Title: Renaldo Devon Mcgirth v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC08-976
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 2010

Supreme Court of Florida 
____________ 
 
No. SC08-976 
__________ 
 
 
RENALDO DEVON McGIRTH, 
Appellant, 
vs. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
[November 10, 2010] 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Renaldo D. McGirth appeals his conviction of first-degree murder and 
sentence of death.  We have jurisdiction.  See Art. V, § (3)(b)(1), Fla. Const.  For 
reasons set forth below, we affirm McGirth‘s convictions and death sentence.   
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
Overview 
Renaldo McGirth was convicted of the 2006 first-degree murder of Diana 
Miller.  McGirth, who was eighteen years old at the time of the murder, was also 
 
- 2 - 
convicted of the contemporaneous attempted first-degree murder with a firearm of 
Diana‘s husband, James Miller, robbery with a firearm of James and Diana Miller, 
and fleeing to elude a law enforcement officer operating a marked patrol vehicle.  
After the penalty phase proceeding, the jury recommended that McGirth be 
sentenced to death for the murder of Diana by a vote of eleven to one.  We first 
discuss the factual and procedural history of the case.  We then address the guilt 
phase and penalty phase issues raised by McGirth.   
The Guilt Phase 
The evidence at trial established that James and Diana Miller (―the Millers‖), 
both in their sixties and married for forty-two years, lived in The Villages, a gated  
retirement community situated in Marion County, Florida.  Their daughter, Sheila 
Miller, who was in her late thirties at the time, was residing with them while she 
recovered from injuries sustained in an automobile accident that left her confined 
to a wheelchair.1  
                                          
 
 
1.  Sheila‘s dependence on her parents had often proven to be a source of 
contention between her parents as her father opposed supporting her.  Sheila had 
battled drug and alcohol abuse since her teenage years and had been convicted of 
possession of cocaine and for uttering false or worthless checks.  She had stolen 
from her parents and at one point stole her mother‘s identity to obtain a credit card.  
Sheila‘s relationship with her parents deteriorated to the point that her father 
obtained an injunction against her. 
 
- 3 - 
McGirth, a prior acquaintance of Sheila, Jarrord Roberts, and Theodore 
Houston, Jr., visited Sheila at the Miller home on the afternoon of July 21, 2006.2  
Sheila greeted McGirth with an embrace at the front door, after which the three 
men followed her inside the residence.  James Miller saw the three men enter his 
home and observed Sheila embracing one of them.  He excused himself as it was 
near noon and he had to shower for a haircut appointment scheduled for 1:00 p.m. 
that day.  Thereafter, McGirth, who had entered the home with a black backpack, 
set the bag down on the floor and the three men joined Sheila in the living room for 
some conversation.  After some discussion, Sheila, McGirth, and Houston went 
into Sheila‘s bedroom, while Roberts remained in the living room with Diana.  
Once in the bedroom, McGirth pointed a small, silver gun in Sheila‘s direction and 
instructed Houston to tape Sheila‘s mouth and bind her wrists with duct tape that 
had been purchased at a Dollar General store on the way to the Miller residence.  
Diana was then called into Sheila‘s bedroom where McGirth pushed her onto the 
bed.  Sheila told Diana to give McGirth all of her money.  Diana responded that 
she only had seventy dollars and explained that she did not keep that kind of 
money at the house.  McGirth, in turn, insisted she had money because she lived in 
The Villages.  After agreeing to get the money, Diana raised her hands in the air 
                                          
 
 
2.  Sheila testified that she and McGirth were former friends who had a 
falling out, and that the two had not spoken until that day. 
 
- 4 - 
and was making her way toward the bedroom door to retrieve money when 
McGirth stood in front of the bedroom door and shot her once in the chest, causing 
her to fall on Sheila‘s bed.  McGirth then instructed Houston to pick up the shell 
casing from the floor and wipe down any objects the men had touched to remove 
fingerprints.  As she bled on Sheila‘s bed, Diana whispered to McGirth, ―Please 
call 911; you just shot me in the heart.‖  However, her pleas for help were ignored.   
At some point, Roberts collected wallets and car keys belonging to the 
Millers and handed them to McGirth.  In the meantime, James had just finished his 
shower when he was grabbed by the arm and dragged to Sheila‘s bedroom where 
he was forced to lie on the floor while one of the men pinned his head with a foot.  
After the men obtained the couple‘s credit cards and a personal identification 
number, Diana, still conscious, was taken to the computer room in an unsuccessful 
attempt to purchase cell phones online.  A few minutes later Diana was able to 
crawl back into Sheila‘s bedroom.   
McGirth and Houston removed Sheila from the home and Roberts placed her 
in the Millers‘ van.  As Roberts and Sheila remained in the van, McGirth and 
Houston returned to the home.  Soon thereafter, as Houston was leaving the house 
with some items, McGirth shot James and Diana in the backs of their heads as they 
lay on the bedroom floor.  James survived the gunshot wound and was able to 
climb out of the bedroom window and summon the assistance of a neighbor.  
 
- 5 - 
McGirth, Roberts, and Sheila left in the Millers‘ van, while Houston 
followed in the silver Ford in which the men arrived.  Following McGirth‘s orders, 
Sheila withdrew $500 from an automated teller machine (ATM) nearby and gave 
the money to McGirth, who subsequently divided the money into thirds.  The four 
then drove to a K-Mart store in Belleview where McGirth and Sheila attempted to 
locate a particular type of cell phone.  A few minutes later the men left the silver 
Ford in the K-Mart parking lot and took Sheila in the van to a mall in Gainesville.  
At the mall, efforts to withdraw money from various ATMs and purchase items 
from stores failed. 
At the Miller residence, law enforcement officers secured the scene and 
issued a BOLO (―be on the lookout‖) alert for a red van occupied by three black 
males and a possible kidnap victim.  A police officer spotted the van at a 
convenience store in Ocala where McGirth was observed getting out and leaving 
the passengers in the vehicle.  When McGirth returned and drove the vehicle out of 
the parking lot, the police officer activated his siren and lights which prompted 
McGirth to pull over.  As the officer approached the vehicle, one of the men in the 
van told McGirth to ―just shoot the cop.‖  McGirth responded that he had it 
handled.  When the officer ordered the driver to shut the van off, McGirth sped 
away.  A high-speed chase in excess of 100 miles per hour ensued.  As he drove 
the vehicle while being pursued by the police, McGirth handed the gun to Houston 
 
