Olsen v. State
67 P.3d 536 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Wyoming's capital sentencing statute does not authorize the admission of victim impact evidence during the penalty phase of a trial. Furthermore, statutory aggravating circumstances must be strictly construed to narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty.
Facts:
- On January 20, 1997, after consuming alcohol for several hours, Martin J. Olsen entered the Little Chief Bar in Worland, Wyoming.
- Olsen, armed with a gun, robbed the bar and instructed the bartender, Emma McCoid, and two patrons, Kyle Baumstarck and Arthur Taylor, to lie face down on the floor.
- After the robbery was complete, Olsen shot all three victims in the back of the head, killing them.
- Olsen fired a fourth shot when one victim appeared to show signs of life.
- Following the murders, Olsen went home, packed his belongings, and confessed the crime to his mother.
- Olsen's mother, a police dispatcher, reported her son's confession to the authorities.
- Within hours, police apprehended Olsen, who subsequently confessed multiple times to the robbery and murders.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin J. Olsen was charged in a Wyoming state trial court with three counts of capital murder and one count of aggravated robbery.
- The State filed notice of its intent to seek the death penalty.
- Following a bifurcated trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Olsen guilty on all charges, including three counts of premeditated first-degree murder.
- In the sentencing phase that followed, the jury found four statutory aggravating circumstances existed for each of the three murders.
- The jury returned a verdict sentencing Olsen to death for each murder.
- The trial court entered a judgment and sentence of death, triggering an automatic direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wyoming's capital sentencing statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-102, authorize the introduction of victim impact evidence during the sentencing phase of a capital trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Golden
No. Wyoming's capital sentencing statute does not authorize the introduction of victim impact evidence during the sentencing phase. The specific provisions of the capital sentencing statute, which limit the jury's consideration to enumerated aggravating and mitigating circumstances, control over more general statutes or general language within the capital statute itself. The legislature has the exclusive power to determine what sentencing considerations are relevant, and it has not amended the statute to explicitly permit victim impact evidence following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Payne v. Tennessee. Additionally, the court found several other reversible errors in the sentencing phase, including insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of the 'especially atrocious or cruel' and 'great risk of death to two or more persons' aggravating circumstances. The court also found the jury instructions on the law of mitigation and the decision-making process were improper. These errors, taken together, require that the sentences of death be set aside and the case remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Wyoming's status as a 'weighing' state in capital punishment jurisprudence, meaning appellate courts must closely scrutinize the impact of any invalid aggravating factors on the jury's sentencing decision. By holding that victim impact evidence is inadmissible under the current statutory scheme, the court sets a clear precedent that diverges from the national trend post-Payne v. Tennessee, emphasizing that such a policy change must come from the legislature, not the courts. The opinion's strict construction of key aggravating circumstances, such as 'atrocious or cruel,' narrows the scope of death penalty eligibility in Wyoming and provides critical guidance for trial courts on how to define and apply these factors in future capital cases.
Unlock the full brief for Olsen v. State