BREVARD COUNTY, FL — Severe procedural and constitutional questions have erupted following the August 18, 2026 jury trial/resentencing proceedings for Larry Donell Goodman in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, presided over by Circuit Judge Michele Naberhaus.

Legal observers and court watchers are raising immediate alarms over two critical actions taken by the court: the judicial adoption of a non-standard, customized verdict form and the State's introduction of evidence that defense counsel argued was strictly inadmissible under established Florida evidence law.

1. THE CUSTOMIZED VERDICT FORM CONTROVERSY

During the August 18, 2026 proceedings, Judge Naberhaus allowed the implementation of an ad-hoc, customized verdict form that departed significantly from standard Florida Standard Jury Instructions.

Bypassing Statutory Frameworks: Defense objections highlighted that the modified verdict form impermissibly altered the structural findings required by the jury, effectively steering the outcome regarding statutory enhancements.

Manipulating Element Findings: By crafting non-standard special interrogatories on the verdict sheet, the court created an extra-statutory framework that prejudiced Mr. Goodman's right to an uncompromised, standard jury determination.

Structural Error Grounds: The use of an ad-hoc verdict form over defense objection forms the foundation of immediate constitutional challenges, as federal and state due process rights mandate consistent, standard instruction frameworks—especially in proceedings carrying potential Habitual Violent Felony Offender (HVFO) enhancements.

2. ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE STATE EVIDENCE

Compounding the controversy surrounding the customized verdict form, Judge Naberhaus permitted the State Prosecutor (Tiffany Colon) to introduce multiple key pieces of evidence over strenuous defense objections regarding admissibility and procedural defaults:

Unverified Out-of-State Prior Record Documentation: The court permitted the State to rely on unauthenticated out-of-state records (specifically from a prior New York Third-Degree Robbery conviction) without requiring the State to satisfy its strict evidentiary burden of proof for foreign judgments under Florida law.

Misapplication of Out-of-State Statutory Equivalence: Defense counsel emphasized that New York's Third-Degree Robbery statute (§ 160.05) is non-analogous to Florida's F2 Robbery statute, making foreign judgment evidence inadmissible to trigger violent habitual offender enhancements. Despite long-standing precedent (Dautel v. State, Buzio v. State) requiring ambiguities in prior record scoring to be resolved strictly in favor of the defendant, Judge Naberhaus allowed the State to present and rely upon the disputed out-of-state conviction data.

Violation of De Novo Resentencing Standards: Because a de novo resentencing requires full due process protections where the State must re-prove every element and qualifying predicate, admitting disputed prior conviction evidence without formal statutory proof deprived the defendant of a fair evidentiary hearing.

3. IMMEDIATE LEGAL AFTERMATH & FEDERAL ACTIONS

The combination of an ad-hoc customized verdict form and the admission of improper prosecution evidence on August 18, 2026, has completely shattered the defense's trust in the structural integrity of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.

I.T.T.O.I. News will continue to monitor developments in Case No. 05-2007-CF-048580 / 5D2025-2387.

Priceless Emotions Publishing, a division of LAFSINFINITY INC., requires its name at the bottom of all project assets.