"Virginia inmate executed after appeal rejected." (Friday, September 10, 2004)

JARRATT, Virginia (AP) -- A man who killed an elderly woman with a metal can and a pair of scissors in a drunken attack eight years ago was executed Thursday by injection. James Edward Reid, 58, was pronounced dead at Greensville Correctional Center at 9:12 p.m.

The intravenous line carrying the lethal dose of drugs was placed in Reid's upper groin because veins in his arms, where IV lines are usually placed, apparently had deteriorated from years of drinking. It took medical technicians 12 minutes, three times longer than usual, to place the IV lines. "I forgive you for what you are doing, but I don't forgive you for what you think or what you feel or what you say or what you do," Reid said when asked if he had a final statement. "I forgive you because God has forgiven me."

Reid killed Annie Lester, 87, in her home on October 12, 1996. She was stabbed 22 times with the scissors and struck in the head with a can of condensed milk, according to court documents. Reid, an alcoholic, was seen leaving the area of Lester's home with blood on his jacket. A witness said he smelled like a "brewery." He was convicted in 1997 of capital murder, attempted rape and attempted robbery.

Earlier Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected Reid's final appeal. Over the years, his lawyers argued that the state's execution method was unconstitutionally cruel and unusual because it was possible Reid would still be conscious when the last of three drugs was administered, and would suffer pain before he died. The final appeal objected to the state's plan, if necessary, to place the IV line in Reid's groin. Only Justice John Paul Stevens said he would have voted to hear the appeal, a court spokesman said.

The execution was the 94th in Virginia since the Supreme Court allowed executions to resume in 1976. Only Texas, with 325 executions, has put more people to death since then.

Reuters News

"Virginia Executes Man for Killing Elderly Woman," by Frank Green. (Thu Sep 9, 2004)

JARRATT, Va. (Reuters) - An alcoholic, brain-damaged man who stabbed an elderly woman to death with a pair of scissors in 1996 was executed in Virginia on Thursday night. James Edward Reid, 58, was executed by injection at the Greensville Correctional Center and pronounced dead at 9:12 p.m., said Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections.

He was sentenced to death for the Oct. 12, 1996, murder of Annie Lester, a Christiansburg resident who was believed to be in her late 80s, during an attempted robbery or attempted rape. Lester was stabbed 22 times and beaten in the head with a can of condensed milk.

Reid's appeals in recent months alleged the use of lethal injection could violate his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. His execution was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court last December. However, the justices lifted the stay in August and on Thursday they rejected Reid's most recent request for an injunction.

According to court records, Reid was in an automobile accident in 1968 and suffered a serious head injury. He was in a coma for at least five days. Afterward he suffered from a seizure disorder. In addition to the brain injury and seizures, Reid was also affected by alcoholism, noted an opinion from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Reid was a spree drinker who drank to excess once a month when he received his disability check.

Shortly after the slaying, witnesses saw a drunken Reid, his clothes covered with blood, in the vicinity of the victim's home where he had been doing chores earlier in the day. A DNA test showed it was her blood on his clothes and he left bloody fingerprints on her telephone.

Reid was the fifth person executed in Virginia this year and the 94th in the state since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to resume in 1976. In a final statement, he said: "I forgive you for what you are doing but I don't forgive you for what you think, or for what you feel, or what you say, or what you do. I forgive you because God has forgiven me."

Hampton Roads Daily Press

"Inmate executed after Supreme Court rejects appeal," by Bill Baskervill. (AP September 9, 2004)

JARRATT, Va. -- A man who killed an 87-year-old Christiansburg woman was put to death Thursday night by an injection method that his lawyers had challenged hours earlier in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. James Edward Reid, 58, was pronounced dead at Greensville Correctional Center at 9:12 p.m.

The intravenous line carrying the lethal dose of drugs was placed in Reid's right upper groin because his veins in his arms, where the IV lines are usually placed, apparently had deteriorated from years of drinking. It took medical technicians 12 minutes, three times longer than usual, to place the IV lines in Reid. "I forgive you for what you are doing, but I don't forgive you for what you think or what you feel or what you say or what you do," Reid said when asked if he had a final statement. "I forgive you because God has forgiven me."

Using a can of condensed milk and a pair of scissors, a drunken Reid killed Annie Lester in her home on Oct. 12, 1996. She had been stabbed 22 times and struck in the head with the can, according to court documents. Shortly after the slaying, Reid, an alcoholic, was seen leaving the area of Lester's home with blood on his jacket. A witness said he smelled like a "brewery." Reid was convicted in 1997 of capital murder, attempted rape and attempted robbery.

Reid's lawyers sought an injunction from the Supreme Court earlier Thursday after learning that the state planned to insert the IV into a vein near his groin. The court denied their request, with only Justice John Paul Stevens saying he would have voted to grant the application, court spokesman Ed Turner said. Gov. Mark R. Warner also rejected Reid's clemency petition, citing "overwhelming" evidence of Reid's guilt and exhaustive court reviews. Earlier in the day, Reid was visited for two hours by his mother, sister and sister-in-law.

Reid claimed throughout the appeals process that Virginia's method of execution amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. He won a stay of execution in December, but in August the Supreme Court tossed out the stay and the new execution date was set. Last week, a federal judge rejected Reid's claim that Virginia's execution method was unconstitutional because it was possible Reid would still be conscious when the last of three drugs is administered and would suffer pain before he dies.

In a final appeal Thursday, Reid's lawyers argued that it was unclear whether the procedure of inserting the IV near the groin would be performed by a properly trained physician. The state said Reid attempted "to inject a new claim into this case" by alleging that the state's plan to use a different IV placement than his lawyers expected amounts to a surgical procedure, called a "cut down," that can be used if a vein is not readily accessible. "This is just not true," the state said. "The Department of Corrections protocol does not permit a `cut down' procedure, nor does it specify a particular vein for the IV placement in an execution."

Reid's execution is the fifth in Virginia this year and the 94th since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed executions to resume in 1976. Only Texas, with 325 executions, has put more people to death since 1976.

Richmond Times-Dispatch

"Judge rejects killer's execution challenge," by Alan Cooper. (September 4, 2004)

A federal judge rejected yesterday the contention of James Edward Reid that the way Virginia carries out lethal injection should delay his execution, which is scheduled for Thursday. Reid was sentenced to die for the murder and attempted robbery or rape of Annie Lester, an elderly Montgomery County woman, in October 1996. Reid stabbed Lester 22 times and inflicted other injuries to her head, face and arms.

His attorneys contended that Virginia's method of execution is unconstitutional because of the possibility that the defendant will actually be conscious when the last of three drugs is administered and will suffer pain before he dies. The first drug puts the defendant into a state of unconsciousness similar to that experienced by a surgery patient. The second drug causes paralysis and suppresses involuntary seizures that might create the false perception that the defendant is experiencing pain. The third causes the defendant's heart to stop beating.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson concluded that the procedure will kill the defendant within five to 10 minutes and reduce the chance that a defendant will be conscious of any pain to less than 6/1000 of 1 percent. "There is simply no reason to believe the speculative list of horribles described by Reid are likely to come to pass," Hudson wrote. "The record establishes that the defendants have taken reasonable measures to eliminate the possibility of human error and to ensure the condemned will experience nothing other than the insertion of an intravenous catheter followed by unconsciousness and death."

Hudson noted that Reid did not challenge the method of execution until a few days before it was scheduled to be carried out in December. That delay left little doubt that the real purpose of the challenge was to delay his execution, not to change the manner in which he is ultimately executed, Hudson said.

Reid's attorneys can attempt to delay the execution further by appealing Hudson's decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washington Post

"Virginia Executes Elderly Woman's Killer," by Ian Shapira. (September 10, 2004)

James Edward Reid, who beat and stabbed to death an 87-year-old southwest Virginia woman in her home in 1996, was executed by injection last night in Virginia's death chamber. Reid, 58, was pronounced dead at 9:12 p.m. at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, said Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections.

In his final statement, Reid said: "I forgive you for what you're doing. But I don't forgive you for what you think or what you feel or what you say. I forgive you because God has forgiven me."

In numerous appeals, Reid's attorneys unsuccessfully argued that Virginia's method of lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore is unconstitutional. They contended that the first phase of the state's lethal injection designed to render the body unconscious would wear off -- or not work at all -- and that Reid would "suffer an excruciatingly painful and protracted death" when the second and third chemicals were administered.

Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore (R) issued a statement last night, saying that he found it "tragically ironic" that Reid believes his execution will be "cruel and inhuman." "Those words should rightly be associated with the horrifying death Mrs. Lester suffered," Kiglore said. ". . .It was a crime of extreme and senseless violence. The sentence has been carried out and justice has been served. My thoughts and prayers are with the victim and her family."

Nearly eight years ago, on Oct. 12, 1996, Reid went to the Christiansburg, Va., home of Annie Lester to do some handyman work. He got drunk, stabbed the emaciated woman 22 times with scissors, stripped off her clothing, and struck her on the head with a milk can. Reid was convicted in 1997 of capital murder, attempted rape and attempted robbery and was sentenced to death.

Last year, his attorneys' arguments about the legality of the state's lethal injection seemed promising. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond issued a stay Dec. 17, the day before his scheduled execution, pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision that later upheld the legality of lethal injections.

Last week, a U.S. District Court judge in Richmond denied the request to stay the execution, a decision that was upheld Wednesday by a panel on the federal appeals court in a 2 to 1 decision. James Turk, one of Reid's attorneys, said yesterday that Reid was appointed an ineffective defense team when he was first prosecuted and that his sentence should be commuted because he had been suffering from brain damage and had a serious addiction to alcohol. Reid got drunk before he committed the crime, the attorney said, and "voluntary intoxication negates intent," which would have reduced his capital murder charge. "I honestly believe he didn't have a clue what he did," Turk said.

The Daily Progress

"Sister pleads for stay of execution," by Bob Gibson. (September 8, 2004)

The oldest inmate on Virginia’s death row should be spared from Thursday’s scheduled execution because his state-appointed lawyers botched his defense, the man’s sister and a Radford lawyer said Tuesday. Ida Reid of Charlottesville, sister of James Edward Reid, said her brother’s lead counsel at his 1997 trial in Christiansburg put up no defense, nodded off in court and falsely advised him that an Alford plea (tantamount to a guilty plea) probably would result in a sentence of 20 or fewer years.

“When I witnessed Peter Theodore sleeping on and off throughout court proceedings as well as during meetings with the family, I knew that the court-appointed attorney system was sorely lacking in quality representation for the indigent, especially in capital cases,” she said.

Despite what lawyers later called ineffective representation and Reid’s drunken state at the time of his crimes, Reid was sentenced to death after being found guilty of the October 1996 capital murder of 83-year-old Annie V. Lester. Reid’s sister said he and Lester were friends and on the day of the murder he had headed to her house to show her a scrapbook and cards he had received for his 51st birthday.

Born in Charlottesville, Reid has suffered seizures since he was in a car crash at age 23, has an IQ of 79 and has had problems with alcohol, she said. Since he has been on death row, there have been dozens of executions and two suicides of death-row inmates, she said. Ida Reid has written Gov. Mark R. Warner pleading for clemency for her brother on the grounds that since the trial, Theodore was forced to surrender his Virginia law license for making false statements about his representation of Reid.

The Virginia State Bar ruled two years ago that Theodore, who has since left his Christiansburg practice, had to change his license status to disabled in light of making assertions to the bar that the bar found to be false or misleading.

