*1 142 witnesses, or how ity to confront adverse Trial court decisions re- her mother. testimony have been relevant. of evidence are would
lating admission excluding in of discretion. San if the trial court erred an abuse Even reviewed State, 462, evidence, any 470-71 such error was harmless 717 So.2d Martin v. (Fla.1998). probability A court abuses its discretion is no reasonable because there fanciful, “arbitrary, the decision of a different result with the admission when DiGuilio, v. Johnson So.3d unreasonable.” See State v. evidence. (Fla. 2010). 883, (Fla.1986). Therefore, “If 4th DCA reason- So.2d propriety as to men could differ restricting able the trial court did err court, by taken then the the action counsel’s cross-examination defense there can is not unreasonable and action mother. victim and her finding of an abuse discretion.” no Canakaris, 382 So.2d v. Canakaris CONCLUSION (Fla.1980). above, ap- For the reasons stated we Here, the trial claims Petitioner of the First District and prove the decision allowing court defense coun- erred Fourth disapprove the decisions (1) sel to ask the victim about the outcome District to the extent conflict of a where she was molested prior incident affirm analysis. therefore We (2) ask victim’s party, a third convictions and sentences. Graham’s history her own sexual mother about It is so ordered. Petitioner, According abuse. de- theory the case was that fense’s C.J., PARIENTE, LABARGA, prior Mississippi, incident as well PERRY, LEWIS, CANADY, JJ., abuse, history mother’s of sexual made concur. predisposed interpret victim touches POLSTON, J., concurs result. result, As a victim a sexual manner. misinterpreted Petitioner’s actions when
Petitioner touched the victim’s breasts and
buttocks.
The trial court did not abuse its “In making rulings. these
discretion by jury, a court
cases tried shall conduct proceedings, prac the maximum extent DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, Leon ticable, prevent a manner as to in such being suggest from inadmissible evidence 90.104(2), § by any jury
ed to means.” Florida, Appellee. STATE (2014). In pretrial hearing, Fla. Stat. No. SC11-1122. proffer any defense counsel failed testimony it to elicit from the vic wished Supreme Court of Florida. Consequently, tim and her mother. Nov. 2016. granted motion in trial State’s limine to restrict defense counsel’s line of stopped
questioning later defense inquiring during trial.
counsel further
Petitioner fails to demonstrate how the unreasonably
trial court restricted his abil- *5 II, Defender, Dimmig, L. Public
Howard Bolotin, Public and Steven L. Assistant Bartow, Defender, Circuit, Tenth Judicial FL, Appellant. Bondi, General, Attorney Tal-
Pamela Jo lahassee, FL; Beccue, Marilyn Muir General, FL, Attorney Tampa, Assistant Appellee. PER CURIAM. appeal case before the Court on
This of first- judgments two conviction degree two of death. murder and sentences V, See art. jurisdiction. We have 3(b)(1), Davis, § Fla. Const. Leon Jr. (Davis), County convicted Polk the murders Yvonne Bustamante and pursues Luciano. now Juanita Davis direct of his convictions and sen- appeal subject to tences which are automatic re- For the view this reasons ex- Court. below, we affirm the trial court’s plained judgments of sentences of conviction and death. set forth the facts this We first and we then address Davis’s claims case appeal. on evaluat- direct We conclude signal company. to the alarm sufficiency the evidence used The Lake ing the Davis, proportionality Department Police was contacted Wales convict sentences, one minute later. and Davis’s asser Davis’s death under tion that he entitled relief Help; Seek Victims — Florida, U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. Hurst Bystander Shoots (2016) v. Flor 193 L.Ed.2d CHurst escaped and Luciano ). ida ran in burning building separate di- seeking help. rections Bustamante even- AND STATEMENT OF FACTS tually parking ran to lot Head- HISTORY PROCEDURAL nearby ran to ley building, and Luciano restaurant, Nights. Havana As Busta- Headley Insurance The Events at escape, mante tried shot her The evidence introduced Davis’s trial left hand. her on following. p.ra. Around 3 revealed time, By people concerned who lived 13, 2007, Davis entered the December nearby presence noticed smoke had Headley location of the Insur- Lake Wales to investigate. and walked to the area Agency (Headley) with the intent to ance Murray, people, Fran Brandon These with a robbery. commit Davis was armed Greisman, Ortiz, and Carlos were magnum loaded .357 revolver emergency personnel before scene arrived cigarette light- equipped tape, with duct eyewitnesses became aftermath er, gloves, gasoline can that contained robbery. eyewitness, Another Eve- gasoline, and a lunch cooler to conceal the Anderson, lyn Headley awas customer revolver. Headley robbery who arrived while afternoon, Headley employees, That two trial, At progress. eyewit- was in these (Bustamante) Yvonne Bustamante testified about the events at Head- nesses (Luciano), working. Juanita Luciano *6 ley, including their various encounters with Bustamante, a licensed customer service Davis. Headley for representative, had worked Branch) Murray (formerly Fran Fran Luciano, years. a customer service nine robbery, at the time the testified that Headley for representative, had worked at sitting apartment of her time, she was outside years. three At the Luciano about nearby. She to- and saw smoke walked Upon twenty-four pregnant. was weeks investigate the smoke to its source. business, ward entering the Davis locked the time, neighbors, in- the same her Around prevent to front door other customers Ortiz, also cluding and noticed tape Greisman entering. placed from He also duct proceeded to They the all walk smoke. security over the of a camera. Davis lens investigate. women, the to toward smoke money from the who demanded initially to comply. refused smoke, Murray approached As the she coming it from open to that was the Head-
Davis then forced women realized Bustamante, box, ley building. then saw company’s safe and cash which She body yelling help and whose of about who contained combined amount was robbery, Murray burning. of the observed that Bus- During the course was $900. to tape, wriggling her wrists free with duct tamante was Davis bound the women that Busta- them, gray on thick and gasoline tape, on and set them them a poured falling off of acti- “skin was her.” p.m., At 3:35 one of the women mante’s fire. alarm, “And, screaming, she just, she wasn’t but panic the office’s which sent a vated just utility Headley, in front of and her vehicle talking lightly either. She was wasn’t grand- away.” teenage granddaughter infant get to and trying inside the vehicle. son remained When building, approached As Greisman open front Anderson tried door burning, body he a woman whose was saw building, Headley she discovered that help At the same he went her. and Anderson walked to was locked. time, walking towards Greisman saw Davis building try of the and determine side them, originally thought that he Davis and building why she unable enter was coming help woman. was distressed during normal hours. business While Davis, contact eye made Greisman com- walking, she was noticed smoke gun of the cooler that he pulled who out building. of the Anderson also out pointed it at carrying and Greisman. was sounds, shortly popping thereaf- heard and away, get Davis shot Greisman tried but ter, building out of the and Davis walked face, him in hitting him in the nose. his placed the cooler under arm. profuse bleeding gunshot caused happen- Anderson asked Davis what was tip nose. removed Greisman’s walking away but ing. Davis continued Murray, vicinity, who was still there responded that was fire popping sounds and saw Greisman heard vehicle, building. then to his Davis walked ground fall to the and catch himself with Altima, parked black Nissan that was away his hands. She saw Davis walk nearby. got a vacant house Davis inside Murray into place gun his lunch cooler. away.1 the vehicle and drove Greisman, getting who then assisted thereafter, ground. from into up Shortly Anderson came Bustamante, re- contact with Anderson popping also heard the Carlos Ortiz a minor burn her hand when she ceived Headley approached as he sounds Bustamante, screaming touched who was building. got building, closer to the As he help severely and was burned. Busta- walking him back toward Greisman vehicle, mante walked towards Anderson’s Ortiz bloody face. Greisman told with a granddaughter, and Anderson’s who was shot, Ortiz that he been saw had vehicle, in the front seat of the ran seated part Ortiz saw a behind Greisman. away seeing vehicle after Busta- gun carrying, saw Davis was burning body. mante’s stick into the lunch cooler. his hand open door vehicle walked while eye Ortiz made contact with Davis en- climbed inside the vehicle. Anderson *7 make trying help to as as well Greisman to couraged get out of the Bustamante following that them. sure Davis was not paramedics on because the vehicle home, to and walked back his Greisman got out of the way. Bustamante vehi- Murray him while Ortiz and assisted on the cle and hood. leaned emergency help. awaiting the arrival time, customer, Murray finished at- By this had Anderson, Headley Evelyn a Greisman, tending to to and she returned pay to insurance Headley her arrived if Headley provide to see further during robbery she could the time that the was bill help. Murray leaning Bustamante place. parked sport