Case Name: James Ernest HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-01-28
Citations: 614 So. 2d 483
Docket Number: No. 72200
Parties: James Ernest HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 614
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
James Ernest HITCHCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 72200.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 28, 1993.
Rehearing Denied March 22, 1993.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Steven H. Malone, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM.
In Hitchcock v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3020, 120 L.Ed.2d 892 (1992), the United States Supreme Court remanded this case for our reconsideration in light of Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), in which the Court declared our former standard jury instruction on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator constitutionally inadequate. The trial court gave Hitchcock's jury the inadequate instruction. Hitchcock, however, requested an expanded instruction on that aggravator, objected when the court denied his request, and raised the issue on appeal. We cannot tell what part the instruction played in the jury's consideration of its recommended sentence. Therefore, we vacate Hitchcock's death sentence and direct the trial court to empanel a jury and conduct a new penalty proceeding within ninety days of the date this opinion becomes final.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion.