## Facts

- Richard (“Rick”) Van Dusen and Karla Van Dusen advertised their 1971 Chevrolet Cheyenne pickup truck for sale.
- On November 25, 2003, a neighbor saw Rick driving the truck with Karla following in the couple’s Jeep as they left home; cell-phone records reflected travel from Tierra Verde toward the Oldsmar area.
- While driving, Karla spoke by phone with her mother and said she was following the person who bought the truck to complete paperwork and that he had cash.
- The victims were found dead the next day near Oldsmar, a short distance from the area indicated by the victims’ last cell-tower activity.
- The State’s theory was that Deparvine posed as a buyer, met the victims to complete paperwork, murdered them, and took the truck.
- Trial evidence included cell-tower data, testimony about the truck-sale arrangements, Deparvine’s possession of the truck after the murders, and DNA evidence placing Deparvine in the victims’ Jeep.
- A jury convicted Deparvine of two counts of first-degree murder and armed carjacking and recommended death; the trial court imposed death for each murder and imprisonment for carjacking.
- Deparvine took a direct appeal; the State filed a cross-appeal on a sentencing-related issue.

## Issues

1. Whether Karla’s phone statements to her mother were admissible under Florida’s hearsay exception for spontaneous statements.
2. Whether the first-degree murder indictment was fundamentally defective for not specifying premeditated murder, felony murder, or both.
3. Whether Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment under *Ring v. Arizona* when the jury’s recommendation was not unanimous and aggravators were not all found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the evidence supported the convictions and the death sentences were lawful, including proportionality and penalty-phase claims.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Deparvine’s convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and armed carjacking.
- The court affirmed both death sentences and rejected challenges to aggravation, mitigation, penalty-phase instructions, and proportionality.
- The court held Karla’s phone statements were properly admitted as spontaneous statements because they described events as she perceived them during the drive.
- The court held the indictment was sufficient because it tracked the first-degree murder statute and provided adequate notice, permitting the State to proceed on premeditated and felony-murder theories.
- The court rejected the *Ring* challenge as applied, relying on the existence of a qualifying prior violent felony aggravator within the prior-conviction exception.

## Legal Principles

- A statement may qualify as a “spontaneous statement” if it describes or explains an event or condition and is made while the declarant is perceiving the event or immediately thereafter; a startling event is not required.
- An indictment that tracks the statutory language for first-degree murder is generally sufficient and may support prosecution on both premeditated and felony-murder theories without pleading the underlying felony.
- For Sixth Amendment challenges to capital sentencing, the existence of a qualifying prior violent felony aggravator may satisfy constitutional requirements under the prior-conviction exception recognized in *Apprendi* and applied in *Ring* analysis.
- On direct review, death sentences are upheld when supported by competent evidence, the aggravation and mitigation are properly evaluated, and the result is proportionate under Florida precedent.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Deparvine’s murder convictions and death sentences, holding that the victim’s contemporaneous phone statements were admissible as spontaneous statements, the murder indictment was legally sufficient without specifying the precise first-degree murder theory, and Florida’s capital sentencing scheme was constitutional as applied in light of a prior violent felony aggravator.


Deparvine v. State, 995 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2008)