Rodney Tyrone Lowe v. State of Florida, 259 So. 3d 23

Background

In 1990 Rodney Lowe was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted robbery for the shooting death of Donna Burnell; original jury recommended death (9–3) and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
After postconviction proceedings, the trial court granted a new penalty phase; at resentencing (2011) a new jury unanimously recommended death (12–0) and the trial court sentenced Lowe to death.
The trial court found five aggravators (merged to four): community control, prior violent felony, murder in course of felony/pecuniary gain, and avoid arrest; one statutory mitigator (age) and multiple nonstatutory mitigators were given little or moderate weight.
Lowe appealed the resentencing raising 18 claims including Hurst-related error, improper jury and trial rulings (voir dire, demonstratives, evidence exclusion/admission), discovery violations, prosecutorial misconduct, sentencing‑order defects, proportionality, and cumulative error.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed each claim (abuse-of-discretion, preserved/unpreserved/fundamental‑error standards applied), concluded any errors were either not shown, harmless, invited, or not fundamental, and affirmed the death sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lowe)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Cause challenge to prospective juror (Simard)	Simard merely opposed death; excusal for cause was reversible under Ault.	Simard gave inconsistent answers and said he would “probably go for life,” judge observed credibility—excusal reasonable.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; no relief.
Use of mannequin by medical examiner	Mannequin had zero probative value and could mislead jury.	Demonstrative aid accurately showed anatomical trajectories; limited error.	Admission was within trial court’s discretion; no relief.
Use of computer-generated diagram in opening	Late disclosure/animation required Richardson inquiry; prejudicial discovery violation.	It was a non-evidentiary demonstrative aid, not animated recreation, no prejudice.	No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown.
Officer Ambrum testimony re: VOCC maximum sentence	Misstatement (30 years) misled jury on avoid‑arrest aggravator and closing argument repeated it.	Misstatement unpreserved; not central to avoid‑arrest proof; harmless.	Unpreserved; not fundamental error; no relief.
Restrictions on mitigation evidence and cross-examination (Sailor, Blackmon affidavit)	Exclusion prevented showing others’ involvement and impeachment of State witnesses.	Evidence lacked relevance or proper foundation; alternative questioning allowed.	Exclusions within discretion or harmless; no relief.
Exclusion/limitation of defense expert’s actuarial test results (discovery issue)	Court precluded test results without adequate Richardson analysis; impaired mitigation (future dangerousness).	Violation impaired State’s ability to respond; court allowed opinion on other bases.	Court arguably used exclusion as first resort but any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutorial comments during closing (victim‑value comparisons; prior death sentence)	Comments compared worth of lives and argued prior death sentence should stand.	Comments brief, in context, and defense had elicited some same facts; unpreserved and not fundamental.	No fundamental error; comments harmless in context.
Sending letter (not re‑admitted) to jury during deliberations	Letter contained prejudicial material not admitted at resentencing.	Defense counsel reviewed letter at sidebar and agreed box not to go back; content duplicated testimony.	Defense invited/consented; material largely duplicative; no relief.
Jury inability to consider culpability/minor participant mitigator given guilt instruction	Instruction that jury only decide sentence misled jurors from giving effect to minor‑participant mitigation.	Jury was properly instructed and heard testimony supporting minor‑participant mitigator; no objection; presumption jurors follow instructions.	No fundamental error; jury considered mitigation; trial court rejected it as not credible.
Enmund/Tison instruction (culpability finding)	Prior remand required Enmund/Tison findings; omission was reversible.	Defense declined the instruction at charge conference; no requirement in remand; sentencing order explains defendant’s role.	Defense invited omission; no fundamental error; record supports judge’s culpability findings.
Jury questions re: parole eligibility / sentencing options	Jury misled about parole eligibility and credit for time served; inability to explain parole realistically prejudiced decision (Hurst impact).	Court followed precedent (allowed credit-for-time-served answer, prohibited parole‑system argument); no prejudice; jurors told not to consider parole likelihood.	Majority: no error; instructions and answers were proper and consistent with precedent. (See dissenters who would remand.)
Sentencing order adoption and weighing / statutory mitigation weight	Sentencing order largely adopted State memorandum and inconsistently weighed mitigators; failed independent weighing.	Order contains judge’s own findings, assigned weight to aggravators and mitigators, and explained reasoning.	Trial court sufficiently engaged in weighing; minor inconsistencies harmless.
Presentation and sufficiency of aggravators (community control, prior violent felony, avoid arrest, pecuniary gain)	Some aggravators unsupported or newly asserted at resentencing; avoid arrest speculative.	Statutory definitions, surrounding facts, and circumstantial evidence support aggravators; clean‑slate rule allows new aggravators.	Court upheld aggravators as supported or harmless if error (three strong aggravators alone justify death).
Proportionality	Sentence disproportionate given mitigators and alleged role as accomplice.	Case involves multiple great‑weight aggravators and limited mitigators; comparable precedents affirm death in similar circumstances.	Death sentence proportional under Florida law.
Cumulative error	Multiple errors combined to deprive fair penalty phase.	Individual errors were either meritless, harmless, invited, or not fundamental.	No cumulative prejudice; no relief.

Key Cases Cited

Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida decision addressing jury findings and the necessity of unanimous jury action after Hurst v. Florida)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Sixth Amendment requires jury finding of aggravating facts that permit death sentence)
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (death penalty unconstitutional for non‑killer who neither intended nor attempted a killing)
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (expanded Enmund to major participation plus reckless indifference)
Ault v. State, 866 So.2d 674 (Fla. 2003) (erroneous for‑cause juror removal where juror could follow law despite death‑penalty opposition)
Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (framework for trial court response to discovery violations)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (trial judge entitled to deference on juror credibility regarding ability to follow law)
Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987) (limitations on removing jurors for cause and the unexercised‑peremptory argument)
Davis v. State, 207 So.3d 142 (Fla. 2016) (unanimous jury recommendation satisfies Hurst‑related harmlessness analysis)
Delhall v. State, 95 So.3d 134 (Fla. 2012) (extreme sanction of excluding evidence for discovery violations should be last resort)