## Facts

- Miles Sterling Bench, a 21-year-old employee at a convenience store in Velma, Oklahoma, encountered 16-year-old customer Braylee Henry on June 6, 2012.
- While Henry was inside the store getting a drink and candy, Bench attacked her near the fountain area, forced her to the ground, strangled her, and dragged her into a stockroom.
- In the stockroom, Henry fought back; Bench continued the assault by repeatedly striking her, dragging her so her head hit the floor, and stomping her head, neck, and upper back.
- Medical evidence attributed death to blunt force trauma to the head and neck and asphyxiation involving blood in the lungs, supporting that Henry experienced prolonged physical abuse.
- After the killing, Bench attempted concealment by placing Henry’s body in a shopping cart, covering it with boxes, moving it to Henry’s car, and placing it in the back seat.
- Bench fled in Henry’s car, traveling away from Oklahoma toward California.
- A jury convicted Bench of first-degree murder and, at capital sentencing, found two aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and (2) Bench posed a continuing threat to society.
- During the penalty phase, the defense presented mitigation including mental-health evidence and neuroimaging indicating anomalies in multiple brain areas, but counsel did not pursue additional specialist development of that imaging.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient and constitutionally adequate to support the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance as narrowed to torture or serious physical abuse with conscious suffering.
2. Whether the evidence and instructions were sufficient to support the “continuing threat to society” aggravating circumstance.
3. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at capital sentencing by inadequately investigating and presenting neuroimaging-based mitigation, under Strickland v. Washington.
4. Whether assorted trial and sentencing rulings (including evidentiary rulings, voir dire matters, and jury instructions) required reversal or sentence relief.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and the death sentence.
- The court held the evidence supported the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator because the attack involved prolonged, brutal physical abuse and conscious suffering.
- The court held the evidence supported the “continuing threat” aggravator, relying in part on the extreme, unprovoked violence of the crime and related conduct.
- The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim, finding no deficient performance and no reasonable probability of a different sentencing outcome from additional neuroimaging investigation or presentation.
- The court found no reversible error in the remaining claims and concluded the proceedings were fair under governing law.

## Legal Principles

- A death sentence requires the State to prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator is constitutionally applied when limited to murders involving torture or serious physical abuse, including evidence of the victim’s conscious physical suffering or extreme mental cruelty.
- The “continuing threat to society” aggravator is supported when evidence shows a probability the defendant will commit future violent acts; the nature and callousness of the murder may support this finding when it reflects extreme violence or disregard for human life.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel is evaluated under Strickland: the defendant must show (1) objectively deficient performance and (2) prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that the result would have been different absent the errors.
- Strategic decisions concerning investigation scope and expert presentation receive substantial deference; a sentencing prejudice showing requires more than speculative mitigation value when aggravation evidence is overwhelming.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Bench’s capital conviction and death sentence, holding that the record supported both aggravating circumstances and that counsel’s limited development and use of neuroimaging mitigation did not satisfy Strickland’s deficiency or prejudice requirements.


Bench v. State, 431 P.3d 929 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018)