- 6 - 
and ordered him to shoot Sheila because she could identify them.  Houston, 
however, did not do so.  The police ultimately used stop sticks to slow the van and 
then disabled it by employing the PIT maneuver,3 which caused the van to roll 
several times.  Sheila was found inside the van, and Houston was attempting to 
pull himself from underneath the van when police took him into custody.  McGirth 
and Roberts were able to get out of the van and fled in opposite directions, but 
were apprehended and taken into custody shortly thereafter.   
The police found bloody, folded money totaling $259 in McGirth‘s pocket, 
and his fingerprints were identified on two paper items from James‘s wallet.   
Testimony was presented on the gunshot wounds inflicted on Diana.  
Dr. Julia Martin, the medical examiner, opined that the gunshot wound to the head 
would have rendered Diana immediately unconscious and dead soon thereafter, but 
that the wound to her chest would not.  Dr. Martin concluded that Diana died as a 
result of the gunshot wound to her head.    
The jury found McGirth guilty of first-degree murder of Diana Miller, 
attempted first-degree murder of James Miller, robbery with a firearm, and fleeing 
to elude law enforcement,4 and the case proceeded to the penalty phase. 
                                          
 
 
3.  Precision Immobilization Technique. 
 
4.  Both Sheila and Houston testified against McGirth and Roberts, who 
were tried jointly.  McGirth and Roberts were both charged with, but acquitted of, 
the kidnapping with a firearm of Sheila.  An undercurrent throughout the case was 
 
- 7 - 
The Penalty Phase 
During the penalty phase, the State presented victim impact testimony from 
four witnesses who described Diana Miller as funny, playful, caring, a good friend, 
and an accommodating person who enjoyed traveling with her husband and friends 
and playing golf and softball.  Their testimony revealed that Diana‘s softball team 
made tributes in her name and dedicated its fall season to her.  A memorial service 
was held for Diana and, after a silent prayer, the team released balloons in the air 
in her honor.  The softball team also placed Diana‘s retired team jersey along with 
her photograph and a medal she won in softball in a shadow box and brought it to 
softball games.  A group of women in her community placed a quarter-page 
advertisement in a newspaper in memory of Diana, which expressed how much she 
was missed.   
The State also presented evidence from Dr. Martin, the medical examiner, 
who estimated that anywhere from fifteen to thirty minutes passed between 
Diana‘s chest wound and head wound.  She also testified that there was nothing in 
her examination which would lead her to conclude that Diana lost consciousness as 
a result of the chest wound before the infliction of the head wound.  The medical 
                                                                                                                                        
the extent, if any, of Sheila Miller‘s involvement in the criminal acts that transpired 
on July 21, 2006.  Roberts, who was twenty years old at the time of the crimes, was 
convicted of robbery with a firearm and the lesser included offenses of 
manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter.     
 
- 8 - 
examiner explained that as a result of her chest wound, Diana would have 
experienced pain, difficulty in breathing, and anxiety.   
The defense presented mitigation testimony from McGirth‘s family 
members and pastor.  The evidence showed that McGirth had a difficult time 
growing up because he did not know his biological father and had poor male role 
models throughout his life.  
At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury recommended by a vote of 
eleven to one that McGirth be sentenced to death for the murder of Diana Miller.  
After conducting a Spencer hearing,5 the trial court entered its sentencing order in 
which it found five aggravators: (1) the murder was cold, calculated, and 
premeditated (CCP), to which it assigned great weight; (2) the murder was 
heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC), to which it assigned great weight; (3) McGirth 
had a prior violent felony, based on McGirth‘s contemporaneous conviction for the 
attempted first-degree murder of James Miller, to which it assigned great weight; 
(4) McGirth engaged in the commission of a robbery at the time of the murder, to 
which it assigned great weight; and (5) the murder was committed primarily to 
avoid arrest, to which it assigned moderate weight.  As a statutory mitigating 
circumstance, the trial court found McGirth‘s age (eighteen), to which it assigned 
significant weight.    
                                          
 
 
5.  Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). 
 
- 9 - 
The trial court found fifteen of the eighteen nonstatutory mitigating factors 
proposed by McGirth: (1) McGirth had a close bond with his siblings, to which the 
court assigned very slight weight; (2) McGirth grew up in a financially poor 
family, to which the court assigned little weight; (3) McGirth grew up in an 
abusive home, to which the court assigned little weight; (4) McGirth was neglected 
by his custodial parents, to which the court assigned little weight; (5) McGirth‘s 
substance abuse, to which the court assigned very slight weight; (6) McGirth‘s 
intermittent exposure to positive role models, to which the court assigned some 
weight; (7) testimony which characterized McGirth as a follower and not a leader, 
to which the court assigned no weight; (8) McGirth‘s diagnosis of conduct 
disorder, to which the court assigned very little weight; (9) McGirth‘s diagnosis of 
antisocial personality disorder, to which the court assigned very little weight; 
(10) McGirth‘s exposure to people with criminal histories, to which the court 
assigned some weight; (11) McGirth‘s strong religious background, to which the 
court assigned little weight; (12) McGirth‘s good courtroom behavior, to which the 
court assigned slight weight; (13) McGirth suffered significant family losses, to 
which the court assigned little weight; (14) McGirth can benefit from a structured 
environment, to which the court assigned slight weight; and (15) McGirth was 
deprived of a relationship with his biological father, to which the court assigned 
 
- 10 - 
some weight.6  The trial court concluded that the aggravating circumstances in this 
case outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced McGirth to death.   
ISSUES ON APPEAL 
 
On direct appeal, McGirth raises the following eight issues: (1) whether the 
trial court erred in admitting Williams rule evidence7 in the guilt phase that had 
more prejudicial effect than probative value; (2) whether the trial court erred in its 
response to a jury question concerning the law on principals; (3) whether the trial 
court erred in admitting excessive and inflammatory victim impact evidence during 
the penalty phase; (4) whether a prosecutorial remark during the penalty phase 
closing argument warrants a new penalty phase trial; (5) whether the trial court 
erred in finding the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator; (6) whether the 
trial court erred in finding the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator; (7) whether 
the trial court erred in finding the avoid arrest aggravator; and (8) whether 
Florida‘s death penalty statute violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and 
related cases.  In addition to the issues that McGirth raises on direct appeal, this 
Court must also consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support his 
                                          
 
6.  The trial court found McGirth‘s IQ of 98 was ―not a mitigating factor,‖ 
and assigned it no weight.  The trial court did not find that letters requesting that 
mercy be showed to McGirth were a nonstatutory mitigating factor.  However, the 
court stated that even if a request for mercy were a nonstatutory mitigator, very 
slight weight would be given.  The trial court rejected the proposed nonstatutory 
mitigator that McGirth acted under the influence and domination of another.   
 
7.  Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959). 
 