Radford lawyer James C. Turk Jr. joined Ida Reid in expressing hope that Warner would grant Reid clemency and commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. “With all the questions surrounding whether he got fair and adequate representation from his trial lawyers, I certainly think that would be the fair thing to do,” said Turk, the son of a federal judge. “Mr. Reid said he was told all along that he couldn’t receive the death penalty and that he had no defense,” Turk said. “He had a very, very good chance of not being convicted of a capital crime.”

Turk, who was appointed to represent Reid on appeal, has filed a motion for clemency as well as a federal court motion challenging the state’s protocol for administration of the three drugs it uses in lethal injections.

A spokesman for Warner said the governor’s office is reviewing a clemency petition from Turk and other lawyers. Jack Payden-Travers, executive director of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, wrote Warner on Tuesday and urged him to intervene. “Only you have the power to redress the wrongs of this case and see that justice - not injustice - is carried out,” he wrote. “His court-appointed counsel erroneously urged him to enter an Alford plea to his indictment before they had even reviewed the evidence of Mr. Reid’s medical examinations.”

“He is caught in a judicial Catch-22,” Payden-Travers wrote Warner. “Reid, who is brain damaged and possesses an IQ of only 79, relied on the erroneous advice of his court-appointed attorneys. The courts have basically said that Reid’s conviction and death sentence should stand because the Virginia Supreme Court could have believed Mr. Theodore’s lies at the time they considered Reid’s ineffectiveness claim back in 2000.”

Turk said that Reid “simply did not receive competent representation in this case,” which affects fundamental fairness. “Because the quality of counsel is indispensable to ensuring a fair and reliable determination of guilt and the appropriate punishment, [the state] must provide a defendant with competent representation,” Turk said.

ProDeathPenalty.Com

James Edward Reid was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of 87-year-old Annie Lester. Annie's body was discovered on October 12, 1996. She had been brutally murdered; an autopsy revealed that she had suffered 22 scissor stab wounds. One of the wounds punctured a lung, another her heart. Annie had also been beaten about her head with a can of condensed milk, and a bone in her throat had been crushed by strangulation or being struck with a hard object. A trail of blood led from Annie's kitchen to her bedroom, where her body was found. Annie's clothing was in disarray, and the room had been ransacked. There was a wine bottle on the floor at the foot of the bed where he placed her frail body.

Substantial evidence connected Reid to the murder. Reid was acquainted with Annie Lester and had received an automobile ride to her house in the mid-morning of the day of the murder; on the way, he purchased a bottle of wine. Forensics later determined that Lester had been hit on the head in the kitchen and dragged to the bedroom, where she was stabbed with scissors and strangled with the cord of a heating pad. Late in the afternoon, Reid was seen walking from the area of Annie's lifelong home, drunk and covered in blood. Blood on his clothes matched Lester's DNA, his saliva was found on a cigarette butt left in her room, his handwriting was found on a card that said "I've gotta kill you," and Reid's bloody fingerprints were found on the telephone in Annie's bedroom according to the 4th Circuit's ruling in the case.

Reid said he did not remember the killing. Two mental health consultants testified during sentencing that a brain injury from a car accident in 1968 combined with Reid's alcohol abuse impaired his judgment.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

James Reid, VA

The state of Virginia is scheduled to execute James Reid, a black man, Sept. 9 for the 1996 murder of Annie Lester in Christianburg. According to his sister, Mr. Reid “suffered from serious health problems ranging from heart disease and lung cancer to epileptic seizures resulting from brain damage he sustained in a car wreck in 1968. All those factors triggered violent rages Reid could neither control nor remember.”

In the middle of a wine-induced black-out, Mr. Reid murdered Ms. Lester. Later he was found outside her house, covered in blood, looking for a ride home. Mr. Reid was not capable of pre-meditation, nor was he aware of what he had done; evidenced by his behavior after the crime.

Mr. Reid’s court-appointed attorneys were incompetent, following the familiar pattern of the majority of poor capital defendants. His attorneys persuaded him to waive his right to a jury and enter an “Alford plea,” which is a plea of no contest. An Alford plea makes no admission of guilt, but raises no defense. Once the prosecution had presented their case, and Mr. Reid’s attorneys realized that there was a lack of significant evidence, they tried to change his plea. This maneuver clearly indicates that they were ignorant of the complexities of the justice system, particularly in a capital murder case.

Affadavits filed by Mr. Reid and his sister state that his attorneys told them that “an Alford plea is ‘not a guilty plea’ and that it was the only way to keep Reid alive.”

His attorneys also failed to pursue an insanity defense or get a competency hearing. Mr. Reid has an IQ of 79, has been committed to state mental institutions several times, and suffers black-outs and dementia. These black-outs are particularly frequent when he has consumed alcohol, as he had the day of the murder. His brain damage from a car accident that left him in a coma for five days is well-documented, as is its contribution to his seizure disorder and alcoholism. His attorneys presented no defense, instead placing Mr. Reid’s fate in the hands of Judge Ray Grubbs rather than a jury.

Elizabeth Semel, director of the American Bar Association’s Death Penalty Representation Project argues that the quality of court-appointed lawyers depends on three things: adequate compensation, adequate resources, and high standards to ensure quality. ”If you don’t have these three things you have a recipe for, at best, occasionally adequate and frequently abysmal representation. And that’s what you have in Virginia.”

Mr. Reid is being executed for what should not even be considered a capital crime. This was not premeditated murder. While it was a horrific crime, Mr. Reid, brain-damaged and suffering alcohol-induced dementia, did not plan the crime or attempt to cover it up. His lawyers did not even attempt a defense, nor was he properly assessed for his ability to stand trial. Please write Gov. Mark Warner and urge him to commute the death sentence of Mr. Reid and declare a moratorium on executions

Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

In February 1998, James Edward Reid was sentenced to death for the capital murder, attempted rape, and attempted robbery of Annie V. Lester. Reid was 51 years old at the time of the crime. He has no recollection of the events that took place between the time he arrived at Lester's house and the next morning when he awoke with blood on his clothes. Because overwhelming circumstantial evidence linked him to the crime, Reid entered a guilty plea. Evidence connecting him to the crime included fingerprint and DNA matches and handwriting samples, all found either at the scene or on Reid's bloody clothes. His attorneys hoped to avoid a death sentence by showing that Reid blacked out during the crime.

