376 So.3d 587
Fla.2023Background
- Thomas Bevel was convicted (2005) of murdering roommate Garrick Stringfield and Stringfield’s 13‑year‑old son Phillip Sims and of the attempted murder of Feletta Smith; he ultimately confessed after giving varying accounts.
- This Court previously reversed and remanded for a new penalty phase (postconviction relief/Hurst-related relief).
- At the second penalty phase the defense presented three experts diagnosing PTSD, major depression, low IQ, and brain injury; the jury unanimously recommended death for both murders and the trial court imposed two death sentences.
- The trial court found two aggravators proven (prior violent felony; murder to avoid arrest as to Sims) and gave them very great weight, but rejected the statutory mitigator that the crimes were committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
- Bevel appealed five issues (including rejection of the mitigator, jury instructions on mercy and proportionality, burden of proof arguments, and constitutional challenges to Florida’s capital scheme); the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Bevel’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by rejecting statutory mitigator (extreme mental/emotional disturbance) | Expert testimony (PTSD, depression, brain damage) was unrefuted and established the mitigator | Expert opinion was speculative, based on lifelong diagnoses, did not tie disturbance to the time of the murders, and conflicted with Bevel’s deliberate conduct | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; competent substantial evidence supported rejection; any error harmless |
| Whether trial court should have given defendant’s special "mercy" instruction | Jurors should be instructed they may always consider mercy regardless of weighing result | Standard Jury Instruction 7.11 adequately informs jurors about mercy | Affirmed — 7.11 was sufficient; no abuse in denying special instruction |
| Whether defendant could argue proportionality to the jury (compare to other cases) | Jury should be allowed to consider proportionality/compare cases | Jury’s role is to weigh facts and defendant’s character, not compare to other cases | Affirmed — preclusion proper; jury not to perform comparative proportionality analysis |
| Whether aggravators’ sufficiency/weight require proof beyond reasonable doubt and whether Florida’s capital scheme is unconstitutional for lack of narrowing/proportionality | Argues higher proof standard and constitutional narrowing/proportionality defects (preserved for federal review) | State: binding Florida precedent rejects these arguments | Affirmed — claims contrary to Florida precedent and rejected; preserved for federal review |
Key Cases Cited
- Bevel v. State, 221 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 2017) (prior reversal/remand for new penalty phase)
- Foster v. State, 679 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1996) (trial court may reject uncontroverted expert opinion on mitigator)
- Provenzano v. State, 497 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1986) (trial court’s discretion in mitigation findings)
- Wuornos v. State, 644 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1994) (trial court may reject expert opinion if inconsistent with other evidence)
- Nelson v. State, 850 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2003) (rejection of expert mitigator where record contains competent substantial contrary evidence)
- Walls v. State, 641 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1994) (opinion testimony weight depends on factual support)
- Spencer v. State, 645 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1994) (standard for when trial court must find mitigating circumstance)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Fla. capital sentencing principles prompting relief in prior Bevel appeal)
- Lawrence v. State, 308 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2020) (abandonment of comparative proportionality review)
- Woodbury v. State, 320 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 2021) (Standard Jury Instruction 7.11 adequately informs jurors on mercy)