Hurst v. Florida - (12 Jan 2016)

Florida’s sentencing scheme given the chop

MANU/USSC/0002/2016

Criminal

The United States Supreme Court overwhelmingly held Florida’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the instant case, after Mr. Hurst was found guilty of murder in the first-degree, an additional sentencing proceeding was conducted in order to enhance the maximum sentence that could be imposed under State law. Such “hybrid” proceeding entailed the jury delivering an advisory verdict as to sentence, with judge conducting evidentiary hearing before the jury; having weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstance would the judge enter sentence. Whereas the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to an impartial jury trial, the Court found that under Florida’s sentencing procedure judge alone had discretion to determine the existence of an aggravating circumstance affecting sentence. Justice Alito, however, dissented. He opined that error in sentencing in the instant case was harmless beyond reasonable doubt. Though the judge could alter the sentence recommended by the jury, his role practically amounted to a reviewing function.

Relevant : Ring vs. Arizona MANU/USSC/0068/2002

Tags : USA FLORIDA SENTENCING SIXTH AMENDMENT