Duckett v. State

Citations: 568 So. 2d 891; 1990 WL 130212Docket: 72711

Court: Supreme Court of Florida; September 6, 1990; Florida; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

James Aren Duckett appealed his convictions for sexual battery and first-degree murder, resulting in a death sentence. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the convictions, emphasizing the reliance on circumstantial evidence. Duckett, a police officer on duty alone from 7:00 p.m. on May 11, 1987, interacted with eleven-year-old Teresa McAbee at a convenience store shortly after she left to buy a pencil. After Duckett inquired about Teresa's age, he approached her and a sixteen-year-old boy, instructing Teresa to return home. Witnesses, including the boy and his uncle, stated that Duckett placed Teresa in his patrol car and engaged with the uncle before taking Teresa away. 

Teresa's mother, upon realizing her daughter was missing, searched for her for over an hour and then reported her missing at the Groveland police station. Duckett later met with Teresa’s mother at the Mascotte station, claiming he had seen Teresa and directed her home. Duckett subsequently handled the missing person report but did not seek assistance from other officers, and his patrol activity was noted to be sparse, with no radio calls logged between 10:50 p.m. and 12:10 a.m. Duckett's failure to follow standard procedures and the lack of corroborative evidence contributed to the case against him.

At 1:15 a.m., Duckett visited his uncle's home to inquire about Teresa, returning around 3:00 a.m. Later that morning, a man discovered what he believed to be a body in a nearby lake, which was confirmed to be Teresa's. The lake is located less than one mile from the convenience store where she was last seen. A medical examiner testified that Teresa had been sexually assaulted while alive, strangled, and subsequently drowned. Prior to this incident, Teresa had not engaged in sexual activity. Blood was found on her underpants, while semen was located on her jeans. 

A sheriff's department technician examined unusual tire tracks at the crime scene, noting similarities to those of Duckett’s patrol car, which had tires not typically sold in the area. Although the vehicle left impressions in a mudhole, there was no evidence Duckett cleaned his car, nor was debris found in or on it. Evidence indicated Duckett appeared neat that night. Both Duckett’s and Teresa’s fingerprints were found on his patrol car’s hood, suggesting she had been sitting on it. A pubic hair found in Teresa's underpants was examined by FBI expert Michael Malone, who concluded it was highly probable that the hair belonged to Duckett, while it did not match others who had been with her that evening.

On June 15, 1987, before his arrest, Duckett denied taking his vehicle to the lake and claimed Teresa was not on his patrol car's hood. The state presented testimony from three young women who alleged past sexual encounters with Duckett, which the trial judge limited to showing motive, opportunity, plan, and identification. The first woman testified that Duckett attempted to kiss her while searching for her boyfriend in his patrol car. The second woman described a similar encounter where Duckett made an unwanted advance after driving her to a remote area. The third woman recounted voluntarily engaging in oral sex with Duckett on two occasions while he was on patrol.

Duckett testified at trial regarding his actions on the night of the murder, including observing a girl interacting with three men at a laundromat and subsequently questioning them about their ages. He placed the girl in his car while speaking with her uncle and later released her, not seeing her again afterward. After returning to the station, he met the girl's mother and took steps to create a missing person poster. Duckett denied involvement with three women linked to the case. He was found guilty of sexual battery and first-degree murder; the jury recommended a death sentence by an eight-to-four vote. The trial judge identified two aggravating factors: the murder occurring during a sexual battery and being especially heinous. One mitigating factor acknowledged was Duckett's lack of significant prior criminal history, alongside additional nonstatutory mitigating evidence related to his family background. The judge sentenced him to death, determining that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating ones, and also imposed a life sentence for the sexual battery. On appeal, Duckett raised issues including the denial of his acquittal motion based on circumstantial evidence, the admission of witness testimony, the qualification of an expert in hair analysis, and the imposition of the death penalty. He argued that the evidence could support both guilt and innocence, highlighting the requirement for circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

The state bears the burden to demonstrate that the evidence contradicts any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. It claims to have met this burden, supported by several key facts: the victim was last seen in Duckett's patrol car; tire tracks at the murder scene matched Duckett's vehicle; Duckett was unaccounted for during a critical timeframe; the victim's prints were found on Duckett's car despite his denial; pubic hair consistent with Duckett's was found on the victim; and Duckett had a history of inappropriate conduct with young women while on duty. Duckett counters these points by arguing the absence of mud or blood in his vehicle and that witnesses found him orderly after midnight. However, the court concludes that these defenses do not sufficiently establish a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. 

Duckett also challenges the trial court's admission of testimony from three young women under the Williams rule, which permits similar fact evidence to prove or disprove a critical fact. The court notes that the evidence showed Duckett's pattern of targeting young, petite women at night while in uniform, which aligns with the victim's profile. Although Duckett disputes the relevance of these incidents, the court finds sufficient similarities to deem the first two incidents admissible as they support Duckett's identity and modus operandi. The third incident was deemed inadmissible due to lack of similarity, being consensual. Nevertheless, the court concludes that the error in admitting this evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against Duckett.

Duckett challenges the trial court's decision to qualify Malone as an expert in hair comparisons, arguing it was erroneous. However, the court finds no error, noting that defense counsel expressed an objection without elaborating. Duckett's attorney extensively questioned Malone's credibility during cross-examination and while examining a Florida Department of Law Enforcement expert, leaving the resolution of credibility to the jury. Additionally, Duckett argues that the trial court improperly considered his status as a police officer on duty at the time of the offense in imposing the death penalty. The court determines that this status is closely linked to the case's facts and finds no misuse of it as a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance. The trial judge correctly identified two statutory aggravating factors and concluded that they outweighed the mitigating evidence. Consequently, the court affirms both the convictions and sentences. Judges Shaw, Overton, McDonald, Ehrlich, Barkett, Grimes, and Kogan concur.