Florida’s new death penalty law hindered prosecutors in trial of Andres ‘Andy’Avalos Jr.

Changes to Florida law regarding the imposition of the death penalty proved to be an obstacle for prosecutors in the trial of Andres “Andy” Avalos Jr., convicted in one of the area’s more gruesome crimes in recent years.

On Monday, a jury decided Avalos, 36, would not be sentenced to death for the Dec. 4, 2014, murders of his neighbor Denise Potter, 46, and the Rev. James “Tripp” Battle, 31. He was given two automatic sentences of life without parole.

The same jury deliberated for a total of about 13 hours Friday and Saturday before finding Avalos guilty of two counts of first-degree murder in Potter’s and Battle’s slayings. For the slaying of his wife Amber Avalos, 33, the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, for which Circuit Judge Diana Moreland sentenced him to another life sentence Wednesday afternoon.

Florida’s death penalty had been in limbo since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hurst vs. Florida that it was unconstitutional that Florida judges, not juries, had the ultimate say on whether to sentence someone to death. The Florida Legislature worked quickly during the 2016 session to correct that issue, but on March 7, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled the Hurst case also required a unanimous vote by a jury to sentence someone to death.

This year, the Florida Legislature again worked to address the issue. On March 13, Gov. Rick Scott signed a new bill changing state statute so that a unanimous vote by a jury is required for the imposition of the death penalty.

That might have saved Avalos’ life.

After Monday’s sentencing verdict, State Attorney Ed Brodsky said he and Assistant State Attorney Art Brown were disappointed because they felt Avalos’ actions warranted the death penalty, but the burden of a unanimous jury verdict proved to be an obstacle.

“We overcame a vigorous defense of insanity, and the jury ultimately said regarding Pastor Battle that our aggravating circumstances did outweigh the mitigation, and it sounds like we won a majority of the vote on that count,” Brown said. “I felt we presented a good, strong case both for guilt and the death penalty.”

In Battle’s murder, the jury unanimously found the state had proven an aggravating factor because Avalos had been convicted in the two other murders, and unanimously decided the factors were sufficient to warrant death.

The jury did not find the defense established the mitigating circumstances that Avalos murdered Battle “under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance nor that he was incapable of understanding his actions were criminal.”

But the jury did find by a unanimous vote that other circumstances were established, including his mental illnesses, abnormal brain and effects of his drug use; his being a loving father, good worker, loving son and good friend; and that he cooperated with investigators.

The aggravating factors were unanimously found by the jury to outweigh the mitigating circumstances. But ultimately when the jury voted on whether to impose the death penalty, it was 7 to 5 in favor of death for Battle’s murder, short of the unanimous vote required.

In Potter’s murder, the jury also unanimously found the state had proven an aggravating factor because Avalos had been convicted in the two other murders and unanimously decided that the factors were sufficient to warrant death.

The jury found that the defense established the mitigating circumstances that Avalos murdered Battle “under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance,” by a vote of 9 to 3. They also found other mitigating circumstances were established by a vote of 11 to 1.

But ultimately the jury did not unanimously find the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances to impose death for Potter’s murder.

“I think there was some evidence that he had some mental health issues dealing with the jealousy and suspicions that his wife was having an affair, and that could have been some factors that weighed in their decision,” Brodsky said. “We don’t know.”

For each first-degree murder conviction, the jury of 12 — nine women and three men — had to go through as many as five steps before they could vote on whether to impose the death penalty:

▪  The jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether the state has proved at least one aggravating factor. Only if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating factor do they proceed to the next step.

▪  The jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt if the aggravating factor is sufficient to warrant death. Only if the jury unanimously agrees the factors are sufficient do they proceed to the next step.

▪  The jury must decide if the mitigating circumstances were established by the greater weight of the evidence. Regardless of their answer or vote, the jury must proceed to the next step.

▪  The jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Only if the jury unanimously finds that the aggravators do outweigh the mitigators do they proceed to the next step.

▪  The jury votes on whether to impose the death penalty — ultimately a personal decision jurors have to make at this point. The decision must be unanimous; if not, then an automatic life sentence will be imposed.

This story was originally published May 24, 2017 at 9:33 AM with the headline "Florida’s new death penalty law hindered prosecutors in trial of Andres ‘Andy’Avalos Jr.."