Davis v. State (207 So.3d 142, 2016)

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on appeal from two judgments of conviction of first-degree murder and two sentences of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Leon Davis, Jr. (Davis), was convicted in Polk County of the murders of Yvonne Bustamante and Juanita Luciano. Davis now pursues the direct appeal of his convictions and sentences which are subject to automatic review by this Court. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court’s judgments of conviction and sentences of death. We first set forth the facts of this case and we then address Davis’s claims on direct appeal. We conclude by evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict Davis, the proportionality of Davis’s death sentences, and Davis’s assertion that he is entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) CHurst v. Florida ).

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Events at Headley Insurance

The evidence introduced at Davis’s trial revealed the following. Around 3 p.ra. on December 13, 2007, Davis entered the Lake Wales location of the Headley Insurance Agency (Headley) with the intent to commit robbery. Davis was armed with a loaded .357 magnum revolver and equipped with duct tape, a cigarette lighter, gloves, a gasoline can that contained gasoline, and a lunch cooler to conceal the revolver.

That afternoon, two Headley employees, Yvonne Bustamante (Bustamante) and Juanita Luciano (Luciano), were working. Bustamante, a licensed customer service representative, had worked at Headley for nine years. Luciano, a customer service representative, had worked at Headley for about three years. At the time, Luciano was twenty-four weeks pregnant. Upon entering the business, Davis locked the front door to prevent other customers from entering. He also placed duct tape over the lens of a security camera. Davis demanded money from the women, who initially refused to comply.

Davis then forced the women to open the company’s safe and cash box, which contained a combined amount of about $900. During the course of the robbery, Davis bound the women with duct tape, poured gasoline on them, and set them on fire. At 3:35 p.m., one of the women activated the office’s panic alarm, which sent a signal to the alarm company. The Lake Wales Police Department was contacted one minute later.

Victims Seek Help; Davis Shoots Bystander

Bustamante and Luciano escaped the burning building and ran in separate directions seeking help. Bustamante eventually ran to the parking lot of the Head-ley building, and Luciano ran to a nearby restaurant, Havana Nights. As Busta-mante tried to escape, Davis shot her in her left hand.

By this time, concerned people who lived nearby had noticed the presence of smoke and walked to the area to investigate. These people, Fran Murray, Brandon Greisman, and Carlos Ortiz, were on the scene before emergency personnel arrived and became eyewitnesses to the aftermath of the robbery. Another eyewitness, Evelyn Anderson, was a Headley customer who arrived at Headley while the robbery was in progress. At trial, these eyewitnesses testified about the events at Head-ley, including their various encounters with Davis.

Fran Murray (formerly Fran Branch) testified that at the time of the robbery, she was sitting outside of her apartment and saw smoke nearby. She walked toward the smoke to investigate its source. Around the same time, her neighbors, including Greisman and Ortiz, also noticed the smoke. They all proceeded to walk toward the smoke to investigate.

As Murray approached the smoke, she realized that it was coming from the Head-ley building. She then saw Bustamante, who was yelling for help and whose body was burning. Murray observed that Bus-tamante was wriggling her wrists to free them of a thick gray tape, and that Busta-mante’s “skin was falling off of her.” “And, just, she wasn’t screaming, but she wasn’t talking lightly either. She was just trying to get away.”

As Greisman approached the building, he saw a woman whose body was burning, and he went to help her. At the same time, Greisman saw Davis walking towards them, and he originally thought that Davis was coming to help the distressed woman. Greisman made eye contact with Davis, who pulled a gun out of the cooler that he was carrying and pointed it at Greisman. Greisman tried to get away, but Davis shot him in the face, hitting him in the nose. The gunshot caused profuse bleeding and removed the tip of Greisman’s nose.

Murray, who was still in the vicinity, heard popping sounds and saw Greisman fall to the ground and catch himself with his hands. She saw Davis walk away and place a gun into his lunch cooler. Murray then assisted Greisman, who was getting up from the ground.

Carlos Ortiz also heard the popping sounds as he approached the Headley building. As he got closer to the building, Greisman was walking back toward him with a bloody face. Greisman told Ortiz that he had been shot, and Ortiz saw Davis behind Greisman. Ortiz saw a part of the gun that Davis was carrying, and he saw Davis stick his hand into the lunch cooler. Ortiz made eye contact with Davis while trying to help Greisman as well as make sure that Davis was not following them. Greisman walked back to his home, and Ortiz and Murray assisted him while awaiting the arrival of emergency help.

Evelyn Anderson, a Headley customer, arrived at Headley to pay her insurance bill during the time that the robbery was taking place. Anderson parked her sport utility vehicle in front of Headley, and her teenage granddaughter and infant grandson remained inside the vehicle. When Anderson tried to open the front door of the Headley building, she discovered that it was locked. Anderson walked to the side of the building to try and determine why she was unable to enter the building during normal business hours. While walking, she noticed that smoke was coming out of the building. Anderson also heard popping sounds, and shortly thereafter, Davis walked out of the building and placed the cooler under his arm. Anderson asked Davis what was happening. Davis continued walking away but responded that there was a fire in the building. Davis then walked to his vehicle, a black Nissan Altima, that was parked at a vacant house nearby. Davis got inside of the vehicle and drove away.

Shortly thereafter, Anderson came into contact with Bustamante, Anderson received a minor burn on her hand when she touched Bustamante, who was screaming for help and was severely burned. Busta-mante walked towards Anderson’s vehicle, and Anderson’s granddaughter, who was seated in the front seat of the vehicle, ran away from the vehicle after seeing Busta-mante’s burning body. Bustamante walked to the open vehicle door and climbed inside the vehicle. Anderson encouraged Bustamante to get out of the vehicle because the paramedics were on the way. Bustamante got out of the vehicle and leaned on the hood.

