## Facts

- Ronny A. Zamora, a 15-year-old, broke into the home of his 82-year-old neighbor, Elinor H. Jarmulowsky, and shot and killed her during a burglary/robbery.
- The State charged Zamora with four counts: first-degree murder, burglary of a dwelling, possession of a firearm while committing a felony, and robbery.
- At trial, Zamora pleaded not guilty and asserted an insanity defense based on “involuntary subliminal television intoxication,” claiming prolonged exposure to violent television made him unable to distinguish right from wrong.
- The defense sought to present expert testimony from Dr. Margaret Thomas about the effects of television violence on juveniles and sociopathic children.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine limiting/excluding generalized television-effects testimony, concluding it was not tied to Florida’s legal insanity standard.
- The court instructed the jury on insanity only as to the murder count, not the burglary, firearm, or robbery counts.
- The jury convicted Zamora on all counts; he received a life sentence for murder (parole eligibility after 25 years) and concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding expert testimony and related evidence about television violence and “subliminal television intoxication” improperly limited the insanity defense under Florida law.
2. Whether the trial court erred by giving an insanity instruction only on the murder count and not on the other charged offenses.
3. Whether limits on voir dire questioning (including questions about television’s influence) denied the defense a fair opportunity to select an impartial jury.
4. Whether admitting photographs of the victim constituted an abuse of discretion due to unfair prejudice.
5. Whether an alleged violation of the witness sequestration rule required a new trial.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Zamora’s convictions and sentences on all counts.
- The court held the excluded television-effects evidence was not sufficiently relevant to the M’Naghten “right-and-wrong” test because the proffer did not show Zamora was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense.
- The court found no reversible error in limiting the insanity instruction to the murder count.
- The court ruled voir dire limitations were within the trial court’s discretion and no prejudice was shown.
- The court upheld admission of the victim photographs as within the trial court’s discretion and supported by probative value.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial based on the alleged sequestration violation because prejudice was not demonstrated.

## Legal Principles

- Florida applies the M’Naghten test: a defendant is legally insane only if, due to mental disease or defect, the defendant could not distinguish right from wrong at the time of the act.
- Expert testimony is admissible only if it is relevant and assists the factfinder on a fact of consequence; generalized social-science testimony not connected to the governing legal standard may be excluded.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary rulings (including expert testimony and photographs), regulation of voir dire, and decisions on motions for new trial based on sequestration violations.
- A trial court may limit an insanity instruction to specific counts when the evidentiary basis does not justify submitting insanity as to other offenses.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that a media-influence theory could not support an insanity defense without evidence satisfying Florida’s M’Naghten standard, and that the challenged voir dire, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and denial of a new trial were within the trial court’s discretion and not shown to be prejudicial.


Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1978)