I N T H E SUPREME COURT OF F L O R I D A
TALLAHASSEE,
FLORIDA
*
M A R T I N GROSSMAN,
APPELLANT,
*
vs.
C A S E NO
.:
68,096
STATE OF FLORIDA,
APPELLEE.
F-
SID J. WHITE
APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
ELIZABETH G. MANSFIELD
LAW O F F I C E O F G A R Y A . C A R N A L
6551 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, F l o r i d a 33710
( 8 1 3 1 381 -8774
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
P A G E NO.:
...........................................
S t a t e m e n t o f F a c t s ...........................................
I s s u e ........................................................
Summary o f t h e A r g u m e n t ......................................
Table o f Citations
Argument:
Question I
..............................................
Introduction
at
the
sentencing
hearing
of
statements o f O f f i c e r
P a r k ' s f a m i l y members
regarding O f f i c e r P a r k ' s character a n d personal i t y
and the
impact o f her death o n her family
was a n
p u r s u a n t t o F l o r i d a Statute 921.143.
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v o i l a t i o n o f M r . Grossman's E i g h t h
Amendment r i g h t s , r e q u i r i n g reversal o f h i s death
sentence.
Conclusion
Certificate
...................................................
o f S e r v i c e .......................................
TABLE OF C I T A T I O N S
PAGE NO:
Cases
..........
....................
Booth v . M a r y l a n d , 55 U . S . L . W .
4836 ( J u n e 15, 19871
4
Chapman v . C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U . S .
18 [I9671
6
Other Authority
S e c t i o n 921.143. F l o r i d a S t a t u t e s ,
[
19851
..... . . .. .. ., .... .. .
STATEMENT OF T H E FACTS
A t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g h e l d D e c e m b e r 13, 1985, t h e T r i a l C o u r t p e r m i t t e d
statements b y several members o f O f f i c e r P a r k ' s f a m i l y t o b e a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e
[ R 2741 1 .
person.
O f f i c e r P a r k ' s p a r e n t s b o t h a p p e a r e d a n d made t h e i r statements i n
[ R 2741-44,
2747-491.
I n eloquent a n d moving detail,
M r . & Mrs. Park
d e s c r i b e d t h e d e l i g h t f u l , warm, a n d l o v i n g p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e i r d a u g h t e r , t h e c l o s e ,
c a r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p she had w i t h each member o f t h e f a m i l y , a n d t h e d e v a s t a t i n g
l o s s a n d i n c o n s o l a b l e g r i e f e x p e r i e n c e d b y h e r s u r v i v o r s [ R 2741 -44, 2747-491.
addition.
In
t h e State r e a d i n t o t h e r e c o r d a w r i t t e n statement p r e p a r e d b y O f f i c e r
P a r k ' s brother, also describing her charming personality,
her close relationship
w i t h him a n d t h e devastating emotional impact o f her death o n t h o e n t i r e f a m i l y .
[R
2744-471
These statements also e x p r e s s e d t h e o p i n i o n t h a t O f f i c e r P a r k ' s
m u r d e r was b r u t a l a n d m e r c i l e s s a n d t h a t M r . G r o s s m a n d e s e r v e d t o d i e a n d w o u l d
k i l l a g a i n [ R 2743-44,
2746-471.
A f t e r hearing these statements, t h e T r i a l C o u r t
e n t e r e d sentence o f death o n M r . Grossman.
I R 27041.
ISSUE
WAS
INTRODUCTION
AT
THE
SENTEIVCING
HEARING OF
THE
STATEMENTS
OF
OFFICER
PARK'S
FAMILY
REGARDING
HER
CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND THE IMPACT OF HER DEATH
921.143.
FLORIDA
ON
HER
FAMILY,
PURSUANT
TO
SECTION
STATUTES, A N UNCONSTITUTIOIVAL V I O L A T I O N O F MR. GROSSMAN'S
EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS?