During the sentencing phase of the trial, Reid's attorneys presented uncontradicted mitigating evidence, including evidence of three impairments which provided an explanation, if not an excuse, for Reid's actions. First, Reid's attorneys showed that he suffered brain damage stemming from head injuries sustained during a car accident that left him in a coma for five days. As a result of the accident, the part of Reid's brain that affects personality and the ability to control impulses was damaged. Second, his attorneys showed that the head injuries led to the development of a seizure disorder. Third, Reid's attorneys showed that Reid was an alcoholic and binge drinker. Three medical experts discussed these impairments and explained their effect on Reid's ability to form the requisite intent necessary to make him eligible for the death penalty. The experts testified to Reid's tendency to blackout when intoxicated and his inability to perform intentional acts during the blackout periods. In addition, Reid's family members and friends testified to the nature and extent of Reid's impairments and blackouts. Reid's attorneys argued that the combination of Reid's health problems, mixed with alcohol, triggered blackout periods during which Reid became a different person. However, when Reid was sober, he was a calm, kind, and conscientious person.

In his direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, Reid claimed that the trial court had failed to properly consider uncontradicted evidence, including evidence which showed no planning, premeditation, or memory of the crime. Reid argued that this evidence refuted the vileness factor, the aggravating factor relied upon by the trial judge in sentencing Reid to death. The Supreme Court of Virginia concluded that the trial court had properly considered Reid's mitigating evidence. The court also found that Reid's death sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

How Reid could have been sentenced to death despite the compelling and uncontradicted medical evidence, may be explained by the abysmal quality of his legal counsel. It was on the advice of his counsel, Peter Theodore and Robby Jenkins, that Reid pled guilty to capital murder, and was subsequently sentenced to death by Honorable Judge Ray Grubbs in January 1998. In fact, Reid’s lawyers advised him to plead guilty without investigating whether he had a viable defense and while laboring under a misunderstanding of Virginia law regarding pleas. Reid’s attorneys advised him to plead guilty before they had obtained and considered reports from the medical experts who examined Reid and the State’s evidence. After reviewing the evidence and Reid’s history, all experts concluded that due to Reid’s severe brain injury from a car accident years earlier, and his extreme intoxication at the time of the offense, Reid would have been unable to premeditate and form the intent necessary to sustain a charge of first degree murder.

In addition, at the time Reid’s attorneys advised him they erroneously believed that the trial court could reduce the charge after the plea, and in fact asked the court to do so in this case. As the federal district court judge who presided over the habeas proceedings noted, Virginia law had not permitted a trial court to reduce charges after a plea for over 20 years. Reid’s attorneys simply did not know the law.

Reid’s lead counsel, Pete Theodore, has since been suspended from practice for lying to the court in this case. During state and federal habeas proceedings, the courts nevertheless upheld Reid’s guilty plea and death sentence relying upon an affidavit Theodore prepared, claiming that he told Reid to plead guilty because:

Due to Theodore’s extensive trial experience, including capital jury trial experience, Theodore believed that a jury in Montgomery County would not be receptive to any mental health evidence presented. According to Theodore, numerous unnamed experienced Virginia attorneys had advised him that he must avoid a jury at all costs and that he must plead Reid guilty. In fact, these representations are lies. Theodore flat-out falsified both his trial experience and capital trial experience. For example, he claimed to have handled a capital jury trial that never occurred. He claimed to have tried 12-15 murder cases but has been unable to identify a single one. Had he been truthful, Theodore never would have been qualified for appointment to this case – certainly not as lead counsel. Theodore also lied when he claimed that all the lawyers he consulted with about this case told him he must plea Reid guilty. Theodore has never identified a single lawyer who provided this advice. In fact at least three lawyers gave him the opposite advice.

In October of 2002, after a hearing, the Virginia Disciplinary Board forced Theodore to surrender his law license for making materially false representations to the Virginia Supreme Court and the federal court regarding his experience and the advice he received in this case. The Board forced Theodore to change his status to “disabled” and ruled that Theodore could not petition for reinstatement unless and until a medical doctor and a psychiatrist examine Theodore and certify that he is competent to practice law. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has nevertheless held that because the Virginia Supreme Court could have believed Theodore’s lies at the time they considered Reid’s ineffectiveness claim back in 2000, Reid’s conviction and death sentence should stand.

James Edward Reid was scheduled for execution on December 18, 2003. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Reid a stay of execution on December 17, 2003 following an Amicus Brief filed on his behalf noting the Alabama case (Nelson v Campbell) pending in the Supreme Court that considers whether lethal injection is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Virginia Attorney General Kilgore appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court. The court denied Kilgore's appeal, upholding the stay on Reid's execution. On August 11, 2004 the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision lifted the stay of execution. No reasons were given. However, on August 2nd, the Federal Court of Appeals in Richmond had ruled that Reid had raised legitimate claims that the particular manner in which the VA Department of Corrections (DOC) plans to execute him is prohibited by the Constitution. Thus establishing Reid’s right to file a Civil Rights suit (§1983).

Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, who also represents the DOC, did not object to the Court of Appeals about the legitimacy of Reid’s claims. Instead, he went to the county circuit court and insisted that an execution date be set so soon it may prevent the federal court from resolving Reid’s challenge. Montgomery Circuit Court Judge Ray E. Grubbs has ordered that James Edward Reid be executed at the Greensville Correctional Center on Sept. 9th. The order sets the stage for a tense stand-off between the state and federal courts over Reid’s execution.

