The case of Hurst v. Florida [PDF] was argued on Oct. 13, 2015 and the court’s decision was handed down yesterday. The majority of the court struck down the law after holding the factors used to impose the penalty of death were determined by the judge and not the jury.
On May 2, 1998, the body of Cynthia Harrison was found in the freezer of the Popeye’s restaurant where she worked. She was found bound and gagged and had been stabbed more than 60 times. Money had been taken from the restaurant’s safe.
Harrison’s co-worker, Timothy Lee Hurst, was charged with her murder. The state adduced evidence he had talked about robbing his employer, he and Harrison were the only ones there at the time of her death, and he had used money taken from the restaurant to make purchases.
The jury rejected his alibi defence that his car broke down and he never made it to work that day.
Hurst was convicted of first-degree murder at trial. Under Florida law, that meant he had to be sentenced to life in prison unless a further sentencing hearing was held which it was. The Florida scheme provides a sentencing hearing must be held before the jury but the jury’s duty is only to recommend a sentence after hearing mitigating and aggravating factors. Once a recommendation is made, the judge must hold a separate hearing. At the second sentencing hearing, the judge weighs the jury’s recommendation as well as the mitigating and aggravating factors.
In Hurst’s case, the jury, in a vote of 7 to 5, recommended the defendant be sentenced to death. The judge then found two aggravating factors; the death was “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel” and the killing occurred in the course of a robbery. Based upon these aggravating factors, she imposed the death sentence.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states, in part, that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury…”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who authored the majority opinion, wrote, “The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. This right required Florida to base Timothy Hurst’s death sentence on a jury’s verdict, not on a judge’s fact finding. Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of aggravating circumstances, is therefore unconstitutional.”
Although the jurors were instructed on the two aggravating factors they were not required to state which one or two of these factors they relied upon in recommending the sentence of death.
The lone dissent came from Justice Samuel Alito. Alito opined it was the jury, by their 7 to 5 recommendation, that considered the aggravating factors and the judge merely reviewed the matter by holding a duplicate hearing.
NBC News reports it is not clear how this decision will affect the 400 other inmates on Florida’s death row. It is not certain whether the decision will be made retroactive although convicted killers who have outstanding appeals will undoubtedly benefit. Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said there will be a wave of litigation by inmates currently residing on the state’s death row.
Hurst’s case will be sent back to the Florida court for re-sentencing in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision.
