Dobbert v. Florida
432 U.S. 282 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A retroactive change in a state's capital sentencing procedure does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if the change is procedural and does not make the punishment for a crime more burdensome. A prior death penalty statute, even if later found unconstitutional, provides sufficient fair warning to a defendant of the severity with which the state views the crime.
Facts:
- Between December 1971 and April 1972, Ernest John Dobbert, Jr. murdered his nine-year-old daughter, Kelly Ann, and seven-year-old son, Ryder Scott.
- During this same period, Dobbert brutally and systematically tortured his son Ernest John III and abused his daughter Honoré Elizabeth.
- The abuse against Kelly Ann included beatings, burnings, choking, and ultimately burying her body in an unmarked grave.
- In early 1972, his son Ernest John III was found battered, which initiated a police investigation.
- Dobbert fled Florida but was eventually arrested in Texas and extradited to Florida to face charges.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest John Dobbert, Jr. was charged in a Florida trial court with murder, child abuse, and child torture.
- Dobbert's pre-trial motion for a change of venue due to extensive publicity was denied by the trial judge.
- A jury found Dobbert guilty of first-degree murder, among other charges.
- In a separate sentencing hearing, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment by a 10-to-2 vote.
- The trial judge overrode the jury's recommendation and imposed a sentence of death.
- Dobbert, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court, as appellee, affirmed the trial court's judgment and death sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the retroactive application of a new death penalty sentencing statute, enacted after the defendant committed murder but before his trial, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when the prior statute was later declared unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The retroactive application of the new Florida death penalty statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The changes in the law were procedural, not substantive, and on the whole, were ameliorative, providing more constitutional protections to the defendant than the prior statute. The old statute, although later invalidated, served as an 'operative fact' that provided fair warning to the petitioner of the penalty Florida would seek for first-degree murder. Procedural changes that do not alter the quantum of punishment or remove a substantial right do not violate the clause. Furthermore, petitioner lacks standing to challenge changes to the life sentence option, as he was sentenced to death.
Concurrence - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No. The application of the new statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. A crucial factor is that when the petitioner committed the crime, a Florida statute permitted the death penalty, putting him on constructive notice of the potential punishment. The new procedures were, if anything, more favorable to the petitioner, so the change cannot be considered an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes. Applying the new death penalty statute to the petitioner violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. At the time of the offense, there was no constitutional procedure for imposing the death penalty in Florida, meaning the crime was not a capital offense as a matter of law. The new statute, passed after the offense, is the sole source of the state's power to impose a death sentence, which constitutes a 'new punitive measure' applied to a crime already consummated. The majority's 'fair warning' rationale is a departure from precedent, is unworkable, and ignores the Clause's purpose of preventing arbitrary and capricious legislation, as one cannot receive fair warning from a legal nullity.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. This dissent would vacate the death sentence because it adheres to the view that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in all circumstances, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shapes Ex Post Facto Clause jurisprudence, particularly concerning capital sentencing. By introducing the 'fair warning' doctrine based on a later-invalidated statute, the Court narrowed the clause's protections. It allows states to retroactively apply 'curative' legislation that fixes unconstitutional sentencing schemes, provided the changes are deemed procedural and not more onerous. This creates a precedent that focuses on the legislative intent to punish severely, even if the legal means were initially flawed, thereby impacting defendants who committed crimes under such flawed statutory schemes.
Unlock the full brief for Dobbert v. Florida