Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed Rory Enrique Conde’s conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence arising from the strangulation death of Rhonda Dunn. The court addressed, among other issues, challenges for cause to prospective jurors, the denial of a judgment of acquittal, and the admission of Williams rule evidence concerning five prior murders. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court improperly denied cause challenges to prospective jurors and improperly granted the State's cause challenge to another prospective juror.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support premeditation and the denial of Conde's motion for judgment of acquittal.
- Whether evidence of five prior murders and other collateral-crime evidence was admissible under Florida's Williams rule and as inextricably intertwined evidence.
- Whether prosecutorial comments during opening and closing argument deprived Conde of a fair trial.
- Whether Conde's confession should have been suppressed because of interrogation conditions, police deception, delay in initial appearance, or an alleged Vienna Convention violation.
- Whether competent substantial evidence supported the CCP and HAC aggravating circumstances and the rejection of statutory and nonstatutory mitigation.
- Whether the trial court properly admitted details of Conde's prior violent felony and excluded late-disclosed mitigation testimony.
- Whether the death sentence was disproportionate or violated Ring v. Arizona.
Holdings
- A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a capital-defense cause challenge when the prospective juror's responses, considered as a whole, show the ability to follow the court's instructions and weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances rather than an unyielding commitment to the death penalty. Although the court should have further questioned prospective juror Rolle, Conde failed to establish prejudice because the trial court provided additional peremptory challenges.
- The denial of Conde's motion for judgment of acquittal was proper because his confession was direct evidence and, together with the surrounding evidence, constituted competent substantial evidence of premeditation.
- The trial court properly admitted evidence of Conde's five substantially similar prior murders because the evidence was relevant to material issues including identity, intent, and premeditation, and it did not become an impermissible feature of the trial.
- The trial court properly admitted a limited account of the G.M. incident because it explained the investigation leading to Conde's arrest, searches, confession, and discovery of evidence connecting him to the charged murder. The evidence of the detective's warnings to Dunn was marginally relevant but harmless, and the evidence of Conde's attempted concealment at arrest lacked a sufficient nexus to Dunn's murder but was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial court properly denied suppression of Conde's confession. The totality of the circumstances showed a voluntary confession despite lengthy questioning and limited police deception; delay in initial appearance did not warrant suppression absent proof that the delay induced the confession; and an alleged Vienna Convention violation would not support suppression of an otherwise voluntary statement.
- Competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without moral or legal justification and was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
- The trial court properly rejected the statutory mitigators based on competent substantial evidence and properly resolved conflicting evidence concerning nonstatutory mitigation. It also properly admitted details of the prior violent felony and, even if it erred in excluding late-disclosed chaplain testimony, the exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The death sentence was proportionate, and Conde was not entitled to relief under Ring v. Arizona because the court followed its then-existing precedent rejecting the constitutional challenge, with a prior violent felony aggravator also present.
Key quotations
“"Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of ... intent, ... plan, ... identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity."” (944)
“We find no error in the trial court's rejection of Conde's argument that the length of time and conditions of his interrogation rendered his confession involuntary.” (952)
“Given Conde's prior violent felony conviction, this Court's affirmance of the trial court's findings of HAC and CCP, and the trial court's assignment of only moderate to little weight to most mitigating circumstances found, together with the totality of the circumstances in this case excluding consideration of the collateral crimes, we conclude a sentence of death is proportionate relative to other capital cases.” (959)
Factual background
Conde manually strangled Rhonda Dunn after taking her to his apartment, causing her death by asphyxiation, and disposed of her body along a roadside. The murder followed five similar killings of prostitutes over approximately six months, and Conde later confessed to all six murders. Evidence linking Conde to Dunn's murder included DNA, fiber, tire, shoe, medical, and confession evidence. The trial court found three aggravating circumstances, including heinous, atrocious, or cruel conduct, cold, calculated, and premeditated conduct, and a prior violent felony, and imposed death after weighing statutory and nonstatutory mitigation.
Procedural history
Conde was charged by a six-count indictment with the first-degree murders of six victims. The counts were severed, and he was tried for the murder of Rhonda Dunn in October 1999. The jury convicted him of first-degree murder and recommended death by a vote of nine to three. After a Spencer hearing, the trial court imposed a death sentence. Conde raised thirteen claims in his direct appeal, and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed both the conviction and sentence.