Pinkney Carter v. State of Florida
SC06-156

THE NEXT CASE ON OUR CALENDAR THIS MORNING IS CARTER VERSUS STATE OF
# MOURN MY NAME IS --
DAVIS REPRESENTATIVE$$ING
CONSIDERED ATER IN THIS CASE OUT OF DUVAL COUNTY TROPS
TRIPLE MURDER OF MISS, LIZ
READ HER DAUGHTER COURTNEY
SMITH AND HER CURRENT
BOYFRIEND GLEN PAFFORD --
CHIP CARTER, FREAKING
BRIEFLY THAT CARTER READ HAD A WERE LIVING TOGETHER LIVED TOGETHER SEVERAL YEARS,
JACKSONVILLE, SHE HAD FOUR
CHILDREN THEY ENJOYED BEING
TOGETHER, TRYING TOO BUILD A FAMILY HERE, BROCK UP GOT
BACK TELL A COUPLE OF TIMES
IN FALL 26001 FINALLY OUT IN BUT
NOT FINALLY BUT BROKE UP
AGAIN THEN BY JANUARY OF
2002 SHY HAD FALLEN BACK --
ABOUT THREE MONTHS BEHIND
MORTGAGE, CARTER CAME IN,
AND WHICH ISSUES ARE YOU
GOING --
I'M SORRY, WHAT ISSUES.
I'M LOOKING AT THE --
BURGLARY ASSING A ELEVATE$$OR,
UNDER NEW STATUTORY
DEFINITION
DEFINITION, THOSE ONLY TWO I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS
MORNING. BUT, IN ANY EVENT, BY
JANUARY OF OF 2002, CARTER,
HAD MOVED BACK IN PAID OFF
THE BACK -- MORTGAGE
PAYMENTS, AND THINGS SEEMED
GOING PRETTY WELL, IN FACT,
BY MAY OF 2002, HE HAD GIVEN HER A RING THEY HAD GONE ON
A BOAT CRUISE GOING TO GET
MARRIED
MARRIED --
LET'S, IS HE GOING GET
TO -- WHY DON'T WE, JURY --
FOUND PREMEDITATED.
MURDERS --
YES THAT IS CORRECT.
THEY FOUND BOTH.
RIGHT.
AS TO PREMEDITATED AS TO
-- WHAT IN THE FACTS IN
FAVOR -- LIGHT FAVORABLE TO
THE STATE -- HEIGHTENED
PREMEDITATION
PREMEDITATION.
RIGHT.
GIVE US THE FACTS THAT
THE JURY AND THE JUDGE COULD HAVE RELIED ON, TO FIND THAT THERE WAS A HEIGHTENED --
PREMEDITATION.
PREMEDITATION.
YES FIRST OF ALL THE TEST IS MORE THAN SIMPLY HEIGHTEN
HEIGHTENED PREMEDITATION
ALSO THE COLE -- COLD
CALCULATED PREMEDITATED BUT
AS TO HEIGHTENED
PREMEDITATION YOU ARE
LOOKING FOR A CAREFUL PLAN,
AND I SUPPOSE THE EVIDENCE
OF A CAREFUL PLAN, WOULD
HAVE BEEN THAT -- SOME DAYS
OR WEEKS BEFORE HE SORT OF
BEEN AROUND THAT AREA WITH
CASED THE JOINT SORT OF
THING LOOKING AT TELEPHONE
POLES LOOKING AT THE HOUSE,
AND THEN ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER I SUPPOSE IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER FACTS
WOULD IT HAVE SUPPORTED HE
BROUGHT THE GUN TO THE --
AND IS SEE, WHAT --
GIVING THE FACTS, WHAT
CONCERNS ME ABOUT WHY THIS
ISN'T -- THE WAS SOMETHING
WHERE THEY WERE ON AGAIN/OFF AGAIN THEN ON AGAIN, AND HE
WALKS
WALKS, IN AND HE FINDS THE
--
--
START TO HAVE -- HE --
BUT HERE, HE KNEW THAT SHE
WAS WITH THIS OTHER PERSON,
AND SO FOR WEEKS BEFORE, HE
KNOWS IT STAMING
STALKING HERE, ACQUIRES A SHOTGUN.

AS A 22 CALIBER GUN.

-- WASN'T SHOTGUN.
NO A 22 A GUN HE BOUGHT
25 YEARS EARLIER, HE FWHATS
AIR FORCE, AND -- HE WAS IN
AIR FORCE CHARACTERIZING AS
STLKING HE WAS SEEN TWICE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKING
AROUND THE HOUSE LOOKING AT
HOUSE THIS IS A -- YOU HAVE
TO -- THIS CIRCUMSTANCES
EVIDENCE CASE.

YOUR POSITION AT TRIAL,
OR THE $$DEFENDANT'S POSITION
WAS THAT WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE HOUSE, HE JUST WANTED TO GET SOME ANSWER HE IS DID
NOT HAVE INTENT TO KILL.
THAT IS CORRECT HE
BROUGHT THE --
HOWEVER HE WALKED INTO
THE HOUSE WITH THIS FINGER
ON THE TRIGGER, OF THE
RIFLE, AND HE SHOT ALL THREE DEFENDANTS, PRETTY MUCH
CERTIFY AT ITEM IN THE HEAD
-- SEE ARE AUTUMN IN THE
HEAD A COUPLE OF SECONDS
ENTERING THE HOUSE.
YES, I THINK THAT IS --
THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING
BUT --
SO ISN'T THAT EVIDENCE
THERE OF -- CO-- COLD
CALCULATED PREMEDITATED
DIDN'T THE JURY DECIDE THAT
ISSUE AGAINST YOUR CLIENT,
BY FIRST BY FIND PROCEEDING
MEDITATION
MEDITATION.
WELL, YOU TAKE IT TAKES
MORE THAN PREMEDITATION TO
FIND A CC --
UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT, AS
FAR AS YOUR CLIENT$$'S
POSITION, THAT WHEN HE
WALKED INTO THE HOUSE, HE
DIDN'T HAVE AN INTENT TO
COMMIT ADMINISTERED.

NO HE DID -- COMMIT
MURDER.
NO HE DID NOT.
SEEMED THE JURY SEEMED TO DECIDE THAT ISSUE AGAINST
YOUR CLIENT.
WITHIN SECONDS HE STARTED SHOOTING.
WHAT HAPPENS THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS
MORE THAN -- IT IS -- MORE
THAN WALKS IN STARTS
SHOOTING PEOPLE, WHAT
HAPPENS IS HE WALKS IN TO
THE HOUSE HIDING THE GUN I
THOIN SIDE OF HIS LEG, SO A
A NEITHER PAFFORD NOR MISS
REED SAW THE GUN, SO AS SOON AS THEY GET INSIDE THE HOUSE SHE SEES IT GRABS,
STRUGGLING OVER THIS GUN,
AND THE GUN GOES OFF AND
HITS THE -- COURT NIGH
DAUGHTER, SHE WILL DIE
COUPLE OF DAYS A LIFT LATER
HE QUICKLY KILLS TWO SHOTS.
SO THIS ISN'T A SITUATION WHERE THE DEFENDANT WALKED
IN THE HOUSE THEY GOT INTO A DISCUSSION THEY GOT INTO AN
ARGUMENT, AND THE INJUREY
COULD HAVE DECIDED WELL, HE
MAY HAVE FORMED THAT INTENT
IN THE MOMENT AS JURY
INSTRUCTION SAYS DOUBT NEED
A LONG TIME TO FORM THE
INTENT
INTENT.
RIGHT.
AND THE JURY SAY IN THAT
MOMENT WHILE THEY WERE --
ARGUING HE COULD HAVE FORMED THE INTENT TO KILL. IT IS OBVIOUSLY IT OCCURRED, WITHIN SECONDS, OR OF HIM
ENTERING THE HOUSE.
BY THE I THINK THAT IS
WHAT JURY IS SAYING HE MAY
NOT HAVE HAD INTENT WHEN HE
CAME IN BUT WHEN HE GOT IN
THERE THAT CONSCIOUS AND AT
LEAST PREMEDITATION FOUND
GUILTY OF FIRST-DEGREE
MURDER, BUT THAT IS NOT --
YOU REQUIRE MORE IF YOU ARE
GOING TO -- PLY CCPING A
ELEVATE
ELEVATOR.    YOU SAY THAT THE -- APPLY
CCPING A ELEVATE$$OR.
YOU ARE SAYING -- THE
STATE COULD RELY ON, YOU
AGREE, THERE ARE FACTS THAT
SHOW THAT HE WAS CASING --
WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
THAT HE WAS LOOKING AROUND,
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT
THE JUDGE AND THE JURY COULD USE TO DETERMINE THAT HE WAS CONTEMPLATE$$ING KILLING AT LEAST
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK CC.
LIFE RECOMMENDATION.

AS TO THE GIRL.
YOUNG GIRL.
YES.

BUT AT LEAST AS THE TWO
OTHER -- THE GIRLFRIEND, AND GIRL FRIEND AND THE
BOYFRIEND
BOYFRIEND.
RIGHT.
FIND HEIGHTENED
PREMEDITATION
PREMEDITATION.

WELL, YOU KNOW AGAIN I GO BACK TO THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE CASE IT IS SOME
EVIDENCE WHEN YOU STARTU
BUILDING CASE TO REBUT --
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
HE AGREES THAT HE SHOT THEM.
YES.

ALL RIGHT WHEN I THINK OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL A QUESTIONS
SOMEONE ELSE OR --
RIGHT.
IT IS A NO QUESTION THAT
HE KILLED THESE THREE
PEOPLE.
THERE IS NO QUESTION AT
ALL.
THE OTHER PART THAT
CONCERNS ME IS THAT ABOUT
THE COLD AND CALCULATED YOU
MAKE AS ARGUMENT A YOU ARE
NOT RACESING
YOU ARE NOT
RAISING IN ARGUMENT
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION.
O NOT THAT I I WOULD LOVE TRIETZ BUT YOU HAVE DECIDED
IT.
THERE ALSO IS NO ATTEMPT
TO ARGUE, OR ASK THE JUDGE
TO INSTRUCT ON THE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OF EXTREMELY
MENTAL99EMOTIONAL
DISTURBANCE.
RIGHTED.
THAT WOULD BE STRONGER
CASE IF THAT IF THERE HAD
BEEN IN EVIDENCE THE RECORD
OF HIM BEING DRUNK,P
DISTRAUGHT WHATEVER THAT YOU MIGHT NEGATE THE COLD OR
CALCULATED. BUT THAT MITT GATOR NOT EVEN BEING SOUGHT INSTRUCTED ON,
OR ANYTHING ABOUT IT, I
THINK THAT WEAKENS YOUR --
YOU KNOW THE ISSUE OF HE
COMES IN THERE, WITH A
SINGLE INTENT, AND IT IS AS
JUSTICE CANTERO SAYS HIS
INTENT WAS TO YOU KNOW
CONFRONT AND TRY TO WORK
THIS OUT.
.

COME BACK TO ME -- HE --
ACTIONS BBELIE THAT IS WHAT
HAPPENED.
THERE IS MORE TO IT, HAS
TO THE STATUTORY MIDDLE
MITIGATORS THOSE WEREN'T YOU ARE CORRECT THEY WERE NOT
REQUESTED BUT THERE WAS
EVIDENCE, UNCONTROVERTED
EVIDENCE ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER HE HAD TAKEN SOME
ANTIDEPRESSANTS THAT MISREAD HAD GIVE TO HIM ALSO MISS
REED HAD GIVEN HIM A
CONSIDERABLE ALCOHOL HADN'T
GOTTEN SLEEP FOR 30 YEARS 30 HOURS.
THE OTHER FACTS INVOLVED
BECAUSE CCP ANALYSIS IS VERY -- FACT INTENSIVE.
YES, IT IS
THERE ARE SOME -- TELL
THEM CALLS, MADE --
TELEPHONE CALLS MADE ON THE
SNEEVENG WHAT HAD.
TO THE PROPERTY AND THEN
COME BACK, WHAT ARE.
WELL THEY MAD MADE A
DATE, TWO DAYS EARLIER, TO
HAVE A DATE THAT EVENING
TUESDAY 22 OF JULY SHE STOOD HIM UP. SHE IS, HE IS GOES HOME SAYS WHAT IT IS GOING ON HERE I
NEED SOME ANSWERS HE STARTS
TAKING THE --
ANTIDEPRESSANTS
ANTIDEPRESSANTS, ALCOHOL,
AND AGAIN HE HADN'T HAD
SLEEP 30 HOURS, AND THEN HE
CALLS
CALLS, ABOUT 11:30 CALLS
OVER IN THE SON MISS REED'S
SON SAYS SHE IS NOT HERE HE
KNEW SHE WAS HE HAD DRIVEN
BY SEEN PAFFORD$$'S.
HE HAD BEEN THERE EARLY
THAT SAME EVEN.
DRIVEN BY HADN'T GONE
INSIDE.
MADE TELEPHONE CALLS TO
THE HOUSE THAT EVENING.

RIGHT.
OKAY. WHAT ARE THE OTHER FACTS
THAT IS WHERE WE ARE GOING
ON THIS, WHAT JUSTICE
PARIENTE ASKED WHAT ARE THE
FACTS
FACTS, THAT WOULD SHOW SOME
CALCULATIONS SOME PLANNING
ON THIS.
WELL, I MEAN THAT I THINK THAT IS ABOUT IT, AND --
TAKING THE GUN, CAN ALSO BE
-- BUILT NOT MY JOB TO
SUPPORT THIS, I'M HERE TIE
THINK A IT.
I THINK IT IS YOUR JOB AS CANDOR TO ADMIT WHAT THE
FACTS ARE IN THE CASE SO
THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS THEM
SAY WHY THEY ARE OR ARE NOT.
IN A SENSE THAT GOES BACK TO ONE OF MY ARGUMENTS IT IS REALLY NOT MY JOB SHOULD
HAVE BEEN TRIAL $$COURT'S TO
LAY WLUT AFFECTS FOUND THAT
SPUFRTED AS UNDER COURT'S
ANALYST IN JACKSON WHY THIS
COLT -- COLD IT DIDN'T DO
THAT WE ARE SITTING THERE$$URE
HAVING TO ASK ME THEY
QUESTION IMHAVING TO DO
ESTRANGE TO DO TRY AND
SUPPORT THIS I SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO DO THAT SHOULD BE
ABLE TO SAY FROM THE $$JUDGE'S ORDER SAY THIS WHAT YOU KNOW THIS HE FOUND IT COLD
SNEESHGS SUPPORTS --
RIGHT HE DIDN'T DO THAT,
TOO SO SO THAT IS LET'S GET
BEYOND THAT,$$.
SO WE DO HAVE TO TAKE THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE OF THE $$JUDGE'S
CONCLUSION THAT CCP EXISTED.
YOU GOT A CONCLUSION YES
THAT IS CORRECT, I WILL
GRANT,
THAT YOU BUT EVEN
WHEN YOU LOOK AT, THAT YOU
-- YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE
FACTS TO SHOW THAT WAS COLD, CALCULATED PREMEDITATED AS
THIS COURT DEFINED IT IN
JACKSON, YOU HAVE -- THIS
WASN'T AN EXECUTION STYLE
MURDER WENT IN VERY QUICKLY, THIS THING WHOLE SCENARIO
THAT I HAD, CHANCED ON
EXEXPLODE
EXEXPLODED ON HIM SHE GRABS
THE WEAPONS STRUGGLING OVER
IT THAT IS NOT PART OF A
PLAN, HE WENT IN THERE TO
GET ANSWERS REGARDING THEIR
RELATIONSHIP
RELATIONSHIP, AND THAT IS
REALLY ALL THAT HAPPENED
AMPLE HE INTENDED TO HAPPEN.
WE HAD DIAZ VERSUS STATE, WHERE IT WAS KIND OF SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AND -- CCP
WAS FOUND IN THAT CASE.
RIGHT WHAT HAPPENED IN
DIAZ, IS WEEKS I NAIN OR SO
BEFORE THE MURDER DIAZ GOES
TO PAWN SLOP OR GUN DEALER
TRIES TO BUY A GUN THEY
WON'T SELL IT TO HIM BECAUSE AS THE WAITE THREE DAYS THAT YOU WILL HE GETS UPSET ABOUT IT IMPATIENT TO GET THIS,
AND HE --BLIZE THE GUN
SPECIFICALLY TO KILL HIS
GIRLFRIEND ENDS UP KILLING
HER FATHER, AND THIS CASE,
WE DON'T HAVE HAVE THAT SORT OF THING, CARTER TAKES THE
GUN I LIKE I SAID, HE OWNED
FOR 25 YEARS, HE KEPT IN HIS TRUCK -- JUST BY, GRATUITY I CHARACTERIZE
CHARACTERIZE CHARACTERIZE IT GRABS THIS GUN IN THERE, WE
DON'T HAVE THIS.
-- FOR TO YOUITY GRABS -- FOR UT TYE I'M NOT SURE ANY
GRABBING OF A GUN CAN BE
CONSIDERED FORTUITN.
WERE A IS FORTUITOUS THE
GUN IN THE UK$$TRUCK.
GOING INTO A HOUSE WHY
DRAB THE GUN IN A TRUCK GO
INTO A HOUSE.
BECAUSE HE WANTED TO HE
WANTED TO GET SOME ANSWERS
FROM --
YOU NEED A RIFLE TO GET
INTO THE TRUCK.

SHE HE WANTED TO MAKER
SHE WOULD GIVE HIM THAT
PLAYING HOT AND A COLD ONE$$O
DAY ON.
YOU GO IN HOURS KNOCK ON
DOOR HAVE A ARGUMENT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CARE RIFLE INSIDE
IT.
MEANS WASN'T TO DO GET
THE ANSWERS WAS GOING TO USE THIS GUN, TO ENFORCE HIS
DESIRE TO GET -- THAT IS I
MEAN I WOULDN'T DO IT YOU
WOULDN'T DO IT BUT, THAT IS
NOTE TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
SOMEBODY HAS DELIBERATE
HEIGHTENED PREMEDITATION TO
KNIT MURDER WOULD DO IT.
YES THEY WOULD.
BUT, ALSO, THEY -- SOME
PEOPLE WOULDN'T. I MEAN THAT IS THAT IS WHY I GET BACK TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL
NATURE OF THIS CASE, BECAUSE IF WHY IF HE IS GOING TO DO
THAT WHY DIDN'T HE START
SHOOTING HER RIGHT IN THE
DOORSTEP WHEN HE FIRST SEES
HER.
YOU SAID HE SHE STRUGGLED WITH GUN TRIED TO GET
UNIVERSITY OUT.
ONLY OF A THEY GET INSIDE HE MET HER ON THE OUTSIDE
WITH WERE PAFFORD GOING I'LL HAVE HIM WOULD HAVE SHOT HIM RIGHT THERE SHOT BOTH RIGHT
THERE.    YOU SAID THE FACTS SHOW
THAT HE HAD IT HAVE ITTEN
HIDDEN BEHIND HIM NOBODY
COULD SEE HE HAD A GUN.
INDICATES THAT HE WAS NOT INTENDEDING TO USE THE GUN
FOR MURDER.

HE DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY TO KNOW THAT HE HAD A GUN OR
ELSE THEY WOULDN'T LET HIM
INSIDE THE HOUSE.
IF HE WAS GOING TO DO
COLD CALCULATED WHY WAIT TO
GET INSIDE.
OUTSIDE -- I HAVE, THIS
CONCERN, LET'S SAY WE AGREE
WITH YOU, THAT HE STRIKES -- THIS IS, THREE MURDERS, ALL
RIGHT, NOT ONE MURDER.

THREE MURDERS.

SO THERE ARE
CONTEMPORANEOUS FELONIES.

RIGHT DURING THE COURSE
OF THE -- TWO AGGRAVATION,
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE MOVING
TO$$ TO.
NOT SUGGESTING -- IN THE
COURT, THAT HE KILLED THREE
PEOPLE, IN A PREMEDITATED
WAY, HOW IS THAT IN TERMS OF WITH AND NO STATUTORY
MITIGATION
MITIGATION, HOW WOULD
FINDING THE CCPING A
ELEVATORS WE DON'T KNOW --$$ --ING A ELEVATORS -- WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE JURY
WHICH AGGRAVATOR THEY FOUND
THEY CLEARLY THOUGHT MORE
HEIGHTENED SOMETHING WAS
DIFFERENT AS TO THE YOU
KNOW.

RIGHT.

-- VICTIMS, I DON'T REAL
I HAVE A PROBLEM EVEN IF WE
WERE TO STRIKE CCON THROUGH
WOULDN'T BE HARMLESS ERROR
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THINK THAT THE STILL ENOUGH
FOR THE JURY TO BE
INSTRUCTED ON IT.
RIGHT.
AND YOU HAVE GOT IF IT
SWOOIJS MURDER CASE -- IF IT WAS SINGLE MURDER CASE I
THINK THE BURGLARY WOULD
START TO TURN INTOOG -- BUT
A CONTEMPORANEOUS
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER
CONVICTION DO YOU NOT SEE
THAT AS BEING THE FURTHER
HEIGHT HE THINK THAT YOU
JUST DON'T -- HEIGHT HE
THINK
THINK, AGAIN WHUCH IF HE
KILLED TEN PEOPLE IN THERE
SOME POINT, DOESN'T MATTER,
WHAT THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, THE CONTEMPORANEOUS
FELONIES ARE SO AGGRAVATED,
THAT YOU DO NOT SAY THAT
THEY THERE CAN BE -- UNLESS
AGAIN -- MENTAL A STATUTORY
MITT GATOR.
THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM
THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CASE
IS, SUPPOSE, IS YOU HAVE TWO YOU HAVE THREE MRDZ, TWO
DEATH RECOMMENDATIONINGS AS
TO THE CHILD -- COURTNEY
THERE IS A -- LIFE --
CONDITION THE TWOING A
ELEVATORS APPLIED DURING THE COURSE OF THE BURGLARY, AND
CONTEMPORANEOUS MURDERS, THE JURY.
-- THAT'S WHAT HOW CAN
ONLY KILLING THREE PEOPLE
INCLUDING A DEFENSELESS
CHILD BE ONLY THREE MURDERS?
WELL THE JURY RECOMMENDED LIFE,$$ --
BECAUSE THAT TO ME SHOWS
THE JURY THAT OBVIOUSLY
THOUGHT AS TO THIS GIRL, THE DAUGHTER, THAT IT WAS NOT
HEIGHTENED HE DIDN'T GO IN
THERE PLANNING TO KILL THE
DAUGHTER, HE PLANNED WENT IN THERE PLANNING TO KILL HIS
EX-GIRLFRIEND AND THE
BOYFRIEND THAT IS -- A VERY
INTELLIGENT DIFFERENTIATION
OF THE CASES.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THEY
FOUND HIM GUILTY,
PREMEDITATION ALL THE THREE
MRDZ HE MRDZ THE JURY NOT
INSTRUCTED ON CCP -- AS TO
DAUGHTER.
TO FURTHER REASON WHY
THEY WOULD HAVE TO$$NOT FOUND
DEATH PENALTY AS TO --
YOU ARE SAYING IF WE
STRIKE THE CCP THEN YOU
STILL HAVE --
YOU ARE SAYING THEY
WEREN'T INSTRUCTED AS TO THE CONTEMPORANEOUS MURDER.
THEY WERE, THE JURY WAS
INSTRUCTED AS TO ALL THREE
MRDZ CONTEMPORANEOUS, THREE
ACTUALLY HAVE TWO LESS THE
TWO OTHER.
YOU ARE SAYING CAN'T BE
HARM
HARMLESS, BECAUSE THEY DID
INSTRUCT --
DAUGHTER AND SHE WAS --
AND, YES, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE
TRIAL OUT FOR FINDING THAT
SPECIFIC FINDING THAT ANY OF THE CONSIDERED AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES STANDING A
LONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO
OUTWEIGH THE MITIGATING?
HOW, I HAVE READ, THAT
AND I SAY HOW CAN HE THAT
SAY
SAY? WHEN THE JURY FOUND TWO --
HAD TO -- THOSE ARE TWO --
THOSE TWO STATUSING A
ELEVATE$$ORS
ELEVATORS, CONTEMPORANEOUS
MURDER BURGLARY APPLIED TO
ALL THREE HOW CAN HE HAVE
SAID THAT WHEN THE JURY
COMES BACK WITH A LIFE
RELIGIOUS, HAVING CLEARLY -- RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION, CLEARLY
FOUND REJECTEDING A ELEVATE
ELEVATOR, AS TO COURT
DMOOINT SEE.
JURY WOULD SAY A NATURAL
PERSON IF THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO KILL, AND THEY DID HAVE
THE STRUGGLE AND
ACCIDENTALLY SHOT COURTNEY
THE FIRST RESPONSE WOULD BE
DROP THE GUN SAY OH, MY GOD
CALL AN AMBULANCE.

RIGHT INSTEAD TURNING
AROUND AND SHOOTING IN THE
HEAD, TWICE TO ON --
BUT THEY FOUND
PREMEDITATED
PREMEDITATED, AND AS TO ALL
THREE OF THEM. OKAY, SO, I MEAN SO WHAT
JURY IS SAYING, WE FIND
THESE TWOING A ELEVATE$$OR OWES
OWESING A ELEVATORS, DURING
BURGLARY AND TWO MRDZ WE
FIND NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO
OUT WEIGHT MITIGATION
PRESENTED SO HOW THE JUDGE
CAN TURN AROUND AND HE CAN
SAY, I FIND ANY ONE OF THEM
WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED DEATH
WHEN IN FACT THE JURY WRY
REJECTED AT LEAST TWO OF
THEM TOGETHER, I JUST IT
JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE I
JUST DON'T THINK THE JUDGE
CLEARLY WAS ANYTHING ABOUT
HIS ORDER, WHEN HE WROTE
THAT.
LET ME GO -- IF I CAN, GO ON TO THE -- COURT FOUND
THAT HE YOU COMMITTED,
MURDER DURING THE COURSE OF
A BURGLARY, AND THE BURGLARY
BURGLARY, DEFINITION THE
COURT GAVE THE ONE AFTER THE LEGISLATURE AMENDMENTED THE
BURGLARY DEFINITION TO
REMOVE CONSENSE AT A DEFENSE
DEFENSE.
THE JURY FOUND THAT ALSO.
THEY FOUND -- WELL, WHAT
IS INTERESTING HE WAS NOT
CHARGED BURGLARY BUT THEY
WERE INSTRUCTED ON BURGLARY
FOUNDER IT SPECIFIC VERDICT
AND HE WAS ALSO INSTRUCTED
IN THE EE.
DISCUSSED THAT IN THE
CASE SUCH AS -- NOT HAVING
HAVING --
RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT IT
IS I DON'T THAT IS NOT AN
ISSUE HERE BUT WHATITAS WHAT IS AN ISSUE WHEN THE JURY.
CRANE.

WHAT THE JURY DID COURT
DID IS -- TOLD THE JURY THEY CAN CONSIDER IT AS
AGGRAVATOR, WHETHER THE
LEGISLATURE BASICALLY
REMOVED CONSENT AS DEFENSE
TO BURGLARY SO WIDENED THE
NET OF WHO CAN BE ELIGIBLE
FOR A DEATH SENTENCE THAT
THE INSTRUCTION THAT THIS -- I GUESS ANTIDELGADO INSTRUCT
INSTRUCTION -- STATUTE --
DOES NOTWITHSTAND99TH
AMENDMENT WITH CONSTITUTION
SCRUTINY
SCRUTINY.
EVEN BEFORE WE DECIDED
DELGADO
DELGADO, AND IF THERE WAS
THIS EXPANSIVE DEFINITION OF BURGLARY WE NEVER HELD THAT, THEREFORE
THEREFORE, THE STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
FAILS TO NARROW THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.

THAT IS CORRECT, WHAT YOU DID, AND MAKING HAS BEEN
MADE, WELL NOT THIS SPECIFIC ARGUMENT BUT THE ARGUMENT
OVER THE YEARS IF YOU COMMIT A CERTAIN FELONY A ROBBERY
BURGLARY AND DURING COURT
YOU COMMIT A MURDER, THEN
YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY
ELIGIBLE FOR DEATH SENTENCE
THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE
GETTING AT UNDERSTAND YOU
SAID NO, IT DOESN'T BECAUSE
THE NUMBER OF FELONIES WHICH YOU SAY IT BLANCO IS NUMBER
OF FELONIES MAKE YOU
ELIGIBLE FOR DEATH SMALLER
THAN MAKES YOU HE WILL
ZBROISHL FELONY MURDERO
FELONY MURDER JIS TIS ANSTED DISSENT IT HAD FROM THAT
SAYING WE NEED TO LOOK
ATMOSPHERE SPECIFIC FACTORS
AS TO SPECIFIC CRIMES THAT
MAKE THAT IS ROBBERY
BURGLARY MORE AGGRAVATED. WHAT I'M SAYING WE DON'T
HAVE EITHER SITUATION HERE
PROBE CLOSE TO YOUR DISSENTS JUSTICE ANSTEAD, WE HAVE THE FLIP SWLIED -- LEGISLATURE
HAS TAKEN THE COMMON LAW OR
THE DEFINITION OF BURGLARY
HAVE FOR YEARS, THEN REMOVE
REMOVED, A ELEMENT OR A
DEFENSE
DEFENSE, AND NOW HAS WIDENED THIS NET WHICH GOES
CONTEMPORARY TO --
IF THE -- CONTRARY
IF FACTS AS FOLLOWS THE
DEFENDANT WAS INVITE BODY
SHE HOUSE,ED A INVIAED INTO
THE HOUSE THEY DISTANT HAD DINNER
TOGETHER SUDDENLY HE PULLS
UTILIZE GUN SHATTERS AS TO
THEING TO FIND BURGLARY IN
THOSE SAY, AN AG AGGRAVATOR
FOR FELONY MURDER OR
PREDICATE OR FELONY MURDER
YOU MAY HAVE A POINT SAY WE
ARE MAKING A MURDER A FELONY MURDER SOMETHING THAT THERE
IS NO BURGLARY OTHER THAN
THE FACT THAT HE STARTED
SHOOTING, WE DON'T HAVE HAVE THAT SITUATION, HAVE HERE.
WELL -- I THINK WE DO. THE TO GET INSTRUCTION,
TOUGH PRESENT EVIDENCE HIS
TESTIMONY WAS SHE
ESSENTIALLY INVITED HIM IN
THERE WERE, AGAIN -- REED ON THE PORCH OUTSIDE SAYING
GOOD TONIGHT TO HIM HE COMES UP START TALKING, SHE KIND
OF OF OPENS STANDING ON DOOR OPENS UP AS TO INVITING HIM
IN, BY HER ACTIONS, AND SO
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING
THERE IS EVIDENCE OF CONSENT
CONSENT --
THEY ARGUE THAT -- HE TO
THE JURY THAT IT IT DIDN'T
MATTER WHO WAS INVITEED IN
OR NOT --.
WELL HE COULDN'T ARGUE -- BECAUSE THEY -- BEFORE TRIAL REQUESTED THAT -- THAT --
WHAT IS THE STATE ARGUE? DID THE STATE ARGUE IT
DIDN'T MATTER WHETHER HE WAS ASKED HAVE IN OR NOT IT
WOULD STILL BE BURGLARY
I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY
WHAT THEY ARGUED IT WASN'T
AN ISSUE.
THIS IS THE BIG THING FOR ME, BECAUSE KNOW I AGREE
WITH -- EVIL JUSTICE ANSTED
WAS REFERRING, TO HERE YOU
HAVE GOT A A SPECIAL VERDICT
VERDICT, I'M THANKFUL WE
HAVE IN THIS CASE --
PREMEDITATED AND FELONY
MURDER SO WE DON'T MIND
THERE WAS AUTOMATIC
AGGRAVATOR, AGAIN TAKE
JUSTICE -- MINETHETICAL TO
THE NEXT LEVEL -- SOMEBODY,
THEY START ARGUING, AND
THERE IS A HEATED, LIKE WAS
IN SECOND DEGREE BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE HOUSE, NOW
FELONY MURDER AND THAT IS
THE ONLY AGGRAVATOR, THE
PERSON GETS DEATH PENALTY
THAT IS NOT THE CASE SO YOU
HAVE TO -- BE ABLE TO SHOW
THAT AS APPLIES TO THIS CASE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I'M A LITTLE BIT
UNCERTAIN WHY IT IS NOT
ANYWAYS THIS CASE BECAUSE --
BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOT
PREMEDITATION IN ADDITION TO BURGLARY
BURGLARY, AND YOU ALSO HAVE
HAVE CCP, SO YOU HAVE GOT,
AND YOU HAVE GOT
CONTEMPORANEOUS FELONIES SO
IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC --
DIDN'T AUTOMATICALLY GET TO
THE DESK CASE --
NO BUT IT CERTAIN BECOMES
BECOMES, OKAY I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I THINK I SEE
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
TAKE OUT CCP.

I UNDERSTAND, OKAY. .
ONE PERSON IN THE
HOUSE -- AS AT A FIGHT
ERUPTS
ERUPTS, AND A GUN GETS OUT,
AND -- IT IS -- THERE IS AN
ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING UNDER
YOU KNOW.
I UNDERSTAND.

FELONY MURDER.
WELL THAT WOULD CERTAINLY PRESENT A CLEARER CASE --
VERY CLEAR IS, MEAN A
GOOD CASE.
BUT WE STILL HAVE THE
JURY CONSIDERING THIS
AGGRAVATOR, AS TO ALL THREE
MURDERS
MURDERS, SO WHAT I THINK
WHAT WE ARE GETTING TO IS IT HARMLESS ERROR, DOES IT --
I'M HOPEFULLY I'M HEARING
FROM A YOU, THAT YOU AGREE
THAT THIS INSTRUCTION, THE
DEFINITION OF BURGLARY TOO
BROAD NOW THE QUESTION.
WHETHER I AGREE OR NOT
THE LEGISLATURE DOES --
NO, IT DOES MATTER WHAT
YOU AGREE BECAUSE YOU ARE
THE ONES PASSING ON THE 8TH
AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THE STATUTE, DOES LITTLE DOES IT GENUINE
GENUINELY NARROW CLASS OF
PEOPLE ELIGIBLE --
IN THIS CASE I THINK
THERE WAS A DISPUTE EVEN AS
TO WHETHER THERE WERE -- HE
WAS FLETOR NOT THAT IS WHY I ASKED LET IN ARE NOT.
EVEN IF HE WAS LET IN,
DOES HIS STATE OF MIND HIS
INTENT IN COMING IN, COME
INTO PLAY HERE? IF HE CAME IN EVEN THOUGH
SHE OPENED THE DOOR HE CAME
IN, WITH INTERTO COMMIT A
FELONY TO KILL THEM DOES IT
MATTER THAT IS STILL
BURGLARY
BURGLARY?
BOY, THAT IS A GOOD ONE. AND BURGLARY, BREAK THERE -- BREAK AND ENTER WITH INTENT
TO KNIT A CRIME, I THINK
THAT -- COMMIT A CRIME WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL WOULD RICK
IF ALLOWED TO ARGUE THAT,
CONSENT WAS DEFENSE HE COULD HAVE MADE STRONG ARGUMENT WE WENT IN THERE, THIS I THINK
GOES BACK TO WHAT JUSTICE
CAN TAR -- CONDITION CANTERO GETTING AT I WENT IN THE THE TO RESOLVE QUESTION RESOLVE
RELATIONSHIP THE INTENT --
MUCH MORE MUDDIED COULD HAVE ARGUED, THAT THIS WAS NOT IN FACT A FELONY --
I JUST CAME IN TO -- HE
CLARIFY THE RELATIONSHIP.
CLARIFY ALL OF THIS,
SEEMS TO BE MITIGATED BY THE NIENGD HE HAD PREMEDITATED
PREMEDITATED -- DESIGN TO
KILL.
WELL, AGAIN -- AGAIN,
WHAT -- PREMEDITATION IS
EASY THING TO DEVELOP, I
MEAN, THE INSTRUCTION SAYS
YOU HAVE CONSCIOUS INTENT TO KILL THEY START STRUGGLING
OVER GUN COULD HAVE FORMED
-- PREMEDITATION THEN THESE
-- QUESTIONS THAT THE TRIAL
LAWYERS COULD HAVE ARGUED. BUT WITHOUT THIS -- WHETHER
YOU TAKE OUT THAT LIMITING
OR THAT DEFFENSIVE CONSENTS, AGAIN WE GO BACK TO THE
WHOLE PROBLEM OF THIS THING
WIDENS OUT YOU START
CATCHING A BUNCH PEOPLE THAT PERHAPS --
OTHER COMPLICATIONS WITH
THE FACTS THAT ARE --
REALLY, STATESIDE --
CIRCUMSTANCES, I UNDERSTAND
THAT REALLY SHE TERMINATED
THIS RELATIONSHIP, AND SHE
HAD ANOTHER PERSON, IN HER
LIFE, NOW SHE HAD RETURNED
THE RING, APPARENTLY, HE WAS STLKING HER, HARASSING HER,
AND IN TERMS OF THE PHONE
CALLS
CALLS, HE HAD CALLED EARLIER TO 11:30 NOW THIS HAPPENED
IN WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING
DID IT NOT?
NOT ANY -- CALL THAT I'M
COMING OVER WHAT TIME IN THE MORNING WAS IT.

IT WAS 11:30 HE GETS
PHONE CALL.
I KNOW ABOUT 11:30 WHAT
TIME WAS IT HE SHOWED UP.

I THINK TO GET IN HIS
TRUCK RIGHT THEN DROVE OVER, I THINK --
IT WAS NOT REALITY --
I GET O OH, NO I THINK HE GOT IN TRUCK NEW THAT WAS
WRONG.

DID KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS
WAS? -- DO WE KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW.

WE KNOW THAT HE CALLED AT 11:30.
SHE INVITED HIM IN DID
SHE KNOW HE WAS HIDING A 22
RIFLE.

NO, THE ONLY EVIDENCE
COMES FROM HIM WHAT HE SAYS
IS BECAUSE IT WAS DARK, AND
-- IT WAS DARK LIGHT, IN THE PORCH
PORCH, HE HID THE GUN SHE
THEY DIDN'T SEE THE GUN
UNTIL SHE GOT INSIDE AS SOON AS THEY GET INSIDE SHE SEIZE THE GUN -- SEES THE GUN
STRUGGLE DEVELOPS.
SEES THE GUN SAYS COME$$O
IN.
NO SO ARE AFTER THE --
DOESN'T THAT NEGATE ANY --
CONCERN, THE FACT THAT HE
WAS HIRINGED -- A RIFLE AT
THE TIME, THAT HE CONFRONTED
CONFRONTED --
I THINK CONSENT ON THE
PART OF THE VICTIM IN THIS
CASE.
REALLY ASSUMED SHE WOULD
HAVE INVITED HIM IN -- IF HE HADDED IF HE WAS HOLDING A
RIFLE HERE FOR --
AGAIN IS, THINK THE
CONSENT IS A CONSENT ON THE
PART OF THE VICTIM, AS SHE
SEES IT AT THE TIME. SHE LET HIM IN. THERE IS NO -- THERE IS
REALLY NO QUESTION THAT SHE
LET HIM IN. WILLINGLY, AND NOW -- YOU
KNOW, I THAT I GOES BACK TO
REAL WHAT THE DELGADO --
WHERE DID THE EVIDENCE
COME FROM THAT SHE LET HIM
IN?
COMES FROM HIS TESTIMONY
-- ON --
HIS TESTIMONY IS WHEN HE
CAME UP AFTER OUTSIDE DIDN'T -- GETTING READY TO LEAVE HE SAYS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT WELL SHOULD I LEAVE, OR WHAT
WHATEVER.
PAFFORD SAYING, THAT
PAFFORD IS SAYING, THAT --
SPECIFICALLY
SPECIFICALLY -- LINE 17,
PAGES 1532 TO 33 IT IS HIS
TESTIMONY THAT -- SHE SAYS,
MR. PAFFORD SAYS DO YOU WANT ME TO LEAVE, OR STAY OR I'M
SORRY DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY
LIZ SAID NO I WANT BOTH OF
YOU TO LEAVE I TOLD HER I'M
NOT LEAVING TILL I GET
ANSWER SHE'S ALREADY OPENED
THAT IT IS THE DOOR, BUT
OPENED IT MORE FOR ME TO
COME IN I'M NOT SURE IF SHE
OPENED FOR MR. PAFFORD TOO
BUT I KNOW CAME IN THAT
TESTIMONY WHAT I'M SAYING
SHOWS HER CONSENT TO FOR HIM TO COME INSIDE.
WITHOUT KNOWING THAT HE
WAS CONCEILING RIFLE THEY
THINK YOU CAN SAY SAME ABOUT DELGADO
DELGADO, I MEAN, DELGADO
SAME THING, BUT I'M LET ME
BACK UP -- YOU SAID THE
RELATIONSHIP WAS OFF, IT WAS OFF-AGAIN-ON-AGAIN
OFF-AGAIN-ON-AGAIN, TWO DAYS BEFORE HAND THEY GOT
TOGETHER, THEY HAD -- HAD A
GOOD TIME, TWO DAYS BEFORE,
SHE HAD GIVEN HIM --
PRESENTS THEY PLANNED -- TO
HAVE A DATE, ON -- TUESDAY,
THAT IS WHAT SHE STOOD HIM
UP SO IT IS IT IS YOU SAY HE WAS STALKING HER LIKE THAT
NO HE WAS TRYING OH,
GET
HIS RELATIONSHIP CLEARED UP. AND -- AND --
-- TALKING TO HER?
WELL YOU HAVE THOSE TWO
INCIDENTS LOOKING AT
TELEPHONE POLE, NO STLKING
IN CRIMINAL SENSE I DON'T
THINK SO --
LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
YOU HAVE --
UNDERSTAND.

IF YOU RESPOND VERY
DIRECTLY TO JUSTICE $$BELL'S
QUESTION.
ONE QUICK QUESTION THE
AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCE
STATUTE 921 NARROWS THE
CLASS OF FELONIES TO NINE
FELONIES
FELONIES, OUT OF ALL
FELONIES
FELONIES.
RIGHT.
IN OTHER MARROW NARROW
THAN 78.
OI THAN 278.
THAT IS RATIONALE OF
BLANCO.
WHY WOULD THAT NOT APPLY.
BECAUSE IN -- BURGLARY
ONE OF THOSE NINES, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS DONE IS GONE BACK REDEFINED BURGLARY,
FROM THE WAY IT WAS DEFINED
IN 1972, WHEN THAT STATUTE
WAS CREATED, TO -- NOW, TAKE OUT THE DEFENSE CONSENT TO
BROADENS CLASS OF PEOPLE
THAT CAN BE CAPTURED BY
BAUERING
BAUERINGRY, THAT COULD IT
NOT HAVE BEEN CAPTURED UNDER OLD DEFINITION, THANK YOU.
MOURN AY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT
EXACT SAME THREE ISSUES,
CCP, AND THE BURGLARY
AGGRAVATORS.

YOUR OPPOSING COUNSEL
TELLS THIS NOTHING MORE THAN A LOVER POT SPAT GONE AWRY
THERE IS NO CCP HERE, WHY
THERE IS CCAPPROXIMATE? -- CCP.
THIS COURT HAS REJECTED
MULTIPLE TIMES THE ARGUMENT
THAT SOMETHING CANNOT BE
COLD JUST BECAUSE IT
INVOLVES A DOMESTIC DISPUTE, YOU HAVE REJECTED IN DENNIS
REJECTED THAT IN SAKORUSKI
HE TAKING AN ARGUMENT THIS
HOW TAKE HIS ARGUMENT WHAT
IT ME GAITS IS COLD --
NEGATES IS COLD ELEMENT OF
THE CCP.

ORDINARILY AND IN A
NUMBER OF CASES, HAS AT THE
OTHER COURT SAID THATTE HEAT OF OF PASSION, REAL NEGATES
-- REALLY NEGATES THE COLD
THE CLASSICAL I WILL
EXTRADITION OF THE CCP --
THE CLASSICAL I WILL
EXTRADITION OF THE --
ILLUSTRATION CCP EXECUTION
STYLE KILLING, WHEREAS THE
DOMESTIC PASSIONATE AND SO,
LOTS OF CASES OUT OF THIS
COURT THERE ARE NOT THAT
SAYS THAT THE PASSION IN THE HEAT OF PASSION, REALLY
NEGATES THE COLDNESS SO I
WOULD APPRECIATE IT IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE TRYING
DEMONSTRATE THE SUPPORT FOR
THE -- YOU ALSO ADDRESSED
THE HARMLESS ERROR ASPECT,
OF IT --
YES -- DO I BELIEVE IT IS HARM
HARMLESS, EVEN ON THE CCP,I
REALIZE CCP IS ONE OF THE $$ COURT'S STRONGEST
AGGRAVATORS. BUT PRIOR VIOLENT FELONY
WHEN THE PRIOR DEVELOP
NOOENT FELONY I KNOW THIS
WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS BUT TWO
OF THEM WHEN THE PRIOR
FELONY IS A MURDER IT IS TWO MURDERS THAT ONE IS
OVERWHELMING
OVERWHELMINGLY STRONG
AGGRAVATORE AS WELL,
AND
THIS.
THE ONLY -- WAY THAT --
THE -- OTHER, MURDERS, ARE
REALLY FACTORED IN HERE; IS
THAT CORRECT?
YES YOUR HONOR, YES, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THEY ARE
FACTORED IN HERE. YES AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS I THINK THE TRIAL
JUDGE SAID THAT PITCH ABOUT
THE TRIAL $$JUDGE'S ORDER SAYS ANY ONE OF THE AGGRAVATORS
WOULD BE SUFFICIENT I THINK
HE DID MAINTAIN IT.

