Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Jacquiline Nicole REYNOLDS
Same day
By Paula McMahon - SunSentinel.com
April 5, 2001
A young Coral
Springs woman who stabbed her adoptive mother to death in 1997 got
her prison sentence cut by more than 12 years on Wednesday and
could be out in 2019.
Jacquiline
"Nikki" Reynolds, 21, was sentenced in 1999 to 34 years for the
murder of Billie Jean Reynolds at their home. But an appellate
court later ruled in another case that the sentencing guidelines
were unconstitutional and Reynolds was entitled to be
re-sentenced.
Broward
Circuit Judge Sheldon Schapiro re-sentenced Reynolds to 21 years
and eight months, the maximum under the 1994 guidelines that were
reinstated when the 1995 ones were invalidated.
Wearing
prison scrubs, Reynolds smiled at her attorney, Wayne Corry, and
nodded her head when she heard the new sentence.
The judge
rejected a request from prosecutor Deborah Zimet, who had asked
him to consider ruling that the crime was so bad, Reynolds should
still be imprisoned for up to 34 years. Under the valid guidelines
her sentence should be aggravated and hiked back to what it was
originally, Zimet said.
In May 1997
Reynolds, then 17, stabbed her mother 25 times, then called 911
and confessed to the dispatcher. In a detailed confession later to
police, she said she had planned to kill both her adoptive parents
and her boyfriend, Carlos Infante. She said she stopped after
murdering her mother because it was "too hard."
Reynolds was
diagnosed with psychiatric and emotional problems but a jury
rejected her insanity defense in 1999 and found her guilty of
second-degree murder.
Last week,
Zimet told the judge that Reynolds should serve more time because
the murder could be characterized as especially heinous, atrocious
or cruel and the victim suffered extraordinary physical or
emotional trauma.
"The victim
was conscious and aware of her impending death," Zimet said.
According to
Reynolds' confession, her mother begged her to stop and told
Reynolds that she loved her even as Reynolds chased her and
repeatedly plunged a kitchen knife into her.
The
Reynoldses were devoted to their daughter from the moment they
adopted her as an infant. The family was deeply religious and
heavily involved in the Coral Baptist Church in Coral Springs.
Billie Jean
Reynolds must have been devastated that her beloved daughter was
the one who attacked her, Zimet said.
Family
tensions broke out in the year before the murder when Nikki
Reynolds began to lie to her parents. She made a false allegation
of rape and faked pregnancy to try to hold on to Infante when he
broke up with her. She refused her parents' offers of help and
would not go for psychiatric treatment.
Corry asked
the judge to consider Reynolds' youth at the time of the incident
and her psychiatric problems. He said he was pleased with the
sentence reduction.
Reynolds has
already served about four years of her sentence and is likely to
complete about 85 percent of the prison term before she is
considered for release.
By Paula McMahon - SunSentinel.com
January 8, 2000
Tearful
apologies from a 20-year-old Coral Springs woman who stabbed her
adoptive mother to death failed to sway a Broward judge from
giving her the maximum prison sentence on Friday.
Broward
Circuit Judge Sheldon Schapiro sentenced Jacquiline "Nikki"
Reynolds to 34 years in prison for the May 14, 1997, murder of
Billie Jean Reynolds.
"I didn't
mean to hurt her. I didn't mean to tear the family apart,"
Reynolds told the victim's brothers and sisters. "I know you're
all confused, but I'm even more confused."
Reynolds,
who was 17 at the time, stabbed her mother 25 times at their home,
then called 911 and confessed to the dispatcher. She later told
police she had planned to kill both her adoptive parents and her
boyfriend, Carlos Infante, but stopped after the attack on Billie
Jean Reynolds because it was "too hard."
Reynolds was
charged with first-degree murder, but a jury in November found her
guilty of second-degree murder after rejecting her insanity
defense.
It was the
second time she stood trial last year. Jurors in the first trial,
which ended in May, were unable to reach a verdict.
Speaking
rapidly and sobbing, Reynolds begged the judge to give her a
lesser sentence, saying that if Billie Jean Reynolds had survived,
she believed she would have stood by her. She also asked to serve
time in a psychiatric center, saying she wants to get help for her
problems.
As Reynolds
stabbed Billie Jean, she asked if Billie Jean hated her. "No, I
love you. You just need help," were Billie Jean's last words,
according to Reynolds.
"The sad
part is there is no understanding," Reynolds said Friday.
But family
members told the judge she deserved the maximum penalty.
