Supreme Court of Virginia
Wayne Lee HARPER v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
F. Anson Henry (Law Offices of F. Anson Henry), for appellant.
Alexander Reiner, Asst. Pros. Atty. (Caleb M. Kite, Senior Pros. Atty., on brief) for appellee.
Present: FAY, C.J., ELLMAN, FESSENDEN, MILLER, JAMESON, ANDERSON, BUCK, J.J.
BUCK, Justice.
In this appeal, we review the capital murder conviction and sentence of death imposed on Wayne Lee Harper.
PROCEEDINGS
An Alanton grand jury indicted Harper for the capital murder of Leslie Anne Clark and Michael Clark as part of the same act or transaction.
Code §§ 18.2-31 and 18.2-10. The grand jury also returned an indictment for first degree sexual assault of Leslie Clark and statutory burglary. He pled guilty to all charges.
Before accepting the guilty pleas, the trial court questioned Harper and determined that his pleas were made voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly. In response to questioning from the trial court, Harper stated that he was satisfied with the performance of his lawyer.
Before determining punishment, the trial court held a separate hearing and received evidence in aggravation and mitigation on the capital murder counts. The prosecution introduced evidence showing that Harper had committed the crimes in a wanton and depraved manner and would pose a danger to others in the future. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court sentenced Harper to death for the capital murders, based upon findings of “vileness” and “future dangerousness” as prescribed in Code § 19.2-264.2. The trial court imposed two additional sentences of life imprisonment for the crimes of statutory burglary and sexual assault.
THE CRIMES
On September 18, 1999, Annabelle Meadows had made plans to meet her daughter, Leslie Anne Clark, for lunch at an Olive Garden restaurant in Alanton. After her daughter did not arrive at the restaurant, Meadows telephoned her house at around 2 p.m. No one answered the phone. At around 4 p.m., Meadows went to the house in an effort to ascertain Leslie’s whereabouts.
Arriving at her daughter’s home, Meadows found the front door locked. She went around to the back of the home and was able to enter through the back door, which was unlocked.
Meadows proceeded through the house in an effort to find Leslie Clark and her husband, Michael Clark. Leslie Clark’s partially clothed body, covered in blood, was lying on the bed. She had suffered numerous injuries to her head, and her clothing was soaked in blood. Michael Clark’s body was on the floor of the bedroom. He, too, had been struck in the head.
Meadows called the police. A team of local officers responded, and Detectives Raymond Robideaux and William Campbell performed an investigative
search of the house. They discovered that the lock on the back door had been broken.
At the Norfolk Crime Lab, Dr. Arthur Dole, assistant chief medical examiner, performed autopsies and forensic examinations on the bodies of Leslie and Michael Clark. The autopsies revealed that both victims had been struck with the same object. In addition, the autopsy of Leslie Clark revealed that she had been sexually assaulted.
Examination of a red handkerchief found near Leslie Clark’s body revealed the presence of spermatozoa. Jonathan R. Dunn, a forensic scientist, performed DNA tests that revealed that the spermatozoa found on the handkerchief were consistent with Wayne Harper’s DNA profile. The HLA DQa type found in the crime scene sample appears in approximately 7.8% of the Caucasian population.
THE CONFESSION
On September 21, 1999, the Alanton police department received a phone call from an anonymous informant implicating Wayne Harper in the murders. Based on this information, Detectives Robideaux and Campbell went to the house where Harper lived with his parents. After obtaining entry, they arrested Harper and took him to the police headquarters. Arriving at the police headquarters at about 7:00 a.m., the detectives took Harper to an interview room. The interview began about 7:15 a.m. and was recorded on the police station’s videotape. At 7:30 a.m., the detectives falsely informed Harper that his fingerprints had been found in the victims’ residence. At 7:32 a.m., the detectives created another ruse by telling Harper that a witness had seen him entering the victims’ house. At 7:45 a.m., Harper admitted that he had been inside the house on the night of the murders. At 8:00 a.m., Harper admitted that he had killed the victims. Following arraignment and consultation with his lawyer, he entered a plea of guilty to all the charges.
PENALTY PHASE
During the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecution offered expert testimony as to Harper’s mental state. Peter D. Samuels, a clinical psychologist, examined Harper and opined that Harper suffered from an antisocial personality disorder, had poor impulse control, and was unlikely to be deterred from criminal or violent acts by the threat of punishment. He concluded that Harper would likely pose a threat to others in the future. In opposition, Harper relied on Samuels’ analysis in order to present evidence indicating that he had a subnormal IQ and had completed no schooling beyond the fourth grade. He also offered the testimony of his parents and Katherine Woods, a neighbor, that he had no history of violence. Katherine Woods stated that she had allowed Harper to watch her children while she was away in the past and that she would still do so. Harper also offered his lack of a prior criminal record as a mitigating factor weighing against imposition of the death penalty.
The trial court concluded that the death penalty was appropriate because the crimes were committed in a “vile” manner, and because Harper posed a threat of future dangerousness. Code § 19.2-264.2. Harper argues on appeal that the trial court erred in giving weight to Samuels’ testimony because Samuels admitted on cross-examination that he had not read four of the six documents relating to Harper that were mentioned in his report. But Harper himself relied on Samuels’ report to present mitigating evidence of his mental capacity, and he cannot simultaneously attack that report. Moreover, even if Samuels’ concession did reduce the weight properly given to his expert opinion, Harper’s failure to offer any contrary expert evidence prevents this Court from finding error in the trial court’s finding of future dangerousness. And even if we did conclude that the trial court erred, the imposition of the death penalty would still be supported by the “vileness” finding, which the trial court could have found to outweigh Harper’s mitigating evidence.
The trial court, in fact, found the mitigating evidence insufficient. Harper argues that this was error because the court failed to consider fully the testimony of his parents and of Katherine Woods. Our review of the record leads us to disagree.
During the hearing at which the sentence was imposed, the trial court stated, “It is the court’s duty to take into consideration all the evidence
produced in mitigation of the offenses. I have considered all the mitigating evidence produced. It includes the fact that the defendant pled guilty to these offenses, that he had no prior criminal record, and the testimony of his family and neighbors. I find that the defendant has failed to establish a mitigating factor to outweigh the statutory aggravating factors and I impose a sentence of death.”
While the evidence that Harper presented did tend to mitigate, it did not require as a matter of law that the death penalty not be imposed. The trial court was not required to give it controlling weight.
SENTENCE REVIEW
Code § 17-110.1(C)(2) requires this Court to review the death sentence imposed to determine whether it was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and whether it is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. Upon review of other similar cases, we hold that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate. Further, we find nothing suggesting that the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.
CONCLUSION
We find no reversible error in the issues presented here. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.
Jesus, thought Mark. Now what? Harper hadn’t put on any mitigating testimony by psychiatric experts. Maybe that was something. But on the whole, Mark had no idea what the weak spots in the opinion were, or even if any existed. And he didn’t want to tell Walker that. He sighed and started reading again. HLA DQa type, he thought. Struck in the head. Soaked with blood. Poor impulse control. Watch her children. Neither excessive nor disproportionate. My God, this is depressing.