Hurst v. State
Decision Date | 14 October 2016 |
Docket Number | No. SC12–1947.,SC12–1947. |
Citation | 202 So.3d 40 |
Parties | Timothy Lee HURST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Nancy Ann Daniels, Public Defender, David A. Davis, William Carl McLain, and Nada Margaret Carey, Assistant Public Defenders, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Carine L. Mitz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellee.
Robert C. Josefsberg of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL; Robert G. Kerrigan of Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin, McLeod & Thompson, LLP, Pensacola, FL; Karen Marcia Gottlieb, Florida Center for Capital Representation at Florida International University College of Law, Miami, FL; and Sonya Rudenstine, Gainesville, FL, for Amici Curiae Justice Harry Lee Anstead, Judge Rosemary Barkett, Martha Barnett, Talbot D'Alemberte, Hank Coxe, Justice Gerald Kogan, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Florida Capital Resource Center, and Florida Center for Capital Representation at Florida International University College of Law.
This case comes before the Court on remand from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hurst v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) (Hurst v. Florida ), following its certiorari review and reversal of our decision in Hurst v. State, 147 So.3d 435 (Fla.2014) (Hurst v. State ). In that case, we affirmed Timothy Lee Hurst's death sentence, which was imposed after a second penalty phase sentencing proceeding. We held there, consistent with longstanding precedent, that Florida's capital sentencing scheme was not violative of the Sixth Amendment or the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). See Hurst v. State, 147 So.3d at 445–46. We concluded that section 921.141, Florida Statutes (2012), the capital sentencing statute under which Hurst was sentenced to death, was not unconstitutional for failing to require the jury to expressly find the facts on which the death sentence was imposed in this case. Id. at 446. After Hurst sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court, that Court granted review in Hurst v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1531, 191 L.Ed.2d 558 (2015), and agreed to entertain the following question:
Whether Florida's death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 [122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556] (2002).
Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Hurst v. State and held, for the first time, that Florida's capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional to the extent it failed to require the jury, rather than the judge, to find the facts necessary to impose the death sentence—the jury's advisory recommendation for death was “not enough.” Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. at 619. In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its decisions in Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984), and Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638, 109 S.Ct. 2055, 104 L.Ed.2d 728 (1989), to the extent they approved Florida's sentencing scheme in which the judge, independent of a jury's factfinding, finds the facts necessary for imposition of the death penalty. See Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. at 624. The Supreme Court's ruling in Hurst v. Florida also abrogated this Court's decisions in Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla.1975), Bottoson v. Moore, 833 So.2d 693 (Fla.2002), Blackwelder v. State, 851 So.2d 650 (Fla.2003), and State v. Steele, 921 So.2d 538 (Fla.2005), precedent upon which this Court has also relied in the past to uphold Florida's capital sentencing statute. Finally, the Supreme Court refused to take up the issue of whether the error in sentencing was harmless, but left it to this Court to consider on remand whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. at 624.
On remand, this Court accepted additional briefing and held oral argument concerning the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida on capital sentencing in Florida, as well as on issues raised by Hurst and other issues of import to this Court. Hurst and amici curiae1 contend first that Hurst should be granted an automatic life sentence under the provisions of section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes (2016). Failing that, Hurst contends that the constitutional error in his sentencing proceeding cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that instead a new penalty phase proceeding is required.
As we will explain, we hold that the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida requires that all the critical findings necessary before the trial court may consider imposing a sentence of death must be found unanimously by the jury. We reach this holding based on the mandate of Hurst v. Florida and on Florida's constitutional right to jury trial, considered in conjunction with our precedent concerning the requirement of jury unanimity as to the elements of a criminal offense. In capital cases in Florida, these specific findings required to be made by the jury include the existence of each aggravating factor that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the finding that the aggravating factors are sufficient, and the finding that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances. We also hold, based on Florida's requirement for unanimity in jury verdicts, and under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury's recommended sentence of death must be unanimous.
For the reasons we will explain, we reject Hurst's claim that section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes (2016), mandates that Hurst receive an automatic life sentence.
However, we conclude that the error in Hurst's sentencing identified by the United States Supreme Court was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we remand for a new penalty phase proceeding. We will address these issues in turn after a brief review of the facts and procedural background of this case.
The background and facts of this case were reiterated in our decision in Hurst v. State in pertinent part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. McDaniel
...the jury to "be the finder of every fact, and thus every element, necessary for the imposition of the death penalty." ( Hurst v. State (Fla. 2016) 202 So.3d 40, 53.) "These necessary facts include ... find[ing] the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that ......
-
Reynolds v. State
...which we affirmed along with denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Reynolds II , 99 So.3d at 501.Following Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017) , Reynolds filed the instant successive motion to vac......
-
State v. Wood
...See Ring , 536 U. S. at 604, 122 S.Ct. 2428.12 Wood relies on Rauf v. State , 145 A.3d 430, 432-33 (Del. 2016), and Hurst v. State , 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), for his proposition that determining whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances is a factual eleme......
-
Lawrence v. State
...successive postconviction motion, vacated his death sentence, and ordered a new penalty phase proceeding pursuant to Hurst v. State , 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), receded from by State v. Poole , 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020).Before the second penalty-phase proceeding, which is at issue here, be......
-
More than Just a Factfinder: The Right to Unanimous Jury Sentencing in Capital Cases.
...(May 24, 2021), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ state-and-federal-info/state-by-state/alabama [perma.cc/M4LZ-UYPC]. (157.) Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 44, 59 (Fla. 2016)(per curiam), abrogated by State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020)(per curiam); Melanie Kalmanson, The Difference of O......