Opinion ID: 1909892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: rejection of statutory mitigation

Text: Duest next asserts that the trial court erred in denying his requests for jury instructions on the statutory mental mitigating circumstances of extreme mental or emotional disturbance and impaired capacity, and in rejecting these mitigators in its sentencing order. The decision whether to give a particular jury instruction is within the trial court's discretion. See Card v. State, 803 So.2d 613, 624 (Fla. 2001). In ruling on requests for instructions on mitigating circumstances, the trial court's exercise of discretion is guided by precedent holding that a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on a mitigating factor if there is any evidence to support the instruction. See Bryant v. State, 601 So.2d 529, 533 (Fla.1992). The trial court summarized the evidence bearing on both mitigating factors in its sentencing order: The Defense presented witnesses to testify to the circumstances of the Defendant's childhood deprivation and brutalization within his family and in the prison system as a young adult. Dr. Patricia Fleming testified that she had occasion to evaluate the Defendant on December 8, 1989, and, as a result of that evaluation determined that the Defendant suffered from low self-esteem, was shy and introverted, and later became addicted to drugs and abused alcohol. She also discussed that he had some type of brain dysfunction as an infant, but could not determine what, or to what extent, this impaired the defendant in any way. Dr. Fleming's findings that the Defendant had suffered physical or emotional abuse by his father were confirmed by the testimony of the Defendant's father, mother, and the Defendant's siblings, most notably, Nancy Kerrigan. Dr. Fleming's analysis of the impact on the Defendant's mental or emotional health was based only upon various studies published about the institution and not upon any circumstances confided to her by the Defendant. The Defense also called John Boone, former Commissioner of Corrections for the State of Massachusetts. Mr. Boone testified to the deplorable conditions that existed at Walpole and Concord prisons during the years that the Defendant was incarcerated at these facilities. Mr. Boone related that he had met the Defendant once and that the Defendant had told him he had problems. Mr. Boone referred him to the appropriate personnel, and did not have any further contact with or information about this Defendant. This testimony presented vividly depicted the general conditions that he (Mr. Boone) observed in that prison system, but he could not enlighten these proceedings with any specifics as to the Defendant's problems. .... [Impaired capacity] In addition to the testimony regarding abuses suffered by the Defendant as set forth above, the Defense also argues that this statutory mitigator exists because of the testimony regarding the Defendant being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the crime.... [T]here was certainly evidence that the Defendant had used drugs and alcohol for a period of time before the crime, and had consumed some alcohol just prior to the commission of the crime.... On the mental or emotional disturbance statutory mitigator, [7] there was no evidence that Duest was under an extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the killing. In Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 101 (Fla.1996), this Court found that the trial court did not err in declining to instruct on this mitigator because a psychotherapist who testified on the defendant's mental disorders did not comment on the defendant's actual or probable mental condition at the time of the murder as contemplated by the statute. In Geralds, we distinguished the three cases now relied upon by Duest: Bryant v. State, 601 So.2d at 532-33, Stewart v. State, 558 So.2d 416 (Fla.1990), and Smith v. State, 492 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1986). See Geralds, 674 So.2d at 101 n. 12. We concluded that [i]n each of those cases, some evidence was presented that the defendant was either under the influence of some drug around the time of the murder, or suffered from a pervasive mental condition that affected him every day. Id. In this case, although there was evidence that Duest had consumed drugs and alcohol several nights before the murder and consumed a mixed drink on the afternoon of the murder, there was no evidence of Duest's probable mental state at the time of the murder, and no evidence of a pervasive mental condition that affected him every day. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Duest was not under the influence of extreme emotional or mental disturbance at the time of the killing. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the instruction on the impaired capacity mitigator, [8] despite evidence that Duest had a history of drug abuse, including addiction to heroin, and testimony that he used drugs and alcohol near the time of the crime. Evidence of consumption of intoxicating substances, without more, does not require an instruction on this mitigator. See Cooper v. State, 492 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Fla.1986). However, in Stewart v. State, 558 So.2d at 420-21, we held that the trial court erred in denying an instruction on impaired capacity based on the defendant's history of chronic alcohol and drug abuse, and on a doctor's opinion that at the time of the shooting, the defendant was drunk and his control over his behavior was reduced by his alcohol abuse. See id. at 420-21. Here, there was evidence of long-term drug abuse and consumption of intoxicants by Duest in the hours preceding the crime, but no evidence indicating that he was substantially impaired at the time of the murder or that his ability to control his behavior was reduced by drug or alcohol abuse. Additionally, the instructions on being under the influence of drugs or alcohol and on mental or emotional disturbance, given by the trial court in lieu of the standard instructions on the statutory mitigators, placed the consideration of Duest's mental state before the jury in terms consistent with the evidence of previous mental and emotional disturbances and heroin addiction as well as Duest's drug and alcohol use at around the time of the crime. The court instructed the jury: Amongst the mitigating circumstances you may consider if established by the evidence are any aspect of the defendant's character, background or record and any other circumstances of the offense including but not limited to, ... [t]wo, the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time the offense was committed. Three, the defendant was under mental or emotional disturbance at the time the offense was committed. The court did not suggest that the jury should give these mitigating factors any less weight than if the court had instructed the jury in the language of the corresponding statutory mitigators. [9] We therefore find no error in the trial court's decision not to instruct the jury on the statutory mitigators found in section 921.141(6)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes (2002). Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find the existence of these statutory mitigating factors in its order sentencing Duest to death. The decision as to whether a mitigating circumstance has been established is within the discretion of the trial court. See Bowles v. State, 804 So.2d 1173, 1183 (Fla. 2001); Blackwood v. State, 777 So.2d 399, 409 (Fla.2000). We reject Duest's claim that by stating in its order that the testimony of defense psychologist Dr. Patricia Fleming regarding mental mitigation was not based upon any circumstances confided to her by Duest, the trial court erroneously imposed a requirement that a mental mitigator must be supported by disclosures from the defendant. We conclude that this statement is consistent with the trial court's task of determining whether mitigating factors are supported by the evidence. Cf. Griffin v. State, 820 So.2d 906, 913 (Fla.2002) (requiring the trial court to expressly evaluate, in its written order, each proposed mitigating circumstance for evidentiary support). The fact that Dr. Fleming used sources other than Duest in forming her opinion was a valid consideration in the trial court's assessment of the weight of the evidence in support of the proffered mitigators. Based on this determination and our discussion of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the mental mitigators, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that these mitigating circumstances were not applicable to Duest. Duest also asserts error in the denial of an instruction on the mitigating circumstance that the victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act. [10] Our resolution of this issue is governed by Wuornos v. State, 676 So.2d 972 (Fla.1996), in which this Court rejected the argument that by seeking the services of a prostitute, the murder victim had assumed the risk of harm, justifying a finding of this mitigating circumstance. We stated: By its plain language, the statute permits this factor only where: The victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act. § 921.141(6)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989). It would be absurd to construe this language as applying whenever victims have engaged in some unlawful or even dangerous transaction that merely provided the killer a better opportunity to commit murder, which the victim did not intend. What the language plainly means is that the victim has knowingly and voluntarily participated with the killer in some transaction that in and of itself would be likely to result in the victim's death, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person. An example would be two persons participating in a duel, with one being killed as a result. The statute does not encompass situations in which the killer surprises the victim with deadly force, as happened here under any construction of the facts. Id. at 975. These observations apply with equal force to the acts of Pope, the victim in this case, in picking up Duest in a bar and taking him home. As in Wuornos, the evidence shows that Duest surprised the victim with deadly force, rendering the mitigator of victim participation in or consent to the murder inapplicable. Additionally, Pope's failure to promptly seek medical treatment did not make him either a participant in the deadly attack or evince his consent to the murder. A construction of section 921.141(6)(c) making the failure to seek medical care tantamount to consent to or participation in the murder would be no more justified than the construction of the provision we rejected in Wuornos. Because there was no evidence from which the jury could lawfully have found that the victim participated in the conduct resulting in his death, the trial court properly denied the instruction.