Spaziano v. Florida

Last updated

Spaziano v. Florida
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 17, 1984
Decided July 2, 1984
Full case nameJoseph Robert Spaziano v. Florida
Citations468 U.S. 447 ( more )
104 S. Ct. 3154; 82 L. Ed. 2d 340; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 141
Case history
PriorSpaziano v. State, 393 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1981); Spaziano v. Florida, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981); on remand, Spaziano v. State, 433 So. 2d 508 (1983)
Holding
It was not error for the trial judge to refuse to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Burger, Powell, O'Connor; White, Rehnquist (all but a portion of Part II); Brennan, Marshall, Stevens (Part II only)
ConcurrenceWhite, joined by Rehnquist
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. VI, VIII
Overruled by
Hurst v. Florida (2016)

Spaziano v. Florida was two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the imposition of the death penalty. In the first case, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981), [1] the Supreme Court, with two dissents, refused Spaziano's petition for certiorari. However, the Florida Supreme Court would reverse Spaziano's death sentence based on the judge's receipt of a confidential report which was not received by either party. On remand, the judge reimposed the death penalty and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the sentence. [2] In the second case, 468 U.S. 447 (1984), [3] the Court heard Spaziano's appeal of his death sentence.

Contents

Facts

Spaziano was tried for first-degree murder, but the court refused to offer lesser non-capital offenses as the statute of limitations had expired on them when Spaziano refused to waive the statute of limitations. The jury convicted Spaziano and recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. Florida law makes the jury's recommendation merely that, a recommendation, and requires the judge to examine the aggravating and mitigating factors and thus gives the judge the power to override the jury and impose the death penalty.

Issues

1. Was the judge in error for not advising the jury that it could consider lesser non-capital offenses? 2. Is a jury's determination not to impose capital punishment final? 3. If a judge is imposing a death sentence after a jury imposition of life imprisonment, does this violate the double-jeopardy clause? 4. Is a judge imposition of death over-riding a jury decision of life imprisonment violating the constitutional requirement for reliability of capital sentencing?

Result

Since the non-capital offenses were not lesser-included offenses of the crime to which Spaziano was charged, it was not error for the court to refuse to offer them to the jury (in the absence of Spaziano waiving the statute of limitations). Florida law giving the trial court the power to over-ride a jury recommendation of life and impose the death penalty is not unconstitutional, in that there is nothing irrational or arbitrary about this method.

Spaziano's death sentence was upheld.

Dissents

White and Rehnquist concurred in general, and dissented in part on the majority holding that a state must allow the defendant to waive the statute of limitations where there is the possibility of a lesser charge.

Stevens, Brennan and Marshall concurred in the majority opinion and dissented in part, holding that they felt that imposition of the death penalty against the wishes of the jury violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Other

The Spaziano ruling was vitiated by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in another death penalty case, Hurst v. Florida (2016). [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), was a landmark criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated all then existing legal constructions for the death penalty in the United States. It was 5–4 decision, with each member of the majority writing a separate opinion. Following Furman, in order to reinstate the death penalty, states had to at least remove arbitrary and discriminatory effects in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Indiana. The last man executed in the state, excluding federal executions at Terre Haute, was the murderer Matthew Wrinkles in 2009.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6–3 that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but states can define who has an intellectual disability. At the time Atkins was decided, just 18 of the 38 death penalty states exempted mentally disabled offenders from the death penalty.

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), held that the death penalty for rape of an adult woman was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A few states continued to have child rape statutes that authorized the death penalty. In Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the court expanded Coker, ruling that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do not involve homicide or crimes against the State.

Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Kansas death penalty statute was consistent with the United States Constitution. The statute in question provided for a death sentence when the aggravating factors and mitigating factors were of equal weight.

Most jurisdictions in the United States of America maintain the felony murder rule. In essence, the felony murder rule states that when an offender kills in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder. It means that the common law malice required for murder is "implied as a matter of law for homicides arising from felonies." It is a widely criticized feature of American criminal law. Initially, it was widely believed by scholars that the felony murder rule had originated in England. However, more recent scholarship has argued that it likely originated in America separately from England. Its historic roots have been called "deep but terribly obscure".

Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The case established the right of defendants to challenge for cause any juror that would automatically impose the death penalty in all capital cases.

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), was a U.S. Supreme Court case where the court ruled that a state statute providing the state unlimited challenge for cause of jurors who might have any objection to the death penalty gave too much bias in favor of the prosecution.

Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two jury polls and the supplemental charge did not impermissibly coerce the jury to return a death sentence, and that the death sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment simply because the single statutory "aggravating circumstance" found by the jury duplicates an element of the underlying offense of first-degree murder.

Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a jury must be allowed to consider lesser included offenses, not just capital offense or acquittal.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in Florida</span> Overview of the use of capital punishment in the U.S. state of Florida

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Florida.

The United States Constitution contains several provisions related to criminal sentencing.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Georgia. Georgia reintroduced the death penalty in 1973 after Furman v. Georgia ruled all states' death penalty statutes unconstitutional. The first execution to take place afterwards occurred in 1983.

In the United States and other nations that use jury trials, a judicial override is when a judge overrules a jury's sentencing determination.

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S. 638 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case which addresses the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. It considers if imposition of the death penalty when no specific finding of aggravating factors was made by the jury. In a per curiam decision, the court ruled that there is no need for the jury to present specific findings when imposing the death penalty, as the judge is the one who decides the fact while the jury merely gives recommendations to the judge.

Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (1987), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a mandatory death penalty for a prison inmate who is convicted of murder while serving a life sentence without possibility of parole is unconstitutional. The decision in this case was a significant development in the Court's capital punishment jurisprudence, further clarifying the limits on the application of the death penalty in the United States.

References

  1. Spaziano v. Florida, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981).
  2. Spaziano v. State, 433So. 2d508 (Fla.1983).
  3. Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984).
  4. Hurst v. Florida ,No. 14–7505 , 577 U.S. ___(2016).