Opinion ID: 1813007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Claim of Fundamental Error in State's Argument on HAC

Text: In a related argument regarding the HAC aggravator, Hudson claims fundamental error occurred in the penalty phase closing argument by the prosecutor. After reminding the jury that Hudson had begun to run around the apartment talking about people being outside who might kill them all, the prosecutor made the following arguments: No one ever saw anybody outside. Why was he doing that to the people inside the apartment? Could it be to make Jennifer and Lance Peller more nervous about what's going throughcould it be to make them suffer more about what's happening? Why would he go around saying that? .... And I'll submit to you the evidence shows that he tortured them mentally through this event; so much so that Lance Peller could not catch his breath, so much so he had to call his father and mother to say good-bye. No objection was lodged to this argument. A short time later the prosecutor again discussed HAC, stating: The minutes of anguish these folks are going through at that time, that's what we're talking about. That's what it's about. You want to call your dad to say good-bye? Why not. Here is the phone. That's what it's about. The kind of crime intended to include which heinous atrocious and cruel is one accompanied by additional facts to show the crime was conscienceless and pitiless and unnecessarily torturous to the victim. (Emphasis supplied.) Again, no defense objection was lodged to that portion of the argument that referred to the anguish of these folks who were in the apartment. These comments now complained of as fundamental error refer to the circumstances in the apartment during the time leading up to the murder, including the panic and fear experienced by both Peller and Fizzuoglio that were exacerbated by Hudson's statements that there were people outside who would kill them all. The prosecutor also noted that Peller's fear and distress were worsened by his concern for Fizzuoglio's safety. In the context in which they were given, the prosecutor's comments relate to Peller's perception of and reaction to his impending death, and do not appear to be improper. The one questionable comment made by the prosecutor related to the effect on Peller's family. The prosecutor also argued: Torturous murders are those that show extreme [and] outrageous depravit[y] as exemplified by desire to inflict a high degree of pain and orsee, folks, right there oror B the utter indifference to the enjoyment of the suffering of another. That's heinous and atrocious and cruel, the mental anguish that he put these folks through Lance Peller and his family. That's the third aggravator of heinous, atrocious and cruel. They can say quick all they want with this one bullet, and it probably was and he said it was. But I'm asking you to look beyond that, and look at the facts of him being there from 7:00 to 9:15, 9:20whenever that trigger was pulled. (Emphasis supplied.) Hudson is correct that the prosecutor should not have asked the jury to consider the mental anguish of Peller's family. Because no objection was lodged, however, the unobjected-to comment would constitute reversible error only if it rises to the level of fundamental error. This Court explained in Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156 (Fla.2006), that in order for improper comments made in the closing arguments of a penalty phase to constitute fundamental error, they must be so prejudicial as to taint the jury's recommended sentence. Id. at 1176. We do not consider this single isolated reference to the mental anguish of Peller's family so prejudicial as to taint the jury's recommended sentence and therefore rise to the level of fundamental error. Id. [8] In this case, the comments were brief and isolated. Accordingly, we affirm on this point.