Case Title: Kirkman v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC16-808

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-808 
____________ 
 
VAHTIECE ALFONZO KIRKMAN,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 11, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Vahtiece Alfonzo Kirkman appeals his conviction and sentence of death for 
the first-degree murder of Darice Knowles.  The trial judge sentenced Kirkman to 
death for the first-degree murder conviction after a jury recommended the death 
penalty by a vote of ten to two.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. 
Const.  We affirm Kirkman’s conviction, but we vacate the death sentence and 
remand for a new penalty phase based on the United States Supreme Court’s 
opinion in Hurst v. Florida (Hurst v. Florida), 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this 
Court’s opinion on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), 
cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). 
 
 
- 2 - 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
On July 30, 2010, approximately four years after first being made aware of 
her murder, the Cocoa Police Department found the skeletonized remains of Darice 
Knowles, a Bahamian citizen, in a heavily wooded and swampy area in Cocoa, 
Florida.  The examination of Darice’s remains revealed that her hands and feet had 
been bound with duct tape, her mouth had been covered with duct tape, and she 
had been buried alive by being covered with concrete and dirt.   
Cocoa police were led to the burial site a few days earlier by Christopher 
“Dread” Pratt, who had been Darice’s on-again, off-again boyfriend.  Pratt, also a 
Bahamian citizen, led police to the burial site as part of a plea agreement he 
entered into while awaiting trial for his involvement in the separate murder of 
Willie Parker.  For the Parker murder, Pratt had been indicted years before—in 
October 2006—along with Kirkman and a third individual, Jonathan Page. 
Under the plea agreement, Pratt would receive a ten-year sentence for the 
second-degree murder of Parker, as well as a ten-year sentence for the second-
degree murder of Darice, followed by ten years of probation.  The plea agreement 
was conditioned on Pratt showing the police where Darice’s body could be located 
and on Pratt testifying truthfully against Kirkman in both murder cases.  Pratt led 
the investigators to the burial area, and on the fifth day of searching, Darice’s 
remains were found.   
 
 
- 3 - 
On January 23, 2012, Kirkman was indicted for the first-degree 
premeditated murder of Darice Knowles.  At trial, Pratt testified that on March 17, 
2006, he (Pratt) bound Darice’s hands and feet, taped her mouth, dug a hole, and 
buried her alive in a shallow grave in a swampy area off of a dirt road in Cocoa by 
covering her with cement1 and dirt.  Pratt explained that he did so all at the 
direction of, and while in the presence of, Kirkman.  Pratt also explained that 
Kirkman wanted Darice dead because she had spent the previous night with a 
police officer, and Kirkman was concerned she was talking to the police about his 
criminal conduct.  Pratt further explained that the shovel, cement, and duct tape 
used in the murder were all supplied by Kirkman and that Kirkman drove Pratt and 
Darice around in Pratt’s rented minivan for approximately thirty to forty minutes 
until Kirkman selected the burial location.   
On April 8, 2016, the jury convicted Kirkman of first-degree murder.  On 
April 12, 2016, the jury, by a vote of ten to two, recommended a death sentence.  
On April 29, 2016, the trial court sentenced Kirkman to death.   
Guilt Phase 
The evidence presented at the guilt phase primarily consisted of the 
following: codefendant Pratt’s testimony; the testimony of Jovonnie Freeman, the 
                                          
 
 
1.  Although we recognize there is a distinction between “cement” and 
“concrete,” we use the terms interchangeably, as was done at trial. 
 
 
- 4 - 
former law enforcement officer with whom Darice spent her final night; the 
testimony of Kirkman’s girlfriend, Tamiko Smith; four recorded jailhouse phone 
calls made by Kirkman to Tamiko; the testimony of Officer Eric Austin of the City 
of Cocoa Police Department; Kirkman’s recorded interview with Officer Austin; 
and video and receipt information from the Home Depot showing Kirkman 
purchasing a bag of concrete mix, a shovel, and duct tape on the day of Darice’s 
murder.2  The evidence established the following relevant pre- and post-murder 
events.  
In November 2005, Pratt came to Brevard County, Florida, from the 
Bahamas for the specific purpose of dealing in narcotics.  When Pratt arrived in 
Florida, he rented a gold Chrysler minivan.  He then met up with Kirkman, whom 
he had previously met through Kirkman’s mother.  Pratt saw Kirkman on a daily 
basis, which included staying with Kirkman for about two months in Melbourne at 
the home of the mother of Kirkman’s child, as well as occasionally staying with 
Kirkman in Rockledge at Tamiko’s home.  During his time in Florida, Pratt was 
introduced by Kirkman to Carlos “Los” Buckner and Tony “Bang” Rogers.  Pratt 
                                          
 
 
2.  The remaining evidence presented at trial largely consisted of testimony 
from various individuals—including the officer who found Darice’s remains, a 
crime scene investigator, a forensic anthropologist, the medical examiner, and a 
forensic DNA scientist—regarding the burial site, the excavation process, and the 
testing processes by which Darice’s remains were identified.  
 
 
- 5 - 
also had a brother, Patrick “Bongo” Pratt, who came to Florida from the Bahamas 
at the end of March 2006, not long after Darice’s murder. 
 
In the middle of February 2006, Darice, who was twenty-two years old at the 
time, came to Florida from the Bahamas to visit Pratt.  According to Pratt, he and 
Darice used to date when they were in the Bahamas and although they were no 
longer boyfriend and girlfriend at the time, they continued a sexual relationship.  
Darice stayed with Pratt and Kirkman at the home of Kirkman’s baby’s mother. 
 
