FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020

[Megnut]

In Owens earlier Motion -- he recognized that he only had 8 days to get this Change of Defense (Battered Spouse Syndrome) Notice of Intent filed, and filed a skinny, one page Notice on Sept 6, 2024. Although the Notice included the name & address of the witness, the defense clearly failed to include a Statement of Particulars.

Incidentally, the Defense was first to request a Statement of Particulars from the State.
A motion for a statement of particulars is a common part of a criminal defense. It's a way to challenge the information, which is the document that formally charges the defendant. On Sept 8, the State responded to the defense's request in part:

1. A statement of particulars is never required in Florida except in exceptional cases. Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (1963); appeal dismissed 168 So. 2d 148; certiorari denied 380 U.S. 986.There is nothing in the Motion, or in an affidavit, that shows exceptional circumstances in this case requiring a statement of particulars. 2. Receiving a statement of particulars is not a legal right, but rather an act of judicial discretion. Miller v. State, 764 So. 2d 640 (1st DCA 2000).

Perhaps the defense will argue tit- for- tat on the statements of particulars-- give us ours, and we'll give you yours!

IMO, regardless of whether or not the Notice of Intent by the defense was legally deficient in form, how can SB claim she honestly feared for her life when she allowed the victim to suffocate inside the suit case while she slept peacefully in her bed for about 12 hours before finding him zipped inside -- telling investigators over and over it was not intentional.

We've all seen the video of JT pleading with SB that he could not breath. He was not threatening-- even as she taunted him! We know that SB even turned the suitcase over, yet she never unzipped it!

Nope, I don't think SB meets the three criteria necessary to claim BSS:



Rule 3.201 - BATTERED-SPOUSE SYNDROME DEFENSE

(b) Time for Filing Notice. The defendant shall give notice of intent to rely on the defense of battered-spouse syndrome no later than 30 days prior to trial. The notice shall contain a statement of particulars showing the nature of the defense the defendant expects to prove and the names and addresses of the witnesses by whom the defendant expects to show battered-spouse syndrome, insofar as possible.
Fl. R. Crim. P. 3.201

Rule 3.201

I agree. I don't think SB meets the three criteria necessary to claim BSS.

However, if he wasn't dead, JT might've met them.

JMO

 

[sasha17]

View attachment 531615View attachment 531614View attachment 531613

This doesn't seem to address the issue that the defense cannot argue BWS if the defendant is also arguing the death was an accident, which Sarah has clearly claimed numerous times. How are the defense attorneys going to spin that?

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836752325203070984

 

[arielilane]

Sarah Boone is back in court this afternoon at 1:30 pm to go over several motions.
Motion for Statement of Particulars.
Motion for Additional Discovery.Second Motion for Additional Discovery.
Motion to Appoint Forensic Psychologist.
Motion to Appoint Crime Scene.
Reconstructionist/Death Investigator.Motion for the return of the property.
Response to State's Motion to Strike the Defendant's Notice of Intent to Rely.
on the Defense of Battered Spouse Syndrome.
Amended Notice of Intent to Rely on the Defense of Battered Spouse Syndrome.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836752327124082936

 

[tlcya]

what are everyone's thoughts on today's hearing? will SB be allowed to use the battered spouse defense?

I think Jorge was not a good guy. But I also think SB was not a good gal. So is it battered spouse syndrome when both parties are drunken abusive people living in a drunken abusive relationship? We have heard from SB's ex husband that he was subject to her physically abusive behavior but restrained himself from becoming physical in return on those occasions.

I just feel like this BWS thing is being introduced for the first time way way late and way too many defense attorneys into this case to be taken seriously.

 

[arielilane]

Defense attorney must file a motion for SB to get hair and make-up done. No kidding. lol

 

[sasha17]

My observations/summary of today's (long!) hearing:

Sarah's attorney Owens has two female assistants with him today, seated on either side of Sarah at the defense table. One of his co-counselors, Henderson, is appearing via Zoom.

1. Owens argues that the state owes the defense a statement of the particulars, a document that describes the charges in more detail than a standard charging document. The judge says this isn't needed in this case. Motion denied.

