Therefore, "[t]he decision to deny a challenge for cause will be upheld on appeal if there is competent record support for the decision." Barnhill v. State , 834 So. 2d 836, 844 (Fla. 2002). For a prospective juror to be excused "for cause," that juror must possess "a state of mind regarding the case ‘that will prevent the juror from acting with impartiality.’ "
The facts and evidence are sufficient to demonstrate first-degree murder and Barnhills participation as a principal.Bamhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 840-41 (Fla. 2002). The facts and evidence are sufficient to demonstrate first-degree murder and Barnhills participation as a principal.
The facts and evidence are sufficient to demonstrate first-degree murder and Barnhill's participation as a principal. Barnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836, 840-41 (Fla. 2002). The case proceeded to the penalty phase where both aggravating and mitigating evidence was presented.
Thus, if a victim is killed in a torturous manner, a defendant need not have the intent or desire to inflict torture, because the very torturous manner of the victim's death is evidence of a defendant's indifference.Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 849–50 (Fla.2002) (citation omitted). “[F]ear, emotional strain, and terror of the victim during the events leading up to the murder may make an otherwise quick death especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.”
Thus, if a victim is killed in a torturous manner, a defendant need not have the intent or desire to inflict torture, because the very torturous manner of the victim's death is evidence of a defendant's indifference.Barnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836, 849-50 (Fla. 2002) (citation omitted). "[F]ear, emotional strain, and terror of the victim during the events leading up to the murder may make an otherwise quick death especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel."
The HAC aggravator applies in physically and mentally torturous murders which can be illustrated by the desire to inflict a high degree of pain or utter indifference to or enjoyment of the suffering of another. See Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 850 (Fla.2002) (citing Williams v. State, 574 So.2d 136 (Fla.1991)). HAC concentrates “on the means and manner in which the death is inflicted and the immediate circumstances surrounding the death, rather than the intent and motivation of a defendant, where a victim experiences the torturous anxiety and fear of impending death.”
The trial court's finding of CCP is consistent with other cases in which this Court has upheld the application of this aggravator. See, e.g., Guardado, 965 So.2d at 117 (CCP established where defendant planned to kill the victim and rob her to acquire drug money; defendant confessed that he chose the victim because of the secluded location of her house and the fact that she would open up her home to him due to their prior relationship); Buzia, 926 So.2d at 1214-15 (CCP established where defendant had multiple opportunities to leave the victims' residence without causing further harm, but instead chose to commit the murder, and where the defendant left the immediate vicinity of one victim during the attack to procure the weapon that was used to commit the murder); Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 851 (Fla. 2002) (CCP established where the defendant waited in the victim's house for an extended period of time, observing the victim and planning his course of action; defendant also "had the time and opportunity to reflect upon his action before the first strangulation was attempted, before the towel ligature was employed, and again before the belt was used"); Rose v. State, 472 So.2d 1155, 1159 (Fla. 1985) (CCP established where defendant searched in an adjacent lot to find a concrete block to use as a murder weapon, walked back to where the victim was located, lifted the block over his head, asked the victim to stand up, and then hurled the concrete block onto the head of the victim multiple times). Accordingly, we conclude that this aggravating circumstance was supported by competent, substantial evidence and affirm the finding of the trial court.
A trial court has great discretion when deciding whether to grant or deny a challenge for cause based on juror competency. Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 844 (Fla. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 2281 (2003). This is because trial courts have a unique vantage point in their observation of jurors' voir dire responses.
On the merits, we review the postconviction court's denial of Reed's motion to disqualify de novo. SeeBarnhill v. State , 834 So.2d 836, 842-43 (Fla. 2002). This Court has stated that "[t]he question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge's impartiality rather than the judge's perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially."
HAC concentrates “on the means and manner in which the death is inflicted and the immediate circumstances surrounding the death, rather than the intent and motivation of a defendant, where a victim experiences the torturous anxiety and fear of impending death.” Barnhill v. State,834 So.2d 836, 850 (Fla.2002)(citing Brown v. State,721 So.2d 274, 277 (Fla.1998)); Evans v. State,800 So.2d 182, 194 (Fla.2001).