her saw taking Anderson afternoon, Murray Ortiz a back vacant house. also 1. Earlier that saw black sitting he not seen on a vacant noticed black Nissan that had car a back street near robbery, parked Ortiz saw tire in that before. house. After the she noticed that location being away, Additionally, he did not see Ortiz saw driven but car Nissan was there. driver, away from the scene and towards walk meantime, against Murray SUV. de- In the Anderson’s Luciano escaped the Headley building nearby scribed the scene as follows: ran to and Nights Havana restaurant. The restau- um, screaming was [Bustamante] She owner, Jiminez, Jaidy rant’s heard loud hot. that she was And her skin was boom, thereafter, shortly and Luciano ran rolling body off of her It this time. into Although the restaurant. Luciano disgusting. You smell was could customer, Nights was a Havana she was so skin burnt and flesh. And she was badly that burned Jiminez not recog- did screaming really hot really, she was and “I naked, nize her: saw a woman was thirsty. she I was And so ran across burned, um, toe, burned from to head no the street at time to Havana on, on, any just shoes clothes under- Nights, restaurant, which was a a Cuban IBut recognize wear. couldn’t her.” restaurant, across the street of Headley, Luciano for help asked begged and Jimi- off of corner of Phillips, the other and nez to close the door because “he” was got cup go cup. of ice a to water Luciano, coming. helped Jiminez whom Murray to returned Bustamante with the pregnant, she realized was sit down. Ad- water, cup sipped ditionally, people other inside restau- cup awaiting while the arrival of emer- trying rant were to call 9-1-1 assist gency personnel. Murray talked with Luciano taking Luciano. asked was what Bustamante, Murray described their long help so to arrive and stated that as conversation follows: moving. she feel baby could not her Jimi- nez tried reassure It during I her. was myself as introduced Fran and she this time Murray came into the res- introduced herself Yvonne. satWe water, asking taurant pro- and Jiminez talking a there minute she started vided it to her. Jiminez walked outside say—and gave And, um, I her water. get help, the restaurant and she saw the she said that she didn’t understand how severely burned Once Bustamante. her, anybody rob she would didn’t have paramedics began arrived and to assist any money. kids, please And that her Bustamante, Jiminez told them that anoth- I’m pray, going this Fran. make woman, Luciano, injured er inside of was I get And told her that I would the restaurant. hospital her, I if if could to see it was Emergency Response I keep my allowed and that would her Personnel prayers, everything that with God Emergency dispatches increased their possible. to talk She wanted about her report of urgency sense of as the initial I cannot children. And remember clear- gave way reports inju- fire additional it, ly if I her or if asked who did she was Lt, shooting. ries and a Elrod Joe just talking. And she said that it awas first en- Department Lake Police Wales gentleman, black he should be Greisman, explained countered who tape. crying video She then started help shot attempting while *8 again very and said she loved her babies screaming for help woman whom he heard much, and she doesn’t understand how on fire. and soon discovered was anybody could do this to her. Lt. Elrod determined Greisman’s Murray injuries life-threatening, Bustamante also told that she were not and be- had tape, gaso- emergency personnel been with were bound doused with cause medical line, bathroom, Greisman, pushed way proceed- into a on he and set on to assist Headley building. Are. to the ed When Lt. [tjhat hand, injury a further to her left was Headley, emergency med- Elrod arrived my at that time.” Froehlich personnel already on the scene observations ical were she that Bustamante “looked like assisting testified Bustamante and were body, singed over her had burns all hair parking lot. Lt. observed Busta- Elrod off, off, clothing most of her was burned burns, and he mante’s severe estimated hanging off her back and but- skin was eighty per- burns covered about that the tocks.” body. immediately Elrod cent of her Lt. in- gravity of Bustamante’s understood present Lt. Froehlich was when Elrod
juries, he not to until and decided wait if knew who the asked Bustamante she later to obtain Bustamante’s statement. was, and he overheard Busta- perpetrator going “I knew Lt. Elrod testified: she was say “Leon Davis.” Johnson also mante die, I get so tried information Bustamante state that Davis heard was it “I her her on who did to her.” asked although was unable to perpetrator, she it did it to her. And told me was who clearly say Davis’s hear Bustamante first her, I Davis. And then asked how Leon Anderson also heard Bustamante name. him. knew And she said that she she identify perpetrator. Davis as the prior him and that he was client [a] knows Bustamante, initially assisting After Company.” of theirs the Insurance Nights to Havana to assist Johnson went explained Davis tried res- Luciano. When Johnson entered the them, they give when did not him rob and taurant, he water on the floor and noticed money, gasoline on them set he threw and Luciano, severely saw who was burned and run, they tried to them fire. When “basically plastic There was a naked.” gasoline on Davis continued to throw them. wrists, area, on her neck substance Luciano, conscious, Lt. Elrod then located Luciano inside of who was breath- feet. Nights the Havana restaurant. When he talk ing, clearly, and able to told Johnson restaurant, Luci- inside the he saw pregnant walked that she was and that while ano, “obviously pregnant,” sitting office, was working gas- who in her someone poured down. Lt. Elrod characterized Luciano’s oline set her on Luciano on her and fire. injuries even worse than burn Busta- Johnson that her wrists also told were mante’s. Elrod went outside and told Lt. burning, Johnson went ambu- emergency personnel another victim get lance to sterile water to her alleviate help who even worse condi- needed was pain. began
tion than He then Bustamante. time, By emergency additional med- dispatching the name “Leon Davis” to law personnel dispatched ical conducting routine enforcement and duties arrival, paramedic George Upon scene. at the crime scene. Bailey primary responsibility for assumed care, “Chip” John Johnson went back to Paramedic Johnson and Luciano’s emergency parking assisting medical technician Ernest lot to continue Busta- emergency Luciano Froehlich were first medi- mante. was conscious and able personnel respond questions. explained cal to arrive on the scene. She arrival, Bustamante, Upon Bailey robbery, first saw “that had been a there at, lot parking leaning who on the she business where was she had up tape, Johnson observed: or bound and had Anderson’s SUV. “the been tied skin, it, I everywhere gasoline poured see on her and had been lit on could back, peeling major Bailey and she had fire.” not ask her who suffered did harmed hands, her, person burns. Also she had but told him that the darkened Luciano *9 that she who it was. customer Davis was a man and knew and knew name. Davis Bailey that deposited Luciano also told she was in cash into his account $148 twenty-four pregnant. Bailey weeks esti- that previously had a balance of $5.33. eighty percent mated that of Luciano’s transaction, processing While Lacy body was burned second- and third- bloody observed that Davis’s face was degree burns. appeared to have scratches and marks on nose, lip, and chin. The credit union Both Luciano air- Bustamante and Dollison, branch manager, Valerie also Regional to the lifted Orlando Medical working that afternoon. She not per- did Center for treatment in the burn unit. Davis, sonally know but she heard some- emergency Luciano undeiwent an caesare- one call him “Leon.” section, during gave which she birth to son, Bustamante, Al- her Michael Jr.2 also Davis went house his where though hospital detectives went brother, (Garrion), Davis Garrion and Gar- hopes interviewing Bustamante and Lu- Sellers, girlfriend, rion’s Melissa resided.3 ciano, severity injuries pre- of their Garrion that testified on the afternoon of from meeting vented the detectives ever 13, “my December brother to my came with them. house. He to-he wanted needed some soap to wash his face. And he went out- for days
Michael lived three after his my side his house and washed face. I delivery. emergency He died as the result noticed a on his he had scratch face. He prematurity. of extreme Bustamante lived somebody.” told me he robbed had Gar- days, five and Luciano lived three rion testified that Davis also came inside Autopsies of weeks. both women revealed the house took a shower. Garrion complications that died of ther- estimated Davis was at the house for According mal burns due to the fire. ten fifteen minutes. examiner, suf- medical Bustamante ninety eighty fered burns covered Sellers, who was at home with Garrion body. percent her Luciano suffered time, at the testified about Davis’s visit to ninety percent burns that covered about their that afternoon. house Sellers wished body. Additionally, autopsy her Davis, birthday day, whose was the next fragments revealed bullet happy early birthday. She estimated hand, gunshot from the left al- her Davis was at her house for ten minutes gunshot though the was not cause her less, although she certain death. shower, whether he taken a she had knew Robbery been their had bathroom.
