Spaziano v. State

Decision Date08 January 1981
Docket NumberNo. 50250,50250
Citation393 So.2d 1119
PartiesJoseph Robert SPAZIANO, a/k/a Crazy Joe, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Craig S. Barnard, Chief Asst. Public Defender and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal from the imposition of a death sentence after the appellant had been convicted of first-degree murder. After receiving a jury recommendation of a life sentence for the murder conviction, the trial judge imposed the sentence of death. For the reasons expressed, we affirm the conviction but find we must remand for resentencing because the trial judge relied in part on information not available to the jury or the defendant in imposing the death sentence, contrary to Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), and also relied upon nonstatutory aggravating factors, in violation of section 921.141, Florida Statutes.

The material facts reflect that the skeletal remains of two bodies were discovered at the Altamonte city dump. One body was positively identified through the use of dental records as that of Laura Harberts. The appellant, Robert Spaziano, was charged with the murder of Harberts, and the principal witness for the state was Ralph Dilisio, a sixteen-year-old acquaintance of the appellant. Dilisio testified that Spaziano often bragged about the girls he had mutilated and killed, and on the occasion Dilisio and another individual accompanied the appellant to the Altamonte dump site where Dilisio saw two corpses, both covered with blood. Dilisio stated that Spaziano claimed responsibility for these killings; one of the corpses was determined at trial to have been Laura Harberts.

The appellant attacked Dilisio's testimony as being unreliable because at the time he viewed the corpses, Dilisio had been taking numerous types of drugs on a regular basis for at least a year. Defense counsel challenged the sufficiency of Dilisio's recall and perception abilities because of the drug habit, although Dilisio testified that on the particular day of the sighting he had not taken any drugs. Dilisio was able to successfully direct the police to the site where the corpse of Laura Harberts was found.

After receiving its instructions, the jury began its deliberations at 4:39 p. m. and at approximately 8:30 p. m. the court sent the jury to dinner. Upon its return, the following colloquy took place between the trial judge and the jury foreman:

THE COURT: Mr. Pascual, as foreman, the Court would inquire of you if you think that if given more time, there is a reasonable probability that the jury could agree upon a verdict, it being the jury's function to do so?

MR. PASCUAL: Your Honor, I don't know if I can say that there will be reasonable probability, but I think I can speak for the entire jury that I believe we would like to spend some more time. We don't feel, I don't believe, that we're at the point where we are at an impasse that cannot be overcome.

The jury then continued to deliberate until 10:26 p. m., at which time the jury was brought back, and, in response to an inquiry from the judge as to whether or not they would be able to reach a verdict, the foreman replied: "At this point, Your Honor, I don't believe so." The trial court then proceeded to instruct the jury by using standard jury instruction 2.19 in effect at the time of the trial, which read as follows:

Ladies and gentlemen, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so without violating conscientiously held convictions that are based on the evidence or lack of evidence. No juror, from mere pride or opinion hastily formed or expressed, should refuse to agree. Yet, no juror, simply for the purpose of terminating a case, should acquiesce in a conclusion that is contrary to his own conscientiously held view of the evidence. You should listen to each other's views, talk over your differences of opinion in a spirit of fairness and candor and, if possible, resolve your differences and come to a common conclusion, so that a verdict may be reached and that this case may be disposed of. (Now renumbered as 2.21.)

The jury resumed their deliberations and approximately thirty minutes later, shortly after 11:00 p. m., they returned a verdict of guilty.

At the conclusion of the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury recommended that the defendant receive a sentence of life imprisonment. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation. In his sentencing order, the judge stated that he considered the presentence investigation report as well as the facts heard during the trial, and found that sufficient aggravating circumstances existed to justify the death sentence. The trial judge found that the circumstances of the offense were especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel, and, secondly, found that the defendant was previously convicted of felonies involving the use or threat of violence to the person. The trial judge based the second finding upon convictions listed in the presentence investigation report, including two convictions discussed in a confidential section of the report. Finally, the trial court found that the other statutory categories of aggravating circumstances were inapplicable, and that there were no mitigating circumstances.

Pursuant to Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), after notice of appeal was filed we directed the trial judge to disclose any information he may have used in sentencing that was not disclosed to the defendant. In his response, the trial judge advised this Court that neither party received copies of the confidential portion of the presentence investigation report, nor did they receive the personality inventory report...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Spaziano v. Florida
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1984
    ...not taken drugs on the day of the visit to the garbage dump, and he had been able to direct the police to the site. See Spaziano v. State, 393 So.2d 1119, 1120 (Fla.1981). At the close of the evidence, the trial court informed petitioner that it would instruct the jury on the lesser include......
  • Barclay v. Florida
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1983
    ...for that purpose." Purdy v. State, 343 So.2d 4, 6 (Fla.1977). Accord, Odom v. State, 403 So.2d 936, 942 (Fla.1981); Spaziano v. State, 393 So.2d 1119, 1122-1123 (Fla.1980); Miller v. State, 373 So.2d 882, 885 (Fla.1979); Provence v. State, 337 So.2d 783, 786 Because Florida law prohibits re......
  • Johnson v. Dugger
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 21, 1990
    ...... In his first appeal, we found no constitutional error in the state court proceedings leading to his death sentence and affirmed the district court's denial of his ...denied, 485 U.S. 1029, 108 S.Ct. 1586, 99 L.Ed.2d 902 (1988). .         In Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984), the Supreme Court held that ......
  • State v. Lankford, s. 15759
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 10, 1989
    ...found that the defendant was previously convicted of felonies involving the use or threat of violence to the person." Spaziano v. State, 393 So.2d 1119 (Fla.1981). On certiorari the United States Supreme Court held: The fact that a capital sentencing is like a trial in the respects signific......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT