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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The defense argued the presence of statutoxy mitigating circumstance 921,141 (6) (b) , Fla. Stat. (1981) I that the defendant was under the influence of extreme mtal or emtioral disturbance, and 921.141 (6) (f) , that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his mnduct, or to confom his conduct to the requirements of law, was substantially h-paired. (T. 2481-2483). basis for this impairmnt was the defendant's intoxication on drugs and alcohol, which was supported by the testhny of the defendant (T. 1834, 1837, 1880- 1881) , Denise Long (T. 16191, Spencer Hance (T. 14971, Hal Jahns (T. 1738-1739), Lwis Bradley (T. 16321, Joan Bennett (T. 1540-15411, Billy bng (T. 1401-1402), and Richard Ellmod (T. 1766). ?he The trial court refused to find any mitigating circumstance under either (6) (b) or (6) (f) , in part because the defendant presented no psychiatric testimny. (R. 489-490, 494-495). It is clear that drug and alcahd intoxication can support a finding under these statutory mitigating cirmtances, Kampff v. State, 371 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1979), or a finding as a non-statutory mitigating circumstance, Buckm v.State, 355 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1978). hhere the j q reclmrmended life, it cannot be assumed that the jury did not find mitigation due to drug and alcohol intaxication. Where the evidence was uncontradicted, it was inproper for the lower court to reject intoxication as any type of mitigation. The defense argued mitigation unda 921.141 (6) (e) , that the defendant acted under e..xtrar~ duress or under the substantial domination of another person. (T. 2483-2484). 'Ihe defendant's testimny supprted a finding under this mitigating circumstance, due to threats by Tkmny &cover. (T. 1847-1848, 1851, 1852, 1863, 1865, 1880-1881). Joan Bennett and lbrris Johnson verified that the defeladantwas acting scared. (T. 1697, 1562-1563). %ugh the lower mwt rejected this mitigating ckxnnstance, (R, 493), the jury's evaluation of the evidence may have reasonably been different. See m f n 170 (Fla. 1981). - -' v, State 405 So, 2d
The defense also argued for mitigation under 921.141 (-6): Id), that the defendantwqs an acmqlice in the capital felony cadtted by another person and his participated was relatively minor. (T. 2484-2487). rejected this circumstance with several pa-ently erronems findings of fact: the gun used to kill Nancy Sheppard was Elaine Parker's, not the defendant's; the cqr used in the nuder was Elaine Parker's, not the defendant's; the defendant did not drive the car; Elaine and Graver did. There was substantial evidence from Donald Fby (T. 1749); Richard Ellwood (T. 1765-1766, 1788); Billy Walters (T. 1799-1800); Spencer Wce (T. 1494), and the defendant himself (T. 1870- 1871), that Long was told by Gr0ove.r to kill Sheppard, that Long both shot and cut Sheppard while the defendant was by the car, and that Sang was lying to protect himself and Groover, his roamnate and best friend. mt have been unreasonable for the juq to find mitigation under this section. See Slater v. State, 316 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1975); Taylor v. State, - 294 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1974); Hawkins v. State, 436 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1983). 'Ihe trial court It would, therefore, As additional mn-statutory mitigation, the defense argued that, if the state's case was to be believed, the defendant actually saved the lives of several people in Lewis Bradley's house by taking the gun away from Tamny Grwver. (T. 2487-2488). the lawel? court. Though the jury reamend& life, this aspect was ignored by The defense argued the significance of the evidence presented by the defense witnesses in the penalty phase trial. addressed by the trial court, but it should have been considered. v. State, 421 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 19821, None of this evidence was even See raCCapbell The trial court also ignored the fact that the defendant was the father of two small chi;ld;ren for whm he cared, though it was argued to the jury as a mitigating cirmtance, (T. 2490-2491). This factor too, could have fonrsd a reasonable basis for the july's life reccmnmdation. - Jacobs v, State, 396 Page -81-
Page 1 and 2:
RPPEAL FffQM THE CIRCUIT COURIT OF
Page 3 and 4:
V TRIAL COuIiT EXRED IN FAILING TO
Page 5 and 6:
UNRELATED O??F'ENSE AS EVIDENCE OF
Page 7 and 8:
ACEEY. mm, 33tlTo~7"T% (Fla. 4th ;D
Page 9 and 10:
c?JME3IEV. smm 345 So. 2 d m CURRYV
Page 11 and 12:
i%W'HW v. STATE j// So'.' 2d 7807Fl
Page 13 and 14:
MCMILLANV. smm 4119 So. 2d 1-la. 3r
Page 15 and 16:
0 PRamCE v. STATE 337 So, 2d 7 n l
Page 17 and 18:
mmv, STATE 2d =la. 1st D.C.A, 1982)
Page 19 and 20:
0 INTRODUCTION The appellant, Fbber
Page 21 and 22:
of Other Crbs, Wrongs, or Acts. (R.
Page 23 and 24:
0 (T. 1128-1129).crooVer said nothi
Page 25 and 26:
0 going to kill "the mther fucker",
Page 27 and 28:
this would alleviate any problem be
Page 29 and 30:
took out his knife and stabbed Padg
Page 31 and 32:
(T, 1342-1343). mng's rmther disapp
Page 33 and 34:
he said it, "nobdy paid any mbd to
Page 35 and 36:
told the defendant to "back off". (
Page 37 and 38:
and said, Yh ny God". (T. 1260). tw
Page 39 and 40:
out of the cay. and walked around b
Page 41 and 42:
WHEXFER THE THE JUHI UPON THE LAW Q
Page 43 and 44:
IX X WHlTIWB THE TRIAL ERRED IN m I
Page 45 and 46:
XVIII WHEXfER THE TRUG COUW: FBRED
Page 47 and 48: they were afraid of being killed by
Page 49 and 50: ut munsel could not argue it becaus
Page 51 and 52: to the co-defendant, who continued
Page 53 and 54: participate in the killing, 2. If t
Page 55 and 56: Brother Caps. (T. 1185) (4). the de
Page 57 and 58: So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983).
Page 59 and 60: EXPW AND JTETIFY PLEA BARWWNG WITH
Page 61 and 62: type of rebuke counsel received. on
Page 63 and 64: utilized the stature of his office
Page 65 and 66: likewise improper for the State Att
Page 67 and 68: Payment of mney to a witness for an
Page 69 and 70: the prosecutor informed a juror onc
Page 71 and 72: the fiream or threatened Padgett wi
Page 73 and 74: from the operation of discowry rule
Page 75 and 76: I resides. Stanley, supra; - Florid
Page 77 and 78: Pernutting the reputation testby. o
Page 79 and 80: little probative value w kn it is c
Page 81 and 82: - The fact that a defendant refused
Page 83 and 84: The United States Supre court has s
Page 85 and 86: 'BE general rule is that statements
Page 87 and 88: The general rule is that a witness'
Page 89 and 90: any person the defense "expects to
Page 91 and 92: CR, 6167 T, 58-7 Penalty (R. 16-31
Page 93 and 94: Sheppard's necklace and ring me tak
Page 95 and 96: (-TT* 1032, 10491. An execution-sty
Page 97: (5) W ilm Urgmn, the defendant's si
Page 101 and 102: mitigating circumstance in a capita
Page 103: CFRI'IFICATE OF SERVTCE I HEREBY CE
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?