On March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Hurst v. Florida, a chal­lenge to the state’s unusu­al sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dure. In a pri­or rul­ing, Ring v. Arizona (2002), the Court held that the ques­tion of whether a defen­dant is eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty is enti­tled to a jury deterem­i­na­tion. Unlike almost every oth­er state where unan­i­mous juries are required for death eli­gi­bil­i­ty and a death sen­tence, Florida only requires the jury to make a sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tion to the judge, who then makes the final deci­sion on the exis­tence of aggra­vat­ing fac­tors and the actu­al sen­tence. Timothy Hurst was sen­tenced to death by a judge, fol­low­ing a 7 – 5 rec­om­men­da­tion for death by the jury. The jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion did not make clear which aggra­vat­ing fac­tors made him eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty or whether they found any aggra­vat­ing fac­tor beyond a rea­son­able doubt. The Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Hurst v. Florida could affect pend­ing cas­es and oth­er inmates on the state’s death row.

Hurst’s attor­neys also claimed he suf­fers from intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties and is enti­tled to a jury deter­mi­na­tion of that issue, which could make him inel­i­gi­ble for the death penaty. The Supreme Court did not elect to review that issue. The Court will like­ly hear the case in its next term, start­ing in October 2015.

(T. Sneed, ​“Supreme Court to Take on Florida’s Death Penalty System,” U.S. News and World Report, March 9, 2015). See U.S. Supreme Court and Jury Sentencing.

Citation Guide