Tina Lasonya Brown v. State of Florida

Citations: 143 So. 3d 392; 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 321; 2014 WL 1923644; 2014 Fla. LEXIS 1628Docket: SC12-2159

Court: Supreme Court of Florida; May 15, 2014; Florida; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tina Lasonya Brown was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of Florida. The case stems from events in March 2010 involving Brown, her daughter Britnee Miller, and their acquaintances Heather Lee and Audreanna Zimmerman, who lived in a mobile home park in Escambia County. Initially friends, relationships soured, leading to a series of violent confrontations, including accusations of vandalism and child neglect.

Following an incident where Zimmerman used a stun gun on Miller, Brown plotted retaliation. On March 24, Brown invited Zimmerman to her home under false pretenses. After a brief preparation involving the use of a stun gun, Brown attacked Zimmerman upon her arrival, using the stun gun multiple times until Zimmerman lost control and fell. Brown, Miller, and Lee then physically assaulted Zimmerman, stuffing a sock in her mouth to silence her screams.

They subsequently transported Zimmerman to a wooded area, where they continued to beat her. Brown ultimately poured gasoline on Zimmerman and set her on fire while Miller encouraged the act. Following the murder, the women returned to their vehicle and left the scene. The trial court's conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming the court’s jurisdiction in the matter.

Miller requested her mother to turn around to retrieve her shoes and a taser after leaving an event, but Brown refused. Terrance Hendrick, residing one third of a mile from the attack location, heard a faint female voice asking for help and eventually saw Zimmerman, who was injured and disoriented, sitting on his porch. Hendrick noted her severe head injury, absence of clothing, and strong gasoline odor. An EMT arrived at 9:24 p.m. and found Zimmerman with extensive burns covering over ninety percent of her body, making it difficult to ascertain if she was wearing clothes. Despite her severe injuries, Zimmerman was conscious and identified Brown and Lee as her attackers, detailing that they had dragged her from her home, tased her, beaten her with a crowbar, and set her on fire. She provided her address and that of her attackers, expressing concern for her children. After being stabilized at a local hospital, Zimmerman was transferred to a specialized burn center, where she died sixteen days later.

Following the attack, Brown and Miller discarded their bloodstained clothing, while Lee disposed of her shoes. Miller admitted to her friend about injuring her hand during the attack and confirmed their actions against Zimmerman. After seeking medical attention for Miller, they discarded the bloodstained clothing in a dumpster and attempted to clean Brown’s car. Law enforcement apprehended Brown and Lee shortly after the incident, with Miller arrested the following day upon her return from the hospital. During this time, Brown admitted to a friend her involvement in the attack and later urged the friend to ensure Zimmerman was killed. Brown's friend reported this conversation to the police. Brown, Miller, and Lee were re-arrested on April 9, 2010, the day Zimmerman passed away.

Law enforcement found multiple pieces of evidence at the crime scene, including white shoes, a blood-stained stun gun, blood-stained paper, a hairweave, a crowbar, and a pool of blood. Blood on the passenger seat headrest of Brown’s vehicle matched Zimmerman’s DNA, while blood on the stun gun matched Brown’s. The medical examiner confirmed multiple thermal injuries as the cause of Zimmerman’s death, ruling it a homicide. On June 21, 2012, Brown was convicted of first-degree murder.

During the penalty phase, the defense called several family members, Dr. Elaine Bailey, a psychologist, and introduced family photos. The State presented Dr. John Bingham, a licensed mental health counselor, and a photograph of Zimmerman. Testimonies revealed that Brown’s parents married as teenagers and were characterized as hardworking yet negligent due to their partying lifestyle, often leaving Brown and her brother, Willie, Jr., in the care of others. Brown took on a caregiver role for her brother from a young age.

After witnessing her father beat her mother, Brown's parents divorced, and her mother was later charged with abandonment, leaving Brown and her brother with their father. Brown suffered sexual abuse at the hands of Willie, Sr., which was suspected by her uncle based on Brown’s discomfort around him. When Brown tried to confide in her paternal grandmother, she was rejected and kicked out. The abuse ceased when Willie, Sr. remarried, but the household became increasingly dysfunctional. Brown and Willie, Jr. often roamed the streets unsupervised while their father and stepmother engaged in substance abuse, highlighting a chaotic and unsafe living environment.

Willie, Jr. testified that Melinda's daily drinking led to verbal abuse. Despite an initially positive relationship, Melinda's introduction of drugs and coercion of Brown into sex work caused their relationship to deteriorate. Willie, Jr. recounted their father's physical abuse during drug use and noted that Brown eventually left home due to this environment. From ages fourteen to twenty, Brown lived in a household involved in gang-related drug operations, with her father serving as the enforcer. He was later arrested and imprisoned for a year.

Brown briefly lived with her mother but struggled to adapt, leading to her mother ordering her out. She subsequently moved in with her aunt and attended four different schools, eventually dropping out of high school for a year before graduating. Brown then entered a relationship with Greg Miller, the father of her three children, where both struggled with substance abuse, resulting in her first child being born cocaine positive. After ending her relationship with Miller during her third pregnancy, Brown sought treatment, allowing her mother to adopt her two sons.

Post-treatment, Brown remained drug-free for four years while raising her daughter Britnee and marrying another man, who was later convicted of drug offenses. She then met a third man, also a drug dealer, and despite remaining sober during their relationship, she faced domestic violence and financial struggles after his arrest. Brown accrued unpaid speeding tickets and was charged with writing worthless checks, leading her to become an exotic dancer, during which she relapsed for about nine years, experiencing homelessness and engaging in prostitution.

After graduating from a court-ordered treatment program at thirty-five, Brown secured a stable job as a manager at a catering company and was in a good relationship with her family involved. However, after discovering her boyfriend's infidelity, she suffered emotional distress, resulting in job loss, further financial issues, and a brief relapse. In the summer of 2009, she enrolled in online college courses, relocated to Pensacola, Florida, and began working at Waffle House.

By Thanksgiving, Brown faced financial difficulties, relapsed into drug use, and left her job. She engaged in sexual acts for drugs with Heather Lee’s husband and reported using "several hundred dollars" worth of cocaine on the day of the attack. Dr. Bailey, who evaluated Brown, conducted interviews with several family members and reviewed extensive records, concluding that Brown experienced significant trauma, addiction, and abusive relationships throughout her life. Despite this, Dr. Bailey assessed that Brown was logical and rational, finding no history of violence or severe mental disorders, only a diagnosis of crack cocaine dependence in remission. Brown acknowledged her involvement in the murder and expressed remorse.

Dr. Bingham, the State’s expert, agreed that Brown showed no signs of psychosis and had low-average intelligence. He noted that her anger did not impair her ability to think clearly or distinguish right from wrong, indicating her actions were premeditated and goal-oriented. He found no evidence of diminished capacity or extreme emotional disturbance during the offense and established no causal link between her past traumas and the murder.

On June 26, 2012, a jury unanimously recommended a death sentence. During the Spencer hearing, victim impact statements and records were presented, with Brown apologizing for her role in the murder of Audreanna Zimmerman. On September 28, 2012, the trial court sentenced Brown to death, finding three statutory aggravating circumstances: the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated; especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and committed during the commission of a kidnapping.

The trial court established one statutory mitigating circumstance regarding Brown's lack of significant prior criminal history but assigned it minimal weight. It identified twenty-seven nonstatutory mitigating factors, including Brown's background of parental neglect, childhood loss, and family violence, attributing varying weights to each. The court rejected four additional statutory mitigating circumstances related to Brown's emotional state and role in the crime. Ultimately, the court determined that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating ones, especially due to the particularly heinous nature of the murder of Audreanna Zimmerman, leading to a death sentence for Brown.

On appeal, the reviewing court's role is to verify that the trial court applied the correct legal standards for aggravating circumstances and that sufficient evidence supports its findings. For a "cold, calculated, and premeditated" (CCP) finding, the prosecution must prove a four-part test: the killing must stem from calm reflection, involve a prearranged plan, show heightened premeditation, and lack moral or legal justification. Brown argues against the CCP finding, acknowledging the murder's calculated and premeditated nature but asserting it was not "cold," citing her intense anger and desire for revenge against Zimmerman, despite no evidence of extreme emotional disturbance during the crime.

Brown argued that her intoxication from crack cocaine during the crime hindered her ability to reflect coldly and calmly, which is a required element for establishing the aggravating factor of "cold, calculated, and premeditated" (CCP) in her case. However, the trial court found sufficient evidence to support the application of this factor. 

Evidence demonstrated a tumultuous relationship among Brown, her daughter Britnee Miller, and the victim, Zimmerman, which included prior altercations. Days before the murder, Miller attempted to confront Zimmerman about a personal issue, and Brown expressed intent to retaliate after learning of this confrontation. On the murder day, Brown deceitfully lured Zimmerman to her home with the intention to kill her, having discussed her plans with Miller and another accomplice, Heather Lee. Brown had even requested guidance on using a stun gun prior to Zimmerman's arrival.

