In "Beets v. State," the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that murder for remuneration occurs when the murder occurs in order to receive a benefit or financial settlement paid upon the death of the victim, such as proceeds of insurance and retirement benefits. This note examines the court decision in light of prior Texas case law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions defining aggravating circumstances. The background of the Texas Capital Homicide Statute is examined followed by a discussion of the "Beets" case. Analysis of legislative intent toward the statute defining murder for remuneration is conducted with the conclusion that the only individuals the statute was intended to cover were hired killers and their employers. The "Beets" decision is seen as an overly broad interpretation of the statute. U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as "Gregg v. Georgia" and "Godfrey v. Georgia" are included in the analysis to illustrate the strict guidelines under which a State statute can be regarded as constitutionally defining an aggravating circumstance. The "Beets" case is then reconsidered in light of the conducted legal analysis with the conclusion that the "Beets" decision runs counter to constitutional principles for aggravating circumstances. 92 footnotes.