Supreme Court of the United States: Hurst v. Florida ruling

4 HURST v. FLORIDA

Opinion of the Court
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed 4 to 3. 147 So. 3d 435 (2014). As relevant here, the court rejected Hurst’s argument that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring, 536 U. S. 584. Ring, the court recognized, “held that capital defendants are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in the maximum punishment.” 147 So. 3d, at
445. But the court considered Ring inapplicable in light of this Court’s repeated support of Florida’s capital sentencing scheme in pre-Ring cases. 147 So. 3d, at 446–447 (citing Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S. 638 (1989) (per curiam)); see also Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 457–465 (1984). Specifically, in Hildwin, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment “does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by the jury.” 490 U. S., at 640–641. The Florida court noted that we have “never expressly overruled Hildwin, and did not do so in Ring.” 147 So. 3d, at 446–447.
Justice Pariente, joined by two colleagues, dissented from this portion of the court’s opinion. She reiterated her view that “Ring requires any fact that qualifies a capital defendant for a sentence of death to be found by a jury.” Id., at 450 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
We granted certiorari to resolve whether Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring. 575 U. S. (2015). We hold that it does, and reverse.
II
The Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . . .” This right, in conjunction with the Due Process Clause, requires that each element of a crime be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable

Tags: Government/Politics & Law