Rodney Renard Newberry v. State of Florida, 214 So. 3d 562

On December 28, 2009 Rodney Renard Newberry, with James Phillips and Robert Anderson, drove around Jacksonville looking for a robbery victim; Newberry carried an AK-47 and a .357, Phillips had an AK-47 earlier, Anderson had a MAC-11.
At about 7:20 p.m. Newberry confronted Terrese Pernell Stevens in a club parking lot, demanded property, then fired twelve 7.62 x 39 mm rounds from an AK-47 through the driver’s side, killing Stevens.
Phone records and witness testimony tied Newberry to the AK-47 shots (Phillips “chirped” Newberry’s phone shortly before the shooting; recovered casings matched AK-47 ammunition fired from a single firearm).
Phillips and Anderson later pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and armed robbery and testified that Newberry was the shooter. No weapon was recovered at the scene.
A jury convicted Newberry of first-degree premeditated and felony murder and armed robbery and found he discharged a firearm causing death; the jury recommended death 8–4.
At penalty phase the defense presented mitigating evidence (family support, testimony about Newberry’s functioning, and a 2014 IQ score of 66); the trial court weighed aggravators (including four prior violent felonies and pecuniary gain) as outweighing mitigation and imposed death.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree murder	Newberry argued the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the shooter and to support premeditation	State pointed to eyewitness testimony, phone records, and matching AK-47 casings tying Newberry to the shooting	Conviction affirmed — evidence (eyewitnesses, phone records, casings) was sufficient to support conviction
Admissibility/cross-examination of penalty-phase witness Reginald Lester about knowledge of Newberry’s threat	Newberry argued the State’s cross-examination about Lester’s knowledge was erroneous at penalty phase	State argued cross-examination was permissible	Not addressed on the merits — court remanded for a new penalty phase and did not decide penalty-phase claims
Whether Newberry’s death sentence complied with Hurst v. Florida	Newberry argued his death sentence violated Hurst where the jury’s recommendation was not unanimous	State argued the sentence should stand or that any Hurst error was harmless	Death sentence vacated under Hurst (8–4 jury recommendation not unanimous); remanded for a new penalty phase

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (holding sentencing procedures requiring the jury to make the critical findings for death are required)
Kopsho v. State, 209 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 2017) (8–4 jury recommendation cannot satisfy Hurst unanimity requirement)
DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error/Chapman analysis framework)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an error was harmless)
Miller v. State, 42 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2010) (Florida Supreme Court’s independent obligation to review sufficiency of evidence in death penalty cases)
Rodgers v. State, 948 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2006) (standard for sufficiency review — view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
Davis v. State, 2 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2008) (competent, substantial evidence review in death cases)