Dante Martin v. State , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17401 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    DANTE MARTIN,
    Appellant,
    v.                                                 Case No. 5D15-284
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed November 18, 2016
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Orange County,
    Renee A. Roche, Judge.
    Rupak R. Shah and Frances E. Martinez, of
    Escobar & Assoc., P.A., Tampa, for
    Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
    Tallahassee, and Samuel A. Perrone and
    Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney
    Generals, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
    PALMER, J.
    Dante Martin (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentences, which were
    entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crimes of
    manslaughter,1 felony hazing resulting in death,2 and two counts of misdemeanor hazing.3
    We affirm.
    The defendant was a member of the percussion section of the Florida A&M
    University's marching band, the "Marching 100." Members of the percussion section are
    entitled to ride to away events in a motor coach known as "Bus C." The defendant was
    president of Bus C.
    A tradition or ritual known as "Crossing Bus C" has existed at the University for
    some time. The ritual consists of three components: 1) the hot seat, 2) the prepping, and
    3) the crossing. During the hot seat, the participant takes a seat on Bus C (near the front)
    and is struck or hit repeatedly by others, including members of the percussion section.
    Next, the participant is prepped. During the prepping, the participant stands up and places
    his or her hands on the luggage rail and is then slapped a number of times with full force
    by the others on the bus. After the prepping, the participant crosses from the front of the
    bus to the back while others slap, kick, and punch the participant. The defendant, as bus
    president, decided when someone could cross Bus C.
    On the day at issue, Keon Hollis, Robert Champion, and the defendant, as
    members of the Marching 100, performed at the Florida Classic in Orlando, Florida.
    Immediately following the band's performance, the defendant asked Hollis if he planned
    to cross the bus. Hollis indicated that he wanted to do so. Later, Jonathan Boyce, also
    a member of the band, received a text from the defendant asking him to convey to Hollis
    and Champion that if they wanted to cross "it's available" to them.
    1§  782.07, Fla. Stat. (2012).
    2§  1006.63(2), Fla. Stat. (2012).
    3 § 1006.63(3), Fla. Stat. (2012).
    2
    That night, Lissette Sanchez (another member of the percussion section), Hollis,
    and Champion crossed Bus C, and the defendant participated in these crossings.
    Champion was the last to cross. When Champion made it to the back, he appeared tired,
    but indicated, "I'm good." After the crossings were completed, everyone left the bus
    except Champion. When Boyce noticed that Champion was not with him, he returned to
    the bus. He found Champion in the back of the bus panicking; and, shortly thereafter,
    Champion passed out. Champion was taken to a hospital, but efforts to save his life were
    not successful.
    Champion's body was transferred from the hospital to the medical examiner’s
    office. Dr. Sarah Irrgang, the associate medical examiner, visually examined Champion’s
    body. She observed some discoloration and a few superficial abrasions, she took several
    photographs, and then released Champion’s body for bone harvesting. The next day,
    after his leg bones had been harvested, Champion's body was returned to the medical
    examiner’s office. At that time, Dr. Irrgang noticed unevenness in the skin on Champion's
    torso, suggesting swelling. This observation prompted Dr. Irrgang to investigate further.
    She took a number of pictures of Champion’s body during the ensuing autopsy. Based
    on her investigation, she determined that the manner of death was homicide.
    The defendant was later arrested and charged with manslaughter, felony hazing
    resulting in death, and two counts of misdemeanor hazing. The matter proceeded to a
    jury trial, which resulted in guilty verdicts on all counts. The trial court entered judgment
    in accordance with the verdicts and sentenced the defendant to a term of seventy-seven
    months' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
    3
    overbreadth is one of the few exceptions to the traditional
    rules that courts will not consider factual questions beyond the
    scope of the case at hand. See Schmitt v. State, 
    590 So. 2d 404
    , 411–12 (Fla.1991). "Hypothetical consequences are
    considered in the case of allegedly overbroad statutes
    precisely because this is the only way to give effect to the
    constitutional right of free speech." 
    Id. at 411.
    The deleterious result of overbroad statutes often is described
    as a "chilling effect." . . . The overbreadth doctrine and its
    requirement of considering hypothetical consequences is
    intended to eliminate this chilling effect and thus allow for the
    free, unhindered exercise of constitutional rights.
    