By this time, Murray had finished attending to Greisman, and she returned to Headley to see if she could provide further help. Murray saw Bustamante leaning against Anderson’s SUV. Murray described the scene as follows:

She [Bustamante] was um, screaming she was hot. And that her skin was rolling off of her body at this time. It was disgusting. You could smell the burnt skin and flesh. And she was screaming she was really, really hot and she was thirsty. And so I ran across the street at that time to Havana Nights, which was a restaurant, a Cuban restaurant, across the street of Headley, off of the other corner of Phillips, and got a cup of ice water in a to go cup.

Murray returned to Bustamante with the cup of water, and Bustamante sipped from the cup while awaiting the arrival of emergency personnel. Murray talked with Bustamante, and Murray described their conversation as follows:

I introduced myself as Fran and she introduced herself as Yvonne. We sat there talking a minute and she started to say—and I gave her water. And, um, she said that she didn’t understand how anybody would rob her, she didn’t have any money. And that her kids, please pray, I’m not going to make this Fran. And I told her that I would get to the hospital if I could to see her, if it was allowed and that I would keep her in my prayers, that with God everything was possible. She wanted to talk about her children. And I cannot remember clearly if I asked her who did it, or if she was just talking. And she said that it was a black gentleman, and that he should be on video tape. She then started crying again and said she loved her babies very much, and she doesn’t understand how anybody could do this to her.

Bustamante also told Murray that she had been bound with tape, doused with gasoline, pushed into a bathroom, and set on Are.

In the meantime, Luciano escaped the Headley building and ran to the nearby Havana Nights restaurant. The restaurant’s owner, Jaidy Jiminez, heard a loud boom, and shortly thereafter, Luciano ran into the restaurant. Although Luciano was a Havana Nights customer, she was so badly burned that Jiminez did not recognize her: “I saw a woman that was naked, burned, um, burned from head to toe, no shoes on, or any clothes on, just underwear. But I couldn’t recognize her.”

Luciano asked for help and begged Jimi-nez to close the door because “he” was coming. Jiminez helped Luciano, whom she realized was pregnant, sit down. Additionally, other people inside the restaurant were trying to call 9-1-1 and to assist Luciano. Luciano asked what was taking so long for help to arrive and stated that she could not feel her baby moving. Jimi-nez tried to reassure her. It was during this time that Murray came into the restaurant asking for water, and Jiminez provided it to her. Jiminez walked outside the restaurant to get help, and she saw the severely burned Bustamante. Once the paramedics arrived and began to assist Bustamante, Jiminez told them that another injured woman, Luciano, was inside of the restaurant.

Emergency Personnel Response

Emergency dispatches increased in their sense of urgency as the initial report of a fire gave way to additional reports of injuries and a shooting. Lt, Joe Elrod of the Lake Wales Police Department first encountered Greisman, who explained that he was shot while attempting to help a woman whom he heard screaming for help and soon discovered was on fire.

Lt. Elrod determined that Greisman’s injuries were not life-threatening, and because emergency medical personnel were on the way to assist Greisman, he proceeded to the Headley building. When Lt. Elrod arrived at Headley, emergency medical personnel were already on the scene and were assisting Bustamante in the parking lot. Lt. Elrod observed Busta-mante’s severe burns, and he estimated that the burns covered about eighty percent of her body. Lt. Elrod immediately understood the gravity of Bustamante’s injuries, and he decided not to wait until later to obtain Bustamante’s statement. Lt. Elrod testified: “I knew she was going to die, so I tried to get information from her on who did it to her.” “I asked her who did it to her. And she told me it was Leon Davis. And then I asked her, how she knew him. And she said that she knows him and that he was [a] prior client of theirs in the Insurance Company.” Bustamante explained that Davis tried to rob them, and when they did not give him money, he threw gasoline on them and set them on fire. When they tried to run, Davis continued to throw gasoline on them.

Lt. Elrod then located Luciano inside of the Havana Nights restaurant. When he walked inside the restaurant, he saw Luciano, who was “obviously pregnant,” sitting down. Lt. Elrod characterized Luciano’s burn injuries as even worse than Busta-mante’s. Lt. Elrod went outside and told emergency personnel that another victim needed help who was in even worse condition than Bustamante. He then began dispatching the name “Leon Davis” to law enforcement and conducting routine duties at the crime scene.

Paramedic John “Chip” Johnson and emergency medical technician Ernest Froehlich were the first emergency medical personnel to arrive on the scene. Upon arrival, they first saw Bustamante, who was in the parking lot and leaning on Anderson’s SUV. Johnson observed: “the skin, everywhere I could see it, it was peeling back, and she had suffered major burns. Also she had darkened hands, and a further injury to her left hand, [tjhat was my observations at that time.” Froehlich testified that Bustamante “looked like she had burns all over her body, hair singed off, most of her clothing was burned off, skin was hanging off her back and buttocks.”

Froehlich was present when Lt. Elrod asked Bustamante if she knew who the perpetrator was, and he overheard Busta-mante say “Leon Davis.” Johnson also heard Bustamante state that Davis was the perpetrator, although he was unable to clearly hear Bustamante say Davis’s first name. Anderson also heard Bustamante identify Davis as the perpetrator.

After initially assisting Bustamante, Johnson went to Havana Nights to assist Luciano. When Johnson entered the restaurant, he noticed water on the floor and saw Luciano, who was severely burned and “basically naked.” There was a plastic substance on her wrists, neck area, and feet. Luciano, who was conscious, breathing, and able to talk clearly, told Johnson that she was pregnant and that while working in her office, someone poured gasoline on her and set her on fire. Luciano also told Johnson that her wrists were burning, and Johnson went to the ambulance to get sterile water to alleviate her pain.

By this time, additional emergency medical personnel were dispatched to the scene. Upon arrival, paramedic George Bailey assumed primary responsibility for Luciano’s care, and Johnson went back to the parking lot to continue assisting Busta-mante. Luciano was conscious and able to respond to questions. She explained to Bailey “that there had been a robbery, at the business where she was at, she had been tied up or bound with tape, and had gasoline poured on her and had been lit on fire.” Bailey did not ask her who harmed her, but Luciano told him that the person was a man and that she knew who it was. Luciano also told Bailey that she was twenty-four weeks pregnant. Bailey estimated that eighty percent of Luciano’s body was burned with second- and third-degree burns.

