Leo Louis Kaczmar, III v. State of Florida
228 So. 3d 1
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Defendant Leo Kaczmar was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted sexual battery, and arson; this appeal follows a resentenced penalty phase and imposition of death.
- At the second penalty phase Kaczmar waived presenting live mitigation before the jury (advised by counsel) but submitted transcripts of mitigation to the judge; jury received only a stipulation that he was 24 at the time of the offense and unanimously recommended death.
- The trial court found two statutory aggravators (prior violent felony and HAC) and declined to find any statutory mitigation; it found multiple nonstatutory mitigators, most given slight weight.
- The Florida Supreme Court previously vacated certain aggravators and remanded for a new penalty phase; this appeal raises six issues directed to sentencing procedures and the weighing of mitigation.
- The majority held the Hurst v. Florida Sixth Amendment error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the unanimous jury recommendation, weighty aggravators (prior violent felony and HAC), and the nature of the crime (multiple stab wounds, arson, attempted framing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kaczmar) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hurst error (jury factfinding) | Hurst violation requires new penalty phase because judge, not jury, made critical findings; jury did not unanimously find aggravators or weigh mitigation | Error harmless because jury unanimously recommended death, received correct instructions, and evidence supports aggravators | Majority: Hurst error found but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; death sentence affirmed |
| Weight given to jury recommendation (Muhammad) | Trial court improperly gave great weight to jury recommendation when jury did not hear mitigation | Trial court independently weighed evidence, acknowledged waiver of mitigation, and properly considered mitigation transcripts | Denied; court distinguished Muhammad and affirmed sentencing |
| Trial judge commenting to jury during deliberations | Judge’s “not relevant” responses usurped jury function | No contemporaneous objection; no fundamental error affecting trial validity | Denied; no fundamental error found |
| Prosecutor denigrating mitigation in closing | Prosecutor called mitigation “excuses,” warranting new trial/mistrial | Comment isolated, not repeated; jury instruction correctly stated law | Denied; not fundamental error |
| Failure to find particular nonstatutory mitigator (abuse/overindulgence) | Trial court ignored Dr. Mandoki’s testimony linking upbringing to incapacity, failing to expressly evaluate mitigation | Court considered other mitigation, overall weighing would not change outcome given strong aggravators | Court agreed error in failing to expressly evaluate that testimony but found the error harmless |
| Proportionality of death sentence | Death sentence disproportionate given mitigation | Homicide was especially aggravated and minimally mitigated; comparable to upheld cases | Denied; death sentence proportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court’s Hurst decision requiring jury findings for death penalty and treating Hurst errors as subject to harmless-error review)
- Davis v. State, 207 So.3d 142 (Fla. 2016) (held unanimous jury recommendation supported harmlessness of Hurst error in similar facts)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (articulates rigorous harmless-error standard and focus on effect of error on the trier of fact)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error burden on the State for constitutional errors)
- Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2001) (trial court may not give great weight to jury recommendation when defendant waives mitigation absent procedural safeguards)
- Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (procedure for sentencing hearings and consideration of mitigation)