FIFTH DISTRICT CASEY MARIE ANTHONY, STATE OF …

1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDAFIFTH DISTRICTCASEY MARIE ANTHONY, Appellant, No. 5D11-2357 STATE OF FLORIDA, APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURTOF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDAANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEEPAMELA JO BONDIATTORNEY GENERALW esley HeidtAssistant Attorney GeneralFlorida Bar No. 773026444 Seabreeze Blvd., Suite 500 Daytona Beach, Florida 32118(386) 238- 4990 Fax (386) Received Sep 6, 2012 4:31 PM-i-TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF OF THE CASE AND OF THE THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY, THETRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE DEFENDANT SMOTION TO WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF FOURCOUNTS OF PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND APPELLANT HAS FAILEDTO SHOW A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION. ISSUE IS NOT A MATERIALITY ELEMENT TO THECHARGED OFFENSE, THE INSTANT STATUTE IS NOTUNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND APPELLANT WAS PROPERLYCONVICTED OF PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TOLAW OF SERVICE.

2 49 DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL OF OF AUTHORITIESCASES: Bedoya v. STATE ,779 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA)cert. 797 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2001)..34 Boler v. STATE ,678 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1996)..40 Burke v. STATE ,475 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1986)..42 Caso v. STATE ,524 So. 2d 422 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 870 (1988)..33 Connor v. STATE ,803 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2001), cert. denied, 535 1103 (2002)..34, 40 Hoag v. STATE ,511 So. 2d , 43 Howard v. STATE ,664 603 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983).. v. STATE ,682 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1996)..40 Miranda v. Arizona,384 436 (1966)..33 Parks v. STATE ,644 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)..38 People v. Allen,73 378, 540 971, 538 323 (1989)..37 Ramirez v. STATE ,739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999), cert. denied, 528 1131 (2000)..34 Reynolds v. STATE ,592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1992)..36-iii-Sanchez-Velasco v. STATE ,570 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1990)..38 Saturnino-Boudet v. STATE ,682 So.

3 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)..37 STATE v. Adkins, 37 Fla. L. Weekly S 449 (Fla. July 12, 2012)..45 STATE v. Elder,382 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1980)..44 STATE v. Giorgetti,868 So. 2d 512 ( )..45 STATE v. , 66 So. 3d 380, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)..36 STATE v. Mitro,700 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1997)..44 STATE v. Scott,786 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)..39 STATE v. Stalder,630 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1994)..44 Valdes v. STATE , 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009)..40 STATE v. Wheeler,108 Wash. 2d 230, 737 1005 (1987)..37 United states v. Bautista,684 1286 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 1211 (1983)..37 United states v. Crittendon,883 326 (4th Cir. 1989)..37 United states v. Glenna,878 967 (7th Cir. 1989)..37 United states v. Kapperman,764 786 (11th Cir. 1985)..37 United states v. Taylor,716 701 (9th Cir. 1983)..37-iv-Williams v. STATE ,757 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)..35 STATUTES:Section , Fla. Stat. (2008)..42-1-STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTSA ppellant s statement of the case and facts are substantiallyaccurate for the purpose of this appeal; however, the STATE addsthe following more detailed facts relevant to the four convictions:Appellant was charged by indictment with First Degree Murder,Aggravated Child Abuse, and providing False Information to LawEnforcement.

4 (R 29, Vol. II). On July 5, 2011, Appellant was foundguilty of the four counts of providing False Information to LawEnforcement which read in the indictment as follows:COUNT 4: On July 16, 2008, anthony knowingly andwillfully gave false information to YURI MELICH, alaw enforcement officer with the Orange CountySherriff, who was conducting a missing person sinvestigation, to-wit: that anthony was employed atUniversal Studios Orlando during the year 5: On July 16, 2008, anthony knowingly andwillfully gave false information to YURI MELICH, alaw enforcement officer with the Orange CountySherriff, who was conducting a missing person sinvestigation, with the intend to mislead YURIMELICH or impede his investigation to-wit: thatAnthony left the child Caylee MARIE anthony at theSawgrass Apartments, 2863 South Conway Road, Apt210, Orlando Florida with a person identified asZENAIDA FERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ on June 9, 2008 or anysubsequent 6: On July 16, 2008, anthony knowingly andwillfully gave false information to YURI MELICH, alaw enforcement officer with the Orange CountySherriff, who was conducting a missing person sinvestigation, with the intend to mislead YURIMELICH or impede his investigation to-wit: thatAnthony informed persons identified as JEFFREYMICHAEL HOPKINS and JULIETTE LEWIS, a formerUniversal Studios Orlando employees, of thedisappearance of the child Caylee MARIE Anthonybetween June 9, 2008 and July 16, 7.

5 On July 16, 2008, anthony knowingly andwillfully gave false information to YURI MELICH, alaw enforcement officer with the Orange CountySherriff, who was conducting a missing person sinvestigation, with the intend to mislead YURIMELICH or impede his investigation to-wit: thatAnthony received a phone call from the child CayleeMarie anthony on July 15, 2008 at approximately12:00 (T 3-4, Vol. II). Appellant was, thereafter, sentenced to 1 yearin the Orange County Jail to run consecutive for each count withcredit for 1,043 days time served; a $1, fine for each of thefour convictions, court costs, cost of prosecution, and cost ofinvestigation. (R 19963-67, Vol. 109).At trial, the testimony of the witnesses revealed that fromJune 16, 2008 to July 15, 2008, Appellant was residing with herboyfriend anthony Lazarro and his two roommates: Nathan Lezniewczand Cameron Campana. (Supp T 233, Vol.)

