Opinion ID: 1090506
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Capacity to Appreciate Criminality of Conduct Mitigator

Text: The trial court likewise rejected the capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct or to conform conduct to the requirements of law statutory mental mitigator. Specifically, the trial court rejected the argument that Hoskins lacked the mental and emotional maturity to control his conduct (to stop and extricate himself from the situation): There may be evidence to support this argument with regard to the rape, but there is simply no evidence to support this argument with regard to the murder. Dr. Krop's testimony is that after the sexual battery, The rest of what happened is pretty much consistent with an individual who has already engaged in an act which he knows is wrong and trying both to avoid detection and trying to cover up for his crime. When questioned about the Defendant's purpose in binding and gagging Ms. Berger and stuffing her in the trunk of the car, Dr. Krop testified that I presume the purpose was to avoid detection and to get away from the scene as quickly as he could without being detected. With regard to the drive to Georgia, Dr. Krop testified, Well, he's driving. He's obviouslyagain, by this point he knows he's done something and he's trying to avoid detection. (Record citations omitted.) Again, the defense's own expert testified that by the time Hoskins drove to Georgia (prior to the murder), he knew he had done something wrong and was trying to avoid detection. In Nelson, 850 So.2d at 531, the defendant (who the defense argued suffered from brain damage) removed the victim from her home after sexually assaulting her, drove to two separate orange groves before killing her, and lied to police about the crime. We found the defendant's purposeful actions . . . indicative of someone who knew those acts were wrong and who could conform his conduct to the law if he so desired. Id. Similarly, Hoskins's purposeful actions in binding and gagging Ms. Berger before placing her in the trunk, driving to his parents' home six hours away, borrowing a shovel, driving to a remote area where he killed Ms. Berger, and then telling his brother he hit a possum when blood was noticed dripping from the rear wheel well are indicative of someone who knows his conduct is wrong. While evidence may suggest otherwise regarding the rape, there was no evidence that because of the frontal lobe impairment Hoskins could not appreciate the criminality of his conduct at the time of the murder. Because the trial court's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we reject Hoskins's claim. See Philmore, 820 So.2d at 936.