Title: Arthur Dennis Rutherford v. Charles J. Christ

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2006 
 
 
CASE NO.:  SC06-2023 
 
 
ARTHUR DENNIS 
RUTHERFORD 
vs.
CHARLES J. CRIST, JR., 
ETC., ET AL. 
Petitioner(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
Arthur Rutherford, who is under a pending death warrant, has filed a Petition 
Seeking to Invoke this Court's All Writs Jurisdiction and a Motion for Stay of 
Execution, which is scheduled for October 18, 2006.  Rutherford's petition 
concerns the Department of Corrections' denial of a public records request for 
current lethal injection procedures, followed by the circuit court's denial of a 
motion to compel production.  The State has filed a response to which it has 
attached the Department's procedures governing execution by lethal injection, 
effective August 16, 2006.  We permitted Rutherford to file a reply. 
 
We deny relief. Our review of the current lethal injection procedures, 
attached to the State's response, reveals nothing that would cause this Court to 
revisit our previous conclusions "that procedures for administering the lethal 
injection as attested do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel 
and unusual punishment." Rutherford v. State, 926 So. 2d 1100, 1113 (Fla. 2006)  
 
CASE NO. SC6-2023 
PAGE 2 
 
 
(quoting Hill v. State, 921 So. 2d 579, 583 (Fla. 2006), and Sims v. State, 754 So. 
2d 657, 668 (Fla. 2000)). 
 
Accordingly, Rutherford's petition and motion for a stay of execution are 
hereby denied.  No motion for rehearing will be allowed. 
 
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, QUINCE and CANTERO, JJ., concur. 
ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with an opinion. 
BELL, J., recused. 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
jn 
Served: 
 
CAROLYN M. SNURKOWSKI 
LINDA  MCDERMOTT 
MARTIN J. MCCLAIN 
HON. JOHN ELLIS "JEB" BUSH, GOVERNOR 
ROSA H. CARSON 
CHARMAINE M. MILLSAPS 
 
 
 
CASE NO. SC6-2023 
PAGE 3 
 
 
 
ANSTEAD, J., concurring specially. 
 
 
I concur in the majority's denial of relief because I, too, am bound by the 
rulings of this Court rejecting similar challenges to the State's procedures for 
execution by lethal injection in Hill and Rutherford as cited by the majority.  I am 
troubled, however, by the fact that the State has not at all times made its execution 
procedures and protocols a matter of public record, and by the fact that since our 
initial decision in Sims approving the use of lethal injection based substantially on 
theory, there has been no public evidentiary hearing focused on the purpose and 
effectiveness of the State's procedures, and on what actually takes place during the 
course of an execution by lethal injection.  Now that this method of execution has 
been in place for a number of years we would all benefit by such a hearing.