- 11 - 
convictions and whether the death sentence is proportionate.  We begin our 
discussion of these issues with our mandatory review of the sufficiency of the 
evidence to justify McGirth‘s convictions.  We then continue with McGirth‘s guilt 
phase claims and proceed to his penalty phase claims.  We conclude our analysis 
by reviewing the death sentence for proportionality. 
Sufficiency of the Evidence 
―In appeals where the death penalty has been imposed, this Court 
independently reviews the record to confirm that the jury‘s verdict is supported by 
competent, substantial evidence.‖  Davis v. State, 2 So. 3d 952, 966-67 (Fla. 2008) 
(citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.142(a)(6)), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2872 (2009).  
Sufficient evidence exists if, ―after viewing the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the 
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.‖  Simmons v. State, 934 So. 2d 
1100, 1111 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Bradley v. State, 787 So. 2d 732, 738 (Fla. 2001)).  
Although McGirth did not expressly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to 
each of his convictions, our complete review of the record demonstrates that the 
convictions are supported by competent, substantial evidence.   
The State presented evidence that McGirth shot Diana in the chest after 
demanding money from her.  Approximately fifteen to thirty minutes later, after 
briefly stepping outside to assist in removing Sheila from the house, McGirth 
 
- 12 - 
returned to the home and shot James and then Diana in the backs of their heads.  
Further evidence was presented that McGirth participated in the armed robbery of 
Diana and James Miller:  McGirth demanded money and access to credit card and 
banking information; his fingerprints were identified on two paper items from 
James‘s wallet; and $259 in bloody bills was found in his possession.  The 
evidence also established that McGirth fled to elude the police as he led them on a 
high-speed vehicular chase in the Miller van and then ran from the police after the 
van was disabled.  Accordingly, competent, substantial evidence exists to support 
each of McGirth‘s convictions. 
Guilt Phase Claims 
 
McGirth raises two claims relating to the guilt phase of his trial.  First, he 
contends that evidence of his drug-based relationship with Sheila Miller 
constituted irrelevant Williams rule evidence.  Second, he claims the trial court 
erred in its response to a jury question concerning the law on principals.  As we 
explain below, neither claim warrants relief.  
1. Prior Bad Acts 
In his first claim on appeal, McGirth argues that the trial court erred in 
admitting irrelevant Williams rule evidence.  During the cross-examination 
conducted by Roberts‘ defense counsel, and over McGirth‘s objections, Sheila 
testified that her relationship with McGirth began before the criminal episode on 
 
- 13 - 
July 21, 2006.  She testified that their relationship was built around drugs and that 
the two bought from and sold drugs to one another.  Sheila added that the two had 
a falling out when McGirth pulled a knife on her fiancé some time before, and that 
the two had not spoken until his visit to the Miller home the afternoon of the 
crimes.  During Roberts‘ case-in-chief, Sheila testified that when she and the men 
were in the van on the afternoon of the crimes, she was told to get on the telephone 
and attempt to broker a deal for several ounces of cocaine.  We reject the claim that 
this evidence constitutes Williams rule evidence subject to the requirements of 
section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2006).  We hold that the trial court did not 
abuse its discretion in admitting Sheila‘s testimony as relevant pursuant to section 
90.402, Florida Statutes (2006), to establish the context in which the charged 
criminal acts occurred.  
An appellate court will not disturb a trial court‘s determination that evidence 
is relevant and admissible absent an abuse of discretion.  See Victorino v. State, 23 
So. 3d 87, 98 (Fla. 2009).  Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless 
precluded by a specific rule of exclusion.  Id. (citing § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2004)).  
There are two categories under which evidence of uncharged crimes or bad acts 
will be admissible—similar fact evidence, otherwise known as Williams rule 
evidence, and dissimilar fact evidence.  Id. (citing Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 16 
(Fla. 2000)).  The requirements and limitations of section 90.404 govern similar 
 
- 14 - 
fact evidence while the general rule of relevancy set forth in section 90.402 
governs dissimilar fact evidence.  Id. at 98-99.  We have explained the test for 
dissimilar fact evidence as follows: 
[E]vidence 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) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, 
Florida Evidence, § 404.17 (1993 ed.)).  We find that Sheila Miller‘s testimony 
regarding her drug-based relationship with McGirth was not similar fact evidence, 
and consequently, McGirth‘s claim does not constitute a true Williams rule claim.  
The evidence at issue—which, as explained below, established the relevant context 
leading up to the charged crimes—is inextricably intertwined with the defendant‘s 
charged crimes.  Consequently, the general rule of relevancy under section 90.402 
governs the instant matter.  
  Dissimilar fact evidence of a defendant‘s prior bad acts is admissible to 
―establish[] the relevant context in which the [charged] criminal acts occurred.‖  
Caruso v. State, 645 So. 2d 389, 394 (Fla. 1994).  The State may present evidence 
that ―paints an accurate picture of the events surrounding the crimes charged.‖  
Victorino, 23 So. 3d at 99 (quoting Griffin, 639 So. 2d at 970).  The evidence here 
helped establish how McGirth came to know Sheila, why he arrived at the Miller 
 
- 15 - 
home the afternoon of the crimes, and why McGirth was greeted by Sheila with an 
embrace.  Additionally, because Sheila testified that ―everyone,‖ including 
McGirth, knew that her parents had retired and that they provided her with a good 
life, the relationship between Sheila and McGirth helped explain McGirth‘s 
perception that Sheila‘s parents were wealthy.  Indeed, when McGirth insisted to 
Diana during the course of the robbery that she had money because she lived in 
The Villages, Diana turned to Sheila and asked her what she had told the men.   
These factors were necessary to adequately describe the events leading up to 
Diana‘s murder.  See Griffin, 639 So. 2d at 968.  Consequently, evidence as to the 
defendant‘s drug-based relationship with the victims‘ daughter was relevant and 
inextricably intertwined with the crimes charged. 
We also disagree with McGirth‘s contention that the evidence concerning 
his drug-based relationship with Sheila should have been excluded under section 
90.403 because the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its 
prejudicial effect.  ―Once the trial court has weighed the evidence to determine 
whether its value was more probative than prejudicial, this Court will not overturn 
its decision absent an abuse of discretion.‖  Murray v. State, 3 So. 3d 1108, 1124 
(Fla.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 396 (2009).  Relevant evidence is subjected to a 
balancing test under section 90.403, and ―[o]nly when the unfair prejudice 
substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence should it be excluded.‖  
 
- 16 - 
Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277, 296 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Sexton v. State, 697 So. 
2d 833, 837 (Fla. 1997)).  Such is not the case here.  Because the evidence was 
relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of 
unfair prejudice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence 
concerning the nature of the defendant‘s relationship with the victims‘ daughter, 
Sheila.  We thus deny relief on this claim.  
2. Trial Court‘s Response to a Jury Question 
McGirth next contends that the trial court erred in its response to a question 
posed by the guilt phase jury during deliberations.  A trial court has discretion in 
instructing the jury during deliberations, and an appellate court will disturb a trial 
court‘s ruling ―only when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or 
unreasonable.‖  Green v. State, 907 So. 2d 489, 496 (Fla. 2005) (quoting White v. 
State, 817 So. 2d 799, 806 (Fla. 2002)); see Perriman v. State, 731 So. 2d 1243, 
1246 (Fla. 1999) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.410). 
During deliberations, the jury asked whether it could have a discussion with 
the trial judge regarding the jury instruction on principals.  The court responded 
that it could not engage in general discussions with the jury, but would be willing 
to address any specific questions the jury might have.  Nine minutes later, the jury 
posed the following question relating to the jury instruction on principals: ―Is 
cautious [sic] intent the same as premeditation in that it can occur a few seconds 
 
- 17 - 
before the crime was committed?‖  Outside the presence of the jury, the trial judge 
consulted the lawyers and observed that the standard jury instruction on principals 
did not define conscious intent.8  After rejecting McGirth‘s objection to providing 
the jury with any information beyond what is contained in the written jury 
instruction, the trial court answered the jury‘s question as follows:  
Is conscious intent the same as premeditation in that it can occur a few 
seconds before the crime was committed?  Specifically, is conscious 
intent the same as premeditation?  
The answer is no.  The law does not fix the exact amount of time that 
must pass for the formation of conscious intent. 
(Emphasis added.)  The trial court denied defense counsel‘s subsequent motion for 
mistrial. 
                                          
 
 
8.  The standard jury instruction on principals reads: 
 
If the defendant helped another person or persons commit or 
attempt to commit a crime, the defendant is a principal and must be 
treated as if he had done all the things the other person or persons did 
if:  
 
1. the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be 
done and 
 
2. the defendant did some act or said some word which was 
intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise 
the other person or persons to actually commit or attempt to commit 
the crime. 
 
To be a principal, the defendant does not have to be present 
when the crime is committed or attempted.  
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.5(a). 
 
- 18 - 
A trial judge is not restricted to the written jury instructions when a jury 
poses a question during its deliberations, and may clarify a point of law for a 
confused jury with a brief, clear response.  See Perriman, 731 So. 2d at 1246-47.   
In the present case, the question posed to the court demonstrated the jury‘s 
confusion about the meaning of ―conscious intent‖ as it related to principals, and 
the trial court was well within its discretion to provide the jury with a response.   
   
McGirth contends that the trial court defined the conscious intent element of 
the principal jury instruction in the same terms used to define the premeditated 
intent element of the first-degree murder instruction, thus blurring the distinctions 
between the two elements.9  We disagree and find that the trial court did not err in 
its response to the jury‘s question on principals.  Here, the trial judge correctly 
instructed the jury that conscious intent (an element contained in the ―principals‖ 
instruction) and premeditation (an element contained in the first-degree 
premeditated murder instruction) do not share the same meaning.  In addressing 
whether conscious intent, as set forth in the principals instruction, can occur a few 
seconds before the crime was committed, the judge correctly informed the jury that 
                                          
 
 
9.  McGirth also argues that the State‘s de-emphasis on the reflection time 
for premeditation during its guilt phase closing argument further confounded the 
jury‘s understanding of the jury instructions.  We disagree and find that the State‘s 
closing argument fell within the confines of proper closing argument.  See 
Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1, 8 (Fla. 1982) (holding that counsel may advance 
all legitimate arguments during closing argument and that logical inferences may 
be drawn from those arguments). 
 
- 19 - 
―the law does not fix the exact amount of time that must pass for the formation of 
conscious intent.‖  Because the trial court did not err in its response to the jury‘s 
question regarding the conscious intent component of the principals jury 
instruction, there is no basis for relief on this claim. 
Penalty Phase Claims 
 
McGirth raises six claims relating to the penalty phase of his trial.  First, 
McGirth challenges a remark the prosecutor made during the penalty phase closing 
argument.  Second, he claims that the trial court erred in admitting excessive and 
inflammatory victim impact evidence.  Third, he argues that the trial court erred in 
finding the avoid arrest aggravator.  Fourth, he asserts that the trial court erred in 
finding the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator.  Fifth, he claims that the 
trial court erred in finding the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator.  Lastly, he 
contends that Florida‘s death penalty statute violates Ring and related cases.  For 
reasons set forth below, we conclude that these claims do not warrant relief. 
1. Prosecutorial Comments During the Penalty Phase 
 
McGirth claims that a comment by the State during its penalty phase closing 
argument was improper and so prejudicial that it warrants a new penalty phase 
trial.  We disagree.  
 
During its penalty phase closing argument, the State addressed whether 
Sheila‘s alleged involvement in the crimes—a theory advanced by the defense but 
 
- 20 - 
which the State argued was not supported by the evidence—could mitigate or 
lessen the defendant‘s culpability.  The State argued that irrespective of Sheila‘s 
involvement, lessening McGirth‘s culpability would ―be like giving the pilots of 
the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center a pass . . . .  a pass because 
it was Osama‘s idea.‖  McGirth‘s defense counsel objected to the argument and 
moved for mistrial.   
McGirth argues on appeal that the prosecutor‘s remark was improper and 
prejudicial because it appealed to jurors‘ emotions and that the trial court erred in 
overruling his objections to these comments.  However, we have held that ―[a]ny 
error in prosecutorial comments is harmless if there is no reasonable probability 
that those comments affected the verdict.‖  Hitchcock v. State, 755 So. 2d 638, 643 
(Fla. 2000) (citing King v. State, 623 So. 2d 486, 487 (Fla. 1993)).  In order to 
ensure that the harmless error test has been met, an examination of the record is 
required.  State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986).  This entails not 
only a ―close examination of the permissible evidence on which the jury could 
have legitimately relied,‖ but also a careful review of the ―impermissible evidence 
which might have possibly influenced‖ the jury recommendation.  Id. at 1135.  In 
Anderson v. State, 18 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 2009), we recently explained: 
 
In order for the prosecutor‘s comments to merit a new trial, 
 
the comments must either deprive the defendant of a fair 
 
and impartial trial, materially contribute to the conviction, 
 
be so harmful or fundamentally tainted as to require a new 
 
- 21 - 
 
trial, or be so inflammatory that they might have influenced 
 
the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that it would 
 
have otherwise. 
 
Id. at 518 (quoting Spencer v. State, 645 So. 2d 377, 383 (Fla. 1994)). 
After reviewing the record, we conclude that in light of the evidence of 
aggravation presented against McGirth, there is no reasonable possibility that the 
isolated reference to the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center affected the jury‘s 
sentencing recommendation.  Error, if any, was therefore harmless.  
 
We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 
defense counsel‘s motion for mistrial.  A motion for mistrial should be granted 
only where prejudicial error will vitiate the trial‘s result, making a mistrial 
necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.  See Smith v. State, 998 
So. 2d 516, 526 (Fla. 2008).  We find that the prosecutor‘s remark in the instant 
case was made in the context of mitigation and the isolated reference was not so 
prejudicial as to vitiate the trial‘s result.  Thus, the trial court did not abuse its 
discretion in denying McGirth‘s request for mistrial.10   
2. Victim Impact Evidence 
 
McGirth next claims that the excessive and inflammatory nature of the 
victim impact evidence presented during the penalty phase proceeding deprived 
                                          
 
 
10.  Although we find that the prosecutor‘s remark does not warrant relief in 
this case, we nevertheless caution prosecutors not to exceed the proper scope of 
argument.   
 
- 22 - 
him of due process and a fair trial, and relies on general pretrial motions in limine 
for preservation of his claims of error.  We first address the issue of preservation of 
any alleged error.  
 
Before trial began, the trial court denied the defendant‘s motion to limit 
victim impact evidence, but granted leave to file a motion in limine to address any 
specific issues that might arise from the deposition testimony of potential victim 
impact witnesses.  The court also reserved ruling on McGirth‘s motion requesting a 
proffer of victim impact testimony for a determination of whether the alleged 
unfair prejudice of the evidence outweighed its probative value.  McGirth, 
however, did not raise the issue again at trial.  Indeed, during the entire 
presentation of victim impact evidence, defense counsel did not raise any specific 
objections to any portion of the testimony, the introduction of the memorial 
advertisement purchased by neighbors and friends in Diana Miller‘s honor, or any 
particular aspect of the photographic evidence. 
 
It is well established that ―to be cognizable on appeal, [an argument] must be 
the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or 
motion below.‖  F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2003) (quoting Steinhorst 
v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982)).  Moreover, failure to contemporane-
ously object to improper victim impact evidence ―renders the claim procedurally 
barred absent fundamental error.‖  Sexton v. State, 775 So. 2d 923, 932 (Fla. 
 
- 23 - 
2000).  In this case, McGirth‘s pretrial motions lacked the requisite specificity to 
preserve a claim on appeal, and he did not obtain a definitive ruling in advance 
from the trial court on any specific items of victim impact evidence, which would 
have made a contemporaneous objection on the exclusion of evidence unnecessary.  
See 90.104(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006) (a party need not renew an objection or offer of 
proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal if the court has made a definitive 
ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial).   
McGirth failed to make a contemporaneous objection on specific grounds during 
trial.  Consequently, his claim challenging the excessive and inflammatory nature 
of the victim impact evidence was not preserved for our review.   
 We nevertheless must determine whether fundamental error or a violation of 
due process occurred in the admission of victim impact evidence in this case.  See 
Wheeler v. State, 4 So. 3d 599, 606-07 (Fla.) (recognizing that evidence which 
places undue focus on victim impact, even if not objected to, can in some cases 
constitute a due process violation), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 178 (2009).  ―The 
analysis to determine if admission of victim impact evidence has violated a 
defendant‘s due process rights in the penalty phase of a capital trial parallels the 
analysis for fundamental error.‖  Id. at 607.  During the penalty phase, error is 
fundamental if it is ―so prejudicial as to taint the jury‘s recommended sentence.‖  
 
- 24 - 
Jones v. State, 949 So. 2d 1021, 1037 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Fennie v. State, 855 So. 
2d 597, 609 (Fla. 2003)).  
The State may present victim impact evidence which shows ―the victim‘s 
uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community‘s 
members by the victim‘s death.‖  § 921.141(7), Fla. Stat. (2006); see Wheeler, 
4 So. 3d at 607.  However, the admissibility of victim impact evidence is not 
limitless.  Sexton, 775 So. 2d at 932.  Victim impact witnesses cannot provide 
characterizations and opinions about the crime.  Id. (citing Payne v. Tennessee, 
501 U.S. 808, 826-27 (1991)).  Although we recognize that in some cases 
unobjected-to evidence which places undue focus on victim impact can violate due 
process, this Court has never drawn a bright line as to the number of permissible 
witnesses that the State may present.  See Wheeler, 4 So. 3d at 607-08.  We have 
previously found as admissible the evidence of five victim impact witnesses.  
Deparvine v. State, 995 So. 2d 351, 378 (Fla. 2008).  We also found no error in the 
admission of victim impact testimony of twelve witnesses in Farina v. State, 801 
So. 2d 44, 52 (Fla. 2001).   
In this case, the trial court appropriately permitted Ann Tauriainen, the 
victim‘s aunt, and Marie Franks, Lori Travis, and Lee Hancock, friends and 
neighbors of the victim, to testify as witnesses.  The testimony of these four 
witnesses described the uniqueness of Diana Miller as an individual and explained 
 
- 25 - 
how her death caused a loss to her family members and to the community.  We 
therefore find that the nature and extent of this victim impact testimony neither 
constituted fundamental error nor violated due process. 
We also find no error in the admission of photographs of the victim.  As 
with victim impact testimony, we have never drawn a bright line as to the number 
of permissible photographs that the State may present.  See Wheeler, 4 So. 3d at 
608.  In this case, the State presented five photographs showing the victim in 
different settings such as with her recreational softball team in The Villages, with 
friends at the golf course, or by herself posing as the softball team catcher.  The 
State also presented a photograph depicting a balloon release in Diana‘s memory, a 
photograph of a plaque and Diana‘s retired softball jersey, and a copy of the 
quarter-page advertisement purchased in Diana‘s memory.  We do not find that this 
evidence was impermissibly prejudicial so as to warrant a new penalty phase 
proceeding.  Therefore, we conclude that the photographic evidence neither 
constituted fundamental error nor violated due process.  Because McGirth has not 
identified reversible error committed by the trial court in the admission of victim 
impact evidence, we deny relief on this claim. 
3. Aggravating Factors 
McGirth challenges the trial court‘s findings of the following three 
aggravating circumstances: (1) the dominant motive for committing murder was to 
 
- 26 - 
avoid arrest; (2) the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated 
manner; and (3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.  When 
reviewing claims alleging error in the application of aggravating factors, this Court 
does not reweigh the evidence.  Franklin v. State, 965 So. 2d 79, 98 (Fla. 2007).  
Rather, this Court‘s role on appeal is to review the record to determine whether the 
trial court applied the correct rule of law for each aggravator and, if so, whether 
competent, substantial evidence exists to support its findings.  Id.  ―Competent, 
substantial evidence is tantamount to legally sufficient evidence.‖  Blackwood v. 
State, 946 So. 2d 960, 973 (Fla. 2006) (quoting State v. Coney, 845 So. 2d 120, 
132-33 (Fla. 2003)).  Accordingly, we review each of the aggravators raised on 
appeal for competent, substantial evidence.11 
                                          
 
 
11.  McGirth also challenges the propriety of the trial judge‘s decision to 
instruct the jury on each of the aggravators challenged on appeal.  We have held 
that where competent, substantial evidence supports the trial judge‘s decision to do 
so, it is not error to instruct the jury on the respective aggravator.  See Aguirre-
Jarquin v. State, 9 So. 3d 593, 607 (Fla. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1505 
(2010).  Further, when evidence on a mitigator or aggravator has been presented to 
the jury, the court is required to instruct the jury on the factor.  Bowden v. State, 
588 So. 2d 225, 231 (Fla. 1991).  Because, as explained below, there was 
competent, substantial evidence presented on each of the aggravators challenged 
on appeal, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on each of the 
aggravators.   
 
