LOUIS B. GASKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that the issue of the unconstitutionally vague jury instruction was not preserved for review because the defendant did not object at trial. Even if it were preserved, the error would be harmless.
The case was remanded for reconsideration in light of a Supreme Court decision finding a similar jury instruction unconstitutional. The defendant had …
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Chief Justice.
We have Gaskin v. State, 591 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1991), vacated, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 3022, 120 L.Ed.2d 894 (1992), on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992).1
The facts of this case are fully set forth in our previous opinion. The United States Supreme Court in Espinosa found insufficient our former jury instruction on the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating factor.2 We must determine what effect, if any, the reading of that same instruction had in Gaskin’s case.
We find that although Gaskin argued at trial against the instruction for the “cold, calculated and premeditated” aggravating circumstance,3 he did not object to the vagueness of the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance instruction at trial, nor did he request a special instruction for this circumstance. Thus, the issue of unconstitutional vagueness as to the jury instruction struck down in Espinosa has not been preserved for review. See, e.g., Ragsdale v. State, 609 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1992).
In addition, were we to address the issue, the reading of the insufficient heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance instruction as it relates to the sentence for the murder of Georgette Sturmfels would be harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, because the reading of this vague instruction could not have affected the jury’s recommendation of death in this case. Therefore, for the reasons stated here and in our earlier decision, we again affirm the two death sentences.
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
. See § 921.141(5)(h), Fla.Stat. (1987).
.See § 921.141(5)0), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)…stance). On remand, this Court found that Gaskin had failed to preserve the vagueness challenge for appellate review, and even if it had been preserved, any error in giving the instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Gaskin v. State, 615 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla.1993). On March 23, 1995, Gaskin filed an initial motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He subsequently amended that motion on October 12, 1995, still within the statutory time limit.3 Afte…1 / 2
-
Gaskin v. State of Fla. & Louis B. Gaskin v. Ricky D. Dixon, 361 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 2023)…(1992). Upon remand, this Court held that Gaskin did not preserve the issue but that even if it had been preserved, the error was harmless as to the murder of Georgette Sturmfels given the other aggravating factors in the case. See Gaskin v. State, 615 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 1993). Since that time, Gaskin has unsuccessfully challenged his convictions and sentences in state and federal court. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999) (initial postconviction appeal affirming the denial of relief on certa…
-
Stewart v. State, 632 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1993)…aggravator’s instruction. This issue, therefore, has not been preserved for review. Thompson v. State, 619 So. 2d 261 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 445, 126 L.Ed.2d 378 (1993); Happ v. State, 618 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1993); Gaskin v. State, 615 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1993). Even if the issue were not procedurally barred, we would find it to have no merit because, under any definition of the terms, this murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm the trial court…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1992)
- Gaskin v. State, 591 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1991)
- Ragsdale v. State, 609 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1992)