Partin v. State
82 So. 3d 31
Fla.2011Background
- On July 31, 2002, 16-year-old Joshan Ashbrook ran away and was offered a ride by Partin in his maroon pickup, with Partin driving his seven-year-old daughter nearby.
- Ashbrook used Partin's phone to call her boyfriend; minutes later she arrived at the boyfriend’s house in Partin’s burgundy truck and delivered a note to his mother.
- Partin’s ex-girlfriend’s cell phone was linked to the call; Partin initially lied about taking the girl, admitting only to giving a ride and later claiming he dropped her off near a store; video contradicted his version.
- Partin and his daughter joined Kaufman’s residence; witnesses observed a female wearing shorts in Partin’s room; Ashbrook’s body was found the next day with multiple injuries and strangulation marks, near a wooded area 50 feet from a highway.
- Forensic evidence included hair with Partin’s DNA in a victim’s wound, blood matching the victim in Partin’s room, and video evidence of Ashbrook with Partin in his truck; Partin later moved, discarded his truck, and traveled as investigators pursued the case.
- Partin was ultimately tried and convicted of first-degree murder; the jury recommended death by a 9–3 vote; the court found two aggravators and several mitigators at the penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motions in limine on consciousness of guilt | Partin contends denial of several limine motions prejudiced trial. | State asserts admissibility for consciousness-of-guilt relevance with limiting instructions. | No reversible error; evidence properly admitted or harmless. |
| Admission of former testimony from Ulery | Ulery’s testimony was improperly admitted as unavailable witness. | Ulery was unavailable under 90.804(1) and Partin had opportunity to cross-examine previously. | Admission affirmed; harmless where other DNA evidence corroborated. |
| Jury's guilt-phase request for indictment | Partin argues jury should have received or read the indictment. | Court has discretion to provide indictment; not required here. | Discretionary ruling upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
| Penalty-phase special instructions (Partin's request) | Special instruction that jury is never required to impose death should have been given. | Standard instructions adequately describe jury role; harsher instruction unnecessary. | Denial not reversible; standard instructions sufficient. |
| Penalty-phase special instruction (great weight) | Court should have instructed great weight to the jury’s recommendation. | Standard instruction already addresses jury role; instruction affirmed. | No reversible error; standard instruction adequate. |
| Prior violent felony instruction | Court misdescribed the prior violent felony aggravator. | Instruction substantially similar to standard; any error harmless due to complete written instruction. | Harmless error; no reversible error. |
| Proportionality of the death sentence | Death sentence not proportionate. | Sentence is proportionate given HAC and prior violent felony with mitigating factors. | Death sentence proportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penalver v. State, 926 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2006) (consciousness-of-guilt evidence admissible with nexus to crime)
- Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181 (Fla. 2005) (flight and related conduct show consciousness of guilt; lethal-by-weapon concerns limited)
- Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1997) (nexus analysis for consciousness-of-guilt evidence)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary reversals)
- Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1994) (flight-related statements and consciousness considerations)
- Murray v. State, 838 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2002) (nexus for escape evidence when defendant is in custody on related charges)
- Jackson v. State, 18 So.3d 1016 (Fla. 2009) (admissibility of escape and pursuit-related evidence)
- Muehleman v. State, 3 So.3d 1149 (Fla. 2009) (unavailability for former testimony hearsay and Confrontation Clause considerations)
- Hogan v. State, 3 So.3d 1204 (Fla. 2009) (harmlessness of improperly admitted DNA evidence when cumulative)
- Phillips v. State, 39 So.3d 296 (Fla. 2010) (standard penalty-phase instructions deemed adequate)
- Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1998) (two-pronged proportionality framework for death sentences)
- Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (foundational Spencer rule for capital sentencing considerations)
- Merck v. State, 975 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2007) (proportionality in similar HAC and prior violent felony cases)
- Ocha v. State, 826 So.2d 956 (Fla. 2002) (proportionality with HAC and mitigators including substance history)