244 So. 3d 172
Fla.2018Background
- The Florida Supreme Court authorized amended and new capital-case jury instructions and a revised verdict form following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida and the Florida Supreme Court's remand opinion in Hurst v. State.
- Hurst decisions require juries to make unanimous factual findings (aggravators, sufficiency of aggravators, that aggravators outweigh mitigators) before a judge may impose death; the Legislature also amended § 921.141 to require unanimity.
- The Court issued interim instructions on its own motion, solicited comments, heard argument, and adopted further amendments to instructions 3.12(e) (verdict form), 7.11 (preliminary penalty-phase instructions, renumbered to 7.10/7.11), and 7.11(a) (final penalty-phase instructions, renumbered 7.11).
- Significant changes: verdict form Section C title changed to "Mitigating Circumstances" and no longer requires jurors to list individual mitigators or record juror votes on each mitigator; instructions add explicit unanimous findings requirements for aggravators and require jurors to individually weigh mitigators against unanimity on sufficiency and outweighing.
- The Court authorized publication and immediate use of the amended instructions but noted authorization does not preclude requesting alternative instructions; concurring opinion (Pariente, J.) urged that trial courts use special verdict forms listing mitigators and juror votes when requested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the standard verdict form must require jurors to list each mitigating circumstance and record juror votes on each | The concurring justice (Pariente) and some commenters argued the verdict form should include each proposed mitigator and juror votes to promote uniformity, aid appellate review, and satisfy Hurst | The majority/Committee declined to require listing mitigators and juror votes on the standard form, noting special forms may be requested | The Court approved a verdict form that omits mandatory listing of mitigators and juror vote counts but allows parties to request alternative/supplemental forms |
| Whether jury must unanimously find each aggravating factor and other penalty-phase findings | Hurst and Florida’s statutory amendments require unanimity on each aggravator and on sufficiency/outweighing before death may be imposed | The Court agreed unanimity is required and amended instructions to reflect that | The Court mandated unanimity for each aggravator, for sufficiency of aggravators, for finding that aggravators outweigh mitigators, and for a death recommendation |
| How to instruct jurors on mitigation (individual vs. unanimous findings) | Proponents of listing argued mitigation findings are constitutionally significant and should be recorded explicitly | Majority retained that mitigation is an individual juror determination (no unanimity required for a mitigator), but clarified the weighing step and individual juror responsibility | The instructions state mitigators are proven by greater weight of evidence and are individual findings; weighing step clarified to have each juror determine whether unanimously-found aggravators outweigh individually-found mitigators |
| Form and wording changes to existing preliminary/final instructions | Committee proposed refinements to avoid duplication and improve clarity (renumbering, removing duplicative language, replacing "recommending" with "a verdict of", adding "unanimously") | Some commenters urged retention of prior interim language (including listing mitigators) for uniformity | The Court adopted renumbering and wording changes: removed duplicative phrasing, replaced terms for clarity, and added "unanimously" where appropriate; approved amended instructions for publication and use |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court decision holding Florida’s death-sentencing procedure unconstitutional because jury findings were not required)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court on remand requiring jury unanimity on aggravators, sufficiency, outweighing, and recommendation)
- Lebron v. State, 982 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2008) (discussion on importance of jury findings for proportionality review and sentencing review)
- Aguirre-Jarquin v. State, 9 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 2009) (special concurrence addressing use of special verdict forms to capture jury findings)