THAT IT IS -- THREE
TESTS.

YES, YES, WE HAVE THREE
VICTIMS HERE, ALL RIGHT, SO
-- I -- SO DO I THINK THE
CCP EVEN IF STRIKE WON BE
HARMLESS BUT, TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, YOUR HONOR, THE
FIRST OF ALL, THE TRIAL $$ JUDGE'S ORDER HERE WHAT HE
ALSO SEEMS SAYING THE TRIAL
JUDGE DIDN'T GO JACKSON
FACTOR BY FA JACK ZWRON
FACTOR DIDN'T SAY THE FACTS
FIND COLD THE FACTED FIND
CALCULATED, HE THE FACTS I
FIND TO BE, HEIGHTENED PREED ME DEDICATION, BUT YOUR
HONOR -- PREMEDITATION HE
HAS FIVE CAGING ON EACH
VICTIM HE PUTS ALL THE FACTS TOGETHER, HE -- IN SUPPORT
HE HAS PAGES AND PAGES IN
SUPPORT OF THE CCP FINDING.
JUSTICE CANTERO SAYS
WEAVE TO START OUT -- WE
HAVE TO START OUT IF TRYING
TO VIEW THE FACTS MOST IN
FAVOR OF WHATEVER CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE
CLEARLY WE'VE GOT
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CARRYING A LOADED RIFLE IN, IN ORDER
TO HAVE THIS CONFRONTATION,
ABOUT ASKING HER SOMETHING
THAT FACTORS INTO ANY
FINDING OF PREMEDITATION,
ISN'T IT JUST MORE OR LESS,
CONCEDEED IN THIS CASE THAT
THIS WAS A CRIME OF PASSION, THAT STARTED WITH YOU KNOW
THE -- FIGHT OVER THE GUN -- THIS IS WHAT IS DRIVING THIS PERSON, AND THAT HE CANNOT
-- GIVE UP THIS WOMAN AND
THE THAT IS WHY HE THERE IS. THAT IS WHY I GO BACK TO OUR CASES, THAT SAID THATTE HEAT OF PASSION NEGATES THE
COLDNESS THE LEGISLATURE WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE
EXECUTION STYLE THE MOB
SENDS SOMEBODY OUT THAT IS
WHAT THEY DO. IS THAT THEY JUST COLDLY --
EXECUTE SOMEBODY. THIS SEEM TO BE AT THE
OPPOSITE END AS FAR AS THAT
PARTICULAR FARC DOESN'T
NEGATE -- FACTOR DOESN'T
NEGATE HARMLESS ERROR ASPECT OF IT CERTAINLY HAS BEARING
ON THE DETERMININGS OF
COLDNESS DOES IT NOT?
WELL, YES THIS WAS NOT A
THIS WAS NOT A KILLING FOR
HIRE. SO IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT IN
THAT IN THAT CATEGORY OF
COURT --
EXECUTION STYLE.
NO, WELL -- WELL IN
TERMED OF -- NO. BUT IN TERM OF SHOTS, 22
RIFLE, SHOTS TO THE HEAD,
ONE TO THE 16-YEAR-OLD, TWO
TO THE SIDE OF THE HEAD OF
THE MOTHER, THREE --
STRUGGLED OVER THE
WEAPONS WEAPON HIS INITIAL INTOEBT CONFRONT HIS LOVER WITH -- BREAK UP
WITH HIM.
I HE OI THAT WAS HIS
TESTIMONY, I DON'T THINK THE JURY HAD TO BELIEVE, THAT
AND I DON'T THINK THEY DID. I THINK THAT IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THEY VIEWED THIS THAT YOU DO NOT GET ANSWERS
WEATHER WITH A 22 RIFLE, AND INCIDENTALLY IT IS VERY
INCONSISTENT TO SAY YOU ARE
TAKING THE GUN INTO THE
HOUSE. TO GET ANSWERS, BUT NOT
SHOWING IT TO HER.
HE --
THERE IS TESTIMONY ABOUT
THE NATURE OF THIS RIFLE, AS TO WHETHER IT HAD TO BE
COCKED FIRST BEFORE IT WAS
SHOT WHICH WOULD INDICATE
THAT HE HAD IT LOADED AND
COCKED WITH HIS FINGER ON
THE TRIGGER WHEN HE ENTERED
THE HOUSE.
THE TESTIMONY WAS IT WAS
VERY LONG OR 22 RIFLE, THAT
HE PUT, BY HIS SIDE,WHAT WE
KNOW ABOUT THE RIFLE IS THAT THE IT IS A SEMIAUTOMATIC,
OUR, GUN EXPERT OF ITTED
FIREARMS EXPERT OF ITTED THE TRIGGER HAD TO BE PULLED
WITH -- TESTIFIED THE
TRIGGER HAD TO BE PULLED A
22 RIFLE THAT HAD ONE ROUND
IN THE CHAMBER, AND THE
MAGAZINE THE HOLDS 16, SO
YOU CAN, BUT DO YOU HAVE TO
PULL THE TRIGGER, IN
BETWEEN, AND AIM, REMEMBER
WHERE THESE VICTIMS.
THE FIRST BULLET IN THE
CHAMBER FIRST BEFORE YOU CAN START SHOOTING LIKE TOUGH DO IN SOME, LIKE IN A SHOTGUN
FOR EXAMPLE YOU HAVE TO --
ROUND OF CHAMBER.
THAT -- I DO NOT KNOW
THAT MYSELF AND THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY, AS TO HOW THAT
ONE ROUND GOT IN THERE. WE DO KNOW, WE RECOVERED
THIS FROM THE RIO GRANDE,
THERE WERE 11 ROUNDS
REMAIMING IN THE MAGAZINE. SO, IN TERMED OF -- IN -- HE SHOT, SIX ROUNDS AT THE
HOUSE SO WE ACCOUNTED FOR
ALL THE BULLETS, AS WELL.
THERE IS ARGUMENT MADE,
THAT CONSIDERING COLD
CALCULATED, AND PREMEDITATED
PREMEDITATED, THAT ACTIONS
AFTERWARDS
AFTERWARDS, ALTHOUGH, AGAIN, AFTER SHOWS THAT THIS WAS
NOT SOME -- SPUR OF THE
MOMENT -- COOLY GOES OR WAS
THAT ARGUED AS PART OF CCP? THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT VICTIM INTENTIONAL
PREMEDITATE YOU HAD PLAN,
MURDER.
YES WUT BE USED IT MORE
AT THE FRONT END IN THE
SENSE THAT HE IS IN THE
BACKYARD
BACKYARD, OF THE NEIGHBOR,
WE THOUGHT THIS WAS THIS WAS TRULY PLAN, YOU KNOW
STALKING HE IS DOING MORE
THAN STALKING SCOPING OUT
HIGHEST LIVES IN CHRISTIAN
THE NEIGHBOR THAT LIVED
BEHIND THERE TESTIFIED HE
SAW HIM, IN THE BACKYARD.
HE I MEAN, AGAIN THAT IS
I GUESS LOOKING AT LIGHT
MOST FAVORABLE TO WHOM THINK
THINKING THAT HERE IS YOU
KNOW, A DEFENDANT, WHO HAS
WHO LOVES THIS PERSON, WHO
HAS -- YOU KNOW, HELPED HER
BUY THE HOUSE, HELPED HER
OUT, AND MIKE, GOODES FROM
MOVE
MOVING ON, AND SO, GOING TO
SEE WHAT IS GOING ON IS THE
GUY THERE, AND UP THERE, I
DON'T KNOW THAT IT
NECESSARILY
NECESSARILY, MEANS THAT HE
WAS STALKING HOW HE COULD
KILL HER THEY AGREE WITH
THAT YOUR HONOR UNDERSTAND
WHY I THINK THE STALKING
BEING THE BACKYARD SO
IMPORTANT, HIS OWN
TESTIMONY, WAS NO, I WASN'T
THERE
THERE, AT THAT TIME,
BECAUSE, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT WORK, HE IS NOT LOOKING
AT WHETHER SHE IS THERE WITH HER NEW LOVER HE IS LOOKING
AT WHAT HE KNOWS TO BE AN
EMPTY HOUSE, THERE YOU GO
ARE THAT YOU COULDING?
IF HE KNOWS THE HOUSE
DOES HE NEED CHECK IT OUT AT ALL.
HE NEEDS TO KNOW WHERE HE CAN GET AWAY FROM HE MAY
KNOW THE INSIDE OF THE
HOUSE.
BUT -- THE HOUSE.
HOW DELEAVE THE HOUSE
THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR.

YES.

