Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923

Scott, 22, was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and aggravated battery for a 2007 coin laundry robbery that killed Kristo Binjaku.
Codefendant Bolling cooperated, pled guilty to related offenses, and testified for the State.
The jury found guilt on all counts under both premeditated and felony-murder theories; the penalty phase yielded a death recommendation 9–3.
The trial court imposed death based on two aggravators: prior violent felony and murder during attempted armed robbery, weighed against nine nonstatutory mitigators.
The Court vacated the death sentence, remanding for life imprisonment without parole, after proportionality review determined the death penalty was not proportionate.
The Spencer hearing and mitigation presented were considered in formulating the final sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the guilt-phase prosecutorial closing error reversible?	State contends burden-shifting conduct not reversible as invited response.	Scott argues prosecutor impermissibly shifted burden to prove identity of voice.	No reversible error; comments were invited response and did not shift burden.
Did the court abuse discretion by denying mistrial over unrelated-drug-offense testimony?	State's cross-examination challenged defense alibi; testimony incidental.	Washington’s remark was improper and prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion; isolated remark not pervasive enough for mistrial.
Was the jailhouse recording of Scott and Bolling admissible despite Sixth Amendment concerns?	State sought independent evidence after Bolling implicated Scott.	Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach at this early investigative stage.	Recording properly admitted; Sixth Amendment offense-specific rule applies.
Is the death penalty proportionate given Scott’s circumstances?	State argues aggravators support death in robbery-murder cases.	Scott asserts death is disproportionate due to contemporaneous aggravated battery and mitigating factors.	Death sentence not proportionate; vacated and remanded for life imprisonment without parole.
Does Ring v. Arizona render the Florida capital scheme unconstitutional?	Ring challenges the need for jury findings on aggravators.	Not addressed; proportionality ruling controls.	Not reached; Court addresses proportionality first.

Simmons v. State, 934 So.2d 1100 (Fla.2006) (sufficiency of evidence standard quoted by court)
Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181 (Fla.1991) (prosecutorial burden-shifting limits on comment about defendant’s failure to introduce evidence)
Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1998) (prohibition on burden-shifting by prosecutors; invited-response exception)
Poole v. State, 997 So.2d 382 (Fla.2008) (invited-response doctrine supports comments in closing)
Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156 (Fla.2006) (invited-response and rebuttal to defense argument)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (S. Ct. 1986) (Escobedo lineage; Sixth Amendment distinctions clarified)
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (S. Ct. 1964) (situates right to counsel in pre-indictment context (historical))