Both Bustamante and Luciano were airlifted to the Orlando Regional Medical Center for treatment in the burn unit. Luciano undeiwent an emergency caesarean section, during which she gave birth to her son, Michael Bustamante, Jr. Although detectives went to the hospital in hopes of interviewing Bustamante and Luciano, the severity of their injuries prevented the detectives from ever meeting with them.

Michael lived for three days after his emergency delivery. He died as the result of extreme prematurity. Bustamante lived for five days, and Luciano lived for three weeks. Autopsies of both women revealed that they died from complications of thermal burns due to the fire. According to the medical examiner, Bustamante suffered burns that covered eighty to ninety percent of her body. Luciano suffered burns that covered about ninety percent of her body. Additionally, the autopsy of Bustamante revealed bullet fragments from the gunshot to her left hand, although the gunshot was not a cause of her death.

Events after the Robbery

After leaving the scene, Davis went to a branch of the Mid Florida Credit Union, where he was an established customer. At 4:19 p.m., less than forty-five minutes after the alarm was activated at Headley, Davis walked into the credit union to make a cash deposit. Jessica Lacy, the teller who assisted Davis, was familiar with him as a customer and knew Davis by name. Davis deposited $148 in cash into his account that previously had a balance of $5.33. While processing Davis’s transaction, Lacy observed that Davis’s face was bloody and appeared to have scratches and marks on the nose, lip, and chin. The credit union branch manager, Valerie Dollison, was also working that afternoon. She did not personally know Davis, but she heard someone call him “Leon.”

Davis also went to the house where his brother, Garrion Davis (Garrion), and Gar-rion’s girlfriend, Melissa Sellers, resided. Garrion testified that on the afternoon of December 13, “my brother came to my house. He wanted to-he needed some soap to wash his face. And he went outside my house and washed his face. I noticed he had a scratch on his face. He told me he had robbed somebody.” Gar-rion testified that Davis also came inside the house and took a shower. Garrion estimated that Davis was at the house for ten to fifteen minutes.

Sellers, who was at home with Garrion at the time, testified about Davis’s visit to their house that afternoon. Sellers wished Davis, whose birthday was the next day, a happy early birthday. She estimated that Davis was at her house for ten minutes or less, and although she was not certain whether he had taken a shower, she knew that he had been in their bathroom. When Davis left, Sellers observed that Garrion’s demeanor had changed. Garrion seemed upset and was teary-eyed.

Later, Davis went to a friend’s home, where he used the cell phone of a woman named Fonda Roberts. Roberts was unable to hear Davis’s conversation, which lasted a couple of minutes. When Davis was finished using the phone, he started to hand the phone to Roberts and then pulled it back from her. Davis then erased the number that he called. Roberts observed that at the time, Davis was driving a black vehicle.

Davis Turns Himself In

As the afternoon progressed, a massive investigation began. Davis’s photograph was shown on television as media began to report the events at Headley, and Davis’s family and friends became increasingly aware of Davis’s status as a suspect in the day’s events. Davis’s family and friends frantically began trying to locate him in hopes that they could convince him to turn himself in safely.

That evening, Davis called his sister, Noniece DeCosey, and asked her to come and pick him up near a McDonald’s. Their mother, Linda Davis, accompanied DeCo-sey to meet Davis. DeCosey drove them to a Circle K convenience store to meet Davis’s and DeCosey’s other sister, India Owens, and family friend Barry Gaston. Upon arrival, Davis walked up to Gaston, hugged him, and said: “I hurt someone.” When Gaston asked Davis what he did, Davis said that he did not know. Davis and his mother got into a car with Owens and Gaston.

Gaston, a former law enforcement officer, helped facilitate Davis turning himself in at the Polk County Sheriffs substation. Gaston testified that on the way to the substation, Davis laid his head on his mother’s lap in the backseat of the car and cried and sobbed. Davis again said that he hurt somebody, but Gaston told him not to say anything more. Davis was turned over to the Polk County Sheriffs Office without incident. Davis was later transported from the Sheriffs Office substation to the Bartow Air Base for further processing.

A number of people with whom Davis came into contact later in the day testified at trial that Davis appeared to have some sort of injury to his nose. The crime scene technician who photographed Davis after he was taken into custody and a law enforcement officer who interacted with Davis upon his transfer to the Bartow Air Base both testified that Davis appeared to have either scratches or a burn on his nose. Additionally, Davis’s sister, Noniece DeCosey, saw a red mark on Davis’s nose that could have been a burn.

That night, a black Nissan Altima was found at the Lagoon nightclub in Winter Haven. Law enforcement officers were dispatched to the location, and the car was seized pending a warrant to search the car’s interior. Searches conducted in the vicinity of where the car was located, in particular to look for a firearm, did not reveal any additional evidence. The following day, after the search warrant was signed, law enforcement conducted an interior search of the Altima. Davis’s driver license was found inside the car.

Davis was later tried for three counts of first-degree murder (Bustamante, Luciano, and baby Michael), one count of attempted first-degree murder (Greisman), one count of armed robbery, and one count of first-degree arson.

The Guilt Phase

The State’s theory at trial was that Davis, a man driven by mounting financial pressures, planned the robbery of Head-ley, a business with which he was familiar. Davis’s business relationship with Headley dated back to 2004, and as reflected in various records, Davis’s insurance needs were primarily handled by Bustamante. The State introduced evidence that established a timeline of events leading up to the robbery, including Davis’s actions on the day of the robbery. A summary of this evidence follows.

In the months leading up to the robbery, Davis experienced increasing financial difficulty. Davis, who at the time was married to his wife Victoria, was primarily responsible for the family obligations, including the mortgage payment on their home. At the time, Davis and his wife had two cars: a blue Nissan Maxima owned by Davis, and a black Nissan Altima owned by Victoria. Both vehicles were insured under policies written by Headley. In June 2007, during a visit to the Mid Florida Credit Union, Davis became aware that the amount of the automatic debit from his account for his insurance coverage had been increasing over time. Davis was also informed that his account was overdrawn and became irate.