Inmate: James Reid
DOB: 10-10-45
Race: B
County of Conviction: Montgomery County
Offense: Murder
DOC#: 253963
Receipt: 02-27-98

Virginians United Against Crime

Victim: Annie Lester
Murderer: James Reid
Date and Location of Murders: October 12, 1996, Montgomery County, VA
Aggravating Factor: Attempted Sexual Assault, Attempted Robbery
Execution Date: September 9, 2004

At his trial, James Reid elected to offer an unusual Alford plea [whereby he did not admit guilt, but acknowledged that the commonwealth had enough evidence to convict him] for the October 12, 1996 murder, attempted rape and attempted robbery of 87 year old Annie Lester at her Christiansburg home.

She had been brutally murdered; an autopsy revealed that Lester had suffered 22 stab wounds. Lester had also been beaten about her head with a blunt instrument, and a bone in her throat had been crushed by strangulation or being struck with a hard object. A trail of blood led from Lester's kitchen to her bedroom, where her body was found. Lester's clothing was in disarray, and the room had been ransacked. A bottle of wine was found on the floor at the foot of the bed.

Substantial evidence connected Reid to the murder. Reid was acquainted with Lester and had received an automobile ride to her house in the mid-morning of the day of the murder; on the way, he purchased a bottle of wine. Late in the afternoon, Reid was observed walking from the direction of Lester's house, drunk and covered in blood. The blood on Reid's clothing was later determined to be consistent with Lester's DNA. Reid's fingerprints were found in blood on the telephone in Lester's bedroom, his saliva was found on a cigarette butt left in the room, and his handwriting was found on pieces of paper in the house.

Reid’s Alford plea did not spare him, as Montgomery County Judge Ray Grubbs sentenced him to death for the crimes in February, 1998.

Reid v. Commonwealth, 506 S.E.2d 787 (Va. 1998) (Direct Appeal).

Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Ray W. Grubbs, J., of capital murder, attempted rape, and attempted robbery. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Kinser, J., held that: (1) mitigating evidence did not, as a matter of law, negate finding of "vileness," in support of imposition of death penalty, and (2) death sentence was not excessive or disproportionate to sentences generally imposed for comparable capital murders. Affirmed.

KINSER, Justice.
On December 3, 1997, James Edward Reid pled guilty to three charges: (1) capital murder of Annie V. Lester during the commission of attempted rape and/or attempted robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-31; (2) attempted rape in violation of Code § 18.2-67.5; and (3) attempted robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-58 [FN1] After accepting the pleas and hearing evidence about the commission of the offenses, the trial court found Reid guilty as charged.

FN1. Reid entered the guilty pleas pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

During the subsequent sentencing proceedings, the trial court heard evidence from both sides and received a pre-sentence report. [FN2] The trial court then sentenced Reid to death for the capital murder conviction and imposed two ten-year sentences for the attempted rape and attempted robbery convictions. In imposing the death penalty pursuant to Code §§ 19.2-264.2 and - 264.4(C), the trial court found that Reid's conduct in committing capital murder was "outrageously vile, horrible and inhuman in that it involved such aggravated battery to the victim, that is ... qualitatively and quantitatively ... more culpable than the minimum necessary to accomplish an act of murder."

FN2. The trial court conducted the first part of the penalty phase hearing on December 3, 1997, immediately after finding Reid guilty. The court reconvened the hearing on February 20, 1998.

On appeal, Reid contends that the trial court disregarded certain mitigating evidence and therefore erred in imposing the death penalty. [FN3] Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, we find no error in the judgment of the trial court. Further, upon conducting our review pursuant to Code § 17-110.1(C), we conclude that the sentence of death in this case was not imposed "under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor" and is not excessive or disproportionate. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FN3. Reid is before this Court for automatic review of his death sentence under Code § 17-110.1. Code § 17-110.1 was repealed and replaced by § 17.1-313, effective October 1, 1998. Because the parties briefed and argued this case under the provisions of § 17-110.1, and because the relevant provisions remain unchanged in § 17.1-313, we will cite to § 17-110.1 in this opinion.

FACTS

"Since the Commonwealth prevailed in the trial court, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth." Graham v. Commonwealth, 250 Va. 79, 81, 459 S.E.2d 97, 98.

In the afternoon on October 12, 1996, Lester's cousin went to Lester's house, and after finding the front screen door open, entered the house, discovered Lester's body on the floor at the end of a bed, and observed debris all over the bedroom floor. The cousin left and went to a relative's house to call for emergency help, but then returned to Lester's home and was there when the police arrived.

Before disturbing the crime scene, the police made a video recording of the inside of Lester's house. The tape was admitted into evidence, and Officer Tommy Lawson narrated what was being seen as the trial court watched it. Blood was present throughout Lester's home on such items as the kitchen floor, the back door and back door trim, the refrigerator, a can of milk, a wig lying on the kitchen floor, the door leading from the kitchen into a television room, scissors lying on a chair in the television room, the bed and headboard in the bedroom where Lester's body was found, the cord of an electric heating pad that was under Lester's head, and the seat of a chair beside her body. Several items of Lester's clothing had blood on them, including a sweater, a slip, and a bra that was still fastened in the back but that "[was] broken in some fashion in the front." The bedroom was in complete disarray with dresser drawers on the floor and bed and clothing strewn all around. A wine bottle was sitting on the floor at the foot of the bed.

William Massello, the Assistant Chief Medical Examiner for Western Virginia, performed an autopsy on Lester. He described Lester as an elderly, slender, and "somewhat emaciated" female. During the autopsy, Massello observed 14 stab wounds to the front of Lester's neck and three stab wounds to her chin, one of which went into the jugular vein on the left side of her neck. There were also five stab wounds to the front of Lester's chest. Massello testified that several of these wounds went through the chest wall into Lester's left lung and into her heart. In Massello's opinion, the most rapidly lethal wounds were four of the stab wounds to the chest, which caused bleeding into the chest cavity and, in turn, caused Lester to die rapidly. According to Massello, all the stab wounds had a Z-shaped or H-shaped configuration consistent with injuries caused by two blades superimposed on one another or scissors blades.

