Hedvall v. State

Citation283 So.3d 901
Decision Date06 November 2019
Docket NumberNo. 3D15-2368,3D15-2368
Parties Peter Erik HEDVALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., and Michael Ufferman (Tallahassee), for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jonathan Tanoos, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER,1 JJ.

LINDSEY, J.

Peter Erik Hedvall appeals his conviction and sentence for the murder of Jonathan Perez. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS
A. The Investigation and Events Leading to Trial

Jonathan Perez (the "Victim") was brutally murdered in 2011 in Key West during Fantasy Fest.2 He was found lying on a driveway under a vending truck parked approximately 100 feet from Don's Place, a bar in downtown Key West. A pool of blood was flowing from the Victim's head toward the street. There was a large wound

just above his right ear. Glittery costume wings were wrapped tightly around his neck. A large coral rock, stained with blood, was discovered near the Victim's body. The injuries were consistent with a time of death between 4:00 a.m. and 4:15 a.m. the morning of October 28, 2011.

A medical examiner's autopsy of the Victim revealed that a firm metal wire covered in cloth, which was part of the costume wings, was wrapped around the Victim's neck. The wire had been twisted very tightly. The Victim had bruising on his face, hand, wrist, elbow, and chest. The Victim also had lacerations on his scalp

. In addition, the Victim had suffered skull fractures and bruising to the brain. The injuries were consistent with the Victim's head being hit with a hard object. The causes of death were asphyxiation and blunt force head trauma, although either alone would have caused his death. The medical examiner opined that the manner of death was homicide.

A detective looked through the Victim's mobile phone and Facebook page to confirm his identity. Word of the murder began to spread in the community, and individuals who knew the Victim began contacting the police. The detective interviewed some of the Victim's friends and began developing leads on the case. Ultimately, the investigation led to Don's Place. A bartender saw Peter Erik Hedvall ("Defendant") at Don's Place early in the evening the night of the murder wearing a pinstriped "zoot suit" with a big wide hat.3 The bartender first saw the Victim around 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. and served him a drink. The Victim left without paying. Around 3:45 a.m., close to last call, the bartender saw the Victim again. Defendant was sitting at the end of the bar, while the Victim was standing at the middle of the bar. The Victim appeared intoxicated.

Yet another bartender also saw the Victim earlier in the evening wearing all black with glittery fairy wings. A friend of the Victim confirmed she met the Victim at Don's Place that night and that he was dressed in black and wearing costume wings. The friend last saw the Victim around 3:45 a.m., just before she left. Another patron remembered seeing the Victim that night and stated that he was wearing wings and appeared drunk. Yet another patron who worked at Wing Masters, just in front of Don's Place, went to Don's Place and left around 3:55 or 4:00 a.m., when the bartender announced last call. As he was walking home, this person saw an argument between two people by the dumpster next to Don's Place. According to this person, one sharply-dressed man was wearing a white suit, a hat, and white pants. The other man was wearing all black and wings.

Twenty-four hours after the Victim's body was found, Defendant went to the police station for an interview. During the interview, he acknowledged being at Don's Place the morning of October 28, 2011, and seeing the Victim, but he denied arguing with him. In addition, Defendant admitted he was wearing a white and blue zoot suit and a hat. Police asked to go with Defendant to his home to get the clothing and Defendant agreed. Defendant retrieved the clothing and boots he had worn the night the Victim died and returned to the station with the police. Once there, a detective visually inspected the clothing items and boots in the presence of Defendant and immediately noticed what appeared to be dry bloodstains on the pants. Another detective then came in wearing gloves, and Defendant was asked if she could take the clothing to inspect it. He agreed. A presumptive blood test was conducted, which came back positive for the presence of blood. A detective then read Defendant his constitutional rights. Defendant was not arrested and was allowed to leave the police station.

The clothing and boots and the Victim's costume wings were submitted to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for DNA testing. Multiple samples were submitted, including Defendant's and the Victim's DNA. Swabs from the crime scene, including stains from the coral rock found near the victim, were also submitted. One blood stain on the back of Defendant's pants matched the Victim. A second blood stain, above the toe of Defendant's right boot also matched at least two individuals, the Victim being one of them. Two blood stains found on Defendant's clothing matched Defendant. Blood taken from the coral rock matched the Victim. Defendant was subsequently arrested and indicted for premeditated murder in violation of section 782.04(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

B. The Motion to Suppress

Before trial, Defendant moved to have the clothing and DNA evidence suppressed on the basis that the detectives exceeded the scope of consent he had given them. At the hearing on the motion, two detectives testified, and the State admitted three video recordings of the police's interactions with Defendant. The trial court entered a written order denying the motion.

