Opinion ID: 1935286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Diminished Capacity Theory

Text: Henry next argues that retrial counsel erroneously relied on a diminished capacity defense, which Florida law does not recognize. See State v. Bias, 653 So.2d 380, 382 (Fla.1995); Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 821-25 (Fla.1989). The record conclusively rebuts this claim as well. In closing argument, retrial counsel emphasized that when Henry's wife cut him with a knife Henry freaked out, and counsel argued that Henry was blinded of what happened next. He told the jury the judge would instruct on manslaughter and second-degree murder talking about the depraved mind, not requiring premeditation. At the evidentiary hearing below, retrial counsel explained that he sought to show the offense to be a mindless, non-premeditated killing, to obtain a depraved mind, second-degree murder conviction. Henry's claim is based on retrial counsel's apparent misuse of the term diminished capacity in a written response to an inquiry from Henry's postconviction counsel. Both the trial transcript and the testimony of retrial counsel at the evidentiary hearing, however, demonstrate that counsel used a depraved mind, not a diminished capacity, defense at retrial.