Opinion ID: 1830007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences of death. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which PARIENTE, J., concurs. ANSTEAD, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the majority opinion in all respects, with the exception, however, of its harmless error analysis concerning the erroneous admission and use of evidence that the defendant's girlfriend had her car burned and destroyed after it was returned to her by the police. The facts of this case are, of course, horrendous, and, because this appears to be an otherwise error-free trial, this case simply represents another instance where hard cases sometimes make bad law. The State had a strong case, but simply reached too far in attempting to prove the defendant's guilt of murder by his girlfriend's act of arson. As noted in the majority opinion, the State contended at trial that the burning of the car and the girlfriend's hearsay statement that the car was used in the murders, is the main crux of this case. Simple logic should tell us that improper evidence that the State relies upon as the main crux of the case could hardly be characterized as harmless. The majority opinion itself makes this clear when it correctly concludes that the potential of unfair prejudice from the jury inferring that the car was burned to destroy evidence greatly outweighed any probative value the evidence possessed as potential impeachment of the girlfriend's collateral testimony about the keys to the car. Tellingly, the majority opinion wholly omits any discussion of our landmark opinion on harmless error in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), wherein we held that the State has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury relied on the improper evidence in its deliberations and verdict. To be sure, it would be patently unreasonable to conclude that the jury would not consider evidence that is the crux of the case in its deliberations. Indeed, it appears that the State viewed the burning car as the proverbial smoking gun to clinch the case. It would be naive to think that the jury would not similarly rely on this devastating evidence of the girlfriend's belief that her boyfriend was guilty of this heinous offense and that her car was used in the crime. PARIENTE, J., concurs.