8.Closing Argument — Prosecution

MR. CACCIATORE: This is a box. This is the box where Jorge Torres was killed. It's a small box, 28 by 20 by 8 and seven-eighths inches. Jorge Torres was zipped up in this box. Jorge Torres took his last panicked breaths in this box.

The medical examiner explained to us that with each breath Jorge Torres took in, there was less oxygen in this box. Jorge Torres was murdered in this box.

Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of myself and my trial partner, we thank you for your time and attention in this most important of trials. We now have the law from the judge in this case. This is what our duty is to follow, and let's have a discussion regarding that law that we've just been read and given.

The first section of note we are going to come to is called introduction to homicide, but this being a legal document written by a bunch of lawyers, who you've seen for the last two weeks arguing with each other, pay careful attention to "ands" and "ors". Remember, if an "and" is somewhere, we're going to need both things or all the things; and if an "or" is there, then only one of those things we're going to need.

So as we start out here on introduction to homicide, we come to the first section on justifiable homicide. And it reads: The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time.

Ladies and gentlemen, this section is completely inapplicable. It's inapplicable because Jorge Torres was zipped up in that suitcase. He couldn't commit or attempt to commit a murder on anybody. He couldn't even scratch his own head while he was in that Suitcase.

Next we turn to excusable homicide, and here we have several paragraphs, and it reads: The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances: When the killing is committed by accident and the misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent.

Well, the problem in this circumstance with the defendant is that she took the law into her own hands. Her testimony was that when Jorge Torres was in here, he was laughing and giggling and they were joking. And then he started to complain that he couldn't breathe, and that's when she said that she wanted him to stay in there so he could feel uncomfortable, so she could -- he could feel her grievances. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not lawful, that is not the use of ordinary caution, and that is not applicable in this circumstance.

Second, when the killing occurs by accident or misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation. Jorge Torres couldn't provoke anything from his circumstance. Jorge Torres was confined to this box.

Next, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used, or the killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner. Well, this fails on two counts. There was no sudden combat. In her words, this was laughing and joking and we're all having fun when she decides that it's going to get a little extra real for Jorge Torres. And it fails on the second count because Jorge Torres was killed ina cruel and unusual manner.

Next, we turn to our main charge of second degree murder. And the law informs us that to prove the crime of second degree murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think it's important to stop right here. This sentence right here is telling us what has to be proven in order for the crime of second degree murder to be -- for the defendant to be found guilty in this case.

We've been hearing all kinds of facts for almost two weeks now of trial, but these are the three facts that had to have been met by the reasonable doubt standard in order to be found guilty. Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that the State has proven second degree murder beyond all doubt. And the proof of that guilt is overwhelming, but I will cite for each element just one fact that conclusively proves each of those elements beyond all doubt.

As to the first fact, that Jorge Torres is dead, well, we have a stipulation, amongst other things, that agrees to that. As to the second fact, the death was caused by Sarah Boone. Sarah Boone, in her own words, from the time that this case began on February 23rd, 2020, to when she took the witness stand a few days ago was consistent about one statement, she zipped him up and she didn't zip him out. She zipped him up in the Suitcase and she refused to zip him out.

Three, there was an unlawful killing of Jorge Torres by an act imminently dangerous to another in demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. The law goes on to define for us what a depraved mind is and also what an act is, and it's gonna tell us that an act includes any series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. An act is imminently dangerous to another in demonstrating a depraved mind if it is an act or a series of acts that, one, a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily harm to another; and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent; and is of such a nature that the act itself displays an indifference to human life.

Ladies and gentlemen, her conduct fits every one of those things. And if there was a scintilla of doubt that this was not the actions of a depraved mind, I point to you IMG_1062 in State's 17.

Mr. Jay, may you publish State's 17.

MR. CACCIATORE: Ladies and gentlemen, that exhibit removes any scintilla of doubt about the depravity of the defendant's actions. But we know from the evidence that this was not the first time she had considered killing Jorge Torres. We know from the evidence that on January 13th, 2020, approximately one month prior to Jorge Torres' murder, the defendant had a text message conversation: Please do something with yourself, Sarah. God bless you. And bless you and all of you too. I'll get rid of him. Then I'll be better. Ugh. Torres.

But, ladies and gentlemen, in this case, the law actually specifically tells us that the intent to cause death is not necessary. In order to convict of second degree murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.

