Supreme Court of the United States - Press Release
Supreme Court of the United States: Hurst v. Florida ruling
10 HURST v. FLORIDA
Opinion of the Court
D
Finally, we do not reach the State’s assertion that any error was harmless. See Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 18–19 (1999) (holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless). This Court normally leaves it to state courts to consider whether an error is harmless, and we see no reason to depart from that pattern here. See Ring, 536 U. S., at 609, n. 7.
* * *
The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. This right required Florida to base Timothy Hurst’s death sentence on a jury’s verdict, not a judge’s factfinding. Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional.
The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