- 27 - 
A. Avoid Arrest Aggravator 
McGirth argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on and in 
finding the avoid arrest aggravating factor.  We conclude that the trial court did not 
err.   
The focus of the avoid arrest aggravator centers on the motivation for the 
crimes.  See Jennings v. State, 718 So. 2d 144, 151 (Fla. 1998).  ―[T]o establish the 
avoid arrest aggravating factor where the victim is not a law enforcement officer, 
the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive 
for the murder was the elimination of a witness.‖  Reynolds v. State, 934 So. 2d 
1128, 1156 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Bell v. State, 841 So. 2d 329, 336 (Fla. 2002)).  
―However, ‗[e]ven without direct evidence of the offender‘s thought processes, the 
arrest avoidance factor can be supported by circumstantial evidence through 
inference from the facts shown.‘ ‖  Id. at 1157 (quoting Swafford v. State, 533 So. 
2d 270, 276 n.6 (Fla. 1988)).  When evaluating the avoid arrest aggravator, this 
Court has considered ―whether the defendant used gloves, wore a mask, or made 
any incriminating statements about witness elimination; whether the victims 
offered resistance; and whether the victims were confined or were in a position to 
pose a threat to the defendant.‖  Nelson v. State, 850 So. 2d 514, 526 (Fla. 2003) 
(quoting Farina, 801 So. 2d at 54). 
 
- 28 - 
In this case, McGirth never made an effort to conceal his identity from his 
victims.  McGirth instructed Houston, his codefendant, to pick up shell casings and 
wipe objects down to remove any fingerprints from items touched while in the 
home.  Police had to unlock the front door from the inside of the home to allow 
emergency medical personnel inside.  While trying to flee from police in the van, 
McGirth ordered Houston to shoot Sheila, the victims‘ daughter, because she could 
identify them.  The evidence indicates that McGirth probably could have 
accomplished the robbery of the Miller home without killing Diana or attempting 
to kill James.  Diana posed no resistance to McGirth or his codefendants as she 
was virtually immobilized after being shot once in the chest.  James also did not 
offer any resistance toward McGirth or the other codefendants as he had been 
pinned to the floor.  McGirth easily obtained access to the Miller‘s van and their 
property.  Once McGirth and his codefendants obtained the victims‘ property and 
secured a getaway, there was no reason to kill Diana and attempt to kill James 
except to eliminate them both as witnesses.  See Looney v. State, 803 So. 2d 656, 
677-78 (Fla. 2001) (finding that once the defendants immobilized the victims, 
obtained their property, and secured a getaway, there was no reason to kill the 
victims except to eliminate them as witnesses).  Competent, substantial evidence 
supports the trial court‘s finding of the avoid arrest aggravating factor.   
 
- 29 - 
B. Cold, Calculated, and Premeditated Aggravator 
 
McGirth next argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on and in 
finding the cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP) aggravator.  He challenges 
the presence of certain elements of CCP and claims that the trial court‘s finding is 
not supported by competent, substantial evidence.  We disagree and conclude that 
the trial court did not err. 
 
A court must consider the totality of the circumstances when determining 
whether a murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner.  
Gill v. State, 14 So. 3d 946, 962 (Fla. 2009) (citing Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96, 
116 (Fla. 2008), and Lynch v. State, 841 So. 2d 362, 372 (Fla. 2003)).  For a trial 
court‘s finding on CCP to be legally sufficient, the evidence must show that ―the 
killing was the product of cool and calm reflection and not an act prompted by 
emotional frenzy, panic, or a fit of rage (cold); that the defendant had a careful plan 
or prearranged design to commit murder before the fatal incident (calculated); that 
the defendant exhibited heightened premeditation (premeditated); and that the 
defendant had no pretense of moral or legal justification.‖  Franklin, 965 So. 2d at 
98 (citing Jackson v. State, 648 So. 2d 85, 89 (Fla. 1994)).  The focus of the CCP 
aggravator centers on the manner in which the defendant executed the crime.  
Walker v. State, 957 So. 2d 560, 581 (Fla. 2007).  Legally sufficient evidence 
exists to support a trial court‘s finding on CCP where the defendant procures a 
 
- 30 - 
weapon in advance, receives no provocation or resistance from the victim, and 
carries out the killing as a matter of course.  See Farina, 801 So. 2d at 54. 
In this case, the State presented evidence that McGirth armed himself in 
advance of his arrival at the entrance to The Villages, a gated, residential 
neighborhood.  He and his codefendants then drove about thirteen minutes before 
finally arriving at the Miller home.  He shot Diana once in the chest, obtained the 
victims‘ property and access to their vehicle, left the house, and returned to shoot 
both James and Diana in the back of the head.  There was no indication that 
McGirth received provocation or resistance from Diana Miller.  McGirth had 
ample time to reflect upon his actions before deciding to shoot Diana execution-
style, and the evidence clearly established that the murder was ―cold.‖  See Lynch, 
841 So. 2d at 372 (holding that the ―cold‖ element is legally sufficient where the 
defendant had ample opportunity to calmly reflect upon his actions, following 
which he decided to shoot his victims execution-style).   
Additionally, legally sufficient evidence exists to support a finding of the 
―calculated‖ element.  McGirth armed himself in advance, killed Diana execution-
style, and had time to coldly and calmly decide to kill.  Id.  It is significant to note 
here that as many as thirty minutes passed between the time Diana was first shot in 
the chest and then fatally wounded from a gunshot to the back of her head.  Id. 
(citing Hertz v. State, 803 So. 2d 629, 650 (Fla. 2001)).  Competent, substantial 
 