"Nikki is
strong-willed, and her selfish and evil ways have caused
immeasurable suffering," said Ann Carnicella, one of the victim's
three sisters.
Reynolds was
"hell-bent" on getting back at Infante for breaking up with her
and her tragic actions killed the woman who loved her above
everything in the world, Carnicella said.
"Let us not
allow ourselves to be manipulated as Nikki has done in the past,"
Carnicella said.
The
Reynoldses were devoted to their daughter from the moment they
adopted her shortly after her birth, family members said. The
family was deeply religious and involved in the Coral Baptist
Church in Coral Springs, where Robert J. Reynolds served as a
deacon and where he and Billie Jean Reynolds sang in the choir.
But family
tensions built up in the year before the murder when Reynolds
began to lie and her grades plummeted. She made a false allegation
of rape when she thought she might be pregnant, then faked a
pregnancy to try to hold on to Infante when he broke up with her.
The
Reynoldses asked her to get psychiatric help, but she refused.
"I was
raised in possibly the best family a kid could be raised in,"
Reynolds said. "All of a sudden, one day things fell apart."
Robert J.
Reynolds, who has since remarried, was not in court on Friday. He
wrote to the judge about his love for Billie Jean but made no
sentencing recommendation. He wrote that it would be a tough
decision for the judge to make.
Reynolds
told the judge that her adoptive father stopped visiting her in
jail in June 1997, but he continues to send her a card every week.
Among those
who spoke in support of Reynolds in court on Friday was her
biological mother, Katrina Ramos. The two were reunited 15 months
ago when Reynolds' attorney, Wayne Corry, tracked down Ramos.
Ramos said
her family has a history of depression, suicide attempts and
psychiatric problems. She testified in the second trial that she
tried to abort her daughter and gave her poor pre-natal care.
"When I was
pregnant with her, I was suffering some deep depression and I felt
it had a bad effect on her," Ramos said.
When she was
convicted of minor crimes, Ramos said, a judge forced her to get
help.
"I believe
Nikki can turn her life around, too," she told the judge.
A defense
psychiatrist testified Friday that Reynolds suffers from a major
depression and has a borderline personality disorder that affects
her impulse control and her relationships with people.
"I think she
was 17 going on 13 or 12 [at the time of the murder] in terms of
the way she behaved," said Dr. William Vicary, a psychiatrist who
examined Reynolds.
Corry asked
the judge to consider Reynolds' youth, immaturity and her
psychiatric problems and to grant a lighter sentence.
But
prosecutor Deborah Zimet said Reynolds' psychiatric disorders were
not an excuse. and that her actions were the result of her
self-centered worldview.
Schapiro
rejected the defense's request and gave her the longest sentence
permitted. Although she was sentenced as an adult, Schapiro
ordered the Department of Corrections to place her in a prison for
youthful offenders for the first few years of her sentence.
Her
attorneys plan an appeal.
Troubled
Florida teen-ager faces first-degree murder trial for mother's
stabbing death
Court TV
July 21,
1999
FORT
LAUDERDALE, Fla. (Court TV) Jurors considering a first-degree
murder conviction against a troubled Florida teen-ager for the
1997 stabbing death of her adoptive mother face a dilemma: does
she deserve life in prison or counseling?
Despite
Jacqueline "Nikki" Reynolds' troubles, prosecutors claim her
slaying of her adopted mother, Billie Jean Reynolds, was
premeditated murder and are seeking a life sentence. According to
prosecutors, Nikki, then 17, was so distraught over the breakup
with her boyfriend that she plotted to kill him. But when her
parents unknowingly got in the way of her plans, Nikki allegedly
plotted their murders. However, Nikki only succeeded in killing
Billie Jean Reynolds in their Coral Springs, Fla. home on May 14,
1997.
A teen-ager
faces first-degree murder in the stabbing death of her adoptive
mother, Billie Jean Reynolds, in their home on May 14, 1997.
Prosecutors say Jacquiline "Nikki" Reynolds, determined to kill
her on-again off-again boyfriend, Carlos Infante, plotted to kill
her parents for getting in the way of her plans. Nikki, say
prosecutors, stabbed her mother 25 times during a chase around
their Coral Springs, Florida home. The events that unfolded the
night of May 14, were the culmination the then 17-year-old's
troubled teens years.
According to
Nikki's adopted father, Robert Reynolds, the defendant's troubles
began when she was in 10th grade and became interested in boys. It
was in the 10th grade when it is believed Nikki's troubles began.
Robert, a commercial truck enforcement officer, and his wife
Billie Jean, an administrative assistant, had adopted Nikki when
she was three months old. Their relationship with their daughter
seemed fine until her high school years. Robert claims Nikki's
relationship with her mother began to deteriorate, and the
teen-ager exhibited mood swings. The concerned parents sought
counseling for Nikki from a church minister.
In late 1996
or early 1997 Nikki began dating fellow student Carlos Infante.
They began having unprotected sex. Fearing she may be pregnant,
Nikki told her parents she had been raped by a stranger. Robert
and Billie Jean Reynolds immediately reported the alleged
incident. But after police determined that the story was
fabricated, Nikki eventually confessed to her mother that she had
made it up.
Nikki
continued a stormy relationship with Infante that included several
break-ups. Each time the two would break up, Nikki would tell
Infante that she was pregnant in hopes of getting him back.
Infante would return, but the cycle of break-ups and false
pregnancy claims would occur repeatedly. Rumors of Nikki's
"pregnancies" spread at school and eventually reached a guidance
counselor.
When the
counselor met with the teen-age couple, Nikki maintained that she
was pregnant. When the counselor attempted to reach Nikki's
parents, Nikki gave her an old disconnected number. After the
guidance counselor eventually contacted Billie Jean Reynolds, the
mother had her daughter take a home pregnancy test, which revealed
that Nikki was not pregnant and was pulling another scam.
Billie Jean
took Nikki to church for counseling. After storming out of her
session, an angry Nikki attempted to call Infante. Prosecutors say
Infante ended his relationship with Nikki, and she began planning
her now ex-boyfriend's murder. It's alleged that Nikki began
making plans to kill Carlos.
After her
phone argument with Infante, Nikki had a chilling conversation
with the church pastor. According to the Reverend, Nikki vaguely
asked if a Christian would be forgiven if he attempted suicide or
did something "really bad." The Reverend, not knowing Nikki was
planning to kill her boyfriend, apparently told her yes on both
counts.
In her
confession to police, Nikki said she planned to kill Infante in
front of their fellow classmates before the first period the next
day. However, prosecutors claim, Nikki realized of a potential
snag in her plan while coming home from church counseling. Her
mother scheduled a meeting with the school counselor at 10 a.m.
and the two would therefore leave together for school the next
morning. Nikki would not be at school at 8 a.m. and be able to
carry out her murder plan before first period. Nikki told police
she decided to eliminate her parents so that she would keep her
scheduled time to kill her boyfriend.
Billie Jean
and Nikki returned home at around 5:30 p.m. Mr. Reynolds was home
and after the three ate dinner, he left for church around 6:30
p.m. Nikki allegedly swallowed an undetermined amount of aspirin
before Billie Jean went into the family room to work on the
computer at 7 p.m. In the kitchen, Nikki found a 14-inch butcher
knife.
Nikki then
proceeded to the family room and approached her mother from
behind. She swiped the blade across her mother's throat, but
failed to deeply wound her mother. Billie Jean, Nikki told police,
jumped up to turn toward her, and the defendant jabbed the blade
at her mother again, inflicting a cut on her mother's right cheek.
Billie Jean
then fled from her daughter, trying and failing to reach the front
door. Nikki said that the two continued to run from room to room
around the house. Soon, Billie Jean collapsed. In her confession
Nikki says she asked her mother if she was dying. "Yes," Billie
Jean replied. Nikki ultimately asked her Billie Jean for
forgiveness, and a wounded Billie Jean forgave her.
Apparently
wanting to end her mother's agony, Nikki thrust the knife into her
mother's chest, killing her. Nikki proceeded to attempt to clean
the house, awaiting her father. She soon realized the blood, which
had splattered throughout the house, could not be concealed
enough. So Nikki called 911 and alleged confessed to her mother's
slaying. She told the 911 dispatcher that she must be crazy and
repeated the statement to arriving police officers. The arresting
officer recorded Nikki's incriminating statements without her
knowledge. In later statements at the police station, she again
confessed to killing her mother.
The state
believes Nikki's confessions prove that the defendant thought
about the crime for several hours before the murder. However,
Nikki's defense claims she was insane at the time and could not
have formed the intent to commit murder. The defense will attempt
to prove that Nikki inherited severe depression and psychological
problems from her biological mother.
Reynolds v. State
Jacquiline Nicole REYNOLDS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D00-468.
December 26, 2002
Appellant, Jacquiline Nicole Reynolds, was
indicted for first degree murder in the death of her adoptive
mother. The jury rejected appellant's insanity defense and found
her guilty of a lesser included offense, second degree murder with
a weapon.1
She appeals her conviction, contending that the trial court erred
in precluding defense experts from testifying on the ultimate
issue of insanity and in repeatedly criticizing defense counsel
and disparaging appellant's insanity defense. For the reasons
discussed below, we affirm.
On May 14, 1997, seventeen-year-old Jacquiline
Nicole Reynolds called 911 from her home in Coral Springs and told
the operator that she had just stabbed her mother to death. When
the police arrived at her house, they found her mother, Billie
Jean Reynolds, on the floor of the family room. She was dead due
to multiple stab wounds. Reynolds was arrested and taken to
jail. During her interview with police detectives, Reynolds
confessed to stabbing her mother and described the events that led
up to her actions. She told the officers that she was upset
because she had broken up with her boyfriend. She had planned to
kill her boyfriend at school that day, but after finding out that
her parents were not taking her back to school until she attended
counseling sessions, she decided instead to kill her parents
first. Then she could drive herself to school the following day
and kill her boyfriend.
That evening, after her father left home for
church, she approached her mother from behind as she worked at her
computer and tried to slash her throat with a large butcher knife.
She repeatedly stabbed her mother until she fell on the floor.
After trying to wash the knife in the sink, she called the police.
Near the end of her interview with detectives, appellant told
the officers that she had taken four or five handfuls of aspirin
that afternoon. Appellant was taken to the hospital.
At trial, appellant's defense to the charge of
premeditated murder was insanity. In support of that defense,
she called two expert witnesses who gave opinions that appellant
suffered from mental disease and therefore did not know right from
wrong at the time of the killing. However, in a pre-trial
ruling, the trial court prevented her experts from stating their
opinions that appellant was insane. The court similarly
precluded the state's experts from testifying that appellant was
sane at the time of the killing. Relying on Gurganus v. State,
451 So.2d 817 (Fla.1984), the trial judge reasoned that expert
testimony regarding insanity constitutes a legal conclusion and
decided that “an expert's opinion cannot be in the ultimate
statement that the defendant is or is not legally insane at the
time.” In setting parameters on the expert opinion testimony,
the court further stated:
I think they can render an opinion as to the
instruction, what is, in other words, the legal definition of
insanity and in their opinion whether the defendant had a mental
infirmity, disease or defect and because of that she did not know
what she was doing or its consequences or although she knew what
she was doing and its consequences she did not know it was wrong.
In other words, they can render an opinion on that, but they
cannot render an opinion that the defendant was legally insane.
Florida law, however, expressly provides that
an expert witness may render an opinion on the ultimate issue in a
case. Section 90.703, Florida Statutes (1999) states:
Testimony in the form of an opinion or
inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it
includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
Further, Gurganus does not hold that an expert
opinion concerning insanity is inadmissible as a legal conclusion.
In Gurganus, the defendant was charged with
first-degree murder in the shooting death of his ex-wife and a
customer at a convenience store where she worked. The defense
proffered the testimony of two clinical psychologists concerning
the combined effect of defendant's ingestion of twenty-nine
Fiorinal capsules and alcohol prior to the shootings. Upholding
the trial judge's refusal to allow this testimony on relevancy
grounds, the supreme court re-affirmed that evidence of a
defendant's diminished mental capacity which fell short of
rendering him unable to know right from wrong or appreciate the
consequences of his act is not admissible because it is irrelevant
on the issue of insanity. Gurganus, 451 So.2d at 821. The court
further held that an expert's opinion as to whether a defendant's
mental condition was closer to a depraved mind than to
premeditation was not admissible either, because that
determination was not a proper subject of expert testimony:
Both of these terms are legal terms with
specific legal definitions. Essentially, the defense was
attempting to elicit the psychologists' opinion as to whether
Gurganus committed second-degree or first-degree murder. Such a
conclusion was a legal conclusion no better suited to expert
opinion than to lay opinion and, as such, was an issue to be
determined solely within the province of the jury.
Id.
The Gurganus court went on to cite United
States v. Milne, 487 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir.1973), which drew a
distinction between expert opinion regarding insanity and expert
opinion concerning criminal capacity. “Criminal capacity is a
legal conclusion and even an expert, medical or legal, may not
speak so as to employ a legal definition.” Milne, 487 F.2d at
1235. In so distinguishing testimony about a defendant's mental
capacity from testimony regarding the defendant's sanity, Milne
indicated that the latter is admissible. Id. at 1235-36. It
thus appears that the trial court misconstrued Gurganus in
preventing the expert witnesses from testifying that appellant was
sane or insane at the time of the offense.
