LEO ALEXANDER JONES, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Leo Alexander Jones challenged the constitutionality of execution by electrocution in Florida's electric chair. The Florida Supreme Court denied his challenge as procedurally barred but, due to prior incidents of flames erupting during executions, remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether electrocution in the chair's present condition constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, with execution stayed pending that hearing.
The claim that electrocution is unconstitutional per se is procedurally barred and denied on the merits. However, due to the incidents of flames erupting during prior executions, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether electrocution in Florida's electric chair in its present condition violates the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
[1] A claim that execution by electrocution is unconstitutional per se is procedurally barred if it could have been raised in previous petitions for relief.
[2] A court may relinquish jurisdiction to a trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a claim that a method of execution is cruel or unusual punishment, particularly…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Due to the fact that flames have erupted on two occasions during electrocutions conducted in Florida's electric chair, we hereby relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court which is presiding over petitioner's postconviction proceedings to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claim that electrocution in Florida's electric chair in its present condition is cruel or unusual punishment.”
Establishes the basis for remand—the empirical fact of prior incidents of flames erupting during executions justified an evidentiary hearing on the present condition of the chair.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo previous electrocutions in Florida had resulted in flames erupting during the executions. Jones sought to invoke the Supreme Court's all writs jur…
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 All Writs Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
We address the Petition Seeking to Invoke this Court’s All Writs Jurisdiction as follows: 1. The claim that execution by electrocution is unconstitutional per se is hereby denied as procedurally barred as it could have been raised in previous petitions for relief. Even if the claim were not procedurally barred, we would deny it on the merits.
2. Due to the fact that flames have erupted on two occasions during electrocutions conducted in Florida’s electric chair, we hereby relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court which is presiding over petitioner’s postconviction proceedings to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner’s claim that electrocution in Florida’s electric chair in its present condition is cruel or unusual punishment. The court may receive the testimony of engineering and medical experts and such other witnesses as may be presented by the parties, and shall make its decision as expeditiously as possible.
3. In order to provide the time necessary for such hearing, petitioner’s execution is hereby stayed until April 18, 1997, at 7 a.m. In the event additional time is required to reasonably conduct said hearing and render the decision, the trial court may further stay petitioner’s execution. If at the conclusion of the hearing the court shall find by the greater weight of the evidence that electrocution in Florida’s electric chair in its present condition is cruel or unusual punishment, the court shall further stay the execution; otherwise, the court shall deny the claim and dissolve any stay that court may have previously entered.
4. The hearing shall be de novo rather than a review of any determination which may be made by the Governor. However, in the event the Governor stays the execution, the hearing shall be postponed until the execution is rescheduled.
OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which KOGAN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
SHAW, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree that an evidentiary hearing is necessary, but I would not unduly restrict the scope of the hearing. The trial court should be free to accept all relevant evidence relating to Jones’s claim that his execution by electrocution constitutes cruel or unusual punishment in light of the entire record— past and present — of this form of execution in Florida. Further, given the seriousness of this task, I would not place the trial court under any short-term time constraints, but rather would grant an indefinite stay. This situation is of grave societal concern and goes to the very heart of our constitution — it does not call for a quick-fix.
KOGAN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schwab v. State, 969 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2007)…v. State, 750 So. 2d 622, 623 n. 3 (Fla.1999) (taking judicial notice of records in Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1999); Provenzano v. State, 739 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1999); Jones v. State, 701 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1997); and Jones v. Butterworth, 691 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1997)). Nevertheless, the postconviction court’s error is harmless because this Court considered all of the evidence presented in Lightboume when reviewing the Eighth Amendment challenge presented here. In the third subissue that we address, S…
-
Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1999)…ution in Florida. That issue was procedurally barred: The claim that execution by electrocution is unconstitutional per se is hereby denied as procedurally barred as it could have been raised in previous petitions for relief. Jones v. Butterworth, 691 So. 2d 481, 482 (Fla.1997) (emphasis added). In light of continuing malfunctions and mishaps with this method of execution in Florida, I am convinced that the time has now come to confront this issue head-on, and it is my conclusion that electrocution as it h…1 / 3
-
Sims v. State, 750 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1999)…nd extraordinary relief and a motion to adopt and take judicial notice of records in Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1999), Provenzano v. State, 739 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1999), Jones v. State, 701 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1997), and Jones v. Butterworth, 691 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1997), concerning the constitutionality of the electric chair. By order dated October 20, 1999, this Court granted Sims’ motion to take judicial notice of the records in Provenzano and Jones, but denied Sims' petition for all-writs jurisdiction…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence