Opinion
Cr. A. Nos. IN 07-02-1757 thru 1760 IN 07-02-1762 (ID No. 0603026103).
October 30, 2008.
As To Defendant's Murder First Degree Convictions — Counts I and III of the Indictment.
James J. Kriner, Esquire and Gregory C. Strong, Esquire, Deputy Attorney Generals, Wilmington, Delaware, attorneys for the State.
Jerome M. Capone, Esquire and Peter W. Veith, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, attorneys for the defendant.
SENTENCING DECISION
NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
On March 30, 2006, Vincent Coleman, Kim Coleman and Carolyn Seeney were sitting in a van in front of a residence located at 54 Simonds Drive in a development located in Simonds Gardens in New Castle, Delaware. Shortly after their arrival, the Colemans, brother and sister, were shot and killed. Ms. Seeney was not harmed. Charged with the Coleman deaths and related offenses was the Defendant, Ronald Hankins. The Defendant was acquainted with the Colemans as a result of his sexual relationship with Ms. Seeney who was contemporaneously involved in a similar association with Vincent Coleman. The Defendant was indicted by the New Castle County Grand Jury on February 20, 2007 on two counts of Murder First Degree, two counts of Possession Of A Firearm During the Commission Of A Felony, one count of Possession Of A Deadly Weapon By A Person Prohibited and one count of Reckless Endangering Second Degree. In addition, the State indicated its intention to seek the death penalty for each count of Murder First Degree. The Defendant entered pleas of not guilty to all the charges on March 6, 2007.
The Defendant was originally indicted on May 30, 2006 and was reindicted on the date referenced above for reasons unrelated to the legal viability of the original indictment.
Trial began on September 19, 2007. On September 27, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on five of the six counts of the indictment. Because the State was seeking to impose the death penalty, the procedure set forth in 11 Del. C. § 4209, which sets forth the procedure and standards governing the issue of capital punishment, became applicable. To be specific, if a defendant is found guilty of Murder First Degree, the statute requires that a further hearing, a penalty phase, be held. At that hearing, the sole issue to be resolved is whether the Defendant is to be sentenced to life without the possibility of probation, parole or other form of sentence reduction, or whether the death penalty will be imposed.
Count V, Possession Of A Deadly Weapon By A Person Prohibited, was severed prior to trial to be disposed of at a later date.
At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury must provide the Court with responses to the following inquiries:
(1) Whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in subsection (e) of this section; and
(2) Whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, after weighing of all relevant evidence in aggravation or mitigation which bear upon the particular circumstances or details of the commission of the offense and the character and propensities of the offender, the aggravating circumstances found to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances found to exist.
While the jury's responses are entitled to great weight, the Court is not bound by them, and in fact, the Court may reject the jury's findings in their entirety.
Lawrie v. State, 643 A.2d 1336, 1346 (Del. 1994).
Pursuant to the aforementioned procedure, a penalty phase was held on October 2 through 9, 2006. Notice of the aggravating and mitigating factors being relied upon by the parties were provided by the State and the Defense as required by § 4209(c)(1) prior to the start of the hearing.
The State nominated one statutory aggravating factor, that set forth in 11 Del. C. § 4209(e)(1)(k) which is described as follows:
The defendant's course of conduct resulted in the deaths of 2 or more persons where the deaths are a probable consequence of the defendant's conduct.
The State further alleged that other, nonstatutory aggravating factors existed. They were identified as:
1. The particular circumstances and details of the commission of the offenses set forth in the instant indictment;
2. The character and propensities of the defendant;
3. The impact of the indicted crimes upon the families of Vincent Coleman and Kim Coleman;
4. The particular circumstances and details of the commission of each of the crimes for which the defendant was either convicted or adjudicated delinquent;
5. The circumstances surrounding an incident involving his supervisor at Christiana Hospital;
6. The discipline record of the defendant while incarcerated;
7. The probation records of the defendant in New York State; and
8. The future dangerousness of the defendant.
The defense nominated factors which it argued existed in mitigation of the offenses in question. They were identified as:
1. History of exposure to physical and emotional abuse;
2. Early exposure to violent behavior;
3. Exposure to parental substance abuse and violent behavior;
4. History of childhood sexual abuse;
5. Childhood abandonment;
6. Early exposure to anti-social role models;
7. History of substance abuse;
8. Stable employment history;
9. Supportive family member;
10. Non-violent history while incarcerated; and
11. Effect of his execution on his mother and loved ones.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the jury was instructed as a matter of law that the existence of one statutory aggravating had been established beyond a reasonable doubt because of the guilty verdicts returned as to the Murder First Degree charges, Counts I and III of the indictment. The jury must therefore unanimously answer the first question in the affirmative.
One day later, on October 10, the jury returned its responses to the penalty phase interrogatories. As instructed, the jury answered the first question in the affirmative by a vote of twelve to zero, i.e., that the State had established the existence of the statutory aggravating factor alleged beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury voted nine to three in response to the second question that the aggravating circumstances found to exist outweighed the mitigating circumstances found to exist. By that vote, the majority of the jury recommended that the Defendant be put to death by lethal injection as punishment for killing Vincent and Kim Coleman.
As a result of the jury's verdict, the Court must review the evidence and, like the jury, make two findings. The Court must first find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of at least one statutory aggravating factor. If the answer is yes, the Court must go on to consider whether any aggravating factors, including any statutory aggravating factors previously determined to exist, outweigh any mitigating factors relied upon by the Defendant. During the course of that analysis, the Court must consider the character and propensities of the offender as well as the circumstances and details of the capital offense in question.
This part of the process set forth in § 4209 is not subject to resolution by means of a mathematical formula involving assessing the number of aggravating factors versus mitigating factors. Instead, as this Court noted, referencing decisions of the Delaware Supreme Court in this regard, it "involves a reasoned and deliberative judgment of the facts of each case before determining the appropriate punishment."
State v. Barrow, No. CR.A. IN97-02-1353, 1998 WL 733212, at *10 (Del.Super.Ct. Feb. 3, 1998).
Id.
If the answer is in the affirmative as to both questions, the Court must prescribe a sentence of death by lethal injection. If the Court determines that no statutory aggravating factors have been established or that the aggravating factors do not outweigh the mitigating factors, the Defendant will be sentenced to life in prison. If the death penalty is deemed to be the appropriate sanction, written findings setting forth the basis of that decision must be provided by the Court.
The jury, as noted above, has determined that the only statutory aggravating factor offered by the State has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court agrees, based upon its review of the evidence. As a consequence, it must address the second inquiry and determine which penalty, death by lethal injection or life imprisonment, should be imposed. That which follows is the Court's response.
Although not required by § 4209, an explanation of the basis upon which the Court's decision is premised is appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
FACTS
The Defendant
The Defendant was born on November 25, 1973 in the State of North Carolina and was thirty-two years old at the time of the instant offenses. His parents, Gertrude Hankins and Ronald Gauge, never married. When his mother relocated to Delaware, the Defendant, then between two and three years old, was left in North Carolina with his paternal grandmother. His father was serving in the United States Marine Corp at the time.The Defendant's father did return to North Carolina and lived with the Defendant at the grandmother's home. He did attempt to assist in the rearing of the Defendant, mostly in the administration of discipline. That discipline took the form of severe physical beatings which, according to his father, were intended to "make him a man." Unfortunately, his father was addicted to cocaine when he and the Defendant lived together. The Defendant was also abused sexually during this period of time by two older cousins who also involved him in stealing as a juvenile.
What effect the addiction had on the extent of the beatings or the Defendant's behavior then or later is unknown, but it is unlikely to have been positive.
When his father discovered that the Defendant had been stealing, he beat him so badly that he knocked out one of his front teeth. He did not learn of the sexual abuse until the Defendant was in prison in Delaware as an adult but thought any ramifications had been addressed by the passage of time.
The Defendant lived with his grandmother until he was approximately eleven or twelve when it appears that he went to live with his mother. He returned to North Carolina occasionally to see his relatives. Between the ages of thirteen and fourteen, the Defendant began to lead a nomadic lifestyle which endured for the remainder of his teenage years. It was based in substantial part in New York City, New York where he supported himself by engaging in various illegal activities, including robbery, selling drugs and male prostitution.
He apparently did so without notice and on at least one such trip was accomplished by hitchhiking alone to and from North Carolina.
As a juvenile, the Defendant was found to have engaged in conduct constituting receiving stolen property, theft, burglary, conspiracy and offensive touching. Once he reached the age of majority, he was convicted of conspiracy, robbery and was arrested at least three times for conduct related to the sales of drugs. There were also three arrests and/or adjudications for assaultive behavior — one against his wife in 1998, another arising out of an alleged shoplifting in 2000, and the last against his sister in 2003 resulting from an argument over a babysitting obligation.
The Defendant returned to Delaware no later than the beginning of 1992 because it was at that point in time that he began his association with illegal drug activity. He spent five years in prison, from 1992 to 1997, as a result of that activity and a short lived escape effort during that incarceration. In that five year period, the Defendant received a total of ninety-four disciplinary write ups or actions. It was also while incarcerated that the Defendant received his high school diploma.
The Defendant did not return to prison following his release in 1997 until being incarcerated as a result of the instant charges. He engaged in legitimate employment efforts from that point in time, mostly in what appeared to be unskilled jobs. On the date the Defendant killed Vincent and Kim Coleman, he was employed in the food service industry, albeit somewhat tenuously according to his former supervisor.
In 1998, the Defendant married Traneka Hawkins. They separated in 2000 or 2001 but were never divorced. He acted as a father to his wife's daughter during the course of their marriage and continues to have a relationship with that child as of the date of the trial of these matters. In addition, notwithstanding the assault that the Defendant committed against her in 2000 and their subsequent separation, she still loves him and considers the Defendant to be her best friend. If the Defendant were to be executed, she and her daughter would be devastated.
In an effort to put the assault in the proper context, Ms. Hankins explained that at the time, she and the defendant were experiencing some difficulties in their relationship. When the Defendant was pushed or had his back against the wall figuratively as she seemed to infer happened in 1998, he became another person.
The Defendant's sister echoed a similar sentiment regarding the assault by the Defendant against her in 2003. She continues to love him and would remain a part of his life if he were allowed to live. If the Defendant were to be executed it would be "hurtful".
Relationship with Carolyn Seeney
The Defendant met Ms. Seeney in 2003 as a result of his association with one or more of her children. He was either twenty nine or thirty years old and she slightly older at thirty one or thirty two. At some point after their meeting, the Defendant moved in with his mother at 55 Simonds Drive. Ms. Seeney lived across the street at 54 Simonds Drive.
The exact date of their meeting is unknown. However, Ms. Seeney's date of birth is July 1, 1971.
The romantic relationship between Ms. Seeney and the Defendant began clandestinely during the Summer of 2005, just before the man with whom she was then romantically involved went to jail for some unspecified offenses. It continued unabated until March 30, 2006. As of that date, the Defendant was spending virtually every night at 54 Simonds Drive. They were having sex every day, several times a day. Moreover, the Defendant was, with one possible exception, the only individual employed and used that income to provide support to Ms. Seeney and her family. Notwithstanding the extent of that association, Ms. Seeney rejected the Defendant's request that their relationship be exclusive stating that she was not ready for that type of commitment.
In December 2005, the Defendant's mother told the Defendant that he could no longer reside at her house because, among other reasons, he was taking her food to the Seeney household and using her appliances to wash clothes from that address. Residing there were Ms. Seeney, four of her five children along with two, possibly three, of their paramours and two of Ms. Seeney's grandchildren.
During this same period of time, Ms. Seeney was actively involved sexually with several other men and at least one woman. One of the males was married and the female was the significant other of one of Ms. Seeney's male relatives. All of those so involved with Ms. Seeney, including the Defendant, knew that she was engaged in multiple relationships. Visitors would come to 54 Simonds Drive on a regular basis and visit with Ms. Seeney there or take her elsewhere to enjoy her companionship.
The Defendant was often present when these visits would occur. When he objected, Ms. Seeney informed him that she was grown, they were not in a relationship and that she could have others come to see her if she so chose. The date of this exchange is unclear but it is obvious that the Defendant opted to continue their association even though he was not pleased with having to share Ms. Seeney's attention.
According to the Defendant's mother, Gertrude Evans, the Defendant was depressed in the last few weeks before March 30, 2006. That depression, she felt was because Ms. Seeney would have someone else, presumably a romantic interest, in 54 Simonds Drive when he would return to that residence after work.
Vincent and Kim Coleman
Vincent and Kim Coleman were two of a blended family of six children headed by their mother, Josephine Newton, and her husband. The two siblings were very close to each other as well as their parents and siblings. Both were jokesters. Each finished high school and was employed. Their deaths have had a great impact upon their immediate family as whole and upon each member individually.
Kim Coleman had applied for each other admission to Delaware Technical and Community College. Ironically, she was accepted as a student at that institution shortly after March 30, 2006. She was not married and did not have any children but did love pets.
In 2004, Vincent Coleman met and married his wife, Donyell. At the time of their marriage, she had two children who looked at him as their father. Together Vincent and Donyell had a third child upon whom Vincent doted. Notwithstanding the infidelity in which he was involved at the time of his death, Donyell felt that she would have forgiven him and that their relationship would have survived.
Carolyn Seeney and Vincent Coleman
Notwithstanding his at least nominal acquiescence of her relationships with others, of particular concern to the Defendant was Ms. Seeney's involvement with Vincent Coleman. They first met when Vincent was fifteen years old and Ms. Seeney was in her twenties. Three months later, according to Ms. Seeney, they began engaging in sex. That intimacy continued for the next ten years with the exception of an unspecified period of period of time lasting less than one year. It was not interrupted by his marriage.
Vincent Coleman did inform Ms. Seeney of his marriage and the relationship continued. His wife did not, however, know of or consent to this arrangement. She was not made aware of the situation until after her husband was killed.
As of March 30, 2006, Ms. Seeney was receiving visits from Vincent Coleman two to three times per week in addition to her daily interaction with the Defendant. On some occasions, those liaisons would take place at 54 Simonds Drive. Other meetings would take place at the house he shared with his wife and children, presumably in their absence.
The Defendant would be present on an average of two out three of the weekly visits by Vincent Coleman with Ms. Seeney. Although he did voice an objection on at least one occasion and ask Ms. Seeney to choose between the two of them, she continued to refuse claiming that she still was not ready to be with him exclusively. In spite of that rejection, the relationship between the Defendant and Ms. Seeney continued and included socializing with Vincent Coleman, Kim Coleman and at least one other individual, if not more. It is in this context that the events of the day that the Colemans were killed must be viewed.
As of January 2006, the defendant was aware that Vincent Coleman and Ms. Seeney were involved sexually. The extent of the intimacy they engaged in while the Defendant was present at 54 Simonds Drive, is unclear, but according to Ms. Seeney, the defendant did at least witness them kissing.
For whatever reason, there was only one negative contact between the Defendant and Vincent Coleman before the date the latter was killed which involved a telephone prank played by Vincent Coleman on the Defendant. However, nothing became of that incident. In so far as Kim Coleman is concerned, it appears that her association with the Defendant involved nothing more than occasionally attending social gatherings as described above.
March 30, 2006
The morning the homicides took place saw the Defendant leave for work with a temporary employment agency from 54 Simonds Drive at approximately 6:00 a.m. Because he was not needed that day, he returned to the Seeney home within a couple of hours of his departure. In the interim, Vincent Coleman had been in contact with Ms. Seeney who agreed to spend some time with him. When Vincent and Kim Coleman arrived at 54 Simonds Drive, the Defendant was in the bedroom he occupied with Ms. Seeney. The Colemans came in and spoke to the Defendant. They left shortly thereafter with Ms. Seeney who hugged and kissed the Defendant after informing him that she was going out with Vincent Coleman for a couple of hours.
After they departed, Vincent Coleman and Ms. Seeney took Kim Coleman to her boyfriend's home and continued on to the Coleman home where they watched a movie and had sex. The two of them then left, picked up Kim Coleman and traveled to a McDonald's restaurant to get food before returning to 54 Simonds Drive. However, before they arrived at the Seeney residence, the Defendant contacted Ms. Seeney by telephone no less three times, asking her when she was coming home and/or why she wasn't there already. Ms. Seeney responded that she was an adult and would get there when she felt like it. After the third call, she refused to talk to him any further.
