Elijah Brookins v. State of Florida
228 So. 3d 31
| Fla. | 2017Background
- While being transported on a DOC bus, inmate Eric Sexton was stabbed 26 times and died; a homemade metal shank and its elastic holster were recovered along the transport route. DNA from the weapon, holster, and Brookins’ clothing linked Brookins to the victim’s blood; Brookins’ DNA was a minor contributor on the weapon/holster.
- Three inmate eyewitnesses testified that Brookins attacked Sexton, stabbed him repeatedly (10–30 minutes), manipulated the bent blade to continue, and then searched Sexton’s body and belongings before discarding bloody items out the bus window.
- Two DOC officers testified they heard/ saw nothing during the drive; a processing officer at NFRC observed Brookins as the last inmate off the bus, “all bloody,” and found the victim near the front of the bus.
- Brookins testified he did not kill Sexton, claimed the victim fell on him and he helped, and at one point implicated fellow inmate Theodus Hunt as the killer; defense did not present a mental-health expert at penalty phase.
- Jury convicted Brookins of first-degree premeditated and felony murder; at penalty phase the State introduced Brookins’ prior juvenile first-degree murder conviction (stipulated) and victim impact statements; jury recommended death 10–2 and the court imposed death after finding multiple aggravators and limited mitigation.
- On appeal Brookins challenged (1) admission of collateral-crime evidence for impeachment, (2) State comments on his silence/right to remain silent, sufficiency of evidence, and argued Hurst error regarding the non-unanimous death recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of collateral-crime evidence for impeachment | State: admission was proper to impeach Brookins after he testified inconsistently about knowing/being able to conceal a shank | Brookins: trial court erred; his direct testimony didn’t open the door to the sworn statement and evidence should have been excluded | Court: admission proper because Brookins’ direct testimony opened the door; even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutor comments on right to silence | State: impeachment of Brookins’ trial testimony by noting he never identified Hunt pretrial was fair and challenged credibility | Brookins: prosecutor improperly commented on his right to silence by emphasizing he first accused Hunt at trial | Court: comments permissible because defense elicited motive for silence and opened the door; alternatively harmless error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder conviction | State: eyewitness testimony plus DNA and forensic evidence sufficiently prove guilt | Brookins: challenged sufficiency | Court: independent review upheld conviction as supported by competent, substantial evidence |
| Hurst error and non-unanimous death recommendation | Brookins: 10–2 jury recommendation violates Hurst; requires vacatur of death sentence | State: argued death sentence should stand (some concurrence argued no Hurst error due to prior violent felony) | Court: Hurst violation; death sentence vacated and remanded for new penalty phase because jury’s nonunanimous recommendation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2002) (defendant may open door to impeachment with collateral crime evidence by testifying inaccurately to material facts)
- Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96 (Fla. 1996) (cross-examination may extend to matters that contradict or clarify direct testimony)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard; State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt error did not contribute to verdict)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (jury unanimity and findings required for death sentence; nonunanimous recommendations implicate Hurst error)
- Kopsho v. State, 209 So.3d 568 (Fla. 2017) (nonunanimous jury death recommendation requires Hurst relief)
- Smith v. State, 573 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1990) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant’s post-arrest silence; courts must prohibit evidence/argument fairly susceptible of being interpreted as such)
- Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96 (Fla. 2008) (opening-the-door doctrine allows admission to qualify or rebut defendant’s testimony)
- Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204 (Fla. 2010) (mandatory independent review of sufficiency of evidence in death-penalty cases)
- Rodgers v. State, 948 So.2d 655 (Fla. 2006) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State on sufficiency review)
- White v. State, 757 So.2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (prearrest silence may be used to impeach when inconsistent with trial testimony and was a voluntary prearrest statement)