I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, I
THINK THAT THE OTHER
QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, IN
TERMED OF SENTENCING ORDER,
THAT IS FIRST OF ALL WE KNOW THE JURY WRY, RETURNS A LIFE RELIGIOUS,$$ LIFE
RECOMMENDATION AS TO
SHOOTING OF THE DAUGHTER
THEN RETURNED EIGHT -- FOUR
FOR THE MURDER OF ELIZABETH
REED AND -- PAFFORD, NOW
WITHOUT KNOWING THE FINDINGS
FINDINGS, WHICH, WE DON'T
KNOW, WHAT EXPLAINS A
DIFFERENT JURY
RECOMMENDATION AS TO PAFFORD THAN AS TO REED.
FIRST WOULD I LIKE TO
EXPLAIN, THAT THE STATE DID
NOT EVEN SEEK CCP. WE HAD A MYTHED IN CLOSING
THE -- ADMITTED, TO THE
DAUGHTER WE HAD A MYTHED IN
CLOSING THIS IS 23 -- AT
PAGE 2858, PROSECUTOR
SPEAKING IN CLOSING, PENALTY PHASE, SAID OPENLY ADMITS
THAT CARTER DID NOT GO OVER
THERE TO KILL THE DAUGHTER.
THAT HE WENT OVER TO KILL BOTH
BOTH.

BOTH OF THEM.

