McGirth v. State
48 So. 3d 777
| Fla. | 2010Background
- McGirth, aged 18 at crime, was convicted of 2006 first‑degree murder of Diana Miller and related offenses (attempted first‑degree murder of James Miller, robbery with a firearm, fleeing to elude).
- Diana and James Miller lived in The Villages; Sheila Miller (their daughter) was involved; McGirth had prior acquaintance with Sheila and other accomplices (Roberts, Houston).
- During the July 21, 2006 home visit, McGirth and associates restrained Diana, shot her in the chest, and later shot James and Diana in the back of the head after obtaining money and access to credit cards.
- The group fled in the Millers’ van, engaging in a high‑speed chase; a PIT maneuver ended the pursuit and led to arrests; $259 in bloody money and fingerprints linked McGirth to the crime.
- At penalty, the jury imposed death by 11–1 vote; the trial court found multiple aggravators (CCP, HAC, prior violent felony, robbery, avoid arrest) and one statutory mitigating factor (McGirth’s age); conviction and death sentence were affirmed on appeal.
- McGirth raises issues on Williams rule evidence, jury instruction clarification, prosecutorial conduct during penalty, victim impact evidence, and constitutional challenges under Apprendi/Ring; the Florida Supreme Court affirms all convictions and the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Williams rule evidence | McGirth | State | Admissible; evidence was dissimilar and inextricably intertwined; no abuse of discretion |
| Judge's response to jury question on principals | McGirth | State | No error; clarified conscious intent vs. premeditation; within discretion |
| Prosecutor's penalty‑phase remark | McGirth | State | Harmless error; not reasonably likely to have affected verdict; no mistrial warranted |
| Victim impact evidence in penalty phase | McGirth | State | Not fundamental error; admissible witnesses and photographs; did not violate due process |
| Constitutional challenges under Ring/Apprendi | McGirth | State | Rejected; Florida scheme and aggravators properly submitted under controlling precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (reaffirming Williams rule evidentiary framework)
- Perriman v. State, 731 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 1999) (jury instruction and deliberation standards)
- Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla. 1994) (explanation of what constitutes inseparable/inextricably intertwined evidence)
- Anderson v. State, 18 So.3d 501 (Fla. 2009) (prosecutorial comment harmless where not outcome determinative)
- Spencer v. State, 645 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1994) (standard for evaluating prosecutorial error in closing arguments)
- Wheeler v. State, 4 So.3d 599 (Fla. 2009) (victim impact evidence limits and due process considerations)
- Gore v. State, 964 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 2007) (Apprendi/Ring considerations in Florida capital sentencing)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (S. Ct. 2002) (limits on judge‑vs‑jury fact‑finding in capital sentencing)