On February 28, 2006, two weeks after Darice arrived in Florida, Pratt 
participated in a robbery with Kirkman and another individual (Page).  During the 
course of the robbery, one of the victims, Parker, was murdered.   
On or around March 14, 2006, Pratt and Darice moved together to the Dixie 
Motel in Cocoa.  Soon thereafter, on the night of March 16, 2006, Darice went out 
to a local bar where she created a disturbance that prompted a phone call to the 
police regarding her disorderly behavior.  Officer Freeman of the City of Cocoa 
Police Department responded to the call and issued a trespass warning to Darice.3  
Officer Freeman then drove Darice back to the Dixie Motel and the two exchanged 
                                          
 
 
3.  Freeman, who was no longer with the Cocoa Police Department at the 
time of the trial, testified that the woman to whom he issued the trespass warning 
told him that her name was Tamiko Smith but that he later found out the woman 
was actually Darice.  He identified a picture of Darice and testified that Darice was 
the woman to whom he issued the warning. 
 
 
- 6 - 
phone numbers.  After getting off work at 11 p.m. later that same night, Officer 
Freeman called Darice and she agreed to go out with him.  Officer Freeman 
changed into civilian clothes and returned to the Dixie Motel in his personal 
vehicle to pick up Darice.  Pratt returned to the Dixie Motel around that same time 
and saw Darice and Officer Freeman in the vehicle together.  Although he did not 
know Officer Freeman’s name, Pratt recognized him as the police officer who had 
recently conducted a traffic stop in which Kirkman, Rogers, and Pratt were in the 
stopped vehicle and during which Rogers fled the scene.  Pratt approached Officer 
Freeman’s personal vehicle and asked Darice what she was doing with the man.  
After Darice explained to Officer Freeman that Pratt was her ex-boyfriend and that 
everything was fine, Darice and Officer Freeman left the Dixie Motel and spent the 
night together.  Pratt admitted to being upset at seeing Darice leave with Officer 
Freeman.  
Pratt then left the Dixie Motel because he was locked out of the room.  He 
went to the Ramada on Merritt Island and called Kirkman to tell him what Pratt 
had witnessed back at the Dixie Motel.  During the call, Kirkman asked Pratt for 
the officer’s name but Pratt did not know.  Pratt then went to Tamiko’s house to 
meet with Kirkman sometime around 2 a.m. on March 17, 2006, the day of 
Darice’s murder.  There, Kirkman continued to ask Pratt questions regarding the 
officer’s identity.  Tamiko, who was home at the time, testified that when Kirkman 
 
 
- 7 - 
received Pratt’s late-night phone call, Kirkman got up and was pacing around.  
Tamiko also testified that after Pratt arrived, she was told that Darice had been 
drinking and causing problems.  Later that morning, Kirkman told Tamiko that he 
and Pratt were going to take Darice to the airport.  
Pratt left Tamiko’s house and went back to the Dixie Motel where he found 
the room door slightly open with no one inside.  After resting briefly, Pratt packed 
up his and Darice’s belongings.  Pratt testified that he was afraid of Darice’s 
involvement with the police, and he felt that he needed to move from that location 
because of the narcotics dealing going on there.  
Later that same morning of March 17, 2006, Pratt watched Officer Freeman 
and Darice return to the Dixie Motel.  At that time, Officer Freeman recognized 
Pratt as one of the individuals with whom he had previously made contact on a 
traffic stop.  Officer Freeman left Darice at the Dixie Motel and then left the area.  
Darice went up to the room, where Pratt told her that it was time to leave and that 
he did not feel safe.  Pratt then loaded up the van with their personal belongings.  
Darice told Pratt that she was only out having a little fun and that she had met the 
officer after he responded to a disturbance she had caused at a local bar and grill.  
Darice, who had been using Tamiko’s name, then showed Pratt a pink slip of paper 
from the Cocoa Police Department indicating the disturbance at the bar.  
 
 
- 8 - 
Pratt and Darice left the Dixie Motel and drove to Tamiko’s house.  During 
the drive, Pratt called Kirkman to tell him he was on his way.  When Pratt and 
Darice arrived at Tamiko’s house, Kirkman came out through the garage.  Pratt 
saw Tamiko standing in the doorway that leads from the garage into the house, and 
Tamiko saw Pratt and Darice sitting in the van outside the house.  Kirkman then 
got into the van and left with Pratt and Darice.  Tamiko testified that this was the 
last time she ever saw Darice. 
From Tamiko’s house, Pratt continued to drive and the three headed toward 
I-95.  Pratt testified that he intended to drop Darice off at the airport but after 
Kirkman made a phone call, Kirkman instructed Pratt to drive to the home of 
Rogers’ girlfriend.  Pratt obeyed.  During the drive, they discussed what happened 
the night before, and Pratt attempted to explain to Kirkman that nothing was going 
on with Darice and the officer.   
Upon arriving at Rogers’ girlfriend’s home, Pratt parked the van in the 
backyard by a tree.  He and Darice never got out of the van.  Instead, Kirkman 
went inside the house and eventually came back outside with Buckner.  Rogers 
also later came outside.  Kirkman approached the van and stated that he did not 
believe there was nothing going on with Darice and the police officer.  Kirkman 
then instructed Pratt and Darice to stay in the van while Kirkman, Buckner, and 
Rogers all left together in a car.  Certain receipt and store video information 
 
 
- 9 - 
provided by the Home Depot shows Kirkman shortly thereafter walking into the 
Home Depot store on Merritt Island and, at approximately 12:20 p.m. on March 
17, 2006, purchasing an eighty-pound bag of concrete mix, a shovel, and a roll of 
duct tape.4  The remaining events leading up to Darice’s murder are based solely 
on the testimony of Pratt. 
While Pratt and Darice were sitting in the van awaiting Kirkman’s return to 
Rogers’ girlfriend’s house, Pratt struck Darice in the face several times because he 
was angry that she had put the two of them in a life-or-death situation.  Kirkman 
then returned with a shovel, a bag of cement, and a roll of duct tape, all of which 
Kirkman placed in the front passenger seat area of the van.  Kirkman got into the 
van, took the keys, and did the driving.  
Kirkman instructed Pratt to tie Darice’s hands together with the duct tape, 
which Pratt did, and Kirkman then drove the van around for approximately thirty 
to forty minutes until reaching a dirt road off State Road 524.  During the drive, 
Pratt and Darice attempted to explain to Kirkman that she was not cooperating with 
the police, but Kirkman informed Pratt that it had to either be Darice’s life or the 
lives of both Pratt and Darice.  Pratt was scared of Kirkman.  
                                          
