Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

injunctiontrialmotionharassmentdomestic violence
jurisdictionappealtrial

Related Cases

People v. Corral, 2019 IL App (1st) 171501, 126 N.E.3d 632, 430 Ill.Dec. 544
View Case »
Doucette v. State, 463 A.2d 741
View Case »
Com. v. Helfant, 398 Mass. 214, 496 N.E.2d 433
View Case »
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101
View Case »
State v. Haack, 88 Wash.App. 423, 958 P.2d 1001
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S579

Facts

Seburt Nelson Connor was involved in a tumultuous relationship with Margaret Bennett, who had previously married Lawrence Goodine. After a series of harassments and a domestic violence injunction against him, Connor murdered Lawrence and his daughter Jessica. The police discovered Lawrence's body and later found Jessica's body in Connor's home. Connor was arrested after he voluntarily went to the police station, where evidence linking him to the murders was obtained through consented searches.

Connor was arrested in Miami on Saturday, November 21, 1992, for the double murder of Lawrence Goodine and Jessica Goodine. The record establishes the following facts surrounding the crimes. In the 1970s, Connor began an extra-marital affair with Margaret Bennett. When Bennett found out that Connor was married, she ended the relationship. In 1979, Margaret married Lawrence Goodine and the couple had two children, Karen and Jessica. Margaret later separated from Lawrence and in 1988 she renewed her relationship with Connor. Connor became a father figure to Margaret's two children. However, in early 1992, Margaret told Connor that she did not want to see him anymore.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the trial court erred in denying Connor's motion to suppress evidence, whether the avoid arrest aggravator was properly applied, and whether the death penalty was proportionate.

We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty upon Seburt Nelson Connor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the convictions and sentences, including the sentence of death.

Rule

The court established that appellate review of trial court rulings on motions to suppress would follow a two-tiered system of deference to factual findings and independent review of mixed questions of law and fact determining constitutional issues.

In order for a court to conclude that a suspect was in custody, it must be evident that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect's position would feel a restraint of his or her freedom of movement, fairly characterized, so that the suspect would not feel free to leave or to terminate the encounter with police.

Analysis

The court applied the two-tiered approach to review the trial court's findings, concluding that Connor was not in custody when he left with police to go to the station. The court found that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress, and that any potential taint from an illegal arrest was dissipated by the subsequent voluntary consents to search.

The court concluded that there is clear and convincing proof in this case of an unequivocal break in the alleged chain of illegality sufficient to dissipate any taint of prior official illegal action. If the police illegally arrested Connor, they did not use this to their advantage when obtaining the subsequent consents to search the car, the clothes, or the house.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's convictions and sentences, including the death penalty for the murder of Jessica Goodine, concluding that the evidence supported the findings and that the death penalty was proportionate.

After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support Connor's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and burglary.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the evidence supported the convictions and that the legal standards were properly applied.

The State responds by claiming that the detectives had probable cause to arrest Connor when they initially approached the house on November 21. We disagree. Detective Tymes, the detective who approached Connor on the night in question, stated in the record that she did not have probable cause to arrest Connor when she approached the Connor house, and therefore she was not going to arrest Connor but rather was going to attempt to get him to voluntarily come to the station to answer some questions.

You must be