Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the State for a peremptory challenge which the defense alleged was “racially motivated.” The conclusion by the trial court, which turns primarily on the credibility of the reasons given, is not clearly erroneous. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing the defense to exhibit a photograph of the deceased victim to the jury during voir dire. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not giving a special jury instruction immediately prior to the testimony of the single victim impact witness. The jury was properly instructed at the close of the case, and Hoskins submitted no authority to the trial court which supported the giving of the instruction at some other time. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give Hoskins’ “special requested jury instructions.” This Court has repeatedly held that the standard jury instructions are adequate. The trial court followed Florida law in sentencing Hoskins to death. Competent substantial evidence exists to support the aggravating circumstances found by the sentencing court, and that Court did not abuse its discretion in the assignment of weight to the various mitigation offered by Hoskins. The aggravating factors were properly found, and Hoskins’ death sentence is proportional. 22
Hoskins’ claim that his death sentence is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona fails because his death sentence is supported by his convictions for robbery, sexual battery and kidnapping, which form the basis for the during the course of a felony aggravator. Moreover, the claim that the Florida sentencing scheme violates Ring has been repeatedly rejected by this Court. The trial court erroneously overruled the State’s Frye objection to the admission of testimony concerning the PET scan. While the scan itself was apparently administered correctly, the comparison of Hoskins’ scan to certain “normals” was not conducted properly, but was, instead, done in a manner that does not meet with general scientific acceptance. Testimony about the scan should not have been admitted. Likewise, the trial court improperly allowed hearsay testimony under the “learned treatise” exception. Florida law is long-settled that a learned treatise cannot be used as substantive evidence, and the trial court erred in ruling to the contrary. 23
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOH
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alston v
Page 5 and 6: Kearse v. State, 770 So. 2d 1119 (F
Page 7 and 8: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hoskins was c
Page 9 and 10: analysis also confirmed the presenc
Page 11 and 12: Berger was found buried in a shallo
Page 13 and 14: ...” She was alive when she was h
Page 15 and 16: significant period of time after su
Page 17 and 18: In addition, he studies development
Page 19 and 20: Hoskins’ PET scan was conducted i
Page 21 and 22: Hoskins did not kill Berger “beca
Page 23 and 24: Bob Sarver (Undersheriff) was recal
Page 25 and 26: subject’s scan to the “normals
Page 27: the starting point for scaling purp
Page 31 and 32: Just the total number of them cause
Page 33 and 34: during voir dire of the jury panel.
Page 35 and 36: this Court approved the following j
Page 37 and 38: Hoskins requested modified jury ins
Page 39 and 40: are in the best position to assess
Page 41 and 42: INFLUENCE OF EXTREME MENTAL OR EMOT
Page 43 and 44: chip on his shoulder. How is the ch
Page 45 and 46: with an individual who has already
Page 47 and 48: Florida law supports the applicatio
Page 49 and 50: Weiss who did a neurological evalua
Page 51 and 52: psychiatry, neurology, neuropsychia
Page 53 and 54: developing his “normal” group w
Page 55 and 56: the physical administration of the
Page 57 and 58: 35 1093, 1177). However, there is n
Page 59: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CER

Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?