Hurst v. Florida
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Most of the other citing opinions applied Hurst, reported its effect on earlier decisions, or discussed the separate Florida Supreme Court decision in Hurst v. State.
41 later cases cite Hurst v. Florida; 41 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Hurst v. Florida?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Florida Supreme Court held that Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to death sentences that became final before Ring v. Arizona was decided.
Asay v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Hurst v. Florida should not apply retroactively to cases that were final when Ring was decided.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Florida Supreme Court held that Hurst v. Florida did not entitle Gaskin to relief because his death sentences became final before Ring v. Arizona.
Gaskin v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
Because Gaskin’s sentence became final in 1993, Gaskin, is not entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida. See Asay v. State, 210 So.3d 1, 29-30, 2016 WL 7406538 at *13 (Fla. 2016) (holding that Hurst is not retroactive to cases that became final before the United States Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Hurst v. Florida to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt when a jury weighs aggravating and mitigating factors.
Runyon v. United States · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · filed
That both Hurst and Ring deal with juries in death penalty trials does not automatically mean that Hurst represents an intervening change in the law set forth in Ring, and argued by the Petitioner on his direct appeal. Hurst does not mention the weight a jury should give to the aggravating and mitigating factors, as it is concerned with whether a judge may take over the jury’s role in determining these factors. The Petitioner’s claim does not deal with that specific issue, and his attempt to link Hurst to his case stretches the holding too far. As such, the court finds that Hurst does not represent an intervening change in the law, with respect to the issue the Petitioner raised on appeal, and it does not affect the Fourth Circuit’s earlier finding that the FDPA requires only that the jury decide “whether all the aggravating ... factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh all the mitigating ... factors found to exist,” and that this court’s instructions during the penalty phase were proper.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Florida Supreme Court held that Hurst v. Florida did not apply retroactively to Lambrix’s death sentences, which became final in 1986.
Lambrix v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
Lambrix contends that he is entitled to retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida and thus, his sentences of death must be vacated. For the reasons cited in Asay, 210 So.3d at 5-6, we reject Lambrix’s claim. Lam-brix’s conviction was final in 1986 and accordingly he is not entitled to relief based on Hurst.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals held that Hurst did not overcome res judicata to permit Braden's new-trial claim because he could have raised the same constitutional argument on direct appeal.
State v. Braden · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District · filed
Even if it could be said that the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst represented a change in case law, such change did not prevent the application of res judicata. Furthermore, appellant could have raised the same issues the defendant in Hurst later raised, but he failed to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Florida held that Hurst v. Florida does not require a jury to determine intellectual disability because that finding concerns eligibility for execution rather than a fact necessary to impose death.
Franqui v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed
Moreover, Franqui’s argument that Hurst v. Florida compels a jury determination of intellectual disability is without merit. Under Florida law, both the statute and the rule governing intellectual disability in capital cases provide that the determination shall be made by a judge, not a jury. See § 921.137, Fla. Stat. (2017); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.203(e). Further, intellectual disability is a categorical bar to execution, and Hurst v. Florida does not address findings that render a defendant ineligible to be executed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hurst v. Florida and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace