[align=left]
- 15 -

10) Tom McDermid was one of two participants.


Id. at 531. Similarly, in Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609, 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the admission of evidence of two collateral robberies because while none of the similarities between the crimes were sufficiently unique on their own, when considered "in conjunction" they did rise to the level of uniqueness required for admission. The First District found dispositive that in each crime large retail stores were robbed at the end of weekend business; store employees were confined, given similar instructions, and telephones were dismantled; the robber in each instance appeared to have some prior knowledge of the business premises and, the robber in each instance wore a ski mask, gloves, carried a large automatic pistol, and had the same physical characteristics.


Id. at 618.


Rogers and Black refute Peterson's claim that the cumulative pattern of crimes in his case was insufficient to establish relevance. The four crimes in Peterson all involved characteristics similar to and as numerous as those found in Rogers and Black: (1) all robberies took place in discount stores; (2) all robberies took place just after closing (or when the perpetrator believed store was about to close); (3) the perpetrator hid in a nonpublic area of the store and waited for an employee to come to him; (4) the perpetrator was a black male of slight to medium build; (5) the perpetrator wore a nylon stocking mask covering his whole face; (6) the perpetrator carried a small firearm which he held to employees' heads; (7) the







- 16 -

perpetrator used an employee to obtain cash from the store's office; (8) the perpetrator used materials from the store to secure the stolen money; (9) the perpetrator directed employees to lie on the floor; (10) the perpetrator directed employees to not look at him; (11) the perpetrator referred to store employees as "bitches"; and (12) the perpetrator exited through the store's back exit. When the circumstances of the crimes are considered cumulatively, "identifiable points of similarity . . . pervade the compared factual situations" and point to the defendant.


Drake, 400 So. 2d at 1219.


In addition, the Court in Rogers did not find the dissimilarity of a murder occurring in one attempted robbery where violence had been avoided in the other robberies to render the collateral crime evidence irrelevant. Thus, Peterson's argument that the ***ual batteries during the Family Dollar robbery and the homicide during the Big Lots robbery render the collateral crime evidence irrelevant is unpersuasive. The ***ual batteries and homicide are material differences between the crimes that must be considered in evaluating the admissibility of the collateral crime evidence. However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the substantial similarities among the crimes greatly outweighed the dissimilarities.



We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the collateral crime evidence to become a feature of the trial. In Conde v. State,







- 17 -

860 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 2003), this Court explained that relevant evidence of collateral crimes impermissibly becomes a feature of the trial when the evidence "`transcend[s] the bounds of relevancy to the charge being tried' and the prosecution `devolves from development of facts pertinent to the main issue of guilt or innocence into an assault on the character of the defendant.'" Id. at 945 (quoting Williams v. State, 117 So. 2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1960)). The Court found that it is "not solely the quantity but also the quality and nature of collateral crimes evidence in relation to the issues to be proven" that determines whether it became a feature of the trial. Id. at 946. The quality at issue is the relevancy of the evidence, not whether it is physical evidence or testimony. The Court noted that it had previously affirmed the admission of extensive collateral crime evidence where that evidence was wholly probative of material issues, see, e.g., Wuornos v. State, 644 So. 2d 1000, 1006-07 (Fla. 1994) (affirming admission of evidence of six collateral murders), and that where the Court had reversed the admission of extensive collateral crime evidence, it did so because the evidence lacked relevance. See, e.g., Steverson v. State, 695 So. 2d 687, 690-91 (Fla. 1997) (holding admission of evidence of resisting arrest was reversible error because "blow-by-blow" account of law enforcement officer's injuries and recovery was irrelevant to charged offense); Billie v. State, 863 So. 2d 323, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA







- 18 -

2003) (finding evidence of irrelevant prior "bad acts" impermissibly became feature of trial).


More specifically in Conde, the Court found no error where the trial court allowed evidence concerning five collateral murders presented over the course of three days in the prosecution of a sixth murder. The Court explained that "the length of this testimony was unavoidable given the fact that five collateral crimes were involved." 860 So. 2d at 946-47. The Court further explained:


Additionally, the record reflects that the State limited its evidence regarding the five prior murders: a single medical examiner was called to summarize from the records of numerous other examiners the cause-of-death evidence for all five murders; only one serologist, one DNA criminologist, and one trace-evidence specialist gave summary testimony regarding the DNA and fiber evidence linking the collateral crimes; and the State rapidly introduced collateral crime-scene testimony from eight detectives, including cross-examination, over the course of only six hours. As for photographs, the State introduced approximately five for each collateral murder, each of which had a specific purpose of establishing the similarity between the crimes. Given the trial court's vigilance in its duty to ensure that the collateral crimes evidence did not become a feature of the trial, we find that no abuse of discretion occurred in the admission of this evidence. In so concluding, we place special emphasis on the fact that the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury as to the proper purpose of this Williams rule evidence each time it was introduced.


Id. at 947 (footnote omitted). Similarly, in Wuornos, 644 So. 2d at 1006 (quoting United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978)), the Court found that evidence about six collateral murders was not needless "overkill" where the evidence was relevant to refuting Wuornos's claim of self-defense.







- 19 -

In this case, the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of the three collateral robberies to be presented because, as discussed above, all of the collateral robberies were sufficiently similar to the charged crime to be probative of identity, which rendered the evidence relevant and admissible. Moreover, as in Conde, the State limited its presentation of collateral crime evidence. Many of the collateral crime witnesses testified briefly, and much of the testimony was unavoidable due to the number of robberies involved. The State limited the emotional impact of its presentation by having only four victims testify and cooperated with the trial court and the defense to ensure that unduly prejudicial evidence was not admitted. Importantly, none of the evidence in Peterson was offered merely to demonstrate Peterson's criminal propensity--all of the evidence was directed at proving he committed the collateral crimes and that the crimes were similar to the charged offense. The collateral crime evidence in this case was not like the testimony about child abuse that was found to be more unfairly prejudicial than probative in ***ton v. State, 697 So. 2d 833, 837 (Fla. 1997), where the testimony "had no bearing upon ***ton's treatment of" the child he forced to commit the murder and "***ton was not on trial for the maltreatment of his children."


Also as in Conde, the trial court was "vigilan[t] in its duty to ensure that the collateral crimes evidence did not become a feature of the trial." 860 So. 2d at







- 20 -






947. The trial court scrupulously instructed the jury on the proper use of Williams rule evidence before each collateral crime witness and as an additional precaution gave a "hybrid" Williams rule instruction before each witness that would be testifying about both the charged offense and the collateral crimes.


In conclusion, we agree with the finding of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Townsend v. State, 420 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), that collateral crime evidence does not become the impermissible feature of the trial simply because it is voluminous. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the collateral crime evidence because it was probative of material issues and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.





B. Lethal Injection


Peterson argues that Florida's lethal injection process is unconstitutional because it employs a three-drug protocol that may cause undue pain and because it does not require trained medical personnel to participate in the execution. These arguments have been rejected previously by this Court. See Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326, 350 n.22 (Fla. 2007) (rejecting arguments about whether execution team members are "adequately experienced" and "medically qualified" and whether pancuronium bromide should be part of protocol because it is used for "purely cosmetic reasons"); see also Schwab v. State, 969 So. 2d 318, 324-25 (Fla. 2007) (affirming summary denial of claim challenging three-drug







- 21 -

protocol because Schwab did not allege existence of any new evidence about the chemicals not considered in Lightbourne or Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657, 668 (Fla. 2000)). Peterson does not point to any new evidence supporting these arguments. Furthermore, this Court has held that the Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008), does not require reconsideration of Lightbourne and Schwab. See Henyard v. State, 992 So. 2d 120, 129 (Fla.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 28 (2008). Thus, Peterson's claim is without merit. See Tompkins v. State, 33 Fla. L. Weekly S897 (Fla. Nov. 7, 2008) (listing cases where Court has rejected lethal injection claims that do not raise new issues).





C. Proportionality


To ensure uniformity of sentencing in death penalty proceedings, this Court considers the totality of circumstances and compares each case with other capital cases. The Court does not simply compare the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Taylor v. State, 937 So. 2d 590, 601 (Fla. 2006).


Peterson argues that this Court's decision to reverse the death sentence in Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996), demonstrates that his death sentence is likewise disproportionate. This argument is without merit.


In Terry, the defendant was convicted of shooting a customer during a convenience store robbery. Despite the trial court finding no mitigation, the Court







- 22 -

found the death sentence disproportionate because there was comparatively weak aggravation:


The first aggravator (a capital felony committed during the course of an armed robbery/pecuniary gain) is based on the armed robbery being committed by appellant when the killing occurred. The second aggravator, prior violent felony, does not represent an actual violent felony previously committed by Terry, but, rather, a contemporaneous conviction as principal to the aggravated assault simultaneously committed by the codefendant Floyd who pointed an inoperable gun at Mr. Franco. While this contemporaneous conviction qualifies as a prior violent felony and a separate aggravator, we cannot ignore the fact that it occurred at the same time, was committed by a codefendant, and involved the threat of violence with an inoperable gun. This contrasts with the facts of many other cases where the defendant himself actually committed a prior violent felony such as homicide.


Id. at 965-66. The aggravating circumstances in the instant case are weightier than those found in Terry. The robbery aggravator was based on similar facts, but unlike Terry, Peterson has been convicted of thirteen other violent felonies and was on life parole at the time of the murder. Peterson is a case "where the defendant himself actually committed a prior violent felony." Terry, 668 So. 2d at 966.


Moreover, the facts of this case are comparable to other murders during robberies where this Court has found the death sentence to be proportionate. For example, in Blake v. State, 972 So. 2d 839, 842 (Fla. 2007), this Court found the death sentence to be proportionate where the defendant confessed to law enforcement officers that he shot the owner and operator of a convenience store after entering the store to rob it. The trial court found three aggravating factors:







- 23 -

previous conviction of another capital felony; that the defendant was under sentence of imprisonment; and that the defendant was engaged in an attempt to commit the crime of armed robbery. The Court distinguished Blake from Terry because the prior violent felony aggravating factor was based on a murder during a separate robbery, not a contemporaneous conviction. Blake, 972 So. 2d at 848-49.


Similarly, in Mendoza v. State, 700 So. 2d 670, 679 (Fla. 1997), this Court held that the death penalty was proportionate for a murder during a robbery where the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance was based on an entirely separate armed robbery conviction, not a contemporaneous conviction. Notably, the only aggravating circumstances in Mendoza were previous conviction of a violent felony and that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery, merged with the fact that it was committed for pecuniary gain. Unlike Peterson, Mendoza was not found to be under sentence of imprisonment at the time of the murder.


Peterson argues that he should receive a life sentence due to the mitigation found in his case, but, again, we find Blake analogous. In that case, the trial court found one statutory mitigating factor--age at the time of the offense--and seven nonstatutory mitigating factors: appropriate courtroom behavior; loving, nonviolent relationship with his family; remorse; cooperation with law enforcement officers; coparticipant sentenced to life imprisonment; only one prior







- 24 -

violent felony conviction; and good adjustment to confinement. This Court affirmed the imposition of the death sentence in Blake. Peterson's limited mental impairment, consisting of a low to normal IQ and some difficulty in school, is the only type of mitigation present in Peterson that was not present in Blake. This mitigation is not sufficiently weighty to compel a life sentence in Peterson.


Overall, given the factual similarities to Blake and Mendoza, we find the death sentence is proportionate in this case.





D. Evidence and Argument about Lack of Remorse


Peterson argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence indicating that Peterson lacked remorse and by allowing the State to argue lack of remorse during closing arguments. "The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion."


Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 188 (Fla. 2005). Likewise, appellate courts apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when considering whether a trial court erred in overruling objections to comments made during closing arguments. McArthur v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Moore v. State, 701 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1997)).

This Court's precedent prohibits presenting evidence about lack of remorse in support of an aggravating factor. "[T]his Court held that `lack of remorse is not
[/align]