C. The Trial
1. Voir Dire

During jury selection, Defendant challenged three jurors, F, S, and H4 for cause, alleging they were neither impartial nor unbiased. After an extensive jury selection and multiple rounds of questioning, the trial court denied the cause challenges. Defendant exercised peremptory challenges to strike the three jurors from the jury panel. At the conclusion of voir dire, and after Defendant's peremptory challenges had been exhausted, Defendant identified two additional jurors who sat on the jury whom he would have stricken had he not used three of his peremptory challenges on Jurors F, S, and H.

2. Testimony on Blood Pattern Analysis

Prior to trial, the State submitted a discovery exhibit in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, which included a list of "Category A" witnesses. It listed Detective Underwood and attached a copy of Detective Underwood's Report. In addition, the State submitted an amended discovery exhibit with Detective Underwood's curriculum vitae. Further, Detective Underwood was deposed. Detective Underwood's Report included the following:

There was a large pool of blood under the Victim's head and what appeared to be high velocity blood splatter extending from the Victim's head/face towards the street for a total distance of four feet in a cone like shape (expanding outwards from the Victim's head/face towards the street). There was a barely perceptible void in the pattern, suggesting that someone or something had been present when the splatter, from the blow to the head was struck. The shape and size of the splatter droplets were elongated, definitely directional, and indicated a flight pattern of less than thirty degrees, away from the Victim's head. No ‘cast off’ patterns were observed. Swabs were collected from areas of bloodstains. Evidence at the scene suggest that the head wound

was a single blow and was struck while the Victim's head was already down on the driveway surface.

During trial, the State tendered Detective Underwood as an expert witness. Defendant objected, asserting the State had failed to identify Detective Underwood as an expert and that Defendant would be prejudiced if the trial court allowed the detective to testify to his blood pattern analysis. At a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the trial court declined Defendant's request for a Daubert hearing on the basis that Defendant could have filed a motion "a long time ago."

However, in lieu thereof, the trial court required the State to lay a predicate for Detective Underwood's testimony. The trial court identified the following expert opinion testimony requirements under section 90.702, Florida Statutes : (1) the testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Defendant objected on the basis that the witness was not qualified to testify to the methodology and principles. Defendant further objected to the reliability of the principles and methods used by the detective. The trial court then told the State that the detective needed to address the reliability issue. The trial court allowed Defendant to conduct further voir dire of Detective Underwood. In addition, the trial court conducted its own examination. The trial court then concluded:

I'm going to allow the detective to testify to his opinion. You'll [sic] been given a chance to cross-examine him on many of the issues he's raised. The Court finds that the detective followed the methods and measurements and that the measurements are reliable as far as we know from the experts that's [sic] he's quoted, who wrote the books, so to speak.
I'm going to find he used sufficient facts and data under the circumstances as he was taught. I'm going to find that he applied them reliably to the facts as presented.
The only thing I find him able to testify to is the 30 degree angle he's talked about, and his conclusion that the trajectory is one that would indicate that the victim's body was at a very low position, or on the ground when it was struck.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Mitcham
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2023
    ... ... have disclosed more intimate information is of no moment in ... the present case because there is no allegation that the ... police tested his DNA sample for that purpose."); ... accord People v. Mendez , 155 N.Y.S.3d 534, 536-37 ... (Sup. Ct. 2021); Hedvall v. State , 283 So.3d 901, ... 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) ... [ 4 ] "The CODIS database is based on ... 13 loci at which the STR [short tandem repeat] alleles are ... noted and compared ... The CODIS loci are from the ... non-protein coding junk regions of DNA" ... ...
  • Huggins v. Siegel
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 15, 2021
    ...see also Booker , 166 So. 3d at 194 n. 2 ); Baan v. Columbia Cnty. , 180 So. 3d 1127, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ; Hedvall v. State , 283 So. 3d 901, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ; Bunin v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. , 197 So. 3d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Additionally, Appellants' reply brief ......
  • Huggins v. Siegel
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 3, 2021
    ...of discretion standard of review. See Bunin v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Hedvall v. State, 283 So. 3d 901, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Vitiello v. State, 281 So. 3d 554, 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). This standard of review is also consistent with controll......
  • Larocca v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 2020
    ...training, and experience as a toxicologist and medical examiner as well as the science supporting his opinion. See Hedvall v. State , 283 So.3d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (finding no abuse of discretion in admitting detective's opinion on blood splatter where, prior to rendering opinion, detect......
  • 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