Boyett v. State, 81971
| Decision Date | 05 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 81971,81971 |
| Citation | 688 So.2d 308 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S535 Matthew Dale BOYETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and W.C. McLain, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Gypsy Bailey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee
We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty upon Matthew Dale Boyett. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Boyett was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary of a dwelling. The trial judge overrode the jury's life recommendation and imposed the death penalty. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Boyett's conviction, but reverse his death sentence.
On August 5, 1992, Boyett shot and fatally wounded the victim, Bill Hyter, while attempting to rob him in his home. Boyett was acquainted with the victim and had visited his home frequently. On several occasions the victim had made sexual advances to Boyett. Boyett was upset by this and rebuffed the victim. On at least one occasion, the victim attempted to engage in sexual activity with Boyett while Boyett was passed out. There was a violent confrontation. Approximately six weeks before the shooting, Boyett told the victim he would kill him if he did not stop making sexual advances. He stopped associating with the victim.
Several days before the shooting, when Boyett and a teenage friend were driving past the victim's house, Boyett told his friend that he was going to shoot and rob the occupant of the house. Boyett later showed his friend a pistol; explained his plan for robbing and shooting the victim; and asked his friend to help him execute it. His friend declined and would later serve as a state witness against Boyett.
On the day of the murder, Boyett entered the victim's home, attempted to rob him, and shot him twice. Boyett stated that he fired his pistol when the victim picked up a baseball bat. The victim was wounded and fled through the front door. He told neighbors and emergency personnel that Boyett was his attacker. He died in the hospital a short time later.
When arrested, Boyett admitted to law enforcement officers that he had shot the victim. He also told them where to find the gun.
Boyett was charged with first-degree murder, predicated on premeditation or a felony murder theory, and burglary of a dwelling. Testimony presented at trial included evidence of the serious emotional trauma Boyett had undergone as a result of his broken family life, evidence of prior instances when Boyett had been sexually molested by other men, and expert testimony as to the mental problems incidents such as those in Boyett's past would cause.
The jury returned a guilty verdict as to both the murder and the burglary charges, but did not specify on which theory the murder verdict was based. The jury recommended a life sentence, but the circuit judge overrode and imposed the death penalty for the murder, as well as eight years imprisonment for the burglary.
The judge found two aggravating circumstances present, "cold, calculated, and premeditated" (CCP) and "committed in the course of a burglary" and specifically rejected statutory mitigating circumstances. He did find that the evidence supported five non-statutory mitigating circumstances: 1) Boyett suffered from long-term substance abuse, 2) he was sexually abused as a child, 3) he exhibited good behavior while in custody, 4) he suffered remorse for the killing, and 5) he had an unstable, broken family life. The judge found that only factors 2 and 5 deserved substantial weight.
Boyett appealed the conviction and sentence to this Court, raising one guilt phase issue and five penalty phase issues. He argues that there was 1) error because he was not present at the site where peremptory challenges to prospective jurors were exercised, 2) error in finding the CCP aggravator, 3) error in failing to find or properly consider statutory and nonstatutory mitigators, 4) error in overriding the jury's recommended life sentence when there were mitigators on which it could reasonably have relied, and 5) error in allowing the state's sentencing memorandum to be filed late. Additionally, although he does not raise the issue, we have reviewed the record to ensure that there was competent and substantial evidence presented at trial to sustain his convictions for both first-degree murder and burglary.
We find that Boyett's guilt phase issue is without merit. The record reflects that Boyett was present in the courtroom, but not at the bench, when peremptory challenges were exercised. Boyett argues that our decision in Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), should apply to him insofar as it requires that a defendant be present at the actual site where jury challenges are exercised. Although in that case we explicitly stated that our ruling was to be prospective only, Boyett argues that he should be entitled to the same relief because his case was not final when the opinion issued, or, in the alternative, that the rule announced in Coney was actually not new, and thus should dictate the same result in his case. We reject both of these arguments.
In Coney, we interpreted the definition of "presence" as used in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180. We expanded our analysis from Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175 (Fla.1982), which concerned both a defendant whose right to be present had been unlawfully waived by defense counsel, and a jury selection process which took place in a different room than the one where the defendant was located. In Coney, we held for the first time that a defendant has a right under rule 3.180 to be physically present at the immediate site where challenges are exercised. See Coney, 653 So.2d at 1013. Thus, we find Boyett's argument on this issue to be without merit. 1
Boyett's second Coney argument--that the rule of that case should apply because Boyett's case was non-final when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hitchcock v. State
...653 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1995), and this Court has specifically rejected attempts to apply Coney retroactively. See, e.g., Boyett v. State, 688 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1996). 13. Hitchcock argues that the bench conferences being held outside of his presence were such serious errors that prejudice ......
-
Griffin v. State
...physical presence did not apply retroactively to a trial that took place before our opinion in Coney was released. Boyett v. State, 688 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla.1996); see also Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d at 353 n. 6 (explaining that Coney applied to limited window of cases in which jury was sw......
-
Carmichael v. State
...to allow a defendant to raise a Coney issue for the first time on appeal. This question was answered by our Court in Boyett v. State, 688 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla.1996): In Coney, we interpreted the definition of "presence" as used in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180. We expanded our ana......
-
Kearse v. State
...to waive defendant's presence); Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla.1995) (same), receded from on other grounds by Boyett v. State, 688 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla.1996). However, such violations are subject to harmless error analysis and the proceeding will only be reversed on this basis if ......