Events after the left, Sellers When observed scene, leaving After Davis went to a changed. demeanor had Garrion’s Garrion Union, branch of the Mid Florida Credit upset teary-eyed. seemed and was he was an established customer. At where home, Later, p.m., forty-five 4:19 less than minutes after Davis went to a friend’s phone of Headley, the alarm was activated at Davis where he used the cell a woman un- into the credit union make named Fonda Roberts. Roberts was walked conversation, teller able to hear Davis’s which deposit. Lacy, cash Jessica who Davis, couple him as a of minutes. assisted was familiar with lasted When brother, trial, By 2. Yvonne Bus- 3. the time of Sellers and Garrion Bustamante’s Michael tamante, relationship inwas with Luciano were married. baby and was the father Michael. *10 people A using phone, he started to number with whom Davis was finished in day came into contact phone pulled to Roberts and then later testified hand the appeared to trial Davis have some Davis then erased the back from her. to injury sort nose. The crime his scene that he Roberts observed number called. photographed who Davis time, technician after driving a black that at the Davis was custody he was into and a taken law en- vehicle. forcement officer who interacted with Turns Himself Davis to upon Davis his transfer the Bartow Air progressed, As the afternoon a massive appeared Base both testified that Davis to investigation began. photograph Davis’s or a burn on have either scratches his began shown on television as media sister, Additionally, nose. Davis’s Noniece Headley, Davis’s report the and events at DeCosey, mark on Davis’s saw red nose increasingly family friends became and have could been burn. suspect in aware Davis’s status as night, That a black Nissan Altima was day’s family events. and friends Davis’s Lagoon nightclub at the found Winter him in frantically began trying to locate Haven. Law officers were enforcement hopes they could convince him to turn location, dispatched to the and the car was in safely. himself pending seized a warrant search the car’s interior. sister, Searches conducted evening, That Davis called his located, vicinity of the car was DeCosey, where and asked her come Noniece firearm, to look for a particular did not up him Their pick and near McDonald’s. reveal fol- mother, Davis, any additional evidence. The accompanied Linda DeCo- lowing day, after the search warrant was DeCosey sey to Davis. drove them meet signed, law enforcement conducted an inte- K to a Circle store meet convenience rior Altima. search Davis’s sister, driver DeCosey’s other India inside the car. license was found Owens, family Barry friend Gaston. arrival, Gaston, Upon up to Davis walked for three was later tried counts him, hugged “I and said: hurt someone.” (Bustamante, Luciano, first-degree murder did, Gaston he asked Davis what When Michael), baby attempted one count of that he not know. Davis said did (Greisman), first-degree one count murder got and his into car mother with Owens robbery, count of first- armed one and Gaston. degree arson. Phase Guilt
Gaston, a former offi- law enforcement cer, helped turning facilitate Davis himself theory The State’s trial Polk County at the substation. Davis, Sheriffs by mounting a man financial driven way Gaston testified pressures, planned robbery of Head- substation, Davis his head on his ley, laid a business with which he was familiar. mother’s in the lap backseat of car and relationship Headley Davis’s business again cried and sobbed. Davis said that dated back to reflected records, hurt somebody, but him not Gaston told various needs Davis’s insurance say anything more. Davis was turned primarily handled Bustamante. County over to the Polk Sheriffs Office The State introduced evidence that estab- without leading up incident. Davis was later trans- lished a timeline events ported robbery, including from the Office Davis’s actions on Sheriffs substation day robbery. Air A pro- summary Bartow Base for further cessing. follows. evidence *11 robbery, leading up ing Vazquez recognized In the months to with Davis. later the experienced increasing coverage person financial dif- Davis from news Davis Davis, ficulty. the time was mar- who at during Headley. she saw visit to her Victoria, primarily ried to his wife was for preparation robbery Davis’s also family in- responsible obligations, for the acquiring involved various items that he cluding mortgage payment on their to carry would need order out the rob- time, At home. Davis and his wife had bery, including gun a and ammunition. On two cars: a blue Nissan Maxima owned 7, 2007, days December six before Davis, a black and Nissan Altima owned cousin, robbery, his Davis went visit Both vehicles were insured Victoria. Randy Black. Black that Davis told he policies by Headley. under written gun personal for protection needed a be- 2007, during a visit to Flori- June the Mid going cause he was to travel to Miami. Union, da Credit aware that Davis became guns, Black including owned recent- two the amount of the automatic debit from his ly purchased Dan magnum Wesson .357 coverage account for his insurance had guns, revolver. Black Davis showed both increasing been over time. Davis was also opted purchase mag- and Davis the .357 that his informed account was overdrawn num for around Black also gave $200. became irate. Davis .38 caliber bullets which com- cars, Unable afford insurance both patible magnum. with the Davis .357 Davis license and Victoria removed the revolver, operat- Black fired the which was Maxima, plate from the canceled the car’s Later, ing normally. Davis showed his policy, solely insurance on the relied mother her the revolver. Davis told for transportation. couple Altima The was got the he revolver Black and that he phone also unable to cell service afford Black fired it.4 during this time. had been work- Victoria Day Davis’s Actions on the ing, pregnant she but became and was Robbery working stop preg- forced because evidence trial also The introduced at nancy complications. a detailed timeline established Davis’s Headley Davis’s Plan to Rob robbery, on day actions which plan Headley began Davis’s to rob purchase included visit to Walmart time, early By coalesce December. supplies day. use he would later couple had reached the their limits morning On December Victoria cards, payment mortgage credit and the Davis last husband at about 6 a.m. saw her delinquent. was One before the rob- week a.m., son, took his Before Davis who had bery, Headley Virginia Vazquez customer night spent previous with Davis and Headley. saw Davis at She first saw Victoria, mother, boy’s home to the Dawn looking parking Davis lot Henry. birthday His son’s day. was that Then, back of a went black car. Davis began talking then went the Lake inside and Wales Wal- Bustamante. mart, still Vazquez and her husband waited inside where surveillance video and agency twenty photographs making for fifteen to him insurance showed three separate purchases minutes before Bustamante finished talk- around 7 The first a.m. 4. After Black realized that law enforcement law enforcement with two .38 caliber bullets Davis, looking immediately was con- documenting original pur- receipt and the his law enforcement to advise that he re- tacted gun. of the chase cently gun. provided sold Black also day robbery, the State intro- long-sleeved
purchase cap, included soft, shirt, orange regarding aspects lunch cooler. duced evidence various pair purchase second investigation. a Bic purchase third gloves, and the investigation expansive crime scene purchases All of the cigarette lighter. spanned days, and the numerous several were cash transactions. into photographs crime scene entered evi- *12 Walmart, spoke Davis the at with While of events depicted gruesome dence a series Gammons, a manager, Mark and store Headley building began the and inside Jennifer employee, store DeBarros. Gam- photo- The exterior continued outside. approached that Davis him mons testified graphs depict Headley, entrance the the in gloves were located and asked where vehicle, lot, parking Anderson’s and the saw Davis’s the store. When Gammons skin bloody footprints trail of and burnt evening, on the news that real- picture Headley building to that led from the Ha- seen Davis Walmart ized he had Nights. vana Anderson’s was SUV employee morning. Walmart Jenni- blood on both sides smeared with fer DeBari’Os had known Davis for more hood was marked blood stains on and years family than was a friend. ten and passenger in the the vehicle doors and side morning on DeBarros testified interior. during December she talked with Davis DeBarros his visit to talked Walmart. photographs captured The interior birthday. Davis about his son’s Headley damage in various areas fire of- building, including damage Walmart, leaving time after Davis Some area, area, storage fice and the exten- sister, to the home of his India drove Among sively damaged bathroom. accompanied Davis Owens. then Owens damage to widespread fire and debris in repairs pick up take her a car Headley building, the interior crime They pick up rental car. later went furniture, presence photographs at a scene revealed the stopped some res- blood, chair, agitated ciga- a burnt severely taurant for lunch. Davis seemed two (one lighters rette of which eating lunch. was identified while lighter), tape, as Bic burnt duct burnt Video surveillance showed can, plastic gasoline open an cash box that p.m. left the at 1:38 Davis and restaurant coins, only open an empty contained Owens then delivered furniture Ow- safe, key pad, bloody alarm and burnt time, During that no- ens’s house. Owens equipment. photographs The surveillance began acting strangely, ticed that Davis wall, door, also bullet holes showed obsessively locking doors the house. an A bullet exterior shed door. piece tape for a Davis also asked duct from retrieved the shed floor. A say why but did not he needed it. short later, Al- time Davis left Owens’s house. Batz, investiga- an arson Detective Jeff though birthday party had a Davis’s son tor, gasoline detected the odor inside afternoon, school that Davis did not attend. building, Headley and noted that Headley building Davis entered the some- strong particularly near the rear of p.m. time around 3 building. Batz identified three areas Investigation The origin Headley building: of fire inside door, front surrounding to evidence a chair located near the addition aftermath, room, storage Headley, their and the bathroom. Batz events at “Three-points of ori- leading up Davis’s behavior and includ- testified as follows: naturet,] ny one of gin, separate neither Bustamante’s and Luciano’s fami- other, each di- lies. them had connections with through They
rectly impingement. flame witness, Angela Bryson, the State’s first type all an flame device open started with felony probation was Davis’s Bry- officer. on all three ar- and accelerant was used son that Davis was on placed pro- testified eas.” grand bation for theft July on 2007. investigation also included exam- on probation was still the time Nelson, ination the seized Nissan Altima. Headley Stephen When Dr. crimes. examiner, analyzed the car’s floor for the mats were the medical returned to the accelerant, presence of an a certified accel- stand as the State’s second witness. Dr. pres- K-9 testimony erant detection alerted Nelson further provided regard- floor injuries ence of accelerant the driver’s mat sustained passenger floor and the rear mat. and Luciano: *13 They begin pain would to feel immedi- days robbery, a Several after the search ately upon starting the fire to consume warrant was executed at Davis’s home. their skin. burns that present The are Although testimony trial revealed that on victims approximately these is 80 to responsible yard Davis was for the work at body 90% the of surface area. It is a kept his home and lawn mower he degree third and fourth bums. First- garage, gasoline and a can in the law sunburn, degree burn is a a second- only enforcement located the lawn mower. sunburn, degree is a burn blistered gasoline No can found at was Davis’s third-degree be a full would thickness home. goes through burn that the full thick- in gun Headley The the crimes was used skin, endings. involves ness the nerve However, rifling never recovered. the degree largely And fourth burns would projectiles characteristics retrieved charred, where the burns skin is from the crime scene and from Busta- So, first-degree charred. and sec- to be con- mante’s hand were determined burns, I think ond-degree we have all with the rifling sistent characteristics sunburns, we know painful had how Wesson, handgun Dan manufacturer sunburn, those If we have a are. magnum manufacturer the .357 revolver degree that has filled second burn fluid bought days that Davis several before painful. pops, that’s The vessel robbery. burn, it third-degree again, involves Penalty The and the Phase Verdict is degree of thickness burned third-degree And the February jury through On convict- skin. first-degree they in painful produce Davis of six ed counts: burns are Bustamante, Luciano, itself, burning up to a sensation murders Michael; attempted first-degree point endings the nerve baby point which Greisman; damaged. are robbery; their skin And murder armed under pain is no more or first-degree penalty phase arson. be- there nerve then signal that sent from the fire. How- gan days jury after the rendered its two verdicts, sought being pro- in to the burn guilty the State ever wherein addition gasoline, whatever prove aggravating seven circumstances. duced pro- flaming, from that is on their skin that’s testimony addition to Davis’s examiner, subsequent for a burn is also officer and the treatment bation medical impact painful. presented testimo- State victim not to life. mental also that both women take his Davis Dr. Nelson testified received months, capable feeling pain counseling for two to three have been health would endings gradu- if their After problems areas even nerve his continued. some but women, school, Both destroyed ating high joined others. were However, severely injured Corps. so that an who were IV United States Marine veins, be inserted into their following year, could not Davis was involved pain when experienced have intraos- would accident and revealed that he vehicle were inserted into their seous catheters intentionally crashed vehicle that he leg to receive medication. The bones driving. Pursuant was a recommenda- stopped experiencing have women would tion separation, for an administrative pain they once received medication discharged from military ser- coma, into medically induced but were vice. have been could conscious what only Although year one Davis was about point. going until his out of the old when father moved fami- phase presen- penalty After the State’s home, ly part his father remained tation, mitigation Davis offered evidence up, growing Davis’s life. Davis and While alleged statutory the existence of two siblings placed his separated mitigating circumstances non- and fifteen care, foster Davis remained close but statutory mitigating circumstances. sister, siblings. his mother testified
Multiple witnesses that Davis’s Owens, compas- him as India described *14 by was marked childhood abuse. When sionate, loving, and selfless. After Davis’s old, eight years sexually Davis was was military, discharge from the he met a by following child. The assaulted another Henry, woman named with whom he Dawn year, a woman named Ms. Clark moved born a son. child was with had Down family home a into the roommate. as Syndrome. Henry testified while she later, and his Sometime Davis brother adjusting being had trouble to a mother of family Garrion moved out home and needs, special a child with Davis immedi- Clark, began staying with who was ately accepted their son and was consis- physically verbally alcoholic and was and tently present in his life. Davis, routinely abusive. Clark beat and robbery, the time of the Davis Around occasion, injuries on one she caused severe upset that he depressed was and could not beating to body by the of his him back anything to do for his afford son’s birth- with an cord. taunted extension Clark day. Davis’s mother testified that when physical Davis and verbal abuse be- purchased shortly the revolver Davis be- children, by cause he was bullied other and robbery, fore the was she concerned she also hit him with water hoses and might it to commit use suicide. punched Family him in the chest. mem- Jury Recommendations and injuries physical bers observed such as Spencer Hearing
welts, bleeding, open and scabs sores and body. on Davis’s phase, At penalty the conclusion the Additionally, jury unanimously ongo- Davis suffered from recommended that ing depressive episodes, part mood Davis be death the mur- sentenced bullying By due he suffered ele- ders Luciano. four, jury mentary through high eight school school. vote of recom- school, began talking middle about that Davis be sentenced to death mended suicide, encouraged baby his mother him for the Michael. The murder Spencer5 rejected statutory mitigation hear- court subsequently Court held as his presented parties argument at which both addi- significant prior that he no had argument present addi- tional but did However, criminal history. the trial court tional evidence. did find that the crime was committed
Sentencing
while Davis
was under
influence of
extreme
or
mental
emotional disturbance
The trial court
Davis to death
sentenced
(little weight).