Unable to afford insurance for both cars, Davis and Victoria removed the license plate from the Maxima, canceled the car’s insurance policy, and relied solely on the Altima for transportation. The couple was also unable to afford cell phone service during this time. Victoria had been working, but she became pregnant and was forced to stop working because of pregnancy complications.

Davis’s Plan to Rob Headley

Davis’s plan to rob Headley began to coalesce in early December. By this time, the couple had reached the limits on their credit cards, and the mortgage payment was delinquent. One week before the robbery, Headley customer Virginia Vazquez saw Davis at Headley. She first saw Davis in the parking lot looking in the back of a black car. Then, Davis went inside and began talking with Bustamante. Vazquez and her husband waited inside the insurance agency for fifteen to twenty minutes before Bustamante finished talking with Davis. Vazquez later recognized Davis from news coverage as the person she saw during her visit to Headley.

Davis’s preparation for the robbery also involved acquiring various items that he would need in order to carry out the robbery, including a gun and ammunition. On December 7, 2007, six days before the robbery, Davis went to visit his cousin, Randy Black. Davis told Black that he needed a gun for personal protection because he was going to travel to Miami. Black owned two guns, including a recently purchased Dan Wesson .357 magnum revolver. Black showed Davis both guns, and Davis opted to purchase the .357 magnum for around $200. Black also gave Davis .38 caliber bullets which were compatible with the .357 magnum. Davis and Black fired the revolver, which was operating normally. Later, Davis showed his mother the revolver. Davis told her that he got the revolver from Black and that he and Black fired it.

Davis’s Actions on the Day of the Robbery

The evidence introduced at trial also established a detailed timeline of Davis’s actions on the day of the robbery, which included a visit to Walmart to purchase supplies that he would use later that day. On the morning of December 13, Victoria Davis last saw her husband at about 6 a.m. Before 7 a.m., Davis took his son, who had spent the previous night with Davis and Victoria, home to the boy’s mother, Dawn Henry. His son’s birthday was that day.

Davis then went to the Lake Wales Wal-mart, where surveillance video and still photographs showed him making three separate purchases around 7 a.m. The first purchase included a cap, long-sleeved shirt, and soft, orange lunch cooler. Davis’s second purchase was a pair of gloves, and the third purchase was a Bic cigarette lighter. All of the purchases were cash transactions.

While at Walmart, Davis spoke with the store manager, Mark Gammons, and a store employee, Jennifer DeBarros. Gam-mons testified that Davis approached him and asked where gloves were located in the store. When Gammons saw Davis’s picture on the news that evening, he realized that he had seen Davis in Walmart that morning. Walmart employee Jennifer DeBari’Os had known Davis for more than ten years and was a family friend. DeBarros testified that on the morning of December 13, she talked with Davis during his visit to Walmart. DeBarros talked with Davis about his son’s birthday.

Some time after leaving Walmart, Davis drove to the home of his sister, India Owens. Davis then accompanied Owens to take her car for repairs and pick up a rental car. They later went to pick up some furniture, and they stopped at a restaurant for lunch. Davis seemed agitated while eating lunch.

Video surveillance showed that Davis left the restaurant at 1:38 p.m. Davis and Owens then delivered the furniture to Owens’s house. During that time, Owens noticed that Davis began acting strangely, obsessively locking doors in the house. Davis also asked for a piece of duct tape but did not say why he needed it. A short time later, Davis left Owens’s house. Although Davis’s son had a birthday party at school that afternoon, Davis did not attend. Davis entered the Headley building sometime around 3 p.m.

The Investigation

In addition to evidence surrounding the events at Headley, their aftermath, and Davis’s behavior leading up to and including the day of the robbery, the State introduced evidence regarding various aspects of the investigation.

The expansive crime scene investigation spanned several days, and the numerous crime scene photographs entered into evidence depicted a gruesome series of events that began inside the Headley building and continued outside. The exterior photographs depict the entrance to Headley, the parking lot, Anderson’s vehicle, and the trail of bloody footprints and burnt skin that led from the Headley building to Havana Nights. Anderson’s SUV was smeared with blood on both sides of the hood and was marked by blood stains on the vehicle doors and in the passenger side interior.

The interior photographs captured the damage in various areas of the Headley building, including fire damage in the office area, the storage area, and the extensively damaged bathroom. Among the widespread fire damage to and debris in the Headley building, the interior crime scene photographs revealed the presence of blood, a severely burnt chair, two cigarette lighters (one of which was identified as a Bic lighter), burnt duct tape, a burnt plastic gasoline can, an open cash box that contained only coins, an open and empty safe, a bloody alarm key pad, and burnt surveillance equipment. The photographs also showed bullet holes in a wall, a door, and an exterior shed door. A bullet was retrieved from the shed floor.

Detective Jeff Batz, an arson investigator, detected the odor of gasoline inside the Headley building, and noted that it was particularly strong near the rear of the building. Batz identified three areas of fire origin inside the Headley building: a chair located near the front door, the storage room, and the bathroom. Batz testified as follows: “Three-points of origin, separate in naturet,] neither one of them had connections with each other, directly through flame impingement. They all started with an open flame type device and accelerant was used on all three areas.”

The investigation also included an examination of the seized Nissan Altima. When the car’s floor mats were analyzed for the presence of an accelerant, a certified accel-erant detection K-9 alerted to the presence of accelerant on the driver’s floor mat and the passenger rear floor mat.

Several days after the robbery, a search warrant was executed at Davis’s home. Although trial testimony revealed that Davis was responsible for the yard work at his home and that he kept a lawn mower and a gasoline can in the garage, law enforcement located only the lawn mower. No gasoline can was found at Davis’s home.

The gun used in the Headley crimes was never recovered. However, the rifling characteristics of the projectiles retrieved from the crime scene and from Busta-mante’s hand were determined to be consistent with the rifling characteristics of handgun manufacturer Dan Wesson, the manufacturer of the .357 magnum revolver that Davis bought several days before the robbery.

The Verdict and the Penalty Phase

On February 15, 2011, the jury convicted Davis of six counts: the first-degree murders of Bustamante, Luciano, and baby Michael; the attempted first-degree murder of Greisman; armed robbery; and first-degree arson. The penalty phase began two days after the jury rendered its guilty verdicts, wherein the State sought to prove seven aggravating circumstances. In addition to testimony from Davis’s probation officer and the medical examiner, the State presented victim impact testimony from Bustamante’s and Luciano’s families.

Angela Bryson, the State’s first witness, was Davis’s felony probation officer. Bry-son testified that Davis was placed on probation for grand theft on July 6, 2007. Davis was still on probation at the time of the Headley crimes. Dr. Stephen Nelson, the medical examiner, returned to the stand as the State’s second witness. Dr. Nelson provided further testimony regarding the injuries sustained by Bustamante and Luciano:

They would begin to feel pain immediately upon the fire starting to consume their skin. The burns that are present on these victims is approximately 80 to 90% of the body surface area. It is third and fourth degree bums. First-degree burn is a sunburn, a second-degree burn is a blistered sunburn, a third-degree would be a full thickness burn that goes through the full thickness of the skin, involves nerve endings. And fourth degree burns would largely be charred, burns where the skin is charred. So, the first-degree and second-degree burns, I think we have all had sunburns, we know how painful those are. If we have a sunburn, a second degree burn that has fluid filled vessel that pops, that’s painful. The third-degree burn, again, it involves the degree of thickness that is burned through skin. And the third-degree burns are painful in that they produce the burning sensation itself, up to a point at which point the nerve endings under their skin are damaged. And then there is no more pain or nerve signal that is sent from the fire. However in addition to the burn being produced by the gasoline, whatever it is that is on their skin that’s flaming, the subsequent treatment for a burn is also painful.

Dr. Nelson also testified that both women would have been capable of feeling pain in some areas even if their nerve endings were destroyed in others. Both women, who were so severely injured that an IV could not be inserted into their veins, would have experienced pain when intraos-seous catheters were inserted into their leg bones to receive medication. The women would have stopped experiencing pain once they received the medication or were medically induced into a coma, but they could have been conscious of what was going on until that point.

After the State’s penalty phase presentation, Davis offered evidence in mitigation and alleged the existence of two statutory mitigating circumstances and fifteen non-statutory mitigating circumstances.

Multiple witnesses testified that Davis’s childhood was marked by abuse. When Davis was eight years old, he was sexually assaulted by another child. The following year, a woman named Ms. Clark moved into the family home as a roommate. Sometime later, Davis and his brother Garrion moved out of the family home and began staying with Clark, who was an alcoholic and was physically and verbally abusive. Clark routinely beat Davis, and on one occasion, she caused severe injuries to the back of his body by beating him with an extension cord. Clark taunted Davis with physical and verbal abuse because he was bullied by other children, and she also hit him with water hoses and punched him in the chest. Family members observed physical injuries such as welts, bleeding, and open scabs and sores on Davis’s body.

Additionally, Davis suffered from ongoing depressive and mood episodes, in part due to the bullying he suffered from elementary school through high school. In middle school, Davis began talking about suicide, and his mother encouraged him not to take his life. Davis received mental health counseling for two to three months, but his problems continued. After graduating from high school, Davis joined the United States Marine Corps. However, the following year, Davis was involved in a vehicle accident and he revealed that he intentionally crashed the vehicle that he was driving. Pursuant to a recommendation for an administrative separation, Davis was discharged from military service.

Although Davis was only about one year old when his father moved out of the family home, his father remained a part of Davis’s life. While growing up, Davis and his siblings were separated and placed in foster care, but Davis remained close with his mother and siblings. Davis’s sister, India Owens, described him as compassionate, loving, and selfless. After Davis’s discharge from the military, he met a woman named Dawn Henry, with whom he had a son. The child was born with Down Syndrome. Henry testified that while she had trouble adjusting to being a mother of a child with special needs, Davis immediately accepted their son and was consistently present in his life.

Around the time of the robbery, Davis was depressed and upset that he could not afford to do anything for his son’s birthday. Davis’s mother testified that when Davis purchased the revolver shortly before the robbery, she was concerned that Davis might use it to commit suicide.

Jury Recommendations and Spencer Hearing

At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury unanimously recommended that Davis be sentenced to death for the murders of Bustamante and Luciano. By a vote of eight to four, the jury recommended that Davis be sentenced to death for the murder of baby Michael. The Court subsequently held a Spencer hearing at which both parties presented additional argument but did not present additional evidence.

Sentencing

The trial court sentenced Davis to death for the murders of Bustamante and Luciano. In its sentencing order, the trial court found the existence of six aggravating circumstances as to the murders of both women: (1) the capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and on felony probation (some weight); (2) the capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification (CCP) (great weight); (3) the defendant was contemporaneously convicted of another capital felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person (very great weight); (4) the capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or in flight after committing or attempting to commit any robbery or arson (moderate weight); (5) the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain (little weight); and (6) the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) (great weight). The trial court found a seventh aggravating circumstance as to the murder of Bustamante; the felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest (some weight). The court also evaluated this aggravating circumstance with respect to the murder of Luciano but rejected it as not proven.