SUMMARY OF T H E ARGUMENT
Section
921.143,
Florida
Statutes
[ 19851
violates
the
E i g h t h Amendment
b e c a u s e it r e q u i r e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t a c a p i t a l s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g o f f a c t o r s
s u c h as t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e v i c t i m a n d t h e e f f e c t o n t h e v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y .
The
Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t s u c h f a c t o r s a r e n o t r e l e v a n t i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r o r
not the Defendant deserves the death penalty. and a death sentence where such
7
factors were presented i n evidence must b e reserved.
I n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e
e r r o r was n o t h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e it c a n n o t b e s a i d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h e
C o u r t w o u l d have imposed t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f
the v i c t i m ' s family.
ARGUMENT
I N T R O D U C T I O N A T THE SENTENCING H E A R I N G OF STATEMENTS OF
O F F I C E R P A R K ' S F A M I L Y MEMBERS R E G A R D I N G O F F I C E R P A R K ' S
C H A R A C T E R A N D P E R S O N A L I T Y A N D T H E I M P A C T O F HER D E A T H
O N H E R F A M I L Y P U R S U A N T T O F L O R I D A S T A T U T E 9 2 1 . 1 4 3 , WAS A N
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION
OF
MR.
GROSSMAN'S
EIGHTH
AMENDMENT
RIGHTS,
REQUIRING REVERSAL
OF
HIS
DEATH
SENTENCE.
Section 921 ,143. F l o r i d a Statutes [ 19851, r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e T r i a l C o u r t p e r m i t
the
next of
k i n of
a homicide v i c t i m
statement t o the Court regarding the
physical harm
. . . directly
sentencing hearing.
to either
testify
or
present a written
"harm i n c l u d i n g social,
psychological o r
or indirectly resulting from the crime
. . ." a t
the
H o w e v e r , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t has h e l d t h a t a
s i m i l a r M a r y l a n d S t a t u t e was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .
Booth v .
M a r y l a n d , 5 5 U.S.L.W.
4036 [ J u n e 15, 19071.
The M a r y l a n d Statute,
l i k e t h e F l o r i d a Statute,
permitted "victim's
statements" describing the impact of the crime on the victim's family.
however,
only
a
presentence
report
summar i z i n g
impact
I n Booth,
interviews w i t h the victim's
f a m i l y was r e a d t o t h e C o u r t a n d n o n e o f t h e f a m i l y m e m b e r s t e s t i f i e d i n p e r s o n .
I n the
i n s t a n t case,
of
course,
Officer
P a r k ' s mother a n d
father
each gave
intensely moving, personal statements t o the Court.
I n Booth,
t h e Supreme C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e E i g h t h Amendment p r o h i b i t e d
consideration of v i c t i m impact evidence i n a capital sentencing proceeding.
Such
i n f o r m a t i o n is i r r e l e v a n t because the death p e n a l t y should b e based o n l y o n " t h e
character of the defendant a n d the circumstances of the crime a n d admission of
such information creates a n unacceptable
risk
imposed
manner."
in
an
arbitrary
and
capricious
t h a t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y may be
Id.
reputation of the victim and the effect on the victim's
nothing to do w i t h the blame worthiness o f the defendant.
The character
family generally
Id.
-
and
have
I n the instant
case, f o r e x a m p l e . M r . G r o s s m a n d i d n o t k n o w O f f i c e r P a r k a n d h i s a c t i o n s w e r e
not motivated b y her character o r reputation o r b y the potential impact on her
family.
F u r t h e r m o r e , i n some cases. f a m i l y m e m b e r s m a y b e a r t i c u l a t e a n d p e r s u a s i v e
i n expressing
t h e i r loss a n d grief,
b u t i n o t h e r s , a l t h o u g h t h e l o s s m a y b e as
g r e a t , t h e v i c t i m m a y h a v e had n o f a m i l y o r t h e f a m i l y m a y b e l e s s a r t i c u l a t e i n
describing their feelings.
I d . C e r t a i n l y , i n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f
O f f i c e r P a r k ' s mother, father, a n d b r o t h e r were dramatically moving.