2. Owens argues that the state needs to provide the defense with additional discovery, specifically the written policy for interrogation and the written policy and form for reading of Miranda rights, both from the county sheriff's office. Owens says he wants these policy documents to help him prove his opinion that the two hour interrogation with Sarah was coerced and the female detective didn't properly read Sarah the Miranda rights. Owens tried to get these policy documents from the sheriff's office through a public records request but they haven't replied to him yet due to back log, so he wants the state to get these documents for him faster. The state says the defense has had four years to get discovery done and it's not their problem that Owens just showed up last minute. Motion denied.

3. Owens wants approval of payment by the court for cost of the forensic psychologist (Harper) and a crime scene reconstruction expert (Berkland). Owens also has a third expert he wants paid but the judge doesn't have that paperwork yet and Owens didn't put a date on the papers he handed to the judge. The third expert is a clinical psychologist (Brannon). Judge doesn't seem impressed Owens' paperwork is in disarray. Motion for payment of the first two experts are approved. Motion for payment for the clinical psychologist is on hold for now.

4. Owens wants to get an investigator to independently examine Sarah's phone and extract digital data from it, for the defense. The state isn't against it.

5. Owens says the reason the initial notice he filed about relying on BWS was missing information was because he was just recently appointed and has a time crunch so he had to get something filed, even if it wasn't very detailed. He then provides rambling unnecessary commentary like his stay at a Hilton hotel near the court house, etc. The state says that a relationship that has a domestic violence history doesn't automatically mean that Sarah suffered from BWS. The judge brings up the self defense vs. accidental issue when arguing BWS. Owens says they're not claiming Jorge's death was an accident. They're going to argue it was self defense. The judge says other cases that used BWS involved a weapon (a knife in one case and a gun in another case) in a moment of imminent threat, which isn't the situation in Sarah's case. The state says all of Sarah's statements say it was an accident and there was no violence between the two of them that day and it was a great day with painting and puzzles. The judge says he will look into this further and provide his answer regarding the BWS defense in a written order, hopefully by the end of this week.

6. Owens wants more time on some upcoming procedural deadlines because he's having a hard time tracking down Sarah and Jorge's neighbors who lived at the apartment complex four years ago and finding other evidence like old medical records so he wants to be able to do those things up to the trial starting on October 7. The state says the defense has had four years to track down witnesses and evidence and it's not fair to the state for the defense to be producing new witnesses or evidence moments before the trial. The judge gives Owens until September 26 to file objections to discovery and provide the witness list.

7. We return to issue #3. A representative for the court administration appears via Zoom regarding the payment for the third expert (Brannon) and discusses the payment amounts. Motion approved for payment of this third expert.

8. Owens says he has more issues he wants to talk about! He has documents regarding payment of Billy Lane, the private investigator that was working with Sarah when she was pro se. Judge says he'll deal with that on September 26 since Owens didn't file those documents yet. Owens wants to talk about getting Sarah clothing for the trial. Judge says to talk to the public defender whose office was going to loan Sarah clothing when she was pro se and coordinate with corrections. Owens says Sarah wants her hair and makeup done for the trial. Judge says to file a motion regarding that.

Phew!

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Thanks for your summary @sasha17

Sounds like the state is holding firm on most issues.

I'm baffled as to how a crime scene reconstruction couldn't make the case far worse for SB but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[sasha17]

Thanks for your summary @sasha17

Sounds like the state is holding firm on most issues.

I'm baffled as to how a crime scene reconstruction couldn't make the case far worse for SB but we'll have to wait and see.

I thought that about the crime scene reconstruction issue, too. The autopsy showed that Jorge had trauma wounds that did not contribute to his death (which was by suffocation). When asked during the two hour interrogation about those wounds, Sarah said that he walked into a wall and fell off a bike. I wonder if the prosecution is going to say Sarah pushed the suitcase down the stairs with him in it or kicked the suitcase or flipped it multiple times or something to explain how those injuries occurred while he was in the suitcase. Perhaps a crime scene reconstruction expert for the defense would then dispute that and try to show how those types of things couldn't have happened.

