Opinion ID: 1626909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Remorse as a Mitigator

Text: Orme contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to challenge for cause prospective jurors who could not consider remorse as a mitigator. During voir dire, defense counsel asked one of the prospective jurors whether evidence of Orme's remorse could be significant in considering the case. The prosecutor objected. At first, the trial court sustained the objection and held that such a question about remorse was not appropriate during voir dire. However, after both the prosecutor and the trial judge acknowledged that remorse could be considered as a mitigator in sentencing, the trial judge held that defense counsel could inquire into remorse, but could not ask the jury what weight they would give it. However, in doing so, the trial judge also ruled that if a juror could not consider remorse as mitigating, it could only be a basis for a peremptory challenge, not a challenge for cause. We agree with Orme that the trial court erred in holding that a juror's refusal to consider remorse as a mitigator could only be a basis for a peremptory challenge. However, we find that the claim is not preserved for appeal because defense counsel failed to question any of the prospective jurors about their consideration of remorse as mitigation for the remainder of voir dire after the trial court ruled on the issue. To preserve the claim for appeal, counsel had to question the prospective jurors about whether they could consider remorse as a mitigator and then attempt to challenge the juror for cause if the juror answered that he or she could not consider remorse as a mitigator. Therefore, relief is not warranted on this claim. Orme also asserts that the trial court erred in failing to consider Orme's remorse as a mitigator in its sentencing order. This Court has consistently held that the trial court must expressly evaluate in its written order each mitigating circumstance proposed by the defendant to determine whether it is supported by the evidence. Griffin v. State, 820 So.2d 906, 913 (Fla.2002) (quoting Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla.1990)). However, a defendant must raise a proposed nonstatutory mitigating circumstance before the trial court in order to challenge on appeal the trial court's decision about that nonstatutory mitigating factor. Davis v. State, 2 So.3d 952, 962 (Fla.2008). In the instant case, Orme filed a supplemental sentencing memorandum after the Spencer [4] hearing in which he requested the trial court to consider remorse as a mitigator. In that memorandum, Orme argued that he expressed his genuine remorse for his actions at the Spencer hearing and accepted responsibility for the crime. We agree with Orme that the trial court failed to expressly evaluate remorse in its sentencing order even though Orme proposed remorse as a mitigating circumstance and expressed his remorse at the Spencer hearing. However, we hold that any error on the trial court's part in failing to consider remorse as a mitigating circumstance constitutes harmless error. The trial court found three aggravators: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); (2) commission during a sexual battery; and (3) commission for pecuniary gain. The mitigation in the case was relatively weak. Therefore, even if the nonstatutory mitigator of remorse had been considered, the mitigating evidence would not have outweighed the aggravators. See Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970, 977 (Fla.2001) (holding that trial court's error in failing to address nonstatutory mitigation was harmless because the mitigators would not outweigh the aggravation in the case); see also Bates v. State, 750 So.2d 6 (Fla.1999).