Heyne v. State
88 So. 3d 113
Fla.2012Background
- Heyne appeals his three first-degree murder convictions and death sentence for Ivory’s murder.
- On March 2006, Heyne argued with Benjamin Hamilton about money; Ivory and her mother Sarah Buckoski were present in the home.
- Heyne retrieved Benjamin’s gun and returned to the room, continuing the argument; Heyne shot Benjamin, then shot Sarah after she dove to the floor.
- Ivory, age five, was in the room and was shot at close range after being exposed to the earlier killings; Heyne fled the scene with weapons and marijuana, discarding evidence.
- Larabie testified that Heyne admitted to the shootings and helped him dispose of evidence; blood matched Benjamin’s DNA on Heyne’s clothing and pillowcase.
- At trial, Heyne claimed self-defense (Benjamin’s gun), or accidental shooting of Ivory; jury found all three murders first-degree, and the court sentenced Ivory’s murder to death and the others to life imprisonment; mitigation evidence included mental illness and brain injury findings; the court found HAC and other aggravators, and ultimately imposed death for Ivory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment of acquittal denied for premiditation | Heyne contends premeditation was not shown. | State showed circumstantial evidence supports premiditation. | denial affirmed; premiditation supported. |
| HAC aggravator for Ivory | There was no proof Ivory experienced fear before death. | Fear and terror inferred from circumstances; proper application of HAC. | HAC affirmed. |
| Mental health mitigating evidence | Trial court failed to recognize statutory mental health mitigators. | Expert testimony supports mitigating factors. | No abuse of discretion; mitigators properly evaluated. |
| Proportionality of death sentence | Death sentence not proportionate given mitigating factors. | Totality of circumstances supports proportionate death penalty. | Death sentence for Ivory proportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204 (Fla.2010) (premeditation defined; circumstantial evidence standards)
- Pearce v. State, 880 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004) (premeditation: factors in evaluating circumstantial evidence)
- Cochran v. State, 547 So.2d 928 (Fla.1989) (circumstantial evidence standard for premiditation)
- Twilegar v. State, 42 So.3d 177 (Fla.2010) (standard for reviewing premiditation on appeal)
- Delgado v. State, 71 So.3d 54 (Fla.2011) (de novo review of denial of acquittal; competent substantial evidence)
- McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312 (Fla.2007) (sufficiency of evidence to submit to jury)
- Diaz v. State, 860 So.2d 960 (Fla.2003) (HAC standard and victim fear as basis for aggravator)
- Banks v. State, 700 So.2d 363 (Fla.1997) (victim perspective in evaluating fear and terror)
- Allred v. State, 55 So.3d 1267 (Fla.2010) (context for evaluating fear and terror factors)
- Henry v. State, 574 So.2d 73 (Fla.1991) (evidence inconsistent with defense theories can support premiditation findings)
- Nelson v. State, 850 So.2d 514 (Fla.2003) (lay witness testimony can support mitigation determinations)