Thomas Bevel v. State of Florida

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Thomas Bevel’s two death sentences imposed after a second penalty phase for the murders of Garrick Stringfield and Phillip Sims. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the extreme mental or emotional disturbance mitigator, denying proposed mercy and proportionality instructions, and excluding comparative proportionality arguments. The court also rejected or preserved for federal review Bevel’s constitutional challenges to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the statutory mitigating circumstance because the record contained competent, substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Bevel failed to establish by the greater weight of the evidence that he was under an extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murders.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing Bevel's proposed mercy instructions because Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 7.11 adequately informed the jury that it was not required to impose death even if the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances.
3. The trial court did not err by precluding argument comparing Bevel's possible sentence with sentences or aggravation and mitigation in other cases.
4. Determinations concerning the sufficiency and relative weight of proven aggravating factors are not subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Florida's capital sentencing scheme is not unconstitutional on the grounds that it fails to sufficiently narrow death eligibility, contains an excessive number of aggravating factors, or eliminated comparative proportionality review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting the statutory mitigating circumstance that Bevel committed the murders while under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance despite expert testimony supporting it.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give Bevel's requested instruction that the jury could consider mercy in deciding whether to impose death.
3. Whether the trial court erred by precluding argument concerning the proportionality of Bevel's possible sentence.
4. Whether determinations concerning the sufficiency and relative weight of aggravating factors must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Whether Florida's capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because it does not sufficiently narrow the class of death-eligible defendants, contains too many aggravating factors, and eliminated comparative proportionality review.

Disposition

affirmed