Barry Trynell Davis, Jr. v. State of Florida, 217 So. 3d 1006

Background

On May 7, 2012 Barry Davis and his on‑again/off‑again girlfriend Tiffani Steward went to John Hughes’s home; Steward testified she saw Davis render Hughes and Heidi Rhodes unconscious, drown and bind them in a bathtub, and later dispose of their bodies and take Hughes’s property. Davis was arrested and tried for first‑degree murder of both victims.
Physical and circumstantial evidence linked Davis to Hughes’s property: Hughes’s Escalade was recovered with signs of human decomposition; furniture and personal items belonging to Hughes were found in Davis’s storage unit and home; cadaver dogs alerted in the Escalade; investigators recovered other items and testimony corroborating Steward’s account.
At trial the jury convicted Davis of two counts of first‑degree murder and recommended death by nonunanimous votes (9–3 for Hughes; 10–2 for Rhodes); the trial court imposed death sentences and multiple noncapital prison terms for related offenses.
On appeal Davis challenged (inter alia) the denial of a suppression motion for photographs/videos taken during a July 10, 2012 search of his home, admission of testimony that he had possessed a revolver in the past, the prosecutor’s use of a photo of Steward crying during closing argument, and the constitutionality of his death sentences under Hurst.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, rejected the suppression and evidentiary claims, but vacated the death sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase because the jury’s nonunanimous death recommendations violated Hurst and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Davis)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Motion to suppress photos/video from July 10, 2012 search	Photographs and videotaping exceeded the warrant’s scope and violated the Fourth Amendment	Warrant targeted Hughes’s debit card; scope includes areas where the item may be found; photographing per WCSO policy was permissible	Denied — photos/video were within warrant scope and did not violate the Fourth Amendment
Admission of testimony that Davis had possessed a revolver in the past	Testimony about prior gun possession was irrelevant and prejudicial	Defense opened the door by impeaching Steward’s statement about whether a gun was present; past possession explained her belief	Denied — admission was permissible to clarify Steward’s testimony after defense opened the door
Use of photo of Steward crying during closing argument	Photo improperly appealed to emotion and was not admitted evidence; Rule 2.450(h) bars such use	Photo accurately depicted what jurors observed; used briefly as demonstrative aid	Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; photo not admitted evidence and was not misleading
Sentencing error under Hurst (jury unanimity for death)	Nonunanimous jury recommendations violate Hurst; death sentences therefore invalid	State urged harmless‑error review or other statutory remedies	Vacated death sentences — Hurst error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remanded for new penalty phase

Key Cases Cited

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Supreme Court decision requiring jury trial findings for death‑penalty factfinding)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court holding jury must unanimously find facts necessary for death sentence)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (scope of warrant includes areas where the described items may be found)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1987) (limits on photographing/searching beyond warrant scope)
Jardines v. State, 73 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 2011) (privacy expectations in the home and warrant requirement)
Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2005) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact on suppression)
Yacob v. State, 136 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 2014) (mandatory review of sufficiency of evidence in death cases)
Simmons v. State, 934 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 2006) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)