Opinion ID: 1735100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Constitutionality of the Death Sentence

Text: Appellant argued to the trial court that the death penalty was unconstitutional because allegedly innocent people have been or could be executed. On appeal, he states that in a capital case the Eighth Amendment requires that the underlying homicide must be proven to a virtual certainty. Because appellant has raised a different argument on appeal, this claim is not preserved for review. Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982). Nevertheless, we note that the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt requires a high degree of certainty. In discussing this standard, the Supreme Court has stated the following: It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); see Richardson v. State, 604 So.2d 1107, 1109 (Fla. 1992) (However, in light of the entire record, the error is harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. This record establishes to a moral certainty that Richardson killed Newton, and there is no reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different in the absence of this error.). Appellant is not entitled to any relief on this issue.