Opinion ID: 1924549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: mental mitigation evidence

Text: Gaskin argues that counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his trial for failing to investigate and present mitigating testimony of mental health experts and additional lay witnesses. Gaskin alleges trial counsel should have presented more penalty phase witnesses to testify about Gaskin's problems in school, his mental health problems, and his environmental problems. [4] To prevail on this claim, Gaskin must demonstrate that but for counsel's errors, he probably would have received a life sentence. See Hildwin v. Dugger, 654 So.2d 107, 109 (Fla. 1995). Such a demonstration is made if counsel's errors deprived [defendant] of a reliable penalty phase proceeding. Id. at 110. [5] Trial counsel has a duty to conduct reasonable investigation into the defendant's background for possible mitigating evidence. See Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla.1996). However, we have also stated, The failure to investigate and present available mitigating evidence is a relevant concern along with the reasons for not doing so. Rose, 675 So.2d at 571 (citing Hildwin ). In the order denying relief, the trial court addressed Gaskin's allegation that trial counsel should have called mental health experts to testify at the penalty phase about mental mitigation. The trial court noted that Dr. Krop, one of the defense mental health experts at trial, testified at the evidentiary hearing that he expressly told counsel before trial that he would not be of much help to the defense because he would have to testify about Gaskin's extensive history of past criminal conduct, sexual deviancy, and lack of remorse. The trial court also stated that trial counsel testified at the hearing that he made a strategic decision not to present mental health experts precisely because Gaskin's background contained many negatives (including Dr. Krop's proposed testimony). [6] The trial court denied relief as to this claim, stating: This Court finds that counsel was not deficient because counsel did conduct a reasonable investigation of mental health mitigation prior to trial and made a reasonable, strategic decision not to present this information to the jury and not to present Dr. Krop's findings to the judge. Therefore, this claim is also legally insufficient. In the order denying relief, the trial court also addressed Gaskin's allegation that additional lay witnesses should have been called during the penalty phase to testify about mitigating evidence. At the evidentiary hearing Gaskin presented the testimony of friends, family members, former teachers, and school administrators. Their testimony revealed the following facts as related by the trial court: [T]here was testimony regarding the Defendant sexually forcing himself on a six-year-old boy, the Defendant's consensual, incestuous relationships and sexual deviancy, including bestiality, the Defendant's violent attempt to sexually force himself on his former girlfriend, the Defendant's admission that he loved to kill and that he killed cats and snakes, and his history of stealing at school and from his great-grandparents. The trial court remarked in its order that trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that he purposely chose to keep Gaskin's past violent and criminal conduct from the jury because he felt that the jury would consider Gaskin's past (including school records) as aggravating circumstances. Thus, the trial court found that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present this nonstatutory, nonmental health mitigation. Trial counsel will not be held to be deficient when she makes a reasonable strategic decision to not present mental mitigation testimony during the penalty phase because it could open the door to other damaging testimony. See Ferguson v. State, 593 So.2d 508, 510 (Fla.1992) (finding that counsel's decision to not put on mental health experts was a reasonable strategy in light of the negative aspects of the expert testimony because the experts had indicated that they thought that the defendant was malingering, a sociopath, and a very dangerous person); see also State v. Bolender, 503 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla.1987) (holding that [s]trategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected). It is apparent from the record that the witnesses who Gaskin alleges should have testified on his behalf were subject to being cross-examined about disturbing information about Gaskin, which would have defeated trial counsel's strategy. We find no error in the trial court's conclusion that counsel acted reasonably by not putting on evidence that would open the door to other damaging testimony about Gaskin. See Robinson v. State, 707 So.2d 688, 697 (Fla. 1998) (noting that the trial court could have concluded that trial counsel was not ineffective in not opening the door to potentially devastating rebuttal evidence); Medina v. State, 573 So.2d 293, 298 (Fla. 1990) (finding no ineffectiveness for counsel's choice not to present witnesses who would have opened the door for the State to cross-examine them about the defendant's violent past). However, even if trial counsel was deficient for failing to investigate mental mitigation more thoroughly or to present mental mitigation in this case, Gaskin is unable to meet the Strickland prejudice prong in this claim. As we stated in Rose, [S]evere mental disturbance is a mitigating factor of the most weighty order, and the failure to present it in the penalty phase may constitute prejudicial ineffectiveness. 675 So.2d at 573 (citations omitted). In this case, the trial court also concluded that Gaskin had not met the Strickland prejudice prong, stating: [I]n light of the eight-to-four vote recommending death without hearing about the Defendant's prior violent and criminal conduct, sexual deviancy, and lack of remorse, there is no reasonable probability that Dr. Krop's testimony regarding nonstatutory mitigation would have outweighed the substantial and compelling aggravation of prior violent felonies, commission during a robbery or burglary, CCP, and HAC. Due to the fact that most of the witnesses who testified at the evidentiary hearing admitted on cross-examination that they were aware of other, very negative information about Gaskin, we agree with the trial court that Gaskin has not demonstrated that he was deprived of a reliable penalty phase proceeding. See Breedlove v. State, 692 So.2d 874, 877 (Fla.1997) (stating that the presentation of lay witnesses to address Breedlove's father's drug addiction and his beatings of Breedlove would have allowed cross-examination and rebuttal evidence that would have countered any value of that information); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 295 (Fla.1993) (In light of the harmful testimony that could have been adduced from Rose's brother and the minimal probative value of the cousins' testimony, we are convinced that the outcome would not have been different had their testimony been presented at the penalty phase.). We also note the trial court's conclusion that the statutory aggravators that were found in this case would have overwhelmed any mitigating testimony that the lay witnesses would provide. See Breedlove, 692 So.2d at 878. [7] Further, despite what Gaskin characterizes as counsel's deficient performance for failing to investigate and present mental mitigation, the trial court did find two mental mitigators: the murders were committed while Gaskin was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance and Gaskin had a deprived childhood. At the evidentiary hearing, defense expert Dr. Toomer testified that if he had testified at trial, he would have expressed his opinion that Gaskin lacked the ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the murders. However, State expert Dr. Rotstein previously opined that the same mitigator applied in this case. Dr. Rotstein's report was presented to the trial court during the penalty phase, yet the trial court chose to reject this mitigator. See Gaskin, 591 So.2d at 921-22. We have held that counsel's reasonable mental health investigation is not rendered incompetent merely because the defendant has now secured the testimony of a more favorable mental health expert. Asay v. State, 769 So.2d 974, 986 (Fla. 2000). In this case, Dr. Toomer's testimony represents not only a recent and more favorable defense expert opinion, but a cumulative opinion to one that was already presented to the trial court. The trial court was also not convinced that Gaskin would have received a life sentence if the evidentiary hearing testimony had been presented at trial because the new evidence merely included much cumulative information that had already been considered and rejected by the trial court, and the new information painted a much more negative and prejudicial picture of Gaskin. The fact that mental health experts and more lay witnesses were not called during the penalty phase does not undermine our confidence in the outcome of this proceeding. Thus, we affirm the trial court's denial of relief as to this claim.