STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
AMY STEELE DONNER, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of mandamus to overturn a trial judge's order prohibiting the prosecution from seeking the death penalty against a defendant in a severed murder trial. The Court held that prosecutors have constitutional discretion to seek capital punishment absent improper motives such as bad faith or discrimination.
The judiciary may not interfere with a prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty in a first-degree murder case except where improper motives such as bad faith, race, religion, or desire to prevent constitutional rights can be attributed to the prosecution. No such improper motives were present in this case.
[1] A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition may be granted to compel a circuit court judge to allow the state to seek the death penalty in a first-degree murder case.
[2] The judiciary is prohibited by the Florida Constitution from interfering with a prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty in a first-degree murder case, absent impe…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“article II, section 3, of the Florida Constitution prohibits the judiciary from interfering with the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty in a first-degree murder case”
Establishes the constitutional principle that prosecutors have discretion to pursue capital punishment absent improper motives
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJorge Zerquera and Scott David Puttkamer were jointly tried for first-degree murder beginning February 13, 1986. After prejudicial remarks by Puttkame…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prosecutorial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
The State of Florida petitions this Court for a “writ of mandamus and/or prohibition” compelling Amy Steele Donner, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit to allow the state to seek the death penalty in the case of State of Florida v. Jorge Zerquera, case no. 84-27 304B. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(7)-(8), Florida Constitution, and grant the writ based on our recent decision in State v. Bloom, 497 So. 2d 2 (Fla.1986).
The joint first-degree murder trial of Zer-quera and his codefendant Scott David Puttkamer commenced on February 13, 1986. After counsel for Puttkamer made remarks during his opening statement which were prejudicial to Zerquera, Zerqu-era’s renewed motion for severance was granted.
On April 22, 1986, Zerquera argued to Judge Donner that the state should be precluded from seeking the death penalty against him in the new trial because it had not sought the death penalty prior to severance. Judge Donner entered an “Order Prohibiting the State from Seeking the Death Penalty.” Judge Donner gave three reasons for her order:
Since the State induced the defendant to forego trial by a jury which could not recommend the death penalty it is estopped from seeking the death penalty in this case.
As an independent ground for prohibiting the State from seeking the death penalty the court finds, after consideration of the potential aggravating and mitigating circumstances, that a jury could not validly recommend the death penalty in this case.
As a further independent ground for prohibiting the State from seeking the death penalty, the court finds that, if the state were permitted, now, to death qualify a jury, the defendant could seek relief, if convicted under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
At the time Judge Donner issued the subject order, she did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Bloom, where we held that article II, section 3, of the Florida Constitution prohibits the judiciary from interfering with the prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty in a first-degree murder case. As noted in Bloom, the judiciary has authority to curb pretrial prosecutorial discretion “ ‘only in those instances where impermissible motives may be attributed to the prosecution, such as bad faith, race, religion, or a desire to prevent the exercise of the defendant’s constitutional rights.’ ” Bloom, 497 So. 2d at 3 (quoting United States v. Smith, 523 F. 2d 771, 782 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 59, 50 L.Ed.2d 76 (1976)).
Our review of the record reveals no such improper motives on the part of the prosecution. We, therefore, grant the petition but withhold the issuance of the writ, giving Judge Donner the opportunity to comply with our ruling by allowing the state to death qualify the jury in Zerquera’s trial and to permit the state to seek the death penalty.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, .BOYD, OVERTON, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilcott v. State, 509 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1987)…We apply these principles and hold that article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution prohibits the judiciary from interfering with this kind of discretionary executive function of a prosecutor. Id. (emphasis supplied). Accord State v. Donner, 500 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1987). Aside from the constitutional infirmities of permissive lesser included offenses, they also suffer conceptually. The basic flaw is [*266] that they transform or expand a guilt trial before a petit jury into an impromptu grand jury or pr…
-
Wade v. State, 41 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2010)…l prosecutorial discretion ‘only in those instances where impermissible motives may be attributed to the prosecution, such as bad faith, race, religion, or a desire to prevent the exercise of the defendant’s constitutional rights.’” State v. Dormer, 500 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1987) (quoting Bloom, 497 So. 2d at 3); see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) (explaining that to state a claim of selective prosecution for a crime, a petitioner must show that the enfo…
-
Zerquera v. State, 549 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1989)…Zerquera challenged. The trial judge found that the state was estopped from seeking the death penalty and further found that a jury “could not validly recommend the death penalty in this case.” We subsequently reversed that holding. State v. Donner, 500 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1987). The only real factual dispute in Zerqu-era’s trial centered on the identity of the triggerman. The state presented Zerqu-era’s taped statement to the jury in which he admitted the robbery and named Putt-kamer as the triggerman. When cal…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abell v. United States, 429 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1976)
- State v. Bloom, 497 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1986)
- United States v. Oakley G. Smith, 523 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975)