HAC instruction in Florida

2002Although we did not specifically address the argument that the instruction given was unconstitutionally vague, the record reflects that the HAC instruction given in this case was virtually identical to the one that withstood scrutiny in Hall v. State, 614 So.2d 473, 478 (Fla.1993), subsequent to Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992).

2002Although we did not specifically address the argument that the instruction given was unconstitutionally vague, the record reflects that the HAC instruction given in this case was virtually identical to the one that withstood scrutiny in Hall v. State, 614 So.2d 473, 478 (Fla.1993), subsequent to Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992).

2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h

2017Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 (1977); Shenfeld v. State, 44 So. 3d 96, 100 (Fla. 2010). - 71 - 919 So. 2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So. 2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa

2014See Victorino v. State, 23 So.3d 87,104 (Fla.2009) (rejecting defendant’s claim that Florida’s HAC aggravator is “constitutionally infirm because it is overbroad and vague”); Francis v. State, 808 So.2d 110, 134 (Fla.2001) (explaining that in Hall, this Court upheld the HAC aggravator against a vagueness challenge); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 316 (Fla.1997) (upholding constitutionality of HAC standard jury instruction).

2013See Ault v. State, 866 So.2d 674, 686 (Fla.2008) (rejecting argument that in the course of a felony aggravator “is unconstitutional because it constitutes an automatic aggravator and does not narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty”); Francis v. State, 808 So.2d 110, 134 (Fla.2001) (recognizing the consistency with which we have upheld the constitutionality of the HAC aggravator instruction); Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.1997) (explaining that the in the course of a felony aggravator narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty because it does not app

1998See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 201 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083 , 118 S.Ct. 1535 , 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Monlyn v. State, 705 So.2d 1 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 2378 , 141 L.Ed.2d 745 (1998); Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1127 , 118 S.Ct. 1076 , 140 L.Ed.2d 134 (1998).

1998See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 201 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083 , 118 S.Ct. 1535 , 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Monlyn v. State, 705 So.2d 1 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 2378 , 141 L.Ed.2d 745 (1998); Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1127 , 118 S.Ct. 1076 , 140 L.Ed.2d 134 (1998).

1998See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 201 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083 , 118 S.Ct. 1535 , 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Monlyn v. State, 705 So.2d 1 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 2378 , 141 L.Ed.2d 745 (1998); Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1127 , 118 S.Ct. 1076 , 140 L.Ed.2d 134 (1998).

1998See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 201 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083 , 118 S.Ct. 1535 , 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Monlyn v. State, 705 So.2d 1 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 2378 , 141 L.Ed.2d 745 (1998); Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1127 , 118 S.Ct. 1076 , 140 L.Ed.2d 134 (1998).

1998See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 201 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083 , 118 S.Ct. 1535 , 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Monlyn v. State, 705 So.2d 1 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 2378 , 141 L.Ed.2d 745 (1998); Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1127 , 118 S.Ct. 1076 , 140 L.Ed.2d 134 (1998).

1998See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 201 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083 , 118 S.Ct. 1535 , 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Monlyn v. State, 705 So.2d 1 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 2378 , 141 L.Ed.2d 745 (1998); Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1127 , 118 S.Ct. 1076 , 140 L.Ed.2d 134 (1998).

2010The existence of a defensive wound is relevant to the HAC analysis — this Court has “affirmed findings of HAC where defensive wounds revealed awareness of impending death.” Guardado, 965 So.2d at 116 (“[T]he victim did not lose consciousness quickly after the initial blows to her head.

2010The existence of a defensive wound is relevant to the HAC analysis — this Court has “affirmed findings of HAC where defensive wounds revealed awareness of impending death.” Guardado, 965 So.2d at 116 (“[T]he victim did not lose consciousness quickly after the initial blows to her head.

2013See Ault v. State, 866 So.2d 674, 686 (Fla.2008) (rejecting argument that in the course of a felony aggravator “is unconstitutional because it constitutes an automatic aggravator and does not narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty”); Francis v. State, 808 So.2d 110, 134 (Fla.2001) (recognizing the consistency with which we have upheld the constitutionality of the HAC aggravator instruction); Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.1997) (explaining that the in the course of a felony aggravator narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty because it does not app

2002See Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.1997); Johnson, 660 So.2d at 647 . *187 In addition, Floyd argues that the HAC instruction given in his case was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992).

2009See Donaldson v. State, 722 So.2d 177 , 186 n. 10 (Fla.1998) (holding standard HAC instruction not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad); Bowles v. State, 804 So.2d 1173, 1177 (Fla.2001) (holding standard CCP jury instruction not unconstitutionally vague).

2007See, e.g., Buzia v. State, 926 So.2d 1203, 1211 (Fla.) ("The intention of the killer to inflict pain . . . is not a necessary element of the aggravator.") (quoting Francis v. State, 808 So.2d 110, 135 (Fla.2001)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 184 , 166 L.Ed.2d 129 (2006); Bowles v. State, 804 So.2d 1173, 1177 (Fla.2001) (rejecting a claim that the trial court erred in refusing *16 a proposed HAC instruction that included an intent element).

2014See Victorino v. State, 23 So.3d 87,104 (Fla.2009) (rejecting defendant’s claim that Florida’s HAC aggravator is “constitutionally infirm because it is overbroad and vague”); Francis v. State, 808 So.2d 110, 134 (Fla.2001) (explaining that in Hall, this Court upheld the HAC aggravator against a vagueness challenge); Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300, 316 (Fla.1997) (upholding constitutionality of HAC standard jury instruction).

2010The killer need not intend to inflict torture where the victim is killed in a torturous manner because "the very torturous manner of the victim's death is evidence of a defendant's indifference." Victorino, 23 So.3d at 104 (quoting Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836, 849-50 (Fla.2002)); see also Schoenwetter, *795 931 So.2d at 874 (noting that the focus on the HAC analysis is not on the intent of the killer but rather on the victim's actual suffering).

2021See Warfel, 82 So. 3d at 65 .

2021See Warfel, 82 So. 3d at 65 .

2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h

2017Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 (1977); Shenfeld v. State, 44 So. 3d 96, 100 (Fla. 2010). - 71 - 919 So. 2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So. 2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa

2017Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 (1977); Shenfeld v. State, 44 So. 3d 96, 100 (Fla. 2010). - 71 - 919 So. 2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So. 2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa

2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h

2017Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 (1977); Shenfeld v. State, 44 So. 3d 96, 100 (Fla. 2010). - 71 - 919 So. 2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So. 2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa

2017Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 (1977); Shenfeld v. State, 44 So. 3d 96, 100 (Fla. 2010). - 71 - 919 So. 2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So. 2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa

2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h

2017Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 (1977); Shenfeld v. State, 44 So. 3d 96, 100 (Fla. 2010). - 71 - 919 So. 2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So. 2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa

2014In Baker v. State, 71 So. 3d 802, 821 (Fla. 2011), this Court cited several instances where HAC could still be found despite the fact that the victim ultimately died from summary execution, such as a single gunshot wound to the head.

2014In Baker v. State, 71 So. 3d 802, 821 (Fla. 2011), this Court cited several instances where HAC could still be found despite the fact that the victim ultimately died from summary execution, such as a single gunshot wound to the head.