Next, we turn -- I'm going to bypass the lesser included offenses, because though she is guilty of those offenses as well, the law instructs us that she is to be convicted for the highest offense in which the evidence supports, which is second degree murder in this case.

So turning our attention towards voluntary intoxication. If there was any question about the fact that Sarah imbibed alcohol on the night that Jorge Torres was murdered and that maybe somehow that would excuse the conduct or be some type of defense for the conduct, well, this tells us that that's not the case: Voluntary intoxication resulting from the use of alcohol is not a defense to a crime. Evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication may not be taken into consideration to show that she lacked the specific intent to commit any crime. A person is voluntarily intoxicated if he or she knowingly consumed a substance that he or she knew or should have known could cause intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to second degree murder, manslaughter, or culpable negligence.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is ample evidence of the defendant's intoxication from watching her on the Publix surveillance buying the bottles of wine with Jorge Torres, to her admissions to drinking, to her voice that we heard on the video while she was torturing Jorge Torres.

Next we come to defenses. First we come to the justifiable use of deadly force. And it tells us, it is a defense to the crimes of second degree murder, manslaughter, and culpable negligence if the actions of Sarah Boone were justifiable use or threatened use of deadly force. Sarah Boone does not have the burden of proving that she was justified in using deadly force. Instead, for you to find Sarah Boone guilty, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sarah Boone was not justified in using deadly force.

The law on the justifiable use of deadly force is as follows: Sarah Boone was justified in using deadly force if she reasonably believed that such force was -- that such force or threat of force was necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm to herself. Sarah Boone had no duty to retreat.

Ladies and gentlemen, in a few moments, Mr. Owens will rise and he is going to show you this and this and this, and he's going to talk -- and this as well -- about the list of grievances that Sarah Boone had for Jorge Torres. He's going to talk to you about curtain rods. He's going to talk to you about black eyes. He's going to talk to you about what an awful, awful boyfriend Jorge Torres was. And ladies and gentlemen, at the end of all of that, it still will not change the fact that the defendant is not entitled to the justifiable use of deadly force.

Because as we continue to read this instruction, it tells us: In deciding whether Sarah Boone was justified in using the use of deadly force, you must consider the circumstances at the time the force or the threat of force was used. Danger need not have been actual, however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of imminent danger must have been so real that Sarah Boone actually believed that deadly force was necessary. Moreover, to justify the use of deadly force -- and this is important -- a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed the use of deadly force was necessary. Ladies and gentlemen, no reasonably prudent and cautious person would believe that a man who could barely fit into this box, who was incapable of movement, who was begging for his life, who was slowly asphyxiating, suffocating with each breath, would have needed to use deadly force against him. The justifiable use of deadly force utterly fails, utterly crashes like a house of cards.

But there's more. However, the use of deadly force is not justified if you find that Sarah Boone used force to initially provoke the threatened use of force against herself. Let's stop there before we consider the next two paragraphs.

Some of the most critical testimony in this trial is her testimony on the stand: It was a great day. We were doing puzzles and artwork, dancing with the dogs, listening to music; tag, you're it, hide-and-go-seek time. Jorge gets into the suitcase, she comes and zips him up. They were still laughing about it. We're still laughing after he's zipped up in the suitcase.

And then that's when Jorge had the temerity to ask -- Jorge Torres had the temerity to ask to be unzipped from the suitcase, and that's when Sarah Boone decided he needed to suffer. She was the initial aggressor, ladies and gentlemen. She provoked the use of force in this case. In her own words, we were laughing and playing right before he wanted to be let out because he couldn't breathe.

Paragraph one, the threat of force asserted toward the defendant was so great that she reasonably believed that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger other than using deadly force on Jorge Torres.

He couldn't exert anything, ladies and gentlemen. He couldn't -- Jorge Torres couldn't even exert his arm out of the suitcase. How on earth could he have exerted a force so great to justify his --

MR. CACCIATORE: So this is of no help to the defendant.

Second paragraph: In good faith, Sarah Boone withdrew from physical contact with Jorge Torres and clearly indicated to Jorge Torres that she wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but Jorge Torres continued or resumed the threatened use of deadly force.

Ladies and gentlemen, Jorge Torres never got a chance to do anything. Jorge Torres never was able to mount any aggression towards the defendant, therefore, this paragraph is inapplicable.

