THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, October 20, 1994 TAG: 9410200395
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JUNE ARNEY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Medium: 91 lines
Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty in the capital murder trial of Reginald Evans, who was 15 when he was charged with killing a Norfolk taxi driver.
Evans is accused of shooting Donald J. Reynolds, 43, five times during an attempted robbery with a co-defendant on April 26.
In the next few weeks, Circuit Judge Charles E. Poston must decide whether to let prosecutors pursue the death penalty against Evans, based on case law and motions submitted by both sides.
Whether a convicted murderer can be sentenced to death for a crime committed when he was 15 depends on which legal expert you ask. Commonwealth's Attorney Charles D. Griffith believes that if the prosecution is successful, the case could force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue and clarify its position.
Griffith said he is aware of the key Supreme Court rulings that address the subject of capital punishment for suspects under 16.
``We're not sure that the law is so crystal clear, that the Supreme Court has ruled absolutely that a 15-year-old cannot be put to death but a 16-year-old can,'' Griffith said in a recent interview. ``We think we need to make the effort to present it. We're supposed to enforce the death penalty where appropriate.''
Evans was 17 days short of his 16th birthday when the crime occurred. The co-defendant, Howard Lee Chapman, who was charged with murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and attempted robbery, is 18.
Norfolk attorney Robert Frank, who represents Evans, contends that the law clearly states that prosecutors cannot seek the death penalty in such a case.
``It doesn't say, `If you're close to being 16, then maybe we'll fudge the rules,' '' Frank said. ``It sets a clear standard. To me, the case is so clear that there isn't any question. I think it's a sad commentary on our society that they would even consider trying to execute someone who's 15 years old.''
Frank interprets the guiding Supreme Court decisions as reaching the same conclusion: Imposing capital punishment on offenders 16 or older is not cruel and unusual, but 15 is too young.
Griffith is not convinced.
``Maybe we've got a situation where the Supreme Court has made two separate decisions in two separate cases and there's room for movement around it,'' Griffith said. ``If we were to prevail and get the death penalty, it's very likely this would be the case in which the Supreme Court would have to reconcile those two cases.''
Griffith contrasts the 1988 Supreme Court case of Thompson v. Oklahoma with the 1989 case of Stanford v. Kentucky/Wilkins v. Missouri. Thompson appears to draw a ``bright line,'' stating that a 15-year-old cannot be punished by death because it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment, Griffith says. Yet Stanford/Wilkins states that age is a consideration to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Stanford/Wilkins says: ``It is, to begin with, absurd to think that one must be mature enough to drive responsibly, or to vote intelligently in order to be mature enough to understand that murdering another human is profoundly wrong, and to conform one's conduct to that most minimal of all civilized standards.''
Norfolk prosecutors will not be the first in Virginia to seek the death penalty against a defendant under 16, said William S. Geimer, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. He has seen it happen about five times in the past two years.
None of those cases got beyond pretrial motions in Circuit Court, he said.
Geimer believes that the law is clear, that 15-year-olds cannot be executed.
``It's generally accepted that unless a legislature gets up and says we want to execute 15-year-olds, you can't do it,'' he said.
Defense attorney Frank said he does not think prosecutors can be successful under current law.
``I think Thompson v. Oklahoma is controlling,'' he said. ``I think it is possible to interpret it as allowing the capital murder prosecution, but to take out the death penalty part. But I think the more accurate interpretation is that you cannot impose the death penalty statute on a 15-year-old.''
Part of the problem in applying the Supreme Court's past rulings to the Norfolk case is that they are not a perfect match, as legal issues seldom are.
``The Supreme Court, in discussing capital murder, states a general constitutional rule which is sometimes hard to reconcile with the individual differences in capital murder statutes of particular states,'' Frank said.
``The court didn't really address what happens in a state like Virginia,'' which has a death penalty statute separate from other murder statutes and has only two possible sentences under that code, life in prison or death, he said.
KEYWORDS: CAPITAL MURDER DEATH PENALTY JUVENILE by CNB