In addition to the stab wounds, Massello observed multiple lacerations and bruises on Lester's body. Some of these injuries on the top of Lester's head and face were caused either by Lester's head being struck with a blunt instrument, or by her head striking another object such as a door or wall. Lester had lacerations on the right and left sides of her face and linear crush marks on the right side of her face. [FN4] Finally, Lester sustained a fracture of the hyoid bone, [FN5] resulting either from the force of strangulation or from being struck in that area with an object.

FN4. Massello opined that the can of milk found in Lester's kitchen was the kind of instrument that could have caused some of the injuries to Lester's head. FN5. Hyoid bone is defined as "a bone or complex of bones situated at the base of the tongue and developed from the second and third visceral arches, supporting the tongue and its muscles...." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1111 (1993).

The evidence linking Reid to the commission of these crimes consists, in part, of testimony from witnesses who saw Reid at or in the vicinity of Lester's house on the day of her murder. Around 10:30 a.m. on October 12, Reid secured a ride to Lester's house with Haywood Alexander and Robert Smith. Reid's stated purpose for going to Lester's house was to do some work there. [FN6] En route to Lester's home, Reid asked Alexander and Smith to stop at a store where Reid purchased a bottle of wine. They then proceeded to Lester's house, and upon arriving there, Reid exited the vehicle and *566 walked around to the back of the house with his bottle of wine. Alexander and Smith then left. FN6. Reid apparently had performed odd jobs for Lester on previous occasions and enjoyed discussing the Bible with her.

Around 4:30 p.m. on that same day, George Eanes, who worked at Eanes Body Shop located across the street from Lester's house, observed Reid walking across the street from the direction of Lester's house. Reid approached Eanes and asked for a ride. Eanes explained to Reid that he was working on his vehicle and could not give him a ride at that time. When asked at the trial to describe Reid's appearance, Eanes stated that "[Reid] had a lot of blood on him and he was staggering." [FN7] After seeing the blood on Reid's clothing, Eanes asked Reid how he got in that condition. According to Eanes, Reid responded by referring to a former lover and stating that "he did it for love." FN7. Reid had blood on his sleeve, shoes, pants, and front of his coat.

George W. Eanes, father of George Eanes, also saw Reid at the body shop and confirmed that Reid appeared to have been in a fight because he had blood all over him. Eanes' father stated that Reid smelled like a "brewery" but that he, nevertheless, agreed to give Reid a ride home. During that drive, Reid explained to Eanes' father that some person had given him some drugs and that they had gotten into an argument or fight.

The results of forensic tests, fingerprint analyses, and handwriting comparisons also place Reid at Lester's house on the day in question. Forensic tests established that Reid's DNA matched a stain abstracted from a cigarette butt found in Lester's home. A blood stain abstracted from the same cigarette butt was consistent with the DNA profile of Lester and Reid. In addition, the forensic scientist who conducted these tests testified that Lester's DNA was consistent with blood recovered from Reid's jacket. Finally, two of Reid's fingerprints were identified in blood found on the handset of a rotary telephone in Lester's bedroom, and Reid's handwriting was found on some papers recovered in Lester's house.

The Commonwealth presented all the foregoing evidence during the guilt phase of Reid's trial but also relied upon it during the sentencing phase. In addition, the Commonwealth presented testimony from Robert D. O'Neal, a probation officer. O'Neal interviewed Reid while preparing the pre-sentence report. During that interview, Reid stated to O'Neal that he did not remember anything about the incident. According to O'Neal, Reid believes that he "blacked out" because he remembers being at Lester's house prior to the offense but does not recall anything that transpired from that point until he awoke at home and found blood on his clothing.

In mitigation, Reid presented evidence from three medical experts: Dr. Pogos H. Voskanian, a forensic psychiatrist; Dr. Stephen Herrick, a forensic psychologist; and Dr. Randy Thomas, a clinical psychologist. **791 Each of these witnesses discussed Reid's medical and psychiatric conditions that, in their opinion, affect Reid's ability to form the intent to commit a crime and that have caused Reid to experience "blackout" periods during which he is basically out of control and engages in disorganized, aggressive behavior toward an unlikely target.

Three factors were significant to these medical experts in formulating their respective opinions. First, Reid suffered a major head trauma as a result of an automobile accident in 1968 and was in a coma for at least five days. The damaged area of Reid's brain was the left temporal lobe and part of the frontal lobe, which affects an individual's personality and ability to control impulses. Thus, Reid does not resist acting on his impulses. Second, Reid developed a seizure disorder shortly after the head injury. According to Dr. Voskanian, Reid's head trauma triggered the seizure disorder. Because Reid has been noncompliant with taking his medication to control the seizures, he has experienced repeated seizures that have, in turn, progressively caused more damage to his brain. Finally, Reid has a family history of alcoholism, has abused alcohol since age 15, and has had numerous admissions to both psychiatric hospitals and alcohol abuse rehabilitation centers. Because of Reid's brain injury, he is more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol and likely to become intoxicated more quickly than another person. In addition, Reid is a binge drinker, meaning that he has not built up a tolerance for the effects of alcohol.

Dr. Voskanian opined that Reid experiences "blackout" episodes when he is intoxicated. During these episodes, Reid may not remember what he did five minutes ago but would retain his memory for established information such as his name and residence. Dr. Voskanian further opined that Reid was in "an impaired state of consciousness" when he left Lester's house because Reid said things that could not be understood and did nothing to conceal his bloody clothing. In summary, Dr. Voskanian stated that Reid's head trauma, seizure disorder, long history of drinking, and serious medical conditions, [FN8] could " have a significant impact on Mr. Reid's ability to think clearly, or perform intentional acts." Dr. Voskanian also opined that these conditions could cause violent outbursts that Reid would not remember if he were intoxicated. However, all three medical experts believed that Reid would not be susceptible to these violent outbursts if he were in a structured setting where he would not have access to alcohol.

