Opinion ID: 2797751
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Murder of Hamm

Text: Unlike the murder of Tolbert, Hobart specifically argues that the evidence was insufficient to support premeditation as to the murder of Hamm. We reject this claim. First, although Hobart claims that the discovery of a metal pipe and a knife suggests that Hobart brought the firearm to defend himself, there is no evidence to support that conclusion. However, even if Hobart did bring the firearm to the encounter with the idea that he might have to defend himself, the evidence does not support his claim that he acted in self-defense. In fact, the metal pipe alleged by Hobart to have been used by Hamm to attack him was found inside the vehicle and not outside, as would be consistent had it been used in a fight alleged to have occurred outside of the vehicle. Further, Hamm’s knife was found in his back pocket, indicating that it had not been used in a physical fight or in self-defense to a deadly threat to his life. The nature and manner of Hamm’s wounds also support premeditation. Specifically, Hamm was shot in the back of the head. Hamm was not, as Hobart - 19 - originally claimed in his statements to Vonaxelson, shot in the chest during an altercation. Accordingly, we hold that there is competent, substantial evidence of premeditation to support Hobart’s conviction for first-degree murder in the death of Hamm. However, even if we were to conclude that the evidence of premeditation was insufficient, we would still conclude that Hobart’s conviction for the first-degree murder of Hamm must be affirmed under a felony murder theory, for the same reasons set forth with respect to the murder of Tolbert. II. Trial Court’s Findings on Aggravators and Mitigators Hobart next challenges two of the trial court’s findings with respect to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Specifically, Hobart contends that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on and found the in-course-of-robbery aggravator and erroneously rejected the statutory mitigating circumstance that the murder was committed while under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance. We address each of these claims in turn. A. In-Course-of-Robbery Aggravator In this claim, Hobart argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on and in finding the aggravating circumstance that he committed the murder of Tolbert during a robbery. Specifically, he asserts that the evidence is equally - 20 - consistent with his story that he killed Hamm “reflexively” as Hamm attacked him with a metal pipe and that he took any items only as an afterthought. We disagree. “The standard of review this Court applies to a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support an aggravating circumstance is that of competent, substantial evidence.” Guardado v. State, 965 So. 2d 108, 115 (Fla. 2007). As we have already explained with respect to the evidence in support of the conviction for felony murder with an underlying felony of robbery, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that robbery was the motive for the murders. Hobart, who was addicted to Roxicodone, knew that the victims were in possession of a substantial amount of Roxicodone, and the victims had also been seen earlier that day with a large sum of money. During the investigation of the crime scene and the SUV, no Roxicodone or money was ever discovered. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on and finding as an aggravating circumstance that Hobart committed the murder of Tolbert during a robbery. B. Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance Mitigator Next, Hobart contends that the trial court erred by rejecting the statutory mitigating circumstance that he committed the murder of Tolbert while under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Trial courts must - 21 - observe the following standards when evaluating mitigating circumstances during capital sentencing: A trial court must find as a mitigating circumstance each proposed factor that has been established by the greater weight of the evidence and that is truly mitigating in nature. However, a trial court may reject a proposed mitigator if the mitigator is not proven or if there is competent, substantial evidence to support its rejection. Even expert opinion evidence may be rejected if that evidence cannot be reconciled with the other evidence in the case. Coday, 946 So. 2d at 1003. We conclude that the trial court’s decision to reject the statutory mitigating circumstance is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. During the penalty phase, multiple mental health professionals testified as expert witnesses. While each expert testified that Hobart suffered from some form of mental illness, the expert opinions as to the severity of the mental illness and the effect of that mental illness on Hobart’s mental state at the time of the murders varied widely. In its written sentencing order, the trial court analyzed the expert testimony elicited during trial, but expressly noted that “there was no testimony from anyone . . . as to [Hobart’s] mental or emotional condition on the day of the murders.” Further, the trial court noted that according to Dr. Groom, “no acute abnormality was detected on the MRI and the PET scan was normal,” and Dr. Groom “admitted that he did not know the cause of [Hobart’s] deficits or how his deficits caused him - 22 - to commit the murders.” Continuing, the trial court noted that Dr. Waldman “admitted that he did not know the details of the murders or what [Hobart] was doing on the day of the murders or [Hobart’s] actions after the murders.” Dr. Turner, unlike Drs. Groom and Waldman, was familiar with the facts of the case and testified that, in his opinion, Hobart “was not under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murders.” Even though Dr. Turner explained that Hobart may have some frontal lobe damage, it was minimal because Hobart could undertake other activities that would be difficult with this impairment. The trial court rejected this mitigator, noting that the evidence also indicates that Hobart was able to work as a roofer, maintain relationships with his family members and friends, provide financial support for his children, and engage in most of the activities of everyday living. The trial court found “the opinion of Dr. Turner to be more credible than the opinions of Dr. Waldman and Dr. Groom” and that “the mitigating circumstance of extreme mental or emotional disturbance had not been established by the evidence.” While Hobart challenges the credibility of Dr. Turner’s findings, the trial court is in the best position to judge witness credibility. See Evans v. State, 975 So. 2d 1035, 1049 (Fla. 2007) (explaining that the trial court is in a superior position “to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor, and credibility of the witnesses” (citations - 23 - omitted)). Here, the trial court gave credence and great weight to Dr. Turner’s testimony. This Court has stated that when “experts disagree, the trier of fact is entitled to resolve the resulting factual issue,” and “[q]uestions relating to evidentiary weight are within the province of the [trial] court, and this Court will not reweigh the evidence on appeal.” Merck v. State, 975 So. 2d 1054, 1065 (Fla. 2007). Despite suffering some mental impairment, Hobart’s forward-thinking actions—arranging a meeting with the victims, procuring a firearm, shooting Tolbert in an execution-style manner, concealing the bodies, and driving and then abandoning the vehicle—do not indicate that Hobart committed the murders while under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Instead, there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that Hobart was fully cognizant of his actions during the murder, and that his substance abuse and brain damage, if any, did not interfere with his ability to plan and commit these crimes. Accordingly, we reject this claim.