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

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-