Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of Floridared2 sentences2019First, although the majority correctly notes that Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 53 (Fla. 2016), stated “before a sentence of death may be considered by the trial court in Florida, the jury must find the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating - 38 - circumstances,” we also held that these findings must be unanimous. 2019In Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 53 (Fla. 2016), this Court held that “before a sentence of death may be considered by the trial court in Florida, the jury must find the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating - 19 - factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” But Hurst did not require that the determinations at issue here—that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances—be made beyond a reaso | 6 | 6 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2026On remand from Hurst, this Court held in Hurst v. State that “before a sentence of death may be considered by the trial court in Florida, the jury must find the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” 202 So. 3d at 53. 2017In Hurst v. State, we explained that the jury in a capital case must find the following facts unanimously: “the existence of the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” 202 So.3d 40 , 53 (Fla. 2016). | 2 | 3 |
& SC15-767 Lancelot Uriley Armstrong v. State of Florida & Lancelot Uriley Armstrong v. Julie L. Jones, etc.green2 sentences2018Nor can we "determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation." Kopsho v. State , 209 So.3d 568 , 570 (Fla. 2017). 2018Nor can we “determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravators outweighed the mitigation.” Kopsho v. State, 209 So. 3d 568, 570 (Fla. 2017). | 1 | 2 |
Robert J. Bailey v. Julie L. Jones, etc.green2 sentences2018Although the jury unanimously found the aggravating factors, "based on the jury's eleven-to-one recommendation for a sentence of death, we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravating factors were sufficient to impose a sentence of death." Bailey v. Jones , 225 So.3d 776 , 777 (Fla. 2017) (holding that a nonunanimous jury recommendation for death is not harmless even when "no reasonable juror would have failed to find" the existence of the aggravating factors). 2018Although the jury unanimously found the aggravating factors, “based on the jury’s eleven-to-one recommendation for a sentence of death, we cannot determine that the jury unanimously found that the aggravating factors were sufficient to impose a sentence of death.” Bailey v. Jones, 225 So. 3d 776, 777 (Fla. 2017) (holding that a nonunanimous jury recommendation for death is not harmless even when “no reasonable juror would have failed to find” the existence of the aggravating factors). | 1 | 2 |
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2026This Court then determined that Hurst does not apply retroactively to cases in which the death sentence became final before the issuance of Ring, Asay, 210 So. 3d at 22, nor does Hurst v. State, Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216, 217 (Fla. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hurst v. Florida
green
1 sentence2019And when we amended Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.11—Final Instructions in Penalty Proceedings— Capital Cases—last year in order to conform with the requirements of Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State, we fully considered the arguments made that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof should apply to the jury’s determinations of sufficiency of the aggravation and weighing of the aggravation and mitigation but ultimately declined to include a standard of proof for these determinations. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.