Opinion ID: 4543946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Elements of Capital Murder

Text: Santiago-Gonzalez argues that the trial court’s finding that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances is an “element” that must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the sentencing order did not make an express finding “beyond a reasonable doubt,” he maintains that his death sentence is invalid. This argument is without merit. “[S]ubsequent to our decision in Hurst v. State [202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)], we already have receded from the holding that the additional Hurst v. State findings are elements.” State v. Poole, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S41, S47 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020), clarified, 45 Fla. L. Weekly at S141 (Fla. Apr. 2, 2020). In Rogers v. State, 285 So. 3d 872, 885-86 (Fla. 2019), we clarified: To the extent that in Perry v. State, 210 So. 3d 630, 633 (Fla. 2016), we suggested that Hurst v. State held that the sufficiency and weight of the aggravating factors and the final recommendation of death are elements that must be determined by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, we mischaracterized Hurst v. State, which did not require that these determinations be made beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Perry, in In re Standard Criminal Jury Instructions in Capital Cases [244 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 2018] and Foster, we have implicitly receded from its mischaracterization of Hurst v. State. We now do so explicitly. Thus, these determinations are not subject to the beyond a - 40 - reasonable doubt standard of proof, and the trial court did not err in instructing the jury. The sentencing order sets forth the trial court’s conclusions that the State proved four aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and “the aggravating circumstances in this case far outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” There is no deficiency in the trial court’s findings.