Hurst v. Florida
577 U. S. ____ (2016) (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial requires that a jury, not a judge, must find every fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A sentencing scheme in which a judge independently finds the aggravating circumstances required for a death sentence, even after an advisory jury recommendation, is unconstitutional.
Facts:
- Timothy Lee Hurst worked at a restaurant with Cynthia Harrison.
- On May 2, 1998, Harrison's body was discovered in the freezer of the restaurant.
- She had been bound, gagged, and stabbed over 60 times.
- The restaurant's safe was found unlocked and open, with hundreds of dollars missing.
- At trial, the State of Florida presented evidence linking Hurst to the murder, while Hurst maintained an alibi defense.
Procedural Posture:
- A Florida jury convicted Timothy Hurst of first-degree murder and recommended the death penalty.
- The trial court judge independently found aggravating factors and sentenced Hurst to death.
- On postconviction review, the Florida Supreme Court vacated Hurst's sentence on other grounds.
- At a new sentencing hearing in 2012, a new advisory jury recommended death by a 7-to-5 vote.
- The sentencing judge again independently found the existence of two aggravating circumstances and sentenced Hurst to death.
- Hurst (appellant) appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment under Ring v. Arizona.
- The Florida Supreme Court, with the State of Florida as appellee, affirmed the sentence, holding that prior U.S. Supreme Court cases upholding the Florida system remained controlling law.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision 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 Florida's capital sentencing scheme, which allows a judge to find the aggravating circumstances necessary to impose a death sentence independent of a jury's advisory recommendation, violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial as interpreted in Ring v. Arizona?
Opinions:
Majority - Sotomayor
Yes. Florida's capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial. The Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, requires a jury to find any fact that increases the maximum punishment a defendant can receive. In Florida, the maximum sentence based on a conviction for a capital felony alone is life imprisonment; to impose the death penalty, the judge must independently find the existence of an aggravating circumstance. Because the judge's finding, not the jury's verdict, exposes the defendant to a greater punishment (death), the scheme is unconstitutional. The jury's role is merely advisory and not a true factual finding, making it indistinguishable from the unconstitutional scheme in Ring. Accordingly, the Court overrules its precedents in Spaziano v. Florida and Hildwin v. Florida to the extent they are inconsistent with this holding.
Concurring - Breyer
Yes. While concurring in the judgment to reverse, the reasoning should be based on the Eighth Amendment, not the Sixth. The Eighth Amendment requires that the ultimate decision to impose the death penalty be made by a jury, not a single government official like a judge. Because Florida's law gives this final sentencing authority to the judge, it is unconstitutional on Eighth Amendment grounds.
Dissenting - Alito
No. The Court should not have overruled its long-standing precedents in Hildwin and Spaziano which upheld Florida's system. The underlying principle from Ring v. Arizona is itself questionable and should be reconsidered before being extended. Even if Ring is correct, Florida's system is distinguishable because its jury plays a 'critically important role' by hearing evidence and making a recommendation based on aggravating and mitigating factors, unlike the Arizona system in Ring. Finally, any potential Sixth Amendment error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence supporting the aggravating factors—that the murder was committed during a robbery and was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel—was overwhelming.
Analysis:
This decision invalidated Florida's 'hybrid' capital sentencing scheme and had a significant impact on other states with similar systems. It strongly reaffirmed and extended the principle of Apprendi and Ring, solidifying that any fact-finding that makes a defendant eligible for a higher sentence—especially death—is functionally an element of the offense that must be found by a jury. The ruling forced states to amend their death penalty statutes to ensure that the jury's role in finding aggravating circumstances is determinative, not merely advisory. This shifted significant power from judges to juries in capital cases and narrowed the permissible structures for state death penalty schemes.