 
 
4.  Pratt and Tamiko both identified Kirkman in the video. 
 
 
- 10 - 
When Kirkman finally stopped the van off the dirt road, Kirkman, who was 
carrying a gun, ordered Pratt to use the duct tape to tie up Darice’s feet and to 
cover her mouth.  Pratt complied.  Kirkman then instructed Pratt to carry Darice 
towards the woods, to dig a hole to Kirkman’s specifications, and to get water from 
a nearby pond and then mix up the cement, all of which Pratt did.  Pratt fetched the 
water by using a plastic storage bin from the back of the van, and he used the 
shovel to mix the cement.  Kirkman then ordered Pratt to throw Darice in the hole.  
Pratt complied.  Darice was alive and terrified, and her positioning in the hole was 
such that her upper body was lower than her legs, with her toes extending up out of 
the hole.  While Darice was in the hole, Kirkman pointed his gun at her but did not 
shoot.  Kirkman then ordered Pratt to cover Darice with cement and dirt.  Pratt 
complied.  After noticing that Darice’s toes were sticking out, Kirkman ordered 
Pratt to cover her toes with cement.  Pratt complied.  Kirkman never left the burial 
scene during this time, and after Pratt finished burying Darice, he and Kirkman left 
together.  They then discarded Darice’s clothes at different garbage disposal areas 
and placed the shovel and duct tape in Tamiko’s garage. 
In May 2006, Pratt, Kirkman, and Buckner were arrested in South Carolina 
on unrelated federal charges.  Soon thereafter, Florida investigators, acting on 
leads in the Willie Parker murder investigation, traveled to South Carolina and 
interviewed all three men.  During their interview of Buckner, the investigators 
 
 
- 11 - 
first became aware of Darice’s murder.  They then returned to Florida and began 
searching for Darice’s body in the same remote, swampy area in Cocoa where 
Darice’s remains would eventually be found four years later.  The investigators 
also went to Tamiko’s home.  There, they asked Tamiko about Darice and about a 
minivan that Pratt had rented.  They also removed two shovels from Tamiko’s 
garage and requested that Tamiko not tell Kirkman about their visit to her house.  
But Tamiko promptly told Kirkman about the visit, during several jailhouse calls 
she received from Kirkman later that same day.  The recorded calls were 
introduced into evidence and played for the jury in their entirety. 
During the calls, Tamiko told Kirkman all of the following regarding the 
visit by police: they were looking for some “stolen goods” in her garage; they 
asked if she knew Kirkman; they talked about Pratt and wanted to get in touch with 
Darice; they knew about the van (but the van was not at her house at the time); and 
they took two shovels from her garage.  Kirkman repeatedly instructed Tamiko to 
remove his belongings from her house.  Also, using code language, Kirkman 
repeatedly instructed Tamiko to have Pratt’s brother, Bongo, “torch” the van.5  
Tamiko testified at trial that after Kirkman’s third phone call, she followed Bongo 
to an industry road close to the salvage yard in Cocoa, where Bongo burned the 
                                          
 
 
5.  By the time of the third call, Bongo was at Tamiko’s house and, using 
code language, Kirkman spoke directly with Bongo about burning the van. 
 
 
- 12 - 
van.6  She later testified that the van burned by Bongo was the same van in which 
she last saw Darice.   
 
In June 2006, Cocoa police spoke with Pratt about Darice (and about 
Parker).7  Pratt lied about Darice’s whereabouts by telling the investigators that he 
had dropped Darice off at the airport on March 17, 2006.  The investigators also 
interviewed Kirkman.  Prior to interviewing Kirkman, the investigators—based on 
information received as well as a bar code on one of the shovels they removed 
from Tamiko’s house—were able to obtain video and receipt information from the 
Home Depot on Merritt Island correlating to the purchase of that shovel on March 
17, 2006, along with the purchase of duct tape and a bag of concrete mix.8  
Kirkman’s recorded interview with investigators was introduced into evidence and 
played for the jury in its entirety. 
During his one-hour interview with investigators, Kirkman admitted to 
telling Tamiko and Bongo to “torch” Pratt’s rented van but stated that he did so 
because he knew that the van had been reported as stolen by the rental company 
and that investigators had asked Tamiko about the van.  Kirkman also watched the 
                                          
 
 
6.  Tamiko testified that she later entered a plea to arson in which she was 
given probation and avoided prison time. 
 
7.  Pratt did not enter into the plea agreement until July 2010, when he again 
spoke with law enforcement and the State Attorney’s Office.  
 
