Opinion ID: 2815834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instructing the Jury on HAC

Text: In the next claim we address, Doty’s appointed counsel asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the HAC aggravator, relying primarily on the fact that the trial court rejected this aggravating circumstance in its order imposing the sentence of death. We reject this claim. As this Court has held, “[t]he trial court must instruct the jury on any aggravators for which credible and competent evidence is presented.” Hall v. State, 87 So. 3d 667, 671 (Fla. 2012); see also Welch v. State, 992 So. 2d 206, 216 (Fla. 2008) (“[T]he trial court properly instructed the jury on CCP because the State introduced credible and competent evidence in support of the aggravator.”); - 15 - Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244, 252 (Fla. 1995) (“A judge should instruct a jury only on those aggravating circumstances for which credible and competent evidence has been presented.”). However, we have also recognized that “a trial court’s ultimate determination that an aggravating circumstance was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessitate a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider the factor for purposes of the advisory sentence.” Miller v. State, 42 So. 3d 204, 227 (Fla. 2010); see also Davis v. State, 928 So. 2d 1089, 1132 (Fla. 2005). In Miller, this Court rejected a similar claim that the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the avoid arrest aggravator when the trial court later rejected this aggravator as insufficiently proven. 42 So. 3d at 227. As this Court noted, in that case, the State had presented credible evidence to support the aggravator since the defendant admitted that he was contemplating that he did not want to go back to prison. Id. However, conflicting evidence demonstrated a different reason that the defendant killed the victim—he wanted to stop the victim from screaming. Id. Thus, this Court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on this aggravator, even though the trial court ultimately determined that the aggravator was not sufficiently proven. Id. Similarly, in this case, the State presented credible and competent evidence to allow the jury to consider the HAC aggravator. Specifically, the evidence - 16 - showed that the victim was aware and conscious when Doty approached him from behind and strangled him to death. While Doty stated that the victim became unconscious quickly, the medical examiner testified that the victim likely lost consciousness within 45-50 seconds, but that if a chokehold was expertly applied, unconsciousness could occur much sooner. Thus, although the trial court ultimately rejected this aggravator, there was no reversible error in the jury being instructed on the aggravator. Further, considering the quantity and quality of other aggravators that were clearly established by the evidence, including the existence of the prior violent felony of murder for which Doty was imprisoned, the fact that Doty was under a sentence of imprisonment, and the careful planning of the murder establishing the CCP aggravator, any error in submitting the aggravator to the jury would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we deny this claim.