Armstrong v. State, 73 So. 3d 155

Armstrong was indicted for first‑degree murder of Deputy Greeney, attempted murder of Deputy Sallustio, and armed robbery in 1990; a prior capital trial yielded a death sentence which was vacated due to a vacated prior violent felony, remanding for a new penalty phase.
In 1994 the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the guilt and death sentence; Armstrong later pursued postconviction relief under Rule 3.850, with some claims resolved in Armstrong II (2003).
A new penalty phase began in 2007; the jury again recommended death; after a Spencer hearing, the court found three aggravators and multiple mitigators and again sentenced Armstrong to death.
The court found aggravators including prior violent felony, robbery, and killing a law enforcement officer, and weighed charitable and other nonstatutory mitigators, with four nonstatutory mitigators identified in the order.
Armstrong challenged admission of various items at the new penalty phase (blood vial, photos, a bullet fragment), the jury instruction on time served and parole, and asserted cumulative error; proportionality was also raised by the State.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected Armstrong’s challenges, affirmed the death sentence as proportionate, and denied relief on Rule 3.850 claims, with a partial concurrence/dissent addressing the jury instruction issue and urging resentencing in a separate view.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of blood and photographs	Armstrong argues the vial of blood and photos were improperly admitted.	State contends items were relevant and probative to aggravation and rehabilitation context.	Admissible; no abuse of discretion; harmless error analysis applied.
Admissibility of the bullet fragment	Remaining bullet fragment should have been excluded due to probable tampering.	State established chain of custody and tampering did not occur; fragment admissible.	No abuse of discretion; proper chain of custody shown; fragment admitted.
Jury instruction on credit for time served and parole	Trial court failed to provide a complete answer on parole eligibility and time served, potentially misleading jurors.	Instruction was not confusing or misleading; parole is not guaranteed and credit for time served was correctly stated.	No abuse; error if any was harmless given aggravation and evidence; sentence upheld.
Cumulative error	The aggregate of claimed errors denied Armstrong a fair proceeding.	No reversible errors; cumulative effect does not change result.	Denied; no reversible cumulative error.
Proportionality	Death sentence may be disproportionate given mitigating factors and comparable cases.	The sentence remains proportionate in light of three strong aggravators and limited mitigating evidence.	Death sentence proportionate; affirmed.

Davis v. State, 859 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2003) (photographic evidence admissibility standard; abuse of discretion standard)
Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2000) (photographs admissible if relevant and not unduly prejudicial)
Downs v. State, 572 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1990) (credit for time served instruction and parole considerations)
Gore v. State, 706 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1997) (time served credit; parole instruction handling)
Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489 (Fla. 2005) (parole eligibility not guaranteed; instructional guidance)
Hitchcock v. State, 673 So.2d 859 (Fla. 1996) (parole argument deemed improperly prejudicial in resentencing)
Bevel v. State, 983 So.2d 505 (Fla. 2008) (death penalty standards with single aggravator context)
Sireci v. Moore, 825 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2002) (weight of aggravators and mitigators in proportionality analysis)
Snelgrove v. State, 921 So.2d 560 (Fla. 2005) (sentencing guidelines; great weight given to sentencing recommendations)
Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1998) (two-pronged proportionality framework)
Almeida v. State, 748 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1999) (qualitative comparison of aggravators/mitigators in proportionality review)
Ault v. State, 53 So.3d 175 (Fla. 2010) (autopsy photographs admissible to explain wounds and manner of death)
McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613 (Fla. 2010) (photographs admissible to explain medical examiner testimony)