Morris v. State
This text of 557 So. 2d 27 (Morris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
George MORRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida.
*28 Fred Haddad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Morris appeals his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm the conviction and vacate the sentence.
On May 28, 1986, appellant Morris sought, and was given, permission from his girlfriend to take her eighteen-month-old son, Matthew Roberts, home with him for the night. Later that evening, the child, showing no signs of life, was brought into the emergency room of a hospital by paramedics. Attempts to resuscitate him failed and he was pronounced dead. Detective Beimly visited Morris at his home that night and Morris told him that he had left the baby lying on the bed and that when he returned five minutes later the child was lying on the floor not breathing, apparently having hit his head on the nightstand during a fall. Morris accompanied Beimly to the police station where he repeated the same story. He later gave different versions on tape, saying first that when he and Matthew were crossing a patio "he just slipped some kind of way and then fell back on his head," and then saying that the door hit him causing him to fall back on the patio. He finally claimed that he had lied earlier about the patio and bed, and that what had really happened was that he was throwing Matthew up in the air and catching him when Matthew slipped and hit his head on a table. Morris was indicted for premeditated first-degree murder. His motion to suppress the tapes was denied and edited versions were played to the jury. At trial, the medical examiner opined that Matthew died of multiple injuries due to blunt trauma. Morris changed his story again and testified at trial that he took the child with him while he tried to sell twenty-five ounces of cocaine; the deal went sour and the buyers beat Matthew. The jury was instructed on premeditated murder, felony murder by trafficking, and felony murder by aggravated child abuse. Morris was found guilty by general verdict. The jury recommended life. The judge sentenced him to death, finding no mitigating circumstances and a single aggravating circumstance the murder had been committed in a particularly heinous, atrocious, and cruel manner.
Morris argues on appeal that the statement he initially made in his home to Beimly should have been suppressed because he had not been given Miranda warnings at that time. We disagree. No custodial interrogation took place in Morris's home and thus Miranda warnings were not required.
The edited versions of the tapes that were played for the jury contained material that Morris now claims should have been deleted. In Correll v. State, 523 So.2d 562, 566 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 152 (1988), we ruled that:
*29 Ordinarily, a defendant's statement should be introduced into evidence in its entirety, absent totally extraneous matters.
Although some of the material on the tapes appears to be extraneous and should have been deleted, we hold the error harmless since it is clear to us that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have returned a different verdict had the material been excluded.
Morris' claim that his lawyer should not have let him take the stand is without merit. Morris exercised his constitutional right to testify, and did so against the advice of counsel. His claim that the verdict was insufficiently supported by the evidence is similarly lacking in merit, as is his assertion that the indictment was insufficient.
Morris claims that the jury should not have been instructed on felony murder by trafficking when the only evidence of this was the defendant's own in-court statement. We agree. The prosecution is required to introduce evidence sufficient to establish prima facie every essential element of the charged crime and cannot rely upon the defense to supply a missing link. See State v. Pennington, 534 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1988). However, we find the error harmless here where all parties agree that Morris' in-court account was patently unbelievable and there is no reasonable possibility that the jury returned its verdict based upon the erroneous trafficking instruction.
Morris asserts on appeal that the trial court committed error in instructing the jury on felony murder by aggravated child abuse. Under the statutory scheme as reflected in the standard jury instructions,[1] the jury should have been charged on aggravated child abuse in this form: 1) Morris willfully tortured Matthew; or 2) intentionally struck him and in the process thereof intentionally caused him great bodily harm; and 3) Matthew was a child. Instead, it was instructed: 1) Morris willfully tortured Matthew; or 2) intentionally struck him; or 3) intentionally caused him great bodily harm; and 4) Matthew was a child.[2] This instruction erroneously informed the jury that it could find Morris guilty of first-degree murder by aggravated child abuse if it found an underlying offense of simple battery, i.e., intentionally striking Matthew. The guilty state of mind required under the given instruction was an intent to strike Matthew, as opposed to the statutorily required mental state of intent to cause great bodily harm.
Morris failed to object to the instruction at trial and now contends that the error was fundamental. We disagree. The medical examiner testified that his examination of Matthew showed the following evidence of recent abuse: his penis had been tightly encircled with tape and then taped to his abdomen; he had massive bruising on his buttocks; his liver had been lacerated from a blow; he had numerous bruises on his head and a fractured skull; he had neck injuries indicating strangulation. The liver, head, and neck injuries each may have been fatal. Given the evidence of extensive recent abuse, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury could have determined that Morris intended only to strike Matthew rather than to hurt him seriously. We hold the error harmless under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).
*30 We also conclude that the trial judge's override of the jury's life recommendation was error. The judge based the override on her finding of a single aggravating factor (the killing was committed in a particularly heinous, atrocious, and cruel manner) in the absence of any mitigating circumstances, and on her belief that the jury was unduly swayed by the closing argument of Morris' lawyer. The standard for determining the appropriateness of an override was set forth in Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975):
A jury recommendation under our trifurcated death penalty statute should be given great weight. In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.
The totality of the circumstances here as reflected in the record supports the jury recommendation. Morris is borderline retarded with an I.Q. of approximately seventy-five and all parties agree that when he testified in court his mental limitations were obvious. We note that acquaintances affirmed that Morris expressed an abiding love for Matthew and a sincere sense of grief upon his death.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
557 So. 2d 27, 1990 WL 16921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-fla-1990.