Ana Maria Cardona v. State of Florida
185 So. 3d 514
| Fla. | 2016Background
- Ana Maria Cardona was retried in 2010 for the 1990 first‑degree murder and aggravated child abuse of her three‑year‑old son, Lazaro, whose body showed extensive, chronic injuries; jury convicted and recommended death 7–5; trial court imposed death and a 15‑year sentence for child abuse.
- Cardona’s 1992 convictions were previously reversed on Brady grounds; the 2010 retrial relied largely on circumstantial evidence; the State did not present testimony from a prior codefendant whose statements had been exculpatory/conflicting.
- During guilt‑phase closing, the prosecutor repeatedly framed the trial as seeking "justice for Lazaro," denigrated the defense as using "diversionary tactics," and made personal and cultural attacks on Cardona; defense lodged many objections that the court mostly overruled.
- The court found that those closing arguments were inflammatory, repeated, and not cured by instruction; the repeated "justice for Lazaro" theme was held not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and other improper remarks compounded the prejudice.
- The Supreme Court of Florida vacated convictions and death sentence and remanded for a new trial; it also addressed issues likely to recur on retrial: admissibility/weight of IQ testing for intellectual‑disability claims and two State cross‑appeal errors in the penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cardona) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in guilt‑phase closing ("justice for Lazaro" theme and denigration of defense) | Closing repeatedly appealed to juror emotion, shifted burden, and denigrated defense, depriving fair trial; objections preserved | Arguments were permissible rhetorical emphasis; objections were properly overruled; not reversible | Reversed: prosecutor crossed clear line; "justice for Lazaro" comments not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; new trial ordered |
| Trial court refusal to consider certain IQ test results in intellectual‑disability hearing | Court improperly rejected experts’ accommodated IQ testing (translated/alternate instruments) and applied the Florida Administrative Code too rigidly | Court relied on prescribed, normed tests and questioned validity of translated WAIS administrations | Court held trial court erred in rigidly discounting accommodated IQ testing; on retrial court must consider tests in light of Hall and evaluate all three prongs of intellectual disability |
| State cross‑appeal: exclusion of State rebuttal penalty‑phase expert | State argues it should have been allowed to rebut defense expert on mental state; exclusion deprived State of limited rebuttal | Defense argued Fifth Amendment concerns and that rebuttal was improper | Held for State: exclusion was abuse of discretion; State entitled to present limited rebuttal under Buchanan/Cheever principles |
| State cross‑appeal: opportunity to rebut "no significant criminal history" mitigator | State contends it was improperly denied chance to rebut when defense first asserted the mitigator after evidence closed | Defense argued timing/waiver limited State’s opportunity | Held for State: by asserting mitigator after evidence, Cardona opened the door and State should have been permitted to rebut |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor must not strike "hard blows" beyond proper advocacy)
- Gore v. State, 719 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1998) (overzealous prosecutorial argument requires reversal where it provides a "textbook" example of improper advocacy)
- Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2000) (in death cases prosecutors and courts have extra obligation to ensure fundamentally fair trials)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (IQ score is not dispositive; courts must follow medical standards and consider other evidence for intellectual disability)
- Stewart v. State, 51 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1951) (prosecutors must conduct fair and impartial trials and avoid prejudicial emotion)
- Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987) (State may introduce results of court‑ordered mental exam to rebut defendant's psychiatric evidence)