And the law tells us as well that physical contact in this case includes any restraint on Jorge Torres' movements. The law also tells us, again, if you find that Sarah Boone, because of prior threats or difficulties with Jorge Torres, had reasonable grounds to believe that she was in danger of great bodily harm -- of death or great bodily harm at the hands of Jorge Torres, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of Sarah Boone were reasonable.

Now, we're going to get to battered spouse syndrome in a moment, but, again, I submit to you this will be the opportunity for the defense to err grievances in regards to Jorge Torres, but, again, those grievances will not change the law and they will not change the fact that the justifiable use of deadly force fails as a defense for the defendant.

If you find that at the time of the alleged second degree murder, manslaughter, culpable negligence Sarah Boone knew that Jorge Torres had committed an act or acts of violence, you may consider that fact in determining whether Sarah Boone reasonably believed it was necessary for her to use deadly force. In considering the issue of deadly force, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of Sarah Boone and Jorge Torres.

Now we come to the battered -- excuse me, the special instruction on battered spouse. You have heard evidence that Sarah Boone suffers from battered spouse syndrome. If you find Sarah Boone suffered from battered spouse syndrome credible, you may consider this evidence to assist you in determining whether, in Sarah Boone's circumstances, would reasonably believe that such force was necessary to defend herself against the imminent use of unlawful force by Jorge Torres. Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony in regards to battered spouse.

Ladies and gentlemen, we heard from three experts in the areas of battered spouse in this case. And I think at the outset, it's important to note what battered spouse is and isn't and what the law instructs us here.

Battered spouse is not some carte blanche. Battered spouse is not a license to kill. The fact that Jorge Torres at points mistreated Sarah Boone, did things that were worthy enough to get him arrested, to get restraining orders placed upon him, doesn't mean that she walks around with an ace in her pocket when it comes to Jorge Torres. It doesn't mean that because he did these awful, bad things, that now through the rest of time she's a battered spouse and she just has the right to kill him or to make him suffer or to punish him or to make him feel uncomfortable or decide that he needs to be confined to a box. No.

What the battered spouse syndrome instruction does is it talks about the imminency of fear. And when we heard about that testimony -- we heard about it from Dr. Harper and we heard about it from Dr. Brannon for the defense. And some of the testimony was a little difficult to understand at points, but there was one point in Dr. Brannon's testimony that was very critical.

Dr. Brannon talked about rule-outs. He talked about the fact that when emotions and emotional reactions are involved, like trauma and trauma-based disorders, other possibilities have to be ruled out before we can even ascribe those actions to battered spouse syndrome. Other possibilities, according to Dr. Brannon, include alcohol abuse.

Dr. Harper should have listened to Dr. Brannon's testimony, because Dr. Brannon completely undercut Dr. Harper's testimony. Dr. Harper relied heavily on the words of the defendant, who was abusing alcohol at the time of these events. And then you heard from the expert for the State, Tonia Werner, and her opinion was much more straightforward. Remember, Dr. Brannon did not render an opinion as to whether or not she suffered from battered spouse. Dr. Werner said affirmatively, yes, I believe she did suffer from battered spouse syndrome, but she also applied what Dr. Brannon was talking about, other possibilities have to be ruled out as the trigger for a behavior or an event.

So in Dr. Werner's estimation, the fact that at the time of this incident, they were laughing and joking and carrying on meant that the trigger was not domestic violence or some threat. In the defendant's own words, the trigger was him wanting to get out and her being reminded of the bad things that he had done to her. That's not imminence of fear, that's a reminder of bad things a person has done.

And, again, even if you were to believe that she was battered spouse triggered at the time of this event, it still does not save the day, because all the battered spouse trigger -- law tells us is it goes to that imminency requirement. It doesn't say there's no imminency requirement. It doesn't say that, look, if you're suffering from battered spouse and you're triggered by battered spouse, then, hey, there's no more imminency requirement, do as you wish. It just gives the ladies and gentlemen of the jury another thing to consider in determining whether or not that threat was imminent.

And we know from the evidence, we know from the videos, there was absolutely no threat. And we know there was no threat because Jorge Torres never got out of that box. He never got out of that box until sometime on the early afternoon of February 24th.

Mr. Jay, can you please publish from State's 21?

MR. CACCIATORE: Clearly, Jorge Torres is dominating the defendant. Clearly, Jorge Torres is the one telling the defendant what to do. Clearly, Jorge Torres is the one calling the shots at 4748 Frantz Lane. Ladies and gentlemen, are we so sure that Jorge Torres wasn't the person suffering from battered spouse syndrome?

Next, we're going to come to the justifiable use of non-deadly force. The language and the arguments are pretty close to what we've already heard in the deadly force instruction, including the key language that it requires a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed the use of non-deadly force was necessary. Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that this was not a case of non-deadly force.

Jorge Torres lost his life as a result of these actions. We have heard the testimony of Dr. Sara Zydowicz, who described his cause and manner of death, who described the mechanism of death, how that oxygen dissipated in that suitcase.

And when we also look at the imminency, we heard in opening statements by Mr. Owens, that, Oh, the big threat in this case, the awful threat was -- was in the magic nine minutes between the video at 11:12 that she took torturing Jorge Torres to her follow-up video at 11:23 after she had moved the suitcase.

Mr. Jay, will you from State's 17 IMG_1063.

MR. CACCIATORE: It was a short video. Well, what's one of the things that we notice by this point? You can hear how loud Jorge's voice is on the 11:12 video, but now roughly 11 minutes later from the time that that started, we see that the makeshift coffin that he's in has been moved and his voice now is softer. The life is draining from Jorge Torres, and it's evident in that video. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is evidence that there was no threat in the magic nine minutes that was not recorded. There was only Jorge Torres in this box slowly being killed.

Next we come to weighing the evidence. This instruction tells us, it is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence. You should consider how the witness acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider, did the witness have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified? And focusing on the defendant, absolutely. Two people walked through the front door on the evening of February 23rd, 2020, at 4748 Frantz Court, Jorge Torres and Sarah Boone, but only Sarah Boone ever walked out of that front door alive.

Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory? This is an emphatic no. And the litany of her intoxication and versions of events is evidence of that.

Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions? I would submit to you she wasn't.

Four, did the witness have some case -- some interest in how the case should be decided? Clearly.

Does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? And I would say, largely, no. Because on the issue of whether or not Jorge Torres could have threatened her the way she says that he did, the answer is clearly no. And we know that from the forensic data, we know that from the items itself.

Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court? In regards to the defendant, it's almost more appropriate to ask about the time she did make a consistent statement.

You listened to her version of events on the 911 call, on the body cameras, on her first interviews with law enforcement. And then you hear her in her next interview the next day with Detective Koepsell and Detective Lowen, and more details come out, things change.

First, she was never intoxicated. Then she was intoxicated. Then there's just the whole fact of she omits the fact of, Oh, yeah, he was actually trying to attack me. Oh, yeah, I was in fear for my life. When she said at every turn, No, it was just a great day. We were having fun. Oh, my God, I can't believe this. We were doing good. The only stress we had was about jobs. And now four and a half years after the fact, it's time to come up with a new story.

But, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that the truth does not change. The facts do not change. The videos do not change. And on any version of events that the defendant has given, they all add up to the fact that there is absolutely no doubt that she is guilty of murder.

IT ask you, ladies and gentlemen, do you have any doubt about the defendant's guilt when she described using that baseball bat to hit Jorge Torres' fingers back in the suitcase when he attempted to save his life? Do you have any doubt when she has given how many versions of events in this case? Do you have any doubt after hearing the testimony of her neighbors about the loud crash and the arguing that night? Do you have any doubt after hearing the testimony of Dr. Sara Zydowicz? Do you have any doubt after watching the videos of Jorge Torres being murdered and her laughing about it and talking about the fact that he cheated on her? Do you have any doubt after reading the text messages from her phone, after seeing the videos of how she controlled and manipulated Jorge Torres?

And if you say, Mr. Cacciatore, I still have a doubt, well, then the law asks you, is that doubt to an element and is that doubt a mere possible doubt, a speculative, an imaginary, or a forced doubt? I submit to you, the idea that she had to do this because she was a battered spouse, iS an imaginary doubt. It's a doubt borne from the imagination of Sarah Boone. It is not a reasonable doubt. But if you find yourself back in that deliberation room and you are just trying to think of some way, some way in which the defendant is not guilty, just searching, struggling for that way, that also is not a reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen, that is a forced doubt.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm confident that when you read the entirety of those jury instructions and apply the law to the facts that came out in this case, that you are going to come back with the only lawful verdict, which is guilty as charged of second degree murder.

Thank you.