Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

0
Because there was ample evidence of non-statutory mitigation upn which
the jury could haw based its life recmmmdation, wen the existence of numerous
aggravating circumstances does not ccgnpel a death sentalce. See Welty v. State -1
402 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1981); Gi1vi.n v. - State, 418 So. 2d 996 (Fla, 1982).
-
The guilty verdict as b aunt IT in no way permits the assumption that the
jury believed Billy long. As in Malloy, - supra, the jury could very well have
believed the defendant's sbry and still convicted !xh of first degree murder.
The jury verdict form den-onstrates that the jury exercised a reasoned judgement:
there were I_ sufficient aggravating circumstances to justify death, but the
mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circunstances. (R. 435).
Over-rUZing the jury life recamendation was error; the r d y is to
r m d with directions to mse a sentence of life imprisomt.
The death sentence in this CaSe was imposed without carpelling reason,
over a life recmmxdation that was firmly supprted both in fact and in law.
The r&y required, hmever, is not sirtiply vacating the sentence.
defendant was prevented fm fully and fairly presenting his defense by jury
instructions that effectively direct4 a verdict on the ultimate issues of fact.
The "over kill" tactics of the prosecution sought a verdict of passion and
emtion.
The integrity of our fact-finding process, and the defendant's right
to fundarrmtal fairness, rquires m less than a new trial where death is not
a possible punishment.
Page -84-
Bspectfdly sulrmitted,
GREENSPAN, GOODSTEIN & LINK
h
The
305 Washin&on Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
-1ephone: (904) 354-1386
Attorney for Defendant