State of Florida v.

Courtney Clenney F22-14137

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH

STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. F22-14137

v. CRIMINAL DIVISION

COURTNEY CLENNEY,
Defendant.
_________________________/

ORDER DENYING RELEASE

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on November 17, 2022, for a joint Arthur

hearing and Motion for Pre-Trial Detention, and this Court, having reviewed the case file and

transcripts from the hearing, examined the State’s evidence, heard the argument of counsel and

being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant shall continue to be held without bond pending trial.

In Florida, a defendant charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment, whose

guilt is evident, has no substantive right to pre-trial release. See Fla. Const. Art. I, Sec. 14

(providing a substantive right to pre-trial release with reasonable conditions “[u]nless charged with

a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or

the presumption is great.”).

In this case, Defendant is charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment.

Defendant’s guilt is evident and the presumption of her guilt is great. To this Court, the meaning

of the phrases “evident proof” and “great presumption of guilt” have always been ambiguous.

However, language in State v. Perry, 605 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), gives some guidance to

trial courts to determine whether the State has met its burden in an Arthur hearing. “[W]here the

1
State of Florida v. Courtney Clenney F22-14137

state's evidence, although not insufficient to convict for a capital or life offense, is arguably

impeached in substantial respects by other evidence or is rendered doubtful by substantial

contradictions and discrepancies in the state's case, the proof is not stronger than beyond a

reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the accused is entitled to pretrial bail as a matter of right for

such offense.” State v. Perry, 605 So.2d 94, at 96 – 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The Court does not

believe the State’s evidence was rendered doubtful by substantial contradictions or discrepancies

during this Arthur hearing.

There is no dispute that Defendant killed Victim in this case. The only factual issue in

dispute is whether Defendant was acting in self-defense and whether this claim rendered the state’s

evidence doubtful.1 Clearly, Defendant and Victim had a sadly volatile relationship. There is

ample evidence of communication in the form of texts, videos, letters, and audio recordings of

how unhealthy their relationship was. However, from the evidence presented during this hearing,

the Court does not find Defendant’s claim of self-defense on April 3, 2022, credible. Therefore,

this claim does not “render doubtful” the State’s case. Defendant’s statement to police about her

involvement in the Victim’s death is not supported by other evidence from the hearing.

Defendant’s version of how Victim’s stab wound occurred is not supported by the

evidence. In her statement to police, Defendant stated that she threw a knife at Victim from over

ten feet away. Defendant’s Interview, April 3, 2022. However, the medical examiner testified that

Victim was killed by a knife wound that “went down into the soft tissue and into the muscle and

injured the subclavian artery.” Arthur Hearing Transcript, November 17, 2023, p. 40. He went on

to testify that Victim’s stab wound was eight centimeters deep and traveled from front to back in

1This Court makes no legal finding as to whether Defendant is entitled to immunity under Florida
Statute § 776.012 (2022). This inquiry would require a separate hearing with different burdens of
proof and evidentiary rules.

2
State of Florida v. Courtney Clenney F22-14137

a slightly downward trajectory. Id. at 41. The medical examiner opined that at least eight to twelve

pounds of pressure to would have been used to penetrate the skin and muscle into the artery itself.

Id. When asked whether Victim’s stab wound could have been caused by a thrown knife, the

medical examiner answered, “No.” Id. at 47.2 Defendant’s speculation over whether the knife

could have been “pushed” in when either Victim or Defendant was trying to remove it is not

persuasive.

Additionally, Defendant’s contention that she grabbed the knife only to scare Defendant

and threw it at him with no intention of injury is undermined by the fact that Defendant had

intentionally cut or stabbed Victim twice in the six months leading up to this incident. On October

8, 2021, Defendant stabbed Victim in his leg. On January 30, 2022, Defendant cut Victim in the

face, causing multiple lacerations which required stitches. Defendant clearly had no fear of using

a knife as a weapon within close proximity to Victim, as there are no allegations that a thrown

knife caused those injuries.

Although Defendant claims Victim held her down by the neck at some point prior to the

incident, there is no physical evidence of this. Her description of this event changed slightly each

time she explained the event to the police, making the statement less credible. Although Defendant

did have bruising on her body, notably there was none to her neck. Photos and videos show that

the only significant bruises were there prior to the incident, as was the damage to her fingernails.

Evidence clearly shows that Defendant was on the phone with her mother during some

portion, if not all, of this incident. However, during a twenty-minute recorded interview with

police, Defendant’s mother never once mentions that there was any physical violence or verbal

2The medical examiner conceded that perhaps an expert knife thrower could have caused the
wound, but that there was no evidence of Defendant’s expertise in knife throwing.

3
State of Florida v. Courtney Clenney F22-14137

threats from Victim toward Defendant on that day. Defendant’s mother says that she heard

“yelling” and that Defendant told Victim to leave, but never once does she say that Defendant was

in fear that day or being harmed in any way. Immediately after the incident, Defendant’s mother

texts her daughter not to speak to police without an attorney, describing the incident as “self-

defense.” However, when asked by police whether she heard her daughter say anything that day,

specifically whether she heard any threats from Victim toward Defendant, Defendant’s mother

says nothing. She does not tell police of any verbal threats to the Defendant or a physical attack

by Victim that day.

At this point, evidence of Defendant’s use of self-defense on April 3, 2022, is not credible.

Based upon the evidence from this hearing, the Court does not believe the State’s evidence was

rendered doubtful by substantial contradictions or discrepancies shown by defense.3 Therefore,

the Court finds that the State has met its burden of showing that proof of Defendant’s guilt is

evident.

The Court finds that there are no release conditions which this Court believes can assure

the appearance of Defendant at future hearings and/or protect the safety of the community.

Defendant has no ties to Florida and ample means to leave the country were she to choose to do

so. The Defendant has substantial funds at her disposal and the ability to make more outside of

the jurisdiction of the United States. The State is correct that Defendant’s criminal history in

previous cases shows Defendant did not abide by the terms of her pre-trial release conditions, at

the very least picking up new cases when out on bond. In those cases, Defendant was facing little

3 As an alternative argument, Defense asserts that State cannot meet its burden of proof as to the
charge of Second-Degree Murder. Rather, Defense asserts that the State’s evidence proves at most
the crime of Manslaughter, a bondable offense. However, if the evidence is taken in the light most
favorable to the State, as it must be under Arthur, the Court findings above meet the elements of
Second-Degree Murder, especially in light of the State’s potential Williams Rule evidence about
motive and intent.

4
State of Florida v. Courtney Clenney F22-14137

jail time and still did not abide by the courts’ orders. The Court is concerned about what Defendant

might do when faced with the possibility of life in prison. The Court does not agree that placing

Defendant on house arrest with her parents in Texas is an appropriate form of release in this case.

This finding does not end our inquiry, because the State filed a Motion for Pre-Trial

Detention. Motions for Pre-Trial Detention can be filed at any time. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.132

(“A motion for pretrial detention may be filed at any time prior to trial.”). The Florida legislature

has expressly authorized the Court to “order pretrial detention if it finds a substantial probability,

based on a defendant’s past and present patterns of behavior, the criteria in s. 903.046, and any

other relevant facts, that…[t]he Defendant poses the threat of harm to the community.” See Fla.

Stat. § 907.041(4)(c)5.

In this case, there are several factors that demonstrate Defendant’s threat of harm to the

community and the need for pre-trial detention. As noted above, the Defendant has no ties to the

State of Florida. This Court has considered the nature and circumstances of the offense charged.

As stated above, this Defendant is facing an offense punishable by life—namely, Second Degree

Murder.

Pursuant to sec. 907.041(4)(c)5, this Court makes the following findings:

(1) Defendant is charged with a “dangerous crime,” as defined by the Florida legislature. See

Fla. Stat. § 907.041(4)(a).

(2) There is a “substantial probability” that Defendant committed this offense. This Court has

considered all relevant evidence, as stated above in its findings.

(3) The factual circumstances of this crime indicate a disregard for the safety of the

community.

5
State of Florida v. Courtney Clenney F22-14137

(4) There are no release conditions which this Court believes can assure the safety of the

community.

(5) Defendant poses a significant risk of flight for the reasons stated above.

The State’s Motion for Pre-Trial Detention is, therefore, GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 8th day of December

2022.

______________________________
LAURA SHEARON CRUZ
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE