Ancient1

The rest of the story. This guy is sick. He does need to be removed.

On July 31, 2004, the defendant Christopher Offord killed his wife by beating her with his fists, stabbing her with a steak knife and ultimately beating her to death with the claw side of a hammer after administering approximately seventy (70) blows to her face, knees and stomach.

The defendant and the victim were married a few days after meeting each other in March 2004. Ms. Noser had filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage which had been served on the defendant four (4) days before he killed her on July 31, 2004. The day before her death she drove him to his place of employment and returned him to the apartment he was living in. She then went out with friends drinking and came back to the apartment about 3:00 awakening him and he wanted to go out drinking at a local bar. The defendant drank a beer and shot pool while she only drank water there. They went to a Waffle House for breakfast at about 4:00 a.m. and sat on the same side of the bench while eating. They joked and were affectionate with each other, went back to the defendant's apartment and engaged in sexual activity. He left the bedroom after having sex with her, went into the kitchen and picked up a knife, some duct tape and a pair of scissors. He was annoyed at her attempt to "cuddle" after sex and planned to kill her with the knife after muffling her expected screams with the tape. When the knife bent, he picked up a hammer and beat her incessantly with its claw end. Based on the testimony presented and the other evidence in the case, the Court finds as follows:

Aggravating Factors

The capital felony was a homicide and was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

In order for a crime to be especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, it must be both consciousless or pitiless and unnecessarily tortuous to the victim, see Richardson vs. State, 604 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1992); Hartley vs. State, 686 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 1996); Mansfield vs. State, 758 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2000) and Morgan vs. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001.) Wournos vs. State, 644 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 1994) and Geralds vs. State, 676 So.2d 96 (Fla. 1996) state that this aggravator is established when the victim's death were neither instantaneous nor painless. In this case, it was proven beyond every doubt that the victim's death was neither instantaneous nor painless. Ms. Noser lived 15 to 20 minutes and her face was basically unrecognizable from the hammer blows. She continued to moan for a period of time and the defendant continued to beat on her in an attempt to "take off her face."

This was not an instantaneous death, and it was obviously extremely painful and unnecessarily brutal. This was one of the "most serious aggravators set out in the statutory sentencing scheme." (See Morgan vs. State, 789 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2001)

This Court finds that this aggravating factor has clearly been proven, established beyond a reasonable doubt and gives it great weight in considering all the circumstances of this case.

Mitigating Circumstances

1. The crime for which the defendant is to be sentenced was committed while he was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

Dr. Jill Rowan, a psychologist, testified before the jury about the defendant's long history of treatment for mental illness. He has been diagnosed as suffering from Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, substance abuse or different types of personality disorders. His mental health treatment began as a young child and is documented by records of his treatment. The defendant told the arresting officers that he was hallucinating and that voices were urging him to kill his wife. The defendant testified before this Court at the Spencer hearing and never mentioned that voices told him to kill his wife, but that he was able to "fool any doctor you put in my face" and that if he was homeless and needed a roof to live under he would go that route for survival. He stated there was nothing, no explanation whatsoever for it, "I just lost it," and that its "kind of hard to make an explanation for murder." He stated further that "his wife got on his nerves" and that he understood what he was doing while he was killing her and when asked why he didn't stop, he stated "I had nothing to lose if I stopped right at that, at any point and she lived I would have been in the penitentiary for the rest of my life anyway, so I didn't stop." He never mentioned auditory hallucinations urging him to commit the crime.

A careful review of the defendant's mental health treatment shows that the psychiatrist who treated him in a four (4) month period before the murder stated that his diagnosis of schizophrenia was by history only and seemed to suggest that his primary problem could have been substance abuse. The defendant did tell the staff at the psychiatric hospital that he wanted to kill his wife and that he was tired of her contacting him. At the time of the offense, he was not under the influence of alcohol, or drugs, he had worked all day and only drank two (2) or three (3) beers at a bar. Both he and his wife were in good moods and there was no particular trigger to explain his sudden urge to kill her, nor his excessive brutality in carrying out the act. Therefore, this factor is given only some weight.

2. The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law substantially impaired the defendant.

The defendant's attorney argues that he was unable to resist auditory commands to kill his wife and suggests that since the time of the murder he has gained some insight into his behavior and is remorseful. His comments at the Spencer hearing do not demonstrate remorse, nor do they show that auditory hallucinations drove the defendant. He testified that he was never sober while in Panama City, but drinking constantly. His statement to the police explained that he felt that he was spending too much money on his drinking and since he was unable to keep a job for very long, it cut into the limited income that he received from Social Security and he would check himself in and out of psychiatric hospitals to cut down on his expensive drinking.

He stated he was upset with his wife because "she went bar-hopping without him," he said she kept wanting to cuddle and he was just fed up with it and he was concerned about not getting enough sleep to be able to go to work. He does state that "none of this makes any sense because she kept running her mouth too much." The defendant also stated that he didn't think he was "crazy at all." The Court grants moderate weight to this factor.

The Existence of Non-Statutory Mitigating Factors

1. The Court considers that the victim had filed a petition for the dissolution of their marriage and he had been served four (4) days prior to the homicide and the victim had recently filed a Petition for Injunction Against Domestic Violence and had attempted to withdraw it, but it had already been denied. The on again, off again nature of their relationship between the Defendant did add stress to the defendant's instability. The Court finds that the marital discord is a factor to be considered but to be given little weight.

2. Drug and alcohol abuse. The defendant was arrested for DUI in 2004, and was consuming excessive amounts of alcohol and some drugs while in Panama City but was not drunk nor drugged at the time of the murder, therefore, this factor is given very little weight.

Having reviewed the aggravating and all of the mitigating circumstances, the Court finds that the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating circumstances for the murder of Dana K. Noser. The Defendant struck his wife approximately seventy (70) individual blows after spending a happy interlude with her. Her desire to cuddle after sex does not justify the extremely violent, brutal response of the Defendant. It is clear that the Defendant led a marginal existence, only managing to work brief periods of time his entire life. While he did experience some mental health issues, they did not outweigh the brutish, violent beating she endured while he attempted to remove her face with the claw end of a hammer. He was not drunk and not so impaired that he didn't understand what he was doing while he was doing it. In fact, he testified that he consciously knew that the massive beating was enough to send him to prison for life, so he figured why stop since he would end up in prison anyway. Accordingly,

It is the Judgment of this Court for the murder of Dana K. Noser, the Defendant is sentenced to be put to death in the manner prescribed by law. The defendant is given 368 days credit for time served.

It is Ordered that you, Christopher Offord, be taken by the proper authority to the Florida State Prison and there be kept in close confinement until the date of your execution is set.

It is Further Ordered that on such scheduled date you Christopher Offord be put to death.

You are Hereby Notified that this sentence is subject to automatic review by the Florida Supreme Court.

Done and Ordered in open court at Panama City, Bay County, Florida on this 3rd day of August, 2005.

Dedee S. Costello
Circuit Judge