defendant's defiance mostly is verbal. After he speaks out, Defendant does not become physical. So far. The likelihood that Defendant will hurt someone in prison is not great. In Defendant's case, however, the possibility that he will act out cannot be dismissed. Again, Defendant's misconduct in prison is not a decisive, statutory aggravating factor, but his maladjustment to prison does not count in his favor.
e. Defendant's Personal History
Besides Defendant's atrocious criminal record, his personal history is a non-statutory aggravating circumstance. Defendant has done nothing productive. He has low-average intelligence and little formal education. He never has held a steady, honest job. He has been involved with illegal drugs as a user and seller since childhood. He has fathered children, but he has not supported them in any sense.
When he was fifteen, Defendant told one of the several psychologists and counselors who have interviewed him that his life's ambition was to become a lifeguard so that he could "sit around and get paid and not do nothing." Defendant's lack of ambition was not an adolescent phase. His indifference is characteristic.
B. Mitigating Circumstances
As mentioned above, the defense did not present much in the way of mitigating factors. Defendant has family members who love him and who will miss him when he is gone. Moreover, the evidence presented to the jury and to the court strongly suggests that Defendant was physically and emotionally abused as a child. He has claimed that, under the guise of being a strict disciplinarian, Defendant's stepfather was a brutal bully who beat Defendant with whatever object was at hand. It is difficult to evaluate Defendant's claims. It is tempting, however, to blame his current character, in part, on childhood abuse. It is hard to believe Defendant turned out like he has without having been mistreated.
To his further credit, Defendant has shown some remorse. In the written confession seized by the police, which was the object of a pre-trial suppression hearing, Defendant offered a half-hearted apology. It is apparent, however, that Defendant does not fully appreciate the consequences of what he did. Nor has he truly apologized. Nevertheless, it is in his favor that he holds himself responsible for the killing and he attempted an apology.
State v. Taylor, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. IN00040180, Silverman, J. (Mar. 20, 2001) (Op. and Order).
See: Attached note.
My name is Milton E. Taylor, I was born on 11-15-1968, my social security number is 222-52-1649. I am wanted by the Wilmington police for the murder of Theresa Irene Williams a.k.a. Treety.
I confess that I did kill Treety and let Terrel and her daughter outside because I couldn't hurt either one of them. After I strangled her, I stuck a long Kitchen knife in her mouth and cut something in her throat.
The Kitchen knife is locked in Treety's car trunk wrapped in the shirt I was wearing when I killed her. There should be no sympathy for me because I killed a pregnant woman who was carrying "my" child.
I'm sorry Mr. Tyson for taking your baby from you. She's in God's hands now.
And to the rest of the family: Every one of you stressed her out. And to contrary belief she was my heart about 5 months ago. And she stayed crying about how you all would use her when she "had" money and wouldn't even think about her when she did not have money.
Sister, Tawana, Shawn, Bishop especially, and her Grandmom Linda Henry. You all need to exam yourself before passing judgment.
Bishop is calling for justice. Remember Bishop when Treety asked you when people go to heaven can they still love each other the same way as they did here on Earth?
Well, I believe the answer is yes. Anyway God forgives murderers. So me and Treety will be together again but for Eternity this time.
C. Conclusion
As mentioned above, the statutory balancing process in this case is lopsided. As between all the aggravating and mitigating factors, the aggravating factors heavily outweigh the mitigators. After a selfish life of violent and nonviolent crimes, drug abuse and indolence, Defendant strangled a defenseless, pregnant woman in her home. Defendant has never been a productive member of society and he is not even a well-adjusted prisoner. At best, Defendant probably was abused as a child and he shows some remorse and contrition for his terrible crime. While Defendant is not a dangerous prisoner, he is not likely to be rehabilitated and become a productive inmate.
By law, the jury's 10-2 recommendation of death is important. The court sees nothing in the record that undermines the jury's recommendation.