Florida courts have previously allowed properly
qualified experts to testify as to whether the defendant was or
was not sane at the time of the crime. See Garron v. State, 528
So.2d 353, 355 (Fla.1988)(noting that all three court-appointed
psychiatrists testified “that appellant did not know right from
wrong and was, therefore, insane under the legal definition of
insanity”); see also Slawson v. State, 796 So.2d 491, 498 n. 5
(Fla.2001)(acknowledging that both court appointed experts agreed
that the defendant did not meet Florida's test for insanity at the
time of the crime); cf. Nowitzke v. State, 572 So.2d 1346, 1355
(Fla.1990)(holding testimony to be improper in light of doctor's
lack of knowledge of the legal definition of insanity).
The state asserts that appellant failed to
preserve this issue for appellate review because she did not
object to this limitation on expert testimony. See J.B. v.
State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998)(stating that except in
cases involving fundamental error, “to raise an error on appeal, a
contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level when the
alleged error occurred”). The record shows, however, that during
the pre-trial discussion regarding preliminary jury instructions
on insanity, the court asked whether there were any objections to
his proposed restrictions and defense counsel responded: “I only
ask we be permitted to have our experts render an opinion that
include that in their expert opinion the defendant was insane.”
The record does not reflect that defense counsel withdrew his
objection or agreed to the ruling after the court clarified that
the limitation on expert testimony would apply equally to both
parties.
We conclude that the trial court erred in
precluding the defense experts from stating their ultimate opinion
that appellant was “insane.” However, we determine that in this
case such error was harmless as the experts were permitted to
fully explore and render opinions on whether appellant met
Florida's test of insanity. In Florida, courts follow the
M'Naughton Rule for determining whether a defendant was insane at
the time of the crime. Gurganus, 451 So.2d at 820. Under
M'Naughton, an accused is not criminally responsible for his
actions if, at the time of the offense, the defendant, by reason
of a mental disease or defect, (1) does not know of the nature or
consequences of his act; or (2) is unable to distinguish right
from wrong. Id.
In this case, one defense expert testified that
appellant was suffering from major depression and borderline
personality disorder, both of which were mental diseases or
defects, at the time of the offense. The expert concluded that
as a result of those diseases or defects, appellant slipped into a
psychotic-like mental state which rendered her mental condition so
impaired that, although she knew what she was doing and its
consequences, she did not appreciate the wrongfulness of her
actions at that time.
Another expert testified that as a result of
appellant's mental disease, she did not know right from wrong at
the time of the crime and may not have understood what she was
doing or its consequences. In light of the expert evidence
presented on the elements comprising Florida's definition of
insanity, coupled with the court's jury instructions tracking this
definition of insanity, and based on our review of the record as a
whole, we find that there is no reasonable possibility that the
error affected appellant's conviction for second-degree murder.
See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.2000)(re-affirming the
harmless error analysis to be applied in deciding whether an error
requires reversal).
Appellant also complains that the trial court
prevented her from exploring whether a state's expert witness
accurately understood the legal test for insanity. Appellant
sought to challenge the psychologist's testimony which suggested
that appellant did not meet the test for insanity unless she
suffered from a “major” mental disease or defect. The record
shows, however, that, following a side bar conference, defense
counsel was allowed to continue his line of questioning regarding
discrepancies between the M'Naughton insanity test and the test
utilized by the witness. We therefore find no error on that
point.
Finally, appellant asserts that the trial court
continuously interrupted and admonished defense counsel during
trial, thereby disparaging her insanity defense. However, as
appellant concedes, her trial counsel never objected to any of
these comments or alleged improprieties. Thus, to overcome a
procedural bar to appellate review, the errors complained of must
be fundamental. J.B., 705 So.2d at 1378. “For an error to be so
fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal,
the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review and
equivalent to a denial of due process.” Randall v. State, 760
So.2d 892, 901 (Fla.2000). It is error that “ ‘reach[es] down
into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict
of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of
the alleged error.’ ” State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45
(Fla.1991)(quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)).
Determining the existence of fundamental error
requires an examination of the entire record as a whole. See
Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 972 (Fla.1993). In examining the
record as a whole, we first note that most of the comments
referenced by appellant occurred outside of the presence of the
jury. Second, we find that those comments which were made in
front of the jury were not so prejudicial to appellant or her
defense as to result in a denial of due process. When considered
in the context of the entire trial, the judge's comments and
conduct do not constitute fundamental error.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant's conviction
and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Appellant's
first jury trial ended in a mistrial when the jury was unable to
reach a verdict.