nonstatutory
As
mitigating
for the
of Bustamante and Luci-
murders
circumstances,
the trial court found the
order,
sentencing
ano.
In its
the trial
(1)
following:
the defendant was the victim
aggrava-
of six
found the existence
bullying
his
throughout
(slight
childhood
ting
circumstances
murders
(2)
weight);
moderate
(1)
defendant
capital felony
women:
was
both
was the victim of sexual assault as a
person previously
convict-
child
committed
(3)
(slight
felony
felony probation
weight);
ed of a
and on
moderate
the defen-
(some
(2)
weight);
capital felony was
both physical
dant was the victim of
cold,
(mod-
homicide and was committed
emotional child abuse
a caretaker
premeditated
(4)
calculated
manner with-
weight);
erate
defendant
was the
any pretense
legal
out
or
justifi-
moral
family dynamics
victim of overall
(very
(CCP)
(3)
weight);
(great
cation
the defen-
(5)
weight);
little
the defendant served in
dant
contemporaneously
was
convicted of
Corps (very
the United States Marine
lit-
capital felony
felony involving
another
or a
(6)
weight);
tle
had
a histo-
defendant
person
the use or threat of
violence
ry
suicidal,
of being
both as a child and as
(4)
(very great
capital
weight);
felony
(7)
an adult
(slight weight);
defendant
was committed
while
defendant was
diagnosed
was
personality
with a
disorder
engaged
of,
or attempt
the commission
(8)
(slight weight);
the defendant had a
commit,
flight
or in
after
committing
(9)
history
depression (slight weight);
any
attempting
robbery
to commit
or ar-
dealing
stress
with at
defendant
(moderate
(5)
weight);
capital
son
felo-
(little
(10)
weight);
time
the incident
(little
ny
pecuniary gain
committed
*15
person
good
gener-
defendant was a
(6)
weight);
capital felony
and
(11)
(very
slight weight);
al
defendant
heinous, atrocious,
especially
or cruel
good
(very slight weight);
was a
worker
(HAC) (great weight).6 The trial court
(12)
son,
good
good
the defendant was
aggravating
found
seventh
circumstance
(very
sibling,
good
slight
and
husband
Bustamante;
toas
the murder of
the felo-
(13)
weight);
good
was a
defendant
ny
purpose
was committed for the
Syndrome
father
Down
a child with
avoiding
preventing
a lawful arrest
(moderate
(14)
weight);
the defendant ex-
(some weight).
court also
The
evaluated
during
good
hibited
the trial
behavior
and
aggravating
respect
this
circumstance with
(very slight
proceedings
other
rejected
to the murder of
but
it as
Luciano
(15)
weight);
defendant
and
exhibited
proven.
(little
jail
weight).
good behavior
while
The trial court also considered two stat-
jury’s
The trial court
rec-
utory mitigating
overrode
Due to
circumstances.
convictions,
imposed
and
a sen-
prior felony
the trial
ommendation
death
(Fla.1993).
jury
Spencer
pecuniary gain,
convict-
5.
ISSUES responsibil- began your to handle then issues, Lake officer as the first Wales Davis raises four ities appeal, On (1) her? whether the have contact with address turn: which we it when admitted trial court erred Yes, sir. Lt. Elrod: dy- as a of victim Bustamante statements Why you did do? What—what State: (2) declaration; photopack whether the you do it? did Davis, by victim made identifications get her state- I wanted Lt. Elrod: Ortiz, eyewitness should Greisman got- it ever be ment before wouldn’t (3) excluded; photo- whether been have ten. unfairly were graphs of the murder victims Now, if normally, you were State: (4) the trial court and whether prejudicial; scene, someone is first officer on the Davis committed found that improperly personnel, being treated medical in order to of Bustamante murder you just go and start ahead would also two raises avoid arrest. State you thought if However, asking questions them given cross-appeal. on issues going to survive appeal, direct we our resolution hospital? cross-appeal. to reach the State’s decline No, I have let the Lt. Elrod: sir. would Dying Declaration of I. people try to take care medical Yvonne Bustamante them. trial court erred argues case, go you in this ahead State: But did declaration, admitted, dying when actually speak begin to Lt. by Bustamante statements made gurney and ask her woman scene, Lt. Elrod Elrod. While pointed questions? very about the events Bustamante questioned Yes, Lt. Elrod asked Busta- Headley. When Lt. Elrod: sir. perpetrator’s she knew the mante whether Bustamante what When Lt. Elrod asked identity, identified Davis. Be- explained that happened, Bustamante she trial, a motion to Davis filed exclude fore working when Davis and Luciano were *16 statements, trial and the Bustamante’s office, money their demanded entered evidentiary hear- an extensive held them, to rob them. from and tried She testimony ing during which it received not they give did Davis the said when multiple witnesses. wanted, gasoline he threw money that he on fire. Lt. Elrod them and set them hearing, At Lt. Elrod testified Bustamante, perpetrator’s knew the her if she approached first he asked when he him, “yes, told identity. on a badly lying woman observed a burned Davis,” and that he was client gurney appeared to be burned over was Leon who business. Bustamante body. of her Lt. of their insurance eighty percent about alert, and she appeared that Bustamante coherent quickly surmised Elrod Lt. clearly response in Elrod’s injuries. spoke As a re- not survive her would sult, pointed questions. to ask Bustamante began he
159
cutions,
Other witnesses at the
hear-
evidentiary
enjoy
the accused shall
right
ing
testified
Busta-
also
heard
...
to be
confronted
the witnesses
Const,
Headley
mante describe the events at
against
him[.]” U.S.
amend. VI.
identify
Additionally,
per-
Davis.
medical
This protection
to prosecutions
extends
in
grave
sonnel testified about Bustamante’s
both federal and state courts. See Pointer
condition,
physical
eyewitness
Fran
Texas,
400, 406,
v.
1065,
380 U.S.
85 S.Ct.
Murray
that Bustamante stated
(1965).
testified
13
“Indeed,
L.Ed.2d 923
[the
going
Following
that she was
to die.
Supreme
United States
Court] ha[s] ex
hearing,
the trial court determined that
pressly
to deprive
declared that
an ac
Bustamante’s statements were admissible
right
cused
to cross-examine the
dying
as a
declaration. Her statements
against
witnesses
him is a denial of through
were admitted at trial
the testimo-
guarantee
Fourteenth Amendment’s
of due
ny of Lt. Elrod and other witnesses.
process
405,
law.” Id.
