Holton v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 1990
• Docket Number: No. 69861,69861
• Citation: 573 So.2d 284
• Parties: 15 Fla. L. Weekly S500, 16 Fla. L. Weekly 136 Rudolph HOLTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 284

573 So.2d 284

15 Fla. L. Weekly S500, 16 Fla. L. Weekly 136

Rudolph HOLTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69861.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 27, 1990.

As Clarified on Partial Grant

of Rehearing Jan. 15, 1991.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Douglas S. Connor, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Rudolph Holton appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death. He also challenges his convictions and sentences for first-degree arson and sexual battery. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm Holton's convictions and the imposition of the death penalty but remand to the trial court as to the sentences imposed for arson and sexual battery.

On June 23, 1986, the unclothed, partially charred body of Katrina Graddy was found in a burning vacant house. Pieces of a nylon cloth were tied around her neck and around one wrist. The neck of a glass bottle was partially inserted in her anus. Tests for sperm in the victim's bodily orifices were all negative. It was determined that the fire was started intentionally, but the cause of death was strangulation.

Following the discovery of the victim's body, police questioned Carl Schenck, who had been asleep in his truck parked directly across from the burning house. Schenck told investigators he had parked there at about 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. the night before. He had been waiting for the return of a hitchhiker he had picked up earlier in the day while the hitchhiker went to purchase some marijuana. Schenck fell asleep and eventually was awakened by the fire engines. A black shaving bag left by the hitchhiker in Schenck's vehicle was taken as evidence. Schenck was unable to make a positive identification of Holton from photographs or at trial, but said Holton closely resembled the hitchhiker.

Johnny Lee Newsome testified that on the night of the murder, he saw Holton and the victim at about 11:00 p.m. talking outside the vacant house where the victim's body was found. Newsome said Holton was holding a black shaving bag. Another witness, Flemnie Birkins, who had known Holton for a number of years and was serving time in the county jail when Holton was arrested, testified that Holton told him "he had killed a girl, that he had strangled her" and then set fire to the house. Birkins also stated that Holton claimed he did not mean to kill the girl. A third witness claimed that, around 11:00 p.m. on the night of the murder, she saw Holton enter the vacant house where the homicide occurred.

When questioned by investigators, Holton claimed he was at home at the time of the murder. ¹ He said he had not been to the vacant house for ten days. When told that his fingerprint had been found on the wrapper of an empty pack of cigarettes removed from a room in the house, Holton admitted he had been shooting drugs in the house several days before the homicide occurred but denied being near the house on the night of the murder. Photographs were taken of Holton depicting scratches on his chest and a cut on his finger.

The jury returned verdicts of guilty for premeditated murder, sexual battery with great force, and first-degree arson. By a vote of seven to five, the jury recommended a sentence of death. The judge found four aggravating factors ² and no statutory mitigating factors. As nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, the trial court considered that Holton has two children and is a drug addict. Holton was sentenced to death for the murder of Katrina Graddy and given consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for the sexual battery conviction and thirty years' imprisonment for the arson conviction.

As his first issue, Holton argues that the state exercised three peremptory challenges to systematically exclude prospective black jurors from the jury panel. In State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), we established a test for determining whether an opposing party's peremptory challenges have been exercised improperly to excuse prospective jurors. The complaining party must make a timely objection, demonstrate on the record that the challenged persons are members of a distinct racial group, and show that there is a strong likelihood these persons have been challenged because of impermissible bias. Neil, 457 So.2d at 486. In State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988), we extended the principles set forth in Neil and held that any doubt as to whether the complaining party has met the initial burden required under Neil should be resolved in that party's favor. Once this burden has been met, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that the proffered reasons are, first neutral and reasonable and, second, not a pretext. Slappy, 522 So.2d at 22.

During jury selection, defense counsel timely objected on two separate occasions to the exclusion of prospective black jurors. The record shows that following the questioning of the first group of prospective jurors, the state exercised two peremptory challenges. After objecting, defense counsel explained that each peremptory had been used to exclude the only two blacks on the panel. Counsel then stated her belief that the state was systematically excluding blacks from the jury. The trial court overruled the objection without an inquiry because the two prospective jurors had expressed opposition to the death penalty, which the trial court deemed a sufficient reason for the challenges.

The record clearly supports the trial court's ruling. When asked whether he could recommend the death penalty in an appropriate case, the first black individual expressed his reservations about the death penalty because of his belief that death sentences are imposed disproportionately on the basis of race. When asked the same question, the second prospective black juror stated that she was opposed to capital punishment under any circumstances. While defense counsel met the first two prongs of the Neil test, counsel was unable to demonstrate a strong likelihood that the two prospective jurors were challenged solely because of their race. Ambivalence toward recommending a sentence of death and opposition to the death penalty are race-neutral and acceptable grounds for excusing a prospective juror. We find the record supports the trial court's ruling.

When defense counsel objected to the state's exercise of a peremptory challenge to exclude a third prospective black juror, the trial court asked the state for reasons to support the challenge. The state explained it was concerned that the prospective juror, based upon her answers during voir dire, would not be sympathetic toward the victim because she was a prostitute. The state believed the prospective juror might believe the victim was in some way responsible for what had occurred because the victim had been a prostitute. The trial court accepted the state's explanation and noted defense counsel's objection.

The record reflects that defense counsel satisfied its initial burden by demonstrating that the prospective juror was a member of a distinct racial group and that there was a likelihood the challenge resulted from an impermissible bias. When questioned by the trial court, the reason proffered by the state to support the challenge was race-neutral, and one could reasonably conclude that the prospective juror could not be sympathetic toward a prostitute. Therefore, we find that the state did not exercise peremptory challenges to exclude blacks improperly from the jury.

As his second issue, Holton contends that the state's cross-examination of Detective Childers, who participated in the investigation of the murder, was prejudicial because it misled the jury. Detective Childers was questioned following the testimony of Flemnie Birkins, a witness for the state to whom Holton made a jail-house confession. Holton claims it was error for the state to ask Detective Childers whether Birkins was able to tell investigators facts concerning the murder that only the murderer would know. Holton argues that by asking this question the state led the jury to believe that Detective Childers had access to evidence not produced at trial that confirmed Birkins' testimony and proved Holton's guilt.

The record reflects that when the state first posed this question, defense counsel lodged an objection which was sustained by the trial court. Detective Childers was asked this question a second time in response to defense counsel's redirect questioning of him concerning whether there had been television coverage of the murder after it occurred. Although defense counsel did not object, the trial court interjected and the question was never answered. Accordingly, we find no error and note defense counsel's redirect questioning of Detective Childers "opened the door" to the question posed by the state on cross-examination.

Holton also objects to the state's questioning of Detective Durkin. Specifically, Holton contends that it was improper for the state to ask Detective Durkin whether any homicides had occurred since Holton's arrest involving a victim who had been raped, strangled and burned. Holton argues that this question was prejudicial because it suggested that other similar homicides had been committed prior to Holton's arrest but that none had occurred after his arrest.

Our review of the record reveals that defense counsel opened the door to this line of questioning. During cross-examination of state's witness Johnny Lee Newsome, defense counsel questioned Newsome regarding another homicide in which he was a witness. Newsome was asked whether that particular murder involved a victim who was found in a burning vacant house. Defense counsel's questions also inferred that Newsome may have committed that murder and therefore could...