Opinion ID: 1945465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Troy's Ability to Testify and Introduce Evidence Regarding His Remorse

Text: Prior to trial, the court determined that Troy's confession was acquired in violation of his right to counsel and would therefore only be admissible for purposes of impeachment. Troy argues that the prosecutor repeatedly made it clear every time he tried to introduce testimonial evidence of his remorse to the jury (either through his own testimony or through the testimony of Detective Gradoski), that she would, if permitted, seek to inquire about the suppressed confession, including statements therein possibly establishing the aggravator of witness elimination. The judge, in turn, repeatedly agreed that he saw no reason why the door would not be open regarding relevant information in the confession, and therefore Troy should proceed at his own risk. Thus, Troy asserts that the resulting constitutional Hobson's choice between his rights to testify and present evidence of the mitigating circumstance of remorse to the jury on the one hand, and his right not to be sentenced to death on the basis of a confession obtained in violation of his right to counsel on the other, deprived him of due process and a fair penalty hearing. The record makes clear that any attempt on Troy's behalf to introduce evidence to the jury of his remorse could rightfully have been subject to a response by the State on credibility grounds. First, Detective Gradoski testified at the Spencer hearing that although Troy expressed his remorse for killing Carroll, he was calm and collected during his confession, coolly recounting the events from the night of the crimes. Furthermore, had Troy taken the stand himself, the State could have demonstrated that his statements to Gradoski contradicted those to his mother and his girlfriend, which were admitted during the guilt phase of the trial. Troy told both his girlfriend and his mother that Carroll came onto him and that he was not interested in having sexual relations with her; however, as came out during the Spencer hearing, Troy told Detective Gradoski that the two were planning to have sex. Troy also told his mother and girlfriend that he could not remember the episode with Carroll and that he blacked out; however, Troy was able to give Detective Gradoski a detailed description of the night's events and specific details of Carroll's murder. As we noted in Johnson, if Troy desired to demonstrate his remorse to the jury and to make clear that he accepted responsibility for his actions, the fact-finder should be entitled to consider, though cross-examination, the exact version of events for which he is taking responsibility. Further, as this Court held in Butler v. State, 842 So.2d 817, 825 (Fla.2003), we have often said that cross-examination is not limited to the exact details testified to on direct examination but extends to the whole subject and all matters that modify, supplement, contradict, rebut or make clearer the direct testimony. Id. (citing Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186 (Fla.1997); see also Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96 (Fla. 1996)). Thus, the trial judge was not in error in warning that any attempts to introduce evidence of remorse expressed during his confession might entitle the State to inquire as to other portions of the statement (as did, in fact, occur during the Spencer hearing). Further, Troy has essentially presented this Court with a hypothetical situation of what might have happened but, because Troy chose not to take the risk and testify before the jury, did not actually occur. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial judge's actions did not constitute error. [8]