Opinion ID: 1572323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Involvement of Multiple Parties in the Crime

Text: Lowe argues counsel was ineffective based on counsel's failure to present the testimony regarding the dying declaration of Donna Burnell, who stated that she did not know the perpetrator. Lowe asserts that this testimony would have demonstrated that Lowe was not the perpetrator because Lowe knew who Burnell was. At trial, Sergeant Ewert testified that he saw Burnell lying on the floor in the store when he arrived on the scene. He testified that when he asked Burnell a series of questions, Burnell repeatedly answered no to the questions. On cross-examination, defense counsel failed to ask Sergeant Ewert what questions he asked Burnell that received no answers. During postconviction proceedings, postconviction counsel introduced a report by Sergeant Ewert that stated that Burnell responded no when he asked her if she knew who shot her. Defense counsel testified at the hearing that he did not recall Lowe's statement where Lowe stated that he knew the victim. However, after defense counsel reviewed Sergeant Ewert's report and a portion of Lowe's statement, which was admitted at trial and where he indicated that he knew the victim from her prior employment at another store he frequented, counsel testified that the information may have had some impact, but he did not know how much. The trial court denied relief based on the finding that Lowe failed to establish at the evidentiary hearing that Burnell knew Lowe. The trial court stated that although Lowe may have known Burnell if he saw her, there was no evidence that she knew him by name or by sight. We agree. First, Lowe speculates that because he knew Burnell, it means that Burnell must have known him. There is no indication in Lowe's statement to the police that Burnell knew him. Moreover, although postconviction counsel introduced a report during the evidentiary hearing in which Sergeant Ewert stated that Burnell responded no when he asked her if she knew who shot her, this is not enough evidence to demonstrate that Burnell knew Lowe by name or by sight. Thus, this claim is meritless. Next, Lowe argues ineffectiveness based on counsel's failure to challenge the time period analysis used by the State to demonstrate that Lowe committed the crime alone. Lowe argues that this videotape was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, and the running commentary included numerous improper conclusions as to ultimate facts and instances of speculation that were extremely prejudicial to Lowe. At the evidentiary hearing, defense counsel testified that if he had grounds to object to the videotape, he would have objected. Don Felicella, a licensed engineer who does expert witness work in accident reconstruction, also testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding the videotapes made by the detectives. He opined that after reviewing a copy of the video several times and doing some independent research by using reference texts and the internet, he did not find the time study valid. However, he admitted that he did not conduct his own time study on the traveled route provided by the detectives. Based on this testimony, the trial court found that Lowe failed to establish that the time studies were unreliable. The State sought to introduce the videotape during the guilt phase because its theory was that Lowe acted alone. Thus, the time study was conducted to prove that Lowe would not have had time to pick up Sailor and Blackmon before going to the store and then dropping them off before returning to work. As a result, the video reenactment was relevant to prove Lowe's guilt of the crime. Although Mr. Felicella testified that the time study was not valid, he offered no study of his own to rebut this time study or to demonstrate that it was unreliable. Because Lowe fails to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice under Strickland, this claim was properly denied. In the next claim, Lowe contends that due to the State's suppression of evidence and counsel's ineffectiveness, the jury never knew that a child eyewitness to the shooting, Danny Butts, made multiple consistent statements that more than one person was involved in the crime. Lowe first argues that a child does not have to be held competent to testify in order for the child's hearsay statements to be admitted into evidence. Lowe also argues that Danny's statements met the requirements of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because his statements were made immediately after he saw his mother get shot. The trial court concluded that, with regards to both arguments, this claim was procedurally barred, and in the alternative, it was also meritless. With regard to the competency argument, we find the claim to be procedurally barred. On direct appeal, this Court addressed this claim extensively and reviewed the record thoroughly before holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Danny's testimony. Lowe, 650 So.2d at 975. We noted that at the hearing on the motion in limine, Danny's father testified that Danny had a learning disability and did not know his numbers. This testimony was also corroborated by a family friend. In addition, we noted that the trial court reviewed a videotaped deposition of Danny. We referred to a portion of Danny's deposition testimony that clearly indicated Danny did not understand that he was referring to a number when he stated that two people shot his mother. Id. at 976 n. 7. Lowe argues that the trial court would not have granted the motion if counsel had presented evidence of additional consistent statements by Danny that more than one person was involved. However, this argument lacks merit because even if counsel had presented this additional evidence, there is not a reasonable probability that the trial court would have found Danny competent to testify because Danny's deposition proved that he was unable to count or express numbers accurately. Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make an argument concerning the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because he did, in fact, make this argument. The trial court did not reach the merits of this claim because it decided that Danny was incompetent to testify. Id. at 975 n. 6. Moreover, the claim is without merit because Danny's statement does not meet the standard for admissibility under the excited utterance exception. In determining whether the necessary mental state exists under the excited utterance exception, the trial court should consider the length of time between the statement and the startling event, the age of the declarant, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the characteristics of the event, and the subject matter of the statements. State v. Jano, 524 So.2d 660 (Fla.1988); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.2, at 848-49 (2007 ed.). Based on Danny's deposition testimony, it is clear that Danny had a learning disability, especially concerning numbers. Therefore, Danny's statement did not meet the criteria for admissibility under this exception. Finally, Lowe contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to properly cross-examine Steve Leudtke about the results of a lineup he viewed in which he identified two people who were somewhat similar to the person he saw leaving the store and about the fact that Lowe was not one of the persons identified at that lineup. The trial court found that Lowe failed to meet either prong of Strickland. At trial, Leudtke testified to the description of the man he saw leaving the store after the shooting. Although he testified to the description, he also testified that he could not positively identify the person that he saw coming out of the store. He said he was not willing to point the perpetrator out in court and say absolutely that that was the person he saw leaving the store immediately following the shooting. During cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Leudtke extensively regarding the description he provided to the police officers on the day of the crime and the composite he drew at the police department. Defense counsel asked Leudtke if he had been able to positively identify anyone in the lineup, and Leudtke said he had not been able to do so. Although he did not ask the specific question that Lowe contends counsel should have asked, counsel did ask Leudtke whether he had been able to positively identify anyone in the lineup. Moreover, Lowe fails to establish prejudice because counsel's alleged failure to ask this one specific question did not undermine confidence in the outcome of the guilt phase proceeding. The trial court properly denied relief on this claim.