Bessman Okafor v. State of Florida, 2017 WL 2481266

On May 9, 2012, Bessman Okafor and Nolan Bernard committed an armed home invasion; Okafor was later released on ankle-monitor home confinement pending trial.
Trial for the May 9 robbery was set for September 11, 2012; on September 10, 2012, masked assailants returned to the Camposes’ home; Alex Zaldivar was shot and killed, Brienna and Remington Campos were wounded.
Surveillance video, cell-phone data, text messages, ankle-monitor records, witness identifications, and coordination by Okafor (who organized lookouts and vehicles) linked Okafor to the September 10 attack.
Okafor was convicted at trial of first-degree premeditated murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and armed burglary; at penalty phase the jury voted 11–1 for death and the trial court found four aggravators and multiple mitigators and imposed death.
On appeal the Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the death sentence because the jury did not unanimously find the facts necessary to impose death and did not render a unanimous death recommendation, requiring a new penalty phase under Hurst.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in striking Juror 105 for cause (capital juror competency)	Okafor: Juror 105’s responses were equivocal but not disqualifying	State: Juror 105 equivocated and could not assure he would follow law and impose death if appropriate	Trial court did not err; dismissal for cause upheld
Admissibility of .22 and .223 high-capacity magazines recovered from co-defendant’s residence	Okafor: Admission was improper and prejudicial because magazines were not tied to the AK-47 alleged at the crime	State: Magazines corroborated that Emmanuel Wallace carried the AK-47 seen by a witness	Admission was error (magazines not relevant to AK-47), but error was harmless
Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder conviction	Okafor: (challenged generally on appeal) evidence insufficient to tie him to shootings	State: Surveillance, texts, ankle monitor, witness IDs, and statements show planning/participation	Competent, substantial evidence supported conviction; conviction affirmed
Whether the nonunanimous (11–1) jury penalty recommendation and nonunanimous jury findings satisfy constitutional requirements after Hurst	Okafor: Hurst requires unanimous jury findings and unanimous recommendation; nonunanimous vote invalidates death sentence	State: (implicitly) error harmless or trial court findings suffice	Court held Hurst error not harmless; death sentence vacated and remanded for new penalty phase

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Supreme Court decision requiring jury to find critical facts necessary for death sentence)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court applying Hurst and requiring unanimous jury findings and unanimous death recommendation)
Franklin v. State, 209 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 2016) (explaining Hurst error and harmless-error framework in Florida capital cases)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error/Chapman framework as applied in Florida)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (standard for juror disqualification based on views on capital punishment)
Barnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2002) (deference to trial court on juror competency in capital cases)