    Id. at 412
    (citations omitted). It is said, however, that in the
    arena of free speech and expression, the overbreadth
    doctrine is an unusual remedy which is to be used sparingly,
    particularly where the challenged statute is primarily meant to
    regulate conduct and not merely pure speech. 
    Id. 947 So. 2d
    at 644–45. Of consequence, "the overbreadth doctrine applies only if the
    legislation is susceptible of application to conduct protected by the First Amendment."
    Simmons v. State, 
    944 So. 2d 317
    , 323 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Southeast Fisheries Ass'n,
    Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Res., 
    453 So. 2d 1351
    , 1353 (Fla. 1984)).
    The defendant asserts that Florida's hazing statute encroaches upon
    constitutionally-protected speech or conduct and, thus, the statute is overbroad; however,
    he does not articulate how the statute is susceptible of application to speech or conduct
    protected by the First Amendment. See id.; State v. Bryant, 
    953 So. 2d 585
    , 587 (Fla. 1st
    DCA 2007). Rather, he simply argues that, by criminalizing hazing without respect to the
    victim’s consent, subsection 1006.63(5) regulates and restricts "a wide variety of activity
    that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment, including, most disturbingly,
    the freedom of association and expression." Because the defendant is challenging the
    statute on overbreadth grounds, he "bears the burden of demonstrating from both the text
    6
    consumption of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance, or
    other forced physical activity that could adversely affect the
    physical health or safety of the student, and also includes any
    activity that would subject the student to extreme mental
    stress, such as sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social
    contact, forced conduct that could result in extreme
    embarrassment, or other forced activity that could adversely
    affect the mental health or dignity of the student. Hazing does
    not include customary athletic events or other similar contests
    or competitions or any activity or conduct that furthers a legal
    and legitimate objective.
    ....
    (5) It is not a defense to a charge of hazing that:
    (a) The consent of the victim had been obtained;
    (b) The conduct or activity that resulted in the death or injury
    of a person was not part of an official organizational event or
    was not otherwise sanctioned or approved by the
    organization; or
    (c) The conduct or activity that resulted in death or injury of
    the person was not done as a condition of membership to an
    organization.
    § 1006.63(1), (5), Fla. Stat. (2012).
    As for the defendant's overbreadth claims, a "statute is deemed to be overbroad if
    it seeks to control or prevent activities properly subject to regulation by means which
    sweep too broadly into an area of constitutionally protected freedom." J.L.S. v. State, 
    947 So. 2d 641
    , 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Firestone v. News–Press Publ'g Co., Inc., 
    538 So. 2d 457
    , 459 (Fla. 1989)). In J.L.S., the Third District set forth the following principles
    concerning the overbreadth doctrine:
    The doctrine of overbreadth permits an individual whose own
    speech or conduct may be prohibited to challenge an
    enactment facially "because it also threatens others not
    before the court—those who desire to engage in legally
    protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather
    than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared
    partially invalid." Sult v. State, 
    906 So. 2d 1013
    , 1019
    (Fla. 2005) (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 
    472 U.S. 491
    , 503 (1985)). In other words, the issue of
    5
    A vague statute is one that fails to give adequate notice of
    what conduct is prohibited and which, because of its
    imprecision, may also invite arbitrary and discriminatory
    enforcement. In determining whether a statute is vague,
    common understanding and reason must be used. Where a
    statute does not specifically define words of common usage,
    such words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
    Further, courts cannot require the legislature to draft laws with
    such specificity that the intent and purpose of the law may be
    easily avoided. Courts must determine whether or not the
    party to whom the law applies has fair notice of what is
    prohibited and whether the law can be applied uniformly.
    
    Id. at 1353–54
    (citation omitted). Importantly, "[t]he Legislature's failure to define a critical
    term does not by itself render a statute unconstitutionally vague." Morton v. State, 
    988 So. 2d 698
    , 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); accord State v. Hagan, 
    387 So. 2d 943
    , 945 (Fla.
    1980). Instead, "[w]here a statute does not specifically define words of common usage,
    such words are construed in their plain and ordinary sense." 
    Hagan, 387 So. 2d at 945
    ;
    accord 
    Morton, 988 So. 2d at 702
    . Furthermore, unlike overbreadth challenges, an
    individual challenging a statute as being unconstitutionally vague must satisfy the
    traditional rules of standing:
    [T]he traditional rule is that a person to whom a statute may
    constitutionally be applied lacks standing to challenge that
    statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied
    unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the court.
    
    J.L.S., 947 So. 2d at 646
    .
    Here, the testimony presented at trial demonstrated that Champion, Hollis, and
    Sanchez were beaten repeatedly as each crossed Bus C. That conduct constituted
    brutality of a physical nature, plainly prohibited by the statute. Because the defendant
    participated in the crossings, he violated the plain terms of the statute. Thus, he lacks
    8
    of the statute and from actual facts that substantial overbreadth exists." J.L.S., 
    947 So. 2d
    at 645. The defendant has not demonstrated that the hazing statute criminalizes any
    speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment; therefore, his overbreadth
    challenge fails. See 
    Kahles, 644 So. 2d at 512
    (explaining that an overbreadth challenge
    fails if the enactment does not reach a substantial amount of speech or conduct protected
    by the First Amendment).
    The defendant also argues that Florida's hazing statute is overbroad as applied to
    him. We disagree. To prevail on his as-applied challenge, the defendant must
    demonstrate that the hazing statute criminalized his own conduct, which was protected
    by the First Amendment. See State v. Cotton, 
    198 So. 3d 737
    , 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
    The defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof by not demonstrating how his conduct
    during the crossings was protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, he cites no
    authority supporting his overbreadth as-applied claim. See Newell v. State, 
    875 So. 2d 747
    , 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (rejecting constitutional challenge where defendant made
    only a generalized attack on the sexual offender registration statute, "without providing
    any significant analysis or citation to legal authority").
    As for his claim of vagueness, the defendant argues that the words "brutality" and
    "competition," as set forth in the hazing statute, cause the statute to be unconstitutionally
    vague. Once again, we disagree.
    "[T]he doctrines of overbreadth and vagueness are separate and distinct."
    Southeast Fisheries 
    Ass'n, 453 So. 2d at 1353
    . "The vagueness doctrine has a broader
    application . . . because it was developed to assure compliance with the due process
    clause of the United States Constitution." 
    Id. Our Supreme
    Court has explained:
    7
    A vague statute is one that fails to give adequate notice of
    what conduct is prohibited and which, because of its
    imprecision, may also invite arbitrary and discriminatory
    enforcement. In determining whether a statute is vague,
    common understanding and reason must be used. Where a
    statute does not specifically define words of common usage,
    such words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
    Further, courts cannot require the legislature to draft laws with
    such specificity that the intent and purpose of the law may be
    easily avoided. Courts must determine whether or not the
    party to whom the law applies has fair notice of what is
    prohibited and whether the law can be applied uniformly.
    
    Id. at 1353–54
    (citation omitted). Importantly, "[t]he Legislature's failure to define a critical
    term does not by itself render a statute unconstitutionally vague." Morton v. State, 
    988 So. 2d 698
    , 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); accord State v. Hagan, 
    387 So. 2d 943
    , 945 (Fla.
    1980). Instead, "[w]here a statute does not specifically define words of common usage,
    such words are construed in their plain and ordinary sense." 
    Hagan, 387 So. 2d at 945
    ;
    accord 
    Morton, 988 So. 2d at 702
    . Furthermore, unlike overbreadth challenges, an
    individual challenging a statute as being unconstitutionally vague must satisfy the
    traditional rules of standing:
    [T]he traditional rule is that a person to whom a statute may
    constitutionally be applied lacks standing to challenge that
    statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied
    unconstitutionally to others in situations not before the court.
    
    J.L.S., 947 So. 2d at 646
    .
    Here, the testimony presented at trial demonstrated that Champion, Hollis, and
    Sanchez were beaten repeatedly as each crossed Bus C. That conduct constituted
    brutality of a physical nature, plainly prohibited by the statute. Because the defendant
    participated in the crossings, he violated the plain terms of the statute. Thus, he lacks
    8
    standing to challenge the statute as being vague based on the term brutality.4 See 
    J.L.S., 947 So. 2d at 646
    (concluding that defendant lacked standing to challenge school safety
    zone statute as being vague because he "engaged in some conduct clearly proscribed"
    by the statute).
    Similarly, with respect to the term "competition," although the statute does not
    define this term or provide examples of competition, we may resort to dictionaries to
    determine the meaning of an undefined statutory term. See 
    Morton, 988 So. 2d at 702
    ;
    Sims v. State, 
    510 So. 2d 1045
    , 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The World Book Dictionary
    defines competition as "the act or state of trying hard to win or gain something wanted by
    others." World Book Dictionary 423 (2009). Another dictionary contains the following
    similar definition of competition: "the act or action of seeking to gain what another is
    seeking to gain at the same time; . . . a common struggle for the same object." Webster's
    Third New International Dictionary 464 (1976). The meaning of "competition," as provided
    in these definitions, is sufficiently definite such that the defendant was not forced to guess
    at its meaning. See 
    Morton, 988 So. 2d at 702
    (relying on definition of "serious" found in
    two dictionaries in rejecting vagueness challenge based on undefined statutory phrase
    "serious bodily injury").
    4  Even if the defendant possessed standing to assert this challenge, the
    defendant's argument would still lack merit. As mentioned above, the statute provides a
    nonexclusive list of acts constituting "brutality," which includes "whipping," "beating," and
    "branding." §1006.63(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). These examples would put a person of
    ordinary intelligence on notice as to what conduct constitutes brutality. See 
    Morton, 988 So. 2d at 702
    . Thus, the use of the term brutality does not render the statute
    unconstitutionally vague.
    9
    Having rejected all of the defendant's constitutional claims, we now discuss his
    claims of trial error.
    The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
    manslaughter count. We disagree.
    "The standard of review for a trial court order regarding a motion to dismiss is de
    novo." Bell v. State, 
    835 So. 2d 392
    , 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
    Prior to trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the manslaughter count, contending
    that the hazing statute is a specific statute covering a particular subject matter and, as
    such, was controlling over the general manslaughter statute, inclusive of that same
    subject matter. To support this claim, he relied on Adams v. Culver, 
    111 So. 2d 665
    , 667
    (Fla. 1959) (recognizing that a specific statute covering certain subject matter controls
    over a general statute covering the same subject matter). The defendant acknowledged
    that subsection 1006.63(6) of the hazing statute expressly states that this "section shall
    not be construed to preclude prosecution for a more general offense resulting from the
    same criminal transaction or episode," but he argued that, because the sanctions under
    the more general offense of manslaughter are more severe than the sanctions of the
    specific offense of felony hazing, the Culver rule applied and, thus, warranted dismissal
    of the manslaughter count.
    Here, the Legislature made clear in the language of subsection 1006.63(6) that the
    State can prosecute the defendant for "a more general offense resulting from the same
    criminal transaction or episode." Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the dismissal
    motion. See W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 
    79 So. 3d 1
    , 9 (Fla. 2012) (explaining
    that, if a statute's language is "clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite
    10
    meaning, this Court will apply that unequivocal meaning and not resort to the rules of
    statutory interpretation and construction."); Knowles v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc.,
    
    898 So. 2d 1
    , 10 (Fla. 2004) ("The rules of statutory construction are the means by which
    courts seek to determine legislative intent only when that intent is not plain and obvious
    enough to be conclusive.").
    Next, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting
    into evidence, over his objection, testimony and photographs relating to the condition of
    Champion’s body after the bone harvest procedure was completed. He contends that the
    evidence was inadmissible because the State failed to establish the chain of custody of
    the body while it was transported to and from the bone harvesting location; and thus, the
    State failed to prove that Champion's body was not tampered with during the bone
    harvesting procedure. We disagree.
    "A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is subject to an abuse of
    discretion standard of review, but the court's discretion is limited by rules of evidence and
    the applicable case law." Horowitz v. State, 
    189 So. 3d 800
    , 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015),
    approved, 
    191 So. 3d 429
    (Fla. 2016). In State v. Jones, 
    30 So. 3d 619
    , 622 (Fla. 2d DCA
    2010), the Second District explained the law applicable to claims of evidence tampering:
    [R]elevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is an
    indication of probable tampering. In seeking to exclude certain
    evidence, [the movant] bears the initial burden of
    demonstrating the probability of tampering. Once this burden
    has been met, the burden shifts to the proponent of the
    evidence to submit evidence that tampering did not occur.
    A mere break in the chain of custody is not in and of itself a
    basis for exclusion of physical evidence. Rather, the court
    should consider the probability that the evidence has been
    tampered with during the interim for which it is unaccounted.
    
    Id. at 622
    (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    11
    Here, while we agree that the prosecutor's comment was improper, the trial court
    issued a proper curative instruction. As such, the trial court did not err in denying the
    mistrial motion. See Espute v. State, 
    85 So. 3d 532
    , 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding
    that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial
    where the court sustained defense counsel’s objection and gave a curative instruction).
    AFFIRMED.
    SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.
    16
    an issue that is in dispute." Almeida [v. State, 
    748 So. 2d 922
    ,
    929 (Fla. 1999)].
    Ault v. State, 
    53 So. 3d 175
    , 198–99 (Fla. 2010); see also Armstrong v. State, 
    73 So. 3d 155
    , 168 (Fla. 2011); England v. State, 
    940 So. 2d 389
    , 399 (Fla. 2006).
    Here, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the autopsy
    photographs, arguing that the photographs were not necessary to help the jury
    understand the medical examiner's testimony, were not relevant to the manslaughter or
    felony hazing charges, and were unduly prejudicial. The trial court denied the motion. At
    trial, the defendant renewed his motion in limine and additionally argued that the
    photographs would be unnecessarily gory. The motion was denied, and the photographs
    were admitted into evidence. This ruling was correct. See 
    England, 940 So. 2d at 399
    ;
    