8.  The other shovel played no part in the investigation. 
 
 
- 13 - 
Home Depot video and admitted to purchasing the items but stated that he did so 
for his employer, a company called Rainbow Concrete, and that the owner of the 
company eventually told Kirkman to keep the shovel.  The owner of Rainbow 
Concrete testified at trial that he never purchased any concrete from Home Depot, 
that he and his ex-girlfriend were the only individuals who purchased concrete for 
the business, that he knew Kirkman but Kirkman never worked for him, that he 
never asked Kirkman to buy any materials for any job, and that he never told 
Kirkman to keep any shovel. 
At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the jury was instructed on both first-
degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder.  On April 8, 2016, the 
jury returned a verdict of guilty on the sole count of first-degree murder.   
Penalty Phase 
At the penalty phase, the State presented the following six aggravators: (1) 
that Kirkman was previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of 
imprisonment or on felony probation; (2) that Kirkman was previously convicted 
of another capital felony or a felony involving the threat or use of violence to the 
person; (3) that the capital felony was committed while Kirkman was engaged or 
an accomplice in the commission of or an attempt to commit or flight after 
committing or attempting to commit any kidnapping; (4) that the capital felony 
was committed for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful 
 
 
- 14 - 
arrest; (5) that the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); 
and (6) that the capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, 
calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal 
justification (CCP).  
The State introduced evidence that on the day of Darice’s murder, Kirkman 
was still on probation for a felony burglary conviction.  In addition to introducing a 
certified copy of the judgment for the burglary conviction, the State presented the 
testimony of the following individuals: the correctional probation specialist, a 
witness to the burglary, and the law enforcement officer who investigated the 
burglary. 
The State also introduced evidence of Kirkman’s prior conviction for the 
first-degree murder of Parker.  In addition to introducing a certified copy of the 
judgment for the murder conviction, the State called Pratt, who testified to the 
following: he, Kirkman, and Page were involved in the Parker robbery-turned-
murder; the robbery was planned by Buckner and Kirkman; Pratt participated at 
Kirkman’s request; Pratt was the driver, while Kirkman and Page each had a gun; 
and Pratt saw Kirkman twice shoot into the passenger side of Parker’s vehicle.9  
                                          
 
 
9.  The State also introduced the testimony of the surviving victim who was 
in Parker’s car with Parker the night Parker was murdered.  The surviving victim 
testified that, among other things, he was sitting in the driver’s seat while Parker 
was sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. 
 
 
- 15 - 
Pratt later testified that Darice did not know about the Parker murder but that she 
did know about the drug dealing. 
  The State presented the testimony of Dr. Qaiser, the Medical Examiner, 
who testified earlier in the guilt phase.  Dr. Qaiser concluded that Darice was in a 
struggle to escape and that her body went into an extreme form of rigor mortis 
known as cadaveric spasm, which happens when a person is in terror and fear 
while at the same time trying to escape.  Dr. Qaiser testified that Darice’s body was 
maintained in the escape-attempt position because of the “cement-like substance.”  
He also testified that Darice would have lost consciousness within twenty seconds 
and would have died within four to six minutes.   
The State called Officer Austin, who testified earlier in the guilt phase and 
who was involved in both murder investigations (Darice’s and Parker’s).  Officer 
Austin testified regarding the progression of both murder investigations, including 
the relative difficulty investigators were having in finding corroborating evidence 
against Pratt in the Parker murder case.  Officer Austin also testified regarding the 
plea deal entered into with Pratt and how, up to that point, the authorities were 
losing hope of finding Darice’s body.  
The defense then called its only witness, Kirkman’s godsister.  She testified 
that Kirkman was the “perfect brother,” that they talked every day, that even when 
 
 
- 16 - 
he was incarcerated he made sure she did her homework, and that he was at the 
hospital for the birth of her first daughter.  
The defense proposed the following mitigators: (1) that Kirkman was an 
accomplice in first-degree murder committed by another person and Kirkman’s 
participation was relatively minor; and (2) any other factors in Kirkman’s 
character, background, or life, or the circumstances of the offense that would 
mitigate against the imposition of the death penalty.   
On April 12, 2016, the jury, by a vote of ten to two, determined that 
Kirkman should be sentenced to death.  In doing so, the jury unanimously found 
that the State proved five of the six proposed aggravators beyond a reasonable 
doubt.  The jury did not unanimously find the proposed aggravator that the capital 
felony was committed for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding or preventing a 
lawful arrest.  Kirkman declined a presentence investigation, waived a Spencer10 
hearing, and chose to go straight to sentencing.   
Sentencing 
On April 29, 2016, the trial court sentenced Kirkman to death for the first-
degree murder of Darice.  The trial court found the same five aggravators that were 
unanimously found by the jury: (1) Kirkman was previously convicted of a felony 
                                          
 
 
10.  Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). 
 
 
- 17 - 
and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony 
probation (great weight); (2) Kirkman was previously convicted of another capital 
felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person (very great 
weight); (3) the crime was committed while Kirkman was engaged or was an 
accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after 
committing or attempting to commit, any kidnapping (substantial weight); (4) 
HAC (very great weight); and (5) CCP (great weight).  The trial court declined to 
consider the sixth aggravator presented by the State—that the capital felony was 
committed for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful 
arrest.  The trial court noted that the jury did not unanimously find the existence of 
that aggravator.   
Additionally, the trial court found the following sole mitigator: Kirkman was 
caring and helpful towards his relatives (moderate weight).  The trial court 
determined that the other proposed mitigator—that Kirkman was an accomplice 
whose participation was relatively minor—was not reasonably established by the 
evidence.  Instead, the trial court determined that the evidence showed that 
Kirkman played a major role in the planning and carrying out of the murder.   
Lastly, the trial court addressed whether a death sentence for Kirkman would 
be disproportionate when compared to the ten-year sentence received by Pratt for 
his plea to second-degree murder.  The trial court rejected a relative culpability 
 
 
- 18 - 
mitigator, finding that Kirkman intended to kill Darice, was a major participant in 
the underlying felony, and demonstrated a reckless indifference to human life.  The 
trial court noted that the evidence established that Kirkman planned, directed, and 
controlled every aspect of the murder.   
This appeal follows. 
ANALYSIS 
On appeal, Kirkman raises and properly briefs only one distinct guilt phase 
claim.  Namely, he argues that the trial court reversibly erred by allowing Pratt to 
testify that he and Kirkman were involved in the Parker murder.  For the reasons 
explained below, we conclude that Kirkman is not entitled to a new guilt phase on 
this issue.11 
Kirkman also raises three penalty phase issues: (1) his death sentence 
violates Hurst; (2) Florida’s death penalty scheme is unconstitutional in that it fails 
to narrow the category of cases eligible for the death penalty; and (3) his death 
sentence is disproportionate when compared to Pratt’s sentence, in violation of 
                                          
 
 
11.  Kirkman also asserts that the trial court committed “serious 
constitutional error” by allowing the jury to watch the portion at the very end of 
Kirkman’s one-hour interview with investigators that shows the investigators 
concluding the interview after Kirkman invokes his right to remain silent and to an 
attorney.  However, Kirkman concedes that the issue was not preserved for 
appellate review through a contemporaneous objection, and he presents no 
argument for fundamental error on appeal.  We do not consider this issue. 
 
 
- 19 - 
Enmund12 and Tison.13  Because we conclude that Kirkman is entitled to a new 
penalty phase under Hurst, we decline to address any other penalty phase claims, 
as we have similarly declined to do in other recent cases on direct appeal.  See, 
e.g., Davis v. State, 217 So. 3d 1006, 1020 (Fla. 2017). 
In addition to addressing Kirkman’s guilt phase claim and his Hurst claim, 
we conduct an independent review of whether the evidence in this death penalty 
case was sufficient to sustain Kirkman’s first-degree murder conviction. 
Guilt Phase Claim 
Prior to trial, the State filed a Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Other 
Criminal Offenses (Williams14 Rule Evidence) under section 90.404(2), Florida 
Statutes (2015), proposing to introduce certain evidence regarding the Parker 
murder, including that Pratt and Kirkman were both involved, that Pratt watched 
Kirkman shoot and kill Parker, and that Kirkman ordered and directed Pratt to 
assist in murdering Darice because Kirkman thought she was providing 
information to the police regarding the Parker murder.  The State argued that the 
evidence was relevant both to show that Kirkman had a motive to kill Darice and 
to show why Pratt was fearful of Kirkman.  The State also theorized that the 
                                          
 
 
12.  Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982). 
 
13.  Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987). 
 
14.  Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959). 
 
 
- 20 - 
evidence was “inextricably intertwined with the homicide of Darice Knowles.”15  
Defense counsel argued that the incidents were not necessarily intertwined and that 
the State should be “severely limited in bringing in this prior criminal history 
aspect.”  Defense counsel also argued that the case was about Pratt being mad that 
his girlfriend went out with a police officer.  
The trial court determined that the Parker murder issue involved pure 
relevancy-type questions as opposed to actual Williams rule issues.  The court 
determined that “parts of” the Parker murder could be “inextricably intertwined” 
and relevant.  Namely, the court determined that it was relevant to prove motive, 
that is, that Pratt was directed and ordered to assist in murdering Darice because of 
the belief that she was providing information to the police about the Parker murder.  
The trial court thus allowed the State to mention the Parker murder and that Pratt 
and Kirkman were both involved.  But the court determined that going into the 
specifics of the Parker murder was unnecessary and would be unfairly prejudicial.  
The judge concluded that the State would have to establish Pratt’s fear of Kirkman 
                                          
 
 
15.  The State also sought to introduce evidence of (1) events surrounding 
the arrest of Pratt, Kirkman, and Buckner in South Carolina for federal drug and 
weapons offenses, and (2) Kirkman’s involvement in the burning of Pratt’s rented 
minivan.  The trial court ultimately determined that the South Carolina arrest was 
generally unrelated to Darice’s murder and that no specifics of that arrest could be 
discussed at trial, but the jailhouse phone calls and the burning of the van were 
relevant and admissible.  The trial court’s rulings on these matters are not at issue 
in this direct appeal. 
 
 
- 21 - 
without mentioning that Kirkman shot and killed Parker.  In short, Pratt could “say 
that he was indicted along with Mr. Kirkman and agreed to testify” but could not 
mention the gun or that Kirkman shot Parker.  The State complied with the trial 
court’s ruling. 
During opening statements, the State mentioned the Parker murder without 
going into any specifics.  The State recounted that Darice was killed because 
Kirkman thought that Darice was talking to the police about his and Pratt’s 
activities.  The State also mentioned that Pratt was under indictment, along with 
Kirkman and Page, for the murder of Parker.  And the State mentioned that in 
2010, while Pratt’s case for his involvement in the Parker murder was still pending, 
Pratt made a deal with the State that was contingent on him showing law 
enforcement where Darice’s body was located and on him testifying truthfully 
against Kirkman in both homicide cases.  Lastly, the State later mentioned that 
Pratt would be given a total of twenty years, and ten years’ probation, to testify 
truthfully against Kirkman in both cases.   
A review of Pratt’s testimony during direct examination reveals certain brief 
exchanges regarding the Parker murder.  Namely, it was mentioned that in June 
2006, Cocoa police spoke with Pratt about Darice and Parker.  It was also 
mentioned that shortly thereafter, Pratt, Kirkman, and Page were all indicted for 
the Parker murder.  And it was mentioned that Pratt later entered into a plea 
 
 
- 22 - 
agreement.  Finally, after a sidebar, the trial court allowed Pratt to state the date of 
the Parker murder—which was two to three weeks prior to Darice’s murder—to 
attempt to show why Pratt was afraid of Kirkman.  The State did not mention the 
Parker murder in any other part of the guilt phase, including closing remarks.  
Kirkman argues that the trial court erred by not limiting Pratt’s testimony 
concerning the specific criminal activity that Kirkman might have feared was being 
communicated by Darice to the police.  Kirkman concedes that it was relevant and 
probative for the jury to hear that he and Pratt were engaged in an ongoing criminal 
enterprise at the time of Darice’s murder but argues that informing the jury about 
the specific crime of murder was unduly prejudicial and its relative probative value 
was negligible.  We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 
regarding this evidentiary matter. 
A trial court’s determination that evidence is admissible will not be 
disturbed unless the trial court abused its discretion.  See McGirth v. State, 48 So. 
3d 777, 786 (Fla. 2010).  “That discretion, however, is limited by the rules of 
evidence.”  Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 107 (Fla. 2008).  With respect to 
collateral crimes evidence, this Court has long noted that such evidence falls into 
one of two categories: similar fact evidence, which is considered Williams rule 
evidence, and dissimilar fact evidence.  McGirth, 48 So. 3d at 787.  The former is 
governed by section 90.404, Florida Statutes, whereas the latter is governed by the 
 
