Spencer v. State

• Decision Date: 18 March 1993
• Docket Number: No. 77430,77430
• Citation: Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1993)
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Week. S162 Leonard SPENCER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 688

615 So.2d 688

18 Fla. L. Week. S162

Leonard SPENCER, Appellant, v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77430.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 18, 1993.

Nelson E. Bailey, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Sylvia H. Alonso, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Spencer appeals his convictions for multiple counts of armed robbery and two counts of first-degree murder and his sentence of death.We have jurisdiction.Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.While the circumstances of the two robbery-murders for which Spencer was tried are egregious, the manner in which this trial was conducted requires that Spencer's convictions be reversed and a new trial granted.The record, on its face, establishes fundamental unfairness in the conduct of the trial, beginning with the jury selection process and ending with an ex parte conference between the trial judge and the prosecutor during the sentencing phase of this trial.

In June, 1986, Spencer and a codefendant, Vernon Amos, were involved in two separate robbery-murder incidents.The details of these incidents are set forth in Amos v. State, 612 So.2d 561(Fla.1993).Spencer and Amos's first trial, which resulted in convictions and sentences of death, was reversed by this Court and remanded for a new trial because of the restrictions imposed in the jury selection process.Spencer v. State, 545 So.2d 1352(Fla.1989);Amos v. State, 545 So.2d 1352(Fla.1989).In October, 1989, the second trial commenced and resulted in a hung jury as to both defendants.

The third trial commenced in November of 1989 with Judge James T. Carlisle presiding.The jury found Spencer guilty on all charges, but could not agree on a verdict as to Amos and his case was set for trial a fourth time.Spencer's trial then proceeded to the penalty phase, at the conclusion of which the jury recommended that he be sentenced to death on both counts of first-degree murder.After a series of motions, Spencer was eventually sentenced to death.It is this third trial that is the subject of this appeal.

During the voir dire phase of this trial, Judge Carlisle questioned one potential juror regarding her ability to sentence a person to death.The juror responded that she could, but later stated that she could not.After some confusion on the juror's part in answering the questions asked by the judge and defense counsel, the judge, without a request by the State, excused the juror.Defense counsel objected to the juror's removal and asked on what basis the judge was excusing her.The judge answered that he removed the juror on the basis of the juror's I.Q.The following colloquy took place:

[Defense Counsel]: What are you doing?

The Court: Excusing her.

[Defense Counsel]: On what basis?

The Court: IQ.

[Defense Counsel]: I object to that.I would like to know what the IQ test is for jury service.I would ask the record to reflect that she is the only black member out of the ten.

....

[Defense Counsel]: I would ask the court to indicate, for counsel's benefit, so I can make the right inquiries, what kind of IQ standard you are imposing.

The Court: I won't even answer that.Let's go.

Mr. Bailey: You will excuse jurors on that basis; is that right?

The Court: Call the next one.

After questioning several more potential jurors, the trial judge also excused another potential juror on the basis of IQ.Defense counsel again objected to the use of an IQ standard.The trial judge ignored the objection and proceeded with the jury selection and trial.

After the conclusion of the trial and penalty phase proceedings before the jury, Spencer filed a motion for a new trial.A single hearing date was then scheduled for that motion and the sentencing proceeding before Judge Carlisle.When the scheduled time for the hearing to begin had passed, and neither Judge Carlisle nor the state attorney had appeared in the courtroom, defense counsel entered the judge's chambers.Defense counsel found Judge Carlisle, the state attorney, and the state attorney's assistant proofreading an order sentencing Spencer to death.When the court convened moments later, defense counsel noted for the record the situation he had encountered and asked the judge to address it.The judge explained that he had been having a conversation with the prosecutor concerning this Court's decision in Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833, 841(Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1354, 103 L.Ed.2d 822(1989), in which we ordered the establishment of a procedural rule requiring "that all written orders imposing a death sentence be prepared prior to the oral pronouncement of sentence for filing concurrent with the pronouncement."

Defense counsel voiced his concern that the judge had drafted an order expressing his reasons and conclusions for imposing the death penalty prior to Spencer's counsel having an opportunity to be heard.Defense counsel then moved to recuse Judge Carlisle.The judge denied the motion.In doing so, he admitted that there was indeed a draft of a sentencing order and that defense counsel had not been given notice of the process employed by the prosecutor and the judge.Judge Carlisle then denied the motion for a new trial and stated that the draft in question would not be the order entered in sentencing Spencer.The judge additionally explained that what defense counsel had encountered in the judge's chambers was something other than what it appeared to be.

Several days later, defense counsel filed a second and formal motion for the recusal of Judge Carlisle.Defense counsel also filed a motion calling for Judge Carlisle to withdraw his ruling on the motion for a new trial so that the motion could be determined on its merits by the judge assigned to the case.Judge Carlisle granted the motion for recusal but did not rule on the motion to withdraw his ruling denying a new trial.

After Judge Carlisle recused himself, a...