 

[Seattle1]

I'm beginning to think the defense noticing the Court on their intent to claim BSS was simply an attempt to buy more time for the defense.

I don't think the Court will rule in favor of the defense-- especially given SB's own words repeated for the last four+ years that this was a good day between the couple spent doing crafts and playing games.

IMO, SB is a nasty drunk who left JT inside the suitcase, went upstairs and passed out. I'm more inclined to believe SB didn't even remember JT and the suitcase until she saw it the following day.

IMO, there's no evidence whatsoever that SB used the suitcase as a weapon to protect herself from JT because she was in fear for her life but that this suitcase was part of a game of "hide and seek" the couple were playing.

Pursuant to Florida Law, In most cases where evidence of battered spouse syndrome is admitted, it is solely for this limited purpose. Battered spouse syndrome is only a small part of the traditionally narrow self-defense doctrine. It is not, itself, a complete defense.

So what's the remainder of SB's defense if she's claiming JT died due to SB protecting her own life? JMO

In the first Florida case to mention battered spouse syndrome, the First District Court of Appeal in Hawthorne v. State, 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), ruled to allow testimony by Dr. Lenore Walker to explain the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that she was in imminent danger, if the trial court decided that, “Dr. Walker is qualified and that the subject is sufficiently developed and can support an expert opinion.” In most cases where evidence of battered spouse syndrome is admitted, it is solely for this limited purpose. Battered spouse syndrome is only a small part of the traditionally narrow self-defense doctrine. It is not, itself, a complete defense.

To justify homicide under any claim of self defense, a defendant must establish the presence of three elements:

1) the defendant believed she must use force against an imminent threat of harm;
2) the amount of force used was proportionate to the threatened harm; and
3) the defendant retreated to the greatest degree reasonably possible.

Evidence that a woman suffers from battered spouse syndrome addresses part one of this standard, namely, whether the woman honestly feared for her life.

Part three of this tripartite self defense standard, the duty to retreat, is inapplicable in a defendant’s own home because of the so-called “castle doctrine,” or privilege of nonretreat. The castle doctrine provides that if an assailant threatens a victim with violence in the victim’s own home, the victim may turn aggressor without any duty of retreat, and still be able to justify his actions by claiming self defense.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I caught some of the hearing and Owens appears to be unorganized. I know he is dealing with alot.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I thought that about the crime scene reconstruction issue, too. The autopsy showed that Jorge had trauma wounds that did not contribute to his death (which was by suffocation). When asked during the two hour interrogation about those wounds, Sarah said that he walked into a wall and fell off a bike. I wonder if the prosecution is going to say Sarah pushed the suitcase down the stairs with him in it or kicked the suitcase or flipped it multiple times or something to explain how those injuries occurred while he was in the suitcase. Perhaps a crime scene reconstruction expert for the defense would then dispute that and try to show how those types of things couldn't have happened.

Walked into a wall, fell off a bike, etc caused his injuries. Then having locked himself in a suitcase, tipped himself down the stairs, turned himself over in the suitcase... caused his own accidental death suffocating himself. Hmm. 'The world according to SB' and still yet her lawyer wants more 'specificity'.

 

[KSwizzle]

Owen said something along the lines and I'm paraphrasing, I basically shut down my practice to do this case and I thought, this is your only case right now and you still can't put a date on a document, have your documents in order, know what you're going to argue when you know one of the items is BSS

What a mess

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I caught some of the hearing and Owens appears to be unorganized. I know he is dealing with alot.

IMO he should have held his original instinct and walked away from the case when the plea deal couldn't have been agreed.

Owens faux-bafflement at what exactly SB is supposed to have done wrong is disingenuous IMO, he even seems to have implied that JT could have suffocated from some other cause than being zipped in a suitcase.

 

[Kittybunny]

She wants her hair and makeup done?!? Who does she think she is? Oh wait, nvm, it’s global superstar Sarah Boone, obviously!