6 II; Supp T 421, 425-426,Vol. III;). Further, it is undisputed that Appellant told AnthonyLazzaro, friends, and family members not only that she was employedas an event coordinator by Universal Studies during the time inquestion, but also that a babysitter by the name of "Zanny" caredfor her child, Caylee MARIE anthony , (hereinafter "the child").(Supp T 233, Vol. II; Supp T 421, Vol. III;). The testimony furtherrevealed that on or about June 16, 2008, Cindy anthony (Appellant smother) started a dialogue with Appellant regarding Appellant swhereabouts and when Appellant was planning on returning home to4937 Hopespring Drive. (T 02653, Vol. 17; Supp T 1058, Vol. VII).-3-However, from June 16, 2008, until July 15, 2008, Appellant,according to the testimony, contrived the following facts:On June 16, 2008, Cindy anthony testified that she had a briefconversation with Appellant on the telephone regarding Appellant splans for that afternoon.

7 (Supp T 1121, Vol. VII). According toCindy anthony , Appellant told her that she was planning on takingthe child "to Zanny s and .. probably just crash[ing] at Zanny swhen she got off of work because she had an early morning the nextday at work." (Supp T 1122, Vol. VII). Cindy anthony testified toagreeing with the child staying at Zanny s on that day becauseeveryone had to work the next day. (Supp T 1122, Vol. VII).However, Cindy anthony expected that Appellant and the child wouldreturn home on June 17, 2008. (Supp T 1123, Vol. VII). They didnot. (Supp T 1123, Vol. VII).On June 17, 2008, Appellant called Cindy anthony to let herknow that work was conducting various meetings and "negotiationswere going to be very lengthy." (Supp T 1124, Vol. VII). As such,Appellant "didn t know when she would get done." (Supp T 1124, ). Cindy anthony testified that because of Appellant s workschedule, Appellant "was going to stay [at Zanny s] and keep thechild.

8 With Zanny." (Supp T 1124, Vol. VII). However,Appellant and child were scheduled to return on June 18, 2008.(Supp T 1124, Vol. VII). Again, they did not return. (Supp T 1124,Vol. VII).-4-Cindy anthony testified that Appellant called her on June 18,2008, and told her that she was being sent from Universal Studios,Orlando to Bush Gardens, Tampa. (Supp T 1124, Vol. VII). Appellantexplained that Zanny would be free to take the trip with her inorder to help her watch the child. (Supp T 1124, Vol. VII).Additionally, Appellant stated that her coworker (Juliette Lewis)was accompanying them and bringing her daughter (Anabelle) so thatthe child could have a playmate. (Supp T 1124-1125, Vol. VII).Cindy anthony testified that she expected Appellant and child toreturn home on June 21, 2008, after visiting Bush Gardens andAnimal Kingdom. (Supp T 1124-1125, Vol. VII). However, on June 21, 2008, Appellant informed Cindy Anthonythat she had meetings on that day and was unable to return becauseshe had not been able to enjoy the park with the child, as such shewas staying in Tampa until either the 22nd or 23rd of June.

9 (SuppT 1126-1127, Vol. VII).On June 23, 2008, after not hearing from Appellant, CindyAnthony testified to calling and leaving messages on Appellant stelephone. (Supp T 1127, Vol. VII). Cindy anthony stated thatAppellant finally called back, told her not to panic, and informedher that Zanny had been in a car accident on their way back fromTampa to Orlando. (Supp T 1128, Vol. VII). According to Appellant,Zanny was driving ahead of her, and she witnessed Zanny get into apretty serious car accident. (Supp T 1128, Vol. VII). Because of-5-the wreck, "she had been all day at the hospital. And that was herfirst chance to call and let [Cindy anthony ] know." (Supp T 1128,Vol. VII). However, Appellant assured Cindy anthony that she andthe child "were perfectly fine," but could not come home. (Supp T1128, Vol. VII). Cindy anthony testified that Appellant told hershe checked back into the Tampa hotel. (Supp T 1128, Vol.)

10 VII). On June 24, 2008, the Orange County Sheriff s Office contactedGeorge anthony , regarding a break-in of the anthony s shed and thetheft of gas cans. (Supp T 1129-1130, Vol. VII). Cindy Anthonytestified to communicating this information to Appellant and thenfinding out that Appellant was home on that day. (Supp T 1130, ). According to Cindy anthony , Appellant was home because shevolunteered to drive to Zanny s apartment to pick up an insurancecard and to make arrangements with Zanny s family members regardingher stay at the hospital. (Supp T 1131, Vol. VII). Appellant toldCindy anthony "that she stopped home to get some things because shewas headed back to Tampa, and she didn't know, at that point, whenshe would be home." (Supp T 1131, Vol. VII). During thatconversation, Appellant admitted to taking the gas cans out of theshed because "she had run out of gas a few times." (Supp T 1132,Vol.