 
- 23 - 
general rule of relevancy in section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2015).  Id.  This 
Court has described admissible dissimilar fact evidence as follows: 
Thus, evidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable from 
the crime charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with 
the crime charged, is not Williams rule evidence.  It is admissible 
under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of 
the act which is in issue. . . .  [I]t is necessary to admit the evidence to 
adequately describe the deed.”  
 
Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966, 968 (Fla. 1994) (alterations in original) (quoting 
Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.17 (1993 ed.)).  Ultimately, 
“evidence that helps to put the entire case into perspective” is admissible “to the 
extent that its relevance is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect.”  Kopsho v. 
State, 84 So. 3d 204, 212 (Fla. 2012). 
In the instant case, the trial court concluded that the Parker evidence was not 
true Williams rule evidence and should be analyzed under the general relevancy 
provisions.  We agree.  Consequently, the trial court’s decision is reviewed under 
section 90.402 and the general rules of relevancy. 
Here, the evidence relating to Parker’s murder helped to establish the 
relevant context and “was relevant to developing the circumstances leading up to 
the murder.”  Bradley v. State, 787 So. 2d 732, 742 (Fla. 2001).  The State 
attempted to show that Kirkman had a sufficient motive to have Darice killed and 
to show why another person, Pratt, would agree to do the killing at Kirkman’s 
command.  The State’s theory of motive was consistent with Pratt’s testimony 
 
 
- 24 - 
regarding Kirkman’s repeated inquiries into the identity of the police officer who 
picked up Darice at the Dixie Motel, as well as with Pratt’s repeated statements to 
Kirkman that Darice was not cooperating with the police.  The State’s theory was 
also consistent with Tamiko’s testimony that she was told that Darice had been 
causing problems.  And it was consistent with Tamiko’s testimony that Kirkman 
was pacing around after Pratt called him in the early morning hours of March 17, 
2006, the day of Darice’s murder.  In short, “[t]hese factors were necessary to 
adequately describe the events leading up to [the victim’s] murder.”  McGirth, 48 
So. 3d at 787.  The evidence at issue that Kirkman was involved in Parker’s 
murder thus was that a murder took place: (1) after Darice arrived in Florida; (2) 
less than three weeks before Darice’s murder; and (3) in which Pratt, the man 
whom Darice came to visit and with whom Darice stayed, also participated.  This 
evidence was relevant to and inextricably intertwined with the crime charged.  See 
id. 
Even though dissimilar fact evidence may be relevant, a trial court “must 
also balance whether the probative value of the relevant evidence is substantially 
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading 
the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”  Truehill v. State, 211 
So. 3d 930, 945 (Fla. 2017).  This Court has held that introduction of evidence of 
 
 
- 25 - 
dissimilar bad acts, even when otherwise relevant, constitutes reversible error 
when the trial court allows the evidence to become a feature of the trial: 
This Court has explained that “relevant evidence of collateral crimes 
impermissibly becomes a feature of the trial when the evidence 
‘transend[s] the bounds of relevancy to the charge being tried’ and the 
prosecution ‘devolves from development of facts pertinent to the main 
issue of guilt or innocence into an assault on the character of the 
defendant.’ ”  Peterson v. State, 2 So. 3d 146, 155 (Fla. 2009) 
(alteration in original) (quoting Conde v. State, 860 So. 2d 930, 945 
(Fla. 2003)).  Where evidence does, in fact, become a feature of the 
capital trial, reversible error will result. 
 
McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848, 877 (Fla. 2011).16   
Here, the trial court did not allow the relevant dissimilar fact evidence to 
impermissibly become a feature of the trial.  Instead, the trial court carefully 
examined and ruled on the State’s Notice of Intent by restricting the evidence so 
that it did not unfairly prejudice Kirkman.  The State then proceeded within the 
confines established by the trial court.  Namely, the State generally mentioned the 
indictment three times during opening statements and on a few brief occasions 
during its direct examination of Pratt.  The State did not mention any specifics of 
the Parker murder, including that Pratt watched Kirkman shoot Parker.  And the 
                                          
 
 
16.  This Court has also held that errors with respect to the introduction of 
dissimilar fact evidence are subject to the harmless error test.  See, e.g., Delhall v. 
State, 95 So. 3d 134, 167 (Fla. 2012) (finding harmless error in the guilt phase 
even though, among other things, “the State presented a substantial body of 
evidence . . . that exceeded the scope of evidence necessary to simply prove” the 
defendant’s motive to commit the murder). 
 
