Hodges v. State
55 So. 3d 515
Fla.2010Background
- Hodges convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to death for Belanger killing (Dec. 19, 2001).
- Victim Belanger found in her Pensacola home with head injuries and neck wounds; evidence included a broken window, jacket, socks, knife, and photographs linking Hodges.
- Collateral homicide in Ohio (Lavern Jansen, 2003) introduced with DNA and eyewitness evidence linking Hodges.
- Numerous witnesses connected Hodges to the recovered clothing, jewelry, and photos near Belanger’s home; multiple DNA results and handwriting corroborated Hodges.
- Trial court held a Spencer mitigation hearing and denial of MR defense; jury recommended death by 10–2; court imposed death sentence.
- Defense offered mental retardation (MR) defense; trial court conducted multiple MR hearings, concluding Hodges did not prove adaptive deficits; on appeal the court reviews the MR criteria and other trial rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mentally retarded determination by jury vs. court | Hodges sought jury determination | None specific beyond standard challenges | Court-approved; no right to jury verdict on MR status |
| Trial court's MR decision upheld | MR status not shown | Adaptive deficits not shown; IQ/ADAPTIVE functioning disputed | Competent, substantial evidence supports no MR designation |
| Collateral-crime evidence in closing argument | Collateral evidence used to support identity defense | State may rebut identity with collateral evidence | No abuse of discretion; rebuttal allowed and evidence properly admitted under Williams rule |
| Collateral crime evidence as trial feature | Collateral evidence overwhelmed main issue | Evidence not excessive; properly limited and instructed | Not a feature of the trial; court did not err in admission |
| Ring and sentencing procedure arguments | Ring requires procedural protections; challenge to nonunanimous recommendations | Florida scheme valid; Ring does not apply to preexisting aggravators | No merit; Ring does not apply; nonunanimous recommendation permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. State, 984 So.2d 503 (Fla.2008) (mental retardation requires adaptive deficits in addition to low IQ)
- Nixon v. State, 2 So.3d 137 (Fla.2009) (no right to jury determination of MR status under Ring/Atkins)
- Jones v. State, 966 So.2d 319 (Fla.2007) (adaptive functioning as an adult; not required to show prior age eighteen deficits)
- Conde v. State, 860 So.2d 930 (Fla.2003) (when collateral crimes evidence becomes a feature of trial)
- Peterson v. State, 2 So.3d 146 (Fla.2009) (three collateral murders; proper limits and similarities; Williams rule)