HURST V. FLORIDA: THE SUPREME COURT’S BLOW TO FLORIDA’S DEATH PENALTY Criminal Law Section 6;ECD@ G*E??G.9&EG'G,DB84>F7G"G+EAF@GEA

permissible only sentence of life by the jury’s imprisonment, verdict as to guilt. but the trial In the same vein, court only can the Court held consider the in Hurst that aggravating Florida’s factors that were sentencing unanimously scheme was found by the unconstitutional, jury. particularly a • If a defendant n January 12, 2016, jury’s advisory waives his or her the United States sentence without right to a jury Supreme Court, in any factual findings at sentencing, Hurst v. Florida, 136 and the ability A recommended the trial court OS. Ct. 616 (2016), held that section of the trial court may still impose sentence of life 921.141, Florida Statutes, the state’s to find the facts a sentence death penalty sentencing scheme, necessary to imprisonment by of death if it violated defendants’ Sixth Amend - impose a death the jury is binding finds at least ment right to a jury trial because sentence despite one aggravating the statute called for judges, not the jury’s advisory on the trial court. factor was jurors, to find the facts necessary sentence. proven beyond for a defendant to be sentenced to The Florida a reasonable death. The Court’s blow initiated legislature quickly doubt. the Florida legislature’s triage of addressed section 921.141’s While HB 7101 was effective section 921.141 as the state’s death constitutional defects, and on immediately, several questions about penalty remained on the ropes. It March 7, 2016, Governor Rick Hurst still remain open. The Florida also has sent attorneys to the mat Scott signed into law HB 7101. Supreme Court is expected to render to argue which of Florida’s death HB 7101 made some of the several opinions that will determine row inmates, if any, will get a new following reforms to Florida’s what effect, if any, Hurst will have day in court for re-sentencing. death penalty sentencing scheme: on the nearly 400 death row inmates Before Hurst, the jury would • The jury must unanimously in Florida. Furthermore, Florida render an advisory sentence by find that at least one aggravating remains one of only three states simple majority to the trial court, factor was proven beyond a that do not require a jury’s death without any expressed factual reasonable doubt to return a recommendation be unanimous, findings, of either life imprison - sentence of death, and the jury an issue not addressed in Hurst but ment or death, which the trial court must submit that factual finding one heavily debated in reforming would consider before imposing a to the trial court. section 921.141. What is certain is sentence of life imprisonment or • Ten of the 12 jurors must agree that Hurst will not be the last death. Hurst came to the Court to recommend a death sentence heavyweight match following its holdings in Apprendi v. to the trial court. for Florida’s death New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and • A recommended sentence of penalty. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) life imprisonment by the jury that the Sixth Amendment requires is binding on the trial court. Author: a jury to find any fact that exposes • If the jury recommends a death Brandon K. Breslow a defendant to a greater sentence, sentence, the trial court may - Kynes, Markman & including death, than that impose the death sentence or a Felman, P.A.

GET ACTIVE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW SECTION! CONTACT CHAIRS MATT OR JUSTIN.

76 3;9<-<4/,:<7586<<.<<10*;<);29:+