Smith v. Florida, No. 82-6474

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRENNAN; MARSHALL
Citation462 U.S. 1145,103 S.Ct. 3129,77 L.Ed.2d 1379
Decision Date20 June 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-6474
PartiesFrank SMITH v. FLORIDA

462 U.S. 1145
103 S.Ct. 3129
77 L.Ed.2d 1379
Frank SMITH

v.

FLORIDA

No. 82-6474

Supreme Court of the United States

June 20, 1983

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice BRENNAN, dissenting.

Adhering to my views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 227, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

Justice MARSHALL, dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, I would grant certiorari and vacate petitioner's death sentence on this basis alone. However, even if I accepted the prevailing view that the death penalty can constitutionally be imposed under certain circumstances, I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence on the ground that neither the jury that convicted petitioner of murder nor the judge who sentenced him found that he "kill[ed], attempt[ed] to kill, or intend[ed] that a killing take place or that lethal force . . . be employed." Enmund v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, ----, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3376, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). The jury was instructed that "liability for first degree murder extends to all co-felons who are personally present during the commission of the felony" and that "[u]nder the felony murder rule, [the] state of mind of the defendant is immaterial." Tr. 2678. In imposing sentence, the trial judge did not find that petitioner himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. Although the Supreme Court of Florida concluded that "there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found [petitioner] guilty of premeditated murder," 424 So.2d 726, 733 (1982) (emphasis added), neither the jury nor the judge actually made such a finding. Under these circumstances our decision in Enmund v. Florida requires that petitioner's death sentence be vacated.

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 practice notes
  • Bigby v. State, No. 71234
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 2, 1994
    ...106 S.Ct. 1508, 89 L.Ed.2d 908 (1986); Hernandez v. State, 643 S.W.2d 397 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Chambers v. State, 568 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), overruled on other grounds, Grijalva v. State, 614 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex.Crim......
  • Knight v. Dugger, No. 86-5610
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • December 8, 1988
    ...(Fla.1984), cert. denied, [471 U.S. 1030] 85 L.Ed.2d 324 [105 S.Ct. 2051] (1984); Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, [462 U.S. 1145] 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 [103 S.Ct. 3129] Griffin v. State, 414 So.2d 1025 (Fla.1982); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Adams v. Sta......
  • Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Jeff Cooper, Inc., No. 81 Civ. 3347 (EW).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 19, 1985
    ...9 See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Audiovisual Publishers, Inc. v. Cenco, Inc., 580 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1978); International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 670 (2d Cir.1977......
  • Mendoza v. City of Rome, No. 92-CV-436.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • December 21, 1994
    ...United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983). In 710 Main Street, however, the court found that due diligence was not exercised when the proponent failed to describe its attempt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
76 cases
  • Bigby v. State, No. 71234
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 2, 1994
    ...106 S.Ct. 1508, 89 L.Ed.2d 908 (1986); Hernandez v. State, 643 S.W.2d 397 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Chambers v. State, 568 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), overruled on other grounds, Grijalva v. State, 614 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex.Crim......
  • Knight v. Dugger, No. 86-5610
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • December 8, 1988
    ...(Fla.1984), cert. denied, [471 U.S. 1030] 85 L.Ed.2d 324 [105 S.Ct. 2051] (1984); Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, [462 U.S. 1145] 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 [103 S.Ct. 3129] Griffin v. State, 414 So.2d 1025 (Fla.1982); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Adams v. Sta......
  • Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Jeff Cooper, Inc., No. 81 Civ. 3347 (EW).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 19, 1985
    ...9 See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983); Audiovisual Publishers, Inc. v. Cenco, Inc., 580 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1978); International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 670 (2d Cir.1977......
  • Mendoza v. City of Rome, No. 92-CV-436.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • December 21, 1994
    ...United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 697 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983). In 710 Main Street, however, the court found that due diligence was not exercised when the proponent failed to describe its attempt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT