76 So. 3d 891
Fla.2011Background
- Herring was convicted of armed robbery and first-degree murder for a 1981 Daytona Beach robbery‑killing with a death sentence recommended by an eight‑to‑four jury vote.
- The trial court found four aggravating factors and two mitigating circumstances, and this Court affirmed both convictions and the death sentence.
- After Atkins v. Virginia, Herring pursued postconviction relief in 2003 claiming mental retardation; an evidentiary hearing occurred in 2005 with three mental‑health experts for the State and one for the defense.
- Four IQ tests (scores around 70–75) were presented; the circuit court vacated the death sentence, finding Herring met all three prongs of the mental retardation standard under Florida law.
- The State challenged the circuit court’s reliance on a DSM‑IV‑TR framework and a non‑70 IQ, arguing a bright‑line 70 cutoff governs the first prong; the State urged deference to Florida law and precedent.
- The Florida Supreme Court reviews de novo the legal conclusions and applies a clear‑and‑convincing standard to mental retardation, ultimately holding the circuit court erred in accepting IQ above 70 as meeting the first prong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Herring established significantly sub‑average general intellectual functioning. | Herring, via DSM‑IV‑TR and expert analyses, met the first prong. | IQ above 70 cannot satisfy the first prong under Florida law; the court should apply a 70-or-below cutoff. | Herring did not meet the first prong; the 70 cutoff controls. |
| Whether the circuit court’s reliance on DSM‑IV‑TR and Flynn effects altered the IQ threshold. | DSM‑IV‑TR supports diagnosing mental retardation even with scores above 70. | Statutory and rule definitions require IQ 70 or below; Flynn effects or adjustments do not alter the cutoff. | No; Florida law requires IQ 70 or below for the first prong. |
| Whether Florida law requires proving all three prongs by clear and convincing evidence to exempt from the death penalty. | Defendants’ evidence should complete all three prongs to exempt. | State argues the lower court properly considered the evidentiary record under Florida law. | Florida law requires all three prongs by clear and convincing evidence; Herring failed the first prong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franqui v. State, 59 So.3d 82 (Fla. 2011) (reaffirms that Atkins does not mandate a specific IQ or range in capital cases)
- Jones v. State, 966 So.2d 319 (Fla. 2007) (requires proving all three mental retardation prongs by clear and convincing evidence)
- Nixon v. State, 2 So.3d 137 (Fla. 2009) (discusses standard for MR and the burden of proof)
- Phillips v. State, 984 So.2d 503 (Fla. 2008) (interprets IQ cutoff for mental retardation under Florida law)
- Cherry v. State, 959 So.2d 702 (Fla. 2007) (exemplifies deference to statutory/constitutional standards in MR determinations)
- Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2005) (establishes IQ 70 or below as the threshold for the first MR prong)
- Dufour v. State, 69 So.3d 235 (Fla. 2011) (rejects applying standard error of measurement to expand the cut‑off)
- Phillips v. State, 984 So.2d 503 (Fla. 2008) (reiterates bright‑line IQ 70 threshold under section 921.137)