Ratified the Sixth Leach Rep. (K.B. 1789). Amendment the United States Constitu century ago, More than a provides that all prose- “[i]n tion criminal United Supreme recognized States Court way suggested 7. Davis also contends that the trial court erro- that this doctrine was the basis neously admitted Bustamante’s statements for its decision. The trial court set its forth *17 by wrongdoing exception. under the forfeiture admissibility conclusions as to the Busta- of merit, argument This is without The trial statements, specified mante’s and it the bases court observed that one of the cases it re- under which it deemed her statements admis- evaluating dying viewed while Davis’s decla- reject argument sible. We therefore this arguments ration contained a discussion on without discussion. further by wrongdoing, forfeiture but the court in no 160 However, light in argues that [dying immemorial decla “from time
that
2004
Supreme Court’s
competent
as
the United States
treated
have been
rations]
har
testimony,
Crawford,
no one would have
in
the admission
and
decision
question their admis
day
dying
to
violates the
testimonial
declaration
dihood
admitted,
in conform
sibility. They are
right of confrontation.
Amendment
Sixth
regarding the
any general rule
ity with
recognized
previously
This Court has
excep
testimony,
but as an
admission
Supreme
U.S.
Court “held
in
Crawford
rules,
the necessi
simply from
tion to such
hearsay
of a
state-
the introduction
ease,
a manifest
prevent
to
ties
in a
of the defen-
violation
ment will result
U.S., 156
justice.”
Mattox
failure
to
right
confron-
Amendment
dant’s Sixth
237,
337,
243-44,
39 L.Ed.
15
U.S.
S.Ct.
(1)
testimonial;
if
statement
is
tation
(1895).
ex
dying declaration]
409
“[The
unavailable;
(3)
(2)
the declarant
before the
ception was well established
prior opportunity
lacked a
the defendant
constitution,
adoption
and was
of the declarant.”
cross-examination
ground
abrogated.
intended
be
(Fla.
State,
17,
Hayward v.
So.3d
that,
upon
exception rests
which such
case,
2009).
in-
present
the State
dying
under which
from the circumstances
troduced,
declaration, out-of-
dying
as a
made,
equivalent
are
are
declarations
testimonial
of the declar-
court
statements
living
upon
the evidence of a
witness
ant,
un-
Bustamante was
Bustamante.
47, 61,
U.S.,
Kirby v.
174 U.S.
oath[.]”
trial,
testify
and Davis
available
(1899).
161
dying
accepted
grounds,
must
on
because the
declaration rule has re-
be
historical
generis.
post-Crawford.”
mained valid
it is sui
6,
Crawford, 541
56 n.
124
S.Ct.
date,
U.S.
Supreme
To
the United States
(internal
omitted).
1354
citations
Subse-
dying
Court has not
whether the
answered
in
v.
quently,
California,
Giles
554 U.S.
exception
declaration
remains
viable
353, 358,
2678,
Yet,
dicta,
128 S.Ct.
162 belief reasonable available declarant’s Minority
Majority View vs.
View
imminent, con-
“that his or her death
although
acknowledges that
Davis
or
cerning
physical cause
instrumen-
authority on
split of
whether
there is a
believed to
talities of what the declarant
Crawford, his
dying declaration survived
circumstances
impending death
longer
no
exception is
position, that
death.”). Conse-
surrounding impending
viable,
minority view. None
reflects
“histori-
quently,
argues,
Davis
Crawford’s
theless,
points
sup
two main
he asserts
dying
declara-
grounds”
cal
Florida’s
First,
argues
Davis
port
position.
of his
longer
no
be used
exception
tion
can
exception
dying declaration
that Florida’s
dying
of a
justify the
declaration
admission
dying
with the
declaration
is inconsistent
Crawford, 541
See
in Florida’s courts.
thus,
law,
it
at common
that existed
6,124
n.
1354.
U.S.
56
S.Ct.
historical
satisfy
does
Crawford’s
Second, Davis main
grounds exception.
[dying declaration]
It is
that “[t]he
true
not a
dying
that the
declaration
tains
jus
hearsay exception
sometimes been
has
dying
because
dec
hearsay exception
valid
dying person
grounds
on the
that
tified
inherently
To
larations are
unreliable.
presumed under
common law
notwithstanding,
day,
arguments
have,
religious
commonly
held
be
due
overwhelming majority
joins the
this Court
afterlife,
concerning the
a fear
liefs
such
exception
dying
that the
declaration
view
expiate
dying
opportunity
without
unique
post-Crawford.
remains viable
reliability
any
statement
lie that
dying
of the
declara
purpose
nature and
circumstances was deemed
made
those
exception,
tion
observed
Crawford
testimony.”
of sworn
equivalent
to that
dies,
continuing utility and
justifies its
1,
Beauchamp,
Wis.2d
796
v.
333
State
validity
exception
against
to the rule
as an
(2011). Thus,
780,
Davis ar
794
N.W.2d
the con
hearsay.
therefore reaffirm
We
dying
ex
gues
Florida’s
declaration
dying
in this
tinued use of the
declaration
the “historical
ception does
fall under
state in a manner that
consistent with
suggested
Crawford,
because
grounds”
excep
applicable law that defines the
religious justification that ex
it lacks the
tion.
Crawford, 541
at common
See
isted
law.
6, 124
U.S. at 56 n.
S.Ct. 1354.
Historical Grounds
footnote in
v.
Davis cites
State
argues
dying
Davis first
Florida’s
Hailes,
544
Md.App.
92 A.3d
exception
longer
is no
valid
declaration
(2014),
442 Md.
However, religious justification argues dying Davis also declara primary or justification inherently sole of the tions are unreliable. He cites dying declaration universally has been Mayhew, 961, U.S. v. F.Supp.2d 380 1860, (S.D.Ohio In accepted. Wigmore on 2005), Evidence where a federal district following analysis: included the expressly “rejected] govern dying argument dying ment’s [A declaration] is not declarations received an exception are upon any ground other than that ne- Confrontation of Id. at 965. cessity, prevent go- order to Clause.” The court murder stated that it ing unpunished. “doubts reliability What is said the inherent of such statements,” books about the situation of the noted the declar- incentives ant, being dying person might even a virtually under the most have truth, offer false speak dying solemn sanction is statements. Id. at 965 n. far 5. The court presenting ground the true observed: the admission.... rule no [T]he doubt example, For might the declarant upon presumption based revengeful have in a been state of mind majority of cases there will be no other dying which would color his statements. equally satisfactory proof of same subject longer No to the fear of retalia- presumption facts. This and the conse- enemies, by his might tion the declarant quent probability going the crime un- falsely persons incriminate those whom punished is unquestionably the chief If he disliked. the decedent no had ground exception in the law religious of punishment belief fear evidence. death, after the statements made while Evidence, § Wigmore on (quoting dying would seem lose much of the Greenleaf, § traditionally Evidence editorial note trustworthiness attributed (1860) (emphasis supplied)). general, “It is scarce- self-serving them. decla- that, ly necessary say particularly suspect, to the rule that rations would accused is entitled to thereby exculpate be conft'onted with for the could decedent him, against witnesses questionable the admission himself from association dying exception declarations is an surrounding which with the his circumstances necessity from the physical arises the cause.” death. The declarant’s post-Crawford: juggernaut doing, exempted coverage mains viable "This from the persuasive authority (footnote Mary- is irresistible. Confrontation Clause.” Id. at 567 hereby joins land We hold ranks. that the omitted). Declaration, Wrong- Dying like Forfeiture here, long acquiesced since moment of land and at the mental state mind pro- adoption of these constitutional reliability of his may weaken death visions, to that it would be abhorrent but statements. justice regard for individual sense Id, Note, Affidavits, Depositions, (quoting safety its ex- security public which Testimony, 46 L.R. Iowa and Prior inevitably in some cases would clusion (1961)). 375-76 naught. set think it do impossible, we While Monterroso, Cal.Rptr.3d 101 P.3d at person use dying that a would improbable *21 Houser, 431, 26 Mo. (quoting State v. 972 exis- fleeting earthly moments of her the (Mo.1858)). The “it court concluded: 438 to, the place than blame at tence rather pedigree common that the law follows murderer, intentionally of her actual feet dying poses exception the declarations someone else. After falsely incriminate conflict the Amendment.” no with Sixth all, [dying of the declara- admission “[t]he omitted). (citations Id. ground the of neces- justified upon is tion] upheld Supreme The Court Wisconsin in of the consideration sity, and view dying of the post-Crawford viability immedi- the expectation almost the certain in Beauchamp, 796 N.W.2d temptation all to declaration remove ate death will “If to The court reasoned: we were strict 780. and enforce as adherence falsehood Clause, as accept that the Confrontation obligation as the of an oath to the truth U.S., seemingly 146 forth in impose.” Mattox v. U.S. set unbend- could Crawford’s declaration, (1892). 152, 50, ing requires that all testimoni- 140, 36 13 L.Ed. 917 S.Ct. subject to confrontation challenge al be reject statements Consequently, we Davis’s reliability, to exclude reliability the test their we would dying declaration. the as, definition, dying uncon- declarations Having that both concluded frontable, therefore, and statements whose merit, reject we his arguments are without reliability at cannot be Id. 791. tested.” abrogate dying dec Florida’s invitation agree Beauchamp in the court We with exception. analysis Our the laration seemingly rigid approach can- that “such today are consis conclusion that we reach prevail not here.” Id. jurisdictions that tent with that of other highest recently, appellate post viabili Most have considered -Crawford instance, Special Maryland, Court For court ty dying declaration. decided, judgment in Hailes affirmed shortly Appeals, after Crawford dying declaration re- People and held that Supreme California Court decided Monterroso, 743, Maryland. The 22 mains state’s 34 Cal. viable v. Cal.4th 1, (2004), high explained: 956 de court Rptr.3d 101 P.3d cert.
nied,
834,
61,
126
163
546 U.S.
S.Ct.