 
- 26 - 
State did not mention the Parker murder at any other time during the guilt phase, 
including during closing.  The record simply does not support the conclusion that 
the evidence became “a feature of the capital trial.”  McCray, 71 So. 3d at 877; see 
also Sexton v. State, 775 So. 2d 923, 929-30 (Fla. 2000) (concluding that collateral 
bad acts testimony regarding the mysterious death and subsequent burial of the 
defendant’s infant grandchild was admissible because: (1) it was relevant to 
explain the defendant’s motive for killing his son-in-law (the father of the dead 
baby) and to show that the defendant had sufficient control over the defendant’s 
mentally challenged twenty-two-year-old son such that the son would agree to 
physically commit the murder at the command of the defendant; and (2) “there 
were no graphic details of the infant’s death or burial” and the testimony “did not 
become the focal point of the trial”).  Although the evidence regarding the Parker 
murder was obviously prejudicial, it cannot be said that the danger of unfair 
prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value.  § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2015); 
see also Victorino v. State, 23 So. 3d 87, 100 (Fla. 2009) (“On this record, we 
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged 
evidence.”).  Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. 
Lastly, Kirkman attempts to support his argument that he was unfairly 
prejudiced during the guilt phase by pointing to the following two events that 
subsequently took place during the penalty phase: (1) Pratt testified that Darice 
 
 
- 27 - 
knew of their drug dealing but did not know of their involvement in the Parker 
murder; and (2) the jury rejected the State’s proposed witness-elimination 
aggravator.  Even assuming that these penalty phase events are pertinent to 
Kirkman’s guilt phase claim, his arguments do not merit a new trial. 
As an initial matter, the issue of whether Darice had actual knowledge of the 
Parker murder is not the same as the issue of whether Kirkman believed she had or 
may have had such knowledge.  And as to the proposed witness-elimination 
aggravator, it is simply unknown why the jury did not unanimously find that the 
aggravator was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.17  We decline to speculate 
regarding the many possible reasons.  What is known, however, is that the disputed 
evidence was relevant to prove the State’s theory of the case and was not unfairly 
prejudicial.  What is also known is that the jury unanimously concluded that 
Kirkman was responsible for Darice’s murder.  As explained next, there was 
competent, substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion. 
Competent, Substantial Evidence 
Kirkman does not separately challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.  
Nevertheless, this Court independently reviews the record in all death penalty 
cases to determine whether competent, substantial evidence supports the 
                                          
 
 
17.  It is unknown how many jurors actually concluded that the aggravator 
was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 
 
- 28 - 
conviction.  See Fla. R. App. P. 9.142(a)(5); Pham v. State, 70 So. 3d 485, 501 
(Fla. 2011).  In conducting its independent review, this Court “view[s] the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational 
trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a 
reasonable doubt.”  Rodgers v. State, 948 So. 2d 655, 674 (Fla. 2006).   
Here, Kirkman was charged with first-degree premeditated murder.  Because 
the indictment charged premeditated murder, the State was permitted to prosecute 
Kirkman “under alternative theories of premeditated and felony murder.”  Kearse 
v. State, 662 So. 2d 677, 682 (Fla. 1995).  Indeed, the jury was instructed on both 
first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder, with the 
underlying felony being kidnapping.  The jury then found Kirkman guilty of first-
degree murder but did not specify whether the State proved premeditated murder, 
felony murder, or both.  Consequently, Kirkman’s conviction should be upheld if 
“the evidence is sufficient to establish either felony murder or premeditation.”  
Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 73 (Fla. 2004).  We conclude that there is competent, 
substantial evidence to support Kirkman’s conviction under either form of first-
degree murder. 
Regarding first-degree premeditated murder, the State produced direct 
evidence from Pratt that Kirkman planned, ordered, and directed the murder, 
including that Kirkman supplied the items used in the murder.  Pratt testified to the 
 
 
- 29 - 
timeline of events that culminated in the murder, beginning with Pratt seeing 
Darice with an off-duty police officer and then promptly telling Kirkman about it.  
Pratt testified that Kirkman believed Darice was cooperating with police and that 
Kirkman ordered Pratt to bury Darice or else both he (Pratt) and Darice would be 
killed.  Pratt also testified to the details of the murder, including that Kirkman 
drove around for more than thirty minutes before selecting the burial site and that 
Kirkman, who was carrying a gun, then directed and controlled every step in the 
process.  
Pratt’s version of events was corroborated by the testimony of Tamiko, 
Kirkman’s girlfriend.  She testified that Pratt called Kirkman and then came over 
around 2 a.m. on March 17, 2006, the day of Darice’s murder.  She also testified 
that Kirkman was pacing around after receiving Pratt’s call.  And she further 
testified that after Pratt left her house and then came back with Darice later that 
morning, Kirkman got into the van and left with the two of them.  Pratt’s version 
of events was also corroborated by the video from Home Depot showing that 
instead of taking Darice to the airport as Kirkman had told Tamiko they were 
going to do, Kirkman instead went to the local Home Depot and purchased a 
shovel, a bag of concrete mix, and a roll of duct tape—the very three things used to 
murder Darice later that same day.  And Pratt’s testimony regarding the physical 
 
 
- 30 - 
details of the burial was corroborated upon the discovery and examination of 
Darice’s remains. 
Based on a review of the evidence in this record, we conclude that the jury 
could have found that Kirkman had a “fully formed conscious purpose to kill.”  
Asay v. State, 580 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 1991).  We also conclude that 
premeditation can be inferred in this case simply from “the manner in which the 
homicide was committed.”  Bradley, 787 So. 2d at 738 (quoting Norton v. State, 
709 So. 2d 87, 92 (Fla. 1997)).  The testimony of both Pratt and the Medical 
Examiner showed that Darice was alive and bound with duct tape at the time she 
was buried.  The evidence also showed that Kirkman made a conscious decision to 
purchase the burial supplies from Home Depot and then to stand over and direct 
the burial process, including the pouring of concrete over the victim.  It is evident 
that Kirkman “had time even after he began” orchestrating and directing the 
process “to stop himself before” the murder was completed.  Sparre v. State, 164 
So. 3d 1183, 1200 (Fla.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 411 (2015); see also Patrick v. 
State, 104 So. 3d 1046, 1063 (Fla. 2012) (“The record here demonstrates sufficient 
evidence for the jury to have inferred that [the defendant] did intend for [the 
victim] to die.”).  In short, there is competent, substantial evidence here to support 
a conviction of first-degree premeditated murder.  
 
