Case Title: Adams v. State

Citation: 412 So. 2d 850

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1982-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
412 So. 2d 850 (1982)
Aubrey Dennis ADAMS, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 56134.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 11, 1982.
Rehearing Denied May 5, 1982.
*851 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Michael M. Corin, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for appellant.
ADKINS, Justice.
This is a direct appeal from a judgment adjudging defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and sentence of death.
The victim, eight years of age, left school on January 23, 1978, at about 2:30 P.M. Her body was found on March 15, 1978, in a wooded area near Ocala, Florida, by three men who were gopher hunting. The defendant's involvement in the disappearance and death of the victim was shown through circumstantial evidence and by statements, both written and oral, made by him to officers of the Ocala police department.
In his written statements, the defendant stated that he saw the victim walking home from school about a block and a half from her house and offered to give her a ride home. She got in the car and defendant drove away with her. The defendant remembered "being stopped somewhere and she was screaming and I put my hand over her mouth", and she quit breathing. In his oral statement the defendant said he had removed the clothes from the victim and used some cord which he carried in his car to tie her up so that she would fit into plastic bags. He also said that he tried to have sexual relations with her, but couldn't bring himself to do it. He denied having sexual relations with her.
Two expert witnesses testified that the cause of death was strangulation, but one of the experts stated that the child could have died from manual suffocation. One expert rendered an opinion that the victim's wrists had been taped prior to death. The defendant, in his oral statement, said that he had removed the victim's clothes, but *852 there was an indication from this statement that the clothes were removed after she quit breathing. However, the state argues that as a matter of logic, the clothes were removed prior to the time the wrists were bound, and, at that time, the victim was still alive.
The jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, and, after hearing evidence in the penalty phase of the trial, recommended that the defendant be sentenced to death.
The defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on the elements of the underlying felonies of sexual battery and kidnapping. The instructions of the court contained the following:
Defendant correctly points out that the instruction included references to two crimes which do not exist, to wit: rape and an abominable and detestable crime against nature. Defendant argues that it is an indispensable requisite to a fair trial to instruct the jury on all essential elements of a crime, but the jury was not instructed on the essential elements of sexual battery and kidnapping, the only possible applicable felonies with which the state could have sought a conviction for felony murder. He relies on Robles v. State, 188 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1966).
The indictment alleged that defendant murdered the victim, unlawfully, from a premeditated design by strangling. Under this charge, the state could prosecute under both a theory of premeditation and a theory of felony-murder. Barton v. State, 193 So. 2d 618 (Fla.2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 459 (1967).
The record shows that defendant had visited in the home of the victim and she voluntarily accompanied defendant during the fatal ride. The evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the death was caused by strangulation, not by the defendant placing his hand over the mouth of the victim so as to keep her from screaming or yelling. Her hands were tied and taped behind her head, and a rope was around her neck. "Premeditation, like other factual circumstances, may be established by circumstantial evidence." Larry v. State, 104 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1958).
The final argument of the state was geared toward the single question of whether or not the evidence was sufficient to show a premeditated design on the part of defendant to murder the victim.
In Knight v. State of Florida, 394 So. 2d 997, 1002 (Fla. 1981), we considered that question:
See also McKennon v. State, 403 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1981).
Although an erroneous or uninvited felony murder instruction was given, the evidence of premeditation was sufficient to render the erroneous instruction harmless.
Of course, it may have been defendant's counsel's strategy to avoid, at all costs, any unnecessary reference to the underlying felonies committed by the defendant during the perpetration of the murder. Perhaps that explains his failure to make any objection to the instruction. Request for an instruction or an objection to a failure to give an instruction is a prerequisite to raising an alleged error on appeal. Alford v. State, 280 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 284 So. 2d 218 (1973); Flagler v. State, 198 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1967).
Defendant says that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence, over defendant's objection, two photographs of the victim. One photograph in color, was taken at the scene where the body was discovered. The other photograph, apparently taken somewhere else, is of the body and shows the victim's hands taped together with adhesive tape. The guidelines to be followed in determining the admissibility of photographic evidence were set forth by this Court in State v. Wright, 265 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972), as follows:
If the photograph meets the guidelines set forth above, the fact that the evidence is gruesome and offensive does not bar the admissibility. Foster v. State, 369 So. 2d 928 (Fla.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 178, 62 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1979). This is consistent with the reasoning in Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625, 626 (1940), where the Court said:
The colored photograph was relevant to show the crime scene and premeditation. The other photograph, showing the tying of the hands and the tape on the victim's hands, was relevant to show premeditation and the circumstances of death.
At trial the state sought to introduce two other photographs which were excluded by the trial judge upon the objection of the defendant. The trial judge exercised reasoned judgment and prohibited the introduction of duplicitous photographs. See Alford v. State, 307 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 912, 96 S. Ct. 3227, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1221 (1976). The trial court did not commit error in admitting these photographs into evidence.
We now turn to the propriety of the death sentence. The trial court found three aggravating circumstances: 1) that the capital felony was committed while defendant was engaged in or attempting to engage in, or in the flight after committing or attempting to commit rape and/or kidnapping; 2) that the capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest; 3) that the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
The trial judge found three mitigating circumstances: 1) that the defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity; 2) that the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; 3) that the defendant's age (20) was of significance.
The jury recommended death and the trial judge concurred in that recommendation.
In support of his finding of fact that the capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged in or attempting to commit or flight after committing or attempting to commit a rape or kidnapping (Fla. Stat. § 921.141(5)(d)), the judge stated:
Defendant argues that these findings do not prove that the victim's death occurred during or after the commission of a kidnapping. The state replies that the evidence is sufficient to show the crime of kidnapping was committed and cites Miller v. State, 233 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
In Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327, 1331 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S. Ct. 542, 70 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1981), we described our function in reviewing a death sentence:
(Footnote omitted.) There appears to be sufficient competent evidence in the record from which the judge could properly find that the capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, a rape or kidnapping.
Defendant argues that there is no crime of rape in Florida and that the *856 trial judge used a non-statutory aggravating factor in imposing the death sentence. The statute penalizing rape, section 794.01, Florida Statutes (1972), was repealed by chapter 74-121, section 1, Laws of Florida. Acts which would have constituted rape or attempted rape would constitute a sexual battery or attempt to commit sexual battery by virtue of section 794.011, Florida Statutes (1977). The word "rape" in section 921.141(5)(d) had not yet been changed to "sexual battery". Due process requires only that the law give sufficient notice so that men may conform their conduct so as to avoid that which is forbidden. The act itself, rather than its nomenclature, constitutes the aggravating circumstances. The trial judge did not err in finding defendant's acts constituted an aggravating factor.
Defendant next argues that the trial judge erred in finding that the capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody. § 921.141(5)(e), Fla. Stat. The trial judge made the following finding of fact:
The record shows that the victim knew and could have identified defendant; that he encased the body in white plastic garbage bags and tied it with rope; that he disposed of the body in a desolate area; that he concealed his crime effectively for a period of time from January 23, 1978, to March 15, 1978.
In Riley v. State, 366 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1978), the robbery victim, who knew and could identify the defendant, had been bound and gagged. He was then shot in the head after one of the perpetrators expressed a concern for subsequent identification. This Court concluded that the aggravating circumstance existed because the defendant had killed the victim to avoid identification and arrest. See also Hoy v. State, 353 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 920, 99 S. Ct. 293, 58 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1978); Jackson v. State, 366 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 177, 62 L. Ed. 2d 115 (1979).
There was sufficient competent evidence in the record from which the judge could find that defendant committed this capital felony in an effort to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest.
Defendant also says that the trial court erred in finding that the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The trial judge made the following finding of fact:
Defendant argues that this aggravating circumstance is devoid of factual and legal support. We disagree.
*857 The fear and emotional strain preceding a victim's almost instantaneous death may be considered as contributing to the heinous nature of the capital felony. Knight v. State, 338 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1976). A homicide committed through strangulation has been held to be especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. Alvord v. State, 322 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 923, 96 S. Ct. 3234, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1226 (1976). From defendant's statement we find that the victim was "screaming" prior to death. A frightened eight-year-old girl being strangled by an adult man should certainly be described as heinous, atrocious, and cruel. There was sufficient competent evidence in the record from which the trial judge could find the presence of this aggravating circumstance.
Although the trial judge found, as a mitigating factor, that the capital felony was committed while defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, the defendant says that there should be an independent determination and finding that at the time the crime was committed the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform it to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. The defendant says that his deteriorating marital situation and his wife's apparently blatant infidelity with one of his friends led to his extreme mental or emotional disturbance and clearly hampered his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform it to the requirements of law. There is little, or no, causal relationship between defendant's marital problems and an eight-year-old little girl. There was no testimony that defendant had suffered from mental illness in the past. An expert witness testifying for the defense said that, in his opinion, the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong on the date of the commission of the offense. The trial court did not err in failing to find that the capacity of defendant to conform his conduct to requirements of law was substantially impaired as a result of his marital distress.
The findings of the trial judge were sufficient to show that the sentence of death resulted from reasoned judgment. This reasoned judgment comports with our consideration of other cases and the sentence of death was appropriate under the circumstances. There being no reversible error, the judgment and sentence of the trial judge are affirmed.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C.J., and OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
McDONALD, J., concurs as to conviction and dissents as to sentence.
BOYD, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that part of the majority opinion affirming appellant's conviction of murder in the first degree.
One of the principal functions of this Court in considering cases in which the death penalty has been ordered is to review the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to assure that similar punishment is given for similar crimes.
The trial judge found three mitigating circumstances: (1) that the defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity; (2) that the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; (3) that the defendant's age (20) was of significance.
In weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case, and comparing it with prior similar crimes of violence, it is my opinion that the law requires this Court to order a reduction in the sentence to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for twenty-five years.