FN8. Reid underwent cardiac by-pass surgery. Several years after the surgery, Reid again had chest pains and suffered a myocardial infarction. Reid has also been diagnosed with lung cancer.

Some of Reid's family members also testified that Reid is a different person when he is intoxicated. His ex-wife, sister, and mother described Reid as a kind and considerate person when he is sober, but acknowledged that Reid has violent episodes during periods of intoxication. They also confirmed that Reid cannot remember what he does when he is intoxicated. For example, his ex-wife testified that Reid once stabbed her when he was intoxicated but that he had no recollection of the incident the next morning. Under Code § 19.2-264.4(B) , facts in mitigation that a trial court can consider in deciding whether to impose a sentence of death or life imprisonment may include the following: (ii) the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, ... [and] (iv) at the time of the commission of the capital felony, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired.

On appeal, Reid argues that the trial court erred by not considering evidence establishing these mitigating factors. Specifically, Reid contends that the court failed to address evidence showing Reid's lack of planning or premeditation, lack of memory of the incident, and behavior subsequent to the commission of the crimes. Reid also asserts that the trial court failed to consider the uncontradicted medical testimony regarding his medical and psychiatric impairments. According to Reid, this evidence demonstrates not only that he was unaware of what he was doing at Lester's home on the day in question but also that he cannot now remember anything about the incident. Thus, Reid argues that his conduct in committing the murder of Lester cannot be deemed "vile" and that the trial court, therefore, erred by imposing a sentence of death based on the "vileness" factor. Reid's arguments can be distilled into a single complaint that the trial court must not have considered his mitigating evidence since the court imposed the death penalty. Reid asserts that, since his evidence was uncontradicted and is not inherently improbable or inconsistent, it had to be accepted as true. Once that evidence was accepted as true, Reid contends that it negated the trial court's finding of "vileness." In other words, Reid asserts that the trial court should have given controlling weight to his mitigating evidence. We do not agree.

Following a 15-minute recess after the close of the evidence in the penalty phase, the trial court announced its sentencing decision and, in doing so, stated, "The Court has the duty to consider all such evidence, both favorable to you and unfavorable presented relative to this hearing in ascertaining whether the crime of which you have been convicted is so atrocious that the death sentence should be imposed." Thus, we conclude that the trial court did, in fact, consider Reid's mitigating evidence. We have addressed this type of complaint on at least two previous occasions. First, in Correll v. Commonwealth, 232 Va. 454, 468, 352 S.E.2d 352, 360, the defendant argued, as does Reid, that the mitigating evidence was of such weight that the court could not have considered it and still sentenced him to death. The mitigating evidence in that case established that Correll had a troubled childhood and unfortunate home situation. Taking the view that such evidence tended to explain, but did not excuse, Correll's commission of the capital murder, we concluded that "it did not require as a matter of law that the death penalty not be imposed." Id. We further stated that the fact-finder has a duty to consider mitigating evidence along with other evidence in determining the appropriate sentence but that the fact-finder is "not required to give controlling effect to the mitigating evidence." Id. at 468-469, 352 S.E.2d at 360.

Similarly, in Murphy v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 136, 142, 431 S.E.2d 48, 52, we addressed the defendant's argument that the trial court had failed to consider fully the evidence in mitigation of the imposition of the death penalty. As in the present case, the trial court in Murphy stated on the record that it had considered all the evidence. Relying on our decision in Correll, we concluded that the trial court had "maturely, carefully, and calmly deliberated the full range of issues." Id. the evidence upon which Reid relies is mitigating in that it shows "extenuating circumstances tending to explain, but not excuse, his commission of the crime." The trial court was not, however, required to give controlling weight to the mitigating evidence. Id. at 469, 352 S.E.2d at 360.

Moreover, Reid's mitigating evidence does not, as a matter of law, negate the trial court's finding of "vileness." Reid stabbed Lester 22 times and inflicted other wounds on her head, face, hyoid bone, and arms. According to the medical examiner, four of the five stab wounds to Lester's chest were fatal. From the presence of blood throughout Lester's house, it can be inferred that Reid carried or dragged her body from the kitchen into the bedroom. At some point, he also removed her clothes and ransacked her bedroom.

Reid's medical and psychiatric impairments, his periods of "blackout," his lack of memory regarding the acts he committed at Lester's home, and his behavior subsequent to the incident when he made no attempt to hide either his presence at Lester's home or his blood-covered clothing do not change the fact that the commission of this crime was "outrageously ... vile, horrible or inhuman, in that it involved ... aggravated battery" to Lester. Code §§ 19.2-264.2 and -264.4(C). It was "qualitatively and quantitatively ... more culpable than the minimum necessary to accomplish an act of murder." Smith v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 455, 478, 248 S.E.2d 135,, cert. denied, 441 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 2419, 60 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1979). We have never held that the "vileness" factor under Code §§ 19.2- 264.2 and -264.4(C) includes a requirement that a defendant's mental state embrace the intent to commit an "outrageously or wantonly vile" murder, and we decline to do so now. "The number or nature of the batteries inflicted upon the victim is the essence of the test whether the defendant's conduct 'was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved ... an aggravated battery.' " Boggs v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 501, 521, 331 S.E.2d 407, 421 (1985).

PREJUDICE AND PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW OF DEATH SENTENCE

Pursuant to Code § 17-110.1(C)(1), we are required to determine whether the death sentence in this case was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors. Upon careful examination of the record, we find no evidence that any such factor was present or influenced the trial court's sentencing decision. Indeed, Reid has not asserted that the imposition of the death penalty in this case was the result of passion or prejudice.

