333 So.3d 1098
Fla.2022Background
- In October 2006 McKenzie went to the home of Randy Peacock and Charles Johnston; both victims were killed by blunt and sharp force trauma; McKenzie later confessed and stole Peacock’s car and wallets.
- McKenzie was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder in 2007 and originally sentenced to death; this Court affirmed.
- After Hurst v. State, McKenzie obtained a new penalty phase; a 2019 resentencing jury unanimously found five aggravators (including HAC added by amended notice) and recommended death for each count.
- The trial court found all five aggravators proven, assigned very great/great weight to several, found limited statutory and multiple nonstatutory mitigators (mostly slight to moderate weight), and imposed death sentences.
- McKenzie appealed his resentencing, raising six issues: interrogatory verdict form, amendment of notice to add HAC, victim‑impact evidence, sufficiency/standard for aggravators and “sufficient” finding, Hurst “elements” argument, and constitutionality of the prior violent felony aggravator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interrogatory penalty‑phase verdict | Jury must specify facts supporting each aggravator on verdict form | Only unanimous finding of aggravator(s) beyond a reasonable doubt is required; no factual breakdown needed | Rejected — no requirement to list factual bases; jury’s unanimous aggravator findings suffice |
| Amendment of notice to add HAC | 2016 statute/rule requiring notice/amendment good‑cause applied to resentencing; State lacked good cause | 2016 rule/statute not retroactive to cases arraigned before 2016; amendment allowed | Rejected — trial court properly permitted amendment to include HAC |
| Victim‑impact evidence | Exclude victim impact or admit only to judge outside jury | Victim‑impact evidence admissible under Payne as evidence of community loss/grief | Admissible — statements were within proper scope and jury was instructed on limited use |
| Sufficiency standard and “sufficient” finding | Jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravators are sufficient and outweigh mitigation; “sufficient” needs definition | Only existence of statutory aggravators must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; sufficiency/weighting are not BRD determinations | Rejected — BRD applies only to existence of statutory aggravators; no error in failing to define “sufficient” qualitatively |
| Hurst “elements” argument | Hurst requires jury to find sentencing determinations as elements of a greater capital offense beyond a reasonable doubt | Hurst determinations are not new elements of the offense; do not change elements of first‑degree murder | Rejected — Hurst findings are sentencing determinations, not elements of the crime |
| Constitutionality of prior violent felony aggravator | Challenge to vagueness/overbreadth of prior violent felony aggravator | Precedent rejects vagueness/overbreadth attack on this aggravator | Rejected — claim foreclosed by controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (announcing jury‑finding requirements that prompted resentencings)
- State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020) (clarifying what Hurst requires and that certain sentencing determinations are not elements requiring BRD)
- McKenzie v. State, 29 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 2010) (direct appeal affirming convictions and initial sentences)
- McKenzie v. State, 153 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2014) (postconviction opinion referenced in procedural history)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (permitting victim‑impact evidence at sentencing)
- Newberry v. State, 288 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2019) (holding sufficiency/weighting determinations are not subject to BRD)
- Craft v. State, 312 So. 3d 45 (Fla. 2020) (same principle on BRD for sentencing determinations)
- McKinney v. Arizona, 140 S. Ct. 702 (U.S. 2020) (addressing standards for sentencing findings post‑Hurst decisions)
- Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting the notion of an independent capital first‑degree murder offense)
- Victorino v. State, 127 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 2013) (addressing scope of permissible victim‑impact evidence)
- Gonzalez v. State, 136 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 2014) (rejecting vagueness/overbreadth challenges to certain aggravators)
- Farina v. State, 937 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting ineffective‑assistance claim for failing to challenge prior violent felony aggravator)