BOTH OF THEM, SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD EXPLAIN
THE DIFFERENCE, THAT AS TO
-- GLENN AND ELIZABETH REED
OTHER THAN HE REALLY,
ANYTHING AT ALL IN TERMS OF
AGGRAVATORS?
SOME FACTS MR. PAFFORD IS SHOT, THREE TIMES, VERSUS
TWICE BUT IN A REALLY, I
WOULD HAVE TO SPECULATE, AS
TO THAT APPROXIMATE.
WOULD I LIKE TO ASK ONE
OTHER QUESTION ON
AGGRAVATOR, YOU -- GREAT
WAYS TO -- BURGLARY
AGGRAVATOR, MAY NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE, IF
CCP, AND MULTIPLE -- MY
CONCERN IS, WHY WOULD IT BE
THAT THE MURDER THAT
OCCURRED
OCCURRED, IF IT OCCURRED ON
THE FRONT PORCH, WOULDN'T BE BURGLARY
BURGLARY, WOULDN'T BE AN
AGGRAVATOR, THAT WOULD HE BE GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT BUT
BECAUSE HE GOES INSIDE ALL
OF THE SUDDEN THAT WOULD BE
ONE OF THE MURDERS THAT
WOULD BE THE MOST YOU KNOW,
DESERVING OF AGGRAVATOR,
THAT COULD MAKE YOU ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY?
YOUR HONOR THAT IS THE
CRIME OF.
THERE IS ONLY ONE --
MURDER HERE, OF MISS REED IT OCCURRED
OCCURRED, ON THE FRONT PORCH
PORCH, AND IT WAS NO CCP, IT HAD, NOTHING AGGRAVATING,
ASSUMING ALL EQUALLY BUT IF
HE WALKED INSIDE SHOT HER
NOW, YOU HAVE BURGLARY IF
THAT OCCURRED DOES THAT
RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT --
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
DEATH PENALTY IN THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE.
WELL, YOUR HONOR I DON'T
KNOW WHEN THIS COURT WOULD
-- WOULD AFFIRM ON THE
SINGLE AGGRAVATOR, WITH THAT AGGRAVATORBEING BURGLARY LET ME AEDRESS THE FINANCIAL
THING I SEE YOUR QUESTION
GOES YOUR HONOR THAT IS THE
CRIME OF BURGLARY IT IS
WORSE TO COMMIT A CRIME
INSIDE $$SOMEBODY'S HOUSE THAN OUTSIDE ON THEIR DOORSTEP,
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT
LEGISLATURE IS PROTECTING.
CAN I ASK ,, ABOUT THE STATUTE. THIS MURDER OCCURRED IN 1998 I BELIEVE?
NO.
I'M SORRY. IT WAS --
THIS IS 2002. JULY 24th, 2002. THAT IS --
NO QUESTION THAT THE REVISED STATUTE FROM 2001 WOULD APPLY?
ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. NO MATTER, THERE ARE DIFFERENT DATES FOR DELGADO WINDOW, PICK ANY ONE OF THEM THIS CRIME OCCURRED AFTER THE WINDOW CLOSED. OKAY? THERE WAS THE FEBRUARY 1 DATE IN THE AMENDED STATUTE. FEBRUARY 1, 2000, TWO YEARS BEFORE THIS CRIME, OVER TWO YEARS BEFORE THIS CRIME. THE EFFECTIVE DATE WAS MAY 2001. I'VE SEEN A JULY 1, JULY 21st DATE. NO MATTER WHAT DATE YOU THINK THE DELGADO OPENS OR CLOSED THIS CRIME OCCURSED AFTER IT. AND THAT STATUTE WAS IN EFFECT.
YOU WOULD AGREE IT WOULD BE AT LEAST PROBLEMATIC IF THE, THIS HAD OCCURRED BEFORE 2001 WHEN AT LEAST ACCORDING TO OUR INTERPRETATION DELGADO IT'S A DIFFERENT STATUTE, WOULD BE, PERHAPS PROBLEMATIC TO APPLY A STATUTE THAT HAD BEEN AMENDED AFTER THE OFFENSE?
YES. NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THOUGH, YOUR HONOR.
RIGHT.
UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH, WE THINK THAT EVEN, I THINK I WOULD WIN EVEN UNDER DELGADO, YOUR HONOR. HE, FIRST OF ALL THE PROSECUTOR DID MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THE STRUGGLE INSIDE THE HOUSE, NEGATED CONSENT. YOUR HONOR, IT ISN'T LIKE --
IN DELGADO HE HAD PERMISSION, EXPLICIT PERMISSION TO ENTER THE HOUSE SO. IT'S A DIFFERENT FACTSES THAT WE HAVE HERE.
RIGHT. AND I THINK HE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO COME INTO THIS HOUSE. UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED OUTSIDE. THIS IS ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY. OKAY? SHE ASKED THEM BOTH TO LEAVE. SHE WANTS THEM BOTH TO LEAVE LEAVE. HE FLATLY REFUSES TO DO SO. I AM NOT LEAVING UNTIL I GET ANSWERS. HE OPENLY ADMITS IN HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT THE REASON SHE WENT BACK INSIDE SHE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE NEIGHBORS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S CONSENT, YOUR HONOR. SO, I DON'T THINK HE HAD CONSENT TO ENTER. THEN ONCE THEY'RE STRUGGLING WITH THE GUN, YOUR HONOR I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THIS COURT'S CONCERN IN SOME OF THE OTHER DELGADO, SITTING THERE EATING DINNER KIND OF HYPOS. WE'VE GOT A 22 RIFLE BEING STRUGGLE HE HAD WITH. EVEN IF YOU THINK, HE DID NOT HAVE CONSENT TO ENTER THIS HOUSE. HE FORCED HIS WAY IN. IT WAS UNDER DURESS. SHE HAD THE CHOICE WAKING UP LATE AT NIGHT HER CHILDREN OR THE NEIGHBORS OR LETING HIM IN. THAT IS NOT REAL CONSENT. EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT IT, ONCE YOU GET IN, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS THE THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON, THE LEGISLATURE HAS TROUBLE WITH THE DELGADO REASON. WHEN SOMEBODY LETS YOU IN AND YOU START STRUGGLING WITH A GUN THAT YOU BOUGHT INSIDE, A .22 RIFLE. YES, CONSENT HAS BEEN REVOKED.
LET ME ASK YOU, A QUESTION, WHEN BLANK WERE DECIDED THE LAW WAS DIFFERENT AFTER DELGADO, CORRECT AS FAR AS WHEN THE BURGLARY CONSENT ISSUE? MY QUESTION IS DO WE NEED TO GET IN THE DELGADO SITUATION AT ALL?
NO.
WE DECIDED IN ISSUE IN BLANCO AND WHITE WHEN THE LAW AT THAT TIME WAS WITH IT IS AT TIME THIS CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
YES, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE MONTHS AND YEARS AFTER THE DELGADO LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT HAS COME IN. OKAY? BECAUSE THIS IS 2002.
BLANCO WAS '83 AND '81 AND IN '83 AND '81 THIS CONSENT ISSUE RAISED BY DELGADO WAS NOT PRESENT?
YES, YES, YOUR HONOR. SO THE TIME OF THIS CRIME IS WAY PAST ANY DELGADO ISSUE. DELGADO HAS BEEN, COMPLETELY SHUT, MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS BEFORE. OKAY?
I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I TEND TO AGREE WITH THIS IS THAT, DELGADO IS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE THE EVIL OF SAYING, WELL THE CONSENT, OF COURSE NO ONE CONSENTS TO HAVE A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST THEM BUT HERE, SEPARATELY, THERE WAS, THERE'S REALLY NOT GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A KNOWING CONSENT TO ENTER. AS JUSTICE QUINCE SAID EARLIER IT APPEARS HE WAS COMING IN, HE WAS COMING IN TO COMMIT SOME CRIME. IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN MURDER BUT IT WAS, HE WAS GOING TO USE A GUN TO INTIMIDATE AND THAT SEEMS TO BE, AN INTENT TO CRITA CRIME NOT JUST REMAINING IN BUT --
YES. HE ENTERED WITH THAT INTENT BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY. HIS OWN TESTIMONY WAS I WAS GOING TO GET ANSWERS AND I WAS GOING TO POINT THIS GUN TO GET THEM. WHEN YOU POINT A GUN TO GET ANSWER THAT IS UNDER THE LAW OF FLORIDA, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. SO HE ENTERED, HIS INTENT WAS ENTERING THIS HOUSE WITH A .22 RIFLE BY HIS SIDE TO GET ANSWERS. THAT IS ENTERING WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.
THEN YOU'RE CONCEDING THEN THERE IS NO CCP IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SAY IS THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
OH NO I'M NOT CONCEDING.
YOU SAY HE ENEARTH ITED WITH THE ENINTENT THAT GET ANSWER. THAT IS NOT CCP.
THAT'S HIS TESTIMONY.
YOU STILL HAVEN'T TOLD US WHY THIS IS PASSION. IN CON SIGHS, DIRECT WAY.
WE BELIEVE HE WAS STALKING, HE WAS CASING THE HOUSE.
WHAT SUPPORTS THAT?
THE NEIGHBORS TESTIMONY, TWO WEEKS BEFORE. WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR, CHRISTIAN CARTER, THE, THEY ARE, BACK, BACKYARD NEIGHBORS AND, HE SAW THE DEFENDANT, HERE, IN THE BACKYARD.
ONLY ONE TIME?
YES. ONE TIME IS WHEN HE TESTIFIES.
ENTIRE EVIDENCE OF STALKING?
NO.
WHAT ELSE?
WE HAVE ANOTHER NEIGHBOR, WHO MR. BOOTH, WHO TESTIFIES, NOW HE CANNOT IDENTIFY THAT IT'S THE DEFENDANT BUT HE'S IDENTIFYING MORE THE TRUCK. A RED DODGE TRUCK. WHO IS ALSO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THIS TIME AS WELL. MOREOVER, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENDANT ADMITS, HE IS, HIS MEETING THIS WOMAN AT ABC, HER SON TESTIFIES AT TRIAL THAT HE SAW THE DEFENDANT, FOLLOWING THE MOM AROUND THE ABC LIQUOR STORE. OKAY? SO WE HAVE MULTIPLE WITNESSES TESTIFYING TO BOTH STALKING AND CASING-LIKE BEHAVIOR BEFORE THE CRIME, ALL RIGHT? ON THE DAY OF THE CRIME, AT 9:00 HE DRIVES BY. THIS HOUSE. HE, THIS IS HIS OWN TESTIMONY, SEES, THE, CARS OUTSIDE. KNOWS MR. PAFFORD IS OVER THERE HE KNOWS HIS CAR, HIS TRUCK. MR. PAFFORD HAS A TRUCK. HE KNOWS MRS. REED IS HOME BECAUSE. HE GOES BACK TO HIS HOUSE. HAS THREE OR FOUR WHISKEYS COUPLE OF PILLS. CALLS EXACTLY AT 11:24 TO SPEAK TO MISREAD. HER SON RICK SMITH, ANSWERS THE PHONE, MOM IS NOT HERE. HE KNOWS THAT TO BE A LIE. OKAY? NOW THE BROTHER, ALSO TESTIFIES, DEFENDANT'S BROTHER TESTIFIES FOR THE STATE IN THE GUILT PHASE, AND HE SAYS, MY BROTHER DOES NOT HAVE A GUN RACK IN HIS CAR. HE NORMALLY KEEPS HIS GUNS AT MOM'S HOUSE.
SO THERE IS EVIDENCE IT WAS NOT ALREADY, JUST IN THE CAR, READY, REACHABLE?
RIGHT.
OKAY.
KEEP GOING.
BROTHER ALSO TESTIFIES ONLY TIME HE HAS SEEN GUNS IN THE DEFENDANT'S CAR IS WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS GOING HUNTING. SO THE STATE'S THEORY HERE IS THAT HE WENT BACK TO GET THIS GUN. ALL RIGHT? AND THIS GUN WAS NOT IN THE CAR. NOW THE DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY, IT WAS THAT IT WAS. BUT WE THINK THE BROTHER'S TESTIMONY REBUTS THAT.
-- EVIDENCE THERE THEN. OKAY. KEEP GOING.
OKAY. THEN, THIS HAPPENS AT 11:24. HE GETS HIS GUN. HE DRIVES OVER TO THE, TO THE HOUSE. IT'S, 12:30 AT NIGHT. SO IT'S ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER THE PHONE CALL. HE, REALLY THE NEXT MORNING, JULY 24th. HE, BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY, GETS OUT. HAS TO BRING THAT GUN WITH HIM. THIS, OUR FIREARMS EXPERT SAYS THIS WAS A VERY LONG, GUN, OKAY? HE SAYS HE HIDES IT BY HIS RIGHT SIDE, ALL RIGHT? AND HE IS GOING IN TO GET ANSWERS. ALL RIGHT. SO HE IS GOING IN, THAT KNOW, REMEMBER HE LIVED THERE, AND OPENLY ADMITTED ON THE STAND HE KNOWS THOSE FOUR CHILDREN WILL BE IN THAT HOUSE AT 12:30 AT NIGHT. OKAY? SO HE IS ALSO GOING IN, TO GET ANSWERS, WITH A GUN. WHICH, OBVIOUSLY THE STATE DOESN'T EVEN THINK YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT HE IS GOING IN THERE, IN A HOUSE, WITH FOUR CHILDREN. 16-YEAR-OLD. 14-YEAR-OLD. AN 8-YEAR-OLD AND A 6-YEAR-OLD. OKAY, WHO WERE GOING TO BE IN THAT HOUSE AND GOING TO BE ASLEEP BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY. AND ARE LIKELY TO BE INJURED WHEN YOU START FIRING A, 16-ROUND MAGAZINE.
THAT DOESN'T ESTABLISH CCP BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE MAY BE INJURED DOES IT?
I THINK IT ESTABLISHES AN INTENT. ALL RIGHT? YOUR HONOR, WHAT I'M REALLY RELYING ON WHAT THE TRIAL COURT. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS HERE. ALL HE IS REALLY SAYING HE DOESN'T GO JACKSON FACT BY JACKSON FACTOR, OKAY? BUT THE TRIAL COURT HAS, PAGES, AS TO EACH VICTIM. FIVE-PAGES AS TO GLENN PAFFORD. FIVE PACES AS TO LIZ REED WHY HE IS IMPOSING THIS. HE HASN'T SAID THERE IS SOMETHING -- THIS IS NOT EVEN A DENTIST LIKE CASE WHERE THERE IS SOME FACT THAT IS INACCURATE OR MISSING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY THING I COULD REALLY, REALLY DO WOULD BE JUST LITERALLY READ IT TO YOU BECAUSE THERE IS JUST NOTHING WRONG THERE, ALL RIGHT? SO, THE STATE, I ONLY ANSWERED JUSTICE AN STAED'S QUESTION ABOUT CCP BECAUSE I DO THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE FOR ONCE, WHAT IS TRADITIONALLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE STRONGEST AGGRAVATORS, EVEN IF STRICKEN, IS HARMLESS BECAUSE THE PRIOR VIOLENT FELONY IN THIS CASE INVOLVES A MURDER OF MULTIPLE PEOPLE. OKAY? SO THAT'S ONLY REASON I HOPPED THE HARMLESS. THERE IS NO ERROR AS TO THE JUDGE'S FINDING AS TO CCP. AS TO EITHER ONE OF THE VICTIMS. WITH ASK YOU TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DEATH SENTENCE.
YOU KNOW, IF CCP WAS SUCH A STRONG THING, DRIVING THIS MAN, WHY DIDN'T THE JURY FIND IT, WHY DIDN'T THE PROSECUTOR ASK FOR IT AS TO COURTNEY? HE DOESN'T EVEN ASK FOR. THE JURY DOESN'T FIND IT.
BECAUSE HE DOESN'T GO OVER WITH THE INTENT TO KILL?
WELL, IF HE HAS GOT THE GUN IN HIS CAR PLANNING ALL THIS STUFF AND PREMEDITATE HE HADLY KILLS COURTNEY --
PREMEDITATION AS WE KNOW ONLY HAS TO -- A MINUTE OR SECOND BEFORE, SO IT DOESN'T TAKE A --
BUT, IT JUST, STRIKES ME THAT, THERE'S, NOT, THE PREMEDITATION, HEIGHTENED PREMEDITATION TO GO OVER THERE AND KILL. HE WANTS THE ANSWERS AND HE DOESN'T --
AREN'T THREE DEATHS, DEVASTATINGLY --
OH IT'S HARD, YEAH.
TO DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM OTHER CASES WHERE, THREE, DEATHS INVOLVED. ONLY WAY THAT THEY'RE ACCOUNTED FOR IS IN THE AGGRAVATOR OF PRIOR VIOLENT FELONY.
WELL IF THAT'S THE CASE WHY DO THEY RECOMMEND LIFE FOR COURTNEY? I MEAN THAT'S THE PROBLEM YOU'VE GOT, I AGREE, THREE DEATHS SO --
THAT NOT QUESTION YOU BRING TO US. THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE DEATH PENALTY CAN BE SUSTAINED FOR ONE OF THE OTHER DEATHS, NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE RECOMMENDATION AS TO LIFE, CAN BE SUSTAINED. WHETHER THE RECOMMENDATION FOR OF DEATH, THE SENTENCE OF DEATH --
WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE LIFE RECOMMENDATION WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE DEATH RECOMMENDATION BY THE JURY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.