 
- 31 - 
Regarding first-degree felony murder, with the underlying felony being 
kidnapping, the trial court gave the standard jury instructions.  See Fla. Std. Jury 
Instrs. (Crim.) 7.3, 9.1.  To specifically prove the underlying felony of kidnapping, 
the State was required to prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable 
doubt: (1) Kirkman forcibly, secretly, or by threat, confined, abducted, or 
imprisoned Darice against her will; (2) Kirkman had no lawful authority to do so; 
and (3) Kirkman acted with intent to inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize Darice 
or another person.  See § 787.01(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 
(Crim.) 9.1. 
Here, the evidence established that Darice was unlawfully abducted against 
her will and that Kirkman intended to inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize her.  
Indeed, the evidence established that Kirkman intended for Darice to be buried 
alive.  Again, the State produced direct evidence from Pratt that Kirkman planned, 
ordered, and directed the kidnapping and murder.  That planning included: (1) 
Kirkman purchasing and supplying the items, including the duct tape; (2) Kirkman 
driving Pratt and Darice around until personally selecting the burial site; and (3) 
Kirkman ordering Pratt to restrain Darice with the duct tape to prevent her from 
escaping.  In addition to Pratt’s testimony, Tamiko’s testimony placed Kirkman in 
the van with Pratt and Darice on the day of the murder, the Home Depot video 
shows Kirkman then purchasing the murder items, and the discovery and 
 
 
- 32 - 
examination of Darice’s remains confirmed that her hands and feet had been bound 
with duct tape and that her mouth had been covered with duct tape.  Lastly, Pratt 
and the Medical Examiner both testified that Darice was alive at the time she was 
buried, and Pratt testified that Darice was terrified during the ordeal. 
Based on a review of the evidence in this record, we conclude that 
competent, substantial evidence exists to support a conviction of first-degree 
felony murder.  The evidence supports the conclusion that Kirkman played a 
significant role not just in the kidnapping but in the murder itself.  
Penalty Phase Claim—Hurst 
We vacate Kirkman’s death sentence and remand for a new penalty phase 
under Hurst.  Under this Court’s precedent, the jury’s nonunanimous 
recommendation of death in this case violates Hurst, and that error is not harmless 
beyond a reasonable doubt.18 
In January 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in 
Hurst v. Florida, in which the Court held that Florida’s former capital sentencing 
scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because it “required the judge to hold a 
separate hearing and determine whether sufficient aggravating circumstances 
existed to justify imposing the death penalty” even though “[t]he Sixth 
                                          
 
 
18.  Hurst applies to the instant case, which is before this Court on direct 
appeal.  See White v. State, 214 So. 3d 541, 549 (Fla. 2017). 
 
 
- 33 - 
Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a 
sentence of death.”  Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. at 619.   
During the pendency of Kirkman’s appeal, on remand in Hurst, this Court 
held that 
before the trial judge may consider imposing a sentence of death, the 
jury in a capital case must unanimously and expressly find all the 
aggravating factors that were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, 
unanimously find that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose 
death, unanimously find that the aggravating factors outweigh the 
mitigating circumstances, and unanimously recommend a sentence of 
death.   
 
Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 57.  This Court also determined that Hurst errors are capable 
of harmless error review.  Id. at 67.  Since issuing Hurst, this Court has repeatedly 
declined to find harmless Hurst error when the jury nonunanimously recommends 
to impose death, including in the context of ten-to-two jury recommendations.  
See, e.g., Banks v. State, 219 So. 3d 19, 32-33 (Fla. 2017); Abdool v. State, 220 
So. 3d 1106, 1115-16 (Fla. 2017).  
Here, during the penalty phase, the jury unanimously found that the State 
proved five of its six proposed aggravators.  But the jury did not unanimously 
recommend death, instead recommending death by a vote of ten to two.19  Under 
                                          
 
 
19.  Before Kirkman’s trial began in 2016, certain recent amendments to 
Florida’s capital sentencing scheme had gone into effect.  Those amendments, 
which were made shortly after the Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida in 
January 2016, included the new requirement that in order for the jury to 
recommend a sentence of death, at least ten jurors must vote for a sentence of 
 
 
- 34 - 
this Court’s precedent, we are “unable to determine or speculate why the dissenting 
jurors . . . voted for a sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.”  
Davis, 217 So. 3d at 1020; see also Sexton v. State, 221 So. 3d 547, 559 (Fla. 
2017) (“In light of the nonunanimous jury recommendation to impose a death 
sentence, it cannot be said that the failure to require a unanimous verdict was 
harmless.”).  Because the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, 
we vacate Kirkman’s death sentence and remand for a new penalty phase. 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the reasons stated above, we affirm Kirkman’s conviction, vacate 
Kirkman’s death sentence, and remand for a new penalty phase. 
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
LAWSON, J., concurs specially with an opinion. 
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., concur as to the conviction and dissent as to the 
sentence.  
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND,  
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
LAWSON, J., concurring specially. 
                                          
 
death (as opposed to a simple majority).  See ch. 2016-13, §§ 3, 7, at 4, 23, Laws 
of Fla.; see also § 921.141(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016).  After Kirkman was convicted 
and sentenced, this Court determined the Legislature’s ten-vote requirement to be 
unconstitutional because it fell short of “the constitutionally required unanimous, 
twelve-member jury.”  Perry v. State, 210 So. 3d 630, 640 (Fla. 2016). 
 
 
- 35 - 
 
I fully concur in that portion of the opinion affirming Kirkman’s conviction 
and concur specially in the reversal of Kirkman’s death sentence.  See Okafor v. 
State, 225 So. 3d 768, 775-76 (Fla. 2017) (Lawson, J., concurring specially). 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Brevard County,  
Jeffrey Francis Mahl, Judge - Case No. 052012CF032155AXXXXX  
 
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden, Assistant Public 
Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,  
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Doris Meacham, 
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, 
 
for Appellee