    Ault, 53 So. 3d at 200
    .
    Champion's autopsy photographs assisted the medical examiner in explaining to
    the jury the nature and manner in which the wounds were inflicted on his body. They also
    reinforced the testimony from other witnesses indicating that Champion had been
    repeatedly struck during the crossing. Importantly, the photographs were relevant to an
    issue that was in dispute: whether Champion was the victim of "any brutality of a physical
    nature, such as whipping, beating, branding . . . ." § 1006.63(1). Also, as for the claim that
    the photographs were not admissible because they were too gruesome, the trial court
    ruled that the photographs were not unnecessarily gory and independent review of the
    record supports this conclusion.
    Next, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to
    issue his proposed jury instruction on uncharged conspiracy. This argument also lacks
    merit.
    13
    "The giving or withholding by a trial court of a requested jury instruction is reviewed
    under an abuse of discretion standard of review." Worley v. State, 
    848 So. 2d 491
    , 491
    (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). "The trial court's refusal to give the requested instructions must be
    judged by [the appellate court] in light of all of the instructions actually given. If the
    instructions given contain a sufficient statement of the law concerning the points in
    controversy, then there is no reversible error in failing to give the requested instructions."
    Tolivert v. Estate of Scherer, 
    715 So. 2d 358
    , 359–60 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
    At the charge conference, both the State and the defendant submitted proposed
    instructions to the trial court on the issue of uncharged conspiracy. After receiving
    argument on the proposed instructions, the trial court ruled that it would not use either
    instruction. Rather, the court drafted its own instruction on the issue.
    In Boyd v. State, 
    389 So. 2d 642
    (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the Second District discussed
    the proper instruction to be issued on an uncharged count of conspiracy. The court
    explained:
    At a minimum, the instructions should contain a definition of
    conspiracy, an explanation of the legal consequences of
    proving a conspiracy in the case, and the admonition that it is
    for the jury to determine whether a conspiracy has been
    established beyond a reasonable doubt. Where, as in this
    case, the crime of conspiracy is not charged, the state is not
    required to prove all the elements of the crime of conspiracy
    and it is error to tell the jury it must find that all those elements
    have been established.
    
    Id. at 647
    (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). Here, the trial court’s instruction defined
    conspiracy, explained the consequences of a conspiracy, and indicated that the jury must
    find that a conspiracy existed beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the court's instruction
    comported with Boyd, no error occurred.
    14
    The defendant next argues that the trial court erred in rejecting his proposed jury
    instruction on hazing. This argument was not preserved for appellate review because the
    record does not demonstrate that the defendant requested said instruction below. See
    Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.390(d); see also Hood v. State, 
    287 So. 2d 110
    , 110 (Fla. 4th DCA
    1973) (explaining that a request for a jury instruction or an objection to the failure to give
    an instruction is necessary to raise error on appeal).
    Lastly, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
    mistrial. This argument also lacks merit.
    During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, "[T]he problem is that the crossing
    has to stop." Defense counsel objected and sought a mistrial, claiming the comment
    constituted an inappropriate send-a-message argument. See Fletcher v. State, 
    168 So. 3d
    186, 209 (Fla. 2015) (explaining that prosecutors may not ask the jury to send a
    message through its verdict). The trial court ultimately denied the mistrial motion, but
    promptly issued a curative instruction.
    "The standard of review is . . . abuse of discretion where [the defendant] moved
    for a mistrial and [the] motion was denied." Panchoo v. State, 
    185 So. 3d 562
    , 564 (Fla.
    5th DCA 2016) (citations omitted). "In determining whether improper remarks warrant a
    new trial, the remarks must be examined in 'the context of the closing argument as a
    whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.'" Jennings v.
    State, 
    124 So. 3d 257
    , 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting McArthur v. State, 
    801 So. 2d 1037
    , 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). Moreover, "[g]enerally speaking, the use of a curative
    instruction to dispel the prejudicial effect of an objectionable comment is sufficient." 
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    15
    Here, while we agree that the prosecutor's comment was improper, the trial court
    issued a proper curative instruction. As such, the trial court did not err in denying the
    mistrial motion. See Espute v. State, 
    85 So. 3d 532
    , 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding
    that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial
    where the court sustained defense counsel’s objection and gave a curative instruction).
    AFFIRMED.
    SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.
    16