Upon Zimmerman's entry, Brown, along with Miller and Lee, assaulted and kidnapped her, transporting her to a secluded area where they continued the attack using a stun gun and a crowbar. Brown ultimately doused Zimmerman with gasoline and set her on fire, demonstrating premeditated intent. Following the crime, Brown and her accomplices cleaned up and disposed of evidence. 

While Brown exhibited signs of emotional distress during the incident, expert testimony indicated that she had the mental capacity for rational thought and preplanning throughout the events leading up to and including the murder. The court concluded that her actions reflected a deliberate and calculated decision to kill, dismissing her claims of emotional disturbance and drug influence as inconsistent with the evidence of her planning and execution of the crime. Brown's references to previous case law were deemed irrelevant to her defense.

The Court found that the murder committed by Brown did not meet the criteria for "cold, calculated, and premeditated" (CCP) murder due to the nature of the crime being driven by irrational passion stemming from a domestic dispute. Despite Brown's significant history of drug abuse, including cocaine use on the day of the murder, the evidence indicated that she possessed the mental capacity to plan and execute the crime deliberately. Brown had a longstanding battle with addiction, having grown up in an environment where drugs were prevalent. On the day of the murder, she reported using a substantial amount of crack cocaine; however, there was ambiguity regarding the quantity and timing, preventing a definitive link to cocaine-induced paranoia affecting her cognition.

Expert testimony noted that the effects of cocaine typically last less than half an hour and that Brown did not exhibit symptoms of impaired functioning on the night of the murder. The Court distinguished Brown's case from previous rulings, such as in Penn v. State and White v. State, where the defendants' excessive drug use was found to negate the necessary mental state for CCP. In contrast, the evidence showed that Brown was composed and aware of her actions, allowing for a conclusion that her drug use did not diminish her ability to plan or commit the murder. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the trial court's findings supporting the application of the CCP aggravating circumstance based on substantial evidence.

The court conducts a thorough review of death sentences to ensure they are proportionate, meaning that the crime is among the most aggravated and the least mitigated. This analysis focuses on the qualitative aspects of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, rather than a numerical comparison. In this case, the jury unanimously recommended death, which the trial court endorsed after evaluating the statutory aggravators—specifically, the crime's committed during a kidnapping and the presence of CCP (cold, calculated, and premeditated) and HAC (heinous, atrocious, or cruel), both given significant weight.

The trial court found one statutory mitigating circumstance (no significant prior criminal history) but assigned it minimal weight. Of twenty-seven nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, only two (nonviolent history and cocaine use on the murder day) received more than slight acknowledgment. Despite Brown's difficult life, the presented mitigation failed to clarify her involvement in this violent crime. The court concluded that given the strong aggravating factors and the minimal weight of the mitigation, a death sentence is proportionate. The court referenced prior cases to affirm its decision, rejecting Brown's reliance on a previous case, Bell v. State, claiming her sentence was disproportionate.

The Court vacated the death sentence of a defendant in Bell, emphasizing the significance of his age (seventeen) and the fact that his co-defendant received a life sentence despite being equally culpable. In contrast, the current case involving Brown differs significantly; Brown was forty at the time of the crime and not a minor facing an adult situation. Furthermore, her co-defendants, Miller and Lee, were ineligible for the death penalty—Miller due to being a minor and Lee due to a guilty plea for second-degree murder, which established her as less culpable than Brown. The Court noted that for co-defendants to be considered equally culpable, they must be convicted of the same crime, which was not the case here. Evidence indicated that Brown was the ringleader in a brutal plan to torture and murder Zimmerman out of anger for a prior altercation. Brown lured Zimmerman under false pretenses, subjected her to extreme violence, and ultimately set her on fire after a prolonged assault. The Court concluded that Brown's actions were deliberate and sadistic, affirming that her death sentence is proportionate given the heinous nature of the crime.

Brown does not contest her guilt, but the Court must independently review the sufficiency of the evidence due to the imposition of a death sentence. The assessment focuses on whether a rational trier of fact could find the crime's elements beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence viewed favorably to the State. The evidence shows that Brown lured Audreanna Zimmerman to her home, where she and accomplices beat, kidnapped, and ultimately set Zimmerman on fire. Zimmerman identified her attackers, including Brown, after escaping. Brown also confessed to her involvement in the murder to several witnesses and during a Spencer hearing. The Court concludes that sufficient evidence supports Brown's first-degree murder conviction.

Regarding the claim that Florida's death penalty statute violates Ring v. Arizona, the Court denies relief. It reiterates that Florida's capital sentencing scheme complies with the Constitution, citing previous cases that rejected similar arguments. It also notes that Ring does not apply when a jury unanimously recommends a death sentence, as was the case here. Therefore, the Court affirms Brown’s conviction and death sentence. The ruling is finalized, pending any rehearing motions.