However,
t h e i r eloquence s h o u l d n o t h e l p c o n d e m n M r . g r o s s m a n t o death, a n y m o r e t h a n
the inarticulateness of another victim's family should r e s u l t i n a l ife sentence.
The character o f the v i c t i m is also irrelevant t o deciding whether o r n o t a
defendant should b e sentenced t o death.
Id.
I t is o n l y t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e
defendant and the circumstances of the crime which should be considered.
Id.
-
O u r s y s t e m o f j u s t i c e r e j e c t s t h e view t h a t d e f e n d a n t s whose v i c t i m s w e r e assets
t o the community
s h o u l d b e p u n i s h e d m o r e s e v e r e l y t h a n t h o s e whose v i c t i m s
were less worthy.
Id.
-
The decision t o sentence M a r t i n Grossman t o death should
n o t have been based, t o even t h e s l i g h t e s t d e g r e e o n a p e r c e p t i o n t h a t O f f i c e r
P a r k was a woman o f s t e r l i n g c h a r a c t e r .
S e c t i o n 9 2 1 . 1 4 3 , F l o r i d a S t a t u t e s [ 1 9 8 5 1 i s c l e a r l y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h a t it
requires the T r i a l C o u r t t o admit v i c t i m impact statements a t capital sentencing
hearings.
A l t h o u g h i n Booth, t h e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e h e a r d b y t h e j u r y w h i l e i n t h e
i n s t a n t case, o n l y t h e j u d g e h e a r d t h e s t a t e m e n t s , t h e F l o r i d a S t a t u t e n e v e r t h e l e s s
requires consideration o f factors which the C o u r t i n Booth held were not relevant
i n a capital sentencing proceeding a n d therefore violates the E i g h t Amendment.
T h e e r r o r i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e was n o t h a r m l e s s .
A n e r r o r is h a r m f u l u n l e s s
t h e A p p e l l a t e C o u r t c a n say b e y o n d a reasonable doubt t h a t t h e e r r o r d i d n o t
affect the verdict.
Chapman v .
California,
386 U.S.
18 [19671.
I t is u t t e r l y
impossible t o read the statements o f Officer P a r k ' s mother, father, a n d b r o t h e r even in the cold a n d expressionless p r i n t o f the t r a n s c r i p t
-
w i t h o u t b e i n g moved.
F u r t h e r m o r e , S e c t i o n 921 .143, F l o r i d a S t a t u t e s [I9851 o n i t s f a c e r e q u i r e s t h e
T r i a l C o u r t t o consider the crime's effect on the family i n imposing sentence.
In
l i g h t o f Booth, t h e o n l y w a y t o f i n d t h e S t a t u t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l w o u l d b e t o r e a d
it as p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e s h a l l l i s t e n t o t h e v i c t i m s i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t
b u t then must disregard those statements.
Clearly,
such a reading would be
a b s u r d a n d c o u l d n o t have been i n t e n d e d b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
victim's
family
and
the
character
of
the
victim
are
The g r i e f of the
simply
not
relevant
considerations for either a judge or j u r y i n a capital sentencing proceeding.
cannot
be
said
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
Trial
Court would
It
have
i m p o s e d t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y o n M a r t i n G r o s s m a n i f t h e C o u r t h a d n o t h a d b e f o r e it
the eloquent a n d moving statements o f O f f i c e r P a r k ' s family.
CONCLUSION
The death sentence
imposed o n M a r t i n Grossman should b e reversed a n d
vacated.
RespectFully submitted,
6551 C e n t r a l A v e n u e
St. Petersburg, F l o r i d a
18133 381-8774
33710
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y t h a t a c o p y OF t h e F o r e g o i n g h a s b e e n F u r n i s h e d b y
r e g u l a r U .S.
General,
Mail o n
1313 T a m p a S t r e e t ,
d a y OF J u l y ,
S u i t e 804,
1987,
Tampa,
t o t h e OFFice OF t h e A t t o r n e y
Florida
33602.
6551 C e n t r a l A v e n u e
St. Petersburg. F l o r i d a
(8133 381-8774
33710