We must also determine whether the sentence of death in this case is "excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases." Code § 17-110.1(C)(2). In conducting this review, we have inspected the records of all capital cases presented to this Court including those cases in which the trial court imposed a life sentence instead of the death penalty. In complying with the directive in Code § 17-110.1(C)(2) to compare "similar" cases, we have given particular attention to those cases in which the underlying felony predicates and the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes were the same as those in this case. We have also focused on cases in which the death penalty was imposed solely on the basis of the "vileness" factor. However, our proportionality review does not require that a given capital murder case "equal in horror the worst possible scenario yet encountered." Turner v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 543, 556, 364 S.E.2d 483, 490. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Reid's sentence of death is not excessive or disproportionate to sentences generally imposed in this Commonwealth for capital murders comparable to Reid's murder of Lester.

As already stated, Reid inflicted 22 stab wounds upon the victim, four of which were lethal wounds to Lester's chest, in addition to multiple other injuries. Reid committed these acts while carrying or dragging Lester's body through her house and removing her clothing. For these reasons, we find no error in the imposition of the sentence of death, nor do we perceive any reason to commute the death sentence. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed.

Reid v. True, 349 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. Va. 2004) (Habeas).

Defendant, who was convicted, pursuant to his Alford plea, of murdering 80- year-old woman and attempting to rape and rob her, filed petition for federal habeas relief. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Samuel G. Wilson, Chief Judge, 2002 WL 31107536, entered order denying petition, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wilkins, Chief Judge, held that: (1) Virginia postconviction relief court's determination that counsel who represented capital murder defendant were not ineffective in allegedly failing to adequately investigate and to advise defendant on voluntary intoxication or insanity defense was not unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, and did not warrant federal habeas relief; (2) even assuming that state had raised procedural rule in previous case, in unsuccessful attempt to bar another defendant from raising constitutional claim not asserted on direct appeal, single instance in which state courts had failed to apply this procedural bar was insufficient to establish inadequacy of rule, as independent basis on which state court could rely to decline to address petitioner's claim; and (3) Virginia postconviction relief court's finding that trial court had considered mitigating evidence presented by capital murder defendant was not unreasonable, and prevented grant of federal habeas relief on that basis. Affirmed.

WILKINS, Chief Judge:
James Edward Reid appeals a district court order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2003), in which he challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of 80- year-old Annie Lester. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the rejection of Reid's claims by the district court. Reid named Page True, Warden of Sussex I state prison, as Respondent. We refer to Respondent as "the State."

Lester's body was discovered on October 12, 1996. She had been brutally murdered; an autopsy revealed that Lester had suffered 22 stab wounds. Lester had also been beaten about her head with a blunt instrument, and a bone in her throat had been crushed by strangulation or being struck with a hard object. A trail of blood led from Lester's kitchen to her bedroom, where her body was found. Lester's clothing was in disarray, and the room had been ransacked. A bottle of wine was found on the floor at the foot of the bed.

Substantial evidence connected Reid to the murder. Reid was acquainted with Lester and had received an automobile ride to her house in the mid-morning of the day of the murder; on the way, he purchased a bottle of wine. Late in the afternoon, Reid was observed walking from the direction of Lester's house, drunk and covered in blood. The blood on Reid's clothing was later determined to be consistent with Lester's DNA. Reid's fingerprints were found in blood on the telephone in Lester's bedroom, his saliva was found on a cigarette butt left in the room, and his handwriting was found on pieces of paper in the house. Reid, who claimed to have no memory of Lester's murder, subsequently entered an Alford plea to one count each of capital murder, attempted rape, and attempted robbery. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (holding that a defendant may plead guilty "even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime"). After a sentencing hearing, the trial judge imposed the death penalty, finding that the murder satisfied the vileness predicate of Virginia law. See Va.Code Ann. § 19.2-264.2 (Michie 2000) (permitting imposition of the death penalty if the court determines that the defendant's conduct in committing the murder "was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victim").

On direct appeal, Reid claimed that the trial court failed to consider uncontradicted mitigating evidence in reaching its sentencing determination. The Virginia Supreme Court characterized this argument as a "complaint that the trial court must not have considered [Reid's] mitigating evidence since the court imposed the death penalty" and rejected it, concluding that "the trial court did, in fact, consider Reid's mitigating evidence." Reid v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 561, 506 S.E.2d 787, 792 (1998). The United States Supreme Court thereafter denied Reid's petition for a writ of certiorari. See Reid v. Virginia, 528 U.S. 833, 120 S.Ct. 91, 145 L.Ed.2d 77 (1999).

Reid subsequently sought habeas relief in the Virginia Supreme Court, contending, as is relevant here, that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that counsel were constitutionally ineffective for advising him to enter an Alford plea. The Virginia Supreme Court denied relief, ruling that the first claim was defaulted and that the second was without merit. Reid filed this federal habeas petition on November 6, 2000, claiming that counsel were constitutionally deficient for advising him to enter an Alford plea, that his Alford plea was not knowing and voluntary, and that the trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence. The district court denied Reid's motions for discovery and to expand the record but conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine "what Reid's trial counsel told him about the effect of his Alford pleas" and "Reid's understanding about the effect of his Alford pleas." J.A. 379. Following the hearing, the district court denied the petition, concluding that Reid's claims regarding counsel's ineffectiveness and the voluntariness of his plea were without merit and that Reid's claim regarding consideration of mitigating evidence by the trial court was procedurally defaulted.

* * * *

The trial court imposed sentence in an extemporaneous oral ruling. Pinpoint accuracy in phrasing is not a hallmark of such rulings, and should not be expected. There can be no question that the court was aware of a duty to consider evidence favorable to Reid; indeed, the mitigating circumstances were the subject of lengthy argument by Reid's counsel at two penalty-phase hearings. In view of these circumstances, we cannot say that the Virginia Supreme Court made an unreasonable determination in finding that the trial court did consider the mitigating evidence proffered by Reid. Therefore, we must deny relief. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(2).

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Reid's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We therefore affirm. AFFIRMED