Opinion ID: 1727306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence Questioning Way's Guilt of Arson

Text: During the resentencing proceedings, Way proffered the testimony of Dr. Feegel, who would have testified that the victims' injuries could have occurred during a propane gas explosion, and were inconsistent with gasoline being poured on their bodies. [16] In addition, Way proffered the testimony of Craig Tanner, an arson investigator, who would have testified that the circuit breaker malfunctioned causing an electrical spark to light fumes from a nearby propane gas tank. The trial court excluded this testimony on the grounds that it was only relevant to Way's guilt of the crimes underlying his convictions for murder and arson and was not relevant to any resentencing issues. The trial court also limited Way's cross-examination of the State's witness Detective Croll regarding what was done during the arson investigation. As the State argues, this Court has previously rejected the argument that evidence that would serve only to create a lingering doubt of the defendant's guilt is admissible as a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance. See, e.g., Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 411 (Fla.1992); King v. State, 514 So.2d 354, 358 (Fla.1987). Although the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that the jury or court imposing the death sentence not be precluded from considering any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense, Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), we have previously rejected the argument that evidence relevant only to establish a lingering doubt of the defendant's guilt is a mitigating circumstance that the Eighth Amendment requires the fact-finder to consider. See King v. Dugger, 555 So.2d 355, 358 (Fla.1990); White v. Dugger, 523 So.2d 140, 140 (Fla.1988); see also Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (finding that Eighth Amendment does not require that sentencing jury be instructed that it can consider lingering doubt of guilt as a mitigating factor). However, Way argues that this evidence was admissible, not as a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance, but in order to rebut the evidence introduced by the State concerning the applicability of aggravating circumstances. As Way asserts, a resentencing is a completely new proceeding, and the resentencing judge is not obligated to find the same aggravating and mitigating circumstances that were established in the original sentencing proceeding. See Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404 (Fla.1992); Teffeteller v. State, 495 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla.1986). This Court has explained that it is within the sound discretion of the trial court during resentencing proceedings to allow the jury to hear or see probative evidence which will aid it in understanding the facts of the case in order that it may render an appropriate advisory sentence. We cannot expect jurors impaneled for capital sentencing proceedings to make wise and reasonable decisions in a vacuum. Teffeteller, 495 So.2d at 745. While the State is not allowed to relitigate guilt during resentencing proceedings, it may introduce evidence concerning the facts and circumstances of the crime in order to prove the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. See Valle v. State, 581 So.2d 40, 45 (Fla. 1991). Similarly, a defendant has a right to present evidence that is relevant to the nature and circumstances of the crime. See Downs v. State, 572 So.2d 895, 899 (Fla.1990). An example of a relevant circumstance of the crime is that the defendant played a relatively minor role in the murder compared to the other participants. See id. Of course, the defendant can also introduce evidence that is relevant to any of the statutory aggravating circumstances the State seeks to establish or to any statutory or nonstatutory mitigation. Fundamental fairness and due process require this. However, we have rejected claims that the trial court abused its discretion in precluding the admission of evidence that was only relevant to rebut the defendant's guilt of the underlying crime. See Waterhouse v. State, 596 So.2d 1008, 1015 (Fla. 1992); King, 514 So.2d at 358. While the defendant in Waterhouse was allowed to present evidence to rebut the State's evidence in support of the aggravating circumstance that a sexual battery occurred during the commission of the capital murder, the defendant had not been previously convicted of sexual battery. See Waterhouse, 596 So.2d at 1015. Although Way relies upon Waterhouse, in that case we found the trial court appropriately precluded Waterhouse from presenting evidence questioning his guilt. 596 So.2d at 1015. In this case, Way had previously been convicted of both arson and first-degree murder. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony that was only relevant to question the validity of the underlying arson conviction. If Way had been able to put on the testimony of the expert witness to explain the alternate theory of the crime, as set forth in his Brady claim, he would have been relitigating the question of guilt rather than explaining the circumstances of the crime. Second, as for Way's related claim that the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of Detective Croll, it appears that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Way is correct in his assertion that the confrontation clause applies to sentencing proceedings. See, e.g., Engle v. State, 438 So.2d 803, 814 (Fla.1983). However, the cases relied upon by Way to establish that it is reversible error to limit cross-examination on a critical fact supporting guilt are distinguishable because they involved testimony admitted during the guilt phase. See, e.g., Zerquera v. State, 549 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla.1989). In this case, during resentencing the testifying arson investigator gave relatively short testimony describing the facts that both victims were burned in a fire in the garage, and that an arson investigation was conducted in which the investigators determined that the fire was intentionally set using gasoline as an accelerant. The trial court ruled that Way could cross-examine the detective or call other detectives in rebuttal to establish that the investigators had not in fact determined that the fire had been intentionally set. Thus, the trial court afforded Way considerable leeway. However, the trial court ruled that Way could not question Detective Croll concerning whether the investigation had been adequately conducted because the trial court found that the issue of the adequacy of the investigation was collateral and had already been decided adversely to Way when he was convicted of arson. This type of testimony would not have assisted the resentencing jury in evaluating the nature and circumstances of the crime. Because the State in this case took care to limit the testimony about the circumstances of the crime, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's restriction of cross-examination in this case. We find that the limitation of the detective's cross-examination did not result in a violation of the confrontation clause or otherwise violate Way's due process rights.