132 So. 3d 342
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant lived with the victim, his father Kenneth Herring; the victim was found dead in his kitchen after Nettie Herring reported him missing.
- The medical examiner testified the victim was stabbed six times with scissors, with two head wounds lethal by penetrating the brain stem; twelve nonlethal chest/neck wounds were also diagnosed.
- DNA evidence showed the victim’s blood on the scissors and on appellant’s clothing.
- Police detained appellant at the scene; he gave the name “God” during detention.
- During trial, the court restricted lay opinions on sanity but later allowed lay observations of unusual behavior; the court also initially barred ‘crazy/possessed’ characterizations that were later partially cured by expert testimony.
- The State’s closing argued about who testified to appellant’s sanity; defense moved for mistrial which was denied; appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and resisting arrest without violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lay sanity opinions | Herring | Herring | No reversible error; substantial admissible evidence supported the verdict |
| Prosecutor's response about absence of testimony on insanity | Herring | Herring | Not reversible; comments within fair response to defense statements |
| Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation | Herring | Herring | Evidence of multiple head/neck wounds supports premeditation; denial of acquittal affirmed |
| Harmlessness of excluded lay statements later cured by expert | Herring | Herring | Harmless error; cumulative testimony and later expert testimony cured any error |
| Mistrial denial based on closing argument | Herring | Herring | No abuse of discretion; state’s clarification was fair comment on evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Garron v. State, 528 So.2d 353 (Fla.1988) (lay opinions on sanity must be proximate in time)
- Hixon v. State, 165 So.2d 436 (Fla.1964) (nonexpert may opine on sanity from relevant facts)
- Cruse v. State, 588 So.2d 983 (Fla.1991) (exclusion of lay mental condition testimony harmless when other odd behavior testimony exists)
- Reynolds v. State, 837 So.2d 1048 (Fla.2002) (harmless error analysis for excluded lay testimony)
- Morrison v. State, 818 So.2d 432 (Fla.2002) (admissibility of lay opinions and preservation concerns)
- Wright v. State, 994 So.2d 447 (Fla.3d DCA 2008) (expert testimony can cure earlier evidentiary errors)