GEORGE MICHAEL HODGES, 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.
On remand from the United States Supreme Court following Espinosa v. Florida, the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision upholding Hodges' death sentence for first-degree murder. The Court held that Hodges failed to preserve his constitutional challenge to the jury instruction on the 'cold, calculated, and premeditated' aggravating factor by not objecting at trial, and that even if the issue were reviewable, the record contained ample support for the aggravator.
The Court held that Hodges did not preserve his challenge to the constitutionality of the 'cold, calculated, and premeditated' instruction for review because he failed to make a specific objection on the form of the instruction at trial. Even if the issue were cognizable, the Court would not grant resentencing because ample record support exists for the aggravator and any instructional error would be harmless.
[1] The contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, requiring a specific objection to the form of a jury instruction to preserve the issue for appeal.
[2] The sufficiency of a jury instruction on the "cold, calculated, and premeditated" aggravator is procedurally barred from review if not preserved by an objection at trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that constitutional challenges to jury instructions must be preserved through contemporaneous objection at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHodges was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The trial court utilized a standard jury instruction on the 'cold, calculated, and…
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 Unconstitutionally Vague Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The United States Supreme Court vacated Hodges v. State, 595 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1992), for further consideration in light of Espinosa v. Florida, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992). Hodges v. Florida, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 33, 121 L.Ed.2d 6 (1992). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, and reaffirm our earlier decision in this case.
The Court found the former standard instruction on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator insufficient in Espinosa. That aggravator played no part in Hodges’ sentencing; the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator, however, did. Hodges argued to the trial court that the facts of his case did not support finding that latter aggravator and that the aggravator itself was unconstitutionally vague.* The trial court gave the standard instruction on the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator, but Hodges did not object to the form of that instruction, nor did he request an expanded instruction on this aggravator. The contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal. E.g., Thompson v. State, 619 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1993); Burns v. State, 609 So. 2d 600 (Fla.1992); Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1992); see Sochor v. Florida, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992). Despite the failure to object at trial, Hodges challenged the constitutionality of the cold, calculated instruction on appeal. We summarily found the issue meritless, but we should have held, it procedurally barred because Hodges, did not preserve it for review by objecting at trial. Therefore, we now hold that the sufficiency of the cold, calculated instruction has not been preserved for review.
Even if this issue were cognizable, we would not agree with Hodges that he should be resentenced. There is ample support in the record for finding the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator. Any error in the instruction, if any existed, therefore, was harmless and would not have affected the jury’s recommendation or the judge’s sentence. Thompson. Thus, we reaffirm our decision as to Hodges’ conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death.
It is so ordered.
BARRETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur. *
We have uniformly rejected this claim on the merits. E.g., Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla.1992); Klokoc v. State, 589 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1991). We have never addressed the issue of whether the standard jury instruction itself was vague and do not in this opinion because of our disposition of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 648 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1994)…wever, this Court never reached the merits of Hodges’ claim that the CCP instruction was unconstitutionally vague because Hodges did not object to the form of the instruction at trial, and thus did not preserve the issue for review. Hodges v. State, 619 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 560, 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993). Because the challenge to the CCP instruction has been properly preserved in this case and because Brown and its progeny can no longer serve as authority for summarily rejec…
-
Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2005)…ppeal. This Court has repeatedly held that “[t]he contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa error, i.e., a specific objection on the form of the instruction must be made to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal.” Hodges v. State, 619 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 996, 114 S.Ct. 560, 126 L.Ed.2d 460 (1993); see also Nelson v. State, 850 So. 2d 514, 525 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1091, 124 S.Ct. 961, 157 L.Ed.2d 797 (2003); Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1992). S…
-
Micah Louis Nelson v. State, 850 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2003)…d arrest jury instruction in that motion. Further, Nelson did not object to the adequacy of the avoid arrest jury instruction at trial. This Court has held that the contemporaneous objection rule applies to Espinosa challenges. See Hodges v. State, 619 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla.1993). Failure to make an objection at trial about a jury instruction will render it procedurally barred. See id. Because the record reflects that Nelson did not object to the avoid arrest aggravator jury instruction at trial, we find this…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1992)
- Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)
- Thompson v. State, 619 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1993)
- Klokoc v. State, 589 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1991)
- Burns v. State, 609 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1992)
- Spanolia v. Lee's Crane Serv., Inc., 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Hodges v. State, 595 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1992)
- Melendez v. State, 612 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1992)