The trial court also considered two statutory mitigating circumstances. Due to Davis’s prior felony convictions, the trial court rejected as statutory mitigation his argument that he had no significant prior criminal history. However, the trial court did find that the crime was committed while Davis was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (little weight). As nonstatutory mitigating circumstances, the trial court found the following: (1) the defendant was the victim of bullying throughout his childhood (slight to moderate weight); (2) the defendant was the victim of sexual assault as a child (slight to moderate weight); (3) the defendant was the victim of both physical and emotional child abuse by a caretaker (moderate weight); (4) the defendant was the victim of overall family dynamics (very little weight); (5) the defendant served in the United States Marine Corps (very little weight); (6) the defendant had a history of being suicidal, both as a child and as an adult (slight weight); (7) the defendant was diagnosed with a personality disorder (slight weight); (8) the defendant had a history of depression (slight weight); (9) stress the defendant was dealing with at the time of the incident (little weight); (10) the defendant was a good person in general (very slight weight); (11) the defendant was a good worker (very slight weight); (12) the defendant was a good son, good sibling, and good husband (very slight weight); (13) the defendant was a good father to a child with Down Syndrome (moderate weight); (14) the defendant exhibited good behavior during the trial and other court proceedings (very slight weight); and (15) the defendant exhibited good behavior while in jail (little weight).

The trial court overrode the jury’s recommendation of death and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Michael. Davis now challenges his convictions and sentences and raises multiple issues for this Court’s consideration.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

On appeal, Davis raises four issues, which we address in turn: (1) whether the trial court erred when it admitted the statements of victim Bustamante as a dying declaration; (2) whether the photopack identifications of Davis, made by victim Greisman and eyewitness Ortiz, should have been excluded; (3) whether photographs of the murder victims were unfairly prejudicial; and (4) whether the trial court improperly found that Davis committed the murder of Bustamante in order to avoid arrest. The State also raises two issues on cross-appeal. However, given our resolution of this direct appeal, we decline to reach the State’s cross-appeal.

I. Dying Declaration of Yvonne Bustamante

Davis argues that the trial court erred when it admitted, as a dying declaration, statements made by Bustamante to Lt. Elrod. While at the scene, Lt. Elrod questioned Bustamante about the events at Headley. When Lt. Elrod asked Busta-mante whether she knew the perpetrator’s identity, Bustamante identified Davis. Before trial, Davis filed a motion to exclude Bustamante’s statements, and the trial court held an extensive evidentiary hearing during which it received testimony from multiple witnesses.

At the hearing, Lt. Elrod testified that when he first approached Bustamante, he observed a badly burned woman lying on a gurney who appeared to be burned over about eighty percent of her body. Lt. Elrod quickly surmised that Bustamante would not survive her injuries. As a result, he began to ask Bustamante pointed questions for the purpose of obtaining her statement. Lt. Elrod testified as follows:

Lt. Elrod: At that point, I knew she wasn’t going to survive the burns.

State: Did that affect the way that you then began to handle your responsibilities as the first Lake Wales officer to have contact with her?

Lt. Elrod: Yes, sir.

State: What—what did you do? Why did you do it?

Lt. Elrod: I wanted to get her statement before it wouldn’t ever be gotten.

State: Now, normally, if you were the first officer on the scene, someone is being treated by medical personnel, would you just go ahead and start asking them questions if you thought they were going to survive and be in the hospital?

Lt. Elrod: No, sir. I would have let the medical people try to take care of them.

State: But in this case, did you go ahead and begin to actually speak with the woman on the gurney and ask her very pointed questions?

Lt. Elrod: Yes, sir.

When Lt. Elrod asked Bustamante what happened, Bustamante explained that she and Luciano were working when Davis entered their office, demanded money from them, and tried to rob them. She said that when they did not give Davis the money that he wanted, he threw gasoline on them and set them on fire. Lt. Elrod asked her if she knew the perpetrator’s identity. Bustamante told him, “yes, it was Leon Davis,” and that he was a client of their insurance business. Bustamante appeared coherent and alert, and she spoke clearly in response to Lt. Elrod’s questions.

Other witnesses at the evidentiary hearing also testified that they heard Busta-mante describe the events at Headley and identify Davis. Additionally, medical personnel testified about Bustamante’s grave physical condition, and eyewitness Fran Murray testified that Bustamante stated that she was going to die. Following the hearing, the trial court determined that Bustamante’s statements were admissible as a dying declaration. Her statements were admitted at trial through the testimony of Lt. Elrod and other witnesses.

Davis’s argument as to the admission of Bustamante’s dying declaration is twofold. First, he encourages this Court to hold that, as a matter of law, the dying declaration is no longer a valid hearsay exception in Florida. Davis argues that the dying declaration is not an exception to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (holding that the admission of a testimonial statement violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation where the de-clarant is unavailable and the defendant lacked a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant). Second, Davis argues that even if the dying declaration survived Crawford, Bustamante’s statements to Lt. Elrod did not constitute a valid dying declaration because Bustamante did not have a fear of impending death. As we explain below, we reject both arguments.

The Dying Declaration and Crawford

Ratified in 1791, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” U.S. Const, amend. VI. This protection extends to prosecutions in both federal and state courts. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). “Indeed, [the United States Supreme Court] ha[s] expressly declared that to deprive an accused of the right to cross-examine the witnesses against him is a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law.” Id. at 405, 85 S.Ct. 1065. However, “the [Confrontation] Clause permits, where necessary, the admission of certain hearsay statements against a defendant despite the defendant’s inability to confront the declarant at trial.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 847-48, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990). One example where such a necessity may arise is in the context of the admission of a declarant’s dying declaration.

The admissibility of the dying declaration was recognized at common law on the grounds that such declarations are “made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth; a situation so solemn and so awful is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of justice.” King v. Woodcock, 1 Leach 500, 502, 168 Eng. Rep. 352, 353 (K.B. 1789). More than a century ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that “from time immemorial [dying declarations] have been treated as competent testimony, and no one would have the hardihood at this day to question their admissibility. They are admitted, not in conformity with any general rule regarding the admission of testimony, but as an exception to such rules, simply from the necessities of the ease, and to prevent a manifest failure of justice.” Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 243-44, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). “[The dying declaration] exception was well established before the adoption of the constitution, and was not intended to be abrogated. The ground upon which such exception rests is that, from the circumstances under which dying declarations are made, they are equivalent to the evidence of a living witness upon oath[.]” Kirby v. U.S., 174 U.S. 47, 61, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 890 (1899).

Similarly, Florida has long recognized the dying declaration as a valid exception to the rule against hearsay:

Dying declarations in cases of homicide form an exception to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence. The law regards the declarant, when in the presence of imminent and inevitable death, as being under as solemn an inspiration to tell the truth as though he were pledged thereto by oath. To render such declaration admissible, however, the court must be satisfied that the deceased declarant, at the time of their utterance, knew that his death was imminent and inevitable, and that he entertained no hope whatever of recovery. This absence of all hope of recovery, and appreciation by the declarant of his speedy and inevitable death, are a preliminary foundation that must always be laid to make such declarations admissible.

Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. 232, 233 (1896).

However, Davis argues that in light of the United States Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Crawford, the admission of a testimonial dying declaration violates the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. This Court has previously recognized that in Crawford the U.S. Supreme Court “held that the introduction of a hearsay statement will result in a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation if (1) the statement is testimonial; (2) the declarant is unavailable; and (3) the defendant lacked a prior opportunity for cross-examination of the declarant.” Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17, 32 (Fla. 2009). In the present case, the State introduced, as a dying declaration, out-of-court testimonial statements of the declar-ant, Bustamante. Bustamante was unavailable to testify at trial, and Davis lacked a prior opportunity to cross-examine her. Thus, Davis argues that Busta-mante’s statements were inadmissible under the holding in Crawford.

Following the evidentiary hearing on Davis’s motion to exclude Bustamante’s statements, the trial court issued a detailed order in which it found that Busta-mante’s statements were admissible as a dying declaration. Further, the trial court expressly rejected Davis’s argument that Florida’s dying declaration exception did not survive Crawford: “This Court specifically finds that the dying declaration has survived Crawford. A dying declaration is an exception to the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.” The trial court concluded that “the statements made by Ms. Bustamante to Frances Murray, Vicky Rivera, Evelyn Anderson, Ashley Smith, Lt. Joe E. Elrod, Jr., other law enforcement personnel, or medical personnel, that may be considered to be testimonial in nature, would still be admissible under the hearsay exception for dying declarations, because the dying declaration rule has remained valid post-Crawford.”

To date, the United States Supreme Court has not answered whether the dying declaration exception remains viable in light of Crawford. Yet, in dicta, the Supreme Court has provided some guidance on the matter. Notably, in Crawford, although the facts of that case did not involve a dying declaration, the Court observed that dying declarations have been the “one deviation” to the rule excluding testimonial hearsay in criminal cases:

The one deviation we have found involves dying declarations. The existence of that exception as a general rule of criminal hearsay law cannot be disputed .... Although many dying declarations may not be testimonial, there is authority for admitting even those that clearly are.... We need not decide in this case whether the Sixth Amendment incorporates an exception for testimonial dying declarations. If this exception must be accepted on historical grounds, it is sui generis.

Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 n. 6, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (internal citations omitted). Subsequently, in Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 358, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008), the Supreme Court stated: “We have previously acknowledged that two forms of testimonial statements were admitted at common law even though they were unconfronted. The first of these were declarations made by a speaker who was both on the brink of death and aware that he was dying.” Courts that have confronted the post-Crawford viability of the dying declaration have generally interpreted these statements as strong suggestions by the United States Supreme Court that the dying declaration exception does not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Davis now calls upon this Court to determine whether Florida’s dying declaration exception remains viable post-Crawford.

Majority View vs. Minority View

Davis acknowledges that although there is a split of authority on whether the dying declaration survived Crawford, his position, that the exception is no longer viable, reflects the minority view. Nonetheless, he asserts two main points in support of his position. First, Davis argues that Florida’s dying declaration exception is inconsistent with the dying declaration that existed at common law, and thus, it does not satisfy Crawford’s historical grounds exception. Second, Davis maintains that the dying declaration is not a valid hearsay exception because dying declarations are inherently unreliable. Today, Davis’s arguments notwithstanding, this Court joins the overwhelming majority view that the dying declaration exception remains viable post-Crawford. The unique nature and purpose of the dying declaration exception, observed in Crawford and dies, justifies its continuing utility and validity as an exception to the rule against hearsay. We therefore reaffirm the continued use of the dying declaration in this state in a manner that is consistent with the applicable law that defines the exception.

Historical Grounds

Davis first argues that Florida’s dying declaration exception is no longer valid because the modern exception has evolved from that which existed at common law. Davis asserts that at common law, the justification for admitting a declarant’s dying declaration was the declarant’s religious belief in the afterlife, and he maintains that in contrast to a justification based on the declarant’s religious belief, Florida’s existing dying declaration is secular and nondenominational. See § 90.804(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (requiring an unavailable declarant’s reasonable belief “that his or her death was imminent, concerning the physical cause or instrumen-talities of what the declarant believed to be impending death or the circumstances surrounding impending death.”). Consequently, Davis argues, Crawford’s “historical grounds” for Florida’s dying declaration exception can no longer be used to justify the admission of a dying declaration in Florida’s courts. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 n. 6,124 S.Ct. 1354.

It is true that “[t]he [dying declaration] hearsay exception has sometimes been justified on the grounds that a dying person was presumed under the common law to have, due to commonly held religious beliefs concerning the afterlife, such a fear of dying without the opportunity to expiate a lie that the reliability of any statement made in those circumstances was deemed equivalent to that of sworn testimony.” State v. Beauchamp, 333 Wis.2d 1, 796 N.W.2d 780, 794 (2011). Thus, Davis argues that Florida’s dying declaration exception does not fall under the “historical grounds” suggested in Crawford, because it lacks the religious justification that existed at common law. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 n. 6, 124 S.Ct. 1354.

Davis cites to a footnote in State v. Hailes, 217 Md.App. 212, 92 A.3d 544 (2014), aff'd, 442 Md. 488, 113 A.3d 608 (2015), a Maryland intermediate appellate court decision wherein the court suggests that if the United States Supreme Court were to define “the precise contours of the Dying Declaration that enjoys the exemption ... it is overwhelmingly probable that the object of the exemption will be the common law Dying Declaration as it was understood to be in 1791.” Id. at 567 n. 11. Davis also cites to U.S. v. Jordan, No. 04-CR-229-B, 2005 WL 513501 (D.Colo. Mar. 3, 2005), an unpublished memorandum and order in which a federal district court suggests that historical underpinnings do not continue to justify the dying declaration. The court concludes that “there is no rationale in Crawford, or otherwise under which dying declarations should be treated differently than any other testimonial statement. This is so especially since the historical underpinnings of the exception fail to justify it.” Id. at *3.

However, the religious justification as the sole or primary justification of the dying declaration has not been universally accepted. In 1860, Wigmore on Evidence included the following analysis:

[A dying declaration] is not received upon any other ground than that of necessity, in order to prevent murder going unpunished. What is said in the books about the situation of the declar-ant, he being virtually under the most solemn sanction to speak the truth, is far from presenting the true ground of the admission.... [T]he rule is no doubt based upon the presumption that in the majority of cases there will be no other equally satisfactory proof of the same facts. This presumption and the consequent probability of the crime going unpunished is unquestionably the chief ground of this exception in the law of evidence.

Wigmore on Evidence, § 1431 (quoting 1 Greenleaf, Evidence § 156, editorial note (1860) (emphasis supplied)). “It is scarcely necessary to say that, to the rule that an accused is entitled to be conft'onted with witnesses against him, the admission of dying declarations is an exception which arises from the necessity of the cause.” Kirby, 174 U.S. at 61, 19 S.Ct. 574. A declarant’s religious belief notwithstanding, the dying declaration exception recognizes the extraordinary nature of the dying person’s ability to speak to the circumstances that placed her in that grave position, and quite possibly to identify the perpetrator and ensure that the one who commits murder is held accountable. As such, we reject Davis’s argument.

Reliability of the Dying Declaration

Davis also argues that dying declarations are inherently unreliable. He cites to U.S. v. Mayhew, 380 F.Supp.2d 961, 966 (S.D.Ohio 2005), where a federal district court expressly “rejected] the government’s argument that dying declarations are an exception to the Confrontation Clause.” Id. at 965. The court stated that it “doubts the inherent reliability of such statements,” and it noted the incentives that even a dying person might have to offer false dying statements. Id. at 965 n. 5. The court observed:

For example, the declarant might have been in a revengeful state of mind which would color his dying statements. No longer subject to the fear of retaliation by his enemies, the declarant might falsely incriminate those persons whom he disliked. If the decedent had no religious belief or fear of punishment after death, the statements made while dying would seem to lose much of the trustworthiness traditionally attributed to them. In general, self-serving declarations would be particularly suspect, for the decedent could thereby exculpate himself from questionable association with the circumstances surrounding his death. The declarant’s physical and mental state of mind at the moment of death may weaken the reliability of his statements.

Id, (quoting Note, Affidavits, Depositions, and Prior Testimony, 46 Iowa L.R. 356, 375-76 (1961)).

While not impossible, we do think it improbable that a dying person would use the fleeting moments of her earthly existence to, rather than place blame at the feet of her actual murderer, intentionally falsely incriminate someone else. After all, “[t]he admission of the [dying declaration] is justified upon the ground of necessity, and in view of the consideration that the certain expectation of almost immediate death will remove all temptation to falsehood and enforce as strict adherence to the truth as the obligation of an oath could impose.” Mattox v. U.S., 146 U.S. 140, 152, 13 S.Ct. 50, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892). Consequently, we reject Davis’s challenge to the reliability of the dying declaration.

Having concluded that both of Davis’s arguments are without merit, we reject his invitation to abrogate Florida’s dying declaration exception. Our analysis and the conclusion that we reach today are consistent with that of other jurisdictions that have considered the post -Crawford viability of the dying declaration. For instance, shortly after Crawford was decided, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Monterroso, 34 Cal.4th 743, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 101 P.3d 956 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 834, 126 S.Ct. 61, 163 L.Ed.2d 89 (2005), In Monterroso, the court rejected the defendant’s claim “that Crawford has abrogated the exception for dying declarations.” Id. 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 101 P.3d at 972. Concluding that “the holding of Crawford does no such thing,” the court observed:

To exclude such evidence as violative of the right to confrontation would not only be contrary to all the precedents in England and here, acquiesced in long since the adoption of these constitutional provisions, but it would be abhorrent to that sense of justice and regard for individual security and public safety which its exclusion in some cases would inevitably set at naught.

Monterroso, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 101 P.3d at 972 (quoting State v. Houser, 26 Mo. 431, 438 (Mo.1858)). The court concluded: “it follows that the common law pedigree of the exception for dying declarations poses no conflict with the Sixth Amendment.” Id. (citations omitted).

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the post-Crawford viability of the dying declaration in Beauchamp, 796 N.W.2d 780. The court reasoned: “If we were to accept that the Confrontation Clause, as set forth in Crawford’s seemingly unbending declaration, requires that all testimonial statements be subject to confrontation to test their reliability, we would exclude dying declarations as, by definition, uncon-frontable, and therefore, statements whose reliability cannot be tested.” Id. at 791. We agree with the court in Beauchamp that “such a seemingly rigid approach cannot prevail here.” Id.

Most recently, the highest appellate court in Maryland, the Special Court of Appeals, affirmed the judgment in Hailes and held that the dying declaration remains viable in Maryland. The state’s high court explained:

Here, we reach the same conclusion that the Supreme Court has consistently endorsed for more than a century, and hold that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to dying declarations.... Although it is accurate that, in Crawford and its progeny, the Supreme Court has not yet held that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to dying declarations, our holding is entirely consistent with Crawford and its progeny.

Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 113 A.3d 608, 611 (2015).

Although Crawford “deliberately avoided the question of how [the holding in Cra