Opinion ID: 1942603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Present Diminished Capacity Defense at Guilt Phase

Text: Evans first alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, prepare, and present the defense of diminished capacity at the guilt phase. Based on the mental health experts' testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Evans argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that Evans' head injury led to a deficiency in impulse control, which, in turn, led to Evans' clicking or being unable to control his rage and violent behavior. He claims that this deficiency in impulse control is evident throughout his childhood. Evans claims that at the time he shot Johnson, his condition was further exacerbated by his alcohol use, thereby diminishing his capacity to the point that he was unable to form the intent to kill Johnson. Evans' claim is without merit. The trial court correctly held that defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to present the defense of diminished capacity because diminished capacity is not a viable defense in Florida. See Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 820 (Fla.1989) (holding that diminished capacity is not a viable defense); see also Hodges v. State, 885 So.2d 338, 352 n. 8 (Fla.2004) (This Court has held on numerous occasions that evidence of an abnormal mental condition not constituting legal insanity is inadmissible to negate specific intent.); Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52, 63 (Fla.2003) (holding that evidence of defendant's disassociative state would not have been admissible during the guilt phase). While we have made exceptions for conditions which are commonly understood and may be explained to the jury without the assistance of a mental health expert, such as medication, epilepsy, infancy, and senility, Bunney v. State, 603 So.2d 1270, 1273 (Fla.1992), [21] Evans has not alleged that he was experiencing such a condition at the time he shot Johnson. Counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to seek to introduce evidence of a meritless defense at the guilt phase. Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178, 1182-83 (Fla.2006) (citing Teffeteller v. Dugger, 734 So.2d 1009, 1023 (Fla.1999) for proposition that [t]rial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims). Therefore, we deny this claim. Moreover, as the trial court found, even if the diminished capacity defense were viable, Evans cannot establish that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it because it would have been inconsistent with Evans' theory that the shooting was an accident. Evans insisted at the time of the shooting that he was focused and had a clear recollection of all that had occurred. [C]ounsel [cannot] be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue such defense when the defense would have been inconsistent with [the defendant's] theory of the case. . . . Dufour v. State, 905 So.2d 42, 52 (Fla. 2005) (holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to put on defense of voluntary intoxication, in part because defense would have been inconsistent with defense's theory of innocence) (citing State v. Williams, 797 So.2d 1235 (Fla.2001)). We affirm the trial court's denial of this claim.