Opinion ID: 1942962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requiem for an Interrogatory

Text: Apart from capital cases, jury interrogatories on findings that authorize sentence enhancement or reclassification are favored in Florida law. See, e.g., State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla.1997) (stating that a specific question or special verdict form is the clearest way by which the jury can make the finding necessary to support [a firearm] enhancement). Cases coming before us on direct appeal in the past few years have demonstrated that after Ring, interrogatories on specific aggravating circumstances were used with greater frequency in capital cases as well. [29] However, that option is now foreclosed by this Court's holding in Steele that a trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in a death penalty case by using a penalty phase special verdict form that details the jurors' determination concerning aggravating factors found by the jury. 921 So.2d at 548. But for Steele's holding prohibiting special interrogatories in the penalty phase, we would be able to tell when a jury has unanimously found a death-qualifying aggravating circumstance, which would both facilitate our proportionality review and satisfy the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury even when the recommendation of death is less than unanimous. In this respect, Steele makes capital sentencing less transparent, less conducive to appellate review and therefore, ultimately less fair and reliable. The Court should recede from its ban on penalty phase interrogatories on aggravating circumstances.