Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against a check advance company, asserting claims based on numerous Florida statutes. Plaintiffs later amended the complaint to add Tiffany Kelly as an additional plaintiff and named class member. Because Kelly had signed the version of Defendant's arbitration agreement that contained a class action waiver, this case focused on her contracts with Defendant. The trial court eventually denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the class action waiver was unenforceable because it was void as against public policy. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that no other reasonable avenue for relief would be available if it enforced the class action waiver. After the court of appeal decided this case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion. Applying the rationale of Concepcion to the facts set forth in this case, the Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's decision, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted invalidating the class action waiver in this case on the basis of the waiver being void as against public policy. View "McKenzie Check Advance of Fla., LLC v. Betts" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the personal representative of the estate of Charlotte Douglas, filed a complaint against cigarette companies and industry organizations for damages on claims based on Charlotte's smoking-related death. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded $2.5 million in damages. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in the application of the Phase I findings in the class action case Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. Charlotte was a member of the Engle class. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff did not prove legal causation on his negligence theory but did prove legal causation on his strict liability claim. Although the court of appeal rejected Defendants' argument that applying res judicata to the findings violated their due process rights, it certified the due process question to the Supreme Court. The Court approved of the court of appeal's decision affirming the general verdict for Plaintiff based on strict liability but disapproved the court's rejection of negligence as a basis for the general verdict because the court's analysis required causation instructions and findings beyond those required by Engle. In addition, the Court answered that accepting as res judicata the eight Phase I findings approved in Engle did not violate Defendants' due process rights. View "Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After his initial postconviction motion was denied, Petitioner filed an amended successive postconviction motion to vacate his judgments and sentence. Defendant filed a motion for discovery with regard his postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence, seeking production of a photograph card of an unidentified fingerprint found on the victim's check, which Defendant sought to compare with that of a deceased death row inmate. The postconviction court denied Defendant's motion for discovery and summarily denied his amended successive postconviction motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the postconviction court correctly summarily denied relief on the postconviction motion, as (i) Defendant's claim was time-barred, and furthermore, the record showed Defendant was not entitled to relief; (ii) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (iii) Defendant was not deprived of his due process rights to present evidence on his challenge to Florida's lethal injection procedures. The Court also affirmed the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for discovery, as Defendant did not show his request would result in discovery of relevant or material evidence. View "Reed v. State" on Justia Law

In 1976, Defendant was convicted of the first-degree murders of his wife Eunice Zeigler and Charlie Mays and the second-degree murders of his in-laws, Perry and Virginia Edwards. In 2001, the trial court granted Defendant's motion for DNA testing for the purposes of clemency proceedings. After the testing was completed, Defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentences, arguing that the presence of Perry's blood on Mays' clothing corroborated his testimony that Mays was a perpetrator rather than a victim. The trial court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2009, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing requesting further testing of the victims' clothing. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had not met his burden of showing how the results of the DNA testing would give rise to a reasonable probability of a different outcome. View "Zeigler v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant's claims regarding the constitutionality of certain aggravators and jury instructions were denied because Defendant provided no reasons that the Court should depart from its precedent upholding the constitutionality of these aggravators and instructions; (2) competent, substantial evidence supported Defendant's murder conviction; and (3) under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant's death sentence was proportional in relation to other death sentences the Court has upheld. View "Matthews v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Defendant appealed, contending, among other things, that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his confession because, during his interrogation and before he confessed to the murder, he invoked his right to remain silent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) based on the totality of the circumstances, the police did not scrupulously honor Defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent; (2) there was not competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Defendant's confession was voluntary; and (3) the State failed to establish that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Deviney v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. After a retrial, Defendant was again convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the admission of testimony from Defendant's first trial did not violate Defendant's right to confrontation or to due process; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a suicide note Defendant wrote while incarcerated; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction; (4) the trial court did not err in rejecting a proposed statutory mental mitigator; and (5) Defendant's death sentence was proportional in this case. View "Bolin v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant constructed a bomb with the specific purpose of killing a witness, but the bomb instead detonated and killed a highway patrol trooper. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and of making, possessing, placing, or discharging a destructive device or bomb. Defendant was sentenced to death. After the execution was set for February 26, 2013, Defendant filed a successive motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court summarily denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief and denied Defendant's motion for a stay of execution, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to remove appointed registry counsel; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to appoint experts and investigators; (3) the trial court did not err in finding that lethal injection did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) Defendant failed to show that there were substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted regarding his application for a stay of execution. View "Howell v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for lewd and lascivious molestation on a victim under twelve years of age by an offender eighteen years of age or older and for failure to appear. Defendant appealed, arguing that certain comments made by a prosecutor during closing argument were improper. The court of appeal affirmed, holding, among other things, that because the victim's age was not an issue which only Defendant was capable of refuting, the prosecutor's comment in regard to the victim's age could not be construed as a comment on Defendant's right to remain silent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's comment did not constitute an improper comment on Defendant's right to remain silent; (2) the court of appeal erred in holding that a second comment likewise did not constitute an improper comment on Defendant's right to remain silent and that two additional comments constituted improper burden shifting; but (3) the objections to the improper comments were not preserved for appellate review, and because the comments did not constitute fundamental error, they did not require reversal. View "Bell v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was sentenced to death for the 2000 murders of an elderly couple. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions but reversed the death sentences and remanded for a new penalty phase. After a new penalty phase, the trial court followed the jury's recommendation and imposed two death sentences for the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) finding that Appellant was not mentally retarded; (2) admitting a video of a statement Appellant made to law enforcement; (3) instructing the jury on its advisory role and denying Appellant's proposed instruction regarding victim impact evidence; (4) allowing the prosecution to cross-examine mental health experts regarding their knowledge of the facts surrounding the murders; and (5) considering and weighing several aggravators and mitigators. Lastly, the Court found that the prosecutor made permissible comments at closing argument and that the death sentence was proportionate in this case. View "Snelgrove v. State" on Justia Law