Brooks v. State

Decision Date23 June 2005
Docket NumberNo. SC02-538.,SC02-538.
Citation918 So.2d 181
PartiesLamar Z. BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Okaloosa County, Jere Tolton, J.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have on appeal a judgment of conviction of two counts of first-degree murder and corresponding sentences of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the convictions of Lamar Z. Brooks and his sentences of death.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is the second appearance of Brooks before this Court on appeal of his convictions and sentences of death for the first-degree murders of Rachel Carlson and her infant daughter, Alexis Stuart. On April 5, 2001, this Court reversed Brooks' initial convictions and sentences for the murders based on the "erroneous admission of extensive hearsay testimony," and remanded the case for a retrial. See Brooks v. State, 787 So.2d 765, 768 (Fla.2001) (hereinafter "Brooks I"). The decision in Brooks I set forth the facts giving rise to the charges filed in the instant case as follows:

In the late night hours of April 24, 1996, Rachel Carlson and her three-month-old daughter, Alexis Stuart, were found stabbed to death in Carlson's running vehicle in Crestview, Florida. Carlson's paramour, Walker Davis, and Brooks were charged with the murders. Davis was married and had two children, and his wife was pregnant with their third child. However, the victim believed Davis was also the father of her child and demanded support from him. [n.1] Davis became concerned about this pressure. He was convicted of the murders and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, he did not testify at Brooks' trial.

[n.1.] DNA tests performed after the murders revealed that Davis was not the father.

Brooks lived in Pennsylvania but had traveled to Florida from Atlanta with his cousin Davis and several friends on Sunday, April 21, 1996. Brooks stayed with Davis at Eglin Air Force Base for a few days before returning to Pennsylvania. In interviews with the police, he informed them that on the following Wednesday evening, the night of the murders, he helped Davis set up a waterbed, watched some movies, and walked Davis's dog.

Contrary to Brooks' statements, several witnesses placed him and Davis in Crestview on the night of the murders, although no physical or direct evidence linked him to the crimes.

Brooks I, 787 So.2d at 768-69.

Upon retrial, Brooks was again convicted and sentenced to death. The jury recommended the death sentence by a nine-to-three vote for the murder of Carlson, and an eleven-to-one vote for the murder of Stuart. The trial court followed the recommendations, finding the following factors in aggravation for the murders of both Carlson and Stuart:1 (i) the previous conviction of another capital felony; (ii) the commission of a capital felony in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner (CCP); (iii) the commission of a capital felony for pecuniary gain; and (iv) that the murder occurred during the commission of the felony of aggravated child abuse. The trial court also found that Carlson's murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). Despite Brooks' waiver of the right to present mitigating evidence, defense counsel described to the trial court the mitigating evidence he would have presented, and the trial court found several factors in mitigation.2

Brooks has appealed his convictions and sentences, raising fourteen issues. These claims are discussed further herein.

LIFE INSURANCE POLICY

Under Florida law, all relevant evidence, defined as that tending to prove or disprove a material fact, is admissible unless otherwise provided by law. See §§ 90.401, .402, Fla. Stat. (2002). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2002). The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See, e.g., Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604, 610 (Fla.2000); Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 25 (Fla.2000).

In Brooks' retrial, the trial court permitted, over defense counsel's objection, insurance salesman Steve Mantheny to testify regarding only the existence of a $100,000 life insurance policy purchased by Davis in February 1996, which named the minor Stuart child as the insured and Davis as the primary beneficiary. The trial court admitted the policy for the limited purpose of establishing the source of the $10,000 which the State's witness, Mark Gilliam, testified Davis had promised to pay Brooks to murder Carlson. The trial court expressly excluded the policy as evidence of Brooks' motive for murder. On appeal, Brooks contends that the trial court committed the same error as this Court found during the initial review by admitting evidence beyond the parameters of the conspiracy to prove Brooks' motive and intent. Brooks notes that the State ignored the trial court's evidentiary ruling by repeatedly arguing and using the insurance policy as evidence of motive for both Davis and Brooks.

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence concerning the existence of a $100,000 life insurance policy for the purpose of establishing the source of the funds promised to Brooks for his role in killing Rachel Carlson and Alexis Stuart. At trial, the State established the existence of a conspiracy to kill the victims through the testimony of Mark Gilliam, a fellow member of the military and a friend of Brooks, who accompanied Brooks and Davis to Eglin Air Force Base on April 21, 1996. Gilliam testified that in the early evening hours of Monday, April 22, 1996, Davis expressed his desire to murder a woman who had been pestering him for money. According to Gilliam, the conversation proceeded with the three men each suggesting the best way to murder the woman. Gilliam stated that although he initially thought the discussion was in jest, a murder plan developed pursuant to which Davis would lure the woman, Carlson, to his apartment to pick him up, and Gilliam and Brooks would then follow behind in Gilliam's vehicle to a predesignated place in Crestview, at which time Brooks would exit the car and shoot the victim, Carlson. Gilliam testified that the three attempted to actually execute the plan that evening and the following evening, but that each attempt ended in failure.3

According to Gilliam, Brooks and Davis had each promised to pay him $500 for his role in the execution to act as the driver for the plot. Gilliam also testified that Davis had promised to pay Brooks $10,000 to kill Carlson. This is direct evidence of the plot to murder and the nexus to a large sum of money. The source of payment was connected to the existence of the life insurance policy.

Evidence regarding the payment of these relatively large sums of money was coupled with testimony demonstrating that Davis and Brooks were of limited financial means. Davis's coworker, Paul Keown testified that Davis worked in the hospital laboratory at Eglin Air Force base, a position that presumably did not garner a large salary. Friends of Davis testified that, at the time of the crime, he was married with two children and a third on the way. Gilliam testified that neither Brooks nor Davis had access to a car at the time of the murders, and that Davis did not have a telephone at his house. Gilliam also expressed doubt that either Brooks or Davis had the $500 that each had promised to pay him for driving the car. Through the testimony of Thomas Hardin, a fellow airman and friend of Davis, the jury learned that Brooks had to receive a $244 wire transfer of the funds he needed to purchase an airline ticket to return from Florida to Philadelphia. On the basis of the evidentiary record, the trial court reasonably concluded that the insurance policy was relevant to establish the source of the money Davis promised to pay Brooks for his part in the crimes. See Dyas v. State, 260 Ark. 303, 539 S.W.2d 251, 261 (1976) (deeming testimony regarding life insurance policies relevant to motive underlying conspiracy and murder because it supported the connection between the policies and the co-conspirator wife's ability to pay the killers a far greater amount than the contract stipulated for her husband's murder).

Moreover, we resolve that it would not have constituted error for the trial court to admit the life insurance policy as evidence of Brooks' motive and intent. To the contrary, the source of funding to be utilized to pay Brooks and Brooks' motive are inextricably intertwined.4 Given that Davis was a low-ranking member of the military, with a wife and growing family to support, without even access to an automobile, and no telephone in his home, it strains credulity to conclude that Brooks and Davis would not have considered the source from which Davis planned to obtain the $10,000. Indeed, Brooks would have been even more familiar with the precarious state of his cousin's finances than Gilliam, who was a stranger to Davis, but nonetheless testified that neither man appeared to have the $500 to pay him to drive the car. Also, Brooks acknowledged in his statements that he was aware of Alexis Stuart, and that his cousin had denied paternity of the baby. This evidence amply supports the inference that the insurance proceeds in the plan of Davis and Brooks were essential to the plot and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 cases
  • State v. Lankford, Docket No. 35617
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 3 d1 Julho d1 2017
    ...N.E.2d 963, 964–66 (1980) (holding that a witness' references to defendant's incarceration and appeal were harmless)); Brooks v. State , 918 So.2d 181, 208 (Fla. 2005) (State's reference to prior trial without disclosing the result was not reversible error); Brown v. Kentucky , 313 S.W.3d 5......
  • State v. Lankford
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 3 d1 Julho d1 2017
    ...N.E.2d 963, 964–66 (1980) (holding that a witness' references to defendant's incarceration and appeal were harmless)); Brooks v. State , 918 So.2d 181, 208 (Fla. 2005) (State's reference to prior trial without disclosing the result was not reversible error); Brown v. Kentucky , 313 S.W.3d 5......
  • Gilson v. Sirmons
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 2 d3 Abril d3 2008
    ...v. Velazquez, 216 Ariz. 300, 166 P.3d 91 (2007); People v. Beames, 40 Cal.4th 907, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 865, 153 P.3d 955 (2007); Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181 (Fla.2005). Thus, although the Oklahoma Legislature's decision to expressly incorporate child abuse murder into its first-degree murder ......
  • Braddy v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 10 d3 Abril d3 2013
    ...trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants.’ ” Hurst v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1015 (Fla.2009) ( quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005)( Brooks II )). We have identified three potential errors within the prosecutor's guilt phase closing argument and four within the p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 30 d5 Abril d5 2021
    ...(See this case, including dissent, for extensive discussion of when evidence of a life insurance policy is admissible.) Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2005) RELEVANCE: Defendant was ordered to give a pubic hair sample, and within a week he was found to have shaved his pubic region. H......
  • Crimes
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 30 d5 Abril d5 2021
    ...Defendant cannot be convicted of both aggravated battery and a homicide when the battery is the cause of the death. Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2005) Defendant may be convicted of both attempted murder with a firearm and aggravated battery on an LEO for the same act of shooting an......
  • Hearsay exceptions: declarant available
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law Trial Notebook
    • 30 d6 Abril d6 2022
    ...contained in the record is inadmissible hearsay, unless it falls within another exception to the hearsay rule. Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181 (Fla. 2005). King v. Auto Supply of Jupiter, Inc. Business records exception does not require as a predicate to the admission of surveillance evidenc......

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