Rasheem Diquoine Dubose v. State of Florida
210 So. 3d 641
| Fla. | 2017Background
- On July 26, 2006, Rasheem Dubose and his two brothers drove to a house and fired multiple rounds through a window; 23 shots were traced to Dubose’s Glock and one bullet killed eight-year-old Drewshawna Washington‑Davis. The brothers were later arrested; firearms were disposed and not recovered.
- Dubose was tried twice. The first trial ended in a mistrial; his brothers were convicted and sentenced to life. At the second trial (Feb. 2010) Dubose was convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditated and felony murder) and shooting into a building; the jury recommended death 8–4 and the court imposed death (Dec. 2010).
- Penalty‑phase mitigation included expert testimony about Dubose’s low cognitive/academic scores, possible frontal‑lobe impairment (PET report admitted at Spencer hearing), and social/environmental influences (“code of the street”).
- Post‑trial the defense alleged juror misconduct (internet/cell‑phone research about a facial tattoo, racial remarks). The trial court held hearings, found the complaining juror not credible, questioned other jurors on remand, and denied a mistrial/new trial. The Florida Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to affirm convictions.
- On appeal Dubose challenged juror misconduct, sufficiency of burglary/felony murder, change of venue, cumulative error, and the constitutionality of Florida’s death sentencing under Hurst/Ring. The court affirmed convictions but vacated death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase because the jury’s death recommendation was non‑unanimous.
Issues
| Issue | Dubose's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct / mistrial (cell phone/internet use; tattoo research; racial remarks) | Juror affidavit and attached articles showed jurors researched tattoo meaning and made racial remarks, prejudicing verdict | Trial court’s juror interviews showed no internet research during deliberations, complaining juror not credible, no prejudice | Denied relief; no reversible juror misconduct—trial court findings supported and any improper inquiry by judge was harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder (premeditation & felony murder) | Insufficient evidence to show premeditation and burglary (for felony murder) | Evidence showed armed approach, circling, entry into yard, firing through window with deadly weapon; 23 shots from Dubose’s gun including fatal shot | Convictions affirmed — competent, substantial evidence supported both premeditated and felony murder theories |
| Burglary / curtilage (underlying felony for felony murder) | Yard not sufficiently enclosed (gap for driveway) so no curtilage/burglary | Chain‑link fence and prior case law permit curtilage despite ungated opening | Trial court instruction and verdict on burglary upheld; First DCA reasoning approvingly adopted |
| Change of venue (pretrial publicity) | Extensive pretrial media and community prejudice made a fair jury impracticable | Voir dire showed jurors could be impartial; defense used peremptories; coverage was largely factual and not community‑infecting | Denial of change of venue affirmed — publicity did not make jury selection impossible |
| Constitutionality of death sentence under Hurst/Ring (jury factfinding; non‑unanimous recommendation) | Florida’s sentencing scheme violated Sixth Amendment — jury did not make required unanimous findings; non‑unanimous recommendation invalid | State sought to uphold sentence where possible under statute | Death sentence vacated and remanded for new penalty phase because jury’s 8–4 recommendation was non‑unanimous; Hurst error not harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995) (curtilage/enclosure requirement for burglary analysis)
- Keen v. State, 639 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1994) (limits on juror questioning about deliberative processes)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless‑error standards in criminal trials)
- Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2004) (affirming general verdict where either theory of first‑degree murder supported)
- Phillips v. State, 39 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2010) (standard for sufficiency of capital‑case evidence)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Sixth Amendment jury factfinding in death penalty cases)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Florida sentencing scheme requires jury to find aggravating factors and their sufficiency/unanimity)