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