Jacobs v. State
357 So. 2d 169 (1978)
Rule of Law:
Under the Due Process Clause, a death sentence cannot be imposed based on information in a pre-sentence investigation report that the defendant has not had an opportunity to explain or deny. Furthermore, the prosecution has a duty to disclose evidence favorable and material to the defense, and a failure to do so may require a new hearing.
Facts:
- Two individuals were murdered and another was kidnapped.
- Sonia Jacobs and her co-defendant, Walter Rhodes, were implicated in the crimes.
- During the investigation phase, Rhodes submitted to a polygraph examination, which was documented in a confidential report.
- Rhodes later entered a negotiated plea in which he admitted to committing the homicides.
- After Jacobs' conviction, Rhodes allegedly stated on multiple occasions that he was the person who fired the shots that killed the victims.
Procedural Posture:
- Sonia Jacobs was convicted in a Florida trial court of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of kidnapping.
- The trial court sentenced Jacobs to death for the murders and life imprisonment for the kidnapping.
- Jacobs (appellant) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- While the appeal was pending, appellant filed an application for a stay and for leave to file an extraordinary motion for a new trial, alleging due process violations.
- The Supreme Court of Florida ordered the trial judge to clarify whether the sentence was based on information not known to Jacobs.
- After the trial judge's response, Jacobs filed a supplemental motion detailing a potential Brady violation related to a polygraph report contained within the pre-sentence investigation report.
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 Due Process Clause require a remand to the trial court for a factual determination when a defendant, sentenced to death, alleges the sentence was based on a confidential pre-sentence investigation report she had no opportunity to rebut, and that the report contained potentially exculpatory evidence which the prosecution failed to disclose?
Opinions:
Per curiam - Per Curiam
Yes, a remand is required for the trial court to make factual findings regarding potential due process violations. Citing Gardner v. Florida, the court affirmed that imposing the death penalty based on information undisclosed to the defendant, which they have no opportunity to explain or deny, violates due process. Since the trial judge admitted to using a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) but could not confirm whether Jacobs had access to it, the record was insufficient to rule out a constitutional violation. Additionally, the court addressed Jacobs' claim that the PSI contained a non-disclosed polygraph report of her co-defendant, Walter Rhodes. Citing Brady v. Maryland, the court noted the prosecution's duty to disclose favorable, material evidence. Accordingly, the court relinquished jurisdiction and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if a Gardner violation occurred regarding the PSI and if a Brady violation occurred regarding the polygraph report, and to hold a new sentencing hearing if necessary.
Analysis:
This case serves as a procedural application of the landmark due process protections established in Gardner v. Florida and Brady v. Maryland. It reinforces that appellate courts will not speculate on whether a defendant's rights were violated; instead, they will remand for factual findings when the record is unclear. The decision underscores the heightened procedural safeguards required in capital cases, specifically the defendant's absolute right to confront all information used in sentencing. By ordering the trial court to also investigate the Brady claim, the court affirmed that the prosecution's duty of disclosure is a critical component of due process that can be examined even while a case is on direct appeal.
