Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

with an individual who has already engaged in an act
which he knows is wrong and trying both to avoid
detection and trying to cover up for his crime. (page
1189) When questioned about the Defendant's purpose in
binding and gagging Ms. Berger and stuffing her in the
trunk of the car, Dr. Krop testified that "I presume
the purpose was to avoid detection and to get away
from the scene as quickly as he could without being
detected." (page 1176). With regard to the drive to
Georgia, Dr. Krop testified, "Well, he's driving. He's
trying obviously - again, by this point he knows he's
done something and he's trying to avoid detection."
(page 1177).
Defendant argues that his frontal lobe abnormality
supports this mitigating circumstance. The Court's
above analysis of mitigating factor (1) is equally
applicable here.
The Court finds that this mitigating factor does not
exist.
(R1015-1021).
There is, of course, no requirement that the sentencing
court credit mitigation testimony, regardless of whether it is
factual testimony or expert opinion. Walls v. State, 641 So. 2d
381 (Fla. 1994). In fact, a trial court is not bound to accept
opinion testimony even when that testimony is uncontroverted, a
situation that does not exist here. While Drs. Wu, Wood, and
Krop testified to various matters, that testimony was challenged
by the testimony of Dr. Mayberg, who succinctly identified
multiple deficiencies in the theory and methodology upon which
Hoskins’ experts relied. In this case, as the sentencing court
found, the facts do not support the claimed mental mitigation.
Because that is so, it was properly given little weight.
39