- 31 - 
evidence also supports the element of heightened premeditation as it was 
demonstrated that McGirth had ample opportunity to leave the crime scene and not 
commit the murder; nevertheless, he returned to the home to shoot Diana Miller in 
the back of the head.  Id. at 373.  Lastly, the evidence in this case showed no 
pretense of legal or moral justification for the killing.  Because legally sufficient 
evidence exists to support a finding of each element of CCP, we conclude that the 
trial court did not err in finding this aggravator.  Accordingly, we deny relief on 
this claim.   
C. Heinous, Atrocious, or Cruel Aggravator 
McGirth also argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on and in 
finding the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggravator.  He contends that when 
he first shot Diana in the chest, he did so in response to her resistance rather than 
for purposes of inflicting suffering and that, consequently, the aggravator is 
unsupported by the evidence.  We conclude that the trial court did not err. 
The focus of the HAC aggravator centers on the means and manner in which 
the death is inflicted upon the victim and the victim‘s perceptions of the 
surrounding circumstances.  See Victorino, 23 So. 3d at 104; Schoenwetter v. 
State, 931 So. 2d 857, 874 (Fla. 2006).  The aggravator is applicable where the 
murder is ―both conscienceless or pitiless and unnecessarily torturous to the 
victim.‖  Victorino, 23 So. 3d at 104 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Richardson v. 
 
- 32 - 
State, 604 So. 2d 1107, 1109 (Fla. 1992)).  The HAC aggravator is ―proper only in 
torturous murders—those that evince extreme and outrageous depravity as 
exemplified either by the desire to inflict a high degree of pain or utter indifference 
to or enjoyment of the suffering of another.‖  Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304, 329 
(Fla. 2002) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Shere v. State, 579 So. 2d 86, 95 (Fla. 
1991)).   
 McGirth contends that the fact that there were multiple gunshot wounds 
inflicted upon Diana and that Diana begged for her life is insufficient to support a 
HAC finding absent evidence that McGirth intended to cause the victim 
unnecessary and prolonged suffering.  However, as the State correctly notes, the 
killer‘s intention to inflict pain on the victim is not a necessary element of HAC.  
Ocha v. State, 826 So. 2d 956, 963-64 (Fla. 2002).  The killer need not intend to 
inflict torture where the victim is killed in a torturous manner because ―the very 
torturous manner of the victim‘s death is evidence of a defendant‘s indifference.‖  
Victorino, 23 So. 3d at 104 (quoting Barnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836, 849-50 (Fla. 
2002)); see also Schoenwetter, 931 So. 2d at 874 (noting that the focus on the HAC 
analysis is not on the intent of the killer but rather on the victim‘s actual suffering).    
The HAC aggravator generally does not apply to execution-style killings 
unless the State presents additional evidence that the defendant acted to physically 
or mentally torture the victim.  See Victorino, 23 So. 3d at 104-05; see also 
 
- 33 - 
Rimmer, 825 So. 2d at 327.  However, ―fear, emotional strain, and terror of the 
victim during the events leading up to the murder may make an otherwise quick 
death especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.‖  Hudson, 992 So. 2d at 115 (quoting 
James v. State, 695 So. 2d 1229, 1235 (Fla. 1997)).  This includes instances 
―where the victim is acutely aware of his or her impending death.‖  Id. (citing Gore 
v. State, 706 So. 2d 1328, 1335 (Fla. 1997)).   
McGirth cites to Rimmer, 825 So. 2d 304, to support his contention that the 
evidence in this case is insufficient to support the trial court‘s finding of HAC.  In 
Rimmer, we found the record devoid of any evidence that the defendant engaged in 
some action to torture the victims or subject them to pain and prolonged suffering.  
Id. at 328.  We concluded that the fact that the defendant forced his victims to lie 
on the floor with their hands bound behind their backs while he robbed the store 
they worked in was insufficient to show that the victims knew they would be killed 
or that they lay in fear of their impending deaths.  Id.  (citing Ferrell v. State, 686 
So. 2d 1324, 1330 (Fla. 1996)) (―Speculation that the victim may have realized that 
the defendants intended more than a robbery when forcing the victim to drive to 
the field is insufficient to support this aggravating factor.‖).  We held in Rimmer 
that while the victims experienced fear, it was not the type of fear, pain, and 
prolonged suffering that sufficiently supports an HAC finding.  Id.   
 
- 34 - 
The present case is factually distinguishable from Rimmer.  Here, McGirth 
shot Diana once in the chest and ignored her pleas for help.  She knew the men had 
taken her daughter hostage and that they had her husband.  When Diana asked for 
water and mentioned that she was cold, Houston, McGirth‘s codefendant, provided 
her with some water and wrapped her body with a blanket for warmth.  McGirth 
responded to these gestures with a derogatory comment suggesting weakness on 
Houston‘s part.  Diana crawled back to her daughter‘s room and lay near her 
husband James on the floor when he was shot in the back of his head.  The 
evidence upon which the trial court relied establishes that Diana knew of her 
impending death for some time before her murder.  
Any suggestion on McGirth‘s part that the murder lacked any element of 
mental or physical torture is belied by this evidence.  The medical examiner 
testified that the first bullet passed through Diana‘s sternum and lung.  About 
fifteen to thirty minutes passed from the time Diana was first shot in the chest until 
the time when she was fatally shot in the back of her head.  Diana undoubtedly 
experienced pain and remained conscious and cognizant of her surrounding 
circumstances.  The evidence showed that Diana‘s lung was collapsing and she 
experienced increasing difficulty in breathing.  As her condition deteriorated, she 
likely experienced anxiety.  Once McGirth obtained access to credit card 
information, jewelry, and the Miller van, he shot James and then Diana in the back 
 
- 35 - 
of the head.  Diana‘s murder was both conscienceless or pitiless and unnecessarily 
torturous, and McGirth exhibited utter indifference to the torturous manner of 
Diana‘s death.  We thus conclude that competent, substantial evidence supports the 
trial court‘s finding of the HAC aggravator.   
Apprendi and Ring Claims 
Finally, McGirth argues that Florida‘s capital sentencing scheme, section 
921.141, Florida Statutes, violates his federal constitutional rights to due process 
and a fair jury trial.  He also contends that the capital sentencing scheme is 
unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Ring v. 
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), because it does not require the findings of each 
aggravating circumstance to be made by a unanimous jury.  These claims are 
without merit.   
This Court has addressed whether Florida‘s capital sentencing scheme 
violates the federal constitution under Apprendi and Ring and has denied relief.  
See Gore v. State, 964 So. 2d 1257, 1276-77 (Fla. 2007).  We have also rejected 
claims that aggravators must be individually found by a unanimous jury.  See Zack 
v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190, 1202 (Fla. 2005) (citing Hodges v. State, 885 So. 2d 
338, 359 n.9 (Fla. 2004)).  Additionally, this Court has repeatedly rejected Ring 
claims where the trial court has found the ―during the course of a felony‖ 
aggravator and the ―prior violent felony‖ aggravator.  Robinson v. State, 865 So. 
 
