Ford v. State
Decision Date | 13 September 2001 |
Docket Number | No. SC95972.,SC95972. |
Citation | 802 So.2d 1121 |
Parties | James D. FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert F. Moeller, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee.
James D. Ford was convicted of sexual battery with a firearm, child abuse, and two counts of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to 19.79 years' imprisonment, five years' imprisonment, and death, respectively. He appeals his convictions and sentences. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm.
James ("Jimbo") Dennis Ford and Greg Malnory were co-workers at the South Florida Sod Farm in Charlotte County. On Sunday morning, April 6, 1997, Ford made plans to go fishing later that day with Greg and his wife Kim on the sod farm. The relevant facts are set forth in the trial court's sentencing order:
Evidence of guilt presented by the State showed the following: Ford was seen with the victims in the area of the crime just prior to the killings; Ford was seen that evening in a distracted state with blood on his face, hands, and clothes; he was observed the next day, Monday, with scratches on his body; the rifle stock of a .22 caliber single-shot Remington rifle that belonged to Ford was found in a drainage ditch in the area where Ford's truck ran out of gas Sunday evening; DNA from human debris found inside an Old Timer's folding knife recovered from Ford's bedroom matched Greg Malnory's DNA type; DNA from a stain on a shoe in Ford's truck matched Kim Malnory's type; DNA from a stain on the seat cover in Ford's truck matched Kim's type; DNA from semen found on the shirt Kim was wearing when murdered matched Ford's type; DNA from vaginal swabs taken from Kim matched Ford's type.
Ford was convicted of sexual battery with a firearm, child abuse, and two counts of first-degree murder. During the penalty phase of the trial, Ford presented more than two dozen witnesses, including two mental health professionals and several family members and friends. The State presented evidence in rebuttal. The jury recommended death on each murder count by an eleven-to-one vote, and the court imposed a sentence of death on each count based on four aggravating circumstances,1 several statutory mitigating circumstances,2 and several nonstatutory mitigating circumstances.3 The court imposed a sentence of 19.79 years' imprisonment (with a three-year mandatory minimum term) on the sexual battery with a firearm count and a concurrent five-year sentence on the felony child abuse count. Ford raises six issues on appeal.4
Ford claims that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial based on prosecutorial comments at four points in closing argument during the guilt phase. Ford claims that the court should have granted defense counsel's motion for a mistrial at the following points: (1) when Ford challenged the propriety of the prosecutor's football analogy that "the best defense is a good offense";5 (2) when Ford challenged the propriety of the prosecutor's statement that defense counsel (as well as the prosecutor) got the numbers confused when handling evidence at trial;6 (3) when Ford challenged the prosecutor's statement wherein the prosecutor invited jurors to consider the prospect of defense counsel questioning Alexander Graham Bell concerning the workings of the telephone;7 and (4) when Ford challenged the prosecutor's statement that defense counsel mixed up the numbers of a State exhibit.8 We disagree.
Both the prosecutor and defense counsel are granted wide latitude in closing argument.9 A mistrial is appropriate only where a statement is so prejudicial that it vitiates the entire trial.10 A trial court's ruling on a motion for a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the court and will be sustained on review absent an abuse of discretion.11 In the present case, the trial court responded to defense counsel's objections by ruling in favor of the defense on each point: (1) The court sustained the objection and gave a cautionary instruction to the prosecutor; (2) the court sustained the objection; (3) the court sustained the objection; and (4) the court sustained the objection and gave a curative instruction to the jury. In light of the trial court's response, the prosecutor's statements —either individually or cumulatively —do not appear to be so prejudicial that no reasonable person would have allowed the trial to continue. We find no abuse of discretion.
During direct examination of Dr. Martin Tracy, who was the State's expert on DNA statistics, the prosecutor asked Tracy a question concerning the "flesh" found inside Ford's folding knife.12 Defense counsel objected to use of the word "flesh" and requested a mistrial. Ford claims that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial. We disagree.
As noted above, a mistrial is appropriate only where a statement is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial.13 A trial court's ruling on a motion for a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the court and will be sustained on review absent an abuse of discretion.14 In the present case, the trial court sustained the objection, denied defense counsel's motion for a mistrial, and gave a curative instruction as requested by defense counsel. The prosecutor's comment, when viewed in the context in which it was made, appears to be inadvertent and, in light of the court's corrective action, does not appear to be so prejudicial that no reasonable person would have allowed the trial to continue. We find no abuse of discretion.
The indictment charged Ford with child abuse, among other offenses. After the State rested its case in the guilt phase, Ford filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-491-J-34JRK
...is technically defective, but that it is so fundamentally defective that it cannot support a judgment of conviction." Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1130 (Fla. 2001) (emphasis added); State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).Detective Chizik was an investigating officer f......
-
Clavelle v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-781-J-39PDB
...that it cannot support a judgment of conviction." McMilan v. State, 832 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (quoting Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1130 (Fla. 2001)), denial of post conviction relief aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 901 So.2d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Upon revie......
-
Hurst v. State
...that the “final decision in the weighing process must be supported by ‘sufficient competent evidence in the record.’ ” Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1134 (Fla.2001) (quoting Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla.1990), receded from on other grounds by Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, ......
-
State v. Steele
...background that would mitigate against the imposition of the death penalty." § 921.141(6)(h), Fla. Stat. (2004); see also Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1138 (Fla.2001) ("We adopted the [U.S. Supreme Court's] definition of a mitigating circumstance: `any aspect of a character or record and ......
-
Containing Canakaris: tailoring Florida's one-size-fits-most standard of review.
...question of law, but whether that set of facts has been proved in a particular case involves the court's discretion. See Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. (44) State v. Taylor, 784 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2001). (45) Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598, 605-08 (Fla. 2001). (46) Stephens ......