Upon arriving in front of the Seeney residence, Ms. Seeney told the Colemans that the Defendant was "pissed" and to just drop her off. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant came out of the house and approached the side of the vehicle where Vincent Coleman was seated. As the Defendant approached, Vincent Coleman lowered his window and the Defendant asked why he hadn't brought Ms. Seeney home earlier. His response was that the Defendant should direct his concerns to Ms. Seeney since she was an adult and could do what she pleased. He then terminated the conversation by raising the window.
It was at that point the Defendant pulled the pistol he had been carrying and shot Vincent Coleman once in the side of the head. At the same time, Kim Coleman had exited the vehicle and was in the process of chastising the Defendant for attempting to control Ms. Seeney's relationships with others. The Defendant then turned on Kim Coleman and began shooting her. She unsuccessfully attempted to flee but the Defendant continued to shoot her even after she lay mortally wounded in the street.
Ms. Seeney related that Kim Coleman cursed the Defendant in a loud angry voice, calling him, among other things, a bunch of "dumb asses".
The Defendant shot Kim Coleman a total of five times including at least one at close range as she lay on the ground and he stood over her.
Kim Coleman died where she fell. Vincent Coleman was severely wounded and taken by ambulance to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on April 2, 2006. Ms. Seeney was not injured but initially refused to cooperate with the police based upon her fear of being labeled a "snitch" as well as her affection for the Defendant. The Defendant fled the scene and managed to avoid arrest until April 12, 2006. On that date he was taken into custody in Atlanta, Georgia by the federal law enforcement agents using cellular telephone records.
She relented once she remembered that she also had similar feelings for Vincent Coleman.
While he was evading capture, the Defendant made contact with Ms. Seeney and local investigating police officer investigating the homicides. During those contacts the Defendant acknowledged what he had done claiming that it was the "power of the gun" that led to the tragedy and that he was not sorry for what happened.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the recommendation of the jury is entitled to great weight. It cannot be ignored or disregarded even though the Court is not bound thereby. However, based upon its review of the evidence, the Court disagrees with the response of the majority of the jury to the second inquiry and concludes instead that the aggravating factors present do not outweigh any factors which exist in mitigation of the crimes committed on March 30, 2006. The imposition of the death penalty would not therefore be warranted. Stated differently, the circumstances of the crimes as well as the character and propensities of the Defendant, mandate instead the imposition of a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of probation, parole or any other manner of sentence reduction. The basis for the Court's decision is set forth below.Circumstances and Nature of the Crimes
No one can dispute that killing two people who were not involved in any criminality other than as victims was horrific and can only serve as an aggravating circumstance. The crimes are made even more egregious by the fact that the Colemans did not pose any obvious threat to the Defendant. Why the Defendant exited 54 Simonds Drive with a gun is unknown but it was clearly not in response to anything Vincent Coleman or Kim Coleman did to cause him to be concerned for his safety. His decision to use the weapon was subsequently prompted by what Vincent Coleman would not do, i.e., discuss the failure to bring Ms. Seeney home earlier as he demanded.
The fact that Vincent Coleman and Kim Coleman left behind grieving families and dependent children also militates in favor of the imposition of the death penalty.
The impact of their deaths is compounded by the fact that they were brother and sister. Their parents and siblings have yet to come to grips with their deaths. Kim Coleman was her mother's best friend and a joy to all of her family. Vincent Coleman was a jokester and would always cheer up other family members.
Vincent Coleman's children will not have their father as they grow up and will probably not understand why. Donyell Coleman could not sleep or work following the death of her husband, difficulties that were continuing as of the penalty phase of the trial. In addition, she mourns the loss of a relationship she felt would have survived his errant behavior.
The Court must similarly consider as an aggravator the fact that these crimes arose out of the indirect association of the victims and the Defendant through Ms. Seeney, and not because of any independent dispute between them. While Vincent Coleman did divert some of the affection and attention of Ms. Seeney, he was not the only one to do so nor was he otherwise involved in any controversy with the Defendant. Kim Coleman had an even more tenuous relationship with the Defendant limited only to some "partying" with the others involved in this tragedy. It does not appear that she was involved in any other manner in the ménage à illimité that revolved out of 54 Simonds Drive. In short, the Defendant's problem was with Ms. Seeney, not the Colemans.
Cf. Ménage à trois.
The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offenses in question and/or details thereof, weigh more heavily in favor of the imposition of the death penalty. Notwithstanding that analysis, it is the Court's view of the Defendant that tips this scale away from the death penalty and in favor of life imprisonment.
Character and Propensities of the Defendant
The criminal history of the Defendant is not substantial. At best, he can be considered a very minor player in the world of crime. His drug activity was somewhat dated and barely rose to the level of a public nuisance. The several instances of assaultive behavior, particularly those involving his estranged wife and sister, are more troubling but are entitled to no more weight given the circumstances of each, the age of the incidents and the fact that none involved the use of weapons. Nor is there any indication of an escalating pattern of criminality in general or violence in particular.
In so far as the fact that the Defendant was incarcerated for a period of five years is concerned, the Court notes that his sentence ended nine years before the instant offenses were committed and was in part based upon a short lived escape effort. Moreover, the Defendant's record of write ups or disciplinary actions, while impressive in terms of volume, it bespeaks of an immature miscreant but does not reflect any violence or tendencies in that regard. It was also while he was so incarcerated that the Defendant obtained his high school diploma as well as engaged in legitimate employment since being released up to and including the date of the instant offenses.
Of further significance in mitigation is the prior sexual and physical abuse of the Defendant by his family during his preteen and teenage years. To be accorded similar weight is the desertion of the Defendant by his mother and the lifestyle he led during most of his teenage years. He appears to have been without consistent and substantial adult support, moral or economic, as evidenced by the antisocial activities he engaged in to survive. That the Defendant has been a victim most of his life does not in any way excuse or justify his conduct on March 30, 2006. It does, however, give an indication that he acted on that date as he had been treated, and not as a sociopath.
Of similar import is the Defendant's relationship with Ms. Seeney. It is extremely doubtful that the Defendant would have taken the life of another, let alone two persons, given his social and legal history prior to March 30, 2006. The Defendant's inability to act without complaint as one of the sexual satellites orbiting Ms. Seeney's world was the primary factor, if not the only one, leading to the instant tragedy. The fact that other sexual relationships were being carried out in the Defendant's presence in the household he shared with Ms. Seeney as well as helped to support, can only be deemed as the straw which led to the break between the Defendant and common sense.
That the Defendant was not able to control his emotions is not surprising in hindsight. The Defendant indicated that he wanted an exclusive relationship with Ms. Seeney and apparently was not pleased with her response. To this was added her "take it or leave it" instruction regarding his objection her involvement with others. Lastly, there was the bizarre series of events surrounding the departure of the Colemans and Ms. Seeney from 54 Simonds Drive during the morning hours of March 30, 2006 and their return to that residence after a side trip to McDonald's.
The Court also finds the Defendant's expressions of remorse for his actions and apology to those his actions have harmed sincere. In addition, it does not appear that the Defendant poses any continuing threat to others if he is allowed to spend the rest of his life in prison. The Defendant's death by lethal injection under these circumstances will not lessen the losses occasioned by the deaths of Vincent Coleman and Kim Coleman. It would severely impact those who care about the Defendant. A life sentence would, on the other hand, recognize and punish the horror of what happened.
The Court acknowledges and appreciates the effort put forth by the jury in this case. It also has attached significant import to the jury's recommendation as required by law. However, the Defendant will spend the rest of his life in jail and will never be released alive. He will only be able to see those he loves on visiting days and will have to live with having killed two people because he could not control his affection for Ms. Seeney. Lastly, the most punitive aspect of this sentence is that the Defendant will live behind bars while Ms. Seeney remains free to pursue and enjoy the attention of an individual or individuals other than the Defendant. Under the circumstances, this is likely a more severe punishment than that recommended by the jury.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the as to Counts I and III of the indictment, the Defendant should be remanded to the custody of the Department of Corrections for the balance of his natural life without the possibility of probation, parole or any other manner of sentence reduction. This sentence should be made effective as of the date of his arrest for the instant crimes, April 12, 2006.IT IS SO ORDERED.