- 36 - 
2d 1259, 1265 (Fla. 2004) (―This Court has held that the aggravators of murder 
committed ‗during the course of a felony‘ and prior violent felony involve facts 
that were already submitted to a jury during trial and, hence, are in compliance 
with Ring.‖).  Given that McGirth was convicted of the contemporaneous 
attempted first-degree murder of James and robbery with a firearm, we deny relief 
on this claim. 
PROPORTIONALITY 
McGirth does not challenge the proportionality of his death sentence.  We 
nevertheless conduct a proportionality review to guard against ―the imposition of 
‗unusual‘ punishments contrary to article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution.‖  
Wright, 19 So. 3d at 303.  In reviewing a death sentence for proportionality, we 
ensure that the death penalty is ―reserved only for those cases where the most 
aggravating and least mitigating circumstances exist.‖  Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 
954, 965 (Fla. 1996).  Our review on proportionality is not a comparison between 
the number of aggravators and mitigators.  See Barnes v. State, 29 So. 3d 1010, 
1028 (Fla. 2010), cert. denied, No. 10-5054 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2010).  Instead, we 
engage in a qualitative review of the totality of the circumstances and compare the 
present case with other capital cases.  Wright, 19 So. 3d at 303.   
In this case, the jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of eleven to 
one and the trial court so sentenced McGirth.  We conclude that the five 
 
- 37 - 
aggravating factors, weighed against the statutory and nonstatutory mitigating 
factors, amply support the imposition of the death sentence.  We have previously 
upheld the death penalty as proportionate in cases involving similar charges and 
similar aggravation.  For example, in Buzia v. State, 926 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2006), 
involving a first-degree murder and an attempted first-degree murder, we affirmed 
the death sentence where the trial court found and assigned great weight to four 
aggravators—prior violent felony, avoid arrest, HAC, and CCP—and found 
several nonstatutory mitigating factors.  Id. at 1216.  We have also upheld the 
death sentence in cases where the defendant‘s age constituted a statutory mitigating 
circumstance.  See Muehleman v. State, 3 So. 3d 1149, 1166-67 (Fla. 2009) 
(upholding the death sentence for a defendant who was eighteen at the time of the 
murder where the trial court found five aggravators including avoid arrest, HAC, 
and CCP).  We thus conclude that the death sentence in this case is proportionate. 
CONCLUSION 
 
After reviewing the issues raised on appeal and conducting our own 
independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence and the proportionality of 
the death sentence, we affirm McGirth‘s convictions for first-degree murder, 
attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, and fleeing 
or eluding a law enforcement officer and the sentences imposed for these offenses. 
It is so ordered. 
 
- 38 - 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., specially concurs with an opinion, in which QUINCE, J., concurs. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
PARIENTE, J., specially concurring. 
 
I agree with the majority decision to affirm McGirth‘s convictions and 
sentence.  I write, however, to express my view that (a) evidence that McGirth 
pulled a knife on Sheila Miller‘s fiancé two years before the crime was 
inadmissible; and (b) the State‘s penalty-phase closing argument that analogized 
the role of McGirth to the pilots of the two planes that crashed into the World 
Trade Center was improper.  
 
As to the knife incident, this evidence of a prior bad act was elicited by 
McGirth‘s co-defendant during the cross-examination of the victim, Sheila Miller, 
the daughter of the murder victim Diana Miller, allegedly to show her bias as a 
witness.  I agree that evidence of Sheila and McGirth‘s prior drug-based 
relationship was relevant to explain McGirth‘s association with Sheila and whether 
Sheila was potentially involved in the crime.  I disagree, however, that evidence 
that McGirth pulled a knife on Sheila‘s fiancé at some time before the crime was 
admissible because it is not relevant to or inextricably intertwined with the crime in 
question and any marginal relevance about the nature of the past relationship and 
 
- 39 - 
falling out would be outweighed by potential prejudice to McGirth.  However, in 
this case, since the testimony about pulling a knife was elicited only on cross-
examination by the co-defendant, the reference was extremely brief, and the State 
did not highlight this evidence, the error in admitting this evidence was harmless 
beyond a reasonable doubt as there is no reasonable possibility this brief reference 
affected the jury‘s verdict in this case. 
    
My next concern is with the State‘s initial penalty-phase argument that 
lessening McGirth‘s culpability in this case because of any potential involvement 
of Sheila in the planning of the crime would be ―like giving the pilots of the two 
planes that crashed into the World Trade Center a pass . . . a pass because it was 
Osama‘s idea.‖  The trial court overruled a timely objection.  This argument is 
clearly impermissible. 
 
First, the argument did not address any aggravator.  To the extent the State 
alleged that it was responding to the defendant‘s potential argument that Sheila 
was also involved in this crime as a mitigator, that specific argument had not been 
advanced by the defendant.  In fact, the prosecutor recognized this when he 
mentioned that he would talk about Sheila ―because I expect that you may hear that 
name come up in a few moments.  Her name is not on the list of mitigating 
circumstances, and you heard no evidence about her during the course of the 
second portion of the trial.‖  
 
- 40 - 
Second, even if discussing the role of Sheila‘s involvement was appropriate, 
arguments made referencing the 9-11 terrorists and Osama were completely 
inappropriate.  Rather, the argument was both ―highly emotional‖ and ―highly 
volatile‖ as defense counsel properly stated at the time of his objection.  
Prosecutors must confine their arguments to inferences based on record evidence; 
they are prohibited from exceeding the bounds of permissible advocacy by 
discussing other notorious cases that could evoke emotional responses.  Here, the 
argument was not based on inferences from the record and expressly referenced the 
most brutal attack ever committed in this country.  Our country‘s reaction, of 
course, was one of nationwide horror and collective outrage.  
Although I ultimately agree with the majority that this isolated reference in 
this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, I once again issue a word of 
caution regarding closing arguments in death penalty cases:  
This type of argument simply should have no place in a 
prosecutor‘s closing arguments—especially in a capital case.  Death 
penalty cases, by the very nature of the crimes involved, have the 
potential to arouse emotions and passions.  As officers of the court, 
prosecutors must ensure, to the extent possible, a dispassionate and 
objective jury deliberation process.  
Wade v. State, 41 So. 3d 857, 880 (Fla. 2010) (Pariente, J., specially concurring).  
QUINCE, J., concurs. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 41 - 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Marion County,  
Brian Lambert, Judge – Case No. 2006-CF-2999-A-W 
 
Christopher J. Anderson, Atlantic Beach, Florida, and Jeffrey D. Deen, Regional 
Counsel, Fifth District, Altamonte Springs, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Kenneth S. Nunnelley, 
Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Barbara C. Davis, Assistant Attorney 
General, Daytona Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee