Esty v. State, 80598

Citation642 So.2d 1074
Decision Date11 August 1994
Docket NumberNo. 80598,80598
Parties19 Fla. L. Weekly S393 Sean Patrick ESTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Sean Patrick Esty appeals his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the conviction, but reverse the death sentence.

Esty was charged with the first-degree murder of his fifteen-year-old former girlfriend, Lauren Ramsey. Ramsey's body was discovered about noon on December 24, 1991, at Langdon Battery at Fort Pickens on Pensacola Beach. Ramsey was last seen alive on Sunday evening, December 22, when she went to bed at her grandmother's house. The door to Ramsey's bedroom was locked when her grandmother tried to enter the room on Monday morning. The second story window to Ramsey's room was open and the screen was in the yard.

According to the pathologist's testimony at trial, Ramsey's head had been severely beaten with a blunt object. She also had been stabbed in the neck, chest, forearm, and hands; one stab wound to the chest punctured the right lung. She also sustained a number of defensive wounds to the hands and forearms. Additional wounds to the face and left ear appeared to be inflicted by a machete, based upon the parallel lines of the wound. The pathologist testified that he believed the stab wounds were inflicted before the head wounds, as the stab wounds had bled copiously. He also testified that Ramsey died from the blunt trauma injuries to her head and face.

The medical examiner also testified that Ramsey was pregnant. Other testimony revealed that Ramsey had learned of her pregnancy from her doctor on Friday, December 20. The doctor warned Ramsey that she would tell Ramsey's mother about the pregnancy if Ramsey did not disclose it herself by the following Monday.

A broken baseball bat containing Esty's palm print and a butcher knife were found near the body. An analysis of the bat indicated that it had been painted black with pink paint added to certain areas. Paint fragments consistent with those on the bat were found on Ramsey's clothes. Esty's friends testified that he owned a black bat studded with pink tacks and that he told them that he had thrown it away either before or after the murder.

A piece of Mickey Mouse Christmas wrapping paper with the notation "To Sean, Love, Lauren" was also found at the scene by a civilian several weeks after the murder. A friend of Ramsey's testified that she had seen Ramsey wrap a troll doll for Esty in this manner. A troll doll, along with several cards from Ramsey, were recovered during a search of Esty's car. A handwriting expert identified the writing on the wrapping paper and the greeting cards as Ramsey's.

A machete, which was found in nearby brush several weeks after the murder, had a spot of blue paint consistent with that found on one of Esty's boffo sticks. 1 A search of Esty's car revealed a sales receipt for a butcher knife dated December 22 at 10:16 p.m. The police also seized a trench coat and a pair of boots from Esty's bedroom. The coat contained a bloodstain pattern consistent with a medium velocity spatter from a beating. Bloodstains on both the coat and the boots matched Ramsey's blood enzyme type. DNA testing of the stain on the coat further determined that the stain matched Ramsey's genotype.

On December 23, Esty sought medical attention for a cut on his hand. Esty claimed that he had been cut on the hand while "boffoing" with a friend the night before. Esty also testified that he had torn apart the boffo stick that had injured him and thrown it off a bridge.

Although the jury recommended a life sentence, the judge overrode the recommendation and imposed a death sentence. The judge found the two aggravating circumstances of heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) 2 and cold, calculated, and premeditated without any pretense of moral or legal justification (CCP) 3 and the mitigating circumstance of no significant history of prior criminal activity. 4 The judge also found that the nonstatutory mitigating factors urged by Esty were not established by the record, but even if they had been they were entitled to little or no weight in mitigation.

GUILT PHASE

Esty raises nine issues related to the guilt phase of the proceedings: 1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; 2) denial of a challenge for cause of a prospective juror; 3) denial of his motion for change of venue; 4) admission of evidence relating to his sexual relationship with Ramsey; 5) admission of evidence that Ramsey was pregnant; 6) admission of opinion testimony of State's blood identification expert without proper predicate under section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (1991); 7) failure to conduct a Richardson 5 inquiry before allowing the State's rebuttal expert to testify about the time of death; 8) failure to grant a mistrial after prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument in the guilt phase; and 9) error in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt.

As his first claim, Esty argues that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress certain physical evidence because the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based contained misleading information or omitted material facts. Esty's motion to suppress alleged that the affidavit was deficient in nine specific respects. Seven witnesses testified at the suppression hearing, including the officer who drew up the affidavit. The search warrant affidavit was also introduced into evidence at the hearing. After considering all of the testimony, the judge found that there were two material omissions and that testimony regarding a vehicle observed leaving the murder scene should not have been included in the affidavit. The court found no willful fraud or omission of material facts as to the other alleged deficiencies. After considering the affidavit in light of these additions and deletions, the judge determined that there was still sufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. Thus, the judge denied the motion to suppress.

We find no error in the judge's determination that only two of the alleged deficiencies constituted material omissions and that the testimony regarding the vehicle should have been excluded. We also note that the judge applied the correct standard in reviewing the affidavit. "[W]hen a question is raised as to material omissions from the search warrant affidavit, the court reviewing the matter should consider the affidavit as though the omitted facts were included and then evaluate the presence of probable cause in light of the added facts." Sotolongo v. State, 530 So.2d 514, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); accord Power v. State, 605 So.2d 856, 862 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1863, 123 L.Ed.2d. 483 (1993). We agree with the judge's ruling that the affidavit still contained sufficient information to constitute probable cause. Thus, we find no error in denying Esty's motion to suppress.

The next claim involves the denial of a challenge for cause of prospective juror Johnson. Defense counsel challenged Johnson on the basis that he could not read and thus would be at a disadvantage during deliberations when the other jurors would have written instructions to consult. 6 After defense counsel admitted to the court that he was unaware of any case law that requires literacy in order to serve on a jury, the court denied the challenge. We find no error in the denial of the challenge for cause. Although the court premised its denial upon defense counsel's assertion that Johnson could not read, we find no record evidence that Johnson was actually illiterate. In reply to a question from defense counsel during voir dire, Johnson stated that his wife filled out his juror questionnaire. Counsel did not ask Johnson why his wife had completed the questionnaire. Nor did counsel make any further inquiry as to Johnson's ability to read. Based upon this record, we find no error in denying this challenge for cause.

Esty also claims that the court improperly denied his motion for a change of venue because extensive media coverage of the murder prevented the empaneling of a fair and impartial jury. An application for a change of venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that ruling will not be overturned absent a palpable abuse of discretion. Geralds v. State, 601 So.2d 1157, 1159 (Fla.1992). Esty has not demonstrated "palpable" abuse in the instant case. The record reveals that seven of the jurors who actually served indicated that they had some prior knowledge of the case, but all stated affirmatively and unequivocally that they could put aside that knowledge and decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial. The remaining five jurors had indicated that they had no prior knowledge of the case at all. Thus, we find no merit to this claim.

Esty next argues that the trial court erred in admitting the following evidence: that Ramsey was pregnant (claim 5); that Esty had sexual intercourse with Ramsey approximately one month before the murder (claim 4); and that about five months before the murder Esty told a friend that he hated Ramsey and asked the friend to get Ramsey pregnant in order to spite her (claim 4). Esty contends that this evidence was not relevant to the case and was only introduced to prove his bad character. The State contends that the evidence of Ramsey's pregnancy and Esty's sexual relationship with her are relevant to prove motive in this case and that the evidence of Esty's statements to his friend...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Esty v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • June 4, 2015
    ...Fla. May 1, 2007), and can also be found in the Florida Supreme Court's opinion affirming petitioner's conviction, Esty v. State, 642 So. 2d 1074, 1075-1076 (Fla. 1994) (copy at Ex. J). The jury found petitioner guilty as charged of first degree murder with a weapon (Ex. F, p. 1436; Ex. O, ......
  • Muhammad v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 18, 2001
    ...the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the defense objection. See Hawk v. State, 718 So.2d 159, 162 (Fla.1998); Esty v. State, 642 So.2d 1074 (Fla.1994); Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963 8. Actually, in most of the cases in which the parties raised an issue on appeal regarding the......
  • Lowe v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 19, 2018
    ...control of prosecutorial argument lies with the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Esty v. State , 642 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla. 1994). "To preserve error for appellate review, the general rule is a contemporaneous, specific objection must occur during trial a......
  • Conde v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 4, 2003
    ...comments to the jury is within the trial court's discretion, we review this issue under an abuse of discretion standard. Esty v. State, 642 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.1994). With the exception of a single objection to the State's use of the term "the Tamiami strangler," Conde did not object to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Appellate standards of review.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 73 No. 11, December - December 1999
    • December 1, 1999
    ...(opening statement); Knuck v. Willoughby, 198 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1967) (same); Etsy v. State, 642 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1994) (closing argument); Occhionne v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 938 (1991) Allowing Party to Re-Open......
  • Science, opinion and experts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law Trial Notebook
    • April 30, 2022
    ...an unsupported statement of opinion that is so prejudicial that cross-examination would not erase the resulting bias. Esty v. State , 642 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1994). Carratelli v. State Although the court was proper in admitting the testimony of the expert, regarding an accident reconstruction,......
  • Preserving error in jury trials: rules to remember.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 72 No. 9, October 1998
    • October 1, 1998
    ...v. State, 679 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996); Stripling v. State, 664 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995). (9) See Esty v. State, 642 So. 2d 1074, 1078 (Fla. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1027 (1995); Madsen, Sapp, Mena, Rodriguez & Co., P.A. v. Leaman, 686 So. 2d 780,782 (Fla. 4th D.......

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