Here,
we reach
same conclusion
(2005),
Monterroso,
L.Ed.2d 89
Supreme
consistently
has
that the
Court
claim “that
rejected
the defendant’s
a century,
for more than
endorsed
abrogated
exception
has
that the Confrontation Clause does
hold
Crawford
1,
Cal.Rptr.3d
Id. 22
dying declarations.”
Al-
apply
dying
not
declarations....
Concluding
that,
“the
To such evidence as violative exclude tions, holding entirely only consistent our right confrontation would not progeny. its Eng- contrary precedents all Crawford State, necessary Hailes Md. 113 A.3d is not that the declarant ‘make (2015). express utterances’ that he would never Hayward, recover.” (quot- at 30 So.3d Although “deliberately avoid- Crawford Henry v. 613 So.2d question holding ed the how [the (Fla.1992)). In determining whether apply dying would in a declara- Crawford] case,” hearsay tion admit persuaded dying declaration, we are as a the Unit- “ itself, Supreme satisfy ed Court ‘the court States has nonetheless should circumstances,’ notwithstanding totality clear that “made cate- the de- gorical language employed in Crawford, dying.” ceased Id. knew was at 30-31 there remain situations in 431). which a defen- (quoting Henry, 613 at So.2d may successfully dant invoke the Con- hope “absence of of recovery, all ap- frontation Clause to exclude testimonial preciation by the declarant of his speedy hearsay statements.” Beauchamp, 796 death, and inevitable preliminary are a N.W.2d 791. The introduction of a valid always foundation that must be laid to dying declaration is such a situation. make such declarations admissible.” Id. *22 Thus, reject urging abrogate we Davis’s State, (quoting 240, McRane v. 142 Fla. dying declaration exception, we and (1940)). 194 So. Based on the join majority of courts that have con- totality circumstances, of the the trial post-Crawford viability sidered the not admitting court did err in Busta- dying declaration and have concluded that dying mante’s declaration. the dying declaration did survive Craw- trial, Before the trial court held ex- ford. evidentiary hearing during tensive which Whether Bustamante’s Statements presented testimony State wit- Qualify Dying as a nesses in who were contact with Busta- Declaration mante at the scene. One of these wit- In light of our holding that Murray, nesses was Fran who testified as abrogate not dying did decla Crawford follows: Florida, exception ration in turn to we now talking She started about her kids. whether Bustamante’s statements to Lt. in pain. And she said she was so much dying Elrod constituted a declaration. kept over, saying She it and over and argues that her not statements did bad, body hurt so her and that she satisfy the requirements dying of a decla going knew she wasn’t to make it. ration, thus, and that the trial court erred said, please keep your She me in pray- admitting “In considering them. a trial ers. I’m not going to make it. ruling admissibility court’s of evidence objection over an based on the Confronta The trial court also from other wit- heard Clause, tion [this Court’s] standard of re nesses who provided testimony consistent State, view de novo.” v. McWatters 36 relating to multiple relevant circum- (Fla.2010) (quoting So.3d Milton (1) stances: Bustamante received exten- (Fla. 993 So.2d 1st second, third, burns of the and sive fourth DCA 2008)). (2) degree; she was burned over at least (3) eighty percent body; her dying order declara her flesh (4) tion exception apply, falling body; “the was off of her she was in deceased (5) severity of ‘appreciated pain; must have his con severe her known being high probability dition that of an approach burns was indicative death,’ although certain and immediate of death. believed that her death was hearing, in a or- could have
Following the detailed imminent. der, regard- as follows the trial ruled admissibility of Bustamante’s reject argu- unequivocally We statements: Although Bustamante was eventu- ment. pain the areas where ally unable feel any
The Court finds that statements fourth-degree she sustained third- to Lt. E. by Ms. Bustamante Joe made burns, capable feeling she remained Elrod, Jr., or other law enforcement endings pain areas where her nerve personnel would be admissible under Bustamante, med- remained intact. whom following hearsay exceptions; one of the personnel testified was ical oriented statement, an excited ut- spontaneous scene, was aware of her exten- alert terance, dying or as a declaration. body. Assessing her sively burned own specifically Court finds that the condition, deeply grave Bustamante told statements made Ms. Bustamante Murray that she not think that Fran did dying The evi- qualify as declarations. going to survive. that Ms. Bustamante rea- dence shows that Bustamante’s Davis’s assertion in- sonably believed her death from her not properly admitted as statements imminent, light
juries particularly dying simply without merit declaration Murray her statements Frances totality circumstances. light of it, going make that she was a substantial The trial court received for her. pray she should testimony Busta- amount witness about mante’s condition that was consistent from statement that “she While Bustamante’s witness to witness and also consistent with *23 certainly it” going to make was wasn’t of observation her Bustamante’s own dire for the trial court’s con- important factor Moreover, circumstances. sideration, Hayward, as we did in em- we expressed that clearly her belief she was phasize acknowledgment that a verbal Thus, going to survive. we conclude impending required is not in order death properly that trial court admitted Bus- that a declarant’s statement consti- find dying tamante’s statements as declara- case, dying declaration. In this tutes tion. ably supported court’s conclusion was trial II. Identifications Greisman witnesses, by testimony multiple who all and Ortiz the dire circumstances that Bus- revealed separate At times within of the days body Davis set her tamante faced after robbery, eyewitnesses (shooting Greisman fire. victim) Ortiz offered out-of-court iden- and argues testimony that the Davis viewing photo- of Davis after his tifications examiner the trial court’s medical refutes (also photopack in a known as a graph that conclusion Bustamante believed lineup). Both photographic men also iden- during her death was imminent. The medical ex- trial tified Davis in court their testi- Nelson, aminer, mony. argues Davis that these identifica- Dr. testified Busta- tions unreliable and should have been pain mante’s would have subsided explain, As we excluded as evidence. we areas where she received third- and argument without merit. find that fourth-degree stage burns because at that surrounding each wit- The circumstances injury, endings her nerve were de- as ness’s identification are follows. Thus, argues stroyed. Davis that because severely so upon reaching Bustamante was burned testified Greisman areas, pain vicinity Headley building, she could feel those she walking unnecessarily suggestive towards him. observed and re- clearly sult, saw Davis’s face and Greisman their out-of-court identifications of contact with him. eye made Greisman Davis were invalid. Greisman and Ortiz thought responding that Davis was to the photopack were each shown a that was fire that he assis- intended offer printed piece on a paper letter-sized Instead, Davis him in tance. shot the face. photographs. six photo- contained being transported hospital, After rows, graphs were into two divided surgery Greisman underwent and re- photographs three on each row. The low- hospital overnight. in the mained He er left photograph corner each con- television, not allowed to and he watch tained an identifying ranging number seeing any newspaper or other me- denied through one six. Below the bottom row of during hospital stay. dia accounts his photographs were six sets book-in num- released from When Greisman was bers, corresponded each which to one of hospital, his mother him to the drove Lake the photographs. Each of the numbers Department speak Police Wales two digits contained between seven and eleven station, police detectives. While printed in small font. Davis’s photopack containing Greisman viewed a book-in number contained the number photographs, photo- six one which awas photographs the other each con- graph recog- of Davis. asked if he When tained the number 93 or representing him, person shot nized who Greisman year photograph that the was taken. quickly recognized photograph, result, argues As a that the more placed and he his to it. initials next Greis- number, 2007, recent unnecessarily sug- man again identified Davis from the wit- gested suspect’s photo- that his was the at trial. ness stand graph. Similarly, Ortiz identified Davis as the shooter and that he testified saw Davis’s adopted “This Court has a two- shot, clearly. face After Greisman was part test to whether an out-of- determine eyes main- Ortiz looked Davis may identification be admitted: tained his view of Davis because he was *24 First, police whether used an unnecessari that attack him. concerned Davis would ly suggestive procedure to obtain out- days Headley, after Four the events at identification, and, second, so, of-court if containing a photopack Ortiz viewed circumstances, considering all the whether easily Ortiz photograph. Davis’s identified suggestive procedure gave the rise to a perpetrator. Davis as the In addition to of irreparable substantial mis- likelihood Ortiz’s observations of Davis at the of time State, identification.” 641 Green So.2d shooting, recog- the Ortiz testified (Fla.1994) State, (citing 394 Grant v. nized Davis as whom he saw at someone (Fla.1980)). 390 So.2d eval When juice plant. the Florida Natural Growers misidentification, uating of the likelihood Ortiz, previously who worked at Florida court should consider: worker, a temporary Natural Growers as gate that he near a testified saw Davis opportunity of the witness to view where workers enter and exit. crime, of the criminal at the time Validity of the Out-of-Court attention, degree witness’ the accura- Identifications/Photopacks cy prior description the witness’ criminal, First, of certainty the level dem- photo- Davis contends that packs by shown to Greisman and Ortiz were onstrated the witness at the confron-
tation,
photographs
of the
con-
length of time between
one
other five
and the
“ROB.”
the abbreviation
confrontation.
tained
the crime and the
facts, which
Id. at 26. These
include
(Fla.
304, 316
Rimmer v.
825 So.2d
unequivocal use
the date
the crime
343).
2002)
Grant,
(quoting
390 So.2d
“ROB” within the
abbreviation
However,
procedure used to
where the
an un-
suspects’ photographs, demonstrate
obtain
out-of-court identification
necessarily
suggestive
photograph.
unnecessarily suggestive,
not
the likelihood
fall far short of these.
Davis’s facts
irreparable
not
need
misidentification
photopacks
shown
Greisman
id,
con
explored.
explain,
See
As
we
we
contained,
beneath the entire set
Ortiz
clude
identifications
out-of-court
photographs, six sets of book-in numbers
by
not
Ortiz were
made
Greisman and
corresponded
photographs
unnecessarily suggestive.
printed
The numbers were
above.
placement
argues
that the
small font and were innocuous. Both
2007 in his book-in number
number
quickly
and Ortiz
identified
Greisman
distinguished it from the other book-in
Therefore,
reject
photograph.
we
Davis’s
numbers 93
numbers that contained the
argument
the book-in num-
Davis’s
end,
To
and 94.
he cites three cases
photopacks
rendered the
unnecessari-
bers
of a
that also involved the use
date
ly suggestive.
photopacks
Because the
U.S.,
photographic lineup: Henderson v.
suggestive,
unnecessarily
were not
the tri-
(D.C.App.1987),
A.2d 1262
State v.
admitting
al
not
out-of-
court did
err
Davis,
198 Conn.
169 ample opportunity to attack identi- as to Ortiz’s defeat the value of their ture rele- fication at trial. photographs vance. are Where rele- vant, judge “then the trial in the first Second, Or Davis contends that appeal [instance] and this Court on must tiz’s in-court identification was unreliable gruesomeness determine whether the because Ortiz insisted that the car he saw so portrayal inflammatory as near the crime scene was a black Nissan prejudice create undue in the minds Maxima, not Altima. This a Nissan dis jury of the them [distract] crepancy does not Ortiz’s render identifica unimpassioned fair and consideration of tion of Davis himself unreliable. Just as consistently the evidence.” up- We have trial court did not err it when admitted allegedly grue- held admission of out-of-court identifications made some photographs where were in- Ortiz, Greisman and the court likewise did dependently relevant or corroborative of not err when admitted their in-court other evidence. identifications. State, (Fla. 925, v. Czubak 570 So.2d 928 1990) omitted). (citations example, For Photographs III. Victim photographs “they are if admissible assist argues that the trial examiner in explaining medical to the admitting erred in nearly four dozen au jury the nature and manner in which the topsy hospital photographs of Busta- State, wounds were inflicted.” Bush v. mante, Luciano, Michael, and he main (Fla.1984). Moreover, pho So.2d photographs tains that the were irrelevant tographs “to are admissible show man to any material fact in issue. Davis did death, wounds, ner location of and the object photo to the admission of these State, identity Larkins v. victim.” such, graphs As if at trial. this Court (Fla.1995). 655 So.2d photo concluded that the admission There was no error—fundamental or erroneous, graphs only Davis would otherwise—in the admission victims’ upon showing entitled to relief of funda photographs. photographs The were rele- State, mental error. See v. Harrell explain vant to the nature the victims’ (Fla.2005) (“As 935, 941 So.2d we have injuries manner of death. color Five noted, exception contempo the sole photographs body intro- Michael’s were objection requirement raneous is funda x-ray photographs. duced as well as two error.”). However, explain mental as we photographs were relevant Dr. Nel- below, we conclude that the trial court did testimony regarding son’s Michael’s death admitting photo not err in the victims’ prematurity. from extreme Therefore, graphs. is not entitled Eighteen autopsy photographs of Busta- relief. mante were into evidence. admitted admissibility “The for the test photographs These assisted the medical relevance, of photographic evidence is testifying degree about the examiner necessity.” 758 So.2d bums, percentage Mansfield Bustamante’s (Fla.2000). has ex This Court burned, body surface area incisions plained following regarding the admis flow, necessary enable blood sibility gruesome photographs: loss, swelling extensive fluid caused *26 being long
This Court has the rule the burns consistent with followed absence bound, from photographs are if cause death ther- admissible shocking are relevant mal so na- burns.
170 is not a law enforce- autopsy photographs and sev- “Where the victim
Fourteen officer, ment evidence must demon- hospital photographs of Luciano were en beyond a reasonable doubt ‘the photographs into evidence. The strate admitted testifying or dominant motive the murder assisted the medical examiner sole ” Id. body area was the elimination of the witness.’ percentage about the surface State, 404, burned, burns, degree (quoting skin Preston v. 607 So.2d (Fla.1992)). sought prove to try done to to treat her 409 The State grafts were burns, aggravating of burns consis- arrest circumstance severe absence avoid bound, to both Luciano. being and the cause of tent with However, “that the State from thermal burns. the court found death beyond to prove failed reasonable doubt in that photographs Davis is correct that the sole or motive dominant severely burned women and the Luciano was to elimi- murder Juanita gruesome. infant case are deceased nate a witness.” However, photographs were relevant prove nature and extent of each reviewing “In the trial court’s death, injuries, and their causes of victim’s circumstance, finding aggravating of an inflammatory not “so as to create and were appeal this Court’s ‘task is review prejudice the minds of the undue whether the trial record determine from jury and them a fair and [distract] applied right court rule law for each unimpassioned consideration the evi- and, so, aggravating if circumstance Czubak, 570 at 928. What dence.” So.2d competent whether substantial evidence more, products whose work are “[t]hose State, supports finding.’” its Russ v. 73 beings expect murdered human should (Fla.2011) McWatters, (quoting So.3d 178 by photographs of be confronted their ac- 642). 36 So.3d at State, complishments.” Arbelaez v. 898 that Davis’s While evidence (Fla.2005) 25, (quoting 44 So.2d Henderson for the dominant motive murder Busta- (Fla.1985)). State, 196, 200 v. 463 So.2d mante was to eliminate her as witness is Thus, in admitting there no error circumstantial, trial upheld this Court has photographs. findings aggrava court of the avoid arrest Avoid Arrest IV. ting circumstance based on circumstantial State, argues Davis also that the trial 4 evidence. See Hernandez v. So.3d 642, (Fla.2009). improperly found the murder of “Even without 667 direct ar thought process, Bustamante was committed avoid evidence of the offender’s ag disagree. sup rest. We “The avoid arrest the arrest avoidance factor can be circumstance, also gravating ported by through which is re circumstantial evidence elimination, applies ferred to as witness inference from the facts shown.” Swafford State, (Fla.1988). capital felony when the was committed for v. n. 6 533 So.2d avoiding or purpose Such evidence preventing a circumstantial includes or to escape lawful arrest effectuate an “whether the victim knew and could identi Hernandez, State, custody.” Wright fy So.3d the killer.” So.3d at 667. (Fla.2009). aggrava While this Other factors include “whether the defen mask, ting usually applied gloves, or circumstance dant used wore made personnel, any incriminating murder of law enforcement about wit statements elimination; applied has also of a victims of been murder ness whether the resistance; (citing to a crime. Id. whether the witness Consalvo v. fered victims (Fla.1996)). pose in a position 697 So.2d confined were *27 Farina, Davis, v. a to the defendant.” The facts indicate while suf- threat State, 44, (Fla.2001). distress, fering planned 801 So.2d financial the rob- bery Headley Agency. Insurance finding that mur- The trial court’s Davis robbery, Less than one week before the he Bustamante in to avoid arrest dered order revolver, magnum obtained a .357 and on supported by competent, substantial evi- robbery, morning purchased he One, presented dence. State evidence multiple items from Walmart that he used that Davis and had an knew Bustamante during the commission of his crimes. relationship with her established business cigarette lighter These items a included Headley. on testimony at The court relied and a to cooler conceal revolver. Two regarding long-term employ- Bustamante’s they spoke witnesses testified Headley involve- specific ment and her that morning. Davis in Walmart One ment with Davis’s insurance matters. DeBarros, witnesses, Jennifer had Two, Headley when Davis entered the family years, known Davis and his building, placed tape over the sur- duct easily she recalled conversation be- conduct, veillance camera lens. like Such they cause knew that on she talked Davis’s mask, wearing attempting a is an act birthday. son’s Three, identity. trial hide one’s being that after bound with duct concluded being scene, While treated at the crime tape, Bustamante a pose did threat person Davis as the identified Four, Davis. Davis shot Bustamante who, p.m., Headley around 3 entered setting body her on The addition fire. money from her demanded Luci- finding trial court’s that Davis murdered ano. Bustamante also stated that when Bustamante in order to eliminate her as a give him money, refused to on competent, was based substan- witness tape, with duct bound them doused them Thus, tial evidence. affirm the trial we gasoline, set them on fire. court’s of this finding aggravating circum- Multiple eyewitnesses a observed man stance. description fitting leaving Headley Sufficiency of the Evidence V. building was still on while fire. These Although does not chal eyewitnesses placing gun into saw Davis lenge sufficiency of the evidence cooler, description of which was con- convic which the State to obtain the relied purchased the one that Davis sistent with tions, case, every this death Court must morning. Additionally, Walmart sufficiency independently evaluate Ortiz, eyewitnesses, two Greisman upon to convict the the evidence relied quickly being Davis after shown identified State, Caylor defendant. See v. 78 So.3d photopack photo- that contained Davis’s (Fla.2011). conducting “In this graph. review, light we view the evidence description of a car seen near most favorable the State determine Head- robbery ley have at the was consis- whether rational trier of fact could time that of the black Nissan Altima found the existence of the elements tent with car, That which was beyond Rodg crime a reasonable doubt.” driven Davis. State, (Fla.2006) night- lot of parking later in the ers v. 948 So.2d found club, searched. Two floormats re- (citing Bradley 787 So.2d (Fla.2001)). case, positive for there suffi from the car tested trieved gasoline. presence Davis’s convic Gasoline was the cient evidence sustain ignite the fires at Head- accelerant used tions. *28 172 aggra in- court found
ley. Davis’s driver license
found
The trial
seven
vating
of
of
side
the cai\
circumstances as
the murder
(1)
person
Bustamante:
committed
from Busta-
projectile
The
retrieved
felony
of
previously convicted
having
mante’s hand was consistent with
(2)
(some
felony
weight);
probation
CCP
magnum
from the
revolver
been fired
.357
(3)
(great weight);
contempora
Davis was
purchased just
days
before
neously
capital felony
convicted of another
robbery. Additionally,
projectiles
re-
involving
or
felony
or
of
use
threat
from the crime scene
also
trieved
(very
person
great weight);
violence
having
consistent
been fired from that
with
(4)
engaged
while Davis was
committed
weapon.
of,
commit,
attempt
the commission
or
robbery
conduct after the
Davis’s
also
flight
committing
or in
or attempting
after
competent,
adds to the
substantial evi-
(moderate
any robbery
to commit
or arson
guilt.
of his
He
dence
entered a credit
(5)
weight);
purpose
committed for the
of
forty-five
branch
union
less than
minutes
avoiding
preventing
a lawful arrest
alarm was
Headley
after
activated and
(some
(6)
weight);
capital felony was com
deposited
previ-
account
his
$148
(little
gain
for pecuniary
weight);
mitted
ously had a
of
The
balance
bank
$5.33.
(7)
(great weight).
HAC
The trial
Davis,
teller, who was
familiar
ob-
doubling
improper
noted that
did
to his face
injury
served
as did others
occur
of
finding
with the trial
both
court’s
robbery.
observed him after the
who
Wit-
robbery
in the
course
murder
nesses, including members of
fami-
Davis’s
pecuniary gain,
jury
because
convicted
regarding
suspicious
his
behav-
ly, testified
separate
Davis of
offenses
first-degree
following
robbery. Competent,
ior
robbery.
arson and
As to the
armed
mur
of guilt
supports
substantial
evidence
Luciano,
der
the trial court
all of
found
Davis’s convictions.
aggravating
the same
ex
circumstances
Proportionality
VI.
cept
aggravator.
avoid arrest
Death Sentences
trial court also
a statutory
found as
miti
required
This Court
con gating
circumstance
Davis was under
comprehensive analysis
duct “a
in order to
the influence
extreme mental or emo
determine whether the crime falls within
(little
tional
weight); and fif
disturbance
category
aggravated
of both the most
nonstatutory mitigating
teen
circum
murders,
mitigated of
and the least
there
stances,
ranged
very
slight
which
by assuring uniformity in
application
of weight
weight.
to moderate
State,
the sentence.”
v.
959 So.2d
Offord
187,
(Fla.2007)
truly among
ag-
191
This case is
the most
(quoting Anderson v.
State,
390,
gravated
mitigated.
(Fla.2003)).
and least
841
407-08
Two
So.2d
aggravating
entails ‘a
found in
qualitative
...
circumstances
this
“This
review
case,
CCP,
underlying
aggravator
repeatedly
basis
each
HAC
have
been
mitigator
quantitative
than
identified
“two of the
rather
Court
analysis.’”
State,
(quoting
aggravators
Id.
v.
set
Urbin
most serious
out
411,
(Fla.1998)). Thus,
So.2d
417
in statutory sentencing
714
scheme.” Larkins v.
State,
(Fla.1999).
determining
90,
whether a death
sentence
739 So.2d
“As a
result,
proportionate,
simply
aggravators
this Court does not
when these two
are
compare
aggravating
number of
cir
present,
mitigating
circumstances must
mitigat
cumstances versus the
weight
number
considerable
overcome
State,
id.
circumstances. See
them.”
Brown
So.3d
(Fla.) (citing
Henry’s
sentences and determined
405-06
Abdool v.
death
denied,
(Fla.2010)),
aggravating
circumstances were
cert.
So.3d
—
U.S. -,
beyond a
135 S.Ct.
we
request
619.
to file supplemental
Davis’s
pales
comparison
weighty aggra-
impact
briefing to address
Hurst v.
at
Id.
406.
vation.”
granted.
sentences
On
Florida
his
Court,
comparable case, during
Supreme
In another
remand from
we held
robbery,
unanimously finding
set two that “in
course of
defendant
addition
factor,
fire in a
Henry,
any aggravating
women on
fabric store.
the existence
jury
unanimously
at 430. The trial
found as
must also
find that
613 So.2d
aggravating
aggravating
circumstances that
the mur-
factors are sufficient
during
imposition
unanimously
commis-
death and
ders were “committed
arson,
robbery
outweigh
avoid or
aggravating
sion of
find
factors
arrest,
pecuniary gain,
mitigation
and in a
before a sentence of death
prevent
calculated,
cold,
judge.”
that may
and cruel
be considered
Hurst v.
manner
S437,
heinous, atrocious,
S433,
Weekly
41 Fla. L.
or cruel.”
(Fla.
trial
the exis-
Oct.
Id. at 432. The
court found
So.3d
WL
14, 2016) (Hurst).
circum-
further
statutory mitigating
tence of one
We
held
(no
jury
re-
prior criminal
and one unanimous
recommendation is
history)
stance
nonstatutory mitigating
(pri- quired
may impose
before
trial court
circumstance
service).
Finally,
military
upheld
of death.
we
This
sentence
See id.
Court
(alteration
original).
applied
As
Id.
Hurst v. Florida error
determined
regard to
to a
trial with
right
jury
See id.
of harmless error review.
capable
penal-
necessary
impose the death
S442,
facts
6036978.
WL
beyond
be
a reasonable
ty, must
clear
Accordingly, at issue
whether
jury would have
that a rational
doubt
during
error
any Hurst v. Florida
suffi-
unanimously
that there were
found
proceedings was harmless
penalty phase
outweighed
aggravating
cient
factors
Hurst,
we
beyond a reasonable doubt.
circumstances.
mitigating
by which harmless
the standard
explained
sentences, we
regard to Davis’s
With
error
should
evaluated:
jury
unanimous
recommen-
emphasize the
sentencing,
concerns
the error
Where
*30
These recommendations
dations of death.
only if there is no
the error is harmless
beyond a reasonable
allow us to conclude
that
error con
possibility
reasonable
the
jury
that a rational
would have
doubt
See,
Zack
e.g.,
to
tributed
the sentence.
unanimously
that there were suffi-
found
(Fla.2000).
State,
Al
753 So.2d
outweigh
mitigat-
to
the
aggravators
cient
applies
error
though the harmless
test
that
The instructions
factors.
to
errors and errors
both constitutional
to
jury
the
that it needed
given informed
grounds,
not based on constitutional
aggravators
sufficient
determine whether
rigor
test is to
“the harmless error
be
aggravation
the
out-
and whether
existed
DiGuilio,
ously
applied,” [State v.]
mitigation
it
weighed the
could rec-
before
[1129,]
[Fla.1986], and the
So.2d
Fla.
of
See
ommend a sentence
death.
extremely heavy burden
State bears an
(Crim.)
(“If
you
...
Jury Instr.
7.11
Std.
involving
cases
constitutional error.
aggravating
no
circum-
that
determine
Therefore, in the context of a Hurst v.
exist,
to
that
are found
or
the
stances
error,
Florida
the burden is
the
outweigh
ag-
the
mitigating circumstances
error,
beneficiary
the
to
as
circumstances, or, in
absence
gravating
the
that
prove beyond a reasonable doubt
factors,
aggravating
that the
mitigating
of
jury’s
unanimously
find all
the
failure
sufficient, you
are not
must
factors alone
of
necessary
imposition
the facts
the
of
imposition of a sentence
life
recommend
penalty
death
did not contribute
prison
possibility
parole
without
in this
Hurst’s death sentence
case. We
death.”).
than a sentence
rather
reiterate:
miti-
jury
presented
with evidence
sufficiency-of-the-
not a
The test
properly in-
gating circumstances and was
result,
evidence, a correct
a not clear-
may
mitigating
it
formed
consider
evidence,
ly wrong,
a substantial
proven by
circumstances
are
not, a
probable
more
than
clear and
weight of
See id.
greater
the evidence.
convincing,
overwhelming
even
(“If
weight
you
greater
determine
is not
test. Harmless error
evidence
mitigating
that a
circum-
evidence
appellate
for the
device
exists, you may
it estab-
stance
consider
itself for the trier-of-fact
substitute
give
weight
such
lished and
evidence
simply weighing the evidence. The
it
you
should receive
determine
focus is on the
of the error on
effect
reaching your conclusion as to the sen-
the trier-of-fact.
imposed.”).
tence
be
DiGuilio,
ques-
possibility
parole.
Regardless
your
LEWIS, JJ., concur.
*31
however,
in
findings
respect,
you
are
POLSTON, JJ.,
CANADY and
in
concur
compelled nor required
neither
to recom-
result.
death.”).
mend a sentence
From these
instructions, we can
jury
conclude that the
PERRY, J.,
part
concurs
with an
unanimously
requisite
made the
factual
opinion,
J.,
QUINCE,
which
concurs.
findings
impose
death before it issued
PERRY, J., concurring in part and
the unanimous recommendations. Further
dissenting in part.
any
Hurst
supporting our conclusion that
I
majority’s finding
concur with the
that
v. Florida error here was harmless are the
the evidence here is sufficient to sustain
egregious
facts
this case—Davis set two
convictions; however,
fire,
I cannot
pregnant,
women
one of whom was
agree-with
majority’s finding
the
that the
during
robbery,
an armed
shot in the
—
Florida,
Hurst v.
U.S. -,
136 S.Ct.
respond-
face Good Samaritan who was
(2016),
QUINCE, concurs. DAVIS, Jr., Appellant,
Leon Florida, Appellee.
STATE of
No. SC13-1.
Supreme Court Florida.
Nov. 2016.