Opinion ID: 1670351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: applicability of ring to florida

Text: The United States Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), held that an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty operates as the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense than the one covered by the jury's guilty verdict. [47] I take this to mean that an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death sentence must be subjected to the same rigors of proof as every other element of the charged offense. In Florida, a defendant cannot be sentenced to death based on a jury's guilty verdict alone; an additional factual finding of at least one aggravating circumstance must be made in a separate penalty phase proceeding before a jury. [48] Because a finding of at least one aggravating circumstance is necessary to render a defendant death qualified, that particular aggravator is indeed, under Ring, the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense than the one covered by the jury's guilty verdict. In the lexicon of Ring, for sentencing purposes, first-degree murder with at least one aggravating circumstance is a greater offense than first-degree murder without an aggravating circumstance. This is consonant with the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi that an aggravating circumstance functioning as an element of an offense cannot be subjected to a lesser standard of proof than any other element of the offense: If a defendant faces punishment beyond that provided by [the jury's verdict] under certain circumstances but not others, it is obvious that both the loss of liberty and the stigma attaching to the offense are heightened; it necessarily follows that the defendant should not at the moment the State is put to proof of those circumstancesbe deprived of protections that have, until that point, unquestionably attached. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 2348. As explained above, under longstanding Florida law, every element of a charged offense must be found by a jury (not a judge), must be found beyond a reasonable doubt, and must be found unanimously. If the presence of at least one aggravating circumstance death qualifies a defendant and is the functional equivalent of an element of the offense, then the finding of that qualifying aggravator must be held to the same exacting standards as every other element. Florida's standard jury instructions for penalty proceedings in capital cases address the standards for aggravating circumstances: Each aggravating circumstance must be established beyond a reasonable doubt before it may be considered by you in arriving at your decision. . . . . If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed. A mitigating circumstance need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the defendant. If you are reasonably convinced that a mitigating circumstance exists, you may consider it as established. The sentence that you recommend to the court must be based upon the facts as you find them from the evidence and the law. You should weigh the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances, and your advisory sentence must be based on these considerations. In these proceedings it is not necessary that the advisory sentence of the jury be unanimous. . . . . If a majority of the jury determine that (defendant) should be sentenced to death, your advisory sentence will be: A majority of the jury, by a vote of _______, advise and recommend to the court that it impose the death penalty upon (defendant). On the other hand, if by six or more votes the jury determines that (defendant) should not be sentenced to death, your advisory sentence will be: The jury advises and recommends to the court that it impose a sentence of life imprisonment upon (defendant) without possibility of parole. You will now retire to consider your recommendation. When you have reached an advisory sentence in conformity with these instructions, that form of recommendation should be signed by your foreperson and returned to the court. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 7.11 (emphasis added). Nowhere in Florida law is there a requirement that the finding of an aggravating circumstance must be unanimous. Ring, however, by treating a death qualifying aggravator as an element of the offense, imposes upon that aggravator the same rigors of proof as other elements, including Florida's requirement of a unanimous jury finding. Ring, therefore, has a direct impact on Florida's capital sentencing statute.