The BWS defense will be denied, in my humble opinion. I don’t envy Owens, but he willingly signed up for this and the trail of discarded attorneys left in her delusional wake should have told him exactly what he was in for. But so far, it seems she’s cooperating - but really, she’s out of time and options.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Reading the latest in the SB case, still leaves many unanswered questions IMO. I tend to wonder if SB might not have been using that situation to maybe teach JT a ‘lesson’ perhaps? And once he was inside the case…… which IIUC evidence is and defense does not dispute that she then zipped shut - and was then like ok I’ll show you? And then simply expected him to survive? However long he was inside it? Under her then control?

IMO she was too insistent as others say in her explanation to investigators that this was not ‘intentional’. What wasn’t intentional? Does she ever answer that? Was it that he wasn’t supposed to expire? She zipped him up in it! And likely coaxed him to get into it?

Isn’t there also speculation or evidence that this event might have started upstairs? And the case with JT inside then ‘made its way’ downstairs? And that it was then also turned over at least once? It is IMO difficult to have any sympathy for SB in this matter. And any attempts at battered partner or spouse seem IMO preposterous. IANAL. MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Reading the latest in the SB case, still leaves many unanswered questions IMO. I tend to wonder if SB might not have been using that situation to maybe teach JT a ‘lesson’ perhaps? And once he was inside the case…… which IIUC evidence is and defense does not dispute that she then zipped shut - and was then like ok I’ll show you? And then simply expected him to survive? However long he was inside it? Under her then control?

IMO she was too insistent as others say in her explanation to investigators that this was not ‘intentional’. What wasn’t intentional? Does she ever answer that? Was it that he wasn’t supposed to expire? She zipped him up in it! And likely coaxed him to get into it?

Isn’t there also speculation or evidence that this event might have started upstairs? And the case with JT inside then ‘made its way’ downstairs? And that it was then also turned over at least once? It is IMO difficult to have any sympathy for SB in this matter. And any attempts at battered partner or spouse seem IMO preposterous. IANAL. MOO

IMO she drunkenly and angrily wanted to punish, torture and humiliate JT a bit.
Doubtful anyone could prove her intent was to kill him and it very likely wasn't.
She probably wanted him zipped in and pleading for the long haul but then either felt it wasn't a great idea to let him back out or drank more and fell asleep, forgot about him. 'I didn't intend to kill him only wanted to torture him' doesn't come off too great of an explanation.

 

[nodamselindistress]

She wants her hair and makeup done?!? Who does she think she is? Oh wait, nvm, it’s global superstar Sarah Boone, obviously!

The BWS defense will be denied, in my humble opinion. I don’t envy Owens, but he willingly signed up for this and the trail of discarded attorneys left in her delusional wake should have told him exactly what he was in for. But so far, it seems she’s cooperating - but really, she’s out of time and options.

I agree that the BWS defense will be denied. It makes absolutely no sense compared to the facts of the case and her prior representations. I have to assume she is the one pushing this defense. If not, he is as cuckoo as she is.

 

[sasha17]

Here is the motion from the judge regarding the defense's plan to rely on BWS in the trial: Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search

I am not a lawyer but it SOUNDS to me like the state's request to have Sarah examined by their own psychologist is approved, before September 26. The state's request to prevent the defense from mentioning BWS in their opening statement is denied, so the defense can still talk about the topic in the opening. The state's request to prevent the defense from mentioning BWS until evidence of deadly force is presented at the trial is also denied. So it seems like the defense can bring up BWS both during their opening statement and during the trial, regardless of the evidence they produce.

Hopefully Lawyer You Know will give us his legal perspective and reading. He has a livestream set to start in about 20 minutes from now.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I agree that the BWS defense will be denied. It makes absolutely no sense compared to the facts of the case and her prior representations. I have to assume she is the one pushing this defense. If not, he is as cuckoo as she is.

Sometimes I wonder if lawyers enter the court room making the (ludicrous) arguments that the defendant is putting forwards as they have made no difference when trying to communicate with their client and pointing out the flaws and discrepancies in their stories. At that point they know the arguments they're mounting are on shaky ground and will be shot down by the jury.

If the jury are asked to get down and dirty with trying to figure out if SB was a victim of BWS / BSS, they might end up concluding that JT was the victim and she's the perpetrator. Whereas at the moment it could be easily accepted that it was 50:50 until the night JT was murdered.